Sitting of 15 September 2004

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

    Miners' Compensation Monitoring Group
    Mr. Win Griffiths: When the Wales monitoring sub-group on compensatory payments for miners' respiratory diseases and vibration white finger last met; and what information on payments was provided to him at that meeting. [187919]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Don Touhig): The Wales monitoring group met on Monday to discuss progress on miners' compensation claims. A total of £437 million has been paid to miners and their widows under the two compensation schemes. In my hon. Friend's constituency, £6.4 million has been paid for chest diseases and £1.9 million for vibration white finger. That is a total of £8.4 million in compensation.
    Mr. Griffiths: I thank my hon. Friend for his sterling work in helping to ensure that miners and the widows and families of deceased miners receive all that they are due under the scheme. However, what unscrupulous advantage is being taken of the scheme by third parties, who take fees out of the compensation claims to the great disbenefit of miners and their families, who are entitled to that money?
    Mr. Touhig: There have been instances of lawyers seeking to take money from miners and their widows after successfully obtaining compensation. The Law Society takes such matters seriously and, as a result of Government intervention, lawyers have paid back £60,000 to miners and their widows. The bigger problem, to which my hon. Friend has referred, is claims farmers—companies such as Industrial Diseases Compensation Ltd. As I said in the House on 9 June, those people are nothing but parasites who prey on elderly and vulnerable people. My message to them today is the same as it was then: the money is not yours; give it back to the miners and their widows.
    Mr. Roger Williams: Although progress has been made on settling claims from miners and miners' families, there are still
    1252
    problems with surface workers who have worked in dusty and dangerous conditions, and miners who spent part of their working lives in small mines that were not covered by the National Coal Board. Will the Under-Secretary devote all his efforts to ensuring that those cases, too, are resolved?
    Mr. Touhig: The solicitors have supplied information to the Department of Trade and Industry in support of claims for surface workers, but officials at the DTI feel that they need more information, especially about lead claims, if the matter is to be progressed. I hope that it will go before the judge at the hearing in October. The matter was discussed in the Wales monitoring group earlier this week, and I am conscious of the concerns of hon. Members of all parties about the matter.
    On small mines, solicitors have highlighted some of the difficulties in establishing the liability of an insurer of small and private mines. I have written to the Association of British Insurers, which has told me in writing that its members will continue to co-operate in every way to ensure that the claims are properly investigated and the compensation paid.
    Mr. Jon Owen Jones: On the subject of third parties and parasites, will the Under-Secretary confirm that if the Liberals' policies to axe the DTI budget went ahead, there would be no money for compensation payments—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I call Adam Price.
    Adam Price: It has been estimated that, at the current rate of progress, the last case in the compensation scheme will not be settled until 2013—a full 15 years after the original judgment. Does the Minister believe that that is an acceptable timetable? Was the need for additional resources to speed up processing raised with him at the monitoring group meeting?
    Mr. Touhig: I recognise that that is a serious issue. The scheme closed at the end of March. So far, 25,000 claims have been settled in Wales but more than 92,000 have been registered in total. In the four months before the scheme closed, 30,000 new claimants came forward. I hope that the discussions that are continuing between the solicitors' claimants group and the DTI to ascertain whether matters can be speeded up are successful. If so, the matter will go before the judge and I hope that, subsequently, we will run a scheme under which miners will have the option of either obtaining a fast-track decision or continuing to pursue their claim under the longer process. We are conscious of the need to ensure that resources are given to tackle the matter.

    Education Maintenance Allowance
    Mr. Andrew Robathan: What recent discussions he has had with the Education Minister in the National Assembly for Wales about the education maintenance allowance. [187920]
    The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Peter Hain): We meet regularly.

    1253
    I welcome the introduction of the education maintenance allowance in Wales to tackle the drop-out rate at 16 and boost the aspirations of young people who would otherwise never consider staying on at school or college.
    Mr. Robathan: Did the Secretary of State explain to the Education Minister how the people of Wales should understand that rather illogical position? On the one hand, the Government wish to bribe young people who are not motivated to remain in education to stay on at school through the payment of education maintenance allowance; on the other, they deter anybody but the richest children from going to university by introducing top-up fees, which may mean that students leave university with debts of perhaps £30,000. What is the logic of that?
    Mr. Hain: I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman thinks it better for youngsters to leave school at the age of 16. The pilots have shown that the staying-on rate has been increased by up to 6 per cent., and I would have thought that he would welcome the possibility of achieving a more highly skilled, and therefore more competitive, society in Wales, and of giving those youngsters more opportunities. On student finance, the hon. Gentleman will know that the Tory policy announced recently will result in students being plunged into massive debt. Graduates on low earnings could end up with a debt of £60,000 as a result of having a £10,000 loan. That would be the consequence of that punitive Tory policy.
    Lembit Öpik: The figures show that there has been a decline of 1.3 per cent. in the number of university applications among under-21year-olds in Wales between last year and this year. Does the Minister accept that that is hardly a recommendation for his Government's student funding proposals for higher education? Crucially, will he give us a more direct answer than the one he gave to the hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan) when he tried to explain away the evident contradiction involved in financially incentivising under-18-year-olds to stay on in education while charging over-18-year-olds tens of thousands of pounds to continue in higher education?
    Mr. Hain: The truth is that our policy is to encourage 16 to 19-year-olds to stay on in education in schools or colleges. That is in the interest of Wales. Our higher education policy will bring back grants of up to £2,700, which will benefit many thousands of students in Wales and provide a big incentive for people to go to university. We will also put in place a fair system for people to repay loans and fees over their working lifetime if they can afford to, and if they are in work.
    Mr. Bill Wiggin: May I begin by paying tribute to Fusilier Stephen Jones, who lost his life in Iraq serving with the Royal Welch Fusiliers? I know that the Secretary of State will do everything he can to ensure that the Royal Welch Fusiliers' cap badge and traditions remain at this difficult time; they are doing a fantastic job. Our thoughts should be with the family of Fusilier Jones at this sad time.
    1254
    Nearer to home, we support this education policy, but my concern is that the colleges will not be there for the students to attend. Why is Neath Port Talbot college predicting a budget deficit of £880,000?
    Mr. Hain: Neath Port Talbot college has indeed hit a difficult time over the past year. However, it is now bringing its balances into line and moving forward, having made the necessary efficiency savings, which the new principal, Mark Darcy, is driving through with my support. The hon. Gentleman knows, however, that if his party were to come to power and he were to become Secretary of State for Wales, we would see massive cuts in education maintenance allowances and all the other provision and support that this Government have made for higher and further education students. That would be the consequence of the £1 billion cut in the Welsh budget planned by the Tories for the first two years of their term of office.
    Mr. Wiggin: I suggest that the Secretary of State focuses on his own policies rather than making up ours. Will he tell the House why Coleg Gwent is predicting that it will end the year with a deficit that threatens more than 30 jobs?
    Mr. Hain: Again, the efficiency savings being made by Coleg Gwent, some of which have been extremely painful, have been designed to bring the college's finances into balance. The truth is that further education is now getting record investment under Labour; the numbers of students in further education has been rising and the number of courses has been improving. We regard the role of FE colleges as essential and will continue to fund them generously, in contrast to the Tories, who plan to cut budgets right across the board.
    Mr. Wiggin: Thirteen out of 25 educational institutions in Wales are in debt to the tune of £3.5 million, so the money is not getting through. Seventy-five per cent. of college incomes come from Education and Learning Wales. Does the Secretary of State support the changes to ELWa that Rhodri Morgan has just brought about?
    Mr. Hain: I do. The decision to bring ELWa into a much more effective system of organisation was badly overdue, because it had been responsible for a number of failures. The improvements that both the First Minister and the Education Minister are introducing, in discussion with ELWa, will help to improve that situation. What the hon. Gentleman has to explain to the people of Wales, however, is how they would be short-changed under Tory plans to cut the Welsh budget by £1 billion in the first two years of a Conservative Government.
    Llew Smith: Will the Minister reconsider the answer that he just gave? He said that what was happening at Coleg Gwent relates to efficiency savings, but we all know that it involves sackings and the closure of two important departments—engineering and catering—in one of the most deprived communities in Wales, Blaenau Gwent.
    Mr. Hain: I am well aware of my hon. Friend's concerns. He has spoken to me in detail about them and we have made representations in support. I want to see Gwent college continuing to provide a range of vocational opportunities, including in engineering, as will be the case. It is absolutely vital that whatever new plans the college management put in place provide for those much needed opportunities, which he rightly identifies.
    Mr. Simon Thomas: Plaid Cymru welcomes the education maintenance allowance, and I am sure that the Secretary of State will join me in congratulating the young people of Wales on achieving such fantastic GCSE results, which put them at the threshold of further and higher education. Will he clarify what future those young people will have in 2006, both as regards top-up tuition fees and the changes in relation to A-levels and university entrance, which were announced in England yesterday by the Secretary of State for Education and Skills? This is a good opportunity to clarify what will happen in Wales to those young people now receiving this allowance.
    Mr. Hain: I am grateful that the hon. Gentleman's party supports the Government's policy, in one respect at least, of paying up to £30 a week to encourage youngsters to stay on in school and further education in Wales. That will help us to overcome one of the lowest rates of participation among 16-year-olds in the entire industrialised world. In respect of the review being introduced by the Secretary of State for Education and Skills on university admissions, a Welsh representative will be a member of the working party that takes that policy forward. The matter is out to consultation, and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will join me in seeking to achieve a much more sensible way for students leaving school to find an opportunity to go to university than the hectic last-minute procedures that necessarily apply at the moment.

    Education Funding
    Mrs. Betty Williams: What discussions he has had with his National Assembly colleagues concerning the impact of the spending review on capital funding projects in education in Wales. [187921]
    The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Peter Hain): Under our Labour Government's spending review, Wales has had a generational step change in funding, and a huge investment in our future. The Assembly's budget will rise to almost £13.5 billion a year by 2007–08, and its capital budget will rise to almost £1.2 billion, massively enhancing the Assembly's ability to fund educational capital projects.
    Mrs. Williams: I welcome my right hon. Friend's reply, but does he agree that such investment needs to be sustained, so that the children of Wales can be taught in an environment that they and their teachers should expect in the 21st century?
    Mr. Hain: Yes, I agree with my hon. Friend. That is why, under the Chancellor's spending plans, which were announced only recently, we will see education capital budgets in Wales rising from around £100 million a year to £139 million a year over the next few years. That sustained investment will continue under Labour but would be at risk under the Tories. Indeed, in her constituency of Conwy, the replacement of three secondary schools, Ysgol John Bright in Llandudno, Ysgol Aberconwy and Ysgol Dyffryn Conwy, has recently been completed, and primary schools have all been modernised. That is an example of success in her constituency under Labour.
    Mr. John Smith: When the Secretary of State next meets his colleagues in the Assembly, will he also discuss the spending review in relation to any decisions that may be taken by the Ministry of Defence, and the impact that that will have on the red dragon project and the economy of Wales?
    Mr.Speaker: Order. That is not within the terms of the question.

    Community Support Officers
    Mr. Wayne David: What discussions he has had with Cabinet colleagues on the deployment of additional community support officers and community wardens in Wales. [187922]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Don Touhig): My right hon. Friend and I regularly meet ministerial colleagues to discuss matters affecting Wales. Currently, 122 community support officers are on patrol in Wales. An additional 46 officers have been secured for the four Welsh forces in the third round of Home Office funding.
    Mr. David: I thank my hon. Friend for his reply. He will know that community support officers are at the cutting edge, in Wales and elsewhere, of the fight against crime and antisocial behaviour. I welcome the fact that, before long, there will be 57 community support officers in Gwent alone. Does he agree, however, that to sustain that kind of support and intervention, continuing high levels of public expenditure are needed?
    Mr. Touhig: Certainly, investment in fighting crime is important, and this Government are committed to that, with increases not just in community support officers but in police numbers. We are working closely in partnership with local government, too. In my hon. Friend's borough, which he and I jointly represent, I am sure that he will welcome the newly elected Labour council's decision to employ safety wardens, who will promote community safety and help to tackle crime in support of the work being done by the police. It is further evidence of Labour's commitment to overcome the problems of crime that we face in society.
    Alan Howarth: Is my hon. Friend aware that in Newport Chief Superintendent Price is deploying individuals police officers to each ward to build a relationship with the local community? They will be supported by uniformed community

    1257
    support officers to give local residents additional reassurance, and to deter anyone minded to indulge in antisocial behaviour. Chief Superintendent Price is leading by example, being regularly out on the beat himself. Will my hon. Friend commend that strategy?
    Mr. Touhig: I certainly will. I met Chief Superintendent Price only last week. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has said that people do not just want to see the bobby on the beat; they want a strong, organised, uniformed presence back on our streets. I commend the commitment of Gwent police to the introduction of police ward managers, which will mean 66 extra bobbies on the beat. That, I think, will be welcomed throughout the country.
    Mr. Huw Edwards: Does my hon. Friend agree that community support officers could work very effectively with the youth service in trying to combat the problems of under-age drinking? It is a particular nuisance in my constituency, where a tremendous amount of litter, debris and glass is being left on the village green and playing fields. Could not an approach involving partnership and co-operation help to solve the problem?
    Mr. Touhig: It could indeed. We are living in a time when there is a culture of binge drinking among young people, and for both social and health reasons it is important to tackle that. We need to collaborate with a whole spectrum of organisations, including the police, the health service, youth services and local authorities. The joined-up government that we need is taking place in Wales, where work is being done in partnership with—in particular—our colleagues in the Welsh Assembly.
    I know of the difficulties that my hon. Friend is experiencing in his constituency, and of the hard work that he is doing to overcome them. I wish him well, and I hope that the success of his efforts in Monmouth pays him substantial dividends.

    Fallen Sheep
    Michael Fabricant: What discussions he has had with the First Secretary on compensation to farmers for fallen sheep. [187923]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Don Touhig): No compensation is available to farmers for fallen sheep in Wales. However, a national fallen stock scheme has been set up to provide farmers with a means of disposing of their fallen stock. The scheme is due to be launched in autumn this year.
    Michael Fabricant: The Minister will know that there are currently 25 outlets for disposal of fallen sheep in Wales, but does he also know that 20 of them are run by hunts? If the Hunting Bill is passed tonight, only five will be left. What will be the extra cost to farmers?
    Mr. Touhig: I take the hon. Gentleman's point. In setting up the national scheme, we seek to tackle the problems throughout the country. Issues will arise from whatever the House decides later, but there is a free vote and I do not want to prejudge the result.
    Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: Does the Minister agree with the farming unions in Wales that imposing a flat rate on the disposal of fallen stock would be far fairer than penalising those who live in more problematic, less accessible areas? What evaluation have the Government made of the huge likely increase in predation of lambs as a direct result of the ignorant move made by the Government today?[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: I must ask the House to come to order. The Chamber is very noisy. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Perhaps those who are cheering me will be quieter.
    Mr. Touhig: I take the hon. Gentleman's first point. Discussions have taken place, and the introduction of the national scheme this autumn is a result of joint efforts by Government and the farming industry. There will of course be transitional financial support during the first three years, which will help farmers who are currently having a difficult time.
    I also take the hon. Gentleman's second point, but I am not in a position to answer it at this stage. I will write to him.

    Disabled People
    Julie Morgan: What plans he has to help disabled people in Wales. [187924]
    The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Peter Hain): Across Wales and England we are improving access for disabled people to services generally, and in particular conditions at work. From 1 October, employers and service providers will have new duties under the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 to remove inequalities.
    Julie Morgan: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Is he aware of the proposal to cut classes in Cardiff for disabled people—namely, adults with physical disabilities, acquired-brain injuries and mental health problems, and the hearing-impaired? Should those cuts not be reversed, and is it not an absolute disgrace that that is the first action of the newly elected Liberal Democrat council?
    Mr. Hain: I must say that I was horrified to hear of those cuts, and I agree that it is shameful that the Liberal Democrats have implemented that policy, especially given that their manifesto document, published this week, states:
    "The Liberal Democrats would implement policies to deal with the pressing needs of the many disabled people living in our communities."
    It seems that this is yet another case of the Liberal Democrats promising one thing in order to get into office, and doing something quite different when they do so—a point that the voters of Hartlepool will, I hope, bear in mind.
    Mr. John Bercow: Having carefully considered the circumstances of people with disabilities in Wales, can the right hon. Gentleman tell the House what input he and his Department have had into the debate within government about the creation of a single equality Act?
    Mr. Hain: We of course made that contribution and discussed the matter with colleagues. The hon. Gentleman will know of the legislation that, subject to pre-legislative scrutiny and consultation, will introduce new rights for disabled people. I hope that he will support it.
    Kevin Brennan: On the cuts in disabled services mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, North (Julie Morgan), is my right hon. Friend aware that they will also affect Rookwood hospital, in my constituency? Is it not particularly pernicious that the cuts were announced only in late July, yet the budgets for the courses ran from April? Does that not show that, when the Liberal Democrats actually get into power, they cannot be trusted?
    Mr. Hain: It certainly shows that one cannot trust the Liberal Democrats, whether they are campaigning to get into power or in power. Indeed, as I understand it, the service at Rookwood hospital to which my hon. Friend refers has helped for 30 years to rehabilitate disabled people. The fact that it is now being jeopardised by a Liberal Democrat council should give everybody pause for thought when considering voting Liberal Democrat in any elections to come.

    Antisocial Behaviour
    Chris Bryant: What recent discussions he has had with the chief constable of South Wales police on antisocial behaviour. [187925]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Don Touhig): My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I have regular discussions with the chief constables of all four Welsh police forces. The Anti-social Behaviour Act 2003 provides a wide range of tools to tackle antisocial behaviour. The Government are determined that people should be able to live their lives free from intimidation and harassment.
    Chris Bryant: I wonder whether the Minister noticed the recent comments of the chief constable of South Wales police, which seem to suggest that she is very hesitant about using all the powers now available to her to deal with antisocial behaviour. Will the Minister explain to her that the people of Maerdy and Treherbert are sick and tired of young people marauding around the town, and that they want the police to take every step available to them under these powers?
    Mr. Touhig: The chief constable of South Wales police was right to highlight the wide range of powers in place to tackle antisocial behaviour. The Government are determined to crack down on those who make life a
    1260
    misery for working people. In March of this year the third set of powers in the 2003 Act came into force, thereby giving the police greater scope for combating antisocial behaviour. I have a simple message for the authorities about those new powers. Now that they have them, there is no excuse: use them. They have the tools—they should now do the job.
    Huw Irranca-Davies: I echo the sentiments expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant), but I also commend the new chief constable for agreeing to attend a series of autumn meetings on antisocial behaviour in my constituency, at which, I am convinced, the message that these powers must be used will be rammed home. I ask the Minister to pay tribute to the work of the boys' and girls' clubs of Wales, which play an important role in tackling the scourge of antisocial behaviour by providing youngsters with responsible spare-time leisure activities. Will he receive a delegation to discuss their work?
    Mr. Touhig: I would be happy to meet such a delegation. It is important that we engage with young people in order to overcome the problem of antisocial behaviour in our communities, and I am pleased that police forces and local authorities are now actively promoting the use of antisocial behaviour orders. Indeed, in the year to 31 March there has been a 171 per cent. rise in the number of ASBOs issued, which is to be welcomed. As I said earlier, the tools are now there for the authorities to do the job. We expect them to use them, and to tackle the antisocial behaviour that is a plague in our society.

    Devolution
    Miss Anne McIntosh: What recent discussions he has had with the First Minister of the National Assembly for Wales on devolving further powers to the Assembly. [187926]
    The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Peter Hain): The First Minister and I have regular bilaterals to discuss a number of issues, including the report of the Richard commission and the devolution of further powers to Wales.
    Miss McIntosh: What is the current thinking of the First Minister on the devolution of further powers to Wales, and is it the same as the right hon. Gentleman's?
    Mr. Hain: The answer is yes, and we are committed to a practical route map for better governance in Wales and increased and enhanced powers for the National Assembly for Wales, through consultation, as agreed unanimously at our Welsh Labour conference on Saturday by 300 delegates. That contrasts with the policy of the chair of the Welsh Conservative party, who wants the Assembly stripped of power, no doubt in preparation for a future under planet Redwood, which would see Wales being dragged back and powers taken back to the Tories.

  The Prime Minister was asked—
  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Julie Morgan: If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 15 September.
    The Prime Minister (Mr. Tony Blair): This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others, and in addition to my duties in the House I will have further such meetings later today.
    Julie Morgan: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in my constituency there is a high number of pensioner households? What does he plan to do to help those pensioners, and in particular the one in four single women pensioners who live in poverty?
    The Prime Minister: We have a number of different measures that will help single women in retirement in particular. First, there is the extra money that we are giving through the pension credit; then there is the £200 fuel allowance; there is also the free television licence for those over 75; and there is the state second pension, which will help about 20 million low-income earners to get a better retirement income. We have continued to put a substantial amount—about £10 billion a year extra—into pensions, but we will not, as the Conservatives want us to, abolish the state second pension; and we will not abolish the pension credit, because it is helping many people to get relief from poverty.
    Mr. Michael Howard: The justice gap is the difference between the number of crimes recorded and the number that result in the criminal being brought to justice. The Home Secretary says that this is the key measure of the effectiveness of the criminal justice system and a crucial indicator of success in reducing crime. What has happened to the justice gap since the Prime Minister took office?
    The Prime Minister: The most effective measure of crime is the crime survey. Let me point out that, as opposed to the Conservatives, under whose tenure of office crime doubled, it has fallen 30 per cent. under us. The level of detection and conviction is important, but I understand from the Home Secretary that there has been an improvement of some 50,000 in the past year.
    Mr. Howard: The Prime Minister is paid to discharge his constitutional responsibilities, and they include answering questions at the Dispatch Box. Now let me give him the answer that he was not prepared to give. I will tell him what has happened to the justice gap since he took office: it has got wider. Recorded crime is up by 825,000, but the number of cautions and convictions is down by 42,000, so under this Government there are more crimes but fewer criminals are being caught and convicted.
    1262
    Now let us look at another gap. Five years ago, the Prime Minister promised to stop incapacity benefit being an alternative to long-term unemployment or early retirement. What has happened to the number of people claiming that benefit since that promise?
    The Prime Minister: First, let me revert to the so-called "justice gap" for a moment. It is the case that during the time in which the Conservatives governed, crime doubled. It is also the case that, in the British crime survey, crime has fallen by 30 per cent. It is further the case that there are record numbers of police and they are now being supplemented by community support officers. This party in government has a better record on crime than the right hon. and learned Gentleman and his party ever had.
    On incapacity benefit, I think that about 300,000 fewer people are coming on to it than when we took office.
    Mr. Howard: The question I asked was about the number of people claiming, which has gone up by 120,000. This week, the head of the Prime Minister's own antisocial behaviour unit said:
    "I can think of countless families who are drinking or drug using with the money … the Government is giving them."
    That is what the head of his own unit said.
    Does the Prime Minister agree with another of his advisers, his former chief economic adviser, who said this week that under this Government, "the regulatory burden" has "increased", "the tax system" has
    "become more complicated and the tax burden"
    is "rising too"?
    The Prime Minister: First, let me correct the right hon. and learned Gentleman on incapacity benefit. It is true, of course, that the number of people claiming incapacity benefit trebled under the Conservatives. There are still many people on incapacity benefit today who came on to it before 1997. The question is how many are coming on to the benefit each year now as opposed to 1997—and the numbers have declined by 30 per cent. I agree that there is still a lot more to do, which is precisely why we want to tighten up the gateway of people coming on to incapacity benefit. Let us be quite clear, however, that for a long period under the Conservatives incapacity benefit was the result of the way they shunted people off unemployment benefit to make sure that they never appeared in the official figures. So we will take no lessons from the Tories on incapacity benefit.
    As for the economy, let us compare the economy now with the economy when the right hon. and learned Gentleman was in office—[Interruption.] He was a Cabinet Minister for 10 years. Under this Government we have the lowest inflation, the lowest interest rates, the lowest levels of unemployment for more than 30 years. When the right hon. and learned Gentleman was Employment Secretary, there were 1 million extra people on the dole. That is the difference between the two parties.
    Mr. Howard: Let me remind the Prime Minister about the question that I asked him. It was about the views of his former chief economic adviser, who said that the regulatory and tax burden had gone up. Let me give the

    1263
    Prime Minister a hint: his former chief economic adviser is right, which is why for the first time ever our national income per head is lower than that of the Republic of Ireland.
    In respect of the Prime Minister's NHS plan, four years ago the Government promised to tackle the problem of hospital cleanliness, so have the figures got better or worse?
    The Prime Minister: I have to return to the original point on the economy. Let me make it clear that the burden of tax is less than it was under most of the years of the previous Conservative Government, but it is true that we have increased national insurance to fund improvements in the national health service. We are proud of doing that; it is the right thing to do. It means that, for the first time, instead of health waiting lists going up—they were 400,000 under the Conservatives—they are 300,000 down under us.
    In respect of the other policy issue that the right hon. and learned Gentleman asked about, which I am afraid has just slipped my mind—[Interruption.]
    The Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. John Prescott): The economy.
    The Prime Minister: No, the economy was the issue before it. What was the last one? [HON. MEMBERS: "Hospital cleanliness."] Yes, that was it. The right hon. and learned Gentleman is right that that is a major issue. We accept that, which is why we are investing about £300 million extra in hospital cleanliness over the next couple of years. However, that real issue should not detract from the Government's record on the health service, where waiting lists have fallen, people are able to get access to health care far quicker and there have been record increases in the number of doctors and nurses. I agree that there is still more to do and that hospital cleanliness is one example of that. However, cutting investment in the national health service—we should remember that the right hon. and learned Gentleman voted against all the extra investment for the NHS—is not the answer.
    Mr. Howard: The problem of hospital cleanliness is rather an important one, and if the Prime Minister concentrated on answering the questions that I am putting to him, it would not have slipped his mind.
    The number of deaths from the MRSA superbug has actually doubled since the Prime Minister took office. Those who work in the NHS, including the chief executive, say that Government targets make matters worse. The National Audit Office says that more than one in 10 local hospital managers refuse to allow specialist teams to close wards to deal with those infections because of the Government's targets. Will the Prime Minister instruct his Health Secretary today to insist that the recommendations of infection teams are followed?
    The Prime Minister: First, the additional money that we are putting in will make a difference, and its effectiveness will be measured. The Leader of the Opposition talks about MRSA levels, but the proper computation of those levels has been available only
    1264
    under this Government. It is correct to say that we have more to do on this issue, but I do not believe that the answer is to get rid of Government targets. We are putting record investment into the health service and it is important that we demand outputs for it. That should not interfere with clinical judgment, but if we are putting the money in, it is important that we get the results out. That is what we are doing.
    Mr. Howard: I asked the Prime Minister to take specific action today to deal with this dreadful problem, but yet again all we have had from him is more talk. Crime is up, incapacity benefit is out of control, tax is rising, hospital infections are spreading and there is a crisis in pensions, but the Prime Minister's message to the people of this country is that his priority is to ban fox hunting. When will he get to grips with the problems that people really care about?
    The Prime Minister: The right hon. and learned Gentleman finally got to his point at the end. When people look at this Government's record, they will see a record on the economy that is strong, with the lowest rates of interest, inflation and unemployment for more than 25 or 30 years. They will see record levels of employment, rising living standards and record school results. The British crime survey shows not only that crime is falling but that we have record numbers of police. In respect of the NHS and education, people can see that the investment is working. This country is stronger, fairer and more prosperous than it was seven years ago, and I believe that that is one reason why people reject the Conservatives.
    Mr. Gordon Prentice: Will my right hon. Friend review the application of the double jeopardy rule to our soldiers serving abroad? Surely it cannot be right for soldiers whose commanding officer has dismissed as unfounded the serious criminal charges that they faced to have those charges resurrected by the civilian authorities?
    The Prime Minister: The House will accept that we have to investigate allegations of abuse and, if necessary, prosecute them. We would also be subject to criticism if we did not do that but merely said that we would not take up the issue. I want to make one thing clear to my hon. Friend: the vast bulk of British soldiers in Iraq and elsewhere around the world do a magnificent job. They do not mistreat prisoners, but treat the local communities extremely well, which is why they are so popular as peacekeepers. Even so, where there is mistreatment, I am afraid that we have to investigate it.
    Mr. Charles Kennedy: I am sure that the Prime Minister and the House are well aware of the outstanding contribution that the Gurkhas have made to the British armed forces over many generations. A relatively small number overall of Gurkha soldiers who complete their service in our armed forces here seek British citizenship. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that their right to be accorded citizenship is long overdue?
    The Prime Minister: As I think I said a week or two ago, we are examining this issue very carefully. I hope that we will be able to make an announcement in the next few weeks, but obviously we understand the strength of the case that is being made.
    Mr. Kennedy: As the UK chairman of the Gurkhas pointed out to me earlier this week, many of those who are seeking British citizenship would be a positive asset to our country both socially and economically, as they were in the armed forces. The Prime Minister is right to praise our armed forces, not only for the combat tasks they undertake but for their hurricane relief support work and their work saving lives during the floods in Cornwall this summer. Would not it be a great morale boost for the Gurkhas and for the armed forces as a whole if this much respected and decorated regiment were to be acknowledged in that way?
    The Prime Minister: Let me take the opportunity to pay tribute to the Gurkhas on my own and the whole House's behalf for the fantastic work that they do. They are an integral part of the British Army, and we are proud to have them with us. I reassure the right hon. Gentleman that the issue is not just the Gurkhas themselves, because the strength of that case is clear, but we simply have to examine what the consequences might be of agreeing to that case. We are doing that, and I shall be able to make an announcement in the next few weeks.
    Keith Vaz: In February, Stephan Pakerra, a 14-year-old Leicester schoolboy, was brutally murdered by a 17-year-old with a claw hammer and a knife. There were more than 50 injuries to his body. The parents of the victim believe that the perpetrator of that savage attack was influenced by the video game "Manhunt". Later today, there will be a meeting in Westminster to discuss video games and their effect on children. Will the Prime Minister ask the Home Secretary whether he will commission new research to look at a connection between video games and crimes of violence? Will he meet a delegation of concerned parents about the issue?
    The Prime Minister: I am obviously happy to meet any of my hon. Friend's constituents or people concerned about this issue, and the Home Secretary will have heard what my hon. Friend has just said. I offer my deepest sympathy to the family of my hon. Friend's constituent. I can also say, from what I have been told about this game, that it is obviously in no way suitable for children. In fact, the sale of the game to a person under 18 should be illegal. Responsible adults should have the right to watch and choose what games they play and films they see, but children need to be protected. We have Europe's strongest system for controlling the sale of computer games that are not suitable for children. It is run by the Video Standards Council, which applies the familiar British Board of Film Classification rating system. Given the prevalence of these games, however, this issue is worth looking at closely, and I shall certainly discuss with the Home Secretary how we can take matters forward.
    Mr. Alex Salmond: Yesterday, the Prime Minister quite rightly told us that the planet was in danger and that we must generate much more power from renewable sources, yet Talisman Energy, which wants to develop the world's largest wind farm in the Moray firth, says that the greatest single threat to the viability of that project is the charges being proposed by Ofgem and the National Grid Company. Can the Prime Minister explain why it should cost £20 per kilowatt to connect to the grid in the north of Scotland, whereas anyone can be subsidised by £9 per kilowatt if they want a wind farm in central London—[Interruption.] Though not the Prime Minister's hot air, perhaps. Will the Prime Minister intervene to join up the thinking of his Government on those matters?
    The Prime Minister: We are committed to increasing the amount of renewable energy. Obviously, wind will be a substantial source of that, particularly off shore. I do not know about the particular position that the hon. Gentleman asked about, and I can certainly look into it. I have to say that the Government's commitment over the past few years to renewable energy makes it clear that we are increasing the proportion of our energy needs that is met by renewables. We are making a substantial investment and will continue to do so.
    Ross Cranston: May I take my right hon. Friend to the Government's alcohol strategy and to the important speech that he gave earlier in the year about binge drinking? This morning, my noble Friend Lord Mitchell and I hosted the launch of the charity NOFAS UK—the National Organisation on Fetal Alcohol Syndrome—and its video for schools. Will my right hon. Friend lend his support to the video's message that if pregnant women binge-drink there is a serious danger to their children in the future? In particular, will he lend his support to the incorporation of the issue in the forthcoming public health White Paper?
    The Prime Minister: On the specific issue of foetal alcohol syndrome, we know that excessive drinking may affect the brain of a developing foetus. The evidence is absolutely clear, and I am sure that responsible women who are pregnant will take account of it. The forthcoming public health White Paper will build on the progress that we have made with the alcohol strategy. It will deal with this as a matter of public health, but, in addition, strong measures are now in place in relation to binge drinking and antisocial behaviour. As the Under-Secretary of State for Wales was saying a few minutes ago, the powers to deal with that exist, and we urge the police and local authorities to use them. On the specific issue of public health, we will deal more with it shortly when the Government's White Paper comes.
    Mr. John Baron: The Prime Minister kindly met me earlier in the year to discuss the growing problem caused locally by Travellers buying greenbelt land and illegally developing it. However, the Government's recent response—the 28-day temporary stop notice—is widely seen as a fudge, because all it does is postpone the problem and thereafter our inadequate planning laws

    1267
    kick in. Will the Prime Minister recognise that the Government's indecision on the issue is now causing increasing anger and threatens the peace and harmony of many local communities, for all concerned? Will he now re-examine my private Member's Bill, which proposed a fair solution to the problem and had good cross-party support, but was blocked by the Government without explanation?
    The Prime Minister: As I think I said to the hon. Gentleman when we met in February, I am basically sympathetic to the points that he makes. As he knows, we are undertaking a policy review on the position of Gypsies and Travellers, which we will publish shortly. My understanding is that the 28-day delay allows the local authority to take prompt action. I know that he disagrees with that and thinks that we need additional legal powers. I am happy to look at the question again and discuss it with my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister, but we think that the powers are valid—as I think my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, the hon. Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) said to the hon. Gentleman when we met. I entirely agree that it is a major issue in certain communities—I know that from my own constituency—and it is important that the powers are in place to deal with it effectively. I will go back and have a look at the issue again, but it is worth pointing out that we have strengthened the law, and the advice we are receiving—although I will check it carefully —is that the law is sufficiently strong to enable us to deal with the problem. I understand that it is an issue in some areas and I will look into it carefully myself.
    Tom Levitt: This Sunday sees the first significant extension of open access land in England under the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000. My right hon. Friend will be aware that the establishment of a legal right to roam fulfils a Labour ambition that goes back many generations. Will he today send a message of solidarity and celebration to those who will gather in the Peak district in my constituency this weekend to celebrate the right to roam?
    The Prime Minister: As my hon. Friend rightly points out, the Act introduced a major new right for which people have campaigned for more than a century. By the end of December 2005, walkers will have new rights of access to some 3,200 sq miles of open country and registered common land in England. It is important to realise that the Act and the countryside code strike a proper balance between the rights of walkers and those of landowners. I hope and believe that matters can be resolved sensibly, so that people have access to more of our countryside, which they have wanted for many years, without interfering with the proper use of the land by its owners.
    Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory: Yesterday, the Prime Minister told other countries to take seriously the threat of climate change, so why does he have a domestic energy policy that makes no sense and that will desecrate large areas of our country with unreliable wind turbines, which will not solve the problem? At the same time, nuclear power,
    1268
    which does make a positive contribution, will be allowed to wither away without replacement. Will he close the familiar gap between what he says and what he does, and get a domestic energy policy that measures up to the scale of his environmental rhetoric?
    The Prime Minister: It was this Government who played a major part in negotiating the Kyoto protocol, and we have also reduced greenhouse gas emissions. Renewable energy, far from being an accidental part of our strategy, is a vital part of our ability to meet our targets for greenhouse gas emissions, and I am sorry if the right hon. Gentleman is against it. We made it clear in the White Paper that we have not shut the door on nuclear power, but until the issues of cost and public concern about safety can be met there is simply not the consent to go ahead with it. That is why it is important that we continue to invest in new technologies, such as renewable energy. It is a perfectly coherent policy to say that we will reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and renewable energy and greater energy efficiency are good ways to achieve that.
    Mrs. Anne Campbell: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the arrest and detention in Jerusalem of my constituent, Hajira Qureshi, a student of mathematics at Cambridge university? No charges have been brought against Ms Qureshi or her two companions, yet they were subject to a raid of their hotel room at 3 am and were strip-searched. Will my right hon. Friend make representations to the Israeli authorities and protest about that unprovoked attack on British citizens?
    The Prime Minister: According to the Foreign Secretary, we are following that up, but of course I understand my hon. Friend's concern. We are aware that three British nationals were arrested by Israeli authorities; they have been seen by our consular authorities who are providing all the assistance they can. I understand that they were subsequently released from custody. We have raised the matter with the chief of police in Jerusalem and we shall continue to pursue it with the Israeli authorities. At this stage, that is all I can say to my hon. Friend.
    Mr. Andrew Turner: Although the Isle of Wight is one of Britain's prime tomato producers, it is hard to find island tomatoes in local supermarkets, yet I can buy mangetout from Sierra Leone. It costs the same to get a beef carcase to a wholesaler from Argentina as it does from parts of Britain. What is the Prime Minister doing to cut food miles?
    The Prime Minister: For some reason, the mangetout section has been left out of my brief and I apologise for that. To be absolutely frank, I do not know, so I shall have to write to the hon. Gentleman on the subject—but I am sure that we are doing something.

    Cross-departmental Working
    Mr. Graham Allen: If he will make a statement on the impact of cross-departmental working on the Government since 1997.
    The Prime Minister: All Departments work closely together to ensure the co-ordination of policy. Cross-departmental working and its impact is most noticeable in areas such as crime and asylum and in relation to public health, where we need to bring a whole series of Departments together to work in a constructive and cooperative way.
    Mr. Allen: The Prime Minister will know that Nottingham, North, especially its outer estates, is one of the poorest UK constituencies, but excellent cross-departmental working has helped to tackle some of the problems—the new deal, Sure Start and the building schools for the future programme. However, there are now 36 funding streams coming into Nottingham, North and 20 organisations involved in regeneration. Will the Prime Minister take a personal interest in trying to cut through and clarify the plethora of bodies and initials, which confuse local people, so that regeneration can be done not to, but with, the people who are its subject?
    The Prime Minister: The point my hon. Friend raises is correct. Indeed, I am already taking an interest in, and have held several meetings on, the subject. Most people recognise that the money going into communities through the new deal, Sure Start and elsewhere is making a real difference to some of the poorest communities in our country, but it is true that there is a plethora of funding streams, which causes unnecessary difficulty and bureaucracy. The new local area agreements, which merge various funding streams locally to support the delivery of agreed outcomes, will be taken forward. I hope that in that area, too, we can learn from experience to ensure that people are accountable for the money we spend while also ensuring that they get it more effectively and quickly than they do at the moment. I would say one final thing to my hon. Friend: the other day, when I was in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough (Sir Stuart Bell), I saw the work that inner-city regeneration is doing with not just the support of local people but their active involvement, and that is a programme of which we can be very proud.

    Engagements
    Mr. Laurence Robertson: On the topic of urban regeneration, is the Prime Minister aware that in my constituency there are proposals to close three urban post offices? In two of those areas, the nearest post office is more than a mile away, and in one of the areas there are plans to build hundreds more houses, all of which will increase car
    1270
    journeys, yet only yesterday the Prime Minister said that he was concerned about the emission of poisonous gases into the atmosphere. How does he square his policy of closing post offices with his alleged concern for the environment?
    The Prime Minister: It is not that we have a policy of closing post offices. The hon. Gentleman will know that, under the previous Government, about 3,000 post offices closed. Post offices have continued to close under this Government, because their business and financial viability is being altered as a result of more people getting their benefit not through the post office but through their bank account. We have set aside several hundred million pounds to support rural post offices, but in the end we cannot support every post office, no matter what its financial viability is. That is why we have substantial investment going in, but there is no point in kidding people; unless we double or treble that investment we cannot keep every post office open.
    Clive Efford: May I inform my right hon. Friend that, this week, we will be celebrating the fact that the 1,000th home on the Middle Park estate in Eltham will be improved under the decent homes programme? Although we are justifiably proud of our investment in decent homes, there still remains a problem in my area with young families who cannot find affordable homes. Those people have grown up in houses that were built by Labour, and they look to Labour to provide for them and their families. May I appeal to my right hon. Friend to allow local authorities once again to build council houses using their investment allowance?
    The Prime Minister: First, the point that my hon. Friend raises is correct. There is obviously a real issue to do particularly with younger people wanting to get their feet on the rungs of housing ownership and being unable to do so, and we hope that we can address that over the next few weeks. There is also a need for greater social housing, and we are putting additional resources—billions of pounds—into that. He is also right in saying that there has been a substantial reduction in the number of social homes that do not meet the decency minimum threshold, and we have reduced that by 1.6 million homes in this country over the past few years, but we will put more investment and resource into it. I agree that one part of that must be social housing, which can come from a variety of sources. Over the next few years, we are supporting housing for up to 12,000 key workers in London. That will make a substantial difference not just to housing but to the quality of people who can come into our public services.

BILL PRESENTED
  LEGISLATION (MEMORANDA OF EUROPEAN DERIVATION)
  Mr. William Cash, supported by Mr. Richard Shepherd, Sir Nicholas Winterton, Mrs. Angela Browning, Sir Peter Tapsell, Sir John Butterfill, Mr. David Amess and Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory, presented a Bill to require a Minister of the Crown, the National Assembly for Wales, a Northern Ireland Minister or a Scottish Minister in respect of any primary or subordinate legislation which gives effect to any European Community treaty, obligation or instrument to publish a memorandum specifying the relevant European Community treaty, obligation or instrument from which it is derived and identifying which provisions in the legislation are so derived: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 15 October, and to be printed [Bill 155].

Desecration of National Flags
2.32 pm
Mrs. Angela Browning: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to establish a criminal offence of desecrating national flags: to establish penalties in relation to the offence; and for connected purposes.
This Bill was promoted by the letters that I received from my constituency and elsewhere following scenes of the burning of our Union flag on the streets of London earlier this year. National flags—the emblem of a nation state—do not belong to, or represent, a Government or a policy; they belong to all of us. Most people have a sense of possession and belonging whether they were born in a country or whether it becomes their adoptive home. They identify with their flags, often with pride, as we saw in Athens at the Olympic games.
Love of country and the symbols of nationhood are deemed by some today to be politically incorrect. I do not share that view. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I empathise with those who find it grossly offensive to see our flag desecrated, as defined by the dictionary as
"to violate the sacred character of an object".
Even more so, that inflames anger when there appears to be no redress. Such actions in a public place not only offend; in some instances, they incite racial hatred and can lead to violence.
In studying how other countries have approached the problem, I find that many other countries have enacted legislation to include penalties of both fines and imprisonment. Austria, Germany, France, Italy, Portugal and India have all enacted such legislation, and some countries, such as Norway and Japan, have legislated specifically in respect of foreign flags, knowing how offensive it is if those flags are destroyed in their countries.
The Bill does not seek to trivialise the use of the flag where it has been adapted, for example, in the design of garments. I have received a certain amount of correspondence about the use of the flag in underwear design, and I want to make it clear to the House that the Bill does not seek to prohibit that sort of fun. Nor would I oppose the Union flag being incorporated in advertising or projected on the front of Buckingham palace, as we have seen in the past.
The Bill is a direct response to the silent majority who expect action to be taken when acts of desecration take place. Last Sunday, the Sunday Express carried out a telephone poll to find out what its readers thought about the act of burning the Union flag and whether they thought that that should be made a criminal act. I was pleased that 1,096 people spent their own money to respond to that poll and that 98 per cent. said that there should be such legislation. Additionally, such a measure would have the support of the Victoria Cross Society.
I am only too well aware of the limitations of a ten-minute Bill, so although I hope that mine will proceed, I am perhaps more realistically addressing the Government Front Bench in the hope that time will be found to include such a provision in a Home Office Bill. If the Government fail to do that, I hope that my Front Bench, when we come to office after the next general election, will include the measure in an early Home Office Bill.
12.36 pm
Dr. Evan Harris:
I had not intended to speak until I heard what the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) said. It would not be right for the House to allow a Bill that would restrict freedom of expression and free speech to pass unchallenged.
I accept that many people are offended when they see the burning—or what they describe as the desecration—of the national flag, and I agree with the hon. Lady that using and supporting the flag should not be seen as politically incorrect, whether that is in the context of sporting occasions or supporting the nation. I also accept that a flag is the emblem of a national state and that it belongs not to the Government but to all of us. However, she paid no attention to the requirement that the House and country should have to recognise that freedom of speech and expression should be allowed as long as other people are not damaged. People in this country must accept that others will have opinions and ways of expressing those opinions that may insult them, so it is wrong to use words such as "desecration" and to consider things to be sacred in such a way as to criminalise freedom of expression.
There is a tradition of burning flags as an expression of disgust—sometimes outright disgust—at something that is done in one's name by one's country. I would not use that method because I appreciate how insulting it can be, but nevertheless other people choose to. Short of covering the act under considerations of public order and burning in general, it should not be made a criminal offence, so I urge the House to oppose the Bill.
Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 23 (Motions for leave to bring in Bills and nomination of Select Committees at commencement of public business), and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mrs. Angela Browning, Mr. Christopher Chope, Michael Fabricant, Mr. Ian Liddell-Grainger, Dame Marion Roe, Mr. Andrew Rosindell and Angela Watkinson.

Desecration of National Flags
  DESECRATION OF NATIONAL FLAGS
  Mrs. Angela Browning accordingly presented a Bill to establish a criminal offence of desecrating national flags; to establish penalties in relation to the offence; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 15 October, and to be printed [Bill 156].

Hunting Bill (Procedure)
12.39 pm
The Minister for Rural Affairs and Local Environmental Quality (Alun Michael): I beg to move,
That the following provisions shall have effect in relation to the Hunting Bill—

1. Proceedings on Second Reading shall be brought to a conclusion, unless already concluded, five hours after the commencement of proceedings on the Motion for this Order.

2. At the conclusion of proceedings on Second Reading—

(1) the Bill shall be treated as having been committed to a Committee of the whole House and as having been reported from the Committee without amendment, and

(2) the House shall proceed to consider any Motion standing in the name of a Minister of the Crown under section 2(4) of the Parliament Act 1911 for a suggested amendment to the Bill.

3. Proceedings on that Motion shall be brought to a conclusion, unless already concluded, three hours after their commencement (for which purpose the Speaker shall put only the Question on any amendment of the Motion selected by him and the Question on the Motion).

4. Proceedings on Third Reading—

(1) may be taken immediately after the conclusion of proceedings on the Motion mentioned in paragraphs 2(2) and 3, and

(2) shall be brought to a conclusion half an hour after their commencement.

5. No motion may be made to recommit the Bill.

6. In relation to the proceedings mentioned in paragraphs 1 to 4 above—

(1) Standing Order No. 15(1) shall apply,

(2) the proceedings shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House,

(3) the Orders of the House of 28th June 2001 and 6th November 2003 relating to deferred Divisions shall not apply,

(4) the proceedings shall not be interrupted by a Motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 24 (and any such Motion shall stand over until the conclusion of such of the proceedings mentioned in paragraphs 1 to 4 as are to be taken at the sitting concerned),

(5) no dilatory motion may be made except by a Minister of the Crown,

(6) the Question on any dilatory motion made by a Minister of the Crown shall be put forthwith, and

(7) if the House is adjourned or the sitting is suspended during the course of the proceedings, no notice shall be required of a Motion made by a Minister of the Crown at the next sitting of the House varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order.

7. The Question on any Motion varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order (whether by making provision about Lords messages or otherwise) shall be put forthwith.

I shall be extremely brief because I am sure that right hon. and hon. Members will want to use the time available to discuss the substantive issues. The procedure motion gives reasonable time for debate on an issue that has been before the House many, many times. Indeed, one is tempted to say that everything that could be said has been said on many occasions. It is, in addition, the same Bill that came before the House last year, when it was debated extensively. Later in the process, there will be a debate on the sensible proposition on commencement.
Mr. Oliver Heald: The Minister will know that under section 2 of the Parliament Act 1911 it is possible to suggest amendments to improve the Bill. No time is allowed for any such suggestion motions, except for the Minister's suggested amendments. Is not it wrong in those circumstances to say that there is adequate time for debate?
Alun Michael: Not at all. There was plenty of opportunity for positive acts of amendment in two places—first, in this House, when it was last before us and, secondly, in another place, when it had the opportunity, which it did not fully take, to amend, debate and improve the Bill and return it to this House. I am absolutely clear that there has been plenty of opportunity to consider all the issues and plenty of opportunity for hon. Members on both sides of the House to produce amendments and suggest improvements. I reject entirely the hon. Gentleman's implication.
Sir Patrick Cormack: Will the right hon. Gentleman accept that the House of Lords did not complete its consideration of the Bill because it was effectively withdrawn by the Government before all the amendments could be discussed?
Alun Michael: I am sorry but the hon. Gentleman is absolutely and completely wrong. The House of Lords failed to complete its consideration of the Bill. It failed to use the time that the Government made available and to take advantage of a series of options for additional time. Debate on the Bill ceased as a result of an Opposition Chief Whip—I believe it was the Liberal Democrat Chief Whip—moving that the debate should end. The Government were prepared to give more time for debate, but the forces that wish to prevent the Bill's progress unfortunately did not take the time available to them in the House of Lords. This House, in contrast, has been quick to make full use of every minute of time made available to it on many occasions, and this motion deals with the timing of debates in this House.
Mr. Roger Williams: At the end of an interesting week in Parliament, it seems that the British people will be able to beat their children but not chase a fox. Does the Minister think that the Government have got the balance right?
Alun Michael: The hon. Gentleman's flippant approach to both issues is rather sad. He will know as well as I do that issues such as education, getting young people into jobs and strengthening the economy, and large issues of health and the environment, which the Prime Minister addressed in an excellent speech yesterday, are the Government's priorities. This issue has been taking up parliamentary time year after year, and it must be brought to a conclusion. At the time of the last general election, we undertook to enable Parliament to reach a conclusion on it. We have also made it clear that we would prefer those on the Opposition Benches and in another place to address the legislation before them, to seek to improve it and to
1276
argue the issues rather than to frustrate the will of this House, which has been reinforced on occasion after occasion.
Several hon. Members rose—
Alun Michael: I see that there is a queue.
David Burnside: Does the Minister agree that the only reason the Bill is before us is that we are in the run-up to an election and the Government want to placate the left wing of the Labour party? It has nothing to do with the issue and the Bill will not bring the matter to a conclusion. Why do the Government not bring it to a conclusion by making it an election issue rather than delaying it for two years?
Alun Michael: The hon. Gentleman gives me the opportunity to point out that this was an election issue: we said in our manifesto that we would enable Parliament to reach a conclusion on it. We have been an extremely patient Government because we have tried to bring people together and get them to listen to each other, and to find ways forward that are less divisive than those of the two, very shrill, extremes in the debate. I personally have invested an enormous amount of time in that, and it has been worth while; I do not regret it. However, it has become clear that the views are so polarised that it is impossible to deal with the issue in that way, and the House of Lords failed to take the opportunity to improve the Bill and return it to us, so I tell the hon. Gentleman that he is entirely wrong.
Miss Ann Widdecombe: Does the Minister agree—he probably does not—that the Prime Minister has quite cynically manipulated this issue throughout two Parliaments? The right hon. Gentleman will know that I am on his side on the main issue: I shall vote for a hunting ban. However, it was not just before the last election that that pledge was made. Before the 1997 election, the Prime Minister undertook to provide a free vote followed by legislation if Parliament voted for a ban. What has he been doing in the last seven years to fulfil that promise, except to delay and then revive the issue every time it suited him electorally?
Alun Michael: I welcome the right hon. Lady's support for the substantive motion today, but I do not think that playing to her colleagues with that bit of populism will win her back support in the Conservative party. As for her question, I disagree with her passionately, as she knows. In the 1997 general election we promised a free vote in the House followed by legislation. We had the free vote; we had the Burns report; and we had the legislation, which did not succeed in its passage through Parliament. At the last general election we undertook to enable Parliament to reach a conclusion. We have tried to do that by consensus, by discussion, by agreement and by common sense. That did not succeed. When we debated the Bill that I introduced, I did not noticeably have support from those who are shrill today. At the end of the day, this House voted, by a large majority, for a ban on hunting. I seek to facilitate further debate on that proposition today, so that we can send the Bill to the House of Lords

1277
and ensure that we reach a conclusion on the issue. That is what we promised in our manifesto and, as usual, we intend to deliver.
Lembit Öpik: I accept that the Minister has spent a great deal of time consulting various groups. On procedure, however, does he accept that those of us who actively participated in that consultation with him and others are frustrated that measures such as compensation, which everyone agreed was important, cannot be put into the Bill if we do not have a mechanism to discuss such amendments? How does the Minister intend to fill the many holes in the Bill that, I suspect, mean that it will be unable to achieve its intended purpose?
Alun Michael: I pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman as one who has been willing to invest an immense amount of time talking to those who take a different view from him. He does credit to the House in the way he has engaged in that. He and I do not always agree but there can be no doubting his commitment to try to argue issues through and reach a conclusion.
Mr. Barry Sheerman: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
Alun Michael: In a moment. I want first to respond to the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit Öpik).
I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman that there is a need for additional time to discuss compensation. We dealt with the matter in earlier debates, and we do not believe that there are any grounds for compensation. Human rights issues were examined in great detail by the Joint Committee on Human Rights. It raised only one narrow point, which we have examined carefully as a result of its findings. I am absolutely convinced that both on human rights and on compensation there is no need for further change to the Bill—it stands as it is drafted.
Mr. Adrian Flook rose—
Mr. John Greenway rose—
Alun Michael: I give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) first.
Mr. Sheerman: Let me just nail this point: we said in the 1997 manifesto that we would provide an opportunity for a vote in Parliament. I do not think that there was anything about using the Parliament Act if we could not get the House of Lords to agree. This is hardly the issue on which to use the Parliament Act, which is hardly ever used, not only to overrule the House of Lords but to steamroller the Bill through this House against a very large minority who do not want it.
Alun Michael: I interpret that in a slightly different way, and I say to my hon. Friend that this is not an appropriate issue on which the House of Lords should provoke the use of the Parliament Act. The House of Lords should engage with the Bill, amend it, seek to
1278
improve it and send it back to this House for the normal procedure of reconciliation between the two Houses. If that is what he meant, I agree with him. I do not think, though, that it would be right for this House to say, "The House of Lords doesn't want it—that's all right, we'll just roll over and leave it, then." That could not be right.
Mr. Greenway: The Bill that the Minister introduced to Parliament last year did at least provide the opportunity for hunting with dogs to continue in upland areas such as the North York Moors national park. Why has he changed his mind, given that he thought that that was so important? It cannot simply be that a majority of his Back Benchers think that it is wrong, because he pleaded with them to go ahead with that scheme.
Alun Michael: The hon. Gentleman is wrong. The Bill did not give the opportunity for hunting in upland areas. It gave the opportunity for those who believed that they could undertake an activity of dealing with vermin through hunting in a way that was less cruel than all the alternatives to go before a tribunal to put that evidence forward. Although I do not believe that there would have been many cases in which they succeeded, providing that opportunity would have made sense. However—perhaps the hon. Gentleman failed to notice—the House voted not to create that tribunal system. The exceptions to the ban on hunting are included in the Bill—ratting, for instance, where the alternatives, such as poisoning, are particularly unacceptable. The difference is marginal: what matters is what is in the Bill.
Mr. Flook: As the Minister knows. I have raised the issue of West Somerset, particularly Exmoor, many times. In that part of the country, hunting is not only a way of life but an integral part of the way in which the economy works. The economic impact of a direct ban would be at least £5 million and the employment impact would be 420 jobs. The indirect impact would be a further 600 jobs. That comes from an authoritative study by West Somerset district council. What will happen to that area, and why cannot we discuss that in relation to the Bill?
Alun Michael: I remind the hon. Gentleman that substantive issues will be debated on Second Reading. Briefly, so that I do not trespass beyond the bounds of the debate, I assure the hon. Gentleman that I have looked very carefully at issues involved in hunting in the west country and the claims that it is important to the local culture or to the future of the deer population. I do understand the depth of feeling in certain parts of that area. There is no justification, however, for suggesting that hunting is necessary or that it is not a method of dealing with the deer population that is anything other than cruel. I therefore see no reason for extended debate on that particular issue.
As for the economic impact, the Burns report demonstrated that the economic impact of a ban on hunting would be extremely limited, and the evidence given in Portcullis House suggested that it would be even

1279
less than that. In view of the buoyancy of the rural economy, that issue does not require extensive further debate.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: In the course of the past few minutes, my right hon. Friend has been subject to a barrage from Members whingeing and whining and wanting to rerun the principle. The truth is that for 18 years, when I was in opposition, I lost, because that was democracy. We were in the minority, and we had to take it on the chin. There are people now in this House not capable of understanding that the numbers are against them. I hope that my right hon. Friend is able to complete what he has to say, get on with the job, and tell the House of Lords to go to hell and that we will carry this Bill.
Alun Michael: Instead of being impolite to those in another place, I invite them to debate the Bill that we send to them. Apart from that, my hon. Friend makes many good points. Those who suggest that there is any justification for violence or protest as a result of the Bill's going through should certainly listen to his comments. As democrats we have to respect the majority.
Mr. Simon Thomas: The Minister may recall that I supported his last Bill because I thought that it at least took science and ecology as its founding principles and had a method of dealing with those areas, particularly upland areas, where I am convinced that a decent argument has been made that hunting with hounds has ecological and environmental, as well as animal welfare considerations. This is the first time that the House has debated the Bill as a Government Bill from start to finish, and to do so in this truncated way pays great disservice, whatever the decision at the end of the day, to the House and to Members who have spent their time and effort in consultation with their constituents.
Alun Michael: First, the Bill that I drafted and introduced would have given the opportunity for hunting with dogs not on ecological grounds, but on the grounds that there was a necessity for a particular activity for the control of vermin and so on, and that the proposed method would be less cruel than any of the alternatives. The case for the ecological argument has not been made in the evidence that I have heard: it does not apply as it does in relation to shooting sports, for instance.
Secondly, this is the same Bill that I introduced and that the House passed on the last occasion. I still think that it included some rather good ideas. It was debated fully and the House took its decision and voted. The hon. Gentleman should, like me, respect democracy and the conclusion of the debate in this House.
Mr. Andrew Robathan: The Minister describes himself as a democrat, as do I. Further to the comments of the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas), is he not therefore a little embarrassed, even a little ashamed, at this abuse of the parliamentary process and misuse of the Parliament Acts merely to satisfy the prejudice and bigotry of the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner)?
Alun Michael: The hon. Gentleman should be embarrassed that so many of his hon. Friends are here.
1280
They say that this is a trivial issue, then they all pile into the Chamber to debate it. If we had a debate immediately afterwards on education or health, they would disappear, as they usually do. There is no abuse of the processes of the House and I have nothing to be embarrassed about. I am pleased to be able to bring this Bill before us so that the House can fulfil our promise to enable Parliament to reach a conclusion on the issue.
Mr. Douglas Hogg: The right hon. Gentleman characterises democracy as respecting majorities, and of course that is partly right. Does he accept, however, that another element of democracy is to respect the rights of minorities, and that that is being disregarded in this case?
Alun Michael: The right hon. and learned Gentleman is right: that is why the Government have spent so much time listening to those minorities—[Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Blyth Valley (Mr. Campbell) must calm down.
Alun Michael: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Unfortunately, this is an issue on which very few Members appear able to be calm.
Respect for minorities involves listening to them and deciding whether they have an argument, then, in this case, considering the central issue of whether the activities that they are undertaking are cruel, unnecessary or involve a minimum of suffering. Those are the issues on which I hope hon. Members will take their decisions in voting on the propositions in the Bill.
Mr. Hugo Swire: In order that there can be no perceived, or real, abuse of the House during this afternoon's deliberations, does the Minister agree that it is incumbent on those who have benefited from support, financial or otherwise, from campaigning organisations such as the International Fund for Animal Welfare, and those who have indirectly benefited from its £1 million bung to the Labour party, should say so at the outset of proceedings?
Alun Michael: We could have an interesting discussion about the sources of Conservative party financial support. Any financial support given to the Labour party because Labour Members believe in, support and work for animal welfare would be provided only in a proper, declared manner. There should be no perception of abuse of the processes of the House. The hon. Gentleman does neither himself nor the House any credit by making such a suggestion.
Mr. Tony Banks: The hon. Member for East Devon (Mr. Swire) is about to leave the Chamber, which is unfortunate. Although the International Fund for Animal Welfare gave £1 million to the Labour party, it also gave considerable amounts to the Conservative party and the Liberal Democrat party.
Alun Michael: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that point.

1281
The procedure motion will facilitate proper debate and a conclusion on the divisive issue. I commend it to the House.
Mr. Swire: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wish to set the record straight. The hon. Member for West Ham (Mr. Banks) suggested that I was leaving the Chamber but I was not. I was merely moving to take my place as the Whip on duty, from which I shall be allowed to witness two and a half hours of hypocrisy, cant and prejudice.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman should withdraw the word "hypocrisy".
Mr. Swire: I withdraw that particular word unreservedly.
Mr. Speaker: It has been noted that the hon. Gentleman is remaining in the Chamber.
Before I call the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald), I remind hon. Members that the selection of amendments has been placed in the No Lobby in the usual way.
1.2 pm
Mr. Oliver Heald: I beg to move amendment (a), in line 4, leave out from "after" to end of paragraph and insert "their commencement".
Mr. Speaker: With this, we may take the following amendments: (n), in line 10, leave out from "any" to "under" in line 11 and insert "Motions".
(o), in line 11, leave out "a suggested amendment" and insert "suggested amendments".
(p), in line 13, leave out "that Motion" and insert "those Motions".
(q), in line 19, leave out "Motion" and insert "Motions".
(d), in line 20, leave out "half an" and insert "one".
Mr. Heald: It is worth mentioning for hon. Members' convenience that we are most anxious to divide not only on amendment (a) but on amendment (n), which raises a different issue.
The procedure motion involves a massive use of Executive power to crush an aspect of freedom in rural communities. The Leader of House, in whose name the motion stands, would allow the passing of the Bill today, but only through guillotining debate and disposing of the Committee and Report stages. He would also ensure that only the Government amendment on when the ban comes into force could go to the other place. No other amendments, many of which appear on the Order Paper, would even be debated, despite the support of many hon. Members in all parties.
The thinking behind the procedure motion is doubtless to ensure that the Bill leaves us, as the Minister said, in exactly the same state as the previous measure, accompanied by an amendment providing for a delay, to comply with the Parliament Act.
1282
We oppose the procedure motion because even if the strict statutory conditions for the Parliament Act are fulfilled, the circumstances do not warrant the use of our most draconian procedures. If we are to maintain our right to debate in this place, the guillotine should be used sparingly and the Parliament Act reserved for rare circumstances in which there is no other way forward. The Parliament Act has been used when legislation is of high or constitutional importance, when there is genuine urgency and when the other place is clearly unreasonably blocking the will of the elected House.
Mr. Banks: Is not that exactly what the House of peers is doing at the moment? How can the will of this House be fulfilled if the House of Lords continually blocks it? Surely the hon. Gentleman, as a House of Commons man, should defend our procedures.
Mr. Heald: Yes, we should defence our procedures, but the Bill is not a case for a strict guillotine or the Parliament Act.
Mr. Hogg: My hon. Friend sets out the arguments for not invoking the Parliament Act, but a further consideration exists. Parliamentary majorities should not be used to suppress the rights of minorities. The House of Lords has an important role in safeguarding those rights. It was doing its duty and we should not override it.
Mr. Heald: Yes, and it is also right that the Government should not use their Executive power to effect that sort of oppression of a minority.
The Government have not known their own mind about the Bill. For the past seven long years, they have started and checked, jinked and dived and been up hill and down dale. At the end of seven years and after wasting seven months of the Session, they say that the Bill is so important that it must be tackled now. According to newspaper reports, the Government would even be prepared to sacrifice three significant Bills—the Pensions Bill, the Children Bill and the Civil Contingencies Bill—to secure the measure. What a shocking sense of priorities that displays.
The Pensions Bill is designed to help protect the pensions of millions; the Civil Contingencies Bill is our long-delayed response to the events of 9/11; and the Children Bill deals with the needs of some of our most vulnerable children. I do not agree with some aspects of those measures, but I have no doubt that their subject matter is far more important than hunting.
Chris Bryant: The hon. Gentleman's assertions about the use of the Parliament Act in the past are untrue. The age of consent was not an urgent constitutional issue that required the use of the Parliament Act. That also applies to the War Crimes Bill, for which the Conservative Government used the Parliament Act. People advance the belief that we should not use the Parliament Act when there is a free vote. I believe that we should be able to use it in the case of a free vote because that reflects the unfettered will of the House, unconstrained by any Whip.
Mr. Heald: The hon. Gentleman is simply wrong. I want to consider urgency, because the current circumstances do not warrant the use of the Parliament Act. The hon. Gentleman mentioned the War Crimes Bill. Ministers at the time said that that was urgent because the victims and witnesses were old and might die before they could give evidence. In the case of the European Parliamentary Elections Bill, it was said that no time could be lost because the new election system had to be introduced by a specific date. When the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Bill was considered, the Government claimed that the need to respond to a decision by the European Court of Human Rights meant that there could be no delay.
Sir Patrick Cormack: Does my hon. Friend accept that several of us were deeply unhappy about the use of the Parliament Act in all those cases? Several Conservative Members voted against the War Crimes Bill and believed that that was an improper use of the Parliament Act. If that constituted improper use, surely that is magnified 100 times in the current circumstances.
Mr. Heald: My hon. Friend makes an important point. He cherishes the important principles on which the House operates its conventions. He is right that we should be sparing indeed in our use of the Parliament Act.
Miss Anne McIntosh: Does my hon. Friend agree that, if the Minister for Rural Affairs and Local Environmental Quality had spent more time on his so-called concern about cruelty by allowing prelegislative scrutiny of the Bill in the same way as the Government are allowing such scrutiny of the Animal Welfare Bill, or even enabling that measure to consider aspects of hunting, shooting and fishing, we would have been spared any resort to the Parliament Act?
Mr. Heald: My hon. Friend makes a fair point. Of course, the Minister does not support the Bill in its current form. The Bill that he supported was considered last year but he was ambushed on Report. That is why we are here now.
Alun Michael: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm for the benefit of the hon. Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh) that the previous Bill was considered in Committee at great length? Almost every argument that could be made was discussed. The House has spent an enormous amount of time on the Bill. Rather than rushing to resort to the provocation of the Parliament Act, the Government have been slow to do so because we did not want to do it. Will he therefore join me in urging the other place to engage properly with the Bill when we send it on instead of rejecting the will of the House of Commons?
Mr. Heald: Let us get to the nub of the question of urgency. How can we say that this Bill is as urgent as the other Bills on which the Parliament Acts were used, when the Government themselves say, "Oh, we don't need to implement it for two years"? The sense of urgency that has existed on other occasions does not exist here.
1284
The contention that the Parliament Act can be used because the other place is clearly engaged in blocking the Bill also needs to be examined. The Hunting Bill that was introduced in the 2000–01 Session proposed three options: a ban, self-regulation and a statutory hunt licensing authority. This House voted for a ban; the other place voted for regulation. Far from the Government taking the view—and pursuing the matter vigorously—that this House was right and that the House of Lords was frustrating matters, the Minister introduced a Bill that provided for a regulatory approach. He therefore agreed with the broad thrust of what the other place was saying. It was hardly surprising that, when new clause 11—which would effectively ban hunting—was added to the Bill at the very last moment on Report last year, Members in the other place took the view that they did. They had been encouraged to take that view by what the Minister had said in this place. We should also not forget that the Bill had only two days in Committee in the other place before it ran out of time.
All previous Bills passed under the Parliament Act have reached the ping-pong stage between the two Houses at least once. The basic parliamentary principle should be that the other place has either spent an inordinate time dealing with a Bill, or that it has returned it to the Commons in amended form, signifying an impasse. On this Bill, the Government initially agreed with the approach of the other place and introduced a Bill of a regulatory nature, which was ambushed on Report. They then gave up after only two days in Committee in the Lords. Far from the shilly-shallying being at the other end of this building, the blame lies fairly and squarely with the Government.
Gregory Barker: Is it not worth remembering that, when Labour Members talk about the will of Parliament, they are actually talking about the will of a minority of Members of this House? I was a teller when the last vote was taken on this issue, and fewer than half the Members of the House of Commons voted for a ban; the other Members voted against one, absented themselves or abstained. To try to pretend that there is a great well of support in this Chamber for a ban is downright nonsense. It would be impossible to form a Government with the number of Members who voted for a ban, and that is an excellent reason for their bigoted views to be frustrated in the revising Chamber.
Mr. Heald: I do not know whether you, Mr. Speaker, heard the "Today" programme this morning. A journalist from The Guardian was explaining that this issue had nothing to do with animal welfare, and that it represented the last knockings of the class war. Having heard the views of the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), who could disagree with that?
Lembit Öpik: Is the hon. Gentleman as concerned as I am that the Bill that we have here does not seem to be the Bill that the Minister and the Prime Minister seemed minded to support? Does he agree that a serious concern about this procedure is that a Bill that evidently does not have the unanimous support of the Government is now

1285
going to be pushed through—with all the holes that it has—without our having had the opportunity to discuss it in Committee in the lower House?
Mr. Heald: The hon. Gentleman has played a huge part in these proceedings—[Interruption.] No, it is true that he has. He has played a very constructive part. He is right: how can the Government table a motion involving the massive Executive powers of the guillotine and the Parliament Acts, when they themselves have said that the Bill is unworkable and unenforceable? It is quite wrong for a Government to behave in this way with this sort of Bill.
The Parliament Acts provide that a Bill sent from this House must take the same form, but this will be the first time that a Bill has been so different from the one that was originally presented that the necessary detailed provisions have not been properly debated.
Mr. Banks: May I take the hon. Gentleman back to what he just said? He was repeating the usual nonsense about this being all about the class war. If this is a class issue, it is a middle class issue—a middle England issue. The profile of the passionate anti-hunter—which I know because I get thousands of letters from them—is a middle class white woman living in the home counties, or a county town or village who reads the Daily Mail. That shows how much of a class issue this is.
Mr. Heald: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman is the exception, but I do not think so, because he used to describe this as a totemic class issue.
The final change that was made on Report last year resulted in a recommittal to a Standing Committee, but the debate was very limited in scope and the main problem areas were simply never debated. It is right to quote the remarks of the Minister for Rural Affairs and Local Environmental Quality, who said on 30 June last year:
"We must not send a defective Bill to the other place."
He went on to warn that
"we would face extreme difficulty if we sought to apply the Parliament Acts to a defective piece of legislation."—[Official Report, 30 June 2003; Vol. 408, c. 39.]
The Government know the verdict of their own parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights, which was that with a blanket ban compensation would be needed to meet the requirements of the European convention on human rights. Other important issues to be dealt with are the breadth of the offence created and the nature of the intent required to commit the offence of hunting. Whatever side of the argument we are on, not many of us would want to pass a Bill that would result in tourists being charged with hunting just because they came upon a hunt one day.
We should have a Committee stage, and it is vital that there should be an opportunity to introduce motions suggesting amendments.
Mr. Desmond Swayne: Does my hon. Friend agree that, in a democracy such as ours, minorities put their rights and liberties at the disposal of the majority, and abide by the decisions of
1286
the majority, on the basis of an understanding that their voice will be properly heard and that the procedure will be fair? The absence of a Committee stage effectively abrogates any such concordat, and people will accordingly be inclined to look beyond Parliament for the protection of their liberties as a consequence of that omission.
Mr. Heald: Our freedoms are important and should not be treated in a cavalier fashion. One of our great concerns is the way in which the curtailing of debate has become commonplace through the programming system. It would be extremely dangerous, from a constitutional point of view, if the use of the Parliament Acts were also to become commonplace. The Labour Peers group has suggested that the Parliament Acts should be far more regularly used, and many of us view that with great concern. Those on the other side of the House, or in the other place, who disagree with me on this issue might want to consider that, at some point, they will be on the other side of the Chamber. I hope that that will happen in six months' time, but I might be wrong. We shall have to see. That time will come, and to have curtailment of debate and the routine use of the Parliament Acts would be a disgrace.
Mr. Hogg: May I follow up the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire (Sir Patrick Cormack)? As we do not have entrenched rights, save those incorporated in the Human Rights Act 1998—which are only now being developed—does it not behove hon. Members in this House to be very sparing with their power as a majority to impose on other people moral and ethical values that they simply do not share?
Mr. Heald: That is a vital point.
Section 2(4) of the Parliament Act 1911 provides for suggestion motions, which provide the opportunity to make a proposal for an amendment to the other place. It was no less a figure than Winston Churchill in 1913, when he was a Cabinet Minister in the Liberal Government, who said:
"The Suggestion stage is … to enable either small points which are oversights to be set right by general agreement or to enable suggestions of compromise to be put forward and debated. The root principle of the Parliament Act is that every amendment which makes for agreement, and for a change in a Bill which tends to lessen disagreement, can be incorporated in the Bill without depriving it of the advantages of the … Parliament Act".— [Official Report, 23 June 1913; Vol. LIV, c. 843.]
On the Order Paper today, motions are proposed to deal with issues such as compensation, intent and the breadth of the offence. Only this week, we heard that the business for tomorrow could not go ahead, and that time was available. I asked that some of that time should be set aside so that motions of suggestion on practical measures could be debated. What was the Government's reaction? It was a flat no.
Sir Patrick Cormack: Is it not an extraordinary paradox that this Government, who have extended the provision for carry-over, do not apply that rather than the Parliament Act? It would be a much less offensive procedure to carry over this Bill, with a proper

1287
Committee stage, into the next Session, which is still within the lifetime of this Parliament, rather than to use the draconian Parliament Act.
Mr. Heald: Yes. I return to the point that I made earlier about whether Ministers believe genuinely that what is going to the other place is unworkable. The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs will remember saying:
"No Bill on a simple ban has ever been thought to be workable."
The Minister for Rural Affairs and Local Environmental Quality will remember saying:
"A complete ban … would destroy the architecture of the Bill, undermine the strong simple framework of enforcement that is set out in the Bill and be perceived as pursuing prejudice rather than targeting cruelty."
He went on, after the ambush, to say that MPs,
"chose a Bill that is simple to explain rather than a Bill that is simple to enforce."
In those circumstances, how can they justify using the panoply of government—the Executive power—to force the Bill through on a guillotine, and to use the Parliament Act, when they know that the Bill needs to be amended?
Ms Candy Atherton: Does the hon. Gentleman honestly think that if the Bill were to go to a Committee stage, the House's final decision would be different?
Mr. Heald: The Government, not the Opposition, decide how much time is allocated for debate. Were amendment (n) allowed, which provides for other Members' motions under section 2(4) to be considered, and were the Government to allow half a day or even a day tomorrow to debate those motions, what would be lost? Nothing. The timetable for the Parliament Act would not be lost. It would just mean that this place would be allowed to do its job—to debate the concerns of the people.
Alun Michael: I want to make one thing clear, because several Members have spoken as though there has been no Committee stage. I remind the House that on the last occasion the Bill was re-committed for a Standing Committee to consider the implications of the new clause proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham (Mr. Banks). Therefore, it has had a Committee stage. In addition, for the Parliament Act to apply, the Bill must go to the House of Lords in exactly the same form as last time. If the hon. Gentleman is urging restraint, it should be on the House of Lords to address the Bill as it comes to it, and not to provoke the use of the Parliament Act.
Mr. Heald: The Minister may have forgotten what happened last time. The re-committal motion was only in respect of clause 11, so the debate was circumscribed—a decision that you made, Mr. Speaker, and probably rightly so, on procedural grounds.
The schedules and other issues set out on the Order Paper today were not capable of being discussed. As for section 2 motions, however, the operation of the Parliament Act would not be affected. As I suggested when I quoted Winston Churchill a moment ago, we can
1288
make suggestions, such as that for the delay, which will be debated. We could propose a suggestion on compensation, intent or the breadth of the offence, and if the other place agreed we might end up with a Bill that was a bit more enforceable or workable. It is therefore right that the House's debate should not be curtailed. Routinely, we seem to lose the opportunity to debate great rafts of amendments and new clauses as a result of the unilateral programming of legislation. The routine use of the Parliament Act for issues that are not of the highest importance is a dangerous step.
As I said, I made a modest request of the Government for extra time. Amendment (n) would allow other motions to be discussed, and I ask all Members who value our procedures and right of debate to join me in the Lobby.
Chris Bryant: The hon. Gentleman referred to Winston Churchill's views on the Parliament Act. He may know that Winston Churchill also used to argue that one of the terrible difficulties about the original Parliament Act—he argued this when he was a Liberal, but not when he was a Conservative—was that in the second half of a Parliament, especially a Parliament that was shortened from seven years to five years, the other place was given significant additional powers every year that the Parliament went on, because it could delay the whole Government programme. Is that not one of the major reasons why we should use the Parliament Act? Otherwise, the other place will never learn its lesson.
Mr. Heald: The hon. Gentleman makes his point in his customary way, but the fact is that in this instance we are using the nuclear option, a draconian measure, to oppress a minority in rural areas. That is simply not acceptable, and I invite the support of Members from both sides of the House, who share a concern for our procedures and right of debate, to vote against the procedural motion and for the Opposition amendments.
1.25 pm
Mr. Douglas Hogg: This is a very sad day for democracy. Those of us who value minority rights, our political institutions, toleration and moderation should be deeply ashamed, angry and distressed at today's proceedings. Through this motion and the Bill, we are riding roughshod over the liberties and freedoms of hundreds of thousands of our fellow citizens. We are diminishing freedom itself. We are diminishing our freedom, and freedom under the law. That is a terrible thing to do.
I want to turn specifically to the programme motion, which is currently before the House. First, it paves the way to the use of the Parliament Act, which is profoundly offensive. My hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) set out the reasons for objecting to the use of the Parliament Act. He has urged on the House that the Parliament Act should be used only in urgent and compelling cases. Surely he is right.
We all know that there is no urgency. The Government conceded that there is no urgency by their implementation date. Leaving that aside, they could have introduced this Bill at any time in the past seven years had they chosen to do so. They did not, which is an implied recognition that there is no urgency.

1289
As to the compelling nature of the Bill, I am perfectly willing to accept that a large majority in the parliamentary Labour party want this Bill to be introduced. There is not a compelling desire in the country as a whole, however, but a diversity of opinion on the subject. We know as a fact that this Bill is not the Government's preferred choice, because, had it been so, they would have introduced it. Therefore, neither urgency nor compulsion is a justification for the Bill.
David Taylor: Perhaps the right hon. and learned Gentleman can explain why the definition of non-urgency will not lead to eternal procrastination in this place, as that has been the recipe in the past?
Mr. Hogg: I will come to exactly that point. Much of the debate has centred on the opposition in the other place to the passage of the Bill. That is true—the other place will not support it. In all modesty, we ought to ask ourselves why it will not support it. I know the answer: in a free society, we should not oppress minorities, and we should be very chary about imposing our moral and ethical values on sizeable proportions of the population who do not share those values.
In many sophisticated societies—we are one such—those propositions are defended by a Bill of Rights, which is an entrenched statutory provision policed by a supreme court. We do not have that. We must rely first on the other place and secondly on our sense of moderation. I believe in limited government. I think that majorities should be chary about imposing their views on other people. The fact that the other place has many times said no ought to suggest to us, in all modesty, that we are wrong to do that which we are doing.
Mr. Kevin McNamara: I have listened continually to the argument about repressing minorities. Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman recall being a member of a Government who took away the right of tenure of university lecturers, got rid of the dock labour scheme, crushed the miners and, above all, reduced the rights of trade unionists? All those acts involved oppressed minorities and all used the Tory party's huge majority.
Mr. Hogg: I have two points to make in response to that. First, each issue must be determined on its merits. Secondly, the hon. Gentleman implies that this is an act of vengeance and that I find a profoundly unattractive statement.
Sir Patrick Cormack: Would not the analogy have been rather better if the hon. Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) had mentioned his own championing of the minority in Northern Ireland, which was successful? Should we not equate that minority with the minority in rural England with whom we are concerned today?
Mr. Hogg: That is a sound point, with which I agree.
Lembit Öpik: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that suggesting that the Bill should be forced through by means of this procedure because an earlier Government forced through other legislation that the hon. Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) did not like by means of similar procedures is a pathetic justification? Surely we are all obliged to consider the benefits and the costs, rather than simply seeking vengeance. The problem with the procedure motion is that it does not allow space for us to examine the Bill's flaws in detail. It is in the interests of those who want to ban hunting with dogs to have a good Bill that works rather than one that does not work for want of proper scrutiny.
Mr. Hogg: I entirely agree—and that brings me to the terms of the motion itself.
First, let me say something about the time allowed for Second Reading. The motion allows but five hours for discussion of both the motion itself and Second Reading, and we should bear it in mind that Divisions will come out of that time. I expect debate on the motion to continue for some time—and quite right too, for this is an important matter. The closure may be moved—although that is a matter for the Chair and indeed for hon. Members—and there may be a Division on that; in any event, my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hertfordshire has said that there will be two Divisions on amendments. There will therefore be at least three Divisions, and perhaps four.
Sir Patrick Cormack: That could take an hour.
Mr. Hogg: That is my point. Out of the five hours that we have been allowed, we shall have at the very most four hours in which to debate both the programme motion and Second Reading. That means about two hours for Second Reading. On any view, the Bill raises constitutional matters of the highest importance and two hours is outrageous.
Mr. Peter Pike: Does not the timetable motion take account of all the time that we have spent debating the issue during the life of the current Parliament? Does it not recognise that, at the last election, the Labour party was elected on the basis of a clear indication that it would allow the decision to be made on a free vote? On more than one occasion, the House has plainly taken a view on a free vote. Is not the right hon. and learned Gentleman really arguing that the other, unelected House should have a permanent veto?
Mr. Hogg: There are two answers to that. First, it is the business of Governments to safeguard constitutional principles and the rights of minorities. This Government are betraying both, and that is a very serious charge against them. As for the position of the other House, I have already dealt with that. I happen to believe that, on this matter, the other House is right, because it is standing up for freedom, liberty and minority rights. We should listen to what it is saying and not try to override it.
Let me now say something about the question of amendments. My hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hertfordshire made an important point about that.

1291
The programme motion does not allow for a Committee stage, a Report stage or any amendment whatever. That is objectionable for at least two reasons. First, I have never encountered a Bill that, even in its own terms, could not be improved. My hon. Friend pointed out that even those of us who are root and branch against the Bill, as I am, would like, if there must be legislation, at least to see competent and effective legislation. Compensation, for instance, is a vital issue, but we cannot table a compensation amendment because there is no amendment that can be tabled.
Mr. Gordon Prentice: Is it not rich for the right hon. and learned Gentleman to talk about compensation? As Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, he specifically ruled out compensation for farmers affected by BSE.
Mr. Hogg: I introduced one of the most generous schemes to support the beef market that could have been contemplated by anyone. I should have thought that there were better criticisms to make of me than that.
My second point about amendments is desperately important. Amendments provide a way of testing the logic of any particular proposition. It is not just a case of improving a Bill; it is a case of testing its inherent logic. Amendments of that kind are often called probing amendments.
The Bill contains an express provision permitting falconry. I happen to support falconry—I think it is a glorious sport—but I am entitled to ask, by means of an amendment, why the Bill expressly permits falconry while prohibiting hunting with hounds. Where lies the logic in that? Similarly, there are provisions relating to terrier work and shooting. I am an enthusiastic, if very incompetent, shot, but why does the Bill expressly permit terrier work on foxes in order to facilitate the shooting of pheasants, but prohibit hunting with hounds? Where lies the logic in that? That is the kind of question that can be addressed by probing amendments. Such a procedure affects public understanding of a Bill and I think that it would increase hostility towards this provision.
Mr. A. J. Beith: The right hon. and learned Gentleman may recall that, in the last Parliament, I argued in Standing Committee that the Bill would prohibit ratting. The Government denied that at several sittings, but having looked at the Bill more closely they returned several weeks later with amendments to deal with the matter.
Mr. Hogg: Schedule 1 includes ratting as a permitted form of hunting. That makes the right hon. Gentleman's point: no Bill that has ever come before us could not have been improved. By using the Parliament Act, however, we are preventing this Bill from being improved, and that is outrageous.
I have two final points to make. The first relates to Third Reading. The motion allows but half an hour, which is a desperately short time for Members who will not have been able to speak earlier and who may well want to ask the essential question, "Where lies the difference in principle between shooting, hunting with hounds and angling?" They would want to say on Third
1292
Reading that there is no essential difference and that to try to distinguish between those things is profoundly and shamefully wrong.
I do not suppose that my words will prevail, but I desperately hope that hon. Members will rally round the principle that other people's freedoms are our freedoms. We cannot destroy the freedoms of law-abiding minorities without diminishing freedom itself. If right hon. and hon. Members agree with that simple and time-honoured proposition, they will oppose the programme motion and they will oppose the Bill.
1.40 pm
Mr. Barry Sheerman: I shall speak very briefly, Mr. Deputy Speaker. All politicians like to remain popular with their own side, but I should point out that, on this issue, I am in a minority among Labour Members, although not a persecuted one. I hope that this debate will continue in the good-tempered way in which it started and allow a different opinion to be expressed on the Labour Benches.
In debating a motion such as this—I oppose it and will vote against it—we sometimes lose track of the issues. My interpretation of what we said in our manifesto differs from the Minister's. We said that we would have a vote and let Parliament decide, but the fact is that the two Houses profoundly disagree.
Alun Michael: I should remind my hon. Friend that the manifesto commitment was to enable Parliament to reach a conclusion.
Mr. Sheerman: Yes, but the fact is that the long-running disagreement between the two Houses has led to a conclusion: stalemate. We now have to decide whether this issue is important enough to warrant invoking the Parliament Act.
When I first heard that we were going to deal with this issue in the manifesto, I regretted the fact, because in my view it should be dealt with through a private Member's Bill. I am sorry that the Government have got so deeply involved, but I applaud the fact that we continue to have free votes.
Mr. McNamara: My hon. Friend says that he regrets the Government's intervening, but he will recall the time when the whole Tory Cabinet turned up on a Friday and voted against my private Member's Bill.
Mr. Sheerman: My hon. Friend makes a good point. Some of the arguments from the Conservatives on this issue are not very good and listening to them almost guarantees that I will change the way I vote. However, I do not like persecuting minorities and I do not want communities that have values and a way of life that differ from mine to lose them.
I have a serious worry. I was in the House during the Thatcher years, when disgraceful and dreadful things were done to communities such as mining communities, but I draw a different lesson from that. I do not want to do to rural communities what the Thatcher Government did to the mining communities; two wrongs do not make a right. They may be the minority, but there are many people in this country who take a different view from the

1293
majority on country sports. As I explained in the original debate on this issue in 1997, I used to be anti-hunting, but then I thought through why I took that view. I have never hunted and I never want to. I do not shoot. I do not ride. However, I have lived in the country, reared chickens and ducks, and had foxes take them away. As I said in 1997, if someone can prove to me that there is a more humane way of killing a fox than hunting with dogs, I will change my view, but the Burns inquiry and every piece of evidence that I have seen since then has not persuaded me that there is a more humane way.
Mr. Banks: Perhaps I might steer my hon. Friend back the procedural matter and the manifesto pledge that Parliament would decide on this issue. It has not been resolved, and a stalemate is not a decision. Does my hon. Friend, who is a good House of Commons man, not see the qualitative difference between huge majorities arrived at through a free vote on the Floor of the House and their being overturned and frustrated by an unelected Chamber?
Mr. Sheerman: As my hon. Friend knows, I have been in this House a long time, and I realise that invoking the Parliament Act is a question of judgment; that judgment is based on the importance that we attach to the issue in question. In my view, this issue is nowhere near important enough to justify invoking that Act.
It is clear that there is a strong divide between the two Houses. I am not a great supporter of the House of Lords; indeed, as my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham (Mr. Banks) may know, I voted for its abolition. But the fact is that we have it, and its current role is that of a second Chamber—a Chamber that is perhaps a little more thoughtful and which takes time to contemplate issues. [Interruption.] That has always been its role. Given our current constitution and the fact that we have not abolished the Lords, we should listen to it very seriously when such disagreements arise.
My great worry is this: after today, when will we next use the Parliament Act? Will we use it when another such issue arises? I have been in the House long enough to remember the long hours that were spent debating abortion. Many people took different views on that issue, which, I am pleased to say, was always dealt with through private Members' Bills. I would be horrified if it were dealt with in the manner adopted in the United States. I sincerely believe that it is in the best interests of this country and of the House if issues such as abortion are dealt with, as they have always been, through private Members' Bills and on a free vote.
David Winnick: But the only reason that the law on abortion was changed was that the then Government provided time to do so during what was my first Parliament, in 1966; otherwise, the Opposition would have ensured that no such law passed. As my hon. Friend knows, if there is sufficient opposition, no private Member's Bill ever gets through. Is he really saying that, despite free votes in the previous and current Parliaments producing substantial majorities, the will of the House of Commons should be
1294
permanently opposed through a permanent veto by the House of Lords? If so, what is the purpose of our debates and decisions?
Mr. Sheerman: I am sorry to disagree with my hon. Friend—we have been friends for a very long time—but we hold different views on the importance we attach to hunting with dogs. In my view, there is a range of issues, such as abortion, that this House should debate in a very different way. They should be debated through private Members' Bills, because that is a much healthier method.
I have never regarded this issue as a party political one; indeed, the voting patterns of peers—be they Labour, Conservative or Liberal Democrat—have been all over the place. I accept that there is less diversity among Labour Members, and I regret that the reality is that most of the Members who support hunting are Conservatives. There would be a freer exchange of views if opinions were more diverse.
Gregory Barker: I am listening very carefully to the hon. Gentleman's extremely courageous speech. The most thoughtful of the speeches in the other place that I have heard—those expounding the defence of liberty and showing the greatest concern for minorities—were made not by Conservative peers but Labour ones, some of whom were appointed only recently. One of the best speeches was made by Lord Waheed Alli.
Mr. Banks: That is only because the hon. Gentleman agrees with what he said.
Mr. Sheerman:Noises off, as my hon. Friend would say.
We are in a very difficult position. I am a political realist, and I know that the steamroller of the Parliament Act will be invoked, but I warn my colleagues that doing so will not do the Labour party or the Labour Government a great deal of good in the long term. At the end of the day, the British public rumbled Thatcherism—I am being very political here—because of the divisive nature of that Government. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) that it was a ghastly, divisive period in our history, but I am surprised that a Labour Government should be taking us back into the same territory. We may be dealing with a different minority, but they still have rights. I do not want to be seen, and I do not want my party to be seen, as willing to ignore other people's minority rights. We do not want that coming back to haunt us—and it will. This will not be resolved by the invocation of the Parliament Act.
We have a long history as a party that stands up for minorities and goes to the front line to protect their rights, but here we have a different sort of minority that we happen not to agree with, so we are going to trample all over their rights.
Claire Ward: It is a real shame that I have to disagree with my hon. Friend, but I can tell him that there is outright support for this policy in the Watford party and among my constituents. People want us to settle the issue, because we promised that we would. It is also a matter of trust: in the past two general

1295
election campaigns, we said that we would bring the matter to a close. It is absolutely clear that the majority in this House favour a ban on hunting. We can take into account all sorts of minority issues, but at the end of the day, if hunting is wrong, we must take a stand against it. I believe that it is fundamentally wrong and unacceptable in the 21st century in modern Britain and I shall be very pleased to vote to ban it tonight.
Mr. Sheerman: I understand my hon. Friend's view, and recognise the passion with which she holds it. I, too, hold passionate views, but I worry about her conclusion that we should now rush this through with the Parliament Act when we know that a substantial number of people in our country profoundly disagree with it.
Kate Hoey: It will not surprise the House to hear that I agree with everything that my hon. Friend has said. May I remind him and the House that in the two votes in the Commons and the Lords last year, 406 parliamentarians supported a licensing system, compared with 366 backing a ban? On Third Reading, let us not forget, only 317 of the 659 Members of Parliament voted for a ban. That is not an absolute majority.
Mr. Sheerman: My hon. Friend and I mostly agree on this, and I thank her for that intervention.
We have a stand-off between the House of Lords and the House of Commons. I have been in politics for a long time, and it seems to me that the best solution in such a situation is to seek compromise, to meet somewhere halfway, and I have to say that, time and again, there is—[Interruption.]
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Michael Lord): Order. We must not have sedentary interventions. I also remind the hon. Gentleman that we are talking about the procedure motion.
Mr. Sheerman: Yes we are, and I am saying that I regret my party's support for the use of the Parliament Act, because as a Government, as a party and as professional politicians, surely it would be better, rather than taking the Thatcher way in a stand-off, for us to say to one another that we must find a compromise. There is a group of people in this House who, sometimes making themselves quite unpopular, have tried to come up with compromises to break the deadlock between the House of Commons and the House of Lords. I would have thought that, as grown-up men and women, we could do that. My right hon. Friend the Minister took an important and courageous role in going for the compromise of a regulated system, which I would have supported, because I believe that politics is about compromise, and on such an important issue, on which a vital minority have a great interest, compromise would have been the right way forward.
Alun Michael: Would my hon. Friend therefore urge Members in another place to engage with the Bill as it reaches them and make proposals, should they wish to do so, so that engagement between the two Houses can take place in the ordinary way? If that were to happen, the use of the Parliament Act would not be necessary.
Mr. Sheerman: I certainly urge colleagues in another place to be reasonable and to compromise, as long as
1296
that does not mean that whatever compromise they offer is simply bounced back or cast aside in this Chamber, and we get the same straight abolition all over again.
Mark Tami: But has not the other House cast aside the views of this House by the way in which it has acted on this issue over many years?
Mr. Sheerman: This is not the easiest speech to make from this side. I have tried to make the case and to draw some parallels, but clearly we are not going to agree, and I do not want to try colleagues' patience any longer.
Lembit Öpik: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, for compromise to work, both sides must be willing to shift? When the Lords showed that they were willing to shift to an extent, there was no reciprocity on the part of those who favour a ban in this House. That is why stalemate ensued, but the upper House cannot be held responsible for that.
Mr. Sheerman: I take that point.
Finally, I appeal to hon. Members to step back for a moment. Those who have been here as long as I have care very much about the reputation of the House, of Parliament and of professional politicians. This does that reputation no good. Whatever their views on hunting, most people outside the House want to see fair play, and I do not think that people watching our debate and seeing the Parliament Act being invoked will think that the British sense of fair play is getting a fair crack of the whip. I am sorry to finish on this note. As long as there are not too many inflammatory speeches from the other side, I shall continue to vote against the Bill.
1.57 pm
Andrew George: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman). He made a courageous speech and demonstrated that he was genuinely wrestling with the arguments and the evidence to try to come to a judgment on the issues. I have come to a different view, from a different perspective, interestingly, because I come from the country and I used to follow and support the hunt, but, having considered all the issues, I now support a ban. He said that he had searched for evidence that there is a more humane way than hunting to deal with pest control, and so have I. I will not bore the House by repeating what I have said in Committee and in this Chamber about more humane ways of controlling pests in the countryside.
I also agree that there are many more important things for the House to spend its time on. We have debated this issue in and around the House for many hundreds of hours, and I think it would be improper for us to spend hundreds more going through a marathon course of Committee and consideration when the issues have already, in my view, been resolved.
I believe that the debate is not about hunting but about who runs the country and how it is run: is it run on the basis of primogeniture, birthright and what one might describe as the old boy network, or is it run on the basis of democracy? Which is the pre-eminent Chamber? In my view—and, I believe, the view of most hon. Members—the Commons is the pre-eminent

1297
Chamber. We have considered the issue and come to a conclusion on it. Many Bills are enacted on the basis of the votes of fewer than 50 per cent. of elected Members. Whatever the result of the electoral arithmetic when votes are taken, as long as the issues are concluded in a proper manner, I am happy for that to happen.
There is a great debate about the relevance of democracy here. Having been involved in Committee and the other stages when the last Bill was considered, I believe that it is important, now that the Bill has been brought back before us, that we read and reflect on the debate in the other place to see whether their Lordships produced any blinding flash, pearl of wisdom or indisputable fact that somehow passed us by in all the hundreds of hours that we spent considering the issues.
The forthcoming Second Reading debate will provide me with the opportunity to assess in greater detail some of the points raised in the other place and to establish whether they were new, interesting or relevant to our current debate. After all, the second Chamber—the lower Chamber, in my view—is a Chamber for revision, advice and sober second thought, not for obstruction or frustrating the will of the democratically elected House of Commons.
I will not identify individuals, but instead refer to column references in the House of Lords debate. On Second Reading on 16 September, one noble Lord said that our decision was
"an affront to the whole process of democracy"—[Official Report, House of Lords, 16 September 2003; Vol. 652, c. 840.]
That was a comment from an hereditary peer, so if we are an affront to democracy, what does that make him? Another noble Lord said:
"Democracy is the will of the people, not just members of another place."—[Official Report, 16 September 2003; Vol. 652, c. 782–83.]
The fact is that we have to weigh up the issues, consider all the evidence and reach a judgment on the basis of that evidence. We have had enough evidence to do so, and we should now spend as little time as is reasonably possible to come to our conclusion. The right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg), who is no longer in his place, argued that there was no urgency to push the issue through. However, several Members intervened to point out that although there is no greater urgency now than there was seven years ago—in the sense that nothing more significant is going to happen in the countryside now than was going to happen seven years ago—it is important for us to make progress on the issue. Given the process of perpetual obstruction from the other place, we have to reach the sad conclusion that the Minister is right and that, if necessary, we will have to invoke the Parliament Act.
Kate Hoey: To be clear, for the benefit of Liberal Democrat supporters all over the country, is it the official Liberal Democrat view that the Parliament Act should be used to force through a ban on hunting?
Andrew George: I am speaking for the Front Bench, but it is a free vote for the party. The party is in favour of a ban on hunting, but I have made it clear that I am
1298
offering my personal judgment. It is a free vote for all Liberal Democrats and the whole parliamentary party. My judgment is that we have spent quite enough time on this issue and that we cannot allow perpetual obstruction to continue. The matter must be resolved and, regrettably, it may have to be resolved in this way.
Kate Hoey rose—
Andrew George: No, I will not give way because I want to move on—
Mr. Greenway rose—
Andrew George: Very well, I give way to the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Greenway: I am grateful, as I seek further clarification. Is the hon. Gentleman saying that the current Bill is preferable to the Bill that the Government originally introduced?
Kate Hoey: It is the Liberal Democrat view.
Andrew George: The hon. Lady says that this is the Liberal Democrat view, but I have already said that the party has a clear position on the issue of hunting and that all Members in the parliamentary party have a free vote. I have also made it clear, during many hours of debate on Third Reading and on Report—the hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) may not have been around; otherwise he would know—that I favour a Bill closer to the Minister's original Bill, which included a form of regulation, than the current Bill. However, none of us is in any position to design our own Bill. There is a free vote. There could well be 659 different versions of the Bill. At the end of the day, a compromise and a judgment have to be reached. My judgment is that a number of faults could be ironed out and may be ironed out in due course, but that I will support the Bill in its current form today.
Chris Bryant: I hate to help out a Liberal Democrat when he is creating a fudge, as the hon. Gentleman seems to be doing now. However, does he agree that the real problem about the relationship between our Chamber and the second Chamber, with respect to the Parliament Act, is that many people in the country who do not follow every jot and tittle of what we do in Parliament see us vote successively with significant majorities in favour of a ban on hunting, yet still it never comes to pass, which undermines parliamentary democracy?
Andrew George: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman has a greater knowledge of the implications of the Parliament Act than the Liberal Democrats and I do. He is certainly right to recognise that the general population would be astounded to think that an unelected House of Lords could overrule the House of Commons.
Mr. Crispin Blunt: Is not the key issue one of parliamentary democracy in a bicameral system? This is a moral question, which is why there is a free vote with no fixed party positions. The issue is similar to

1299
abortion and assisted dying, where it is for individuals to reach their own point of view. The Government are required to provide parliamentary time for such issues to pass. However, the other Chamber should also endorse the legislative changes when they are as controversial as this issue, abortion or assisted dying. There should be a triple lock—both Chambers and the Government making time for legislation—before we start removing the liberties that have been held by substantial minorities for so long.
Andrew George: I agree that we should be cautious about how we proceed, but my reading of the House of Lords debate on Second Reading and in Committee is that nothing new was brought to the overall debate that had not already been argued in the House of Commons. If I thought that there were significant matters that we had not considered prior to the debate in the other place, my attitude would be different. It is a question of judgment. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman has read the House of Lords debate, but I can assure him I found nothing new in it. I believe that the Lords are engaged in simple obstruction of the settled will of this democratic Chamber.
The hon. Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt) also referred to the issue of liberty, which has been repeated by many hon. Members in their contributions to the debate. It is quite interesting that that issue has been presented—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman just mentioned the time that we might have for the Second Reading debate. We will have more time for that if hon. Members deal quickly with the procedure motion. I ask him and future speakers to make sure that their remarks relate to that motion.
Andrew George: I am grateful for that advice, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The point that I was making about the procedural motion has to do with the extent to which we in this Chamber have the right to question the approach taken by the House of Lords to defending the apparent liberties of alleged minorities. I want to address that issue, but I shall take your advice and save my comments on liberty and minority rights until the Second Reading debate.
2.10 pm
Phil Sawford: We are discussing procedure and urgency in this debate, but I was concerned to learn this morning that people wearing masks were in a vehicle outside my home last night. The vehicle apparently contained some sacks of manure and there appears to have been an intention to carry out an illegal or criminal act around my home. It seems that the people in the vehicle left when they saw police cars arrive, but that is not surprising as I live two doors along from a police station.
I was surprised to learn that the local media had colluded in this disgraceful attempt to harass and intimidate my family. I was even more concerned to learn from a local reporter that the people involved initially got the wrong address, which would have meant that their target would have been my parents' home rather than mine. My father is 79 years old, and my
1300
mother, who has a heart condition, is 78. Those masked intruders were planning to intimidate and harass the wrong people.
I come now to the question of procedure. I suspect that the people to whom I have referred are not representative of the vast majority of hunt supporters and that they belong to some kind of lunatic fringe. However, I think that there is a degree of urgency about this matter if that is the way such people are going to act in an attempt to intimidate—nay, terrorise—the families of Members who speak in this Chamber. The sooner we bring this matter to a conclusion, the better.
It is important for us to deal with the procedural question and enshrine the decision of this Chamber in the law of the land. We must implement that decision at the earliest opportunity, in the hope that we can prevent further examples of the sort of activity that took place yesterday evening outside my constituency home. The Under-Secretary of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Corby (Mr. Hope), is a constituent of mine, and I understand that his family were subjected to similar treatment. The people involved left when they saw some police vehicles.
Mr. Banks: The hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) thinks that that is funny.
Phil Sawford: I regret that such intimidation of Members' families seems to amuse certain Opposition Members. This is an urgent matter and I beg the House to resolve it today.
Mr. Heald: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Of course no one on these Benches would dream of countenancing or supporting any sort of criminal activity or misbehaviour, but my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) just remarked to me that not much was being said about procedural matters. Many hon. Members wish to speak on Second Reading, when there will be an eight-minute limit. Is it really in order for the hon. Member for Kettering (Phil Sawford) to plough on talking about other things?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I think that the hon. Gentleman can safely leave such matters to the Chair.
2.14 pm
Sir Patrick Cormack: Of course no hon. Member would ever condone the sort of actions to which the hon. Member for Kettering (Phil Sawford) referred, regardless of his or her position on the procedure motion or the substantive issue facing us today.
I want to refer to the admirable and courageous speech made by the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman), who has now left the Chamber. It is not easy to speak against one's own side or the majority of one's colleagues, as I know from experience. The hon. Member for West Ham (Mr. Banks) knows that I spoke out in favour of retaining the Greater London council when it was being abolished, and the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), who is not here, knows that I voted against the closure of the coal mines. I therefore know what it is like to be in a minority. I want to urge

1301
Labour Members, and those on my side who are in favour of this Bill, to pause for a moment to consider the consequences of this procedural motion.
We are discussing this motion for one reason only—the embarrassment of the Prime Minister. On the one hand, he is constantly being reminded of the off-the-cuff commitment that he gave in a television interview; on the other, he feels somewhat beleaguered among Labour Members as a result of policies that many of his colleagues do not like. It so happens that I am one of his great supporters on the most important of those policies, but that is neither here nor there. The Prime Minister's Iraq policy is very unpopular among Labour Members, and he feels that he has got to give them some red meat. He has therefore authorised his business managers to bring in this extraordinary procedural motion, and in so doing he has deprived the House of a proper opportunity to discuss the Bill.
That course of action appears all the more disgraceful when we remember that the original Bill introduced by the Minister for Rural Affairs and Local Environmental Quality was markedly different from the one that we are discussing today. I give credit to the Minister because he tried very hard to fight his corner.
Mr. David Cameron: Not that hard.
Sir Patrick Cormack: My hon. Friend says that the Minister did not try that hard, but that is a matter for debate and discussion. It would not be appropriate to go into the matter in this debate on the procedure motion. If we did so, I am sure that Mr. Deputy Speaker would pull me up short, and quite right too.
Whether or not the Minister tried very hard to get the original Bill through the House, he eventually gave up the attempt and became a convert to the theory of the total ban. As a result, the Bill under consideration today is very different from the one that he commended to the House last year. He is introducing it with the protection of the most draconian procedural motion that we have had to debate in this Parliament. The Minister is depriving this House of an opportunity to hold a proper Second Reading debate, and of having any debate at all in Standing Committee.
There is absolutely no reason for the Minister to adopt that course of action. My hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald), the shadow Leader of the House, made an admirable speech, and I intervened on him to make the point that, over the past few years, the House—wisely or unwisely—has introduced a raft of so-called modernisation measures. It is no secret among colleagues on either side of the House that I am deeply unsympathetic to many of those changes, but the fact is that they have been brought in. One of those changes means that we can now carry over Bills into a new Session to a much greater extent than before.
It would have been entirely consistent with the Government's so-called modernisation theory if, instead of commending this motion to the House, the Minister had commended a carry-over motion. That would have been much more respectful of Parliament and of the rural minority. The members of that minority feel beleaguered and aggrieved, as the economy is a long way from being as buoyant as was alleged earlier today.
1302
After all, this Parliament has almost two years left to run. In many quarters, it is suggested that the Prime Minister is likely to decide that he does not want to go on for another two years and that he will go to the country on the day of next year's county council elections, which will be held on 5 May. Even if that is his preferred option—we would not expect him to tell us the date at this stage—we have a state opening of Parliament fixed for 23 November. Another Queen's Speech will be presented, and there is no reason at all why this Bill could not be proceeded with in this Session in a more seemly and proper manner in both Houses and carried over to the next Session.
David Winnick: May I clear up one point, which is the one about the Prime Minister bringing the Bill back because of Iraq? Many of us who supported the Government's policy on that issue, and who continue to do so, were among those who at every opportunity, be it Prime Minister's questions, business questions or whatever, pressed for the Parliament Act to be used. Not one of my colleagues—not one—who takes an opposite view about the war would change his or her mind because of what is now being done. It is absolute fiction to say that the only reason the Bill is before us is that the Prime Minister wants to curry support within the parliamentary party.
Sir Patrick Cormack: I suggested not that it was the only reason, but that it was a contributory reason, and I am firmly convinced that it is. The urban masses on the Labour Benches do not understand—do not want to understand—the ways of the countryside. You, Mr. Deputy Speaker, sit for a largely rural constituency, but we must remember that the majority of our people live in towns, or near them. The majority of people in the world, I heard on the "Today" programme this morning or yesterday—it must be true, therefore—will be urban well before the middle of the century. Does not that make it more incumbent than ever on those of us who represent all our people to have a particular regard for that rural minority on whom we depend so much for sustenance?
Mr. Henry Bellingham: The people whom my hon. Friend has mentioned will have their democratic rights taken away because the Bill is not going to be debated. Surely the Government usually put a Bill through all its stages in one day only when there is an emergency or where something has suddenly cropped up or there is all-party agreement when the House is proroguing, yet they have known about this Bill for months and months and months.
Sir Patrick Cormack: Those points have already been made very powerfully by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) in a most magnificent speech. Of course, that is true, but it is much more serious than that. What we seek to do today is to use a parliamentary steamroller—that is what the procedural motion is—to criminalise a very large number of extremely law-abiding people, upon whom, to a large degree, the fabric of rural society depends.

1303
I tried today to get in at Prime Minister's questions. I make no complaint about the fact that I was not called, but what I was going to ask the Prime Minister was whether he would vote to criminalise large sections of the rural community. At a time when law and order rightly dominates the postbags and surgery time of most Members of Parliament, is it sensible to introduce a whole range of criminal acts when those acts are at the moment entirely legal, and to do it, moreover, in this procedural way?
Mr. Banks: The hon. Gentleman is a great expert on constitutional and parliamentary matters, and we defer to him in that respect and listen carefully to what he says. Surely, though, Parliament does not criminalise people. We pass legislation, and if individuals then decide to defy the law, as democratically carried through, they criminalise themselves. We make certain things unlawful, but if people persist in doing them, they criminalise themselves.
Sir Patrick Cormack: Let me make one thing plain. I have made the point to friends in my constituency and in the Countryside Alliance that I have not, do not and never will condone the breaking of the law, however stupid that law may be. What I have just said is still entirely valid and relevant, however. At the moment, country sports are legal, and I am proud today to wear the tie of the Countryside Alliance. Country sports are legal, and what we are saying to the responsible, animal-loving, animal-caring people who practise our country sports—no section of our community loves or cares for animals and wildlife more than these people do—is that we are going to make what they do criminal. In a moral sense, I believe that it is criminal to do that, and all of us ought to pause before we do it.
Mr. Heald: Does my hon. Friend agree that there is also an essential issue of trust between the people and the Government? If the Government believe that the Bill is unworkable, as the Minister has said, and unenforceable, as the Secretary of State has said, how can the Government use this steamroller mechanism to criminalise people with a defective Bill?
Sir Patrick Cormack: My hon. Friend reinforces the very point that I have made. What we are doing in this extraordinarily tight procedural motion is proceeding on a Bill that will make the lives of the police force of this country, particularly in the rural areas, almost impossible.
Chris Bryant: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Sir Patrick Cormack:In a moment, if the hon. Gentleman will just contain himself.
I have talked to police officers—senior police officers, at that—who of course will have no option but to enforce the law, if this becomes the law, but who say that it will take their eye off many things, such as rural burglary, vandalism and all those other crimes that bedevil society in our constituencies. I have the honour to represent a number of rural villages, but not a single one is not defaced by vandalism and nuisance crime, and not a single one has adequate policing from the point of view of numbers, whatever the Prime Minister and the
1304
Home Secretary may protest from that Dispatch Box. Yet here we are, making the life of the police more and more difficult.
Chris Bryant: The hon. Gentleman has a deserved reputation in the House for standing up for the rights of Back Benchers and for the Chamber vis-à-vis the Government, yet he seems to be arguing, as several other hon. Members have, that if this Bill were the Government's Bill, unamended—the Minister's original Bill—there would be a greater reason for using the Parliament Act. Surely it makes more sense when this Chamber has spoken through the will of ordinary Back Benchers that the Parliament Act should apply.
Sir Patrick Cormack: I do not agree. I said earlier, intervening on my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hertfordshire, that I have been profoundly unhappy about the use of the Parliament Act in recent years. I was one of those who spoke out very forcefully, having voted against the War Crimes Bill, on the use of the Parliament Act—in that case, by a Conservative Government. If that was bad, and I believe that it was, this is a thousand times worse. To use the Parliament Act in a manipulative way, having sacrificed a Government measure and superimposed a private Member's measure on top of it, is frankly indefensible. It is all the more indefensible when there is readily available the procedural device of the carry-over. The Minister seeks to intervene, and I shall of course allow him to do so, but let him respond to that point.
Alun Michael: There is no need for carry-over, because there is no need for additional time. The Bill had a Committee stage when it was last before the House. No other Bill to which the Parliament Act has applied has ever had a Committee stage the second time around, even the Bills of major constitutional importance in 1913. The point I make is that the Parliament Act is intended to resolve conflict between the two Houses; it is not about the importance of the relative issues. I would also invite him to encourage his friends in the Countryside Alliance, of which he said he was a member, to encourage its members to start to recognise the importance of the rule of law and to reconcile themselves to the possibility of legislation. I hope that by his words he will do nothing to suggest that people ought to break the law.
Sir Patrick Cormack: I have already made that point, and I have made it many times inside and outside this House. The Minister is suffering from self-induced amnesia. He introduced a Bill that was totally transformed in Committee. Now he is introducing another Bill. For him to do that when the weapon of carry-over is at his disposal, and to force through this procedural motion in one brief afternoon—one brief part of one brief afternoon, indeed—is, in fact, an insult to Parliament.
The hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant), who is now engaging in personal conversation rather than listening to the debate, was kind enough to say that I was something of a champion of Parliament and its rights. I am honoured to be thought of in such terms. I believe passionately in this place and in the totality of Parliament, including the other place. This House has a

1305
duty to itself to use its most powerful weapons exceptionally sparingly. Today, we are doing precisely the opposite.
Mr. Banks: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Sir Patrick Cormack: I will give way for the third time to my old but misguided friend.
Mr. Banks: It is because the hon. Gentleman is making so many interesting points that people want to intervene. Those who favour using the Parliament Act in this case do so because they agree with the Bill, and those who disagree do not want to use the Act. I would be in favour of using the Parliament Act if this Chamber passed a measure—by the majority that it did on hunting—that I totally opposed, on the ground that I believe in principle that this Chamber's will must always prevail over that of the unelected Chamber. If this House had been unanimous on the issue, would the hon. Gentleman support the use of the Parliament Act? Is the issue numbers or principle?
Sir Patrick Cormack: It is a matter of principle. The principle is that the Parliament Act, which is the last weapon in the armoury of this House, should be used only very sparingly and for the most important issues. Strong views are honourably held on both sides of this debate. We know that the Liberal Democrats are divided, I have colleagues who want a ban and there are brave proponents of hunting on the Labour Benches. However, the subject is not of paramount importance in the national consciousness. I had a snack earlier in the Tea Room—[Interruption.] On this occasion, it was a little snack. A Member from another party—I shall not embarrass him by identifying him—sat with me and I asked him his view of the issue. He said, "Well, if I had to list the 250 most important topics for my constituents, hunting would come 639th." Most of our constituents do not believe that the issue is of such paramount importance that it justifies Parliament using its ultimate weapon.
I end with an appeal to those who desperately want to ban hunting. Their first and foremost duty as parliamentarians is to the parliamentary integrity of this place. They are not serving that ideal today. In the words of Cromwell, I say to them
"I beseech you … think it possible you may be mistaken."
2.33 pm
Mr. John Greenway: I have listened to this debate for almost two hours and I think that we should confine our remarks to the issue of the procedure motion. It is because I take fundamental objection to elements of the motion that I have sought to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Those in favour of a ban on hunting seem to think that this House has discharged all its obligations by voting in favour of a total ban. The fact that some of us profoundly disagree with that is irrelevant to my point, because it is equally clear that the Minister and many other right hon. and hon. Members have reached the view that the Bill, as it stands, is deficient.
1306
If we believe in the integrity of this Chamber, we should accept that it should be this Chamber that seeks to address the deficiencies in the Bill, not the other place. We are not allowed to so because if we amend the Bill the Parliament Acts cannot be used. For that reason, the procedure motion is a constitutional outrage: we are being denied the opportunity of a Committee stage on this Bill. I am willing to accept that if we had a Committee of the whole House for two or three days, during which we debated some of the issues about which we feel passionately—some of them are contained in hurried amendments tabled by my right hon. and hon. Friends and other hon. Members—we might not win any of the votes, given the views of most of the governing party. But at least we would have fulfilled our constitutional responsibility to argue the matter in this House on behalf of our constituents. We are being denied that opportunity.
Labour Members should think long and hard before they support the motion. They should divorce the motion from the issue and think about other issues on which Back Benchers have strong opinions—such as abortion or assisted death and euthanasia. What would happen if we had a free vote on one of those issues, the other place came to a different view and the Government of the day denied this Chamber a Committee stage and rammed through a measure that divided the country, let alone both Houses and Members on both sides?
We should not approve the motion because that would undermine our reason for being here.
Mr. Cameron: My hon. Friend makes a powerful case, but the situation is even worse than he suggests. Through this motion, we are being asked to treat the Bill as if it has been through Committee stage. We are being asked to sign up to the sort of lie that would not be out of place in a banana republic Parliament or even in a dictatorship. That is the outrage.
Mr. Greenway: I am grateful for that intervention, because that was the point that I intended to make. However, it is obvious that there is disagreement about whether and to what extent there has been Committee stage consideration of the changes that were introduced on Report last time. I agree with my hon. Friend that the consideration was unsatisfactory and inadequate, and we should have a Committee stage now to do the job properly. Everyone knows that the view of the police is that some of the provisions and the schedule are flawed. Indeed, it is apparent from what the Minister has said—he encouraged the other place to make suggestions to make the Bill more workable and to address the deficiencies—that he accepts that the Bill is deficient. Why then should we rely on an unelected Chamber to change the Bill? We should endeavour to change it ourselves.
I have tried to keep off the subject of hunting and talk purely about the motion and the precedent that will be set if we approve it. I happen to have in my constituency many people whose livelihoods and way of life will be wrecked if the Bill goes through. It is my constitutional right and responsibility to speak for them. The best way in which to discharge that right is to vote against this motion. Many Labour Back Benchers who will no doubt troop through the Lobby to support the motion

1307
will live to rue the day, because it will set a precedent which future Governments will use against other interests.
I believe that we are not fulfilling our constitutional duty to examine legislation thoroughly. We are not being allowed to do so by a Government who seem to think that they can gain political advantage from the manoeuvres of the past few days and from what is happening today. If there is to be a delay of 18 months or two years in implementing the measure, it is inevitable that the next general election will be fought on the issue in constituencies up and down the land. That is not right in itself, and if Labour Members think it will advantage them, they have another think coming.
Millions of people know that if the ban goes through, shooting and angling will be next. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no."] They will. There is not a shadow of doubt about that. There will be a formidable body of opinion against the Prime Minister. Furthermore, many people—whether or not they like hunting, shooting or fishing—believe that the measure undermines personal liberty and people's livelihoods, and they take grave exception to that. The measure does not give the Government such a straightforward political advantage as they think.
Lembit Öpik: In that context, does the hon. Gentleman agree that the great problem with the procedure that we are being offered is that it will squeeze out opportunities to present convincing arguments to people who support hunting? We have neither the space nor the time to do that. As we know that the country has been persuaded to oppose the ban, there is some hope that, through the use of proper procedure, at least those logical Members of Parliament who are not blinded by prejudice could be persuaded, too.
Mr. Greenway: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that intervention, as it gives me the opportunity to observe that, unlike many of his colleagues, he has earned great respect for his work on the measure during his years in this place.
I conclude by again urging the House to think carefully about accepting the motion. Members must divorce it in their mind from the issue of hunting and consider only that if they support the motion they will be using a sledgehammer to crush minority interests and that, next time, they may be on its receiving end.
2.42 pm
Lembit Öpik: Every day when we start our business in the Chamber we say a prayer. It includes the words that Members should
"never lead the nation wrongly through love of power, desire to please, or unworthy ideals, but laying aside all private interests and prejudices keep in mind their responsibility to seek to improve the condition of all mankind".
I am sure that many people simply go through the words, but when we think about them they mean that we must be objective about our decisions. Crucially, we must be willing to make decisions that are in line with our values, even if they are against our feelings. Sometimes that is easy, and often there is not even a vote in this place. However, sometimes it is hard and we end up with stalemate.
1308
When there is stalemate between this place and the upper House, it is incumbent on us to ask why. It is not hard to see why on this occasion, because the entire debate has been characterised by strong emotions and sincerely held views. In addition, procedural issues have arisen from the content of the Bill. Indeed, when dramatic changes to the previous Bill occurred on Report, the Minister for Rural Affairs and Local Environmental Quality said that we should resist them, as they would wreck the Bill's architecture.
It is hardly surprising that so many Members are unhappy about the procedure motion. I hope that Members will listen to my contribution, which is a sincere request that we be given the space to make a rational decision. I hope that we shall win and I shall explain my request.
One of the greatest difficulties is that emotions never run higher than in the Chamber. The eyes of the nation are occasionally upon us and proceedings in the Chamber lend themselves to strong feelings and a confrontational mode. Sometimes we hear great insights, but at other times, long monologues of self-belief. By comparison, our Committees have been much more constructive; they have not been quite so provocative and there has been a degree of consensus on some issues—for example, compensation.
The one day—3 July 2004—allowed for us to debate the recommitted Bill showed that there was potential for development if we were given time. My hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Andrew George) highlighted the fact that there are a number of faults to be ironed out. My first point, therefore, is that even those who support the ban feel that there are faults that could be ironed out, but how and when are we to do that? It will obviously be of great significance to the thousands of people massed outside this place to understand the processes the Government propose to iron out those faults. To date, I have heard nothing better than the possibility of a Committee.
Secondly, we have already discussed the role of the Lords in the matter; it has been said that the Lords frustrated the will of the House. That is true. A majority of Members of this place voted for a ban and the upper House came to a different view. However, we must ask why—[Interruption.]
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. General conversations are breaking out in the Chamber. I should be grateful if hon. Members would do the hon. Gentleman the courtesy of listening to his remarks.
Lembit Öpik: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It will not take me long to make my points.
Why did the Lords hold out on the issue to such an extent? I hope that those who are in favour of a ban, as well as those who are opposed, will accept that in many cases it is because their lordships sincerely hold a different view and have a different interpretation of their personal principles. That leads them to oppose a ban and to propose regulation or some other method. From a procedural point of view, it is thus not appropriate for the Minister to suggest that the threat of using the Parliament Act should prevent the upper House from interfering with the content of the Bill.

1309
We have all accepted that there are flaws in the Bill. Why not give the upper House the space to amend it? Of course, we know why not: because the Government want to use the Parliament Act and I shall not go into their motives for that. However, it is a great regret that we do not have the opportunity to amend the Bill and that much of our debate has ended up being criticism of the Lords.
Labour Members are not in a position to criticise the legitimacy, or illegitimacy, of decisions by the upper House. They should bear it in mind that they have presided over modifications to the other place, as defined by the Prime Minister's preference. We have a House of Lords designed by the Government, so it is not appropriate for them to criticise its condition.
Sir Patrick Cormack: Is not it also true that about 300 of those Members of the House of Lords were put there by the Prime Minister?
Lembit Öpik: Indeed. That is a fair point.
We are where we are as a result of decisions made by the Prime Minister and others, so we need to be cautious about criticising the upper House as being wholly unacceptable. If it is, it is the result of decisions made by the Government.
When a Lords Member said that these circumstances were an affront to democracy, I suspect that, because they felt so strongly about the issue, they felt frustrated that the Commons were not listening and were unwilling to compromise—[Interruption.] Other Members may disagree, but I shall not pursue the matter.
My third and last point is that we have a choice: whether to have the courage to find the right answer or simply to force through the answer before us today. I am sure that my views do not have the support of everybody in the House, but we must all agree that the measure involves a restriction of civil liberties. No one can deny that.
There are also questions about animal suffering. I believe that if the Bill is passed, there will be an increase in animal suffering rather than a reduction. There are problems such as how a dog will differentiate hares and rabbits when it is chasing them and a host of other things that we need to discuss on Second Reading. The difficulty is that I can see no stage in the process when, in fairness to Members on both sides, we can look at the arguments in the same detail as we do in Committee. If we do not look at them, we shall end up with a defective Bill that does not even achieve what those in favour of a ban on hunting with dogs want. Let us bear it in mind that the Bill does not ban hunting with dogs; it bans the hunting of foxes and stags with dogs, but not the hunting of rabbits or rats.
I really hope that, with the benefit of reflection on this discussion and hindsight on what has gone before this debate, it does take changing one's point of view on the substantive question of banning hunting with dogs to
1310
recognise that the procedure motion is defective and that it will not achieve the outcome that any hon. Member wants, simply because we do not have the space to do so.
I shall not go through the middle way group's proposal—I hope that we can do that, at least briefly, on Second Reading—but I conclude with this comment: this is not a debate about animal welfare unless we give ourselves the space to consider the implications on animal welfare of a ban.
A Labour Member said to me just as I was coming into the Chamber, "This is about the miners." Well, it is a great shame if people are getting mixed up. This is not about the miners; it is about the civil liberties of many people who particularly choose this pastime and, in many cases, use it as a fox-control technique, as they do in my area, and it is about animal welfare.
If fox hunting is to be banned in this way, let us bear it in mind that, because of the precedent set by the House, future Governments of this or another persuasion can use it as a precedent. That precedent could come back and bite those very people who may be on the winning side this time.
The stalemate between the upper and lower Houses indicates that there is something seriously wrong with the Bill. To force it through without consensus is a victory of prejudice, in my judgment, and a failure of intellectual integrity. Those in the pro-ban lobby can win the vote today, but they cannot pretend that, by stifling the debate and ignoring the existence of alternative views, they have won the argument. British citizens are fair-minded and they do not like injustice, but the procedure motion leads us towards a Bill that is not fair and can be unjust.
In my judgment, therefore, the procedure motion and the Bill are illiberal. They do not take account of the change in the country's mood, given that most people do not support a ban on hunting with dogs, and certainly do not support its criminalisation. I can no more support the procedures proposed today than I can support the Bill in its current form.
2.52 pm
Bob Spink: Whatever side of the argument one is on, some points are irrefutable, and as it seems to fall to me to summarise this debate, I shall briefly go through those points, if I may, for the House.
The implications of the Bill are momentous. It will criminalise the practices of thousands of good people; it will destroy tens of thousands of jobs; and, on balance, it will not improve animal welfare for the horse, the hound or, indeed, the fox. The issues concerned are devilishly complex. The time given to consider the Bill is ridiculously inadequate. The Committee and Report stages on the Bill—a different Bill has been considered previously—are to be excluded. Hon. Members' amendments will not be allowed. The Parliament Acts will be used. All those matters ride roughshod over our parliamentary procedures and our democracy.

1311
The motion is indeed an affront to our democracy. It is pandering to the worst and self-interested political manoeuvring of the Prime Minister. If the motion is approved, this will be a very bad day—not just for democracy, but for the House—and it will result in flawed legislation. We should reject the motion and vote to uphold the reputation of the House.
Mr. Bob Ainsworth rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.
Question put, That the Question be now put:—
The House divided: Ayes 310, Noes 158.

Division No. 246]

[2.54 pm

Ayes

Abbott, Ms Diane

Chaytor, David

Adams, Irene (Paisley N)

Chidgey, David

Ainger, Nick

Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

Clark, Dr. Lynda (Edinburgh

Allan, Richard

Pentlands)

Allen, Graham

Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

Anderson, rh Donald (Swansea E)

Clarke, rh Tom (Coatbridge &

Anderson, Janet (Rossendale &

Chryston)

Darwen)

Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

Armstrong, rh Ms Hilary

Clelland, David

Atherton, Ms Candy

Coffey, Ms Ann

Bailey, Adrian

Connarty, Michael

Baker, Norman

Corbyn, Jeremy

Banks, Tony

Corston, Jean

Barnes, Harry

Cox, Tom (Tooting)

Barrett, John

Cranston, Ross

Barron, rh Kevin

Crausby, David

Battle, John

Cruddas, Jon

Bayley, Hugh

Cryer, Ann (Keighley)

Beard, Nigel

Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

Beckett, rh Margaret

Cummings, John

Bell, Sir Stuart

Cunningham, rh Dr. Jack

Bennett, Andrew

(Copeland)

Berry, Roger

Cunningham, Jim (Coventry S)

Best, Harold

Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

Betts, Clive

Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

Blackman, Liz

Darling, rh Alistair

Blizzard, Bob

Davey, Edward (Kingston)

Blunkett, rh David

Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

Boateng, rh Paul

David, Wayne

Bradley, rh Keith (Withington)

Davidson, Ian

Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

Davies, rh Denzil (Llanelli)

Bradshaw, Ben

Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

Brake, Tom (Carshalton)

Dawson, Hilton

Brennan, Kevin

Dean, Mrs Janet

Brooke, Mrs Annette L.

Dhanda, Parmjit

Brown, rh Nicholas (Newcastle E

Dobson, rh Frank

Wallsend)

Doran, Frank

Bryant, Chris

Dowd, Jim (Lewisham W)

Burnham, Andy

Drown, Ms Julia

Burstow, Paul

Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

Cable, Dr. Vincent

Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

Caborn, rh Richard

Edwards, Huw

Cairns, David

Efford, Clive

Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

Farrelly, Paul

Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

Fitzpatrick, Jim

Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

Caplin, Ivor

Flint, Caroline

Carmichael, Alistair

Foster, rh Derek

Casale, Roger

Foster, Don (Bath)

Caton, Martin

Foster, Michael (Worcester)

Cawsey, Ian (Brigg)

Gapes, Mike (Ilford S)

Challen, Colin

Gardiner, Barry

Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

George, Andrew (St. Ives)

1312

George, rh Bruce (Walsall S)

McCabe, Stephen

Gerrard, Neil

McCartney, rh Ian

Gibson, Dr. Ian

McDonagh, Siobhain

Gidley, Sandra

MacDonald, Calum

Gill, Parmjit Singh

MacDougall, John

Goggins, Paul

McFall, rh John

Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

McIsaac, Shona

Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

McKechin, Ann

Grogan, John

McKenna, Rosemary

Hain, rh Peter

Mackinlay, Andrew

Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

McNamara, Kevin

Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

McNulty, Tony

Hancock, Mike

MacShane, Denis

Hanson, David

Mactaggart, Fiona

Harris, Dr. Evan (Oxford W &

McWalter, Tony

Abingdon)

McWilliam, John

Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

Mahmood, Khalid

Havard, Dai (Merthyr Tydfil &

Mallaber, Judy

Rhymney)

Mann, John (Bassetlaw)

Healey, John

Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

Marshall, David (Glasgow

Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

Shettleston)

Hendrick, Mark

Martlew, Eric

Hepburn, Stephen

Meacher, rh Michael

Heppell, John

Michael, rh Alun

Hesford, Stephen

Milburn, rh Alan

Heyes, David

Miliband, David

Hill, Keith (Streatham)

Miller, Andrew

Hinchliffe, David

Moffatt, Laura

Holmes, Paul

Mole, Chris

Hood, Jimmy (Clydesdale)

Moran, Margaret

Hoon, rh Geoffrey

Morgan, Julie

Hope, Phil (Corby)

Morley, Elliot

Hopkins, Kelvin

Mudie, George

Howarth, rh Alan (Newport E)

Munn, Ms Meg

Howarth, George (Knowsley N &

Murphy, rh Paul (Torfaen)

Sefton E)

Naysmith, Dr. Doug

Hoyle, Lindsay

Norris, Dan (Wansdyke)

Hughes, Beverley (Stretford &

O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

Urmston)

O'Hara, Edward

Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

Olner, Bill

Hurst, Alan (Braintree)

Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

Hutton, rh John

Owen, Albert

Iddon, Dr. Brian

Palmer, Dr. Nick

Illsley, Eric

Perham, Linda

Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead &

Pickthall, Colin

Highgate)

Pike, Peter (Burnley)

Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

Plaskitt, James

Jenkins, Brian

Pollard, Kerry

Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn

Pond, Chris (Gravesham)

Hatfield)

Pope, Greg (Hyndburn)

Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

Pound, Stephen

Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham

Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

E)

Keeble, Ms Sally

Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

Keen, Alan (Feltham)

Prescott, rh John

Kelly, Ruth (Bolton W)

Primarolo, rh Dawn

Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

Prosser, Gwyn

Khabra, Piara S.

Pugh, Dr. John

Kidney, David

Purchase, Ken

Kilfoyle, Peter

Purnell, James

King, Andy (Rugby)

Quin, rh Joyce

Knight Jim (S Dorset)

Quinn, Lawrie

Ladyman, Dr. Stephen

Rammell, Bill

Lammy, David

Rapson, Syd (Portsmouth N)

Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

Laxton, Bob (Derby N)

Reid, rh Dr. John (Hamilton N &

Lepper, David

Bellshill)

Leslie, Christopher

Rendel, David

Levitt, Tom (High Peak)

Robinson, Geoffrey (Coventry

Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

NW)

Liddell, rh Mrs Helen

Roche, Mrs Barbara

Linton, Martin

Rooney, Terry

Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

Love, Andrew

Ruddock, Joan

McAvoy, Thomas

Russell, Bob (Colchester)

1313

Russell, Ms Christine (City of

Teather, Sarah

Chester)

Thomas, Gareth (Harrow W)

Salter, Martin

Tipping, Paddy

Sanders, Adrian

Tonge, Dr. Jenny

Sarwar, Mohammad

Touhig, Don (Islwyn)

Sawford, Phil

Trickett, Jon

Sedgemore, Brian

Truswell, Paul

Shaw, Jonathan

Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

Sheridan, Jim

Turner, Dr. Desmond (Brighton

Shipley, Ms Debra

Kemptown)

Short, rh Clare

Turner, Neil (Wigan)

Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

Twigg, Derek (Halton)

Skinner, Dennis

Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

Smith, rh Andrew (Oxford E)

Tynan, Bill (Hamilton S)

Smith, Angela (Basildon)

Walley, Ms Joan

Smith, rh Chris (Islington S &

Ward, Claire

Finsbury)

Wareing, Robert N.

Smith, Geraldine (Morecambe &

Watson, Tom (W Bromwich E)

Lunesdale

Watts, David

Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

White, Brian

Smith, John (Glamorgan)

Whitehead, Dr. Alan

Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

Williams, rh Alan (Swansea W)

Spellar, rh John

Williams, Betty (Conwy)

Squire, Rachel

Willis, Phil

Starkey, Dr. Phyllis

Winnick, David

Steinberg, Gerry

Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster

Stewart, David (Inverness E &

C)

Lochaber)

Wood, Mike (Batley)

Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

Woodward, Shaun

Stoate, Dr. Howard

Woolas, Phil

Straw, rh Jack

Wright, Anthony D. (Gt

Stringer, Graham

Yarmouth)

Stuart, Ms Gisela

Wright, David (Telford)

Stunell, Andrew

Wyatt, Derek

Tami, Mark (Alyn)

Taylor, rh Ann (Dewsbury)

Tellers for the Ayes:

Taylor, Dari (Stockton S)

Vernon Coaker and

Taylor, David (NW Leics)

Gillian Merron

NOES

Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

Donaldson, Jeffrey M.

Arbuthnot, rh James

Dorrell, rh Stephen

Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

Doughty, Sue

Baldry, Tony

Duncan, Alan (Rutland)

Baron, John (Billericay)

Fabricant, Michael

Beggs, Roy (E Antrim)

Field, Mark (Cities of London &

Beith, rh A. J.

Westminster)

Bellingham, Henry

Fisher, Mark

Bercow, John

Flight, Howard

Beresford, Sir Paul

Flook, Adrian

Blunt Crispin

Forth, rh Eric

Boswell, Tim

Francois, Mark

Brady, Graham

Gale, Roger (N Thanet)

Brazier, Julian

Gibb, Nick (Bognor Regis)

Browning, Mrs Angela

Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

Burnett, John

Goodman, Paul

Burns, Simon

Gray, James (N Wilts)

Burnside, David

Grayling, Chris

Burt, Alistair

Green, Damian (Ashford)

Butterfill, Sir John

Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

Cameron, David

Greenway, John

Campbell, Gregory (E Lond'y)

Gummer, rh John

Campbell, rh Sir Menzies (NE

Hague, rh William

Fife)

Hammond, Philip

Cash, William

Hawkins, Nick

Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping

Heald, Oliver

Barnet)

Heath, David

Clappison, James

Heathcoat-Amory, rh David

Conway, Derek

Hendry, Charles

Cormack, Sir Patrick

Hermon, Lady

Cran, James (Beverley)

Hoey, Kate (Vauxhall)

Curry, rh David

Hogg, rh Douglas

Davies, Quentin (Grantham &

Horam, John (Orpington)

Stamford)

Howard, rh Michael

Djanogly, Jonathan

Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

Dodds, Nigel

Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

1314

Hunter, Andrew

Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

Jack, rh Michael

Rosindell, Andrew

Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

Ruffley, David

Jenkin, Bernard

Sayeed, Jonathan

Johnson, Boris (Henley)

Sheerman, Barry

Keetch, Paul

Simmonds, Mark

Kennedy, rh Charles (Ross Skye &

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

Inverness)

Kincardine)

Key, Robert (Salisbury)

Smyth, Rev. Martin (Belfast S)

Kirkbride, Miss Julie

Spelman, Mrs Caroline

Knight, rh Greg (E Yorkshire)

Spicer, Sir Michael

Laing, Mrs Eleanor

Spink, Bob (Castle Point)

Lamb, Norman

Spring, Richard

Lansley, Andrew

Stanley, rh Sir John

Laws, David (Yeovil)

Steen, Anthony

Leigh, Edward

Streeter, Gary

Letwin, rh Oliver

Swayne, Desmond

Lewis, Dr. Julian (New Forest E)

Syms, Robert

Liddell-Grainger, Ian

Taylor, John (Solihull)

Lidington, David

Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

Lilley, rh Peter

Taylor, Dr. Richard (Wyre F)

Llwyd, Elfyn

Taylor, Sir Teddy

Loughton, Tim

Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

Luff, Peter (M-Worcs)

Trend, Michael

McIntosh, Miss Anne

Trimble, rh David

Mackay, rh Andrew

Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

Maclean, rh David

Tyler, Paul (N Cornwall)

McLoughlin, Patrick

Tyrie, Andrew

Malins, Humfrey

Viggers, Peter

Maples, John

Walter, Robert

Mates, Michael

Waterson, Nigel

Mitchell, Andrew (Sutton

Watkinson, Angela

Coldfield)

Webb, Steve (Northavon)

Moss, Malcolm

Whittingdale, John

Murrison, Dr. Andrew

Widdecombe, rh Miss Ann

Norman, Archie

Wiggin, Bill

O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

Wilkinson, John

Ö;pik, Lembit

Willetts, David

Osborne, George (Tatton)

Williams, Hywel (Caernarfon)

Ottaway, Richard

Williams, Roger (Brecon)

Paice, James

Winterton, Ann (Congleton)

Paterson, Owen

Winterton, Sir Nicholas

Pickles, Eric

(Macclesfield)

Portillo, rh Michael

Yeo, Tim (S Suffolk)

Price, Adam (E Carmarthen &

Young, rh Sir George

Dinefwr)

Younger-Ross, Richard

Prisk, Mark (Hertford)

Robathan, Andrew

Tellers for the Noes:

Robertson, Hugh (Faversham &

Gregory Barker and

M-Kent)

Mr. Hugo Swire

Question accordingly agreed to.
Question put, That the amendment be made:—
The House divided: Ayes 174, Noes 303.

Division No. 247]

[3:10 pm

AYES

Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

Brady, Graham

Ancram, rh Michael

Brazier, Julian

Arbuthnot, rh James

Browning, Mrs Angela

Baldry, Tony

Burnett, John

Barker, Gregory

Burns, Simon

Baron, John (Billericay)

Burnside, David

Beggs, Roy (E Antrim)

Burt, Alistair

Beith, rh A. J.

Butterfill, Sir John

Bellingham, Henry

Cable, Dr. Vincent

Bercow, John

Cameron, David

Beresford, Sir Paul

Campbell, Gregory (E Lond'y)

Blunt, Crispin

Campbell, rh Sir Menzies (NE

Boswell, Tim

Fife)

Bottomley, rh Virginia (SW

Cash, William

Surrey)

1315

Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping

Loughton, Tim

Barnet)

McIntosh, Miss Anne

Clappison, James

Mackay, rh Andrew

Clarke, rh Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

Maclean, rh David

Collins, Tim

McLoughlin, Patrick

Conway, Derek

Malins, Humfrey

Cormack, Sir Patrick

Maples, John

Cran, James (Beverley)

Mates, Michael

Curry, rh David

Mitchell, Andrew (Sutton

Davies, rh Denzil (Llanelli)

Coldfield)

Davies, Quentin (Grantham &

Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

Stamford)

Moore, Michael

Djanogly, Jonathan

Moss, Malcolm

Dodds, Nigel

Murrison, Dr. Andrew

Donaldson, Jeffrey M.

Norman, Archie

Dorrell, rh Stephen

O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

Doughty, Sue

Ö;pik, Lembit

Fabricant, Michael

Osborne, George (Tatton)

Field, Mark (Cities of London &

Ottaway, Richard

Westminster)

Page, Richard

Fisher, Mark

Paice, James

Flight, Howard

Paterson, Owen

Flook, Adrian

Pickles, Eric

Forth, rh Eric

Portillo, rh Michael

Foster, Don (Bath)

Price, Adam (E Carmarthen &

Francois, Mark

Dinefwr)

Gale, Roger (N Thanet)

Prisk, Mark (Hertford)

Gibb, Nick (Bognor Regis)

Robathan, Andrew

Gidley, Sandra

Robertson, Hugh (Faversham &

Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

M-Kent)

Goodman, Paul

Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

Gray, James (N Wilts)

Rosindell, Andrew

Green, Damian (Ashford)

Ruffley, David

Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

Sayeed, Jonathan

Greenway, John

Sheerman, Barry

Gummer, rh John

Simmonds, Mark

Hague, rh William

Simpson, Keith (M-Norfolk)

Hammond, Philip

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

Harris, Dr. Evan (Oxford W &

Kincardine)

Abingdon)

Smyth, Rev. Martin (Belfast S)

Harvey, Nick

Spelman, Mrs Caroline

Hawkins, Nick

Spicer, Sir Michael

Heald, Oliver

Spink, Bob (Castle Point)

Heath, David

Spring, Richard

Heathcoat-Amory, rh David

Stanley, rh Sir John

Hendry, Charles

Steen, Anthony

Hermon, Lady

Streeter, Gary

Hoey, Kate (Vauxhall)

Swayne, Desmond

Hogg, rh Douglas

Swire, Hugo (E Devon)

Horam, John (Orpington)

Syms, Robert

Howard, rh Michael

Taylor, John (Solihull)

Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

Taylor, Dr. Richard (Wyre F)

Hunter, Andrew

Taylor, Sir Teddy

Jack, rh Michael

Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

Tredinnick, David

Jenkin, Bernard

Trend, Michael

Johnson, Boris (Henley)

Trimble, rh David

Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

Keetch, Paul

Tyler, Paul (N Cornwall)

Kennedy, rh Charles (Ross Skye &

Tyrie, Andrew

Inverness)

Viggers, Peter

Key, Robert (Salisbury)

Walter, Robert

Kirkbride, Miss Julie

Waterson, Nigel

Knight, rh Greg (E Yorkshire)

Watkinson, Angela

Laing, Mrs Eleanor

Webb, Steve (Northavon)

Lamb, Norman

Whittingdale, John

Lansley, Andrew

Widdecombe, rh Miss Ann

Laws, David (Yeovil)

Wiggin, Bill

Leigh, Edward

Wilkinson, John

Letwin, rh Oliver

Willetts, David

Lewis, Dr. Julian (New Forest E)

Williams, Hywel (Caernarfon)

Liddell-Grainger, Ian

Williams, Roger (Brecon)

Lidington, David

Willis, Phil

Lilley, rh Peter

Wilshire, David

Llwyd, Elfyn

Winterton, Ann (Congleton)

1316

Winterton, Sir Nicholas

Younger-Ross, Richard

(Macclesfield)

Tellers for the Ayes:

Yeo, Tim (S Suffolk)

Mr. Peter Luff and

Young, rh Sir George

Mr. Peter Atkinson

NOES

Abbott, Ms Diane

Crausby, David

Adams, Irene (Paisley N)

Cruddas, Jon

Ainger, Nick

Cryer, Ann (Keighley)

Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

Allan, Richard

Cummings, John

Allen, Graham

Cunningham, rh Dr. Jack

Anderson, rh Donald (Swansea E)

(Copeland)

Anderson, Janet (Rossendale &

Cunningham, Jim (Coventry S)

Darwen)

Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

Armstrong, rh Ms Hilary

Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

Atherton, Ms Candy

Davey, Edward (Kingston)

Bailey, Adrian

Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

Baker, Norman

David, Wayne

Banks, Tony

Davidson, Ian

Barnes, Harry

Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

Barrett, John

Dawson, Hilton

Barron, rh Kevin

Dean, Mrs Janet

Battle, John

Dhanda, Parmjit

Bayley, Hugh

Dobson, rh Frank

Beard, Nigel

Doran, Frank

Beckett, rh Margaret

Dowd, Jim (Lewisham W)

Bell, Sir Stuart

Drown, Ms Julia

Bennett, Andrew

Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

Berry, Roger

Eagle Maria (L'pool Garston)

Best, Harold

Edwards, Huw

Betts, Clive

Efford, Clive

Blackman, Liz

Farrelly, Paul

Blizzard, Bob

Fitzpatrick, Jim

Boateng, rh Paul

Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

Bradley, rh Keith (Withington)

Flint, Caroline

Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

Foster, rh Derek

Bradshaw, Ben

Foster, Michael (Worcester)

Brake, Tom (Carshalton)

Gapes, Mike (Ilford S)

Brennan, Kevin

Gardiner, Barry

Brooke, Mrs Annette L.

George, Andrew (St. Ives)

Brown, rh Nicholas (Newcastle E

George, rh Bruce (Walsall S)

Wallsend)

Gerrard, Neil

Bryant, Chris

Gibson, Dr. Ian

Burnham, Andy

Gill, Parmjit Singh

Burstow, Paul

Gilroy, Linda

Byrne, Liam (B'ham Hodge H)

Goggins, Paul

Caborn, rh Richard

Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

Cairns, David

Grogan, John

Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

Hain, rh Peter

Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

Caplin, Ivor

Hancock, Mike

Carmichael, Alistair

Hanson, David

Casale, Roger

Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

Caton, Martin

Havard, Dai (Merthyr Tydfil &

Cawsey, Ian (Brigg)

Rhymney)

Challen, Colin

Healey, John

Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

Chaytor, David

Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

Chidgey, David

Hendrick, Mark

Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

Hepburn, Stephen

Clark, Dr. Lynda (Edinburgh

Heppell, John

Pentlands)

Hesford, Stephen

Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

Heyes, David

Clarke, rh Tom (Coatbridge &

Hill, Keith (Streatham)

Chryston)

Hinchliffe, David

Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

Holmes, Paul

Clelland, David

Hood, Jimmy (Clydesdale)

Coffey, Ms Ann

Hoon, rh Geoffrey

Connarty, Michael

Hope, Phil (Corby)

Corbyn, Jeremy

Hopkins, Kelvin

Corston, Jean

Howarth, rh Alan (Newport E)

Cox, Tom (Tooting)

Howarth, George (Knowsley N &

Cranston, Ross

Sefton E)

1317

Hoyle, Lindsay

O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

Hughes, Beverley (Stretford &

O'Hara, Edward

Urmston)

Olner, Bill

Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

Hurst, Alan (Braintree)

Owen, Albert

Hutton, rh John

Palmer, Dr. Nick

Illsley, Eric

Perham, Linda

Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead &

Pickthall, Colin

Highgate)

Pike, Peter (Burnley)

Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

Plaskitt, James

Jenkins, Brian

Pollard, Kerry

Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn

Pond, Chris (Gravesham)

Hatfield)

Pope, Greg Hyndburn)

Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

Pound, Stephen

Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham

Joyce, Eric (Falkirk W)

E)

Keen, Alan (Feltham)

Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

Kelly, Ruth (Bolton W)

Prescott, rh John

Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

Primarolo, rh Dawn

Khabra, Piara S.

Prosser, Gwyn

Kidney, David

Pugh, Dr. John

Kilfoyle, Peter

Purchase, Ken

King, Andy (Rugby)

Purnell, James

Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

Quin, rh Joyce

Ladyman, Dr. Stephen

Quinn, Lawrie

Lammy, David

Rammell, Bill

Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

Rapson, Syd (Portsmouth N)

Laxton, Bob (Derby N)

Raynsford, rh Nick

Lepper, David

Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

Leslie, Christopher

Reid, rh Dr. John (Hamilton N &

Levitt, Tom (High Peak)

Bellshill)

Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

Rendel, David

Liddell, rh Mrs Helen

Robinson, Geoffrey (Coventry

Linton, Martin

NW)

Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

Roche, Mrs Barbara

Love, Andrew

Rooney, Terry

McAvoy, Thomas

Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

McCabe, Stephen

Ruddock, Joan

McCartney, rh Ian

Russell, Bob (Colchester)

McDonagh, Siobhain

Russell, Ms Christine (City of

MacDonald, Calum

Chester)

MacDougall, John

Salter, Martin

McFall, rh John

Sanders, Adrian

McIsaac, Shona

Sarwar, Mohammad

McKechin, Ann

Sawford, Phil

McKenna, Rosemary

Sedgemore, Brian

Mackinlay, Andrew

Shaw, Jonathan

McNamara, Kevin

Sheridan, Jim

McNulty, Tony

Shipley, Ms Debra

MacShane, Denis

Short, rh Clare

Mactaggart, Fiona

Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

McWalter, Tony

Skinner, Dennis

McWilliam, John

Smith, rh Andrew (Oxford E)

Mahmood, Khalid

Smith, Angela (Basildon)

Mallaber, Judy

Smith, rh Chris (Islington S &

Mann, John (Bassetlaw)

Finsbury)

Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

Smith, Geraldine (Morecambe &

Marshall, David (Glasgow

Lunesdale)

Shettleston)

Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

Marshall-Andrews, Robert

Smith, John (Glamorgan)

Martlew, Eric

Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

Meacher, rh Michael

Soley, Clive

Michael, rh Alun

Spellar, rh John

Milburn, rh Alan

Squire, Rachel

Miliband, David

Starkey, Dr. Phyllis

Miller, Andrew

Steinberg, Gerry

Moffatt, Laura

Stewart, David (Inverness E &

Mole, Chris

Lochaber)

Moran, Margaret

Stoate, Dr. Howard

Morgan, Julie

Straw, rh Jack

Morley, Elliot

Stringer, Graham

Mudie, George

Stuart, Ms Gisela

Munn, Ms Meg

Stunell, Andrew

Murphy, rh Paul (Torfaen)

Tami, Mark (Alyn)

Naysmith, Dr. Doug

Taylor, rh Ann (Dewsbury)

Norris, Dan (Wansdyke)

Taylor, Dari (Stockton S)

1318

Taylor, David (NW Leics)

Watts, David

Teather, Sarah

White, Brian

Thomas, Gareth (Harrow W)

Whitehead, Dr. Alan

Tipping, Paddy

Williams, rh Alan (Swansea W)

Tonge, Dr. Jenny

Williams, Betty (Conwy)

Touhig, Don (Islwyn)

Winnick, David

Trickett, Jon

Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster

Truswell, Paul

C)

Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

Wood, Mike (Batley)

Turner, Dr. Desmond (Brighton

Woodward, Shaun

Kemptown)

Woolas, Phil

Turner, Neil (Wigan)

Wright, Anthony D. (Gt

Twigg, Derek (Halton)

Yarmouth)

Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

Wright, David (Telford)

Tynan, Bill (Hamilton S)

Wyatt, Derek

Walley, Ms Joan

Ward, Claire

Tellers for the Noes:

Wareing, Robert N.

Gillian Merron and

Watson, Tom (W Bromwich E)

Vernon Coaker

Question accordingly negatived.
Amendment proposed: amendment (n), in paragraph 2(2), leave out from 'any' to 'under' and insert 'Motions'.—[Mr. Heald.]
Question put, That the amendment be made:—
The House divided: Ayes 170, Noes 297.

Division No. 248]

[3:22 pm

AYES

Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

Doughty, Sue

Ancram, rh Michael

Fabricant, Michael

Arbuthnot, rh James

Field, Mark (Cities of London &

Baldry, Tony

Westminster)

Barker, Gregory

Flight, Howard

Baron, John (Billericay)

Flook, Adrian

Beggs, Roy (E Antrim)

Forth, rh Eric

Beith, rh A. J.

Foster, Don (Bath)

Bellingham, Henry

Francois, Mark

Bercow, John

Gale, Roger (N Thanet)

Beresford, Sir Paul

Gibb, Nick (Bognor Regis)

Blunt, Crispin

Gidley, Sandra

Boswell, Tim

Gill, Parmjit Singh

Bottomley, rh Virginia (SW

Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

Surrey)

Goodman, Paul

Brady, Graham

Gray, James (N Wilts)

Brazier, Julian

Green, Damian (Ashford)

Brooke, Mrs Annette L.

Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

Browning, Mrs Angela

Greenway, John

Burnett, John

Gummer, rh John

Burns, Simon

Hague, rh William

Burnside, David

Hammond, Philip

Burt, Alistair

Harvey, Nick

Butterfill, Sir John

Hawkins, Nick

Cable, Dr. Vincent

Hayes, John (S Holland)

Cameron, David

Heald, Oliver

Campbell, Gregory (E Lond'y)

Heath, David

Campbell, rh Sir Menzies (NE

Heathcoat-Amory, rh David

Fife)

Hendry, Charles

Cash, William

Hermon, Lady

Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping

Hoey, Kate (Vauxhall)

Barnet)

Horam, John (Orpington)

Clarke, rh Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

Collins, Tim

Hunter, Andrew

Conway, Derek

Jack, rh Michael

Cormack, Sir Patrick

Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

Cran, James (Beverley)

Jenkin, Bernard

Curry, rh David

Johnson, Boris (Henley)

Davies, Quentin (Grantham &

Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

Stamford)

Keetch, Paul

Djanogly, Jonathan

Key, Robert (Salisbury)

Dodds, Nigel

Kirkbride, Miss Julie

Donaldson, Jeffrey M.

Knight, rh Greg (E Yorkshire)

Dorrell, rh Stephen

Laing, Mrs Eleanor

1319

Lamb, Norman

Simmonds, Mark

Lansley, Andrew

Simpson, Keith (M-Norfolk)

Laws, David (Yeovil)

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

Leigh, Edward

Kincardine)

Letwin, rh Oliver

Smyth, Rev. Martin (Belfast S)

Lewis, Dr. Julian (New Forest E)

Spelman, Mrs Caroline

Liddell-Grainger, Ian

Spicer, Sir Michael

Lidington, David

Spink, Bob (Castle Point)

Lilley, rh Peter

Spring, Richard

Llwyd, Elfyn

Stanley, rh Sir John

Loughton, Tim

Steen, Anthony

Luff, Peter (M-Worcs)

Streeter, Gary

McIntosh, Miss Anne

Swayne, Desmond

Mackay, rh Andrew

Syms, Robert

Maclean, rh David

Taylor, John (Solihull)

McLoughlin, Patrick

Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

Malins, Humfrey

Taylor, Dr. Richard (Wyre F)

Maples, John

Taylor, Sir Teddy

Mates, Michael

Teather, Sarah

Mitchell, Andrew (Sutton

Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

Coldfield)

Trend, Michael

Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

Trimble, rh David

Moore, Michael

Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

Moss, Malcolm

Tyler, Paul (N Cornwall)

Murrison, Dr. Andrew

Tyrie, Andrew

Norman, Archie

Viggers, Peter

O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

Walter, Robert

Öpik, Lembit

Waterson, Nigel

Osborne, George (Tatton)

Watkinson, Angela

Ottaway, Richard

Webb, Steve (Northavon)

Page, Richard

Whittingdale, John

Paice, James

Widdecombe, rh Miss Ann

Paterson, Owen

Wiggin, Bill

Pickles, Eric

Wilkinson, John

Portillo, rh Michael

Williams, Hywel (Caernarfon)

Price, Adam (E Carmarthen &

Williams, Roger (Brecon)

Dinefwr)

Wilshire, David

Prisk, Mark (Hertford)

Winterton, Ann (Congleton)

Pugh, Dr. John

Winterton, Sir Nicholas

Robathan, Andrew

(Macclesfield)

Robertson, Hugh (Faversham &

Yeo, Tim (S Suffolk)

M-Kent)

Young, rh Sir George

Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

Younger-Ross, Richard

Rosindell, Andrew

Ruffley, David

Tellers for the Ayes:

Sayeed, Jonathan

Mr. Peter Atkinson and

Sheerman, Barry

Mr. Hugo Swire

NOES

Abbott, Ms Diane

Blizzard, Bob

Adams, Irene (Paisley N)

Boateng, rh Paul

Ainger, Nick

Bradley, rh Keith (Withington)

Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

Allan, Richard

Bradshaw, Ben

Allen, Graham

Brake, Tom (Carshalton)

Anderson, rh Donald (Swansea E)

Brennan, Kevin

Anderson, Janet (Rossendale &

Brown, rh Nicholas (Newcastle E

Darwen)

Wallsend)

Armstrong, rh Ms Hilary

Bryant, Chris

Atherton, Ms Candy

Burnham, Andy

Bailey, Adrian

Burstow, Paul

Baker, Norman

Byrne, Liam (B'ham Hodge H)

Banks, Tony

Caborn, rh Richard

Barnes, Harry

Cairns, David

Barrett, John

Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

Barron, rh Kevin

Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

Battle, John

Caplin, Ivor

Bayley, Hugh

Carmichael, Alistair

Beard, Nigel

Casale, Roger

Beckett, rh Margaret

Cawsey, Ian (Brigg)

Bell, Sir Stuart

Challen, Colin

Bennett, Andrew

Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

Berry, Roger

Chaytor, David

Best Harold

Chidgey, David

Betts, Clive

Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

Blackman, Liz

1320

Clark, Dr. Lynda (Edinburgh

Hoon, rh Geoffrey

Pentlands)

Hope, Phil (Corby)

Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

Hopkins, Kelvin

Clarke, rh Tom (Coatbridge &

Howarth, George (Knowsley N &

Chryston)

Sefton E)

Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

Hoyle, Lindsay

Clelland, David

Hughes, Beverley (Stretford &

Coffey, Ms Ann

Urmston)

Connarty, Michael

Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

Corbyn, Jeremy

Hurst, Alan (Braintree)

Corston, Jean

Hutton, rh John

Cox, Tom (Tooting)

Illsley, Eric

Cranston, Ross

Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead &

Crausby, David

Highgate)

Cruddas, Jon

Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

Cryer, Ann (Keighley)

Jenkins, Brian

Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn

Cummings, John

Hatfield)

Cunningham, rh Dr. Jack

Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

(Copeland)

Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

Cunningham, Jim (Coventry S)

Joyce, Eric (Falkirk W)

Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

Kaufman, rh Sir Gerald

Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

Keen, Alan (Feltham)

Davey, Edward (Kingston)

Kelly, Ruth (Bolton W)

Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

David, Wayne

Khabra, Piara S.

Davidson, Ian

Kidney, David

Davies, rh Denzil (Llanelli)

Kilfoyle, Peter

Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

King, Andy (Rugby)

Dawson, Hilton

King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green &

Dean, Mrs Janet

Bow)

Dhanda, Parmjit

Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

Dobson, rh Frank

Ladyman, Dr. Stephen

Doran, Frank

Lammy, David

Dowd, Jim (Lewisham W)

Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

Drown, Ms Julia

Laxton, Bob (Derby N)

Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

Lepper, David

Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

Leslie, Christopher

Edwards, Huw

Levitt, Tom (High Peak)

Efford, Clive

Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

Farrelly, Paul

Liddell, rh Mrs Helen

Fitzpatrick, Jim

Linton, Martin

Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

Flint, Caroline

Love, Andrew

Foster, rh Derek

McAvoy, Thomas

Foster, Michael (Worcester)

McCabe, Stephen

Gapes, Mike (Ilford S)

McCartney, rh Ian

Gardiner, Barry

McDonagh, Siobhain

George, Andrew (St. Ives)

MacDonald, Calum

George, rh Bruce (Walsall S)

MacDougall, John

Gerrard, Neil

McFall, rh John

Gibson, Dr. Ian

McIsaac, Shona

Gilroy, Linda

McKechin, Ann

Goggins, Paul

McKenna, Rosemary

Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

Mackinlay, Andrew

Grogan, John

McNamara, Kevin

Hain, rh Peter

McNulty, Tony

Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

Mactaggart, Fiona

Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

McWalter, Tony

Hancock, Mike

McWilliam, John

Hanson, David

Mahmood, Khalid

Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

Mallaber, Judy

Havard, Dai (Merthyr Tydfil &

Mann, John (Bassetlaw)

Rhymney)

Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

Healey, John

Marshall, David (Glasgow

Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

Shettleston)

Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

Marshall-Andrews, Robert

Hendrick, Mark

Martlew, Eric

Hepburn, Stephen

Meacher, rh Michael

Heppell, John

Meale, Alan (Mansfield)

Hesford, Stephen

Merron, Gillian

Heyes, David

Michael, rh Alun

Hill, Keith (Streatham)

Milburn, rh Alan

Hinchliffe, David

Miliband, David

Holmes, Paul

Miller, Andrew

Hood, Jimmy (Clydesdale)

Moffatt, Laura

1321

Mole, Chris

Smith, rh Chris (Islington S &

Moran, Margaret

Finsbury)

Morgan, Julie

Smith, Geraldine (Morecambe &

Morley, Elliot

Lunesdale)

Mudie, George

Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

Munn, Ms Meg

Smith, John (Glamorgan)

Murphy, rh Paul (Torfaen)

Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

Naysmith, Dr. Doug

Soley, Clive

O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

Spellar, rh John

O'Hara, Edward

Squire, Rachel

Olner, Bill

Starkey, Dr. Phyllis

Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

Steinberg, Gerry

Owen, Albert

Stewart, David (Inverness E &

Palmer, Dr. Nick

Lochaber)

Perham, Linda

Stoate, Dr. Howard

Pickthall, Colin

Straw, rh Jack

Pike, Peter (Burnley)

Stringer, Graham

Plaskitt, James

Stuart, Ms Gisela

Pollard, Kerry

Stunell, Andrew

Pond, Chris (Gravesham)

Tami, Mark (Alyn)

Pope, Greg (Hyndburn)

Taylor, rh Ann (Dewsbury)

Pound, Stephen

Taylor, Dari (Stockton S)

Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

Taylor, David (NW Leics)

Prescott, rh John

Thomas, Gareth (Harrow W)

Primarolo, rh Dawn

Tipping, Paddy

Prosser, Gwyn

Tonge, Dr. Jenny

Purchase, Ken

Touhig, Don (Islwyn)

Purnell, James

Trickett, Jon

Quin, rh Joyce

Truswell, Paul

Quinn, Lawrie

Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

Rammell, Bill

Turner, Dr. Desmond (Brighton

Rapson, Syd (Portsmouth N)

Kemptown)

Raynsford, rh Nick

Turner, Neil (Wigan)

Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

Twigg, Derek (Halton)

Reid, rh Dr. John (Hamilton N &

Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

Bellshill)

Tynan, Bill (Hamilton S)

Rendel, David

Walley, Ms Joan

Robinson, Geoffrey (Coventry

Ward, Claire

NW)

Wareing, Robert N.

Roche, Mrs Barbara

Watson, Tom (W Bromwich E)

Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

Watts, David

Ruddock, Joan

White, Brian

Russell, Bob (Colchester)

Whitehead, Dr. Alan

Russell, Ms Christine (City of

Williams, rh Alan (Swansea W)

Chester)

Williams, Betty (Conwy)

Salter, Martin

Winnick, David

Sanders, Adrian

Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster

Sarwar, Mohammad

C)

Sawford, Phil

Wood, Mike (Batley)

Sedgemore, Brian

Woodward, Shaun

Shaw, Jonathan

Woolas, Phil

Sheridan, Jim

Wright, Anthony D. (Gt

Shipley, Ms Debra

Yarmouth)

Short, rh Clare

Wright, David (Telford)

Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

Wyatt, Derek

Skinner, Dennis

Smith, rh Andrew (Oxford E)

Tellers for the Noes:

Smith, Angela (Basildon)

Vernon Coaker and

Ms Bridget Prentice

Question accordingly negatived.
Main Question put:—
The House divided: Ayes 309, Noes 157.

Division No. 249]

[3:36 pm

AYES

Abbott, Ms Diane

Armstrong, rh Ms Hilary

Adams, Irene (Paisley N)

Atherton, Ms Candy

Ainger, Nick

Bailey, Adrian

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 &

Barron, rh Kevin

Darwen)

Battle, John

1322

Bayley, Hugh

Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

Beard, Nigel

Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

Beckett, rh Margaret

Edwards, Huw

Bell, Sir Stuart

Efford, Clive

Bennett, Andrew

Farrelly, Paul

Berry, Roger

Fitzpatrick, Jim

Best, Harold

Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

Betts, Clive

Flint, Caroline

Blackman, Liz

Foster, rh Derek

Blizzard, Bob

Foster, Don (Bath)

Boateng, rh Paul

Foster, Michael (Worcester)

Bradley, rh Keith (Withington)

Gapes, Mike (Ilford S)

Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

Gardiner, Barry

Bradshaw, Ben

George, Andrew (St. Ives)

Brake, Tom (Carshalton)

George, rh Bruce (Walsall S)

Brennan, Kevin

Gerrard, Neil

Brooke, Mrs Annette L.

Gibson, Dr. Ian

Brown, rh Nicholas (Newcastle E

Gidley, Sandra

Wallsend)

Gill, Parmjit Singh

Bryant, Chris

Gilroy, Linda

Burnham, Andy

Goggins, Paul

Burstow, Paul

Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

Byrne, Liam (B'ham Hodge H)

Grogan, John

Cable, Dr. Vincent

Hain, rh Peter

Caborn, rh Richard

Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

Cairns, David

Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

Hancock, Mike

Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

Hanson, David

Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

Caplin, Ivor

Havard, Dai (Merthyr Tydfil &

Carmichael, Alistair

Rhymney)

Casale, Roger

Healey, John

Caton, Martin

Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

Cawsey, Ian (Brigg)

Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

Challen, Colin

Hendrick, Mark

Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

Hepburn, Stephen

Chaytor, David

Heppell, John

Chidgey, David

Hesford, Stephen

Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

Heyes, David

Clark, Dr. Lynda (Edinburgh

Hill, Keith (Streatham)

Pentlands)

Hinchliffe, David

Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

Holmes, Paul

Clarke, rh Tom (Coatbridge &

Hood, Jimmy (Clydesdale)

Chryston)

Hoon, rh Geoffrey

Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

Hope, Phil (Corby)

Clelland, David

Hopkins, Kelvin

Coaker, Vernon

Howarth, George (Knowsley N &

Coffey, Ms Ann

Sefton E)

Connarty, Michael

Hoyle, Lindsay

Corbyn, Jeremy

Hughes, Beverley (Stretford &

Corston, Jean

Urmston)

Cox, Tom (Tooting)

Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

Cranston, Ross

Hurst, Alan (Braintree)

Crausby, David

Hutton, rh John

Cruddas, Jon

Illsley, Eric

Cryer, Ann (Keighley)

Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

Jenkins, Brian

Cummings, John

Johnson, Alan (Hull W)

Cunningham, rh Dr. Jack

Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn

(Copeland)

Hatfield)

Cunningham, Jim (Coventry S)

Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

Davey, Edward (Kingston)

Joyce, Eric (Falkirk W)

Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

Kaufman, rh Sir Gerald

David, Wayne

Keen, Alan (Feltham)

Davidson, Ian

Kelly, Ruth (Bolton W)

Davies, rh Denzil (Llanelli)

Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

Khabra, Piara S.

Dawson, Hilton

Kidney, David

Dean, Mrs Janet

Kilfoyle, Peter

Dhanda, Parmjit

King, Andy (Rugby)

Dobson, rh Frank

King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green &

Doran, Frank

Bow)

Dowd, Jim (Lewisham W)

Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

Drown, Ms Julia

Ladyman, Dr. Stephen

1323

Lammy, David

Raynsford, rh Nick

Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

Laws, David (Yeovil)

Reid, rh Dr. John (Hamilton N &

Laxton, Bob (Derby N)

Bellshill)

Lepper, David

Rendel, David

Leslie, Christopher

Robinson, Geoffrey (Coventry

Levitt, Tom (High Peak)

NW)

Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

Roche, Mrs Barbara

Liddell, rh Mrs Helen

Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

Linton, Martin

Ruddock, Joan

Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

Russell, Bob (Colchester)

Love, Andrew

Russell, Ms Christine (City of

McAvoy, Thomas

Chester)

McCabe, Stephen

Salter, Martin

McCartney, rh Ian

Sanders, Adrian

McDonagh, Siobhain

Sarwar, Mohammad

MacDonald, Calum

Sawford, Phil

MacDougall, John

Shaw, Jonathan

McFall, rh John

Sheridan, Jim

McIsaac, Shona

Shipley, Ms Debra

McKechin, Ann

Short, rh Clare

McKenna, Rosemary

Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

Mackinlay, Andrew

Skinner, Dennis

McNamara, Kevin

Smith, rh Andrew (Oxford E)

McNulty, Tony

Smith, Angela (Basildon)

Mactaggart, Fiona

Smith, rh Chris (Islington S &

McWalter, Tony

Finsbury)

McWilliam, John

Smith, Geraldine (Morecambe &

Mahmood, Khalid

Lunesdale)

Mallaber, Judy

Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

Mann, John (Bassetlaw)

Smith, John (Glamorgan)

Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

Marshall, David (Glasgow

Soley, Clive

Shettleston

Spellar, rh John

Martlew, Eric

Squire, Rachel

Meacher, rh Michael

Starkey, Dr. Phyllis

Meale, Alan (Mansfield)

Steinberg, Gerry

Michael, rh Alun

Stewart, David (Inverness E &

Milburn, rh Alan

Lochaber)

Miliband, David

Stoate, Dr. Howard

Miller, Andrew

Straw, rh Jack

Moffatt, Laura

Stringer, Graham

Mole, Chris

Stuart, Ms Gisela

Moran, Margaret

Stunell, Andrew

Morgan, Julie

Tami, Mark (Alyn)

Morley, Elliot

Taylor, rh Ann (Dewsbury)

Mudie, George

Taylor, Dari (Stockton S)

Munn, Ms Meg

Taylor, David (NW Leics)

Murphy, rh Paul (Torfaen)

Teather, Sarah

Naysmith, Dr. Doug

Thomas, Gareth (Harrow W)

Norris, Dan (Wansdyke)

Timms, Stephen

O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

Tipping, Paddy

O'Hara, Edward

Tonge, Dr. Jenny

Olner, Bill

Touhig, Don (Islwyn)

Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

Trickett, Jon

Owen, Albert

Truswell, Paul

Palmer, Dr. Nick

Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

Perham, Linda

Turner, Dr. Desmond (Brighton

Pickthall, Colin

Kemptown)

Pike, Peter (Burnley)

Turner, Neil (Wigan)

Plaskitt, James

Twigg, Derek (Halton)

Pollard, Kerry

Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

Pond, Chris (Gravesham)

Tynan, Bill (Hamilton S)

Pope, Greg (Hyndburn)

Walley, Ms Joan

Pound, Stephen

Ward, Claire

Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

Wareing, Robert N.

Prescott, rh John

Watson, Tom (W Bromwich E)

Primarolo, rh Dawn

Watts, David

Prosser, Gwyn

Webb, Steve (Northavon)

Pugh, Dr. John

White, Brian

Purchase, Ken

Whitehead, Dr. Alan

Purnell, James

Williams, rh Alan (Swansea W)

Quin, rh Joyce

Williams, Betty (Conwy)

Quinn, Lawrie

Winnick, David

Rammell, Bill

Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster

Rapson, Syd (Portsmouth N)

C)

1324

Wood, Mike (Batley)

Wyatt, Derek

Woodward, Shaun

Woolas, Phil

Wright, Anthony D. (Gt

Tellers for the Ayes:

Yarmouth)

Gillian Merron and

Wright David (Telford)

Ms Bridget Prentice

NOES

Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

Heath, David

Ancram, rh Michael

Heathcoat-Amory, rh David

Arbuthnot, rh James

Hendry, Charles

Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

Hermon, Lady

Baldry, Tony

Hoey, Kate (Vauxhall)

Baron, John (Billericay)

Hogg, rh Douglas

Beggs, Roy (E Antrim)

Horam, John (Orpington)

Beith, rh A. J.

Howard, rh Michael

Bellingham, Henry

Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

Bercow, John

Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

Beresford, Sir Paul

Hunter, Andrew

Blunt, Crispin

Jack, rh Michael

Boswell, Tim

Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

Bottomley, rh Virginia (SW

Johnson, Boris (Henley)

Surrey)

Keetch, Paul

Brady, Graham

Kennedy, rh Charles (Ross Skye &

Brazier, Julian

Inverness)

Browning, Mrs Angela

Key, Robert (Salisbury)

Burnett, John

Kirkbride, Miss Julie

Burns, Simon

Knight, rh Greg (E Yorkshire)

Burnside, David

Laing, Mrs Eleanor

Burt, Alistair

Lamb, Norman

Butterfill, Sir John

Lansley, Andrew

Cameron, David

Leigh, Edward

Campbell, Gregory (E Lond'y)

Lewis, Dr. Julian (New Forest E)

Campbell, rh Sir Menzies (NE

Liddell-Grainger, Ian

Fife)

Lidington, David

Cash, William

Lilley, rh Peter

Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping

Llwyd, Elfyn

Barnet)

Loughton, Tim

Clappison, James

Luff, Peter (M-Worcs)

Clarke, rh Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

McIntosh, Miss Anne

Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

Mackay, rh Andrew

Collins, Tim

McLoughlin, Patrick

Conway, Derek

Malins, Humfrey

Cormack, Sir Patrick

Maples, John

Cran, James (Beverley)

Mates, Michael

Curry, rh David

Mitchell, Andrew (Sutton

Davies, Quentin (Grantham &

Coldfield)

Stamford)

Moore, Michael

Djanogly, Jonathan

Moss, Malcolm

Dodds, Nigel

Murrison, Dr. Andrew

Donaldson, Jeffrey M.

Norman, Archie

Dorrell, rh Stephen

O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

Doughty, Sue

Öpik, Lembit

Fabricant, Michael

Osborne, George (Tatton)

Field, Mark (Cities of London &

Page, Richard

Westminster)

Paice, James

Flight, Howard

Paterson, Owen

Flook, Adrian

Pickles, Eric

Forth, rh Eric

Portillo, rh Michael

Francois, Mark

Price, Adam (E Carmarthen &

Gale, Roger (N Thanet)

Dinefwr)

Gibb, Nick (Bognor Regis)

Prisk, Mark (Hertford)

Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

Redwood, rh John

Goodman, Paul

Robathan, Andrew

Gray, James (N Wilts)

Robertson, Hugh (Faversham &

Grayling, Chris

M-Kent)

Green, Damian (Ashford)

Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

Rosindell, Andrew

Greenway, John

Sayeed, Jonathan

Gummer, rh John

Sheerman, Barry

Hague, rh William

Simpson, Keith (M-Norfolk)

Hammond, Philip

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

Harvey, Nick

Kincardine)

Hawkins, Nick

Smyth, Rev. Martin (Belfast S)

Hayes, John (S Holland)

Spelman, Mrs Caroline

Heald, Oliver

Spicer, Sir Michael

1325

Spink, Bob (Castle Point)

Waterson, Nigel

Stanley, rh Sir John

Watkinson, Angela

Steen, Anthony

Whittingdale, John

Streeter, Gary

Wiggin, Bill

Swayne, Desmond

Wilkinson, John

Swire, Hugo (E Devon)

Williams, Hywel (Caernarfon)

Syms, Robert

Williams, Roger (Brecon)

Taylor, John (Solihull)

Wilshire, David

Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

Winterton, Ann (Congleton)

Taylor, Dr. Richard (Wyre F)

Winterton, Sir Nicholas

Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

(Macclesfield)

Trend, Michael

Yeo, Tim (S Suffolk)

Trimble, rh David

Young, rh Sir George

Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

Younger-Ross, Richard

Tyler, Paul (N Cornwall)

Tyrie, Andrew

Tellers for the Noes:

Viggers, Peter

Mr. David Ruffley and

Walter, Robert

Gregory Barker

Question accordingly agreed to.
Resolved,
That the following provisions shall have effect in relation to the Hunting Bill—

1. Proceedings on Second Reading shall be brought to a conclusion, unless already concluded, five hours after the commencement of proceedings on the Motion for this Order.

2. At the conclusion of proceedings on Second Reading—

(1) the Bill shall be treated as having been committed to a Committee of the whole House and as having been reported from the Committee without amendment, and

(2) The House shall proceed to consider any Motion standing in the name of a Minister of the Crown under section 2(4) of the Parliament Act 1911 for a suggested amendment to the Bill.

3. Proceedings on that Motion shall be brought to a conclusion, unless already concluded, three hours after their commencement (for which purpose the Speaker shall put only the Question on any amendment of the Motion selected by him and the Question on the Motion).

4. Proceedings on Third Reading—

(1) may be taken immediately after the conclusion of proceedings on the Motion mentioned in paragraphs 2(2) and 3, and

(2) shall be brought to a conclusion half an hour after their commencement.

5. No motion may be made to recommit the Bill.

6. In relation to the proceedings mentioned in paragraphs 1 to 4 above—

(1) Standing Order No. 15(1) shall apply,

(2) the proceedings shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House,

(3) the Orders of the House of 28th June 2001 and 6th November 2003 relating to deferred Divisions shall not apply,

(4) the proceedings shall not be interrupted by a Motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 24 (and any such Motion shall stand over until the conclusion of such of the proceedings mentioned in paragraphs 1 to 4 as are to be taken at the sitting concerned),

(5) no dilatory motion may be made except by a Minister of the Crown,

(6) the Question on any dilatory motion made by a Minister of the Crown shall be put forthwith, and

(7) if the House is adjourned or the sitting is suspended during the course of the proceedings, no notice shall be required of a Motion made by a Minister of the Crown at the next sitting of the House varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order.

7. The Question on any Motion varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order (whether by making provision about Lords messages or otherwise) shall be put forthwith.

Orders of the Day

  Hunting Bill
  Order for Second Reading read.
  3.47 pm
  The Minister for Rural Affairs and Local Environmental Quality (Alun Michael): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  This Bill is identical to the Bill to which this House gave a Third Reading on 9 July 2003. There will be a separate debate on the motion for the suggested amendment to defer commencement, so I shall not refer further to that issue at this stage.
  The House of Lords did not complete its proceedings on the Bill before the end of the previous Session, although it had the time to do so. The Government are now bringing the Bill back to enable this House, if it so chooses, to insist on the Bill and, if it is again rejected by the House of Lords, to pass it under the Parliament Act.
  Mr. Douglas Hogg: In the programme motion debate, the right hon. Gentleman made an observation on two or three occasions that he may wish to amplify: he invited the other place to engage seriously on the Bill. That can be interpreted in at least two ways. Will he help us as to what exactly he meant? Did he mean only that we should accept the amendment in his name on the motion to be debated hereafter? Alternatively, was he inviting the House of Lords to table those considered amendments to the Bill that it deems to be right?
  Alun Michael: I shall come to some of the things that the House of Lords might do in a moment. Throughout the proceedings on the last occasion, I consistently made the point that it was the job of the House of Lords, as a revising Chamber, to engage with the Bill that was sent to it by this place, to suggest amendments and to send it back. It is a matter of great regret that it failed to do that on the last occasion. It was wrong for it to do that, and it has provoked the likelihood, or the probability, of the use of the Parliament Act. It is no use trying to blame the majority in this House.
  Lembit Öpik: Does the Minister accept that there is another possible interpretation? Could it not be that their Lordships were so unhappy about the inadequacies of the Bill with which they had to deal that they sought to improve it? Surely, even if the Minister has a different view, he will accept that the upper House was entitled to suggest changes that it believed would make the Bill fairer and more workable. It was not a matter of principle on which the upper House offended the lower House; it was a matter of judgment involving the quality of a Bill that it was trying to improve.
  Alun Michael: The House of Lords was perfectly entitled to try to improve the Bill, but it did not do so. All that it did was delay it.
  Mr. James Gray: Does the Minister not accept that in the 12 hours for which the

  1327
  House of Lords was allowed to debate the Bill, and in the 28 amendments that it was allowed to debate out of 171 that had been tabled, its purpose was to turn the Bill back into something very similar to that originally proposed by him? That is what it was trying to do. It was trying to make the Minister's Bill come true, not the one wrecked by his hon. Friend the Member for West Ham (Mr. Banks).
  Alun Michael: The hon. Gentleman is quite wrong. The House of Lords could have put back the provisions that this House had rejected. Indeed, numerous amendments were tabled that purported to return the clauses that were omitted when this House decided against the registration system and the tribunal system, but the Lords who tabled those amendments showed no sign of engaging with the real purpose of the registration provisions, let alone the clearly expressed concerns of a large majority in this House.
  In the event, the House of Lords discussed the Bill for two full days in Committee. During that time, it crawled through eight of the 60-odd groups of amendments that had been tabled. In those debates, it voted to render the Bill completely toothless, made the main offence impossible to prove, introduced a bias in favour of permitting hunting to continue and completely removed all controls over hare-coursing events. It then proceeded not to use the time available, and to send those amendments, draconian as they were, back to this House.
  Mr. David Cameron: If on this occasion the House of Lords turns the Bill back into a measure for regulated hunting, pretty much along the lines originally suggested by the Minister, will he support it?
  Alun Michael: It is not for me to decide; it is in the hands of the House of Commons. I simply say this: let us see the House of Lords behave democratically, and respond to the Bill that we sent it. Then we will take what it says seriously, and it will be for us to debate any proposition that it sends back to us.
  Mr. Cameron: The Minister is an individual. Presumably he has free will. He can make up his own mind. I am asking a question for him to answer, as a Minister and as a Member of Parliament, on a free vote. If the Bill came back as a measure for regulated hunting, would he support it?
  Alun Michael: If the House of Lords sends back amendments that make sense and help to create good legislation, I will look at them—as an individual. Let it do that, and then we shall see what it has done.
  I want to make three points about the operation of the Parliament Act. First, it is a matter for this House and Mr. Speaker to determine. Secondly, the key, indeed the only, purpose of the Act is to ensure that, in the event of a dispute between the two Houses, the will of this House—the elected Chamber—prevails. That is a simple proposition. We have procedures allowing for delay, for improvement and for reconciliation between the views of the two Chambers, but in the end, especially if there is obstruction, the constitutional principle is clear: the will of this elected Chamber must prevail. The
  1328
  Acts do not place a limit on when this House shall insist on its will, or on the measures involved. That is the point of judgment that we have been debating today. It is worth noting, however, that the royal commission on reform of the House of Lords did not propose any such changes either.
  My third point is that no Bill that has been subject to the Parliament Act in the past has been given a Committee stage the second time round. That did not even happen with the home rule and Welsh disestablishment Bills in 1913. Many of the red herrings that have been cast around in earlier debates should be put aside. What Members should do now is address the contents of the Bill itself, which is precisely the same as the Bill that was before the House last year.
  Mr. James Paice: Will the Minister give an undertaking that if the House of Lords does what he urges and addresses the contents of the Bill that this House will send it later today, we shall be given an opportunity to consider whatever changes the Lords will have made? Or is he taking unto himself the decision on whether that should happen, and saying that eventually the Government will effectively decide whether to Parliament-Act the Bill or not?
  Alun Michael: If the Lords amends the Bill and sends it back to us, I will approach their amendments with an open mind and consider whether they are serious ones. On the last occasion, their lordships passed amendments that were not serious but dissimulative, and they failed to send the Bill back to this House. It is they who, on the basis of the record, have to prove that they are behaving reasonably.
  Let me make one thing clear at the outset: this is a matter on which Members have a free vote, so it is entirely a House of Commons decision. I will be making the Government's position on the Bill clear, but on hunting the Government have always allowed Members a free vote. I shall briefly remind the House how we reached the current position on an issue that has taken up an enormous amount of parliamentary time over the years.
  Mr. Andrew Robathan: How can the right hon. Gentleman say, on the front of the Bill, that in his view
  "the provisions of the Hunting Bill are compatible with the Convention"
  on human rights, given that the Joint Committee on Human Rights found that they are not?
  Alun Michael: The Joint Committee did not say that, as I have already made clear, and if the hon. Gentleman had been with us during an earlier debate he would have heard me deal with that point. He should read the Joint Committee's report rather than misrepresent it. I am sure that it was unintentional, but his comments were a misrepresentation.
  As I said, an enormous amount of parliamentary time has been spent on this issue over the years. Labour's 2001 election manifesto stated:
  "The House of Commons elected in 1997 made clear its wish to ban foxhunting. The House of Lords took a different view (and reform has been blocked). Such issues are rightly a matter for a

  1329
  free vote and we will give the new House of Commons an early opportunity to express its view. We will then enable Parliament to reach a conclusion on this issue. If the issue continues to be blocked we will look at how the issue can be resolved."
  Of course, it is in an effort to resolve the issue that we are bringing the Bill back to the House today. It is important that we do so, as promised, during this Parliament.
  Mr. David Chidgey: A moment ago—
  Bob Spink: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The situation in Parliament square is getting out of control, people are being injured and things are very ugly indeed. The riot police are in action, police on horses are engaged, 2 ft police batons are drawn and are being brought down on people's heads and backs, and I have seen injured people. Can you approach the powers that be to see whether the House, even at this stage, can find a way to delay this debate to a better time—[Interruption.]
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Sylvia Heal): Order.
  Bob Spink: Can this debate be delayed to a better time, so that our procedures can be better served and we can improve public safety and deliver democracy?
  Mr. Andrew Miller: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Would it not be outrageous if we allowed the democratic process to be disrupted by a handful of people who are unrepresentative of the people of this country?
  Madam Deputy Speaker: As far as the disturbances taking place outside this House are concerned, I have no doubt that Mr. Speaker will in due course receive a report from the authorities on what exactly is happening. On the second point, I am bound by the Order of the House and this debate will proceed. We have limited time, so I hope that it will be spent discussing the Bill and its Second Reading.
  Alun Michael: I am grateful to you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I ask Opposition Members to think very carefully indeed about the words that they use in this Chamber. I have for a long time counselled the leaders of the Countryside Alliance to persuade its members to appreciate that it is for Parliament to take a decision on a matter such as this, and that the law should be obeyed. Parliament should be obeyed, and I urge all Opposition Members—some have made this point and agree with me—to make it clear that they in no way encourage or condone violence or illegal behaviour, however strong the feelings might be of people on either side of this debate.
  Mr. Gray: I agree completely with the Minister and condemn without any hesitation any disgraceful actions that might be taken by anyone in Parliament square or
  1330
  anywhere else. Of course we must obey the law, and my party and I would be the first to condemn any such activities.
  Alun Michael: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for making his position so plain, especially as I know that when feelings run high—;he himself has strong views—people can be tempted into other directions. He made an important point.
  Before the point of order, I was in the process of giving way to the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Chidgey).
  Mr. Chidgey: The Minister made the point that an inordinate amount of time had been spent debating this issue over the past few years. Perhaps he could help me, and many of my constituents who have raised this question. What important legislation, vital to this country's interests, has been delayed or abandoned because of the amount of time we have spent—in this Parliament alone—debating this issue?
  Alun Michael: We as a Government have been pulled both ways on this, because we think that the issue must be dealt with but we do not want other important measures to he delayed or interrupted. That is why we have taken this approach. Once the House of Commons had made up its mind, we sought to use the minimum of time today, to speed the legislation to the House of Lords and ask that House to take it seriously and amend it if their lordships wish. We need to get on with it—
  Linda Perham rose—
  Alun Michael: —just as I need to get on with my speech to allow others to speak. However, I shall give way briefly to my hon. Friend.
  Linda Perham: On the importance of this issue and how long it is taking, there are lots of people out there, in cities as well as rural communities, who are deeply concerned. I had 300 letters in 1997 about this issue, and constituents across the political spectrum clearly care about animal cruelty, which is what we are talking about here today.
  Alun Michael: My hon. Friend is quite right. I, too, have had a great deal of correspondence, on both sides of the debate. I have had many long letters that started by saying that we should not be spending time on this issue and then expressed the writer's views at great length. There is no inconsistency in that. The fact is that this is a minor matter compared with most of the issues that we deal with for our constituents, but it is a divisive issue on which people feel strongly, so it needs to be resolved, and that is why we gave an undertaking in our election manifesto to enable Parliament to reach a conclusion.
  Mr. A. J. Beith rose—
  Alun Michael: I shall give way to the right hon. Gentleman before trying to gallop through the rest of my speech to allow others to contribute.
  Mr. Beith: The Minister says that it is a minor matter, but he must bear it in mind that it is not minor to those

  1331
  whose livelihoods are affected and those who feel that their liberties are affected. It should not take up as much time as it has, but in their lives it is extremely important.
  Alun Michael: Yes, indeed, as it is for many people who are affronted by the cruelty involved. Both sides feel passionately, as I just said, and feelings run high. Those who say that we should not spend time on this then go on to fill the Chamber and debate it at great length on both sides.
  Lembit Öpik rose—
  Alun Michael: I will give way one last time, and then I must gallop on.
  Lembit Öpik:I am sure that it was a slip of the tongue, but the Minister referred to the "cruelty" involved in hunting with dogs. That is at the core of the debate. To date, I have understood that he has accepted that there is room for discussion about that. Presumably, he will now assure us that simply because his Bill has been usurped his views have not. I hope that he will confirm that he still feels that there was a case for having the two reasonableness tests.
  Alun Michael: The hon. Gentleman should remember what I said in many of the debates that we have had together: I was convinced by all that I saw that most hunting, if not all, has little utility and involves more suffering than the alternative methods of dealing with the problem. There are exceptions, and I give the example of ratting, which we debated at great length in Committee. I proposed a system that would have allowed a tribunal to make a judgment on those cases in which people felt a case could be made. The House felt that that was not necessary because the matter was open and shut. I have to say that I think the number of cases that could have been made successfully was likely to have been extremely small, so the difference of opinion is a small one. That is the position that I have consistently set out since the Portcullis House hearings at which evidence was given.
  In seeking a resolution of this matter, the Government have been very patient. The Burns inquiry looked objectively at the issues and I followed it up in this Parliament by bringing all parties together to look again at the scope for agreement. I launched a wide-ranging consultation process, which culminated in the public hearings held at Portcullis House in September 2002.
  A lot of nonsense has been talked about the differences between the Bill that I introduced in December 2002 and the amended Bill passed by the House in July 2003. I have been able to deal with one of the alleged differences by responding to the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit Öpik). This Bill, like the one I originally introduced, will make hunting a wild mammal with dogs an offence, subject to exceptions; and it will include exceptions for stalking and flushing out, ratting, rabbiting and a number of other items in schedule 1 to the current Bill. It will make it an offence knowingly to permit land or dogs to be used for hunting; it will make hare coursing events illegal and make the same provisions for penalties, search and seizure, forfeiture and application to the Crown.
  1332
  The only difference is that my original Bill provided an additional provision that would have permitted hunting in strictly limited circumstances where the purpose was to meet a specific and real pest control need and where achieving that purpose would cause less suffering than other methods of pest control. A registration and tribunal system would have tested applications case by case.
  In response, the House made its wishes very clear. New clause 11, moved by my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham (Mr. Banks) last June, was approved by 362 votes to 154—that is, 70 per cent. of those voting wanted a complete ban on fox hunting. Put another way, 55 per cent. of all Members of the House, taking account of all who abstained or were absent, voted for the Bill as it stands today.
  I have compared that with the voting figures on the resolutions on 18 March 2002. On that occasion, with an even higher turnout, 58 per cent of Members of this House voted for a ban. The House has voted for a hunting ban with similar majorities on at least five occasions since 1997, all of which have been free votes. The House's views have been absolutely consistent.
  Let me turn to the history of last year's Bill in the House of Lords. The House of Lords is a revising Chamber. Peers have a legitimate role in asking this House to think again about proposed legislation, even where this House has voted by such a large majority. Knowing the strongly held views in this House, their lordships had an opportunity to come up with proposals that might have encouraged second thoughts— to look for a way towards a less polarised situation. I have already pointed out the record of failure to produce proper amendments in the other place.
  It has been suggested that the Government did not allow the Lords sufficient time in which to debate the Bill, so let us look at the facts again. The Government made two full days available, which was generous for a controversial Bill of this size—with some 17 clauses. The Government offered more time if the Bill could be taken in Grand Committee. Ludicrously slow progress was made on amendments in Committee and the Lords voted to adjourn the debate when they knew that more time was available.
  In summary, both Houses have made their views known on this Bill perfectly clearly during debates in the last Session. This House plainly wants this Bill; the other place plainly does not. I still hope that peers will engage with the Hunting Bill. They will have adequate time to do so. If they fail to do so, the only way in which the matter can properly be resolved is for the will of this House to prevail under the provisions of the Parliament Acts.
  Mr. Henry Bellingham: The Minister is explaining what happened in the other place, but does he agree that, in the light of what he has said, it would be wrong to say that their lordships sabotaged the previous Bill or acted out of kilter with what was expected of them? They did their best to try to improve the Bill and it is quite wrong to say that they sabotaged it.
  Alun Michael: It is the hon. Gentleman who used the word "sabotaged". I would not wish to be impolite to

  1333
  their lordships, but I have to say that that term lends itself to the description of events that took place on the last occasion. They did not seriously try to amend or improve the Bill before sending it back to us. They failed signally in their responsibility in that regard.
  There have been some fairly abstruse legal arguments to the effect that the Parliament Act 1949 was improperly passed and that Acts passed under it are invalid. I would like to kill that one off as well. The Government's clear legal advice is that those arguments are incorrect. There is no question about the validity of the 1911 and the 1949 Acts and there is no reason for this House not to act in accordance with their terms. It is a matter for the House of Commons at the end of the day.
  It was also alleged a few moments ago that the Bill is incompatible with the European convention on human rights. I have certified that it is compatible with the convention, on the basis of clear legal advice. Contrary to what has been claimed, during the last Session the Joint Committee on Human Rights did not take the view that the Bill generally raised questions of compatibility, but it rightly examined the effects of a ban on people's ability to carry out contracts that they had already entered into in respect of hunting. The Government have looked carefully at the technical legal arguments raised by the Committee, and take the view that there can be no enforceable contractual right to carry out hunting after it has been banned. In practice, therefore, there is no human rights issue.
  It is therefore wrong to suggest that the Bill raises issues of human rights and the Government's view is clear—that any challenge to this bill on human rights grounds is likely to be unsuccessful. The fact that a challenge might be mounted in the courts is no reason not to use the Parliament Acts.
  Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I draw the House's attention to the serious point made by the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith). I believe that there are more hunts in my constituency than in any other. A substantial number of jobs will be lost in my area and elsewhere. This Bill will put people out of work, and other people will lose their property. Does the Minister consider it right that it offers no compensation? Is that compatible with human rights legislation, which ensures that people have the freedom to enjoy their property?
  Alun Michael: Yes, I do believe that it is right for this Bill not to offer compensation, and that there is no conflict with human rights legislation. Again, I have encouraged the Countryside Alliance to start thinking about the likelihood of legislation, and to prepare the ground with its members and with people involved in hunts. I have suggested that people should look at the business opportunities that will arise—for example, under the fallen stock scheme that the Government are introducing this autumn, and as a result of changing to drag hunting, among other things.
  The Bill does not prevent people from using their property, but they will have to think sensibly about that. It is a pity that the leadership of the pro-hunting factions has been too narrow in its approach to this matter, and
  1334
  that it has failed to engage with the likelihood of legislation, even though the House has given sufficient warning. That is why, even at this stage, the Government are recommending further delay in commencement: we want to give time, after the Bill has reached the statute book, for common sense to be brought to bear. The pro-hunting leaders need to think about the employees to whom they have a responsibility.
  I hope that the hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) will think again, as I am fed up with some of the unfounded allegations that are made. The Burns report and the evidence given in Portcullis House made it clear that the rural economy is generally vibrant, despite some weak points. There has been a greater increase in employment in rural areas than in urban areas.
  The Minister for the Environment and Agri-environment (Mr. Elliot Morley): There are labour shortages in many rural areas.
  Alun Michael: As my hon. Friend says, there are labour shortages in many rural areas. We will use the normal channels—the employment agencies, the Small Business Service and the regional development agencies—to help people and to advise them about how to make sure that they are gainfully employed in other activities. We are willing to care for the small numbers of people who will be affected by a hunting ban, but the matter should not be exaggerated.
  Finally, it has been suggested that if the Bill is passed under the Parliament Acts, many people who passionately oppose it will feel justified in continuing to hunt in defiance of the law because it has been passed unfairly or improperly. That argument turns democracy on its head. The rightness or wrongness of a piece of legislation is always the subject of argument, and our parliamentary processes are the means by which these issues are argued through. The Parliament Acts are part of that process, and of the structure of our democracy. Yes, they must be used sparingly and only under provocation, but it is axiomatic that the will of the elected Chamber must prevail in the end.
  In the democratic process, the role of the Opposition is important. The Conservative website states, in one place, that we should not spend time on hunting in the Chamber, but elsewhere says that the Conservative party would use parliamentary time to overturn a ban. There is no great consistency there. When the Opposition respond, I hope that we shall hear where the Conservative party stands and what it will do—if and when it ever forms a Government. Will the Tories change the law? Will they overturn a ban, or will they not? Will they encourage their colleagues in the House of Lords to engage with the Bill this time, because they did not do so on the previous two occasions? Will they encourage supporters of hunting to respect the law? I pay tribute to the hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) for making his own position clear on that point a few moments ago, and a united message needs to go out from the House.
  We have had many requests from rural communities, and from the National Farmers Union, to tackle the pernicious activities associated with illegal hare coursing. That can be done only if we give the police the

  1335
  tools to do the job and change the basis of legal action from trespass, which is too limited to be able to deal with some of the people involved in this activity and in threats, intimidation and violence, to the activity of hare coursing itself. The Bill does both those things. We shall return to that point later, but it is not proposed that we delay commencement of that part of the Bill.
  I see that some people have signed a declaration that they will defy the law if the Bill is passed. The leaders of the Countryside Alliance should stamp out such ideas. I understand the strong feelings that some people have about hunting, but I reject utterly any suggestion that defiance of the law would be justified because the law has been passed under the Parliament Acts. The passage of legislation through this House has to be respected. The Parliament Acts are an integral part of our constitutional arrangements, and the House is entitled to use them to pass the Hunting Bill, if that is the House's will.
  Like many on my side of the House, I objected to a measure that really was unjust—the poll tax. I protested against it, but I disagreed passionately with those who advocated law-breaking or non-payment. Respect for the law and the decision of Parliament is bigger than any specific issue, including hunting. Indeed, it is bigger than any specific issue, even—perhaps especially—when feelings run as high as they do in this case. I commend the Hunting Bill to the House.
  4.16 pm
  Mr. James Gray: Before I start my substantive remarks, I must say that for the second time this afternoon I find myself agreeing with the Minister. I hunt. If this disgraceful little Bill is passed, I will not break the law, or hunt until such time as an incoming Conservative Government turn the law round, which, to clarify the point that the Minister raised, we are committed to do. We are committed to introducing a Government Bill in Government time to repeal this Bill, albeit, of course and as always, with a free vote on both the Front and Back Benches. One of the first things that we will do when we come into power next May will be to reverse this disgraceful little Bill. I am pleased to say that that will happen in good time for me to start hunting again the following season. Like the Minister, however, I would not condone the breaking of the law, in this context or in the context of protesting against the disgraceful activities that we are seeing in the House this afternoon.
  The nation, and the world as a whole, will look at our procedures today with some amazement and horror. With the world in the state that it is in, with 1 million people waiting for treatment in the national health service, with Darfur—
  Claire Ward rose—
  Kali Mountford rose—
  Mr. Gray: I shall give way in a moment; I have just started making a few introductory remarks.
  With the middle east and Iraq in turmoil, with Beslan and Darfur so much in our minds, people will not understand Labour's warped priorities and the Government's fixation with the sole issue of banning
  1336
  hunting with hounds. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Watford (Claire Ward) is enthusiastic, so I shall happily give way to her.
  Claire Ward: I am grateful. The hon. Gentleman rightly identified lots of pressing issues, on not just the domestic but the international scene. I am surprised, then, that he can sit those remarks alongside his remark a moment before that the very first priority of an incoming Conservative Government would be to use Government parliamentary time to reverse a ban. Surely a Conservative Government would not, as their first priority, spend time on reversing a hunting ban when they would have lots more to do.
  Mr. Gray: The hon. Lady misquotes me. I did not say that our first priority would be to reverse a hunting ban; one of our first priorities were the precise words I used. It seems to us that, since the Labour party is using such an extreme parliamentary procedure to have its will and impose its Islingtonian outlook on life on the people of Britain, we owe it to the countryside and the people of Britain to use similar tactics to reverse the ban. That is why we will do it. The Labour party is so fixated on banning hunting with hounds that it seems to us only reasonable and fair to give the House of Commons the opportunity to reverse the ban. It will, of course, be a free vote for both Front and Back Benchers, and it will therefore be dependent on us having a significant majority. I have every confidence that we will do so.
  Mr. Kevin McNamara: The hon. Gentleman has just suggested that we should not spend time on this Bill, but the shadow Leader of the House said earlier that we should spend tomorrow on it as well—twice as much time. Where is the consistency in that?
  Mr. Gray: The hon. Gentleman and one or two others have sought to make what are, frankly, rather silly points. We are talking about the many hundreds of days that have been spent on the issue of fox hunting since the Labour party came to power seven years ago. We are talking about the hundreds of hours of police time that will be spent seeking to enforce the ban, if it comes in. The Home Secretary was reported in the newspapers on Sunday as saying that he would stick 30,000 CCTV cameras on trees to deal with the matter. That would be an astonishing waste of police time. All the time that the Labour party has forced us to spend on hunting with hounds has been a disgraceful waste of parliamentary time.
  Alun Michael: Will the hon. Gentleman acknowledge that the representative on this issue of the Association of Chief Police Officers has said clearly that his expectation is that the time taken in enforcing a ban on hunting would be roughly equivalent to the police time that currently has to be devoted to protests against hunting? The police will, of course, police fairly, as they do now when hunting is legal, if and when hunting becomes illegal.
  Mr. Gray: If I may correct the Minister, I think I am right in saying that ACPO, in the form of Chief Superintendent Alastair McWhirter, has made it clear on several occasions that the police do not want a ban. [Interruption.] The Minister has made his point and we should get on—[Interruption.]
  4.22 pm
  Sitting suspended.
  4.41 pm
  On resuming—
  David Winnick: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. We have witnessed the most disgraceful act of hooliganism in years directed against Members of this Chamber. It was a breach of privilege first and foremost. What steps will be taken to hold an investigation, which there must be, into that breach? For those thugs actually to come through the Chamber, despite all the security safeguards, is unknown, I am sure, since you have been here and, I imagine, since any other hon. Member has been here—indeed, such a breach was probably unknown throughout the 20th century. What investigation will take place? Will a report be made to the House, hopefully on Thursday morning?
  Mr. Oliver Heald: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am sure that hon. Members on both sides of the House condemn the activities that have just occurred. It is appalling that such an incident could occur and there will need to be the very fullest possible inquiry into it. A wide-ranging security review has been taking place in the House and there is great concern about security, yet despite that, six individuals were able to enter the Chamber. Will you ask Mr. Speaker to start a full inquiry immediately?
  Sir Stuart Bell: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Is it not a fact that not since Charles I came to this House has there been such an invasion? Is it not appropriate that our security is not only enhanced but enhanced in such a way that such an event can never happen again?
  Madam Deputy Speaker: I understand hon. Members' concern in view of the serious incident that has taken place, but equally I am aware that we are still discussing a very important issue. I should like to respond to the points of order and hope for the tolerance and understanding of other hon. Members who might have wanted to contribute to them.
  Hon. Members will be aware that a very serious incident has taken place. Mr. Speaker will be receiving reports of it from the Serjeant at Arms and security staff at the Palace. I can assure you that that investigation is under way.
  Mr. Andrew Mackay: On a separate point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Can you confirm that there is now injury time because we already have a curtailed debate—[Interruption.]
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Let me hear the point of order.
  Mr. Mackay: Is it possible for you to rule that the period of suspension be added to the period of debate on Second Reading?
  Mr. McNamara: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. If, in fact, injury time were to be added, it would show that those vagabonds—thugs—had defeated Parliament and forced us to amend a procedural motion that we have passed.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: I am bound by the motion that the House passed, so there will be no additional time for the Second Reading debate. I ask hon. Members who wish to contribute in the time remaining to do so as briefly and concisely as possible. I call Mr. Gray.
  Mr. Gray: May I, first, entirely endorse the remarks of my hon. Friend the shadow Leader of the House and others about the disgraceful incident in the House earlier? It was an absolute scandal, and whoever they were and whatever argument they were trying to make, they lost it by making that protest. I lose no time in entirely condemning it. I have to say that in my time I have had some pretty sharp reactions to my speeches, but never one quite like that. I have to wonder whether it was something that I said. [Interruption.]
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Will hon. Members who do not want to participate either by speaking or by listening to the contributions leave the Chamber so that we can continue?
  Mr. Gray: It is astonishing, is it not, that we are here today discussing an issue about which as recently as Question Time on 22 April the Minister said:
  "In some of the big conversations in which I have taken part in rural areas, fox hunting has not come up as a major issue. People are concerned about big issues to do with employment, education, jobs and the economy."—[Official Report, 22 April 2004; Vol. 420, c. 431.]?
  The Minister must be aware that, in a poll conducted by NOP in April, 99 per cent. of Labour voters told the Government that they should concentrate on issues other than hunting. Even the hon. Member for West Ham (Mr. Banks), who feels so passionately about these matters, last year admitted:
  "It is not a matter of great significance in the great cosmos of events or indeed of great significance in animal welfare, but it has become totemic."
  His point is that it has nothing to do with animal welfare; it has become totemic.

  1339
  Only two weeks ago the Prime Minister identified seven key challenges facing Britain. He said, memorably, that he would put every policy to a test, and ask:
  "Does it, in practical terms, advance and improve the lives of Britain's hard-working families?"
  Will the Minister now tell us how a ban on hunting will help Britain's hard-working families? Is this not an astonishing Bill in the sense that, irrespective of which side of the argument one may be on, one has to admit that it will not significantly improve the life of a single human being? Not a citizen of the United Kingdom will benefit from the ban on fox hunting, and although, of course, some people would argue that foxes might benefit, I would not necessarily agree. This is a peripheral issue by anybody's standards. Most people would say that they do not care one way or the other. On the extremities of the argument, there are some passionately in favour and some passionately against, but most of our constituents are saying to us, "What on earth are you doing wasting time on an absurd and illiberal issue such as this?"
  The leader in the Evening Standard, of all things, summed it up last week, when it said that the Prime Minister is using
  "Labour's enormous Commons majority to torment a section of society—ordinary country folk—which they despise… There is something horrible, vindictive and cowardly about the Government's intolerant and ignorant attack on a small minority".
  That is the Evening Standard—a London paper.
  We ask ourselves why the Prime Minister, who is normally so good at dodging round issues, has chosen to stick his neck out on this one. Is he concerned about animal welfare? Is he concerned about foxes? No. He is concerned about one thing, and one thing only—party management. He is concerned about the fact that he has had a terminal split with his next-door neighbour, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and that he is facing what can only be described as an extremely difficult party conference season. To buy off his rabid Back Benchers, he has chosen to do something in which he has no particular interest.
  Claire Ward: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Gray: The hon. Lady is now on her second intervention, and I will happily give way to her a second time, but I should warn her that two is not enough.
  Claire Ward: I can probably help the hon. Gentleman with a clear answer on why we are trying to get this legislation through. The reason we have a large majority is that people voted for us, and many of those who voted Labour in 1997 and 2001 wanted fox hunting banned. We are doing what the people who voted for us want to be done, because the overwhelming majority of Labour supporters want fox hunting banned. That is the simple answer to his question.
  Mr. Gray: That is the dictatorship of the majority. The purpose of this House and of Parliament is not necessarily to drive through the will of the majority—or what the hon. Lady believes to be the majority, as the figures do not concur: 59 per cent. of all people say that
  1340
  they do not want fox hunting banned. But even if 59 per cent. of people were in favour of banning fox hunting, is that necessarily a reason to do it? Is she saying that if one can prove that more than 50 per cent. of people want us to do X, Y or Z, it is terribly important that we should do it? Surely most of what we do in this place is defending the rights of minorities—looking after people who cannot speak for themselves, those who are eccentric, those who are different from Labour Members of Parliament, and those who are unusual or difficult. That, not doing what the majority want, is our primary task. [Interruption.]
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Please may we have some order during this debate?
  Mr. Gray rose—
  Mr. John Bercow: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Gray: I give way to my hon. Friend.
  Mr. Bercow: Speaking on behalf of the difficult, to whom my hon. Friend referred, may I put it to him that, in addition to the civil libertarian and countryside management arguments against a ban, it would also be regressive and discriminatory? Can he confirm that the effect of such a ban would be that, whereas wealthy people would simply go to Ireland or travel to parts of the continent to hunt, people of modest means would not be able to do so? It is a measure calculatedly directed against the poor who enjoy hunting.
  Mr. Gray: My hon. Friend makes an interesting and important point in his customarily colourful way. He is right to say that all kinds of different people go hunting—
  Dr. Desmond Turner: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Gray: I shall finish my point first, if I may. Predominantly, it is ordinary people who go hunting and they will be unable to go to France or Ireland. One of the most bizarre things about the report into the re-homing of dogs that was recently produced by the all-party group on animal welfare was that it suggested that a possible solution to the 26,000 hounds that will be excess to our requirements is to export them to overseas hunts. Some of the rich people whom my hon. Friend describes would benefit from that, but very few of the ordinary people who go hunting.
  Miss Ann Widdecombe: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Gray: If I may, I want to get on to the main part of my speech—[Interruption.]
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order.
  Mr. Gray: My right hon. Friend has substantial support from Labour Members—
  Miss Widdecombe: I am a minority of one.
  Mr. Gray: As my right hon. Friend says, she is a minority of one, at least on our Benches, so I happily give way to her.
  Miss Widdecombe: My hon. Friend has continually asserted, as have others, that this is about suppressing minorities. I put it to him that being in a minority is not an absolute defence for anything. If we regard what that minority does as sufficiently cruel, it does not matter whether it is a majority or a minority—it is a fit subject for legislation.
  Mr. Gray: I refer my right hon. Friend to Lord Burns, who said with great clarity that there is nothing cruel about fox hunting. She would be right were she talking about bear baiting or other demonstrably cruel activities, where there might be a reason for ignoring the interests of the minority and dealing with it.
  Because of the disgraceful intervention earlier on, and because of my relative generosity in taking interventions during my speech, we are now extremely short of time to discuss the Second Reading of this very important Bill. I therefore give notice that I will seek to limit the number of interventions that I take, and that I may have to gallop through some of the important points that I want to make.
  The Secretary of State made it plain that she believes that an outright ban on hunting is unworkable. We agree and we should make it clear that we would be content with a licensing regime along the lines of that, albeit greatly changed, that the Minister proposed before his Back Benchers wrecked it. The Minister, in a letter to the Deputy Prime Minister on 14 May last year, stated:
  "A complete ban… would be perceived as pursuing prejudice rather than targeting cruelty."
  On other occasions, he said that
  "a measured view should be taken of this issue"
  and that
  "The future of hunting with dogs should not be decided on personal taste, but on evidence; on the principles of whether or not it is more or less cruel than the alternative methods currently available."
  Shooting is the main alternative method that is currently available. The Bill does not ban killing foxes, mink or deer. Most observers—including, I suspect, Labour observers—accept that at least the same number and probably more of those animals will be killed if hunting with dogs is banned. The debate is not therefore about whether they are killed or even how many are killed but about the means whereby they are killed.
  David Taylor: Does the hon. Gentleman acknowledge that the best assessment of the number of foxes who die or are killed is approximately 250,000 and that 15,000—around 6 per cent.—are killed by the hunt? It cannot therefore be called an effective method of controlling the fox population. More foxes die in road accidents.
  Mr. Gray: The hon. Gentleman makes a relatively sensible point, albeit an inaccurate one from a statistical standpoint. The figures are approximately 140,000 foxes in total, with around 40,000 being killed by organised hunting and the use of dogs. However, he is right that a relatively small percentage is killed by hunts. I shall make a counter-point: of the 40,000-odd foxes that are killed in organised fox hunting every year, the vast bulk are elderly or ill. They are mainly aged dog foxes because
  1342
  foxhounds are slow-moving animals, foxes are fast moving and therefore only the ill, the aged and the weak are killed using hounds. By contrast, if one is shooting, one is lamping and shoots whichever fox appears in the headlights. Shooting is an unselective method of killing foxes; fox hunting using dogs is selective. I appreciate that it is a debatable point, but, in our view, shooting, snaring, gassing or poisoning are much crueller methods than a simple killing using dogs.
  David Burnside: Further to the point about the number of foxes that will be killed before or after a ban, does the hon. Gentleman have any idea of how many more thousands of foxes will die following the ban? Anybody who knows the farming community will appreciate that if foxes are not controlled by hunts and the rural community, there will be a massive killing of foxes by shooting, snaring and many illegal methods.
  Mr. Gray: The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. That happened when hunting was banned because of foot and mouth disease. Farmers had to kill an enormous number of foxes by shooting them. The National Farmers Union tells me that, last year, foxes killed 340,000 lambs. Surely a farmer will react to that by killing as many foxes as possible. We believe that the most humane and selective way of doing that is by using dogs.
  Mr. Roger Williams: I have genuine concerns about the Government's favoured method of fox control, which is lamping. Given the tragedies that have happened this week and in the preceding months, would not it be a better idea for the Government to defer consideration of the measure until they had some idea of the number of people who would be killed and severely injured as a result of the Bill?
  Mr. Gray: The hon. Gentleman refers to two episodes in which, tragically, people have been seriously injured or killed during lamping. Lamping occurs at night and it is therefore impossible to tell what eyes one is seeing and tragic accidents can happen. I stress that those two accidents were the exception, not the rule. A great deal of lamping goes on and accidents rarely occur. However, he makes the good point that, if lamping and shooting became the norm in the countryside, accidents are much more likely to occur. We must be aware of that risk.
  The Minister has acknowledged in the Bill the efficacy of using dogs for killing certain types of mammals. The Bill exempts the use of dogs for killing rats and rabbits and the Minister has said that the use of dogs in those circumstances is particularly useful. Will he answer one question on this point? If dogs are allowed to kill rabbits but, under the Bill, are not allowed to kill hares, by what means are they going to decide which is which? Are they going to have to stop for a moment and say to themselves, "Hang on! Is that a rabbit? Is it a hare? Let's not get the wrong one." In any event, by admitting that dogs are most efficacious for killing rats and rabbits, the Minister has acknowledged that, in some circumstances,

  1343
  the use of dogs might be the best way of dealing with vermin. Our contention is that they are the best means of dealing with foxes.
  Mr. Bellingham: Will my hon. Friend consider this scenario? If the local pack of hounds in my constituency, the West Norfolk foxhounds, decided to rebrand itself as the West Norfolk rabbit hounds, it would be able to carry on hunting in a pack and killing rabbits. Is it any less cruel to kill a rabbit than to kill a hare or a fox? Can my hon. Friend explain this ridiculous contradiction?
  Mr. Gray: My hon. Friend makes an extremely good point. We have not had the opportunity to discuss in Committee the question of intention in regard to hunting. We do not know who will be found guilty of hunting. If my hon. Friend's pack goes out after rabbits and accidentally kills a hare, by what mechanism will a judge decide whether that pack is guilty? These issues should have been decided in this place. We should not be leaving it to the courts and the judges to make up their minds on them.
  Some people oppose all forms of killing, and I rather respect that. The Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals probably represents a good body of them, and I think that I am right in saying that the hon. Member for West Ham is a vegetarian who does not approve of leather shoes and does not like the killing of animals in any circumstances. He is very strongly opposed to shooting, and I suspect that he is opposed to fishing—
  Mr. Tony Banks: No.
  Mr. Gray: Perhaps not fishing. If he is not against fishing, he is different from his friends in the RSPCA, who have acknowledged that, in addition to hunting, they now intend to deal with shooting and fishing as well. Its chief executive, Jackie Ballard, memorably stated recently:
  "Game shooting is horrid and nasty … the RSPCA will get around to try to end this."
  I recently sent out a consultation paper on field sports to the RSPCA, among others, and its response stated:
  "The RSPCA policy states that it is opposed to shooting for sport. Consequently, as an animal welfare organisation whose charitable objects include 'promoting kindness', that ethical viewpoint should be considered."
  On fishing, it stated:
  "The RSPCA believes that current practices in angling involve the infliction of pain"—
  David Taylor: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Could you advise us whether the hon. Gentleman's speech has deviated from the topic under discussion? He is going on about shooting and fishing, which are not covered by the Bill.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: We must now make progress. We have a limited amount of time left and I advise all hon. Members to concentrate on the subject under discussion.
  Mr. Gray: The point that I was making—clearly, I hope—was that the issue before us is not how animals
  1344
  are killed or how many are killed; it is about freedom and liberty. The truth is that, if the RSPCA can do this to us hunters, it can also do it to the shooters and fishers. It has made it absolutely plain that it is going to do so. It is dealing with hunting now; who comes next?
  All that we country people want is to live and let live. The preservation of tolerance and freedom should be one of the most fundamental duties of this Parliament, and that is all we ask. The Prime Minister recently said that justice, freedom and tolerance—[Interruption.]
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but the House really should listen to this debate in silence. A great many members of the public are expecting us to deal with this matter with dignity, however great the passions involved, and we should do that.
  Mr. Gray: I fear that some hon. Members do not like what they are hearing.
  All that the people of the countryside are seeking is to live and let live. All that we want is tolerance and freedom. We want to make up our own minds as to whether the use of dogs in the countryside is reasonable. We are grown-ups; we can decide these things for ourselves, according to our own conscience. We do not need the Labour party to lay down the law on the use of dogs, or on shooting, fishing, smoking in public places and a whole variety of other things. We want the ability to make up our own mind on these matters, using our conscience and our knowledge of the countryside.
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Gray: I am seeking to wind up, if I may. I hope that my hon. Friend will forgive me.
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the Opposition made it clear last week that we shall seek to repeal this legislation when we come to power, albeit with a free vote for both Front Benchers and Back Benchers. That will give lovers of freedom and tolerance and lovers of the countryside, of whatever political persuasion, a very clear message: if they want to save hunting, they can do that by using every ounce of muscle, straining every sinew and spending every pound that may be necessary to hound this illiberal and hated Labour Government from office.
  The Minister is seeking to rush through this House a Bill that he has attacked in the most scathing terms, a Bill created by rebellious Back Benchers, which is neither a manifesto commitment nor mentioned in the Queen's Speech, nor compliant with the Human Rights Act. It is a Bill for which there is little real demand in the country, and its claimed animal welfare benefits are illusory to say the least. It is a legal mess, and will need huge amendment, which I hope that the other place will give it.
  The threatened use of the Parliament Act under those conditions is a constitutional scandal of the worst kind, which brings Parliament into disrepute and makes the Minister and his party look both desperate and a laughing stock in the eyes of the public. This is an intolerant, ignorant and prejudiced Bill. It is an affront

  1345
  to liberal democracy. It will stir the heart of every citizen who values liberty. The people of this country, and of the countryside, will neither tolerate nor forget it.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I must remind hon. Members of what is painfully obvious: little time is left. An eight-minute limit will apply to Back-Bench speeches from now on.
  5.6 pm
  Sir Gerald Kaufman: I was interested to hear the hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) telling the Minister that it was his Bill. That is the most significant aspect of the legislation that we are debating this evening: 34 years after I came into the House, with a succession of private Members' Bills seeking to ban hunting with dogs, we have for the first time—this is an historic moment—a Government Bill to ban hunting with dogs.
  The hon. Member for North Wiltshire completely misunderstands the Parliament Act. To us, it is a very important sign of advance that this is a Government Bill, but the Parliament Act has nothing to do with whether a Bill is sponsored by the Government. Put simply, it is a measure that says that, in the end, the will of the House of Commons must prevail. Were it still a private Member's Bill, as introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr. Foster), the Parliament Act would have the right to prevail.
  I offer the House two explanations, one of which relates to amendment (b), which I have tabled to the Government's suggested amendments. If the amendment in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham (Mr. Banks) is carried, my amendment would fall anyway. In any case, I would not move it, as I believe that what is important about today is that the majority of the House of Commons comes together in favour of an outright ban on hunting with dogs.
  The other personal explanation is that at sundown tonight—7.3 pm—the Jewish new year begins, so I shall take part in proceedings up to the time when I must get to the synagogue, but I must leave in time to do that. I hope that the House of Commons will accept that. That means, of course, that I shall be able to vote for the Second Reading of the Bill.
  We have had all sorts of arguments over these 34 years and longer—;my hon. Friend the Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) was a pioneer with the attempt to ban hare coursing, and this must be a great day for him. What is clear, and what belies the hon. Member for North Wiltshire's argument, is that during all the 34 years in which I have attempted to bring about this ban, there has never been a campaign to ban shooting or fishing. Therefore, the idea that this is the thin end of some wedge is not accurate, and it is wrong, false and misleading to propagate it.
  Gregory Barker: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Sir Gerald Kaufman: Time is limited and I would prefer to proceed.
  1346
  This campaign is comparable to a campaign that took up the first 35 years of the 19th century: the campaign to ban bull baiting. It took this House 35 years to achieve that, and it will have taken 34 years of my parliamentary experience to achieve this. For that, I am willing to accept a slight delay, much though I would have preferred it not to happen.
  Throughout the progress of this legislation, we have heard all kinds of bogus arguments about its effects. While I respect Opposition Members who support the Bill, predominantly the Labour party wants it and a number of Conservatives do not. I find it extraordinary that a party that threw a quarter of a million miners out of work—with no Countryside Alliance to march in support of them, and with none of the compensation for which Members ask now—can say that some kind of vengeful act is involved in legislation that will deprive just a few hundred people of direct employment at a time when the country has the highest employment and the lowest unemployment for 30 years. That is absurd, as is the argument about the dogs.
  Everyone who knows about hunting knows that any dog in a hunting pack has a limited life. As soon as that dog no longer serves its purpose as part of a hunting pack, it is shot dead by these animal-loving huntsmen and huntswomen. The idea that somehow the Bill will produce a kind of canine carnage is ridiculous. It is the huntspeople who breed these dogs for one purpose and one purpose only, and who, when that purpose has been fulfilled, dispose of them in an utterly callous way—so let us not hear the animal welfare argument.
  What we are approaching today is the fulfilment of two Labour party manifesto pledges, which will have been fulfilled only after two Parliaments and—if this amendment is accepted—another half-Parliament. No one can say that Parliament has been rushed into this. No one can say that this ban will have been implemented without the fullest, most elongated debate that I can remember taking place on any issue during the 34 years for which I have served the House.
  For me, this is a great day. This is a vote against cruelty, callousness and the hunting and, literally, hounding of animals for sport and pleasure. That is wrong, and at last we are going to stop it.
  5.13 pm
  Andrew George: I am aware of the time and will do my best to keep my remarks short.
  I am sorry that we have to be back here again to rehearse arguments that we have already had. In this debate, however, we need to consider whether any additional, indisputable wisdom has emanated from another place—whether we have been advised that we may have missed something in a previous debate that might be helpful to us.
  Reading the report of the debate in the other place, I see a great deal of opinion dressed up as fact. There is, for instance, the justification for hunting. Lord Renton said:
  "Sometimes I have seen foxes in the prime of life being chased with what looked to me like a grin on their face."

  1347
  I thought it was just the anti-hunters who were supposed to be anthropomorphic. Lord Renton went on:
  "I do not think that they minded being chased."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 28 October 2003; Vol. 654, c. 149.]
  There is one justification from their lordships.
  Here is another justification, from Baroness Strange:
  "I went coursing often as a child. Unlike my noble Friend Lord Faulkner, I have never been unlucky enough to see a hare killed. However, I admired how the hares ran and very much admired the dogs."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 28 October 2003; Vol. 654, c. 203.]
  I can imagine how admirable that is. Look at that hare running. How admirable—it is running for its life.
  In addition to looking for justification for hunting from their lordships, I have tried to establish whether they understand our primary motivation in reaching the conclusions that we have reached. They say that
  "all …scientific evidence has been abandoned in a capitulation to zealotry and class prejudice."
  Apparently, we believe
  "the fantasy that the fox is a cuddly and harmless little furry animal".
  We are also told:
  "We know all too well that for many Members in the other place, it is primarily a manifestation of class envy and dislike of toffs dressed up and on horseback."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 16 September 2003; Vol. 652, c. 783–825.]
  And a bishop offered a rather un-Christian view when he accused MPs who support a ban of having a mental disorder. That was the nature of the debate in the other place.
  The issue of liberty has been raised on a number of occasions. I come from the countryside and I have to question the position of those who say that they are on a march representing the countryside, and that the countryside supports hunting. In some areas, perhaps a majority do; in others, perhaps that is the minority view. It is not for me to judge, but I have listened to the arguments.
  We have heard about the problems, challenges and pressures that this Bill will clearly create for the minority who enjoy hunting, but there are other minorities in rural areas, one of which is displeased by hunting. The Lords have told us that, as many have said today, liberty is the primary concern, but it is not just those who enjoy hunting who have the right to liberty—yet one gets the impression from reading their lordships' views that no one else matters.
  Sometimes, liberties clash. There is the clash between those who derive pleasure from hunting and those who derive displeasure. What about the liberties of those who were born and brought up in the countryside, who know country ways—who know about foxes and other wildlife—and are proud of their parish and landscape, but who are offended by fox hunting whenever hunts come to their area? Are their liberties also taken into account? Of course, it is not just a question of liberties in relation to land. Often, those who own the land feel that it is up to them to decide what happens on it. Many of those who live in the countryside do not own much land, but they are entitled to have a view and to have their feelings about how the countryside should be managed taken into account. [Interruption.] Despite
  1348
  what Members might say from a sedentary position, those who own the land are merely custodians of it in the longer run.
  Mr. Adrian Flook: The hon. Gentleman talks about liberty. Would he care to comment on the constituent of mine who feels that he is helping liberty to flourish in Iraq by serving with 40 Commando? This gentleman has served our country valiantly trying to safeguard liberty, but when he returns he will discover that he is unable to participate in the hunting that he has pursued all his life. Does the hon. Gentleman think that fair?
  Andrew George: Regardless of whether someone serving their country supports hunting, the fact is that the House—democracy—will ultimately decide whether the Bill should be enacted. I am sure that many who serve our country do not support fox hunting. Are we to listen only to the hon. Gentleman's constituent or to others who want to defend the liberties of those who are displeased by hunting in their parish?
  Mr. Beith: As a Liberal, I am a bit worried by my hon. Friend's use of the word "displeased". I am displeased by lots of things, but I do not feel morally entitled to use the law to ban them. I need a stronger argument. I need to be convinced that there is serious cruelty that would be avoided by a ban. I am certainly not convinced by any of the alternative methods. Surely he is not erecting displeasure as a reason for sending other people to prison.
  Andrew George: Some people who live in the countryside take pleasure from hunting and others are offended by it. A message is being sent out about how their community is represented, and suggesting to young people that this is a proper and acceptable way of behaving. My right hon. Friend is perfectly right to say that there is an argument for defending the liberties of one group over those of another, and I am not saying that a person's wish not to have hunting in their area is a pre-eminent freedom over that of those who want to have their pleasure from hunting, but we have to make the judgment on the arguments here.
  It has been said that those who go hunting will be criminalised by the Bill. Many speakers in another place supported that argument. The fact is not that the Bill will criminalise people who enjoy hunting, but that those people who choose to break the law will criminalise themselves. Many of the 50,000 or so people who have signed a petition saying that they will break the law and continue hunting are responsible people—some of those in another place implied that they might be prepared to go so far—but what message does that send to animal rights activists? Does it not offer support for all those who wish to break the law in their own cause?
  We have to weigh up the issues and come to our own conclusions, but the House has already spent hundreds of hours on this and come to its decision, with clear majorities, and it is time to send a clear message to the other place that it must accept the democratic will of the democratic and pre-eminent Chamber.
  5.23 pm
  Mr. Kevin McNamara: I declare an interest, in that I have for many years been a vice-president and patron of the League Against Cruel Sports, which I congratulate on having protested against the cruelty of hunting with dogs and many other barbarities long before many other organisations. I welcome on board the RSPCA, which did not support us when we first started our campaign, as well as the International Fund for Animal Welfare and others.
  This is the end of my parliamentary career. When I started it in the 1960s, we began our campaign against hunting, and I am pleased that the matter will now be resolved once and for all. I take this opportunity to pay a compliment to those colleagues, some dead, some in the House of Lords—perhaps it is the same thing—;who played a part, including Eric Heifer, John Ellis, Lord Corbett and others. In very difficult times, they first pushed on hare coursing and then got the whole country behind them in opposing hunting with dogs in any shape or form.
  It has been said that all this has been done to appease Back Benchers. If so, I am glad that the Government are doing it and I hope that it will be regarded as a precedent that they will follow on many future occasions. Far more important is the fact that passing the Bill will help to restore people's faith in Parliament. When the Bill presented by my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr. Foster) was not given extra time by the Government, people said that Parliament had a chance and that the Government funked it. People did not understand the subtleties of the Government's argument. They felt that they had supported the Government on this issue in the important election of 1997 and had been betrayed. Since the intention to bring in the Parliament Act to pass this measure was announced, many of the phone calls and letters that I have received have posed the question, "Do they really mean it?" Let us hope that the Government really mean it, because that will help to restore the country's faith in the work of Parliament.
  I want to make two fairly brief points. First, it is often said that we do not understand what is going on. Those who have attended hare coursing meetings, as I did in the east of England with my late colleague Arnold Shaw more than 30 years ago, have seen hares torn to pieces by hounds and heard them screaming. "Collateral damage", I understand, is the phrase used for the points earned by the greyhounds—;it is cruel, harsh and evil.
  Secondly, I want to draw a contrast. In that particular case, hounds are trained for their speed, whereas in fox hunting, as we have heard today, they are trained for their stamina. It is not a question of quick and easy pest control or getting rid of the fox by a sharp swift hound going in and carrying out its job. It is a question of the sport entailed. That is the distinction. It is not a class distinction between town and countryside; it is a question of understanding how we use or abuse animals.
  Unlike my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham (Mr. Banks), I am not a vegetarian. I am not opposed to using some animals in experiments, if necessary, to develop drugs to protect and enhance the life of humankind, though I have severe reservations about the way in which some drug companies go about it. As a principle, I am not against that, but I am against
  1350
  gratuitous cruelty, the ending of which is what the Bill is all about. I congratulate the Government on doing a very good job on this matter this time.
  5.28 pm
  Mr. James Paice: Let me start by saying that I wholly condemn violence from wherever and whomever it comes. I also condemn anyone who seeks to disrupt the proceedings in this Chamber. I want to make it absolutely clear that my party and I take that view. I do not believe that those who have disrupted our proceedings this afternoon are any more representative of hunt supporters than the violent end of those who seek to oppose hunting are representative of hunt opponents.
  I believe that this is a sad day for this country, not just because of hunting, but because of issues that are more fundamental. I refer to the fundamental and historic virtues of tolerance and respect for minorities. The debate is the consequence of the Government's determination to contradict the clear evidence of their own advisers through the Burns inquiry and the Portcullis House hearings.
  For generations, Labour MPs have urged us in this place, often quite rightly, to respect the rights, freedoms, cultures and even sexual practices of different races and religions. Here, however, they want to go much further. We are a tolerant country. We accept in our society people with many conflicting views who carry out different activities, some of which we may not like. It is not a crime to live in Britain and to plot the overthrow of the Government of another country. We allow the freedom of speech of those who try to overthrow even our own democracy. We permit peaceful demonstrations by countless minorities, however much they disrupt the normal life of other people. Those are all features of a just, tolerant and pluralistic society, of which we should be proud and which we should seek to maintain. However, this Bill is totally contrary to those values. It will criminalise the activities of a small number of people who, in every other aspect of life, are valued members of our community. They include doctors, nurses, teachers, firemen, business people, farmers and many others.
  Whatever public opinion may be, in the history of this House there have been many occasions when hon. Members quite rightly have stood back and viewed an issue objectively, and when they have said that the House must not necessarily respond to public opinion and be pressurised by it. One of the starkest examples of that was the question of capital punishment. For decades after its abolition, there was no doubt about where public opinion lay, despite repeated votes in the House that such punishment should not take place.
  The consequences of this Bill are quite clear. In numerical terms, it will not save the life of a single animal, and that brings me to a crucial point: the distinction between the welfare of an individual animal and that of the species. The desire to protect one animal from one form of death is understandable, but the Bill will damage the welfare of the species. That was demonstrated over and again in the evidence given to the Burns inquiry, and in the conclusions that the inquiry reached.

  1351
  I come now to what I believe is the fundamental point to be made about this debate. Many people, both in the House and outside it, oppose hunting, and I readily accept that their number includes many of my constituents. As the hon. Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) said a few moments ago, those people believe hunting to be cruel, and they consider it wrong for people to gain pleasure from what is perceived to be cruel.
  That is a perfectly honourable position, but I want to make two points to counter it. First, if it is the alleged cruelty of hunting that attracts its followers, they will often be sorely disappointed, because the reality is that few hunt followers ever see the kill, and the vast majority of those involved in a hunt are hundreds of yards behind when the hounds catch up with the fox.
  Secondly, and more importantly, the evidence given to the Government and the conclusions of the Burns inquiry make it clear that there will be no overall reduction in animal suffering, nor in the cruelty that some people believe takes place. That brings us to the fundamental question: should this House decide what may give people pleasure, if that does no damage to others and if it is not to their detriment? Should we decide what is good for people's souls? I believe that we should not.
  If there were clear evidence that banning hunting would markedly reduce animal suffering, the Bill would be justified, but there is no such evidence. No animal will be saved and no human being will gain from a ban. We will be sacrificing the fundamental values of freedom, choice, liberty and tolerance that generations of our predecessors in this House have nurtured and cherished.
  If we diminish those values on this issue, who knows what will be next? Whose freedoms will next be diminished? I urge the House to pause before it turns against a minority just because it disagrees with it.
  5.33 pm
  The Minister for the Environment and Agri-environment (Mr. Elliot Morley): I begin by welcoming the very firm comments that Opposition Members have made about the need to respect the rule of law and the democratic process, including the democratic processes of this House. The hon. Member for St. Ives (Andrew George) made some important points about people who think that they can pick and choose when it comes to obeying the law.
  In the debate, hon. Members have said that there are more pressing issues on which to legislate, and that this is not an issue for Parliament, It has been stated that a ban would set supporters of the sport against its opponents, that sufficient laws already exist to prevent abuse and that minority rights must be considered along with the sport's social value. It was even stated that hunted animals derive pleasure from the activity—;although similar remarks were made when the abolition of bull baiting was debated in this House in the 1800s. It seems that the arguments about blood sports have been aired not just in the lifetime of this Parliament, but for nearly 200 years.
  David Winnick: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Morley: If my hon. Friend will forgive me, I shall not as I have agreed to cut my reply to just five minutes to allow maximum participation for hon. Members.
  I want to make points on two important issues: minorities and democracy. I concede that the rights of minorities are important, and that majority views are not always correct. I would still oppose hunting with hounds if I were in a minority, but I do not believe that I am in this country. As the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) said, it is not rational always to take into account minority views, whatever they are, without being able to override them depending on the situation at the time, the views of society and attitudes that change over time. On occasion, a judgment must be made. This is a moral issue, as is reflected in the fact that we have a free vote.
  It is nonsense to suggest that this is an attack on rural society, or that every single person who lives in the country cares passionately for hunting or supports it. We need to take into account the fact that there are people in the countryside who have raised strong views against it, as my hon. Friends have stated. As far as democracy is concerned, this was a manifesto commitment, and it reflects the will of the House in a number of votes with very substantial majorities. The issue has, of course, been debated since 1945.
  I pay tribute to my hon. Friends the Members for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) and for Worcester (Mr. Foster), and my right hon. Friend the Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall), who have campaigned for a long time on the issue. Not least, I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Minister for the countryside, who has been incredibly patient and has tried to bring both sides together to ensure that everybody had the opportunity to make their points.
  It is nonsense to say of this debate that views have not been taken into account on the many issues. When we talk about minorities, I should say that there are people such as Eric Ashby, who suffered terribly in relation to the activities of fox hunts, and who was a minority in the area. He was awarded an MBE for his work with wildlife, and I am only sorry that he is not alive today to see this moment, for which he campaigned all his life.
  This issue has been debated many times. Nothing new has been raised today. This is about the kind of society we live in. What we have seen outside the House as people have attacked and abused the police and abused the democratic history of this House demonstrates that it is true that a minority of people—I would not claim that they speak for all hunt supporters—care little for animals and little for people today.
  We have heard about affronts. If there has been an affront, it is the affront that the Parliament Acts have had to be used because an unrepresentative, unelected and unaccountable House of Lords is clearly prepared to ignore the results of a free vote of the elected House on a manifesto commitment by an elected Government. If there is an affront, it is an affront that it has taken until four years into the 21st century to end an activity that comes down to inflicting prolonged pain and stress on animals for no other reason than the entertainment of their tormentors.

  1353
  This debate has gone on long enough. The people have spoken. Now is the time to act.
  Question put, That the Bill be read a Second time:—
  The House divided: Ayes 356, Noes 166.

  Division No. 250]

  [5:38 pm

  AYES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Chidgey, David

  Adams, Irene (Paisley N)

  Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

  Ainger, Nick

  Clark, Dr. Lynda (Edinburgh

  Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

  Pentlands)

  Alexander, Douglas

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Allan, Richard

  Clarke, rh Tom (Coatbridge &

  Allen, Graham

  Chryston)

  Amess, David

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Anderson, rh Donald (Swansea E)

  Clelland, David

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale &

  Coaker, Vernon

  Darwen)

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Armstrong, rh Ms Hilary

  Connarty, Michael

  Atherton, Ms Candy

  Cooper, Yvette

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

  Corston, Jean

  Bailey, Adrian

  Cotter, Brian

  Baird, Vera

  Cox, Tom (Tooting)

  Baker, Norman

  Cranston, Ross

  Banks, Tony

  Crausby, David

  Barnes, Harry

  Cruddas, Jon

  Barrett, John

  Cryer, Ann (Keighley)

  Barron, rh Kevin

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Battle, John

  Cummings, John

  Bayley, Hugh

  Cunningham, rh Dr. Jack

  Beard, Nigel

  (Copeland)

  Beckett, rh Margaret

  Cunningham, Jim (Coventry S)

  Bell, Sir Stuart

  Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

  Benn, rh Hilary

  Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

  Bennett, Andrew

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  Berry, Roger

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Best, Harold

  David, Wayne

  Betts, Clive

  Davidson, Ian

  Blackman, Liz

  Davies, rh Denzil (Llanelli)

  Blizzard, Bob

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

  Boateng, rh Paul

  Dawson, Hilton

  Bradley, rh Keith (Withington)

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Dhanda, Parmjit

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Dobbin, Jim (Heywood)

  Brake, Tom (Carshalton)

  Dobson, rh Frank

  Brennan, Kevin

  Doran, Frank

  Brooke, Mrs Annette L.

  Dowd, Jim (Lewisham W)

  Brown, rh Nicholas (Newcastle E

  Drown, Ms Julia

  Wallsend)

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Browne, Desmond

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Bryant, Chris

  Edwards, Huw

  Burgon, Colin

  Efford, Clive

  Burnham, Andy

  Farrelly, Paul

  Burstow, Paul

  Field, rh Frank (Birkenhead)

  Byrne, Liam (B'ham Hodge H)

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  Cable, Dr. Vincent

  Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

  Caborn, rh Richard

  Flint, Caroline

  Cairns, David

  Follett, Barbara

  Calton, Mrs Patsy

  Foster, rh Derek

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Foster, Michael (Worcester)

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings

  Caplin, Ivor

  & Rye)

  Carmichael, Alistair

  Gale, Roger (N Thanet)

  Casale, Roger

  Gapes, Mike (Ilford S)

  Caton, Martin

  Gardiner, Barry

  Cawsey, Ian (Brigg)

  George, Andrew (St. Ives)

  Challen, Colin

  Gerrard, Neil

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Gibson, Dr. Ian

  Chaytor, David

  Gidley, Sandra

  1354

  Gill, Parmjit Singh

  Lepper, David

  Gilroy, Linda

  Leslie, Christopher

  Goggins, Paul

  Levitt, Tom (High Peak)

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Liddell, rh Mrs Helen

  Grogan, John

  Linton, Martin

  Hain, rh Peter

  Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  Love, Andrew

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

  McCabe, Stephen

  Hancock, Mike

  McCartney, rh Ian

  Hanson, David

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Harman, rh Ms Harriet

  MacDonald, Calum

  Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

  McDonnell, John

  Havard, Dai (Merthyr Tydfil &

  MacDougall, John

  Rhymney)

  McFall, rh John

  Healey, John

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

  McIsaac, Shona

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  McKechin, Ann

  Hendrick, Mark

  McKenna, Rosemary

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Heppell, John

  McNamara, Kevin

  Hesford, Stephen

  McNulty, Tony

  Hewitt, rh Ms Patricia

  MacShane, Denis

  Heyes, David

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  McWalter, Tony

  Hinchliffe, David

  McWilliam, John

  Hodge, Margaret

  Mahmood, Khalid

  Holmes, Paul

  Mallaber, Judy

  Hood, Jimmy (Clydesdale)

  Mann, John (Bassetlaw)

  Hope, Phil (Corby)

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Marshall, David (Glasgow

  Howarth, rh Alan (Newport E)

  Shettleston)

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N &

  Marshall-Andrews, Robert

  Sefton E)

  Martlew, Eric

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  Meacher, rh Michael

  Hughes, Beverley (Stretford &

  Meale, Alan (Mansfield)

  Urmston)

  Merron, Gillian

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Michael, rh Alun

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

  Milburn, rh Alan

  Hurst, Alan (Braintree)

  Miliband, David

  Hutton, rh John

  Miller, Andrew

  Iddon, Dr. Brian

  Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

  Illsley, Eric

  Moffatt, Laura

  Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead &

  Mole, Chris

  Highgate)

  Moran, Margaret

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Morgan, Julie

  Jenkins, Brian

  Morley, Elliot

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W)

  Morris, rh Estelle

  Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn

  Mountford, Kali

  Hatfield)

  Mudie, George

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Munn, Ms Meg

  Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Murphy, rh Paul (Torfaen)

  Jowell, rh Tessa

  Naysmith, Dr. Doug

  Joyce, Eric (Falkirk W)

  Norris, Dan (Wansdyke)

  Kaufman, rh Sir Gerald

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  Keen, Alan (Feltham)

  O'Hara, Edward

  Kelly, Ruth (Bolton W)

  Olner, Bill

  Kennedy, rh Charles (Ross Skye &

  O'Neill, Martin

  Inverness)

  Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

  Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

  Owen, Albert

  Khabra, Piara S.

  Palmer, Dr. Nick

  Kidney, David

  Perham, Linda

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Picking, Anne

  King, Andy (Rugby)

  Pickthall, Colin

  King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green &

  Pike, Peter (Burnley)

  Bow)

  Plaskitt, James

  Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

  Pollard, Kerry

  Kumar, Dr. Ashok

  Pond, Chris (Gravesham)

  Ladyman, Dr. Stephen

  Pope, Greg (Hyndburn)

  Lammy, David

  Pound, Stephen

  Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham

  Laws, David (Yeovil)

  E)

  Laxton, Bob (Derby N)

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  1355

  Prescott, rh John

  Stoate, Dr. Howard

  Primarolo, rh Dawn

  Stringer, Graham

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  Pugh, Dr. John

  Stunell, Andrew

  Purchase, Ken

  Tami, Mark (Alyn)

  Purnell, James

  Taylor, rh Ann (Dewsbury)

  Quin, rh Joyce

  Taylor, Dari (Stockton S)

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Rammell, Bill

  Taylor, John (Solihull)

  Rapson, Syd (Portsmouth N)

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Raynsford, rh Nick

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

  Teather, Sarah

  Rendel, David

  Thomas, Gareth (Harrow W)

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Coventry

  Timms, Stephen

  NW)

  Tipping, Paddy

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Tonge, Dr. Jenny

  Rooney, Terry

  Touhig, Don (Islwyn)

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Trickett, Jon

  Ruddock, Joan

  Truswell, Paul

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Russell, Ms Christine (City of

  Turner, Dr. Desmond (Brighton

  Chester)

  Kemptown)

  Salter, Martin

  Turner, Neil (Wigan)

  Sanders, Adrian

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Sarwar, Mohammad

  Tynan, Bill (Hamilton S)

  Sawford, Phil

  Vaz, Keith (Leicester E)

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Shaw, Jonathan

  Ward, Claire

  Sheridan, Jim

  Wareing, Robert N.

  Shipley, Ms Debra

  Watts, David

  Short, rh Clare

  Webb, Steve (Northavon)

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  White, Brian

  Singh, Marsha

  Whitehead, Dr. Alan

  Skinner, Dennis

  Widdecombe, rh Miss Ann

  Smith, rh Andrew (Oxford E)

  Williams, rh Alan (Swansea W)

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  Williams, Betty (Conwy)

  Smith, rh Chris (Islington S &

  Willis, Phil

  Finsbury)

  Wills, Michael

  Smith, Geraldine (Morecambe &

  Winnick, David

  Lunesdale)

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  C)

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  Wood, Mike (Batley)

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Woodward, Shaun

  Soley, Clive

  Woolas, Phil

  Spellar, rh John

  Wright, Anthony D. (Gt

  Squire, Rachel

  Yarmouth)

  Starkey, Dr. Phyllis

  Wright, David (Telford)

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Wyatt, Derek

  Stewart, David (Inverness E &

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Lochaber)

  Mr. Tom Watson and

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Derek Twigg

  NOES

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  Butterfill, Sir John

  Ancram, rh Michael

  Cameron, David

  Arbuthnot, rh James

  Campbell, rh Sir Menzies (NE

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Fife)

  Baldry, Tony

  Cash, William

  Barker, Gregory

  Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping

  Beggs, Roy (E Antrim)

  Barnet)

  Beith, rh A. J.

  Chope, Christopher

  Bellingham, Henry

  Clappison, James

  Bercow, John

  Clarke, rh Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Boswell, Tim

  Collins, Tim

  Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

  Conway, Derek

  Bottomley, rh Virginia (SW

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  Surrey)

  Cran, James (Beverley)

  Brady, Graham

  Curry, rh David

  Brazier, Julian

  Davies, Quentin (Grantham &

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Stamford)

  Burnett, John

  Davis, rh David (Haltemprice &

  Burns, Simon

  Howden)

  Burnside, David

  Djanogly, Jonathan

  Burt, Alistair

  Dorrell, rh Stephen

  1356

  Doughty, Sue

  Moss, Malcolm

  Duncan, Alan (Rutland)

  Murrison, Dr. Andrew

  Duncan Smith, rh Iain

  Norman, Archie

  Evans, Nigel

  Oaten, Mark (Winchester)

  Fabricant, Michael

  O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

  Field, Mark (Cities of London &

  Ö;pik, Lembit

  Westminster)

  Osborne, George (Tatton)

  Fisher, Mark

  Ottaway, Richard

  Flight, Howard

  Page, Richard

  Flook, Adrian

  Paice, James

  Forth, rh Eric

  Paterson, Owen

  Fox, Dr. Liam

  Pickles, Eric

  Francois, Mark

  Portillo, rh Michael

  Gibb, Nick (Bognor Regis)

  Price, Adam (E Carmarthen &

  Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

  Dinefwr)

  Goodman, Paul

  Prisk, Mark (Hertford)

  Gray, James (N Wilts)

  Redwood, rh John

  Green, Damian (Ashford)

  Robathan, Andrew

  Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

  Robertson, Hugh (Faversham &

  Greenway, John

  M-Kent)

  Gummer, rh John

  Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

  Hague, rh William

  Rosindell, Andrew

  Hammond, Philip

  Ruffley, David

  Harris, Dr. Evan (Oxford W &

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Abingdon)

  Sheerman, Barry

  Harvey, Nick

  Simmonds, Mark

  Hawkins, Nick

  Simpson, Keith (M-Norfolk)

  Hayes, John (S Holland)

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

  Heald, Oliver

  Kincardine)

  Heathcoat-Amory, rh David

  Soames, Nicholas

  Hendry, Charles

  Spelman, Mrs Caroline

  Hermon, Lady

  Spicer, Sir Michael

  Hoey, Kate (Vauxhall)

  Spink, Bob (Castle Point)

  Hogg, rh Douglas

  Spring, Richard

  Horam, John (Orpington)

  Stanley, rh Sir John

  Howard, rh Michael

  Steen, Anthony

  Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

  Streeter, Gary

  Hunter, Andrew

  Swayne, Desmond

  Jack, rh Michael

  Swire, Hugo (E Devon)

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Syms, Robert

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Johnson, Boris (Henley)

  Taylor, Dr. Richard (Wyre F)

  Keetch, Paul

  Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

  Key, Robert (Salisbury)

  Thurso, John

  Kirkbride, Miss Julie

  Tredinnick, David

  Knight, rh Greg (E Yorkshire)

  Trend, Michael

  Laing, Mrs Eleanor

  Trimble, rh David

  Lamb, Norman

  Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

  Lansley, Andrew

  Tyler, Paul (N Cornwall)

  Leigh, Edward

  Tyrie, Andrew

  Letwin, rh Oliver

  Viggers, Peter

  Lewis, Dr. Julian (New Forest E)

  Walter, Robert

  Liddell-Grainger, Ian

  Waterson, Nigel

  Lidington, David

  Watkinson, Angela

  Lilley, rh Peter

  Whittingdale, John

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Wilkinson, John

  Loughton, Tim

  Willetts, David

  Luff, Peter (M-Worcs)

  Williams, Hywel (Caernarfon)

  McIntosh, Miss Anne

  Williams, Roger (Brecon)

  Mackay, rh Andrew

  Wilshire, David

  Maclean, rh David

  Winterton, Ann (Congleton)

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Winterton, Sir Nicholas

  Malins, Humfrey

  (Macclesfield)

  Maples, John

  Yeo, Tim (S Suffolk)

  Mates, Michael

  Young, rh Sir George

  Mawhinney, rh Sir Brian

  Mitchell, Andrew (Sutton

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Coldfield)

  Mr. Bill Wiggin and

  Moore, Michael

  Mr. Crispin Blunt

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  The Bill, according to Order [this day], was treated as having been committed to a Committee of the whole House and as having been reported from the Committee without amendment.
  Sir Patrick Cormack: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will obviously understand that there is grave concern in all parts of the House at the unprecedented events that took place this afternoon, and I wonder whether you can tell the House anything about them now.
  Mr. Speaker: I am gravely concerned about the situation, as indeed the whole House is. Immediately I received word that the incident had happened, I instructed the Serjeant at Arms to bring extra security into the House. Unfortunately, the Public Gallery has had to be cleared. What I intend to do is this: immediately after leaving the Chair, which will be at about quarter-past 6, I will have a meeting with Sir Michael Cummins, our Serjeant at Arms, and I will report back to the House as soon as I can.
  Mr. Hogg: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I ask whether it is part of your intention to reopen the Public Gallery if at all possible?
  Mr. Speaker: It saddens me that no one is in the Public Gallery—I feel as strongly about that as the right hon. and learned Gentleman—but the safety of Members and the security of the House must be uppermost in my mind.
  Ann Winterton: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I share your concern about security in the House, but I wonder whether you and the authorities will consider the fact that the House has returned while much of it is like a building site and whether that was a wise decision, as that may well have played a part in the lapse of security this afternoon.
  Mr. Speaker: The hon. Lady asks me to speculate. As I told her, I will have a meeting with the Serjeant at Arms as soon as I leave the Chair. I add that I have already had a meeting with him, and I will therefore report back to the House as soon as I can.
  Sir Gerald Kaufman: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am sorry to delay proceedings, but may I put to you what I think is in the minds of a considerable number of hon. Members on both sides of the House? First, I trust that, in dealing with the people who got on to the Floor of the House, it will not be treated as some trivial incident for which they can be interviewed and released. It is much more serious than that. Secondly, I take it that, during your investigation, you will seek to ascertain whether any staff of hon. Members or others— I am sure not staff of the House or Members—were involved in assisting those people in gaining entry.
  Mr. Speaker: This is not a trivial matter, and I will not speculate on any connection with members of staff. After all, I am seeking a report from the Officer who is responsible for security, and my first priority then is to come back to the House.
  Sir Stuart Bell: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it not a fact that the great difficulty that you, Sir, and Members have is in seeking to balance security needs with free and open access to the Palace of Westminster for our constituents and our citizens? Will
  1358
  you confirm that there is a deep review of security with the Metropolitan police and the security services? When the recommendations from that review are made, the House should speedily implement them and vote for the appropriate expenditure.
  Mr. Speaker: I will not make mention of any security review, particularly at this stage.
  Commons' suggested amendments, considered.
  Mr. Speaker: I have imposed a limit of eight minutes per Back Bencher for the following business.
  5.56 pm
  Alun Michael: I beg to move,
  That, pursuant to section 2(4) of the Parliament Act 1911, this House suggests to the Lords the following Amendment to the Hunting Bill—
  Leave out Clause 15 and insert the following new Clause—
  'Commencement

  (1) The following provisions of this Act shall come into force at the end of the period of two years beginning with the date on which it is passed—

  (a) sections 1 to 4,

  (b) Part 2 in so far as it relates to sections 1 to 4,

  (c) sections 11 to 14 in so far as they relate to sections 1 to 4,

  (d) Schedule 1, and

  (e) Schedules 2 and 3, except in so far as they change the law in relation to an activity to which section 5 applies.

  (2) The following provisions of this Act shall come into force at the end of the period of three months beginning with the date on which it is passed—

  (a) section 5,

  (b) Part 2 in so far as it relates to section 5,

  (c) sections 11 to 13 in so far as they relate to section 5, and

  (d) Schedules 2 and 3 in so far as they change the law in relation to an activity to which section 5 applies.

  It may be helpful if I indicate that I am happy to accept the sensible amendment that will be moved by my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham (Mr. Banks), and I encourage right hon. and hon. Members to vote for it and the substantive motion.
  The motion will defer the commencement of the ban on hunting with dogs from the three months after Royal Assent currently in the Bill. The amendment would provide the specific date of 31 July 2006. The commencement of the ban on hare coursing will remain at three months. The motion is expressed as an amendment for the House to suggest to the other place because of the requirements of the Parliament Acts, and I shall return to that point shortly.
  There are many persuasive reasons for deferring the commencement of the ban on hunting. In particular, it will give more time for those engaged in hunting to adjust to life after it. There are important animal welfare considerations for dogs and horses, as well as the wild animals that are hunted. The amendment would help by allowing time for hunters to put in place humane arrangements, such as dispersal and re-homing, for the dogs used in hunting. Such dogs are usually shot when they are no longer needed, but the extra time for implementation will ensure that there is even less reason for any suffering to be caused to them because of the ban. The Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to

  1359
  Animals has offered help with re-homing hounds—an offer for which I am very grateful—based on its experience of re-homing a considerable number of greyhounds every year.
  The Burns committee estimated that, at the most, perhaps 6,000 to 8,000 jobs across England and Wales were linked to hunting, directly or indirectly, and that that was "almost invisible" in national economic terms, but the delay will have a number of consequences. It will allow businesses that are reliant on hunting more time to refocus and diversify, for example, into drag hunting or dealing with fallen stock. The horse industry in general is buoyant and provides many business opportunities. The delay will allow hunt employees more time to find new jobs. Given the success of the Government's economic strategy generally, jobs in most rural areas are readily available, as are opportunities for retraining. The delay will allow those who regard hunting as a method of pest control more time to put in place other pest control methods.
  The Bill is likely to receive Royal Assent in November this year, so under the motion the ban on hunting will come into force during November 2006. My hon. Friend's amendment would substitute that with 31 July 2006. That alteration would not in any real way reduce the important benefits of deferral that I have just described. However, it will have the advantage of ensuring that the ban will come into force before the start of the main 2006–07 hunting season. It will mean that the winter of 2005–06 will be the last hunting season and that there will be no hunting after that. Among other things, it will prevent a further season of the cruelty of cub hunting in autumn 2006. Allowing hunting at the start of the 2006–07 season would divert the attention of hunts from the need to plan ahead and get on with the job of changing their arrangements after the 2005–06 season has finished. Those important considerations are why I am glad to support the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend.
  Lady Hermon: As someone who feels passionately about the welfare of greyhounds, I have listened as calmly and patiently as possible to the lengthy explanation of why the implementation of the ban on hunting will be delayed. However, the Minister made it clear that the ban on hare coursing will be immediate. What provisions and assistance—financial or otherwise—will be given to the owners of greyhounds that might have participated in hare coursing?
  Alun Michael: I made it clear earlier, although the hon. Lady might not have heard that part of our discussions, that we do not believe that the same animal welfare concerns arise for dogs involved in hare coursing as for packs of hounds that are held by hunts, so the same considerations do not apply. I also strongly and clearly made the point that this country faces major problems due to illegal hare coursing and the fact that there is a need to change the basis of the prosecution of people who are involved in that activity, and its associated intimidation, violence and vandalism, from trespass to the activity of hare coursing itself. The trespass option does not give the police the tools to do their job, and we have made it clear that the measure is an important part of the Bill. That explains why the
  1360
  suggested amendment will not defer the commencement of the ban on hare coursing events, which will continue to come into effect three months after enactment.
  Although hunting with dogs might make a contribution—however small—to pest control, hare coursing events have no such justification. Although some hares are killed, the purpose of the activity is to bet on the competitive performance of dogs. There is no suggestion whatever that a ban on hare coursing events will mean that any dogs will have to be destroyed or re-homed, and I do not know of any significant evidence that many rural people or businesses are economically reliant on hare coursing events.
  David Burnside: Will the Minister enlighten the House by estimating how many more foxes he expects to survive during the delay to the ban on hunting with hounds? How many more foxes does he expect to be killed by other means of control during that period?
  Alun Michael: Yet again, one must go back to questions that have been answered in the past. The number of foxes killed is irrelevant. The fact of the matter is that foxes are killed as pests. A fairly small number are killed by hunts, but more are killed by lamping and other methods. Additionally, a minute number of deer are killed by hunts while large numbers are killed by stalking and shooting, so deer hunting is a completely unnecessary activity. Whether the number of foxes killed goes up or down is irrelevant to the Bill.
  An even more important consideration about hare coursing is the fact that the violence and intimidation associated with illegal coursing events causes a real and pressing problem in many parts of the countryside. We have received many representations asking us to take firm and speedy action to enable the police to tackle the evils associated with such activities. That can be done only if the nature of the relevant offences is changed from trespassing to the activity of hare coursing itself, which clause 5 will achieve. There can be no justification for any further delay to giving police the powers that they need to crack down on the criminals involved.
  Today's events outside, and even inside, the Chamber have raised serious questions of law and order, so I repeat a plea to leaders of the Countryside Alliance and any other organisations concerned with these issues that I have made on many occasions. They should start preparing their supporters to obey the law and to consider alternatives, such as drag hunting and fallen stock dispersal. They should show the respect for the law that, in fairness, was displayed by the hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) when he said that although he would seek to overturn any hunting ban that became law, he would do so while obeying the law and try to achieve that using the ballot box and the House's processes. I was pleased that he said that because he showed respect for the House. I challenge people such as the leaders of the Countryside Alliance to show that same respect for the law. They do no favours to their supporters by failing to give a similar lead or by appearing to encourage illegal activities, although I hope that they do not intend to do that.
  David Winnick rose—
  Mr. Gray rose—
  Alun Michael: I shall give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (David Winnick) and then the hon. Member for North Wiltshire.
  David Winnick: I entirely endorse what my right hon. Friend says. All of us—certainly me—have been involved in peaceful protest over the years, which is part of parliamentary democracy. Is he aware that some of the more hooligan elements of the demonstration are shouting out remarks such as, "We know where you live," while referring to him? Such intimidation is totally unacceptable, as is trying to deny the House of Commons the right to debate the matter and reach a conclusion. Surely we should expect the Countryside Alliance to dissociate itself from such hooligan and fascist elements.
  Alun Michael: Indeed, I hope that the Countryside Alliance will do that because I know that decent people are involved in it, such as its chairman, John Jackson, whom I have known for a long time—he is an extremely decent men. I hope that other leading members will give him the assistance to dissociate the Countryside Alliance from such activities and to encourage its supporters to understand the strength of feeling on the other side of the debate as well as their strong views.
  Mr. Gray: I cannot speak for the Countryside Alliance because it is a private organisation, although I am a member of it. It has made it clear many times in written submissions and through other forms that it entirely decries any activities that are not legal, lawful, peaceful or sensible. I hope that I can speak for its leaders by saying that they would certainly abhor the disgraceful scene in the Chamber earlier today and the small number of scuffles, which the police tell me are minor, involving people outside Parliament. I hope that the Countryside Alliance and I can speak together in saying that we entirely decry such behaviour.
  Alun Michael: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I respect what he said and the tone in which he made his point.
  Mr. Hugo Swire: While we are on the subject of intimidation, the Minister will have seen from this morning's newspapers that Oxford university is asking for more help to combat the ever increasing problem of so-called animal rights activists. When will the Government take that problem more seriously? People throughout the country who work for Huntingdon Life Sciences and other organisations have been intimidated for years and their houses have been picketed, but the Government have yet to respond.
  Alun Michael: The hon. Gentleman is right about the importance of tackling those people, but wrong that the Government have done nothing. As a former Home Office Minister, I know that the Government have taken the matter increasingly seriously. We have made it absolutely clear that such intimidation is unacceptable and that it represents nasty lawbreaking. People are
  1362
  trying to interfere with the processes that should be dealt with by the House rather than through such activities, as several people have said. There are ways in which people may make their protest known within the law and without undue intimidation, as many of us have done over the years. That is right in a democratic society, but such a society must make it clear that there is a limit to such activity.
  Kevin Brennan: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is perhaps not surprising that we are witnessing such scenes given that last week the parliamentary sketch writer of the Daily Mail, who holds a pass for the House of Commons, recommended in his column that the homes and offices of hon. Members should be attacked?
  Alun Michael: My hon. Friend makes a valid point. Journalists, too, must take responsibility for saying things that could appear to encourage or condone illegal activities, especially in comment columns. We must all be careful about what we say when we encourage people on matters that are associated with strong views.
  Andrew George rose—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. We are talking about commencement dates. Other matters should have been discussed on Second Reading. We must confine ourselves to commencement dates because we are debating a suggested amendment.
  Andrew George: In respect of the commencement date and the reassuring comments by the hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray), is the Minister aware that on 5 September the Countryside Alliance apparently made a statement, reported on the BBC website—perhaps incorrectly—as:
  "Fifty thousand people have signed a petition saying they would be prepared to break the law if a ban was introduced and they would be prepared to face the consequences"?
  I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman dissociated himself from such action and it would help to have that clarified.
  Alun Michael: It is not for me, any more than it is for the hon. Member for North Wiltshire, to clarify the views of the Countryside Alliance, but the hon. Member for St. Ives (Andrew George) makes an important point. By going for the delay in commencement, the motion provides, beyond all doubt, extra time for people to behave reasonably in accepting the will of the House. It is not an unimportant consideration. I regret the threats of illegal action and protest by some hunt supporters. I understand that some people have dissociated themselves from those views. The Government have condemned such threats and believe that most people involved are law abiding and are prepared to respect the will of Parliament. The extra time for implementation provided by the suggested amendment will make it even clearer that illegal actions and threats or intimidation are totally unjustified. If people want to continue their opposition to the Bill, they have the option of expressing their views through the ballot box. I hope that the leaders of the Countryside Alliance will make their position clear.
  Gregory Barker: There is a long history of political protest in this country on both sides of the political equation. Does the Minister believe that there are any circumstances under which civil disobedience should be tolerated?
  Alun Michael: It would not be right to extend the debate into philosophical issues of whether such action can ever be justified. I can say, however, that there is no such justification in relation to this Bill, especially if we allow the additional time suggested. I hope that the House of Lords will also give the suggestion serious consideration.
  Miss Widdecombe: The Minister will be pleased to know that my intervention is about the time for implementation. He is making a persuasive case for a delay.
  Gregory Barker: No, he is not.
  Miss Widdecombe: My hon. Friend does not want a delay, but I accept that there is a persuasive case for one. However, there are two ways of approaching an 18-month delay. One is to use that time to re-home hounds, run down the activities and so on. The other is simply to treat it as a period of grace and to put off the day. What monitoring will be in place?
  Alun Michael: The right hon. Lady makes an important point. I am asking people to prepare for the Bill's implementation during the period of delay. They should not, as she rightly points out, take it as an opportunity to put off the evil day and not to think about it. The Government would be prepared to engage with those who are willing to consider a more constructive future.
  Mr. Hogg: The right hon. Gentleman advocates a delay, but that also gives the Government an opportunity to introduce a fully funded compensation scheme. Why will he not do that?
  Alun Michael: I explained earlier when the right hon. Gentleman was not in the Chamber why we do not think a compensation scheme is necessary in any sense or in any way.
  I said that I would comment further on the workings of this unusual procedure, by which the House may suggest an amendment to the other place. The Parliament Acts of 1911 and 1949 enable the will of this House to prevail in the face of disagreement between the two Houses. The procedure is available only if a reintroduced Bill is substantially unaltered, but section 2(4) of the 1911 Act provides that the Commons may suggest an amendment, which can be incorporated in a Bill, if it is accepted by the other place. If, in the face of the readiness of this House to use the Parliament Acts, the other place then agrees to the amended Bill, or agrees to amend the Bill, it can be enacted accordingly with the inclusion of the suggested amendment.
  The procedure for proposing suggested amendments has been on the statute book for more than 90 years, but as far as I am aware, it has not previously been used. It
  1364
  is a matter for you, Mr. Speaker, to interpret the Parliament Acts and to determine when they apply to any measure.
  Mr. Simon Thomas: I am pleased that 90-year-old procedures can be used and look forward to an impeachment debate before too long.
  On the period of commencement, we are likely to vote for 18 months. I accept how the figures stack up, but the other place will know that the Government originally had two years in mind. The Minister explained why he wants to accept 18 months. What he has not told us is why the Government initially wanted two years. What was their thinking behind that? It could not have been plucked out of thin air because that is not possible, is it? Why is 18 months better than two years?
  Alun Michael: Very simply, two years seemed a reasonable period, but, having looked at the practicalities, it became clear that going to the shorter period would take us beyond the latest possible date for the next general election. That makes it clear that the ballot box and not some other means is the way to deal with objections. It also means that the ban comes in before the start of a new hunting season. So 18 months makes sense on a number of grounds. I have made it clear that we accepted the argument, after some discussion, and that I support the proposal.
  I have also been asked what would happen if the other place accepts the suggested amendment but fails to pass the Bill or passes it with amendments that this House is unable to accept. My understanding from reading the 1911 Act is that the House could present the Bill for Royal Assent under the Parliament Act, but only with the existing three-month commencement provision. I would certainly defer to the ruling of Mr. Speaker, but that is my understanding in order to inform the thinking of the House. The only other way to change the date of commencement would be to introduce a one-clause Bill to that effect.
  On this matter, as on so much else, I simply hope that common sense will triumph so that a hunting Bill, which this House has sought consistently over a number of years, will be put in place in an orderly way and democracy will prevail and be respected, even by those who did not want a ban enacted.
  6.17 pm
  Mr. Tony Banks: I beg to move amendment (d), in line 5, leave out from "force" to end of line 6 and insert "on 31st July 2006".
  Mr. Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to consider the following amendments: (e), in line 6, leave out "two" and insert "four".

  (f), in line 6, leave out "two" and insert "five".

  (b), in line 6, leave out "two years" and insert "one year".

  Mr. Banks: I declare my interest as a vice-president of the League Against Cruel Sports and pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Minister for his work on the issue and his understanding of it. He has taken a load on himself. It is something of a poisoned chalice, but he has acquitted himself well.

  1365
  I asked myself two questions in relation to amendment (d). First, is the issue important? Last week, we debated the proposed European constitution, which I think is vital. There were 20 Members in the Chamber and there was virtually nary a word about it in the media. Today, the House is packed to the rafters and the debate is running live in the media, with blanket coverage—so the facts seem to say that it is important.
  Gregory Barker: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Banks: No.
  Secondly, is it a class issue? Well, yes it is. It is a middle class, middle England issue. The profile of the average passionate anti-hunter is a white, middle class woman, living in the home counties or in a county town or village, who reads the Daily Mail. I have had more letters on this subject than any other hon. Member. It is not a case of urban guerrillas versus toffs. Some of my best friends are toffs. Indeed, I hope to become a toff myself one day.
  I tabled amendment (d), and I realise that not all my colleagues who support the Bill are happy with it. I understand and share their feelings, so perhaps I can explain my motives and reasoning. I want a ban in place as much as anyone in the House, but I also want to guarantee that it will happen. The Government wanted a commencement date beyond any possible date for a general election and so tabled a two-year delay in implementation. In discussions with Ministers, as my right hon. Friend said, they decided to move their position.
  Miss Widdecombe: I am grateful to my temporary hon. Friend for giving way. Many of us, despite having listened to the case for a delay, feel very uneasy about it. What support, or otherwise, for an 18-month delay has he received from the RSPCA and the International Fund for Animal Welfare?
  Mr. Banks: None. I am explaining an issue that we have to resolve in the House, and I am asking the House to listen to my tactical reasons for tabling the amendment.
  Ministers have now shifted their position. Their arguments, as I perceive them, are that a delay will lower the political temperature and allow the election to be used by those who are pro-hunting to express their views through their vote. That seems perfectly reasonable. If the electorate want a ban to remain in place, assuming that the Bill is passed, they should vote Labour or, indeed, Liberal Democrat. If they want a Government pledge to overturn the ban, they can work and vote for the Conservatives. It is as simple and straightforward as that, and on that I think the hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) and I are in total agreement. Personally, I do not believe that hunting would, could or should determine the outcome of a general election one way or the other, but trust could, and regrettably the issue of hunting has been caught up as one of those "trust in the Government" cases.
  Mr. Swire: The problem of trust, it seems to me, is that many people in the countryside simply do not trust the
  1366
  Government commitment to the countryside, hunting being one small part of that. Has the hon. Gentleman, at any stage in his capacity as vice-president of the League Against Cruel Sports, had discussions with anyone in the organisation about what will happen if hunting is banned? Will there be a move towards other sports, namely reared shooting and, in turn, fishing?
  Mr. Banks: I have not had discussions about that because we are concentrating on this issue. [Interruption.] There will be organisations outside that want to ban fishing and shooting. It is their right to hold that view, and it is our right to have this debate and vote on the issue, if necessary. However, I can tell the hon. Gentleman that there is virtually no support in this House for a ban on shooting or angling. That being so, why do Conservative Members keep throwing the issue into the debate, as though somehow a ban on hunting is the thin end of the wedge? Organisations outside the House may think that it is; inside, I can tell them, there is no majority in favour of such a ban. Personally. I would support a ban on shooting—let me make that quite clear.
  The Prime Minister wanted a two-year delay, and most Labour Members want the Bill as it stands or would, perhaps, accept a one-year delay, but we have compromised, so the Government cannot now say that those of us who want a ban have been unreasonable. Therefore, they cannot even think about delaying Third Reading or, for example, moving a motion on the Floor of the House that the Parliament Act not be used. The Parliament Act is not in the gift of the Government to use, but they certainly have a right, if they wish, to table for debate a motion to the effect that we do not use it. In that case, I would like to listen to the arguments and watch the outcome, but I know that Ministers are not even thinking about that.
  If, as expected, the Lords rejects the Bill, we should ask it to consider the delaying proposal. If the House supports my amendment, we will lock the Government into an agreement and they will then willingly see the measure through. The political dilemma then becomes one for the Lords, not this House. The effect of my amendment on hunting would be to allow two more fox hunting seasons, two more deer hunting seasons, one more mink hunting season and two more hare hunting seasons. Hare coursing, of course, would finish early in 2005. I must say that the litany of slaughter that the delay implies does not fill me with joy, nor am I wholly satisfied, but I can just about live with my conscience knowing that a ban will be on the statute book, albeit later than we really wanted.
  For what it is worth, my prediction is that even if we carry the Bill and amendment (d) today, the Lords will throw both out, and thus three months after the Bill receives Royal Assent a ban will come into effect—in February or March 2005. I say this seriously: any problems that arise from that will be the responsibility of the Lords alone. If, on the other hand—;I doubt that this will happen but I hope that it does—this House and the Lords agree to amendment (d), the hunts will, as my right hon. Friend the Minister has said, have ample time to deal with their animals and change to other pursuits such as drag hunting. It will also mean that although the two Houses did not agree on the principle of the ban, they will have agreed on its implementation date.

  1367
  On this amendment and on this issue I am asking the House, including some of my colleagues who have been a bit critical of me for tabling the amendment, to trust me—and, after all, why not? I am a Member of Parliament.
  6.25 pm
  Mr. Gray: The stark, profound and terrible sense of betrayal felt by people in the countryside today will in no sense be assuaged by the Prime Minister's cynical, grubby attempt to bribe them by offering this 18-month stay of execution. The Minister is saying, "You're going to be executed, but don't worry, we'll put it off until next week." People in the countryside will pay no attention to that; nor will their hatred, sadness and anger be in any way assuaged by the grubby little political deal that the right hon. Gentleman is offering us.
  We know why the Minister is offering the deal. It has nothing to do with animal welfare, with allowing hunts to wind down or with the 8,000 families who will be thrown into penury as a result of this disgraceful Bill. [Laughter.] Labour Members laugh. They think that it is funny that 8,000 employees will be thrown out of work as a result of the Bill. The countryside does not think that it is funny, and if Labour Members laugh at their plight, that will make people's anger and sadness worse, not better. I appeal to Labour Members' better side: they have won the debate and they are putting 8,000 people out of work. I ask them not to laugh about it and at least to have some sympathy for those people.
  Mr. Morley: I do not think that hon. Members are laughing about the issue of people's employment. It does not help to exaggerate the situation, and if the hon. Gentleman reads the Burns report, which contains a good evaluation of the number of full-time equivalents employed by hunts, he will find that 8,000 is a gross exaggeration.
  On the procedures for winding down hunts, I should say that there are many decent people involved in hunting who are already thinking about switching to drag hunting and other alternatives. At the moment, every obstacle is being put in their way. The right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) made the good point that now the House has taken its decision, people should focus on the changes that can be made and the help that they can receive in making them.
  Mr. Gray: The hon. Gentleman has not been involved in the debate over the past few years and he has not read the Burns report, so understandably he is unaware that Burns makes two very clear points. First, on the figure of full-time equivalents—
  Mr. Morley: There are not 8,000 full-time equivalents.
  Mr. Gray: The hon. Gentleman is chuntering from a sedentary position, but I allowed him to make a long intervention. From memory, I think that the figure given by Burns is 6,724 full and part-time jobs, equivalent to 8,000 full-time jobs. [Interruption.] Having won the argument and banned hunting, Labour Members might at least do us the decency of displaying sympathy for people who will be thrown on to the streets, whether
  1368
  there are 6,000 of them or 8,000. The Minister seeks to make a political point and to say that I have got my figures wrong, but many thousands of people will be put into penury as a result of the Bill, and surely a Labour Government could at least show some sympathy for them.
  The Minister is also quite wrong about drag hunting. Almost the only clear conclusion that Lord Burns comes to is that in no circumstances could drag hunting be a substitute for fox hunting. He makes that 100 per cent. plain. This constant cry that somehow or other we will convert the 26,000 hounds that currently hunt foxes, deer and mink into drag hounds is a nonsense. I shall return to that point in a moment.
  We believe this to be a political deal, and we want no part of it. We are certainly not going to be fooled by it. I also believe that if it was in the Prime Minister's mind to strike a political deal, he has made a significant political miscalculation. Although I entirely decry the scenes that we have seen today—I do not necessarily believe that pro-hunting people were responsible—I believe that the fury and anger of hunting people and their determination to overturn this disgraceful Bill will have a significant effect in marginal Labour seats in the forthcoming general election. The hon. Member for West Ham (Mr. Banks) is right that hunting will not be an issue in the general election—there are not many votes on either side, because most antis vote Labour and most pros vote Conservative. However, about 1 million people feel incredibly strongly about this issue, and they will target Labour seats with majorities of less than 3,000. I believe that what the Government have done today will have a very significant effect indeed on the general election for that reason. Many Members here will find that their constituencies are canvassed six, eight or 10 times by supporters of hunting, irrespective of what their political allegiances may be.
  Mr. Banks: Almost to a person, Labour Members in marginal rural constituencies and with hunts in their constituencies want a ban at the earliest possible time. With regard to voting, the Countryside Alliance and those that generally support it would not vote for my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister or the Labour party if we brought back witch burning and public executions and handed out free cider while they were watching.
  Mr. Gray: I am delighted for the hon. Gentleman and hope that his hon. Friends are as confident as he sounds. If he is right, that is fine. However, the picture will be extremely plain in the forthcoming general election: this Government have banned hunting; a Conservative Government will be committed to reintroduce hunting with a free vote on both sides of the House. The 1 million people who care passionately about hunting will not necessarily wish to discuss it during the general election campaign, but one thing is for sure—they will put their shoulders to the Conservative wheel to ensure that we throw out this illiberal Labour Government and bring in a free Conservative Government.
  Mr. John Taylor: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The whole House knows that we shall rise tomorrow. In the past 24 hours some very alarming news has reached Members concerning the

  1369
  future and security of the motor industry in the west Midlands. Will you use your good offices to ask the Secretary of State to come to the Dispatch Box before the House rises so that Members with an interest in the midlands motor industry can put questions to her?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: There is still time for the hon. Gentleman to use the procedures available to him to seek to raise that matter. He could submit an application to Mr. Speaker that will no doubt receive his serious consideration.
  David Winnick: I agree with that point of order.
  Does the hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) agree that if Members of Parliament refused to vote for what they believe in because they were frightened of losing their seats that would reflect very badly on the House as a whole? If my hon. Friends and I trembled at his words, we would have no integrity and would be abandoning what we believe to be right.
  Mr. Gray: The hon. Gentleman speaks for himself. I suspect that listening carefully to what voters in one's constituency are thinking and doing is an extremely important part of democracy. He is right that some Members of Parliament will ignore their constituents and do something that they do not like, but they will have to face the consequences.
  It is important to examine very carefully the precise justification that the Minister advanced for the 18-month delay. Of course, we welcome that as far as it goes, because we would rather have a ban in 18 months than in 12 months. However, it shows a complete ignorance of the way in which hunting works. The average hound has a working life of at least seven years, sometimes much longer—some can hunt until they are 10 or 15. The Minister said that it is disgraceful that some of these animals are destroyed at the end of their working lives. All large working dogs, including police alsatians, have a working life of about seven years. Many are rehomed, but by no means all. A great many large working dogs of all kinds, including farm dogs and police dogs, are put down humanely at the end of their working lives.
  The rather bizarre report produced by the all-party group on animal welfare suggests that there are alternative uses for these dogs, of which there may be 30,000, 40,000 or 50,000 across England—26,000 fox hounds and a large number of other working dogs. What is going to happen to them? In the report, the RSPCA suggests that it might be possible to rehome them. Some of these dogs are extremely large—perhaps the height of the Table—and extremely powerful. They are used to living in kennels in the company of 80,100 or 120 other hounds. The idea that they could be removed individually and rehomed in domestic circumstances is ludicrous, as anyone who has ever encountered a working fox hound from a kennel will know. It would be cruel to take it away and put it in someone's front lounge, and it is not a sensible option.
  The report also suggests retraining the hounds for drag hunting. If a pack of hounds has been trained to chase the scent of a fox, a deer or a mink, it is impossible
  1370
  to imagine their somehow being retrained to hunt a bag of aniseed. Even if it were possible, what would happen when they were out on their day's drag hunting and came across a fox? Under the Bill, we do not know whether intent to kill a fox is the crime; indeed, we do not know what the offence of hunting is. One of the scandals of the way in which it has been handled is that there has been no definition of hunting or of who is doing it—is it the master, the whippers-in, people two fields away, or a passing tourist who happens to see what is going on? We do not know and the Bill does not tell us: the courts will have to examine that.
  If, as the report suggests, fox hounds are to be reused, let us imagine that all 26,000 were reused as drag hounds—a ludicrous suggestion, but let us imagine it nevertheless. If they accidentally kill a fox, a deer or a mink in the course of their normal day's drag hunting, is that an offence? The Minister might like to enlighten us, because it is not clear from the Bill.
  It is odd that the report ignores the submission by the British Veterinary Association, which knows what it is talking about and which concludes that it would not be possible to rehome or to retrain these animals and that the only way to deal with such a substantial number would be humanely to kill them at the end of their working lives.
  There is no question but that the Bill will result in the deaths of perhaps 30,000, 40,000 or 50,000 dogs as soon as it comes in. I welcome the 18-month delay in the sense that action can be taken with regard to breeding, and it may be wound down. However, a great many young puppies—the new entry, as we call it—will have come in this summer and may have seven or 10 years ahead of them. When I was out autumn hunting last week, a 13-year-old hound was hunting. Those young hounds may have 13 years ahead of them, and the 18-month delay will have no effect on them.
  The same applies to many horses. They can more easily be reused for hacking, but many lower-grade horses are kept exclusively for hunting. Almost certainly, the capital value of hunters will collapse as a result of the ban; that in itself has some welfare consequences.
  Gregory Barker: Does my hon. Friend agree that not only low-grade horses but many thoroughbreds are unsuitable for hacking? I have a thoroughbred—a retired racehorse—[Laughter.] I do not know why that is funny. I happen to love horses—obviously Labour Members do not. I am lucky to have a retired racehorse, with which I hunt. He would not make a comfortable hack. When there is no use for horses like that, there may be no permanent use for them in riding schools.
  Mr. Gray: My hon. Friend makes an important point. The Horse and Pony Taxation Committee, which I chaired until recently, and several other horse organisations that have no position on hunting, made it plain that a collapse in the value of horses will occur as a result of a ban. That will have some welfare consequences, although fewer than those for hounds.
  David Taylor: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way on that point, although he declined to do so earlier when he turned 6,700 full and part-time people into the

  1371
  equivalent of 8,000 full-time people. Perhaps he can explain the arithmetic of that to me in the bar afterwards.
  On the economics that he is currently considering, does he accept that most assessors suggest that when equestrian activity is detached from the taint of hunting, more people will want to ride and be involved, and the number of jobs will therefore grow by more than the 600 or 700 direct jobs that may be lost when the hunts disappear?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind hon. Members that we are dealing with the amendment. I do not want us to stray too far back into the substance of the debate, albeit truncated, on Second Reading.
  Mr. Gray: The hon. Gentleman suggests that there is some value in delaying the Bill's implementation because that will benefit the 6,000 to 8,000 people who will lose their jobs. He argues that that is somehow progressive. For clarity, I shall quote paragraph 18 of the Burns report, which states:
  "We estimate that somewhere between 6,000 and 8,000 full-time equivalent jobs presently depend on hunting, although the number of people involved may be significantly higher."
  I do not intend to get into a backwards-and-forwards discussion with the hon. Gentleman, because even if the figure were 50 people or 10 people it would be a matter of concern to the House. Many people will lose their livelihoods as a result of what has happened today.
  Mr. Morley: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Gray: I shall give way in a second, but we should listen to Mr. Deputy Speaker's injunction and not go too far into the issue.
  The hon. Member for North-West Leicestershire (David Taylor) argued that the horse industry would somehow grow as a result of a ban on hunting. No evidence exists to suggest that that would happen. The most recent DEFRA-commissioned report—the Henley report—mentioned the deleterious effect that the ban on hunting would have on the horse industry. There is no suggestion that a ban would increase the amount of horse riding for other purposes.
  Mr. Morley: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Gray: Before the Minister intervenes, I want to make it plain that, although I am happy to take a brief intervention on the number of jobs, the significant point is that it will be a large number. If he stands up, cites some other paragraph in the Burns report and says that the figure is "only 5,700", that would be an irrelevant intervention. Whatever the figure—5,700, 6,700, 10,000 or 300—the number of people is significant. With that caveat, I am happy to give way.
  Mr. Morley: The hon. Gentleman has pre-empted me; I have the figures. According to Burns's figures, hunts directly employ 710 people—I refer the hon. Gentleman to paragraph 3.37. Followers directly employ 1,497 people. I do not know how many of those people do other things. Of course, there are others—up to 5,000 is the figure provided—who have some connection with
  1372
  the hunt. That does not necessarily mean that all those people will lose their jobs. I do not play down the matter. There is an employment issue, and we should face up to it. However, it does not help to exaggerate the position. Far more people than those mentioned in the Burns report lost their jobs in the steel industry in my constituency alone.
  Mr. Gray: I warned the Minister that I did not intend to enter into a backwards-and-forwards discussion on numbers because the figures are plain: many people will lose their livelihoods as a result of the Bill. However, the end of the Minister's intervention was interesting. He sought to make fun of my comments about numbers—we could argue about that; it is an interesting academic subject—but he finished by saying, "Anyhow, lots of jobs were lost in the steel industry." One or two other hon. Members said earlier, "You never said that about the miners when Thatcher threw them out." Revenge is therefore all right. I do not accept that.
  We are discussing implementation of the measure and whether an 18-month delay will be useful. The many thousands of people—I suspect that it will be tens of thousands if we include saddlers, farriers and others who are involved—that the Bill affects will not be helped by the 18-month delay. That is the substantive point.
  Andrew George: In some senses, the Minister's intervention helps the hon. Gentleman and me to make the case, which the Government previously rejected, for compensation. Both he and I believe that, if the measure is to be implemented, those who are affected should be compensated, just as other communities were helped through regeneration funds when there was a decline in the steel industry.
  Mr. Gray: We were prevented from discussing compensation because of the House's inability to consider the measure in detail. We spoke about it at some length during the previous Bill's passage. The Government ignored it and the Minister for Rural Affairs and Local Environmental Quality told me across the Dispatch Box that those who lost their jobs could go to the jobcentre the same as anybody else. However, when the Government abolished fur farming—about which the Labour party took a similar principled stance to that on hunting—they introduced compensation for the fur farmers who lost their jobs. They should do the same in the case that we are considering, which we do not have an opportunity to discuss.
  Mr. Swire: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Gray: If my hon. Friend will forgive me, I am genuinely trying to wind up my remarks. I have been on my feet for some time and I am keen for others to speak. However, I shall give way briefly.
  Mr. Swire: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is time to nail the comparison with the decline in the steel industry and other industries—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We have moved further and further away from the amendment. I encourage

  1373
  hon. Members to come back to the terms of the motion and amendment; otherwise, there will certainly be no time to discuss all the matters that they wish to raise.
  Mr. Gray: The measure affects not only the people who will lose their jobs but the farmers who will have 500,000 carcases, most of which currently go to hunts, a year to dispose of, the hunts, who will have the problem of what to do with their hounds, the fox population, which will explode as a direct result of the ban, and game shooting, poultry and sheep farming. It is interesting that, under the Bill as drafted, people are allowed to use terriers underground to save game shooting. That is considered acceptable. However, someone who uses terriers underground to save the 380,000 lambs a year that foxes kill will go to prison. Someone who uses terriers underground to save poultry farming, which suffers terrible depredations from foxes, will go to prison. Terriers may be used underground only to save game shooting. I welcome that, but it shows the absurdity of the detail of the Bill. The 18-month delay will not help.
  The consequences of implementation in three months or 12 months—and immediate implementation for hare coursing, on which I shall not expand except to say that I do not agree with the Government's argument—are too horrible to contemplate from almost every perspective.
  The Government's cynical offer of a delay is an insult to the intelligence of country people. We know why the Minister made the offer: to avoid too bad a backlash in the approaching general election. It has nothing to do with animal welfare. It will assuage neither our fury nor our determination by one whit. I urge hon. Members to accept the proposal for a delay of 18 months, but it would have been better to accept our five-year proposal, which would have taken good account of the animal welfare consequences of the delay.
  Those who believe in freedom and tolerance and love the countryside will devote every ounce of their strength to removing the illiberal Labour Government who have ruined their lives in the sure and certain knowledge that an incoming Conservative Government will introduce a Bill to repeal the damaging, illiberal and disgraceful measure.
  6.49 pm
  Jean Corston: I am delighted that, once again, the House of Commons has voted by an overwhelming majority in favour of a Bill to ban hunting. I have been a lifelong opponent of hunting and my opposition was reinforced before Christmas last year when I saw a fox being torn apart by hounds of the Beaufort hunt just off the public highway.
  I want to refer particularly to the human rights aspects of the commencement date, in support of the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham (Mr. Banks). Hon. Members will know that I chair the Joint Committee on Human Rights. As part of its scrutiny process, the Committee—which does not have a Government majority—has to put aside political views and be guided solely by legal advice on the compatibility of provisions proposed in legislation with the European convention on human rights and other international instruments.
  1374
  In this regard, it is important to remember that article 1 of protocol No. 1 of the European convention, which we have incorporated into domestic law, states:
  "Every natural or legal person is entitled to the quiet enjoyment of his possessions. No one shall be deprived of his possessions except in the public interest and subject to the conditions provided for by law and by the general principles of international law."
  Let us face it—banning hunting does interfere with property rights, in terms of the use of private land and the ownership and management of hounds, for example. In the Government's correspondence with the Committee, the Government advanced two propositions. One was that a total prohibition of hunting amounted only to a control on property, rather than a deprivation of it. The Joint Committee on Human Rights agreed with that.
  The Government went on to assert that a prohibition would result only in a control on the benefit of contracts relating to hunting. Such contracts include the employment contracts to which several hon. Members have referred, and contracts undertaken by people who provide goods and services. The Joint Committee on Human Rights disagreed with that proposition on contracts that had already been entered into, for a number of reasons. The first was that there was no history of progressive legislative restriction of hunting with dogs over a long period in this country. The second was that there had been no announcement by the Government that they intended to legislate in a particular way. The third was that a legitimate expectation cannot be lost because the Government are consulting on possible future legislation. After all, the first Bill offered three options, only one of which involved a complete ban. Fourthly, there was no certainty about the content of any future Bill, and, fifthly, there was no certainty that the Parliament Acts would be used if necessary.
  One does not have to be an aficionado of "The Archers" to know that the people involved in hunting never believed that this day would come; one has only to go outside the House today. The Joint Committee on Human Rights therefore concluded that the Government had not publicly advanced such a clear policy of banning hunting that people should automatically lose the legitimate expectation that their contracts would be effective and enforceable. In short, we need to give notice. The question is: how long should that notice period be, and to what purposes should it be put?
  Mr. Gerald Howarth: I am listening to the right hon. Lady's argument with great care. She mentioned earlier that one of the considerations involved was the public interest. Will she tell us how the public interest will be served by making criminals of ordinary, decent, law-abiding folk who wish quietly to participate in their country pursuits?
  Jean Corston: There is nothing in this Bill that will turn anyone into a criminal. People will become criminals if they decide to disobey the law.
  What would be a reasonable commencement date? What would be a reasonable period for people with contracts related to hunting to make alternative arrangements? The hunting season has started, and it is evident that people have made financial and

  1375
  employment commitments to cover this season. I would suggest that it would be reasonable to allow this season to proceed and to allow one further hunting season. That would enable people—if they wish, and if they are sensible—to consider alternatives such as drag hunting. It would also enable the people employed in hunting, whatever their numbers, to look for other work, and enable those who provide goods and services to find other markets, as we are urging them to do.
  Mr. Clifton-Brown: Will the right hon. Lady give way?
  Jean Corston: No, I am sorry, I will not.
  Whatever happens, there will be an election before 31 July 2006, which is the date referred to in the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham. The Countryside Alliance has said that 59 per cent. of people support hunting, but I have never accepted or believed that figure. The important thing is, however, that if the alliance thinks that the British people feel that it has right on its side, it will have the opportunity, as part of the democratic process at the general election, to advance that argument. It might succeed, although I doubt it very much. We shall see. It is up to the people outside today, the people who are used always to having the law on their side, to recognise the will of Parliament.
  Gregory Barker: Will the right hon. Lady give way?
  Jean Corston: No. I will not.
  In my opinion, and according to most opinion polls, the majority of people in this country are opposed to hunting. Even if they were not, I am opposed to it—if the majority of people in this country were in favour of capital punishment, I would still be opposed to it—and I have to say what I think is right. I do not think that what I saw the Beaufort hunt hounds doing to that fox before Christmas last year has any place in a civilised society.
  Mr. Hogg: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am sorry to raise a matter that is slightly outside the scope of this debate, but it touches directly on the rights and duties of Members of Parliament. There is, as you know, a demonstration going on outside. Members of Parliament have a right to observe what is going on, partly to ensure that disproportionate force is not being used by the police and also to ensure that their constituents can be apprised of the facts.
  I was seeking to walk from St. Stephen's entrance to Carriage Gates when I was stopped by a police sergeant. I asked him by what authority he had stopped me, and a discussion followed. He then cited the Sessional Orders and the commissioner's regulations. I do not believe that either of those entitles a policeman to stop a member of the public or a Member for Parliament proceeding along that highway. The police have no right to do anything that is not authorised by statute, by common law or by the regulations of this House. I was therefore prevented from doing something that I feel is my duty. I ask you to ask Mr. Speaker whether he will raise this matter directly with the commissioner. This has happened to me twice today, as well as on previous occasions. It is wrong in principle, and I believe that the police are overusing their powers. I hope that the Chair will look into this matter.
  1376
  Incidentally, the sergeant in question was courteous. I took his name and he has mine, and I shall be writing to the commissioner, but I make no complaint about the way in which the sergeant handled himself. I am merely concerned that the way in which the rules are being interpreted is wrong.
  Mr. Gerald Howarth: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. May I also put on record the fact that I, too, had some difficulty with the police when seeking to get back here to vote during one of the earlier Divisions today? Furthermore, a number of other hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell), have had difficulties with police officers today. I sent an e-mail to the Serjeant at Arms yesterday asking him to ensure that the Metropolitan Police Commissioner made it clear to his officers that Members of Parliament should have access to the protesters outside and be able to get back to the House. I am sorry to say that, despite the Serjeant at Arms's reassurances that the police had been alerted to my request, it appears that, in too many instances, they had not. This is not a satisfactory state of affairs.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I think that sufficient has been said on this matter, bearing in mind the overall time situation. The right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) and the hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) have raised a serious matter, and I am sure that Mr. Speaker will seek to find out exactly what happened. On the one hand, this House obviously places extreme importance on its Sessional Orders and on freedom of access. At the same time, however, there was clearly a very difficult situation outside. The interpretation of our rights might, therefore, have been dealt with more narrowly than right hon. and hon. Members would find ideal, although I do not know the exact circumstances. The matter has been put on record, and Mr. Speaker will discuss it with the Serjeant at Arms and, if necessary, further afield, to check exactly what the situation is.
  7 pm
  Andrew George: I intend to be brief. On the date for the commencement of this legislation, the hon. Member for West Ham (Mr. Banks) knows well that I have signed his amendment and I encourage and support the principle that the Government have ultimately adopted in proposing to delay the implementation of this Bill. Clearly, that amendment recognises that it would be most appropriate for implementation of the Bill to be introduced during the close season for fox hunting. It would be inappropriate to implement it not long after cubbing has been completed and the winter season for fox hunting commenced, which would otherwise be the case.
  I want to make two other points on the commencement date. The first, to which the hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) referred obliquely, is in respect of the animal by-products order and the responsibility of Government and the agricultural sector to ensure that all fallen stock are disposed of within the regulation. As the Minister knows well, the Government have been wrestling with this issue for far longer than they would wish before

  1377
  finally announcing the establishment of a national fallen stock collection scheme. I know that an announcement has been made, but many farmers are concerned about its effective implementation.
  As the hon. Member for North Wiltshire pointed out correctly, a large number of those fallen stock are taken to hunt kennels, which provide a valuable service to the Government through the services that they provide to the agricultural sector. When the Minister winds up, or at some later stage of the debate, it would be helpful if he would clarify that the Government have a further 18 months in which to find alternatives or—
  Mr. Morley: The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point. I was not planning to wind up in order to allow Members more time, but I will answer his point directly. A number of hunts have contracted within the fallen stock collection scheme. It is a contractual arrangement—a business—about which we are very relaxed. Whatever future decisions hunts make, if they wish to continue with that contract and provide that service, which provides employment now for hunt workers, they are free to do so.
  Andrew George: I am grateful to the Minister for that clarification. He must anticipate that, as a result of the passing of this Bill, further adjustment will be needed among a large number of hunts if they do not intend to continue with kennels either through drag hunting or other means. I hope that the Government will work closely with those who currently provide that service through hunts to ensure that the agricultural sector is given that support.
  The second point on the date of commencement, which was raised on Report and Third Reading last year by me and many other Members from all parties, is that a precipitous decision to implement such a measure would have a significant impact on small rural communities, even if it is on only a few of them. The case was therefore made for a compensation package, which was supported by Members on both sides of the House. That was refused, and although it has been debated obliquely today, I hope that the Minister and his Department, as they negotiate on how this measure is to be implemented, will reflect on whether their decision not to provide compensation is appropriate. If the Minister is right, and the numbers affected are small, the overall cost to taxpayers is also likely to be low. I therefore hope that careful consideration will be given to resolving those issues over the next 18 months, and that the decision not to apply a compensation package will be reviewed.
  7.5 pm
  David Winnick: My right hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, East (Jean Corston) said that she thought that the Countryside Alliance believed that it would never see this day. I understand that—there were times during the past 12 to 18 months when I thought that I, and those who wish to see hunting with dogs come to an end, would never see this day, too. There were times—I say this without hesitation—when it seemed that the Government were not going to act.
  1378
  That was the greatest fear in my mind. Obviously, Opposition Members, who take the opposite view, wish that that were the case.
  My concern was that the Government considered that such a Bill would cause too much controversy, which to some extent it has, and that it would be an obstacle before the general election. That is why I and my hon. Friends, at business questions, Prime Minister's questions and Upstairs—giving no secrets away—at meetings of the parliamentary Labour party, urged that the Parliament Act should be used. If it is said that I was one of those whom the Prime Minister would want to please because of the stance on Iraq, that cannot apply to me because I fully supported him on that issue. Likewise, as I have indicated in an intervention, none of my hon. Friends who took an opposite view on Iraq will change their mind because of what is being done. Therefore, the conspiracy theories are just damn silly.
  I could argue that there should be no further delay. Nevertheless, I support the amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham (Mr. Banks). Indeed, when it was known that the Government were going to delay implementation for two years and there were arguments as to whether we should press for one year, in those private conversations—which are not so private now that I mention them—I took the view that we should be more accommodating. When my hon. Friend proposed the amendment giving the date of 31 July 2006, that was fine by me. We are showing flexibility for all the reasons that have been advanced today.
  Surely, the important point is that the country will have an opportunity to express its view. Were this being debated some two or three years before a general election, it could be argued that the public would not have such an opportunity for many years ahead. However, even if the election is in 2006—it is likely to be before that—the electorate will have an opportunity. If the Opposition are correct and there is such a feeling among people, apart from those who are protesting, that what we are doing is unreasonable and wrong, clearly we will suffer electorally. We live in a democracy. I do not know how many Members believe that we will suffer at the next election because of what we are doing today. Who knows? I do not happen to believe that we will.
  There may well be those opposite who do not believe what I am about to say. I am very keen to be re-elected, but even if I thought that I would suffer at the next election I would take the same view. The same applied to my views on capital punishment and my support for legislation to outlaw discrimination on grounds of race and colour. That was not very popular, even among a number of people who normally voted Labour, but I took a stance—along with others; I am not just praising myself—and accepted the consequences at the general election.
  Gregory Barker: Does the hon. Gentleman understand that good democracy is not simply the tyranny of a majority? If the principle that he expounds had been applied to Northern Ireland, we would never have seen the progress that we have seen over the past few years. That has been due to a recognition that

  1379
  certain things must be based on a broadly consensual mood. Steps cannot be taken just because a certain section of the population is in the ascendant.
  David Winnick: You would take me to task, Mr. Deputy Speaker, if I pursued the subject of Northern Ireland, in which I take a close interest. I see no possibility of comparison between the position of the majority and minority communities in Northern Ireland and what we are debating today. I think that that is totally irrelevant.
  The issue, as I see it, is clear. Either the will of the elected Chamber will be upheld, or there will be a permanent veto by the House of Lords. There is no middle way: even the Prime Minister would not argue that there is a third way in this case. I see democracy as the right of a majority in the House of Commons to make decisions. Those decisions might be wrong. During my party's 18 years in opposition, I considered most of the decisions that were made to be wrong. It was, however, the right of the majority in the House to make them, and the electorate's right to decide accordingly at the appropriate time. It was not for the House of Lords to have a permanent veto.
  Those who argue today that they are acting from the point of view of parliamentary democracy are, in effect, saying that we have no right to uphold a decision that was carried in the last and the present Parliaments, on a free vote by a substantial majority, if the House of Lords repeatedly says no. I do not agree with that interpretation of democracy. We have a right to have our decisions upheld. It is commendable that the Government have had the courage—or will have the courage, if the House of Lords refuses to change its mind—to invoke the Parliament Act. I think that that is the right decision and that most, if not all, Labour Members are very pleased about what the Government have done.
  7.12 pm
  Mr. Gerald Howarth: Today is 15 September. In our annual calendar, that is Battle of Britain day, held to celebrate the fleet of Royal Air Force pilots who stood between us and tyranny. If they fought for liberty 64 years ago we are fighting for liberty today, and against the tyranny of the majority. It is a squalid Bill, made even more squalid by the manner in which the Government have sought to introduce the timetable.
  The Prime Minister clearly wanted a two-year delay because otherwise he would face the prospect of opposition in the countryside next year. That would have spoilt his plans for the general election. I am afraid that I have no time for the Minister. He has given in to his hon. Friend the Member for West Ham (Mr. Banks), not because his hon. Friend has found a unique point in the calendar that would be better than the precise date of two years hence, but because he knows that if his hon. Friend's amendment were put to the vote it would be carried. Once again, he has given in supinely to the mob force on the other side who wish to tyrannise a small group of people, to whom I shall refer again shortly.
  I do not believe that this is an issue about employment. I used to represent a coal mining constituency not far from that of the hon. Member for
  1380
  Walsall, North (David Winnick), and I well know that people have lost their jobs in other areas of our national life. That is to be regretted. I believe, though, that this is an issue simply of liberty—of people's entitlement to pursue activities that they believe they should be able to pursue in a free society.
  Last weekend, when I visited the constituency of the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) in Northumberland, I met members of the College Valley hunt. Some of them had been down to Trimdon to have words with the Prime Minister and give him some advice about this. The Prime Minister apparently told them that he was sympathetic, but could do nothing about it because he had to listen to his Back Benchers. What a pathetic cop-out by the Prime Minister. Does it not reveal what a weak man he is? This is a man who has got to listen to his Back Benchers on the important issue of hunting, but did he listen to his Back Benchers on the issue of Iraq? He certainly did not— he overrode them.
  This Bill is the raw meat that the Prime Minister is giving to his Back Benchers The people who are to be sacrificed on the altar of Labour party unity to defend him against an increasingly disenchanted party are those in the most remote rural communities.
  Mr. Peter Pike: The hon. Gentleman says that this is all about liberty. He has supported many measures in the House that have curbed certain people's freedoms, on which he and I might agree; but if the will of Parliament and Government so decides, in a civilised society the House of Commons must decide what people can and cannot do.
  Mr. Howarth: Of course there are occasions on which we have to decide between competing freedoms. My point is that this measure is not based on the public interest. I challenged the right hon. Member for Bristol, East (Jean Corston) to say where the public interest lay in this ban, but she could give no answer. I also believe that the motives for the Bill are ill founded, whereas in the case of other issues I think there can be genuine differences in the interpretation of how liberty should be exercised.
  I believe that this should be the place where the interests of minorities are protected, and that those who now seek to impose their views on rural communities should examine their consciences very deeply. On what grounds do they assert a superior moral authority to turn into criminals some of the most decent and law-abiding people in these islands? Is it because their activity represents a danger to other members of society? Emphatically not. Is it because they inflict intolerable suffering on animals, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) seems so misguidedly to assert?
  Miss Widdecombe: Yes.
  Mr. Howarth: Hardly, as many of them are the same people who 365 days a year, day and night and in all weathers, look after the animals in their charge and tend the countryside to make it a place to be enjoyed by the remaining 95 per cent. of the population.
  Many members of my family in Scotland are sheep farmers in the borders. My late uncle was master of the Jed Forest hunt. These are people who are the greatest

  1381
  animal lovers in the country. How dare my right hon. Friend suggest that my uncle's judgment was somehow inferior to hers? I think she needs to examine her conscience.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman. I have given him considerable latitude. I understand the frustration of Members on both sides of the House who were denied an opportunity to speak on Second Reading, but I must uphold order. We are now dealing with a motion and an amendment, rather than with the substance of the Bill.
  Mr. Howarth: As ever, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I am grateful for your guidance. I am merely trying to explain why I think it intolerable that the Government should behave in such an underhand fashion in seeking to extend the period of execution. In my view, that is not being done out of a desire to assist rural communities; it is being done out of a desire to minimise the disruption that might be caused during a period leading up to a general election next year. I think that the Government have failed to deal with the issue of cruelty, and I think it a shame that we have not had more opportunity to ask the hon. Member for West Ham whether he considers hunting with hounds more cruel than coarse fishing—which, on any scale of cruelty, I submit would appear to be more cruel.
  The fact is that rural communities will be feeling tonight that they are under siege from a large majority, represented by Government Members, who have no feel for the countryside or their way of life. They have 18 months in which to prepare for a fundamental change. The hunt is part of the social glue that maintains the cohesion of communities in some of the most remote parts of England and Wales—communities for whom the hunt is the only social activity in dark winters. These people face the prospect of a central part of their way life being taken from them. It is grossly unfair that the majority should seek to inflict their views on the minority in this way.
  We will all doubtless agree that the hallmark of a free society is tolerance towards those whose opinions one does not share. If this Bill goes through tonight, with or without this amendment, Britain will have surrendered its claim to be a bastion of the free society. The mob will have taken over and the Prime Minister will be party to the intolerable imposition of the tyranny of the majority on the minority.
  7.21 pm
  Miss Ann Widdecombe: You will be delighted to hear, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that I shall confine my remarks entirely to the delay in implementation. I am not persuaded by the merits of an 18-month delay or the original two-year delay. I started off with a genuinely open mind. I listened very carefully to the Minister and initially I was impressed. The delay was about being kinder to the hounds, because it would provide more time to re-home them. It would also be fairer to organisations such as the RSPCA, which would have more time to re-home them.
  Having listened very carefully to those arguments, I began to be persuaded. But when I asked the central question—which animal welfare organisations are in
  1382
  favour of such a delay?—the hon. Member for West Ham (Mr. Banks) said, "None". If there truly were compelling reasons of animal welfare, which I was prepared to entertain, for a delay of 18 months, it is inconceivable that animal welfare organisations—I am not talking about animal rights organisations—would not support such a delay.
  The second reason for my not being persuaded concerns the crucial question—I raised it earlier—of how to ensure that the period of delay is used to run down hunts and make an orderly transition, rather than as a period of grace. It was clear from the answer given that although the Minister was seized of the point, there would be no monitoring of the situation.
  Alun Michael: I am very grateful to the right hon. Lady for raising some serious points. I have discussed this issue with the animal welfare organisations. Understandably, bodies that have campaigned against hunting for many years cannot say that they are pleased with any delay, but they also pointed out that their main concern is that legislation be put in place. If MPs agree to such a delay, those organisations will accept it, move on and work with it, and emphasise the fact that legislation is coming.
  On the second point, I have talked to organisations in areas in which there might be an impact on employment, for example. We are more than willing to meet people halfway and to help them—if they are willing to look at how they can re-order their activities for a period after a ban has come in. We are certainly willing to enter into that very positively.
  Miss Widdecombe: I am sure that, where organisations are willing to make the change, the Government will be willing to help—at least, I sincerely hope so—but my question was rather different. It was: how do we ensure that the period is used to bring about change, and not simply as a prolongation of hunting? My hunch is that the first year of an 18-month delay will prove to be a period of grace. After all, if a hunt starts to run down—if kennel-hands find other jobs, horses are disposed of and hounds are not replaced—eventually, it will become a pretty ineffective hunt. I do not see hunts spinning that out over 18 months, so I am not entirely persuaded by that argument.
  There is also the argument mounted by the hon. Member for West Ham and others, whereby a delay until July 2006 will take us beyond any possible date of an election, which will enable pro-hunting people to make their views known at the ballot box. However, we have had two elections at which the Labour party's position on this issue has been made extremely clear, so there have already been two opportunities to decide on that basis at the ballot box, if this issue was really considered the overriding one. I cannot see the sense in the Government's then saying, having got through two such elections and having implemented a manifesto promise to such an extent that even the Parliament Act is invoked, "Ah but—we'll have a referendum on the issue in the general election." That, too, is nonsense.

  1383
  I suspect that the real reason in all this is that the Prime Minister does not want the embarrassment of this issue being high on the agenda, with hunts being run down and kennels being closed, just before he is likely to call—as opposed to being obliged to call—a general election.
  I am sorry that I am picking on the hon. Member for West Ham today, because he has been a great comrade in arms during this battle, but I have to point out that I was finally unpersuaded of the argument for a delay when he said that, as a result of this pseudo-deal—he stopped just short of calling it a deal—we can guarantee that the Prime Minister and other Ministers will not suddenly move that the Parliament Act be not invoked after all. In fact, that is what this is all about. It is another deal between the Prime Minister and his Back Benchers. I see no reason why I should troop into the Lobby in support of that, so I remain deeply unpersuaded.
  Alun Michael: There are all sorts of characterisations that one can offer of political discussion within and outside parties. The point is that organisations such as the Countryside Alliance have almost encouraged their members to think that there will never be a ban on hunting, or that it is somehow okay to carry on with such activities, even if legislation is passed. The real challenge is for us—by "us" I mean the House and my party—to point out that we are being reasonable, but that they must come halfway. They must persuade their members to accept the fact that legislation is being passed in this House by a large majority, stop talking about how terrible it all is—some dreadful rhetoric has been used—and get their members to listen to the debates in this House. That is a reasonable approach, and I seek to re-persuade the right hon. Lady—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I must point out to the Minister that we cannot have mini-speeches masquerading as interventions.
  Miss Widdecombe: I am rather sorry that we will not be voting on the amendment standing in the name of the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Sir Gerald Kaufman), which proposed a year's delay. I could have accepted that as a reasonable period in which to do everything that the Minister is suggesting, such as demonstrating reasonableness and giving people time to adjust. A delay of 18 months is pretty cynical and politically driven, and I am not certain that I can vote in favour of it. That said, I shall listen carefully to any further arguments that are deployed.
  The time has now come to bite the bullet. We have spent a very long time getting this ban, and it has been a long, hard fight. I had a great deal of sympathy for the hon. Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) when he said today that he felt that in these, his last years in Parliament, he has brought something to fruition. I well remember, back in the days when we were in government, what was then called the "McNamara Bill". It was instrumental in testing parliamentary opinion, and in working towards the eventual commitment given by Labour Front Benchers.
  Given that we have decided to do this, my wish is that we do it quickly. I could be persuaded that three months is too short a period, but 18 months is far too long.
  7.29 pm
  Mr. Peter Atkinson: We have a first tonight, in that I agree with something that my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) said on this issue. She was right to say that the 18-month delay is a cynical move to take us beyond the next general election and prevent demonstrations from happening during the campaign. Another bit of marvellous spin from the Government— the suggestion that the delay was to give the hunting fraternity the opportunity to express their view at the ballot box—absolutely defies belief.
  I am remiss in not having declared my entry in the Register of Members' Interests.
  Another thing that struck me about the 18 months is that one particular sport was left out of the equation. Why do foxhounds and beagles need that winding-up period, but not the sport of coursing? I know what the Minister has said about illegal coursing, but that is a fig leaf, because coursing has precisely the same contracts and arrangements as fox and stag hunting and beagling.
  The right hon. Member for Bristol, East (Jean Corston) was right to refer to human rights legislation. The Minister is shaking his head, but he should listen. One reason why the delay was perceived to be necessary was that, as the Joint Committee on Human Rights said, it would be unreasonable to wrap up hunting in three months, because there are contracts and so on.
  Alun Michael: The Committee said no such thing, and I suggest that the hon. Gentleman look at what it did say. I have twice made the point—the trouble is that people are not here for the whole of the debate that— there is serious criminal activity associated with hare coursing. Illegal coursing is conducted simply on the basis of trespass, and we need to give the police the tools to do the job. None of the welfare and business considerations apply in relation to hare coursing. I have made that very clear.
  Mr. Atkinson: The Minister makes it clear that he knows absolutely nothing about legal coursing. He is utterly wrong. Of course there is a problem with illegal coursing, but legal coursing is our oldest field sport and is organised and run under the rules of the National Coursing Club. To lump legal with illegal coursers is utterly wrong. The Government's proposals will be in breach of human rights legislation, and I sincerely hope that lawyers for the Countryside Alliance are poring over what the Minister said today.
  Mr. Bellingham: Is my hon. Friend aware that there are coursing kennels in my constituency that employ about three people—large kennels—and all the people working there have contracts? Incidentally, because the coursing that takes place from those kennels is supervised and follows the rules, it prevents illegal coursing.
  Mr. Atkinson: That is absolutely right. The whole point of organised coursing is that it is run carefully under the rules, and the estates and farms involved are protected from poaching. That is why the Game

  1385
  Conservancy Trust consistently finds that estates and farms where coursing take place have a higher hare population than others.
  Lembit Öpik: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the technical points that he is making seem to have been lost on those who are imposing this time limit? Similar problems occur in areas where hunting with dogs is the primary fox control method, because not only will new materials have to be used to control foxes but there will have to be fresh training and adaptation. Lord Burns himself said that fox hunting with dogs was the primary method of control in some areas.
  Mr. Atkinson: I am trying to follow the hon. Gentleman, and I think that I agree with him.
  Illegal coursing has long been a problem. The current laws that apply to it are quite draconian, involving the confiscation of vehicles and so on. They are not always enforced, and they are difficult to police. That is not an excuse, though, for saying that the ancient sport of legal coursing will be wiped out in three months' time, and the contracts with trainers and with merchants for feed, and the capital put into the kennels to train the coursing dogs, will be totally disregarded. If anything will be against the human rights legislation, that will be it, and the Minister may well face a challenge on it.
  Mr. Andrew Robathan: Is not the point that people will give up working for hunts if they have this 18-month rundown, and they will then no longer have a claim for compensation against this ghastly and illiberal legislation?
  Mr. Atkinson: Precisely. If they are working as kennel hands or in the coursing training yards, they will be out of work in three months without compensation.
  The Minister spoke about the number of deer being killed by hounds. Once again, he perpetuates a myth that has long surrounded stag hunting, not recognising that the stag is shot at the end, and not killed by the hounds. I want to be sure, before he wipes out stag hunting, that he at least knows what goes on in the sport.
  The other fig leaf produced tonight was drag hunting—as if that was a substitute for the hunting that goes on now. My constituency has seven packs of hounds—it is precisely the kind of upland area with a high livestock population that my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) mentioned. The proportion of people following those hounds on horseback is probably a third. Another third follow on foot or in vehicles, and the rest—largely farmers and their children—on quad bikes, which have become very popular. Drag hunting holds no interest for two thirds of the people who currently follow hounds.
  Hunting is an equestrian sport, so it has to be laid out in a particular way. I have taken part in that, and I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Norfolk (Mr. Bellingham) would also understand this. The drag must not run over crops. It is a difficult and complex job, and by no means could all those who currently hunt and the 26,000 hounds be accommodated. Normally, only a handful of hounds go
  1386
  on a drag hunt. Many of them are drafted from foxhound packs, which of course understand the scent of foxes, and they could well end up going after a fox. Drag hunting cannot replace the work of 26,000 hounds.
  Even if we give them 18 months, it will be impossible for most hunts to acclimatise their hounds to living in a new, almost semi-domestic situation. Hounds have a strict pecking order, with lead hounds, like a wild pack of dogs. Hounds put in twos or threes become extremely disorientated and often do a lot of damage to their kennels through frustration, and they become extremely unhappy. That is why so many vets think that the kindest thing to do will be to hunt the hounds for the final 18 months and then have them put down—a point that my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald has made.
  This is a cynical Bill, the last knockings of the old Labour class prejudice. Nowadays, new Labour tries to cloak this as an animal welfare issue, but it is nothing of the sort: it is good, old-fashioned class prejudice.
  7.39 pm
  Mr. Michael Foster: I am delighted to follow the hon. Member for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson) and my general committee will be delighted to hear that I am now a member of old Labour. [Interruption.] I hear shouts of "Tory gain", but they were the same shouts that I heard before the 2001 election. I will face my electorate with a very clear conscience after taking this issue forward.
  The hon. Gentleman referred to my right hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, East (Jean Corston), who spoke about the European Court of Human Rights and whether the Bill could face a challenge. She made it clear that, if the Government have given notice of intent with respect to a Bill, there could be no recourse to human rights legislation because those rights would not have been breached. The hon. Gentleman will remember that a ban on hare coursing was in the original Bill of a couple of years ago. That sent out a clear signal to everyone that, regardless of what happened to fox hunting, stag hunting and hare hunting, the Government had a clear intent that the activity of hare coursing would be banned. Due notice would have been given, which perhaps explains the hon. Gentleman's misunderstanding.
  I shall be brief because the House has spent enough time on this issue. Frankly, I believe that Members on both sides of the House would agree that Parliament has more pressing matters to deal with. Those people, however, who say that Parliament has those more pressing matters to contend with should not be the same people who argue for extra days to debate this issue. That is utterly wrong, and it is disingenuous of those people to make that argument.
  I speak in favour of the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham (Mr. Banks) and others, but I do so with a degree of reluctance because I would have preferred the matter to have been dealt with, done and dusted back in 1998, when my original private Member's Bill was talked out on Report. It would have been great to see the issues dealt with then, making today's long discussions redundant. When hunting is finally banned, as it will be under today's plans, I do not

  1387
  believe for one moment that anyone would seriously want to bring it back. If we were starting afresh and had a problem with fox predation, we would never invent the sport of hunting with dogs.
  Mr. Roger Gale: The hon. Gentleman referred to 1998, but he is as aware as I am that the Prime Minister promised publicly to end the hunting of wild animals with hounds by the end of the 1997 Parliament. He failed, and some of us are appalled that he and his colleagues are contemplating still further delay.
  Mr. Foster: I cannot recall those exact words from the Prime Minister. I do not believe that he actually said that it would be dealt with by the end of the 1997 Parliament. The manifesto commitment said that we would have a free vote on the issue. I regret the delay and believe that we should have dealt with the issue long ago, but I support the idea of specifying a reasonable period of time before the Act commences, as laid down in the amendment. I do so because I believe that the House has a duty to help those whom we want to encourage to switch to alternatives such as drag hunting. We need to allow time for that process to happen.
  I would like to explain how I envisage that happening. To switch to drag hunting, hunts would have to register with the Draghounds and Bloodhounds Association. To do that, they would have to register the land on which they intend to hunt. To do that, in turn, they would have to secure permission from the appropriate farmers or landowners, and I accept that that might take more than three months. So what time scale am I happy with? I think that a case for 12 months, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Sir Gerald Kaufman) suggested, could be argued. However, we should think about the hunting season for fox hunting, which tends to end in March. Although the resolution does not kick in until 31 July, the effect would be that the hunting season would end in March. The alternative that my right hon. Friend considered was ending perhaps at the end of November or the beginning of December—some three or four months before that. We are arguing about a period of only three or four months to ensure that all our considerations are dealt with.
  Rather than have the sort of disgraceful scenes that we have seen taking place outside the House—and, unfortunately, inside the Chamber—if people want to take to the streets and to cause violence, it is worth encouraging them, if they are so concerned, to express their displeasure in the ballot box.
  Miss Widdecombe: I thank the hon. Gentleman and take the opportunity to congratulate him on the huge part that he has played in bringing about today's result. Can he provide me with any evidence at all that this period—as long as 18 months or, if to March, a little shorter than that—will be used to run down hunts in an orderly and humane fashion rather than simply used as a period of grace?
  Mr. Foster: I am grateful to the right hon. Lady for her question. I believe that the Countryside Alliance and their advisers have misled the vast majority of people engaged in hunting to the extent that they did not believe that Parliament was serious about dealing with this issue
  1388
  and bringing it to a conclusion. I honestly believe that they did not think that this day would come. This day has come, so there is a very clear signal from this day forward that hunts will make changes.
  I know that the organiser of the Draghounds and Bloodhounds Association had some discussions with others during the period of my private Member's Bill to find out how hunts would convert. In fact, it was put to me that some of the more prestigious hunts in the country would be looking to act quite quickly so that they could grab the best pieces of land on which to hunt. The only other piece of evidence that I have—I am glad that the right hon. Lady asked her question—is an advert taken from this Saturday's Worcester Evening News. I do not believe for one minute that it will be the substitute that all hunts follow. Nevertheless, the Worcestershire hunt supporters club advertises a "Round Rushock Ride" on Sunday 26 September. It will start from Callimore farm, last for two and a half hours and be an approximately 12 mile pleasure ride with optional jumps. The entry fees for adult and junior riders are published. I am inclined to think that that is perhaps a snippet of evidence suggesting that hunts can have an alternative to what they currently do in chasing live quarries.
  Gregory Barker: Anyone familiar with these sorts of events knows perfectly well that they are nothing like hunting and do not provide a substitute for it. They are something entirely different from hunting and the hon. Gentleman obviously has absolutely no idea what he is talking about.
  Mr. Foster: I am most grateful for that contribution— as ever, very short on knowledge about what I have done to carry this issue forward. I went out with the Worcestershire hunt to see what it did and I found it most instructive to see how a hunt was organised. I was often put in a position where I was at the front of the field and I could see the fox running, despite its natural reaction to flee from its chasers, towards me. I recognised the skill in how the hunt was organised. As a lay person, one would have thought that the fox would try to escape any way it could, but by coincidence I was always there. On one occasion, the fox brushed past my leg—;and those of the people accompanying me on the hunt. To show me how humane the hunt was, the fox went past my leg. Hunt supporters pretend that hunting as an activity is purely natural. I believe that that is a lie.
  Miss Widdecombe rose—
  Gregory Barker rose—
  Mr. Foster: Let me explain the relevance of that point. If there is a switch to drag hunting and if a hunt is organised in such a way that people can enjoy the pleasure of the ride—hunt supporters tell me that that is what they want—they can still have an enjoyable day in the countryside. Hunt supporters also often say, "We are never there at the kill to see the end of the fox, so why on earth do we have to chase a live mammal?" There is no point in it, nor any need for it. I support the amendment in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham. It proposes a reasonable delay to smooth

  1389
  the transition. It will ensure that we end, once and for all, this cruel spectacle of killing a wild mammal just for sport.
  7.50 pm
  Gregory Barker: I rise to speak with a great deal of sadness. The amendment to give a stay execution for 18 months to the noble sport of fox hunting signifies the reintroduction of a Bill that is vicious, illiberal and wholly unjustifiable.
  The Bill is an affront to every citizen who values liberty and tolerance. I am certain that, when all the arguments have been laid to rest and historians look back at this time, no one will see the measure in the context of animal welfare. The last time this measure came before the House, I sat through interminable Committee sittings. No convincing animal welfare arguments were made that proved that fox hunting was demonstrably more cruel to foxes than any other form of control.
  I have been involved in fox hunting, but I was involved in animal welfare organisations before I entered party politics. I know that it is cruel to shoot a fox and leave it to suffer, or to snare or gas a fox, but animal welfare forms no part of the nasty, vicious and illiberal argument put forward by Labour Members. The Bill is all about settling little scores. It is part of the little Labour shibboleth, and it represents the tick-box mentality of the brothers and sisters on that side of the House.
  What has made today so unpleasant is the look of glee evident on so many Labour Members' faces. They do not give a cuss about the people in the countryside who are going to lose their jobs. They could not give a monkey's for the people who, ultimately, will lose their homes, or for the people who will lose the sport that they have followed for years, and the friendship that goes with it.
  The Bill will cause real human misery. It may not be on a great scale, involving hundreds of thousands of people, but real distress will be caused to families and people who have known only one career and way of life. For many Labour Members, this is about getting one back for the miners. We have heard many nasty little jibes from Labour Members, who have said that the Bill pays the Opposition back for the miners. I think that we heard the Minister for Rural Affairs and Local Environmental Quality say, "Remember the steel workers." How nasty and backward looking is that?
  Claire Ward: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Gregory Barker: No. The hon. Lady did not give way to anyone when she spoke.
  Claire Ward: I have not spoken in this debate.
  Gregory Barker: In that case, I beg the hon. Lady's pardon—although what I said was correct: she did not give way. However, I shall let her in when I have finished my point, and when she has finished laughing and cheering.
  1390
  The spectacle of Labour Members welcoming this Bill with glee is stomach churning. Although I rose to speak with sadness, I can tell the House that that sadness will be translated into bitter anger in the outside world. People will look at how casually Labour Members have trodden and trampled on other people's way of life, and thrown away rights that have been enjoyed for centuries—all for the sake of finishing the job that their party began. The spectacle is horrible to behold.
  Claire Ward: The hon. Gentleman has said that my Front-Bench colleagues are involved in some sort of payback for what happened to the miners. The Bill is not a payback: it is about doing the right thing. The point that Ministers made was that the Opposition, when they were in government and decided to close the pits, did not care two hoots about the livelihoods of thousands of people and families. We are trying to delay commencement so that we can talk to people about what is going to happen. That contrasts with what the hon. Gentleman's party did when it was in government.
  Gregory Barker: I entered the House three years ago. The point that the hon. Lady makes is totally erroneous and wrong, but what the previous Conservative Government did had nothing to do with me. Their action does not inform my politics, but it is clear that there remains a huge amount of residual bigotry among Labour Members. The way in which they wallow in other people's distress is really unpleasant.
  The Bill shows the Government's total disregard for evidence. Once again, they have ignored the experts and sacrificed both principle and evidence in favour of political expediency. This is government and legislation for the few—that is, the parliamentary Labour party—and not for the many.
  As I said when I began, this debate will be remembered not for the 18-month delay or for the arguments about animal welfare but because it is a pernicious and sectarian piece of legislation that runs totally counter to how our country is developing. We live in an increasingly diverse and pluralistic society. More and more of our time and trouble in this House is devoted to making sure that the rights of minorities are protected. We go out of our way to try to understand the point of view of other people. We may have very little in common with them, or very little understanding of them, and we may even speak a different language and have a very different culture, but those people add to the diversity of our society. So why is the Labour party blind to the fact that a rich element of our island's culture is being obliterated?
  The small minority involved in fox hunting has rights too. I understand that Labour Members may disapprove of fox hunting, and that they find it distasteful. However much their views may be based on incorrect facts or a lack of evidence, they are perfectly entitled to hold them, but they are not entitled to use their position in this House to criminalise hundreds of thousands of law-abiding people.
  Yet that is what Labour Members are doing, and they are abusing the parliamentary process as they go about it. I am glad that we have a second Chamber to revise Government legislation. I sincerely hope that the House of Lords exercises its role properly, and that it sends this nasty, pernicious and sectarian Bill back to this House.

  1391
  There has to be a check on the rule of the mob, and on the majority imposing its views on the minority. History will not judge this Bill on grounds of animal welfare or on how toffs dress up. It will judge it on the way in which Labour Members were prepared to be so intolerant, illiberal and bigoted. They want to impose their narrow little view of the world on a group of people about whom they could not really care less.
  Mr. Tom Harris: The hon. Gentleman says that he hopes that the other place will reject this measure once again. Does he consider this Chamber to be sovereign in this Parliament? How many times must this Chamber arrive at the same decision before he accepts that that decision represents the democratic will of hon. Members? Does he genuinely believe that the House of Lords has the right to reject time and time again any measure that he happens to disagree with?
  Gregory Barker: That is exactly why the House of Lords is there. The hon. Gentleman talks about the will of this Chamber but, in this evening's vote on Second Reading, the majority in favour of the Bill was very small. That is the first time that that has happened. I was a Teller when the Bill was last considered by the House, and 319 hon. Members voted for a ban on that occasion. Today, most Members of the House of Commons either voted against the Bill, or abstained from voting, or absented themselves. In no way can that vote be summed up as representing the great will of Parliament.
  The Parliament Acts were not invented to be used to force through the bigoted views of a minority in the House of Commons.
  Mr. Bellingham: My hon. Friend has spoken about how hon. Members abstained or absented themselves, but is he aware that the Prime Minister—who was here for Prime Minister's Question Time—absented himself from all the Divisions? What does he make of that?
  Gregory Barker: It is the cowardice and double-speak that we have come to expect—
  Claire Ward: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Michael Lord): Order. I think I heard what the hon. Gentleman said. Perhaps he would like to withdraw the word that he just used about the Prime Minister.
  Gregory Barker: Which particular word, Mr. Deputy Speaker?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Cowardice.
  Gregory Barker: I shall happily withdraw "cowardice".
  Mr. Robathan: Are we not allowed to say cowardice?
  Miss Widdecombe: Try timidity.
  Gregory Barker: Yes. Timidity and lack of courage might perhaps have been better choices of words on this occasion.
  1392
  The test of courage comes when we are in the minority. The test of tolerance comes when we are in the majority. It is clear tonight that the majority in this House have proved themselves totally intolerant and illiberal. They will reap the whirlwind for it.
  The test of the courage of the minority has only just begun. I know for certain that the minority who support and practise country sports will certainly continue to fight the ban every inch of the way. If Labour Members think that this is the last they have heard of it, they are very much mistaken.
  8 pm
  Claire Ward: I feel some sense of comfort in contributing to this debate, because I can begin to see some light at the end of what has been a very dark tunnel for Members of Parliament and people throughout the country who want an end to fox hunting. We have spent many hours over my seven years as a Member of the House debating whether to ban fox hunting. For a range of reasons, and despite the clear will of the House, as demonstrated through numerous votes on numerous occasions, it has sometimes seemed that achieving a ban on fox hunting was almost beyond our grasp. Now, we have a chance to get the ban through.
  I am astonished that the Conservative party and its Front-Bench spokesperson have indicated that were the Conservatives to form the Government after the next general election, one of their first priorities would be to legislate to reverse the ban on hunting. Frankly, it is time to move on. There is no doubt that our constituents consider many other issues to be important—health, education and many more areas to which they want this House to turn its attention. We must, finally, put an end to this.
  Mr. Cameron:The hon. Lady mentions what an incoming Conservative Government will do, but does she recognise that it is a lot easier to undo legislation and allow people to do things than it is to make them criminal, which is why this Bill has taken so long and been so difficult?
  Claire Ward: The hon. Gentleman can continue to believe in his dreamland that the Conservative party will form the next Government and be able to restore hunting, but I think that as time goes on it will be extremely difficult for any Government to reverse a ban on the idea that it is acceptable for people to chase across the country in pursuit of a fox as a form of sport and to watch it being torn apart by hounds. We live in a modern, 21st century country that should be looking at a range of other activities rather than a barbaric and unacceptable one.
  We have heard a lot about minorities. Of course our job should be to take account of minority views, but not where those minority views are, in my opinion and in the opinion of many other Members, wrong and unacceptable. Nor should those minority views be held above the views of the majority. A clear majority of people in the country wish to see a ban on fox hunting.
  Gregory Barker: In that case, what view does the hon. Lady take of al-Hamid?
  Claire Ward: That is a quite separate issue, and I am sure that Mr. Deputy Speaker would rule me out of order for speaking about it on the procedural motion. Religious issues are very different, and they are not the issue here. We are talking about a sport in which people chase across the country as a form of Saturday or Sunday morning entertainment in order to see a fox being torn apart. I do not believe that that is acceptable, and that is clearly the view of this House.
  I do not wish to spend huge amounts of my time going over the issues on hunting when the debate is clearly about the procedural implementation of legislation. My name is appended to amendment (b), which was tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Sir Gerald Kaufman), and I should have preferred the ban to be brought in much earlier than is being proposed. However, I accept that negotiations and discussions have taken place and that the Government have thought carefully about how to ensure some balance so that the hunting community can look at the issues—even if it has had seven years to recognise that a ban was very much on the cards. That community now has perhaps 18 months to consider what it is prepared to do to find alternative uses.
  Miss Widdecombe: May I ask the hon. Lady, as I have asked several others who favour the extraordinary 18-month period, what the evidence is that that time will be used to run down hunts in an orderly and humane fashion rather than as a period of grace in which to do what the hon. Lady rightly describes as the unthinkable?
  Claire Ward: I completely agree with the right hon. Lady's sentiments. If it were up to me and I were Prime Minister, I might have a different view tonight. However, I accept that we need to give the hunting community a reasonable period in which to find alternative employment, and in some cases alternative accommodation.
  We recognise those needs, but the right hon. Lady has rightly identified issues that we need to continue to pursue during the 18 months. When we pass the Bill today, that should not be the end of the matter. We should encourage the Government to make sure that they encourage the hunting community not just to start to wind down but to make sure that the next season is the last for hunting. The hunting community has had the opportunity to consider this for the past seven years, and I am sorry that it has not done so. It has clearly been given poor advice and led very badly by the Countryside Alliance and other representatives within the hunting lobby. I hope that it will now recognise that once a ban is in place, we expect people to obey the law. It is not for them to determine otherwise or lead people to disobey the law.
  I hope that people will have the opportunity to consider drag hunting and other forms of employment. After this afternoon's monstrous behaviour outside and inside the Chamber, I wonder whether they have the courage to address the real issues that face the hunting community. I hope that they do, but whatever we do tonight in voting for a delay of 18 months, or more or less, it is ultimately for the other place to decide whether to agree with us or to ensure that the Parliament Act must be used. That is what is at stake when the Bill goes to the other place.
  1394
  I secretly hope—I am making it public now—that the other place votes against whatever I decide tonight in terms of the delay, because then the Bill will be introduced three months after its date of implementation. We are almost left to rely on those in the other place to do some business for us. If they should decide to support the position of the Government and of this House, they will allow a reasonable delay, and I would hope that people accept that the time for hunting has come to an end.
  It is not time for us to continue to debate whether to ban hunting. It is time to ban hunting, and it is time for this House to move on to the many other important issues that our constituents want us to address. I look forward to seeing the ban on hunting.
  8.10 pm
  Mr. Roger Gale: The hon. Member for Watford (Claire Ward) said that the Countryside Alliance has had seven years to get used to the idea of a ban. As most hon. Members will know, I hold no brief for the Countryside Alliance. I am sure that many of its members are very nice people, but I do not happen to share their views. However, this Government have had seven years to honour their pledge, but now find it necessary—at the dog-end of a Session—to use the Parliament Acts, wholly improperly, to ram through legislation that could and should have been debated properly by this House. Having been in the House for 21 years, I regard that as a great abuse of the procedures of this House.
  I shall, given the opportunity, vote against the proposal tabled by the hon. Member for West Ham (Mr. Banks)—I am sorry that he is not in his place at the moment. The future Lord Banks of Riverside tells us that he can live with his conscience. He could probably sleep with it, because it would not take up much room in the bed. I have voted, on every occasion I have had the opportunity to do so during my time in this House, to end the hunting of wild animals with dogs. I do not normally consider myself a class warrior, and that is not why I have voted in that way. I have done so because it is a wrong, cruel and outrageous practice whose time has expired. It needs to be consigned to the dustbin of history along with cock fighting, dog fighting and bear baiting. The issue is as simple as that.
  When I went through the Lobby earlier this evening to vote for the Bill as it stands, imperfect as it is, I hoped that their lordships would have the opportunity to fine-tune it and deal with some of the very real issues relating to employment, the welfare of the dogs and other matters arising from the implementation of what will become an Act. I had hoped that the other place would be given that opportunity. When I went through the Lobby, the Government Whip on duty said, "There'll be another vote at about 9 o'clock, comrades." Well, comrades and brothers, let us see what Labour Members are made of. I voted in that Lobby for a ban, not a delay and certainly not for an 18-month delay that—as my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) clearly demonstrated—is nothing to do with animal welfare or reasonable implementation. A delay is not supported by any reputable animal welfare organisation. It is simply a cynical ploy, at the Prime Minister's behest, to kick this issue into touch until after the next general election.

  1395
  When the Minister introduced the motion, he said that he supported the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for West Ham. The Minister said that the 18-month delay would see the measure introduced before the 2006 cubbing season. What about the 2005 cubbing season? I suppose, comrades, that that does not matter. Well, it does. The delay is a cynical ploy. Members of Parliament cannot say, "Lord, make me virtuous, but not yet." Either we do this or we do not. I shall vote against the delay and in doing so I shall vote for the Bill as it stood. I shall wait to see what everybody else in the House is made of.
  8.14 pm
  Mr. Ian Cawsey: I did not intend to speak at this point in the debate, but I wish to address some of the issues that have been raised. It is a great honour to follow the hon. Member for North Thanet (Mr. Gale) who, in all matters of animal welfare, I think of as my hon. Friend—if not a comrade. I also agree with the comments by the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) about whether a delay is right. It is a narrow point. The House has now made its decision on what should happen to hunting in general, and I shall focus on the issue of a delay.
  I am the chairman of the Associate Parliamentary Group for Animal Welfare and, about a year ago, the Kennel Club wrote to me to say that it had no view one way or the other on the rights or wrongs of hunting and that it was a matter for Parliament to decide. However, it was worried about the dogs used in hunting. I met the Kennel Club and several other dog organisations, rehoming organisations and animal welfare groups, and we decided that I would recommend to APGAW that it commission a working group to look into that point. The working group met for the tail-end of last year and most of this year and finally published a report in the week before the summer recess.
  People often refer to the APGAW report as though it were all the work of Members of Parliament, but—as the hon. Member for North Thanet will know—it is not unusual for the group to commission reports, and the contributors consist of people working in the relevant areas. The group that considered the welfare implications for the dogs of a ban on hunting was made up of Caroline Kisko, the secretary of the Kennel Club; Clarissa Baldwin, the chief executive of the Dogs Trust; Chris Laurence, head of veterinary services at the Dogs Trust; Dominic Rudd, the head of operational services at the RSPCA; and Dr. Rachel Casey, a vet and expert in dog behaviour and welfare from the University of Bristol.
  We took much evidence from many groups and individuals over a long period. Dr. Casey and her colleagues at the University of Bristol spent much time visiting hunts. We received information from more than 30 hunts from various parts of the country that took part in different types of hunting and had different sizes of pack. It was a truly representative sample.
  Mr. Michael Foster: Did the Countryside Alliance take part in the exercise?
  Mr. Cawsey: It did, and it gave written and oral evidence. The Scottish Countryside Alliance also gave
  1396
  evidence, as did the Council of Hunting Associations and numerous groups representing the various breeds of dogs used in hunting.
  We concluded that the wholesale destruction of dogs in the event of a ban could be avoided and our report contained six recommendations on what could be done, although it is not intended to be an exhaustive list. Some dogs could be kept for breeding and show purposes. The Kennel Club made the point strongly that the Masters of Foxhounds Association holds the pedigree information for those dogs, and that if it were to release it that could move a number of dogs into that side of the dog world. The Kennel Club has helpfully offered to meet the association and to offer discounts to allow progress to be made on that option.
  Several hon. Members have mentioned drag hunting. We met representatives of drag hunting, who agreed that it had possibilities. It was also pointed out that when there was a voluntary ban on hunting during the foot and mouth crisis, hunts found alternative activities for their packs and continued to exercise them. Hunts also managed to keep hunt followers together. Of course, there have been media reports that people involved in hunting are already meeting to discuss what they can do—as they have in Scotland, where hunting with dogs is already banned. Other people may choose to retain the packs for other uses. One of my hon. Friends on the Treasury Bench spoke about fallen stock services, which would be a commercial decision.
  Rehoming is controversial. The hon. Member for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson) spoke about some of the difficulties involved in that. We met people who have undertaken it, however. More to the point, every organisation—including the Countryside Alliance—accepts that it can be done. The only argument between the organisations was about the scale of the practice. Clearly, there are opportunities.
  The Scottish Countryside Alliance pointed out that when hunting was banned in Scotland, several hunts drafted dogs to other countries, including Ireland, France and some eastern European countries. We were rather lukewarm about that idea, and it was one of the more controversial points in our report. We were hesitant, because our main interest was the welfare of the dogs. How can we know what the welfare conditions will be in another country? However, provided there are adequate safeguards, it is something that could be considered. There is also euthanasia, which has already been mentioned, but we think that we can avoid wholesale destruction.
  The right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald asked who would do anything with the extra time. That is an important point. Caroline Kisko addressed the Council of Hunting Associations on what could be done for dogs in the future and several people from hunts told her that they wanted information and help because they did not want to destroy their dogs. They said that if a ban were introduced quickly they would not be able to find out about the alternatives. The amendment gives them the opportunity to do that.
  My view is that we can split hunt dog owners into three categories, although I would not claim that they are all of equal size. First, there are those who want to make as big a point as possible—they will even destroy their dogs just to make their point and get publicity, and

  1397
  they will do that no matter what we do or say in this place. Secondly, there are those who will continue to look after their dogs and who want no help or advice from anybody else—they will find alternatives and just get on with it, thank you very much. Finally, there are those who would like to do that, but who want some help and guidance.
  We spoke to every reputable rehoming organisation and our report recommends a process involving hunts and rehoming organisations, with a clearing system with which DEFRA could assist. That would ensure that the dogs have a safe and happy future. The problem with that proposal is that every rehoming organisation told us, "We could do it over a period of time, but we could not do it quickly. If you restrict us to three months, you will make it impossible". By accepting the 18-month amendment, we could look after dogs much better. The Kennel Club, the Dogs Trust and all the dog rehoming organisations to which we spoke would be on our side.
  Mr. Foster: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his generosity in giving way once again. Does he conclude that if the House of Lords were to reject the proposal for a commencement after 18 months—if the Commons accepts it—so that the default setting returns to three months, any impact on dogs in terms of adverse animal welfare implications will be entirely their responsibility?
  Mr. Cawsey: I suppose that is the logical conclusion of what has been said, but I really wanted to address—
  Mr. Gale: The hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Foster) cannot get away with that point. The three-month commencement is in the Bill. If the Government had chosen to amend it, they could have done so, but they would have been unable to use the Parliament Act.
  Mr. Cawsey: I do not want to get into that argument. I am trying to set out the findings of our working group.
  I do not know how many dogs or hunt owners will be in the three categories I described earlier, but I know that there are hunt people who want time and support to do the best for their dogs. If we do not give them that chance by voting for the motion, I fear that we shall be putting them in an extremely difficult position. If we give them no time, we give them no chance. We should give them an opportunity. The Kennel Club, the Dogs Trust, the rehoming organisations and I will very much welcome that opportunity, which is why I signed the amendment.
  8.25 pm
  Mr. Andrew Robathan: This is a shameful day for the House of Commons. We are seeing mean-minded, chippy bigotry brought into play.
  Miss Widdecombe: Am I chippy?
  Mr. Robathan: I hear my right hon. Friend, but mean-minded, chippy bigotry is being brought into play by people who are not particularly interested in animal welfare.
  1398
  We heard earlier about miners and steel workers. Actually, I care when miners or steel workers lose their jobs, as I care when other people lose their jobs.
  Mr. Morley: So do I.
  Mr. Robathan: But not, apparently, most other people on the Labour Benches.
  We are discussing the 18-month delay. As has already been said, it is a pathetic, cynical electoral ploy by the Government. I know that the name of the Minister for Rural Affairs and Local Environmental Quality is on the amendment and that he supports it and will accept it. That is a disgraceful abuse of Parliament. Either hunting with dogs should be banned, or it should not. Surely, that is clear to even the most stupid person on the Labour Benches who supports the amendment—[Interruption] I think I am allowed to say that, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  The measure will deliver hunting death by a thousand cuts—the lingering death of a fox shot by those alleged marksmen. As somebody who has shot more rifle bullets than most people in this place, I can tell Members that many foxes shot by people who pretend to be marksmen will die a lingering death. But of course that is part of what the Government want. A person thinking of renewing their hunt subscription would say, "Why should I bother?" If they were thinking of buying a new box, they would say, "I won't bother." If they were thinking of buying a new hunter, they would say, "It's only for 18 months, why should I bother?"
  That is the Government's ploy. They will kill off hunting slowly so that there are no great protests. In particular, a kennel man or a huntsman will say, "Well, I'd better get another job." They will then be unable to claim the compensation that the Government do not want invoked under human rights legislation.
  The measure is disgraceful and the Government are yet again exposed as cynical in the extreme. I wish people outside this place could see the glee on the faces of people who do not care much one way or the other about hunting. An ex-Minister—it would be invidious to name him—told me, when he was still a Minister, that he did not care tuppence about hunting, but that he would vote for a ban because between 200 and 300 of his constituents really cared about it and they were all members of his constituency Labour party.
  A Liberal Democrat MP—she shall also remain nameless—
  Angela Eagle: That is narrowing it down quite a lot.
  Mr. Robathan: But at least I am not sexist.
  The Liberal Democrat MP told me, "I really don't care, but I keep getting all these letters so I'll vote for a ban." That is the truth. Most people in the House—like most people outside—do not really care very much about hunting but they will subject the few people who hunt to the loss of their sport, and for many, of their livelihood, for petty, mean-minded reasons.
  Dr. Julian Lewis: I wonder whether my hon. Friend heard the "Today" programme this morning, when Mr. George Monbiot of the

  1399
  left-wing press was boasting of the fact that the measure, if carried, would be the biggest blow of a social nature to the upper classes since the abolition of the hereditaries in the House of Lords. It is good to have that sort of admission.
  Mr. Robathan: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention. I did not hear Mr. Monbiot, but of course that is unfortunately what a lot of people think. [Interruption.] I wish that the Labour Members who are laughing could have listened to the farmer who telephoned me this morning. He certainly was not a toff; he was not an ex-Guards officer, unlike me. I do not hunt, incidentally. He rang me and asked, "Why are the Government doing this? How will I get rid of my dead calves? I don't hunt, but I let the hunt across my ground. Why are they doing it?" That is what many people in the countryside think. They want to know why the Government are persecuting them.
  This is a misuse of Parliament. It is an abuse of democracy. Parliament is made up of two Houses, not just one, and the House of Lords was reformed, badly, by the Government. This is a complete abuse of the Parliament Acts. Frankly, this should be a day when people are ashamed of the House of Commons. Someone will say later that this is a great day for the House of Commons. It is a shameful day for the House of Commons. A majority of bigoted people are imposing their will on a minority of people who wish to do something that those in the majority do not wish to do.
  8.30 pm
  Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I am pleased to catch your eye in this debate, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have sat here all afternoon, and I have listened to quite a lot of nonsense. As with previous hunting debates, there is a lot of ill-informed comment by Members, particularly Labour Members, who think that they know something about hunting when they actually know very little, and I want to come to one or two of those points.
  One could not get a more cynical motion than the timetable that we are discussing. This is purely about saving the Prime Minister's political skin because he does not want the destruction of hounds and people losing their jobs ahead of a general election. That is what the motion is about—nothing more, nothing less. Ministers seem to think that the opposition to this dreadful Bill will go away, but this is a very sad day for my constituents. I represent more hunts and therefore more people who have jobs in the hunting world than any other Member of Parliament. Earlier this afternoon, I heard Labour Members laughing at the prospect of job losses in my constituency, and I regard that as an utter disgrace. Notwithstanding that, this is a cynical measure designed to save the Prime Minister's face, and it comes on top of an already bad Bill and an abuse of parliamentary procedures.
  The debate has been interesting in one respect: the right hon. Member for Bristol, East (Jean Corston), who is a lawyer, very clearly went through the position of the Joint Committee on Human Rights. She very clearly read out article 1 of the European convention on human rights, which is about people's enjoyment of
  1400
  property rights. As a lawyer and having had advice from the Government and the Committee's lawyers, she said that the Government would be in breach of the Human Rights Act 1998, if they did not give adequate notice. So if the Government do not get the amendment and go back to the original three-month proposal, they could well find themselves in breach of that Act.
  This is only a suggested amendment, which involves a totally different procedure from what we normally have in the House. If the Minister is right and if their lordships were to refuse to pass the Bill or passed amendments with which the House disagreed, the suggested amendment would fall. The Minister made that quite clear from the Dispatch Box tonight. If that is the case and the Government go back to their original Bill, with only three months' notice, they will very rapidly find themselves in the European Court of Human Rights.
  Alun Michaelrose—
  Mr. Clifton-Brown: I happily give way to the Minister; perhaps he can clarify that point.
  Alun Michael: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way because it is important that hon. Members understand the position, so that there are no misapprehensions of the sort that have been put about in some unfortunate speeches that have been made today. I have signed the declaration on the basis of firm legal advice that there are no human rights transgressions or problems in relation to the three-month period. We want a longer period because we are trying to be reasonable. We are trying to draw in people to accept the law. Some Conservative Members do not want to be reasonable, but we are trying to persuade people to respond reasonably to the legislation that is going through the House.
  Mr. Clifton-Brown: I accept what the Minister has said in good faith, but I ask him in good faith, as he has signed the declaration that the Bill is human rights compliant, if we find subsequently that it is not compliant, will he resign? That is what he ought to do in honour if he proves to be wrong, given what he has just stated. He might well find that he is wrong, but the courts will, no doubt, be asked to adjudicate on that matter.
  A number of other points were made about the timing. The Minister is right: one of the reasons why the Government are doing this is to try to appear reasonable, but whether hunting is banned tomorrow or in 18 months' time makes no difference whatsoever to my constituents. They will protest in every possible way that they can, and, provided that it is lawful, I will support them in that effort every inch of the way, until the day when people are not allowed to hunt.
  The measure is purely cynical. Why will the ban on hunting have a different commencement date from that on coursing? The only reason is that there are many more people involved in hunting than coursing, so hunting is more politically sensitive than coursing.
  Mr. Tom Harris: The hon. Gentleman told the House that he would support any legal protest that his

  1401
  constituents chose to mount in the run-up to the final end of fox hunting. Will he support the people outside the House who tonight are saying that they will break that law after it comes into effect?
  Mr. Clifton-Brown: I chose my words carefully because I knew that a Labour Member would intervene on me to make precisely that point, and having chosen my words carefully I have my thought processes in order. Of course I could not possibly support anyone who was thinking about breaking the law. I could understand it, but that is a different matter. I understand people who feel so passionately about the matter that they may well break the law. I do not support that in any way, but I understand that it may well happen.
  Will the Minister tell us the likely cost of policing a ban? Certain police forces have a budget line for doing that, so he should know what the cost would be. He should not reiterate his earlier nonsense that the Association of Chief Police Officers thinks that it will cost no more than policing the anti-hunt protests at present, but he should ask the chief constable of Gloucestershire because I am absolutely certain that he would receive a different answer.
  Alun Michael: The hon. Gentleman calls my comments into question, yet the assessment was not mine, but that of the chief constable who acts as the spokesman on these issues for ACPO. I have discussed the matter on several occasions with a variety of chief constables and they take a careful and considered view. The formal view that was made public last week was that the cost of policing a ban on hunting would be roughly equivalent to the costs of policing the protests that continue at present because of the existence of hunting.
  Mr. Clifton-Brown: I am grateful to the Minister and understand that he was citing ACPO earlier. Time alone will tell whether the assessment is right or wrong.
  I wish to address one or two practical issues in the short time available to me. Some Labour Members have been hunting once or twice and think that they know everything about it, and several spoke about the future of hounds. I have hunted all my life and know a thing or two about hounds. A great deal of space is required if one is to look after them. Their temperament is such that they do not make house pets, so it will be difficult to find homes for them. Homes will be found for some of them, and the more the better because I would like to preserve as many hounds as possible. Someone who loves nature and animals would naturally want as many hounds to be preserved as possible. The hon. Member for Brigg and Goole (Mr. Cawsey) has spoken to all these so-called experts, but I can tell him and the Minister that whether hunting is banned in three or 18 months, many thousands of hounds will have to be destroyed as a direct result of the measure—there is no doubt about that.
  Labour Members have talked about the alternative of drag hunting, but I know as someone who has hunted all his life— my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson) also made this clear—that drag hunting is no substitute for fox hunting because it is totally different. The hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Foster) said that
  1402
  he was put where the fox happened to be when he went out with the Worcestershire hounds, but I suspect that that happened by pure chance. Foxes are wild creatures that do not necessarily run over the same places. However, a drag hunt requires a trail to be laid over specific land. Many farmers will not allow drag hunts to go over their land because of the damage to land that they can cause. Fox hunts can damage land, but farmers allow them to take place because they control foxes.
  8.41 pm
  Mr. Henry Bellingham: My hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown), whom it is a pleasure to follow, said that monumental and staggering levels of ignorance have been displayed today. There has been talk of barbarism and unacceptable animal cruelty, but all hunting takes place on private land and the hunts have permission from landowners and farmers. Are Labour Members really saying that those landowners and farmers would give the hunters permission to go across their land if the act was so cruel and barbaric? Of course they would not.
  The Bill will not save the life of one single fox, hare or stag. In fact, we well know that the number of foxes killed on the roads far exceeds the number killed by hunts. The same is true of hares. Representing a Norfolk constituency, as I do, that has a pack of hounds and large shooting estates, I know from talking to keepers that the shooting and snaring of foxes is far more cruel than the hunting of foxes. There has never been a case of a fox going away wounded from a pack of hounds, but we all know that many foxes go away wounded from rifle shots or spend a long time suffering a slow, lingering death in a snare.
  I was talking to a keeper the other day who was on the demonstration this afternoon. He is under instructions from his employer to control and snare foxes. He told me that the fox in a snare is humanely dispatched most times, but not always. Sometimes a snare gets dislodged and the fox suffers a long, lingering death.
  Mr. Desmond Swayne: The New Forest used to have a deer hunt—the New Forest buckhounds. As a consequence of no longer having that hunt, the forest can support a much lower deer population than it previously did. The buckhounds never killed many deer, but they dispersed the deer population throughout the forest. Now, the deer congregate as far away from the tourists as they can, in those areas where the Forestry Commission estimates they do the most damage. It therefore culls far more than it used to. As a result, the deer population is much smaller than it was.
  Mr. Bellingham: My hon. Friend is right and has a great deal of knowledge on the subject. One could add the case of Exmoor to his example. The hunting of stags on Exmoor maintains a balance in the population. Farmers do not go out and shoot stags on Exmoor. However, if hunting is banned, they will shoot those stags because they can get quite a lot of money for the carcase.
  I believe the Countryside Alliance and the Exmoor hunting groups when they say that if hunting is banned, the red deer population on Exmoor will be in peril.

  1403
  There are estates in my constituency that maintain a balance in the fox population. They do not kill every fox because they maintain a balance between fox hunting by the local hounds and the shooting interest. If hunting is banned, many of those farms and estates will shoot and control every single fox.
  The same applies to hares. I was talking to a landowner in my constituency who uses her farm for regular meets of the local hare coursing club. As a consequence, she employs a full-time keeper to preserve the habitat. She has made it clear that if hare coursing is banned, there will be a free-for-all. The hares will be controlled—they will be shot—and there will be very few left. That is the law of unintended consequences.
  Mr. Swayne: The key point is that the habitat will be lost. Would the hare have survived modern intensive farming methods were it not for a sport that has preserved its habitat, which is available not just to hares but to all wildlife?
  Mr. Bellingham: My hon. Friend is absolutely right, although I will not digress, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because you would rightly call me to order.
  One of the points that has been completely overlooked by the Labour Members who have spoken in the debate is the contribution of country sports to habitat and to the countryside more widely. One of the saddest things of all is that it is the country people who pursue these sports who have been most vociferous and vocal in maintaining that habitat, and in protecting the countryside and preventing the spread of concrete and planning.
  I want to say a word or two about drag hunting because I believe that I am the only person in the House who has been a master of a pack of drag hounds. I therefore know a bit about drag hunting. Far fewer hounds are used in a drag pack and it is a totally different type of sport, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold pointed out. A drag hunt is conducted at a furious pace; it is completely unsuitable for young children. It is also unsuitable for qualifying point-to-pointers and national hunt horses, a point that has been completely overlooked. Those horses have to qualify with hunts; they will not be able to do that with drag hunts. Again, ignorance comes into play—people just do not understand the full consequences of an outright ban. Furthermore, what good is drag hunting to all the thousands of people who follow hunting on foot or in their car? For them, hunting is a way of life and a form of recreation that means a great deal to them.
  On a number of occasions when I was master of Cambridge University drag hounds, the hounds, who were all drafted in from foxhound packs, followed their natural instinct, which was to go off following a hare or a fox when they could. Obviously, if we were pursuing a drag hunt across farmers' land, with their permission, the masters of the hunt tried to stop the hounds going after hares or foxes, but sometimes that was impossible. What will happen under the Bill if the hounds from a hunt that has rebranded as a drag hunt accidentally chase foxes or hares? Will the Home Secretary's CCTV cameras on hunt routes pick that up? Obviously that has not been thought through in any way.
  1404
  As many of my colleagues have said, this is a sickening, squalid little Bill. We are seeing an abuse of Parliament. It is outrageous that the Bill is not being properly debated. There are many complex clauses and schedules on many different issues, not least on exempt hunting, and the Bill should go into Committee for proper debate, but it will not. There are many anomalies. I asked earlier whether it would be in order for hunts to rebrand as rabbit packs, and apparently it would be in order for all foxhound, harrier and beagle packs to do that. Are we really saying that there is any less cruelty to rabbits when they are hunted by hounds than there is to hares or foxes? What is the difference except that one animal is slightly smaller?
  Lembit Öpik: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Bellingham: No; I want to bring my remarks to a conclusion.
  The Prime Minister has said on several occasions that he feels very strongly about the divisions in society. He tells us that he wants to heal those divisions, to stand up for minorities and to protect minority interests. It is very sad that this House is following in the footsteps of the last Government to ban hunting completely—the Scottish Parliament did not introduce a complete ban—which was the Nazi Government in 1935. That Government persecuted minorities; this Government are also persecuting a minority.
  8.50
  Sir Patrick Cormack: I will not attempt to follow my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Norfolk (Mr. Bellingham) in that last remark or in his expertise in hunting, both drag and otherwise.
  In the few moments that I have, I ask the House to be a bit pragmatic. This has been a very sad day for Parliament, as I explained in my speech on the procedure motion. Since then, it has become much sadder. [Interruption.] Labour Members who are making those noises should have some regard for people with whom they do not agree. I was as appalled by what happened in this Chamber this afternoon, and as vociferous in my condemnation of it, as any other Member on either side of the House—probably more so. Those thoughtless young men performed a terrible disservice to the cause of the countryside which they sought to espouse. There are wider implications, and those of us in the House who are concerned with our security will have to consider those things.
  Similarly, the very few people in Parliament square who set off firecrackers and frightened police horses should know better, because they of all people should know how to handle horses. I spoke to those people. I do not flinch at all in my condemnation of the tactics of the few. However, I put it to hon. Members who condemn hunting—they may be perfectly sincere in that; it is not my job to impugn motives—that the vast majority of people in Parliament square this afternoon were decent, law-abiding people whom we would all be proud to have as constituents, whether we agree with them or not.

  1405
  The Bill has had its Second Reading, will have its Third Reading with a large majority, and will then go to the House of Lords having hardly been considered in this place. We are in effect signing a death sentence on the jobs of many of our constituents. We are also decreeing that a way of life that has been honoured in this country for centuries should come to an end.
  I think that there is a degree of cynicism in the motives for the delay. Despite that, I urge hon. Friends who spoke against it to think again. In an impassioned and rather intolerant speech about the countryside, my hon. Friend the Member for North Thanet (Mr. Gale)—he is not here now—said that this is all about not having hounds destroyed before the general election. I do not want them to be destroyed before the general election, after it or at any other time. [Interruption.] I wish that hon. Members would listen carefully. I do not want hunting to come to an end, but I am being entirely pragmatic and honest. I believe in the old motto that while there is life, there is hope. At the lowest level, even if the ban comes to pass at the end of July 2006, those whose lives are affected will have had some chance to make plans and adjust, and the police will have had some chance to decide on how to deal with the measure when it becomes law.
  However, I believe passionately in the countryside way of life and I want to go on fighting and, therefore, I do not want hunting to be banned by the time we go—as we almost certainly will—to the country next year. I want it to be a general election issue because I want the voters in my constituency and every rural constituency in particular—I accept that many urban people support hunting, too—to have the chance to vote for a party that is pledged to repeal the measure before it has come into effect. [Interruption.] Yes, I do. If we allow the amendment that the hon. Member for West Ham (Mr. Banks) tabled to go through—I would have preferred the Government's proposal for two years—we give people a chance to think again, and an opportunity to those for whom we purport to speak to have their say.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Rochford and Southend, East (Sir Teddy Taylor) told me this afternoon that he would like a referendum on hunting. I do not believe that that is necessarily practical, although I can see the superficial attraction of such an idea. However, I want the people of this country to have the opportunity to vote in the general election in the knowledge of what would happen. The general election will not be a single issue election—no general election ever is. We made the mistake in the previous election of believing that a single issue could dominate; it cannot and will not. However, hunting will be an important issue, especially in rural constituencies, and I want it to be an issue before the ban has been effected.
  I therefore urge my hon. Friends who believe that we are discussing only a gesture—
  It being three hours after commencement of proceedings on the motion, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER proceeded to put the Questions necessary to dispose of the business to be concluded at that hour, pursuant to Order [this day].
  Question put, That the amendment be made:—
  The House divided: Ayes 342, Noes 15.

  Division No. 251]

  [8:57 pm

  AYES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Adams, Irene (Paisley N)

  Clelland, David

  Ainger, Nick

  Coaker, Vernon

  Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Alexander, Douglas

  Connarty, Michael

  Allan, Richard

  Cooper, Yvette

  Allen, Graham

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Anderson rh Donald (Swansea E)

  Corston, Jean

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale &

  Cotter, Brian

  Darwen)

  Cousins, Jim

  Armstrong, rh Ms Hilary

  Cox, Tom (Tooting)

  Atherton, Ms Candy

  Cranston, Ross

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Crausby, David

  Bailey, Adrian

  Cruddas, Jon

  Baird, Vera

  Cryer, Ann (Keighley)

  Baker, Norman

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Banks, Tony

  Cummings, John

  Barnes, Harry

  Cunningham, Jim (Coventry S)

  Barrett, John

  Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

  Barron, rh Kevin

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Battle, John

  David, Wayne

  Bayley, Hugh

  Davidson, Ian

  Beard, Nigel

  Davies, rh Denzil (Llanelli)

  Beckett, rh Margaret

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

  Bell, Sir Stuart

  Dawson, Hilton

  Benn, rh Hilary

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Bennett, Andrew

  Dhanda, Parmjit

  Berry, Roger

  Dobbin, Jim (Heywood)

  Best, Harold

  Dobson, rh Frank

  Betts, Clive

  Doran, Frank

  Blackman, Liz

  Dowd, Jim (Lewisham W)

  Blizzard, Bob

  Drown, Ms Julia

  Blunkett, rh David

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Boateng, rh Paul

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Bradley, rh Keith (Withington)

  Edwards, Huw

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Efford, Clive

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Ennis, Jeff (Barnsley E)

  Brake, Tom (Carshalton)

  Farrelly, Paul

  Brennan, Kevin

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  Brooke, Mrs Annette L.

  Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

  Brown, rh Nicholas (Newcastle E

  Flint, Caroline

  Wallsend)

  Follett, Barbara

  Browne, Desmond

  Foster, rh Derek

  Bryant, Chris

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Burgon, Colin

  Foster, Michael (Worcester)

  Burnham, Andy

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings

  Burnside, David

  & Rye)

  Burstow, Paul

  Francis, Dr. Hywel

  Byrne, Liam (B'ham Hodge H)

  Gapes, Mike (Ilford S)

  Cable, Dr. Vincent

  Gardiner, Barry

  Caborn, rh Richard

  George, Andrew (St. Ives)

  Cairns, David

  George, rh Bruce (Walsall S)

  Calton, Mrs Patsy

  Gerrard, Neil

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Gidley, Sandra

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Gill, Parmjit Singh

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Gilroy, Linda

  Caplin, Ivor

  Goggins, Paul

  Carmichael, Alistair

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Casale, Roger

  Grogan, John

  Caton, Martin

  Hain, rh Peter

  Cawsey, Ian (Brigg)

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  Challen, Colin

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  Chaytor, David

  Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

  Chidgey, David

  Hancock, Mike

  Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

  Hanson, David

  Clark, Dr. Lynda (Edinburgh

  Harman, rh Ms Harriet

  Pentlands)

  Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

  Clarke, rh Tom (Coatbridge &

  Havard, Dai (Merthyr Tydfil &

  Chryston)

  Rhymney)

  1407

  Healey, John

  McKenna, Rosemary

  Heath, David

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

  McNamara, Kevin

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  McNulty, Tony

  Hendrick, Mark

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Hepburn, Stephen

  McWalter, Tony

  Heppell, John

  McWilliam, John

  Hesford, Stephen

  Mahmood, Khalid

  Heyes, David

  Mallaber, Judy

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  Mann, John (Bassetlaw)

  Hinchliffe, David

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Holmes, Paul

  Marshall, David (Glasgow

  Hood, Jimmy (Clydesdale)

  Shettleston)

  Hope, Phil (Corby)

  Marshall-Andrews, Robert

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Martlew, Eric

  Howarth, rh Alan (Newport E)

  Meacher, rh Michael

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N &

  Meale, Alan (Mansfield)

  Sefton E)

  Merron, Gillian

  Howells, Dr. Kim

  Michael, rh Alun

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  Milburn, rh Alan

  Hughes, Beverley (Stretford &

  Miliband, David

  Urmston)

  Miller, Andrew

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Moffatt, Laura

  Hurst, Alan (Braintree)

  Mole, Chris

  Hutton, rh John

  Morgan, Julie

  Iddon, Dr. Brian

  Morley, Elliot

  Illsley, Eric

  Mountford, Kali

  Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead &

  Mudie, George

  Highgate)

  Munn, Ms Meg

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Jamieson, David

  Murphy, rh Paul (Torfaen)

  Jenkins, Brian

  Naysmith, Dr. Doug

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W)

  Norris, Dan (Wansdyke)

  Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Hatfield)

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  O'Hara, Edward

  Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Olner, Bill

  Jowell, rh Tessa

  Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

  Joyce, Eric (Falkirk W)

  Owen, Albert

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Palmer, Dr. Nick

  Keen, Alan (Feltham)

  Pearson, Ian

  Kelly, Ruth (Bolton W)

  Perham, Linda

  Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

  Picking, Anne

  Khabra, Piara S.

  Pickthall, Colin

  Kidney, David

  Pike, Peter (Burnley)

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Pollard, Kerry

  King, Andy (Rugby)

  Pond, Chris (Gravesham)

  King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green &

  Pope, Greg (Hyndburn)

  Bow)

  Pound, Stephen

  Kirkbride, Miss Julie

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham

  Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

  E)

  Kumar, Dr. Ashok

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Ladyman, Dr. Stephen

  Prescott, rh John

  Lammy, David

  Primarolo, rh Dawn

  Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Laws, David (Yeovil)

  Pugh, Dr. John

  Laxton, Bob (Derby N)

  Purchase, Ken

  Lepper, David

  Purnell, James

  Leslie, Christopher

  Quin, rh Joyce

  Levitt, Tom (High Peak)

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

  Rammell, Bill

  Liddell, rh Mrs Helen

  Rapson, Syd (Portsmouth N)

  Linton, Martin

  Raynsford, rh Nick

  Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

  Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

  Love, Andrew

  Reid, rh Dr. John (Hamilton N &

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Bellshill)

  McCabe, Stephen

  Rendel, David

  McCartney, rh Ian

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Coventry

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  NW)

  MacDonald, Calum

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  McDonnell, John

  Rooney, Terry

  McFall, rh John

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Ruddock, Joan

  McIsaac, Shona

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Mackay, rh Andrew

  Russell, Ms Christine (City of

  McKechin, Ann

  Chester)

  1408

  Salter, Martin

  Thomas, Gareth (Harrow W)

  Sanders, Adrian

  Timms, Stephen

  Sarwar, Mohammad

  Tipping, Paddy

  Sawford, Phil

  Todd, Mark (S Derbyshire)

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Tonge, Dr. Jenny

  Shaw, Jonathan

  Touhig, Don (Islwyn)

  Sheerman, Barry

  Trickett, Jon

  Sheridan, Jim

  Truswell, Paul

  Shipley, Ms Debra

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Short, rh Clare

  Turner, Dr. Desmond (Brighton

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  Kemptown)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Turner, Neil (Wigan)

  Smith, rh Andrew (Oxford E)

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Smith, rh Chris (Islington S &

  Tynan, Bill (Hamilton S)

  Finsbury)

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Smith, Geraldine (Morecambe &

  Ward, Claire

  Lunesdale)

  Wareing, Robert N.

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Watson, Tom (W Bromwich E)

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  Watts, David

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Webb, Steve (Northavon)

  Soley, Clive

  White, Brian

  Southworth, Helen

  Whitehead, Dr. Alan

  Spellar, rh John

  Williams, rh Alan (Swansea W)

  Squire, Rachel

  Williams, Betty (Conwy)

  Starkey, Dr. Phyllis

  Wills, Michael

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Winnick, David

  Stewart, David (Inverness E &

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster

  Lochaber)

  C)

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Woodward, Shaun

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  Woolas, Phil

  Stringer, Graham

  Wright Anthony D. (Gt

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  Yarmouth)

  Stunell, Andrew

  Wright, David (Telford)

  Tami, Mark (Alyn)

  Wyatt, Derek

  Taylor, rh Ann (Dewsbury)

  Taylor, Dari (Stockton S)

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Margaret Moran and

  Teather, Sarah

  Paul Clark

  NOES

  Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

  Spink, Bob (Castle Point)

  Bottomley, rh Virginia (SW

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Surrey)

  Taylor, John (Solihull)

  Gale, Roger (N Thanet)

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Liddell-Grainger, Ian

  Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Widdecombe, rh Miss Ann

  Plaskitt, James

  Williams, Hywel (Caernarfon)

  Price, Adam (E Carmarthen &

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Dinefwr)

  Mr. Andrew Robathan and

  Sheerman, Barry

  Mr. Gerald Howarth

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Main Question, as amended, put:—
  The House divided: Ayes 329, Noes 8.

  Division No. 252]

  [9:11 pm

  AYES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Banks, Tony

  Adams, Irene (Paisley N)

  Barnes, Harry

  Ainger, Nick

  Barrett, John

  Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

  Barron, rh Kevin

  Alexander, Douglas

  Battle, John

  Allan, Richard

  Bayley, Hugh

  Allen, Graham

  Beard, Nigel

  Anderson, rh Donald (Swansea E)

  Beckett, rh Margaret

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale &

  Bell, Sir Stuart

  Darwen)

  Benn, rh Hilary

  Armstrong, rh Ms Hilary

  Bennett, Andrew

  Atherson, Ms Candy

  Berry, Roger

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Best, Harold

  Bailey, Adrian

  Betts, Clive

  Baird, Vera

  Blackman, Liz

  Baker, Norman

  Blizzard, Bob

  1409

  Blunkett, rh David

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Boateng, rh Paul

  Foster, Michael (Worcester)

  Bradley, rh Keith (Withington)

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  & Rye)

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Francis, Dr. Hywel

  Brake, Tom (Carshalton)

  Gapes, Mike (Ilford S)

  Brennan, Kevin

  Gardiner, Barry

  Brooke, Mrs Annette L.

  George, Andrew (St. Ives)

  Brown, rh Nicholas (Newcastle E

  Gerrard, Neil

  Wallsend)

  Gidley, Sandra

  Browne, Desmond

  Gill, Parmjit Singh

  Bryant, Chris

  Gilroy, Linda

  Burgon, Colin

  Goggins, Paul

  Burnham, Andy

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Byrne, Liam (B'ham Hodge H)

  Grogan, John

  Cable, Dr. Vincent

  Hain, rh Peter

  Caborn, rh Richard

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  Cairns, David

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Hancock, Mike

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Hanson, David

  Caplin, Ivor

  Harman, rh Ms Harriet

  Carmichael, Alistair

  Harris, Dr. Evan (Oxford W &

  Casale, Roger

  Abingdon)

  Caton, Martin

  Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

  Cawsey, Ian (Brigg)

  Havard, Dai (Merthyr Tydfil &

  Challen, Colin

  Rhymney)

  Chaytor, David

  Healey, John

  Chidgey, David

  Heath, David

  Clark, Dr. Lynda (Edinburgh

  Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

  Pentlands)

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Clarke, rh Charles (Norwich S)

  Hendrick, Mark

  Clarke, rh Tom (Coatbridge &

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Chryston)

  Heppell, John

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Hesford, Stephen

  Clelland, David

  Heyes, David

  Coaker, Vernon

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Hinchliffe, David

  Connarty, Michael

  Holmes, Paul

  Cooper, Yvette

  Hood, Jimmy (Clydesdale)

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Hope, Phil (Corby)

  Corston, Jean

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Cotter, Brian

  Howarth, rh Alan (Newport E)

  Cousins, Jim

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N &

  Cox, Tom (Tooting)

  Sefton E)

  Cranston, Ross

  Howells, Dr. Kim

  Crausby, David

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  Cruddas, Jon

  Hughes, Beverley (Stretford &

  Cryer, Ann (Keighley)

  Urmston)

  Cummings, John

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Cunningham, Jim (Coventry S)

  Hurst, Alan (Braintree)

  Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

  Hutton, rh John

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Iddon, Dr. Brian

  David, Wayne

  Illsley, Eric

  Davidson, Ian

  Jamieson, David

  Davies, rh Denzil (Llanelli)

  Jenkins, Brian

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W)

  Dawson, Hilton

  Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Hatfield)

  Dhanda, Parmjit

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Dobbin, Jim (Heywood)

  Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Dobson, rh Frank

  Jowell, rh Tessa

  Doran, Frank

  Joyce, Eric (Falkirk W)

  Dowd, Jim (Lewisham W)

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Drown, Ms Julia

  Keen, Alan (Feltham)

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Kelly, Ruth (Bolton W)

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

  Edwards, Huw

  Khabra, Piara S.

  Efford, Clive

  Kidney, David

  Ennis, Jeff (Barnsley E)

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Farrelly, Paul

  King, Andy (Rugby)

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green &

  Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

  Bow)

  Flint, Caroline

  Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

  Follett, Barbara

  Ladyman, Dr. Stephen

  Foster, rh Derek

  Lammy, David

  1410

  Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

  Purnell, James

  Laws, David (Yeovil)

  Quin, rh Joyce

  Laxton, Bob (Derby N)

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Lepper, David

  Rammell, Bill

  Leslie, Christopher

  Rapson, Syd (Portsmouth N)

  Levitt, Tom (High Peak)

  Raynsford, rh Nick

  Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

  Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

  Liddell, rh Mrs Helen

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Coventry

  Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

  NW)

  Love, Andrew

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  McCabe, Stephen

  Ruddock, Joan

  McCartney, rh Ian

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Russell, Ms Christine (City of

  MacDonald, Calum

  Chester)

  McDonnell, John

  Salter, Martin

  McFall, rh John

  Sanders, Adrian

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Sarwar, Mohammad

  McIsaac, Shona

  Sawford, Phil

  Mackay, rh Andrew

  Sedgemore, Brian

  McKechin, Ann

  Shaw, Jonathan

  McKenna, Rosemary

  Sheerman, Barry

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Sheridan, Jim

  McNamara, Kevin

  Shipley, Ms Debra

  McNulty, Tony

  Short, rh Clare

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  McWalter, Tony

  Skinner, Dennis

  McWilliam, John

  Smith, rh Andrew (Oxford E)

  Mahmood, Khalid

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  Mallaber, Judy

  Smith, rh Chris (Islington S &

  Mann, John (Bassetlaw)

  Finsbury)

  Marshall, David (Glasgow

  Smith, Geraldine (Morecambe &

  Shettleston)

  Lunesdale)

  Marshall-Andrews, Robert

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Martlew, Eric

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  Meale, Alan (Mansfield)

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Merron, Gillian

  Soley, Clive

  Michael, rh Alun

  Southworth, Helen

  Milburn, rh Alan

  Spellar, rh John

  Miliband, David

  Squire, Rachel

  Miller, Andrew

  Starkey, Dr. Phyllis

  Moffatt, Laura

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Mole, Chris

  Stewart, David (Inverness E &

  Morgan, Julie

  Lochaber)

  Morley, Elliot

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Mountford, Kali

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  Mudie, George

  Stringer, Graham

  Munn, Ms Meg

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Stunell, Andrew

  Murphy, rh Paul (Torfaen)

  Tami, Mark (Alyn)

  Naysmith, Dr. Doug

  Taylor, rh Ann (Dewsbury)

  Norris, Dan (Wansdyke)

  Taylor, Dari (Stockton S)

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  O'Hara, Edward

  Teather, Sarah

  Olner, Bill

  Thomas, Gareth (Harrow W)

  Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

  Timms, Stephen

  Owen, Albert

  Tipping, Paddy

  Palmer, Dr. Nick

  Todd, Mark (S Derbyshire)

  Pearson, Ian

  Tonge, Dr. Jenny

  Perham, Linda

  Touhig, Don (Islwyn)

  Picking, Anne

  Trickett, Jon

  Pickthall, Colin

  Truswell, Paul

  Pike, Peter (Burnley)

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Pollard, Kerry

  Turner, Dr. Desmond (Brighton

  Pond, Chris (Gravesham)

  Kemptown)

  Pope, Greg (Hyndburn)

  Turner, Neil (Wigan)

  Pound, Stephen

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  E)

  Tynan, Bill (Hamilton S)

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Prescott, rh John

  Ward, Claire

  Primarolo, rh Dawn

  Wareing, Robert N.

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Watson, Tom (W Bromwich E)

  Pugh, Dr. John

  Watts, David

  Purchase, Ken

  Webb, Steve (Northavon)

  1411

  White, Brian

  Woolas, Phil

  Whitehead, Dr. Alan

  Wright, Anthony D. (Gt

  Williams, rh Alan (Swansea W)

  Yarmouth)

  Williams, Betty (Conwy)

  Wright, David (Telford)

  Wills, Michael

  Wyatt, Derek

  Winnick, David

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  C)

  Margaret Moran and

  Woodward, Shaun

  Paul Clark

  NOES

  Burstow, Paul

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Calton, Mrs Patsy

  Taylor, John (Solihull)

  Rendel, David

  Robathan, Andrew

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Sheerman, Barry

  Mr. Roger Gale and

  Spink, Bob (Castle Point)

  Miss Ann Widdecombe

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Order for Third Reading read.—[Queen's Consent, on behalf of the Crown, and Prince of Wales's consent, on behalf of the Duchy of Cornwall, signified.]
  9.23 pm
  Alun Michael: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
  I have five brief points to make, arising from today's events, in asking the House confidently to give the Bill its Third Reading. The first issue is the language and tone of debate. This is an important matter when debate has been so polarised and passionate. In particular, we need to hear a change of tone on the part of the Countryside Alliance in response to today's events. To its credit—[Interruption.] I hope that Opposition Members will listen to what I am saying, and act responsibly themselves. To its credit, the Countryside Alliance has called the disruption in Westminster "unfortunate and unnecessary". I know that that is the view of its chairman and perhaps others. The press release goes on to say, however, that the disruption is ultimately the responsibility of those pursuing vindictive and unjust law. The Countryside Alliance should explain to its members the sincerity of the views of those who oppose hunting and why the House of Commons has decided on a ban. It should also explain that the Government have been responsible in seeking to assist those who have strong views on this matter. It needs to explain that the Bill is neither vindictive nor unjust and that using such language can appear only to excuse misbehaviour. The Countryside Alliance needs to tell its members to act responsibly and to help them understand the legislation and the options open to them.
  The remarks of some Conservative Members—for example, those of the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Gregory Barker)—may be due to the passion of our debate. He revealed the temptation to use violent language when he spoke about "trampling" on other people's way of life. His remarks totally ignored the strong and clear evidence with which Lord Burns wrestled, which was also a feature of our hearings in Portcullis House. Those of us seeking a rational debate over a long period of time have sought to engage with that evidence, but the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle talked about matters being pernicious and sectarian, and about this House "criminalising" people. The only people who are criminalised are those who act as criminals. That sort of language is self-indulgent and inappropriate.
  1412
  I make that point strongly because the hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray), even though he wants hunting to continue, was responsible in arguing his case today. He said that he would obey the law and the ban on hunting while seeking to change the law. That is a responsible approach. We may disagree passionately across the Chamber, but I say to those who seek to lead the Countryside Alliance that by appearing to condone or almost encourage certain activities—I am not sure that that is what they intend—they need to reflect carefully on the language that they use and start to help their members to understand the impact of the legislation and their responsibility to obey it.
  The second point is about illegal hare coursing, which some Conservative Members have spoken about. There is no reason to delay. We have a real problem not only with the cruelty associated with hare coursing itself, but with the attacks, intimidation and damage done by illegal hare coursing. In order to give the police the tools to do the job, it is necessary to move on from trespass as providing the basis of prosecution to the activity itself. I underline that point because hon. Members raised it on a couple of occasions today. I repeat that there is no reason for delay on that particular activity.
  The third issue is the purpose of the delay. The right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) quite properly questioned the reasons for delay and painted a scenario beloved of political commentators. I invite her and anyone willing to listen to consider in a straightforward and objective way the advantages of the delay. It will allow us to send a clear message to hunt supporters and those who seek to express their views in favour of hunting that they have one season, but that the law is changing, so they will not have to carry on for that final season because they can change their business and their activities. It is an offer of good sense.
  The right hon. Lady asked the pertinent question whether hunt supporters would use the extension responsibly and in an orderly way. As I said to her earlier, I cannot promise that, but I can encourage people to act in an orderly way. I can encourage those who have legitimately argued for a continuation of hunting to accept the will of the House and to start looking at that period of time as providing an opportunity for them to choose a different way from continued confrontation.
  I remind the House of the comments made by the police on this matter. They believe that the additional time will assist them in policing the results of a ban on hunting. Earlier, I repeated the comment made by the representative of the Association of Chief Police Officers, to the effect that a ban on hunting might have a short-term impact but that, in general, the amount of policing needed to enforce a ban would be roughly equivalent to what is needed now to police protests against hunting.
  The time gap will also allow dogs to be trained and people to move into alternatives such as drag hunting. The provision of delay is a reasonable, responsible and moderating move by the Government. It confirms that the will of the House must prevail at the end of the day, but that that will be expressed in a reasonable way.
  Dr. Julian Lewis: Will the Minister give way?
  Alun Michael: No, as this is a very short debate. The hon. Gentleman must make his own contribution.
  I turn now to my fourth point, which was raised in the debate as though a major human rights issue were at stake. My right hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, East (Jean Corston) is Chair of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, and she made a significant contribution. She corrected many of the misapprehensions on this matter, and it is a pity that some Opposition Members did not listen and so repeated those same misapprehensions. She concluded that the 18-month delay until the proposed commencement date of 31 July 2006 would address in full the Committee's concerns about the Bill's effect on contracts for hunting.
  That very narrow point of contracts for hunting is the one area in which the Joint Committee said that a problem arose. It did not say that a ban on hunting or the Bill as a whole posed a human rights problem. In the view of my right hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, East, the extra time being allowed meant that the Bill was compatible with human rights legislation.
  Our legal advice was that a delay of three months would be fine when it came to meeting the requirements of human rights legislation. However, not only do we have to meet those requirements in full, we also need to be seen to be generous to people who believe that there will be an impact. Our position has always been that the Bill is compatible with the European convention on human rights, even with its original commencement date of three months after Royal Assent. A longer period of implementation must make the Bill even stronger against legal challenge.
  Finally, I hope that those in another place will respond positively to the Bill that will reach them tomorrow. Constructive points were made in today's debate, such as those raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Goole (Mr. Cawsey). His all-party committee and other organisations undertook responsible consideration of what will happen during the transition, when hunting moves from being an activity that is legally allowed to one that is banned.
  People should listen to what has been offered by animal welfare organisations, the RSPCA and others. It will always be difficult for some people, when their feelings are running high, to accept that an activity in which they wish to engage is being banned. However, it cannot be said that this has been rushed. We will give people time and opportunity to adjust to the fact that this House has determined that there should be a ban on hunting.
  I hope that their lordships will engage with the Bill that is sent to them and with the views and opinions that have been expressed in this House. I hope, too, that we will be able to come to a conclusion on the issue of hunting with hounds, as we have promised.
  9.33 pm
  Mr. Owen Paterson: This is a sad day for the House of Commons. We have seen a disgraceful abuse of the parliamentary procedures to which the Government have access.
  In December 2002, the Government presented a Bill that the Minister said was based on "evidence and principle". We now have a Bill to ban fox hunting. It is
  1414
  an utter disgrace that we have not had a full Committee process, nor any time today to discuss the economic and employment consequences of the ban. We have not talked about matters such as fallen stock, or—most important of all—compensation. Instead, we have had glib references to cruelty, which were not backed up by the evidence of the Burns report. The Bill is still full of anomalies and is utterly flawed. It is nonsense that it will be legal to hunt a sentient mammal with a falcon but not with a dog. The Secretary of State herself said:
  "No Bill on a simple ban had ever been thought to be workable."
  Will the Minister confirm his suggestion that if the Bill is amended in the Lords to the form in which he originally presented it to the House last year, he will not just agree to further discussion but will suspend the Government's ill-advised proposals to impose the Parliament Act?
  I do not see how a pluralist democracy can function if a majority abuses its power to impose its will on a minority. When criminalising an activity, we as legislators should think long and hard about the impact of new laws. No matter how large their parliamentary majority, no Government can rule without the consent of the governed. It is particularly poignant that 15 September is Battle of Britain day, when we celebrate the defence of ancient freedoms in this country by a tiny number of brave men.
  The Government were elected to govern on behalf of all the people. Given the bitter divisions that this issue continues to provoke, I urge the House to vote against Third Reading, and so to vote for freedom and tolerance.
  9.36 pm
  David Winnick: I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Minister on the tremendous amount of work that he has done to ensure that the Bill is before us. There have been disagreements here and there, but he has devoted a great deal of his time, which is appreciated by the large majority of Labour MPs.
  I hope that, whatever their lordships decide—we have a pretty good idea what the decision will be—there will be no weakening of the Government's resolve. Having gone so far, there can be no doubt what we expect. I am sure that this Bill will be on the statue book by the end of this parliamentary Session, which is absolutely essential.
  The controversy over banning hunting with dogs is understandable. Reference has been made to bull baiting, the banning of which caused controversy when it was debated in 1800—at the very height, incidentally, of a war with France. There were many opponents; indeed, they carried the day, saying that a ban was meddling, petty and to gratify personal motives—whatever that was supposed to mean. Moreover, the critics argued in the House of Commons, it would just give additional means of vexing and harassing one another. Those are somewhat familiar arguments.
  Even bull baiting was considered so controversial at that time that a ban could not pass the House of Commons for some time. I take the view that the practice of hunting with dogs should have been abolished years ago. There was no justification for its

  1415
  continuing. Once the law has taken effect, many years from now people will wonder—not only people of one political persuasion, either—how it was possible for hunting with dogs to continue into the 21st century. It is a barbaric practice, and it must come to an end.
  9.38 pm
  Andrew George: Although we have debated the issue long and hard today, as far as the world outside is concerned, our debate will be dominated by the protest, which got into the House itself. Those who have spoken strongly and honourably on behalf of the pro-hunting lobby will be deeply embarrassed by the activities inside and outside the House that have brought shame on those involved. I hope that those actions will not dominate the remainder of debate on the Bill.
  A lot of people have complained about the amount of parliamentary time expended on the issue, and we do not want to spend much more. Clearly, that depends now on the approach taken in the other place. Will the issue be responded to properly and effectively, and will the other place attempt to supersede the powers and pre-eminence of the democratically elected Chamber?
  I hope that we shall have a Bill back in this House in a very short time indeed that has been accepted by the other place and after which we can move on to deal with the many other important issues that confront the British countryside.
  9.40 pm
  Kate Hoey: Many hon. Members have said that we must return to this Bill and force it through in this extraordinary and draconian way because it is an issue of trust between the Government and the country. The introduction of this Bill is indeed about trust, but it is about a higher trust—the trust that people should be able to have in every Government, and especially a Labour Government, that they will protect minorities from bigotry and intolerance and will uphold liberty and freedom.
  Since 1997, the Government have claimed to act as the honest broker. My right hon. Friend the Minister has himself pretended to be the honest broker on the issue of hunting. However, the reintroduction of this banning Bill, and the way in which it has been done, makes it clear that that is not the case. The Government promised the country that legislation dealing with this emotive issue would be advanced on the basis of principle and evidence. The Government promised that prejudice and ignorance would not triumph, but the reintroduction of the Bill is precisely that—the triumph of prejudice.
  I could quote many examples of my right hon. Friend the Minister saying that the future of hunting with dogs should not be decided on personal preference. He believed that the Bill originally brought before the House was a good Bill and he saw no reason why people should not support it. He then said that people had chosen to ban hunting because it was simpler to enforce. I am personally ashamed that a Labour Government should connive in this triumph of prejudice—[Interruption.] I have always believed that the Labour party and the Labour Government stood for a tolerant and inclusive society—[Interruption.]
  Lembit Öpik: Does the hon. Lady agree that the evidence is cast iron that a ban on hunting with dogs will increase animal suffering, not reduce it? The baying and criticism from Labour Members does not undermine the fact that we have looked at the evidence and they have not. The greatest tragedy of all is that the ban is based on emotion and prejudice, not on fact and logic.
  Kate Hoey: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely correct. Not a single fox will be saved by the Bill. Indeed, many more will be killed in an even more cruel way.
  We cannot hide behind the pretence that the Bill is a private Member's Bill. It is the Bill of a Labour Government who propose to fly in the face of principle and the evidence. Two inquiries have been held, at vast public expense, and neither produced any evidence to justify a ban on hunting. A regulatory Bill was introduced, which my right hon. Friend the Minister said was based on principle and evidence. No fair or open-minded person could conclude that the evidence exists to justify this Bill or that it is in the public interest. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said on 1 September 2004 that he had identified seven key challenges for the future of this country. He said that he had a key test for legislation, and that was whether it would in practical terms advance and improve the lives of Britain's hard-working families in the future. He must know that this Bill will not do that.
  In contrast to the opponents of hunting, the rural community has shown its reasonableness and openness to scrutiny. It has participated fully in the Government's inquiries and hearings and the hunting community has placed itself under an independent regulatory body.
  The reintroduction of this Bill is a betrayal of public trust and will be interpreted from this day on as an illiberal and intolerant act. I remind hon. Members that it also breaks the Labour manifesto commitment, which was to enable Parliament to reach a conclusion on the issue. Parliament is both Houses and not the Commons acting alone. We have heard a lot of spin from some hon. Members about the other place. They claim that it is Tory hereditary peers who have blocked hunting bills. That is nonsense.
  Since 1997, not only has no hunting Bill been returned to the House from the other place, but even if none of the hereditaries had voted, 80 per cent. of the House of Lords, including Labour peers, supported the Government's commitment to legislate on the basis of principle and evidence. Even if no Conservative peer had voted, 73 per cent. of Members of the other place supported regulated hunting and we could have had that system if the Government had not withdrawn the measure from Committee.
  The reintroduction of the Bill and the use of the Parliament Act show disdain for the parliamentary process. It shows contempt for the majority of Labour peers—Labour peers!—who sought a sensible outcome based on principle and evidence. I am dismayed by the spin used to hoodwink the country into believing that a fair, just and evidence-based approach would be taken on the issue, when that is not the case.
  The Prime Minister has said that he wants to govern in the interests of the whole country. He said that he wants a country at ease with itself. The Bill shows that there are still people who believe that prejudice and

  1417
  bigotry should triumph as grounds for legislation. We have seen similar things in all the world's worst regimes. If people do not like something, they want to ban it. We shall see the consequences.
  The Leader of the House will have identified with the protest we saw in the Chamber today, because it is precisely the kind of protest that he carried out some years ago—[Interruption.] The Leader of the House may not have managed to get into the Chamber wearing a tee-shirt, but he certainly got on to a cricket pitch—[Interruption.] What we saw today—[Interruption.]
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I should have thought that the events of today would have made the House want to conduct itself in a particularly orderly manner this evening. The hon. Lady should be heard in silence.
  Kate Hoey: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  What we saw today was wrong and we must all condemn it. However, we must remember that if laws are to be respected they have to be just. I talked to many of the people in Parliament square today; they are decent, law-abiding people who will lose their livelihood and their way of life, because of a small number—although, yes, there will be a large vote tonight—of Labour Back Benchers who have a bigoted attitude to hunting and are determined to push the measure through.
  Anne Picking: I thank the hon. Lady for giving way. My question to you—[HON. MEMBERS: "You?"] Through the Chair, my question to the hon. Lady is: do you support the principle of collective responsibility?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I think we have heard enough.
  Kate Hoey: I do not think that the question was really for me, Mr. Deputy Speaker. This is a free vote issue and the House will have the opportunity to give its view.
  If the Bill goes through the House of Lords and the Parliament Act is used, the Government may think that because we have postponed the measure, the issue will go away. However, I sincerely believe that it will be a poll-tax-type issue. The Bill is unsustainable; whatever is said, the law cannot be policed. We have made a huge mistake.
  I never thought that I would live to see a Labour Government cower before bigotry. That is unacceptable; it is a disgrace, and I am desperately disappointed that the Prime Minister has allowed it to happen.
  9.49 pm
  Dr. Julian Lewis: It is a real privilege to follow what one can truly describe as an extremely brave speech by the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey).
  1418
  I had not intended to contribute to the debate, but I have been provoked into doing so by the Minister's attitude in introducing the debate on Third Reading. I was astonished by his sensitivity about the language used by certain people today. He apparently regards it as inappropriate for my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Gregory Barker) to talk about people's rights being trampled on, and he regards it as inflammatory for people from the Countryside Alliance to talk about their resentment at being criminalised. He is nodding; he confirms that.
  Where has the Minister been for the past number of years when terms such as "rights being trampled on" have been used time and again in the House without any suggestion that such language is inflammatory? Where was he during the debates on the reduction in the age of consent for homosexuality, when it was constantly alleged that young people were being criminalised by a failure to reduce that age of consent? So it is all right to use such language in favour of a left-wing cause, but it is inflammatory to use it in favour of the defence of country sports, according to our oh-so-sensitive Minister.
  I should like to make a couple of other brief points. Why has no one replied to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Norfolk (Mr. Bellingham), who suggested that there might just be a practical problem to carrying this law into effect? What will happen if a hunt starts out as a drag hunt, but the hounds end up following foxes? Will people be criminalised? Will they be prosecuted? Will they be fined? Will they be imprisoned? If the answer is no, I suspect that an awful lot of hunts will start out as drag hunts and end up as fox hunts.
  The other point, the crucial point, the absolute killer point that has been made time and again without satisfactory response from the people on the other side of the debate is how does it benefit animal welfare when the result of foxes being shot and snared is that more of them will die more horribly than die as a result of being hunted? The only conclusion that one can reach as a result of the failure of people on the other side of the argument to address that crucial point is that the Bill is not about animal welfare; it is about class envy; it is about class hatred; and it is the last flicker of conscience from those people on the left wing of the Labour party who have abandoned their principles in supporting the Government on every other policy and who are desperate to wring a petty victory from the litany of failures of the conscience of the left.
  9.52 pm
  Mr. Douglas Hogg: I rise very much to support what my hon. Friends have said and to pay tribute to the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey). What she said was very courageous. She must have found it difficult to say, and I applaud her courage in saying it. There is at the end of the day a fundamental objection to the Bill—
  It being half an hour after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, MR. SPEAKER proceeded to put the Question necessary to dispose of the business to be concluded at that hour, pursuant to Order [this day].
  Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time:—
  The House divided: Ayes 339, Noes 155.

  Division No. 253]

  [9:53 pm

  AYES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Adams, Irene (Paisley N)

  Connarty, Michael

  Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

  Cooper, Yvette

  Alexander, Douglas

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Allan, Richard

  Corston, Jean

  Allen, Graham

  Cotter, Brian

  Anderson, rh Donald (Swansea E)

  Cousins, Jim

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale &

  Cox, Tom (Tooting)

  Darwen)

  Cranston, Ross

  Atherton, Ms Candy

  Crausby, David

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Cryer, Ann (Keighley)

  Bailey, Adrian

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Baird, Vera

  Cummings, John

  Baker, Norman

  Cunningham, Jim (Coventry S)

  Banks, Tony

  Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

  Barnes, Harry

  Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

  Barrett, John

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  Barron, rh Kevin

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Battle, John

  David, Wayne

  Bayley, Hugh

  Davidson, Ian

  Beard, Nigel

  Davies, rh Denzil (Llanelli)

  Beckett, rh Margaret

  Davies Geraint (Croydon C)

  Bell, Sir Stuart

  Dawson, Hilton

  Benn, rh Hilary

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Bennett, Andrew

  Dhanda, Parmjit

  Berry, Roger

  Dobbin, Jim (Heywood)

  Best, Harold

  Dobson, rh Frank

  Betts, Clive

  Doran, Frank

  Blackman, Liz

  Dowd, Jim (Lewisham W)

  Blizzard, Bob

  Drown Ms Julia

  Boateng, rh Paul

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Bradley, rh Keith (Withington)

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Edwards, Huw

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Efford, Clive

  Brake, Tom (Carshalton)

  Ennis, Jeff (Barnsley E)

  Brennan, Kevin

  Farrelly, Paul

  Brooke, Mrs Annette L.

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  Brown, rh Nicholas (Newcastle E

  Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

  Wallsend)

  Flint, Caroline

  Browne, Desmond

  Follett, Barbara

  Bryant, Chris

  Foster, rh Derek

  Burgon, Colin

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Burnham, Andy

  Foster, Michael (Worcester)

  Burstow, Paul

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings

  Byrne, Liam (B'ham Hodge H)

  & Rye

  Cable, Dr. Vincent

  Francis, Dr. Hywel

  Cairns, David

  Gale, Roger (N Thanet)

  Calton, Mrs. Patsy

  Gapes, Mike (Ilford S)

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Gardiner, Barry

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  George, Andrew (St. Ives)

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Gerrard, Neil

  Caplin, Ivor

  Gidley, Sandra

  Carmichael, Alistair

  Gill, Parmjit Singh

  Casale, Roger

  Gilroy, Linda

  Caton, Martin

  Goggins, Paul

  Cawsey, Ian (Brigg)

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Challen, Colin

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Chaytor, David

  Grogan, John

  Chidgey, David

  Hain, rh Peter

  Clark, Dr. Lynda (Edinburgh

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  Pentlands)

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

  Clarke, rh Charles (Norwich S)

  Hanson, David

  Clarke, rh Tom (Coatbridge &

  Harman, rh Ms Harriet

  Chryston)

  Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Havard, Dai (Merthyr Tydfil &

  Clelland, David

  Rhymney)

  Coaker, Vernon

  Healey, John

  1420

  Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

  Mahmood, Khalid

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Mallaber, Judy

  Hendrick, Mark

  Mann, John (Bassetlaw)

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Hesford, Stephen

  Marshall, David (Glasgow

  Heyes, David

  Shettleston)

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  Marshall-Andrews, Robert

  Hinchliffe, David

  Martlew, Eric

  Hodge, Margaret

  Meacher, rh Michael

  Holmes, Paul

  Meale, Alan (Mansfield)

  Hood, Jimmy (Clydesdale)

  Merron, Gillian

  Hope, Phil (Corby)

  Michael, rh Alun

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Milburn, rh Alan

  Howarth, rh Alan (Newport E)

  Miliband, David

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N &

  Miller, Andrew

  Sefton E)

  Moffatt, Laura

  Howells, Dr. Kim

  Mole, Chris

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  Moran, Margaret

  Hughes, Beverley (Stretford &

  Morgan, Julie

  Urmston)

  Morley, Elliot

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Morris, rh Estelle

  Hutton, rh John

  Mountford, Kali

  Iddon, Dr. Brian

  Mudie, George

  Illsley, Eric

  Munn, Ms Meg

  Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead &

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Highgate)

  Murphy, rh Paul (Torfaen)

  Jamieson, David

  Naysmith, Dr. Doug

  Jenkins, Brian

  Norris, Dan (Wansdyke)

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W)

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  Hatfield)

  O'Hara, Edward

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Olner, Bill

  Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

  O'Neill, Martin

  Joyce, Eric (Falkirk W)

  Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Owen, Albert

  Keen, Alan (Feltham)

  Palmer, Dr. Nick

  Kelly, Ruth (Bolton W)

  Pearson, Ian

  Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

  Perham, Linda

  Khabra, Piara S.

  Picking, Anne

  Kidney, David

  Pickthall, Colin

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Pike, Peter (Burnley)

  King, Andy (Rugby)

  Plaskitt, James

  King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green &

  Pollard, Kerry

  Bow)

  Pond, Chris (Gravesham)

  Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

  Pope, Greg (Hyndburn)

  Kumar, Dr. Ashok

  Pound, Stephen

  Ladyman, Dr. Stephen

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham

  Lammy, David

  E)

  Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Laws, David (Yeovil)

  Prescott, rh John

  Laxton, Bob (Derby N)

  Primarolo, rh Dawn

  Lepper, David

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Leslie, Christopher

  Pugh, Dr. John

  Levitt, Tom (High Peak)

  Purchase, Ken

  Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

  Purnell, James

  Liddell, rh Mrs Helen

  Quin, rh Joyce

  Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Love, Andrew

  Rammell, Bill

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Rapson, Syd (Portsmouth N)

  McCabe, Stephen

  Raynsford, rh Nick

  McCartney, rh Ian

  Rendel, David

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Coventry

  MacDonald, Calum

  NW)

  McDonnell, John

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  MacDougall, John

  Rooney, Terry

  McFall, rh John

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Ruddock, Joan

  McIsaac, Shona

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  McKechin, Ann

  Russell, Ms Christine (City of

  McKenna, Rosemary

  Chester)

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Salter, Martin

  McNamara, Kevin

  Sanders, Adrian

  McNulty, Tony

  Sarwar, Mohammad

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Sawford, Phil

  McWalter, Tony

  Sedgemore, Brian

  McWilliam, John

  Shaw, Jonathan

  1421

  Sheridan, Jim

  Touhig, Don (Islwyn)

  Shipley, Ms Debra

  Trickett, Jon

  Short, rh Clare

  Truswell, Paul

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Turner, Dr. Desmond (Brighton

  Smith, rh Andrew (Oxford E)

  Kemptown)

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  Turner, Neil (Wigan)

  Smith, rh Chris (Islington S &

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Finsbury)

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Smith, Geraldine (Morecambe &

  Tynan, Bill (Hamilton S)

  Lunesdale)

  Vaz, Keith (Leicester E)

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  Ward, Claire

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Wareing, Robert N.

  Soley, Clive

  Watson, Tom (W Bromwich E)

  Southworth, Helen

  Watts, David

  Spellar, rh John

  Webb, Steve (Northavon)

  Squire, Rachel

  White, Brian

  Starkey, Dr. Phyllis

  Whitehead, Dr. Alan

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Widdecombe, rh Miss Ann

  Stewart, David (Inverness E &

  Williams, rh Alan (Swansea W)

  Lochaber)

  Williams, Betty (Conwy)

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Willis, Phil

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  Wills, Michael

  Stoate, Dr. Howard

  Winnick, David

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster

  Stunell, Andrew

  C)

  Tami, Mark (Alyn)

  Wood, Mike (Batley)

  Taylor, rh Ann (Dewsbury)

  Woodward, Shaun

  Taylor, Dari (Stockton S)

  Woolas, Phil

  Taylor, John (Solihull)

  Wright, Anthony D. (Gt

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Yarmouth)

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Wright, David (Telford)

  Teather, Sarah

  Wyatt, Derek

  Thomas, Gareth (Harrow W)

  Timms, Stephen

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Todd, Mark (S Derbyshire)

  Mr. Nick Ainger and

  Tonge, Dr. Jenny

  Mr. John Heppell

  NOES

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  Campbell, rh Sir Menzies (NE

  Ancram, rh Michael

  Fife)

  Arbuthnot, rh James

  Cash, William

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping

  Baldry, Tony

  Barnet)

  Barker, Gregory

  Chope, Christopher

  Beggs, Roy (E Antrim)

  Clappison, James

  Beith, rh A. J.

  Clarke, rh Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Bellingham, Henry

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Bercow, John

  Collins, Tim

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Conway, Derek

  Boswell, Tim

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

  Curry, rh David

  Bottomley, rh Virginia (SW

  Davies, Quentin (Grantham &

  Surrey)

  Stamford)

  Brady, Graham

  Davis, rh David (Haltemprice &

  Brazier, Julian

  Howden)

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Djanogly, Jonathan

  Burnett, John

  Dorrell, rh Stephen

  Burns, Simon

  Doughty, Sue

  Burnside, David

  Duncan, Alan (Rutland)

  Burt, Alistair

  Duncan Smith, rh Iain

  Butterfill, Sir John

  Evans, Nigel

  Cameron, David

  Fabricant, Michael

  1422

  Fisher, Mark

  O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

  Flook, Adrian

  Öpik, Lembit

  Forth, rh Eric

  Osborne, George (Tatton)

  Francois, Mark

  Ottaway, Richard

  Gibb, Nick (Bognor Regis)

  Page, Richard

  Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

  Paice, James

  Goodman, Paul

  Paterson, Owen

  Gray, James (N Wilts)

  Pickles, Eric

  Green, Damian (Ashford)

  Price, Adam (E Carmarthen &

  Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

  Dinefwr)

  Greenway, John

  Prisk, Mark (Hertford)

  Gummer, rh John

  Robathan, Andrew

  Hague, rh William

  Robertson, Hugh (Faversham &

  Hammond, Philip

  M-Kent)

  Harris, Dr. Evan (Oxford W &

  Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

  Abingdon)

  Rosindell, Andrew

  Harvey, Nick

  Ruffley, David

  Hawkins, Nick

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Hayes, John (S Holland)

  Sheerman, Barry

  Heald, Oliver

  Simmonds, Mark

  Heathcoat-Amory, rh David

  Simpson, Keith (M-Norfolk)

  Hendry, Charles

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

  Hermon, Lady

  Kincardine)

  Hoban, Mark (Fareham)

  Soames, Nicholas

  Hoey, Kate (Vauxhall)

  Spicer, Sir Michael

  Hogg, rh Douglas

  Spink, Bob (Castle Point)

  Horam, John (Orpington)

  Spring, Richard

  Howard, rh Michael

  Stanley, rh Sir John

  Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

  Steen, Anthony

  Hunter, Andrew

  Streeter, Gary

  Jack, rh Michael

  Swayne, Desmond

  Keetch, Paul

  Swire, Hugo (E Devon)

  Key, Robert (Salisbury)

  Syms, Robert

  Kirkbride, Miss Julie

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Knight, rh Greg (E Yorkshire)

  Taylor, Dr. Richard (Wyre F)

  Laing, Mrs Eleanor

  Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

  Lamb, Norman

  Thurso, John

  Lansley, Andrew

  Tredinnick, David

  Leigh, Edward

  Trend, Michael

  Letwin, rh Oliver

  Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

  Lewis, Dr. Julian (New Forest E)

  Tyler, Paul (N Cornwall)

  Liddell-Grainger, Ian

  Tyrie, Andrew

  Lidington, David

  Viggers, Peter

  Lilley, rh Peter

  Walter, Robert

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Waterson, Nigel

  Loughton, Tim

  Watkinson, Angela

  Luff, Peter (M-Worcs)

  Whittingdale, John

  McIntosh, Miss Anne

  Wilkinson, John

  Mackay, rh Andrew

  Willetts, David

  Maclean, rh David

  Williams, Hywel (Caernarfon)

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Williams, Roger (Brecon)

  Malins, Humfrey

  Wilshire, David

  Maples, John

  Winterton, Ann (Congleton)

  Mates, Michael

  Winterton, Sir Nicholas

  Mitchell, Andrew (Sutton

  (Macclesfield)

  Coldfield)

  Yeo, Tim (S Suffolk)

  Moore, Michael

  Young, rh Sir George

  Moss, Malcolm

  Murrison, Dr. Andrew

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Norman, Archie

  Mr. Bill Wiggin and

  Oaten, Mark (Winchester)

  Mr. Crispin Blunt

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

  Speaker's Statement
  10.6 pm
  Mr. Speaker: I wish to make a brief statement about the incident that took place in the Chamber this afternoon, which was linked to today's demonstration in Parliament square. I visited the square myself, and I am grateful to the police for the efforts that they made to keep the approaches to the House clear. However, eight men gained access through St. Stephen's entrance, using a forged letter inviting them to a meeting on the Committee Corridor. Once there, they were led to the small stairway at the north end of the Corridor, probably by a passholder, who was clearly exceeding his or her authority. On the stairway, the men took off their jackets and left them behind.
  The eight men rushed the Chamber entrance. Three were tackled and overpowered by Doorkeepers on duty. The remaining five entered the No Lobby and from there gained access to the Chamber, where they, too, were overpowered. On behalf of the House I want to pay tribute to the Officers and Doorkeepers concerned for their prompt and effective reaction. They demonstrated the highest levels of professionalism and the House, I know, is grateful to them.
  The eight men have been detained and are being interviewed by the police. When it was last reported to me, none of them had provided the police with his true name and address. None of the intruders possessed any offensive weapons. Clearly, the intrusion was a carefully planned operation and the Serjeant at Arms has asked the Metropolitan police to conduct a full investigation. It is not yet clear whether the passholder who apparently assisted the intruders was a member of staff, a member of the press or an employee of a Member: all those possibilities are being investigated.
  For tomorrow's sitting, I have asked the Metropolitan police to deploy a significant additional squad of police officers in the immediate vicinity of the Chamber until the House rises. Leave for security officers will be cancelled, if necessary, to provide an immediate assurance that such an incident cannot be repeated.
  Mr. Oliver Heald: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In the light of your statement, will you confirm that you would deplore any briefing by hon. Members on either side of the House to the effect that a Conservative Member of Parliament let the invaders in—[Interruption.]
  Mr. Speaker: Order. Let the hon. Gentleman speak.
  Mr. Heald: It appears that such briefing is occurring and there is not a scrap of evidence to support it.
  Mr. Speaker: As I said in my statement, I am investigating all these possibilities; I ask the House to allow me to do so.
  Mr. Tony Banks: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. When you are considering the disgraceful events that we witnessed, will you also consider the fact that a female Member of this House was seriously assaulted when she was attempting to enter and was punched by one of the thugs outside? If
  1424
  this sort of behaviour is allowed to go on, all our democratic institutions are at risk. I ask you to interview the Member concerned to get all the details.
  Jim Dowd: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. In your statement, you announced that the people who violated—I put it no more strongly than that—this Chamber had a letter of invitation to a meeting on the Committee Corridor. I presume that whoever—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. I shall stop the hon. Gentleman. The letter was forged. I say to the House that it is best not to question the Speaker on a Speaker's statement. I stated my case and the House should bear with me. We have a day to get through tomorrow, and it is important that we see that day through until the Adjournment. I ask the House to allow me to get through that day. When we come back we can have a reasoned discussion about how we proceed, but questioning me on my statement does the House no good.
  Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Will you take very careful note of any new statement that people who say they have information give to the broadcast media tonight and ensure that anybody who seems to have been complicit is fully investigated, even though they may not necessarily be connected with the House?
  Mr. Speaker: When I opened my statement I said that the Metropolitan Police Commissioner would be involved in a full investigation.
  Peter Bottomley: On a separate point of order, Mr. Speaker.
  Mr. Speaker: That is a refreshing change.
  Peter Bottomley: May I put it to you, Sir, that the greatest risk today was of people being crushed to death against the railings outside the House? The police saved the demonstrators from that; otherwise, we might have had a repetition of the Hillsborough, Heysel or El Salvador tragedies.
  Mr. Speaker: That is not a point of order.
  Phil Sawford: On a separate but related point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact that masked intruders were seen in the vicinity of my house and the home of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, the Member for Corby (Phil. Hope) last night and that they have publicly threatened to come back to intimidate my family and that of my hon. Friend, will you review the personal security of hon. Members and their families when they are not in the House?
  Mr. Speaker: I am always worried about any hon. Member who might feel threatened. However, I urge hon. Members not to raise such matters on the Floor of the House but to come and see me privately. I shall give every assistance and help that is possible.
  Mr. Andrew Turner: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
  Mr. Speaker: I hope that it is not on the same matter because we must move on. I urge the hon. Member not to make it if it is on the same point.

  PETITIONS

    Road Safety
    10.15 pm
    Mr. Tom Clarke: I am obliged, on behalf of more than 11,000 of my constituents, to present a petition, which is self-explanatory. It is my duty and privilege to present it.
    The petition states:
    To the House of Commons.
    The Petition of residents of Coatbridge and Chryston declares
    That the Petitioners support campaigns for justice on behalf of victims of road accidents and their families and friends.
    The Petitioners further declare their strong support for campaigns to highlight the difficulties involved in defining words such as "dangerous", "careless" and "negligent" in the context of motoring offences, and their call for new terms that reflect the seriousness of such offences.
    The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons pass legislation for the new motoring offences of motor vehicle manslaughter and aggravated motor vehicle manslaughter.
    And the Petitioners remain, etc.
    To lie upon the Table.

    Royal United Hospital Bath
    10.18 pm
    Dr. Andrew Murrison: I have been asked by Councillor Chris Watt to present a petition that he has raised and that has been signed by 1,103 people in the area served by the Royal United hospital Bath.
    1426
    The petition states:
    To the House of Commons.
    The Petition of the "Clear the Debt Campaign" declares
    That the Royal United Hospital Bath has debt of £24.8 million, which it may have to pay back to the Government at a future date.
    The Petitioners further declare that if the hospital is required to repay the money, cuts for local health services in the Bath area will be necessary; and that cancellation of the debt would remove uncertainty surrounding local health services and future cuts.
    The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Secretary of State for Health to review the requirement that the debt incurred by the Royal United Hospital Bath be recovered.
    And the Petitioners remain, etc.
    To lie upon the Table.

    Holland House
    10.19 pm
    Mr. Ian Cawsey: It is my honour to present a petition on behalf of thousands of residents from Goole, Hook and the surrounding area regarding the future of Holland House, a private nursing home bought by PD Services, which has evicted the residents as it attempts to convert it into a secure unit. This loss of beds for locals is an enormous concern for the community, and the petition states:
    Wherefore your petitioners pray that your honourable House call upon the Secretary of State for Health to hold a public inquiry into the provision of nursing care beds for the elderly, the inquiry to recommend proposals to ensure the adequacy of such provision, and to impose a complete embargo on all applications made by PD Services and like organisations to the National Care Standards Commission—now the Health Care Commission—for deregistration of existing nursing homes, including Holland House, and applications for a change of use of said properties to secure units for persons with personality disorders, until the outcome of such public inquiry.
    And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.
    To lie upon the Table.

    Commission for Social Care Inspection
    Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Margaret Moran.]
    10.20 pm
    Mr. James Plaskitt: I should like to thank Mr. Speaker for granting me the opportunity to have this important Adjournment debate.
    This case involves two of my constituents who are foster carers. Given the involvement of children and the obvious importance of protecting their identity, I shall refer to the couple only as "my constituents". However, the case is known to the Minister for Children and we have corresponded on the matter.
    I want to raise the issue tonight because my constituents have been put in a truly intolerable situation as a result of professional failures and organisational incompetence. Although the matter is now, possibly, inching its way towards a resolution, this has taken far too long. The case has exposed very serious systemic failures, and we cannot afford to fail to apply the lessons that could be learned from this sorry situation. Many questions remain unanswered, and I wish to put them to my right hon. Friend this evening. My constituents and I are anxious to have the answers.
    I shall briefly outline the context. My constituents discovered that a 13-year-old boy who had been placed with them for fostering had a history of sex abusing. They had not been told this. That was obviously a profound and dangerous mistake, given that my constituents have young children of their own, and other children in their care. The boy—child X—was placed with my constituents by Northamptonshire social services, and the independent agency involved in the case was called Happen.
    Initially, my constituents took the view that an honest mistake had occurred. Attempts to resolve the matter amicably failed and, eventually, my constituents lodged a complaint against the agency. The first really sour incident in the story occurred at this point. Happen's response was to cast doubt on the previous and current fitness of my constituents as foster parents. Having failed to dissuade my constituents from making their complaint, Happen's staff visited their home and produced an agenda of concerns questioning my constituents' competence and reliability. Happen also indicated that it would take my constituents back to the fostering panel. It also told them that it was asking a social worker to investigate them. This aggressive response threatened my constituents with the loss of their reputation and their livelihood.
    The then National Care Standards Commission undertook an investigation. Two inspectors, Sandra Lemon and Jane Allen, carried out the investigation and concluded that the complaints against the agency could not be substantiated. Those two individuals later carried out an assessment of Happen's fitness for registration—a point that I shall come back to. Surprised by this finding, my constituents pressed the matter to a second stage review. This was carried out by Cathy Craggs and concluded in May 2003. Looking at exactly the same evidence, Ms Craggs concluded that the complaint was partly substantiated.
    1428
    Still dissatisfied, however, my constituents took the matter to a third stage review, which was carried out by Judy Downey and was concluded in March this year. Ms Downey's detailed report makes worrying revelations and reaches some very important conclusions. I have sent a copy of it to my right hon. Friend. The third stage investigation concluded, among other things, that the NCSC's inspection of Happen—carried out, as I said, by the same two people who undertook the initial investigation—had been overgenerous to the agency. The investigation also found that Happen was unable to substantiate its claims against my constituents. It also concluded:
    "Considerable efforts were made by Happen to discredit"
    my constituents. It also concluded that while Northamptonshire's own investigation into the affair had found a need for Happen to address its conduct, that was not picked up in either of the first two NCSC investigations. Finally, Ms Downey's report totally vindicated my constituents. She concluded:
    "The NCSC should examine its practices in relation to this provider and review their fitness as a matter of urgency."
    Since that report, which was delivered in March this year, what has happened? First, the NCSC has become the Commission for Social Care Inspection. The name and initials have therefore changed, but it does not look to me as though the personnel or practices have changed too much. Anxious to see Ms Downey's recommendations acted on, I wrote to Linda Hoare, the south-east regional director of CSCI. My constituents also engaged a solicitor to represent them, and they, too, were in communication with Ms Hoare. Incidentally, she complained that she could not deal with two sets of correspondence on this matter. However, she wrote:
    "I will of course do my best to ensure that any necessary improvements in the practice of the CSCI are carried out".
    At the same time, Staffordshire social services reacted to the findings of the third stage review. Peter Steel, its commissioning officer, concluded that his county would no longer use Happen. He communicated that view to a range of other west midlands social services departments, as his was the lead authority. Concern about Happen was also drawn to the attention of Northamptonshire, the original placing authority, which would obviously have an interest in the matter. It decided to check with CSCI, which replied that
    "there are no indications of concern regarding the agency and its practices and outcomes from the inspection were positive."
    Three months after Ms Downey's report and call for urgent action, some social services departments were clearly doing the right thing. CSCI, however, which twice in its previous incarnation failed to undertake a proper investigation, was telling one local authority at least that all was well with the agency, while writing to me and my constituents assuring us that all necessary improvements would be made. I was dismayed by this comment from CSCI. In May, I wrote a further letter to Ms Hoare asking for an explanation.
    At that time, I also raised the matter for the first time with my right hon. Friend the Minister for Children. She replied that the CSCI complaints board would be conducting a review of its procedures to be completed in the summer of 2004. CSCI has since told me that a further inspection of Happen will be conducted in October. As for the astonishing comment made by CSCI

    1429
    to Northamptonshire that all was well with Happen, I still have not had an explanation; instead, I have had only a comment from Ms Hoare saying that she was not in post at the time. In fact, I think that she was.
    All that raises serious doubts in my mind about the competence of CSCI. The reputation of two outstanding foster carers has been placed in jeopardy, I think, to cover up professional failures. First, they were subject to incompetence, then to intimidation, and then they were totally let down by the inspecting organisation to which they turned. Either the inspectors did not inspect, or they did but opted to cover up what they found. Either is indefensible, given that not only reputations are at stake but the safety and security of children.
    In conclusion, I have some questions for my right hon. Friend. How confident can we be in the staff of CSCI? Is it mired in institutional self-preservation? What has happened to CSCI's review of complaints procedure? Has it concluded? If so, what was the outcome? Why is the complaints process so close to the inspection process, to the extent that the same people are involved? Surely that raises a conflict of interest and results in people being asked to inspect their own competence. Why are CSCI inspections apparently such limp affairs? How rigorous are the inspection criteria? When complaints are made about the very foundations of fitness, why are the inspections about superficial matters? Why are inspections, as in the case of Happen, pre-announced? Does not that further undermine their validity? Why, when it was deemed urgent in March, are some of the core recommendations of Ms Downey's first stage report still not being acted on seven months later? When will all those recommendations be acted on, and when will Happen be either sorted out or deregistered?
    10.30 pm
    Mr. David Cameron: I listened carefully to what the hon. Gentleman said. He has clearly studied the matter closely. I want to put on record—the hon. Gentleman may not know this—that my constituent, Brian Henderson, a director of Happen Fostercare Ltd., contacted me about the debate. He has made a series of complaints to the commission, which are currently being examined. I think it important for the hon. Gentleman to be aware of that, and I look forward to hearing the Minister's reply.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): It appears that that was a speech rather than an intervention. I thought that the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Plaskitt) had given way. Presumably, there was all-round acceptance that the hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron) could contribute.
    The Minister for Children (Margaret Hodge): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Plaskitt) on securing the debate and on diligently and persistently pursuing the issue on behalf of his constituents. I regret the difficulties experienced by his constituents. I wish to record my
    1430
    admiration for the enormous contribution that foster carers make to our society, and the wonderful work they do with some of the most disadvantaged children. If I have time, I shall describe some of the key measures that the Government are taking to improve support for foster carers; but first I want to respond to issues relating to this specific case.
    It is clear that the handling of the complaint made by my hon. Friend's constituents has simply not been good enough. I understand that the CSCI has itself acknowledged the amount of time taken to resolve the complaints. It accepts that they were not handled as quickly as they should have been, and has apologised to my hon. Friend's constituents for that. However, I have received assurances from the commission that action is being taken to improve the handling of complaints in future. I shall give my hon. Friend more details of that.
    A board has been established to review the effectiveness of the complaints arrangements and the way in which the organisation deals with them. The CSCI has also informed me that a new management team has been installed in the south-east region and that the team will aim to find a swift and satisfactory resolution for the complainants in this case. I sincerely hope that a satisfactory conclusion can be reached. I am also pleased to hear that the commission has brought forward the annual inspection of Happen to 4 October. The inspection will be used, among other things, to review the fitness of the provider.
    Let me now deal with some of the specific issues raised by my hon. Friend, who gave me notice that he would raise them. He asked whether I could be confident in the staff we have in the CSCI. I believe that we can be. The commission now has a completely new management structure, different from that of its predecessor, and is about to appoint a new regional director to this area. It has committed itself to a service user-focused approach to regulation and to trying to bring about real improvement in social care. Its underlying aims are to stamp out bad practice wherever it is found and to protect vulnerable people in care. I understand that the organisation is reviewing its methodology and systems to improve them where possible, no doubt learning from experiences such as this case.
    My hon. Friend asked if I felt that the organisation was mired in what he called institutional self-preservation. It has a statutory duty to promote the improvement of social care services. By its nature it has to be an outward-looking body and it was set up by Parliament to improve services for users and carers. The commission has a statutory duty to co-operate with other organisations. As I know from having worked with it recently, it is working very closely with Ofsted and other inspectorates on developing an integrated children's service inspection framework. That is going well. So in my experience, it is not an inward-looking organisation.
    What, however, has happened to the review of complaints procedure? My hon. Friend asked whether it had concluded, and if so, what the outcome was. The review continues, which is not a bad thing. I am told that there have been some early benefits that have been realised, particularly by introducing a much more flexible approach to the way in which complaints are investigated and reported. Whereas previously an

    1431
    inspection report had to be generated by each individual complaint—a process that is both slow and time-consuming—new arrangements established this summer enable complaints to be investigated and responded to much more quickly as stand-alone activities. The information arising from a complaint can then be captured in the next scheduled inspection report.
    The review of the complaints mechanism will continue through the autumn, with a view to further reform of the process. In the commission's opinion, the complaints system needs a comprehensive examination, as my hon. Friend doubtless agrees, which is why it is making proper time to consider the issues. I should add that the CSCI will assume responsibility for undertaking third-stage complaints of local authority social services functions from 1 April 2005, It needs to consider how to bring them into its complaints mechanism.
    My hon. Friend asked whether the complaints process is too close to the inspection process, whether the same people are involved and, if so, whether that jeopardises objectivity in administering the complaints mechanism. The organisation operates as a result of statute, so if the fault lies anywhere, it lies with us in Parliament and the way in which we configured the Care Standards Act 2000. The 2000 Act places a statutory complaints-handling responsibility on the commission. Investigations into complaints are therefore conducted as an inspection activity, using the commission's regulatory powers. It is not unusual for public organisations to do that, and provision is made in the commission's corporate complaints procedure for complaints about the commission itself to be considered by regional and national management structures. That provides a check on performance at local operational level.
    Mr. Plaskitt: Although the two functions are contained within the CSCI, does the Minister share my concern at the fact that, in certain instances, it is the same people who carry out those two functions, which is the cause of the potential conflict of interest?
    Margaret Hodge: I concur with my hon. Friend's view that it seems odd that, in this case, the same people who carried out the regulatory procedure had previously investigated a complaint about the organisation. That was not an appropriate use of individuals' time, and I hope that the structure that the CSCI now has in place, which will ensure that complaints against the organisation are dealt with at regional and national management levels, will help. Of course, where complainants remain dissatisfied, they have the right to an independent review and for the matter then to be referred to the parliamentary ombudsman.
    My hon. Friend feels that the inspections carried out by the CSCI are limp affairs, partly because they are pre-announced, and that the inspection criteria are not tough enough. I am afraid that I cannot agree with him on that. Indeed, I have heard it argued by others in the social care field that CSCI is too prescriptive and interventionist, so there are obviously varying views. It inspects against a framework of regulations and national minimum standards, and there are currently 32 standards for independent fostering agencies. It tries to
    1432
    strike a proportionate balance between inspections based on national minimum standards and a focus on the quality of the service and the user experience. That is why people using services are consulted as part of inspections.
    Where concerns arise, a number of options are available to the CSCI, ranging from an informal word with a provider about a non-serious problem—which is sensible—to issuing an urgent action notice or taking action through the courts and prosecuting providers in cases where regulations have been breached and service users placed at serious risk.
    To give some examples of the extent to which those powers have been used, the old organisation, the National Care Standards Council, undertook five prosecutions in 2003–04 and issued 5,750 urgent actions across all the services that it regulated. Since April 2004, when the CSCI became operational, it has taken more than 4,500 different enforcement actions to help improve regulated services where it had concerns. While the vast majority—93 per cent.—involve care homes, six have involved independent fostering agencies. If the CSCI finds gaps or weaknesses in regulations or standards, it will of course report them to Government so that we can take remedial action.
    My hon. Friend asked why some of the core recommendations in Ms Downey's report have still not been carried out. There has been unacceptable delay, partly resulting from the transition from the NCSC, and action was not taken as promptly as it should have been. Nevertheless, the CSCI has informed me that Happen was inspected in December 2003 and that the result was satisfactory. The original weaknesses that my hon. Friend drew to my attention with regard to employment practices have been looked at and recommendations made for improvement, but the weaknesses were not felt to be sufficiently serious to warrant deregistration of the agency.
    As part of the inspection process, local authorities were asked if they had concerns about Happen, but no particular concerns were raised about the agency. Furthermore, there have been no complaints against Happen since the complaint from my hon. Friend's constituents two years ago.
    I repeat that Happen will be inspected on 4 October. This will involve CSCI staff with expertise in inspecting fostering agencies and who have had no previous involvement in the case. In addition, the process will be managed from outside the Oxford area. The CSCI has a duty to ensure that its inspection is fair but proportionate and that any action that it takes is evidence-based.
    My hon. Friend also asked about whether notice of inspection should be given. We are considering that issue throughout children's services, and I undertake to keep him informed.
    My hon. Friend asked whether Happen will be sorted out or deregistered. The annual announced inspection of Happen on 4 October has been brought forward from February 2005 as a result of the third stage review carried out by Ms Downey. The CSCI has advised me that the inspection on 4 October will be led by an inspector from Kent who has experience of inspecting

    1433
    independent fostering agencies. That inspector will be accompanied by an inspector from Oxford and the inspection will be overseen by a senior member of staff from outside the Oxford office, rather than the local regulation manager. Clearly, it would not be appropriate for me to comment further. The commission will inspect the service objectively and base its judgment on the evidence found. I assure my hon. Friend that I will inform him of the outcome of the inspection report and will ensure that I am informed of it.
    I should like to say a little about information sharing, which is at the heart of the original case. The national minimum standards, which have to be taken into account by the CSCI in inspecting fostering providers, make a number of references to the sharing of information. They state, for instance, that local authorities should ensure that each child or young person placed in foster care is carefully matched with a carer capable of meeting his or her needs. Full and effective information sharing is, of course, essential for that to happen. They also state that the fostering service must ensure that the foster carer knows why the child is in foster care and understands the basis of the placement. In any case, it is clear that appropriate information must be shared with those involved in the child's care. It is extremely unfortunate that that did not happen in my hon. Friend's constituency.
    Finally, I should like to put the case briefly in context. We must remember that there are 40,000 looked-after children in foster care—about two-thirds of the total
    1434
    number of children in care. Foster carers play a unique arid critical role in our communities, providing homes for some of the most disadvantaged and vulnerable children in our society. Increasingly, they provide greater stability for looked-after children than do other forms of care.
    We know that there is a shortage of foster carers—about 8,000, according to the Fostering Network. It is clear that we need more foster carers to provide looked-after children with a greater choice of where they can live. Children are much more likely to thrive if they are placed with carers who are a good match in terms of location, culture, language and lifestyle; a bigger pool of carers would allow us to make better matches between carers and children. We are therefore committed to recruiting and keeping more foster carers and we want to encourage more people to consider fostering—not just married couples, but other groups such as single people, older people, unmarried couples and lone parents who may not realise that they are eligible.
    I hope that Members will recognise from what I have said this evening that the Government have a strong commitment to improving outcomes for looked-after children. We are doing a lot of work to take it forward, but there is still a lot more work to be done. All looked-after children must be supported to achieve the same outcomes as all other children and their carers must be valued. We should expect for our looked-after children the same as we expect for our own children.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Adjourned accordingly at twelve minutes to Eleven o'dock.

Preamble
[MR. JOHN MCWILLIAM in the Chair]

Strategic Defence Strategy (Scotland)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned.—[Derek Twigg.]
9.30 am
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Before I call the hon. Member for North Tayside (Pete Wishart), may I encourage brevity from everyone? A quick glance will tell hon. Members that the numbers present do not divide very well into an hour and a half.
Pete Wishart: First, may I say how pleased, grateful and just a little flattered I am to see the Secretary of State in his place? I think that that shows his real appreciation of the deep concern and anxiety that is felt throughout the defence community in Scotland about the plans for the infantry and for our military bases and installations. He also appreciates the deep concern that is felt in my constituency and in those of other hon. Members; we have a deep attachment to our historic regiments and we appreciate and admire the work that they do on our behalf.
The Secretary of State's presence makes a contrast with the approach taken by his Armed Forces Minister. My hon. Friend the Member for Perth (Annabelle Ewing) and I wrote to the Minister a couple of months ago to make a simple request for a meeting about the plans for the Army. In response, we received a message that more or less said, "Get stuffed". It took two months to get that reply, so it is good to see that the Secretary of State is here. I am might not be too pleased about what he might have to say, but I am glad of his presence.
May I also thank the large number of hon. Members who have turned up for this debate, particularly the many Scottish Members? It shows the concern about our armed forces that exists in every corner of Scotland. I am glad to see so many people here.
I will be brief to allow as many hon. Members as possible to contribute to the debate. I also intend to be as generous as possible with my time and if any hon. Members wish to intervene to give their support for our historic regiments, I will be prepared to take the interventions. Perhaps they can make their remarks to the Secretary of State through me. My remarks will almost exclusively be on the plans for the infantry in Scotland: the plans to do away with one of our historic regiments and subsequently to amalgamate what is left.
This debate is part of the ongoing campaign to save our regiments and a way of life in our infantry that has served us so well and with such distinction through the centuries. The infantry has tremendous links with the local communities that we have the privilege to represent. I do not need to tell the Secretary of State that there is almost overwhelming hostility to the plans for the infantry in Scotland. Campaigns and protests have sprung up all over Scotland, where the proposals, have in a way, galvanised communities. The plans have
440WH
attracted criticism from very senior officers who previously served in the armed forces and they are starting to attract it from current senior officers in the infantry, most notably General McColl, who commented on Monday about the overstretch in Iraq. I am glad to see serving officers breaking the Ministry of Defence's three-line whip of silence, which has been imposed upon the military on this issue. It is great to see them breaking ranks.
Sir Robert Smith: The hon. Gentleman made an important point when he highlighted overstretch in Iraq. As well as our keenness to support our specific regiments, at the heart of this debate is the fundamental fact that many of us believe that the Government have made a mistake in seeing the peace process in Northern Ireland as a chance to cut the size of the Army, rather than as an opportunity to redeploy that strength to ensure that we can fulfil our overseas commitments more easily.
Pete Wishart: The hon. Gentleman makes an important and valid point. We are already beginning to see the results of overstretch. The Black Watch regiment, which has recruited from my constituency, is on its second tour of duty in Iraq because it is the only regiment that is equipped to deal with that particular task.
The current campaign has been fantastic. Usually when we as hon. Members get the petitions board out and head down to town centres to try to recruit an unsuspecting public to whichever campaign we are backing this week, we are met with indifference and scepticism—not with this campaign. People are queuing up to sign the petition to save our regiments. I have not encountered anybody who has refused to sign the petition—or who has not been prepared to do so. That has not only been the case in regimental constituencies such as mine, but throughout Scotland.
May I, at this early stage, pay tribute to the excellent campaign that has been conducted to save our regiments. It has done a fantastic job and has been ably backed by some of the national media such as The Scotsman and The Herald, and by publications such as The Courier and the Perthshire Advertiser in my area. They have created a very vocal and passionate campaign. Our voice will be heard on this issue and we will not go away.
I am fascinated about why there has been such a passionate and vocal campaign to save our regiments. What is it about the way that we organise our infantry that inspires the public with such confidence and respect? There may be a number of answers to that, some of them to do with traditions. People like traditions; they like the way in which such things have been organised. They respect the fact that they still work, and there is value in that.
Such public confidence may have something to do with the fantastic community links that the regiments enjoy; the fact that they are there, and always have been there. It may have something to do with respect for the way in which our regiments perform an almost unimaginably difficult task. However, I think that it is about more than that; it is about reassurance and our

441WH
confidence that our armed forces are the best in the world. They are the best in the world, not because of accident but because of the way in which they are designed, arranged and structured. Our armed forces are the envy of the world and the way in which the regimental system works is the envy of many armed forces throughout the world.
Like the Secretary of State, I have never been a soldier. Before he became an esteemed and distinguished senior politician, the Secretary of State was a barrister—not, I would suggest, a particularly dangerous occupation. I was a musician; probably the most dangerous position that I was ever put into was when I faced an army of unsuspecting rock fans, which was not a particularly dangerous task. Neither the Secretary of State nor I have performed dangerous tasks, and it is important that we take on board the views of existing and former soldiers, although not in the form of the sham consultation produced for the infantry in Scotland, in which soldiers were asked whether they preferred one, two or three battalions or whatever. That was like asking what sort of wood they wanted their gallows made out of. We should speak properly to soldiers about the type of infantry that they want in the future.
I have spoken to a lot of soldiers since the defence review was initiated and spent a lot of time debating with them the type of infantry that they would seek. I received a number of interesting responses, but the one that impressed me most came from an old soldier who had served in the Black Watch in the second world war. He said that our regiments work because soldiers are doing it for their pals; it has nothing to do with esoteric concepts such as Queen and country. It is about a soldier's pals, and the fact that they were recruited in the same town and may even have gone to the same school. It is about the fact that a soldier's father and grandfather had fought in the same regiment. It is about pals that one can rely on when the going gets tough. We tinker with that loyalty, determination and comradeship at our peril.
My local regiment is the Black Watch; I have the Black Watch hackle on today and my tie was given to me on a visit to Balhousie, the regiment's headquarters, on Monday. The Black Watch is in Iraq serving its second tour of duty. The regiment goes back 300 years. It was formed in Aberfeldy, on the banks of the Tay in my constituency. It was called the Black Watch because it was formed to watch over the highlands for brawny highlanders who might come into my constituency years and years ago. Sometimes I wish that it would come back and continue to perform that useful task.
In Aberfeldy, there is a monument of a kilted soldier who looks down at the very spot in which the Black Watch was mustered. It is a beautiful place, to which people come to pay their respects for fallen comrades or for people who have served with distinction in the regiment. It is that sense of history and attachment that creates the special culture in our historic regiments. Men want to join, and fight for, those proud regiments with their special camaraderie. How can we expect fighting men to have the same affection for abstract formations designed in Whitehall? How can one compare such a romantic name as the Argyll and Sutherland
442WH
Highlanders to the third battalion lowland regiment? Large battalions may seem sensible to Whitehall pen pushers, but they are nothing but synthetic creations to fighting men.
The most important question to consider when talking about the reorganisation of the infantry is whether it will work. Will the Jackson proposals mean that our armed forces will be better prepared to meet the challenges of a rapidly changing world with new, developing, evolving military theatres? Sure, it looks like we are going to have a lot of smart bombs and smart technology to fire at and obliterate all sorts of appropriate and suitable targets. However, will our armed forces be able to meet the challenges of the new world, in which peacekeeping and conflict prevention will be the major task that our infantry have to face? Is it not bizarre that we have a regimental system that is supremely prepared to meet such challenges, but that we are thinking about doing away with it?
We have to take on board the views of some of our senior officers. I was impressed by what General John McColl, one of our most senior officers serving in Iraq, said about the situation. He said that if the Jackson proposals go through,
"You either work the army harder or do less with them."
He went on to say that
"our capacity to conduct a number of these commitments"—
that is, our current commitments—
"is reduced with a reduction in the number of infantry battalions."
As the second most senior officer serving in Iraq, he should be listened to. I hope that the Secretary of State takes his remarks to heart.
I suppose that the amalgamation of regiments makes perfectly good sense to the Ministry of Defence. We are always told how reasonable the proposals are, and how they take on board what has been said, but those of us who have a problem with what has been suggested, and who have concerns about the way that the issue is going, are always presented as traditionalists or sentimentalist. Well, call me an old-fashioned sentimentalist but, given that our infantry is the envy of armed forces all over the world, that our armed forces command such respect and confidence from the public and that we have the finest fighting men in the world, I make no apologies for being a traditionalist and a sentimentalist in this respect.
I suspect that the real reason for the amalgamations is that larger battalions will be easier to cut at a future date. Once the local connection has been severed and the regiments are submerged into a great, amorphous blob, they will be much easier to cut; there will be a lot less local protest next time around.
Why are these changes being suggested now? It is no mistake that these proposals are called the Jackson proposals. General Sir Mike Jackson will retire next year, and he is keen to cement his place in history with these proposals. That is why they are being rushed through with undue haste. Where is the national debate on the way forward for our infantry? Where are the debates in the House about what has been proposed? Where are the proper consultations?
Mr. Alex Salmond: Will my hon. Friend accept that, whatever the rights and wrongs of the Secretary of State's proposals, there is

443WH
something deeply unpleasant—indeed, unacceptable—in effectively eliminating regiments when they are in the line of fire in Iraq, where the Prime Minister has placed them?
Pete Wishart: My hon. Friend makes a good point. I have received many letters—as, I suspect, he has—from soldiers serving in Iraq who are appalled at the prospect of the changes. They know that they have been placed in unimaginable danger, and know that what has been proposed is a betrayal of what they are doing abroad by those who are supposed to be in positions of responsibility at home.
Why are the changes happening now, especially given that our armed forces are overstretched as never before, as the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Sir Robert Smith) mentioned in relation to the situation in Iraq? The Jackson proposals make absolutely no sense, given that the bulk of the armed forces' operational commitments involve peacekeeping, for which our forces are supremely prepared and well equipped after their experience in the Balkans and elsewhere. High-tech military hardware and smart technology will not win hearts and minds on a hostile street. It takes men on the ground in berets and Tam o' Shanters, men such as those who serve in the Black Watch.
I hope that the Secretary of State has listened carefully to the sheer crescendo of opposition to what has been suggested for our infantry. Our regiments have served us well. They are respected and admired the world over. Men continue to want to fight in them.
Mr. Lindsay Hoyle: The hon. Gentleman rightly talks about the benefits of cap badges, and the local community that regiments serve. Is he aware that many in the Black Watch are recruited in Lancashire? He is supportive of Scottish regiments, so will he be as supportive of Lancashire regiments continuing? There are such close links between them and the Scots Guards and Black Watch. I hope that he will support the Queen's Lancashire Regiment when there is a debate on that subject.
Pete Wishart: I am grateful for those remarks. Of course we support what is happening in Lancashire. In fact, I was there with some soldiers serving in that regiment. They asked me to sign their petition, which I was more than happy to do. We know that there are such issues across the UK, and I am impressed by some of the campaigns to resist the plans that have been put forward.
I do not wish to speak for much longer, as a number of hon. Members want to speak. I just hope that the Secretary of State has listened to the voices of opposition. We will not go away. We will continue to fight for our regiments, and we hope that the Secretary of State and other hon. Members will join us and help us save our regiments.
9.44 am
Rachel Squire: I begin by congratulating the hon. Member for North Tayside (Pete Wishart) on securing this important debate. It is usual parliamentary practice for the parties to engage in
444WH
political point-scoring, but I do not intend to do so because I want to use this time to emphasise to the Secretary of State for Defence the strength of feeling that I have observed among all ranks of serving and retired personnel and their families, and the public, about some of the proposals that he made on 21 July. I ask my right hon. Friend not to proceed with any decision, and to hold a full consultation with all ranks and all communities involved.
May I briefly, as I am sure others will, pay tribute to our armed forces? They have a reputation throughout the world for their professionalism and high standards. Their skill and their commitment to conflict prevention and peacekeeping are second to none, and the role that they have played in promoting this Government's global agenda has become ever greater and more important. The Government's proposal to cut back on the numbers serving in our Army, Navy and Air Force when they are already overstretched and overcommitted is not something I can support. Linked as it is to the removal of four regiments, it is seen by service personnel, families and communities as an act of backstabbing, particularly given the commitment that they have made to put their lives at risk, knowing that they might pay the ultimate price.
If the Government go ahead with the cuts, they need also to decide from which operations to withdraw service personnel. The hon. Member for North Tayside mentioned the Black Watch, which recruits particularly from Dunfermline and the area that I represent. Like other hon. Members, I am very proud of the Black Watch and its history, as well as its example of professionalism and high standards, and am mindful of the ever-increasing demands that are made on its serving personnel.
For instance, the Black Watch was in the Balkans in 2002, and served in Iraq in both 2003 and 2004. An average tour now takes place within a year, rather than every two years. Its personnel were supposed to be at Warminster, serving for two years as the Army's training battalion, yet they were called on to return to Iraq at very short notice due to the lack of available highly-trained personnel. The Black Watch stands out as a regiment that has ever-greater demands placed on it, yet which, due to the Government's proposals to remove a Scottish regiment, is at risk of disbandment and is experiencing low morale, particularly among personnel serving in an extremely challenging and dangerous environment.
While some have said that contemplating larger regiments could be a good idea, they have qualified it by adding that before we reflect on cutting or merging regiments the world needs to be at greater peace than it is at this time of such active engagement. The Member for North Tayside mentioned what I would call the importance of bonding, which is always emphasised to me by veterans. The way that those in our services, particularly in our regiments, bond during training and the development and maintenance of their skills, professionalism and commitment are very important, particularly when they are under fire.
May I conclude with a brief mention of the Royal Navy dockyards and the Royal Air Force, although I am sure that others will speak about them? Hon. Members would be surprised if, as the hon. Member representing Rosyth dockyard, I did not say that while

445WH
I welcome the commitment that has been made with regard to the future aircraft carrier, I am not at all happy about the reduction in the size of the fleet, because of the impact that that has on the work load at Rosyth dockyard and elsewhere, and because of its contribution to the active and full service being undertaken in all parts of the world by the Royal Navy.
While there is no RAF base in Dunfermline and west Fife, I would not like to fail to mention RAF Leuchars in Fife, which includes part of the constituency of the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Sir Menzies Campbell), and emphasise its contribution, along with the outstanding contribution of RAF Lossiemouth and RAF Kinloss.
Angus Robertson: On that cue, as represent both RAF Kinloss and RAF Lossiemouth, does the hon. Lady agree that the Ministry of Defence should listen to the arguments put by the local community and take it on board that any run-down or closure of either facility will have a disproportionate impact on Moray and the north of Scotland compared with a run-down or closure elsewhere in the UK?
Rachel Squire: I certainly agree on the strong importance of RAF Lossiemouth and RAF Kinloss not only to the RAF, but to the local communities and their future.
I hope that the Secretary of State for Defence, the Prime Minister and the Cabinet will listen to the views and widespread concern, and recognise that they need to—I shall use that very Scottish phrase—"go back and think again" and consult fully all ranks of service personnel, as well as veterans, families and communities. They must ensure that we maintain the UK's reputation for the outstanding professionalism and commitment of our armed forces.
9.51 am
Mr. Michael Moore: It is welcome to see the Secretary of State in his place to respond to today's debate. The seriousness of the subject is emphasised by his presence and by the strong presence of Members from all parties representing Scottish seats and other parts of the United Kingdom. Such a good turnout is a sign of the importance of the Scottish infantry's contribution to the British Army and the other defence interests in Scotland.
There has been a great deal of uncertainty for months about the future of Scottish regiments. For several months, newspapers such as The Herald have had apparently well placed sources telling them that a major review was under way and that one—or worse, more—Scottish regiment would be at stake. I am afraid that the Secretary of State's announcement at the tail end of July, just before the parliamentary recess, enhanced that uncertainty, as he confirmed that there would be a reduction of one battalion in Scotland from six to five.
My basic grasp of arithmetic suggests that that would not work, and as yet it is not clear how it might develop. I hope that, after many weeks during which it has not been clear what is happening, the fact that the Secretary
446WH
of State is here today will allow us to understand his thinking more clearly and that the process will lead us to a decision.
The concerns in my part of south-east Scotland about the future of the King's Own Scottish Borderers and the Royal Scots are reflected in the number of petitions that have been collected. I presented one to Parliament last night; I know that the hon. Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale (Mr. Duncan) presented one from the King's Own Scottish Borderers last week. Local newspapers in Fife and elsewhere have been running strong campaigns on the future of the regiments. Each focuses on key factors relating to traditions of the regiments, military honours that they have won and the importance of their contribution to the work of the British Army, whether in Iraq, Northern Ireland or the many other parts of the world where the British Army is doing sterling service. It strikes people as very strange that at a moment of such heavy requirement for deployments, we should be contemplating a reduction in the number of regiments.
The specific proposal in Scotland is that there should be one regiment for the whole country, or a highland regiment and a lowland regiment. From what we read in the press and learn elsewhere, it appears that the decision on whether there should be one or two regiments, and the related and difficult decision of how to get six regiments down to five, has been left to the colonels of the Scottish regiments. Perhaps they will play some elaborate game of musical chairs or Russian roulette to work out which of their number should leave the table. That is a difficult way for anyone to make a decision. I hope the Secretary of State clarifies how it will be made.
I understand that there is some sound operational thinking from the perspective of the planners in the Ministry of Defence. I say to the Secretary of State that, as yet, people in Scotland have not been persuaded of that. We look to him again today to set out the justification for that reform of the Army in Scotland. I do not think that any of us, regardless of our political opinions, is against reform of the Army. We appreciate that it must change and adapt to the different circumstances of the post-11 September world as well as to the way the world has changed since the end of communism. The world is very different from what we were geared up for 20, 30 or 40 years ago. The Army must adapt, and I do not think that any of us has seen any unwillingness among the people we represent to be part of that process.
However, the form of reorganisation planned by the Ministry of Defence has not been persuasive across Scotland. We await with interest what the Secretary of State tells us today and hope that his intentions become clear. Inevitably and properly, the regiments, and their huge number of supporters across Scotland, have been consulting the communities that they are drawn from, the retired elements, and families and friends to find out what they think of the proposals. There are plenty of examples of the negative responses that have come forward as a result of the consultation process. The discussions and questionnaires all articulated key aspects of the regimental system and stressed why it is important that we continue with each of the Scottish regiments that serve us with such distinction.

447WH
One of the questionnaires that a friend passed to me emphasised some key elements of the regimental system, which bear a quick repetition. The responses start by emphasising the sense of belonging to an entity that has an existence—a past, present and future of its own. That is important to people at all stages of their military service. Continuity—the ability of individuals to keep returning to the regiment or battalion in which they began, to their benefit and that of the units in which they serve—is also important. Names and traditions are at the heart of the debate, and one of the great anxieties is over the fact that, whatever reform the Secretary of State settles on, maintaining the names and traditions, what they stand for and the power they have to motivate the people involved as well as those who support them is crucial. For Scotland to lose any of the names would be a tragedy.
Thanks to our constituency roles, each of us can emphasise and bear witness to the regional connections. I appreciate that some regiments draw their support from various parts of Scotland. The King's Own Scottish Borderers recruits from the constituency of the hon. Member for Hamilton, South (Mr. Tynan) as well as from more obvious places such as my constituency. Those regional connections are fundamental—not just to recruitment but to ensuring that the people represented by me and by others feel a sense of identification with and connection to the British Army in its broader sense. That recruitment focus is rather important.
What I understand, above all, from discussions with family members who have been in the armed forces, from friends and from constituents across south-east Scotland is that esprit de corps—the connection that people feel to their regiment or battalion—is essential to them. It would be a crying shame to give up on that.
The King's Own Scottish Borderers, the Royal Scots and the other Scottish regiments all embody the finest traditions in the British Army. We have yet to hear convincing arguments or evidence that suggests there is a case for removing one of those battalions or regiments. Whatever the final form of the recommendations, I hope that the Secretary of State will reflect on each of the points as well as the strength of feeling in the Chamber today, which represents a strong feeling throughout Scotland. I hope also that, as a result, he makes it clear that there will be no cuts in the number of regiments and battalions in Scotland.
10 am
Annabelle Ewing: As the Member of Parliament for Perth, where the Black Watch has its regimental headquarters at Balhousie castle, I am pleased to have the opportunity to contribute to this extremely important debate. I would like to take the opportunity to congratulate my Perthshire colleague, the hon. Member for North Tayside (Pete Wishart), on securing the debate. I endorse what he said in his excellent contribution. It is instructive to note that it took the Scottish National party to force a debate, as none was offered by the United Kingdom Government. That is regrettable, and it is entirely consistent with the secretive way in which the Labour Government have pursued their agenda of scrapping Scotland's entire regimental structure.
448WH
As we have heard from other hon. Members, the official announcement came on the eve of the summer recess. There has been no opportunity for proper parliamentary scrutiny, as mentioned by other hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Dunfermline, West (Rachel Squire), and the detail of the Defence Secretary's military case for this full-frontal assault on Scotland's regiments remains a mystery. Perhaps we shall hear a bit more about that from the Secretary of State today.
Mr. David Stewart: If we had an independent Scotland, what would the disposition of your forces be? How many regiments, battalions and how many men and women would make up the Scottish army?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is using "your". That refers to me, and I do not have any forces.
Annabelle Ewing: I am a bit disappointed with the contribution from the hon. Member for Inverness, East, Nairn and Lochaber (Mr. Stewart). I would have thought that he should be fighting for the future of the Highland regiment. Perhaps his time would be better employed for his constituents in doing that.
There has been complete silence from Scotland's Government in the summer months. When Scotland's First Minister came to London on his whistle-stop, cocktail-party visit in early July, his spokesman said that the First Minister wanted all the facts before he made a statement. I wonder what statement the First Minister has made on the subject of the future of Scotland's regiment. As far as I can see, he has made none. What of the Scottish Secretary? Again, there has been silence. What of the Ministry of Defence? As my hon. Friend the Member for North Tayside said, we wrote to the Armed Forces Minister on 7 July and it is an absolute disgrace that we did not get a reply until 7 September.
We have experienced, to coin a phrase much liked by the Chief of the General Staff, a deafening wall of silence from Ministers, but serving soldiers, veterans, local communities and all the local authorities in the Tayside and Fife area have made their views known. The unanimous view is that the Government's proposals to scrap Scotland's regimental system are wrong in principle and are likely to be deeply damaging, particularly in light of the current overstretch of our armed forces.
A serving officer in the Black Watch, currently on its second tour of duty in Basra, wrote to me because I am his local MP. Obviously I am not in a position to give the name of this officer, not least because of the MOD's gagging order, but I would like to quote part of what he wrote to me in his bluey:
"While we wish to look after our country, our country seems less keen to look after us. The contradiction between deploying the training battalion on the one hand, and yet cutting four battalions on the other, needs to addressed. "
I have also been contacted by a number of serving soldiers currently in Basra on their second tour of duty.

449WH
Again, I am not in a position to provide the names, but I would like to quote from a bluey from one of those soldiers:
"The recent decision to reduce the armed forces can only add to the stress and pressure put on us and our families. What with the ever-increasing commitments and deployments we are volunteered for. Some of us have been separated from our families for 400 days in the past two years. I am writing to you to fight on my behalf to reverse the decision to reduce our armed forces as I am fighting for my life out here in Iraq in support of the politicians."
I have also been contacted by the most recent colonel of the Black Watch, Brigadier Gary Barnett, who retired last year. On the subject of creating a synthetic super-regiment, Brigadier Barnett says:
"We have seen no arguments that persuade us that battalions from large regiments are more operationally efficient or exhibit any other advantage over single battalion regiments. It is clear to us that the advantages of a sense of belonging, continuity, regional connections, recruiting focus and esprit de corps far exceed the perceived disadvantages of the small regiment. If it ain't broke, don't fix it."
In my concluding remarks, I stress that the strength of feeling about the Black Watch locally—in all parts of Tayside and Fife—is very clear. The Secretary of State needs only to read the back pages of the Perthshire Advertiser and The Courier during the summer. Both papers have led excellent campaigns.
The regimental system has served Scotland well, and it has proven its worth time and time again in terms of recruitment, retention and operational efficiency. Then professionalism of Scotland's regiments is second to none. I quote again from the serving officer currently in Basra:
"The Black Watch is proud to come from Perthshire, Angus, Fife and Dundee. We hope the people of those counties will stand by us."
The people of Perthshire, Angus, Fife and Dundee have stood by the Black Watch. The question that needs to be answered is will the Secretary of State for Defence do so?
10.7 am
Mr. John MacDougall: I have an honest concern about the defence review, but I want to reflect on one or two other points other than those concerning the Black Watch.
I do not believe that the Secretary of State has the easiest job, and making a decision based on popular opinion is not the way to run defence effectively. It is unfortunate that this has already become a political dogfight rather than an honest concern about the outcome of a balanced decision. That exposure is sad at this stage. It is also sad that Opposition parties will not give an honest answer to straightforward questions. They are put to the Secretary of State for Defence, who is expected to give a straightforward and honest answer about what he believes an effective defence to be.
It is fair to say—I shall say it—that, in an independent Scotland, you would have great difficulty in maintaining existing defence.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have already had to tick off one Member for using "you". I have to advise the
450WH
hon. Gentleman that by using "you", he means me, and I would have more difficulty than most, as I represent a constituency in the north-east of England.
Mr. MacDougall: My sincere apologies to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I shall refrain from using that word again.
I have a long-standing relationship with the Black Watch and I appreciate and value, as I am sure the Secretary of State does, the excellent service provided by those who have served in the Black Watch over many years and the work that they have carried out—the campaigns that they have been involved in and what they have been called upon to do, especially at present in Iraq.
That mixes up the argument. On the one hand, there are the high emotions. When someone loses their life—and we do not want that to happen—there are calls to bring the troops back home. On the other hand, we want to keep the regiment; we want to keep it, but we do not want to send it to war where its members' lives might be lost. We must remove ourselves from that position and honestly concern ourselves with whether we have the right balance between an effective ground force and the advanced technology of today. In my opinion, the balance is wrong, but that does not mean that I will not respect the Secretary of State's final decision, which will be intelligently based on much more information than I have and which will take into account what is needed for the future.
I am not going to say to my constituents in Central Fife that I do not value the jobs that have been developed in new defence technology. I can mention companies in Central Fife that employ hundreds of people who have benefited from the decisions that are being taken in the defence review. I welcome the fact that the more we put into modern technology and effective defence, the less chance there is of people on the ground losing their lives. That has to be valued. We must take that into account; we cannot ignore it.
As I mentioned at the outset, I also accept that we cannot keep troops simply because it is popular to do so. What kind of a silly defence would we have in this country if we simply based it on our saying, "Well, we are not going to do this because we don't like it, so let's have a show of hands and decide not to do it." No effective Government could do that.
I have concerns, but they are mixed. They are honest concerns, not political ones. I am concerned about the eventual outcome and whether the balance that is decided on will be right. My personal preference would, of course, be for the Black Watch to be retained, but I understand that the decision on that cannot be taken on the basis of personal preference; it has to be taken on the basis of intelligence, knowledge and effectiveness. If anyone wants to stand up and say, "Well, that does not matter," they should tell that to the country. Do they think that the electorate will go for that? They will not, but they will go for honesty and concern. My concern is that the balance is not right.
I appreciate that this message is not healthy for morale at present. It does not help the troops on the ground to be as effective as they should be. In fact, it could create a situation where it puts them at risk rather than aids them to do their job. The quicker we

451WH
collectively and responsibly give out the message that that is not what we want to say to the troops, the better. This debate should not be about trying to weaken the Government's political agenda; it should genuinely be about the effectiveness of the ground force balanced against new technology. If the debate remains around that, I am convinced that it can be effective and that the hon. Member for North Tayside (Pete Wishart), who secured it, will get an honourable outcome. However, if it is about scoring points, it will not end in that way.
My sincere wish is for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to take on board the intelligent points that have been made this morning, and that he will send out the right message to the people who serve their country very well and have done so for many years and will continue to do so in the modern defence structure of the future—the message that their Government take on board their service but will make their final decision based on a listening policy that includes taking account of what has been said in today's discussion.
10.14 am
Mr. Alan Reid rose
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I will call the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mr. Reid) if he promises to be brief.
Mr. Reid: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I undertake to be brief. I congratulate the hon. Member for North Tayside (Pete Wishart) on securing this important debate. I am pleased that the Secretary of State is present; that shows that the Government regard this debate as important.
It is clear that the Army is already overstretched. I am concerned about the Government's plans, which appear to assume no more commitments for the Army; one of the lessons of recent years is that it is always landed with unexpected new ones. In addition to the obvious commitments in Iraq and Afghanistan, issues such as foot and mouth and the firefighters' strike have meant that the Army has had to be involved in unexpected commitments at home.
It is important that we keep our infantry strength at its current level; we should not reduce the numbers. As was said earlier, high-tech is vitally important and means that we can win wars by putting fewer soldiers' lives at risk. However, it has also emerged from the lessons of Iraq and Afghanistan that even after the war has been won and the conventional fighting is over, there is still an important job to be done in winning the peace and that requires highly skilled, committed infantry soldiers on the ground. The record of the British Army in Iraq and Afghanistan has shown once again that it is the best army in the world, and the present regimental system, which instils in our soldiers a sense of loyalty to the regiment and a sense of belonging, is a vital reason for that. I am concerned that the Government's proposals, which would effectively scrap the Scottish regimental structure, would make the Army a lot less effective.
The local regiment in my constituency is the Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders, which has a long, distinguished history and only recently returned from Iraq. Recruits want to join local regiments that have long and proud traditions. If the Government go ahead
452WH
with their plans to merge the Argylls into a new regiment, that is bound to have a negative impact on recruitment, compared with keeping the famous, longstanding name of the Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders. That must have an impact on the morale of soldiers serving in the regiment. I am also concerned that the signals that the Government are sending out—that we are cutting numbers and there is no long-term future—are bound to deter people from joining the Army and put off anybody who is considering it as a career.
I conclude by reminding the Secretary of State that, 30 years ago, a previous Government tried to abolish the Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders. There was a massive campaign of opposition, which succeeded and the then Government buckled under the pressure. I urge the Government not to proceed with plans to abolish the Argylls or merge them into another regiment because I suspect that, like their predecessors in office, they will buckle under the weight of the subsequent campaign.
10.19 am
John Thurso: I congratulate the hon. Member for North Tayside (Pete Wishart) on securing the debate. It is clear from the strength of feeling in the contributions made today that this timely debate touches hon. Members on both sides of the House. I am pleased to see the Secretary of State here today. I hope his presence is a sign that the Government understand that strength of feeling and may be open to some arguments of reason.
We have a proud tradition of service in Scotland, particularly in the highlands, but, as has been evidenced by contributions from hon. Members from south of the border, that tradition is not confined to Scotland but covers all the British armed forces—Army, Navy and Air Force.
There is a book relating to my area, which I have read, called "Sword of the North", which sets out the history of the Seaforth Highlanders. I recently read another book about the history of a battalion of the Seaforth Highlanders in the second world war, from which I learned just how many people whom I have known in civilian life served in the second world war. I had no idea of that, nor did I know how many medals they had won, or how much they had done. I just knew them as the Domine of the local school, a grocer or whatever it was that they did.
Throughout history, Scotland and the highlands have produced regiments that have fought bravely for this country. One has only to look at the war memorials to understand what they have given. That is an important tradition, and allied to it is the tradition of service by the Territorial Army, which has not been mentioned so far, but should be. There is a long tradition of sound service by the TA. At a time of overstretch, which has been mentioned, and when the Army is committed in many parts of the world, we should remember what Territorials are doing in many theatres of conflict.
Tradition is important as the bedrock on which our military is based and the focus for how we act as well as for morale and recruitment, but I believe that we cannot be hide-bound by tradition. We live in a fast-moving world and, as has been pointed out, there is new technology to consider. In that sense, the Government

453WH
are absolutely right to adapt and to modernise. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Fife (Sir Menzies Campbell) said to me earlier, it would be inappropriate for the party of Haldane to oppose the reorganisation of the Army. We have no problem with that reorganisation.
It seems to me that there are two separate points in the debate. The first is the size, scope and role of our armed forces, what we require them to do and how we introduce new technology. The second is how that is managed and organised. We are focused on the second, but I shall briefly mention the first. Our active military commitments are at one of their highest levels since the second world war. During the Iraq conflict, more than 50 per cent. of our military was committed. The then Chief of the General Staff described that as unsustainable and we are back to about 20 per cent. We are committed in a big way in Iraq, Afghanistan and the former Yugoslavia and have commitments in East Timor and Sierra Leone. We have 1,200 troops in the Falklands, which is the leftover of a previous commitment.
So, we have men and women serving us in many theatres throughout the globe. As was mentioned by one of my hon. Friends, the Army was also involved in the fire strike. There is clear evidence of overstretch and the future is uncertain. Therefore, my question is, why do we need to reduce battalions at all? Surely all the evidence indicates that we should be maintaining and, if anything, enhancing our infantry capability. This, it seems to me, is the wrong time to go for what is a modest saving. It is the time to be supporting those troops.
I turn to organisation. It is clear that we must adapt to new roles and it is absolutely right that we reorganise to meet new threats. We no longer face a cold war or need heavy armour in the way that we did. I have no quarrel with the desire to move towards light and medium-weight capability. So, much in what is being suggested by the MOD is clearly sensible and deserves support.
I am not nearly so convinced by the argument for arms plot. Of course it provides stability for families, which is important. I gather that the argument has been going on in the Army for more than 20 years as to whether we should move to arms plot and trickle posting. Many professional soldiers—past and serving—to whom I have spoken believe that this would not help at all. One put it to me this way:
"The argument on Arms Plotting or Trickle Posting has been going on … for … 20 odd years to my certain knowledge and for those of us who studied the arguments, many of us would say that it is a very dangerous thing to move to Trickle Posting, because you will lose cohesion in battalions and units will get stale in one location and be less professional."
He goes on to say that training can get to a point where people think
"we did that last year".
The movement of troops is part of our ability to focus and deliver.
Sir Robert Smith: One thing that has impressed us all is the great professionalism of the Army, which is serving us in all those places around the world that my
454WH
hon. Friend mentioned. It has been put to me that part of that professionalism stems from the immersion in so many different experiences, so that there is versatility and adaptability, and therefore the Army can be put to whatever cause is necessary at shorter notice than would be possible were we to change the structure as suggested by the Government.
John Thurso: My hon. Friend makes an extremely valid point somewhat better than I was making it, and I thank him for that.
We must consider whether all we want to achieve in modernising our armed forces—delivering the capability, building on the tradition and all the points that hon. Members have made—has to be done by disbanding our regiments, or whether disbanding or merging regiments produces a negative effect. It has been suggested to me that there are other ways in which the desired effect could be achieved. We should consider management structures within the Army that could both preserve the regiments and provide the command and control adaptability that the MOD seeks. My message to the Secretary of State is that we should see whether we can, as we surely should, preserve the proud regiments that have done so much for us.
We have heard from all parts of the House—this is not a party issue—about the tradition of the Army and of the job it does. These are not the cries of hide-bound traditionalists; they are the earnest pleas of people who recognise both the value of tradition and the need to modernise, the strength of feeling in Scotland and the genuine and positive benefit for recruitment of serving soldiers of the link between traditional regiments and their traditional areas.
I ask the Secretary of State to think again, bearing it in mind that there has never been a military conflict that has not been won by the professionalism of the infantrymen and the Mk. I eyeball.
10.26 am
Mr. Peter Duncan: It would be remiss of me not to acknowledge that today is the 64th anniversary of battle of Britain day. It is a significant anniversary, given that that battle brought together troops from local communities across the United Kingdom.
Today's debate is on the UK armed forces. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for North Tayside (Pete Wishart) for having secured it. I am sure that many slips of paper were submitted to Mr. Speaker with this subject on them, and I am delighted that it has come up during this particular week. It gives us an important opportunity to address our concerns to the Secretary of State.
I also commend the Secretary of State, as others have done, for answering this important debate in person. That he has chosen to do so confirms the significance of the armed forces in Scotland, and underlines the seriousness of the proposals that he outlined in the House on 21 July, just as we prepared to rise for the recess.
So far, the debate has, inevitably, focused on the uncertainty that the Government have placed on the future of the Scottish regiments. Let me acknowledge at the outset the significance of the air and naval

455WH
announcement on local communities across Scotland. The Scottish armed forces are a team that goes all the way from shipbuilding on the Clyde to the technology referred to by the hon. Member for Central Fife (Mr. MacDougall) to the regimental system and the troops on the ground. There is teamwork in Scotland, and that should be recognised.
Inevitably, uncertainty over the future of our regiments has been the focus of the debate. Hon. Members of every party have made it clear that that is the major issue striking a chord with the Scottish public. Any hon. Member who has held a surgery or attended a public function or received any volume of mail from Scotland will be aware of the strength of feeling on the issue north of the border. The campaign in opposition to the changes is both well co-ordinated and deep rooted. Hon. Members recognise the difference between bloated lobbying and campaigns that genuinely focus the concerns of a nation. The save our Scottish regiments campaign has certainly done that.
There is huge pride in what our forces have achieved over generations, genuine belief that they are currently delivering excellence on duty around the world, and a fear for their future if their link with our communities is irretrievably weakened, as would be the consequence of the proposals. My local promotion of the save our regiments campaign showed the deep bond that exists in rural communities. At agricultural shows across my constituency during the summer, I was totally unsurprised at the outpouring of affinity with the local regiment, the KOSB.
The people in my constituency, and others across Scotland, should know that, without equivocation, the Conservative party is resolutely opposed to any cut in infantry battalions. Those battalions have all served the United Kingdom with distinction. They have been immensely proud to do so and we in Scotland have been proud of their achievements. At a time of high and increasing international uncertainty across the globe, and with terrorism a continued and growing threat, we see no case for cuts in their number. For the Government to put the regiments in jeopardy when their skills, determination to serve and historic allegiance are most in demand is nothing less than crass and ill-judged.
The Scottish regiments are sustained by, and flourish with, a strong local bond in their recruiting areas. It creates that immeasurable resource of affinity, comradeship—to which the hon. Member for North Tayside alluded—and dedication to serve that will be put at risk if these changes are enforced. The Government must recognise that and think again.
In considering the proposals put to the House on 21 July, the overriding question that has been put by hon. Members from all sides of the Chamber this morning is, "Why now?" Why are these cuts to be made now to our armed forces, reducing them to a UK total of 102,000? That represents a reduction of 6,500 from the previous established strength of more than 108,000. Every forces family talks of the current reality of armed forces overstretch. What was once a warning has become reality; resources are stretched to breaking point. Indeed, there is no greater confirmation of that— as was mentioned by the hon. Gentleman and by the hon. Member for Dunfermline, West (Rachel Squire) than the Black Watch's second tour in Iraq, which started less than one year after the first. The
456WH
Government have drawn on Scottish regimental expertise regularly. With my local regiment and that of the hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Mr. Moore), which is currently in Ulster, it is clear that the military expertise is irreplaceable. That is why it is called upon so regularly.
Regiments have served wherever and whenever they have been asked to, but the demands on their operational strength have extended far beyond combat operations. When the Home Office was in such a tangle during the fire dispute, it was our Scottish infantry regiments, among others, that provided the essential and professional back-up services that saved life and limb in our home communities. In my region, which was ravaged in 2001 by foot and mouth disease, our local regiment stepped into the breach and undertook with dignity and determination the most difficult tasks that were asked of it. It has done the dirty work when required.
Those same troops, the same forces families and the same communities are now being threatened with the loss of their local regiment. Given the diversity of the challenges that are presented, in foreign fields or in those at home, is it any wonder that overstretch is having an effect on recruitment and retention? The Select Committee on Defence report on the defence White Paper stated in paragraph 5 of its conclusions:
"What has emerged in the past six years is the extent to which the Armed Forces have been operating at the limits of what they can achieve."
Given the difficult and delicate nature of current operations in Afghanistan and Iraq, is it any wonder that there is disbelief at the timing of the Government proposals to abolish one Scottish regiment in its entirety and to subject the others to unnecessary and counterproductive reorganisation?
The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon): I have listened carefully to what appears to be a thoughtful argument. However, may I ask the hon. Gentleman to address a question? He has placed great weight on the question of overstretch. If he were in my position and were told that parts of the Army were more stretched than others, would it be right to shift the burden away from the less-stretched parts in the direction of those that were more stretched?
Mr. Duncan: The Secretary of State will recall that I highlighted the reduction of 6,500 in our troop complement. That does not strike me as the actions of a Government who are taking the issue of overstretch seriously.
The demands on our armed forces cannot be indefinitely expanded to meet growing demands without impacting on those serving. That has been recognised across the Army, not least of all in the comments given by one serving senior general to The Scotsman on Monday. He said:
"The army is very busy indeed and the reduction of four battalions will not help in any way".
He is right. Most others have maintained public silence, but it is clear that serving soldiers believe either that current commitments will have to be reduced or that the proposals will have to be reversed.

457WH
The Secretary of State has—of course—made it clear that, in the future, he sees the Scots regiments being supplemented by the technology of the future, and there is no denying that high-tech developments will come forward. However, is it not highly irresponsible to step into uncharted waters now in the hope and expectation that technology will rescue the situation at some point in the future—to say nothing of the fact that, in the end, the foot soldier is the backbone of operations and can never fully be replaced?
Far from recognising the strains caused by new commitments, it now seems clear that a secret recruitment freeze has been in place to ensure that manning levels have fallen. They have fallen significantly already. That has been delivered furtively. I was informed recently of a horrendous difficulty being experienced in securing beds for recruits in training. Therefore, although regiments have been under-strength, recruitment has stalled.
It is true that some of our regiments have had, and continue to have, recruitment problems, but the Government have to answer the central issue in links between our communities and Scots regiments. Will centralisation of the Scots regiments strengthen or weaken recruitment? I have no doubt that the loosened ties that these proposals make inevitable will create further difficulties in maintaining manning levels.
Mr. Hoyle: I have a lot of sympathy with what the hon. Gentleman says, but I think that he is rather disingenuous. I can assure him that the Black Watch and the Scots Guards have been recruiting in Lancashire and that, only six weeks ago, the Scots Guards were recruiting in my constituency. Therefore, recruitment is taking place. Will he address the following problem? One in every three 18-year-olds in Scotland will have to join the Army to bring those regiments up to strength. The question he ought to be answering is: why are people not joining?
Mr. Duncan: Absolutely. Unlike others, I have paid tribute to those who are recruited to Scots regiments from beyond the border with Scotland. However, these proposals will not help to address the central issue of recruitment difficulties.
The Government will face increasing recruitment demands, with the consequent negative effect on retention levels, unless morale can be improved. There is no doubt that those serving in Scottish infantry regiments are deeply unhappy with these proposals; my constituency mailbag confirms that. They, too, seek a change of heart from the Secretary of State. They have been presented with a consultation with only two options; a single Scottish regiment or a highland-lowland regimental format. I have no doubt of what the response would be if they were truly consulted and offered the third option of saving the existing Scottish regimental structure.
Some of the Secretary of State's announcement was to be welcomed as far as it affected Scotland's defence interests. Our forces have to become more agile. We recognise and support proposals for the scrapping of the arms plot. Its replacement may well present a positive
458WH
opportunity for local regiments in rural areas of Scotland, in particular. However, on the substantive proposals to tear apart the traditional regimental structure in Scotland, the Government must be sent "homeward tae think again."
At this time of considerable danger from terrorism at home and abroad and major military deployments overseas including in Afghanistan and Iraq, we wholly oppose the cuts by amalgamation or disbandment of any Scottish battalion, and judge such a proposal to be a grave error.
10.39 am
The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon): Let me begin by thanking the hon. Member for North Tayside (Pete Wishart) for proposing this debate on the impact of the strategic defence strategy in Scotland. Defence is rightly a reserved matter. Scotland has a vitally important relationship with the armed forces and with the Ministry of Defence more widely. I welcome this opportunity to explain again what we are doing and why we are doing it, and to address some of the concerns that have been raised.
I am of course well aware of the importance—economically, and through pride and tradition—of the Scottish regiments to Scotland. Even had I not been so, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and his deputy have, in any event, made sure throughout our considerations that we bear that in mind. The only reason that they are unable to take part in this debate is that they both have long-standing ministerial engagements.
Before I come to some of the specific issues that have been debated, let me set our discussions in context. The United Kingdom has one defence policy, and one set of armed forces protecting and promoting all of our interests and values. Any discussion about the future of those armed forces needs to be seen in the context of the future capabilities White Paper that the Ministry of Defence published in July. As I explained then, in the 1998 strategic defence review, we set out plans to develop defence capability to match the needs of the post-cold war world. We built on that with the strategic defence review "A New Chapter", which was published after the events of 11 September 2001, and we confirmed that direction in the defence White Paper of December 2003. We have concluded that we need to modernise further to meet the challenges of the future strategic environment: the more pronounced threats and challenges of international terrorism, the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and the challenges presented by weak and failing states.
The world changes, and we need to change with it. The programme that I announced in July is about ensuring that our armed forces are prepared to meet the challenges of the 21st century. In order to meet those challenges, defence spending is increasing. The 2002 spending review provided the largest sustained growth in defence spending plans for 20 years. This year, it has been possible to make even more resources available for defence, providing the longest period of sustained growth for more than 20 years. Our spending review settlement will result in a £3.7 billion increase in the defence budget during the next three years. That is an average annual real growth of 1.4 per cent.

459WH
We also need, however, to ensure that we are using those substantially increased resources in the most effective way. For example, our new plans will continue the shift in emphasis away from measuring capability in terms of numbers of ships, tanks and aircraft and towards the delivery of military "effects". We formally measured numbers of platforms during the cold war because we were preparing for an essentially attritional campaign that would hold back Soviet and Warsaw pact forces. Technology has moved on since then, and the nature of warfare has fundamentally changed. The capability of our armed forces is growing as intelligence is combined with target acquisition, modern communications and precision weaponry to produce new capabilities, allowing a commander in the field to deliver a range of combined effects. Military tasks can be completed in much less time, with far greater accuracy and correspondingly lower risk to our armed forces. In 2003, we were able to deploy to the Gulf in less than half the time that that had taken 12 years earlier, and our aircraft were able to hit targets with less ordnance, using better target acquisition and precision weaponry.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Central Fife (Mr. MacDougall) on an extremely thoughtful speech in response to the challenges faced by the defence sector. It is important that Members, particularly those with experience of defence, should look carefully at the background and context in which decisions are taken. However, modernisation certainly does not mean undermining our key strengths, not least of which are the much-valued links with the communities in which our people live and work. That is certainly the case with Scotland. Scotland has one of the largest defence footprints in the United Kingdom. The Ministry of Defence has almost 50 core defence sites in Scotland and many minor units. All three services—the Navy, the Army and the Royal Air Force—are well represented.
Although we have no plans for significant changes to that footprint, we must always continue to ensure that we are delivering defence capability in the most cost-effective way. However, I have no doubt about the importance of Scottish sites within the Ministry of Defence estate. In total, there are 14,000 services personnel in Scotland and more than 7,000 civilian personnel. There are also 5,300 members of the volunteer reserve forces based in Scotland; many thousands of regular services personnel based outside Scotland train there each year.
The impact and footprint of defence extends beyond its military bases and facilities. The defence industry sustains thousands of jobs in Scotland, and has an important role in supporting research and high-tech manufacturing there. In turn, Scottish industry produces much of the cutting-edge and technologically advanced equipment on which the United Kingdom's armed forces depend. A few examples are the work on landing ships and Type 45 destroyers at Govan, Raytheon at Glenrothes, which works on the airborne stand-off radar and precision-guided bombs, and the Thales land and joint division, which produces optical products, thermal imaging devices and a host of others. This past year alone, the estimated spend on contracts placed with Scottish companies was £600 million; more than 400 new contracts were placed.
460WH
The Ministry of Defence is deeply committed to Scotland and, I am pleased to say, the armed forces remain as deeply engaged in Scottish life as ever they have been. That tradition will continue, and it is something to be celebrated. What cannot be sensible, however, is for that relationship to be set in aspic, or used in argument as a barrier to modernisation. We need to make adjustments to our force structure across the United Kingdom to ensure that our armed forces are best placed to face the challenges of the 21st century. That brings me to the issue of Army regiments.
The hon. Member for North Tayside has given me the opportunity to pay tribute to the proud history of Scottish regiments. History documents their bravery, skill and fearsome reputation on the battlefield, and they continue to serve this country courageously and diligently. That record continues to the present day. One of the great privileges of my job is to visit our armed forces on operations and hear first-hand accounts of their actions. Several times in recent years I have been hosted in operational theatres, from the Balkans to Iraq, by several Scottish regiments, including the Black Watch, to whom the hon. Gentleman referred. I have never ceased to be impressed by their professionalism and bravery.
For reasons that I have already outlined, we require the modern Army to be flexible, structured and equipped to deploy rapidly around the world, and able to generate the right capability in a less predictable and more complex environment. The threats that we face are changing, and if the Army is to continue to be successful on operations—all hon. Members who have contributed to this debate have insisted that that is so—it must adapt to the changing strategic environment.
It might be helpful, therefore, to explain the detailed rationale behind the Army's plans for its future, part of which is a move to the "future army structure", which represents a move to more coherent brigades, properly supported by the appropriate enabling capabilities and manned robustly. It is designed to make the Army more useable, robust and relevant to the modern age. We aim to create a more balanced force structure, so that in addition to our current mix of heavy and light forces, we will have a true medium-weight capability that is able to intervene in events faster than our heavy forces, but with more combat power than our light forces. In future, we will have two heavy armoured brigades, three medium-weight brigades, and a light brigade, in addition to the Air Assault and Royal Marines Commando brigades.
Pete Wishart: Will the Secretary of State give way?
Mr. Hoon: If I can make a little progress, I will give way in due course.
At the same time, the Army is taking advantage of a reduction in commitments to take this restructuring further and, in turn, these plans further drive the requirement for a "future infantry structure", central to which is a reduction in battalion numbers that has been made possible by the progress made towards lasting peace in Northern Ireland and the ending of the arms

461WH
plot. Following consultation between the General Officer Commanding Northern Ireland and the Police Service of Northern Ireland, it was concluded that four battalions could be removed from his command, as they were no longer required for routine support to the PSNI.
Pete Wishart: Will the Secretary of State give way on that point?
Mr. Hoon: I shall make a little more progress first, because I want to deal with the arguments that the hon. Gentleman has raised.
This situation has presented the Army with an opportunity to take forward the planned restructuring and transfer of resources released from the Northern Ireland task to strengthen other parts of the Army, thereby concentrating on those capabilities that can best deliver the effect we require.
I announced in July that the infantry would be reduced from 40 to 36 battalions, precisely reflecting the commitment that we will no longer have in Northern Ireland. Three battalions would be found from England and one from Scotland. That judgment was made after taking into account a range of factors, including manning and recruitment levels, geographical representation, and the need to ensure the appropriate balance of roles and specialist capabilities within the remaining 36 battalions.
With the reduction of four battalions, including one from the Scottish Division, around 2,500 posts will be released and redistributed across the Army. Some will be reinvested back into the infantry itself, including Scottish battalions, to develop more robust and resilient units. Others will go to strengthen high-demand trades such as logisticians, engineers, signallers and intelligence, which are crucial to a sustainable expeditionary capability and are even more heavily deployed than the infantry at present. In other words, those people will go to areas highlighted by our recent operational experience. That is precisely the point that I put to the Conservative spokesman.
It is all very well talking about overstretch, but the real overstretch, if it has existed in recent years, has been felt by the enablers and supporters of the infantry. It is not possible to deploy infantry battalions unless specialists are available to support them. What I am doing is designed to assist those people in having a more reasonable life in the Army, which is why the Army Board is strongly in favour of it. Those people are more heavily committed than our infantry battalions.
Posts will be reduced because the infantry battalion commitment to Northern Ireland will no longer be required, and that will leave us with a straightforward choice. I challenge any hon. Member here to say that, given the reduction in the commitment to Northern Ireland, we should simply put those four infantry battalions into the regular order of battle, rather than look at where the real pressures are in the Army. I cannot understand anyone making the point about overstretch not recognising that fact.
Pete Wishart: Will the Secretary of State concede that there is overstretch in our infantry regiments and, if not,
462WH
can he explain why the Black Watch is serving its second tour of duty in Iraq and has not been home for the past four Christmases?
Mr. Hoon: I am not in any doubt that the entire Army—and indeed all our armed forces—have faced higher pressures in recent years. There have been more operations, more demands on their time and more effects on them and their families than, arguably, at any other time in recent history. No one can argue that, and I certainly shall not try. However, as we consider our commitments and our organisation, we have to make a judgment about which parts of the armed forces are to develop because they are likely to be necessary in future, and which parts, bearing in mind the overall pressures on everyone, we can maintain at roughly the present level.
Hon. Members really need to think the matter through. For the moment, we have four infantry battalions dedicated to Northern Ireland. By reducing that commitment, we are not putting greater pressure on our infantry battalions in what we do in future. What I then have to decide, and what hon. Members have to think through more carefully, if they will forgive me for saying so, is how to use those 2,500 posts. What I am suggesting seems perfectly sensible: we should look at where the pressures are in the Army today and use those surplus positions—the result of the reduction in the commitment in Northern Ireland—to ensure that we have the kind of structure, organisation and people that we need in future. If hon. Members were in the Army, that is the conclusion that they, too, would reach, because those people know what sorts of pressures are faced by logisticians, signallers, and our communications and intelligence people. I am afraid that it is a fairly straightforward exchange.
Sir Menzies Campbell: There is a great deal in the Secretary of State's analysis with which I would agree, not least because it compares favourably, if I may say so, with the sort of analysis which lay behind "Options for Change" and "Front Line First". However, if he is right that there is an opportunity because of changed circumstances in Northern Ireland, is it not sensible to take that opportunity to provide the infantry capability that, as he pointed out recently—in the past two year—has been under such considerable pressure? He may recall that the defence review of 1998 talked about defence diplomacy. If we have extra battalions now available, why do we not put some real meat on the bones of defence diplomacy?
Mr. Hoon: I do not disagree with the principle but, generally speaking, defence diplomacy does not require the deployment of a battalion. Even allowing for that—[Interruption.] It could do; I accept that. However, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman knows, and he is a thoughtful observer of such matters, sustaining battalions wherever they happen to be in the world requires all the people I described: logisticians, communicators, and intelligence. They have to ensure that the battalion can operate effectively. Therefore, as we have a number of commitments simultaneously across the world, it makes sense to ensure that we have the right numbers of those people. That is why it is necessary to look carefully at the balance of our structure.

463WH
Even the best infantry in the world—I am sure that everyone here will agree that ours is among the very best—needs the highest quality support to be truly effective, even when peacekeeping—a point I just made to the right hon. and learned Gentleman. In the current strategic environment, Britain needs to have the most effective Army possible. That is what our changes are about: directing our resources to the capability needed most. That must be the right way forward.
Equally important are the proposals to ensure that we make the best use of our infantry. For several decades, we have moved infantry battalions from role to role and place to place every few years—the arms plot. That was needed to maintain broad experience and variety. But times change, and the Army Board has concluded that in order to meet the operational challenges of the future, the provision of infantry capability in that way is no longer sustainable.
The facts speak for themselves. The loss of capability incurred by battalions moving, "re-roleing" and retraining clearly outweighs the benefits it once provided. For example, this year 10 battalions out of 40 in the order of battle have been unavailable to us for between two and six months simply as a result of the arms plot. Recently, General Jackson made the point in an article that it cannot make sense, when Members of Parliament and commentators talk about overstretch to have, as we will in the future, 36 battalions rather than 26 or 27 that are available when we are arms plotting. This is a perfectly straightforward and sensible change.
Mr. Nicholas Soames: Does the Secretary of State not understand the real confusion that exists, which has been referred to by several hon. Gentlemen here this morning? Everyone supports the reform of the arms plot and the doing away with it. However, in order to do that and bring greater stability to the Army and greater security to military families, it is not necessary to cut four battalions of infantry. Will he deal with that problem? Furthermore, will he deal with the point, peripherally raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale (Mr. Duncan) that to remove six ships from the Royal Navy and equip the rest with network-centric technology does not increase capability?
Mr. Hoon: I am sorry that I gave way, as I have already dealt with the point about the four battalions. The hon. Gentleman must consider carefully the consequences of dealing with the arms plot. During this debate, the point has been rightly raised by hon. Members that it is necessary to provide a breadth of experience, variety and different kinds of training to the young men and women who join our armed forces, in particular the Army. That cannot be done with single regimental battalions fixed in a particular location. That drives, necessarily and absolutely logically, the creation of these larger organisations, and there is no other way of achieving it. The hon. Gentleman is chuntering from
464WH
the Back Benches, but he needs to think this through. He cannot say, "I believe in an end to the arms plot" without explaining the implications that that has for force structure, and I have heard no evidence of that.
Annabelle Ewing: Will the Secretary of State give way?
Mr. Hoon: I need to make a little more progress.
Battalions will be fixed by role, largely by location. We will release resources that are routinely tied up in moving location or retraining so that more battalions can be used on operations instead. That will help to relieve the operational burden across the Army. To ensure that that works—and this is crucial—individuals will need to move between battalions for career development and to increase their breadth of experience. In the interest of preserving the regimental system, and the value that it brings, that argues for a future infantry structure based on regiments of two or more battalions, as indeed half the infantry is already organised.
To accommodate the end of the arms plot, Scotland's single battalion regiments will need to reorganise among themselves to form regiments of two or more battalions. No decisions have yet been made, but logically the possibilities obviously include one regiment of five battalions, or two regiments of two and three battalions. Taking those various elements together, a period of considerable change is inevitable. But the case for those changes is undeniable and compelling. It represents the best future for the Army and for the individuals in it.
Annabelle Ewing rose—
Mr. Hoon: It is important for all those who say that they are speaking on behalf of those serving in the Army and their families to look at the implications of the arms plot for those people. Being moved every two years does not help family security or stability. Some hon. Members should think that through carefully.
Anyone involved in the decisions recognises that whatever the merits of the approach, change is bound to be difficult for those most affected, both for individuals and historic regiments. That is one of the reasons why it is vital that hon. Members, instead of going back to their constituencies and misrepresenting what the Government are proposing, look carefully at what we have advocated. There is no reason why the changes will mean a loss of identity or history. The battalions can preserve their identity within a larger structure; there is no reason why that should not happen under our proposals. If I thought that hon. Members were prepared to consider that approach, I would be much more impressed by some of the arguments that have been advanced today. Preserving the identity of historic battalions is vital, but it needs to be done in the context of the kinds of changes that we are seeing. I would appeal to all those who think carefully about these matters to consider that.

Medical Services (Service Personnel Overseas)
11 am
Mr. Desmond Swayne: May I draw the House's attention to my entry in the Register of Members' Interests, which records that I am a serving officer in the Territorial Army with recent mobilised service?
I begin by quoting a written answer from the Minister given on 19 July, which states that
"the Ministry of Defence, through the Defence Medical Services, provides comprehensive medical services, to standards at least equal to the NHS".
He continues:
"Overseas, the Ministry of Defence is committed to providing medical services for families accompanying Service personnel which are comparable to those provided by the NHS."—[Official Report, 19 July 2004; Vol. 424, c. 32W.]
That is the mission statement and the Minister's objective in respect of what is one of his core duties: to provide medical services to our armed forces, particularly those serving abroad, which is the focus of this debate.
Let me contrast that mission statement and objective with the experience of my constituent, Mrs. Deborah Crowton and her daughter Amelia, from the village of Everton. Until she was medically discharged from the services, my constituent had 17 years of military service, of which 12 were as a nurse. As a nurse, she has a volume of experience in such matters. I shall be brief in covering the details of the case because I want the Minister to have the opportunity to hear those details from my constituent at first hand. He would benefit from that, so my first request is that he meet my constituent. I caution him, however, as I found it difficult to maintain my composure when I was first appraised of the details of the case.
My constituent was posted to Cyprus to join her husband in September 1998. She was 27 weeks pregnant. She expressed reservations about being posted in that state, but the posting went ahead. On 4 October 1998, Mrs. Crowton's waters broke, leaving her without amniotic fluid. Her husband drove her to Dhekelia camp, where she was diagnosed with pre-eclampsia and was in need of an emergency caesarean section. RAF Akrotiri was unable to carry out that procedure and she was taken as an emergency admission to a civilian hospital in Nicosia.
The admission was attended by a certain amount of chaos, due to the language barrier and so on, despite Mrs. Crowton's experience as a nurse. However, after some time, she was assured that she would receive an emergency caesarean section that day. She did not, and she did not for five days. She was kept in enormous pain, and despite her requests for pain relief she did not receive it. On the fifth day, she was strapped up and required to give birth naturally in what I can describe only as horrendous circumstances from which her husband was excluded despite his request to be present.
My constituent, Mrs. Crowton, on giving birth to Amelia, immediately had to be treated for very high blood pressure. After it became possible to appraise her of what had happened, she was told that her daughter
466WH
was suffering from septicaemic shock, pneumonia and a brain haemorrhage, and that an urgent baptism should be arranged.
In the following weeks, the insensitive and, indeed, callous treatment of my constituent continued, particularly on the issue of access to the child and visiting times. Staff told her to stop blubbing because, after all, she was young enough to have another child and she would only upset the other mothers. Little wonder, therefore, that my constituent, Mrs. Crowton, had to be discharged from her military service suffering from depression and that she has since been unable to accompany her husband on postings.
That was all some time ago. Amelia is now five and a half years old. She cannot walk, she cannot talk and she cannot use her hands. She is blind and she suffers from severe epilepsy. She requires full-time care. Those of us who are parents and who have incurred the expense of having children will find the expenses that my constituents have incurred mind-boggling: £2,000 for a pram, £3,000 for a bed, £8,000 for a bath and £65,000 to adapt and extend the house to cater for Amelia. All that has occurred without apology or acknowledgement of responsibility.
What redress is available to my constituent? I will tell the House: she may sue the medical authorities at the hospital in Cyprus, with all the attendant problems of distance, language and a statutorily set minimum compensation that is much less eligible.
So, let me contrast that with what would be available to my civilian constituents were they to be treated abroad in a foreign hospital; it is possible for our constituents to be treated by the NHS in foreign hospitals. I have guidance issued by the Department of Health in November 2002. It is entitled, "Treating more patients and extending choice: overseas treatment for NHS patients—guidance for primary care and acute trusts". I quote briefly from section 6.1, which says
"should a patient sent abroad for treatment wish to raise an issue of medical negligence, the courts may regard NHS bodies as having a duty of care that cannot be delegated, despite the fact that the treatment was being provided by a non-UK provider. Patients would therefore be able to sue the NHS in the English courts, rather than having to take a case through foreign courts."
This is the key passage:
"This approach is in line with the Government's policy preference, which states that patients travelling abroad for treatment should have the same rights and remedies as patients receiving treatment in the UK."
I take the Minister back to his written answer to me, which I quoted at the beginning of the debate, in which he said that
"Defence Medical Services, provides comprehensive medical services, to standards at least equal to the NHS".
I have not come here to find out what the law is. The courts determine what the law is; lawyers will tell us what the law is. I have come here, and brought the Minister here, to do what only a Minister and a politician can do—discuss not what the law is, but what the law ought to be and, if it ought to be different, what he proposes to do to change it.
Ought it be the case that citizens are so much advantaged over our military constituents as a consequence of their being civilians rather than in the military? Given the sacrifices that we expect and require

467WH
of our military constituents, is it right and proper that the Secretary of State for Health should have an enduring duty of care to patients, irrespective of how he might subcontract that care, whereas once a citizen joins the armed forces, he ceases to have the benefit of that duty of care and in turn takes on a duty discharged by the Secretary of State for Defence, although that Secretary of State has no enduring duty of care corresponding to that which is discharged for civilians by the Secretary of State for Health? Can that be right? I will leap to the assumption that the Minister agrees that there should be a level playing field—military personnel should not be disadvantaged in this way. If he does agree, what is he going to do about it?
Perhaps the Minister has already begun to do something. Can he confirm that payments have been made to military personnel who were taken ill or suffered injuries during the exercise Saif Sareea and were treated in Omani medical facilities where they suffered medical negligence? Have those payments been made? If so, will he acknowledge that that touches on the same principle as cases I have mentioned, particularly those relating to designated provider hospitals in Germany and my constituent's case relating to Cyprus?
I am here today to ask the Minister whether he will review those cases. Will he consider not the positive question, "What is the law?", but the normative issue of what it ought to be, and what the Ministry of Defence might be able to do for citizens who find themselves in the position of my constituent Mrs. Deborah Crowton and her daughter Amelia?
11.12 am
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Ivor Caplin): I welcome the hon. Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne) to the debate and thank him for raising those points. His interest in medical services for the armed forces reflects his service in the Territorial Army over the years and his call-up last year to Iraq, of which the House is aware. I have to say to him that I am unsighted on the specific case; he did not raise it with me in advance. I undertake to look in Hansard tomorrow morning at the points that he has raised in relation to his constituent, as I do for many other hon. Members. I will review the circumstances and write to let him know my views on the matter by the end of this month.
I think it would be helpful, in the context of this debate on the provision of medical services for service personnel serving overseas, to make some general points about our progress. Day in and day out, our servicemen and women have demonstrated, through their dedication and professionalism, why they are respected throughout the world. British forces are performing diverse, difficult and demanding tasks around the world. It is only right that we should provide them with the health services that they require to deliver what we expect of them. Defence Medical Services comprises doctors, nurses and other health professionals who are well trained and equipped to provide our people with the most appropriate health services for their needs.
As an employer, the Ministry of Defence has a responsibility to take care of all its people—a responsibility that we take very seriously. Wherever our service personnel are serving, we are totally committed
468WH
to providing them with high-quality medical services that are as close as possible to those provided by the NHS.
I should also stress that, where our forces are serving on accompanied tours, our commitment extends to their families. I shall give some details about that, but how we achieve it will vary depending on local circumstances. It is neither possible nor desirable to mirror the NHS abroad. What remains consistent, however, as I indicated in the written answer to the hon. Gentleman, is our determination to fulfil our duty to take reasonable care to provide access to health care. We ensure that the standards of health care for all entitled personnel are maintained, whether through in-house providers, utilising local civilian health care, repatriation to the UK or a combination of all those provisions as necessary. I pay tribute to all those in the Defence Medical Services who provide the medical and dental care to our troops around the world.
The British forces Germany health service is responsible for the provision of health care for service personnel—mainly from the Army, but including some from the RAF—based in Germany. The entitled population in British forces Germany totals approximately 55,000, and the annual British forces Germany health service expenditure on overall health care runs at about £60 million.
As in the NHS, various organisations are responsible for different aspects of the service and, just like the NHS, the British forces Germany health service seeks to make the care that it provides seamless from the patient's perspective. It does so under a military director—currently a brigadier—by bringing together military personnel, Guy's and St. Thomas' NHS Trust and the Soldiers', Sailors' and Airmen's Families Association, known as SSAFA, in an innovative and co-operative partnership, effectively bringing together military-civilian and public-private health care provision. The relationships between those elements are complex, but firmly backed by open-book financial arrangements and close collaboration at every management level.
Primary care is provided by medical centres located in each of our five Army garrisons and run by military and civilian medical staff. Clinical staffs in each centre are a combination of uniformed members of the Defence Medical Services, UK-based civilian doctors, locally recruited civilians or locum staff recruited from the UK. SSAFA provides professional and managerial support services for medical centres, as well as care services under contract, including community midwifery, health visitors and social workers. Together, the organisations provide a fully comprehensive primary and community care service to our service personnel based in Germany.
Since 1996, secondary hospital-based care has been delivered by Guy's and St. Thomas' NHS Trust as the prime contractor to British forces Germany health service, via subcontracts let with designated German provider hospitals located in the five garrison areas.
Mr. Swayne: In one of the Minister's written answers to me in July, he said that regular attempts were made to scrutinise the standards in designated provider hospitals. Can he give me, either in correspondence or now, some guidance on what that involves? Can he tell me whether a register of complaints is kept? Can he also shed some light

469WH
on the arrangements regarding subcontracted hospitals in Cyprus? I have correspondence showing that the obstetrics unit at the hospital that treated my constituent, Mrs. Crowton, has no knowledge of inspection or scrutiny.
Mr. Caplin: The hon. Gentleman has raised an interesting point, to which I will not respond immediately. I will get back to him, specifically on complaints, procedures and inspections, in the time scale I have set out.
In the German hospitals, Guy's and St. Thomas' liaison staff provide on-site support to patients. To overcome the inevitable language and cultural issues that present themselves, Guy's and St. Thomas' has developed a successful system of hospital liaison officers, who are bilingual personnel located in each German provider hospital. They are there to solve any problems and misunderstandings that may arise. That service has greatly assisted the delivery of the best possible care to our servicemen and women and their families. For example, British-style menus are available, as well as English language television and newspapers.
The British forces Germany health service also conducts annual satisfaction surveys, although I accept that that is not the same as inspection. The results consistently show satisfaction rates of above 87 per cent. The aim is to deliver a service that takes advantage of the benefits of the German clinical approach to care while giving our people the enhanced privacy and access to services to which they are often accustomed in the UK.
We also have large entitled populations in Cyprus, as the hon. Gentleman mentioned, and in Gibraltar, the largest of our permanent joint operating bases overseas. There we provide, and will continue to provide for as long as is needed, a comprehensive primary health care service, managed as a joint service activity, that includes community services such as ante and post-natal care and mental health services. Cyprus and Gibraltar have accredited general practitioner training practices.
To ensure NHS-comparable standards of secondary care, we also maintain, and will continue to do so for as long as is needed, military hospitals in Cyprus, namely Princess Mary's hospital at Akrotiri, and in Gibraltar, the Royal Naval hospital. I am sure the hon. Gentleman agrees that, in general, both facilities provide excellent secondary health care, covering core clinical disciplines such as general surgery, paediatrics, obstetrics and gynaecology, as well as medical cover for operational activities.
Cyprus, in its role as a forward military base, has the ability to expand capacity at short notice in the event of operations. Princess Mary's serves some 8,500 entitled personnel, and has about 185 service and civilian staff. The Royal Naval hospital in Gibraltar, which serves about 1,800 entitled personnel, also has the capacity to provide medical cover for our naval base, and has about 90 service and civilian staff.
I visited the Royal Naval hospital in Gibraltar only yesterday, and was at Princess Mary's hospital in Akrotiri in March. At both facilities, I met some of the first-rate staff and was able to see for myself how we are
470WH
upholding our long tradition of providing first-class health care for our service personnel and their dependants.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned maternity, and asked whether, at Princess Mary's in Akrotiri, we could provide the facilities he mentioned. He may be familiar with the facility. The hospital does not have the specialist baby-care facilities that we recognise in the United Kingdom. There are circumstances in Cyprus and Gibraltar in which we are unable to provide the appropriate treatment in-house, and we have arrangements in place either to bring in specialists from the United Kingdom or to use local civilian hospitals as appropriate. If clinically appropriate, we can also medically evacuate personnel to the UK.
The hon. Gentleman also asked whether there were any payments—compensation was the term he used—in relation to Saif Sareea, the operation in Oman. I do not have an answer, but I will include one in our correspondence.
Mr. Swayne: Am I to presume that the Minister will address the two other questions I asked in correspondence? They were, first, whether he is prepared to meet my constituent, and, secondly, the normative question whether the treatment available to civilians ought to be so much better than what is available to servicemen, in terms of their recourse when things go wrong. What ought to be the case?
Mr. Caplin: On the first question, I would like to examine the case and write to the hon. Gentleman. Perhaps we could then agree a way forward. That is how I have handled the quite considerable casework in my portfolio, and I hope he accepts that, as other Members of the House have. I cannot give him a specific response on the second question. I think it would be far better for me to include all that matter in a proper letter to him detailing the issues. I have given him some indication of the time scale—a couple of weeks—in which I propose to get that response to him.
I would like to take the opportunity to congratulate the RAF on its skill and professionalism in organising medical evacuations from permanent bases and operational theatres. I know hon. Members will agree on that. It is on immediate notice—24 hours a day, 365 days a year—at RAF Lyneham to provide an emergency medical evacuation service for those who need it.
We also have smaller, permanent joint operating bases on the Falkland Islands and Ascension Island, for which we provide our own primary care; a local civilian hospital provides secondary care. If there is a requirement for more specialist services, we have arrangements in place to use facilities in neighbouring countries or to carry out a medical evacuation back to the UK.
Although we do not have a permanent military base in the United States, at any one time we have about 400 service personnel and dependants living and working there. To fulfil our duty of care to them, we have a reciprocal health care agreement with the United States that covers service personnel and their dependants. Under that agreement, health care is provided to our personnel by US medical services or through an insurance-based system. The NHS provides free medical care to US service personnel serving in the UK and their dependants.

471WH
Where our personnel are serving on operational deployments in areas of the world where the medical infrastructure is poor, damaged or overstretched, we can deploy a full range of medical support services. In a major operation such as Operation Telic, with which the hon. Gentleman is familiar, those services would include front-line medical assets integral to the units deployed, dressing stations, field hospitals and RFA Argus, our hospital ship, as well as our medical evacuation capabilities.
Notwithstanding the important individual case that the hon. Gentleman raised and the commitments that I have given this morning to get back to him on the issues that he highlighted, I hope he will agree with me: I am indeed satisfied that our servicemen and women are well served by the skills and professionalism of the Defence Medical Services.
11.28 am
Sitting suspended until Two o'clock.

International Trafficking of Women
2 pm
Ms Julia Drown: I am pleased to have the opportunity to debate the international trafficking of women, which is a serious and ongoing crime. The trafficking of human beings, whether for exploitation in work, the sex industry or for any other purpose is a tragic and complex human rights abuse. Hundreds of thousands of people are traded globally every year. The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees estimates that 120,000 women are trafficked each year, of whom 75 per cent. are under 25. Too many lives are ruined by trafficking, and whether it affects one person or 1 million, the trade in humanity must be tackled.
Women are particularly vulnerable to that slavery-like practice, largely because of the persistent inequalities that they face in status and opportunities worldwide. Internationally, Human Rights Watch has reported consistent patterns in the trafficking of women. Coercive tactics, including deception, fraud, intimidation, isolation, the threat and use of physical force and debt bondage are used to control women. An example quoted to me was of a woman who came to Britain to raise money for her sister's cancer treatment. She worked 12 hours a day, seven days a week. Half her earnings were taken as rent for the flat that she used, and the other half to pay off the £23,000 debt that she was charged to travel to this country. She had nothing for her sister and no hope of a future.
Only last week, the London Evening Standard ran headlines about a journalist being offered two young women for £6,000 each, to do with as he wished. That proposition was made not in some seedy bazaar but a London pub, by a pimp responsible for, in some cases, luring eastern European women to Britain with promises of work, love or marriage, and in others, for kidnapping them. The implication that that is acceptable in the London community, or anywhere else for that matter simply cannot be accepted.
The recent "Sex in the city" study carried out by the Poppy Project, which supports women trying to free themselves from the sex trade, revealed that there are more than 8,000 women working in the sex trade in London, of whom 80 per cent. are from south-east Asia and eastern Europe. Many of them are prey to those complex methods of coercion and control, yet the Poppy Project has just 25 places available to help women escaping their entrapment. Women on that waiting list, who are desperate to escape a life of slavery and misery, have to be told, "Wait. We cannot afford to help you yet." I would be grateful to know whether the Government might consider better supporting such projects.
There are concerns over alleged complicity among members of the international community. There are reports of widespread trafficking in Kosovo, with the involvement of peacekeepers, which is a major concern. There are also reports alleging that in Bosnia a 15-year-old girl was
"given as a 21st birthday present to a US soldier and … raped in turn by men with American, Canadian, British, Russian and French accents".
Deceptive methods of recruitment have been reported. An orphanage in Romania received visits from a social worker offering apprenticeship programmes for

473WH
adolescent girls, who were then taken away and forced into prostitution. Corrupt officials, who facilitate the trade, accept bribes to falsify documents and to provide protection, allow the trafficking to thrive. Of course, if there were no market for sex, much of the trafficking would not take place, so the more that we can change the culture to make it unacceptable to buy sex, the more women such as those I have mentioned will be protected.
Across the world, many Governments treat trafficked persons as illegal aliens, criminals, or both, which exposes those people to further abuse. For example, Thai trafficking victims in Japan are regularly detained as illegal aliens and deported with a five-year ban on reentering the country. By targeting the victims and ignoring the perpetrators, states allow the abuses to continue.
I congratulate the Government on taking some action on the matter, including, in the Sexual Offences Act 2003, creating several trafficking offences carrying penalties of up to 14 years in prison. I hope that we will hear from the Minister not only about the action that the Government are taking to minimise the involvement in trafficking, but that they have taken and will take to raise those issues with other countries in Europe and further afield.
All human trafficking is for exploitative work. Consider the 20 migrant workers drowned while working for a pitiful wage in ghastly conditions as cockle pickers in Morecambe, or the sex trade that, often through links to drugs, brings an early death to many. All over the world, rich people who are ill are prepared to pay huge sums of money for the chance of a normal life. Equally, desperately poor people are driven to sell a kidney or other organs as a way of feeding their families. Last year in southern India, 13 members of a gang responsible for selling more than 50 kidneys for transplants were arrested. Into this trade have stepped unscrupulous brokers, prepared to trick people into parting with an organ, often for a paltry fee.
In sub-Saharan Africa, there is a horrific trade in virgins, who are being sold because some people are told having sex with them is a cure for AIDS. The horrors do not end there. Last month in Nigeria, 30 people were arrested after the discovery of corpses and human skulls in a fetish shrine. In some parts of Africa, there is a lucrative trade in human skins, which can fetch up to $10,000. Again in Nigeria, we have had reports of the trafficking of women by an international ring using terror tactics on young people through the use of voodoo. One woman told Amnesty International:
"I always tried to open the door, but the men were always outside the door. I was scared. I always hear the voices."
Such women cannot be just immediately returned to their countries to be trafficked again. They need some support, so that they are strong enough to avoid being re-trafficked, and so that they in turn may help to prosecute the traffickers.
This is an international trade, so we need to give protection to trafficked women by working with our European and other international partners. Within Europe, there is an opportunity for binding minimum standards for the protection and support of trafficked people to be ratified this December when the Council of
474WH
Europe's ad hoc committee on action against trafficking in human beings drafts its European convention against trafficking.
I urge the Government to address the key issues identified by Amnesty. They need to be dealt with in order properly to protect trafficked women and others. The next meeting on that is on Monday where the Home Office will be represented. In addition to pushing these issues at opportunities that the Foreign Office has, I hope that the Minister can pass on relevant concerns to the Home Office.
The first of those is the care and support of survivors. Where an adult has been identified as a victim of trafficking, their access to assistance—medical care, safe housing, counselling, information on their legal rights and so on—must not be made contingent on their willingness to testify against traffickers, particularly as doing so may put family in their country of origin in danger.
We should be willing to support people trafficked in that way because it may give them the support they need to help to prosecute the traffickers. The current draft only allows victims of trafficking "emergency medical treatment", whereas the UN protocol says that more should be done. It is surely justified to give the health support necessary for conditions arising out of the trafficking.
Secondly, we must make allowance for suitable periods of recovery and reflection. Victims of trafficking need a sufficient reflection period temporarily to regularise their immigration status and give them an opportunity to receive advice and assistance, to begin to recover from their experiences and to make an informed decision about whether they wish to co-operate with the authorities in prosecuting their traffickers. Amnesty argues for a reflection period of at least three months. Without that period, victims will face immediate deportation. That is not in the interests of the victim, who may be re-trafficked, or the police, who will lose the opportunity to gather valuable information and possible witness testimony that will help to secure prosecutions and to combat trafficking in the long term.
Reflection periods are only given to those who are considered likely to be trafficked persons, as identified by the police, appropriate non-governmental organisations, or immigration officers. They have operated successfully for several years in the Netherlands, where three months is allowed, and Belgium, where 45 days are allowed. Norway has recently introduced a reflection period of 45 days. Italy suggests a reasonable reflection period would be as long as six months, but its laws go further and offer residency permits to victims of trafficking on the basis that the traffickers pose a continued risk to them.
Sandra Gidley: The hon. Lady raises an interesting point about the reflection period, to which I hope to return. Does she agree that the provision of a reflection period has resulted in more convictions being brought in those countries? That is an important reason to provide such a period.
Ms Drown: Yes. Particularly in Italy, people are satisfied that what might seem a compassionate and long-term approach to dealing with trafficking victims

475WH
has resulted in increased prosecutions. It is for that reason that I hope that we can agree a minimum reflection period of at least three months across Europe. That may be particularly important for women because those involved in the sex trade often face rejection by their families and communities on returning to their countries. Finding a way forward for them is a key concern.
Just last night, I received a fax from the UK representative of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and it highlighted some of these issues. One might not normally think that trafficked women had a case for refugee status in this country, but UNHCR points out that, under the 1951 convention, there are certain circumstances in which refugee status should be considered. Indeed, UNHCR hosted a seminar this February in London, at which there were representatives from the Home Office, as well as NGOs. One immigration adjudicator who presented a paper at that seminar looked at the reasons why trafficked persons should be considered as refugees. A paper is now being produced on that to try to get some general rules and guidelines. I hope that the Government will seriously consider that as a way of ensuring that trafficked people are able to qualify for refugee status, under defined conditions.
We have a duty to investigate allegations of human rights abuse and UNHCR points out the very serious human rights abuse involved in trafficking. At some point, trafficking might even qualify as a crime against humanity—it is that serious. We need to bring the perpetrators of those crimes, including state as well as non-state actors, to justice. I would like to hear from the Minister how often such issues, particularly concerning trafficked women, are raised at an international level and whether there is a willingness to take action to tackle this appalling trade at a wider level than the European level. I also want to know whether any funding or initiatives to combat the international trafficking of women are coming out of the Foreign Office's human rights, democracy and good governance programme. Trafficking is a serious and growing problem and the victims do not deserve to have their lives destroyed by it. I urge the Government to do all that they can to tackle the problem, both here and abroad.
2.12 pm
Judy Mallaber: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for South Swindon (Ms Drown) on securing this vital debate. It is important for us to keep discussing this issue.
Last year, I attended a showing in Portcullis House by UNICEF of the film "Lilya 4-Ever". I do not know whether anyone else here saw that film. The Guardian called it an
"uncompromisingly bleak, devastating powerful study of Lilya…a poverty-stricken teenage girl abandoned in a crumbling Russian town"
who was lured into a hellish world of forced prostitution, rape and imprisonment by the promise of a better life and job in the west. She was abandoned by her mother, who was also enticed to the west by a smooth-talking man; we do not know what happened to the mother. After being left on the streets in the Russian
476WH
town, with no help from her aunt, Lilya was sweet talked by someone into going to Sweden. It was a harrowing and graphic depiction of the stark reality for thousands of women every day. This poor young girl, who had been abandoned, was persuaded that there was a new life in the west and ended up leading, as The Guardian described it, a hellish existence.
This debate is timely. I had no sooner seen it on the Order Paper than I opened my post and got my latest Amnesty magazine, which had a leading article on the explosive international growth in trafficking. Hon. Members and, I am sure, the Minister, can expect to be lobbied by Amnesty members urging that our UK representatives support binding minimum standards in the proposed Council of Europe convention on trafficking. I fully support the proposals outlined by my hon. Friend the Member for South Swindon, to which I will return later, and urge our Government representatives to push these issues at next week's meeting.
Any hon. Member who turns on Channel 4 on 7 and 14 October is bound to be moved to action by a drama called "Sex Traffic". I understand that it shows Elena and Vara trafficked into forced prostitution from their home in Moldavia. There is a quote from that film in the Amnesty magazine. A 21-year-old Moldavian woman says that she eventually arrived in a bar in Kosovo and was
"locked inside and forced into prostitution. In the bar I was never paid, I could not go out by myself, the owner became more and more violent as the weeks went by; he was beating me and raping me and the other girls. We were his 'property' he said. By buying us he had bought the right to beat us, rape us, starve us, force us to have sex with clients."
Another woman trafficked into Kosovo told Amnesty:
"I was desperate… because we were so poor… I couldn't live any longer on my grandmother's pension, so I said that I'd better go somewhere else where I could work hard and earn some money to help my family and my brothers."
I think that anybody who watches that film will be moved into wishing to take up this issue. I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to take a look at that film and at the latest Amnesty report on the position in Kosovo and the way in which the international situation has led to the mushrooming of prostitution and trafficking into that country, because there are some very serious issues that we need to ensure that we are on top of.
What is trafficking? I will come back to the United Nations definition of that, but Secretary-General Kofi Annan said:
"Women and children are not property, but human beings. The international community should declare, loudly and more strongly than ever, that we are all members of the human family. Slavery simply has no place in a world of human rights"—
and trafficking is slavery. It is easy to think of it as something else but it is not; it is slavery—there can be no other way to describe this gross violation of human rights.
Internationally organised and highly lucrative, the crime of human trafficking has increased to the extent that it has become one of the largest sources of profit from crime along with drug trafficking and arms smuggling. In 1998, the UN estimated that this trade in human misery generated around $7 billion a year but latest studies suggest that the figure could now be as high as $12 billion.

477WH
It is sad but interesting that there is still a need for Anti-Slavery International. Established in 1839, it is the world's oldest international human rights organisation, and it has to continue campaigning into this century against this form of slavery. The Salvation Army is another organisation that was campaigning in the 19th century. I am sure that hon. Members will recall that in 1885 it caused an outcry in Victorian Britain by buying a young girl—a 13-year-old called Eliza Armstrong—from her mother for £5 to expose the trade in child prostitutes. It is interesting, although not totally relevant to the current debate, that that was what led Parliament to raise the age of consent from 13 to 16. In 1885, child prostitutes were bought and sold on London's streets and the Salvation Army was campaigning about that. Today, women and children are still being trafficked across the world and treated as slaves.
With regard to the figures, it is hard to get exact estimates, as my hon. Friend the Member for South Swindon mentioned, but the International Organisation for Migration has reported that between 700,000 and 2 million women and children are trafficked across international borders each year. Few countries remain unaffected, either as a country of origin or as a destination for the women who become victims. Tragically, this has become yet another global phenomenon, with those trafficked forced to work in the sex trade, prostitution, pornography and child pornography and also as farm labourers, exploited labour in sweat shops, in catering and as domestics—as slaves in people's homes.
The Protection Project based at Johns Hopkins university in the United States of America estimates that, over the past 10 years, the number of women and children who have been trafficked has multiplied, so that it is now on a par with the number of Africans who were enslaved in the 16th and 17th centuries—that is an extraordinary statistic. It is a scandal that in this century we have not eliminated slavery but it just takes a different form.
Arising from the Poppy Project, which has already been referred to, Superintendent Chris Bradford of the Metropolitan police explained some of the problems in escaping their pimps that women who are exploited and arrive in the UK have. He says that it is almost impossible:
"They can't speak the language; they've had passports and travel documents taken away from them. They don't know what to do or who to see, and pimps tell them that they're paying the police, and that we will just return them if they come to us. They're not necessarily locked up, but there's the constant threat that they or their families will be 'sorted out'."
However, returning home can be equally difficult because of the stigma that the women can face, and because they have often been driven out by a lack of employment opportunities and money in the first place. Several of the women helped by the Poppy Project were re-trafficked after their return to their countries of origin. What we do when we find such people in our country or in other countries and when deciding whether they should stay or be sent back are serious issues. One woman who was re-trafficked was sold by her father for a second time just days after the police returned her home
478WH
The women will face other threats. Many trafficked girls and women will be told that their families or children will be harmed or murdered if they try to escape or tell anyone. Others are told that their families have found out what they are doing and want nothing more to do with them. My hon. Friend mentioned the fact that a woman can become a persona non grata if she goes back home and that her family can be threatened by those who try to make her stay in the business.
There are different interpretations of what trafficking involves. The internationally recognised definition is set out in the UN protocol:
"Trafficking in person shall mean the recruitment, transportation, transfer, harbouring or receipt of persons, by means of the threat or use of force or other forms of coercion, of abduction, of fraud, of deception, of the abuse of power or of a position of vulnerability or of the giving or receiving payments or benefits to achieve the consent of a person having control over another person, for the purpose of exploitation. Exploitation shall include, at a minimum, the exploitation of the prostitution of others or other forms of sexual exploitation, forced labour or services, slavery or practices similar to slavery, servitude or the removal of organs."
Trafficking is not limited to sexual exploitation; it also takes other forms of labour exploitation. In their study, Dr. Liz Kelly and Linda Regan of the university of North London, as it was then called, identify the ways in which women can be recruited for trafficking abroad, and they are not always straightforward.
There can be complete coercion through abduction or kidnapping. It may be rare for women to be trafficked through those entirely illegal methods, but that does happen. Recruitment can be done by deception through promises of legitimate employment in the UK or elsewhere. There can also be deception through half-truths—telling someone that there may be employment in the entertainment industry, dancing or stripping. Some women will be made aware that they will be working in prostitution and may have put themselves at the mercy of traffickers just to get to western Europe. However, they will not have been made aware of the extent to which they will be intimidated, exploited and controlled by those who seek to traffic or to smuggle them abroad.
My hon. Friend gave the example of the woman who came to get money for her sister's cancer treatment. Everything that she made went towards repaying the sum charged to get here and her rent. Women come here with a completely false idea of what is going to happen, and the life that they were promised disappears. The final recruitment method, seen in central and eastern Europe, is to place ads in media sources that claim that there is a well paying job available through an employment agency, which may or may not exist. The person goes abroad and life is very different once they get there. They are put to work of a kind that they did not anticipate.
Trafficking is complex. There are many ways in which it happens and many issues that we need to take account of as we try to help the victims and prosecute those responsible for the crime. What should we do about it? The problem is international and requires international action. Many countries have little or no effective anti-trafficking legislation and no legislation to protect and to support the victims and families or to prosecute the perpetrators.

479WH
I welcome the action taken by our Government through the Sexual Offences Act 2003 and through provisions in immigration and asylum legislation to tackle this pernicious crime in the UK. However, will the Minister say what progress has been made in encouraging more countries to ratify the UN protocol, to ensure that legislation to protect women from this heinous trade is incorporated in domestic law around the world? Will he say what the latest position is on UK ratification?
Again, I urge the Minister to consider and to push the proposals for inclusion in the Council of Europe convention made by Amnesty and others. They have come out with a number of proposals, some of which have been gone into in some detail. Will the Minister respond to them? Some may be possible and some may not, but I urge him to consider them all. I am sure that he has.
The first is about ensuring that there is adequate training on how to identify trafficked persons—a great difficulty, not just in this area but in relation to many people who come here without documentation. That is clearly a difficult issue.
The second issue, of reflection periods, has been discussed at some length.
Thirdly, trafficked persons need to have access to a full range of assistance, protection and support to enable them to make informed decisions about their future. Will the Minister let us know what progress is being made on providing services in this country? I am not sure whether there is more than one safe house in this country to assist people. Will the Minister tell us what services are being provided and what possibility there is for us to do more?
Fourthly, there are issues about the legal status of people who have come into this country and whether trafficked persons will be held criminally liable for illegal entry into Council of Europe member states or involvement in unlawful activities that are the consequence of a crime being committed against them. There is also the question of risk assessments being carried out by trained officials before any trafficked person is repatriated.
The final request from Amnesty is that victims involved in legal proceedings or at risk of abuse, stigmatisation or re-trafficking if repatriated should have rights of residence or asylum. I know that that is a difficult issue but I put it on the table as one of the requests from Amnesty to be included in the Council of Europe convention. Therefore, there are a number of issues that I hope the Minister will respond on.
Finally, I extend the subject matter slightly into an area that has been one of my preoccupations in recent months in another campaign that I am involved with. Although the subject of the debate relates to the international trafficking of women, many of those women are very young and there is a huge amount of international trafficking of children. It would be remiss to allow this debate to finish without mentioning that. Many children are procured to be sold into domestic labour as domestic slaves, but the issue that I have been particularly involved with is about the international trafficking of children—and the procurement of children—to be filmed being raped and abused. The abusive images go on the internet for paedophiles to download.
480WH
That is a massive issue. Paedophilia used to involve a few people exchanging pictures. Now, one person, who was convicted this year, had downloaded 400,000 images. Every one of those images was of children who had been procured, many of them through international trafficking, to be abused in front of a camera.
Mr. Julian Brazier: The hon. Lady is making a powerful point. Will she join me in condemning those who suggest that the "mere" downloading of child pornography should not normally result in a custodial sentence? The people who download provide the market for the vile trade that she is describing.
Judy Mallaber: I absolutely agree. I also condemn those who say that it is a matter of liberties and the freedom to do what one wants. It is not. There is no freedom to abuse a child. This country is doing well at setting up the mechanisms that we have. A taskforce chaired by the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe and Sale, East (Paul Goggins), brings together all the internet service providers and works with crime prevention agencies. The Internet Watch Foundation is doing well at closing down sites in this country.
However, the material is coming from overseas, largely from the United States, where there is not the same cohesion of crime prevention agencies and where some of the questions about whether to jump on the issue and to prosecute people are more difficult. The other area that material is coming from is Belarus, where the Russian mafia are involved. It is massive, international crime and there is a huge amount of money involved—as we said, $7 billion is involved in international trafficking, perhaps more. The business of child prostitution and people being seen on the internet is also a massive exercise.
Ms Drown: I am glad that my hon. Friend has raised the issue and I think that there are more links to the debate. She picked out the issue of children. Does she agree that when somebody becomes 18 or 21—depending on when one says a girl becomes a woman—the fact that the abuse still goes on is just as horrific? Would she like to see the role and the action of the Internet Watch Foundation, which is very good at tackling these problems, extended? We should have equal work going on in relation to the abuse of women, which also happens on the internet.
Judy Mallaber: It needs to be looked at seriously. It is complicated because any abuse of a child and any downloading of a pornographic image of a child is a crime. The Internet Watch Foundation is allowed to look at the sites and Visa, for example, now has a robot that trawls the net for things with its sign on it. It is easy for them to see what is clearly illegal, and to notify the crime prevention authorities. The definition of what is or is not acceptable in relation to older people and sexual exploitation is more problematic in respect of obscenity legislation.
Earlier this year, there was a debate about violent images following the appalling murder case in Brighton. I note that there is currently a debate about definitions

481WH
and about what should or should not be banned. It is certainly a subject that needs a lot more consideration and work done on it.
One of the promising developments in relation to child porn on the internet is the work that is being done by the internet service providers—belatedly, I have to say, after a lot of pressure. BT, for example, has worked on using technical means to close child porn down. I have met some of the credit companies and PayPal to talk about how to stop the financial mechanisms that make it possible. As my hon. Friend the Member for South Swindon said, to prevent the abuse and trafficking of women and the selling of them into prostitution, we need to change the culture in which it is acceptable. Similarly, we can make it impossible to download such images, which are clearly unacceptable, by looking at technical solutions to resolve the issue.
This is an important debate, and I would be interested to hear the Minister's latest position on the United Nations protocol, the Council of Europe convention and the services that we are providing, as well as any further proposals for taking the issue forward. We have to keep on top of this massive and appalling problem, as so many women and children are facing the most nightmarish lives as a result of this evil trade.
2.32 pm
Sandra Gidley: I welcome the debate and congratulate the hon. Member for South Swindon (Ms Drown) on securing it. I do not know whether she was just quick off the mark with the Amnesty International campaign or had been trying to secure this debate for some time. Either way, I am pleased that we are here today. I am saddened only by the fact that there are so few of us in the Chamber. There seems to be far more interest in the livelihood of the fox than in the livelihood of the many women who are victims of this terrible crime.
I, too, was lucky enough to see the film "Lilya 4-Ever", referred to by the hon. Member for Amber Valley (Judy Mallaber), and was powerfully struck by it. I urge anybody to go and see it if they have not done so. Since then, I have read a lot about the subject, and that film seemed to describe a fairly typical route from trust in a contact to a woman or child being trafficked and often being subject to sexual abuse. In this film there was a classic progression: a friendship was built up, the young woman, Lilya, went in all innocence to Sweden, and immediately on arrival her passport was taken away and she was locked in a flat and raped. The film became quite graphic at that point, and highlighted the fact that this person was being exploited for sexual reasons. However, we are talking about a child—a very young girl was being exploited. The memory of that film will stay with me for some time.
It is difficult to get a steer on how large this problem is. Some work was done by Dr. Liz Kelly and Linda Regan of the child and women abuse studies unit—in 1999, I think. They estimated that there was anything from between 142 to 1,420 women victims in any one year. However, it is incredibly difficult to obtain the data for several reasons: the activity is underground and I am not sure that we have full knowledge of the extent of it;
482WH
the lack of anti-trafficking legislation does not help; and there is an understandable reluctance of the victims to report such things, because many of them are not in a position to get themselves out of the situation that they are in. They are in a foreign country, they do not know who to go to or where to go. If they do, they are often sent back to where the original abuse took place. In some communities, there is a strong likelihood that the victim will be sent back to another country.
Little priority seems to be given in government to collecting and researching the data. So, if something is going on that I am not aware of, I would be interested to hear about it. Studies by the International Organisation for Migration claimed that 500,000 women were trafficked into the EU in 1995. Clearly, there is a big difference between 1,420 and 500,000. I am not sure where the IOM got its figures from either. Any clarification regarding that difference would be welcome. I hope that we have not got it so badly wrong in this country that we have totally underestimated the extent of the problem.
The problem is an international one. There is a particular problem in Albania and in many other Balkan countries, and in eastern Europe it is growing. Some African countries also have huge difficulties. I was talking to somebody who had first-hand knowledge of the problem in Nigeria and she said that when one went there, it was fairly obvious which communities were involved in trafficking, because there was a quantum leap in the standard of living.
Given that there is so little opportunity in poor countries to earn money, there is an argument for working with those communities to provide alternatives. It is no good creating righteous indignation—although it is easy and natural to do so when faced with this problem. We must tackle the issue on a global scale. That point has already been highlighted, because, as the hon. Member for Amber Valley said, the estimated profit is $7 billion a year.
Those involved in drug trafficking are becoming increasingly involved in people trafficking and we need to tap into both networks. Last year, I was very moved by "Lilya 4-Ever" and, in September, I decided to visit Italy to see what it was doing about the problem. One thing was clear to me about the difference between the Italian approach and that which the United Kingdom has adopted. Like the UK, Italy has a problem with immigration and with asylum seekers. What impressed me greatly was the fact that it seems to have managed to dissociate the problem of trafficking from that of general immigration. The Government would be well advised to examine the work that it has done, to see whether we could do something similar in this country. Italy is a very right-wing country and if it can be done there, I would like to think that we could do it here.
In Italy, there were a huge number of initiatives to tackle the problem, although they were not at all coordinated. Some of them had national Government money, but often local authorities or non-governmental organisations had decided something needed to be done on their patch. There seemed to be no attempt to regularise the activities—I am not sure that that would be a good thing anyway—and there were many different initiatives.

483WH
One initiative in the large cities involved working with sex workers and, more specifically, their clients. As has already been graphically pointed out, the workers often cannot get out of the situation. It was realised that occasionally there was the possibility that a relationship might be built up with a client or that a client might be concerned about the treatment of a particular woman. There was a concerted effort to try to reach the users of prostitutes. I accept what the hon. Member for South Swindon said about changing the culture. I am not sure that, in our culture, it would be easy to do that overnight, but it is a worthy aspiration. Trying to nudge the conscience of people who use prostitutes may be useful, but I am not aware of any similar initiatives in this country.
It is a great pity that a cooling-off period was not included in the Sexual Offences Act 2003. Several attempts were made to introduce one, but they were very much resisted by the Government. I do not know whether there was horror at the prospect of opening the floodgates or of creating a loophole. The result in Italy of using such a cooling-off period has been a greater number of prosecutions. When I visited that country, there was concern that, with the change of Government, there would be a change of emphasis such that women would be forced to show and tell—to identify the criminals—and, if they did not, they would be deported straight away. Research seems to show that if women were given time to build up trust and realise that there was an alternative, they would willingly co-operate.
Ms Drown: One of the reasons that a minimum cooling-off or reflection period of three months is sometimes resisted is that it is seen as arbitrary, and clearly it is. A time is picked, but each woman needs a different amount of time to decide whether they might help with prosecuting the traffickers. That is not to say that if women decide straight away whether they want to co-operate, they do not need to stay for three months. However, allowing that minimum period provides a standard, at least across Europe, and some assurance to the many woman who are trafficked in Europe.
Sandra Gidley: I agree entirely. That time will often be a period of re-focusing for the woman. She can think about what she will do, and, if alternatives are available to her, she will feel more secure about identifying the criminals. If the period is shorter than three months, there is a danger that she might feel that she will have to go back to her community. She may not know anything else, and her community may be where the problem originated. Three months would give a little more time in which to come up with an alternative. The concern is that the women will want to stay in the UK, but the lesson from Italy is that most actually want to return to their home country. Some of the fears are ungrounded.
Ultimately, it is most important to catch the traffickers. In Italy, much work has been done to try to identify Mafia links, such that the lives of some of the people who produced the report were threatened. Also, in this country, some of the early examples of women being trafficked involved triad links, and there are now strong links with the Albanian community. Those networks have to be infiltrated, and we must bring the criminals to justice. I think that I am right in saying that only one has been identified so far.
484WH
Victor Malarek, a Canadian journalist, spent four years
"in the world of pimps, traffickers, rapists and some of the most disenfranchised women and girls in the world."
He has written a book on the sex trade. He says:
"Trafficking is an easy crime to solve. If I can find the brothels and traffickers, so can the police. Just look in the tabloid personal advertisements for a start… These men are not looking for relationships… They want sex with a faceless female."
Well, we did not need to know that, but the fact is that one man—an investigative journalist—working by himself has found out an awful lot about the industry and the personalities involved. We should heed his words.
Another concern of mine has been echoed by the hon. Member for Amber Valley. When I visited Sicily, everyone wanted to know when the UK would ratify the Palermo protocol, because that would be regarded as a signal of the fact that we are serious about the problem and will do something. I would be grateful if the Minister could enlighten us on that.
My next point may be outside the Minister's area of responsibility, but it is on an important issue. A recent report by Amnesty pointed out the link between trafficking and post-war militarisation. The example given was the situation following the arrival of the international peacekeeping troops in Kosovo in July 1999. There was a vast increase in trafficking activity and organised prostitution, with KFOR troops making up most of the clients. Hon. Members may not find that surprising, because soldiers will be soldiers everywhere. I suspect that, around the world, there is a proportion who, away from home, may use local prostitutes.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Bill Rammell): I ask the hon. Lady to reflect on what she has said, which could be taken as a massive slight to the armed forces, the vast majority of whom would never get involved in any such activity in a million years.
Sandra Gidley: I was going on to say that I suspect that the make-up of individuals in the Army is no different to that of any cross-section of British society in any walk of life. I am not talking about official activity, but out-of-hours private time activity undertaken while they are based away from home. There is a problem, but I have visited Kosovo and know that the Army does what it can to prevent it and highlight the problems and risks involved. I do not want what I say to be taken as a slur on the British Army.
Mr. Brazier: I have been several times to Kosovo with the Defence Select Committee, and I think that the hon. Lady should reflect. The Army is not just a cross-section, and it is not just doing its best to prevent prostitution. Huge numbers of our soldiers out there, both on and off duty, spend many long hours helping the local community there with everything from rebuilding primary schools to assisting the police. They do endless good works. They do a great deal better than an average cross-section of the community.
Sandra Gidley: I was talking about one aspect of their lives, but the hon. Gentleman is quite right. There is also

485WH
a strong use of Territorial forces to provide support and back-up, so that children in Kosovo have sports opportunities and so on. I give great credit for the work that is done. I suppose I should not have said that soldiers will be soldiers; I would like to retract those remarks. I should perhaps say that some men will be men. That might be a fairer reflection of the situation.
I do not know what the nationality was of the troops involved, but certainly some of the KFOR troops have been linked with the trafficking, and that is a problem. I would be happy to receive an answer on that later, but perhaps the Minister could advise, or commit to advising me, about what work is done with British troops and what training they are given, so that they become aware of the problem. If the link is made with Italy, as I said earlier, they may be in a position to report and identify the problem. What is being done to send a strong message that this is unacceptable behaviour? I assume that most people understand that it is unacceptable behaviour, but the military forces in peacekeeping, post-conflict situations need to make an extra special effort to ensure that this issue will not come back to haunt UK troops in future. I do not think that it has so far, but people cannot really be convinced about such things.
I was going to mention the European convention on action against trafficking in human beings, which is currently being drawn up by the Council of Europe, but the hon. Member for Amber Valley went through it in detail. I ask the Minister to give some steer on whether the UK is totally behind all the recommendations that were mentioned, because some of them, such as the risk assessment before repatriation and the reflection period are not a part of UK law—and we recently missed a good opportunity to include them. I am slightly bemused as to how we are going to comply with the convention if it takes this form, when many of the measures are not in place.
2.52 pm
Mr. Julian Brazier: I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for South Swindon (Ms Drown) on securing this debate on an important subject. International trafficking in women and children for prostitution—most of them young girls—is one of the most horrifying crimes existing today. Some of the earliest signs of trafficking in the UK in the 20th century were evident in the late-1980s in the triad-controlled brothels, principally in London and other major cities. In 2001, Der Spiegel and the German secret service estimated that the revenues of international criminal gangs involved in trafficking amounted to about €5 billion a year, of which two thirds was collected by Chinese gangs.
Various international organisations are involved, including UNICEF and Anti-Slavery International. By a curious coincidence, my housemaster at school was on the world board of the latter organisation, and I remember him telling us that slavery had not disappeared. In addition, the UN Office on Drugs and Crime is involved. All the organisations have been campaigning hard over the past few years to end human trafficking, particularly in women and children. However, their work is made harder by the frightening
486WH
lack of any comprehensive data on trafficking worldwide. The hon. Lady referred to problems, and I have seen similar figures to the ones she mentioned from the International Organisation for Migration, which suggests that around 700,000 people are involved. I have even seen a figure suggesting that 2 million women and children are trafficked in a single year.
The International Organisation for Migration observed that in most countries there are few statistics or efforts to measure trafficking, and Britain is no less culpable. As far as I know, the Home Office has no realistic, regular source of information on the number of women who are trafficked into the UK for the purposes of exploitation. An official was quoted in a recent report as saying that the illegal immigrant population was a "knowledge black hole".
In Britain, a Home Office seminar in 1999, entitled "Workers in health projects in London", estimated that 50 per cent. of those employed in London's brothels—
2.55 pm
Sitting suspended for a Division in the House.
3.7 pm
On resuming—
Mr. Brazier: An investigation by the Metropolitan police found that 76 per cent. of the Soho brothels searched were staffed by foreign prostitutes, principally from Albania and Lithuania. An estimated 80 per cent. of people trafficked from Albania are teenage girls under the age of 18. The trade has been estimated to be worth $7 billion a year.
Worldwide migrant smuggling and trafficking is worth an estimated $12 billion to $13 billion a year. The Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe believes that smuggling and trafficking has now replaced the drugs trade as the world's most profitable illegal industry. The Home Office echoed that view in the evidence that it gave to the Home Affairs Committee for its report on border controls.
At the risk of covering ground already mentioned, it is worth focusing on what we are discussing. Typically, gangs offer foreign girls passage to a fictitious legitimate job for a price to be paid off in a few months, but the bill, as the hon. Member for South Swindon described, is never paid off. There is evidence that girls, sometimes as young as 12, have gone missing from the care of social services in Britain after being released into the care of so-called relatives, who turn out to have false documentation. Organised gangs have complete power over their victims, who do not dare complain or run away for reasons that have already been discussed. Often, the induction process starts with violent, multiple rape until the girl's resistance has been completely broken.
Harriet Sergeant, the author and journalist, in more than one of her works describes areas of Albania where law and order has so completely broken down that parents are frightened to send their girls to school, because gangs hang around outside, seize girls, gang rape them and move them to a country of their choice.
3.10 pm
Sitting suspended for a Division in the House.
3.51 pm
On resuming—
Mr. Brazier: The hon. Member for Amber Valley (Judy Mallaber) referred to the internet as a further extension of this vile business and I underline everything that she said, except, oddly enough, her last comment. I was a little puzzled when she said that America was behind us on this. In fact, it seems that the FBI has been ahead of almost everyone else and has been to Parliament several times to brief groups of MPs.
Judy Mallaber: It has indeed. I was present when Ed the Fed came to a meeting, which was very interesting.
America is behind us in that our Internet Watch Foundation includes all internet service providers, payment companies and so on in this country. In America, hardly any of them are in that organisation. When our Internet Watch Foundation provides information, it is not necessarily dealt with.
In Operation Ore, we prosecuted or took action against almost all those who had downloaded material in this country, but the United States did not take action against many people, so, in some ways, it is well behind us. We are closing down sites hosted in this country, but a lot of material is coming in from the United States where action is not being taken to close sites.
Mr. Brazier: I am interested to hear that. Certainly, the United States is ahead on the investigative side, but it has a difficulty because of its federal structure. As in so many other areas, it is necessary to obtain co-operation between federal agencies and prosecuting authorities in individual states. That applies to a number of areas of organised crime there.
The truth is that the problem of people-trafficking is a symptom of the wider breakdown of immigration controls. Our failure in the west to cope with the challenges of people movements and the tens of millions of people who fly across the borders of all major western countries every year has created market opportunities for this revolting trade.
A UNHCR report in July 2000 on the trafficking and smuggling of refugees claimed that much of the existing policy making of European Governments is
"part of the problem and not the solution."
Here in Britain, successive Governments have, rightly, started to demand visas for visitors from more and more countries that are likely to be a source of illegal immigrants. However, as the changes in the paper arrangements have not always been buttressed with administrative measures to make them effective, they have all too often worked perversely simply to strengthen the position of criminal smugglers. In 2000, Migration News Sheet commented:
"Through their … short-sightedness and inclination to rush through emergency measures without reflecting on the consequences … EU states have helped to create the ingredients of a very lucrative form of international criminality which top Mafia bosses probably never even dreamed of, namely trafficking in human beings."
Besides the lack of proper monitoring I referred to earlier—the fact that we do not have a handle on the statistics we are dealing with—our borders and internal
488WH
enforcement procedures are undermanned. As MP for Canterbury, I frequently go through immigration at Dover, and I can see how overstretched immigration officers are. On the internal side, the same kind of triad and snakehead groups that run many of the prostitution rings for women and young girls were behind the Morecambe bay disaster, which was referred to earlier in the debate.
We know that, as long ago as June the previous year, the Home Office was warned about the way in which vulnerable migrants were being exploited by gangmasters in the area. The warning was not ignored but a clear decision was taken to do nothing. In a letter to the hon. Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Geraldine Smith), the Home Office said that the immigration service would not intervene due to "resource issues" and the fact that
"little useful purpose would have been served by sending officers to assist."
What else were officers doing that served a greater purpose?
So, what should we do? First, we need better intelligence. The Government are putting extra resources into the intelligence services, which we have welcomed. Some of the money should be used to deal with this issue. These are the same criminals who are involved in many other areas of crime, and even, I suspect, in terrorism. The National Criminal Intelligence Service needs to place more emphasis on the matter, too. We are dealing with a market as large as that of drugs.
We need to do more to defend our frontiers by considering manning issues, and to deal with those already operating here. If we can destroy the market, the trade will dry up. We must look again at the work permit system, which is widely believed to be open to abuse. A recent parliamentary question asked the Government to list the categories of people granted work permits due to the nature of their employment. The reply revealed that 1,160 entrants in one year alone were categorised as dancers, nearly all of whom were from developing countries. I wonder, when those things were rubberstamped—there is usually no check afterwards—what sort of jobs people thought those girls were going to end up doing.
Sandra Gidley: I am a little concerned about the hon. Gentleman's focus on work permits and immigration. It is clear in my mind that this is a separate problem. I appreciate his point about opening the floodgates, but many of these trafficking victims never get anywhere near a work permit. He is confusing the issue with illegal immigration, which should be identified as such and dealt with as such.
Mr. Brazier: I can only express total astonishment at the hon. Lady's remark. It is only because of the growth of illegal immigration that the gap in the market has opened for illegal gangs. The trade of smuggling people illegally into this country was started because wealthy people were paying to come here—that is how the gangs built their power bases. If that had not been possible, the whole problem would not have come about. I am not making a political point. That has happened and grown under Governments of different political persuasions.

489WH
Of course, the vast majority of people we are talking about do not have a work permit of any kind, but there are a number of examples other than the one I cited. A suspiciously large number of people are listed as fashion models, for example, and an even larger number are just described as working in the leisure industry. The Home Office has said that domestic employment is often open to abuse, which is another large category. Introducing more checks and controls into the work permit system would not solve the problem on its own, but it would make it harder for people to be brought into the country in that way.
We also need to consider whether the new legislation on trafficking, which is obviously welcome, is delivering the sentences that perpetrators deserve. It is too early to tell whether it is, but a few really tough exemplary sentences could make a big difference to the climate. I appreciate that the issue is cross-departmental and that this question is a fast ball—the Minister may want to reply in writing—but I would be most grateful if he could let me know what the guidelines are for the Crown Prosecution Service. Busy, overworked prosecutors must face a tremendous temptation to abandon complicated cases in which the witnesses are, almost by definition, people whose English is not very good. One can see immediately the 80 per cent. chance of success rule coming up. It is in the public interest that such cases should be pursued, even if many of the witnesses are extremely frightened of and nervous about testifying. If they are willing and brave enough to do so, they should have their day in court.
It would also be interesting to know whether the Lord Chief Justice has issued any guidelines on sentencing. The maximum of 14 years applies, but what sentences are judges actually encouraged to give?
Last but certainly not least, I come to the actual handling of the unfortunate women and girls. Amnesty International and other organisations have called for medical care, counselling and other forms of aid. An area that I have been heavily involved in during the past 10 to 15 years is the handling of rape victims, particularly child rape victims. Frankly, we have transformed the criminal justice system's handling of British rape victims. One can imagine how much worse is the plight of these girls. They have been raped not just once. They have had months—in some cases, even years—of their lives blotted out in the most horrible fashion imaginable, yet they do not appear to get a fraction of the treatment that a British rape victim would get.
On granting asylum in such cases, obviously, each case must be considered on its own merits, but I strongly suspect that, if granting asylum were ever to become a pattern, it could backfire and end up partially feeding the industry. I may be wrong on that. Italy has been quoted several times. It is a matter of public record that I have been part of the Italian criminal justice system. The police and legal authorities that handled my case acted with exemplary professionalism.
The Deputy Speaker who was in the Chair a moment ago knows from the last trip that he and I made to Kosovo how much the Italian carabinieri there have done in exposing such problems, but the fact is that the Italian system as a whole has not delivered solutions.
490WH
Italy is a country where prostitutes are more overtly on the streets than almost anywhere else I know in Europe. Ordinary Italian families talk widely about a range of problems to do with illegal immigration.
There can be no doubt that trafficking in women is a modern form of slavery and a horrible problem. It is part of a wider pattern of people smuggling, which is a lucrative industry that deserves and needs the same kind of focused treatment as is currently given to the drugs trade. People smugglers—often the same gangs—have introduced terrifying new levels of criminality into parts of Europe. The corruption and terror that they import into the UK and the destruction of the lives of innocent, vulnerable people are a blot on our society. We owe it to their victims to tackle the problem urgently.
4.4 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Bill Rammell): I genuinely congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for South Swindon (Ms Drown) on securing this debate. When one begins to consider in detail some of the occurrences and the appalling impact on so many women throughout the world, the conclusion has to be that the matter absolutely should be a priority for the Government, who certainly are tackling it.
I share my hon. Friend's abhorrence of the trafficking of women across international borders.The trafficking of women involves crimes such as rape, torture, sexual or labour exploitation, kidnap and psychological abuse. The victims rarely have any idea what lies in store for them.
I want to draw a distinction between human smuggling and human trafficking, as the two terms are often confused. Human smuggling happens when organised crime gangs facilitate the illegal entry of migrants into another country by means of clandestine passage or the use of false documentation. A fee is usually paid by the migrant, who is a willing participant in that arrangement, one that normally finishes on arrival in the country of destination.
Human trafficking is when organised gangs coerce, abduct, threaten or deceive migrants into travelling. Those migrants are then exploited in one or more ways after they reach their destination. Traffickers control their victims through intimidation, slavery and imprisonment. They often threaten the victims' family back home. Exploitation and coercion are the key differences between the two methods of illegal entry, but what is important is that what starts as smuggling often turns into trafficking along the way.
The scale of the problem has been identified by a number of contributors to the debate. Of the two, smuggling is more common than trafficking, but the clandestine nature of the crime makes it impossible to give an accurate figure on either smuggling or trafficking. Widely cited guesstimates for trafficking range from 600,000 to 900,000 victims worldwide each year. Of those, 30 per cent.—a shocking statistic—are thought to be minors. The United Nations has estimated that criminals earn up to $20 billion a year from trafficking. That meaningfully brings home the scale of the problem that we are facing.
What are the motives of those involved? Members may wonder how women become the victims of traffickers. Frequently, they are motivated by the wish

491WH
to escape from poverty. Inevitably many victims come from countries suffering from internal strife or where there is ineffective law and order. That makes them especially vulnerable to recruitment by traffickers. As well as those push factors there are pull factors, such as the demand for cheap and malleable labour in the developed countries and the victims' desire to find a better, more prosperous future in another country—I refer to those people who start out being smuggled and get coerced into being trafficked along the way.
In recent years, the turmoil in the Balkans has provided an unfortunate breeding ground for serious crimes such as human trafficking. That was referred to by a number of hon. Members. Many of those trafficked to the European Union originate in the Balkans. Those who come from further afield are often transported through the Balkans to their final destination. I am aware of the report by Amnesty International on the trafficking of women and young girls in Kosovo, to which my hon. Friend referred. I certainly welcome the recommendations in that report. Most of them reflect work already planned or being carried out by the UK, the European Union, the UN and NATO, which we will continue to support fully.
I now turn to what we are trying to do in this country and through this Government. We are committed to doing everything in our power to combat human trafficking. Our strategy encompasses a wide range of actions, including prevention in source and transit countries, co-operation with international partners, strengthening the law, tackling criminals through intelligence and enforcement operations, clamping down on illegal working and—this is an important point—helping the victims of trafficking.
To achieve our aims, we need good co-ordination across Departments, partnerships with businesses and NGOs and targeted international action. In 2000, Reflex, a practical, multi-agency task force, was set up to tackle all forms of people smuggling and trafficking. Led by the National Crime Squad, Reflex brings together all the key Government agencies that are involved in this work, including the immigration service, the Home Office, the National Criminal Intelligence Service, major police forces, the security intelligence agencies and the Foreign Office.
Reflex immediately set up a network of more than 20 immigration and liaison officers, mainly in Europe, to work with other Governments to disrupt and dismantle gangs. If we are to tackle the problem successfully, there must be that degree of international co-ordination. Joint operational units have also been set up at Heathrow and Gatwick, where immigration service officers work alongside police officers.
I deal now with the situation of the victims. It is particularly important that in our efforts to disrupt and dismantle the organised crime groups involved in trafficking we do not forget who the real victims of that appalling crime are. The UK Government are committed to supporting and protecting genuine victims of trafficking who are vulnerable. We have taken steps to provide support to such victims when they are identified. To help with their identification, an online toolkit aimed at law enforcement officials was developed to increase awareness and understanding of trafficking. In 2003, the so-called Poppy scheme was set up by the Home Office to provide safe accommodation and
492WH
support for women who have been trafficked into the UK for the purposes of prostitution. Its core functions are to act as an advice and information point, to offer a range of support services through a casework approach and to facilitate the voluntary return of victims to their country of origin.
We have also enacted legislation, to which a number of Members have referred, to criminalise trafficking for the first time. The Sexual Offences Act 2003 and the Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants, etc.) Act 2004 include tough maximum penalties of 14 years for new, wide-ranging offences covering trafficking into, out of or within the United Kingdom. That measure was long overdue. The Acts include penalties for trafficking for forced labour or for the removal of organs, as well as for sexual exploitation. Overseas, we are working to build capacity in source countries.
Mr. Brazier: Will the Minister confirm that he will write to me about the cases prosecuted under the Crown Prosecution Service guidelines?
Mr. Rammell: I was going to refer to the hon. Gentleman's comments later. That is another Department's area of responsibility, but I will happily respond to him in writing.
Overseas, we are working to build capacity in source countries so that they can fight trafficking. For example, the Home Office is leading a European Union-funded twinning project with the Czech Ministry of the Interior to strengthen the capacity of the Czech Republic to combat trafficking. Anti-trafficking projects have also been funded in the western Balkans and in Poland. In Bosnia, we have a number of projects and secondments to help tackle the large-scale problem of corruption.
The Department for International Development has funded a range of projects specifically aimed at tackling prostitution and the trafficking of women and children. In south-east Asia, for example, DFID is contributing £8 million over a nine-year period to the Greater Mekong regional trafficking project—an International Labour Organisation-led project aimed at reducing trafficking and the labour exploitation of women and children in Cambodia, China, Laos, Thailand and Vietnam. Through its £15 million partnership framework agreement with the ILO, DFID is funding further anti-trafficking programmes in south-east Asia and west Africa.
I am pleased to say that the Foreign and Commonwealth Office plays a key role in tackling human trafficking. With the help of our diplomatic missions overseas, we contribute to the work of Reflex by raising awareness of the dangers of trafficking among potential victims and host-country authorities, and by reporting on local trends. We use our political and diplomatic knowledge and contacts to encourage foreign partners to increase their efforts to combat the crime. The FCO has also funded a range of projects, including an anti-trafficking witness protection and support project in Albania and a study on the role of women in the Albanian police force. We have provided equipment for the anti-human trafficking and sexual offences unit in Bosnia and funded two Serbian police officers' attendance at an Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe conference in Vienna on human trafficking.

493WH
My hon. Friend the Member for South Swindon asked whether there were any projects in train under the auspices of the FCO global opportunities fund. There are. Last year, it funded a project to counter child trafficking in Mali, and it is currently funding a project in Bulgaria to help tackle the organised crime groups involved in the smuggling of illegal contraband. Many of those groups are also involved in human trafficking.
I now turn to multilateral assistance. The UK also works to combat human trafficking through international organisations such as the European Union, the OSCE, the Council of Europe, NATO, the International Organisation for Migration and the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime. Many of those organisations fund their own projects on human trafficking.
Through the European Council's 2002 framework decision on combating trafficking in human beings, the EU called on Governments across the world to take concrete measures and to intensify co-operation aimed at prevention through to victim assistance. Last December, the OSCE put in place an action plan to combat trafficking in human beings. The plan aims to address the problem comprehensively, including prevention, prosecution of criminals, international assistance and the protection of victims. A special representative, Helga Konrad, now heads a special unit within the OSCE, which is a welcome development.
For the first time in its history, NATO adopted a policy on combating trafficking in human beings at the NATO Istanbul summit in June. The policy requires specific action to be taken, such as developing training programmes for contributing countries. We strongly welcome that initiative, especially given the problems that have occurred during peacekeeping operations.
International conventions can certainly help, too. The Government have ratified the key instruments that outlaw slavery, such as the international covenant on civil and political rights, the European convention on human rights, the United Nations slavery convention and the International Labour Organisation conventions 29 and 105 on forced labour. We continue to promote their widest possible ratification and implementation, a task that we shall continue to push forward vigorously.
The United Nations convention against transnational organised crime came into force in September 2003. Two of the three protocols associated with it have also come into force. While the United Kingdom has signed the convention and its protocols, there still remains some primary legislation to be put in place before the UK can go ahead with ratification. That will be done as soon as parliamentary time allows. I have a strong message on that point: we need to focus on such matters and take them forward. I shall ensure that the business managers take that on board and, we hope, obtain parliamentary time for such action to take place.
We are also actively participating in the negotiations on the draft Council of Europe convention against trafficking in human beings. We welcome the involvement of NGOs, such as Amnesty International and Anti-Slavery International on what should be included in the convention, and have taken on board a number of their views.
494WH
My hon. Friend asked about the care of, and support for, victims of trafficking, which is a key issue. While the Government are committed to supporting and protecting vulnerable victims of trafficking, that must be balanced with the need to make sure that support is effectively targeted and not stretched to the point where it is of little use to those who are most in need. If we are to prevent existing victims from being re-trafficked and new victims from being ensnared, it is vital that we gather intelligence on traffickers and their activities. Victims can play an important role in the defence against trafficking.
My hon. Friend suggested that a minimum period of three months should be agreed throughout Europe for the recovery of victims. Of course we accept that victims need to recover from their ordeal. Indeed, the Home Office-funded Poppy scheme to which I referred earlier supports victims of trafficking who have been forced into the vice trade while they decide whether or not they wish to assist the authorities in investigating the traffickers. We will continue to provide support, care and assistance for victims and will look at granting recovery and reflection periods on a case-by-case basis.
However, it would be difficult for us to proceed with instituting the three-month guarantee on a uniform basis. Were we to do so, there would be a danger that we would almost create a market for traffickers because a pull factor would be established. Nevertheless, we immediately give periods of four weeks, so that victims can decide what to do, and up to 16 weeks if they help the information unit. That is all judged on a case-by-case basis and we take such action because it is essential that we have co-operation from victims to obtain intelligence to capture the traffickers so that we can make a real impact on the trade.
My hon. Friend also asked how often such issues are raised at an international level. As I said earlier, they are raised at every available opportunity through the OSCE, NATO and the European Union. We are particularly active in the OSCE and NATO. Our aim is to agree a draft convention that balances the provision of care for, and the protection of, victims of trafficking with effective immigration controls and the gathering of intelligence to disrupt trafficking and to prosecute those responsible.
My hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley (Judy Mallaber) referred to child porn on the internet. That is a key worry and we have been active in tackling such matters. We pushed the issue very strongly through the G8, which is now setting up a 24/7 network of law enforcement officials throughout the world. Through the Foreign Office, we also funded the Wilton Park conference, which took place last month and in which 31 countries participated, and a chat monitor software and training programme that involved 14 countries. Training in Bangkok for law enforcement officials from 12 south-east Asian countries is due to take to place in February 2005. That is an important initiative.
Let me also refer to some of the other points that have been raised in this debate. The hon. Member for Romsey (Sandra Gidley) referred to the difficulty involved in establishing reliable statistics. To be blunt, it is difficult to establish reliable statistics and there are a number of reasons for that. Despite the clear definitions of trafficking and smuggling in the supplementary protocol to the UN convention against transnational

495WH
organised crime, there are still some grey areas. As I said earlier, it is common for people to begin their journeys voluntarily in order to seek a better life. They believe that the gangs assisting them are merely facilitating that journey. It is only when they arrive in the destination country that methods such as prostitution or forced labour are used to force them into jobs that the gangs want them to carry out. It is therefore very difficult to determine exactly where along the route someone becomes a trafficked person as opposed to someone who is being smuggled. Establishing the true statistics is very difficult.
The hon. Lady also said that we should look to what is happening in Italy, although the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) had an alternative view. We work closely with Italy and other EU countries and regularly exchange best practice, which is important.
The hon. Lady also raised the issue of what we are doing to ensure that UK peacekeepers do not engage in activities associated with human trafficking. Let me be clear: all members of the UK armed forces are bound by codes of conduct that set out the standard of behaviour expected of them. They are made fully aware of those codes prior to being deployed on operations. They also receive regular diversity training, which includes training in gender awareness. As part of their pre-deployment training, personnel posted abroad receive instruction on the customs and culture of the host country, including, where relevant, the cultural status of women. This is an issue that we are rightly concerned about, although, as I said earlier, I would not want to create the wrong impression: the vast majority of our armed forces are people who do an extraordinarily difficult job very well and would never in a million years have anything to do with crimes such as these.
Sandra Gidley: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Rammell: How long is there until we must finish?
Mr. Derek Conway (in the Chair): There is one minute left.
Mr. Rammell: Then I apologise to the hon. Member for Romsey, but I cannot give way.
The hon. Member for Canterbury raised the issue of work permits. I am not convinced about the arguments that he made. Most important, people have to apply for the work permit, so I am not sure that the case he was making is valid. However, if he has evidence, we would certainly consider it.
We will continue to do everything in our power to tackle trafficking in women. To achieve that, we need a multi-agency—
Mr. Derek Conway (in the Chair): Order. I am sorry to interrupt the Minister. It has been a difficult afternoon thanks to the Divisions, but I am afraid that his time is up.

School Sport
4.23 pm
Mr. Andy Reed: I appreciate that this has been a difficult afternoon in terms of the timing and I am grateful for the opportunity to raise this important subject. Why have the debate today? Over the past couple of years, I have wanted to raise the profile of sport and of physical education and activity, as well as the role that they can play not just in schools but right across society in tackling many problems, such as increasing obesity and social exclusion, and in respect of the health agenda. All those things are important.
I hope that this afternoon, a couple of years into the Government's programme to increase participation in school sports, we will hear from the Minister how it is going and what more we can do to encourage even more participation, and that we can talk about some issues that hold us back in this country.
I have to admit that when one or two hon. Members saw my name on the Order Paper again this week and knew that there would be another debate on sport, a few groans went up. It is important to recognise that a number of our colleagues in this place do not enjoy sport and particularly did not enjoy school sport. Looking around the Chamber, I can see that there are no Members present who had that experience.
We must recognise that sometimes we tend to talk among ourselves. Those who are passionate about sport feel that it has great benefit, but there are many who have had poor experiences. Perhaps they were the last ones to be picked underneath the rugby posts or the goalposts at school, or they were forced to do cross-country on a miserable, wet Wednesday afternoon. I have to admit that, as a sprinter, I never really appreciated the need to do cross-country, but it is part of school sport.
I want to ensure that this debate on school sport links in with others that I have secured, as well as those that I hope to secure, so that we have a co-ordinated approach to the delivery of sport. I would like to encourage mass participation through the school system to drive this agenda forward. We need to ensure that the school sports co-ordinators link in ably with the local clubs through the national governing bodies such as UK Sport, Sport England and Sports Coach UK. All those organisations can ensure that there is talent identification, and the elite performance directors can ensure that across the country individuals who have potential fulfil it.
I am lucky in my Loughborough constituency to have one of the regional hubs of the English Institute of Sport. We were very glad to have 43 constituents at the Olympics. Unfortunately, only two came back with medals. My heart still goes out to Paula Radcliffe, who put so much effort into her performance. She had come through the school system, benefited from lottery funding and reached the elite level. Her story demonstrates how difficult it is to achieve at that level.
It is important that if individuals and Members such as me have a passion for this issue, we keep it high on our radar, but also on that of the Government. We must not let it slip. There was some welcome news over the

497WH
summer in response to what was happening in Athens. Some myths had been going around that Governments have not been in favour of competitive school sport, so it was good to see Ministers outlining the situation clearly. I was pleased to see an answer from the Minister only this week:
"The Government are firmly in favour of competitive school sport."—[Official Report, 13 September 2004; Vol. 424, c. 1445W.]
"Hear, hear!" say I, along with the many others who want to see our country and the nation as a whole doing well at school sport. That can be translated into a lifelong love of sport, and then to people participating at an elite level.
We must remind ourselves how badly we were doing as a country just a decade ago in terms of school sport. Looking around the Chamber, I see a generation of people who experienced the teachers' strikes in the early 1980s, at which point the emphasis changed. Teachers' relationship with school sport turned everything on its head so that there has been a 20-year gap. I know from my experience at the rugby club where I play every weekend—I am still one of the younger players, although I shall be 40 this Friday—that there has been a generational gap among those coming through the school system. It is now dependent on the clubs to reinvest, which clearly demonstrates the need for the school-club link in the future.
I am pleased that the Government have committed substantial sums of money to school sport, including the £459 million going into the school sport partnership programme. Nearly £700 million is going into facilities. I want to talk separately about those two, which are both important in their own right as they highlight the issues that we need to tackle.
I referred earlier to some of my colleagues not having a love of sport, which unfortunately translates across to school level. That was demonstrated only too clearly in the slightly outdated report "Sport Uncovered", produced by Adidas in 1999-2000. Nike has also conducted research on women's and girls' participation in sport. One of the problems is that it still seems really uncool, and some comments from youngsters illustrated the problems that we have. Many teachers who have stuck at teaching some form of physical education in school deserve credit for what they have done because their work has been carried out almost on a volunteer basis. We depend on those people. If it was not for them—I have been looking at comments over the past year or so from youngsters who have drifted away from sport—we would be in even greater difficulty.
However, because we are investing money in the school sports co-ordinators, the partnerships and the other little programmes, the balance is starting to shift. I was pleased to see in the Ofsted report earlier this year that the quality of the teaching of physical education and sport in schools is improving. However, there is still a long way to go. The Government's target that 75 per cent. of children should have two hours a week of high-quality physical education in school by 2006 still means that by then one in four children will not be getting what I consider the absolute minimum requirement.
The big debate has been over the two hours—whether it should be within or without the curriculum. I can live with it being outside the curriculum, but I would prefer
498WH
it if the two hours were a definite that were tied into it, in the same way that we have the literacy and numeracy hours. Physical education and physical activity from five to 16 are that important.
I was delighted to see that 50 per cent. of schools are now into the,school partnerships. Having an elite university in my constituency, with a sports specialist college—Burleigh—right next door, including its partnership and the group of schools around it, I can see how it all works. Sports co-ordinators are making a difference bit by bit. For example, we were pleased that two or three years ago, two children from Burleigh won the national tennis competition. For the first time, a non-private school won it. Strangely enough, a number of private schools then tried to recruit those two individuals. That shows that—given the right coaching, facilities, backing and opportunities—anybody can achieve a great deal.
Mr. Paul Truswell: I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this latest in a series of debates on sport. I come to the debate not only as an MP but as an avid sports lover and a parent of two boys who both play cricket at county level for Yorkshire, one of whom is also an international badminton player. Given that that is a personal and exhausting perspective, does my hon. Friend accept my contention that young people—irrespective of their age, ability or gender—need to be brought into contact with dynamic and enthusiastic coaches across the widest possible range of sports? They are the ones who can enthuse young people, point them towards clubs and facilities, and, importantly, help to engage the parents. Does he agree that schools are the best way of doing that?
Mr. Reed: I am grateful for that intervention, because it ties into what I have been trying to say. There is a twin-track approach to this matter. It is important to get the facilities right, so that the best ones are available across the range of sports. However, even before Loughborough university got the new 50m pool, swimmers were coming from around the world to be based there because of the quality of the coaches and because of their enthusiasm. We had a horrible 1950s swimming pool, but those people still came.
I learned to play volleyball simply because of the enthusiasm of a teacher who had played it at international level and gave lessons after school on a Thursday to those who were keen to take part. The enthusiasm of that individual brought me into a sport that otherwise was not available. Every now and then I still manage to get out there and do a bit of setting; it would be good to play a little more. I will try to get a parliamentary side together, as that is one of the few teams that we do not have in this House. I am pleased to say that the English Volleyball Association is now based in my constituency and we are trying to get the national governing bodies in as well.
It is crucial that we get the two things that I mentioned right. That comes through in the report. It is quite clear that if teachers, or coaches who are brought in from the national governing bodies through the school-club links, demonstrate that level of enthusiasm to individuals, they will participate. The facilities are also necessary. Part of the problem is that our experience is

499WH
of dirty, dingy areas. If we want children to stay after school hours, particularly when it is dark, we need well-lit areas.
What people want to do in terms of school sport is another issue. In most places, during the winter, boys do football or rugby and girls probably do hockey. During the summer there is a choice of cricket, athletics or netball, and a bit of rounders. The research shows that the reality these days is that lots of boys and girls want a much wider range of activities, and the media expose them—especially the girls—to many more sports. Football is the fastest-growing girls' sport, yet only 22 per cent. of them get exposed to girls' football at school. They also want to do basketball. That seems to be a growing area in which people, particularly girls, want to do a bit more.
There is much work to do in broadening the experience. It would be impossible in an average-sized primary or secondary school to obtain such a wide range of experience in the teaching staff, which is why that club-school link is vital. A co-ordinated approach means not only local clubs in sports such as basketball but local professional clubs. In Leicestershire, Leicester Tigers, Leicester City football club, Leicester Riders basketball team and the county cricket side do an excellent job to ensure that their talented players, including some academy members and some superstars, go into schools.
One of the greatest things after the Olympics was seeing Kelly Holmes returning to her school, taking a lesson and seeing the enthusiasm on the children's faces for having a go at athletics. That is vital, and it is why we must have enthusiastic teachers and coaches as well as club links in place. We must also ensure, particularly for girls, that children have sporting heroes to look up to and emulate. There are very few role models—people they would look up to and want to be like—for girls.
Research among girl footballers showed that they wanted to be like David Beckham. Would it not be great if they were able to name the captain of the women's football team? There is a great opportunity for enthusiasm to grow when we host the women's European championship next year. That is important, because sport is a good thing and we now have the obesity time bomb. For the first time in a generation, our life expectancy could be reducing instead of increasing. Some 20 per cent. of children are obese, and we must tackle that through physical education, nutritional and dietary requirements at school, and encouraging people to eat and live sensibly. We have them captured at school.
I know from my son's experience that a bit of tennis and physical activity—footie does not tire him out quite enough, but we can work on that—gives him an opportunity to do a variety of sports with his classmates, yet all the figures show that unfortunately we are still at the bottom of all international tables. We are still at the bottom when it comes to people participating in intensive, regular, competitive or organised sport at school. The UK is top of one league table, as 29 per cent. of us are involved in intensive, irregular competitive or organised sports.
500WH
The way we can achieve our targets is to try to involve not only the Department for Education and Skills. I am pleased to see the Minister in the Chamber and I would like to hear what further measures there are to ensure a co-ordinated approach.
Indeed, sport is not the only winner. As the report produced by, among others, the Rugby Football Union, the Lawn Tennis Association, UK Athletics and the Central Council for Physical Recreation and entitled "Everybody Wins: Social Inclusion and Sport" makes clear, with crime reduction and health improvements, every Department wins from sport. The individuals who have benefited from their involvement in school sport go on, not necessarily to win gold medals but to participate throughout their life perhaps to veteran level. We must ensure that children have positive role models to look up to. There is lots of scope for them to get involved, and we must assist teachers and volunteers from clubs when they are trying their hardest.
When I became chair of East Midlands Sport, I was bamboozled by the number of initiatives in sport, not necessarily from the Department, but from Sport England and all those other organisations. I wonder whether we can work through that. If we consider athletics, for example, it is difficult to see who is running what and who is responsible for what. In schools, we have the Youth Sport Trust, the National Council for School Sport, school sports co-ordinators supported by Sport England and the new talented athlete scholarship scheme. I wonder whether it is possible to co-ordinate them to ensure that the basics of school sport are put higher up the agenda.
I am pleased to see a number of professional sports doing their bit. Even for older sportspeople such as ourselves in this place, if there is an international attending an event we are willing to get involved. We played a game of rugby at Twickenham two weeks ago. I find it difficult sometimes to get Members of Parliament to play in our rugby games, but give us the opportunity to run out on to the turf at Twickenham, which was hosting the Saracens and Wasps game, in front of 51,000 people and we do it. At school level, bringing in professional footballers, local cricket and rugby heroes, hockey players or others who are known locally makes an enormous difference; it comes back to the idea of having positive role models for individuals to look up to.
On the gender issue, people used to say to girls, "You don't have to worry about exercise if you are not overweight; you'll end up looking like Arnold Schwarzenegger." We will not go into that, but many such comments show that people are fearful, not just slightly ambivalent, about getting involved in sport. There is a lot of work to be done.
A 13-year-old boy from Birmingham—not my five-year-old son from Loughborough—said:
"Sport gets you going for a good life, or else you could be fat like my dad."
That sums it up. Sport gets people going for life and gives them the opportunity to take it forward. They may want to join a local club and run at local level for the rest of their lives and go no further. Nevertheless, school sport is the foundation for all other sport in this country. If we are to succeed with the 2012 Olympics, we must start ensuring that 100 per cent. of our children get at least two hours a week of it now, not later.
4.41 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Skills (Mr. Stephen Twigg): First, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough (Mr. Reed) on securing this important debate. I feel the need to place it on the record, in the light of his opening remarks, that I was one of those who was among the last to be chosen at school sport. I still bear the scars. However, even after that experience, I acknowledge the great importance of physical education and sport. My hon. Friend has powerfully placed on the record the case for those things and their importance. I congratulate him—on behalf of everyone in the Chamber, I am sure—on his birthday this Friday.
There is a real determination, which is shared throughout the House, to increase participation in school sport and ensure that opportunities are provided. The two hours a week is a minimum, but we want to see schools achieving it sooner rather than later. The national strategy on school sport is about turning that ambition, on which my hon. Friend spoke so eloquently, into a reality in schools and communities across the country. It is worth recognising that this strategy follows years of decline and underfunding as well as a lack of focus on physical education and sport in our schools, including, as he rightly reminded the House, the central role of competitive sports. I am pleased to have the opportunity to place clearly on the parliamentary record what was said over the summer, to which he referred.
We have an ambitious public service agreement target to increase the proportion of five to 16-year-olds who spend at least two hours a week on PE and school sport to 75 per cent. by 2006 and 85 per cent. by 2008. We want all children to be given the opportunity to take up that entitlement. Physical education and sport have a crucial part to play in so many different respects, very much for the reasons that my hon. Friend set out and not least in helping to secure and promote the health of our nation. Last week, we published the healthy living blueprint, which brings together our Department and the Department of Health to address a range of issues, including food in schools, what is taught in the curriculum and, importantly, physical education, sport and physical activity. The more we can break down barriers between the different elements in schools, as well as between different Departments, the more likely we are to be successful.
My hon. Friend spoke about the impact of the strategy. We have the school sport partnerships, to which he referred. Around half the schools in England are already part of the network of 313 partnerships, and pupils are benefiting from them. Alongside those schemes we are creating a network of sports specialist colleges—an important part of the specialist schools movement—which provide enhanced quality facilities, as well as learning and teaching in schools, and, importantly, act as a hub for other schools, including primary and special schools in the local community.
That is very much about sharing best practice, organising activities—including competitions—and building and strengthening subject leadership. That is particularly true in the primary sector, because the earlier we get it right, the more likely it is that we will get
502WH
all the benefits, including an enthusiasm for sport and the health and broader educational benefits to which my hon. Friend referred.
An important component is to achieve professional development for all schools to access, and I am pleased to say that Leicestershire helped us to pilot the programme last year. Thousands of teachers are already benefiting from the programme. It is in part about strengthening the links between schools and clubs, and offering—through, for example, the step into sport programme—leadership and volunteering opportunities for young people. The national sport strategy is investing over £8 million and working with the 22 national governing bodies of sport to enhance club links and bring more coaches into schools.
We are starting to see the benefits of the programme, and my hon. Friend referred to some of them. The latest evidence is that, in schools taking part in the partnership programmes, 62 per cent. of pupils are spending at least two hours in a typical week on high-quality physical education and school sport. We are on course to deliver the 2006 target, but I recognise his point that we need to aspire to go beyond it. We need to achieve the target, but if we can go beyond it, so much the better.
That is remarkable progress, if we compare the position with what was happening in those schools in partnership just three years ago. On average, 68 per cent. of pupils do two hours of sport each week in the schools that have been part of a partnership for three years, compared with only half—52 per cent.—in schools that joined the partnerships in September 2003. That is a remarkable 16 percentage point difference. We want to build on that.
The survey also showed that 96 per cent. of schools hold a sports day, so there is an important element of competitive sports. Just over one in five pupils take part in intra-school sports competitions, and one in three took part in such competitions within their own schools—that is, in inter-school sports competitions—during the last academic year.
We also found that almost one in 10 pupils in years 10 to 13—the upper years of secondary school—from the partnership schools are actively involved in sports, leadership and volunteering—for example, participating in work in primary schools and sports clubs. One in five in years 2 to 11 are participating in clubs linked to schools. That is progress, but clearly we need to build on it if we are to ensure that the programme makes a sustained difference in the long term. There is no room for complacency; we need to consolidate what has been achieved, press on and do more. In particular, as my hon. Friend said, we must do more to widen participation among all parts of the community. For example, we need to encourage our youngest children in schools and we have to get more girls, pupils from ethnic minorities and those with special needs to take up their entitlement to physical education and sport.
On facilities, the national schools sport strategy is investing in the people and tools needed to transform physical education and increase participation. In the five-year strategy for children and learners set out by the Secretary of State in July, we said that one of our key secondary reforms was a commitment to refurbish or

503WH
rebuild every secondary school to a modern standard over the next 10 to 15 years through the building schools for the future programme.
Mr. Reed: I am delighted that we have some fantastic facilities—when I look around the school where I regularly play rugby, I see that it has what is required—but they are not used for much of the time. There seems to be general agreement that not enough school facilities are used 24/7, although there appears to be no further progress. Will the Minister take that on board and ensure that we start to use all those facilities 24/7?
Mr. Twigg: That is absolutely right. My hon. Friend asks an important question that has relevance for sports facilities for young people, as well as sport and other facilities for the whole community. The sense of the school being the hub of the community is an important component of the policy, both as part of the building schools for the future programme and, more broadly, as part of the idea of opening up and extending school facilities. That has relevance in rural as well as urban areas, and we can pursue it further in debates here and in the main Chamber of the House.
We are supporting capital investment for school buildings at around £4.5 billion this year. That is a very considerable increase compared with the position we inherited in 1997—a sevenfold increase in the schools capital budget. It will rise to £5 billion next year.
My hon. Friend referred to the money that is going to particular programmes—for example, space for sport and the arts and the new opportunities for PE and sport lottery programme—to bring about a step improvement in school sports facilities across the country. More than 3,000 schools will benefit directly, and as the new facilities need to be opened up and shared with other
504WH
schools and the wider community, I am confident that many more schools will benefit from this. As part of that, Leicestershire has funding of about £3.5 million and nine projects have already been awarded grants and given the green light to start work.
My hon. Friend referred to the success of Burleigh school in winning the tennis competition. I join him in congratulating it on that and, more broadly, in welcoming the work that is going on through the Burleigh school sport partnership in Loughborough. I want to put on the record thanks to Adele Hickling, the partnership development manager, for the excellent work that is going on. Already, 57 per cent.of pupils in that partnership are able to take up their two-hour entitlement, and I know that it is working very hard to build on and improve that.
An above-average number of pupils are involved in competitive school sport there, and all the schools hold a sports day with a massive 19 per cent.—one in five—of year 11 pupils across the partnership taking part in leadership and volunteering. Some really good work is going on, in particular to include children with special needs and disabilities. In response to my hon. Friend, I say that that example is exactly the kind of best practice that we want to share.
I welcome the opportunity that a debate such as this, however short, gives for some of these things to be put on the record. What is critical now is that we—as a Government, in Parliament and more broadly—learn the lessons from those examples of good practice so that they become typical rather than exceptional beacons to which we can refer in debate. We want them to become the good practice of all our schools so that it can be shared and so that all children and young people get the entitlement to physical and sports education that I think everyone in the House agrees they deserve.

Education Provision (Southend)
4.53 pm
Mr. David Amess: Mr. Conway, this may be a sad day for democracy and security, but the fact that we are discussing education, and education in Southend, is timely. However strongly we feel about issues, the attempt today to halt proceedings was a very sad action indeed.
I am very grateful that the Minister for School Standards is responding to this debate as it was not so long ago that I was part of a delegation to meet him. This is not an opportunity to criticise or berate the Government for what they have done in terms of education. All parents in Southend are very grateful for any assistance that the Labour Government give to our schools and that the Conservative council in Southend also gives to our children.
Southend used to be a very popular seaside resort, but times have changed and many people now travel abroad. The local authority has desperately looked for a new outlet in activities in Southend and, sensibly, it has been decided to try to make Southend a centre of learning. That is not easy to achieve, but I congratulate all those who have worked in partnership to make it happen.
South East Essex college of arts and technology is working with the university of Essex to enable young people to benefit from higher education. They have signed a joint venture agreement and have embarked on a unique partnership. The vision is for the joint development of an integrated further and higher education campus offering progression opportunities for young people and adults.
The college has recently relocated to its splendid new building in Luker road in the heart of Southend. The building forms the first phase of the campus and houses most of the college's further education and all its higher education provision. I hope that the appropriate Minister can visit our new campus. Everyone in the town is excited about it and the opportunities it affords. There will be a strong vocational focus in an exciting and innovative flagship building. The college, in partnership with the university, is helping to raise aspirations and skill levels in an area that, traditionally and unfortunately, has low rates both of staying on post-16 and of participation in higher education. The project fits in extremely well with all the aspirations of the Thames gateway.
The Minister has probably heard many Members of Parliament praise local examination results, and I intend to follow that example. I give the credit entirely to the children who have achieved those results, to their teachers and to their parents. Also, I want to touch briefly on the relationship between grammar schools and comprehensive schools in Southend and the impact it has on the results. As the Minister will know, we have four grammar schools in Southend. We are very proud of them. We know that the Labour party has pledged not to abolish them so we will be working with the secondary schools that we have in Southend at present.
Westcliff high school for boys was ranked among the top 50 schools in England and Wales, based on this summer's A-level results. We also saw excellent A-level
506WH
results from Westcliff high school for girls, Southend high school for boys, Southend high school for girls and St. Thomas More high school for boys. I am pleased to tell the Minister that the percentage of pupils attending schools in Southend who achieve five or more A* to C passes at GCSE is above the national average. The percentage has risen from nearly 57 per cent. last year to nearly 60 per cent. this year. The national average is about 53 per cent.
Westcliff high school for girls, which one of my daughters attends, had a pass rate of 100 per cent. Southend high school for girls, which another of my daughters attends, had a pass rate of 99 per cent. Westcliff high school for boys had a pass rate of 98 per cent and Southend high school for boys had a pass rate of 96 per cent. As a Catholic, I was pleased to see the two Catholic schools—St. Bernard's, which is wonderfully led by Miss Vicky Squirrell, and St. Thomas More, wonderfully led by Frank Keenan—do so well. The Eastwood school also did splendidly. I congratulate all those involved.
Much as I praise all those schools, Prittlewell school and Belfairs school in my constituency are equally important. I do not want to use the short time that is available to go into the detail of what has happened at Prittlewell school. I simply put on record the fact that it has been a splendid school, given all the challenges it has faced. I am sorry that as a result of the Ofsted report it is now under special measures, something that I never thought would happen while I was the local MP. I was totally unaware that this was happening. We have support from the Minister's Department, but once a school is labelled as having difficulties it often takes a generation to turn it around. I will not shut up about Prittlewell school: I want to ensure that normal education provision is returned as soon as possible because I cannot believe that in just a year something has somehow gone terribly wrong there.
The final school, Belfairs, is magnificently led by John Duprey. I have had the privilege of attending many events at that school. The headmaster is very proud of all that has happened there, but he is concerned about the impact that the activities of other schools are having on his school. Obviously the grammar schools take a number of children who are not from Southend. However, the number of children from disadvantaged backgrounds is significantly higher at a school like his and the number of asylum cases and those from economic migrant families is higher at his school, and that type of population is, by character, fairly mobile. The Government have said that such pupils must be included in schools and they feel very strongly about that. However, such a change has absolutely no impact on the grammar schools, as the youngsters who are to be included are invariably not sufficiently able to go to grammar schools.
I would never support the abolition of grammar schools in Southend. We must live with the way things are at the moment. I feel very strongly that Belfairs' magnificent achievements should be recognised in a different way, not merely in terms of the tables as printed. As the Minister knows, Belfairs has a wonderful drama facility and other areas of excellence, but in its academic achievements it is seen not to be doing as well as the grammar schools. I will support Belfairs school to

507WH
the end; it has a magnificent staff, and it is a bit tough on them when the results are printed and Belfairs appears not to be doing as well as the other schools.
I have decided not to name the heads of secondary schools who have given me various pointers that I shall use in this debate. However, the head of one secondary school in Southend feels that channelling money to disadvantaged schools is unlikely to produce the effects that the Government want. He believes that the reverse will happen because learning is difficult; it comes from sustained and deliberate application over time and it is the product of patience and resolution. Learning is not amenable to a quick fix; neither can it be equated with having access to a computer. I have strong views on computers: I agree with the headmaster that information and communications technology by itself cannot usher in an age of higher standards. The head feels that the problem is
"a poverty in home life and in conversation, in reading, which many cannot do, in understanding the cultural and historic roots of our society, in seeing the significance of the principle of personal responsibility and in recognizing that the puritan ethic ought be a source of continuing vitality in our affairs."
The head also believes that the Government have not understood the distinction between education and training, which he feels will eventually have an adverse effect on the work force. The Government have always talked about "education, education, education", but that headmaster believes that there has been too much bureaucracy, bureaucracy, bureaucracy.
Several heads have complained about the cost of examinations, especially of modular A-levels, vocational examinations and so on. I hope that the Minister will say how funds will be given to the schools to sustain the cost of examinations.
My party feels strongly about parental choice. When the Government introduced the School Standards and Framework Act 1998, infant school class sizes were restricted to 30. In the tiny urban area that I represent, there is no space in the playground to build extra classes, and restricting class sizes to 30 has had an adverse impact on parents' choice of school. Once upon a time, you could go along to a teacher—they were all paid the same amount—and say, "Do you mind taking an extra one or two?" Schools cannot do that now, so primary schools such as West Leigh, Leigh North Street and Chalkwell have been turning parents away, literally in droves. Will the Minister comment on that?
The meeting that we had with the Minister was about budgets. I have to tell him that schools in Southend have muddled through with their budgets, but there are staffing restrictions, even with transitional grants. I am advised that the money is simply not enough, and next year the grant goes down by 50 per cent. I fear that schools will be in trouble again, although I hope that the Minister will be able to reassure me on that point.
A number of head teachers have raised concerns with me about funding generally, and work force reform in particular, which is an issue for both primary and secondary schools. Schools in Southend are very worried about how they will pay for those activities that were formerly performed by teaching staff, but that will now have to be performed by non-teaching staff. As I understand it so far, the Government have not yet, indicated how funding will be passed on to the schools.
508WH
Although it is laudable that the Government insist on non-teaching staff doing things formerly done by teachers, will that work force reform be fully funded?
Another head teacher wanted to share with me her concerns about pay, recruitment and the retention of staff generally. It is an issue in Southend. I do not know whether it is because we are at the end of the line, but we are currently finding it rather difficult to attract head teachers in particular, which is very surprising and disappointing. When vacancies are advertised, there is a small selection of replies. Head teachers feel concerned about funding for the upper pay scales. There appears to be a huge constraint on budgets for schools with established and experienced staff—I am sure that that is not the first time the Minister has heard that.
The transition from a local education department to a directorate of children's services, which is currently happening in Southend, has financial implications. The time scale and process seem unclear, and coupled with the loss of staff in the local education authority it has removed support from schools. During the same period, the local education authority is being further stretched by the secondary school that I mentioned—Prittlewell—going into special measures. There is additional concern that a second school on special measures—not in the area that I represent, but at the other end of town—will further distort the admissions into secondary schools.
The Minister will know that we also had a meeting with the Minister for Children earlier this year, at which the deputation was concerned about the financial impact of looked-after children, relative to Southend's size, and at which we gave the Minister all sorts of examples of how we thought we were not being treated fairly.
One primary school teacher—together with Michael Frampton, the excellent head master of Southend high school for boys—stressed to me very strongly that there does not seem to be any equality of funding whatever. She certainly feels strongly that the primary schools are not being treated fairly, and that there are no incentives for schools to reduce their budget deficits. I have to tell the Minister that she rather longs for the days of grant-maintained schools.
Recruitment and retention is an issue in Southend. In May 2003, there were nine primary, 19 secondary and two special school vacancies. That is quite high. At present, there are four primary and 16 secondary vacancies, and fortunately, we have solved the vacancy problem in our special schools. Will the Minister comment briefly on that?
I end with a comment about our special schools. I have five special schools in the area that I represent, and they are absolutely splendid. I am deeply moved every time I visit the schools and see their wonderful achievements. The Minister will understand that when it was first mooted that children with all sorts of special educational needs be absorbed into mainstream schools, there was resistance from many parents who felt that their children would be at a real disadvantage in some schools.
However, following the local authority's decision to reorganise special education in Southend, the five special schools—Kingsdown, Lancaster, Priory, St. Nicholas and St. Christopher's—have been preserved, although they are going through a period of

509WH
prolonged change. The strategy adopted means that more people will be able to be educated locally in Southend, which I applaud, and there will be greater choice for parents with enhanced facilities in some of our mainstream schools, which I am particularly delighted about.
I am very pleased that in Lancaster school, 19 to 25-year-olds, for whom there has always been a gap in provision, will not be forgotten once they leave school. I praise Southend-on-Sea borough council for that development., which is one of just a few in the country. Eastwood secondary school, led by David Penketh, has a drama facility and music centre, and is a wonderful school. I am now into my eighth year as MP for Southend, West, and I am seeing all sorts of changes that the education authority is doing its best to cope with.
Finally, will the Minister look carefully at Southend council's position as a unitary authority outside Essex county council? I know that the change was not his decision but that of the local residents, but the fact that it is a unitary authority means that there are special circumstances in terms of educational opportunities. I look forward to working with the LEA and the Department for Education and Skills in raising standards for all our children in Southend and rejoicing with the Minister and others concerned as Southend marches on to become a centre of educational excellence.
5.13 pm
The Minister for School Standards (Mr. David Miliband): I can only guess at the excitement that you, Mr. Conway, and the millions of others who are watching us on television feel at joining what is becoming an extended conversation between the hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess) and me about education in Southend. Until today, the discussion has been sadly restricted to private meetings, but we can now be assured that it will be seen by a wider range of people who can gauge the passion, common sense and innovation that are part of it.
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on the beginning and end of his speech, and I associate myself wholeheartedly with his congratulations to the teachers, pupils and parents of all the schools in Southend on their achievements this summer. I am pleased that he has not joined the brigade of so-called well-informed commentators who, every time that test and exam results come out, are the first to say that the results are the product not of hard work and good sense but of the exams getting easier. Like him, I believe that young people and their teachers are working more smartly and better, and that they deserve the results they achieve.
The hon. Gentleman was also honest enough to recognise that not every young person is fulfilling their potential at school or college and that we have to fight any sense of complacency that we feel about existing provision while celebrating the good work done by pupils and teachers in Southend.
Looking at the statistics for this year, I was struck by the fact that the number of 15 and 16-year-olds getting five or more GCSE passes—when the hon. Gentleman
510WH
referred to passes, they were for grades A to C—rose by 2.9 per cent. in Southend, which is encouraging. That is above the national average and an increase from 48 per cent. when the authority went unitary in 1998, to pick up on a later point that he made. Also, the percentage of students receiving no passes fell—it nearly halved—this year. I am sure he agrees that that is significant.
I am glad that the hon. Gentleman talked about the work of the South East Essex college of arts and technology at advanced level. The A-level average points score in Southend rose to 48.4 per cent. this year, which is significant. Looking at the description of the new £52 million South East Essex college—I gather it is opening on Southend high street within a matter of days, and I am sure that the bunting will be put out—it was striking to see that nearly two thirds of enrolments at the college are in business, information and communications technology and visual and performing arts. Those are three areas in which there are growing employment opportunities and it is good to see that that often technical type of education, which has sometimes been neglected in this country, is being supplied by the college. I applaud the work that it is doing.
The hon. Gentleman concentrated his remarks on the secondary sector, but I am sure that he will join me in welcoming the renewed progress at primary level. Secondary schools cannot prosper unless the primary stage—the foundation of education—is properly undertaken. The improvements in that area are really striking.
Let me run through some points that the hon. Gentleman raised, because I want to ensure that they are covered. He mentioned Prittlewell school and said that he was worried that it might take a generation to repair and restore its fortunes. I do not just hope that that need not be the case; I believe it. The record of schools being placed in special measures shows that they can make fast progress. The average time schools spend in special measures is about 13 months—just over an academic year. It is a challenging process, but I am sure that he would agree that when Ofsted, the independent inspectorate, finds serious weaknesses or significant problems, it is right not to avert our eyes but to get in there and sort the difficulties out.
I can reassure the hon. Gentleman that overall the number of schools in special measures has fallen significantly over the past seven or eight years—it has more than halved. The number of schools with less than 20 per cent. of pupils getting five A to C grades at GCSE is down from 361 in September 1997 to an estimated 59 this year. This need not be a counsel of despair. I am sure that it is disappointing for the people at the school involved, but they can be sure that they will get support—not just from the local authority but from central Government—to get them out of special measures as soon as possible. It is not just that we want to avoid a spiral of decline; we believe that we can avoid it and have a virtuous circle of improvement. I am sure that any help or positive support that the hon. Gentleman can give will be welcome.
I will not dwell on the hon. Gentleman's worries about computers. Suffice it to say that the use of

511WH
information technology seems to me quite compatible with learning how to read and write well—in fact, they can support each other.
The hon. Gentleman had a specific question about exam costs, which is an issue. I think that he was probably thinking of exam registration fees. Rightly in my view, the exams are run by independent charitable bodies, not by central Government, and they fix their fees under the watchful eye of the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority. He referred to the costs involved for schools and colleges. Perhaps he did not have this in mind, but it is also important to think about the assessment burden in terms of coursework, which can take time away from teaching. We must look at both aspects. The Tomlinson review of 14 to 19 provision is looking directly at those issues and the cost implications; it will be published in about three or four weeks. I hope that we can address some legitimate points that were made by the hon. Gentleman's constituents in that context.
The hon. Gentleman talked about funding in Southend, but he has been misinformed that there was a 50 per cent. cut in its grant. Perhaps that was a slip. The funding for Southend continues to increase. This year, every school in his constituency is guaranteed at least a 4 per cent. increase per pupil in funding. Next year—2005–06—it will be at least 5 per cent. for primary schools and at least 4 per cent. for secondary. I will explain the difference later; it relates to work force reform, which he also mentioned. Those are the minimum increases. It is also important to recognise that Southend's overall increase per pupil was 6.3 per cent. this year, so significant extra funds are going to Southend.
I think the hon. Gentleman was talking about the transitional grant, which was given specifically to help to overcome some problems in 2003–04. He is right in saying that that is going down from £1.4 million to £0.7 million and to zero eventually, because it was a two-year grant to help to smooth out some of those difficulties. It is right that we do not go straight from £1.4 million to zero, which is the cliff edge that Southend might have faced. I hope he agrees that the overall increase in the base—6.3 per cent.—provides a significant safety net as the transitional grant is withdrawn and that the commitments for schools are inviolate.
512WH
I am glad that the hon. Gentleman referred to work force reform as well as the three-year programme to ensure that teachers focus on teaching and that the administration and whatever bureaucracy is necessary is taken care of by administrative support staff. That has been carefully modelled, most recently in 72 primary schools during the summer term of the 2003–04 academic year.
Furthermore, I am delighted that the National Association of Head Teachers, the Secondary Heads Association, significant teaching representatives and the Local Government Association have worked with us to develop the funding formula for 2005–06—the last year of the work force reform initiative—to deliver funding that will provide the stability, predictability and cover that primary and secondary schools need.
We have upped the minimum increase for primary schools because they face a particular challenge in the third year of the agreement as teachers are entitled to 10 per cent. of their teaching time being reserved for the preparation and planning of lessons, which are obviously critical as demands on the curriculum rise. However, we believe that the measures we have taken, with the support of those partners I mentioned, will cover that.
The hon. Gentleman also talked about children's services, and I heard and read about his meeting with my right hon. Friend the Minister for Children. There are big opportunities for schools and social services to work together in ways that they previously have not.
I shall wind up on a note of common agreement. Special schools have a critical role to play in our education system. For some pupils, they will always be right, but not necessarily for the whole of their school career. I do not want a battle between special schools and the mainstream sector; I want more co-operation between them so that the special skills in special schools and among the teaching staff are spread across the system.
I am glad to hear that the hon. Gentleman supports that and that he is as inspired as I am by what goes on in our special schools. They have a lot to offer—not just to their pupils, but to the wider system—and I look forward to making the most of them.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-two minutes past Five o'clock.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  International Competition
  Mr. Hurst
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what plans he has to assist poor countries to protect their farmers and traders against unfair international competition; and if he will make a statement. [188556]

  Hilary Benn
  DFID supports the inclusion of 'Special Products' and the 'Special Safeguard Mechanism' in order to assist farmers and traders in poor countries.

  Loosely defined, 'Special Products' are those that are of particular importance to the rural development, and food security, of the country in which they are grown. The farmers of these products should thus be subject to lesser liberalisation commitments.

  The 'Special Safeguard Mechanism' would allow developing countries to temporarily protect agricultural products from sudden import surges, which threaten the viability of domestic producers.

  Both concepts were included in general terms in the July 2004 World Trade Organisation Framework agreement, setting out the negotiating agenda for the ministerial meeting in Hong Kong in December 2005 and will be consolidated and refined as the negotiations progress.

  DFID is currently funding a project involving developing country delegates, research institutes and NGOs to assist with this process, and to assist farmers and traders in poor countries.

TRANSPORT

  Advertising/Public Relations
  Mr. Damian Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how much was spent by his Department in(a) 1996–97 and (b) the last year for which figures are available on (i) advertising and (ii) public relations. [186453]

  Charlotte Atkins
  The Department for Transport was formed on 29 May 2002. It has spent £10.3 million on advertising primarily on the THINK road safety campaign.

  For details of expenditure on public relations, I refer the hon. Member to my predecessor's reply to the hon. Member for South-West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) on 22 July 2004, Official Report, column 650W.

  Airports
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received 1568W
  regarding the High Court ruling on a judicial review of airports in Britain; and what impact this will have on the Cliffe site in the Thames Estuary. [187968]

  Charlotte Atkins
  The Secretary of State has not received any representations regarding the High Court granting of permission for the three legal challenges to the Future of Air Transport White Paper to proceed to judicial review.

  The Government's policy was set out in the White Paper, including their conclusions on the Cliffe option.

  Airstrips
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what his policy is regarding proposals to license individual airstrips; and what measures he will put in place to help those airline charities which would be affected by increased charges. [188606]

  Charlotte Atkins
  The Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) is responsible for the day-to-day regulation of airstrips and has no new proposals to license individual airstrips. Existing provisions for the licensing of aerodromes for the public transport of passengers and instruction in flying are contained in Article 101 of the Air Navigation Order 2000.

  As regards flights in aid of charity, arrangements have been in place since 1988 for CAA permission to be given, for example so that a private individual can donate a flight as a prize in a charity draw. The conditions under which such flights may be conducted are set out in an Aeronautical Information Circular (AIC 76/2003 (White 88)). The CAA makes no charge in relation to this permission.

  An airline does not need permission for a flight in aid of charity, as its operations are subject to the requirements for public transport flying.

  Caravans (Motorway Restrictions)
  Mr. Greg Knight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to repeat the trial scheme restricting caravans to the inside lane on the M5 on other motorways in England and Wales; and if he will make a statement. [188578]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Highways Agency currently has no plans to repeat the trial elsewhere on the network.

  Mr. Greg Knight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects to evaluate the effectiveness of the pilot scheme on the M5 at Bristol which restricts vehicles towing caravans to the inside lane; if he will publish his evaluation; and if he will make a statement. [188579]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Highways Agency is currently evaluating the effectiveness of the pilot scheme, which ended on 28 August. It is anticipated that an announcement will be made when the evaluation is complete this autumn.

  Departmental Fraud Costs
  Mr. Damian Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what estimate his Department has made of
  1569W
  the cost of fraud to (a) his Department and (b) the executive agencies affiliated to his Department in each of the last five years. [186406]

  Charlotte Atkins
  The answer covers the period since the Department was formed on 29 May 2002 and since that date the estimated cost of fraud (including theft) in my Department including the executive agencies are as follows:

  Central department

  Agencies

  Total(£)

  2002–03

  757

  73,560

  74,317

  2003–04

  8,439

  76,164

  84,603

  Assets have been valued at cost, net book value or replacement cost depending on the circumstances of the individual case. Recoveries from perpetrators or others, e.g. insurance claims, have been netted off. Some incidents are still under investigation and final values may change.

  Departmental Thefts
  Mr. Damian Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the items that his Department has reported lost or stolen to the police from his Department's buildings and property since 2001. [186405]

  Charlotte Atkins
  The answer covers the period since the Department was formed on 29 May 2002 and since that date the following items listed below have been reported to the police by my Department as lost or stolen:

  The answer to the question only includes buildings occupied by staff in the Central Department. To obtain a full answer including the executive agencies would involve disproportionate cost.
  Theft of wallet
  Theft of personal cheques (2 occurrences)
  Loss of building passes (2 occurrences)

  Mr. Damian Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what the equivalent monetary cost of theft to(a) his Department and (b) the Executive agencies affiliated to his Department was in each year since his Department was established. [186408]

  Charlotte Atkins
  The answer covers the period since the Department was formed on 29 May 2002 and since that date the estimated cost of theft in my Department including the Executive agencies is as follows:

  £

  2002–03

  2003–04

  Central Department

  757

  7,659

  Agencies

  47,043

  57,349

  Total

  47,800

  65,008

  Assets have been valued at cost, net book value or replacement cost depending on the circumstances of the individual case. Recoveries from perpetrators or others, e.g. insurance claims, have been netted off. Some incidents are still under investigation and final values may change.

  M1
  Mr. Greg Knight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport for what reasons the southbound carriageway of the M1 motorway was closed at Junction 11 on 23 August; who authorised the closure; for how long the motorway was closed; and what assessment he has made of the necessity for closure. [188580]

  Mr. McNulty
  At approximately 14:50 hours on Monday 23 August, a pedestrian jumped from the bridge that crosses the motorway at Hatters Way, Luton into the path of an oncoming lorry. He sustained fatal injuries. The death has been recorded by HM Coroner's office as suicide.

  Bedfordshire Police immediately closed the southbound carriageway in order to carry out their investigations.

  A symbol signed diversion route was set up for road users affected by the carriageway closure. Other strategic signs were set further north of the incident warning of the closure.

  This was a particularly difficult investigation and clear up task for all involved. The body of the deceased was further struck by other approaching vehicles; thus raising both the sensitivity and the complexity of the police operation.

  The carriageway was re-opened to traffic at 18:10 hours.

  M20
  Jonathan Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will ensure that the siting of noise abatement fencing along the M20 between junctions 4 and 5 takes appropriate account of the approval of additional housing in the area. [188920]

  Mr. Jamieson
  [holding answer 14 September 2004]It is the responsibility of the local planning authority, Tonbridge and Mailing borough council to consider Whether noise mitigation measures should be provided by the developer of sites in their area in line with current guidance on planning and noise.

  Currently there are proposals for a noise bund within Leybourne Grange development site near the M20 at Junction 4.

  In addition the Highways Agency is carrying out further studies to determine what noise mitigation measures would be appropriate at existing housing sites between Junctions 4 and 5.

  Medway/London Rail Services
  Jonathan Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will take steps to prevent the implementation of the reduction in the Cannon Street service from Medway to London proposed by the Strategic Rail Authority. [188882]

  Mr. McNulty
  The Strategic Rail Authority is continuing to develop the train service specification for the integrated Kent franchise in the light of responses to its consultation earlier this year. When final decisions
  1571W
  are made, a stakeholder briefing document will be issued giving information on consultees' comments and the final train specification.

  PowerShift Grants
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many applications for Powershift grants for the Toyota Prius were(a) submitted and (b) approved in (i) 2002–03, (ii) 2003–04 and (iii) 2004–05 to date; and how many of the approvals were for (A) new and (B) demonstrator vehicles. [188996]

  Mr. Jamieson
  [holding answer 14 September 2004]: The Toyota Prius is listed on the PowerShift Register and is eligible for a £700 grant where used in England/Wales/Northern Ireland. A separate scheme operates in Scotland. The number of applications approved and paid for PowerShift grants for Toyota Prius from year 2002 to date in England/Wales/N Ireland are as follows:

  (a) Applications submitted and for which a grant offer letter has been issued1

  Number

  2002–03

  1

  2003–04

  412

  2004–05

  1,045

  1Number of applications that have failed before reaching grant offer stage is not recorded onto the applications database.

  (b) Grams paid

  Number

  2002–03

  0

  2003–04

  146

  2004–05

  1117

  1To end August.

  A grant is available to the first owner (person or organisation) to register a PowerShift approved vehicle, subject to meeting the usual eligibility criteria (i.e. must operate in England, Wales or Northern Ireland). This includes dealer demonstrator vehicles that are registered, but the number of applications in respect of demonstrator vehicles is not recorded separately.

  Railways
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many dismantled railway lines in the UK have been(a) re-instated and (b) safeguarded since 1990; and what the cost of re-instated lines was in each case. [188569]

  Mr. McNulty
  No consolidated record is kept of the position of dismantled railway lines. The Strategic Rail Authority (SRA) is aware of 13 re-instated lines available for use by passenger trains. Safeguarding is a matter for local authorities and the SRA is not aware of any central register. The SRA does not maintain a central record of the costs of re-instated railway lines.

  Andrew Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) why the new signalling system promised for Stockport station is not yet operational; [188226]
  1572W
  (2)why engineers have been brought from India to fix the old signalling system at Stockport station; [188227]

  (3)when the new signalling system at Stockport station will be operational;

  (4)why the crossover points between Heaton Chapel station and Stockport and Stockport station have been removed. [188229]

  Mr. McNulty
  These are operational matters for Network Rail. Network Rail will respond directly to my hon. friend.

  Recruitment/Consultants
  Mr. Damian Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how much was spent by his Department in(a) 1996–97 and (b) the last year for which figures are available on (i) headhunters, (ii) recruitment consultants and (iii) management consultants. [186403]

  Charlotte Atkins
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my predecessor to the hon. Member for South-West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) on 22 July 2004,Official Report, column 650W.

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

  Bathing Water (South-West)
  Mr. Swire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what central Government funding is available in the South West region to meet the cost of compliance with the EU Bathing Water Directive. [186966]

  Mr. Morley
  There is no central Government funding available to meet the cost of compliance with the EU Bathing Water Directive for the South West or any other region. It is for sewerage undertakers to comply with the Directive, and the costs are taken into account by Ofwat in setting price limits.

  Departmental Costs
  Mr. Whittingdale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how much her Department spent on(a) head-hunters and recruitment consultants and (b) management consultants in (i) 1996–97 and (ii) the latest year for which figures are available. [185990]

  Alun Michael
  Defra came into being in June 2001. From information held centrally, the Department spent £520,354 in financial year 2002–03, and £619,213 in financial year 2003–04, on recruitment services.

  The Department also spent £190,212 in financial year 2002-03, and £189,319 in financial year 2003–04, on recruitment advertising.

  Information on management consultants is not held centrally and the information cannot be provided at proportionate cost.

  Richard Ottaway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how much the
  1573W
  Department and its predecessors spent on recruitment consultants in (a) 1996–97 and (b) the last year for which figures are available. [184430]

  Alun Michael
  Defra came into being in June 2001. From information held centrally, the Department spent £520,354 in financial year 2002–03, and £619,213 in financial year 2003–04, on recruitment services.

  The Department also spent £190,212 in financial year 2002–03, and £189,319 in financial year 2003–04, on recruitment advertising.

  Information on management consultants is not held centrally and the information cannot be provided at proportionate cost.

  Equal pay

  Sex discrimination

  Race discrimination

  Disability discrimination

  Unfair dismissal

  2001

  –

  –

  –

  –

  1

  2002

  –

  1

  1

  3

  4

  2003

  –

  1

  –

  –

  1

  2004

  1

  1

  1

  6

  2

  Total

  1

  3

  2

  9

  8

  The one equal pay case is currently on-going pending appeal and no costs have been awarded as yet. One of the six unfair dismissal cases for 2004 has been settled, all other 2004 cases are continuing. For the other cases listed there were no awards made against my Department and its agencies during the years quoted but a total of £30,553 has been paid in agreed settlements.

  The total amount spent on contesting these claims could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Fur Farms
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many fur farms are licensed in England. [188727]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  None. The Fur Farming (Prohibition) Act 2000 has banned fur farming in England since 31 December 2002.

  Parish/Town Councillors
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what help is available for the training of parish and town councillors and clerks; and what level of funding her Department provides to assist in such training. [188314]

  Alun Michael
  The Government wish to encourage all town and parish councils to reach the standards of the best. To achieve this, councillors and clerks need a wide range of skills to act as the voice of their communities, deliver services and create strong local partnerships. Therefore, town and parish councils should be actively supporting their councillors and clerks to participate in training and continuing professional development.

  The Rural White Paper (November 2000) established the "QUALITY" town and parish council scheme and provided £2 million in assistance to help councils meet

  Employment Tribunals
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many cases against her Department, the agencies for which it is responsible and its predecessor organisations have been brought to employment tribunals in each year since 1997 in relation to(a) equal pay, (b) sex discrimination, (c) race discrimination, (d) disability discrimination and (e) unfair dismissal; how many cost awards were made against (i) respondents and (ii) applicants; and how much has been spent (A) settling and (B) contesting claims. [181460]

  Alun Michael
  Defra came into existence in 2001. Since then the number of cases brought against the Department and the agencies for which it is responsible is as follows:

  the new quality standards and establish a national strategy to provide training and support for parish and town councils.

  The National Training Strategy for parish and town councils was published in November 2001 in partnership with the Government, the Countryside Agency, the National Association of Local Councils and the Society of Local Council Clerks. Jointly, these organisations have used the £2 million mentioned above to:
  Establish County Training Partnerships made up of local bodies that specialise in providing training for the parish council sector (38 partnerships established);
  Develop a professional qualification for clerks, the Certificate in Local Council Administration (over 600 registrations for the certificate, 138 certificates awarded so far);
  Create a distance learning package for clerks and councillors (completed by some 800 clerks as of 1 September 2004);
  Produce a handbook for councillors, "The Good Councillors Guide" (80,000 copies issued); and
  Produce an award winning training video, "What's on the Agenda".

  In addition, through the Countryside Agency, Defra is providing over £300,000 this year to continue developing County Training Partnerships and County Associations of Local Councils to act as support infrastructure for parish and town councils. Some £40,000 of this money is used to provide a bursary scheme to help small councils meet their training costs.

  Potato and Vegetable Farming
  Mr. Grogan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what plans her Department is making for allocating single farm entitlements with authorisation to grow potatoes and vegetables; and what criteria will be applied in the process. [186982]
  1575W
  Alun Michael
  Forms will be issued in March 2005 for farmers to apply, by 16 May, for the allocation of Single Payment Scheme entitlements and for payment against those entitlements. As part of the application process, eligible farmers will be able to ask for a number of their entitlements to have an authorisation attached. Those allocated entitlements with an authorisation will be able to grow fruit, vegetables and potatoes on the equivalent number of hectares which they will need to have to support their annual claim for payment against those entitlements.

  Eligibility for the allocation of entitlements with authorisations will be restricted by regional ceilings, which represent the average number of hectares of fruit, vegetables and potatoes that were grown in each region in the period 2000–02. Allocations to individual farmers will be based first on the number of hectares they grew of those crops in 2003. If there is any headroom remaining between the regional ceiling and the number of individual claims based on 2003 production, then 2004 production may also be taken into account. If there still remains headroom under the ceiling then 2005 production may additionally be taken into account. With this in mind, farmers who wish to claim entitlements with authorisations will be asked to provide details of their 2003, 2004 and 2005 production of fruit, vegetable and potatoes on their application forms. Entitlements, including those with authorisations, will be allocated by the end of 2005.

  Mr. Grogan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment she has made of the impact of Common Agricultural Policy reform regulations on the availability of land for let to specialist potato and vegetable growers in 2005. [186983]

  Alun Michael
  Some concerns have been raised that the introduction of the Single Payment in 2005 could affect the willingness of landowners to let land in that year. The Department has discussed these issues with representatives of the farming industry and their professional advisers and our view remains that the interests of both landowners and growers can be protected by appropriate contractual arrangements between the two parties.

  Refrigerators
  Sue Doughty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many refrigeration unit storage and treatment facilities have been found to be in breach of regulations relating to the implementation of European Council Regulation No. 2037/2000 since it came into force; and what action was taken in each case. [187017]

  Mr. Morley
  The Environment Agency has concluded three successful prosecutions against operators of fridge storage facilities. These have resulted in penalties of £35,000, £15,000 and a four-month custodial sentence respectively, reflecting the seriousness with which the Government and the Courts regard these offences. In addition a number of warning letters and enforcement notices have been served, requiring fridge treatment plant operators to comply with licence conditions.
  1576W
  Sue Doughty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many(a) storage and (b) treatment facilities for refrigeration units there are in England and Wales; and how many of these have been inspected by the Environment Agency since European Council Regulation No. 2037/2000 came into force. [187018]

  Mr. Morley
  78 sites are licensed to store fridges, although all may not be operational. 19 sites are licensed for the treatment of fridges.

  The sites have been inspected in accordance with the Environment Agency's Operator and Pollution Risk Appraisal (OPRA) system and the Waste Management Facility Site Inspection Methodology. Under OPRA, these sites would initially have been inspected at monthly intervals. The assessments of operators' performance consider both the type and severity of noncompliance and the environmental significance of that breach or non-compliance.

  Sue Doughty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the total cost to(a) central Government and (b) local authorities of meeting the requirements of European Council Regulation No.2037/2000 as they relate to refrigeration units has been since 1 January 2002. [187019]

  Mr. Morley
  The Government were responsible for securing provision for additional costs that local government faced as a result of the ozone depleting substance Regulation 2037/00.

  A special grant of £40 million was provided for additional costs that local authorities in England incurred as a result of implementing the Regulation for the period 2002–03.

  £6 million was provided in the 2002–03 local government finance settlement to cover the period 1 January to 31 March 2002.

  The Spending Review of 2002 included provision within the Environmental, Protective and Cultural Services block for the continuing costs for 2003–04 onwards, which was incorporated into the special/ hazardous wastes allocation.

  Estimates for future expenditure have also been incorporated into the Spending Review for hazardous wastes. The actual amounts are significantly less than in 2002–03, because of the decrease in cost of the disposal of refrigeration units and the consequences of implementing producer responsibility under the waste electronic and electrical equipment directive (WEEE).

  Sue Doughty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what percentage of the ozone depleting substances covered by European Council Regulation No. 2037/2000 have been recovered from(a) domestic refrigeration and (b) commercial refrigeration units since the implementation of the regulation, broken down by (i) refrigerant fluid and (ii) foaming agent. [187020]

  Mr. Morley
  The information is not available in the form requested as the data on the recovery of ozone
  1577W
  depleting substances (ODS) do not identify the equipment from which they were recovered. In addition, it is not possible to calculate the percentage of ODS recovered from the refrigerant fluids. This is because, it is not known how much refrigerant fluid is in the unit on arrival at the licensed waste management site, as many units are damaged in use or transit, and fluid will have escaped before the units are received for disposal.

  The following information is given.
  The sites recovering ODS from foam, principally in relation to domestic units, range from a recovery rate of 40 per cent. to 80 per cent. of the theoretical maximum. The Environment Agency is currently investigating the reasons for this large variation.
  The total amount of ODS including CFCs recovered from all equipment was: 387 tonnes in 2002 and;
  494 tonnes in 2003.

  Sue Doughty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what procedures are in place to ensure that(a) handling, (b) removal and (c) storage of refrigeration units results in minimal leakage of ozone depleting substances; and what measures exist to ensure an accurate monitoring of leakage. [187021]

  Mr. Morley
  Sites for the storage of fridges are regulated under the Waste Management Licensing Regulations 1994. A site licence is required and the standard permit requires storage of fridges to comply with a number of conditions, many of which are specifically aimed at reducing damage to refrigeration units while they are in storage. Compliance with these conditions is assessed during routine inspections.

  Since most storage takes place outside, monitoring of leakage using instrumentation does not take place. However, the Environment Agency visually inspects the conditions under which fridges are stored and compliance with storage conditions minimises the risk of leakage from the coolant circuit.

  Monitoring equipment is employed at the treatment facilities and emissions are analysed at the destruction facilities for recovered ozone depleting substances.

  Severely Disadvantaged Areas
  Mr. Liddell-Grainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many farms are located within land designated as(a) moorland within the upland severely disadvantaged area and (b) other land within the upland severely disadvantaged area. [186560]

  Alun Michael
  The number of farms that have submitted an area aid application for 2004 and are located within land designated as(a) moorland within the severely disadvantaged area is 30 and (b) other land within the severely disadvantaged area is 2,778.

  Mr. Liddell-Grainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many farms straddle the border between land classified as 1578W
  moorland within the upland severely disadvantaged area and other land within the upland severely disadvantaged area. [186561]

  Alun Michael
  The number of farms that have both land classified as moorland within the upland severely disadvantaged area and other land within the upland severely disadvantaged area is 3,068.

  Sudden Oak Death Syndrome
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment she has made of the risk from sudden oak death syndrome to woodlands in the Chilterns Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty; and if she will make a statement. [187259]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  Central Science Laboratory and Forest Research have prepared a Pest Risk Assessment (PRA) for the whole of Great Britain which concludes that a number of tree species are potentially at risk from Phytophthora ramorum, the cause of Sudden Oak Death. The PRA also compared long-term British climatic data with that in Oregon where the disease is also present. This suggests that it is principally the south and the west of the country that are at the highest risk. The Forestry Commission completed a nation-wide survey of trees earlier this year and no evidence of the disease was found in trees at any of the 1,217 sites visited, which included some sites in the Chilterns Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. The Forestry Commission has just completed a second more limited survey of 109 plots in England and Wales. While some of the 73 samples taken are still being processed, to date none of these have proved positive for P. ramorum.

  Travel Costs
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the travel costs were of civil servants in(a) her Department, (b) the predecessor Department and (c) the related agencies in each yew since 1997. [183903]

  Alun Michael
  The following table shows overall departmental expenditure recorded since the Department was formed in 2001. These figures exclude agency figures which are shown in the agency table. There are no figures provided for the period prior to Defra's formation as Defra was formed primarily from two predecessor Departments and as this information could only be provided incurring disproportionate cost.

  £000

  Year end 31 March

  Departmental travel

  2001–02

  11,192

  2002–03

  7,170

  2003–04

  7,069

  The figures for 2001–02 and 2002–03 include travel expenses incurred as a result of foot and mouth disease.

  All travel was in accordance with the requirements of the Civil Service Management Code.
  1579W
  The expenditure figures for related agencies of civil servants in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs is as follows:

  £000

  Defra agencies

  2001–02

  4,065

  2002–03

  4,205

  2003–04

  4,951

  Note:

  The Defra agencies include: Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science, Central Science Laboratory, Pesticide Safety Directorate, Rural Payments Agency, Veterinary Laboratories Agency, Veterinary Medicines Directorate.

  Veterinary Antibiotics
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what proportion of the total tonnage of veterinary antibiotics used in the UK, in the most recent year for which figures are available, were used for(a) farm animals and (b) domestic and other animals. [187478]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The VMD collects and publishes figures annually on the UK sales of veterinary antimicrobials, including those sold for use in both food producing and non-food producing animals. It is reasonable to assume that there is a close correlation between these figures and the quantities of antimicrobials used in the UK. These figures are collected on a voluntary basis and the reports are available on the VMD web site at www.vmd.gov.uk under the publications and general tabs or from Dr. Kay Goodyear (telephone 01932 338409).

  The most recent available figures show that of the 457 tonnes of active ingredient of veterinary therapeutic antimicrobials sold for use in 2002, 403 tonnes were products indicated for use in food-producing animals only, 24 tonnes were indicated for use in non food-producing animals only and 30 tonnes were indicated for use in both food-producing and non food-producing animals.

  Water (South-West)
  Mr. Swire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what discussions she has held with Ofwat about recent increases in water rates in the South West. [186964]

  Mr. Morley
  The Secretary of State has not met with Ofwat recently. However, I have meetings with Philip Fletcher, Director General of Water Services, from time to time at which we discuss a range of issues including water prices.

  Mr. Swire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what central Government funding is available to defray the cost of replacing and updating water and sewerage pipes in the South West. [186965]

  Mr. Morley
  There is no central Government funding for pipe or sewer replacement for any area. It is for water and sewerage undertakers to maintain their networks, and the costs are taken into account by Ofwat in setting price limits.

  Water Framework Directive
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what progress she has made on implementing the Water Framework Directive; and if she will make a statement. [186356]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 13 September 2004]: The Water Framework Directive sets out a staged timetable, up to 2015, for member states to transpose it into national law and implement its requirements.

  The directive was transposed into English law at the turn of the year and implementation is well under way. Notification of the UK competent authorities was sent to the European Commission on 22 June 2004. The next key stage is the characterisation of river basin districts, identifying the pressures and impacts of human activity on the water environment, which must be completed by 22 December 2004. The Environment Agency, as competent authority for England and Wales, is working hard to ensure timely delivery of this analysis. They published initial characterisation results for public review on 1 September 2004.

  Woodland Grant Scheme
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many applications were made to the Woodland Grant Scheme in each of the last three years; how many were successful; and what was the total sum of grant awarded in each year. [187151]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  For the Forestry Commission's Woodland Grant Scheme in England the number of applications made, number approved and the value of the grants in the approved schemes since 2001 are given in the following table.

  Financial year

  Woodland grant scheme applications

  Approved schemes

  Value of grants in approved schemes (£ million)

  2001–02

  2,500

  2,184

  17.9

  2002–03

  2,801

  2,239

  18.4

  2003–04

  3,017

  2,333

  23.0

  Note:

  The processing of applications takes a number of weeks so applications may have been received in a different year to that in which they were approved.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many applications under the Woodland Grant Scheme were received between 1 April and 28 June; what the total sum of money applied for was; how many of these applications have been successful; and what the total sum of grant approved is. [187152]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The Forestry Commission received a total of 700 applications for a total of £3.9 million between 1 April and 28 June 2004 of which £1.1 million has so far been approved. The current status of all these applications is given in the following table.

  Status

  Number

  Application withdrawn by applicant or rejected by the Forestry Commission

  58

  1581W

  Status

  Number

  Awaiting information from the applicant in order to continue processing

  148

  Applications currently being processed by the Forestry Commission

  246

  Grant offer made

  152

  Offer accepted by applicant

  96

  Total

  700

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what grants will be available from her Department or the Forestry Commission between now and 31 March 2006 to assist the creation of new woodlands. [187256]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The Forestry Commission will continue to pay the woodland creation grants approved in existing Woodland Grant Scheme (WGS) contracts. These contracts extend beyond 31 March 2006 and include capital grants for establishment, additional grants for afforestation of improved agricultural land and for creating new woodland with public access. A range of premiums will also be paid to support the National Forest, Community Forests, South West Forest and the North West's 'Forest Futures' initiative.

  Subject to meeting the technical and administrative requirements of the WGS, grants will also be paid on those applications received before the WGS closed to new applications for new planting, but which have yet to be approved.

  Payments will also be made under the associated Farm Woodland Premium Scheme operated by Defra. This makes annual payments in accordance with the terms of the scheme for up to 15 years. This scheme will apply to some of the WGS applications which have yet to be approved.

  It is expected that from mid 2005 new applications for grant aid will be accepted by the Forestry Commission for woodland creation under the English Woodland Grant Scheme. This will be in time for planting to take place in the 2005–06 planting season, with grant payments being made from April 2006.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many woodland grants were made by her Department or by the Forestry Commission in respect of woodlands in(a) the Chilterns Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and (b) Buckinghamshire in each of the last four financial years; what the sum of such grants was in each such year; and if she will make a statement. [187257]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The Forestry Commission made the following payments in the Chilterns AONB and Buckinghamshire under the Woodland Grant Scheme in the last four years.

  a) Chilterns AONB

  Financial year

  Number of claims Paid

  Claims Value £000

  2001–2002

  170

  273.7

  1582W

  2002–2003

  174

  273.5

  2003–2004

  120

  187.3

  b)Buckinghamshire

  Financial year

  Number of claims Paid

  Claim Value £000

  2002–2001

  176

  238.8

  2001–2002

  186

  327.6

  2002–2003

  179

  270.0

  2003–2004

  134

  198.6

  In addition to the woodland premium Scheme administered by Farm Woodland Premium scheme administered by Defra made annual payment to farmers in compensation for income forgone as a consequence of converting agricultural land to woodland.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the secretary of state for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many applications for woodland grants her received during the current financial year in respect of woodlands in(a) the Chilterns Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and (b) Buckinghamshire; what the total sum applied for was; how many such applications, and to what aggregate value, have been approved; and if she will make a statement.[187258]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  Between I April and 28 June the Forestry Commission received nine application for a total of £19,000 on land within the Chilterns AONB and 11 application for a total of £22,000 on land below together with the value of those approved.

  a)Chilterns AONB

  Status

  Number

  Application withdrawn by applicant or rejected by the Forestry Commission

  1

  A Waiting information from the applicant in order to continue processing

  1

  Application currently being processed by the Forestry Commission

  4

  Grant offer made

  1

  Offer accepted by applicant

  2(Value of £1,600)

  (b) Buckinghamshire

  Status

  Number

  Application withdrawn by applicant or rejected by the Forestry Commission

  1

  A waiting information from the applicant in order to continue processing

  4

  Application currently being processed by the Forestry Commission

  2

  Grant offer made

  2

  Offer accepted by applicant

  2(Value of £1,900)

  In addition to the Woodland Grant Scheme, the Farm Woodland Premium Scheme administered by Defra and which makes annual payments to farmers in compensation for income forgone as a consequence of

  1583W
  converting agricultural land to woodland is included with the one grant offer made in the Chilterns AONB area.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Age of Criminal Responsibility
  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what research he has commissioned on the effects of changing the age of criminal responsibility; and if he will make a statement. [186818]

  Paul Goggins
  We have no plans to change the current age, 10 in England and Wales, and have not commissioned research on the subject.

  Crime
  Mr. Anthony D. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) successful and (b) unsuccessful criminal prosecutions were brought for crimes perpetrated in each Norfolk constituency in each year since 1997: and how many criminal charges were pressed for crimes perpetrated in Great Yarmouth in each year since 1997. [186717]

  Paul Goggins
  Statistics of defendants charged with offences are not collected centrally, nor is it possible to break down the court proceedings data collected centrally to constituency level.

  The following table, however, gives the number of defendants (a) convicted and (b) not convicted in the Norfolk police force area as a whole:

  Defendants convicted and those not convicted of offences of all types at all courts in the Norfolk police force area, 1997 to 2002

  Defendants convicted

  Defendants not convicted1

  1997

  19,137

  1.764

  1998

  17,537

  1,564

  1999

  16,330

  1,597

  2000

  15,083

  3,351

  2001

  16,661

  5,448

  2002

  16,608

  5,234

  1 Includes defendants whose proceedings were discontinued, those discharged under Sec 6 MCA 1980, and those, whose charges were withdrawn, dismissed or acquitted.

  Statistics for 2003 will be published in the autumn.

  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will publish(a) the growth forecasts and (b) the forecasts of the number and proportion of young men in the population used as assumptions in the Trends in Crime model, Home Office Online Report 38/04. [187236]

  Paul Goggins
  The growth forecasts used as assumptions in the trends in crime model are those published by Her Majesty's Treasury in the Budget report 2004.

  Projections for the proportion of young men in the population are published on the Government Actuary's Department (GAD) website.

  Departmental Properties/Staff
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department pursuant to the answer of 13 July 2004,Official Report, column 1053W, on departmental properties/staff, if he will place a list of the properties in the Library. [187338]

  Fiona Mactaggart
  The addresses of Home Office properties are not disclosed for national and personal security reasons.

  Financial Advice
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many contracts his Department had with(a) Barclays, (b) Royal Bank of Scotland, (c) UBS Warburg and (d) Bank of Scotland for advice on private finance initiative and public private partnership contracts in each financial year since 2001–02; and what fees were paid in each case. [186694]

  Fiona Mactaggart
  From the best information available, there have been no such contracts placed with these organisations in the time period specified.

  Hate Crime
  Mr. Woodward
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what hate crime legislation introduced in the Criminal Justice Act 2003 remains to be implemented; and when it will be implemented. [186887]

  Paul Goggins
  Sections 145 and 146 are the only provisions in the Criminal Justice Act 2003 specifically relating to hate crime; these provide for courts to treat motivation by racial or religious prejudice, or prejudice related to disability or sexual orientation, as an aggravating factor in sentencing for any criminal offence. These sections are not yet in force, but section 145 is simply a re-enactment of existing legislation, contained in section 153 of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000, that is already in force. The commencement date for these sections of the 2003 Act is currently under consideration and will be announced in due course.

  HMS Daedalus
  Mr. Hoban
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his Department has made a formal expression of interest in HMS Daedalus to the Ministry of Defence on behalf of(a) the Prison Service, (b) another agency of his Department and (c) Hampshire Constabulary. [188145]

  Paul Goggins
  [holding answer 13 September 2004]I can confirm that my Department has not made a formal expression of interest in HMS Daedalus on behalf of the Prison Service or any other part of the Home Office. The acquisition of properties for use by the police is a matter for the appropriate police authority and Chief Officer of Police.

  Lost Passports
  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many passports sent to his
  1585W
  Department for immigration purposes have been lost in each of the last five years; and how many were subsequently found. [181998]

  Mr. Browne
  Statistics on the number of letters issued for passports reported lost or mislaid in the Immigration Nationality Directorate would be available only at disproportionate cost.

  However, in General Group, which processes all applications for variation of leave to remain from in-country applicants and considers applications for Home Office travel documents from non-British nationals, there were 53 issued from April 2001 to March 2002; 335 issued from April 2002 to March 2003; and 469 issued from April 2003 to March 2004. This should be balanced against the number of decisions made in the same period which were 380,000; 403,000; and 534,000 respectively.

  Prisons
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many Prison Custody Officer certificates have been issued by his Department for staff at HMP Bronzefield. [187102]

  Certificates issued since April 20041

  Certificates issued from January 2003 to March 2004

  April

  May

  June

  July

  HMP/Y01 Altcourse

  31

  9

  0

  8

  0

  HMYOI Ashfield

  123

  12

  1

  1

  9

  HMP/Y01 Doncaster

  33

  0

  0

  14

  0

  HMP Dovegate

  132

  2

  3

  3

  9

  HMP Forest Bank

  69

  1

  0

  20

  0

  HMP Lowdham Grange

  66

  11

  0

  11

  0

  HMP/Y01 Parc

  47

  11

  3

  0

  16

  HMP Rye Hill

  94

  9

  0

  4

  1

  HMP Wolds

  3

  4

  1

  1

  0

  Total

  598

  59

  8

  62

  35

  Overall total since January 2003

  762

  1The Office for Contracted Prisons took over responsibility for Prison Custody Officer certification on 1 April 2004.

  Her Majesty's Prison Bronzefield opened on 17 June 2004 and 135 Prison Custody officers have been certificated

  Retirement Age
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the(a) set retirement age applying to all or most personnel and (b) maximum age beyond which applications for employment will not be considered is in (i) his Department and (ii) its agencies. [186375]

  Fiona Mactaggart
  The Civil Service Management Code gives departments and agencies the authority to determine policy on normal retirement age for their own staff subject to the conditions set out in Chapter 11.3.

  In answer to part 'A' of your question all non-industrial Home Office staff working in grades between Administrative Assistant and Grade 6, including equivalent grades will have the option to retire at any point between the ages of 60 and 65. The normal retirement age for the Senior Civil Service is 60. However, Heads of Departments and Agency Chief Executives have the flexibility to retain members of the
  1586W
  Paul Goggins
  Her Majesty's Prison Bronzefield opened on 17 June 2004 and 135 Prison Custody Officers have been certificated.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many Prison Custody Officer certificates have been withdrawn by his Department for each privately run prison in each month since 1 January 2003. [187103]

  Paul Goggins
  From January 2003 to March 2004, three Prison Custody Officer Certificates were withdrawn from Her Majesty's Prison Dovegate, one certificate at Her Majesty's Prison/Young Offenders Institution Altcourse and one certificate at Her Majesty's Prison/Young Offenders Institution Doncaster.

  Since April 2004, one Prison Custody Officer certificate has been withdrawn at Her Majesty's Prison Dovegate and one certificate was withdrawn at Her Majesty's Prison Wolds.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many Prison Custody Officer certificates have been issued by his Department for each privately run prison in each month since 1 January 2003. [187104]

  Paul Goggins
  The information requested is as follows.

  Senior Civil Service beyond 60 if they judge it to be in the public interest and are satisfied about the fitness and efficiency of the individual to carry out his or her duties.

  In answer to part B of your question, Home Office policy continues to be that there should be no age discrimination on selecting candidates who have the relevant skills and qualifications and are considered to be capable of delivering value for money (i.e. a return on recruitment costs and training requirements before the normal retirement age). Up to and including Grade 6. European Law also prevents us from imposing age limits as part of the selection procedure.

  Sequencing Guidelines
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the Sentencing Guidelines Council will review the magistrates court guidelines. [187245]

  Paul Goggins
  The Sentencing Guidelines Council will in due course produce guidelines on all criminal offences. These will supersede the magistrates courts guidelines.

  Young Offenders
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) male and (b) female prisoners under the age of 18 years were (i) serving a custodial sentence and (ii) on remand in each of the last three years in England. [186523]

  Paul Goggins
  The requested information is provided in the table.

  Population of juveniles in STCs, LASCHs and prison establishments, by custody type and sex England, 30 June

  Immediate custodial sentence

  Remand

  male

  2002

  2,242

  549

  2003

  2,016

  518

  2004

  1,959

  544

  Female

  2002

  173

  44

  2003

  156

  41

  2004

  150

  32

  Source:

  Information on population in STCs and LASCHs is from the Youth Justice Board.

  Information on population in prison establishments is from the Prison Service information system.

  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many young offenders aged 18 to 21 are in prison(a) under sentence, (b) on remand and (c) in total; and how many there were on average in each category in each of the last five years. [187231]

  Paul Goggins
  The table shows information from the Prison Service information system on the number of young offenders aged 18–20 who were in prison establishments in England and Wales(a) under immediate custodial sentence (b) on remand and (c) in total in each of the last five years.

  Population of young offenders aged 18–201 in prison establishments, by custody type England and Wales, 30 June

  Immediate custodial sentence

  Remand

  Total

  2000

  6,670

  2,103

  8,780

  2001

  6,728

  1,867

  8,597

  2002

  6,766

  2,189

  9,018

  2003

  6,779

  1,920

  8,789

  2004

  6,543

  1,890

  8,513

  1The figures include young offenders who have turned 21 but who have not been reclassified as adults.

SOLICITOR-GENERAL

  Criminal Cases Review (Angela Cunnings Judgment)
  Vera Baird
  To ask the Solicitor-General if she will take steps to ensure that those whose convictions are reviewed under the process set up after the Angela Cannings decision with no further action resulting are notified that a review has taken place. [172613]

  The Solicitor-General
  The review of cases identified following the Angela Cannings judgment follows a three-stage review process. First, the relevant CPS areas identify the key features in cases and then they are passed to a Central Review Team comprising 1588W
  prosecutors who are highly experienced in complex criminal casework. A smaller number of cases are then passed to the Interdepartmental Group for final consideration.

  The review process is not determinative of whether any conviction is unsafe or not. Offenders legal representatives will be written to where it is felt there may be features which warrant further consideration by either the Court of Appeal or Criminal Cases Review Commission. The Crown Prosecution Service will in each case where an offender is written to make an independent decision on whether to contest the appeal.

  As the review process initiated by the Attorney-General is not determinative of the safety of any conviction it is not the intention of the Interdepartmental Group to notify each offender whose case does not contain features identified by the Court of Appeal in Angela Cannings. It is however open to any convicted person if it is felt he or she was wrongly convicted to appeal out of time to the Court of Appeal or to bring the case to the attention of the Criminal Cases Review Commission.

CABINET OFFICE

  Departmental Expenditure
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what the cost of running her Office's canteen facilities was in(a) 1996–97 and (b) the latest year for which figures are available. [185381]

  Ruth Kelly
  [holding answer 20 July 2004]Since April 2002 canteen facilities at the Cabinet Office's core London buildings have operated on a nil subsidy basis.

  In 2003–04, the Government Car and Despatch Agency, an Executive Agency of the Cabinet Office, incurred some £35,000 for the running of a canteen facility at its London Headquarters site. For the remainder of the Department's estate, either no such expenditure was incurred or figures can be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Owing to changes in the Cabinet Office's accounting system, figures for 1996–97 cannot be readily retrieved without incurring disproportionate cost.

  Directgov
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office (1) which elements of the production and operation of the Directgov website are being outsourced to India; [181131]

  (2) for what reason elements of the production and operation of the Directgov website are being outsourced to India; [181132]

  (3) what the security implications are of elements of the production and operation of the Directgov website being outsourced to India; [181133]

  (4) what assessment he has made of the economic effect on the United Kingdom of elements of the production and operation of the Directgov website being outsourced to India; [181134]
  1589W
  (5) if he will make a statement on the outsourcing of the production and operation of E Gov ventures to foreign countries. [181135]

  Ruth Kelly
  Outsourcing is a long established element of business. The UK gains economically from free and open global markets, and the Government believe companies should source from whichever country best fulfils their need.

  Directgov website, powered by a bespoke content management system and application known as DotP, is government information organised and delivered by multiple departments. Directgov provides consistent information on UK government services for citizens and businesses, at home and overseas.

  DotP is part of the secure central infrastructure that this Government are putting in place to ensure best value electronic government services. There has always been an outsourced element of DotP involving the private sector—these companies have obligations to make certain such work is carried out adopting government policy on security and competition, whether the work is carried out in the UK or overseas. The central infrastructure will continue to be developed in a way that ensures its viability and in line with government policy on security and competition. The intellectual property belongs to Her Majesty's Government. Any outsourcing under the contract has not resulted in a loss of UK jobs.

  The approach to production and operation (i.e. the maintenance) of Directgov content is a matter for participating departments. As far as we are aware, at this time none of the elements of content production or maintenance are being outsourced to India.

  Non-departmental Public Bodies
  Mr. Stunell
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office if she will list the date of the most recent annual general meeting of each non-departmental public body held in accordance with Cabinet Office guidelines. [188811]

  Ruth Kelly
  Cabinet Office guidelines state that non-departmental public bodies should hold Annual Open Meetings where practical and appropriate. The Cabinet Office does not hold lists of the dates of such meetings.

  The annual publication 'Public Bodies' indicates which NDPBs hold public meetings. Copies of 'Public Bodies' are available in the Library.

CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS

  Community Legal Service
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs how many Community Legal Service franchises have been granted in Wales to firms undertaking(a) criminal work and (b) family work; and if he will make a statement. [188977]

  Mr. Lammy
  There are currently 212 solicitors' offices in Wales which hold either a full or temporary Specialist Quality Mark for Crime and a General Criminal 1590W
  Contract with the Legal Services Commission to provide legal advice and representation to people accused of or charged with a crime.

  There are currently 286 solicitors' offices in Wales which hold contracts in the family category of law.

  Welsh Language
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs whether the Department has adopted a Welsh language policy. [189085]

  Mr. Lammy
  My Department is committed to meeting the requirements of the Welsh Language Act. The Court Service, the Magistrates Court Committees in Wales and the Office of the Information Commissioner have schemes in place approved by the Welsh Language Board. The Legal Services Commission is in the process of finalising their draft scheme.

  Documents produced by my Department are already published in Welsh. as well English whenever there is a clear need to do so.

  After extensive discussion between the former LCD (and then the DCA) and the Welsh Language Board a draft Welsh Language Scheme for the remainder of the DCA was sent to the Board in September 2003 for final approval. The Beard replied to my officials last December raising a number of new and unexpected issues.

  A resolution to these issues was reached with the Board in August 2004, and my staff are currently making a few minor amendments to our draft scheme. I hope that we can now move forward to approval of the final scheme very soon.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  2012 Olympics
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how much funding has been allocated for the 2012 Olympic bid. [189052]

  Tessa Jowell
  As stated in the Command Paper Cm 5867 laid before the House in June 2003, the Mayor and I agreed that DCMS and the London Development Agency should contribute to the costs of the bid organisation and associated planning in equal shares to a combined limit of £30 million.

  Academic Consultation
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many times her Department has consulted members of the academic community with regard to(a) physical activity, (b) gambling and (c) alcohol since January; and if she will make a statement. [188749]

  Mr. Caborn
  The Department has consulted members of the academic community formally and informally on about 100 occasions so far this year in respect of gambling. There have been no consultations on either physical activity or alcohol since January.

  Betting
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what plans she has to undertake a review of fixed odd betting terminals; and if she will make a statement. [188857]

  Mr. Caborn
  I expect to see in November 2004 the report of the independent research on the usage of fixed odds betting machines, which was commissioned by the Association of British Bookmakers at my request. We shall be including provision in our proposed Gambling Bill for the statutory regulation of these and other machines which do not fall within the definition of gaming machines in the current law, but which nevertheless have all the essential characteristics of gaming machines.

  Departmental Paper Sources
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what procedures are in place to ensure that paper and card products used by her Department originate from a sustainable source; and if she will make a statement. [189300]

  Mr. Caborn
  The Department takes seriously the commitment to sustainable procurement in respect of the supply of all goods and services. Contracts for the supply of paper and card products specify that content must be at least eighty percent recycled where the product allows. In respect of A4 copier paper only one hundred percent recycled paper is purchased. The onus is upon the supplier to show compliance.

  Departmental Recycling
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what the latest available 12 month figures are for the proportion of the Department's redundant documentation, waste paper and card that is recycled; and if she will make a statement on the Department's recycling policy. [188697]

  Mr. Caborn
  100 per cent. of Confidential Waste is shredded and recycled. Other recyclable office paper is separated from general waste by providing staff with two waste bins and is all recycled. 80 per cent. of all card is also recycled, only high gloss card being excluded. It is the policy of the Department to recycle or compost all usable waste. In procurement the Department seeks to limit the amount of packaging in which goods are delivered, thereby reducing the amount waste to be disposed of.

  Digital Terrestrial Broadcasting
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport when she expects digital terrestrial broadcasting to be available in Pendle; and if she will make a statement. [188567]

  Estelle Morris
  Ofcom do not hold data on Digital Terrestrial Television (DTT) coverage in individual constituencies. However, according to Ofcom, DTT services are available to those constituents that receive their television signals from the Winter Hill or Pendle Forest transmitters. This includes viewers in Nelson, Barrowford, Brierfield and most of Colne.
  1592W
  At present around 73 per cent. of UK households can access DTT services, but the Government are committed to ensuring that at Switchover everyone who can currently get the main public service broadcasting channels in analogue form (BBC 1 and 2, ITV, Channel 4/S4C and Channel 5) can receive them on digital systems.

  Much progress has been made in the discussions between the Government, Ofcom and the Public Service Broadcasters and while the broadcasters have not reached a full consensus on the optimum timetable, some—including the BBC—have suggested that 2012 may be the most appropriate date for the completion of Switchover.

  Historic Buildings
  Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many applications to build on sites of Scheduled Ancient Monuments have been approved in each of the last five years for which figures are available. [188774]

  Mr. Caborn
  Scheduled monument consents that are granted by the Department are not recorded by the types of works that are to be undertaken on them. Therefore this information is unavailable.

  English Heritage inspectors take into careful consideration any works to scheduled monuments that are applied for, assessing the archaeology of the site and its national importance before advising the Department if consent should be granted.

  Ofcom
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will make a statement on progress in winding-up the heritage regulators whose work has been assumed by Ofcom. [188233]

  Estelle Morris
  The regulatory functions of the Independent Television Commission, Radio Authority, Oftel, and the Broadcasting Standards Commission were transferred to Ofcom on 29 December 2003; under transitional arrangements the bodies remained formally in existence, principally to provide for completion of the Annual Accounts. These have since been published and laid before the House, apart from those for Oftel, which will be published shortly. An Order formally abolishing these bodies will be brought forward in due course. In addition, the functions of the Secretary of State formerly performed by the Radiocommunications Agency have been transferred to OFCOM, but no winding up will be required in that case as the RA was part of the DTI.

  Royal Palaces
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what living accommodation at St. James's Palace was allotted to members of the Royal Family prior to the move by HRH Prince Charles to Clarence House; to which members; and what the current disposition of that accommodation is. [188563]

  Mr. Caborn
  Prior to the Prince of Wales moving into Clarence House, St. James's Palace provided the official London residences for the Prince of Wales, the Princess
  1593W
  Royal and Princess Alexandra. The move has had no impact on the apartments of the Princess Royal and Princess Alexandra.

  The former official residence of the Prince of Wales is being converted into office accommodation which will be used by staff from the Prince of Wales's household. Their previous offices in St. James's Palace are to be taken over by the Royal Collection Department.

  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what residential accommodation at Buckingham Palace was allocated to members of the Royal Family, and to which members,(a) in 1999 and (b) on the latest date for which figures are available. [188564]

  Mr. Caborn
  Buckingham Palace is the official London residence for The Queen and The Duke of Edinburgh. The Duke of York and Earl and Countess

  Grant in aid at 2002–03 prices

  £000

  Tourism Board

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2002–03

  Cumbria

  275

  266

  239

  399

  646

  449

  East of England

  557

  432

  427

  633

  868

  806

  Heart of England

  528

  545

  494

  692

  931

  793

  London1

  513

  432

  382

  433

  1,964

  1,900

  Northumbria

  284

  241

  273

  394

  570

  447

  North West

  331

  322

  314

  438

  614

  575

  South East

  363

  315

  303

  385

  552

  544

  Southern

  519

  526

  471

  606

  759

  766

  South West

  496

  536

  512

  568

  842

  663

  Yorkshire

  572

  564

  504

  597

  755

  655

  1In 2001–02 and 2002–03, £1.9 million p.a. was passed from DCMS to the Greater London Authority (GLA). As well as £1.5 million for the promotion of London overseas as a destination and as a gateway to the rest of the UK, this included £400,000 for the development of tourism infrastructure, equivalent to the funding formerly passed to the London Tourist Board via the ETC. This funding is maintained under the current DCMS-GLA Agreement for 2003–06. £1.9 million passed to the GLA in 2003–04.

  In 2003-04, DCMS funding for tourism development in the regions passed to the Regional Development Agencies (RDAs). The 2003–04 grant in aid payments to the RDAs are shown in the following table:

  Grant in aid in 2003–04

  Regional Development Agency1

  £000

  East of England

  543

  West Midlands

  252

  East Midlands

  252

  North East

  333

  South East England

  744

  South West England

  403

  Yorkshire and the Number

  360

  Grant in aid per head of resident population1 at 2002–03 prices

  £

  Tourism Board

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2002–03

  North East

  0.11

  0.09

  0.11

  0.16

  0.23

  0.18

  North West and Cumbria1

  0.09

  0.09

  0.08

  0.12

  0.19

  0.15

  Yorkshire

  0.12

  0.11

  0.10

  0.12

  0.15

  0.13

  Heart of England

  0.06

  0.06

  0.05

  0.07

  0.10

  0.08

  East of England

  0.11

  0.08

  0.08

  0.12

  0.16

  0.15

  London

  0.07

  0.06

  0.05

  0.06

  0.27

  0.26

  Southern and South East1

  0.11

  0.11

  0.10

  0.12

  0.16

  0.16

  South West

  0.10

  0.11

  0.10

  0.12

  0.17

  0.13

  1594W
  of Wessex also have residential accommodation in the Palace for use when they are in London. The position is unchanged between 1999 and now.

  Tourism
  Brian Cotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what the level of Government grant in aid was to each regional tourist board in England in each year since 1997 (a) per head of population and (b) in real terms; and what the proportion was of (i) overseas and (ii) domestic tourists in England in each regional tourist board area in the same period. [188666]

  Mr. Caborn
  The Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) provided grant in aid to the English Tourism Council (ETC, formerly the English Tourist Board) between 1997–98 and 2002–03. Grant in aid was paid by the ETC to the Regional Tourist Boards (RTBs) as shown in the following table:

  Grant in aid in 2003–04

  Regional Development Agency1

  £000

  North West

  713

  1In 2001–02 and 2002–03, £1.9 million p.a. was passed from DCMS to the Greater London Authority (GLA). As well as £1.5 million for the promotion of London overseas as a destination and as a gateway to the rest of the UK, this included £400,000 for the development of tourism infrastructure, equivalent to the funding formerly passed to the London Tourist Board via the ETC. This funding is maintained under the current DCMS-GLA Agreement for 2003–06. £1.9 million passed to the GLA in 2003–04.

  Grant in aid per head of the resident population for each Regional Tourism Board area is shown in the following table:
  1595W

  1Population Trends provides population figures for the standard administrative Government Office Regions (GORs). These are not identical to the areas covered by the RTBs but have been used as the best available approximation. It was necessary to combine North West and Cumbria, and also Southern and South East, to match the GOR figures.

  Source:

  Population Trends

  The proportion of overnight tourism visits to each region1 is shown in the following table:

  1The International Passenger Survey and UK Tourism Survey

  Percentage

  Proportion of total domestic tourism visits

  Proportion of total overseas tourism visits

  Tourism Board

  2000

  2001

  2002

  2000

  2001

  2002

  East of England

  9

  10

  11

  7

  6

  7

  Heart of England

  17

  17

  18

  9

  9

  11

  London

  13

  13

  12

  51

  50

  48

  Northumbria

  8

  7

  7

  2

  2

  2

  North West and Cumbria

  11

  10

  11

  6

  6

  6

  Tourism South East

  19

  20

  19

  16

  17

  16

  South West

  13

  15

  15

  6

  6

  6

  Yorkshire

  9

  8

  9

  4

  4

  4

  Note:

  Regional UK Tourism Survey data is only available on a consistent basis back to 2000 due to a major change in the survey methodology.

  Source:

  International Passenger Survey, UK Tourism Survey.

  Brian Cotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what the level of Government grant in aid was to the English Tourism Council in each year since 2000. [188742]

  Mr. Caborn
  In April 2003, functions of the British Tourist Authority and the English Tourism Council (ETC) were merged to form VisitBritain. Grant in aid for the ETC for the period 2000–03 was as follows:

  Grant in aid to ETC

  £ million

  2000–01

  11

  2001–02

  9.6

  2002–03

  11.6

  In addition, £3.8 million was awarded to the ETC in 2001–02 and further £1 million in 2002–03 from the Reserve to help tourism recover from the impact of foot and mouth and the terrorist attacks of 11 September 2001. In 2002–03, the ETC was also awarded £3.6 million over two years from the Invest to Save Budget to support the development of the EnglandNet project to establish an on-line tourism network for England.

  Grant in aid allocation to VisitBritain for the domestic marketing of England was £10 million in 2003–04 and £12.9 million is available for 2004–05.

  TV Licensing
  Jim Dowd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what TV Licensing's policy is on the number of times a household which has declared that it does not hold a TV licence because it has no television is re-contacted to verify that declaration; how much such re-contacting cost in the latest year for which figures are available; how many households fell within this category in the most recent year for which figures are available, expressed(a) in numerical terms and (b) as a
  1596W
  provide estimates for the number of trips, including an overnight stay, made within the UK by overseas and domestic tourists respectively. It should be noted that, at regional level, these surveys have a relatively high margin of error.

  proportion of UK households; and if she will make representations to TV Licensing to make these procedures less burdensome on householders. [189036]

  Estelle Morris
  The BBC has statutory responsibility for the administration of the television licensing system and TV Licensing carries out the day to day administration under contract to the Corporation. I have therefore asked the BBC's Head of Revenue Management to consider the questions raised by my hon. Friend and to write to him direct, placing a copy of the letter in the Library of the House.

  As part of BBC Charter Review, the Government will be considering how the Corporation should be funded after the expiry of the current Charter, including whether the existing arrangements might be improved.

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

  Business Services
  Michael Fabricant
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister (1) whether he has commissioned reports on how customer relationship management technology could be adapted to support local authorities in their development of joined-up services in relation to business; [188133]

  (2) if he will make a statement on his Department's progress in ensuring that single business accounts are in place by the start of April 2006. [188221]

  Phil Hope
  Through the Local e-Government programme, the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has supported the development of customer relationship management (CRM) technology appropriate to local authorities' needs. That CRM technology is a fundamental building block for local e-government, helping to transform local authorities' service delivery, including transactions with business. Building on that within the Local e-Government programme, the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has also supported a
  1597W
  National Project on Working With Business (WWB), to provide a framework, called the Single Business Account, for local authorities to improve specifically their provision of information and transactional services for local businesses. The project completed its work earlier this year.

  The WWB Project's outputs include a "Single Business Account" toolkit, which draws on data collected via authorities' CRM technology, and a "Single Business Account" pilot. The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister is currently supporting the dissemination of these and the Project's other products to ensure that all local authorities in England are aware of them and make maximum use of them. In particular, the products should help to ensure that they meet the shared target to have e-enabled 100 per cent. of their priority services by end 2005 in ways that their customers will use.

  Further details about the project are available from enquiries@workingwithbusiness.org.uk

  Council of Ministers
  Sue Doughty
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister (1) if he will provide a written ministerial statement outlining the key points on the agenda for each of the Council of Ministers' meetings at which his Department is represented in advance of each meeting; [188212]

  (2) if he will provide a written ministerial statement outlining for each meeting of the Council of Ministers at which his Department is represented as soon as is practicable following that meeting (a) the key items of discussion, (b) the positions of the Government on those items, (c) the key positions taken by other member states that Ministers consider should be noted by hon. Members and (d) any preliminary discussion on the timing and the agenda of the following meeting. [188213]

  Phil Hope
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to the hon. Member by my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn on 13 September 2004,Official Report, column 1452W.

  Essex Careers and Business Partnership Ltd
  Bob Russell
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what assistance can be given under the Local Government Pension scheme to employees of the Essex Careers and Business Partnership Ltd., owned jointly by Essex, Southend and Thurrock councils, now in liquidation; and if he will make a statement. [188821]

  Phil Hope
  Essex Careers and Business Partnership Ltd. established its own pension arrangements for employees; they were not members of the Local Government Pension Scheme. Consequently, the loss of any pension rights as a result of the company's liquidation needs to be resolved initially on that basis.

  Bob Russell
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will inquire into the decision of Essex, Southend and Thurrock councils to place the Essex Careers and Business Partnership Ltd. into liquidation from 31 March; and if he will make a statement. [188822]

  Mr. Raynsford
  Essex Careers and Business Partnership Ltd. (ECBP) was a private company delivering Careers Company services across Essex,1598W
  Southend and Thurrock. Up until 31 March 2004 ECBP delivered these services under a contract with the Connexions Partnership (Connexions Essex Southend and Thurrock), and as a private company it is for the shareholders to decide if and when the company should be placed in liquidation.

  Since the company went into liquidation the full range of 'Careers Service' activities has been delivered by Connexions Essex, Southend and Thurrock, and all ECBP staff working on Connexions activities have transferred under TUPE conditions to the Connexions Partnership.

  Housing
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what time limit he put on his policy that everyone should have access to decent housing; and what progress has been made in delivering that policy. [187964]

  Keith Hill
  The Government's target is to"By 2010, bring all social housing into a decent condition with most of this improvement taking place in deprived areas, and for vulnerable households in the private sector, including families with children, increase the proportion who live in homes that are in decent condition."

  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister is making good progress in delivering our target. In 2004 the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister will have cut the number of non-decent homes by 1 million, while £18 billion will have been invested in existing council and housing association homes since 1997. The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has also helped over 130,000 vulnerable households in the private sector to bring their homes into decent condition.

  Bob Spink
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what he determines as constituting decent housing. [187965]

  Keith Hill
  A decent home is one that meets the statutory minimum standard for housing, is in a reasonable state of repair, has reasonably modern facilities and services and provides a reasonable degree of thermal comfort.

  Further details are available in the document "A Decent Home—the definition and guidance for implementation" published February 2004, a copy of which is available in the Library of the House of Commons.

  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what impact the additional funding granted to his Department in the 2001 Spending Review will have on the provision of affordable housing(a) in the Tamworth parliamentary constituency and (b) in the West Midlands. [188114]

  Keith Hill
  The funding provided in the Spending Review will, along with efficiency improvements, produce 75,000 social rented homes and 40,000 homes for essential public sector workers and low cost homeownership over the three years to 2007–08. Decisions have not yet been taken on how Regional Housing Pot funding for 2006–07 and 2007–08 (including the additional funding for affordable housing) is split between regions. This needs to reflect the different pattern of needs across regions and the Government's national housing priorities, including
  1599W
  development of the growth areas, and targets. The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister aims to complete this work, which raises some complex issues, by the end of the year.

  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister will announce decisions on allocation of funding within regions next summer in the light of recommendations from Regional Housing Boards, which are due in May next year.

  Housing (Windows Regulations)
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what rules regulate the fitting of windows into houses, with particular reference to FENSA certificates; and if he will make a statement. [188908]

  Phil Hope
  The installation of both new or replacement windows or doors in dwellings in England and Wales must meet all the relevant requirements in the Building Regulations 2000, as amended. In particular, such windows and doors must allow adequate means of escape in case of fire, adequate ventilation for both the occupants of the dwelling and any combustion appliances in it, reasonable provision for the conservation of fuel and power used in the dwelling and, where necessary, safety glazing to protect against injuries from impact. Special considerations may apply in the case of some listed buildings or those in conservation areas.

  FENSA certificates are documents provided by window and door installers who are registered members of the Fenestration Self-Assessment Scheme. The certificates states to the householder that the windows and doors installed meet fully the requirements of the Building Regulations. Where windows and doors are installed by a person who is not a FENSA registered installer, the installation must be notified to the local authority, which will then have the responsibility for checking that the work complies with the Building Regulations.

  Local Government Pensions
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what considerations guided him in proposing the change from an 80 to an 85 age/years of service formula in the Local Government Pension Scheme; and when he proposes to implement this change. [188723]

  Phil Hope
  Proposals to phase out the 85 year rule in the Local Government Pension Scheme are part of the Government's general policy to implement an age 65 retirement date for the public sector. They will also ensure compliance with age discrimination legislation, which must be in place no later than October 2006, and assist in our intentions to ensure the affordability and sustainability of the Scheme. The changes are planned to take effect from 1 April 2005.

  Regeneration Projects
  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how much expenditure has been allocated to regeneration projects in the North East broken down by parliamentary constituency, in each year since the establishment of his Department and what the planned expenditure is in the next financial year. [188293]
  1600W
  Phil Hope
  It is considered that the information requested can be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Regional Assemblies
  Ann Winterton
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister for what reason a preamble is to be included on the proposed ballot paper for the referendum on a regional assembly in the North East of England. [188805]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The purpose of the preamble is to ensure that electors are informed of the implications, particularly for local government, of voting on the establishment of a regional assembly.

  The form of the ballot paper, including the wording of the preamble, is prescribed by the Regional Assemblies (Preparations) Act 2003(a), which was enacted by Parliament last year.

LEADER OF THE HOUSE

  Recyling
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Leader of the House what the latest available 12 month figures are for the proportion of his Office's redundant documentation, waste paper and card that is recycled; and if he will make a statement on his Office's recycling policy. [188699]

  Mr. Hain
  The Privy Council Office has responsibility for the day-to-day building management of the Office of the Leader of the House of Commons.

  100 per cent. of non-confidential paper and card waste is recycled by the Privy Council Office, in conjunction with Westminster City Council.

  The Office's policy is to:
  reduce the amount of waste produced;
  reduce the amount of waste by only disposing of waste that cannot be reused or recycled;
  dispose of waste that cannot be reused or recycled in a way which causes the minimum impact to the environment; and
  manage the Office's waste in line with the '3 Rs waste hierarchy' (reduce; reuse; and recover).

PRIME MINISTER

  Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list the ministerial responsibilities he has assigned to the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. [189119]

  The Prime Minister
  The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster will have a cross-Government role in the coordination of Government policy. He will also be responsible for the work of the Strategy Unit and the Policy Directorate. He is, a Member of Cabinet and will sit on a number of Cabinet Committees. He will also be responsible for Duchy business.

DEFENCE

  Armed Forces Modernisation
  John Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment his Department has made of
  1601W
  the ability of the United Kingdom to conduct military operations independently of the United States after the modernisation of the armed forces. [187567]

  Mr. Hoon
  The force structure changes detailed in the "Future Capabilities" paper that was published in July 2004 (Cm 6269) will provide a broad spectrum of capabilities to ensure that the UK is capable of conducting limited national operations, or of being the lead or framework nation for coalition operations at small and medium scale where the US is not participating. The full spectrum of capabilities is not required for large scale operations, as the most demanding operations could only conceivably be undertaken alongside the US, either as a NATO operation or a US-led coalition, where we have choices as to what to contribute.

  Arms Exports
  Richard Younger-Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how the Government monitors where permitted armament exports end up. [188132]

  Mr. MacShane
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Government undertakes monitoring of such equipment in the recipient country when we believe this would genuinely help to minimise the risk of diversion and where such monitoring is practical. In addition, UK Overseas Posts have standing instructions to report any misuse of UK-origin defence equipment. Such misuse would be taken fully into account when the Government assesses any subsequent licence applications We may also, if appropriate, revoke other related licences, and consider whether to prosecute if any criminal offences had been committed.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he will reply to questions reference 174180, 173337 and 173317 tabled by the hon. Member for Leyton and Wanstead. [178806]

  Mr. Ingram
  I replied to my hon. Friend on 10 June 2004,Official Report, column 604W, 14 July 2004, Official Report, column 724W and 1 September 2004, Official Report, columns 725–72W respectively.

  Royal Military Academy, Sandhurst
  Mr. Mackay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the future of the Royal Military Academy, Sandhurst. [187481]

  Mr. Caplin
  The Ministry of Defence remains committed to the delivery of officer training at the Royal Military Academy, Sandhurst. Recent improvements to the site include substantial refurbishment of Victory College, and the building of a new Officers' Mess annex.

  Russia
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the destruction of biological weapons material in the Russian Federation. [188334]
  1602W
  Mr. Hoon
  Under the G8 Global Partnership against the Spread of Weapons and Materials of Mass Destruction, a number of countries have undertaken to consolidate and secure collections of pathogenic material in the Russian Federation and other countries of the Former Soviet Union. In the biological area the UK has given priority to the risks of proliferation of scientific expertise rather than materials.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what support his Department is providing for the reform of the military in the Russian Federation. [188366]

  Mr. Hoon
  The Ministry of Defence has a bilateral Defence Relations Activity Programme designed among other objectives to facilitate appropriate military reform. Key elements are:

  Military to Military Co-operation

  The Naval programme has established affiliations between UK and Russian counterparts and progressed into exercises conducted by both ships and training establishments. Army co-operation has covered specific activities of UK expertise, including countering Improvised Explosive Devices and Peace Support Operations. It is intended to advance this programme through the development of unit affiliations leading to field exercises in the peace support arena.

  The Russian Resettlement Project

  Trains members of the Russian armed forces in skills that will assist them in finding civilian employment following discharge. Since 1995, we have trained 20,800 former members of the Russian armed forces, of which 70 per cent. have found gainful employment.

  The Arctic Military Environmental Co-operation (AMEC) Agreement

  The Arctic Military Environmental Co-operation (AMEC) Agreement between Norway, USA, Russia and UK aims to deal with the legacy of Soviet military equipment and ameliorate its impact on the Arctic environment. Since joining in 2003, the UK has become involved in a range of projects, including the dismantling and stabilisation of nuclear powered submarines and surface ships.

  Financial Reform

  The Russian MOD requested advice on financial control in the military, which was delivered via in-depth briefings at the MOD to Deputy Defence Minister Kudelina in early 2004.

  NATO-Russia Council (NRC)

  The UK also supports Russian military reform as a member of the NRC, which facilitates engagement between the 26 member states of NATO and Russia. It provides a forum for discussion of key issues, including defence reform.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what discussions he has had with his counterparts in EU member states about increasing the contribution of the European Union to non-proliferation efforts in the Russian Federation. [188369]

  Mr. Hoon
  None.

EDUCATION AND SKILLS

  Academic Performance
  Keith Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills whether there is evidence from trends in academic performance that(a) pupils and (b) students

  Attainment of five or more GCSE grades A*-C in year 11 by ethnic group: 1991–2001

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  1995

  1996

  19971

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  Weighted sample

  24,922

  —

  18,020

  —

  15,899

  —

  14,662

  —

  13,698

  —

  16,707

  Percentage

  All

  37

  —

  42

  —

  44

  —

  46

  —

  49

  —

  51

  White

  37

  —

  43

  —

  45

  —

  47

  —

  50

  —

  52

  Black

  23

  —

  21

  —

  23

  —

  29

  —

  39

  —

  36

  Asian

  33

  —

  36

  —

  38

  —

  45

  —

  48

  —

  52

  Indian

  38

  —

  45

  —

  48

  —

  54

  —

  60

  —

  60

  Pakistani

  26

  —

  24

  —

  23

  —

  29

  —

  29

  —

  40

  Bangladeshi

  14

  —

  20

  —

  25

  —

  33

  —

  29

  —

  41

  Other Asian

  46

  —

  50

  —

  61

  —

  61

  —

  72

  —

  64

  Other ethnic group

  2—

  —

  37

  —

  46

  —

  47

  —

  43

  —

  53

  Not stated

  18

  —

  16

  —

  29

  —

  27

  —

  26

  —

  30

  1From 1997, includes equivalent GNVQ qualifications achieved in year 11.

  2Not available.

  Source:

  Youth Cohort Study (England and Wales) cohorts 6–11, sweep 1.

  Information on achievement of students is not available from the same source, but the following table, from the Higher Education Statistics Agency shows the numbers in higher education from different ethnic groups and the proportion of these groups who obtained first or upper second class degrees:

  Proportion of first degree graduates in each ethnic group achieving a first or upper second doss degree

  1997/98

  2002/03

  Ethnic group1

  Graduates

  First or 2:1 (percentage)

  Graduates

  First or 2:1 (percentage)

  White

  180,130

  53

  201,355

  58

  Black

  5,630

  29

  7,085

  34

  Indian

  6,695

  39

  10,085

  44

  Pakistani

  2,935

  35

  4,695

  36

  Bangladeshi

  765

  34

  1,400

  38

  Chinese

  1,835

  44

  2,525

  45

  Asian Other

  2,095

  40

  2,735

  46

  Mixed

  n/a

  n/a

  825

  53

  Other

  2,820

  47

  3,505

  52

  Unknown

  ethnicity

  27,720

  48

  16,125

  45

  Total

  230,625

  51

  250,335

  55

  n/a = not available.

  1Covers UK domiciled students only. From the academic year 2001/02 onwards, HESA has coded ethnicity using a more detailed ethnic breakdown that allows identification of those of mixed ethnicity. In years prior to this, those of mixed ethnicity will have been recorded in one of the other ethnic groups.

  Source:

  Higher Education Statistics Agency (HESA)

  Archaeology
  Mr. Hurst
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills whether he plans to retain archaeology as a GCSE examination subject. [188549]
  1604W
  from (i) white and (ii) other ethnic communities are increasing their level of performance. [188291]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  The Youth Cohort Study has been run by the Department for a number of years and collects information from young people after they have finished compulsory education. The following table shows the percentage of pupils that achieve five or more GCSEs at grade A* to C:

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The Qualifications and Curriculum Authority (QCA) is regulator of the public examinations system. It oversees the work of the examinations awarding bodies, to ensure that their administration, marking and awarding procedures run smoothly. Awarding bodies are independent organisations and, as such, Ministers have no powers to intervene in their actions.

  The QCA does expect awarding bodies to offer a broad portfolio of qualifications, but cannot insist on them offering specific subjects. QCA can, however, insist that the awarding bodies give sufficient notice to centres and give support to centres in finding suitable alternative qualifications. In this instance the QCA felt that appropriate notice had been given by AQA to drop its GCSE Archaeology specification and, considering the fact that most candidates were post-16 (there were only 92 pre-16 candidates for GCSE archaeology in 2003), the AS qualification seemed a suitable alternative.

  When Ministers consider the final report of the Working Group on 14–19 Reform we will ensure that any proposals for reform will allow a wide range of qualification areas and subjects to be available to ensure choice and breadth of knowledge for learners.

  Departmental Press Officers
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what his projection is of the number of press officers employed in his Department for 2004–05. [187554]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  It is anticipated that 20 press officers will be employed in this Department in 2004–05.

  European Languages Day
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what steps his Department is taking to mark European Languages Day. [188037]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  The Department, in conjunction with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and CILT, the National Centre for Languages, will be marking the day with a public event, to be held at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. The programme for the day of celebrations will include the European Awards for Languages ceremony, which will recognise the innovation and achievement of 17 different language learning projects across the education spectrum, and the launch of the Languages Work project.

  Medical Training
  Jim Dowd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many students (a) were admitted to and (b) graduated from medical training in the UK in each of the past 10 years. [189003]

  Dr. Howells
  The available information covering medical school intake and graduate output at institutions in England is given in the table. Information for Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish medical schools is the responsibility of the devolved Administrations.

  Actual Medical School intake and output in England 1993/94 to 2003/04

  Academic year

  Intake

  Graduate Output

  1994/95

  3,514

  2,911

  1995/96

  3,486

  2,983

  1996/97

  3,594

  3,025

  1997/98

  3,749

  3,261

  1998/99

  3,735

  3,097

  1999/2000

  3,972

  3,373

  2000/01

  4,300

  3,286

  2001/02

  4,713

  3,280

  2002/03

  5,277

  3,522

  2003/04

  16,030

  n/a

  1This figure is provisional until December 2004 when a finalised figure will be cleared.

  Source:

  Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE).

  Public Services Funding
  Mr. Gale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will identify, for(a) his Department and (b) the agencies and task forces for which his Department is responsible, each funding stream for public services in (i) the Isle of Thanet and (ii) the Canterbury City local authority area. [181730]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  [holding answer 1 July 2004]The Department provides funding for schools and their pupils aged 3–15, other education services, Children, Young People and Family Services, and the Youth Service, in the Isle of Thanet and Canterbury City, through Kent county council and local partnerships. In 2004–05, Kent county council and local partnerships in the county receive funding from the Department through the funding streams set out as follows. Schools can already spend most of these funds in any way they choose and we will be working with schools and local authorities to take further steps to rationalise funding streams, including a Single Improvement Grant.
  1606W
  Recurrent funding for education in Kent

  School standards grant

  Standards fund:

  Advanced Skills Teachers

  Aim Higher

  Beacon Schools

  Behaviour Improvement Programme

  Building schools' capacity for continuing professional development

  Early Excellence Centres

  Education Health Partnerships

  Enterprise Learning Pathfinders

  Ethnic minority achievement grant

  Excellence in Cities and Excellence Clusters

  Extended schools

  Federations

  Key Stage 3 National Strategy: central coordination

  LEA support for workforce remodelling

  Leadership incentive grain

  Leading Edge schools

  Music services

  Primary expansion

  Primary Strategy Central Coordination

  School development grant

  School travel advisers

  Specialist schools grant

  Study support quality development programme

  Summer schools for gifted and talented children

  Targeted improvement grant

  Targeted support for Key Stage 3

  Targeted support for primary strategy

  Training schools

  Vulnerable children

  Targeted transitional grant

  Teachers' performance pay funding

  Teachers' threshold pay grant

  Capital funding for education in Kent

  Academies capital1

  Capital support for the expansion of successful and popular secondary schools1

  Devolved formula capital

  Excellence in Cities (City Learning Centres)

  Failing Schools and Fresh Start1

  ICT in schools (including ICT infrastructure, hands-on support, Broadband lnterconnectivity and eLearning Credits

  Interactive whiteboards

  Modernisation funding

  New pupil places (basic need)

  Non-maintained special schools1

  Private Finance Initiative

  School travel plans

  Schools Access Initiative

  Seed Challenge

  Specialist schools capital

  Targeted capital funding

  Voluntary aided schools capital

  1Capital funding stream available to Kent, though the county does not currently have an allocation in 2004–05.

  Recurrent and capital funding for children, young people and family services in Kent

  Adoption and special guardianship grant

  1607W

  Child and adolescent mental health services

  Children's fund partnerships

  Children's social services supported capital expenditure (revenue)

  Choice protects grant

  Connexions partnerships

  Integrated children's services grant

  Safeguarding children's grant

  SENDA funding for the youth service (to help the youth service become compliant with the Special Educational Needs and Disability Act)

  Sure Start general grant:

  Non-ring-fenced funding:

  Delivery support fund

  Children's information service

  Workforce development (recruitment and training)

  Nursery schools development

  Extended schools

  New child care places in disadvantaged areas (revenue) New child care places in other areas (revenue)

  New child care places (capital for out of school child care)

  New child care places in disadvantaged areas (capital for playgroup conversion)

  New child care places in other areas (capital for playgroup conversion)

  Ring-fenced funding lines:

  SEN and inclusion (children with special needs and disabled children)

  Children's centres (revenue)

  Children's centres (capital)

  Support childminder scheme

  Neighbourhood nurseries (revenue)

  Neighbourhood nurseries (capital)

  Sustainability of child care places

  Sure Start local programme funding

  Teenage pregnancy

  Unaccompanied asylum-seeking children leaving care

  Suffolk county council

  Academic year (September to may)

  Compulsory school age

  Number of pupils that missed at least a half day due to unauthorised absence

  Average sessions missed per pupil due to unauthorised absence

  percentage of half days missed due to unauthorised absence

  Attendance (percentage)

  Primary

  2003

  40,340

  3,783

  8

  0.3

  95

  2002

  40,686

  3,826

  8

  0.3

  95

  2001

  41,317

  3,414

  8

  0.2

  95

  2000

  40,358

  2,994

  8

  0.2

  95

  1999

  39,058

  3,002

  8

  0.2

  95

  Secondary

  2003

  49,322

  10,382

  15

  1.1

  92

  2002

  48,668

  8,001

  16

  0.9

  92

  2001

  47,925

  6,352

  14

  0.6

  92

  2000

  47,180

  4,529

  14

  0.5

  93

  1999

  45,750

  4,545

  18

  0.6

  93

  Bury St. Edmunds

  Academic year (September to May)

  Compulsory school age

  Number of pupils that missed at least a half day due to unauthorised

  Average sessions missed per pupil due to unauthorised absence

  Percentage of half days missed due to unauthorised absence

  Attendance (percentage)

  Primary

  2003

  5,193

  463

  7

  0.2

  95

  2002

  5,253

  439

  6

  0.2

  96

  2001

  5,201

  243

  7

  0.1

  95

  1608W
  Transforming youth work development fund.

  Recurrent and capital funding for post-16 learning and skills provision (outside higher education) in Kent

  The Learning and Skills Council (LSC) is responsible for the funding of post-16 learning and skills provision (outside higher education) in the Isle of Thanet and City of Canterbury local authority areas. The Department provides funding to the LSC through the following funding lines:

  Learning Participation

  School Sixth Forms

  Capital

  Local Intervention and Development

  Administration.

  Recurrent and capital funding for higher education in Kent

  There are five institutions in Kent LEA: three higher education institutions (HEIs) and two further education colleges who run higher education courses. All of these receive funding from Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE). As there are no HEIs on the Isle of Thanet there is no funding by HEFCE. HEFCE provided funding for the following funding lines:

  Teaching (core funding, additional places, widening access and improving retention)

  Research (quality related research, capability fund)

  Moderation of Teaching and Research

  Rewarding and Developing Staff.

  Truancy
  Mr. Ruffley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many children in(a) Suffolk county council and (b) Bury St. Edmunds constituency played truant from school in each of the last five years. [187179]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  The information requested is as follows:
  1609W

  Bury St. Edmunds

  Academic year (September to May)

  Compulsory school age

  Number of pupils that missed at least a half day due to unauthorised

  Average sessions missed per pupil due to unauthorised absence

  Percentage of half days missed due to unauthorised absence

  Attendance (Percentage)

  2000

  5,191

  220

  9

  0.1

  95

  1999

  4,632

  223

  7

  0.1

  96

  Secondary

  2003

  9,714

  1,444

  13

  0.7

  94

  2002

  9,722

  957

  14

  0.4

  94

  2001

  9,588

  727

  13

  0.3

  93

  2000

  9,392

  644

  11

  0.3

  94

  1999

  9,163

  692

  10

  0.2

  94

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Afghanistan
  Sue Doughty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what his policy is on the level of voter registration necessary for the October 2004 and April 2005 elections in Afghanistan to ensure a credible democratic mandate for the resulting President and Government; what progress towards that level has to date been made; and if he will make a statement. [188073]

  Mr. Rammell
  The UN/Afghan official Joint Elections Management Body reports that over 10.5 million voters have been registered in Afghanistan; voter registration is now closed. Although there is no current detailed census information for Afghanistan, this figure clearly represents the overwhelming majority of those eligible to vote. This is a significant achievement and a clear demonstration of the desire of the Afghan people to participate in the democratic process.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Afghan Transitional Administration on the timing of elections in Afghanistan. [188355]

  Mr. Rammell
  We regularly discuss arrangements for the elections with members of the Afghan Transitional Administration (ATA) at official level. My hon. Friend the then Minister for Trade, Investment and Foreign Affairs (Mike O'Brien) last discussed this subject with President Karzai and other members of the ATA in Berlin on 1 April.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what advice his Department is providing to the Afghan Transitional Administration on voter registration. [188359]

  Mr. Rammell
  Voter registration in Afghanistan has been conducted by the joint Afghan/UN Joint Elections Management Body. The UK was not asked to provide advice on voter registration and has not done so. We have contributed £11 million to the UN voter registration programme.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will break down funding that has been pledged by(a) the United Kingdom and (b) other United Nations member states
  1610W
  for the electoral process in Afghanistan by main category; and how much of that funding has been delivered. [188360]

  Mr. Rammell
  The UK has contributed approximately £11.8 million to assist with voter registration for the elections in Afghanistan, as well as approximately £3.125 million for the holding of the presidential elections themselves. These funds have been delivered.

  Detailed and up-to-date information on the elections, including figures for funding pledged and received by all the relevant donor countries is available on the website of the Afghan/UN Joint Elections Management Body: http://www.elections -afghanistan.org.af.

  Anglican Church Property (Algiers)
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what stage the negotiations with the Rt. Rev. Dr. Mouneer Anis of Egypt concerning the Anglican church property in Algiers have reached; and if he will make a statement. [188324]

  Mr. Rammell
  Foreign and Commonwealth Office officials met Bishop Mouneer in London on 28 June to discuss the Holy Trinity Church in Algiers. We agreed that we should work together over the coming months to agree a way forward. Work on this has already begun and will continue until a solution is found. We last contacted the Bishop on 3 September to inform him that we have gathered the relevant documentation, and to ask him to nominate a legal adviser. We await his reply.

  Departmental Recycling
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what the latest available 12 month figures are for the proportion of the Department's redundant documentation, waste paper and card that is recycled; and if he will make a statement on the Department's recycling policy. [188688]

  Mr. Rammell
  The Foreign and Commonwealth Office's policy is to recycle all of its paper waste and thin card, generated in the UK. In 2003–04, 240.76 tonnes of this material were disposed of to recycling. This represents a high proportion of the total. An exact proportion cannot be given as small amounts of paper and card can be inadvertently disposed of in general waste which is not, at present, further sorted and measured.

  EU Commission
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether the National Assembly for Wales will be consulted by the Government before the EU Commission publishes proposals relevant to its powers; and if he will make a statement. [188976]

  Mr. MacShane
  The Government are in continual contact with the devolved Administrations about European proposals in their areas of interest, including at Ministerial level, through the Joint Ministerial Committee on Europe (JMC(E)), The Government seeks to reflect the views of the devolved Administrations in the UK negotiating position, which balances the interests of all parts of the UK. In general, the Government are in frequent contact with the devolved Administrations and other relevant parties when responding to specific Commission proposals.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans there are for the devolved Administrations of the United Kingdom to have representation (a) on relevant United Kingdom delegations in the EU Council of Ministers and (b) in preparatory meetings of COREPER, and if he will make a statement. [188980]

  Mr. MacShane
  Ministers from the devolved Administrations attend meetings of the EU's Council of Ministers when there are items on the agenda within their devolved responsibilities.

  Officials from the devolved Administrations are accredited to the delegation of the United Kingdom Permanent Representation to the European Union and attend meetings of relevant Council working groups. They are in regular contact with the officials who represent the United Kingdom on these working groups.

  During the UK Presidency of the EU in the second half of 2005 an official from the Scottish Executive will chair a Transport Working Group and an official from the Welsh Assembly Government will chair the Culture Working Group. These officials will brief the United Kingdom's Permanent Representative for meetings of COREPER.

  Other officials from the devolved Administrations will sit in the United Kingdom seats on a range of other Council working groups during the UK Presidency of the EU.

  Falun Gong
  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the persecution of the Falun Gong in China; and what action the Government are taking to draw attention to this. [188634]

  Mr. Rammell
  We have serious concerns about human rights abuses against Falun Gong adherents in China, We regularly raise these concerns with the Chinese Government. At the most recent round of the biannual UK/China Human Right; Dialogue, held in London on 13–14 May, we again noted our concerns about the mistreatment of Falun Gong practitioners in detention, and handed over a list of individual cases of 1612W
  concern which included Falun Gong prisoners. I also recently raised the issue of human rights with Vice Foreign Minister Zhang Yesui during my visit to China in July.

  Gibraltar
  Mr. Ancram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs pursuant to the comments made by the Secretary of State for Defence during the Gibraltar Tercentenary celebrations in August that the enlargement of the European Union would have implications for Gibraltar, if he will make a statement on what those implications are. [188483]

  Mr. Straw
  [holding answer 14 September 2004]: As the Government have often made clear, enlargement will bring a range of benefits, including economic ones, to both existing and new member states. Gibraltar with its record of economic dynamism is well placed to take advantage of these increased opportunities within an enlarged Union.

  Intelligence Workers
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what the rules are regarding British intelligence workers being asked to assist in the prosecution of someone abroad who may face the death penalty if convicted; and if he will make a statement. [188937]

  Mr. Straw
  The British intelligence and security services operate strictly in accordance with statutory provisions and requirements laid down by Parliament. Those requirements take full account of obligations under international law. In particular these services have regard to section 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998 and the safeguards in respect of disclosure of intelligence information in section 2(2) of the Security Service Act 1989 and sections 2(2) and 4(2) of the Intelligence Services Act 1994.

  Iran
  Mr. Ancram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress was made in discussions at the end of July between Iran, France, the UK and Germany concerning Iran's nuclear programme; what future talks are planned; and if he will make a statement. [188485]

  Mr. Straw
  [holding answer 14 September 2004]France, Germany and the UK have jointly drafted a resolution on Iran's nuclear programme for discussion at the meeting of the Board of Governors of the International Atomic Energy Agency, taking place in Vienna this week.

  Talks are continuing on a regular basis between senior officials.

  Iraq
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the number of United Kingdom personnel working with Iraqi ministries (a) before 30 June and (b) since 30 June. [188344]
  1613W
  Mr. Rammell
  On 1 June, there were some 180 UK personnel working for the Coalition Provisional Authority in Iraq, and who were involved in restructuring or assisting Iraqi Ministries or other Iraqi institutions. By the end of September there will be some 35 UK personnel working with Iraqi Ministries, 36 working with Iraqi Governorates or other institutions, and 87 assisting with police and prison training.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what support his Department is providing for(a) the establishment of systems of criminal and civil justice in Iraq and (b) the new Iraqi governments. [188349]

  Mr. Rammell
  We are providing support in Basra to strengthen the overall capacity of the criminal justice institutions by funding a training seminar to streamline co-operation and communication between the Iraqi police, prison service and judiciary at the provincial and national level. We are also providing six prisons advisors in the south to work with the Iraqi Correctional Service to improve standards and procedures.

  We are providing capacity building assistance for the Iraq Special Tribunal tasked with bringing to justice members of the former regime suspected of committing war crimes. This includes support for training judges, prosecutors and court administrative staff.

  The Department for International Development is also providing assistance to the judiciary including training for judges in international human rights standards. All other reasonable requests for assistance from the Iraqi Interim Government are considered.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what support his Department is providing to the Iraqi Special Tribunal. [188350]

  Mr. Rammell
  We have allocated £1.3 million for a capacity building assistance programme for the Iraqi Special Tribunal. This includes supporting training of a full Iraqi forensic team for the 1ST and training for judges and court administration staff.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has had with representatives of Islamic countries to encourage them to send troops to Iraq. [188356]

  Mr. Rammell
  The UK has a regular dialogue with Islamic countries in the region and elsewhere on matters relating to Iraq, including possible military deployments. The UK welcomes any contribution to the Multi-National Force. Any decision on troop deployments to Iraq ultimately rests with the Iraqi Interim Government.

  Israel
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make representations to the Israeli Government that it should ensure that the route of the security wall does not become the border of the Israeli state. [188498]

  Mr. Rammell
  As my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and Foreign Secretary have stated on numerous occasions, final status issues such as the 1614W
  border between Israel and a future Palestinian State can only be decided by the two parties during final status negotiations. We have made our view clear to the Israeli Government, most recently when the Foreign Secretary met with Israeli Vice Prime Minister Olmert on 8 September.

  Libya
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps he is taking to encourage(a) economic reform and (b) political liberation in Libya. [188370]

  Mr. Rammell
  The Government welcomes Libya's recent actions, in particular Libya's courageous decision to abandon weapons of mass destruction. The Government are working closely with Libya on governance, reform and human rights.

  Since early 2004. through the Foreign and Commonwealth Office's Global Opportunities Fund, we have been developing and funding projects in Libya, including on administrative, economic and prison reform.

  Ministerial Travel
  Mr. Ancram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what the cost was of chartering an aeroplane for his recent trip to Sudan. [188456]

  Mr. Straw
  The gross cost of chartering an aircraft for the return trip UK-Sudan-Kenya was £168,000. Accompanying media contributed £60,200, making a net cost of £107,800

  Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty
  Julie Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what the goals of the Government are for the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference in 2005. [188604]

  Mr. MacShane
  The Government are strongly committed to the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, which is the cornerstone of the nuclear non-proliferation regime. The UK's goals for the review conference are to make the case for stronger and more effective counter-proliferation measures and to emphasise the importance of compliance with the treaty. We will do this in the context of emphasising the UK's good record on nuclear disarmament, and we will produce a final report of the studies that we have conducted on the verification of nuclear disarmament. We look forward to working with the chair and other countries before and during the conference itself to help secure a successful outcome.

  Oil-for-Food Programme
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on progress of the inquiry into allegations of corruption in the Oil-for-Food Programme. [188346]
  1615W
  Mr. Rammell
  The first report of the UN independent high-level inquiry into allegations of corruption and mismanagement of the Oil-for-Food (OFF) Programme, issued on 9 August, provides background information on the OFF Programme and the status of the inquiry, including its terms of reference and staffing details. A copy of the report is available on the OFF website: www.iic-offp.org/documents/IICSR.pdf. The report does not draw any substantive conclusions. We hope that the independent inquiry will issue a second report, on the role of UN staff and contractors, by the end of 2004. The UK continues to support the UN inquiry into the allegations of corruption of the OFF Programme. We are co-operating fully with the inquiry.

  People's Mujahedin Organisation
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the findings of the Coalition authorities on the activities of the People's Mujahedin Organisation of Iran personnel in Camp Ashraf in Iraq. [187551]

  Mr. Rammell
  The status of the residents of Camp Ashraf in Iraq was, until 28 June, a matter for the US authorities and has since then been the responsibility of the Iraqi Interim Government. We understand that each of the residents of Ashraf has been informed about his or her status.

  Private Military Companies
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to bring forward legislation to introduce a regulatory regime for private military companies. [188354]

  Mr. Rammell
  There is an important and legitimate role for the private sector in providing security in post-conflict situations, such as in Iraq and Afghanistan. National armed forces do not always have the capacity to provide security to the international community's reconstruction and humanitarian efforts in these difficult security situations.

  The growth in the size and importance of the UK private security industry operating overseas strengthens the case for regulation of this sector. Developing such regulation is a complex undertaking, as set out in the Government's Green Paper "Private Military Companies", published on 12 February 2002. There are a number of difficult questions of definition in deciding how to approach such regulation. The cost of regulation is also potentially high, for both Government and industry.

  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has instituted a further detailed review of options for regulation over the next few months The Government will keep Parliament fully informed of its thinking in this area.

  Terrorism
  Sue Doughty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what his assessment is of the efforts of the Government of Saudi Arabia to track down and bring to justice suspected terrorists; and if he will make a statement. [188074]
  1616W
  Mr. Rammell
  The Government of Saudi Arabia have made clear their determination to fight terrorism. A number of suspected terrorists have been arrested and others killed in exchanges of fire with the Saudi Authorities. We are cooperating closely with the Saudi authorities in the fight against terrorism.

  Sue Doughty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the assessment of the House of Commons Foreign Affairs Committee in its report Foreign Policy aspects of the War Against Terrorism, published on 21 July, that Iraq has become a battleground for alQaeda. [188072]

  Mr. Rammell
  We will publish our full response to the Foreign Affairs Committee's report in the usual way by means of a Command Paper in due course. We continue to believe that most attacks in Iraq are the work of elements of the former regime and other disaffected Iraqis, although international jihadists have also been involved in attacks in Iraq.

  Western Sahara
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what his policy is on progress towards a referendum in Western Sahara. [188410]

  Mr. Rammell
  We seek a just, lasting and mutually acceptable solution to the Western Sahara dispute that provides the people of the Western Sahara with an opportunity to exercise their right to self-determination. We believe UN efforts to find a solution to the dispute should be maintained.

  The next Secretary-General's Report on the Western Sahara will be published in October, This will cover the negotiations undertaken by the UN Special Representative to Western Sahara, Alvaro de Soto, since he was tasked with taking UN efforts forward in June 2004.

  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with the US Administration on Moroccan sovereignty in Western Sahara. [188411]

  Mr. Rammell
  We have regular discussions with the US Administration on the question of Western Sahara. These have focused on ensuring that the UN process leads to a fair and lasting solution to this dispute that provides the people of the Western Sahara with an opportunity to exercise their right to self-determination.

  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he has discussed the Western Sahara with the Government of Spain; and what his policy is on the Joint Franco-Spanish Strategy in the territory. [188412]

  Mr. Rammell
  We have regular discussions with the Spanish Government on the question of Western Sahara. These have focused on ensuring that the UN process leads to a fair and lasting solution to this dispute that provides the people of the Western Sahara with an opportunity to exercise their right to self-determination,
  1617W
  We welcome new initiatives intended to resolve the Western Sahara dispute. It is important that UN efforts to resolve this dispute are maintained and any proposed initiatives are carried out in conjunction with UN efforts to find a solution.

  Zimbabwe
  Mr. Ancram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what issues on Zimbabwe the Government are considering taking to the United Nations General Assembly; and what progress has been made. [188620]

  Mr. Straw
  Since 2001, we have tabled resolutions on Zimbabwe at the United Nations Commission on Human Rights, but they have been defeated by no-action motions. We are currently discussing with our EU partners what action to take at the UN General Assembly this autumn.

WORK AND PENSIONS

  Carer's Allowance
  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many people in the UK are paid carer's allowance; and how many applications have been rejected in the last 12 months for which figures are available. [188306]

  Maria Eagle
  The latest available information is that as at 31 May 2004 some 425,455 carers in Great Britain were being paid a carer's allowance1, and that in the six months ending 30 June 20042 some 32,700 claims for the allowance were disallowed.

  Information about claims for, and recipients of, carer's allowance in Northern Ireland is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.

  Sources

  1DWP Information and Analysis Division 100 per cent. sample at 31 May 2005.

  2 DWP Carer's Allowance Unit Management Information Statistics. The figure includes some 27,000 claims that were disallowed because the person being cared for was not receiving an attendance allowance, or the care component of disability living allowance paid at the middle of higher rate, or the equivalent rates of constant attendance allowance paid under the Industrial Injuries Disability Benefit scheme or the War Disablement Pension scheme. Reliable data for the number of claims disallowed before 1 January 2004 are not available.

  Employment Zones
  Mr. George Osborne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what proportion of the population live in an Employment Zone. [186423]

  (a)Cash terms

  £

  1996

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  BSP Maximum Rate

  61.15

  62.45

  64.70

  66.75

  67.50

  72.50

  Average additional State Pension

  14.80

  15.70

  13.35

  14.65

  14.15

  15.25

  1618W
  Jane Kennedy
  We estimate that approximately five million people e in Employment Zone areas, representing just under 9 per cent. of Great Britain's population.

  Housing and Council Tax Benefits
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many housing and council tax benefit claimants there were in(a) each local authority and (b) total in 2002–03. [189121]

  Mr. Pond
  The average number of housing benefit claimants during 2002–03 was 3,804,900; the average number of council tax benefit claimants was 4,590,900. The information for each local authority has been placed in the Library.

  Pension Protection Fund
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what percentage of compensation he expects the Pension Protection Fund to provide to pensioners losing all or part of their occupational pensions when the scheme comes into existence. [188326]

  Malcolm Wicks
  When the Pension Protection Fund is introduced in April 2005, the level of compensation provided to members of eligible defined benefit schemes and defined benefit elements of eligible hybrid schemes will be as follows:

  100 per cent. level of compensation subject to PPF Rules to those above the scheme's Normal Pension Age (NPA) immediately before the assessment date (the first day of the assessment period), and to those below NPA who are either in receipt of survivors' benefit or already in receipt of their pension on the grounds of ill health immediately before the assessment date.

  90 per cent. level of compensation subject to PPF Rules to those below NPA immediately before the assessment date, subject to an overall compensation cap.

  This is subject to Royal Assent being granted to the Pensions Bill.

  Further details of the PPF compensation provisions can be found in Schedule 7 of the draft Bill.

  Pensions
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions pursuant to the answer of 14 June 2004,Official Report, column 729W, on pensions, what a pensioner's income from the State Pension was in each year in (a) cash and (b) real terms, broken down by the components identified in footnote 3. [186768]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The information is in the tables.

  The maximum rate of basic State Pension plus the average amount of additional State Pension in payment for recently retired men aged 65 and women aged 60 in:
  1619W

  (b) Real terms (2004–05 prices)

  £

  1996

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  BSP Maximum Rate

  74.75

  74.50

  74.20

  75.35

  74.00

  78.10

  Average additional State Pension

  18.10

  18.70

  15.30

  16.55

  15.50

  16.40

  Notes:

  1. Average additional State Pension figures are derived from a 5 per cent. sample of DWP administrative data taken at March in each year.

  2. State Pension is calculated as the maximum rate of basic State Pension plus the average amount of additional State Pension in payment for recently retired men aged 65 and women aged 60. Weekly rates are shown.

  3. The real value of Retirement Pension is calculated by uprating the cash value in April of each year to April 2004 prices. In each year the April increase in basic State Pension is related to the increase in the Retail Price Index in the year to the previous September. In most years the increase in the Retail Price Index in the year to April is not exactly the same as the increase in the year to the previous September. Measuring the real value of BSP in April inevitably appears to show some small reductions or increases that would not appear if the new level of basic State Pension were introduced in September. These small variations do not affect pensioner living standards as any differences in inflation are automatically reflected in the following year's uprating.

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will estimate the sum required to produce an annuity of the same size as the minimum income guarantee/pension guarantee credit for pensioners with pension inflation protection in each year of the MIG pension guarantee credit scheme. [188810]

  Table 1: The amount required to ensure an RPI escalating annuity income equal to the MIG/PC guarantee at the point of retirement

  Guarantee (£)

  RPI escalating annuity rate (percentage)

  Amount required to produce an income equal to the guarantee (£)

  1999

  82.25

  6.94

  62,000

  2000

  86.05

  6.83

  65,000

  2001

  92.15

  6.54

  73,000

  2002

  98.15

  6.03

  85,000

  2003

  102.10

  5.45

  97,000

  2004

  105.45

  5.23

  105,000

  Notes:

  1. The guarantee rate is for a single person, entitled to the highest age premium in the years before the age related premia were equalised.

  2. The RPI escalating annuity rate has be en provided by the Annuity Bureau for a single male aged 65; it is the top rate in December of each year (except 2004 where the top rate at September has been used) for a £100,000 sum.

  3. The amount required has been rounded to the nearest £1,000.

  Table 2: The amount required to purchase an RPI escalating annuity sufficient to close the gap between a full basic state pension and the MIG/PC guarantee at the point of retirement

  Guarantee (£)

  Full BSP (£)

  Amount guarantee exceeds BSP (£)

  RPI escalating annuity rate (percentage)

  Amount required to produce an income equal to the gap between the guarantee and a full BSP (£)

  1999

  82.25

  6625

  15.50

  6.94

  12,000

  2000

  86.05

  67..i0

  18.55

  6.83

  14,000

  2001

  92.15

  72.'0

  19.65

  6.54

  16,000

  2002

  98.15

  75.:,0

  22.65

  6.03

  20,000

  2003

  102.10

  77.45

  24.65

  5.45

  24,000

  2004

  105.45

  79.60

  25.85

  5.23

  26,000

  Notes:

  1. The guarantee rate is for a single person, entitled to the highest age premium in the years before the age related premia were equalised.

  2. The BSP is the maximum single person rate.

  3. The RPI escalating annuity rate has been provided by the Annuity Bureau for a single male aged 65; it is the top rate in December of each year (except 2004 where the top rate at September has been used) for a £100,000 pot.

  4. The amount required has been rounded to the nearest £1,000.

  Pensions (Capita Forecasts)
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will make a statement on the delay in the announcement of pension forecasts by Capita. [189086]

  Malcolm Wicks
  We are not aware of any delays in relation to the issue of pension forecasts by Capita.

  If a member of a pension scheme is concerned that they have not received all the information they are
  1620W
  Malcolm Wicks
  Table 1 estimates the amount that would be required to produce an inflation-protected annuity equal to the standard MIG/guarantee credit for a single person.

  Table 2 estimates the amount that would be required to close the gap between a full basic state pension and the standard MIG/guarantee credit.

  expecting, they should contact the scheme in the first instance.

  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many complaints the Department has received concerning the late announcement of pension forecasts by Capita. [189087]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The Department has not received any complaints concerning the late announcement of pension forecasts by Capita.

  Retirement Age
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what research has been commissioned by his Department on the effects on the health of men over 65 years in the 10 most deprived local authorities in the United Kingdom of raising the retirement age to 70 years. [189108]

  Malcolm Wicks
  There is no such thing as a state retirement age; many employers choose to set a retirement age for their employees typically at 60 or 65. The Government are currently consulting with key stakeholders on the future of retirement age in light of the 2006 age legislation, and will consider the effects of their final decision on individuals and employers.

  The state pension age, the age at which an individual may receive their state pension is currently 65 for men and 60 for women. As announced in the 2002 Pensions Green Paper "Simplicity Security and Choice: Working and saving for retirement", the Government have no plans to increase the state pension age beyond 65. Our aim is to provide the choice and opportunity for all individuals to work longer if they wish and to retire at a point that best suits their circumstances. A number of new measures to support this approach were introduced in the 2002 Pensions Green Paper.

  As we are not planning to increase state pension age beyond 65 we have not conducted nor commissioned the specific research raised in the question. However, DWP research report 182 "Working after State Pension Age: Quantitative Analysis" finds that those choosing to work beyond state pension age are much more likely than those not working to report excellent or very good health status. The findings from this report also indicate that those remaining in work beyond state pension age were as least as likely to maintain good health status as all other groups, and found some limited evidence that work could lead to improvements in health status. A copy of the report is available in the Library.

  Stakeholder Pensions
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what recent assessment he has made of(a) the take-up of stakeholder pensions, (b) the number of employers who offer access to a stakeholder pension and (c) the proportion of employer-designated schemes that have no members; and if he will make a statement on the future development of stakeholder pensions. [188472]

  Malcolm Wicks
  Figures from the Association of British Insurers (ABI) show that at 30 June 2004 2,042,864 stakeholder pensions had been sold since their introduction in April 2001. Official figures for the 2002–03 tax year confirm that 98 per cent. of sales have been to people in work and that the majority of stakeholder pensions are being bought by those on modest incomes; over three-quarters (860,000) of stakeholder pension plans with contributions in them in that year were for workers earning under £30,000 a year and around two-thirds (660,000) were for those workers earning under £20,000 a year. Stakeholder pensions are now an established product and provide an important route for people to save for their retirement.
  1622W
  In total just over 500,000 employers offer their employees access to a stakeholder pension scheme. Of those around 270,000 employers have designated a stakeholder pension scheme as required by law. The remainder do so voluntarily, for example as additional or optional pension provision where a company pension scheme is in place. Many more employees now have access to a good value pension arrangement through their place of work irrespective of their position in the company.

  The Employers Pension Provision 2003 survey indicates that around three quarters of employer designated schemes have no members. Research shows that an employer contribution is the most important factor in encouraging pension take-up by employees. Where there is an employer contribution, average take-up by the workforce is around 70 per cent.; compared with 13 per cent. where there is no employer contribution. We will continue to work with employers so they are aware of the important role they play in helping their employees provide for their retirement. Through our Informed Choice Programme we have a range of measures to encourage work place savings. Our initiatives will make it easier for employers to promote good schemes in the workplace, will extend the issue of combined forecasts of State, personal and occupational pension showing projected entitlement and establish the best ways of ensuring that their employees are provided with a decent standard of pension information through the workplace.

  From April 2005 the stakeholder pension will become part of the Sandler stakeholder suite of savings products. The new structure will enable providers to market stakeholder pensions more actively and it will also be possible for firms to provide advice to more people. It will continue to offer a good deal for the consumer. Stakeholder pensions are part of our wider plans to help people to save for a decent income in retirement. These include our Informed Choice Programme, The Employer Task Force and the Pension Commission, all of which will assist in increasing private pension access and provision.

  Unemployment Benefit
  Hugh Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what the cost of unemployment benefits has been (a) at current prices and (b) as a percentage of gross domestic product in each year since 1979. [188956]

  Mr. Pond
  I refer my hon. Friend to the written answer I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Clwyd (Chris Ruane) on 7 September 2004,Official Report, columns 1205–206W.

  Work Injuries
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what steps he is taking to promote rehabilitation services for people injured at work; and if he will make a statement. [R] [186481]

  Jane Kennedy
  The Government are taking many steps to promote rehabilitation services for people injured or sick, whether the cause is work related or not. These include the Department's work to produce and publish a Framework for Vocational Rehabilitation.
  1623W
  This framework will demonstrate the Government's commitment to vocational rehabilitation, and in the short term will help to improve understanding of what vocational rehabilitation is and the support that currently exists.

  In the longer term, the framework will take additional steps to further promote rehabilitation services for people injured at work.

  The Health and Safety Commission in their new strategy recognised the need to strengthen their role in promoting healthier workplaces and in getting people back to work through a much greater emphasis on rehabilitation. The Health and Safety Executive has therefore developed a best practice approach to help employers and managers, in partnership with their employees and their representatives, to proactively manage long-term sickness absence and help those who are absent from work due to skis ness. In addition, existing occupational health services also have a role in promoting a return to work after an accident has occurred. NHS Plus, a network of occupational health departments in the NHS, provides such services, which are particularly focused on small and medium sized enterprises.

TREASURY

  Civil Service Recruitment
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what discussions he had with the First Secretary of the National Assembly for Wales prior to his announcement in the Spending Review of job cuts affecting National Assembly employees; and when these discussions took place. [188979]

  Mr. Boateng
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer and the First Minister of the Welsh Assembly Government have discussions from time to time on various matters.

  Inland Revenue Customer Service Survey
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the cost to public funds was of the Inland Revenue's Customer Service Survey conducted by BMRB International in 2004. [188614]

  Dawn Primarolo
  I refer the hon Member to the answer given to the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb) on 15 June 2004,Official Report, column 832W.

  Special Measures
  Mrs. Browning
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer which Government Departments are subject to special measures. [185087]

  Mr. Boateng
  [holding answer 19 July 2004]: All Government Departments are required to provide the Treasury with monthly expenditure reports. This year, as a condition for agreeing significant access to the Reserve in 2002–03, the Home Office and the Department for Constitutional Affairs have been asked to discuss their monthly expenditure reports with the Treasury. During 2003–04 both Departments have done
  1624W
  so and made considerable improvements in their financial management systems. This has been welcomed by the Treasury.

  As part of the normal relationship between these Departments and the Treasury there will be continued sharing of information and discussion of the issues. These measures are being refined and will become part of a common approach to sharing in-year financial information between Treasury and all Departments.

WALES

  Turner and Newall
  Hywel Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, what discussions he has had with ministerial colleagues in the Department for Work and Pensions in respect of pensions for staff at Turner and Newall. [187929]

  Mr. Hain
  None. However, I am aware that Department for Work and Pensions Ministers have been in discussion with company and trade union representatives about this matter.

  Further Education
  Mr. Caton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, what discussions he has held with Secretaries in the Welsh Assembly Government about the impact of the 2004 spending review on further education provision in Wales. [187930]

  Mr. Touhig
  SR2004 marks a once in a generation step change in the Government's financing of Wales and a huge investment in our future. The Assembly's budget will rise to almost £13.5 billion a year by 2007–08, and has been welcomed by Assembly Ministers. These resources will significantly enhance the Welsh Assembly Government's ability to enable further education provision in Wales

  Higher Education Act
  11. Mr. Prisk
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, what recent discussions he has had with Secretaries in the National Assembly for Wales on the Higher Education Act 2004. [187931]

  Mr. Hain
  Regular ones.

  The Higher Education Act, transferring power for student support and the tuition fee to the Assembly, which has established an independent review under the chair of Professor Teresa Rees.

  Anti-social Behaviour
  12. Huw Irranca-Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what discussions he has had with Cabinet colleagues on the effect of anti-social behaviour measures in Wales. [187932]

  Mr. Touhig
  My right hon. Friend and I have regular discussions with Ministerial colleagues on matters affecting Wales.

  Following the Government's lead, the Police, Community Safety Partnerships and others in Wales, are increasingly using the wide range of powers put in

  1625W
  place to tackle anti-social behaviour. New figures show that in the year to 31 March 2004 there was a 170 per cent. rise in the number of ASBOs issued in Wales.

  Teachers
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what discussions he has had with the Assembly Executive regarding the teaching profession in Wales. [187933]

  Mr. Touhig
  I regularly meet the Assembly Minister for Education and Lifelong Learning to discuss a range of education issues.

  Defence-related Jobs
  Paul Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what discussions he has had with the First Secretary on the number of defence-related jobs in Wales. [187927]

  Mr. Touhig
  The defence industry supports many thousands of high quality jobs in Wales and we are keen to encourage further investment in this area. To this end, my right hon. Friend and I have regular discussions with the Assembly and with Cabinet colleagues to explore the possibilities for securing more such quality jobs for Wales.

  Designated Accommodation
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many rooms are set aside for(a) the use of smokers, (b) worship, broken down by religion, and (c) nursing mothers and pregnant women in each building and set of offices for which his Department is responsible. [187315]

  Mr. Touhig
  The Wales Office has a total of 53 staff in the offices in London and Cardiff. In view of the number of staff and size of the offices, it is not possible to set rooms aside for any of these purposes.

  The London staff can use DCA facilities. All DCA London HQ buildings have a room set aside for smokers. Male and female prayer rooms are available in Selborne House, Clive House and Steel House. Rest rooms are also available in these buildings for nursing mothers and pregnant women.

  In Cardiff, staff can access facilities of the National Assembly for Wales at Cathays Park and Cardiff Bay. Two rooms are set aside for smokers in Cathays Park and one in Cardiff Bay. One prayer room is available in Cathays Park for use by all faiths. Nursing mothers and pregnant mothers have the use of two first aid rooms, one in Cathays Park and one in Cardiff Bay.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Computer Technologies
  Sue Doughty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) what estimate she has made of the current and projected use of peer-to-peer file sharing home computer technologies with reference to the type of files exchanged and the volume of material exchanged; [188155]
  1626W
  (2) if she will provide an impact assessment of the growth of use of peer-to.peer file sharing home computer technologies for affected commercial sectors; [188156]

  (3) if she will make a statement on her Department's strategy for the future public use of peer-to-peer file sharing home computer technologies. [188157]

  Ms Hewitt
  We believe that peer-to-peer file sharing activity currently involves music files more than other types of content, but this could change as broadband take-up increases. The British Phonographic Industry has published research indicating that 8.0 million people in the UK claim to be downloading music—with 92 percent. of them (7.4 million people) using illegal sites. In my reply of 19 April.2004,Official Report, column 69W, to a question asked by the hon. Member for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant) about illegal downloading of music, we acknowledged the serious impact on our creative industries from illegal downloading of music and welcomed the positive steps recently taken by the music industry to promote the availability of legitimate music tracks on the internet.

  We hope that the development of further imaginative ways of marketing digital content will be given greater impetus by recommendations in due course from the Creative Industries Forum on intellectual property, which was announced in a written statement by my right hon. Friend, the Minister for the Arts, on 19 July 2004, Official Report, column 2WS. In particular, we hope the forum will explore the opportunities presented by digital media to provide consumers with attractively priced, reliable and secure alternatives to illegal downloading.

  "Fairness for All" White Paper
  Keith Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) how many respondents there were to the Fairness For All White Paper; and if she will make a statement on the content of the responses; [187940]

  (2) what plans she has to take the proposals contained in the Fairness For All White Paper forward following the consultation period; and on what timetable; [187941]

  (3) what plans she has to meet stakeholder organisations for further discussions on the Fairness For All White Paper. [187942]

  Ms Hewitt
  The consultation following the release of Fairness for All, officially closed on 6 August 2004. Over 450 responses have been received from a wide variety of stakeholders, interested groups and individuals. The Government is currently assessing all the responses it has received in detail and will publicly respond in due course.

  The Government will continue to adopt an open and inclusive approach to involving stakeholder organisations in developing our proposals on the Commission for Equality and Human Rights (CEHR). As part of this approach we have already met with stakeholders through the independent advisory task force on 7 September. This meeting has advised on, and informed, the ongoing analysis of the 'Fairness for All' consultation.

  The Government is committed to improving equality and human rights for all in our society. This underpins our vision of a modern, fairer and more prosperous

  1627W
  Britain. We are fully committed to the creation of the CEHR which we believe will help create a more equal and cohesive society.

  The establishment of the CEHR will require primary legislation, and we intend to bring a Bill before Parliament as soon as time allows. We anticipate setting up a steering group to continue for 12–18 months to manage the planning and implementation of the key milestones towards the launch day. The CEHR will not be fully operational before the end of 2006 at the earliest.

  Bodies (Funding)
  Mr. Henry Bellingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the(a) current and (b) projected levels of funding are from her Department for (i) the Manufacturing Advisory Service and (b) Enterprise Insight. [186340]

  Jacqui Smith
  The information is as follows:

  (i) Manufacturing Advisory Service

  (a) In the current financial year (2004–05) the Department will provide funding of £4 million for the Manufacturing Advisory Service.

  (b) In the following three years, the Department's expenditure in support of the regional operations of the Manufacturing Advisory Service will be £5 million in 2005–06, £6 million in 2006–07, and £6 million in 2007–08, as announced in the 2004 Spending Review. In addition, the Department will also fund a contract to manage the Manufacturing Advisory Service national network over the same period. The size of this contract has not yet been determined.

  (ii) Enterprise Insight

  (a) In the current financial year (2004–05), the Department is providing funding for Enterprise Insight of £753,000.

  (b) This funding will rise to £5 million per annum in 2006–07 and 2007–08, as announced in the 2004 Spending Review.

  Business Regulations
  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many business regulations since 2002 have incorporated clauses to set a deadline for a regulation to cease to have effect unless renewed. [186355]

  Nigel Griffiths
  Two.

  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many regulations which affect small businesses have been abolished by her Department over the past year. [186351]

  Nigel Griffiths
  The information requested is not held centrally.

  Companies Act 1985
  Mr. Djanogly
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how much money has been paid into court pursuant to the provision of section 430(11) of the Companies Act 1985 in each of the past 10 years. [188600]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 13 September 2004]This information is not collected centrally by legislative provision and could be provided only at disproportionate cost due to the amount of information to be processed and the need to retrieve information 1628W
  from files not currently in use. This information is therefore being withheld under the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information on the grounds that it would require an unreasonable diversion of resources.

  Departmental Recycling
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the latest available 12 month figures are for the proportion of the Department's redundant documentation, waste paper and card that is recycled; and if she will make a statement on the Department's recycling policy. [188696]

  Ms Hewitt
  Between April 2003 to March 2004, over 98 percent. of the Department's waste from its HQ operations was recovered for recycling or energy production.

  The Department has a recycling strategy in line with the Government's framework for sustainable development, with appropriate procedures and facilities in place.

  Departmental Staff (Upper Age Limits)
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether(a) her Department and (b) agencies for which it is responsible (i) have a set retirement age which applies to all or most personnel and (ii) have a maximum age beyond which applications for employment will not be considered; and what the age is in each case. [186093]

  Ms Hewitt
  The retirement age for all DTI staff in grades below the Senior Civil Service is 65. For staff in the Senior Civil Service the normal retirement age is 60.

  We require applicants for employment to have sufficient time to complete the required probation period (generally 12 months) for their grade or specialism before they reach age 65.

  Economic and Social Research Council
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what proposals there are to increase funding for the Economic and Social Research Council. [188402]

  Ms Hewitt
  The Government's commitment to the continuing excellence of UK science was reinforced by the outcome of the 2004 Spending Review, in which it announced annual real growth in the public science base of 5.8 per cent., through the DTI and DfES, which will see it climb to over £5 billion by 2007. That is more than a billion pounds more than this year and nearly double the expenditure in 1997. Under existing plans, the Economic and Social Research Council is expected to receive an additional £15.8 million next year as a result of the previous Spending Review. Allocations to Research Councils and other bodies through the Science Budget, for 2006–07 onwards, will be announced early in 2005.

  Manufacturing Advisory Service
  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on the Manufacturing Advisory Service. [186345]
  1629W
  Jacqui Smith
  The Manufacturing Advisory Service has been a huge success as a source of practical help to small and medium-sized manufacturing companies. It plays a vital role in helping our manufacturers to improve their productivity and to compete effectively in an increasingly global economy. In the period from its establishment in April 2002 to June 2004 the Manufacturing Advisory Service has delivered £66.8 million in added value to manufacturing companies it has assisted, with average productivity improvements running at 30 per cent. Its success was recognised in the recent 2004 Spending Review, as a result of which the Department's funding for MAS will increase to £17 million over the period 2005–06 to 2007–08, match funded by the regional development agencies. We are working with the regional development agencies and other stakeholders to ensure that we take full advantage of this additional funding to build on the success that has already been achieved.

  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the total annual projected resource budget is for the Manufacturing Advisory Service. [187106]

  Jacqui Smith
  Following the 2004 Spending Review announcement, the Department's expenditure in support of the regional operations of the Manufacturing Advisory Service will be £5 million in 2005–06, £6 million in 2006–07, and £6 million in 2007–08, match funded by the Regional Development Agencies. In addition, the Department will separately fund a contract to manage the MAS national network over the same period. The size of this contract has not yet been determined.

  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the annual projected resource budgets are for each of the regional manufacturing advisory services. [187107]

  Jacqui Smith
  The Department is currently in discussion with the Regional Development Agencies about the regional allocation of the Department's funding for the regional operations of the Manufacturing Advisory Service over the 2004 Spending Review period. The Regional Development Agencies will be expected to match fund the Department's own contribution.

  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the annual resource budgets have been for each of the regional manufacturing advisory services since 2002. [187108]

  Jacqui Smith
  The Department's budget allocation in support of the regional centres of the Manufacturing Advisory Service in the South East, London, West Midlands, North West, Yorkshire and the Humber, South West, and Wales, over the period 2001–02 to 2004–05, has been £1,350,000 each. The allocation to the North East has been £940,000, to the East Midlands £1,441,000 and East of England £1,145,000. The 1630W
  Department's budget allocation has been matched funded by the Regional Development Agencies in each region.

  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the total annual budget for the Manufacturing Advisory Service as a whole has been since 2002. [187112]

  Jacqui Smith
  The Department's total budget allocation for the regional operations of the Manufacturing Advisory Service over the period 2001–02 to 2004–05 has been £12.9 million, match funded by the Regional Development Agencies. The Department's budget allocation for the management of the Manufacturing Advisory Service national network over the same period has been £1.2 million.

  Medical Research (Animals)
  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans her Department has to improve protection for the(a) employees and (b) investors of companies which carry out medical research involving animals; and if she will make a statement. [186333]

  Ms Hewitt
  The Government are determined to tackle animal rights extremists who attempt to stop individuals and companies going about their legitimate business.

  On 30 July, together with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Home Affairs, I announced a series of tough new measures which will help deal with the illegal activists who harass, threaten or physically attack those involved in vital, life-saving scientific research. Animal research has helped save hundreds of millions of lives, and is only carried out where absolutely necessary and under stringent controls. This research is subject to the strictest regulation: Britain has the most tightly controlled regime governing animal experiments in the world.

  The new proposals strengthen on-going action by the Government, the police, the Crown Prosecution Service and the courts to deal with criminal extremists and underline the Government's commitment to protecting the scientific community.

  Ministerial Visits
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) how many official visits she has made to the London Borough of Havering in the last 12 months;[189238]

  (2) how many official visits she has made to Romford Market. [189239]

  Ms Hewitt
  None.

  Research Councils (Grants)
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the level of Government grant to each research council was in each of the last three years. [188401]
  1631W
  Ms Hewitt
  The specific allocation made to each of the seven UK Research Councils, from the Office of Science and Technology 's Science Budget, for the last three years, is fully outlined in the DTI's publication, entitled the Science Budget, 2001–02 to 2003–04. Copies of the document were placed in the Libraries of the House.

  Science and Innovation Investment Framework
  Sue Doughty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what qualitative analysis was undertaken in the preparation of the paper Science and Innovation Investment Framework 2004–2014, published in July, to determine the likely consequences of the proposed investment strategy on the types of research projects undertaken in the United Kingdom. [188078]

  Ms Hewitt
  A range of analysis was used in the preparation of the Science and Investment Framework 2004–2014 including a public consultation to which around 200 responses were received from individuals and organisations including businesses, charities, higher education institutes and representative organisations. The framework builds on the substantial work of the DTI Innovation report and the Lambert Review of Business-University Collaboration, both published in 2003. The proposed investment strategy does not attempt to determine the types of research projects that should be undertaken. Allocation of funding to specific projects will continue to be governed by excellence and relevance to the needs of potential users and the nation. The framework identifies the strategy to underpin the Government's ambition, shared with its partners in the private and not-for-profit sectors, is for the UK to be a key knowledge hub in the global economy, with a reputation for outstanding scientific and technological discovery as well as turning the knowledge into new products and services.

  Science Expenditure
  Sue Doughty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will estimate the proportion of the United Kingdom total science spending which is fully independent of commercial interests; and what trends the Government have identified relating to past and future variations in this proportion of science spending in the UK. [188076]

  Ms Hewitt
  The Government's commitment to the continuing excellence of UK science was reinforced by the outcome of the 2004 Spending Review, in which it announced annual real growth in the public science base of 5.8 per cent., through the DTI and DES, which will see it climb to over £5 billion by 2007. That is more than a billion pounds more than this year and nearly double the expenditure in 1997. The Government fully recognise the role that public and private organisations including businesses and charities play in the investment of the science base. As, outlined in the Science and Innovation Framework 2004–14, we aim to further encourage collaboration between the various 1632W
  organisations. No estimate has been made of the proportion of the total spend which is fully independent of such interests.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Abortions
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what estimate he has made of the number of terminations performed in the Province in each of the last 10 years. [187453]

  Angela Smith
  The following table provides figures for the number of medical abortions recorded in Northern Ireland hospitals for each year from 1995 (the earliest year available) to 2003 (the latest year available)

  Number

  1995

  72

  1996

  64

  1997

  80

  1998

  71

  1999

  76

  2000

  82

  2001

  75

  2002

  76

  2003 (Provisional)

  73

  Altnagelvin Hospital
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans he to increase the number of critical care beds at Altnagelvin Hospital. [188677]

  Angela Smith
  The number of critical care beds at Altnagelvin Hospital has increased significantly in recent years. The hospital currently has nine critical care beds—five intensive care beds and four high dependency beds.

  Critical care capacity at Altnagelvin and other hospitals is kept under regular review and we would expect continued expansion in bed numbers in future years in response to continued increases in demand.

  Ambulances
  Lembit Öpik
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many of the total ambulance accidents in the last two years in Northern Ireland were attributed to(a) driver error and (b) mechanical failure; and if he will make a statement. [188373]

  Angela Smith
  Of the 121 road traffic accidents involving Northern Ireland Ambulance Service ambulances in the last two years for which information is available (15 April 2002–14 April 2004), 16 have been attributed to driver error and none to mechanical failure. The Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety does not hold information about accidents involving other ambulance service providers in Northern Ireland.
  1633W
  Lembit Öpik
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many road traffic accidents involving Mercedes Sprinter ambulances in the last two years in Northern Ireland were attributed to(a) driver error and (b) mechanical failure; and if he will make a statement. [188374]

  Angela Smith
  Of the 64 road traffic accidents involving Northern Ireland Ambulance Service Mercedes Sprinter A and E ambulances in the last two years (15 April 2002–14 April 2004), 12 have been attributed to driver error and none to mechanical failure. My Department does not hold information about accidents involving other ambulance service providers in Northern Ireland.

  Births
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many(a) recorded births and (b) birth defects there were in Northern Ireland in each of the last 10 years. [187770]

  Angela Smith
  (a) The number of recorded births in Northern Ireland each year from 1994 to 2003 (the latest year for which the data are available) is given in the following table.

  Number of recorded births (live and still) in Northern Ireland, 1994 to 2003

  Births

  1994

  24,251

  1995

  23,838

  1996

  24,535

  1997

  24,218

  1998

  23,790

  1999

  23,089

  2000

  21,605

  2001

  22,074

  2002

  21,507

  2003

  21,756

  (b) Information on all birth defects is not available. However, information is collected by the Chief Medical Officer on the number of children born each year suffering from a number of selected congenital malformations in Northern Ireland. This information is provided in the following table for the years 1994 to 2003.

  Number of selected congenital malformations, 1994 to 2003

  Anencephalus

  Hydrocephalus

  Spina Bifida

  Downs Syndrome

  1994

  3

  6

  19

  29

  1995

  3

  10

  12

  25

  1996

  6

  5

  6

  38

  Number of schools providing post-primary education between the ages of 11 and 16

  Year eight to 12 enrolments at these schools

  Total enrolment at these schools

  Controlled Grammar

  17

  10,838

  14,883

  Voluntary Grammar

  53

  35,529

  48,464

  Catholic Maintained Grammar

  0

  0

  0

  Controlled Secondary

  68

  34,884

  37,289

  Catholic Maintained Secondary

  76

  39,057

  44,275

  Grant Maintained Integrated

  14

  6,876

  8,070

  Controlled Integrated

  4

  1,951

  2,007

  Independent Schools

  13

  353

  781

  1634W

  Number of selected congenital malformations, 1994 to 2003

  Anencephalus

  Hydrocephalus

  Spina Bifida

  Downs Syndrome

  1997

  3

  9

  9

  45

  1998

  7

  10

  11

  42

  1999

  5

  13

  8

  27

  2000

  0

  13

  9

  32

  2001

  5

  11

  13

  36

  2002

  6

  9

  9

  12

  20031

  3

  6

  12

  32

  1Figures not yet published by CMO.

  Cancer
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what(a) conclusions he has drawn and (b) actions he has taken following the publication of the second cancer statistics report of the Northern Ireland Cancer Registry. [188676]

  Angela Smith
  The "All-Ireland Cancer Statistics Second Report 1998–2000" is a comprehensive and constructive outcome of the Memorandum of Understanding between Northern Ireland, the Republic of Ireland and the National Cancer Institute in America. The report's data harmonisation, analysis and research will undoubtedly help to enhance our understanding of cancer. The report highlights areas of success and makes recommendations for action to improve cancer outcomes.

  Detailed consideration of the report's findings and recommendations is being undertaken as part of the work of the Northern Ireland Regional Cancer Services Framework Steering Group, which is chaired by the Chief Medical Officer. The Framework Steering Group was set up in January 2004 to consider the future development of cancer services, including prevention, early detection, screening and treatment. The Framework Steering Group, which aims to build on existing health promotion initiatives such as the Tobacco Action Plan, is expected to complete its recommendations by December 2004.

  Education
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many(a) controlled grammar, (b) voluntary grammar, (c) Catholic maintained grammar, (d) controlled secondary, (e) Catholic maintained secondary, (f) grant maintained integrated, (g) controlled integrated and (h) independent schools in Northern Ireland provide post-primary education between the ages of 11 and 16 years; and how many pupils are educated in each. [188759]

  Mr. Gardiner
  The number of schools and enrolments are as follows:
  1635W
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what percentage of pupils educated in grammar schools in Northern Ireland gained five or more GCSEs at Grade A* to C in each of the last five academic years. [188760]

  Mr. Gardiner
  Figures for 2003–04 are not yet available. The percentage of grammar school pupils gaining 5 or more GCSEs at Grade A*-C in each of the previous five academic years is as follows:

  Percentage achieving 5+ GCSEs at Grades A*-C

  1998–99

  95

  1999–2000

  95

  Percentage achieving 5+ GCSEs at Grade: A*–C

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  20001–02

  2002–03

  Northern Ireland

  56

  57

  57

  59

  59

  England

  48

  49

  50

  52

  53

  Wales

  48

  49

  50

  50

  51

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what percentage of pupils from Northern Ireland gained two or more 'A' levels at Grade A*-E in each of the last five academic years; and what the figures were for England and Wales. [188762]

  Percentage achieving 2+ A levels A-E

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2002–03

  Northern Ireland

  92

  93

  93

  95

  95

  England1

  82

  83

  87

  89

  90

  Wales

  91

  92

  93

  94

  94

  1Includes FE sector colleges

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what percentage of pupils from Northern Ireland left school with no formal academic qualifications in each of the last five academic years; and what the figures were for England and Wales. [188763]

  Mr. Gardiner
  Figures for 2002–03 and 2003–04 are not available. The percentage of Northern Ireland pupils leaving school with no formalqualifications in each of the previous five years is as follows:

  Percentage

  2001–02

  5.2

  2000–01

  4.8

  1999–2000

  3.6

  1998–99

  2.7

  1997–98

  3.1

  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education has advised me that equivalent information is not available for England and Wales.

  Health Inequalities
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what progress has been made towards removing inequality in(a) enjoyment of good health and (b) health services in Northern Ireland. [187766]
  1636W

  Percentage achieving 5+ GCSEs at Grades A*-C

  2000–01

  95

  2000–02

  95

  2002–03

  96

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what percentage of pupils from Northern Ireland gained five or more GCSEs at Grade A*-C in each of the last five academic years; and what the figures were for England and Wales. [188761]

  Mr. Gardiner
  Figures for 2003–04 are not yet available. The percentage of pupils gaining 5 or more GCSEs at Grade A*-C in each of the previous five years is as follows:

  Mr. Gardiner
  Figures for 2003–04 are not yet available. The percentage of pupils gaining two or more A Levels at Grade A-E in Northern Ireland, England and Wales is as follows:

  Angela Smith
  There has been significant progress in removing inequality. This includes the comprehensive public health strategy, "Investing for Health", which has set an ambitious cross-governmental agenda to improve health and well-being and reduce health inequalities. It also has been addressed through the continuous development of the capitation formula, which ensures that the allocation of resources between Boards reflects need and the higher costs of delivering services in rural areas. More generally, the level of investment in primary care and hospitals throughout Northern Ireland will benefit everyone, but particularly those who are most in need.

  Health Service
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many patients were detained on mental health grounds in Northern Ireland hospitals in each of the last 10 years. [188499]

  Angela Smith
  Information on the number of patients detained annually on mental health grounds in Northern Ireland hospitals is available from the Psychiatric Census, which is carried out in mental illness and learning disability hospitals on 31 March each year. Figures for the position since 1996 are as follows.

  Number of detained patients

  1996

  345

  1997

  383

  1998

  390

  1637W

  Number of detained patients

  1999

  408

  2000

  365

  2001

  348

  2002

  —

  2003

  394

  Information is not available prior to 1996 and figures for 2004 are not yet available. Figures for 2002 have not been returned by all hospitals; therefore it is not possible to provide a total Northern Ireland figure for that year.

  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans there are to increase the number of specialist stroke units in the Province. [188526]

  Angela Smith
  There are already a number of specialist stroke units in Northern Ireland. In line with the evidence-based strategy for Stroke Services, stroke implementation teams have been established within each of the Health and Social Services Board areas. These teams will identify gaps in the current provision of stroke services and will explore the potential to increase further the number of specialist stroke units.

  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what public consultation process will occur following departmental recommendations from the review of public health functions in the Province. [188674]

  Angela Smith
  The recommendations from the Review of Public Health Function in Northern Ireland under consideration. Decisions on consultation have still to be taken.

  Digital Hearing Aids
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what estimate has been made of the number of people in Northern Ireland who would benefit from a digital hearing aid who do not yet have one; and what plans there are to increase the number of patients using digital hearing aids. [188532]

  Angela Smith
  There are estimated to be over 100,000 hearing aid users in Northern Ireland, and audiologists consider that around 90 per cent. of these could benefit from a digital hearing aid (DHA).

  The new hearing aids were introduced on the health service, on a phased basis, in October 2003 and are supplied to new hearing aid users, if appropriate. It will take a number of years to re-assess every existing user's suitability for a DHA.

  The Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety has included the wider provision of the new hearing aids in its Priorities for Action 2004–05, setting a target to supply 5,000 DHAs per year. An additional £0.5 million per year has been provided for this purpose, making a total of £1 million per year allocated to the provision of DHAs.

  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many patients have been provided with digital hearing aids in each of the last 12 months. [188533]
  1638W
  Angela Smith
  Information on the numbers of persons provided with digital hearing aids is not available for each of the last 12 months. However, during the period from October 2003 to the end of January 2004, approximately 2,000 persons were provided with digital hearing aids.

  Hospital-acquired Infections
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how much was spent on infection control procedures at hospitals in Northern Ireland in each of the last 10 years. [187442]

  Angela Smith
  The information requested is not available.

  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many(a) MRSA and (b) total staphylococcus aureus cases have been reported in the Province in each of the past five years. [187808]

  Angela Smith
  The information requested is as follows.

  Laboratory reports of MRSA bloodstream infections in Northern Ireland 2000–04 (to 6 September)

  2000

  130

  2001

  190

  2002

  184

  2003

  252

  2004

  153

  Total

  909

  Laboratory reports of all cases of staphylococcus aureus bloodstream infections (including MRSA) in Northern Ireland: 2000–04 (to 6 September)

  2000

  352

  2001

  426

  2002

  492

  2003

  595

  2004

  362

  Total

  2,227

  These figures are based on voluntary reports made by Trust laboratories.

  Medical School
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what assessment has been made of the need for a second medical school in the Province. [188542]

  Angela Smith
  I am aware that the University of Ulster intends to investigate the feasibility of a new medical school, based at its North West campus. Subsequently it will be necessary to consider how any proposal from the university might meet the tests of viability and sustainability, as well as how such a proposal would be funded and developed within the wider context of tertiary education within Northern Ireland.

  Prosthetic Limbs
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on(a) funding for and (b) development of services for those with prosthetic limbs. [187784]
  1639W
  Angela Smith
  Funding for the prosthetic service is provided from the Physical and Sensory Disability Programme of Care. In 2003–04 expenditure on the prosthetics service totalled just over £1 million.

  Representatives of the Prosthetic Users Forum met officials in the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety in the Autumn of 2003 to discuss the prosthetics service and in March 2004, Green Park Healthcare Trust submitted to the Department a copy of the report 'Needs Assessment for Northern Ireland Regional Prosthetic Service'. This included a service development plan for 2004–05 costing £360,000.

  The Department has included as an action in its Priorities for Action 2004–05:
  `Boards and Trust should collaborate with Green Park Trust to develop the range of prosthetics available. In particular, this should include wider provision of an improved range of prosthetics for some 125 users by 31 March 2005. Boards should submit final figures for 2004–05 in their September progress reports'.

  An additional £250,000 was allocated by the Department for this purpose.

  A further meeting between representatives of the Prosthetics Users Forum and Departmental officials is being arranged and this will assist in developing future plans to further develop the prosthetics service.

  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on services in the Province for those with prosthetic limbs. [187785]

  Angela Smith
  A regional prosthetics service is provided by Green Park Healthcare Trust, on the Musgrave Park Hospital site, which serves just under 1,800 prosthetic users across a spectrum of ages and disabilities. The service benchmarks its performance against other prosthetic centres throughout the UK.

  It is endeavouring to rise to the challenges of increased user expectation and new technology. Consideration is being given to further development. The service won the Prosthetics and Orthotics Services Innovation Award 2004, run by the Limbless Association in the UK.

  Public Employees (Religion)
  Mr. Gregory Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what the religious breakdown is of the employees of the Child Support Agency for Northern Ireland. [188737]

  Mr. Spellar
  The following table details permanent and casual non-industrial NICS staff in the Child Support Agency as at 1 January 2004.

  Community Background

  Number

  Percentage

  Protestant

  798

  45.1

  Catholic

  943

  53.3

  Not determined

  29

  1.6

  Total

  1.770

  —

  Public Transport
  Mr. Gregory Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many passengers travelled on(a) Ulsterbus, (b) Citybus and (c) Northern Ireland Railways in each of the last five years. [188732]

  Mr. Spellar
  The following table shows the number of passengers who travelled on Ulsterbus, Citybus and on Northern Ireland Railways over the last five years. The figures are in millions.

  Million

  Ulsterbus

  Citybus

  northern Ireland Railways

  1999–2000

  48.2

  21.3

  5.9

  2000–01

  46.8

  20.3

  5.9

  2001–02

  44.8

  20.2

  6.2

  2002–03

  46.0

  19.9

  6.3

  2003–04

  45.9

  19.5

  6.9

  Racism
  Mr. Dodds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how much was allocated to combating racism in Northern Ireland in each year since 1997. [187414]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  You asked about the level of funding provided to combat racism in Northern Ireland since 1997.

  As I and my ministerial colleagues have repeatedly stated publicly the nature and evidence of racist-inspired violence and harassment of minority ethnic communities in Northern Ireland is both abhorrent and unacceptable to all right-minded people.

  In response, action continues to be taken across Government and in partnership with our colleagues in the statutory, voluntary, community and business sectors aimed at combating it and redressing the distress of those suffering it.

  It is also the intention of the various funding initiatives to help build the capacity of the communities concerned and the good relations with regard to the other communities here.

  In the years since 1997, the following funding has been allocated to support minority ethnic communities as well as addressing racism within Northern Ireland:

  Sum awarded (£)

  1998–99

  883,944.41

  1999–2000

  794,547.09

  2000–01

  284,194.42

  2001–02

  701,857.46

  2002–03

  1,401,293.33

  Total

  4,065,836.60

  The table details the total funding made available from the following range of sources for the period 1 April 1998 to 31 March 2003 inclusive:

  European programmes managed by Government Departments;

  Equality Commission NI;

  Community Relations Council; and

  Government Departments and non-departmental bodies.

  1641W
  The funding has been provided to meet core funding central management and administrative costs, and enable organisations to develop and provide services.

  Details of funding provided since March 2003 is currently being collected and will be advised by supplementary answer at the earliest opportunity.

  Warm Homes Scheme
  Mr. Gregory Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what the take-up has been of the Warm Homes scheme in each Northern Ireland constituency for 2003, broken down by(a) numbers of installations and (b) total cost of work involved. [188735]

  Mr. Spellar
  The information is as follows:

  Constituency

  Cost

  Number of homes (£)

  South Down

  858,206.81

  837

  Fermanagh and South Tyrone

  642,868.21

  473

  Newry and Armagh

  605,482.16

  570

  Belfast North

  401,833.58

  461

  West Tyrone

  535,021.67

  452

  Upper Bann

  512,632.66

  566

  Mid-Ulster

  481,125.69

  426

  Strangford

  329,061.64

  305

  Lagan Valley

  372,350.89

  346

  Belfast West

  309,711.43

  412

  Foyle

  327,759.35

  381

  Belfast East

  248,275.24

  282

  East Antrim

  246,630.49

  277

  Belfast South

  212,373.11

  241

  East Londonderry

  290,392.94

  312

  North Antrim

  301,131.06

  324

  South Antrim

  217,508.13

  277

  North Down

  224,916.53

  204

  Total

  7,117,281.59

  7.146

  Waste Disposal
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will estimate the most recent annual cost of disposing of(a) all waste and (b) disposable nappies in each council area in Northern Ireland. [187767]

  Angela Smith
  The three District Council Waste Management Partnerships are required to submit Annual Performance Reports to the Department of the Environment. The scope of these reports has recently been revised to include details of the combined costs for the treatment and disposal of wastes and the first new data set is due in October 2004. Information on disposal of disposable nappies is not collected separately by district councils. However, on receipt of the Annual Performance Reports, the Department will estimate the cost of treating and disposing of disposable nappies for Northern Ireland as a whole, as well as treatment and disposal costs for all wastes by district council. I will write to the hon. Lady when this information is available and a copy of the letter will be placed in the library.

HEALTH

  Vegetarianism
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make it his policy(a) to devise a legal definition
  1642W
  of the word vegetarian and (b) to ensure that vegetarian food products are clearly labelled; and if he will make a statement. [187522]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The Government is aware of vegetarian consumers' concerns that some food products may be inappropriately labelled as 'suitable for vegetarians'.

  Consumers are protected by the Food Safety Act 1990 and the Trade Descriptions Act 1968, which contain general provision, outlawing false or misleading labelling. The Government therefore has no plans to introduce a legal definition of 'vegetarian'. It does, however, believe that establishing Food Standards Agency (FSA) advice for industry and enforcement authorities setting out minimum standards for use of the terms 'vegetarian' and 'vegan' may be helpful. The FSA plans to hold a stakeholder meeting on 24 September to explore this option

  Abortions
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many women from Northern Ireland had terminations in England or Wales in each of the past five years. [188672]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to my hon. Friend, the Member for Heywood and Middleton (Jim Dobbin) today.

  Jim Dobbin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many women undergoing an abortion in England and Wales in(a)2002 and (b)2003 had had (i) one,(ii)two, (iii)three,(iv)four and(v)five or more previous abortions. [189000]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  This information is published in the annual Abortion Statistics, series AB, Office for National Statistics and Department of Health, Statistical Bulletin 2003/23 and Statistical Bulletin 2004/14, copies of which have been placed in the Library.

  Criminal Record Bureau
  Mr. Lansley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether Criminal Record Bureau checks performed by one NHS organisation can be transferred for use by another. [188001]

  Mr. Hutton
  In principle, Criminal Records Bureau (CRB) disclosures are transferable between national health service employers and, in order to reduce bureaucracy and cost, the CRB has produced guidance to help employers through the procedure. But it is for the new employer to decide whether to accept a disclosure issued previously, having regard to such factors as the age of the disclosure, the similarity of the positions applied for and the nature of the information disclosed on the previous occasion.

  Ectopic Pregnancies
  Jane Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many ectopic pregnancies there were per 1,000 population for each major ethnic group in the last year for which figures are available. [187014]
  1643W
  Dr. Ladyman
  The table shows the number of hospital episodes for ectopic pregnancies and the number of hospital deliveries, 2002–03. The information is taken from the hospital episode statistics (HES).

  Ectopic pregnancies, national health service hospitals, England. Number of hospital episodes for ectopic pregnancy and number of hospital deliveries, 2002–03

  Number of ectopic pregnancies

  Number of deliveries

  Percentage

  Asian

  286

  34,438

  0.83

  Black

  447

  22,206

  2.01

  Chinese and other

  164

  11,508

  1.43

  Mixed

  69

  3,554

  1.94

  White

  4,819

  306,830

  1.57

  Not given

  3,022

  168,036

  1.80

  Total

  8,870

  546,572

  1.62

  Note:

  Figures have not been adjusted for shortfalls in data (i.e. the data are ungrossed). Ethnicity data on HES should be used with care and may not yet be robust enough to support analysis of ethnic differences.

  Source:

  HES.

  Free Eye Tests
  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many old age pensioners to the Tamworth constituency have benefited from the introduction of free eye tests in each year since 1997. [188127]

  Dr. Ladyman
  Data for the number of sight tests by constituency or by the number or pensioners are not collected centrally. Free sight tests for patients aged 60 and over came into effect on 1 April 1999.

  The total number of national health service sight tests paid for patients aged 60 and over in the Shropshire and Staffordshire Strategic Health Authority for the years 1999–2000 to 2003–04 are shown in the table.

  Sight tests

  1999–2000

  105,830

  2000–01

  120,100

  2001–02

  115,940

  2002–03

  138,050

  2003–04

  139,450

  Note:

  Some patients aged 60 and over will be eligible for sight tests for other reasons as well, for example, on income grounds. The classification for such patients will depend on the patient and the practitioner.

  Sight tests cannot be equated to the numbers of patients. Although most people do not come back for a sight test within the year, some patients suffering from medical conditions are advised to have reexaminations sooner.

  Free School Fruit
  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many children in the Tamworth constituency benefit from the free fruit in schools scheme. [188126]
  1644W
  Dr. Ladyman
  3,774 children in the Tamworth constituency are benefiting from the school fruit and vegetable scheme. This represents a 100 per cent. take-up in 31 schools.

  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many children in the Romsey constituency benefit from the free fruit in schools scheme. [187168]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Romsey will join the school fruit and vegetable scheme in November 2004, when children aged four to six will start receiving a free piece of fruit or vegetable each school day. There are 966 eligible children at schools with a Romsey post code.

  General Practitioners
  Mr. Lansley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what mechanism has been put in place to enable the smooth transfer of a general practitioner transferring from one primary care trust's performers' list to another. [188000]

  Mr. Hutton
  The mechanism by which a general practitioner moves from one primary care trust's primary medical performers list to another is specified in regulations 17(3) and (4) of the NHS (Performers Lists) Regulations 2004 (SI 2004/585). Information about operation of medical performers lists is available on the Department's website at: http://www.dh.gov.uk/ PolicyAndGuidance/OrganisationPolicy/PrimaryCare/ ManagementPrimaryCarePractitioners/fs/en

  Gloucestershire Aneurism Screening
  Mr. Dhanda
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment his Department has made of the Gloucestershire Aneurism Screening Project; and if he will assess the case for extending the project across England. [186309]

  Dr. Stoate
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will introduce a national screening programme for abdominal aortic aneurysms; [187052]

  (2) what assessment he has made of the screening pilot project for abdominal aortic aneurysms in Gloucestershire; and if he will make a statement. [187053]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  [holding answer 7 September 2004]The United Kingdom national screening (NSC) committee makes recommendations to Ministers on all aspects of screening programmes. It is currently considering the evidence for, and the feasibility of, implementing a screening programme for abdominal aortic aneurysms, including the implications for the national health service, before advising Ministers.

  While screening has the potential to save lives or improve health through early diagnosis of serious conditions, there are benefits and drawbacks. The Government will take all factors into account, in particular the advice of the NSC, but also the experience of the Gloucestershire project, before reaching decisions.

  Home Deliveries
  Mrs. Helen Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what care an NHS trust is required to provide to women wishing to have a home birth. [186115]
  1645W
  Dr. Ladyman
  If a National Health Service trust provides a home birth service, it should ensure that suitably skilled midwives are available to attend the woman and to provide care and support throughout the labour and birth. Appropriate transfer arrangements should also be in place in case the woman or baby needs specialist medical care.

  Hospital Infections/MRSA
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when Towards cleaner hospitals and lower rates of infection: A summary of action was commissioned; when it was signed off and ready for publication; and when it was decided to publish it. [185798]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  We have an ongoing programme of work on infection control and hospital cleanliness, informed by advice from the Chief Medical Officer (CMO) and the Chief Nursing Officer, which has produced publications such as the CMO's Getting Ahead of the Curve and Winning Ways. A summation of this work was commissioned by the Secretary of State on 1 July 2004 to improve public understanding of what was being done. The Secretary of State approved a final text of Towards Cleaner Hospitals and Lower Infection Rates on 9 July 2004 and the document was published and posted on the Department's website on 12 July 2004.

  Clive Efford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to ensure that the same(a) methods and (b) criteria are used to detect MRSA in all acute hospitals and in each department within those hospitals. [187065]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The detection and identification of methicillin resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) in samples is set out in the Bacteriology Standard Operating Procedures (BSOP) issued by the Health Protection Agency. All National Health Service laboratories accredited by Clinical Pathology Accreditation (UK) must have in place standard operating procedures that are based on, or give equivalent results to these BSOP Standards.

  Patients who develop infection will have samples taken as part of their clinical care but trusts will also carryout screening for MRSA infection and colonisation. The NHS is recommended to use the report of a working party of the British Society for Antimicrobial Chemotherapy, the Hospital Infection Society, and the Infection Control Nurses Association, published in 1998. This gives guidance on which patients should be screened for infection or colonisation by MRSA but policies will need to take account of local circumstances.

  Infant Mortality
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health pursuant to his answer of 1 July 2004,Official Report, column 409W, on infant mortality, if he will set out (a) the baseline for the target to reduce the gap by 10 per cent. by 2010, (b) what the gap should be in 2010 if the target is met and (c) the current size of the gap between routine and manual groups and the population as a whole. [187853]
  1646W
  Dr. Ladyman
  The baseline is the average of the three years 1997–99. In the baseline period, the infant mortality rate per 1,000 live births among routine and manual groups was 13 per cent. higher than the overall rate in all social groups (6.3 deaths per 1,000 live births compared with 5.61. I would underline that the target is to reduce the gap by at least 10 per cent. For the target to be met, in 2010 the infant mortality rate among the routine and manual group will be at most 11.7 per cent. higher than in all social groups. On the latest available data, 2000–02, infant mortality rate among the routine and manual group was 16 per cent. higher than in all social groups.

  Notes

  1. Social groups are as defined in the National Statistics socioeconomic classification.

  2. Figures for 'all social groups' and 'routine and manual groups' are for live births within marriage and joint registrations only, as social class can be allocated only to those groups where the occupation of the child's father can be identified.

  3. The 'routine and manual' category consists of people in lower supervisory employment, sales and retail assistants, agricultural workers and technical occupations, semi-routine occupations, and routine occupations.

  Mental Health
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will outline his Department's plans for the "Mind Out for Mental Health'campaign; what evaluation has been made of it; and how much has been spent on it. [187859]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The "Mind out for Mental Health" campaign ended on 31 March 2004. In June, we announced a new five-year strategic plan to tackle stigma and discrimination on mental health grounds, which will build on the work of the "Mind out for Mental Health" campaign and will be formally launched on World Mental Health Day, 10 October.

  The "Mind out for Mental Health" campaign was evaluated twice: at the end of 2001–02 and 2002–03. Additional research was carried out on "Read the Signs", a strand of the campaign specifically targeted at young people. Copies of the evaluation reports have been placed in the Library.

  A total of £3,473.000 was spent on the campaign since its launch in March 2001.

  Myasthenia Gravis
  Mr. Colman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will increase the numbers of consultants and nurses qualified to diagnose and treat myasthenia gravis. [188270]

  Mr. Hutton
  Information on the number of consultants, doctors and nurses specifically qualified to diagnose and treat myasthenia gravis is not collected centrally.

  As at March 2004, there were 427 consultants in neurology. Since September 1997, numbers have increased by 149, or 54 per cent., and we are working towards increasing their numbers further.

  We are encouraging more doctors to practise neurology by expanding the number of specialist registrar (SpR) opportunities in the specialty.
  1647W
  In 2003–04, central funding has been distributed to support the implementation of 10 additional SpR posts in neurology. All the posts have now been implemented. Trusts also have the opportunity to create up to 20 locally funded SpR training opportunities. Trusts were surveyed in February 2004, when six locally funded opportunities had been implemented, with the remaining 14 planned to have been implemented by August 2004.

  In 2004–05, neurology has been allocated a further two centrally funded posts and strategic health authorities have been given freedom to agree as many additional SpR training opportunities as are necessary to achieve Working Time Directive compliance, subject to obtaining educational approval.

  The number of nurses overall employed in the national health service has increased by 77,500 since 1997 and we are increasing the number of training places for nurses and midwives. Between 1996–97 and 2003–04, the number of students entering training to become a nurse or midwife has increased by 9,300, or 62 per cent.

  National Service Framework for Children
  Mr. Dawson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he proposes to publish the national service framework for children. [186073]

  Dr. Ladyman
  [holding answer dated 22 July 2004]: The national service framework was published today.

  NHS and Primary Care Trusts (Funding)
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health pursuant to the answer of 13 July 2004,Official Report, column 1100W, on NHS and primary care trusts (funding), under which part of the Code of Practice on Access to Official Information he declines to make available figures collected by strategic health authorities on the financial position of NHS trusts and primary care trusts. [188047]

  Mr. Hutton
  This information is considered to be exempt under Part II of the Code of Practice on Access to Government information.

  NHS Targets
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health which previously published targets set for the NHS remain in place which are not listed in either the list of future targets or those to be achieved by March 2005 in the planning and priorities framework for 2005 to 2008. [188158]

  Mr. Hutton
  There are only 20 new national requirements set out in National Standards Local Action, the health and social care standards and planning framework for 2005 to 2008.

  Fewer national requirements will create more scope for local priorities so that the national health service and social care has much more flexibility to deliver personalised services for patients and to recognise local needs and priorities.
  1648W
  While there is a need to focus on new priorities, it is essential that levels of service set through previous planning rounds are maintained. The Department will continue to monitor and report on all the commitments made.

  Orthotics
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to develop the pathfinder programme with regard to orthotics. [187120]

  Mr. Hutton
  The pathfinder project was designed to deliver real changes at local level and to improve care for patients and included a consultation period with all the key stakeholders to determine how the findings of the orthotic pathfinder report can be adopted nationally and what resources services would need to achieve this.

  This report differs from previous reports in that it describes a project that was designed to deliver the changes necessary to improve patient care rather than merely comment on the state of existing services. The document details the experiences of six trusts as they went through a process of change and the benefits that can be achieved if these changes were rolled out across the rest of the NHS. It details the specific changes made to improve the access to and clinical effectiveness of orthotic clinics.

  The report has been published on the national health service purchasing and supply agency website and stakeholders have now the opportunity to respond. The report is intended not only to force the debate for change, but also to serve as a resource for those working to develop local solutions to local problems. We hope the information it contains can be widely shared, explored and evaluated both within and beyond the orthotic community. It would be premature to comment in advance of the community's response to this report and further evaluation on how we develop this important area of health.

  Working Time Directive
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent assessment he has made of the impact in the NHS of the working time directive on(a) the training of junior hospital doctors, (b) nurses and (c) accident and emergency departments in hospitals. [187949]

  Mr. Hutton
  Compliance with the working time directive (WTD) is a legal requirement for all employers. Responsibility for its implementation in the national health service rests with local operational authorities. We have vested responsibility for monitoring compliance with strategic health authorities (SHAs), as part of mainstream NHS performance management.

  NHS trusts' plans to comply with the WTD were agreed with SHAs, which continue to support their achievement throughout the NHS. These plans take account of the need to maintain the quality of medical education and training; to develop the contribution made by staff in other disciplines; and to continue to provide excellent services to patients.

EDUCATION AND SKILLS

  Key Stage 1
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Skills (Mr. Stephen Twigg)
  The trial of the new assessment arrangement at key stage 1 has now concluded and a decision about extending the new arrangements to all schools has been made.

  In 2003, we asked the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority (QCA) to trial an approach that placed more emphasis on teacher assessment and national reporting of teacher assessment levels. Schools taking part in the trial administered the national curriculum tasks and tests in reading, writing and mathematics and the outcomes of these, plus all the evidence from work done throughout the year, were used by teachers to make judgments about children's progress in each subject, which were reported to parents and LEAs.

  An independent evaluation of the new arrangements was carried out by Leeds university on behalf of the QCA. The evaluation proved favourable and we have accepted the QCA's recommendation to extend the new arrangements to all schools at key stage 1 from the current academic year.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  M26 Taser
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Caroline Flint)
  Five police forces have been trialling the use of Taser since April 2003 on a strictly limited basis. In the light of the results of the trial, I have authorised chief officers throughout England and Wales to deploy Taser for use in the same strictly limited circumstances. Chief officers can now make the M26 Taser available to authorised firearms officers in their force as a less lethal alternative for use in situations where a firearms authority has been granted in accordance with criteria laid down in the ACPO manual of guidance on police use of firearms.

  The Defence Scientific Advisory Council (DSAC) sub-committee on the medical implications of less lethal weapons (DOMILL) was invited to provide a second statement on the medical implications of the use of the M26 Advanced Taser. The DOMILL statement confirms that the risk of death from the M26 Taser is very low. I have placed a copy of the statement in the Library of the House.

HEALTH

  National Service Framework (Maternity and Children's Services)
  The Secretary of State for Health (Dr. John Reid)
  In February 2001, we announced that the Department would be developing a new national service framework (NSF) to set in place new standards for children's services. I am pleased to announce that the children's NSF is today being published. Copies have been placed in the Library.

  This NSF is the most complex to date, covering maternity services and the full range of issues for children and young people across health and social care, as well as the interface with education. It has been developed in active consultation with young people and the direct participation of over 250 experts and practitioners from the field. We also sought the views of key stakeholders through a major consultation exercise.

  The children's NSF is an evidence-based, 10-year strategy that advocates a cultural shift in the provision of care, with services being designed and delivered around the needs of children and their families. The NSF recognises that children's needs are different and that it is important they have personalised services that take account of their individual views and beliefs, and enable them to make informed choices about their care. Setting standards for maternity care will also enable women to make real choices about the birth of their babies. It highlights the need for high-quality services that offer choice and are prompt, convenient and responsive and that look at the whole child, rather than as a presenting illness or problem.

  The broad remit of the NSF is covered in 11 standards, which are:
  promoting health and well-being, identifying needs and intervening early;
  supporting parents or carers;
  child, young person and family centred services;
  growing up;
  safeguarding and promoting the welfare of children and young people;
  children and young people who are ill;
  children in hospital;
  disabled children and young people and those with complex health needs;
  mental and psychological well-being of children and young people;
  medicines;
  maternity.

  The children's NSF has been developed in line with the Government's wider public sector reform, to devolve power and responsibility to local agencies. Consequently, although this NSF sets out the levels of service quality that we expect services to attain by 2014, it is to be left to local discretion to determine how change should be effected.
  151WS

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

  Regional Assemblies Information Campaign
  The Minister for Local and Regional Government (Mr. Nick Raynsford)
  In August we sent a leaflet to every household in the north-east entitled "An Elected Assembly for the North East—Have Your Say". The leaflet provided information about the regional assembly and local government referendums to be held on 4 November, including details of the options for local government reorganisation.

  An error has been discovered in the information provided about the cost of local government reorganisation in County Durham. The cost figure for option A—one single tier local authority for the county of Durham—was correctly shown. However, the upfront cost of implementing "option B"—that is, of restructuring local government to create three unitary authorities to take over the functions currently exercised by the existing county and district councils—was stated as £38 million. It should have been £49 million.

  We will shortly be writing to all households in County Durham correcting this error. The Government will meet the costs of implementing either option, as stated in the leaflet.

TRANSPORT

  Network Rail
  The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Alistair Darling)
  Network Rail plans to launch a Debt Issuance Programme (DIP) later this autumn. This will provide a long term, flexible financing platform for Network Rail. It will allow the company to raise finance at a lower cost than the previously envisaged securitisation. Details of the DIP and the support Government intends to provide for it by means of a financial indemnity are set out in Minutes laid before the House today.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Staff Commission for Education and Library Boards Accounts 2002–03
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Barry Gardiner)
  The 2002–03 accounts of the Staff Commission for Education and Library Boards were deposited in the Libraries of both Houses today.

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.

Baroness D'Souza
Frances Gertrude Claire D'Souza, CMG, having been created Baroness D'Souza, of Wychwood in the County of Oxfordshire, for life—Was, in her robes, introduced between the Lord Dholakia and the Baroness Whitaker, and made the solemn affirmation.

Bangladesh
2.43 p.m.
Lord Harrison Lord Harrison asked Her Majesty's Government:
What further assistance they and the European Union are giving to relieve the devastation caused by the recent floods in Bangladesh.
The Lord President of the Council (Baroness Amos): My Lords, DfID's programme for Bangladesh in 2004–05 is £100 million. Of this, £20 million has been allocated to respond to the recent devastation caused by the floods. An additional £5 million has been added to this to bring the total DfID spend on flood relief and rehabilitation to £25 million. More funding will be added to the Bangladesh programme if necessary to accommodate the £20 million we have spent on the floods. The European Commission has contributed 2.9 million euros and is considering further funding.
Lord Harrison: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that Answer. First, does she share my disappointment that the target of 210 million dollars under the United Nations Bangladesh flash floods scheme has not been met by quite a long chalk so far? Will she encourage our EU partners and friends in the United Nations to ensure that it happens? Secondly, in the light of global warming, will she ensure that the United Nations and the European Union invest more money, especially in community-based disaster preparedness schemes, so that when such disasters happen, lives, livelihoods and property can be saved?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I share my noble friend's disappointment. Our contribution to the UN appeal constitutes about 20 per cent. Of course we will continue to encourage our partners to contribute. With respect to my noble friend's other point, yes, we must encourage the UN, the EU and the international community more generally to take environmental issues seriously. Global warming is leading to increasing glacial melt in the Himalayas and larger volumes of water discharging through the rivers into Bangladesh. So global action, which my right
1168
honourable friend the Prime Minister urged on the international community earlier this week, is very much needed.
Baroness Rawlings: My Lords, apart from the disastrous floods and our assistance, what steps are Her Majesty's Government taking to make certain that the Bangladeshi Government give their full co-operation in the investigation of the 21 August grenade attack on the British High Commission?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, the noble Baroness will be aware that there have been a number of what appear to be politically motivated attacks in Bangladesh over a period of time. In one of those attacks, our High Commissioner was indeed wounded. A commission has been established; we are awaiting the result of that commission.
Baroness Falkner of Margravine: My Lords, does the Leader of the House agree that, despite the very generous assistance provided by Her Majesty's Government, in the words of the World Food Programme, Bangladesh needs more than band-aid solutions to the problems of persistent flooding. She will be aware that floods causing this level of devastation are happening with greater frequency now. What steps are the Government taking to help the Bangladesh Government with infrastructure improvement, flood relief and to build up the skills and assets of the country in the longer term?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, the noble Baroness is quite right: not just international action but regional action is needed, as well as action in Bangladesh itself. With respect to regional action, countries such as China, Nepal and India need to work together to reduce deforestation and soil erosion and therefore to decrease the impact of floods downstream on Bangladesh. Bangladesh itself needs to improve its water management, for which money is available not only from the World Bank and the Asian Development Bank, but from the Dutch Government. We have made it absolutely clear that we will support water management programmes, but they must be country-led. One thing that we must do is persuade the Bangladeshi Government to make that issue a priority.
Baroness Uddin: My Lords, I welcome my noble friend's comments on regional action being an important solution for the longer-term solution to flooding in Bangladesh. Is she aware that just to go back to where Bangladesh stood before the flood requires £7 billion at least? Can she say something about how the UK Government intend to address that issue and encourage their international partners? Is she further aware that the UN representative, having received death threats, recently left the country and

1169
then returned? Is she satisfied with the level of security available and does she feel that the terrorist action in Bangladesh is hampering or preventing distribution of the money that has already been given by the British Government and other governments?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, first, I pay tribute to my noble friend's efforts to support the relief efforts in Bangladesh. With respect to recent political events, there has been a series of bomb blasts and terrorist threats across the country, targeting the opposition and religious minorities. As I said in response to the noble Baroness, Lady Rawlings, there is an investigation commission, which was due to report in three weeks, but that has now been extended by a further three weeks. We are awaiting the report of that commission. We will continue to make every effort that we can to ensure that the people of Bangladesh receive the humanitarian assistance that they require.
Baroness Strange: My Lords, does the Lord President agree that the Bangladeshis are a lovely people and that they deserve any help we can give them?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I totally agree that we need to give as much support as we can to the people of Bangladesh.
Lord Judd: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the latest appalling experience in Bangladesh is a grave indication of the cost to the poorest people in the world if we do not get climate change under control? Does it not increase the responsibility of industrialised countries, such as our own, to commit themselves to the most effective policies possible in stopping the generation of global warming?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, of course we need to look at climate change and environmental factors. That is why my right honourable friend the Prime Minister has made this issue a priority for our presidency of the G8 next year. But it is also important to remember that some regions in the world are subject to environmental disasters which, although related to climate change, do not relate only to climate change. Therefore, we not only need to deal with the climate change issue; we also need to ensure that the people of those countries have the right kind of skills and the right kind of support to manage disasters more effectively.

Whales: Sonic Threats
2.51 p.m.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer asked Her Majesty's Government:
What assessment the Ministry of Defence has made of the threat to whales and other cetaceans from the testing and use of low frequency active sonar.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Bach): My Lords, the Ministry of Defence had conducted environmental impact assessments on marine environments in which the Royal Navy might use Sonar 2087—a low frequency active sonar system. These assessments indicated that Sonar 2087 has the potential to be harmful to marine mammals. A range of mitigation measures has been developed to minimise the impact.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for recognising the potential to damage marine mammals because of the sheer power of this new system, the number of decibels that it can produce and the distance that it can travel. But does he agree that the wider scientific community is unable to peer-review the kind of assessment that the Ministry of Defence has made because the extent and exact nature of military activity is highly restricted information? Given that this system could, indeed, destroy the cetaceans' habitat because they themselves depend on sonar for communication, this is a very serious problem.
Lord Bach: My Lords, I am afraid that I cannot agree with the noble Baroness when she suggests that there has been unnecessary secrecy or restriction here. There is no secrecy at all over the trials that have taken place and that will take place. The MoD website provides much data on the trials and makes available the environmental reports.
In the Ministry of Defence, and I suspect elsewhere in government, I think that there has been a "sea change", if I may use that expression, in our whole attitude towards environmental considerations. I am proud to say that the Ministry of Defence takes very seriously its environmental policy, whether it relates to land, sea or air, and we certainly do so far as concerns this issue.
Lord Eden of Winton: My Lords, I welcome the last reply given by the noble Lord, but will he state to what extent the Ministry of Defence has consulted other governments—notably that of the United States, who have already revealed substantial evidence of the very serious damage which is being done to these creatures?
Lord Bach: My Lords, as I understand it, the way in which the United States employs its sonar is very different from the way in which we do and the way in which we intend to do. Of course, we discuss all matters of this kind with the United States and we shall continue to do so.
The Earl of Selborne: My Lords, is it the Minister's view that the United States system is better or worse than ours?
Lord Bach: My Lords, I do not think that the Minister has a view on whether it is better or worse than ours. What the Minister does know is that the Sonar 2087, which we hope to have in operation by 2006, is an absolutely essential requirement in continuing to ensure that hostile submarines are not a danger to our Royal Navy. I am sure that the noble Earl will know that, of the 420 submarines in the world, 200 are held by non-allied countries. It needs only one rogue submarine to cause us severe damage and disruption and to put at risk our maritime supremacy.
Lord Elton: My Lords, the Minister referred to efforts to mitigate and minimise the adverse effect of this procedure. Can he tell us to what extent the mitigation has succeeded?
Lord Bach: My Lords, we believe that it has succeeded, and perhaps I may give the noble Lord examples of mitigation measures. The sea area involved is monitored throughout a trial. If there are indications of the presence of marine mammals, the trial activity will be modified, delayed or moved in accordance with the recommendations in the assessment or from the on-board independent marine mammal observers, who until now have been on these trials. A second mitigation measure is that exclusion zones are operated around sensitive sites, such as breeding grounds and sanctuaries. All that should tell the noble Lord that we are taking this matter very seriously.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, are different departments which obviously have a direct effect on marine environment welfare considering a marine Act and, if not, when will they do so?
Lord Bach: My Lords, I cannot give an answer to the noble Baroness about a possible marine Act. That is not something on which I am briefed, but I shall of course write to her with an answer.

Sudan: Darfur
2.57 p.m.
Baroness Cox Baroness Cox asked Her Majesty's Government:
What representations they have made to the Government of Sudan with regard to the humanitarian crisis in Darfur.
Baroness Amos: My Lords, the Government are constantly pressing the Government of Sudan to take action on Darfur. Since June, there have been three ministerial visits to Sudan. The Minister with responsibility for Africa is in Sudan today, pressing the Government to restore security. My right honourable friend the Prime Minister has written to the Sudanese President and we pressed the Sudanese Foreign
1172
Minister during his visit in May. In addition, our ambassador in Khartoum is in daily contact with the Sudanese Government and the United Nations.
Baroness Cox: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for that reply, but I think that it is a little disturbing in view of recent events. Is the noble Baroness the Leader of the House aware that the Government of Sudan have been supporting the Janjaweed with aerial bombardments? Is she also aware of very recent credible reports that they have been using chemical weapons with the support of Syrian experts? Therefore, will Her Majesty's Government take a more robust approach to the National Islamic Front regime and call it to account for war crimes and crimes against humanity before many more thousands die in the genocide that is being carried out?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I am aware of allegations about the use of chemical weapons. We take those reports very seriously and we are currently looking into the allegations. The noble Baroness referred to a more robust approach. She may be aware that my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary made it absolutely clear that the evidence that we have suggests that international crimes against humanity have been committed. The Secretary-General of the United Nations is keeping this matter under review—in particular, the question of whether it should be called genocide—and we are doing exactly what the UN is doing.
Lord Archer of Sandwell: My Lords, is my noble friend aware of reports that, even in the agreed safe areas and the IDP camps, the police who are there to protect the refugees are themselves committing atrocities? Has she seen the Amnesty report which states that people are being arrested for reporting the atrocities to the ceasefire monitors? Have the Sudanese Government been confronted with this evidence and, if so, what was their reaction?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I have not seen the reports of allegations relating to events inside the camps. There have been many reports of atrocities from NGOs and from the African Union monitors in Darfur. My noble and learned friend may be aware that my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary was instrumental in persuading the Government of Sudan to raise their visa restrictions to ensure that human rights organisations could enter Sudan to monitor the situation there. We take all of these allegations very seriously indeed. My noble and learned friend Lord Archer may be aware that we have been calling for some time for an international commission to inquire into these allegations.
Lord Renton: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that British troops could achieve much more by bringing peace in the Sudan than by being left with uncertain responsibilities in Iraq?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, there have been many calls for different kinds of action in Sudan. The noble

1173
Lord, Lord Renton, will know that we have made a clear decision that we need to work through the UN to persuade the Government of Sudan to take their responsibilities very seriously indeed. We are hopeful that a further UN Security Council resolution will be passed later this week.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, should not the US Secretary of State's use of the term "genocide" have galvanised the international community into taking more immediate action on behalf of the 1.5 million victims of the Sudanese Government and the Janjaweed? Will the noble Baroness explain to the House what the difficulties are in getting a UN Security Council resolution and whether the Sudanese Government have been obstructing the appointment of the 2,000-strong African Union force to protect the humanitarian workers in Darfur?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, will be aware that there are discussions going on at the moment in the Security Council with respect to the elements and the key points of a new resolution. We hope that this will include enlarging the AU monitoring mission, calling on member states to support the AU and asking all sides to engage in the peace talks in Abuja—the noble Lord, Lord Avebury may be aware that there is a proposal that those talks adjourn. There are also the longer-term peace talks, which are ongoing, and there is the issue of an international commission to examine allegations of crimes against humanity.
One effect of designating the events as genocide would be to galvanise the international community. However, having considered the action that is already being taken by the Government and in the Security Council, I think that we should get away from being hung up on the use of a particular term and actually push the international community to take the action that it can take now.
Baroness Rawlings: My Lords, on 9 September the US Secretary of State, Colin Powell, officially declared that genocide had occurred, as the noble Baroness mentioned. What she did not quite say was whether the Government agree with this statement of their closest ally. Also, do the Government support the suggested no-fly zone, which is to be internationally policed, and if so what resources will the Government provide for this duty?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, no decisions have been made with respect to the issue of a no-fly zone. A proposal has been made. There are clear difficulties associated with that, including the size of the Darfur region and the way that any no-fly zone would be monitored, so no decision has been made on that.
On the issue of genocide, I will repeat what I said in an earlier answer. There is evidence that clearly suggests that international crimes against humanity have been committed. The Secretary-General of the UN is keeping the question of whether what has
1174
happened is genocide under very close review and so are we. If there were a declaration of genocide, there would be a call on the international community to take action. We can take that action now, and we have been pressing for that for many months.
Lord Alton of Liverpool: My Lords, given that it has now been three months since the United Nations said that this is the world's greatest humanitarian disaster, and that in August alone, it was said on Monday, 10,000 people died in Darfur, making a total of 50,000 in total so far, can the noble Baroness tell us what has to happen before we follow the United States in declaring this to be genocide? To do so would lay a duty on us to take preventive action and to punish those responsible under Article 8 of the genocide convention. That is why Colin Powell chose that word at the weekend and why we should do likewise.
Baroness Amos: My Lords, we have made it absolutely clear that we take the situation very seriously. The declaration that what is happening in Sudan is genocide would make a difference to the action being taken by other countries. It would not make a difference to the action being taken by this Government. We were the first to have Ministers go into Sudan and there have been five ministerial visits since 2002. We are the second-largest bilateral donor, we have put enormous resources into humanitarian assistance and we have supported the long-term peace talks, which have been going on in Sudan over many years and which the international community as a whole has forgotten. We have also been supporting the Abuja talks, which have focused on resolving the situation in Darfur.
A declaration would be a call on the international community to take greater action. We would support that action if it were taken by the UN. We have called for an international commission to investigate the allegations that have been made, but the action being taken by this Government would be no different if there were a declaration that genocide is happening in Sudan.
Lord Lawson of Blaby: My Lords, does the noble Baroness accept that while the case for taking action is very strong indeed, that action should not be the cop-out of economic sanctions, which all history has shown to damage not the regimes where they are applied but ordinary people?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, at this point I would not want to rule out any action that the international community might wish to take in the future were the Government of Sudan not to take its responsibilities seriously. However, I entirely take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Lawson. He will be aware that with economic sanctions the situation in the particular country must be looked at very carefully indeed. We have done that with respect to that decision in other countries and we would do that with respect to Sudan.
The Earl of Sandwich: My Lords, does the noble Baroness agree that while all the moral outrage seems to

1175
be outside Sudan, there are in fact in Sudan many specialised human rights agencies? Are the Government supporting a possible partnership between those organisations and the Government of Sudan, as happened in the case of Bahr al-Ghazal?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I am aware of the range of agencies operating in Sudan—a number of international agencies are also giving support. We have supported the NGOs and we would have very little information about what is happening on the ground without the work of those organisations. Forging a partnership between the Government of Sudan and NGOs would have to be a two-way process. We would want to facilitate that, but the Government of Sudan would have to wish to enter into that kind of partnership.

Sudden Infant Death Syndrome
3.8 p.m.
Lord Thomas of Gresford Lord Thomas of Gresford asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they plan to implement the recommendations of the report by the Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws on sudden infant death syndrome.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Lord Warner): My Lords, sudden infant death is a tragic and distressing event, requiring a sensitive response. We welcome this report, which will inform government policy and the way in which these tragic events are managed and accounted for. We are grateful to my noble friend Lady Kennedy and her committee for their contribution to preventing potential miscarriages of justice while protecting the interests and safety of children. We shall be considering the recommendations carefully, alongside the review on medical expert witnesses being conducted by the Chief Medical Officer, which was announced in June.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, I welcome the warm words used by the Minister about the report. He will know that it calls for local agreements between the coroner, the police and NHS trusts on how unexpected deaths in infancy are to be investigated, in accordance with the national multi-agency protocol. How are the Government to ensure that these local agreements are constructed throughout the country, and in particular that investigations are not police-led but medically led by child pathologists trained in forensic pathology? Does the Minister agree with the president of the Royal College of Pathologists, reported a week ago, that a quarter of the posts in Britain's health authorities are unfilled, with no applicants coming forward, because the speciality has been demonised in the press and the media?
Lord Warner: My Lords, I have a good deal of sympathy with the noble Lord's remarks. In response to his first point, my right honourable friend the Minister for Children is working on the role of local screening teams to consider all unexpected deaths in childhood and how they might respond to both unexpected infant deaths and all child deaths. A draft protocol is being developed on a multi-agency basis.
We agree with the noble Lord and recognise the need for more paediatric pathologists. We are putting money into trying to train those, but there is no quick fix. We have to put the money into training and we have to train new doctors in this area to gain the relevant experience.
Lord Lamont of Lerwick: My Lords, can the Minister say what system of compensation will be used to compensate those who suffered appalling miscarriages of justice and whose lives were ruined? Will the Government ensure that the compensation, unlike in certain other cases of miscarriage of justice, is paid promptly and not grudgingly?
Lord Warner: My Lords, I shall take custody of that supplementary—if I may use that expression—look into it, and write to the noble Lord.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, the Minister said that the noble Baroness's report and the CMO's investigations, when reported, will inform government policy. Will he tell us what government policy is in this area at the moment?
Lord Warner: My Lords, I think that government policy in this area is well established. We have been committed to protecting children as effectively as we can on a multi-agency basis. We have been pursuing the same sort of policies as previous governments in terms of where investigation of a criminal offence is required. Because of the particular sensitivities in this area, and as a result of my noble friend's very helpful report, we have discovered that we need to improve certain aspects of the system, and that is what we shall do.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff: My Lords, given that sudden infant deaths come within the jurisdiction and investigation of the coroner, and that a review of the coroners' service is currently taking place, can the Minister update us on the progress of that review, particularly in the light of the recent report?
Lord Warner: My Lords, as the noble Baroness will know, a number of aspects of the report relate to the Human Tissue Bill, which is progressing through Parliament and which also involves issues for coroners. The Government have also undertaken to revise the coroners rules, and I understand that a draft is expected to be available by the end of this month.

Iran
3.12 p.m.
Lord Corbett of Castle Vale: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. In doing so, I remind your Lordships that I am the chairman of the British Committee for Iran Freedom.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether the Government of Iran are complying with their undertaking of October 2003 to suspend all nuclear activities until an inspection has been completed by the United Nations International Atomic Energy Agency.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean): My Lords, Her Majesty's Government are very concerned at the resumption of uranium enrichment activities by Iran, which are a contravention of our understanding of the undertaking given in October 2003 to suspend all enrichment and reprocessing activities.
Lord Corbett of Castle Vale: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that response. Will she acknowledge that attempts at a constructive dialogue by my right honourable friend and others with the mullahs has led only to lies, deception and broken promises about the existence of the nuclear research and its real purpose? The regime's ability to enrich uranium means that Iran has the ability to make nuclear weapons. Will the Government support moves to refer Iran's non-compliance with its nuclear obligations to the UN Security Council, so that it can consider imposing sanctions on a regime which wants to add nuclear weapons to its menacing brand of religious fundamentalism?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I cannot agree that the policy of constructive dialogue has resulted only in what my noble friend describes as lies. It has exposed what is happening in Iran in terms of enrichment and processing activities. We all want to see an end to those activities. As my noble friend will know, this is a matter which is, as we speak, under active discussion in Vienna by the IAEA. I suggest to my noble friend that it is right for us to go through these discussions in Vienna and see what comes out of them before we take a decision about the appropriate moment, should such a moment arise, to refer the matter to the United Nations.
Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, while it appears, regrettably, that the agreement with the European Union three last year has now been repudiated by the Iranian Government, does the Minister nevertheless agree that with Dr El Baradei of the IAEA that it would be a mistake to rush into a deadline now on halting enriched uranium procedures? Does she also agree that we should
1178
be cautious about pushing ahead with sanctions for the very reasons that my noble friend Lord Lawson gave a few minutes ago in a different context?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, we need to be clear that the Iranians have not repudiated the agreement. We are very concerned that they are not living up to the agreement, but I would not wish in any way to encourage a repudiation of an agreement by letting that point go. However, I agree strongly with the noble Lord that we cannot be in the business of setting artificial deadlines. At the same time, although Dr El Baradei has said that, he has also said:
"It is essential for the integrity and credibility of the inspection process that we are able to bring these issues to a close within the next few months".
So while agreeing that it is right not to have a deadline which might be set for other, artificial reasons, we must also be very clear that this cannot be an open-ended process.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, I agree with what the Minister has said so far, but does she agree with what Dr Hans Blix, the erstwhile UN inspector in Iraq, said in this palace last week? He said that the best way forward in dealing with the Iran issue, if I can call it that, was to get the international community, especially the United States, to press for a nuclear weapon-free zone in the Middle East that would, of course, embrace Israel's nuclear weaponry.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, it is indeed the policy of the United Kingdom Government to press for a nuclear weapon-free zone in the Middle East. However, I remind the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, that the Iranians are signatories to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, whereas the Israelis are not. The Iranians have also given undertakings that they will sign the additional protocol allowing for inspections, but as yet they have not done so.
The fact is that the IAEA, which is the guardian of the NPT, under the chairmanship of Dr El Baradei, has raised questions that the Iranians have not yet answered satisfactorily. We need to go through that process. There are, in addition, the additional undertakings that were made to the three European countries in October last year.
Lord Temple-Morris: My Lords—
Lord Hannay of Chiswick: My Lords—
Noble Lords: Cross Bench.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, it is the turn of the Cross Benches.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick: My Lords, does the Minister agree that if we are to give consideration—we may be forced to—to using more sticks to persuade the Iranians to comply with their obligations, we also need to focus on carrots? It really is important to try to get into a dialogue on the widest possible basis, including

1179
the United States, to address some of their security concerns. Can the noble Baroness say anything about the proposals which the press report the Iranian Government to have made about those wider issues? Does she agree that it is a little odd that the United States seem to talk to the North Koreans, but when they are asked to talk to the Iranians, they describe it as rewarding bad behaviour?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, it certainly is no secret that United States policy as regards engagement with Iran is different from United Kingdom policy. We have a relationship with Iran; we have a diplomatic relationship. My right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary has visited Iran five times in the past three years, and I regularly receive Iranian visitors. There are undoubtedly security concerns regarding Iran which have to be addressed, and I agree with the noble Lord's point about carrots as well as sticks. The fact is, opportunities are open to Iran, such as a trade and co-operation agreement, if it is able to satisfy us all—not only those in the IAEA, but those in the European Union—about the NPT and that it is fulfilling the undertakings that were made to ourselves, the French and the Germans only in October last year.
Lord Temple-Morris: My Lords, does the Minister agree that these are very important matters, potentially and actually? There are two important ingredients: one of them is speed, and the other is unity. As to speed, will the Government do their utmost to ensure that, if Iran does not comply, the November deadline for reference to the United Nations is adhered to? As to unity, does the Minister agree that it is vital that Iran clearly realises, and that it is made very clear to it, that it cannot divide the European three, one from the other? In this instance, it is most important that those three are not divided from the United States.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: Yes, my Lords, I agree with much of that, and I thank my noble friend for the work that he undertakes in trying to create better understanding between us and the Iranian people. However, I shall add a cautionary word to what my noble friend said.
In talking about November as a deadline, we should not create the kind of artificial deadlines that the noble Lord, Lord Howell of Guildford, mentioned. There is a great deal of pressure in the international community to move the issue out of the IAEA and into the Security Council. There are those who wish to take longer in discussions in order to ensure that we have exhausted all possibilities before taking what would be a very important step in terms of profile and international relations. It is not always a question of going forward in a progressive way, if, at any point, the Iranians then decide to repudiate, for example, the NPT. Then we would be in a very difficult position. International negotiation is a delicate business, as your Lordships will know. Even as we speak, discussions are under way in Vienna, and I am sure that we all wish them success.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, does the Minister agree with the statement in today's International Herald Tribune that,
"the United States, Israel and Iran all have an interest"—
in terms of domestic politics—
"in pushing the situation toward a showdown"?
Would the Minister also accept that a deadline of 31 October might have a complex relationship with the US presidential election? Given that the British Government want to encourage domestic politics to develop in a more progressive direction in Iran, how do we manage this immensely difficult issue in which our major allies are pushing us to take a harder line than we wish?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, we manage that by doing what we believe to be right. It is always interesting when the noble Lord has been going through his newspapers in the way that he does, but the judgment that he quoted is superficial. I understand where it comes from, because it can always be argued that it is better to be in contention in order to justify one's own position and that there is no better time than when the interesting prospect of elections lies ahead. However, those who are serious judges of what is happening would come to the conclusion that it is in nobody's interests to have a showdown over this issue, which is immensely serious.
Iran is in focus at the moment, but we know of a number of other countries that are not going through an IAEA process because they have not signed up for the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. We do not wish to demonstrate to those other countries that signing up to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty has some serious downsides, if we can avoid doing that. So a great deal of delicacy is needed in approaching what is going on. We are going to have a serious problem if we do not resolve these issues in the way to which we have set our hand. I commend to your Lordships the entirely sensible way in which my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary has decided to approach the issue.

Christmas Day (Trading) Bill
Report received.

Armed Forces (Pensions and Compensation) Bill
3.24 p.m.
Read a third time.
Clause 1 [Pension and compensation schemes: armed and reserve forces]:
Lord Corbett of Castle Vale moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 14, at end insert "and the Secretary of State shall report every two years to Parliament upon the operation of the compensation scheme"
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving the amendment, I shall make some comments about exchanges in your Lordships' House on 8 September. The Government have already promised to review the operation of the new compensation scheme after five years. I am seeking to persuade them to carry out that review every two years until it is clear that it is working as the Government hope. The Minister knows of the serious concerns of the Royal British Legion about the possible impact of putting the burden of proof on the claimant rather than, as now, on the Ministry of Defence. Only time will tell whether, and to what extent, those concerns are justified.
A review after two years would reveal that information earlier. That would be of assistance certainly to the Royal British Legion, to the Government and, more importantly, to those servicemen and women on whom we rely for our security and whose health is damaged or further impaired by their service. I hope that the Minister will be able respond sympathetically to my suggestion.
I shall raise briefly a matter of concern to me as a parliamentarian of 30 years' standing. It relates to a debate about an amendment tabled on Report to Clause 1 on 8 September. My concern is with an intervention by the Minister during my speech in that debate. I said:
"The Ministry of Defence rejects the arguments put forward by the Royal British Legion on the back of its analysis that 60 per cent of claimants who would have succeeded under the present rules are likely to fail under the new ones".
I then recalled seeing correspondence that disputed a government claim to have joined with the Royal British Legion to investigate the methodology used in their analysis, without their having done so. My noble friend replied that that had not been done,
"because the Royal British Legion cancelled the meeting at which it was due to be discussed. Since then, it has said in a letter that it has no intention of doing so. That is the reason it has not been done".—[Official Report, 8/9/04; col. 578.]
Those words had the effect of misleading the House—I am sure not deliberately—or were said because of a misunderstanding.
My noble friend's interruption of my speech related to the aftermath of a meeting between officials of his department and the Royal British Legion on 15 July. At that meeting, the MoD first revealed that £200 million was at stake if the Government's plan to shift the burden of proof to the claimant was rejected. The Royal British Legion's legal advisor, Mr Peter Knight, asked for the statistical basis for that figure and evidence for claiming that the present rules allow far too many claims to succeed.
The ministry's reply was that evidence could be provided to support this claim, but, in fact, none was provided. Nor was there any explanation of how the figure of £200 million had been arrived at. The only undertaking given was that the Ministry of Defence would,
"look at the burden of proof wording again",
1182
and then write to let the Royal British Legion know the outcome.
Eight days later, on 23 July, Peter Knight wrote to the Ministry of Defence to recall that undertaking and to ask for the promised letter soon so that the Royal British Legion could,
"consider fully any proposals that you wish to make".
Meanwhile, my noble friend the Minister had written to the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, on 22 July and made it abundantly clear that,
"I am not convinced that a detailed review of the cases"—
by which he meant the cases received by the Veterans' Agency each year—
"would help to clarify the issue".
Anyone reading that letter would see that the Minister saw no useful purpose in looking at an analysis of individual cases.
The Minister wrote to my noble friend Lord Morris of Manchester on 18 August, dealing with the points raised by the legion's legal advisors, but he did not address the statistical analysis. In his letter of the same date to me, he then referred to the request made of the Royal British Legion, but he had not seen fit to copy the letters written to the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, my noble friend Lord Morris and me to the Royal British Legion. The letter to the noble Lord, Lord Morris, was telling because my noble friend stated that the Ministry of Defence's position on this issue of the burden of proof was unchanged.
Unsurprisingly, the Royal British Legion concluded that there must be some doubt about my noble friend's new desire to inspect its analysis because he had previously told the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, that there was no purpose in doing that. The legion therefore considered that it was prudent to await the letter which the MoD had promised it would write to the legion following the meeting on 15 July.
There had been no reply so on 24 August Peter Knight wrote again to the Ministry of Defence referring to his still unanswered letter of six weeks earlier and stated,
"the Bill returns to the House of Lords on 8 September and I would therefore be grateful if I could receive a response as quickly as possible".
On 1 September, eight days later and seven weeks after the meeting of 15 July, and the pledge to,
"look at the burden of proof wording again"
and write to the legion, a letter from Lieutenant-General AMD Palmer of the MoD to Brigadier Ian Townsend, the legion's secretary-general, was received at the legion. The letter enclosed what it described as,
"a new form of words"
which repeated that the MoD stood by the terms of the Bill and set out its understanding of the legal meaning of the balance of probabilities and the obligations of the Ministry of Defence. This, the legion's adviser described, as having left,
"the MoD's position completely unchanged".

1183
When Lieutenant-General Palmer's letter arrived on 1 September, Brigadier Townsend was on leave, but he returned to duty on 6 September and responded to it in a letter which was delivered by hand to the Ministry of Defence on that day.
The response was that the restatement of the MoD's position had left its position completely unchanged and, since the MoD had previously said that it saw little purpose in considering the legion's statistical analysis, its change to requesting access to the Royal British Legion's statistics was unacceptable. Noting also Lieutenant-General Palmer's statement that the MoD had little scope to change and that it was within two days of the debate on the burden of proof in your Lordships' House, Brigadier Townsend said that matters would now have to take their course in Parliament.
Against that background, to imply that the legion was being unco-operative, as my noble friend did on 8 September, was grossly misleading. Neither did he acknowledge the legion's responsibility for liaising with other ex-service organisations and its duty, as the guardian of the interests, welfare and memory of ex-service people and their dependants, to do all in its power to protect the safeguard currently vouchsafed by a burden of proof based on reasonable doubt. Nor again did my noble friend at any time acknowledge the legion's offer to compromise on the basis suggested by the House of Commons Defence Select Committee and the MoD's rejection of that offer.
I understand that the legion will be responding in detail to my noble friend's allegations on Report and I am sure that it will do so with all its customary integrity as one of the country's most highly regarded institutions. I beg to move.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbots: My Lords, I do not wish to get involved in whether the Minister misled the noble Lord, but I would like to support the purpose behind the amendment which has just been moved. It seems to me that this is a highly controversial piece of legislation on the compensation scheme and that an early report on it therefore would be worth while in less than the five years envisaged.
As we have noted during the passage of the Bill, this is a framework Bill and a great deal of the detail depends on the good will not just of the present ministerial team, which I do not doubt, but of future ministerial teams and future governments. Many of us have been seeking ways to buttress the position and to ensure that best practice in the private sector is read across into the public sector scheme. We have talked about the need for trustees and the possibility of statutory compliance with the new Pensions Regulator's codes, where appropriate. The Government, despite plenty of fine words, have not been prepared to put anything specific into statute. I have been particularly keen to make it a statutory requirement to comply with the Pensions Regulator's code. It was interesting in that rejecting it earlier the noble Baroness, Lady Crawley, referred me to Mr Alan Pickering as an important source on the
1184
matter. I refer to an article which appeared in the Financial Times on Monday in which Mr Pickering said that the trustees are,
"unsung heroes. It is the job of the trustee to hold [these] worthy professionals to account".
He urged that,
"salt-of-the-earth folk"
should not be deterred "from becoming trustees".
I believe that there is an awful lot here that we are allowing to slide by. The noble Lord's amendment puts a brick in the wall, which I believe is well worth having in the sense that we shall have an early review of what is a highly contentious proposal which the Government are proposing to implement. I therefore support what he has in mind.
Lord Morris of Manchester: My Lords, I entirely understand the concern that underlies my noble friend's amendment. He has made a strong case for it and I am sure noble Lords across the House will see its importance. It was in the context of his case for the amendment that my noble friend referred back to the debate on Report on the burden and the standard of proof and referred to me in doing so.
I can assure him that the Royal British Legion will be responding, point by point and in full detail, to charges made by my noble friend Lord Bach in his reply to the debate on my amendment to the Bill—so emphatically carried by noble Lords of all parties and groups in this House—to retain the safeguard vouchsafed for service men and women left in broken health, and the bereaved families of those who give their lives in our service, by a burden of proof based on reasonable doubt.
Meanwhile the legion totally repudiates and deeply resents any suggestion, implied or explicit, that I in any way misreported or misrepresented its position on an issue to which the whole ex-service community attaches the highest importance.
For now, the legion notes that the Government's stance on the burden and standard of proof is exactly as it was when this Bill was first presented to Parliament, notwithstanding all that has been said by the ex-service community.
Confirmation of this was elicited by a brilliantly well-timed question from my friend the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, at the end of the Parliamentary Under-Secretary's reply to the debate on my amendment. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, asked,
"before the noble Lord sits down, could he explain on whom the onus of proof lies in his proposals? I am not concerned with the standard. The claimant brings a claim: is the onus of proof on him to establish the situation or is it on the MoD?",
to which my noble friend Lord Bach replied,
"under the new scheme the onus would be on the claimant but obviously on the balance of probabilities".—[Official Report, 8/9/04; col. 588.]
They were his final words in the debate, making it utterly clear that the MoD's stance had remained throughout exactly as it was at the outset, showing them to have been totally impervious to all suggestions for change whether from the legion, the Defence

1185
Committee of the House of Commons or anyone else. What has changed is the Bill itself and the legion is most grateful, as it has publicly stated, to everyone here who helped to bring that about on 8 September.
Lord Astor of Hever: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Corbett, raises an important point. The Royal British Legion deserves better treatment from the Government. Ministers cannot say how they depend on NGOs and then insult them when they do their job. The Royal British Legion has always made it clear that it is prepared to compromise. I very much hope that a compromise can be reached for the satisfaction of the Royal British Legion, the ex-service community and the Government.
Lord Bach: My Lords, I thank all the noble Lords who have spoken in this short debate. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Corbett, for his amendment, but I am somewhat surprised that an attack on me, on the basis of misleading the House, which he has made in his usual robust and fair way, is one he gave me no notice of at all.
Lord Corbett of Castle Vale: My Lords, will my noble friend allow me?
Lord Bach: My Lords, of course.
Lord Corbett of Castle Vale: My Lords, something has clearly gone wrong. I understand what the Minister is saying. I faxed a copy of my notes on the remarks I was going to be making to his office at about five minutes to twelve today.
Lord Bach: My Lords, I had no idea that the noble Lord had done that, and I am grateful to him for doing so. That is what I would have expected him to do. I have not been in my office since five to twelve, as I was busy doing other defence work elsewhere in London. I am grateful to him for having done that.
On his amendment, we entirely recognise that Parliament will wish to be kept informed about the operation of both the new pension and compensation arrangements once they have been introduced. My honourable friend the Minister for Veterans Affairs, Mr Ivor Caplin, has a responsibility to keep Parliament informed on all matters affecting the veterans' community, including progress with the new pensions and compensation arrangements. He does this on an annual basis. It is our view that his keeping Parliament informed as he does, including on the new compensation and pension arrangements, meets the requirement expressed in this amendment, but at a greater frequency than is asked for in this amendment. We therefore do not think that there is any necessity for this amendment to be placed on the face of the Bill. But, as far as concerns the principle, of Parliament being informed about how a new scheme will work, I could not agree with my noble friend more strongly.
I do not intend, if the House will forgive me, to go into details of the debate we had last week—that matter may come back before the House in due course—but I want
1186
to make a couple of points. First, two issues have been brought together in the argument. The first is the question of the burden and standard of proof, on which there was a disagreement between the Royal British Legion and the British Government. Although attempts were made—I believe genuinely on both sides—to find a form of words at certain stages, that has not been successful up to now.
The second is the issue of the research into the 60 per cent figure that the Royal British Legion used for the proportion of claims that would fail under the new scheme. It was in regard to that latter point that I was interrupting my noble friend this time last week. I was doing so on the basis of the letter that he has quoted to me today, dated 6 September 2004, from secretary general Ian Townsend of the Royal British Legion, to Lieutenant-General Anthony Palmer of the Minister of Defence. I quote:
"With regard to the issue of your officials reviewing our files relating to our earlier research in this subject, Terry English, having consulted with our legal advisers, informed Jonathon Iremonger earlier that in view of the MoD's stance that they have not nor are they prepared to carry out their own research, it would be inappropriate".
That is why no discussions took place on the 60 per cent.
I have gone into one detail, although I promised the House that I would not. I am certainly not intending to go into any more, because I think the House has other matters to attend to, both in this Bill and others.
I am, of course, deeply sorry if my noble friend Lord Corbett thinks that I have misled the House. I will look into what he has to say about that with extreme care, of course. I do not believe I have misled the House, and we will have to see what happens.
I am delighted that my noble friend Lord Morris of Manchester is in his place today. I want to make it absolutely clear to him that anything I said last week was not at all meant as a personal attack on him. He knows that I hold him in the highest affection. The work that he does for the Royal British Legion, and for veterans generally, is of the highest order. My criticism last week was of what was said on behalf of the Royal British Legion. Whether I was right or wrong to say that is another matter, but no personal attack on my noble friend was intended.
I end my brief remarks by saying that although, of course, there are disagreements from time to time between the Ministry of Defence and the Royal British Legion, and on a number of important issues raised by this significant Bill, I want to put on record the very high esteem in which we at the Ministry of Defence hold the Royal British Legion. It has a long and distinguished record of representing the interests of our veterans, and we have worked, and continue to work, with it to bring a number of very significant improvements to the veterans' community. This will continue in the future, as we build on the relationship, to take forward the veterans' initiative. We recognise the respect—mentioned by my noble friend—with which the Royal British Legion is viewed across the country and, indeed, well outside the shores of this country. We welcome and support the efforts that it

1187
makes to represent the interests of many who have suffered as a result of the service they have given to this country. Though we do take a different view on some issues—and that should not be of any surprise to the House—the Royal British Legion, in our opinion, has an essential role to play and will remain central to our relationship with the veterans' community.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Corbett of Castle Vale: My Lords, I thank those of your Lordships who have taken part in this short debate. I am grateful for the general support which the amendment has received. I thank my noble friend the Minister for his last few words. I am reading into them that, like me, my noble friend Lord Morris of Manchester and others, he recognises that it is in no one's interests that there should be a public row—more than a disagreement, a public row—between the responsible Minister and the Royal British Legion. Perhaps, in that sense, we can regard this as an unhappy incident on a long road.
I say to my noble friend the Minister that I had spoken to his private office just before noon today. I was told that he was not leaving the building until, I think, about a quarter past twelve and that he was then going to do something else but would be back. I was given a fax number, to which I faxed the notes on which my remarks were based. I am grateful to him for accepting my word on this. I want to underline that I do not believe in laying elephant traps. Where I am going to make serious accusations—rarely, happily—where it is possible that Ministers have been responsible for misleading the House, I would never simply drop those into a Minister's lap in the course of a debate. I am grateful to him for acknowledging that. I wonder whether he would be kind enough to make some inquiries in his private office as to what may have happened to that fax and write to me to let me know the outcome of that. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Astor of Hever Lord Astor of Hever moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 1, line 14, at end insert—
"(2A) The Secretary of State may, by regulation, make provision for extra benefits to be provided for current members of the existing scheme during the transitional period.
(2B) For the purposes of subsection (2A), the transitional period is the time between the date of the new scheme coming into force for new servicemen and women and the date on which existing servicemen and women are given the opportunity to transfer."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, we did not move our amendment on Report, on the Minister's recommendation and assurance that he would today give the House some positive answers to the benefits available during transition.
This amendment proposes to offer, on the face of the Bill, a guarantee for those who may be adversely affected during the transitional period. We had a thorough and potentially encouraging discussion on this matter in Committee. During the debate the Minister admitted that the transitional phase of the coming into effect of the Bill was something of a problem. Existing personnel will
1188
not be able to join the new pension scheme from its introduction on 6 April 2005, but some time after that, although no later than 6 April 2007. This means that there will therefore be a period when those personnel currently serving do not have access to the improved death-in-service and dependants' benefits available to new entrants from April 2005. It may affect only a handful of people, but the principle is important. It is unjustifiable to have existing personnel being denied improved benefits that new recruits will be entitled to.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Dean, stressed during Committee stage, the devil is always in the detail. While we are happy that the Government see the need to address the transitional problem, we have only this opportunity to get on record the details of the extra benefits that will be offered. I beg to move.
Baroness Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde: My Lords, I rise to speak in support of the amendment, which has my name on it. This is about the third time in the course of this short Bill that we have dealt with the matter. We had expected to be able to deal with the matter last week; my noble friend the Minister explained that he could not report last week but that he would be today.
Few words are needed, therefore, except to say that we need a solution to this problem—otherwise we shall have a situation with people who have been in the Armed Forces for years being in the transitional period. If something should unfortunately happen to them, they and their families would be in a worse position than the new recruits, who will be immediately recruited into the new pension scheme.
Lord Bach: My Lords, I thank the two noble Lords who have spoken in this debate. I am grateful for their patience in waiting an extra week so that we could find a solution to what is undoubtedly a very real problem, which they raised some time ago.
I can now set out our proposed approach, which I believe should meet their concerns. There is no need to write the provision into the Bill, as our proposal will be achieved through amendments to the current scheme rules in the prerogative instruments, and does not thus require primary legislation. Although we did not discuss this matter at Report, my noble friend Lady Dean has raised this issue both at Second Reading and in Grand Committee. As she said, this is a transitional problem which calls for a transitional solution.
The problem arises because currently serving personnel will not be able to join the new pension scheme until up to two years after its introduction for new entrants on 6 April 2005. There would therefore be a period when those personnel currently serving would not have access to the improved death-in-service and associated dependants' benefits available, which will be available to new entrants from April 2005.
The Ministry of Defence has been considering how to minimise the impact of this gap. I had suggested at Grand Committee that we might offer service personnel the opportunity to buy additional voluntary contributions to

1189
cover some or all of the improvement offered in the new pension scheme. Following extensive discussions with Her Majesty's Treasury, the government actuary and the three single services, we have decided to go down a different path.
We propose instead that for deaths in service during the transitional period, the dependants of currently serving personnel who are members of the existing pension scheme will be given the better of the two benefits packages from either the current or the new pension scheme. The Armed Forces Personnel Administrative Agency will calculate the respective benefits packages to decide which offers the better package of benefits in each case, but the dependant will have the right to appeal the decision through the Discretionary Awards Panel.
We plan that the War Pension Welfare Service would also have a role, visiting the bereaved widow or widower to help them to understand their entitlements under the current and new pension schemes and why one is considered to be more advantageous than the other. That would allow feedback into any appeal consideration. In this way, we will ensure that, during the transitional period when current service personnel are unable to make a choice about which scheme best meets their own personal needs, their dependants will not be disadvantaged should the worst happen.
It may be tempting to think the new pension scheme will always be the answer. I should say that, in coming up with this proposal, we concluded that it would not be right to take away entitlements under the existing scheme and replace them with the new scheme; taken individually, some of these existing entitlements, such as the short-term widow's pension or the rapid early accrual of benefits are more advantageous than under the new scheme. We could not take these away unilaterally, even though we consider that the overall package under the new scheme will in most cases be very significantly more generous.
Once the offer-to-transfer exercise has taken place and serving personnel have been allowed the opportunity to join the new pension scheme, pension benefits would be determined by the individual's decision between the two schemes, although there would still be opportunities to improve benefits by taking out an additional voluntary contribution, such as that currently available to improve death-in-service benefits.
Finally, I should make it clear that there is not a transitional issue for attributable benefits payable when a death is due to service. From 6 April 2005, these will be paid from the new compensation scheme, covering all service personnel deaths caused from that date.
I hope that the solution that we have found here satisfies both noble Lords and the House.
Lord Astor of Hever: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Dean, for her support. The Minister has given a very full response to the amendment. There was a transitional problem, which the Minister has
1190
taken on board and addressed head-on. I received a nod from the noble Baroness, Lady Dean, so I assume that she is content with the Minister's proposals. In thanking the Minister, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Astor of Hever Lord Astor of Hever moved Amendment No. 3:
After Clause 4, insert the following new clause—
"WIDOWS' PENSIONS FOR LIFE
From 6th April 2005, widows and widowers currently in receipt of an unattributable forces family pension shall retain that pension for life."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Boyce, whose name is attached to this amendment, is abroad, but has asked me to say how important he considers this issue.
I shall not rehearse the arguments about the payment of pensions for life for the existing non-attributable service widows. Your Lordships by now fully appreciate that those unfortunate women will lose their pensions should they choose to remarry or cohabit. Furthermore, noble Lords will be aware that this ruling affects only those ladies and widowers who are beneficiaries under the current Armed Forces pension scheme. In future, all widows and survivors of registered unmarried partnerships, be they deemed attributable or non-attributable, will, thanks to action by this House in the past, be permitted to retain their family forces pension for life.
I also find it difficult to understand the arcane distinction between an attributable death and a non-attributable death. If a husband dies, through whatever cause, the widow will face exactly the same problems of financial responsibility and an uncertain future.
This is a highly emotive issue, which has been a subject of grave concern throughout discussions in this House and the other place. We need to give clear answers to those who feel that they are being unfairly let down.
I start by looking at the issue of read-across. We are constantly assured that the Armed Forces are "special". However, the Minister told the House at Report that:
"The Government do not believe that special treatment should be extended to circumstances where the pension relates to a death which is not due to service. In this case we could not in all fairness treat differently the widow of a service person and the widow of, say, a fireman, a policeman, a civil servant or a teacher. There is no basis for paying pensions for life in one case and not in the other".—[Official Report, 8/9/04; col. 610]
I find the logic in this argument impossible to follow, particularly when I read Malcolm Wicks, who stated that,
"The Local Government Pension Scheme introduced widows' and widowers' pensions for life from April 1998. Since October 2002 the new Civil Service pension scheme has provided for survivor pensions to be paid to unmarried partners … At the same time the requirement to terminate widows' and widowers' pension on remarriage or cohabitation was removed".—[Official Report, Commons, 13/5/04; col. 553W.]
4 p.m.
There is inconsistency here, and the Government refuse to recognise that the Armed Forces are a special case. If read-across is such a sacred cow which always has to be applied across the public sector, why were those changes, which introduced widows' pensions for life, not read across into the Armed Forces pension scheme at the time? Surely the Minister cannot argue that the amendment would have to be read across, when the reverse does not apply when improvements are introduced in other public sector schemes.
The Minister also said on Report:
"The special circumstances of service life are, in my view, fully recognised in the high value benefits we are making available under the new pension and compensation scheme".—[Official Report, 8/9/04; col. 610.]
I suggest that that is a smokescreen. The Forces Pension Society has contracted an independent actuary to measure the benefits inherent in the new scheme against modern good practice. The results of the survey revealed that, while the new scheme was a step in the right direction, it remained bottom of the public sector league table in all its principal benefits. Surely our servicemen deserve better.
I turn now to the serious matter of cost implications. Throughout our discussions on the matter the Government have repeatedly returned to the assertion that the retention of pensions for life for non-attributable widows is unaffordable. In its memorandum dated 18 December 2002 on legacy issues to the Defence Select Committee, the MoD stated that the cost of providing non-attributable widows' pensions for life would be £8 million per annum, but only 18 months later when the matter was debated in the other place that figure had nearly doubled to £14 million. Will the Minister explain to the House the logistics of that change?
In the same memorandum, the MoD attributed £500 million to the cost of retrospection. The Minister continues to trot out that figure. Retrospection and the £500 million figure have been the bone of contention in our debates. Our amendment is not retrospective in that it proposes paying only from 5 April 2005; nor does it seek to restore the pensions of widows who have already remarried.
Yet it was only today, late this morning—when I was also not in my office—when the Bill has passed through the other place and had its Committee and Report stages here, that I received from the Minister a letter setting out the cost implications in proper detail. I thank the Minister for that letter, but I cannot emphasise enough how disappointed and frustrated I am that it has taken so long for the Government to give a comprehensive response.
The amendment was intended to remove a long-term injustice that causes disproportionate grief and suffering for the small and diminishing number of victims. I do not agree with the implication that there would be a cost of £3 billion because of the read-across to the rest of the public sector. We have already seen that the Government are not bound by consistency. However, I understand that at this late stage in
1192
proceedings and when a Bill has to pass Parliament within a few weeks, it is essential that we take more time to review the alleged implication cost. It would therefore be undesirable to press the amendment today.
I think that the House and all those interested in this worrying issue will feel let down that those detailed figures have been produced so late. If the costs were to prove to be far less than have been alleged, there would be deep anger in service circles. But this House cannot press expenditure on the scale alleged on another place, nor could our party entertain such a commitment without weighing the many other calls on the public purse in general and the defence vote in particular.
This is a serious problem which, were we in power, we would put every effort into trying to rectify. However, I realise that in these circumstances I cannot responsibly press the amendment. I hope that the Minister will give a commitment to look further into the issue to see if there is any way in which it can be resolved in the future. I beg to move.
Lord Craig of Radley: My Lords, I rise to support Amendment No. 3. I make no apology for reiterating some of the telling arguments that the noble Lord, Lord Astor of Hever, has placed before your Lordships.
The Minister has argued that it is not possible to treat service non-attributable causes of death differently from other government employees, because the non-attributable causes of death are similar. However, only the Armed Forces differentiate between causes of death in that way. They deserve to be treated separately.
Noble Lords should remember that the MoD has now embraced the principle of widows' pensions for life, which is very good news. The MoD and the Government did the right thing to help attributable widows in 2000. The political will was there and the money—not much—was found. The new pension scheme will no longer differentiate between service attributable and non-attributable deaths in relation to widows in the new scheme. By persisting in not granting the proposal in this amendment, the Government would create a new widows' legacy issue.
All efforts should be directed to trying to remove or ameliorate those disgraceful and heart-rending legacy issues, which affect a small and vulnerable group. It seems totally callous to be prepared to accept the creation of yet another legacy issue which, with political will and a more realistic application of the interdepartmental accruing superannuation liability charge rules would ensure that there was not another new legacy issue, nor a great financial penalty to the Ministry of Defence.
The legacy issue will haunt the Government; and, more importantly, penalise a vulnerable group in society. The numbers involved are not great. They will decline from the introduction of the new scheme anyway. Moreover, because we are considering how many non-attributable widows might actually remarry, it is savings forgone by the MoD rather than up-front costs that would arise. I urge the Government to take this small step of great importance to a relatively small number of widows.

1193
I hope that even now the Government will think again and be remembered for behaving honourably, generously and indeed logically. It is time to put the matter to rest to help those who might wish to remarry but face the unenviable choice of having to remain single to preserve their pension benefit. I strongly support the amendment.
Lord Redesdale: My Lords, I also support the amendment. I was surprised to hear that the noble Lord, Lord Astor, was planning not to press the amendment. It is up to any other noble Lord to press the amendment, and I think that we would support it. I thank the Minister for his letter, and I agree that the case he has put for the amendment's financial implications is compelling. However, I was slightly surprised by the argument of the noble Lord, Lord Astor, that we have to scrutinise the Bill to the utmost extent and therefore we should not press the amendment. That would be slightly strange at this stage in the Bill, because it is the last opportunity that we have to scrutinise it.
I know that the Minister will say, as he has done at earlier stages of the Bill, that the calculations that have been made show that this provision cannot be afforded. I believe that it is the duty of this House, specifically as regards information that was not available to us at earlier stages of the Bill but is now available, to send it back to the other place for reconsideration. If it comes back, it will be for this House to decide whether to move forward with the Bill given the many benefits that it contains.
If we do not press the issue, the opportunity to do so will be lost to this House for a number of years. We are talking about legacy issues, some going back almost 30 years. The number of affected people is dwindling. By the time the next such amendment to an Armed Forces pensions Bill comes before either House the number of affected people may well be insignificant and therefore the measure will be almost affordable. However, that does not alter the moral imperative that this issue should be looked at once again.
Lord Guthrie of Craigiebank: My Lords, I, too, support this amendment. However, I should first declare an interest—I am privileged to be a Vice president of the Forces Pension Society. I have long believed that the treatment of the widows of our servicemen who die (from whatever cause) while serving in the Armed Forces has been less than generous. I am very pleased to note that this Bill will in future place all widows (both attributable and non-attributable and, indeed, unmarried partners) on an equal footing. In the future all will keep their pensions for life regardless of whether they choose to remarry or to cohabit.
The reason that I support this amendment is that should this Bill go forward in its present form the Government will wilfully and knowingly create a new group of disadvantaged widows. These are the existing non-attributable widows who will lose their forces family pension should they elect to remarry or cohabit at some time in the future. I have little doubt that in
1194
due course they will become a thorn in the side of officials and Ministers; the only service widows who will still be required to choose between perhaps their future happiness and financial security.
Finally, it strikes me as more than a little strange that in future the survivors of partners (heterosexual or homosexual) who have never married will keep their pensions for life even if they choose to establish a new liaison. At the same time existing non-attributable widows will lose theirs should they choose the more conventional course of remarriage. I am tempted to say that perhaps this might be taking political correctness a step too far. Nevertheless, I know that this amendment would resolve this longstanding injustice once and for all.
4.15 p.m.
Viscount Slim: My Lords, I believe that the figures are not yet clear. I say with no disrespect to the noble Lord that we have been rather muddled by the different quantities that have been thrown at us regarding this particular problem. I see this as a diminishing cost but I see one thing that I believe is far more important; namely, that in my fairly long experience I am sure that it is the duty of this House to persuade any government who are in power to put a wrong right. This is a wrong and I believe that the Government should put it right. I support this amendment.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, I, too, strongly support the principle that we are here to do our very best. If that very best does not succeed, we shall at least have used what powers we are given by Parliament in endeavouring to persuade the Government that this important issue should be treated properly. All the arguments have been made and I do not need to make them again. However, it makes very little sense for this House to exist if we do not do what we are here to do.
Lord Morris of Manchester: My Lords, we have heard much this afternoon about affordability. Yet little has been said about the attrition inflicted on war widows by age-related diseases and disabilities. Their number is declining year by year and the totality of the costs of war widows' pensions is falling in real terms. The noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, was right to say that time is extremely important. Over the next few years more and more widows of the Second World War will have died. That will further reduce the cost of war widows' pensions. I think this is a moment for generosity and for recognising, as was done in the memorial services held on the 60th anniversary of D-Day, just how indebted we are to those whose problems we are addressing this afternoon. I hope very much that what has been said will be listened to carefully and sympathetically by the Minister and that we will hear from him authentic figures this afternoon about the declining total cost of war widows' pensions year by year.
Lord Molyneaux of Killead: My Lords, I should like briefly to support what has been said already. I do so as

1195
president of a Royal British Legion branch who very often accompanies my welfare officers. It is quite staggering at ground level when you meet these pathetic cases time after time without any real opportunity to put them right. Therefore, I plead with the Minister to listen very sympathetically to what is said and, as I say, put this matter right.
Lord Bach: My Lords, I, of course, recognise the strength of feeling behind this amendment. I thank all noble Lords who have spoken for the reasonable way in which they have put their arguments in favour of this amendment. The strength of feeling has been well illustrated by debates on this issue at earlier stages of the Bill, and not least by the debate at Third Reading.
I hope it will be helpful if I take a little time—I hope that it will not be too long—to give the House a little background. The proposed new Armed Forces pension scheme includes provision for non-attributable widows' and widowers' pensions to be paid for life. Existing members can, of course, transfer to the new scheme if they wish to benefit from this provision. The new clause proposed here would extend this to current widows and widowers from April 2005 who are not provided for in the new scheme, including the widows and widowers of those who have already retired.
For the majority of public service schemes non-attributable widows' and widowers' pensions still cease on remarriage. These pensions can be reinstated on second widowhood or divorce if the individual is otherwise financially worse off than when first in receipt of their Armed Forces pension. While we are able to make changes for the future under the new Armed Forces pension scheme—and, importantly, that will be paid for by adjusting benefits elsewhere in the new scheme—changing an arrangement for the current scheme would carry with it no offsetting saving. It would, therefore, be an expensive change with—here I disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Astor—retrospective effect; retrospective because this amendment would enable past service of a service person prior to April 2005 to count towards a widow's pension on remarriage. It would require us to provide benefits against service where in the past there was no entitlement. As I said, these pensions can be reinstated. It would therefore be an expensive change. Together these would make it a deeply unattractive change, I am afraid. to a government of any colour.
Against this background, I propose to talk about two things: cost and retrospection. I know that there has been some confusion on the cost issue. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, for his mention of the letter that has recently been sent. I do not think there is any confusion about retrospection.
I shall do my best to explain the different aspects of the costs involved, following the debate at Report on this issue. I have written to the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig, in an attempt to clarify this difficult aspect and I have copied this letter to other interested noble Lords. Let me repeat some of those points.
I start by explaining the difference between past and future costs. That is not the distinction between the cost of providing benefits retrospectively and the
1196
paying of benefit from now onwards. Rather, it relates to the fact that benefits must be bought by the department over the length of an individual's service. Where payments were not made, the benefit was not bought.
If we want to buy this benefit now for those past years of service, a past service cost would be properly charged to us by the Treasury to cover all the costs for each year of past service for all those who will benefit. The future service cost is a similar cost for each future year of service. As noble Lords know—we discussed this matter last week—that is paid annually as an addition to the accruing superannuation liability charge.
Individuals are entitled to the benefits of the Armed Forces Pension Scheme that is in place when they are serving. Those who have left the scheme and are already receiving benefits are not entitled to any improvements made to the scheme after their departure. Why? Because the sum paid annually to the Treasury by the Ministry of Defence secures only the package of benefits in place at the time, and a pension for life for non-attributable widows was not part of that package.
In describing the costs involved in making the change, I have referred in past debates to three different figures: future and past service costs for the MoD and the past service costs for all public service schemes. Let me deal briefly with each of these costs in turn in so far as they cover the current proposal to give non-attributable widows pensions for life.
First, the future cost of £ 14 million a year covers the future service cost. This cost gives the benefit only in proportion to future service. Let me give an example. An individual with, say, five years' service left would earn benefits based only on these years, so if he had a total of 20 years' service only one-quarter of his widow's pension would be extended for life by this £14 million measure. This measure would not address the fact that the department has not in the past made payments to the Treasury to cover previous years of service.
Secondly, the £500 million—half a billion pounds—is the one-off cost to the Ministry of Defence to cover the years of past service. In my earlier example, the widow would be entitled to benefits based on the full pensionable career of 20 years, if this payment was made, as well as the £14 million a year for each year of future service. This would cover all existing pensioners and ex-service personnel.
None of these costs would allow for backdating of pensions of those widows or widowers who had already remarried and lost their pension at the date of change. The costs are based on pensions being reinstated only from the date of any change. Backdating would increase very substantially the cost of change, although we have not made an estimate of this more far-reaching option.
Thirdly, the £3 billion is the past service cost extended to cover provision of this additional benefit across all public service pension schemes.

1197
I mentioned in the debate that serving personnel will be able to get the benefit of a non-attributable widow's pension for life by joining the new pension scheme when they are given the choice. To do so they will, of course, have to give up benefits in the current pension scheme, such as the more generous immediate pension, and they will need to decide whether the trade-off is reasonable. We have been able to afford the benefit for the new AFPS because it will be paid for by a reduction in benefits elsewhere in the scheme.
I do not accept, again I am afraid, what the noble Lord, Lord Astor, said about the new Armed Forces pension scheme being somehow bottom of the public service scheme. It is true that in some areas the new scheme does not match every best practice. There will always be a need for balance across the scheme, but there are areas where we match and perhaps go further than best practice. That includes the level of death-in-service benefit and the very early mid-career departure benefits. The early retirement age is exceptional—better than most—as is the rate and levels of widows' pension accruals.
This is a good scheme and we believe that that was the view shared not just within the Armed Forces but by many bodies which work for the Armed Forces and veterans outside. We have independent confirmation from respected actuaries—Watson Wyatt—to confirm what I have just said.
I am bound to resist the amendment, although, to answer the point of the noble Lord, Lord Astor, of course we will look yet again to see if there is anything we can do. But I do not hold out any realistic promise of being able to answer the deeply felt pleas made in the House. I have to resist the amendment, also, because of any government's clear policy on non-retrospection—
Lord Redesdale: My Lords, am I right or wrong in saying that if this matter is not on the face of the Bill there will be nothing the Minister can do once the Bill is passed?
Lord Bach: My Lords, when we make a concession—for example, the concession we made on pre-1973 widows last week what we have to do is done outside the Bill. I am not sure what the answer is. Or perhaps I do know the answer—by magic! We do not need primary legislation to make such a change. But we will look again at that matter if we are asked to by the House. However, I cannot say that there will be any change in the position I am taking now.
As regards the retrospection issue, noble Lords have heard me—and, if they have been in this House long enough, those from the previous government—say exactly the same about retrospection. I do not apologise for that. Serving personnel are entitled to the pension benefits earned while in service under the terms of the scheme in place at the time. They are not entitled to any later improvements to the scheme made after they have left. To do so would place an undue financial burden on the taxpayer and might prevent us making worthwhile improvements.
1198
I am sorry that I cannot give a more positive response to what has been a very eloquent presentation of the case on the other side, but I hope that noble Lords will at least understand the reasons for the Government's resistance.
Lord Astor: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his response. I am not convinced by it at all. I accept the commitment he has made to look at this problem. The Government do not need primary legislation and I hope that Her Majesty's Government will do something about this issue.
I accept the strength of feeling throughout the House, not least from the noble and gallant Lords, Lord Craig and Lord Guthrie, the noble Viscount, Lord Slim, the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, my noble friend Lady Park, and the noble Lords, Lord Morris and Lord Molyneaux. The Minister failed to answer my question about why £8 million per annum went shooting up to £14 million per annum. The noble Lord and I must disagree on the definition of retrospection. I do not think that the Minister has satisfactorily clarified the mysteries of the accruing superannuation liability charge.
However, as I said earlier, we feel that it is inappropriate to vote on this issue. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Craig of Radley: My Lords, I object.
4.30 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 3) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 110; Not-Contents, 113.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Ackner, L.

Finlay of Llandaff, B.

Addington, L.

Fookes, B.

Alderdice, L.

Fowler, L.

Alton of Liverpool, L.

Freyberg, L.

Ampthill, L.

Garden, L.

Barker, B.

Geddes, L.

Bradshaw, L.

Goodhart, L.

Bramall, L.

Greaves, L.

Carlile of Berriew, L.

Greengross, B.

Carlisle of Bucklow, L.

Guthrie of Craigiebank, L.

Carrington, L.

Hamwee, B.

Chan, L.

Harris of Richmond, B.

Clement-Jones, L.

Hooson, L.

Colwyn, L.

Howe of Idlicote, B.

Condon, L.

Hylton, L.

Craig of Radley, L. [Teller]

Jacobs, L.

Crathorne, L.

Kalms, L.

Darcy de Knayth, B.

Kimball, L.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Laird, L.

Dholakia, L.

Lester of Herne Hill, L.

Donaldson of Lymington, L.

Lindsay, E.

Eden of Winton, L.

Liverpool, E.

Elles, B.

Livsey of Talgarth, L.

Elton, L.

Lucas, L.

Erroll, E.

Lyell, L.

Falkland, V.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Falkner of Margravine, B.

McNally, L.

1199

Maddock, B.

St John of Fawsley, L.

Mar, C.

Sandberg, L.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Sharp of Guildford, B.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Mayhew of Twysden, L.

Shutt of Greetland, L.

Miller of Chilthorne Domer, B.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Molyneaux of Killead, L.

Slim, V.

Monson, L.

Smith of Clifton, L.

Montagu of Beaulieu, L.

Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.

Morris of Manchester, L.

Stern, B.

Murphy, B.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Strange, B.

Norton of Louth, L.

Swinfen, L.

Onslow, E.

Tebbit, L.

Oppenheim-Barnes, B.

Tenby, V.

Palmer, L.

Thomas of Gresford, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Patten, L.

Tordoff, L.

Perry of Southwark, B.

Trenchard, V.

Plumb, L.

Waddington, L.

Razzall, L.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Reay, L.

Walker of Worcester, L.

Redesdale, L. [Teller]

Wallace of Saltaire, L.

Renton, L.

Walpole, L.

Roberts of Llandudno, L.

Walton of Detchant, L.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Williams of Crosby, B.

Rogan, L.

Williamson of Horton, L.

Roper, L.

Windlesham, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Haskel, L.

Ahmed, L.

Haworth, L.

Amos, B. (Lord President of the Council)

Hayman, B.

Henig, B.

Andrews, B.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Hogg of Cumbernauld, L.

Ashton of Upholland, B.

Howells of St. Davids, B.

Bach, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Billingham, B.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Blood, B.

Jones, L.

Brookman, L.

King of West Bromwich, L.

Burlison, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Christopher, L.

Lea of Crondall, L.

Clarke of Hampstead, L.

Leitch, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Lipsey, L.

Corbett of Castle Vale, L.

Lockwood, B.

Crawley, B.

Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

Davies of Coity, L.

McDonagh, B.

Davies of Oldham, L. [Teller]

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Desai, L.

McIntosh of Hudnall, B.

Dixon, L.

MacKenzie of Culkein, L.

Drayson, L.

Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.

Dubs, L.

McKenzie of Luton, L.

Elder, L.

Marsh, L.

Evans of Parkside, L.

Massey of Darwen, B.

Falconer of Thoroton, L. (Lord Chancellor)

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Morgan, L.

Falkender, B.

Morgan of Drefelin, B.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Morris of Aberavon, L.

Faulkner of Worcester, L.

Patel of Blackburn, L.

Gale, B.

Paul, L.

Gavron, L.

Pendry, L.

Gibson of Market Rasen, B.

Pitkeathley, B.

Giddens, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Gilbert, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Golding, B.

Puttnam, L.

Goldsmith, L.

Randall of St. Budeaux, L.

Gould of Brookwood, L.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Grenfell, L.

Richard, L.

Griffiths of Burry Port, L.

Rooker, L.

Grocott, L. [Teller]

Rosser, L.

Harris of Haringey, L.

Rowlands, L.

Harrison, L.

Sainsbury of Turville, L.

Hart of Chilton, L.

Sawyer, L.

1200

Scotland of Asthal, B.

Triesman, L.

Sewel, L.

Truscott, L.

Sheldon, L.

Tunnicliffe, L.

Simon, V.

Turner of Camden, B.

Snape, L.

Uddin, B.

Stone of Blackheath, L.

Wall of New Barnet, B

Strabolgi, L.

Warner, L.

Sutherland of Houndwood, L.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

Whitaker, B.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Whitty, L.

Temple-Morris, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Thornton, B.

Winston, L.

Tomlinson, L.

Woolmer of Leeds, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
4.40 p.m.
Lord Freyberg Lord Freyberg moved Amendment No. 4:
After Clause 6, insert the following new clause—
"POST-RETIREMENT MARRIAGES
As of 6th April 2005 widows, widowers and surviving registered unmarried partners of all service personnel shall receive a full widows' forces family pension based on their spouses or partners length of service and final salary, provided that their marriage took place before the service personnel's 60th birthday."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in speaking to Amendment No. 4, I am returning to a subject on which I spoke during Grand Committee and on Report. It is a matter the Government must resolve in order to bring justice to an unfairly disadvantaged group of elderly widows whose husbands served for many years in the Armed Services, yet who now have no widow's pension.
The armed services have a unique retirement structure. An astonishing 70 per cent of those eligible for a pension are obliged to retire at around the age of 40, most having already served for two decades, while a smaller number, around 5 per cent, serve until the age of 55. Those who have served the requisite number of years—22 for other ranks, 16 for officers—have traditionally been entitled to a pension, as have their widows.
Since 1978, those who married after they retired have also been able to leave their widows a pro rata pension, as has been the case throughout the public services. However, those who left up to 1978 and subsequently married or remarried are unable to pass on any pension at their death, however many years they served.
As the Minister is aware, the Armed Forces differ utterly from other public services in having such an early compulsory retirement, making the chance of a post-retirement marriage so much greater than would otherwise be the case. By comparison, the retirement age for the vast majority of the rest of the public services is 60, and was 65 in the 1970s, enabling even those who retired pre-1978 to pass on a widow's pension to anyone they married or remarried before the age of 60. Is it reasonable that the forces should be at such a disadvantage in what they can offer their widows? I do not think so.
Although the pension change for public services in 1975 was a significant improvement, it is unlikely that anyone intended that there should be a 20-year disparity between post-retirement marriage terms in the Armed Forces and the rest of the public services. In other words, any other member of the public services can marry between the ages of 40 and 60 and pass on a pension to that spouse. Only the Armed Forces are unable to provide for wives married during those years.
The purpose of this amendment is to put those in the armed services on an equal footing with civilians in this respect. They may have a shorter career from which to draw a pension, but why should they be financially penalised for marrying later in life? They are denied the financial benefit enjoyed by those who served at the same time but happened to marry earlier. Although a forces career ends at a comparatively young age, it none the less uses the best years of people's lives in building up a pension, so most pre-1978 forces personnel would not have been able to create a second one in another profession. Furthermore, it should not be forgotten that forces personnel are obliged to serve for long periods overseas, and in stressful conditions, making finding a partner harder than in civvy street. Punishing people for electing to marry in a more settled period of their lives seems particularly harsh.
This amendment aims to give widows of post-retirement marriages the same status as public servants' widows. I therefore propose that pensions should be paid to post-retirement marriage widows, provided the marriage took place before an individual's 60th birthday. That is the age of recall liability, when a former member of the armed services can be summoned out of retirement to serve again.
The Minister has repeatedly claimed that accepting this amendment would open the floodgates to claims from others in the public services. However, I cannot understand how that would happen, as we are asking for no more than what is already available for others in public service, bar the small numbers of registered partners added in 2002, whose cost will be insignificant and will also be covered by the new scheme in 2005. The amendment also complements government policy. Such a measure would, therefore, keep read-across to a minimum. Only the police and fire services have an earlier retirement age, and even that is 55.
The Minister has repeatedly argued that it is not possible to treat the Armed Forces as different from other public service workers. That seems an odd and ungenerous comment when the Government are repeatedly singling out the forces for praise in Iraq, Afghanistan and the former Yugoslavia, to name but a few countries where they are working under uniquely hazardous circumstances, as did their counterparts in the 20th century.
The Minister is missing the point, however. I am not asking for special, but rather equal, treatment. The rough estimate cost of £50 million is galling to those affected. The Government have saved a considerable amount of money over several decades by not paying post-retirement widows' pensions—pensions that
1202
service people believed they had earned—yet they use an alarming-sounding figure to continue to avoid paying anything at all.
The Minister announced last week on Report that he would attempt to give me a breakdown of the alleged £50 million cost. While I am grateful for the letter I received from him yesterday in which he explained what kind of data the Government used to support their figure, once again no figures were attached. It is, therefore, impossible to know how the estimate has come about. What is clear is that the sum required is diminishing and contained, as well as being in a just cause.
As I mentioned on Report, and would like to reiterate, the Labour Party recognised the injustice suffered by such PRM widows in 1995, when, led by the esteemed noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, they supported a similar amendment during the Pensions Bill of that year. Nine years on, nothing has changed, except that the widows have become older and more vulnerable.
I shall give an example. Mrs "W" from Devon was married to a regular officer in the Royal Engineers, who served in both world wars. His first wife died of cancer in the 1950s; he had retired from the Army to look after her. He married again, three years after her death, not knowing at the time that his widow would receive no pension. Since his death in 1984 she has been obliged to work, only retiring last year, and then unwillingly, at the age of 78.
I understand the Minister's need to hold a strong line on retrospection. However, can it be right that it is considered more important to stick to an arbitrary cut-off point than to deal with a situation that was unfair at the time and has become increasingly punitive 26 years on? Is the Minister really saying that, where injustices are acknowledged, there should be no recourse to correcting them? Elderly men and women are not simply statistics. If they are forced to live in straitened circumstances because of the Government's inflexibility when it comes to correcting a clear injustice, we have created a situation of which we should be ashamed. I beg to move.
Lord Redesdale: My Lords. I support the amendment, mainly for the reasons that I gave in supporting the previous one. This is another legacy issue. If we do not raise the issue with the Government at this point and send it back to the Commons, it is very unlikely that the focus that the Minister talked about being placed on it will be directed with any alacrity, as has been shown on so many legacy issues over the past two to three decades.
The point made by the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, about read-across seems fair. Although it is threatened that immediately we would have to read across into other schemes, it has not happened with the Armed Forces pension scheme. Therefore, it is important that another decade does not elapse before the issues are looked at again. Perhaps this is a time when the

1203
Commons can be given the figures that have been denied us through these stages of the Bill, and therefore make a decision on the merits of the case.
Baroness Crawley: My Lords, despite a strongly argued debate, I propose to resist Amendment No. 4, for the reasons that my noble friend Lord Bach set out on Report: principally the cost issue and the fact that it breaches the Government's clear policy on non-retrospection.
Perhaps it would be helpful if I first reminded the House of the key background to the debate. Post-retirement widows' pensions were introduced following government-wide changes in policy through the Social Security Pensions Act 1975. Provision was made in the current Armed Forces pension scheme for the payment of pensions to widows of service pensioners who married or remarried after retirement. But that change benefited only widows of those giving service on or after 6 April 1978. Subsequent government policy changes to provide widowers with the same post-retirement provision were introduced later, but this change benefited only the widowers of those giving service on or after 1 October 1987.
Amendment No. 4, if carried, would have three effects. First, it would allow all service widows and widowers to qualify for a post-retirement widows' pension, provided that the marriage or partnership started before the serviceperson's sixtieth birthday. Secondly, it would increase the rate of post-retirement widows' pensions for those widows and widowers who currently receive a post-retirement pension based on only that part of their spouse's service after the changes were made. Thirdly, it would improve the benefits of unmarried partners who currently receive benefits only if their partners are attributably killed in service—that is, if their death is due to service.
The noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, said on Report that he sought only to give service personnel parity with personnel in other public service schemes. He argued that, because service personnel are "obliged to retire" well before the normal retirement age of 55, it puts them at a disadvantage compared with other public servants, who are more likely to serve a full career to age 60. However, the basic rules apply equally in all public service schemes.
Other public servants are equally unable to marry after leaving service and pass on benefits to their widow for any service before April 1978. There is a clear cut-off in all public service schemes between pre-April-1978 and post-April-1978 service, with "post-retirement" defined as after leaving the relevant service. Equally, many of those who leave the Armed Forces before the age of 60 do so by choice, while many in other public service schemes are obliged to retire. I am clear that we would not be able to make a special case for Armed Forces personnel who marry in retirement before the age of 60 that other public services would not argue should apply equally in their own schemes.
My noble friend said on Report that the Government Actuary's estimate of the cost of allowing all public service post-retirement marriages to qualify for
1204
pension benefits is between £300 million and £500 million. Introducing a cut-off for those over the age of 60 would still leave us with an unaffordable cost. There is no significant distinction between Armed Forces personnel and other public service employees in this area. There are those serving in all schemes who have been obliged to leave early and who have then married after retirement, so we could not justify making a change only for the Armed Forces. I must remind the House that, on every occasion where such issues are under debate, it has been a longstanding policy of successive governments that changes to improve the benefits from public service pension schemes should be implemented from a current date for future service only.
For the Armed Forces alone, the Government Actuary has estimated that there would be a one-off cost in the order of £50 million to extend post-retirement widow and widower pensions to all current and deferred AFPS pensioners. This cost would increase if unmarried partners were included, but it is difficult to estimate given the limited information on the number of partners who might be eligible. There would be no future annual cost. I am afraid that I will have to resist the amendment.
Lord Freyberg: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, who spoke in support of the amendment. I also thank the Minister for her reply, although I am unable to agree with much of what she said. She is wrong to contend that there will be a significant read-across with others in the public sector or to assert that £50 million is in any way an accurate figure.
I urge the House to remember that conditions in the forces are different from those in the rest of the public services. There is extreme danger to be endured, living abroad for long periods and, most of all, the knowledge that your chosen career could be cut short at around age 40. No other public career makes such demands. Is it not reasonable that your spouse should be able to inherit the share of the pension that you earned under such conditions? All that I ask is that those service widows should be put on the same footing as other public servants' widows and not be significantly worse off. This amendment would make that happen for the first time and therefore I urge the House to support it. I should like to test the opinion of the House.
4.58 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 4) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 111; Not-Contents, 110.

Division No. 2

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Bramall, L.

Alderdice, L.

Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, L.

Alton of Liverpool, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Barker, B.

Carlile of Berriew, L.

Bradshaw, L.

Chan, L.

1205

Clement-Jones, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Colwyn, L.

Mayhew of Twysden, L.

Condon, L.

Miller of Chilthorne Domer, B.

Courtown, E.

Molyneaux of Killead, L.

Cox, B.

Monson, L.

Craig of Radley, L.

Montagu of Beaulieu, L.

Craigavon, V.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Crickhowell, L.

Naseby, L.

Darcy de Knayth, B.

Newton of Braintree, L.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Northesk, E.

Dholakia, L.

Norton of Louth, L.

Dundee, E.

O'Cathain, B.

Dykes, L.

Onslow, E.

Eden of Winton, L.

Oppenheim-Barnes, B.

Elles, B.

Palmer, L.

Elton, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Erroll, E.

Plumb, L.

Falkland, V.

Redesdale, L. [Teller]

Finlay of Llandaff, B.

Rees, L.

Fookes, B.

Renton, L.

Fowler, L.

Roberts of Llandudno, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Roper, L.

Freyberg, L. [Teller]

Sandberg, L.

Garden, L.

Sandwich, E.

Geddes, L.

Selsdon, L.

Sharp of Guildford, B.

Goodhart, L.

Shutt of Greetland, L.

Greaves, L.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Greengross, B.

Slim, V.

Guthrie of Craigiebank, L.

Smith of Clifton, L.

Hamwee, B.

Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.

Harris of Richmond, B.

Stewartby, L.

Hooson, L.

Strange, B.

Howe of Idlicote, B.

Swinfen, L.

Hylton, L.

Taverne, L.

Jacobs, L.

Tebbit, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Tenby, V.

Kimball, L.

Thomas of Gresford, L.

Lang of Monkton, L.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Lindsay, E.

Tordoff, L.

Liverpool, E.

Ullswater, V.

Livsey of Talgarth, L.

Waddington, L.

Lucas, L.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Wakeham, L.

Maclennan of Rogart, L.

Wallace of Saltaire, L.

McNally, L.

Walpole, L.

Maddock, B.

Walton of Detchant, L.

Mancroft, L.

Weatherill, L.

Mar, C.

Williams of Crosby, B.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Williamson of Horton, L.

Marsh, L.

Windlesham, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Desai, L.

Ahmed, L.

Dixon, L.

Alli, L.

Drayson, L.

Amos, B. (Lord President of the Council)

Dubs, L.

Elder, L.

Andrews, B.

Evans of Parkside, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Falconer of Thoroton, L. (Lord Chancellor)

Ashton of Upholland, B.

Bach, L.

Falkender, B.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Billingham, B.

Faulkner of Worcester, L.

Blood, B.

Filkin, L.

Brookman, L.

Gale, B.

Burlison, L.

Gavron, L.

Christopher, L.

Gibson of Market Rasen, B.

Clarke of Hampstead, L.

Giddens, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Gilbert, L.

Cohen of Pimlico, B.

Golding, B.

Corbett of Castle Vale, L.

Goldsmith, L.

Crawley, B.

Gould of Brookwood, L.

Davies of Coity, L.

Griffiths of Burry Port, L.

Davies of Oldham, L. [Teller]

Grocott, L. [Teller]

1206

Harris of Haringey, L.

Patel of Blackburn, L.

Harrison, L.

Pendry, L.

Hart of Chilton, L.

Pitkeathley, B.

Haskel, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Haworth, L.

Puttnam, L.

Hayman, B.

Randall of St. Budeaux, L.

Henig, B.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Richard, L.

Hogg of Cumbernauld, L.

Rogan, L.

Howells of St. Davids, B.

Rooker, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Rosser, L.

Hoyle, L.

Rowlands, L.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Sainsbury of Turville, L.

Hunt of Chesterton, L.

Sawyer, L.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Scotland of Asthal, B.

Jones, L.

Sewel, L.

King of West Bromwich, L.

Simon, V.

Kirkhill, L.

Snape, L.

Lea of Crondall, L.

Stone of Blackheath, L.

Leitch, L.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

Lipsey, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

Temple-Morris, L.

McDonagh, B.

Thornton, B.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Tomlinson, L.

McIntosh of Hudnall, B.

Triesman, L.

MacKenzie of Culkein, L.

Truscott, L.

Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.

Tunnicliffe, L.

McKenzie of Luton, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Massey of Darwen, B.

Uddin, B.

Maxton, L.

Wall of New Barnet, B.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Warner, L.

Morgan, L.

Whitaker, B.

Morgan of Drefelin, B.

Winston, L.

Morris of Aberavon, L.

Woolmer of Leeds, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
5.8 p.m.
Lord Bach: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill do now pass.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Lord Bach.)
On Question, Bill passed, and returned to the Commons with amendments.

Civil Contingencies Bill
5.9 p.m.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Bassam of Brighton.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (Lord Boston of Faversham) in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Meaning of "emergency"]:
Baroness Buscombe Baroness Buscombe moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 7, leave out "a place in"
The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 1, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6. Before I explain in detail exactly what the amendments propose, I should like to put on record my feelings about how the Government are treating

1207
the Bill. During the Summer Recess, I have been inundated with letters, e-mails and phone calls from concerned members of the public about the Bill. They are concerned about what it will mean and are expressing deep concern about the Bill giving such powers to this or any government. Clearly, this is a Bill which affects people greatly and to which there is much opposition. However, the Government have been treating it as though it is not a controversial matter and as though it does not introduce a huge reform of the power that a government may command at a time of emergency or possible emergency.
As I stated at the time, the Second Reading of the Bill was delayed and then finally tabled for late one evening. I can only put on the record that I hope that the Government start to take the Bill as seriously as we do on these Benches. I look forward to a fruitful Committee stage on the Floor of your Lordships' Chamber.
I also want briefly to express my thanks to all those who have been in touch with me over the past weeks. There have been far too many to reply to. But there are people out there who genuinely feel that we in your Lordships' House must do all that we can to strike that very difficult balance between ensuring that the government of the day can react quickly and responsibly in the time of an emergency and the need to protect our democracy, our civil liberties and our freedoms. We on the Conservative Benches will certainly do that.
All the amendments in the group are to Clause 1 of the Civil Contingencies Bill, which perhaps should be called the "Civil Emergencies Bill". Clause 1 concerns local arrangements for civil contingency protection and details the meaning of "emergency" for Part 1. Perhaps the definition of "emergency" in existing legislation is poorly focused and out of date. To that extent, we are pleased that the Government bowed to the wisdom of the Joint Committee's advice and removed from the definition in the Bill the words "political, administrative and economic stability". However, we still feel that there is much to be discussed regarding the definition, and I tabled the amendments to probe the Government's thinking further and to ask them to explain the current drafting in the Bill.
This group of amendments concentrates on subsection (1) of Clause 1, which tells us that an emergency is,
"an event or situation which threatens serious damage to"
human welfare, the environment or security,
"in a place in the United Kingdom".
Amendments Nos. 2, 4 and 5 would change that phrase to,
"in the United Kingdom or in a part or region".
Amendment No. 6 would ensure that the definition of "emergency" was the same for Part 1 of the Bill, which is currently under discussion, as for Part 2. We shall come to that shortly but not, we believe, this evening.
Will the Minister please explain why this form of drafting has been used and what exactly it covers? Clause 19 gives the definition of "emergency" for
1208
Part 2 of the Bill and uses the phrase that our amendments suggest. Why have the Government drafted that discrepancy?
We should also like to know how areas will be divided in an emergency: will it be by cities, by police boundaries or by regions? The matter was debated at some length in the Commons, and I have to say that we were not satisfied with the Minister's reply. Those responsible for assessing, planning and advising cover all sizes of area. They need guidance front the Bill about the parameters of their remit. Indeed, the Police Federation has made it clear that it believes that the Bill should make clear and unambiguous issues pertaining to jurisdiction, remit, lines of control and lines of communication.
What is "a place" composed of, and what is "a place" compared with a part or a region? An example posed during debate in another place to illustrate the point was a train accident, in which there would be possible considerable loss of life and disruption. Would that require a state of emergency? What of a forest fire that swept from one place to another? Are the Government going to explain to us that, in that regard, the Bill is referring to Part 1 or Part 2? Does the Bill, in a sense, augment joined-up planning from place to place? I beg to move.
5.15 p.m.
Lord McNally: I associate our approach to this matter with the remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe. In some respects, when one reads that the key Act is more than 50 years old and some of the basic legislation is more than 80 years old, it is understandable that the Government want to get a piece of modern legislation on to the statute book. We are obviously dealing with different circumstances, a different age and different technologies.
We can see that the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, has been very busy over the Recess and has put forward some interesting and probing amendments. We, like the noble Baroness, have been lobbied to quite an extent by various groups concerned that the Government are planning some coup of draconian proportions against civil liberties. Perhaps we shall let our civil liberties experts loose on Part 2 to see just what the Government are proposing.
As I see it, Part 1 consists of framework and enabling measures and, in many respects, prudent preparation. It is certainly in those terms that we shall be examining them, but we fully appreciate the way in which the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, is probing some of the detail.
Lord Waddington: The question is very simple: why must the wording of Clause 19 be different from the wording of Clause 1? Why is a "part" of the United Kingdom not a "place"? It seems to me that there is no real reason why the wording should be different, but I should like to know why the Minister thinks that it is necessary.
Lord Hylton: I support what the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, said earlier about the timing and the

1209
consideration of the Bill. We need to remember that it began its Second Reading after 8.30 p.m. on 5 July and is now being considered in Committee during the overspill period at a time when the whole House is working under very difficult conditions as regards its premises. I support Amendments Nos. 1 to 6 on the general ground that great chunks of the Bill are far too widely drafted.
Lord Lucas: My understanding is that this is a Bill which we can allow to be carried over if we so wish, it having been subject to a Joint Committee of both Houses. So will the Minister assure me that we are not under pressure to finish it in this Session if the discussions, particularly on Part 2, prove to be protracted, as I think they may be?
Lord Archer of Sandwell: I have been puzzled. I had not intended to intervene in this debate, but it seems to me that there is a consensus throughout the country that the Government should be organising preparations for the kind of emergency to which the Bill refers. If the Government failed to do that, very properly there would be an outcry.
That being so, I do not quite see what the problem is about Part 1 of the Bill. I can see that in Part 2 the Government are making inroads into individual liberties, and some of us will want to examine those a little more closely later. But Part 1 is simply making preparations in advance of the emergencies, so that everyone knows how they will fit into the machinery for dealing with them. What on earth is the danger?
Lord Dixon-Smith: I hope that I shall not be wasting the time of the Committee if I run a little over the background. During my time in local government, I had quite a lot of experience in the evolution of emergency planning. It is an honourable and identified profession in local government. It still exists and has been there for a very long time.
It is as well to remember that this all began after the war with the civil defence preparations made throughout the Cold War. That was where emergency planning had its origins, but the 1951 floods and a major industrial accident in the north-east began to alter the focus very early on with regard to this particular aspect of society. Subsequently, there was a major industrial accident in Seveso and another in Bhopal, in India.
They led to the COMAH regulations—the control of major accident hazard regulations—which required the preparation of emergency accident plans to deal with, and cope with, accidents at every major industrial installation or, indeed, any other installation that might cause such an accident. That was not simply oil refineries and power stations. We have a major plan for a very small factory in a town quite close to where I live that deals in matters of biological hazard. All of these different institutions have individual plans. They are all call-down plans. They say, "If this happens, this is what you do". They are very well prepared.
1210
The question that we have to deal with in the Bill, as has been mentioned by the Liberal Democrat Benches, is how we absorb the existing system into modern society and modern legislative practice as the law is now somewhat out of date. Many of the plans that rightly exist can be used and implemented without "the creation of a state of emergency". What concerns me is that the Bill does not properly clarify the point at which a local disaster with potential consequences for a particular locality, which can be dealt with perfectly properly under the existing system with existing plans, becomes a matter of national emergency that justifies the use of national emergency powers. It is for that reason that the amendments proposed by my noble friend are very important. There are many forms of accident that can cause an emergency that can affect a community. However, the number that could cause the creation of a national emergency will be remarkably small.
We need to work very carefully to make sure that there is a clear and precise definition, which is understandable and relevant to the modern context in which we have to consider the consequences of bioterrorism, as well as proper and secure planning for how one deals with institutions that, through inadvertence, can cause a hazard.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I am very grateful to all noble Lords who have made a contribution in these opening exchanges on an extremely important and timely piece of legislation. I was particularly pleased to hear the noble Lord, Lord McNally, welcoming the fact that we will have a constructive approach to the Bill. In the few minutes that we have been debating the Bill, I have heard comments from all sides of the Chamber and I sense that there is a desire for constructive focus on a Bill that essentially aims to provide consistency of purpose on the subject, with clear responsibilities, a modernised legislative framework and practical civil protection measures. These should be at the forefront of our thinking in approaching the Bill.
I was a touch disappointed by what the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, had to say about sensing that the Government do not take the issue seriously. We have taken this issue very seriously. I understand that she is perhaps concerned that the Bill has taken some time to get to this point—we all get a bit frustrated with the parliamentary timetable from time to time—but we have used the time well in preparing for the legislation and in ensuring that, by and large, we take with us organisations and people that are disparate in nature, from Liberty through to the organisation that represent emergency planners, local government, voluntary organisations, ACPO and so on.
When the Bill was published, it received a very broad welcome. I could quote chunks from the editorials of the time. The one that stuck in my mind was in the Times. It welcomed the way in which the Government had approached the Bill and, in particular, the fact that we had given time for pre-legislative scrutiny. That probably explains why the Bill is in good health as it comes into your Lordships'

1211
House. That does not mean that I do not expect the detail to receive robust attention. I am grateful for that too because it will help us.
I want to turn to the issues that have been raised, deal with the amendments in turn and explain, as best I can, what we seek to do with different parts of the Bill. It is only right that we start with definitions. The definition of "emergency" underpins Part 1 of the Bill and it is intended to give local responders a clear picture of the types of events and situations for which they should be preparing. It is crucial that we get it absolutely right. I welcome the discussion that the amendments have provoked, even though I am unable to accept them. The definition of "emergency" in the Bill and, in particular, the thresholds within it were discussed in some detail in another place, as I am sure all noble Lords are aware, so it is perhaps worth setting out our intentions in a little more detail.
The overarching objectives of the Bill are to modernise local arrangements for civil protection and the emergency powers framework. In doing that, we have developed a new, updated definition of emergency that reflects the challenges of our times. It is the Government's intention to develop a single, consistent approach to defining an emergency. Thus, the definitions in both parts of the Bill follow the same pattern. The Bill defines an emergency as an event or situation that threatens serious damage to human welfare, the environment or security and lists the type of event that that may constitute. However, Part 1 and Part 2 of the Bill serve very different purposes. Part 1 establishes a new legal framework for local civil protection activity and sets out a clear set of roles and responsibilities for frontline responders at a local level. Part 2 establishes a mechanism for taking emergency powers for dealing with disruptive challenges that are of such a scale that extraordinary legislative measures are required.
These amendments would make the definitions in Part 1 and 2 the same, as the noble Baroness has explained. However, there is no reason why the duties imposed under Part 1 should apply only in the same circumstances in which emergency regulations may be made under Part 2. The Government's intention is that the duties under Part 1 of the Bill—risk assessment and emergency planning—should apply in relation to more localised events and situations whereas the scale of an event or a situation may be much greater before emergency powers can be invoked under Part 2. That is why the thresholds contained in the definition of emergency in each part of the Bill are different.
In Part 2, an event or situation must threaten serious damage to human welfare in a part of the United Kingdom—England, Scotland, Northern Ireland or Wales—or a region. In Part 1, an event or damage must threaten serious damage to human welfare in a place in the United Kingdom. I can understand why the noble Baroness might think that the prospect of an event that could cause serious damage in a place in the United Kingdom, which might be as small as a town, a village or even a street, might not seem sufficiently serious to require local responders to undertake risk
1212
assessments or to prepare emergency plans. Some people have even asked whether a fire in a single house might be enough to trigger the duties.
Members of the Commons Standing Committee commented that the term "place" also seemed a little vague. Oliver Heald particularly focused on that point. In Committee, he commented that the term "place" seemed a little vague. That was an issue that the Joint Committee helpfully raised. In response to its report, we introduced into the Bill a clear threshold for the scale of event for which local responders should be planning. Clause 2(2) makes it clear that the civil protection duties apply only in relation to an event or situation which,
"would be likely seriously to obstruct … [the responder] in the performance of his … functions",
or in relation to which the responder cannot respond in an appropriate way,
"without changing the deployment of resources or acquiring additional resources".
5.30 p.m.
Clause 1 must be read in conjunction with Clause 2(2). Taken together, the provisions make quite clear the sort of events that local responders should and do prepare for. A single residential fire could easily be dealt with within existing arrangements, but a large industrial fire in a densely populated area could well require detailed multi-agency contingency planning. This is an objective test. However, the result may well be different, depending on the capacity of local responders and local geography. For example, a local authority in an area that is prone to flooding may be able to respond to a minor flood without changing the deployment of resources or requiring any additional support. However, another local authority that has not traditionally suffered from flooding and is perhaps less well prepared may well need to change the deployment of its resources.
This approach reflects current practice and is enshrined in Dealing with Disaster, the Government's key guidance for local responders, which practitioners know and understand well. This threshold also reflects the nature of civil protection—one size, as I am sure we all accept, does not fit all. To change the threshold in the way suggested in the amendments would be inappropriate. It would mean, for example, that the Hillsborough disaster, the Potters Bar rail crash and the Kings Cross fire would not have been emergencies for the purposes of Part 1 of the Bill. I venture to suggest to the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, that that would not be right.
The definition of "emergency" is fundamental to the way that Part 1 of the Bill works. That is why we have worked closely with practitioners and why they have worked to ensure that we get it right. It is in sympathy with their thinking that we have defined it in the way in which we have. The definition therefore has the support of the civil protection community, the Joint Committee—even the Plain English Campaign. While we may in this House from time to time stumble with definitions and understandings, the wider community

1213
that is more practically concerned with the Bill seems to agree with us that, having listened to their views and their challenges on the issue, we have got the balance about right.
I hope that that has dealt with the core issues raised by the noble Baroness and others in this short debate.
Baroness Buscombe: I thank the Minister for his very full response to the amendments. I also thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate. I say to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer of Sandwell, that I do not apologise for raising questions about the definition of emergency. This goes to the very heart of the Bill.
Lord Archer of Sandwell: I was not questioning what the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, said about the definition of "emergency"—that may be a very useful topic of conversation. I was questioning the general tone of a number of noble Lords opposite, who suggested that the Government were somehow imposing a dictatorship on this country.
Baroness Buscombe: In that case, I beg to disagree with the noble and learned Lord's interpretation of what was said. What we are attempting to do, and will attempt to do throughout the passage of the Bill through this House, is to ensure that the right balance is struck and that all those practical necessities are put in place in a responsible way by the Government of the day.
However, at the same time we need to respond to the concerns that are being raised all over the country on a daily basis with regard to the true import of the Bill. I hope that noble Lords will agree that we must not feel constrained, notwithstanding the fact that there has been pre-legislative scrutiny, in our efforts to ensure that we properly scrutinise the many important aspects of the Bill. I hope that noble Lords will be given sufficient time to do so.
It has been worthwhile having this debate on the amendments. We have had a number of concerns about the true definition of the terms "place", "part" and "region". These questions were raised in the Commons. There was also my concern with the Explanatory Notes, which state that the definition differed and that in Part 2 the situation must threaten serious damage in the United Kingdom or in a part or region, rather than a place.
The more we seek to understand the differences between the wording—"place", "part" or "region"—the better. Indeed, something happened, of which some noble Lords may not be aware, this afternoon in another place. Certain individuals broke into the Chamber of the House of Commons. That is breaking into a small place, but it is also a powerful breach of security in the Houses of Parliament. The definition of emergency could so easily apply, in terms of a "place". That is why we need to discuss and debate what we are talking about when we refer to the parameters within which the Bill works to ensure that all the necessary
1214
contingencies are in place to enable us to respond to a state of emergency. I am grateful to the Minister for his reply and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 2 to 6 not moved.]
Baroness Buscombe Baroness Buscombe moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 1, line 16, at beginning insert "severe"
The noble Baroness said: I rise now to speak to Amendment No. 7 and in so doing I shall speak to Amendments Nos. 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12. The definition of "emergency", as I have already said, is crucial to the Bill. However, there is little reference to scale or geographical extent as parameters within which the Bill seeks to protect and introduce methods for dealing with contingencies. We are still considering Clause 1 of the Bill, but have moved on to see what clarification the Minister can give us in other areas. We have tabled these probing amendments in order to have a clearer idea of why the Bill has been drafted in the way that it has and to put forward what we hope are helpful suggestions and improvements.
Clause 2 details the kinds of events or situations that may threaten to damage human welfare, the environment or security. Our amendments add greater detail to the list or take wording away to develop these criteria. As there are a number of amendments in the group, I hope that the Committee will bear with me while I outline what each does.
Amendment No. 7 would insert the word "severe" into Clause 1(2)(d), so that it would read "severe damage to property". We feel that this paragraph needs clarification. Exactly what damage to property would qualify as an emergency? How much damage does there need to be and are there categories of property? Does there have to be damage to the extent of that caused in Florida by two successive hurricanes this summer? The Bill is focused on human welfare and the Joint Committee has reiterated the point many times. If that is the case, why is damage to property regarded as an event as severe as loss of human life? I look forward to what the Minister has to say on that amendment.
Amendment No. 8 leaves out of Clause 1(2)(e) the word "money". We feel that a disruption to the supply of food, water, energy or fuel would be an obvious threat to human welfare and we wanted to sound out the Government on why they have included "money" in this provision. What will constitute a disruption of the supply of money? Will it be a matter of a certain number of cash machines not working, or of banks being targeted by terrorists? Are local authorities equipped to deal with any disruption of money supply, other than for their own accounts? Surely this is a job that might involve the Bank of England.
Amendment No. 9 would amend Clause 1(2)(f), substituting "any" for "an electronic or other". This is designed to deal with concerns expressed by the Law Society and British Telecom. They are collectively concerned that the disruption of an electronic system of communication on its own should be left alone. After all, what does "other" mean?
British Telecom believes that if there were disruption to its system by itself rather than as a by-product of a more serious incident, then it is best equipped to deal with any problems that arise. British Telecom has also questioned why the disruption to an electronic communications system such as the one it operates should involve local councils or other responders.
Amendment No. 10 would add another paragraph to subsection (2) using the words,
"spread of fire leading to circumstances damaging to human welfare".
We feel that fire is not well covered in the Bill and that this is a dangerous omission. Many people in this country live in areas which are surrounded by dense woods or forests. The devastation which can be wreaked by a fire in such areas is well documented on television news broadcasts. Fires which have been started deliberately, as acts of arson, in places such as Australia or California, can be horrific. Why have the Government chosen not to add fire to the list in Clause 1(2)?
Amendment No. 11 is designed to probe what the Government have in mind for transport in Part 1 of the Bill. The amendment would leave out "transport" and insert,
"air, rail and sea transport and major roads considered vital to human welfare for the purposes of subsection (1)(a)".
What will the role of local planning be for transport? Will air travel, which this amendment mentions specifically, require a national rather than a local response, especially in light of what happened in New York on 11 September 2001? What level of emergency are the Government expecting local authorities to plan for?
Amendment No. 12 would alter paragraph (h) to read, "disruption of services and impediment of persons concerned with preservation of health". This is another probing amendment. It is designed to deal with what would happen in the event of destruction of hospitals or the blocking of ambulances, doctors, nurses or other health staff trying to get to hospitals. That would clearly constitute a threat to human life and consequently, possibly, national security. Also, anything that prevents a doctor or nurse doing their job constitutes a threat to human welfare. We wish the Minister to clarify why there is so little definition in the Bill.
I thank the Minister for his patience while I have explained the amendments to the Committee. I look forward to his answer. I beg to move.
Lord Waddington: I am not quite sure that these amendments should be described as merely probing. I think that they are of considerable importance. In a moment or two, I may even persuade the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer of Sandwell, that there is a read-across from Part 1 of the Bill to Part 2.
Obviously, it is Clause 19, not Clause 1, which sets out what is an emergency sufficient to trigger the emergency powers obtainable under Clause 22. But Clause 1 and Clause 19 are very similar; the Minister described them
1216
as following the same pattern. In fact, the situation is slightly different, because Clause 1(2) and Clause 19(2) are not simply similar; they are actually identical. If we accept Clause 1(2), it will be very difficult, when we come to Clause 19, to argue seriously against the wording of Clause 19(2). So we had better look here and now at Clause 1(2) very carefully and ask whether it is proper that the definition of emergency be drawn so wide when the existence of an emergency or the threat of one is the gateway to the use of the truly draconian emergency powers set out in the clauses after Clause 22.
A whole lot of matters should worry this House. In clause 1(2)(d), should the threat of any damage to property constitute an emergency? Should the threat of any damage, however trivial, constitute an emergency? I beg to doubt that. That is dealt with in Amendment No. 7. I do not look upon it as a probing amendment. I think that it is wrong that any threat of any damage to property should enable somebody to decide that there is an emergency.
5.45 p.m.
Look at Clause 1(2)(e). Should the threat of the disruption of any supply of money constitute an emergency—any money, any amount of money, any supply of money, however trivial? Should that really enable somebody to come to a conclusion that there is an emergency?
Look at Clause 1(2)(g). Should the threat of the disruption of facilities for transport—an everyday event, I suggest, as an honourable Member in the other place also suggested—constitute an emergency? I beg to doubt that. That is dealt with in Amendment No. 11.
Look at Clause 1(3)(c). Should the threat of the disruption or destruction of plant or animal life constitute an emergency? I beg to doubt that.
All these could be serious threats. Equally, they could all be completely trivial. Is it not the duty of government to find a form of words in a Bill such as this which excludes trivial threats and includes real threats? Therefore, I am extremely worried about the wording of Clause 1(2) and Clause 19(2), which are identical.
I also point out that Clause 1(5) provides that the most junior Minister in government can, by order,
"provide that a specified event or situation"
constitutes one of these threats. I say the most junior Minister, because "Minister", as provided in Clause 1(5) clearly cannot be a senior Minister within the meaning of Clause 20(2), and the definition of senior Minister in Clause 20(3) covers pretty junior Ministers. It covers, for instance, Whips, who are otherwise known as Commissioners of Her Majesty's Treasury.
Let us make no mistake about this. This Bill enables the most junior Minister in government to conclude that a very trivial threat of the interruption of transport could, if Parliament were stupid enough to approve the order, constitute an emergency. So let us look seriously

1217
at the wording of Clause 1(2) and ask the Minister to go away and try and find a form of words which excludes trivial threats.
Lord Archer of Sandwell: I am most grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. Does he appreciate that what is elaborated in subsection (2) are the matters which constitute human welfare? Under Clause 1, an emergency is an event which threatens "serious damage" to human welfare. So these matters cannot be trivial because Clause 1 prohibits that.
Lord Waddington: I am afraid I beg to differ. If I get a cold, my welfare is, to some extent, prejudiced. You could have some quite ordinary threat which nobody would imagine should lay the foundation for the assumption of emergency powers. You could get some very small threat which could be said to interfere, to some extent, with the welfare of the human being, but nobody in his right mind would say that it was a threat which should lay the foundation for the declaration of an emergency. So I do not think that the noble and learned Lord can really rely on Clause 1 to justify even the most trivial damage to property being included within Clause 1(2). Let us stick to the wording of Clause 1(2).
I suggest again that the Minister should find a form of words for Clause 1(2) which excludes trivial damage to property. It would be perfectly simple: one could just add the word "severe". My noble friend Lady Buscombe has made a number of suggestions as to how trivial threats could be excluded in that way. I do not commit myself to the precise words of my noble friend's amendments, but she does point the way towards excluding, as they should be excluded, truly trivial threats. That is of considerable importance for the reasons which my noble friend mentioned. Many people are very unhappy about the Bill because it appears to give the Government powers to order that a whole range of events and threatened happenings can be treated as an emergency and then to make regulations which give them powers which they never thought necessary in the darkest days of the war.
Let us get the Bill right from the beginning. We should not leave it until Clause 19. We should look closely right now at the wording of Clause 1(2) and exclude trivial threats.
Lord Archer of Sandwell: I fear that if the noble Lord were to write in an intermediate law examination what he has just said, he would never make the pass list. Let us look again at the structure of Clause 1. Subsection (1) states:
"In this Part 'emergency' means an event or situation which threatens serious damage to",
and it then lists three categories, the first of which is human welfare. Subsection (2) defines "human welfare". Its effect is that something is an emergency if it threatens serious damage in any of the ways it lists.
1218
The picture that the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, painted is out of Alice In Wonderland. "Serious" covers everything that he has just been talking about.
Lord Dixon-Smith: There is a difficulty that we need to face. Part 1 concerns "local arrangements for civil protection". We have contingency plans for all those "events" already. They all exist. They are not emergencies—Heaven help us—but they are part of normal life most of the time. They are dealt with by existing law and practice.
We have a problem in that the Bill repeals existing law so we have to put something in its place. We then have a further problem, because Part 1 and Part 2, which deal with emergency powers, both use the same word: "emergency". The real difficulty is that Part 1 does not deal with the word "emergency" in anything like the same context as Part 2, yet the word is identical and inseparable. The Government need to address that issue.
When I looked at the categories of damage to human welfare that are listed in Clause 1(2), I understood "loss of human life", "damage to property" and so on, but I had some difficulty with "disruption of a supply of money", particularly in this electronic age when money seems happily to slip out of one's wallet in the form of a little piece of plastic which goes into a machine. I would be slightly more concerned about the loss of electronic communication than about money, because most people seem to manage quite happily with minimal quantities of money a night. If we had to go back to the cash society, the provision would have some meaning, but money is very peculiar. However, the supply of water, food and energy are certainly fundamental to society and their interruption has properly to be dealt with.
I return to the basic flaw in the Bill, which is that it does not make the necessary distinction between "local arrangements for civil protection"—as Part 1 is headed—and the emergency powers with which Part 2 deals. However, both parts begin with "meaning of emergency". It cannot be right to have the same wording for those two, very different scales of problem.
Lord Hylton: I agree that these are important amendments that go beyond just probing. I say that because I take it—I may be wrong—that Clause 1, in defining emergency, triggers Clauses 7 and 8, whereby any Minister of the Crown, however junior, only has to think that the matter is urgent before he starts issuing directions. The directions do not even have to be written; they can be oral. While we all get on rather well with the present Government, we cannot foresee who are going to be Ministers in future governments.
As to the rest of the wording of Clause 1, the phrase "may cause", in line 12, is too loose and should be tightened up to something such as "be reasonably foreseen to cause". Clause 1(3)(a) lists "oil" as a qualifying form of environmental damage. We all know that a number of tankers have gone aground and broken up in places such as Milford Haven and the Cornish coast without a national emergency being

1219
declared. We also know that wrecks can cause pollution to the sea, again without national emergencies.
Clause 1(4)(a) contains the word "war", which we understand pretty accurately on the whole, but also "armed conflict". What is the meaning of that phrase? Does it mean just a gun crime that happens somewhere or does it include school massacres in the Dunblane style? The wording is generally unclear and I support the thrust of the amendments.
Lord Lucas: Could the Minister help me with some definitions? Where the Bill refers to "property", is that a wide definition of property or does it mean merely buildings? The wider definition is perhaps what we should be considering. The potential for our life to be disrupted by the disruption of data, relating to all kinds of aspects of our lives and not just money, is quite considerable. We live in an electronic society without a great deal of back-up. One does not have to attack just the money supply to cause an enormous amount of inconvenience to our ordinary lives. If one starts destroying government records—the records about us which permit us to go about our ordinary lives and give us our standard permissions to travel—and the records that businesses hold that allow them to operate, one is causing a considerable disruption. A successful virus attack might come into that kind of category. Those kinds of things should be prepared for under the Bill.
Does "communication" cover broadcast media, for instance, and newspapers? In this general planning part of the Bill we ought to be planning for that kind of disruption of communications. Since we are relying on the radio to tell us what to do if things go wrong, as part of Part 1 of the Bill, are we planning against the disruption of our broadcast radio communication network? My question is whether in this wording we are excluing parts of the structure of our society which we ought to be considering in the context of emergency planning.
6 p.m.
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: One rarely has an opportunity personally to illustrate a speech by a noble friend, but perhaps I may make a highly personal intervention arising out of the speech of my noble friend Lord Waddington, with whom I had the privilege of serving in the Government Whips Office in another place in the early days of the first administration of my noble friend Lady Thatcher.
The difference between my noble friend and myself is that he was a Lord Commissioner of the Treasury and I was the most junior Whip in the office. Because my late noble kinsman and my late noble relative were both serving in your Lordships' House at the time, I regarded myself as profoundly junior to the most junior Whip in the Upper House and therefore as the most junior Minister in the entire Government, which was the example which my noble friend gave as being somebody who would have been able to trigger this legislation.
1220
Indeed, because my noble friend Lady Thatcher reshuffled—I personally prefer the word shuffled—her administration much less frequently than is the current vogue, I was the most junior Minister in the administration for a whole 21 months. If I may coin the phrase ab interiori, it concentrates the mind enormously to think that for 21 months I might have carried the responsibilities to which my noble friend Lord Waddington referred.
It was a quite sufficient challenge in the Whips Office to be given the job of manning the office on the Friday night of the Argentine invasion of the Falklands in order to field calls from the great British public about what the Government's position was arising out of that disaster. I can remember having to field a call from a man in Birmingham who asked why the Paras had not gone in already. An inquiry whether he had looked at a map before he asked me the question elicited the reply that he believed the Falkland Islands to be just west of the Hebrides, which of itself is an interesting demonstration of what knowledge of our great nation emerges during a crisis.
My noble friend has conjured the destruction of the entire administration and therefore these matters falling to the most junior Minister. As someone who did the job for quite a long time, it makes me profoundly nervous in retrospect that that possibility might ever have existed.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I believe that these amendments have provided the opportunity for a useful discussion. I am grateful for all the contributions. I shall try to respond as best I can to the different points. I do not want to go over the issue which we dealt with under the first set of amendments concerning the different types and levels of emergency. I believe that I set that out fairly clearly. I was grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer, for his support on that point during his intervention. His understanding is my understanding and that of the Government. I thought he explained the matter very clearly. He clearly followed what I said when we debated the matter with the first group of amendments.
Clause 1 sets out a clear definition of an emergency under Part 1 of the Bill. As I believe I said earlier, the definition underpins the framework of duties for local responders and ensures that we have a clear picture of the range and scale of events they should be preparing for. It defines an emergency as,
"an event or situation which threatens serious damage to human welfare…, the environment…or security of a place in the United Kingdom".
It then sets out what we believe is an exhaustive list of the kinds of events or situations that may constitute a threat to human welfare, the environment or security such as loss of life, contamination of land and terrorism.
It is worth reiterating here that this is not something that we have conjured up from nowhere. This definition has been very carefully drawn up in close consultation with a wide range of practitioners such as those who have to deal with these situations. They

1221
include the Association of Chief Police Officers, the Chief Fire Officers Association, the Emergency Planning Society and the Local Government Association.
The list reflects the diversity of situations those practitioners have to deal with. These range from localised flooding that we have experienced in places in my part of Sussex to a full scale chemical, biological, radiological or nuclear attack—which thankfully we have not suffered—and from flu pandemics to large-scale industrial accidents of which we have more experience.
This group of amendments proposes alterations to the range of events and situations that threaten human welfare. Subsequent groups of amendments probe the list of threats to the environment and security. These groups of amendments raise some interesting issues, but I strongly believe that the definition is robust, clear and helpful. It certainly seems to be to those who have to tackle the problems on the ground.
Debates were held at length in another place. It was a useful exchange of views and made us think about these matters again. As a consequence, it is worth setting out for the Committee in a little more detail why I believe the definition holds good. I shall work through each amendment in turn.
The effect of Amendment No. 7 is to provide that there must be severe damage to property before an event or situation can be treated as threatening human welfare. That is fair enough. Clause 1(2)(d) as currently drafted, requires only that there be damage to property. I certainly agree that for damage to property to constitute an emergency and to trigger civil protection duties it ought to be of a certain scale. I do not believe that we would lose much sleep over that.
However, I believe that the Bill provides for that. To meet the definition of "serious" in Clause 1(1) the threat to human welfare must be serious. These two provisions need to be read together. Thus the Bill already provides that damage to property will be an emergency only if it poses a threat of serious damage to human welfare. Furthermore, for an event to trigger the civil protection duties, it must also meet the thresholds set out in Clause 2. I shall go through that. It is described as an event or situation which would be likely seriously to obstruct the responder in the performance of his functions, or in relation to which the responder cannot respond in an appropriate way without changing the deployment of resources or acquiring additional resources. I believe that that covers what the noble Baroness seeks. We do not believe that the words of the amendment add anything further.
Amendment No. 8 proposes that the disruption of a supply of money should not be treated as a threat to human welfare. I hope that we can all agree that money is pretty fundamental to all our lives, whether in plastic or cash form, and a disruption of its supply can threaten human welfare; certainly it threatens mine if I do not have enough of it! Disruption to the supply of money has the potential to undermine the mechanisms
1222
of production, distribution and exchange. As I am sure noble Lords appreciate, this could have serious implications for human welfare and for the economic wealth of our country.
One could argue that a disruption of the supply of money would always have one of the effects mentioned in Clause 1(2), namely, the disruption of the supply of food or fuel, and is therefore not a threat to human welfare in its own right. But that will not always be the case. One can think of circumstances in which the disruption to a supply of money could disrupt access to food or fuel without disrupting its supply per se.
Furthermore, listing disruptions to the supply of money as a contingency that local responders should be planning for will be a useful clarification for local responders who may be required to deal with the consequences of such an interruption. One scenario might be a large-scale disruption of the electronic systems of banks. This could prevent consumers from access to cash via ATMs or the bank's electronic records and prevent consumers from using credit and debit cards. It is difficult to predict what can happen in these circumstances, but special arrangements might need to be put in place by the Department for Work and Pensions in co-operation with local authorities to issue vouchers or credit notes. Furthermore, there may be public order implications. I think it is right that we list it there. It is something for which we need to have contingency arrangements in place.
Amendment 9, the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, proposes, would remove express reference to electronic systems of communication. Again, this would remove a helpful clarification for local responders. Electronic systems of communication have become more and more important to the way we lead our lives: I refer to banks, shops, accessing government services online and firms conducting their businesses electronically. Electronic systems are therefore pretty crucial to human welfare and will only become more so, I suspect, in the future. While other forms of communication—telephone and mail—are also key, I think there is merit in making express reference to electronic systems. That we can do that is part of the benefit of new and modernised legislation.
Part of what we are trying to achieve with the Bill is a mind shift or culture change: getting local responders to think more widely about the range of risks we face in modern society, and to ensure that we are well prepared for it. It is not difficult to think of a scenario where a serious interruption of electronic systems would trigger the duties to assess risk and plan. For example, a possible attack on a social security computer system would require local authorities to ensure that it had alternative means of administering benefits to vulnerable people. How will they know who is eligible? How will payments he processed? The Bill would require local authorities to assess the risk of this occurring, and plan for this contingency if it was appropriate.
It should be noted that the purpose of including disruption of an electronic system of communication in the Bill is not to require or enable local responders to play a role in the recovery of the electronic system itself. That, of course, is for the service or system

1223
provider. But the failure of an electronic system may have wide ramifications right across the community. Local responders should be prepared to deal with those broader effects of disruption of the electronic systems of communication.
In Amendment No. 10, the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, proposes specifically adding the,
"spread of fire leading to circumstances damaging to human welfare",
as a threat to human welfare. I certainly agree with the noble Baroness that preparing for fires is clearly important. We have had some important debates during the passage of several recent Bills on fire and rescue services; I suspect that that is recognised across the Committee. It is important, but the threat is adequately provided for in Clause 1(2)(a) and 1(2)(b). A fire would threaten human welfare because it threatens loss of human life or damage to property; there cannot be much doubt about that. No other provision in Clause 1(2) relates to the cause of a threat to human welfare; they all relate to consequences. To include a specific reference to fire would be awkward. Why mention fire, but not other sources of disaster such as an outbreak of an infectious disease or extreme weather 1conditions, flooding, severe storms and so on? That is the logic we have followed in drawing that particular clause together.
Amendment No. 11 makes it clear that disruption to certain forms of transport—namely, air, rail, road and sea—are covered by Clause 1(2)(g). I am not clear, on reflection, that this adds anything to the definition. It could actually weaken the definition. Does it mean that the disruption of travel by river, for example, is not covered? Nor is it necessary to refer specifically to vital transport. Disruption of a facility for transport would not necessarily, in itself, be an emergency. Noble Lords might recall that any disruption must, in addition, constitute a threat of serious damage to human welfare before it would be counted as an emergency.
Finally, Amendment No. 12 attempts to give clarity to the definition by ensuring that disruption of activities of health protection workers would be a threat to human welfare. I can certainly see the thrust of the amendment. The work undertaken by our health service—doctors, nurses, ambulance staff and so on—is clearly fundamental to the nation's welfare. But the amendment does not add much to the current drafting. If the disruption of the activities of health protection workers were to constitute a threat of serious damage to human welfare, it would presumably be the case because it had caused a disruption of services relating to health.
I take the point that it is difficult to strike a balance in the definitions of "emergency", and the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, I suppose, was picking away at that point. The noble Lord raised the issue of definition; I think we have got it right on balance. We have separated two definitions. I have explained that very clearly. They do relate to each other in some circumstances. Obviously, the definition, although different in Part 1 and Part 2, will cover the same, or very similar, events. But we do not think, to take the
1224
point of the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, that trivial threats will be caught. As I said earlier, the point of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer of Sandwell, was well made, in exactly understanding the nature of the emergency.
One or two other questions were asked. The noble Lord, Lord Hylton, asked what was meant, in the context of this debate, by "armed conflict". The inclusion of the reference to armed conflict will bring situations where these conditions are not met—for example, armed conflict involving a non-state entity—into the definition of "emergency". It would also obviate the need, in our view, to determine whether, as a matter of common law, a state of war exists between two states. This can, on occasions, be difficult. To put his mind at rest, I can say it will not cover gun crime.
The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, asked whether "communication" would include press and radio. The answer is yes, although to constitute an emergency the disruption would have to threaten serious damage to human welfare. It is quite possible to argue that, although perhaps difficult. I suspect it will also cover disruption to e-commerce. I think I covered the point the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, raised about damage to property. But, to add to that, I think we would see this as meaning that the damage would have to be severe and widespread before it would constitute an emergency. Of course, it is possible, in some circumstances, to conceive of cases where minor damage to a single property may be treated as an emergency. An example of that might be minor damage to a nuclear power station: the damage itself might be minor, but the consequences could be more severe. Such matters will depend very much on the circumstances.
We have covered this fairly. If I have missed a point, then I will try to come back to it.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Lucas: May I take the Minister up on one of the illustrations he used, which is a disruption of the social security system? Suppose that I, as the terrorist, manage to destroy the underlying data in the Department for Work and Pensions, rather than disrupting any communications system—mind you, the department is quite capable of doing that for itself. Under what subsection of Clause 1(2) does that fall?
Lord Dixon-Smith: The noble Lord has virtually taken the words from my mouth. I am not satisfied that the Minister has answered the point about the distinction between an emergency in Part 1 of the Bill, in Clause 1, and in Part 2 of the Bill in Clause 19.
Some of the Minister's comments concerned me. For instance, he said, using the illustration of the local social security office that loses its computer, that the local responders—which means the local authority—might have some responsibility to pick up the situation and do something about it. Well, if the computer of my bank, which probably has far more customers than the local social security office, goes on the blink, it is the bank that is responsible. Surely the first responsibility for the social security communication and information

1225
systems does not lie with the responder under this Bill? It lies with the social security service itself. So I was a little concerned that one might suddenly begin to extrapolate and say that the responders under the Bill have actually got some responsibility for that sort of service provision in a particular situation.
A Minister of the Crown, acting under Clause 1(5), may provide that,
"a specified event or situation … is to be treated as falling, or as not falling, within any of paragraphs (a) to (c) of subsection (1)".
I do not need to quote it all. What is the distinction between that sort of emergency action and the emergency action implied by the emergency powers under Part 2?
There is a very clear distinction in my mind and, indeed, in practice, in emergency planning, between local arrangements for civil protection and those other arrangements. The arrangements for civil protection are clearly one thing, and the system works. I accept that those arrangements go all the way up to a minor accident at a nuclear power station. It could include, because the plans exist, the consequences of a major accident at a nuclear power station. The Minister will be aware that there should be plans for an emergency all the way along the south coast, in case something goes wrong, because there are 11 nuclear power stations on the south shore of the Channel—with the prevailing wind running as it normally does. If those plans do not exist, there is something seriously amiss.
The question of distinction is what I am talking about. A junior Minister acting under Clause 1(5) is performing precisely the same function as a Minister might perform in making emergency regulations under Clause 20. There is no distinction made—and yet there is a huge distinction. On the one hand, one is dealing with something that is local and can be dealt with simply, easily and straightforwardly on a local basis and, on the other, one is dealing with something that might be a serious national emergency. But the wording is the same.
I am sorry that the Minister has not explained the provisions in words that I can understand. However, we need to recognise that the solution to the sorts of problems that might arise, which could cause "a local difficulty", is not exclusively for the emergency responders. It involves the individuals who own the property, the banks and government services with their responsibility, and so on. The Minister began to imply that all those responsibilities fell on the responders. In so far as the responders are involved and are responsible, that may well be; but there are a lot of others who have responsibilities, some of whom will simply be co-operating with the emergency services—and that is as it should be. A large number of voluntary bodies are involved in all these systems, although they have not been mentioned yet. They are ready to participate in the consequences of such an event.
1226
I still have the problem that I cannot make a distinction between what the Minister says is involved in Part 1 and what the Bill says is involved in Part 2. There needs to be a clear distinction between the two things, because they are very different.
Lord Waddington: I wonder if the Minister could help me on the question of Clause 1 (5), because I am not sure that he has dealt with it. The unfortunate truth of the matter is that there does not have to be a situation which threatens serious damage to human welfare. What there must be is a Minister of the Crown who is prepared to make an order providing that,
"a specified event or situation, or class of event or situation, is to be treated",
as threatening serious damage to human welfare. That is the point.
Is the Minister really happy that there should be such a subjective test in the hands of the Minister involved, so that he does not have to show that there is a serious threat but can deem that a situation is one that poses a serious treat?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I am grateful for the supplementary questions. In response to the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, the disruption of the administration of business was the point being made within the definition of "emergency". I believe that the noble Lord referred—I am sure that he will tell me if I am wrong—to the local administration of benefits, and I suppose by implication to the functioning of the government department administering benefits.
In itself, such a disruption would not constitute an emergency; it is really the consequences that flow from that disruption that is important. When the disruption can be seen to threaten human welfare, because it threatens the supply of money—benefits—then it may well do. Looking at the Bill, I suppose that one would then rely, strictly speaking, on subsection (2)(e), because that is where the threat would be felt. I believe that that answers his point.
In many respects, the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, was understanding and describing what he understood to be emergencies in different situations. It is difficult to wrestle with the two definitions, and how they interface with each other. I understand his search for a clear distinction; in most situations, I believe that there will be one. The key issue is not the content of the definitions; as a number of Members of the Committee have said, they are similar in most respects. The key issue is the triggers. I have already explained that the triggers are very different.
Clause 2(2) focuses Part 1 on local major incidents. The triggers in Clauses 19 and 21 focus Part 2 on national emergencies. I hope that that explanation helps to add some clarity, because it is very important. There will be times when a situation meets the Part 1 definition of an emergency but, as it develops and expands, it also meets the Part 2 definition. The situation will move on and change and, no doubt, the response will have to change to meet a different scale of

1227
threat. These situations are grounded in what actually happens and, obviously, we shall have to take account of them.
The noble Lord, Lord Waddington, further questioned me about ministerial involvement and what Ministers deem to be an emergency. Clause 1(5)(a) enables a Minister of the Crown to provide by order,
"that a specified event or situation, or class of event or situation, is to be treated as falling, or as not falling, within",
the definition of emergency in subsection (1). An order under Clause 1(5)(a) cannot amend the definition of emergency in Clause 1(1), nor for that matter can it amend subsections (2) to (4). Thus such an order could not be used to make a provision that is contrary to subsections (1) to (4). In other words, the scope of the power is limited to those provisions.
The purpose of the power is, in part, to enable a Minister of the Crown to specify more precisely whether a particular event or situation or a particular class of event or situation falls within or outwith the definition of emergency. That is the responsibility that rests with the Minister. I hope that that explanation helps the noble Lord, Lord Waddington. He probably had to deal with such situations in a former life, and perhaps he understands the matter better than I do as a consequence.
6.30 p.m.
Baroness Buscombe: I thank the Minister and all noble Lords who have taken part in the debate. The debate on the amendments has helped to illustrate the extent to which it is sensible that we carefully scrutinise the Bill, because so many questions are being raised about the meaning of "emergency" in Parts 1 and 2. Perhaps one of the problems is that the title of Part 1 is "Local arrangements for civil protection" and it then goes straight into Clause 1, "Meaning of 'emergency'"; while Part 2 is titled "Emergency powers" and, again, "Meaning of 'emergency'" is the heading of the first clause under Part 2.
There is no question that there has been extensive consultation and pre-legislative scrutiny, but there remains in the mind of many Committee members and people in the world outside a great deal of uncertainty and a fear that there is a sufficient lack of clarity to cause concern. The Minister accepts that certain examples that noble Lords have suggested or raised are possibly—using his words, if I may—"difficult to wrestle with"; or that it is possibly difficult to argue whether, for example, a broadcasting communication breakdown could amount to an emergency.
Our perspective in Committee has tended, as illustrated by my noble friend Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, to focus on the extraordinary responsibility of a person who may be an extremely junior Minister of the Crown to be able to respond sensibly, quickly and unequivocally in the event of an emergency, be it under Part 1 or Part 2. We have been trying to seek some clarity as to the parameters within which any Minister of the Crown should, would and could respond.
1228
I agree with my noble friend Lord Dixon-Smith that copious provisions are in place in current legislation and regulations to deal with localised problems for civil protection; in which case it is right that we probe with some vigour the need for the provisions in the Bill. I take on board my noble friend Lord Waddington's concern that I have raised the concerns this evening only as probing amendments and that perhaps I have not gone far enough in expressing our determination to ensure that before the Bill reaches the statute book there are clearer definitions and a clearer view of what will be the meaning of "emergency" and of the occasions when sometimes extraordinary measures will be introduced.
It is also right that we focus on a point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, that the problem rests with a very junior Minister and in almost all cases the need will be to respond quickly but the approach is totally subjective.
The title "Local arrangements for civil protection" masks the introduction of the wide-ranging powers that may be invoked. Therefore I am grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in the debate. I hope that the Minister will take on board and reconsider some of the questions that noble Lords have raised before coming back on Report. While it is important that the perspectives of those involved in responding to emergencies have been able to take part in forming the view that the Bill is in some ways adequate, it is also important to consider it from the perspective of noble Lords and those who will have to make such difficult decisions once the Bill is passed. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 8 to 12 not moved.]
Baroness Buscombe Baroness Buscombe moved Amendment No. 13:
Page 2, line 2, after "biological," insert "noxious,"
The noble Baroness said: In moving the amendment, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 14. We feel that it is important to consider situations that threaten to damage the environment. Amendments Nos. 13 and 14 make particular reference to subsection (3), which details events and situations that will be held to threaten damage to the environment. One such category is if the land is contaminated with,
"harmful biological, chemical or radio-active matter".
Amendment No. 13 would insert the word "noxious" after "biological".
Amendment No. 14 would add a new sub-paragraph:
"(iii) any controlled combustible substance".
We feel that it is important to underline the chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear threat and its effect on the environment. The Project Unicorn report states that,
"To the public at large the CBRM threat is undoubtedly the most frightening aspect of the new terrorism: it is also the one that the Government say the least about. It is little surprise, therefore, that the media fills the vacuum and the public assume the worst".
Therefore, we would like the Government to accept Amendment No. 13 to insert the word "noxious", as it underlines the fact that this is an extraordinarily dangerous matter. Amendment No. 14 has been tabled to allow a discussion on combustible substances. Large-scale oil and petrol spills or the use of highly inflammable substances, either as a terrorist weapon or as a spoiling device—for instance, by animal rights or other movements—would threaten the environment as well as the welfare of anyone who became involved.
I look forward to the Minister's answers to the questions we have posed by tabling the amendments. I beg to move.
Lord Lucas: I would like elucidation of the meaning of some of the words in the Bill. To whom or what does the biological or chemical matter have to be "harmful"? If a farmer sprays a field with herbicide, that would be harmful to the weeds; it destroys a substantial amount of the environment including many insects that depend on the weeds. That would seem to fall within the Bill's definitions. I think that we are talking about harmful in a more restricted way; but in what restricted way? What gives us our understanding of what sort of events are to be planned for and not planned for under this category?
Contamination with oil can be temporary and cause little long-term damage to an ecosystem, as we have seen when various tankers have contaminated the shores: there is a period when things die and then everything comes back pretty straight. Is such contamination harmful or not? It probably destroys rather less than the deliberate acts of our average farmer.
What is meant by "harmful biological" material? How can we contaminate land with harmful biological material? What sort of flooding are we talking about that is to be the subject of regulations but does not come under Clause 1(2) because it threatens human welfare; and does not come under Clause 1(3)(a) or (c)? Surely any flooding that is not already covered by those clauses does not constitute a disaster of any description.
Lord Monson: The noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, has made a good case for her two amendments but I should like, if I may, to raise another point in connection with Clause 1(3). Subsection (3)(b) refers to "flooding", but what about fire? Clearly, fire that threatens residential or commercial property will be covered by subsection (2), but what about forest fires? We are not habitually threatened by the sort of forest fire that plagues the south of France, Spain, Portugal and Australia to name just a few countries, but with climate change it is not impossible that this may start to happen. What about, for example, stubble fire? Nowadays, of course, stubble burning is banned but a stubble fire can easily be started accidentally. Supposing that it spreads, it could threaten a very large acreage. So far as I can see, this is not covered at all in the Bill as it stands. Although
1230
I am not generally in favour of extending the remit of this Bill, quite the opposite, I would be grateful if the Minister could consider the point that I have made.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: As I mentioned in relation to an earlier group of amendments, the definition of "emergency" goes a long way to underpin the framework of duties which are set out in Part 1 of the Bill, which gives a clear picture of the range and scale of events for which we should be providing.
As the noble Baroness explained, it is proposed through Amendments Nos. 13 and 14 to alter the range of events or situations that constitute a threat to the environment. We have worked very closely with the stakeholders to get this definition right and listened carefully to environmentalists and, no doubt, the Environment Agency and others, to ensure that our thinking is sound. We have finessed the measure in response to their thinking.
I turn to Amendment No. 13. Clause 1 provides that contamination of land, water or air with,
"harmful biological, chemical or radio-active matter"
may constitute a threat of serious damage to the environment. What the noble Baroness proposes would expressly provide that any chemical matter must be noxious to constitute a threat to the environment. The Bill already provides that biological, chemical or radioactive matter must be harmful to constitute a threat to the environment. That covers the term "noxious". I suggest that those things would be noxious in any event. I am not sure that the amendment would add anything. I ask the noble Baroness, what does it add to the definition?
As regards Amendment No. 14, to my mind it is very difficult to think of a threat of serious damage to the environment that would not be covered in the Bill as drafted. However, the noble Baroness suggested adding controlled combustible substances to the list. The noble Baroness is absolutely right to note that combustible substances pose a threat. However, in so far as they present a threat to human welfare, we believe that they are covered by Clause 1(2), and their threat to the environment will either be caused by the chemicals they contain or the impact they have on plant or animal life. We believe, therefore, that they will be covered.
The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, asked what we meant by harmful. We mean by that harmful to human welfare. The noble Lord asked how serious the harm and the floods must be. The provision explains what kind of event may threaten the environment, so we mean harm to the environment: plants, water, animals and so on. As I said, Clause 1(2) deals with threats to human health. The trigger mentioned in Clause 2(2) will apply. The event will engage the civil protection duties only if it overwhelms the day-to-day resources of the responder. As an old local government lag I suspect that events such as the floods in Uckfield or Lewes would trigger the legislation. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, has more experience of this than I because he can no doubt remember the Essex floods of the early 1950s. I was just born at that time—

1231
I am rather pleased that I was—but I have little doubt that the legislation would cover that situation. I hope that answers the point which has been raised. I believe that I have covered the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Monson. If I have not, perhaps he will remind me of it and I shall return to it later.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Monson: I asked why forest fire and fires of that nature were not included with flooding.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I not sure that the noble Lord was present but I covered the fire point earlier. We believe that the definition is broad enough to encapsulate that and we do not think that it would be right to specify it on the face of the Bill. I explained that very carefully for the benefit of the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe.
Lord Lucas: I think that the noble Lord has satisfied me on paragraph (a) but I still have a difficulty with paragraph (b). As I said, for this measure to be useful a flood has to pose no threat to human welfare because otherwise it would come under Clause 1(2); it has to pose no threat to the contamination of land because otherwise it would come under paragraph (a); and it has to pose no threat to plant life or animal life otherwise it would come under paragraph (c). So what kind of flood that has no such implications is a disaster which local authorities should spend time and money planning for?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I shall think about that. I believe that the noble Lord sees a difficulty that I do not, but I shall think about it.
Baroness Buscombe: I thank the Minister for his response. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Monson, and my noble friend Lord Lucas for posing questions with regard to the need for more clarity. Indeed, I refer the Minister to a comment he made in response to my Amendment No. 9 in which he stated that in drafting the legislation in this manner the Government were seeking to encourage those involved in civil protection to think more widely. The Minister gave the example of using the word "electronic" but not specifying other kinds of communication, in which case surely these amendments that I have tabled are consistent with what the Minister said with regard to the need to have a more extensive, clear explanation of what is and is not included.
I hear what the Minister said. In proposing these amendments we are seeking to alter that which is already in the Bill. However, we are also trying to add to what is already in the Bill in order to assist those involved in civil protection who will often have to act quickly, and also when they are assessing and trying to he strategic about their civil protection measures so that they focus on as many of the kinds of situations to which they will need to respond as possible. We have had a good debate on these amendments and, for now, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 14 and 15 not moved.]
On Question, Whether Clause 1 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Lucas: I have no rooted objection to Clause 1 standing part of the Bill. However, my noble friend Lord Waddington and others have put me very much in mind of the thought that we need some way of differentiating Part 1 and Part 2 because the use of "emergency" as the operative word in both parts—I agree with my noble friend—is in danger of confusing ordinary readers of this Bill. It requires one to hold in one's mind two definitions of the same word—a very crucial word in the same Bill. That is probably undesirable. I should like to propose that in Part 1 we substitute the word "disaster". First, this is a word that is well used by the Government in their publication, Dealing with Disaster.
Secondly, there is a difference between "disaster" and "emergency" which applies well to these two sections. "Disaster" is something that, when it happens, is dealt with well because we have planned for it and organised for it and everything clicks into place. That is what Part 1 is about; it is making sure that when a disaster happens we deal well with it.
"Emergency" is more of a Corporal Jones incident—"Don't panic! Don't panic! Help!"—rushing about frantically trying to scramble things together to make sure that we hold human life and limb together in the way that seems impossible on day one. The tenns are different; the consequences are different. We deal with a very different attitude to these things. Part 1 is all about planning; Part 2 is all about extraordinary powers for the Government to deal with extraordinary situations.
If we change the language in Part 1, it would be enormously helpful in the end to the world outside in appreciating the difference between the two terms.
Lord Waddington: I remain deeply worried about Clause 1(5). I know that the Minister did his best with a note that was passed to him, but I wonder whether he will just try again. Clause 1(5) reads:
"A Minister of the Crown…may by order provide that a specified event or situation…is to be treated as falling…within"
subsection (1)(a). That paragraph refers to an event which threatens serious damage to human welfare.
When one therefore reads together Clause 1(1) and 1(5), Clause 1(5) now reads:
"A Minister of the Crown may by order provide that a specified event or situation is to be treated as (a) threatening serious damage to human welfare".
Is that not a very serious power to put in the hands of any Minister?
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: The question I want to ask does not follow immediately on the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, but may touch on it. I would have asked this question had we debated Amendment No. 15, but my noble friend Lord Lucas has given us the opportunity of asking it

1233
under these circumstances. I am delighted to have this opportunity. However, my question does refer back to Amendment No. 15.
Although the Explanatory Notes to the Bill say that subsections (2) to (4) of Clause 1 "specify exhaustively" the kind of events that the Government have in mind that,
"threaten damage to human welfare, the environment or security",
it could be said that Clause 1(2) and (3) might be regarded as exhaustive, as the Explanatory Notes say. The Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, of which I am a member, in our 25th report, concurred that Clause 1(2) and (3) could be regarded as exhaustive, but did not do so in regard to Clause 1(4). The report simply said, in paragraph 5:
"Clause 1(4) provides a list as respects security".
It did not include the word "exhaustive". I would like to verify whether in the Minister's mind Clause 1(4) is exhaustive—as the Explanatory Notes say.
I mention incidentally that the example given by my noble friend Lady Buscombe in an earlier debate, relating to the events that have recently occurred in the Chamber of the other place, would not, as I understand it—since it was not presumably an act of terrorism—fall within the purview of this clause. I simply cite that as an example that has occurred in the course of this debate.
My late noble kinsman, to whom I alluded in my last speech, had a constituent called Miss Compton Collier who used to go round photographing the families of great houses. If you go round those families you will see photographs by her on side tables. Because she was my late noble kinsman's constituent, we got to know her quite well. She said that she took no newspaper; she did not own a radio; she did not watch television; she relied entirely for news of the world on her bank manager. Her bank manager, not unreasonably, said: "I shall need some guidance, Miss Collier. If I am to provide you with news of the world, could you give me examples of what you mean?" "Oh, yes", she said, "it is perfectly simple. I mean the death of the sovereign or the outbreak of war".
There are enormous virtues of simplicity in that, especially—as was mentioned earlier in the debate—given the reluctance of governments of all colours to allow additions to lists in legislation, in Committee, in the way that we might be debating now. But I would like confirmation from the Minister, as the Explanatory Notes imply, that Clause 1(4) is meant to be exhaustive.
Lord Renton: I, too, have had doubts about the effect of Clause 1(4). The use of the word "terrorism", just as it stands, could mean terrorism that has actually taken place, whereas we should be providing against the possibility of it being threatened. That is why Amendment No. 15 would have been of some help. I do not understand why it was not moved. But I support
1234
what has been said by my noble friend Lord Brooke and by others that we have to be very cautious indeed about the effect of Clause 1 and especially of subsection (4).
Lord Dixon-Smith: I thank my noble friend Lord Lucas for providing me with a solution to my dilemma, of the need to distinguish between Parts 1 and 2 of the Bill. I am most grateful to him for the possible use of the word "disaster". I would join him in inviting the Minister and the Government to consider that possibility very carefully. It would make the distinction between those two parts of the Bill much clearer.
As regards my noble friend Lord Waddington's concern over Clause 1(5), I think subsection (5) is tautologous. The meaning of the word "disaster" applies to situations which should be properly treated under Part 1 of the Bill. I have tried hard to think of something that a Minister of the Crown or a Scottish Minister might, by order,
"provide that a specified event or situation, or class of event or situation"—
be treated as falling within that, which does not already fall in it. I would be interested to hear if the Minister can provide some examples of events that are not going to have the effects of subsections (1) and (2) of Clause 1, which a Minister might require to order to include. I have the greatest difficulty in seeing that. We would be on much safer ground if subsection (5) were not in the Bill. But that is for another day.
Lord Hylton: What the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, said about Part I being relabelled as dealing with disasters was extremely helpful. Perhaps he and your Lordships would like to consider whether "disaster" might usefully be expanded to include major threats and risk to the public. If that proved to be acceptable, the duties of Ministers—particularly under Clauses 7 and 8—should be essentially to co-ordinate national and local efforts to either prevent or remedy a given situation.
7 p.m.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I am grateful to noble Lords for the opportunity to respond to some of their additional points. I will try to deal with them in turn. In general, we have had a helpful debate on Clause 1. I can see that confusion still remains in the mind of some noble Lords. That is probably my fault, but there has been some useful clarification.
I shall start the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas. The definition of "emergency" in Parts 1 and 2 is not the same. There is a distinction. The key issue is that of scale and effect, and that is why those two definitions are there. We started with that point and, in a sense, I finish with it. I am not attracted to the noble Lord's use of the word, "disaster". It is an overused word, and I am not sure that it would greatly help us. Sometimes my son uses the word to describe Brighton and Hove Albion conceding two goals before half-time. It may be a disaster for him, but it is not necessarily a disaster for all the other teams in the Football League. We start to get into difficulties with the use of a word which is not part of the language used

1235
by the practitioners. It is the practitioners who have to respond to the situations we are talking about. It is starting to use terms that the practitioners are unfamiliar with and avoids careful definition.
We have discussed this; we have worked with practitioners, and there has been a long consultation on the matter. They are not confused by the definitions nor their workability. That is the key issue here. Certainly, the descriptions relating to "emergency" that are itemised in Clause 1 will be well understood by responders who have to deal with those situations.
I can tell that the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, is exercised and worried by Clause 1(5) and ministerial responsibilities. But I believe that Clause 1(5) stands, and I do not agree with the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, that it is tautologous. It will be important for a Minister of the Crown, acting on information, to be in a position to specify by order the situations that need to be dealt with. No doubt that will be important.
I cannot recall precisely all of the responsibilities held by the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, when he was a Minister, but I have little doubt that during that time there may well have been situations where a Minister of the Crown was called upon to determine whether or not a certain situation was to be treated as an emergency in the terms which we have described. We certainly had events like the great storm and the impact that that had on local services across a wide part of the country and the desire, certainly in local government, to trigger the Bellwin rules and so on, to ensure that local areas could recover from the effects of that storm. It may well be that an order needs to be put in place to cover that sort of eventuality.
Of course, between now and Report, we will reflect further on Clause 1(5) and, if it helps, I am happy to—
Lord Waddington: The Minister will recognise that one of the reasons I am raising this is that, again, this clause is mirrored in Clause 19. It is worth bearing in mind that Clause 1(5) and Clause 19(5) are identical. I am raising that at this point so that no one can say later, "Well, the matter was not canvassed at the earliest possible opportunity".
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I am grateful to the noble Lord for that clarification, and I hope that I have helped him by explaining the situation.
The noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, asked whether the list described in Clause 1(4) regarding threats to security was exhaustive. I think that it is. We have given the matter a great deal of thought. In order to be absolutely certain, we will look again at the drafting, because I would not wish us to miss anything. This is too important for that. I am happy to write to the noble Lord on that point between now and Report. Of course I will gladly share the fruits of that correspondence with all other noble Lords who have been involved in this debate. In that, we can pick up the point made by other noble Lords about terrorism. So I am quite happy to ensure that we do that and provide some further clarification, because I accept that there is some unease—although I believe that the clause works well enough.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2 [Duty to assess, plan and advise]:
Baroness Buscombe Baroness Buscombe moved Amendment No. 16:
Page 2, line 27, leave out "from time to time" and insert "every three months"
The noble Baroness said: In moving the amendment, I shall also speak to Amendment No. 17. Both relate to Clause 2, which addresses the duty to "assess, plan and advise" with regard to contingency planning.
The Bill requires,
"A person or body listed in Part 1 or 2 of Schedule 1"—
namely, a county council, a district council, a London borough council, the Common Council of the City of London and the Council of the Isles of Scilly, to—
"assess the risk of an emergency occurring",
or,
"from time to time assess the risk of an emergency making it necessary or expedient for the person or body to perform any of his or its functions".
Our amendment would change that to ensure that that rather vague phrase "from time to time" should be replaced by, "every three months".
That is a reasonable interval to review current risks. We are all aware how quickly situations can change. The threat of terrorism can change overnight. What was the Government's thinking when they drafted the words "from time to time"? What sort of timescale were they envisaging'? How will it be possible to ensure that each council reviews its plans enough if the Government will not set a timetable? The Bill covers many bodies, and it is feasible that one police area will look at its emergency planning every three to six months, while another may look at it every five or so years. Do the Government think that the latter would be enough to keep up with the threats that modern society now faces?
Health authorities may be extremely well prepared, because they have emergency problems of their own to deal with. How often will they carry out systematic reviews of their procedures? Will it not be a temptation for such bodies to put off any reviews until it is too late? Local government associations will also have to think about budgets. If there is no pressure on them to ensure that they have adequate planning in place, will there not be a temptation to spend the money on other services?
I look forward to hearing the Government's view, and I beg to move.
Lord Renton: I agree with the comments of my noble friend Lady Buscombe about the expression, "from time to time". That could mean scarcely ever. Given the type of serious threat that might have to be dealt with, including the words, "every three months" places an obligation on authorities. I should tell my noble friend that I would have preferred the amendment to say, "at least every three months", because there may be more than one occasion for reassessment within those three months.

1237
So, although I hope that the Government will accept the amendment, we should insert the words, "at least" on Report.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: I should have thought that, "from time to time" was too vague, but that, "every three months" was too rigid. Why not have some words such as, "when necessary"? It might be that the situation would have to be reviewed every few days—or, in some cases, not every three months, but longer. I suggest that, "necessary" would be better.
Baroness Hamwee: Is the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, going to speak to his amendments?
Lord Lucas: No, we are off in a completely different direction, and I shall pick them up in their place on the list.
Baroness Hamwee: In that event, I am not happy. The Minister and I have had almost exactly this debate on the Housing Bill within the past three or four days. This amendment might suggest that a "tick-box" exercise was to be undertaken at a set period. I am comfortable with the phrase "from time to time", which, to me, suggests keeping under continual review. However, I note that it does not mean that to the noble Lord, Lord Renton, whose legal experience is far longer and deeper than mine, nor to the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, with her background. Still, whatever the traditional phrase, a reference in the debate on the Housing Bill to "keeping under review" seemed—forgive the pun—o fit the bill. The point is to look at the issue, not "tick-box exercises". A different amount of time and a different quantity and quality of attention will be required, depending on the context and the circumstances.
I picked up on a reference to "ring fencing" in the noble Baroness's speech. We on these Benches would be cautious about too great a degree of ring fencing. The Government already do enough of that with their grants—too much, in fact. Local authorities should be treated as responsible bodies: they need to judge what the requirements are. I cannot see any of them taking a view that they do not need to take emergency planning seriously.
Lord Dixon-Smith: I have some sympathy with my noble friend on the Front Bench on this matter. It seems awfully casual to assess the risk "from time to time", whereas it needs to be a continuous rolling process. However, I have to admit that I have some difficulty with "every three months", because there are so many separate emergency plans in the county of Essex that it simply would not be physically possible to review them that often, unless one had the most enormous staff.
The plans do not need reviewing every three months, but they certainly do whenever circumstances change. That might mean changes in access, or developments in a particular industrial installation that increase the scale of the risk. It could even be the other way round:
1238
that an oil refinery finds it does not want a part of its installation to work at all, which might reduce the level of risk. All those things go on. There is, in fact, a process of rolling review.
We need to think about the wording. The existing wording is not adequate, but I have not heard wording that I prefer. Will the Minister look at this issue, and see if he cannot come up with something that more nearly fits the situation? As it is, the emergency planners I am aware of try to keep everything under more or less permanent review. Of course they prioritise the different areas of their work, because they know the local circumstances and can make that judgment. While a three-month period provides a proper stimulation in one direction, there are circumstances where it would be completely inappropriate. Equally, a situation might develop where a review would be necessary more often. It is a question of practice.
The wording ought to be better, although I have not put my mind to what it should be. Since I regard myself as an amateur draftsman where Bills are concerned, and usually compose wording simply for amusement and fun—thoughalways with a serious intent—it would be much better if the Government would grasp the nettle and do the drafting for us.
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: I apologise if my question is unduly simplistic, but one of the disadvantages of the looseness of "from time to time" is that it is not immediately clear whether the phrase in subsection 1(b) of Clause 2 is the same "from time to time" as in subsection 1(a). In other words, whether the person or body is obliged by statute to perform the two functions coincidentally, or whether, although statutory, it is also permissive in allowing them to do so at different times. It would be helpful if the Minister could clarify that when he rises to respond.
7.15 p.m.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I always like the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville's, interventions. They always add a note of levity, but with a serious purport behind them, and it greatly enlivens our proceedings.
I want to start with the point I have made several times so far this afternoon. We have developed our framework in a very open way. It would be fair to say that it has been one of the longest consultative processes we have ever engaged in. I am probably going off at a tangent here, but we have had two major public consultations on this issue, we have received some 400 plus different responses, and we have given the framework a great deal of thought. To take up the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, that the use of the expression "from time to time" was rather casual, we have not approached this issue in a casual way at all.
Lord Dixon-Smith: I certainly would not wish to imply that the Government's approach was in any way casual, and I hope that was not read into what I said. However, we are dealing with the wording of the Bill, and that is what we have to get right. I am prepared to

1239
accept that the Government have been assiduous in trying to get the Bill into a reasonable form, but the fact is that, when it then comes before this Chamber, it is our function to improve it if we can.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I am grateful for that support. I welcome the fact that the noble Lord believes the Government have been assiduous, because I think we have.
These amendments deal with the issue of risk assessment, which is critical in ensuring that the effort, resources and protection go where they are most needed. The Bill imposes a duty on all category 1 responders to assess the risk of emergencies occurring, and to use that to inform the emergency planning. I do not accept the need to require local responders to conduct risk assessment every three months. The noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, half made the point for us: the way in which that particular amendment is drafted would in the end impose something of a bureaucratic straitjacket, and I do not think that is the spirit behind it. The noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, is trying to ensure that there is a necessary regularity to risk assessments. There is a problem there, though: the amendment provides too constrained a timeframe, and, as the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, said, is probably unnecessary. We want to retain the use of the expression "from time to time" within the legislation.
The purpose of the duty to assess risk will be to ensure that each category 1 responder is aware of the kind of level of risks they may face, so they can maintain plans to respond to them. They should assess the risk of an emergency happening as often as necessary to maintain the right level of preparedness. Local responders prepare and respond to a wide range of events, ranging from flooding to flu, from train crashes to terrorist attacks. I am sure the noble Baroness will appreciate that some aspects of risk assessment for emergencies need to be undertaken more frequently than others. It will depend, ultimately, on the range of change in the risk environment—for example, the type and volume of traffic at an airport or on a railway. Assessing the risk of terrorism in a major city may need to be done almost on a daily basis. At the other end of the spectrum, assessing the risk of a building or a bridge collapsing will need to be done a lot less frequently.
Accepting the amendments tabled by the noble Baroness would mean that, in some circumstances, risk assessment would be carried out too frequently, causing waste of valuable resource, and in other circumstances local responders might not review risks sufficiently frequently to inform effective emergency planning and ensure that robust plans are in hand.
The current wording, "from time to time", recognises the time-consuming and resource-intensive nature of risk assessment. It also recognises that the risks faced by local responders are diverse and need to be assessed and reviewed against different timescales. Local responders support that approach. I received a letter yesterday from the Local Government Association in which it makes
1240
plain, in the fourth paragraph, where it sits on the argument. Its views on the matter are very important because it will have a major role to play. It says:
"The Bill requires responders to assess the risk of an emergency occurring from time to time. The LGA is aware of an amendment to be moved at Committee stage which aims to require such assessments to be carried out every three months. We believe that the wording of this clause should not be changed, as ideally good practice demands that plans should be under continual review. "From time to time" allows the flexibility to assess a rsk as and when information suggests a potential change in that risk".
That letter makes the argument for us. For that very important reason, we wish to retain the current wording.
We need to empower local responders to make the right judgment about the frequency of risk assessment. The Government will produce helpful and practical guidance to help responders make informed decisions. We are committed to working with the practitioners that matter—ACPO, the Emergency Planning Society, the Association of British Insurers and the Association of Local Authority Risk Managers—to ensure that we get it right.
The current draft guidance emphasises the importance of reviewing risk assessments often enough to ensure that they are fit for purpose. It recommends a wholesale review of assessments, and their implications for plans, every three years, with a continuous process of review. This guidance, to which local responders must have regard, would ensure that the duty was pitched at the right level.
For those reasons, although I understand the concern expressed, I cannot accept the approach. We are happy to rest with the current wording in the Bill.
Lord Renton: Before the noble Lord sits down, will he bear in mind that "from time to time" could mean every year or two, which is utterly inappropriate?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: As I have carefully explained, risks vary and some emergency events occur less frequently than others. The wording enables flexibility. Fortunately, a bridge collapsing is a very uncommon experience in our society, so it would be mad to assess that risk three-monthly. On the other hand, there are other more frequent occurrences in society; therefore, we need the flexibility to respond to them more rapidly and to ensure that our plans are robust enough to ensure that the public have the highest level of protection available.
The noble Lord, Lord Brooke, asked whether responders need assess the risk of an emergency occurring at the same time as they assess whether they would need to respond to it—that is what the Clause 2(1)(b) duty implies. The answer is no; they are different duties. The risk of a particular event happening may change, which would necessitate a review of the risk assessment under Clause 2(1)(a). Alternatively, the functions of a responder may alter, which might necessitate a review of the kind of risks to

1241
which a responder will need to respond under Clause 2(1)(b). That should answer the noble Lord's point.
Baroness Buscombe: I thank the noble Lord, for his response, and all Members of the Committee who have taken part in the debate. I should say straightaway that the note passed to the Minister from the Local Government Association is quite instructive. It suggests that the strategy, the ability to assess and the local civil protection measures should be under continual review. That makes my point very well, in the sense that continual review is very different from "from time to time". As my noble friend Lord Renton has said, "from time to time" can mean scarcely ever, whereas continual review could be just what the Minister suggests the Bill does not intend: that is to say, create a bureaucratic straitjacket. We are trying through our amendment to encourage local authorities and others to think about the situation regularly, to reflect the often stark changes experienced in the world perhaps over a shorter period than we might have reflected upon even five years ago.
I take on board the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, that we do not want a situation of tick-boxing, with which those involved in local government, the police and others are already hugely burdened. We are talking about crucial measures that can affect human life. We are trying to create a situation whereby we inject management of civil protection in a way that is meaningful but not too onerous.
Perhaps we have not got it quite right, and every three months is too often. But, given the suggestions that all Members of the Committee have made, I urge noble Lords to join me in the coming weeks in thinking about other wording that we might use instead of "from time to time" or "every three months". I reassure the Minister that I heard the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, say that the wording itself, as opposed to the Minister's response to the need to consult, was casual. For now, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 17 not moved.]
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Viscount Simon): Amendment No. 18 is tabled in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas.
Lord Lucas: I do not know whether the Committee wishes to carry on the debate now. I warn noble Lords that I am likely to take 20 minutes-plus on this group.
Lord Triesman: I beg to move that the House do now resume, and that the Committee stage begin again at approximately 8.30 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Constitution
7.28 p.m.
Lord Patten Lord Patten rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they now consider that the United Kingdom needs a written constitution.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Ashton of Upholland, on her new appointment. She has come from a department that is always full of challenges to one that might have been thought by some to be a rather quiet place. But I suspect that the Department for Constitutional Affairs will have many more challenges as constitutional change shoots up the political agenda in the next months and years. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor is very lucky to have the noble Baroness to help him in what will be a very difficult and challenging time for his department. I am also grateful to all those who have chosen to speak in this debate on the Motion, to the end of which might have been added the immortal words, "and, if not, why not?".
I freely admit that I am surprised to be asking this question at all, having had a hitherto inbuilt respect for our uncodified, partly written constitutional arrangements. Rather like the apocryphal Peer in that far-too-often-told tale who had a dream about speaking in this place and woke up to find that it was actually happening, here I am wide awake at least exploring the case for a written constitution. I am no expert nor a noted constitutional authority, as is my noble friend Lord Norton of Louth. Rather, representing the ordinary Back-Bench Peer in the street, I am sadly drawn to think that more formal arrangements may have to come along in the face of what I believe to be a constitutionally frivolous administration.
What is the charge sheet to support that? There is no mention of any proposed changes in manifestos to obtain legitimacy for constitutional change. There is no respect for precedent. There is no evidence of carefully thought-out planning for constitutional changes, and no belief in prior consultation, let alone Green or White Papers to test the water to gain understanding, let alone to seek consent.
My natural delicacy prevents me lingering too long on matters such as botched reshuffles, reducing, for example, changes to the Lord Chancellorship to the level of a Gilbert and Sullivan farce, painful parliamentary defeats in this place, or the setting alight of our judiciary for a while—alas, not keeping them alight and blazing long enough for my taste—let alone the broken constitutional pledges galore, for example, to our hereditary colleagues back in 1999, and very much more.
The outcome of the Government's self-styled "constitutional radicalism" has, I believe, turned out to be seriously half-baked. Let us just look at your Lordships' House, now left alone, as what was glaringly obvious to the most indolent of us—that the Government were on the verge of giving this House real political clout—has actually sunk in to the Government.
In the face of what seems to me to be rightly called "constitutional chaos", I asked on 9 May, in order to see what the view was, whether the Government were considering introducing a written constitution. I asked that because I believe in due process in constitutional change. I believe that constitutional change should not be left to one man—the Prime Minister—on a whim in this new era of sofa government, which I find so alarming.
If the Minister wants an example of that attitude, she needs only to look back to the Prime Minister's Pauline conversion on holiday one day from being dead against a referendum on the European constitution to being thoroughly in its favour, having, so far as I can see, never left the sofa of state to discuss the issue with his Cabinet colleagues for one moment. But the answer that I received from the Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs was not very revealing; he simply said "No".
Another example of just how lightweight and frivolous I believe the Prime Minister has been on constitutional matters is that afternoon back in June 2003 when the right honourable gentleman decided on the spur of the moment to make those sweeping changes to the post of Lord Chancellor and to our top judiciary. As it happens, some of those changes—particularly to the judicial functions of the Lord Chancellorship—I do not dissent from. Indeed, a good few years ago—long before the cause became fashionable in your Lordships' House—I remember taking part in a debate with the noble Lord, Lord Desai, whom I see in his place. We both argued in the same vein, and, as it turned out, ultimately not in vain, for some of the changes to be made.
But I say to the noble Baroness that it is the constitutionally abhorrent way in which the changes have been carried out that makes me genuinely fear for our freedoms and to look to other jurisdictions with more settled arrangements—that is, requirements for two-thirds majorities of their legislatures before changes are made, and so on—with some envy. How those kinds of administration must look with wonder at our sofa-government arrangements in this country.
By coincidence, the law firm Ashurst is holding a debate this very night in London and at this very time to be addressed by, among others, our noble and learned colleague Lord Lloyd of Berwick on these very issues. The leaflet that I was sent inviting me to this debate gives it the excellent title, "A Constitution on the Back of an Envelope". Just so, my Lords. Perhaps in future we shall see the Great Envelope of State carried during State Openings of Parliament by the Lord Privy Seal.
Since the Prime Minister and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, got going, I have become more and more concerned. Since they have got going, I have rather revised my view that written constitutions are suitable only for foreigners and that they are just not British. In some foreign administration, there is an economic meltdown, a revolution, and the Nth republic is born with all the paraphernalia of articles of the constitution, supreme courts and what not. I am reassessing my thoughts now.
I am afraid that I have to tell your Lordships that I no longer have as much faith in our "now we are going to get really tough—oh no, perhaps we are not going to get really tough" judiciary as the guardians of our constitutional arrangements. However, I suspect that if the Government ever do succeed in ejecting the judiciary from their place here in this Chamber, then distance, far from making their judicial hearts fonder, might incite them to set up shop more as a pukka constitutional court with all that boring appellate work being rather a humdrum sideline.
I do not believe that the British constitution belongs to any here-today, gone-tomorrow politician who happens to be the current PM of the day; rather, I think that it belongs to the British people. Therefore, I conclude by asking the Minister what protection there is for the individual or the nation in constitutional change matters. I want to ask the Minister that but I do not expect to receive an answer. Secondly, do the Government have any plans to codify, at least, the parts of our constitutional arrangements that are written down? Again, I doubt that I shall receive a clear answer tonight.
In the mean time, I want to end with a burst of bipartisan constructiveness, which may surprise the Minister. We have an admirable and hard-working Constitution Committee in your Lordships' House, now under the chairmanship of my noble friend Lord Norton of Louth. For as long as this pell-mell constitutional change goes on, before we go back, or advance, to more settled arrangements, I should like to put it to this House that I think that the Constitution Committee should, once a year, report on the constitutional changes that have taken place in the previous year as a result of the activities of the government of the day and that, as a result of that report, we should have a full debate in your Lordships' House on what has happened to the constitution during the previous year. I believe that the present style—the sofa-iste approach to constitutional change in this country—cannot be allowed to continue.
7.37 p.m.
Lord Morgan: My Lords, in the allocated three minutes, I shall endeavour to make three points. I shall do so briefly because I believe that other noble Lords, particularly on the Liberal Democrat Benches, will raise them. First, the Government's admirable constitutional reforms nevertheless call for a further move towards written safeguards. I shall mention briefly devolution.
The Constitution Committee, referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Patten, chaired by my noble friend Lord Norton and on which I have the honour to sit, suggested how devolution is quite unsatisfactory at present. It does not deal adequately with intergovernmental relations; it does not deal with the possibility of conflict resolution; and it is perfectly possible that we will not have congruent governments of the same party in Westminster, Cardiff and Edinburgh. We therefore need more formal mechanisms. In particular, we made the point in our

1245
report that the concordats should be much more open and much more publicly available. At the moment, it all depends on informality, and that is not enough.
Secondly, and more importantly, the Royal prerogative is a fiction and a dangerous fiction. It includes a wide range of ministerial appointments and vast areas of patronage. It makes it difficult for the Royal Family. The present Queen has behaved impeccably but it is possible that a future head of state, for example, might have different views on fox hunting—I throw that out as a possibility—and that that might lead to problems. At present, the whole situation with regard to the Royal prerogative is an enormous cop-out for Ministers of any party. It has absolutely aided the growth of uncontrolled, undemocratic and unaccountable patronage—the so-called "demi-monde" of which the noble Lord, Lord Smith of Clifton, has written. I believe that it also has the effect of emphasising the status of our citizens as subjects and not as citizens.
Finally, I refer to the Prime Minister. Any Prime Minister is a beneficiary of Royal prerogative. We have seen the dangers of it in the Butler report. That report showed how changes in our constitutional mechanisms have led to serious effects in our foreign policy, and it absolutely makes the case for a far more written constitution.
First, the Prime Minister's power to declare war under the Royal prerogative should absolutely come to an end. As it happened, there was a parliamentary vote in March, before the Iraq war. But simply leaving it to one individual, particularly in the way in which the Butler inquiry showed that that decision was reached and with all the misrepresentation attached to it, means that we should go towards the American system of having parliamentary approval and should draw a great distinction between it and the fiction of the prerogative.
Finally—I know my time is up—the question of legality should be set out. If a war is to be undertaken, it should be clearly set out that it is legal and that constitutionally and internationally it is approved in law. Far too much is taken on trust. Our presently informal, secret, enclosed constitution is dangerous to our liberties and I greatly welcome the Motion that has enabled me, however briefly, to say that.
7.41 p.m.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, from the platform of Rhyl town hall in my first and, as usual, unsuccessful parliamentary election in 1964, I called for three reforms: a Welsh parliament, proportional representation and the abolition of the House of Lords in its mainly hereditary state. The Liberal theme that linked, and still links, these issues was the absolute necessity for a new constitutional settlement that reconnects power to the people.
At the time, and for many years thereafter, these ideas were dismissed by Labour and Conservative politicians and supporters alike—the Conservatives because they were largely in power and were
1246
complacent with the processes that put them there. In Wales, we have never forgotten that it was Neil Kinnock who led the opposition to devolution in the 1978 referendum campaign before he became leader of his party. But under the wise leadership of John Smith, the Labour Party developed policies of devolution, parliamentary reform and concern for human rights that were his legacy to his party and resulted in substantial advances.
The legislative changes that the new Labour Government have, without any enthusiasm, put in place are curiously likely to be the Prime Minister's only lasting achievement in government, his place in history being subverted by the follies and failures of the Iraq war. I join with the noble Lord, Lord Morgan, in drawing attention to the fact that by convention only he exercises the royal prerogatives in foreign affairs and in decisions of peace and war. Although, as a concession, he took his flawed prospectus for war to the House of Commons to receive parliamentary support—from a tame majority obtained by what we have always regarded as an unsatisfactory system of first past the post voting—he did not have to that.
The Acts of Parliament that created Scottish and Welsh elected bodies and brought into our legal system the European Convention on Human Rights are only a piecemeal approach towards a written constitution. They are not entrenched in any way. Only last weekend, the Welsh Labour Party said that it wanted more powers for the Welsh Assembly, as the Richard commission had suggested, but it wanted to get back to first past the post voting so that it could have 95 per cent of the seats in Wales, as it thinks, and dominate the Welsh government for all time. No doubt, a Labour government with an overwhelming majority elected on first past the post at Westminster could grant them that with ease.
In throwing out the hereditary Peers, this Government shirk the introduction of democratic accountability in this House. Other noble Lords will speak of constitutional reform by diktat, notably the abolition of the Lord Chancellor without discussion and without consensus. I believe that a written constitution would define and protect the constitutional rights and freedoms of the people of this country. It would define the relationship between the head of state, the Government, both Houses of Parliament, the devolved parliaments and assemblies, and the judiciary and it would provide in itself a mechanism for change and adaptation that would ensure popular assent and consensus. The doctrine of parliamentary supremacy, which was a useful tool to fight the power of the monarch in past centuries, has been subverted and this Government do not hesitate to challenge the rule of law, nor to make overt attacks on judges and the judicial system.
7.44 p.m.
The Earl of Erroll: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Patten, for this opportunity to discuss this subject. I never thought that we needed a written constitution. Our constitution was in several places, but while people had respect for morals and standards that did not matter. The problem is now that, without

1247
an impregnable defender for a written constitution, it is not worth the paper it is written on. The new Supreme Court will still be subject to the Commons, who can introduce legislation that can change the method of appointment of judges, the parameters in which they operate or whatever. In fact, at the moment, the Supreme Court is going to be subject to a junior Home Office Minister. He who pays the piper calls the tune.
We now have a system in which the checks and balances have mostly been dismantled or outflanked. The Prime Minister used to be primarily the head of the executive. He was the chairman of the Cabinet. But now the Prime Minister controls the monarch's powers and has arrogated most of those powers to himself. This person now also controls the more powerful Chamber of the legislature, the other place, which should be controlling him. He can also push anything through this, our upper Chamber, if he wants to.
The problem is that we have nowhere to go for protection against an executive that gets out of control. We must re-establish that protection. Therefore, I am beginning to think that we should start to talk about separating the powers of the executive from those of the legislature and re-establishing a three-band system, rather as they have in America, of which I never used to approve. Until we have totally protected, separate and proper checks, we cannot have an effective written constitution. At that point, we can have one, and it might be useful in this modern day and age.
7.46 p.m.
Lord Norton of Louth: My Lords, I am not as easily swayed by such short-term considerations as some noble Lords appear to be. My noble friend raises an important question. It may save the time of the House if I reveal what the Minister will say in answer to it. I know because the Minister in the other place, Christopher Leslie, gave it last week in a Written Answer. He said:
"We have no plans to formulate an overarching codified constitution".—[Official Report, Commons, 7/9/04; col. 1059W]
That is an appropriate response. I say so for two reasons. The first derives from an apparent paradox. One reason why there is pressure to introduce a written constitution is, as my noble friend explained, because of the changes to our constitutional arrangements brought about by the Government. The problem for the Government is that they have not been able to locate their constitutional changes in any intellectually coherent approach to constitutional change.
The Government have not been able to say what a constitution is and have no view about what a constitution is for. Do they see the constitution as a constraining document, designed to entrench certain fundamental pre-political values, or do they see it as a means of enabling the will of the people to be paramount? Those positions—characterised as negative and positive constitutionalism respectively—are not necessarily mutually exclusive, but deciding the relationship between them is fundamental to crafting an
1248
entrenched, codified constitution. The problem for the Government is thus that they are unable to say what constitution they want to see in place in the United Kingdom. Until they are able to do so, there is no basis on which they can even contemplate introducing a written constitution.
I come to my second point. One can see why some advocate a written constitution. We have heard the arguments already. It is argued that it will provide greater clarity and protection for citizens. Government and Parliament will not be able to use the constitution as a political plaything. However, a written constitution will not necessarily deliver the benefits claimed for it, and certainly not the benefits that have been claimed for it so far. It does not necessarily inject greater clarity—far from it. The provisions are often drawn so broadly that one only knows what they mean when there are challenged in the courts.
Written constitutions may be designed as constraining documents but be interpreted in such a way as to strengthen executive power. They can be, and variously have been, interpreted in such a way as to shift power from one political institution to another. That has happened in the United States. Changes have occurred without any reference to the people. In the United Kingdom, if people do not like what the Government have done to our constitutional arrangements, they can turn the Government out at the next election. If people do not like what a Supreme Court has decided, there is very little they can do. Some may say that is no bad thing, but that brings us back to different interpretations of what a constitution is for.
Of course there are problems—various noble Lords have already mentioned them—but a written constitution is not an answer to those problems. It has not been an answer elsewhere, and I see no reason why it would be an answer in this country. A written constitution is undesirable. It is also, under our present constitutional arrangements, unachievable. We do not have the means for bringing about a written constitution, certainly not an entrenched constitution because it would derive its authority from Parliament and the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty prevents entrenchment.
For reasons of time, I conclude by saying that the Government have arrived at the right answer, but for the wrong reason. When they have reflected more fully, and can contribute authoritatively to the debate, they will be able to justify their answer with much greater force.
7.50 p.m.
Lord Desai: My Lords, demands for a written constitution and complaints about prime ministerial powers are always louder when the Labour Party is in government than when it is not. However, this is a serious issue. I have always believed in a written constitution, because in a sense there are written drafts of the Westminster constitution in existence in many of the former colonies. We actually know how the British constitution can be written down. It is nothing very mysterious and we have several experiments in Canada, India and Australia that throw light on how

1249
a Westminster constitution could work. Looking at America is the wrong idea—we should look at the Commonwealth countries.
We have been going through a tremendous constitutional revolution in the past seven years. Of course, it is not completely entrenched, it is not written down and it is still evolving, but the fact that devolution has happened and the fact that human rights are embodied in law, has fundamentally changed the British constitution. That is what has led to the reform of the judiciary.
It is a pity that the House has treated the Government's Constitutional Reform Bill with less than the credit it deserved, but I hope that eventually we will have a supreme court, because that will be the beginning of the separation of powers that the noble Earl, Lord Erroll, wanted. At least there will be a separation of powers between the judiciary and the two other branches of government—the Executive and the legislature.
The problem of executive power is of course—as Tom Paine pointed out 200 years ago—that the Royal prerogative now resides in the Prime Minister. We now have an effectively unicameral legislature. A majority in the House of Commons gives any Prime Minister enormous powers. It is to the credit of this Prime Minister—I do not often give him credit—that he came to Parliament on the question of the Iraq war, which no previous Prime Minister has done or had to do. That is a new precedent.
We should think of the constitution in terms of the acquis communautaire—we should have an acquis brittanique. As it accumulates, we will know what the unwritten constitution would look like if it was written down or at least gathered together in one place. As bits become outdated we should throw them out and staple in new bits. Perhaps that would be the only way that we would be able to have a written constitution. Given the limitation of time that I face, I cannot tell the House what I would do further to improve the constitution, but I thank the noble Lord, Lord Patten, for initiating the debate.
7.53 p.m.
Lord Hooson: My Lords, I am pleased to have the opportunity to make a brief contribution to this ongoing debate, which has been a characteristic of political life in this country throughout the time that I have been involved with it. It has been accentuated by our accession to the European Union, the development of various levels of devolution within our country and the evolution of an idea of a supreme court, designed among other things to replace the House of Lords Appellate Committee as the ultimate appellate court.
We have had reason, because of the Iraq war, to consider the ultimate power of the Executive—the use of the Royal prerogative. Some of your Lordships will remember that when the Attorney-General gave the Government's view of the war, I pressed him to give an undertaking on behalf of the Government that they
1250
would not simply rely on the Royal prerogative to declare war on Iraq, but that they would seek a resolution of the House of Commons, which is very important. This situation is simply not good enough for modern times. I entirely agree on that point.
We risk the lives of many of our citizens by means of the use of a Royal prerogative, which simply is not justifiable in modern times. The Government acknowledged that by agreeing to have a resolution of the only elected House governing the whole country. I have not the slightest doubt that our country needs, pretty urgently, a written constitution. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Patten, on his timely raising of the issue, which should be the prelude to a much wider debate on all the implications of a written constitution.
7.55 p.m.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I am very grateful to my noble friend Lord Patten for the chance to speak for three minutes. Actually I have got a chance to speak for rather more because we are running well ahead of time, but I shall not abuse that. What we really need is a proper debate. I count on the authorities to give us the chance, and the suggestion of my noble friend Lord Patten of an annual debate as a result of the Committee's deliberations seems to me a most excellent idea.
My feeling that I want more of the constitution written down comes from two aspects of what has been going on. First, we have had a lot of changes, which, as my noble friend Lord Norton said, are not joined up, are not part of a consistent programme—I cannot see where they are going. It is clear that other changes are needed to follow on and we again have no idea what they are. The second aspect involves a certain feeling that some of the changes which are being sneaked up on us are ones that we should not agree to, and no democratic country should agree to, if we had a proper regard for our rights. I think we are seeing a process, and we will certainly see a process if we get a third Labour government, of the erosion of the status and powers of this House. We are about to get a Bill rammed down our throats on as unimportant a subject as fox hunting. Now, if they can do it on fox hunting they will start to be able to do it on all sorts of things, and the use of that power will become more prevalent.
We had a position, when most of the hereditary Peers were removed, that we would have a considered reform of this House. That has been abandoned. We had a position where it was accepted that the proportions of the parties in this House should reflect, broadly, votes cast at elections. We are now moving towards a position where it seems to me the principle is that the party in government should have day-to-day control over this House and that votes overturning the government's wishes should be the exception. That at least is the rhetoric of Mr Hain in another place and is the direction in which it seems to me decisions are moving.
We have a Bill before us at the moment—the Civil Contingencies Bill—which will place the whole power of Parliament, the absolute power in the constitution,

1251
in the hands of a single Minister in the event of an emergency, with no obvious way in which that power could ultimately be taken back, because the power could be used to amend or change the constitution of this country in any way that that Minister so chose. We are in a position in which there appear to be considerable dangers. Under those circumstances one wants to be able to put a few pegs in and say, "No, let us not go down that road".
I think that I share the feeling of my noble friend Lord Norton—I do not want to go entirely for a written constitution or for something that is entirely the subject of judges' decisions. But as he has pointed out on other occasions, we are already heading in that direction. We are subject, as a result of being a member of the European Community, to the courts in that aspect. We are subject, as a result of the Human Rights Act, to the courts in that aspect. They are, if not in absolute, at least in effective control of part of our constitution. To go a little further and to entrench some of our basic rights, as things over which the judges have an influence, seems to me something which we should discuss.
7.59 p.m.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: My Lords, I remind the House that I am also a member of the Constitution Committee.
I was attracted to this Unstarred Question by the opportunities afforded to me to pursue the cause of further Scottish autonomy and, in so doing, to discourage anything which would prevent or hinder the free flow of the ever-developing will of the people of Scotland.
I believe that the people of Scotland would serve themselves best within a dominion. I do not wish to end the social union of the United Kingdom, and wish Queen Elizabeth to be head of state. Rather more calmly, I draw some significance from the wording of the noble Lord's Question—the fact that he has chosen to refer to a written constitution in the lower case. I do not know whether I am reading more into this than is really there, but I could develop the argument that the United Kingdom already has a—lower case—written constitution. It is to be found in the myriad documents, laws, traditions, agreements and conventions, both written and unwritten.
A constitution is, of course, no more than the way things are done in a state at the present time. I suspect that my noble friends would prefer to have a tangible document of statutory proportion. I am sure that my noble friend Lord Goodhart will restore Liberal Democrat order to this short debate.
I conclude by seeking to establish that an "upper case" Written Constitution would be impossible to set down in any form of brief document, and that anyone attempting to draw up such a document would find too many valid anomalies. They would have to approach the task with a sense of logic. Without proposing massive changes, I doubt that our United Kingdom constitution could be committed to paper in a logical form. Consider, for example, the many different forms of devolution.
1252
The Question of the noble Lord, Lord Patten, is a good one. The answer is that we need a fluid constitution rather than a fixed written one, with all its false implications of permanence.
8.1 p.m.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Patten, for introducing this very important topic. It is one on which, in this country, we are all out of step but our Johnny. When Lord Wilberforce spoke in the farewell debate for Lord Taylor of Gosforth, he pointed out that the only two countries dealing with this issue which did not have a written constitution were Britain and Israel. It is a very limited list of exceptions. Why this came to be so and how long the thinking behind it has been there are instructive questions.
This involves a great many areas of state. Like my noble friend Lord Mar and Kellie, I am interested in its effect on a state of many parts. This is something that the English—and I say the English, not the British—have had great difficulty, over the centuries, in assimilating.
It has been held that a state was made up of many joined parts with different forms of government, different laws and different institutions. Sir Thomas Craig of the Scottish Court of Session, writing on the Union of the Crowns in 1604, drew up a list in which he found that only the English had a strict unitary sovereign state of English dreams. The English thought it was the only way in which anything was ever done. The result was that the English were quite unable to accommodate the difference between the different parts of the many-partied British state.
Sir Edwin Sandys, speaking in another place in 1604, said:
"A kingdome is indivisible, and may not contain within itself several kingdomes".
It is a trouble the English still have. They dream of treating Scotland like Wales and have done so since 1604, to the offence of the Welsh and the bewilderment of the Scottish.
The English cannot see the world as it is; they constantly stumble over the errors they make and constantly think, like King John in 1208, that they can banish someone because they are cross with them. It is not a constructive way to carry on.
8.4 p.m.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, I start by welcoming the noble Baroness, Lady Ashton, on her first appearance on the Front Bench in her new ministerial capacity.
Our policy, as Liberal Democrats, has for a long time been to have a written constitution. I therefore very much welcome the noble Lord, Lord Patten, as a slightly belated convert to this belief. Before we ask whether we need a written constitution, perhaps we should ask ourselves whether we already have one. To a large extent, as my noble friend Lord Mar and Kellie suggested, the answer is yes—from Magna Carta through the Bill of Rights, the Act of Settlement, the

1253
Act of Union, the Reform Bill of 1832 and subsequent Bills on the franchise, the Parliament Acts of 1911 and 1949 and the European Communities Act 1972.
We have had a particular rush since 1997—we have had the Scotland Act, the Government of Wales Act, the Human Rights Act and the House of Lords Act. The Constitutional Reform Bill, which we largely support, is going through your Lordships' House. There is the possibility in the not-too-distant future of a Civil Service Bill and, we hope, further significant reform of your Lordships' House.
To describe the United Kingdom constitution, therefore, as unwritten, is not altogether accurate. There are, of course, important gaps, especially in relation to the Crown prerogative. Do we need to fill those gaps and bring together the constitutional statutes we now have into a formal written constitution? That is certainly possible to do. As the noble Lord, Lord Desai, pointed out, it has already been done in relation to the Commonwealth countries to which we bequeathed, as a gift on their independence, constitutions which had been drafted by distinguished British academics.
The question whether we want a formal written constitution really turns on whether we want to entrench some provisions of that constitution. Should we require some special protection such as an enhanced majority for making amendments to the constitution, at least for its core provisions? I believe that we do.
At present, in theory, the Scotland Act could be repealed and the Scottish Parliament abolished by a simple majority of Parliament and, indeed, using the Parliament Act, by a simple majority of the House of Commons alone.
In most countries, the key provisions are indeed entrenched. The main constitutional provisions—the franchise, the provisions of the Human Rights Act and the central elements of devolution among them—should be not only written but also entrenched in order to prevent their casual alteration by a temporary majority in the House of Commons based on a minority of votes at a general election.
8.8 p.m.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I join the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, and my noble friend Lord Patten in offering my congratulations to the noble Baroness, Lady Ashton, on taking up her new responsibilities. It is some time since I left the Department for Education and Skills and I have been through various other spokesmanships since then. The noble Baroness has gone straight from education to constitutional affairs and I can assure her that she might find it quite a big jump, but I look forward to what she has to say later this evening.
I also thank my noble friend Lord Patten for introducing this subject, which everyone would agree is very large. We have had a distinguished list of speakers, including three Members of the Constitution Committee, and it is virtually impossible to do justice to a question of this kind in a one-hour debate during
1254
the dinner hour in this House. For that reason, I offer my support, echoed by others, to my noble friend for his suggestion that the Constitution Committee should report on any changes that have been made to the constitution at least yearly and that, through the usual channels, that report should result in a full debate on such matters in this House. The Government should welcome that suggestion and this House should be able to carry it out very well indeed.
As my noble friend made clear, we have seen some fairly major changes to the constitution under this Government. Such changes include the change in the status of the Lord Chancellor, which we are in the process of debating, and changes to the House of Lords judiciary, born of the desire to have a Supreme Court and so on. As my noble friend made clear, we have had very little consultation on that. There has been no planning whatever and one could say, as has been said before, that much of it has resulted from botched attempts at reshuffles. As we now know, one such reshuffle led to the Constitutional Reform Bill and the desire to remove the Lord Chancellor. That Bill now seems to be slipping rather fast simply due to the Government's urgent desire to abolish hunting, but we can debate that on another occasion.
On this occasion, I simply echo the view of my noble friend Lord Norton of Louth that we on these Benches do not see the case for a written constitution. It is both undesirable and unnecessary. In the three minutes that I have available to me, it is not for me to develop that argument any further. I shall merely repeat a number of questions that have been put before the Minister, because it is important that she should answer them. First, will she give a guarantee that the Constitution Committee will be allowed to have a full debate on a report, should it produce that report annually, as suggested by my noble friend Lord Patten? Secondly, will she turn her mind to the important question raised by her noble friend Lord Morgan and others of the Royal prerogative and comment on his views that Parliament should have to consent to going to war and that it should not be a matter which the Prime Minister can bring forward under the Royal prerogative?
8.12 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Constitutional Affairs (Baroness Ashton of Upholland): My Lords, I thank the noble Lords, Lord Patten, Lord Henley and Lord Goodhart, for their comments about my arrival in your Lordships' House in my new role. As the noble Lord, Lord Henley, said, I have gone straight from education to constitutional affairs. It is a move that I very much welcome and I look forward to working with noble Lords on my new brief.
Inevitably, on my first appearance before your Lordships five days into a new brief, I have listened with great interest to noble Lords who have huge experience and I am delighted that we have had the opportunity for this debate. I am in full agreement with noble Lords who have also indicated that, in the

1255
time allotted to us, we have not done justice to the subject and I hope that an occasion will arise when we can debate these matters at greater length.
The noble Lord, Lord Henley, asked about the role of the Constitution Committee—an issue in which the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth, is particularly interested. I fear that that is a question not for me but for the will of the House. I am sure that there are ways in which the issue can be taken forward through the usual channels, not least through the chair of the committee, and opinions will come forward. I look forward with interest to hearing them.
Lord Patten: My Lords, notwithstanding what the Minister has just said about the usual channels addressing my suggestion of an annual report from the Constitution Committee followed by a debate—which seems to have met with some approval around the Chamber—will she perhaps take back to the Lord Chancellor the fact that, to the best of my knowledge, since his department, which is now such an ornament, was set up, it has never sponsored or brought before your Lordships an opportunity for a debate on constitutional matters? He should take the initiative in doing that and I am rather surprised that he has not done so.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, as the noble Lord will know, the procedure of your Lordships' House can sometimes seem unusual. The matter is very much in the hands of those who wish to bring forward debates. I will ensure that my noble and learned friend understands the points which this debate have raised. It partly depends on the work of the usual channels and on the Constitution Committee itself. It would be completely wrong for me to take a view without the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth, being able to take the matter back to the committee. That would be the right way to do it.
I say to the noble Lord, Lord Patten, that I read his speech of 16 February 2000 on judicial appointments. It is very interesting that the noble Lord referred to that in his comments. That is of particular interest to me. I was also very interested in his use of the word "sofa". It is not something that I recognise in how our Prime Minister operates—in the work that he undertakes or the style in which he does it. As regards this particular reshuffle there is nothing botched about me.
It is very important that I take this opportunity to listen and learn. I am delighted that the noble Earl, Lord Russell, was able to be here this evening. I am particularly delighted that I have not lost the ability to have the rapport with the noble Earl which I had with him on education matters. I have a great deal to learn from the noble Earl and it is a great pleasure to see him here this evening.
The constitution has been described as being unwritten, but that is inaccurate. I quote Vernon Bogdanor, who said it was a misleading statement that implies that our constitution provisions are handed down from generation to generation by word of mouth. As my noble friend Lord Morgan said—and this also refers to the noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, who spoke
1256
about the "lower case constitution"—large parts of it are written. The distribution of powers in Westminster and the devolved administrations were matters raised by a number of noble Lords. That is set out in the legislation. The human rights provisions applicable to citizens of the United Kingdom are also written.
I realise that that is not the heart of the argument. Noble Lords were very clear about that and the question of codification, which is upper case, according to the noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie. As the noble Lord, Lord Patten, said, that is the critical part of what we would look at. Codification is scattered across a range of statutes, case law and conventions. I was interested in the comments of my noble friend Lord Desai about gathering them together. It would be interesting to see what it would be like. That is quite different from saying that we should move towards a codified constitution.
If we were to collect these provisions as my noble friend indicated, the constitution would still be unenacted. Parliamentary, sovereignty, rather than a written constitution, has been the foundation of our legal and political system.
Noble Lords will recognise that for me this is the first foray into this debate. I was struck by two particular arguments or issues which I would like to share with noble Lords. The first is that I believe that it would create a fundamental change in the way in which the people of this country are governed. I recognise that parliamentary sovereignty is a critical issue. The noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth, said that it is the core of our constitution and political system. It has always had the authority to change part of the constitution. In practical terms some changes are very unlikely. For example, now that we have separate assemblies for Scotland for Wales I believe it is very difficult to see how Westminster could take back those powers nor, indeed, in my view, should it.
The issues which have been raised as regards the Richard commission and the work taking place in developing that are also a critical part of the evolutionary nature of our constitution about which I shall say more in a moment. Therefore, my contention would be that to introduce a written constitution would in a sense introduce legal limits on the authority of Parliament.
Noble Lords have raised concerns about the authority of Parliament. Politically, whichever government are in power it is the nature of opposition to talk about how the government use the authority of Parliament. But as my noble friend Lord Morgan and others said, there are real issues of concern. On the specific point that my noble friend raised, the Government's response to the Public Administration Committee said:
"The government are accountable to Parliament for any armed conflict it engages in, as for anything else, and the government have given repeated assurances that Parliament would be given an opportunity to debate and scrutinise decisions about the deployment of British forces in armed conflict overseas. Furthermore, the Government is also mindful of the need to keep Parliament closely informed of developments during the course of the conflict through statements and … debates as necessary".

1257
I believe that that sets out very clearly the Government's position. I shall take on board and ponder what more has been said about the Royal prerogative. That is a new issue for me, as noble Lords will recognise. In conclusion on the particular issue of Iraq, there was a vote in Parliament, as has been recognised.
Apart from the monumental change that a written constitution would involve, it is also true to say that we would have the example of a court that was unequivocally superior to Parliament, because this court would be able to tell the legislature that it was acting unconstitutionally. I would draw the attention of the noble Earl, Lord Russell, to the example of the United States of America and the Supreme Court. We know that the Supreme Court plays a very important role: issues around racial segregation in schools, abortion, euthanasia and voting rights. Whether one approves or disapproves of the role and decisions of the US Supreme Court, it has none the less played a particular role in terms of the constitution.
We believe that decisions should ultimately rest with politicians, elected by and accountable to the public. I have always understood that the core principle of democracy is that you can throw a government out. That is a principle that we should hold dear, rather than look beyond to say that we would put power in the hands of essentially unaccountable and unelected judges—good, honest people though they may be—in that way. That is not this Government's position.
I think—and noble Lords have expressed this concern, too—there are real issues around the politicisation process that go alongside that. Noble Lords know only too well the issues around the Supreme Court in America. I will not bore your Lordships with them. But whatever commission is appointed to appoint people, there are always issues. Doing the Higher Education Bill, I had a number of interesting debates about how one appoints individuals, never mind in this way. There are real issues that one would have to consider very carefully.
I found the point of the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, about the percentage interesting. But, again, I think about America and some of the issues about changing the constitution there. One thinks about voting, particularly at the moment. There have been a number of examples where a decision over whether one should have the same basis of voting across each state in the United States required—I think—a two-thirds majority in each state's vote. That is very difficult to achieve. One would have to think very carefully about how one moves away from a simple majority. But the noble Lord makes an important point. Again, I am taking all these points away to consider more carefully.
One of the really important aspects of our constitution is its flexibility. I mentioned evolution, and it is quite important that we have a constitution that can evolve over time, that can be refined to respond to political or popular pressure, and can respond to change and be remodelled. We have already talked a little about devolution. I have said
1258
that that is an ongoing process, particularly in the light of the work of the noble Lord, Lord Richard. But there are many other issues, I am sure, that noble Lords will know far better than I. One would want to consider flexibility.
It is worth saying that if you write it down, it does not mean it is the end of everything. There have been 11,000 proposed amendments, as I understand it, to the US constitution, 27 of which have been made. But the way in which our constitution operates gives us that flexibility, that sense of evolution. I believe it confers ownership on the people, through the elected representatives—the critical factor being, as I have already indicated, that they can be thrown out.
I think an unwritten constitution gives us that flexibility. Those would be—for me, at this stage in my ministerial career in the Department for Constitutional—Affairs the two critical points upon which I felt very strongly. I would probably go on to argue that it is not a priority. Governments always have to think in terms of priorities.
Earl Russell: My Lords, if the Minister studies the judgments of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Reed, on liabilities of the disabled, I think she will find an example of flexibility outstanding even by the examples of parliamentary practice.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I will indeed look at those and, if I might, talk to the noble Earl about them. I thank him for the intervention. These are important issues where as much information as I can receive is critical.
I do not recognise, inevitably, that what we have done since 1997 has been either frivolous or on the spur of the moment, or any of the other words that have been used. This Government are committed to promoting reform where it is needed. The way we are working is very important in terms of what we offer to the people of this country, and the evolution of our constitution—hence my delight in being part of the Department for Constitutional Affairs.
My final point is about an important issue for those who, perhaps, are less involved in constitutional law or in the matters at the heart of our debates—that is, the interpretation of our constitution. The issue is about the rights, relationships and practices expressed in the constitution and how they are upheld and respected—about how we apply the constitution, if I can put it that way, in daily life. It is critical that we do not give ourselves up to the illusion that we can write down the constitution and that that is the end of the story. As I have explained, it would be far from it.
All those countries with a written constitution have a raft of supporting legislation to back up and interpret that constitution. That is the critical function of the department to which I belong. It is a critical part of the work that we do, ensuring that the interpretation is there and that our constitution is working for the people of this country. Perhaps the classic example of that process is with the Human Rights Act. It is critical that we ensure that the Act

1259
leads to greater respect for human rights in public services, that citizens can exercise their information rights effectively, and that they are connected to the democratic processes, including voting, which is such an important part of our democracy.
In conclusion, I again thank the noble Lord, Lord Patten, for raising the debate. I look forward to many other opportunities to discuss and debate these issues, I hope at greater length. I look forward to that debate not only in your Lordships' Chamber but also outside. I hope that I have successfully answered the question laid before me.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn until 8.30 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 8.27 to 8.30 p.m.]

Civil Contingencies Bill
House again in Committee on Clause 2.
Lord Lucas moved Amendment No. 18:
Page 2, line 45, leave out "necessary or desirable" and insert "not undesirable"
The noble Lord said: In moving the amendment, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 19. The amendments are concerned with the provision of information to the public and the way that is embedded in the Bill. The first is an attempt, albeit it in rather inelegant English, to turn the emphasis away from keeping things secret to letting things out. Clause 2(1)(f) reads:
"in so far as publication is necessary or desirable",
which with Amendment No. 18 would become,
"in so far as publication is not undesirable"—
in other words, publication would happen unless there were a good reason for it not to.
That seems an enormously important part of the functions of these organisations. They should be telling people what they are doing and what is going on, unless telling us would in some way put us at risk. Amendment No. 19 enlarges on what is at the top of page 3, where there is a duty to,
"maintain arrangements to warn the public, and to provide information and advice to the public, if an emergency is likely to occur or has occurred".
In other words, the person or body will suddenly start talking to us when there is a problem, although they have said nothing to us before.
The amendment seeks to insert in advance of that that they should inform us,
"about the arrangements that may be made should an emergency occur"—
in other words, what is likely to happen if there is an emergency—and that they should tell us where we should go to find out information on what to do if an emergency happens, so that we know.
Suppose that someone in the Gallery—not that there is anyone there at present—were now to throw a purple condom into the middle of the Chamber, we
1260
would not know what to do any more than the Commons knew what to do three months ago. Why not? Because no one has told us. I presume that someone has plans and such occurrences have been thought about, but such things happen in an instant. We are the ones who have to react, and no one has told us what to do. Who knows what to do? We do not know whom to turn to. From whom do we seek information? Are the Clerks prepared? Is the Minister briefed? Is he the one who is going to stand up and say, "It is a purple condom; therefore you all stay here" or disperse us to Black Rod's Garden?
Even if we do not know what to do, we should know who does know what to do, so that we can obtain that information. Suppose we were in session and Al'Qaeda was kind enough to explode a dirty bomb somewhere in the air above London and it suddenly became unsafe to go out in the streets. Who knows where is the door that leads to the tunnels that will take us out through Whitehall up into Holborn and the safety of Hampstead? Does the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, know? I did not know when I was a Minister.
If that is what we are going to have to do, we need to know who knows. We need to know where to turn and what are the procedures to follow. That basic preparation is what gives the public confidence that should an emergency occur it will be properly dealt with. There is the beginning of that in the document that we have all received which says that we should listen to the radio. Fine, that is the beginning. but we may find ourselves in the middle of a high street and rather a long way from a radio. We would want to know what were the proper sources of information rather than milling around pointlessly. If the news comes out that there is smallpox in London, who is going to wait for someone to think what to say on the radio? No, we shall head out for the country as fast as we can. We do not want to be the ones who are infected. However, if we know the plans that are in place, should an infection like that occur, and if we know that matters will be properly organised and planned, we may have the confidence to stay where we are and not spread the infection round the country.
Information and the knowledge of what to do and what other people are doing is what gives people the confidence to behave properly, and it is absolutely crucial to people behaving properly in an emergency which involves a good deal of uncertainty or personal danger. I want to see the Government embrace what is, after all, the spirit behind the Freedom of Information Act, and should be there because it makes the response to emergencies so much better; that is, telling us all what is going on—and they could start with this House. I beg to move.
Lord Garden: While I have some sympathy with the thoughts of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, on information, we are talking about an enormous range of different emergencies with very complex responses. In some cases the responses can be completely different depending on the nature of the emergency. Certainly the development of the Government's website in terms of the plans in general is always worth doing, but only a very limited

1261
number of the population will actually spend much time looking at these. It seems to me more important to have the contingency plan that will allow those who are going to deliver the information about a particular emergency to give simple instructions to the population at the time of the emergency.
We could waste enormous amounts of resources on publishing vast amounts of detail about possible contingencies that no one would read. I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, has received his copy of the document. The post has not reached NW3 for some years now and we have not seen ours. However, I have looked at someone else's copy. We all know what happens to those kind of documents. Some may read them but they will be tucked away and lost by the time the emergency happens. What will be key is to have a set of responses to emergencies that will inform the public at the time when they need the information.
Baroness Hamwee: I agree enormously with that comment. I remember that a couple of years ago there was a problem with the Tube and the power was lost. I believe that happened a couple of years ago but one loses track. I believe that lessons have been learnt from that. Certain mayors whom the media wish to interview on air immediately such an incident occurs have a script to which they stick rather than giving a personal reaction. As I say, I believe that lessons have been learnt from that.
I do not know whether the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, read the report of the Committee stage of the Bill in the Commons which took place before the incident to which he referred. There was a good deal of fairly complacent chat about how the House of Commons would know what to do were such an incident to occur.
I wish to use this amendment to make a point and to ask a question about the booklet that has been distributed. How effective do the Government think the booklet has been and what evaluation are they undertaking in order to learn lessons for any future similar exercise? I shall not indulge in a lot of criticism. My noble friend Lord Garden rightly reminded me before today's proceedings began that, frankly, one cannot win on this kind of thing. People will always try to pick it apart.
However, I refer to the languages in which the booklet is available and particularly to the offer regarding those languages. The back cover of the booklet states that it is available in a number of different languages. However, that is not stated in those languages. I have taken part in an exercise in another organisation publishing reports that we wanted to be widely read. It was obvious to us after a little thought that you need to say, in Gujarati, for instance, "This document is available in Gujarati, and this is what you do to get it".
It was also important to assess what languages were required, not necessarily those which are most frequently used by communities whose first language is not English because it may be that within those communities there are some people who speak good
1262
English. One might need some very minority languages to be available. As regards the availability of large print versions, one needs to have pretty good eyesight to be able to see on this booklet that a large print version is available.
I confine my criticism to those matters rather than the contents, but I would be interested to know what the Government are doing—because I am sure that they must be doing something—to see whether that publication was the best way of going about this exercise and evaluating its success.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: This is a useful discussion. It is a difficult area: what information should one put in the public domain? Does one scare and frighten, or usefully advise and inform? How does one strike the correct balance? Who should have what duty in which sets of circumstances? That is a very difficult equation. I dare say that in the end you are "damned if you do and damned if you don't". That also goes for any advice that seeks to warn or alert. It is difficult to achieve.
The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, wants to reverse the onus in this debate. That is what his amendments would do. Amendment No. 18 probes the limitations on the duty to publish. It is perhaps worth reminding ourselves what the Bill does.
The Bill imposes a duty on category 1 responders to make arrangements to inform the public about civil protection arrangements, which will include—prior to the event—what information should be put into the public domain; the potential for emergencies and risks; the actions that will be taken by the relevant authority if an emergency occurs; and advice about the sorts of things the public can undertake for protection and to avoid harm. The Bill also requires local responders to maintain arrangements to warn the public and provide appropriate advice at the time of an event if an emergency occurs.
The Bill ensures that effective public information provision is built into the civil protection processes. I am not sure that has been the case in earlier legislation. I do not think it has been. In this field we had that interesting publication Protect and Survive, which it would be fair to say was effectively lampooned. We have moved on from Protect and Survive. The current publication, Preparing for Emergencies, goes a long way to offer reassurance and careful and sensible guidance. This time round, perhaps because some of the earlier drafts were given a degree of exposure, I think we have got it about as right as we can do.
8.45 p.m.
It is important to help the public understand the nature of the risks that are prevalent, and how the authorities will respond. We think that will improve public confidence in civil protection processes. It is also important to avoid a situation where information is published simply for the sake of it, or because it is required by the Act. Plans and assessments should be published only where needed. Publishing too much unnecessary information could be counterproductive,

1263
because it could lead to a situation where one loses the interest of the public and they simply turn off. A few simple and effective messages are required which alert the public to the situation confronting us.
The Bill requires only local responders to publish plans and assessments that is "desirable" for various purposes. The amendment would reverse that test so that more information would have to be put into the public domain as a matter of course, unless it was "undesirable". That is the wrong way round.
The Government are working closely with the key stakeholders on this issue—including the National Steering Committee on Warning and Informing the Public—to develop clear guidance on this point. I am not convinced that the amendment would be wise under the circumstances. It could lead us to a situation where we have a surfeit of information which would probably he confusing to the public. I am not patronising the public by saying that. It is sometimes difficult for members of the public to sort the wheat from the chaff and we have a duty to lead and advise. That is precisely what we achieve in the way that we have balanced this matter.
Perhaps it is worth adding that local responders will have a clear role and the Bill provides for that. Clause 2(1)(g) obliges category 1 responders to maintain arrangements to warn, inform and advise the public if an emergency occurs. Clause 2(1)(f) already requires the publication of aspects of plans and assessments. The need to make information available about local risks, response arrangements and sources of warnings, information and advice in the event of an emergency are brought out more clearly in the current draft guidance.
A couple of useful points were made by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, about the need to ensure that information is available in a range of languages. We agree with that. That is why we propose in regulations under the Bill that when responders provide information to the public, both before and during an emergency, they must have regard to the needs of their local public. That will vary from place to place. In particular, those who do not speak English as a first language or have a disability, where appropriate, large print and other language versions of the information should be issued in a form that suits and is fit for the purpose.
Experience shows that at least one person in most households will have a sufficient grasp of the information that is provided in English. I guess that that is the rationale behind producing this information in this way. The point made by the noble Baroness was well made and I recall that when I was leader of my local authority we were providing leaflets that were a pathway to better information. We ensured that there was a language clue to the information that was behind it.
The noble Baroness made a point about feedback and the design of the leaflet. We shall take note of her comments. We looked at many other examples when we were compiling the current leaflet. A rigorous evaluation is taking place and it will inform future
1264
campaigns and, no doubt, future editions of the leaflet. We have covered that point which was well made and I am grateful to the noble Baroness for raising those issues.
I doubt whether I have satisfied the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, but I hope that I have gone some way towards that. This is a difficult matter to get absolutely right, and collectively we are all right to be concerned about the information that is produced, the way that it is being produced and ensuring that people can access the information—not just in written form, but also through e-delivery and other means—so that we achieve the widest possible sensible distribution of information that is appropriate in the circumstances.
Lord Lucas: I thought that was a helpful reply. I am happier when it comes to Amendment No. 18, because we all have access to the information we want under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 anyway. Those of us who want the information will, to the extent that it is publishable, be able to dig it out of local authorities and others and make articles out of it for the newspapers. That means that most of the information will get out there to those who want it, so in practice I will get as far as I want on Amendment No. 18 by other means.
As far as Amendment No. 19 is concerned, I still have an attachment to subsection (1)(g)(b) of Clause 2. There are types of emergency, particularly the sort we might associate with terrorism, where one would want to influence the public's behaviour quickly, whether they should stay where they are or go somewhere or do something in particular. People will not be carrying their copy of the booklet with them. What makes people confident in those circumstances is the knowledge that information will be provided, and a reasonable idea of where it will come from. The noble Lord, Lord Garden, has come from an organisation where one knows just that: in a difficult situation, everyone knows the person who has the information—or at least has to act as if he does—and takes the decisions. That is a great source of comfort, and is one of the main reasons that the Army does what it is supposed to in difficult circumstances. We do not need that sort of discipline in civilian life, but if we want the right reaction from people, they need to know where to turn.
I come back to the example of this House, which the noble Lord has not addressed at all. If someone threw a condom into the middle of the Chamber, who would tell us what to do? There may be somebody, but we do not know who. My first reaction on seeing the condom come down would be to head for the exit, but if I knew the Clerk was going to stand up and tell us what to do, I would wait. That depends on my knowing that there is someone who will tell me what to do, and having a rough idea of who it is. In the case of contamination by radioactive substances or biological agents, we would need to control people's movements, and not by ringing London with soldiers carrying machine guns. The authorities would have to move very quickly to contain a population who all had reserve petrol in their tanks and knew exactly the route they intended to take

1265
out of London in an emergency. However, people will stay contained if they have confidence and are quickly given reason to believe that right things will be done.
Three months after a similar incident down the other end, the noble Lord cannot even tell me what the arrangements are for this House. Suppose one of those people who rushed into the Commons today had created an emergency, in any of the ways a terrorist might. Nobody would know where to turn. It is a ridiculous state of affairs, borne of an obsession with secrecy, and it is entirely self-destructive. Despite the noble Lord's words, I shall hang on to the second part of my Amendment No. 19, and we will doubtless see it again.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I am reluctant to get into a discussion across the Dispatch Box about the arrangements for your Lordships' House, which would be quite wrong, save to say that I am sure there is a well-ordered plan in place. I have great trust in Black Rod, who will no doubt be acting on information from the emergency services, as well as being in direct communication with the Metropolitan Police. I will not fully rise to the bait and go further than that, as it would be an abuse of the circumstances, but I think it important to place those words of reassurance on the public record.
Lord Lucas: That does not reassure me at all, of course. The information I have is that the moment an incident occurs, I had better look out for myself, because I have no clue who will tell me to do otherwise. If I knew someone was informed, I would wait for them. That point is crucial, and, as I say, we shall come back to it. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
[Amendment No. 19 not moved.]
Baroness Buscombe Baroness Buscombe moved Amendment No. 20:
Page 3, line 7, at end insert ", and
(h) consult with voluntary organisations through the development of plans maintained under paragraphs (c) and (d) to such extent and in such manner as a person or body listed in Part 1 or 2 of Schedule 1 shall think fit"
The noble Baroness said: I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 27, 29, 30, 31, 32, 34, 36, 42, 79 and 80. At Second Reading there was almost universal support for expressly including in the Bill the contribution of voluntary organisations, which play a crucial role in any emergency. All these amendments relate to the duty to assess, plan and advise regarding contingency planning. The Bill does not currently refer to voluntary sector organisations with regard to consultation. We feel that that is a huge oversight on the part of the Government and have tabled the amendments to urge them to think again.
Voluntary sector organisations such as the British Red Cross and St John Ambulance have huge experience in emergency situations. In their briefing to us, they pointed out many of the tragedies in which they have intervened and made a real difference. I hope that the Government will find it instructive if I run through some of them. In February this year, British
1266
Red Cross volunteers were present to comfort the survivors of the Morecambe Bay cockle-pickers' tragedy. After the Ladbroke Grove rail crash, St John Ambulance volunteers gave assistance for seven days and ambulances transported many victims to hospital.
Many foreign countries recognise the expertise that the voluntary sector has to offer. The aftermath of the tragic events in Madrid showed what a vital role the voluntary sector can play in helping to minimise damage caused and ensuring that all casualties are dealt with as swiftly and sensitively as possible. The statistics of the tragedy speak for themselves. Within minutes of the bombs going off, Spanish Red Cross volunteers were on the scene. Over the next 24 hours and beyond, 900 volunteers provided medical care, gave psychological support and handled inquiries from the public. Fifty-two ambulances and 26 transport vehicles and mobile blood collection units run by the Spanish Red Cross worked in close collaboration with the statutory services. Sixty-one requests for information on missing persons were received from abroad and dealt with through the International Red Cross message and tracing service. The Spanish Red Cross was able to achieve such an exemplary response to the bombings because in Spain the voluntary sector has a formal role in the civil protection framework. It plays an integral part in emergency planning and is designated to be involved in rescue, medical care, information and communication, together with emotional support.
In the Bill the Government have a chance to use the voluntary sector in the same way as the Spanish Government. We feel that the Government would be short-sighted not to take note of the statistics and the response provided in Spain, and not to give Britain the same chance to have a first-class response to such an event. The voluntary sector should be properly recognised and involved. Our amendments would mean that the knowledge of the voluntary sector would be put to good use and ensure that they were consulted on planning. We feel that they are good common-sense proposals, and I hope that the Minister will look upon them favourably.
Amendments Nos. 42 and 43 relate to Clause 4, on advice and assistance to business. This clause imposes on local authorities a duty to provide to those undertaking commercial activities in their communities, advice and assistance about business continuity management (BCM). We feel that the Government, again, have made a huge omission by not including the voluntary sector in the clause. It means that the voluntary sector will not receive the advice and assistance from local authorities that business will. It is well documented that only 40 per cent of organisations without a continuity plan exist 12 months after a disaster—that is from Continuity Central, 2003. Just 8 per cent survive long term—that is from Safetynet, 1993—and only 58 per cent of larger charities and 43 per cent of smaller ones have a continuity plan, according to PKF in 2003. Few have practical contingency arrangements, but those that do successfully continue, as was shown in New York on 9/11.
It is also clear that, if a disaster should occur, we would look to the voluntary sector to help out: there is no question of that. I am sure that it would cost councils little extra to include the voluntary sector, so I cannot understand the Government's reluctance to include them in this clause. However, I must also point out that the voluntary sector should not be expected to pay for advice or assistance received under the clauses.
I also want to make clear that, although the Local Government Association has expressed some opposition to our amendments, I understand that communication between the Local Government Association and the voluntary associations has now been established. Discussions will shortly take place between the parties and I hope that an understanding will be reached. For our part, the concerns expressed by the LGA to date do not, with respect, diminish the strength of our commitment to the amendments. I also want to remind the Committee that, as I stated on Second Reading, we already have a precedent for that in the Homelessness Act 2002, Section 3(3)(b). In that provision, a similar argument could have been and was raised, and it was decided that the voluntary organisations should be there, clearly in the Bill and their contribution properly recognised. I beg to move.
9 p.m.
Lord Archer of Sandwell: I have been asked by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Newcastle to express his regret that he could not stay for this debate. He wished to participate, but he has a commitment elsewhere and he begs that your Lordships will excuse him. So that the noble Baroness will not interpret some of my earlier remarks as being personal, I say at the outset that I support everything that she has just said.
In the interests of saving time, I propose at the outset to speak simply to Amendment No. 20, as the other amendments rest substantially on the same argument. If my noble friend on the Front Bench accepts the principle, we can consider in tranquillity the specific amendments that would follow.
I should make particular reference to Amendments Nos. 41 to 43, because I think that they raise a different issue. That is the question of advice to community activities. But the noble Baroness has covered that completely, and I do not think that the case would be benefited if I added anything specific to it. I may say that I did suggest that it should be treated as a separate grouping but, not for the first time in my career, my advice was not followed.
The amendments were prompted when some of us serving on the pre-legislation committee were impressed by the evidence of some voluntary bodies: notably, the Red Cross, because it acted as the lead department, so to speak. It was concerned that its existence was not recognised in the Bill.
On Second Reading, several noble Lords mentioned specifically four of the voluntary services: the Red Cross, the Women's Royal Voluntary Service, the Salvation Army and the St John Ambulance. It was those four services that attended a meeting in this building that I was privileged to chair and they earned
1268
our gratitude for their patient explanations and response to our questions. But they are not, by any means, the only voluntary organisations that have expressed concern. It would be wrong to assume that that concern is limited to those four.
It is true that some voluntary organisations do not wish to be included. But I wonder whether they have misunderstood what is proposed. I appreciate the concern that some of them do not have a presence in every locality and that they would not be able to respond to every obligation that they fear may be placed on them. That would be understandable if it were proposed to include them in the schedules, because then they would be under statutory obligations. I believe that, at one time during the committee's deliberations, such a proposal was ventilated.
The amendments would not include the voluntary bodies in the schedules. They propose to ensure that those bodies are consulted by the schedule providers, and that would not impose on them any burden or, indeed, any obligation to find resources. One could say that it would ensure that they have an opportunity to indicate what they can and cannot do.
In the Government's original paper dealing with disaster, the role of the voluntary organisations was recognised and discussed. In the consultation paper of June 2003, they were forgotten, and in the Bill they have sunk without trace. Now, they rate a passing nod because, in responding to the report of the Joint Committee, the Government said that they will encourage Part 1 providers to consult the voluntary services. Some of us are troubled that their recognition should depend on whether providers respond to that encouragement. We believe that they should be given a statutory right to be consulted, subject of course to the right of the Part 1 provider to decide which bodies are appropriate to be consulted. That is why Amendment No. 21 is drafted in the way that it is.
I support the noble Baroness for two reasons: one is a matter of principle; the other, pragmatic. Since I usually find that pragmatic reasons are more persuasive than reasons of principle, perhaps I may speak to that first.
In this country, we have a treasury of skills and experience in the voluntary services. They include people who give their time not only to serve the public but to undergo training for that purpose, and in many cases the training is to a very high degree of expertise. Sometimes there is available to the statutory bodies no equivalent resources. That is true at the cutting edge, and it is true at the management level. A number of examples were quoted at Second Reading, and the noble Baroness has just quoted two others. Perhaps I may add one from an area which I was once privileged to represent in another place.
On the evening of 10 May 2003, an industrial depot in Tipton caught fire. On the premises was a store of liquid petroleum gas, which formed the subject matter of an intervention by a noble Lord earlier in our debates. There was fear of a serious explosion. Mercifully it did not happen, but that did not reduce

1269
the danger at the time. It was necessary to evacuate homes in the surrounding area. It was not the most convenient time to concentrate resources: it was a Saturday evening. The council services requested the help of the West Midlands branch of the Red Cross. Fortunately, a rest centre was available in the local community centre. The Red Cross responded at once. Within a very short time, 120 people had been evacuated to the rest centre. Some were able to make other provision for the night, but 60 people had to spend the night at the centre.
The Red Cross branch mobilised local members to form an emergency response team. They provided food, covering and other necessities; they provided emotional support for those who were distressed; and they provided an ambulance equipped with medical provisions. People remained at the centre until 10 o'clock the next morning. The statutory services were in no way negligent, but they could not provide a 24-hour response of that magnitude.
Perhaps I may add in passing that, in the recent flood disaster at Boscastle, the Salvation Army provided food for victims and for the emergency workers, and St John Ambulance made 12 vehicles and 40 helpers available.
The amendments imply no criticism of the statutory services. They have an impressive record of which this country may well be proud. But we are discussing situations where there may be a sudden tidal wave of disaster and where the need cannot be channelled over a period of time so that every call can take its turn. Every resource may be called on simultaneously, and it may be vital to supplement the statutory services. It may be essential to integrate every resource which can be called on. That will need to be planned for and rehearsed so that there is a joined-up response when the time comes.
Of course, it goes further. At Second Reading, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Coventry reminded us that the victims and their families may well have emotional, psychological and spiritual needs. That is not to say that the statutory services do not have sensitivity but they may be fully extended with other functions and, in any event, they have a rather different training.
These amendments ask simply that that expertise may be recognised, involved and integrated at the planning stage. Of course, the majority of local authorities are well aware of the value of that resource. They know about working with the voluntary services. Officials in the two sectors are frequently on terms of personal friendship. But there are two dangers in those rare cases where that does not happen and where common sense is in short supply. First, there are some local government officials who do not feel the need to consult. At various times, we have all encountered them. They know what to do and they do not need advice from those whom they regard as amateurs. If a voluntary organisation is needed, they will tell them when that need arises.
1270
The point about consultation is to consider what action may be needed before there is an emergency so that it may be included in the planning. If a requirement to do that is enshrined in statute, it may prevent local self-importance getting in the way.
The second danger is that the advantages of consulting the voluntary sector may simply be overlooked by busy councillors and officials. They may not intend to ignore the asset that is available. In a busy life, they may simply forget. We sometimes fail to appreciate that the important advantage of including something in a statute is that it is there on the list of things to be done. In a letter that I recently received from the Local Government Association, it referred to the possibility of a statutory duty and said:
"We believe that such a duty is unnecessary and would in fact demonstrate a lack of commitment by both central and local government to the 'compact' way of working".
I believe that it would do precisely the opposite. It would demonstrate that central government, with the concurrence of local government, takes the compact way of working seriously. I am confirmed in that view by a letter that I recently received from the NCVO, which said:
"In summary, we believe that the proposed amendment could be helpful for voluntary organisations and would also reinforce the Government's commitment to the Compact and in particular the requirement to consult with the sector".
I do not know whether that was the letter to which the noble Baroness was referring but the NCVO is pretty clear about its view on the subject.
I said that there is also a reason of principle. In this country, we have a tradition of enlisting and recognising the merits of the voluntary sector. Many, if not most, of our statutory services grew out of initiatives by the voluntary sector. They should not been seen as the junior partners, dependent on such recognition as the statutory services choose to accord them. Their inclusion should not be subjected to the discretion of the statutory services. They are part of our national community. An essential part of belonging is the right to be called on to serve. Paradoxically, there is a right to share an obligation.
It cannot be often that the Government receive such a willing offer. Nothing is more likely to evaporate a spirit of co-operation than waiting for a telephone call that may or may not come. All that these amendments ask for is an assurance that it will.
Lord Luke: I support my noble friend's amendments very strongly indeed. I would almost say that I would like to start by quoting the speech of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer, in its entirety because I agree with every single word he said. He really covered the ground. So what I am going to say will be very short indeed.
I have some experience. I was commissioner of St John in Bedfordshire and, subsequently, commander. I also had two weeks' service in the then WVS during the floods in 1952 so I have heard about it a little. In an emergency, all kinds of things happen. The depth of injury to be dealt with depends on the kind of emergency.

1271
St John and the Red Cross will deal with the superficial situations that may arise. However, if there is a really serious disaster with hundreds dead and lots of injured and glass flying about all over, there will be quite a lot of what I would call minor injuries—although no injuries are really minor. Where there is a tremendous call on the statutory services to get people to hospital as quickly as possible, St John or the Red Cross can cope with those minor injuries in the short term. That is one of the most important things.
9.15 p.m.
Also important is the back-up during the recovery period afterwards, when all the people have been taken away—to hospital, one hopes. If there has been a bomb, there is a building to be cleared up. There are lots of people, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer, said, who may be in schools being looked after on a temporary basis. That is when the WRVS particularly comes into its own, as well as the others—the Salvation Army, the Red Cross and St John—providing the continuous back-up services that are needed as the emergency slowly becomes a clear-up operation.
I would like to add my view that I find it extraordinary that the voluntary bodies are not mentioned in the clause. They must be brought into the clause, so that they are brought into all consultations at local and central government level, because they can do an enormous amount of good.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: I am pleased to support the amendments, which aim to include the voluntary organisations in the clause. It is important that the appropriate voluntary organisations are involved at the planning stage. I would like to give two recent disasters as examples. The first is the tragic events at the school in Russia, where there seemed to be a lack of any planned organisation to help find injured children divided from their families, amid chaos in a terrible situation. In Madrid at the time of the bombs on the train, there was good organisation of voluntary help, as the Spanish Red Cross had been involved at the planning stage. That helped in a terrible and dangerous situation.
I cannot understand the Local Government Association not seeing the value of having well planned, well trained volunteers to help in disasters. Is it a sort of professional jealousy, or just a matter of not wanting to be bothered to work with them? As a longstanding, or perhaps long-sitting, member of the Red Cross, I know volunteers can be most useful if they are well organised, well trained and there is a lead organisation that knows whom to contact for help.
If the volunteers are to be useful, they will have to know what they are to do and to whom to report. Without a system in place, there will be a waste of much-needed help. Surely that means planning at local level. We need to be prepared—one never knows when there will be a terrorist attack of horrific dimensions, or a disaster such as floods or fire or anything that threatens human welfare. One never knows what is round the corner.
1272
Volunteers give their time freely. Does the Minister not think that they should feel valued? Also, I feel that information should be freely available, as the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, said, in speaking to Amendments Nos. 18 and 19. Volunteers could help to disseminate this. Volunteers deserve to be recognised.
I hope that the Committee will be able to realise this as the Bill proceeds through your Lordships' House, with the help of the Minister.
Baroness Emerton: I agree with all that has been said in support of the amendment. I should also like to add my thanks to the Minister for his communication following Second Reading in July and for arranging the briefing meeting afterwards. However, I wish to express concern with regard to the Bill's exclusion of voluntary organisations from planning and practice for emergencies.
I have a specific concern. At the risk of repeating what I said at Second Reading, I am concerned that the voluntary aid societies have not been recognised alongside the voluntary organisations. The voluntary aid societies have a specific responsibility, as recognised by the Government, following the Geneva Convention. It is very important that that is recognised and remembered. I declare an interest as a former chancellor and chief commander of St John Ambulance. I have been involved in local county and national emergency planning for years.
Mention has already been made of the Boscastle emergency, which happened during the Recess. I should like to illustrate what happened in relation to the ambulances which were mobilised. It appeared that the local statutory agencies were in desperate need of 4x4 vehicles. Four of those were provided by St John Ambulance, plus seven further ambulances and one support vehicle. That was in addition to 33 members being mobilised, and a medical officer responded immediately. That would not have been possible had they not been involved in the planning beforehand, because speed is of the essence in such a situation and volunteers, who are probably engaged in full-time employment, need to be aware of what is required of them when called.
The modern fleet of ambulances is maintained to the European standards. All the crews are trained to the level of ambulance technicians, but not all are of paramedic standard. All have up-to-date qualifications and have reached appropriate levels of competences. The fleet of ambulances brought into service in St John Ambulance since 1999 exceeds 1,000 up-to-date vehicles, which I think is the largest number of vehicles owned by a voluntary organisation. Not only are they used for private commitments, they also support the statutory services.
Closely following the Boscastle disaster, a grandstand collapsed at a Grapevine event in Lincoln on 29 August. St John Ambulance members were already on site, but a major incident was declared and the 12 members, with their three vehicles, treated and transported casualties to hospital at the request of the Lincolnshire Ambulance Service, another example of

1273
partnership working and the confidence that the statutory services have in the voluntary services. The two incidents in the past few weeks indicate what has been repeated year after year—the Ladbroke Grove disaster, for example, and the other incidents which have been mentioned this evening.
This afternoon, outside the Houses of Parliament, St John Ambulance members and ambulances were mobilised; they had been involved in the planning for what was to happen this afternoon. I am afraid that I have not been able to get the details of the numbers, but they were definitely there.
Most voluntary organisations are actively involved at county level in emergency planning, and county major incident practices are a regular event. In Surrey, for example, voluntary organisations are involved in the Gatwick major incident plan.
As has already been said, volunteers are highly trained and give their time and expertise freely, but they appreciate being valued for the contribution that they make to society. If volunteers are not thought to be important enough to be included in emergency planning, it will inevitably have a tremendous effect on the recruitment of future volunteers.
It is strange that there seems to be so much opposition to the inclusion of voluntary organisations in the planning and practice for emergencies when the Government have given volunteering such an important place on their agenda.
During the past year, I served on a Department of Health working party chaired by Nick Young, the chief executive of the British Red Cross, which has produced a policy document entitled Making Partnerships Work: A Strategic Agreement between the Department of Health, the NHS and the Voluntary and Community Sector. The document is to be launched next Monday by the Secretary of State, John Reid. The strategic agreement sets out a robust approach to partnership between statutory agencies and the voluntary sector. Like other Members of the Committee, I was therefore surprised to receive a letter from the Local Government Association which stated that it did not support the inclusion of the voluntary sector in planning for emergencies because of its not complying with the compact. Surely central government are committed to fostering partnership arrangements. The statement made by the Local Government Association is counterproductive to moving forward.
While I have declared my interest in St John Ambulance and mentioned the part it played in recent events, in no way do I exclude the British Red Cross and St Andrews Ambulance Association, which form the two other voluntary aid societies, or the other appropriate voluntary organisations, which offer such a wide range of humanitarian aid in times of emergency.
I urge the Minister to give urgent consideration to the amendments, which would include the appropriate voluntary organisations in the planning and practice for emergencies. That would demonstrate central government's support for the Making Partnerships
1274
Work strategy and give recognition to the voluntary sector, especially as 2005 will be the Year of the Volunteer.
Baroness Thornton: Before asking the Minister a question that has been whirling about my head as our discussion has gone on, I pass on the sincere apologies of the noble Lord, Lord Adebowale, for not being in the Chamber to support the amendment. He was at a major conference today and he was not able to get away.
I thank the Minister for making sure that we received the draft guidance confirming the role of the voluntary sector prior to our discussion. I have not had the opportunity to discuss it with my colleagues in the voluntary sector, but it looks quite good. However, be it the best guidance in the world, how do the Government intend to make those recalcitrant local authorities and emergency planners which do not want to talk to the voluntary sector take it on board? That is the question that lies at the heart of the amendment and it reflects the concerns that voluntary organisations have.
The voluntary organisations that have been so exercised by this issue throughout the passage of the Bill could not possibly be labelled as troublemakers. Those organisations exist to serve. If they have persisted in their concerns, the Government need to take them very seriously indeed and find a way through.
Lord Hylton: I agree with almost everything that has been said in support of the amendments. Only for the sake of completeness, I mention, first, the role as a focal point of councils of social service in emergencies and, secondly, the vast amount of property that is owned by churches and community organisations, which can be essential when people are displaced from their homes.
9.30 p.m.
Baroness Hamwee: The notion of such organisations as the Red Cross, the WRVS and the Salvation Army being trouble makers is a delightful one. But they have a role to be that and they have exercised it jolly well in getting us to focus on the issue. In view of the briefing which clearly many noble Lords have received from the Local Government Association, which refers to compacts between governmental and other agencies and the voluntary organisations, I should declare an interest as a member of the NCVO's Compact Advocacy Advisory Group.
The case will not be improved by anything I can say. I hugely support the points which have been made and in particular those by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer of Sandwell. I welcome the discussion which now appears to be under way to which the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, referred. We need a way of getting the best and not increasing the burden on anyone. The noble Baroness ended her speech by saying that the contributions of the voluntary organisations should be properly recognised. I put it this way: we need to make sure that we do not fail to

1275
take advantage of their expertise and the Treasury of their experience and skills to which the noble and learned Lord referred.
I am not at all comfortable at taking a position against, as it may appear, the Local Government Association when I so often support what it says. I hope that we shall end up without taking sides on this because we should not.
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: In the interests of the hour, I shall be extremely brief. I shall not repeat but I do echo everything that has been said in earlier speeches. One is normally daunted when confronted with 18 amendments in a group. This evening and as far as I am concerned, one is totally undaunted because of the consistency of the language and the motivation of the 18 amendments as one reads them one by one.
On what normally would be a maximum of 72 names, with 18 amendments with four names each, 59 names were put down. As in a one-day cricket international, most of the runs were scored at the top of the order in Committee and those were the names put down on the original Amendment No. 20. No adverse reflection attaches to those whose names appeared less often because of the limit of four names to each amendment. But on every single amendment appeared the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer of Sandwell, and in my view great credit attaches to him for that. The other three names on Amendment No. 20 are those of my noble friend Lady Buscombe, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Coventry and the noble Lord, Lord McNally. Their names appeared, give or take an amendment, on two-thirds of the 18 amendments. They form a powerful all-party alliance.
My own name does not appear on any of the amendments and neither did I speak in the debate at Second Reading. But I did speak several months ago in a debate on international development, which was moved by my noble friend Lady Chalker. At that stage I made a paving speech for tonight in alluding to the subject that we are discussing in this group of amendments. I compared it to the interest of the development NGOs which, however good their relations with DfID and the Foreign Office, would wish to develop a statutory proactive relationship which would integrate them too into the Government's international aid and emergency plans. A statutory relationship of the sort which we are developing in this group of amendments will inevitably come one day. It would give the best of starts to this particular legislation if this were the occasion when the new statutory link were to be established. I hope that the Minister can speak encouragingly in that regard.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I suppose, in following the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, I am at the bottom of the order. That probably makes me a "tailender". Whether I shall be as big a hitter as some tailenders are, I very much doubt, and I offer that in modesty. It is nice to know we share such an interest in cricket.
1276
I want to say first—because I believe in being direct about such matters—that these are not amendments that the Government can accept, and I have to resist their inclusion in the Bill. That is a pretty bold start, but I do think it is right to say that and to be very clear from the outset. That is not to say that I do not recognise the value of the arguments that have been made, nor the force with which they have been made, nor the sincerity with which they have been made. Nor do I fail to recognise the very valuable contributions that all participants in this debate have made, in drawing out the immense value of the voluntary sector and voluntary aid organisations.
Two things I take from the comments that have been made are that a statutory location is important to elements of the voluntary sector as they see it, because it underlines and gives expression to the value that they feel they bring to our society. I happen to believe that it is not necessarily the case that it is needed to underpin their role in statute or on the face of the Bill. We do recognize—and recognition is the other point—the value of the voluntary sector in this field, as we do across government. The noble Baroness, Lady Emerton, made the point very well, that, from her perspective, this Government have been very supportive indeed of volunteering. I make the bold claim that this Government have been rather more than that, and have been positively encouraging, probably investing more than any previous government in ensuring that the activities of volunteers are well supported, well appreciated and well resourced. The debate raised some interesting questions about the voluntary sector in contingency planning, and took us forward a stage or two from the valuable debate we had at Second Reading.
My response is going to be long, because the issue deserves to be dealt with thoroughly. I want to go over the points that have been made very carefully. The Government encourage membership of voluntary organisations and their engagement with key responding organisations. We fully recognise the important role they can perform, particularly in the field of humanitarian support for individuals and families affected by emergencies. The recent Boscastle emergency, as a number of speakers said, gave full voice to that, and was a very powerful example of the way volunteer support and organisation can be very well directed and well used. That is greatly appreciated. Indeed, I pay tribute to the well known and long-standing contribution that voluntary organisations have made to the effective response to civil emergencies. Reference was made by the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, to the role played at the Ladbroke Grove rail disaster. I cite, too—in aid of her point, if you like—the response to Potters Bar, and others referred to the tragedy at Morecambe Bay with the cockle pickers.
There is no question of the valuable contribution that volunteers can make to emergency response. This critical work will go on whether or not there is reference to the voluntary sector in statute. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer of Sandwell, made reference to the Government's key commitment and

1277
understanding of their role in dealing with disaster: a document setting out guidance for local responders, which recommended joint planning with voluntary groups and the setting up of voluntary sector co-ordinating groups at the local level to ensure and facilitate co-operation between the statutory services and local voluntary organisations. So we are already there.
Most local multi-agency co-ordination groups and local resilience forums under the Bill have a voluntary sector liaison group. A very significant amount of work is done by local authorities and others in training volunteers for their roles in cases of emergency, involving them in multi-agency exercises.
However, it is important that we are also clear about the limitations of the voluntary sector. With one or two notable exceptions such as the RNLI or mountain rescue, the voluntary sector is not a first responder and only ever acts in support of statutory bodies. There are few reported problems with the current, permissive system. The briefing note issued by the voluntary sector in advance of this session provided evidence of how the voluntary sector is playing an important role. But it is limited in terms of the resources it can bring to bear, in comparison with the statutory services.
It is worth noting what St John Ambulance said in its own submission to the Joint Committee. It said:
"We strongly agree with the statement in the Consultation Document that voluntary organisations are not included in the Duty … Even with over 23,000 adult volunteers trained in First Aid and 1,300 vehicles (including the largest single ambulance fleet in the country), St John Ambulance is unable to guarantee a particular level of provision of emergency aid in all of the 42 counties where we have offices and management structures. The type of response we can provide and the amount of support we can offer varies on a geographical basis … Some of our volunteers (including 1,500 Doctors, Nurses and Paramedics) are unavailable to St John Ambulance in times of emergency, as they will be required to respond by their full-time employers … Whilst the roles and activities undertaken by St John Ambulance will (at the very least) support and complement activity of Category I or 2 Responder members, we agree that … we are unable to guarantee a consistent standard and level of support nationwide".
Statutory stakeholders also have real reservations. Much has been said about the Local Government Association and its response, but it is worth putting on the record. The LGA said:
"The LGA would … not support amendments to place a blanket, specific duty on local authorities to consult voluntary agencies. This objective can equally well be achieved by the inclusion of the matter in Guidance, thus avoiding the need to resort to further bureaucratic regulation and maintaining the independence of the voluntary sector. It would also allow each local authority to respond to the nature and requirements of the sector in their local area. The LGA believes that the existing procedures and arrangements work very well (indeed no voluntary organisation has expressed to the LGA any dissatisfaction with the current level of consultation or involvement in contingency planning at local level). The LGA certainly would not wish to see any changes that might adversely affect arrangements that work well as they are".
Members of the Committee also commented on international comparisons. I have seen the presentation, too, and there is no doubt about the excellent work which the Red Cross undertook in response to the Madrid bombings. But in Spain it is
1278
rather different: the Red Cross has a key role in emergency response, which partially or wholly displaces the statutory role of the local and health authorities. We should bear in mind that in the United Kingdom those roles are performed by the statutory services, and adopting a similar position here would involve a switching of government resources from the statutory to the voluntary sector.
It is also the case that the voluntary sector has a far from simple relationship with the statutory services. Many voluntary bodies have no involvement or interest with civil protection. Of those that do, the relationship tends to be a mixture of "real" voluntary provision and "commercial" contractual relationships. It is this very set of complications which lends itself to the permissive approach.
We should also be clear about what the Bill already provides. There is nothing in the Bill that will prevent voluntary organisations from remaining fully engaged, and we will continue to encourage local responders to engage the voluntary sector wholeheartedly in local multi-agency planning and response through the guidance supporting the Bill. We will use the guidance supporting the Bill to make this vision into a reality. Indeed, we have encouraged the voluntary sector to engage in the open and inclusive process we have set in train to review the draft regulations and develop guidance under the Bill. I understand that a senior representative from the National Voluntary Aid Societies Emergency Committee is taking a prominent role in that work. We have also made available the draft guidance to a wider community of interested parties, and the response has been extremely positive.
I do not wish to undermine the role of the voluntary sector; I simply wish to make it clear that this is far from an open and shut case and it is important that we consider the views of all stakeholders, not simply the major voluntary sector bodies. It is fair to say that we all have the same aim: the effective engagement of the voluntary sector in emergency planning and response. The essential disagreement is not about the ends but the means; how we achieve that objective.
9.45 p.m.
I am going to deal with two sets of amendments because I want to concentrate on those rather than go through each amendment, which would be unwise in view of the hour.
Baroness Thornton: I am sorry to interrupt the Minister, but before we leave the guidance I want to return to my question of how we can be sure that this excellent guidance will be carried out locally. What is there in any part of the Bill that will ensure that that will happen?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I was not intending to overlook the point. I am grateful to my noble friend for drawing me back to it. Perhaps I should deal with it here and now so that we can focus on it. The question is, what force does the guidance have in relation to the voluntary sector? Under Clause 3(3) responders must

1279
have regard to guidance. That is not the same as being bound by it, but guidance under the Bill is exactly that: it will indicate the best way to proceed. A responder must ensure that they look at the guidance; they have no real reason to diverge from it. There is no way that they can disregard it altogether.
We have to trust guidance. We trust it in all other aspects of legislation and I know that we have this debate in many different guises, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, mentioned. Guidance is important. It would be wrong of statutory bodies to ignore it and they will not be able to do so. We will ensure that they take it carefully on board and fully engage with voluntary organisations at a local level. That is the expectation and they will be encouraged to do that from the centre. That is how we see the issue proceeding.
Amendments Nos. 20 and 21 cut to the heart of the debate. They would impose—
Baroness Emerton: At the risk of interrupting again, all that the Minister read out about the St John Ambulance being in support is correct. There is not a standard service across the country. It is important that what there is is there to support the statutory services. Unless they are recognised and involved in the planning they cannot be there to back up the statutory services when there is an emergency.
Let us take the examples of the King's Cross fire and Ladbroke Grove—I am taking London as an example because it is a good example—where the London ambulance service relied on the London district St John Ambulance to provide cover for the 999 calls because there are paramedic staff on the ambulances. If they are not involved in the planning—as they were for this afternoon's episode outside—they cannot be mobilised.
Unless the volunteers are statutorily recognised by government, guidance can mean all things to anyone. It is important that they are there as a statutory requirement.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I understand the point that is being made but we rely on guidance, which has force and value. All that is said about the importance of having the volunteer sector involved in planning at the outset is right. It is our intention to ensure that that will happen. No one has yet regaled me with example after example of where the voluntary sector has been cut out of the planning process with the statutory sector. I have not been given examples of that. We do not have experience that that is the case.
I turn to the detail in the amendments as the amendments are in themselves very important. Amendments Nos. 20 and 21 would impose a duty on category 1 responders—the emergency services, local authorities and so on—to consult with voluntary organisations in the performance of their duties under the Bill while leaving the manner and extent to which they are consulted as a matter for their own judgment. By virtue of Amendment No. 80, the definition of "voluntary organisation" is extremely broad,
1280
capturing any body other than a public or local authority whose activities are not carried out for profit, including many organisations which do not undertake activities relating to civil protection.
Of course I agree that where it is appropriate statutory responders should consult and involve voluntary sector partners to the fullest extent in the planning process—the very point on which the noble Baroness, Lady Emerton, touched. Statutory responders absolutely accept that. Voluntary sector bodies are already engaged very closely in multi-agency planning. It is already happening. We propose to include in the guidance supporting the Bill a clear and unequivocal statement of the expertise and resources that the voluntary sector can offer. We also expect there to be a clear statement that local responders should involve the voluntary sector in civil protection work. Furthermore, we will give clear and helpful guidance on how this can be done, for example, by engaging the voluntary sector in the planning process and ensuring that it is represented in multi-agency planning arrangements. As I said earlier, we are working closely with a whole range of stakeholders, including the voluntary sector, in working up the content of this guidance. That in itself has been applauded already. It is difficult to see what the amendment would add to that approach. The merits of imposing a legal obligation on responders to consult the voluntary sector where the responder itself decides who must be consulted, the extent of the consultation and the manner in which the consultation takes place, must be doubtful. This is particularly true when the duty to consult is so wide. Local responders must "have regard" to the guidance we propose and cannot set it aside without good reason.
It is inconceivable that statutory responders would not want to use all resources available to them and to ensure that those bodies they did work with are fully integrated into their plans. We believe that civil protection professionals on the ground are best placed to decide which voluntary organisations they consult or engage with. While the emergency services and local authorities do not support this amendment, they do, however, recognise the need to work in partnership with the voluntary sector and wholeheartedly support the use of guidance to help to make sure that happens systematically. I refer the Committee to the comments that I read out earlier from the Local Government Association.
These amendments would enable but not require—that is an important qualification—regulations under Part 1 to require responders to consult the voluntary sector. We think that the amendments are unnecessary. Clause 2(5)(d) already enables regulations to require responders to consult any person or body or class of person or body in the course of performing their civil protection duties. It is difficult to see what specifically referring to voluntary bodies will add to that.
Amendments Nos. 41, 42 and 43, referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, constitute a slightly separate subject. They would extend the duty on local authorities to provide business continuity advice. The

1281
Bill currently requires them to provide advice to members of the public who carry out commercial activities within their area. These amendments would extend this duty to cover organisations undertaking "community activities". Local authorities would not be allowed to charge for such advice, even on a cost recovery basis.
By virtue of Amendment No. 79 "community activities" are interpreted very widely as including organisations such as parents' associations, tenants' associations or recreational clubs throughout the country. I certainly recognise that the provisions of the Bill do not cover all the activities of voluntary organisations. However, the purpose of the duty in Clause 4 is to minimise the economic impact of emergencies. It is for that reason that the focus of local authorities' efforts must be on commercial activities. Furthermore, through two public consultations there was certainly not a strong call for the voluntary sector to be included in the duty despite the high profile of the Bill with parts of the voluntary sector and the National Council for Voluntary Organisations. That is not to say that individual local authorities could not or should not extend their advice to voluntary organisations where they feel it would be appropriate. Much of local authorities' work in this area would be light-touch, awareness-raising activity, with websites containing advice, for example, which would be open to all organisations.
We have established a number of working groups to review the draft regulations and develop supporting guidance to accompany the Bill. One of these working groups is looking at BCM promotion. While its work is at an early stage, it is likely that the guidance will emphasise to local authorities that there are a large number of bodies, which, while not undertaking commercial activities, do provide services of importance to the community. The representatives of the practitioners which would deliver the service—namely, the LGA—also support this approach.
To conclude, I listened with great respect and carefully to what has been said in the Chamber this evening. It has valuably underlined the importance that everybody sees in the voluntary sector playing a pivotal role in emergency planning and response. But I have tried to indicate that the voluntary sector has its limitations, too.
The Bill and supporting regulations and guidance will help ensure that the close engagement of voluntary bodies in emergency planning work continues and develops. The guidance under the Bill provides an excellent opportunity for the Government to give a clear statement of the role of the voluntary organisations in civil protection arrangements. I am delighted that the guidance in its draft form has attracted support and been welcomed. The guidance sets out very clearly how it expects the statutory responders to engage with the voluntary organisations. Cabinet Office officials are working closely with key figures in the voluntary sector to ensure that that happens.
1282
I go back to the words of the Local Government Association and its briefing note that sums it up. The LGA says it will not therefore support amendments that place a blanket specific duty on local authorities to consult voluntary agencies. That objective can be equally well achieved by inclusion of the matter in guidance. The LGA does not want to have changes made to the arrangements where those arrangements work well.
The arrangements work well at the moment. Everything that has been said about the LGA working closely in concert to establish a memorandum of understanding with the voluntary sector has a value. We want to see that voluntary approach continued. That is what we seek to achieve in the way in which we have worked out our policy and the way the Bill is drafted. Guidance is where it is best left.
I understand the strength of feeling, but it is contingent on all of us—not least me and certainly all those who have been critical of our position—to reflect hard on the important points made from the Government's perspective in this debate. I think there is more merit in our argument than perhaps has been given credence. That is not to say that we do not value highly—because we do—the important, pivotal role that the voluntary sector will have to play in civil contingency preparation.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: We have not got examples of voluntary bodies being cut out as this legislation is not yet law. We want to ensure that that will not happen. How can the Minister ensure that the guidance will be adhered to? What happens if voluntary bodies are cut out?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: That is a similar question to that asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton. As I explained at the outset, it is clear that we will have an expectation that local authorities in particular, through their emergency planning preparations, will engage with the voluntary sector—as they do now. I am not aware that, as a matter of course, those involved in emergency planning are ignoring, or failing to work with, or not co-operating with, or not receiving or absorbing the advice and information that come valuably from the voluntary sector.
As I said in conclusion, the Cabinet Office—which has the central responsibility through its officials—is working closely with the voluntary sector to ensure that it can be enabled to work very closely at a local level with those who have the responsibility. That, and the obligation that will be placed upon local authorities to engage with the voluntary sector, will ensure that the arrangements which largely work well now, will continue to work well and develop further.
Baroness Thornton: I am really sorry to have to say this, but I feel, given that the Minister quoted the LGA briefing at length, that the discussion that has taken place in the past 24 hours since the briefing was

1283
received has revealed that, in fact, the LGA did not discuss the briefing with the voluntary organisations before it was published, even though it had been requested to do so. I had hoped that I would not have to say that and it is important to put that on the record. So, while the LGA may want the compact to be the way forward, in fact it did not follow its own guidance about how a compact should work.
Baroness Buscombe: I shall be brief. I thank the Minister for his reply but it was deeply disappointing. Indeed, if I were a Minister in government I would have refused to make that speech.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer of Sandwell, is correct. We are talking about a treasury of skill. This is no criticism of the statutory services, but all that noble Lords have said about the contribution and the crucially important role that the voluntary organisations make should be recognised on the face of the Bill. The voluntary organisations need to be involved in the planning process, as the noble Baroness, Lady Emerton, has said.
In all my experience, whether it is at the local fete or at the biggest pop concert that I have attended in my life, I have always noticed that St John Ambulance volunteers are always there. They are already on site. So many times they are the first to respond because
1284
they are there. All noble Lords have made very powerful speeches in support of the amendment. Guidance is not good enough.
The Minister wanted to make a bold start. I shall make a bold finish. In your Lordships' House we have a powerful all-party alliance. I want the Minister to think carefully about our amendments between now and Report, because if the Minister feels unable to return with similar government amendments then, I shall divide the House on these amendments and we will win. For now, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Triesman: I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.
House adjourned at three minutes after ten o'clock.

Medway Council Bill
Bill reported from the Unopposed Bill Committee without amendment.

Official Report of the Grand Committee on the Human Tissue Bill
(First Day)
Wednesday, 15 September 2004.
The Committee met at half past three of the clock.
[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Brougham and Vaux) in the Chair.]
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Brougham and Vaux): I am not going to remind your Lordships of the procedure; you have all been acquainted with Grand Committees for long enough. I shall simply remind you that if there is a Division in the Chamber we shall adjourn for 10 minutes straightaway.
Title postponed.
Clause 1 [Authorisation of activities for scheduled purposes]:
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff Baroness Finlay of Llandaff moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 2, line 20, after "imported" insert "and is subject to appropriate consent and the death has been registered in accordance with the laws of the exporting country"
The noble Baroness said: The amendment is remarkably simple. It seems morally wrong to expect a lower or different level of consent for imported material than for that donated in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. It is in terms of establishing equity of principle that Amendments Nos. 1 and 2 are tabled. I beg to move.
Earl Howe: I fully recognise the force of the moral case put by the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, although, to be honest, I am not sure how practical are her proposals. If her amendments were accepted, we should perhaps bear in mind what would be needed in the case of the thousands of blocks and slides that are imported each year and the urgent circumstances that usually surround the importation of an organ for transplant. From those perspectives alone, I cannot see that her idea will find favour with the Minister.
Indeed, the amendment that I have tabled, I am afraid, looks at the matter of imported material from another perspective. My amendment, Amendment No. 66, has been suggested by the BioIndustry Association, which is anxious that the Human Tissue Authority lay down requirements on the consent needed for human tissue that is imported into this country.
As I read Clause 1, imported bodies and imported relevant material are exempt from the consent requirements of the Bill. However, the anxiety of the BIA—and this is the reason that I have tabled the
GC 406
amendment—rests on an apprehension that the HTA may take it upon itself to lay down stipulations on the consent needed in relation to imported material.
I do not know whether that apprehension is well founded but, if there is anything in it, I have sympathy with the BIA's position. Seeking to lay down what procedures should operate in other countries in relation to consent goes, I would have thought, beyond the remit of the HTA and beyond the scope of the Bill. Indeed, any attempt to go down this path would have one result—that is, to encourage research to move out of the UK. I hope the Minister can reassure me on those matters.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: I have added my name to Amendment No. 66. In fact, I tabled a similar amendment but, very wisely, the Public Bill Office said that it would make sense to have the two amendments rolled into one. I was very happy to agree with that
I am going to speak to Amendments Nos. 66 and 68, which stand in my name. First, I can deal with Amendment No. 68 very briefly. I believe that this is an issue which has figured in the Bill—although one is not allowed to use Latin—per incuriam. It is an accident; it should not have happened.
This is a question of transferring tissues and slides and so on between departments of universities and other researchers in different parts of the United Kingdom. The Minister will know from looking at the battery of distinguished doctors sitting along the Bench from him and on the Cross Benches that collaboration frequently exists between universities in Scotland and in England and Wales. One is increasingly struck by how many papers are published that come from several different sources within the United Kingdom. They work very closely together. Indeed, the IT revolution makes it much easier and more possible.
Therefore, it seems absolutely absurd that, as the Bill provides for its procedures to operate in all parts of the United Kingdom, as I understand it—certainly England, Scotland and Wales—it should cover the transport of tissue and other materials between different centres within the United Kingdom. We shall turn to the question of use and the need for consent later. But one assumes that these will be materials that have secured the necessary consent and are just being sent to collaborators in other UK centres. I cannot believe that the Government have intended that that should be the subject of a separate consent. It will be hugely bureaucratic.
From what I said at Second Reading, the Minister will recognise that I have the greatest sympathy with those concerned, while recognising the main purposes of the Bill and the need to remedy the shortcomings that became apparent in the various inquiries that have been held. It is also desperately important that the balance should be maintained and that the research community is not saddled with unnecessary bureaucratic hurdles. That is precisely the aim of Amendment No. 66. I hope that the Minister will be able to give us an assurance that the Government will table an amendment at a later stage in order to make that perfectly clear.

GC 407
Amendment No. 66 refers to similar arrangements that might exist between other countries in the European Union and the UK and between the United States and the UK. I am aware that, of course, there are collaborations and transfers that will take place on a multilateral basis right across the world. Therefore, this is a very modest amendment that is intended to deal with those countries that are likely to have similar forms of consent and procedures to those that we have.
I shall not bother to weary the Committee, but I have a substantial note here that has been provided for me to indicate that there are differences. Of course there are differences. If one takes the United States of America, it is true that in some American states there is no absolute requirement for informed consent. The equivalent of a research ethics committee—the IRB—has the legal power to waive consent to the use of tissue if it deems that there is no risk to the patient and if confidentiality is preserved. Some might argue that that would be quite a good system to have here, but I understand that the Government are now taking that much further. I am arguing that it is a sufficient condition that the importation of tissue from the USA should be acceptable for the purposes of the Bill on the question of controlling such tissue.
In the European Union, Austria and Hungary, for example, operate a system of presumed consent. I recognise that the Government have firmly turned their face against presumed consent. I do not think that my noble friends on the Front Bench will argue for that. But the fact is that they are perfectly acceptable procedures in those countries. Should we add to the bureaucratic burden of the Bill by saying that what is acceptable in some countries, with systems that are not all that different from ours but where there are differences, should be subject to all the rigours of the Bill?
In most EU countries, some form of consent is required for collection of human tissue for research and for certain other activities. To act without such consent is illegal. Well, that is at the heart of what we are about here. It seems to me that the Government owe the Grand Committee an explanation of why it is not possible, in developed cases such as the United States and the rest of the European Community, to have a system whereby there can be transfers without the necessity for all the bureaucratic controls which we have in the Bill. That matter needs to be examined closely.
I am sure the Minister will recognise that a number of the amendments on the Marshalled List, to some of which I may be speaking, are designed to try to reduce the burden of bureaucracy which the Bill imposes and to make it possible for valuable research to continue without imposing these unnecessary burdens.
The first burden—the question of transfers between different countries in the United Kingdom—is, if I may use another Latin phrase, a casus omissus. They should be perfectly possible without any of the bureaucracy. I recognise that there are differences with the European Union and America, but we could perfectly well allow them under the Bill. I shall not go
GC 408
through the rest of the countries because of course there are a lot of differences. But the main point is that they require consent for the use of tissues. They may have different procedures and rules, but the provision is sufficiently close to ours that we ought to be able to accept it.
Lord Walton of Detchant: I have a couple of questions to ask the Minister in this very complex situation. In many circumstances when a patient is suffering from a rare form of cancer and a biopsy is taken from that particular lesion, the pathologist in question may not feel that he or she has sufficient expertise to be able to determine the nature of the lesion—and this is for purely diagnostic purposes and not for research. Often those samples of tissue are sent to another centre where an expert in the field is able to give a definitive opinion. I recognise that those patients will have given consent for the removal of tissue for study by the first pathologist, but does that consent extend to the transportation of the tissue to other parts of the United Kingdom for an expert opinion?
My second question is based on personal experience. When I was in clinical practice and involved in research on muscle disease, I regularly received blocks of muscle taken from patients in many parts of the world, not just the European Union but the United States, Saudi Arabia and sometimes even Australia. I was asked to process this material in my department using the expertise we had developed over several years in order to offer a diagnosis. Is that particular process covered by the Bill as it stands or does it require these amendments in order to make that legal?
Lord Clement-Jones: I rise briefly to support Amendments Nos. 66 and 68. The noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, made the case extremely effectively for Amendment No. 68. Clearly, it seems anomalous if the UK is not treated as a single entity for the purpose of import and export under Clause 46. No doubt the Minister will address that particular point.
On Amendment No. 66 the situation appears fairly unclear under Clause 1. I can well understand that Amendment No. 66 has been tabled because Clause 1 does not appear to be totally clear. If it covers imported material then there is an element of extraterritoriality about this in terms of the UK—or at least England, Wales and Northern Ireland—assuming some sort of right to determine the nature of the consent obtained for that material. Basically the fundamental case being made is that any attempt to stipulate those kinds of consent requirements in other countries would simply encourage research to move out of the UK. I think that that that is at the bottom of this amendment, which I support.
3.45 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Lord Warner): A good deal of clarification will probably be required, given what has been said by a number of noble Lords. Subsections (4) to (6) of Clause 1 have the effect that storage and use of an imported body of a deceased person or of relevant

GC 409
material are not subject to the consent requirements of subsections (1) to (3), as I think that the noble Earl, Lord Howe, suspected. These requirements are that appropriate consent is obtained and, if the activity in question is anatomical examination, that the death has been certified and registered. Amendment No. 1 would change that position so that it would be lawful to store and use imported bodies and material only where appropriate consent was in place and after the death had been properly registered in the country of origin.
As a number of noble Lords have suggested, it is unrealistic in particular to expect that consent regimes abroad will be the same as the requirement for "appropriate consent" under the Bill. Some countries which are much involved in exchange of research material, such as the United States, do not have obligatory consent regimes. The amendments would restrict the use of imported tissue in transplantation, teaching, research and public display. They would risk holding back valuable international research and could lead to movement of research from this country. That is certainly not the Government's wish, as, indeed, it is not the wish of other noble Lords.
It is our view that suitable control of storage and use of imported bodies and tissue can be achieved through guidance. The Human Tissue Authority is required to issue a code of practice on the import and export of tissue—I refer noble Lords to Clause 26(2)(k) on this issue—and it would, no doubt, make it clear that care should be taken on provenance of human tissue and that the relevant formalities in the country of export were adhered to. It is not for us, however, to impose our regulatory systems in this regard on other countries.
Amendment No. 66 requires the authority's code of practice on import and export of tissue to include that consent to storage and use of tissue shall be deemed to be in place where tissue is imported from America or the EU in accordance with their local law. I believe that the amendment is inconsistent with the Bill. As I have indicated, the Bill does not require consent to be in place in relation to imported tissue in any event. Moreover, it is fair to say that Amendment No. 66 in any case discriminates between tissue from the EU and the US and that from other developed countries such as Australia and New Zealand. However, as I have said, it is our view that suitable control of storage and use of imported bodies and tissues can be achieved through guidance and without the need for deeming consent to importation to be in place.
I will come to some of the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, in a moment. As regards the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Walton, under the Bill there would be no restriction on the movement of tissue in the first case—the cancer case—that he cited. On the imported second case he cited—I assume he meant "muscles" and was not in the fishing business—similarly, there would be no problems. The material would be covered as imported tissue under the terms of the Bill. There would be no restriction in either case.
I can reassure the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, that the Bill covers Northern Ireland, so there is not an issue in terms of Northern Ireland.
GC 410
Finally, Amendment No. 68 states that the code of practice will not apply to transport within the UK. I am still not sure why we need this. There is no reason why movement of tissue in the UK should be affected in any way by the Bill. We regard the amendment as totally unnecessary. As I have said, there is no increase in the regulation of imports and exports taking place, and the Human Tissue Authority code of practice will give guidance on that. The Bill does not extend to Scotland so the question of movement of tissue between Scotland and other parts of the UK will be subject only to guidance from the HTA in the form of a code of practice. As I have said, this will not be a matter of imposing any new requirements on research collaborations. That is true, as I have tried to set out, in relation to collaborations with other parts of the world also.
In the light of my explanation, I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: I hesitate to take up more of the time of the Grand Committee but, in the light of debates in another place and a study that has been made of the Bill since then, bodies engaged in this work are not reassured by the statements put before us by the Minister, who says that he cannot see why these amendments are needed, particularly Amendment No. 68.
There are those who, on reading the Bill, feel that it will give the Government powers to impose, either by regulation or through the codes, restrictions on the transport of tissues within the United Kingdom. However, the Minister has said that that is not their intention. This issue will arise again and again. Is it sufficient to rely on ministerial statements? Should we have a clear statement set out in the Bill, or should the matter be dealt with in regulations? We know that United Kingdom courts will take note of statements made by Ministers during the passage of legislation, but that is not widely known in the rest of the world.
Let us consider the position of firms in the bio industry that are seeking to exchange tissues. Are we to say, "It is all right. I can quote the noble Lord, Lord Warner, speaking on 15 September in the House of Lords"? How many people will pay attention to that when it is not set out in the Bill, the regulations or the code? That is what will create difficulties.
For that reason, we need these statements, which are reassuring as far as they go, put in the Bill or in subordinate legislation. It is not enough simply to rely on Ministers giving us a view of their intentions.
Lord Warner: I do not quite know what one does in these circumstances. I have tried to reassure the Committee that no provisions in the Bill would enable us to impose restrictions of the kind about which the noble Lord and others are concerned. In this country we often structure primary legislation to provide for another body to produce a code of practice on some of the detailed working arrangements. That is the case here and the body is the Human Tissue Authority. It will have to operate within the framework of the legislation that has been described, outlined and agreed by Parliament.

GC 411
On the legal advice I have been given, I am unaware of any provisions that would enable the introduction of restrictions on the transport of tissue of the kind that the noble Lord and others fear. If he gives the names of those who are deeply concerned, I shall be happy to put those assurances on paper on behalf of the Government. However, I am not sure what more I can do because we do not have the code of practice of the Human Tissue Authority before us—the authority has not yet been set up. Unfortunately, I cannot bring forward that code as a further reassurance.
I have done my best to make it clear that it is not the Government's intention to impose such restrictions. No provision in the Bill would enable the body to impose such restrictions and, in the light of these assurances, it would be very surprising if the Human Tissue Authority, of its own volition, were suddenly to write such restrictions into its code of practice. That, I would guess, would be challengeable in law.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: I shall say no more than a further word or two. Certainly the BioIndustry Association has had discussions with the Minister's officials. The association was not given the kind of reassuring responses that the Minister has given Members of the Grand Committee this afternoon. It would be helpful if the Minister could write to the BioIndustry Association setting out precisely the intentions of the Bill. Such a letter would have to be taken into account by the courts in this country and may well go some way to reassuring the association.
When I discussed the matter with association representatives, they expressed their concerns. If a letter would relieve that concern, the time taken to write it would be very well spent.
Baroness Finlay of landaff: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 2 not moved.]
Lord McColl of Dulwich Lord McColl of Dulwich moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 2, line 32, after "body" insert "(or education and training relating to such research or to research techniques)"
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 3, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 4, 13 and 15. The purpose of the amendments is to make it clear that research can never be divorced from education and training. Unlike education and training related to health, education and training related to research falls under those purposes generally requiring consent. It is not clear why that distinction has been made. We foresee considerable difficulties in making the distinction in practice.
As Members of the Committee will know, research is defined as,
"the systematic investigation to establish facts or principles, or to collect information on a subject".
Academic departments in many branches of medicine and surgery throughout the world regard research and teaching merely as part and parcel of everyday
GC 412
practice. If one considers training someone in cytology to read, for instance, cervical smears, is that an example of training in research or in a research technique? If tissue is anonymised, do training and research techniques require consent?
I remind the Committee that patients with duodenal ulcers sometimes experience a dangerous complication when the ulcer perforates and the patient develops peritonitis. Some years ago, the treatment of that complication was to open up the abdomen and plug the hole with a piece of nearby fat. One clinician was surprised when he noticed that one of his patients who had the complication never had any further trouble from the ulcer, whereas other patients in similar condition continued to have trouble for many years. That prompted him to find out what percentage of patients had no further trouble. The answer was a third of them. He then began to wonder why that was so. The probable explanation was that the antibiotics given to rescue the patient from that dangerous complication also happened to cure the infection that we now know is the cause of a duodenal ulcer.
The clinicians had at their disposal hundreds of biopsies of patients with duodenal ulcers, which they were then able to examine. The bacterium—helicobacter—was found in those biopsies. Later, the helicobacter was cultured by one of the doctors, who drank the broth containing it, just to make sure that it was the cause of duodenal ulcers. He developed an ulcer and then had a biopsy to prove it. We tend to experiment on ourselves, not our patients.
I tell that story to illustrate the fact that the clinician did not suddenly decide, in the middle of his work, "Ah—time for research", and put on a research hat. Research is merely part and parcel of the clinician's way of life. It is also worth pointing out that a patient who is part of a controlled clinical trial is managed in a very strict scientific protocol, and is therefore likely to receive better management than patients who are not in a trial.
We often take a three-centimetre slice of one of the minor nerves in the leg—the sural nerve—for diagnostic purposes, and we are teaching the junior staff how to carry out that procedure. It can also be for research purposes at that time, or years later the material may be invaluable in new research as more advanced techniques become available to analyse the tissue. It should be agreed that all education and training, whether it relates to health or research, is included in the purposes not normally requiring consent. As a minimum, we propose that the exemption from the consent requirement applicable to research using anonymised tissue is extended to education and training for research purposes. I beg to move.
4 p.m.
Lord Clement-Jones: I rise not only to support Amendments Nos. 3, 4 and 13, to which I added my name, but also to speak to Amendments Nos. 9 and 16. I cannot be as graphic as the noble Lord, Lord McColl, the Committee will be glad to hear, but the argument is a strong one.

GC 413
Research using tissue taken ante-mortem may be conducted without consent if the research is ethically approved and the tissue is anonymous to the researcher. However, this exception to the consent requirement does not extend to education and training relating to research. There does not appear to be any justification for taking a stronger line on the former than the latter, for the reasons that the noble Lord, Lord McColl, has put forward. It would therefore seem logical, as a minimum, to extend the exception to education and training relating to research, with one modification. The requirement for ethical approval would be unnecessary and inappropriate—ethical approval is not generally required for education and training, nor do systems exist to provide this.
The subsections proposed in Amendment No. 9 would permit education and training relating to research to be conducted on ante-mortem tissue without consent if the tissue is anonymous to those using it, bringing the position on education and training relating to research more in line with the position on research itself.
I turn to Amendment No. 16. Unlike education and training relating to health, education and training relating to research currently falls under those purposes generally requiring consent. It is unclear why this distinction has been made. We certainly foresee difficulties which appear to be shared across both Opposition Front Benches in making the distinction in practice. All education and training, whether it relates to health or research, should be included in the purposes not normally requiring consent. As a minimum, we would propose in this amendment that the exemption from the consent requirement applicable to research using anonymised tissue is extended to education and training for research purposes. The requirement for ethical approval would not apply in line with the approach to training generally.
The effect of Amendment No. 16 would be that all education and training would be in Part 2 of Schedule 1 and therefore would not require consent to be conducted using tissue taken ante-mortem.
Lord Walton of Detchant: I support these amendments, but do so with one qualification, although again the Minister may well reassure that me that the concern I now wish to express is already covered in the Bill. However, nowhere in Schedule 1 do I find the word "diagnosis". Tissue is often removed from the human body not for research, but that is not covered in Schedule 1. Schedule 1 states that the purpose may well be to determine the cause of death or to obtain,
"scientific or medical information about a living or deceased person which may be relevant to any other person".
I am sure that these amendments would be strengthened by the addition of the word "diagnosis", with a view to treatment. I believe that that is one of the major purposes for which tissue is removed from the body of a living person.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff: First, I apologise to the Committee for not having thanked the Minister for his reply to my previous amendments. Having had a very relaxed summer, I was a million miles away.
GC 414
I should like to speak to Amendments Nos. 3, 4, 13 and 15, but to address my remarks particularly to Amendment No. 13. The difficulty with which we are faced in the reality of training people to become clinicians and to work and acquire the skills they need to undertake research in a clinical context is that they have to be trained in the methodology. As the Bill stands, while those in training will be able to use historical samples that are already stored, they will not be able to use samples prospectively. Therefore, they may not be able to look prospectively at new techniques or even at new syndromes as they emerge.
That is particularly important in genetics. In genetics, you have to be able to link the sample in front of you to the clinical case scenario that you are pursuing. You have to be able to identify the very specific gene changes. Junior doctors in training need to learn how to do the technique. Very often in the process of their training they will undertake a series of examinations and pull those together, out of which they will probably, it is to be hoped, get a paper. That will be for the common good, will inform the rest of the clinical community and therefore will improve patient care across the board.
However, because they are in training, they are going through quite rapidly. Unfortunately, at present the process of going to local research ethics committees is cumbersome. Because standard guidance has not been issued and is therefore not in place, ethics committees deliver different decisions in different parts of the country. Those in training need to be able to work through and learn the techniques. They need to undertake the diagnostic processes. Moreover, there is an integral link between education, research and training. It would be wonderful if we could unhook them and put them in very clear compartments, which the Bill has tried to do. However, the reality of training the next generation means that we cannot do that.
In their White Paper published in 2003 entitled, Our Inheritance, Our Future, the Government recognised the recruitment and training problems and the need to expand genetic clinical scientists in the workforce. I hope that the Minister will recognise the wisdom of the amendments and the fact that we cannot have an artificial separation which does not recognise diagnostic processes and the training of the next generation to improve services for the next group of patients.
Baroness Hayman: I rise briefly in support of the thrust of the amendments, in particular Amendments Nos. 3, 4 and 13. I remind the Committee of my interest as chairman of Cancer Research UK.
The case has been made that there will be enormous difficulties in differentiating between research and training in health and education and training in research techniques. To put that distinction in the Bill will be thought to cause more practical problems. However, there is a more fundamental reason for including training into research techniques within the ambit of the Bill as not needing consent.

GC 415
The noble Lord, Lord McColl, said that research was part and parcel of a clinician's life. Sadly, that is less the case these days. The diminution in the research capacity of many practising physicians and surgeons is a worry to us all. It has to be a concern that all clinicians are trained in research techniques in order to provide a better service to their patients. As more and more medicine is related to the assessment of the quality of research, if patients are to get good advice from their general practitioners, junior hospital doctors and those who are not going to pursue careers in academic medicine, it is vital that they are well trained and able to assess the research findings put in front of them.
It is enormously important for patients that nothing in the Bill inhibits the training of clinicians in research techniques. I always remember how the previous director-general of the cancer research campaign used to stop audiences in their tracks and say that he believed that we should get informed consent from patients for them not to be entered in clinical trials because there was so much evidence that those who were, in whatever arm of the trial, did better than those receiving standard treatment. That assertion makes one think, even if one does not subscribe totally to it. However, it underlines the importance of research techniques becoming once again part of a clinician's life. I would not like to see anything in the Bill that would inhibit that.
Lord Warner: I will try to take the amendments together, as they seek to achieve a similar result by different routes. I shall detain the Committee a little while by talking about the technical effects before dealing with some of the substantive arguments that underpin the ideas that lie behind the amendments.
The first two amendments seek to allow education and training in health research using material from the living—that is, residual tissue—without consent, where the same safeguards are in place as are required for use without consent of such material in research itself. The amendments to Schedule 1 do not work with the amendments to Clause 1, but seek to achieve use without consent of residual tissue for research education and training by a rather different route. They would remove the requirement for consent to the storage and use of residual tissue for education and training in research altogether, by putting all health-related education and training into Part 2 of Schedule 1. The effect of that would be that education and training in health research using residual tissue would not require consent or any other safeguards. However, the amendments to Clause 1 already propose that such use should be lawful where certain safeguards are met. Not all the amendments could work together as there are inconsistencies. That is a technical explanation of the Government's interpretation of the amendments.
I appreciate that the thinking behind the amendments is very much driven by medical scientists who maintain that it is difficult, as several Members of the Committee
GC 416
have said, to differentiate between research and training for research, and that they do not wish to ask for consent. To respond to the amendments, I must go back to the origins and principles of the Bill. When we first drafted the Bill, we wanted to allow education and training related to the delivery of care without consent, because patients expect that, and the Bill originally included "on the job" training in Part 2 of Schedule 1. We were told by medical educators that "on the job" training was difficult to distinguish from education in a more formal setting. We tabled amendments to ensure that all education and training related to care could be carried out using tissue from living patients without consent. We have already responded to many educationists' concerns on the issue.
Now we hear that education and training related to research is difficult to distinguish from education and training related to healthcare, and from research itself, so it should also be allowed without the patient's consent. Given the context of the Bill—that we are promoting a consent-based environment—research-related activities do not seem part of what people would expect when their tissue is taken for diagnostic or treatment purposes. I can reassure the noble Lord, Lord Walton, on diagnosis. The Bill itself does not in any way cover the removal of tissue from patients or its use for diagnosis or treatment, so there should be no concern about that. Only the usual common-law consent requirements apply, with which the Bill does not presume to interfere.
For many people, it is one thing for such material to be used for training doctors who treat people, but not quite the same for the training of researchers who may not themselves treat patients. There is a distinction in many people's minds that can fairly be made, however unacceptable the thought might be to some researchers. We have to understand the origins of the Bill. However, that does not mean that all research training is impossible unless there is consent for the purpose. Clearly, where a trainee is observing a research procedure, there is no difficulty. Equally, if a postgraduate student has a research proposal approved by an ethics committee, the learning would be part of the research and that would proceed in the usual way. However, if tissue samples—we could be talking about sizeable items—are to be used solely to teach someone how to use a piece of equipment, that is a different matter, and one where consent should be required.
4.15 p.m.
We do not wish to create an environment where residual tissue can be used for all training and education irrespective of how far removed it is from the original purpose for which the tissue was taken. It would be anomalous if residual tissue could be used for education and research without consent while consent or safeguards are required for the same tissue in research. Lines have to be drawn somewhere, I would suggest, if the purposes of the reforms in the Bill—to restore public confidence—are not to be eroded.

GC 417
I always feel a little nervous arguing clinical matters with the noble Lord, Lord McColl, but I am still going to chance my arm a little. One of the cases he cited entered the department's top 10 list of myths in the Human Tissue Bill; it has now risen to the top 12 myths. The case he quoted is one of these myths in terms of stopping earth-shattering research. It is simply not true. Studies of the kind mentioned by the noble Lord could take place in future without patients' consent, with ethical approval and anonymisation of tissue. Use of existing holdings requires no consent and, again, services could also introduce procedures asking for generic and enduring consent to research at the time samples are taken. So I do not think we are stopping the advance of science in quite the way the noble Lord seemed to suggest with his example.
I also remind the Committee that resources of tissue will remain available for use in training and research techniques without consent following the passage of the Bill. Existing holdings of tissue—that is, tissue held for scheduled purposes—when the Bill takes effect will be available for use for any scheduled purpose without a requirement for consent and subject only to a code of practice issued by the Human Tissue Authority. There should be no difficulty about easy access to tissue for educational training related to research.
I hope the Committee will accept that we have drawn the line in a reasonable place and will feel able not to pursue the amendment.
Lord Winston: I wish to reply to the Minister very briefly. It is not true to say that new techniques would not be interfered with. For example, in the field of genetics, to which the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay referred, the way in which tissues are stored makes a huge difference. Now, increasingly, you can recover things that you could not recover even three years ago—for example, DNA, RNA and chromosome investigation. There are new techniques which we continue to expect in all kinds of staining of tissue which are not available, or have not been available, because of the way in which the tissue has been preserved and maintained. It is a fact that we have to face. We have to face some restriction and we should be honest about it.
Lord Clement-Jones: I am sure the Minister will respond and, no doubt, the noble Lord, Lord McColl, will wish to respond.
The Minister has answered on very broad policy grounds; he has not tried to unpick the amendments to any great extent. Although I understand his reasons for doing so, that is very disappointing. He clearly does not accept the concrete examples that have been given. I suspect that the proponents of a changed regime for education and training on research techniques will have to come back with chapter and verse in concrete terms to demonstrate to the Minister that there are problems which will cause difficulties, and to persuade him otherwise. It is only by sheer volume of evidence that we shall be able to persuade him.
GC 418
Although I do not agree with the Minister's caution, I understand it in the light of previous events. But I think he is being overly cautious. Clearly we must try harder and come back to this issue at a later stage of the Bill.
Lord McColl of Dulwich: I thank the Minister for his reply. Clearly, he has firmly fixed in his mind the fact that there are researchers and clinicians and that the two are divided, but that is not so. I wonder whether he thinks that it is all right for junior clinicians to do research, but that once they become established as clinicians and are no longer in training, somehow or other we move to a different scene.
I agree entirely with the noble Lords, Lord Winston, and Lord Clement-Jones. I think that the Government will eventually be persuaded on this matter because the evidence is overwhelming. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 4 not moved.]
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 2, line 42, at end insert—
"( ) the person from whom the material has come has not withheld his consent to the research"
The noble Earl said: This is a simple amendment but it covers an important point. When the Bill was in another place, significant changes were made to the provisions relating to consent for various activities involving tissues where the tissue comes from a living person. These changes are reflected in Clause 1. The result is that a large number of activities involving tissue taken from living persons, including certain types of clinical research, will now be exempt from the consent requirements.
While all that is very welcome, the Bill should not overlook the possibility that a person might object to the idea of his tissue being used for any purpose other than the diagnosis and treatment of his own condition. Not many people perhaps would adopt that sort of attitude, but it is conceivable to imagine that someone might. Simply because the Bill now says that a person's consent for a particular activity is not required, we should not thereby negate that person's right to express his wishes about the use to which his tissue is put. On the contrary, his wishes should be respected. I beg to move.
Lord Warner: The effect of the amendment would be to allow use of residual tissue in research without consent, where anonymised and with ethical approval, but only where the person whose tissue was concerned had not "withheld his consent to the research". Although there is no stipulation in the amendment, that implies that a person's consent needs to be asked, possibly to the particular research project envisaged, so that he could express a view. It is difficult to see how else a person would be given an opportunity to withhold consent. Getting people to respond to posters or the like by objecting would bring us to "presumed consent", but that would discriminate against certain groups of people.

GC 419
During the course of debates on the Bill in the other place, the research community has consistently said to the Government that a requirement always to seek consent of living patients to use their tissue in research would be a major obstacle to medical research in this country and would ultimately damage patients as a result. The Government therefore introduced amendments in another place to allow use of residual tissue without consent, provided the tissue was anonymised and the research had ethical approval. However, we believe that this particular amendment would negate the concession brought forward in another place, which has been generally accepted as a sensible way forward by the medical research community.
I would not wish to give the impression that the Government think that the views of patients should be ignored. On the contrary, we wish to enlist the support of patients in medical research for the good of us all. That is why we have made a requirement for consent the default position for using tissue for research. Ministers have made it quite clear that, notwithstanding the fact that it may be lawful to use it without consent if it is anonymised, if an individual particularly does not wish his tissue to be used in research, then it would not be good practice to do so. We would not expect tissue to be used in those circumstances. Code of practice guidance on this will be issued by the Human Tissue Authority and tissue storage facilities and their records will be licensed and inspected accordingly.
However, the practical effect of the amendment would be to bring about a situation whereby patients may have to be invited to give or withhold their consent. It would also entail an onerous process of having to check the records of all patients from whom potential research samples have come, in case they had withheld consent. That would be a considerable bureaucratic problem. I am sure that it is not what the noble Lord had in mind when he tabled this amendment, but I would ask him to reconsider the position in the light of what I have said because I think that it will add to the concerns and demands on the medical research community.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff: Would a consent form completed at the time a specimen is taken, whereby patients donate tissue as part of the process before, for example, going into surgery—and donate any residual tissue to be used for education and research purposes—be a lawful consent and completely covered by this Bill? Could tissue so acquired then be used for research purposes provided that it remains anonymised? I ask this as a point of clarification.
Lord Warner: I think that we have always said that where a patient has given a clear consent to the use of tissue for research purposes, that is a continuing, generic consent that would endure. I hope that reassures the noble Baroness.
Earl Howe: I am grateful to the Minister for his reply and of course I would be the first to recognise that the
GC 420
amendment as drafted may not quite achieve the purpose that I had intended for it, and that there are unintended consequences. However, I am not quite reassured by his undertaking that this will be covered in guidance.
In 2001 we debated Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act and the provisions concerning the disclosure of confidential patient information. We had long exchanges about presumed consent to the disclosure of patient data and when that might be permissible in the absence of explicit consent. This was primarily in the context of cancer registries. The Health Service (Control of Patient Information) regulations followed in 2002. Never did it occur to me during any of those debates that, where a patient had expressly objected to the disclosure of information about him or herself, that those wishes would not be respected. Both the Act and the regulations are silent on that issue, but it was one that I and, I suspect, others took as read on the basis of accepted medical practice.
The Minister may recall that I wrote to him in June this year about the case of a patient who had recorded an express wish for the details of her cancer not to be passed to a cancer registry. Despite that, the hospital did pass the details across. When the patient found out and requested the registry to delete the information it was holding about her, the registry—having taken legal advice—refused to do so. It refused on the apparent grounds that nothing set out either in Section 60 or the 2002 regulations stated that a patient has the right to object to this type of information being disclosed. The Minister may know that I am due to see his colleague, Melanie Johnson, about this case and its implications.
I am well aware that we are dealing with human tissue in this Bill, not data, but the underlying principle of patient autonomy is exactly the same. Despite what the Minister said, and I realise that he is trying to be helpful, I still think that we need somehow to make it absolutely clear, beyond argument, that if a patient articulates an express objection to his tissue being used for any particular purpose, those wishes should be respected. There should be a right in law for that to happen.
Earl Howe: I was referring to Clause 1(9), which, in shorthand terms, is the requirement for the anonymisation of tissue. I am one of those who find the presence of this requirement surprising and odd. At Second Reading, the Minister said that nothing in the subsection would oblige researchers to ensure that the tissue should be disconnected irretrievably from the medical record. He said that so-called reversible and linked anonymisation would be permitted.
Of course, I take the Minister's assurances at face value. But, given those assurances, it is a mystery to me why subsection (9)(b) should be worded in the way that it is. By the Minister's own admission, clearly, there are circumstances where the identity of the tissue donor may have to become known to the person carrying out the research. That is especially so in the case of epidemiological and genetic research where the results of the research have little value unless they can be correlated

GC 421
with clinical information about the subject—sometimes very detailed information. Indeed, it is often the little detail about someone's life or circumstances that can lead a researcher to make a connection or a discovery that is of major importance.
In certain other sorts of research the requirement for identifying information to be withheld from the researcher may be entirely acceptable and uncontentious. What is surprising is to see that requirement written into the Bill as a blanket precondition for all research of that particular kind. It seems to me that that is not a matter for the face of the Bill. If complete anonymisation is something that a research ethics committee believes is appropriate, it will be able to insist on it as a condition of approving a research proposal. On the other hand, if reversible or linked anonymisation is thought to be a necessary feature of the project, the conditions governing the linkage or the reversibility can be spelt out as a condition of the approval.
In some cases, it may be thought that no anonymisation is appropriate; for example, where it is the clinician or pathologist concerned with the clinical care of the patient or the clinical examination of the tissue who wishes to carry out research on that tissue. There will he instances of that. Therefore, just as in other areas of the Bill, we say that we cannot generalise about what must happen in all conceivable cases, so here it would be better to say that the Bill need not make any stipulation about anonymity but rather that the HTA should be charged with the task of ensuring that codes of practice and standards are in place to guide researchers and research ethics committees as to what degree of anonymity may be appropriate in individual cases.
At Second Reading, the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, made a wise observation when she said that what mattered to patients was not anonymity but medical confidentiality. In other words, if a doctor or medical researcher had a need to know the identity of the patient, so be it as long as that knowledge was not shared indiscriminately among those who did not need to possess it. That is a common-sense approach. We do not need to write anything into the Bill about medical confidentiality because it is already inbuilt into accepted medical ethical practice.
I hope that what I have said will have some resonance with the Minister. I believe that the Bill is currently over-prescriptive. I also believe that the Government's rationale for including subsection (9)(b) has never been satisfactorily explained. It would be very good if we could resolve what, for many scientists and researchers, is a source of considerable bemusement, not to say worry. I hope that we can. Therefore, I beg to move.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Clement-Jones: I support the amendment of the noble Earl, Lord Howe. It is very important. As the noble Earl noted, a number of noble Lords raised these issues on Second Reading. The logic of the noble Earl is incontestable, particularly his point that this is an issue for research ethic committees and a matter of medical confidentiality rather than anonymity.
GC 422
In many respects, the Minister repeated what Rosie Winterton said in the other place. He gave the assurance that it was not permanently unlinked but, nevertheless, he stood his ground in terms of saying that the critical issue in these circumstances is that without consent the researcher does not have the name.
The Minister conceded that practical issues may be involved. This is where the practical issues impinge on principles. I am not a clinical researcher or a medical researcher, but I have no doubt that the Minister could be more enlightened by the experience of others in the Committee.
From the exchanges in the other place, it seems that the way in which that re-linking will take place will he extremely difficult and complicated. Certainly a researcher looking at the tissue would need to consult a third party colleague—and that third party colleague would have to link the sample—but the researcher would not have the identity; and yet the identity, in certain circumstances, for the purpose of research, would be necessary.
This seems to be setting up a huge barrier on an issue which, in practical and ethical terms, could be dealt with as a matter of course on the ground for the purposes of specific research. That seems to be utterly logical as a course of action.
Having debated but four groups of amendments, I have this awful feeling that, as we go through the Bill, ministerial caution, for understandable reasons, will be a real problem and a barrier to commonsense and practical solutions.
Lord Walton of Detchant: under the guidance of the General Medical Council, medical confidentiality includes the requirement that it is right for a doctor to consult with and if necessary advise, in relation to the management of a patient, a professional colleague, who will also maintain confidentiality. I can think of innumerable examples from my personal clinical practice where, in the pursuit of research, I have examined tissue which had been removed from patients who were patients of another colleague, and where, some years later, things came to light which made it absolutely clear that there were important issues to be raised in relation to the management of that patient. I then consulted the doctor in charge of that individual.
That is one of the reasons why this clause simply should not be allowed to stand. I support the amendment.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff: I have put my name to the amendment and I support it very strongly. Two other situations can arise, quite apart from the ones so clearly elaborated by the noble Earl, Lord Howe. In a clinical academic's routine practice, he or she will have some specialisation interest and will see patients who have been referred, possibly from all around the UK. He or she will often have undertaken a biopsy. With time, that clinical academic may well think that there is a strange subset that seems to respond differently to treatment.

GC 423
The clinical academic will know the names of those patients and will have been integrally and intimately involved in their care. He or she will also have looked at their histology from a biopsy taken. He or she would then need to pull these together to look at them systematically and, in a research project, quite separately. In so doing, not only does he know the identity of the patient and, indeed, all the personal details of the patient that have been disclosed; he will also know exactly what the histological specimen looks like. So to try to unlink those two becomes impossible if you want the clinical academic unit to be able to pursue the research.
The other situation that can arise quite separately is that of a pathologist who has looked at a specimen and may easily remember the visual picture of that specimen. In the process of research, he may see that slide again if it is brought out, and recognise it. Fortuitously, that pathologist will then know the patient that the specimen came from because of the clinical details attached to the original pathology request form.
As far as I can understand, and as the Bill is drafted, that pathologist is then committing an offence by having been so vigilant and so involved in his clinical diagnostic processes that the picture of that slide has remained in his memory, possibly for many years. Certainly, in clinical practice when you see something visually unusual, you remember it for many years, possibly a lifetime. If you are researching an unusual condition, you will be seeing unusual things and are much more likely to remember them.
This clause seems to cut across and hamper any kind of clinical academic service, provision and advance, which is essential for the care of patients. I sincerely do not believe that patients want to stop advances in research. They do not want pictures of their condition broadcast. Of course they require confidentiality. Any research publication must be completely anonymised so that nothing is traceable, but it becomes unrealistic to expect the clinical researcher to be able to uncouple completely any identity.
Lord Winston: During Second Reading I made a point about my own research, which clearly would have been possible only with the kind of linkage that pertained previously. However, I want to make a special plea to the Minister today of a really personal nature. It refers back to a clinic I did this morning. It is a general issue about confidentiality and the protection of the anonymity of patients.
In 1990, Parliament passed the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act. Ever since then we have been dogged with this issue of confidentiality, which works so often against patients but is enforced by the regulatory authority in various ways. So for example, as happened this morning in my clinic, the human fertilisation and embryology notes as properly required by the regulatory authority were separate from the patient's notes. As often happens in hospitals, because these things were separated, there was a long
GC 424
delay in being able to treat a very anxious patient who became increasingly nervous about her fate. That kind of problem is inevitable in the service.
It seems to me quite inappropriate to make stringent demands of this kind in all sorts of ways, and not only because it inhibits research. I believe that it will inevitably inhibit good clinical practice—as it did on several occasions this morning in my clinic, but on one particular occasion for this one patient—as it often does. Even in the best-run services, that is inevitable when research, teaching and clinical work are separated in this way. I beg the Minister to consider this matter carefully.
Baroness Hayman: When we debated anonymity at Second Reading, the Minister helpfully acknowledged that there would be cases in which establishing linkage and reversing anonymity would be essential and justified and that there would be processes and procedures so to do.
However, the concern remains that we were setting up a system that presupposed that we had to put in place all the processes relating to anonymity and then reverse them so that there would be a system for de-identifying every sample and then a form of scrutiny to see whether it was justified to re-identify and re-link those samples. The noble Earl, Lord Howe, seems to have come up with rather an elegant solution to that problem.
For all the reasons given by the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay—we have had different examples of what could happen—I would be much more comfortable with placing the burden of making decisions and recommendations on whether anonymisation, which would be the norm, should take place, or whether the circumstances of a particular piece of research justified linkage and de-identification, with an ethics committee that looked at a particular project, rather than having to go through a process that presupposes anonymisation and then allows another process. That is where we come to the bureaucracies referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, and the general disincentive to the undertaking of research that can come from overburdensome regulation that ends up not being in the patient's best interests. For that reason, I support the noble Earl's amendment.
Lord Warner: As a number of Members of the Committee have said, the amendment seeks to remove the requirement for anonymisation of residual tissue when it is used without consent and with ethical approval. That would make use of residual tissue for research without consent, and it would only have to acquire ethical approval.
As I set off along the path of arguing against the amendment, I am very conscious that I shall probably be told later how cautious I am being by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones. However, I have something to say gently to him. In one of his rhetorical flights, he said that there was a huge barrier to consent. However, there is quite a simple solution—it is called asking the patient, and I shall come back to it in a while.
I have to detain the Committee a little by going through the history of the issue. The concessions made in the other place mean that residual tissue from patients can be used in research without consent if the research is approved in accordance with regulations—we expect that to be by an ethics committee—and the researcher cannot identify the person from whom the tissue came. The researcher will therefore be able to access anonymised information from the patients' medical records, but if he wants to use residual tissue of identifiable patients he must ask the patients' consent.
We ended up with that formulation in the other place—it was introduced by the Government—but not because the Government had invented it merely of its own notion. It was put forward following an extensive meeting—I attended it with my good friend Rosie Winterton—with what I can only describe as the medical-scientific establishment. There was a long discussion about the uncertainties around the Bill, in terms of its impact on research, as it was then drafted. It was the Wellcome Trust that came forward with many of the ideas, and this is the kind of the wording in the legislation. When it was proposed, it was welcomed by other professional and research organisations, which perceived no difficulties with it.
[The Sitting was suspended for a Division in the House from 4.59 to 5.9 p.m.]
Lord Warner: My noble friend Lady Andrews was enjoying this so much that she suggested that I start again. I shall resist the temptation.
As I was saying, we have been through a process of consultation with the leaders of the medical profession and the scientific community in this area which has resulted in these arrangements on anonymisation and the consent of ethical committees. We thought that we were producing a solution here that actually was in the interests of the medical research community. Now, we hear that this will create difficulties in the case of research without consent conducted by the patient's own doctor or by a pathologist holding patient records.
The Government's position is that in these circumstances the clinician should seek the patient's consent or should seek the assistance of a third party in anonymising the samples if, for whatever reason, consent cannot be sought. In our view, a treating clinician is particularly well placed to obtain his patients' consent. It is difficult to see why he or she should have a major problem. If they do, then the anonymisation requirement is an important safeguard for the patients.
There is also some misunderstanding about the issue of confidentiality. The requirement in the Bill that the researcher should not know the identity of the patient if he or she is using the tissue without the patient's consent is really about fairness and balance. If the researcher is to use tissue without the consent or knowledge of the person from whom it came, then in fairness he should not know the identity of that person. It is inappropriate for doctors or researchers to be in a position where they hold tissue and names, and
GC 426
potentially discover relevant new clinical information through a research project, when the patient has no knowledge that research might be conducted using their tissue.
That is the principle we are seeking to enforce in this legislation. We believe that researchers need to respect it as part of—I repeat—the balance that the Bill seeks to strike in what has been an extremely contentious area.
If the researcher really needs to know the identity of the patient in order to access his identifiable clinical records, for example, he should ask for the patient's consent. We accept that there is a need for linkage, and we have done nothing in the Bill to prevent linkage. It would be surprising if ethical committees did not require a researcher to ask for consent in these circumstances, and a number of noble Lords have hinted that they believe that that would be the case.
Furthermore, this provision is in keeping with the data protection principles which require patients to be provided with information on the uses to which data they provide will be put. It also reflects the principles identified by the Patient Information Advisory Group, as the noble Earl, Lord Howe, said in an earlier debate, which include the "ask or anonymise" principle.
A key purpose of the Bill is to rebuild trust between the public and the medical science community so that research can go forward with public support and confidence. We believe that we have amended the Bill to take account of concerns of a major swathe of opinion in the medical research community. So although I understand where the amendments are coming from, I do not think that they would support the kind of balance that I have suggested. I hope that noble Lords will be able to reflect on this discussion and withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff: Can the Minister confirm that the pathologist who fortuitously recognises and therefore knows about a specimen in the course of a research project will not be committing an offence because he remembers who that specimen came from? That is terribly important when one operates with a very small number of people with the expertise in a given field, which can itself be very small and precise. We do not want to say that a pathologist cannot be involved in a research project just in case he recognises where a sample came from. That would destroy the whole process of moving knowledge forward.
Lord Warner: In the circumstances which I think the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, is outlining, if the researcher had a reasonable belief that he had conducted his research in the right and proper way, I cannot see that he would be guilty of any particular misdemeanour. No doubt there will be quirks of circumstance where someone does recognise a particular individual. However, providing that he set out on his research with the right approach—trying to adhere to the provisions on anonymity, consent and ethics committee approval, or the appropriate combination of those—I see no reason to believe there will be a misconduct problem.
5.15 p.m.
Earl Howe: As ever, I am grateful to the Minister for the reply he gave. However, I confess that I shall have to reflect on the content of it because I do not fully follow the reasons that he has given for the Government adopting this position on anonymity; namely, fairness and balance.
I was very impressed by what the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, said about the position faced by clinical academics where anonymity would make certain research unworkable. The Minister says that there is a very simple answer to all this, which is to obtain the consent of the patient. It seems to me that, given what I am led to believe is a very frequent need to identify patients in research projects, the concession made by the Government in another place is illusory because, in practice, consent will have to be obtained from living patients time and again if a researcher or clinician wants to proceed with a particular project.
I still do not understand why this cannot be a matter left to the code of practice and to research ethics committees to decide upon on an ad hoc basis. As drafted, the Bill seems to be a disincentive to certain types of research. I am still in the dark as to why, if linkage and reversible anonymisation is to be allowed, subsection 9(b) is worded as it is. It states:
"Research falls within this subsection if …
(b) it is to be, or is, carried out in circumstances such that the person carrying it out is not in possession and not likely to come into possession, of information from which the person from whose body the material has come can be identified".
It is the words,
"not likely to come into possession"
that puzzle me if reversible and linked anonymisation is to be permitted. I simply do not understand why that wording has been put in.
However, I have no doubt that we shall return to this matter at a later stage. I am sure that the Minister has gone as far as he possibly can at this stage. With time moving on, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Jenkin of Roding Lord Jenkin of Roding moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 2, line 46, at end insert—
( ) For research that is ethically approved in accordance with regulations made by the Secretary of State under subsection (9) above, the body responsible for providing such ethical approval shall be subject to performance standards, including but not limited to expert review and fixed approval time requirements, consistent with the relevant standards specified in other codes, regulations or legislation relating to other forms of human subject research.
The noble Lord said: In listening to the debates that have taken place so far, I am very disturbed by the reluctance of the Minister to concede anything on any of the arguments that have been advanced, notwithstanding the huge distinction of a number of Members of the Committee who really do know what they are talking about.
Nearly four months elapsed between the end of Committee stage and Report stage in another place. It was during that period that intensive pressure and
GC 428
discussion led the Government to go part of the way to recognise the fears of the research community. We shall not have that luxury. We shall have to try to finish the Bill so that it can be completed in this Session. I really do beg the Minister, when he comes to address these matters, to recognise that given the virtual unanimity of the support which has existed for a number of the amendments as voiced in this Committee, he will find himself with amendments carried against the Government on Report and will then perhaps have very little time to try to reverse them in another place.
So, with that introductory plea to the Government to perhaps acknowledge that there is more to be said for what has been advanced so far than he has recognised, it would be in his and the Government's interests to make some concessions in that regard.
Amendment No. 7 covers a different matter and relates to research ethics committees. When I was deciding how I was going to introduce this matter, the noble Lord, Lord Patel, had not joined the Committee. I warned him that I was going to quote his very wise words from his speech at Second Reading. He said:
"The requirement for the research ethical committees to give ethical approval for the use of anonymised tissue for research has implications for the capacity and expertise required within the research ethical committees to do this, and that matter will have to be addressed".—[Official Report, 22/7/04; col. 388.]
This amendment and Amendment No. 65—which contains an alternative form of words and is tabled by my noble friend Lord Howe—attempt now to deal with this issue.
Research ethics committees may give professional opinions and views on the ethics of applications—and that can always be valuable—but one has to remember that it is a voluntary process. As I know from my experience as a health authority chairman, many of these committees are under-resourced and the doctors who sit on them are under great time pressures. As a consequence—and this is what the noble Lord, Lord Patel, adverted to—they are frequently unable to provide a professional service to applicants in terms of the time taken to turn round applications.
Furthermore—I do not place as much stress on this as we have a very broad range of experience across the country—it is true that there is variability between the levels of expertise of research ethics committees in different parts of the country. Some, I am told, are happy to deal with applications regarding research using human tissue, but it has been the experience of some researchers that other ethics committees find this an uncomfortable process.
The need for this activity—the application to the research ethics committee process—will be very substantially enhanced as a result of the Bill. This is something to which Ministers need to address themselves.
Turning to the issue of clinical trials, which is a different area, there are now specific performance expectations placed on research ethics committees. For example, regulation 15 of the Medicines for Human Use (Criminal Trials) Regulations 2004 implemented the

GC 429
European Union clinical trials directive into UK law. In those regulations, specific time limits within which an ethics committee must give its opinion were laid down. If it is right for that legislation, why is it not equally right for what the ethics committees will be asked to do under this legislation?
It seems to me that it would be entirely appropriate to have wording similar to those regulations placed on the face of the Bill. If this does not happen, and if this issue was, as it were, left at large, it is my fear that the situation might arise that applications for which performance criteria exist would take precedence and the referral of cases to research ethics committees would tend to take second place. Human tissue-based research might be hindered by the combination of limited capacity—and, in many cases, I fear, limited expertise—and the higher priority given where performance criteria is laid down.
Amendment No. 7 requires that the regulations must specify a time limit within which research ethics committees should give their views. It is quite possible that this very important part of the structure of the legislation will raise great difficulties. I beg to move.
Lord Walton of Detchant: These are two powerful amendments—and their importance was underlined by correspondence in last week's issue of the British Medical Journal, which the Minister may not have had an opportunity to read—demonstrating that COREC, the Central Office for Research Ethical Committees, is currently imposing such standards upon ethical committees as are extraordinarily difficult to fulfil.
One researcher wrote in that issue that it took him 19 hours to complete the 60-page form required to obtain ethical approval for a fairly simple piece of research. We are in danger of living in an over-regulated society. Having said that, I nevertheless feel very strongly that all research involving human subjects and tissue from human subjects requires ethical approval. The issue needs to be clarified and simplified. I therefore support the principle underlying these two amendments.
Earl Howe: I very much support the remarks both of my noble friend and of the noble Lord, Lord Walton of Detchant. One of the welcome policy shifts the Government have made since first introducing the Bill into another place has been to recognise the interests of the medical research community rather more full-bloodedly than perhaps it did initially.
The most important result of that policy shift has been the amendments to Clause 1 which exempt residual tissue from living people from the standard consent requirements in relation to research, subject to certain conditions. One of the conditions is that any research involving such tissue must be ethically approved in a manner to be prescribed in regulations. That is right and proper, as the noble Lord, Lord Walton, said. It reminds us that the role of research ethics committees in relation to all types of research involving human tissue, whether from a living or a dead donor, is now of crucial importance. It is important not only to ensure the ethical acceptability
GC 430
of what is proposed, but also to make doubly sure that all the legal requirements, such as those laid down in the Bill, have been adhered to.
Research ethics committees as gatekeepers are therefore in a responsible and powerful position. By the same token, however, they need to work efficiently, reasonably and consistently with each other if there is not to be delay and disruption to the ethical approval system.
I am sure that the Minister is aware of a degree of concern among researchers—partly as a result of the EU Directive 2001/20/EC, partly because of severely stretched budgets and partly because of a shortage of suitable people willing to serve on these committees—some RECs have found themselves under pressure. A number of people in the medical and scientific research community fear that lack of resources and pressure of work may lead to an absence of consistency in the decisions taken by RECs across the country.
At the same time we hear anecdotal evidence—we have heard another piece this afternoon—that the requirements laid down by some research ethics committees are becoming ever more burdensome and time consuming to the extent that some research proposals, especially those of fairly modest scale and cost, are not being submitted for scrutiny because the hassle of doing so is simply too great. The Human Tissue Authority will have a job on its hands It will need to confront these concerns head on and find a way to resolve them that does not compromise the quality of ethical decision making, which is what really counts.
The BioIndustry Association believes that when the HTA draws up standards, it absolutely must include performance expectations for research ethics committees in its approval process. This is to ensure that applications involving human tissue are subject to the same approval time requirements as other types of application, such as those specified, for example, in the Medicines for Human Use (Clinical Trials) Regulations 2004. I have much sympathy with that proposal, but I also think that, with the increasing pressure on research ethics committees, there needs to be some sort of formal evaluation by the Department of Health on how this Bill will impact on the workload of RECs and what additional resources those committees are likely to need in order to do their job satisfactorily—by which I mean in accordance with the standards imposed upon them.
I hope that the Minister will have a degree of sympathy with the concerns underlying these amendments and that he will have some reassuring words to impart.
5.30 p.m.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff: I rise briefly to support these amendments and I thank the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, for having raised some extremely important issues that affect all those engaged in clinical research. There is a real problem regarding inconsistency in decision-making. A multi-centre research project can be completely hamstrung by the refusal of one REC when all the others have agreed.

GC 431
Quite apart from the burdensome forms that may need to be filled in, all produced in different formats, there are worries about inconsistency in decision-making.
Another issue relates to indemnity. The indemnity of the researchers and the principal investigator can be called into question. It is very difficult for NHS trusts, in whose employ are some of these researchers, to have to deal with different decisions being reached by different research ethics committees. I would make a plea that, as a result of this Bill, we see the introduction of some measure of standardisation. That is not in any way to diminish the importance of ethical scrutiny, but it is inefficient to have so many committees looking at the same piece of research over and over again. More time spent by one committee, and that decision being accepted on behalf of all the others, would be a more thorough approach to the scrutiny of research.
Lord Warner: The noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, and other noble Lords will be delighted to know that I have some sympathy with the sentiments behind these amendments. Indeed, some would say that there are no lengths to which I would not go to curry favour with the Grand Committee. No doubt the noble Lord will be pleased to learn that I have been listening to the advice he so kindly offered at the beginning of his remarks.
As a number of noble Lords have pointed out, we have to start from the position that independent ethical review is a vital safeguard for the individuals taking part in research. There is nothing between us here. We all want the ethics committee system to work as effectively as possible in the interests of research as well as of the people who take part in such research.
But as I go around the NHS and talk to a variety of people working in the medical research field, I have become increasingly aware of the growing concerns about the inconsistency and growing bureaucracy of this area. I am sure that we would gain wide support for ways to make this process much less bureaucratic. Indeed, a number of noble Lords may know that I am the Minister deputed as the Department of Health bureaucracy buster, so this sits fairly and squarely on my plate and there is no ducking the issue.
A number of noble Lords have recognised that we have already taken some steps to align the time limit for ethics committee review of all types of research with the 60-day time limit required by law for clinical trials of medicines. Ethics committees are now adopting standard operating procedures that apply to all types of research, and there is a system of quality assurance based on self-assessment and peer review that will soon help ethics committees to ensure that they are working to the same standards. It would be wrong, therefore, not to recognise that there has been some movement in this area.
I take the point made by the noble Earl, Lord Howe, that if one is imposing new requirements and demands on people, they need to be resourced to meet them, but there is a prior question: are they working as efficiently and effectively as they might?
I intend to seek independent advice as part of taking a closer look at the operation of the whole research ethics committee system, including that of the Central Office for Research Ethics Committees, before this area passes to the National Patient Safety Agency as part of the arm's-length review on which we made an announcement just before the Summer Recess. I intend to make a fuller announcement about the review, but it would not be right to do that in Grand Committee. The announcement will explain in detail how it is to be conducted and will be made in the near future.
I hope that, in the light of those assurances, the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: I must say, there is nothing like a punch-up for getting some results. More seriously, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Warner, for his readiness to look at this again. Clearly I have touched a tender spot as regards the working of the RECs, but it is one with which he is now a great deal more familiar than I am. I welcome the measures he intends to take to standardise and speed up the whole procedure.
In the light of that it would be foolish to press the amendment, but I hope that by the time we reach Report, we shall have something that can be put into the Bill which will reflect the investigations being undertaken by the Minister. This is a hugely important part of the Bill and is a vital stage in the process, so we have got to get it right. The noble Lord, Lord Patel, was quite right to raise it at Second Reading and I hope he feels that it was worth doing so, given that we have pursued it at a later stage, as he suggested. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 3, line 7, at end insert "(having consulted such persons as he shall consider appropriate)"
The noble Earl said: In moving Amendment No. 8 I shall speak to all the other amendments grouped with it. These amendments have the same purpose, which is to ensure that where the Bill gives powers to the Secretary of State to amend by way of regulation those parts of the Bill which cover key matters of principle or practical operation, the making of the regulations should at the very least be preceded by full consultation with the medical and scientific communities.
The Minister will have noted, I am sure, that I have not tabled an amendment for consultation on each and every regulation-making power. But where, for example, the Secretary of State is being given power to set aside the cardinal principle of informed consent in Clauses 6 and 7, augment the remit of the Human Tissue Authority in Clause 14, alter the list of those activities which require a licence under Clause 16, or completely change the list of purposes for which a DNA analysis may legally be carried out under Schedule 5—these are surely matters in which the medical and scientific communities have an inbuilt interest. They should be consulted automatically.
Clause 34(1) is a prize example of why consultation is essential, stating:
"The Secretary of State may make regulations requiring such persons as may be specified in the regulations to supply to such authority as may be so specified such information as may be so specified with respect to transplants".
That is a fun piece of drafting. The Government are effectively asking us to legislate on the clause blindfold. We do not know who is going to be affected by it or in what way. At the very least, those who are eventually affected should have the right to be consulted before regulations are published which concern them intimately.
However, if there is one part of the Bill where I feel most strongly about consultation, it is in relation to Clause 1. Subsection (11) asks us to allow the Secretary of State to "vary or omit" or add to,
"any of the purposes specified in … Schedule 1".
Changing Schedule 1, in whatever way one chooses to do it, will have a far-reaching effect on those individuals who have to implement this Bill.
Schedule 1 is one of the linchpins of the way the Bill will operate. There are offences attached to any action that infringes or cuts across it. It serves to define what is and is not within the remit of the Human Tissue Authority, and it is a key element in determining whether an activity needs to be licensed under the terms of Clause 16.
By any standards, therefore, the power in subsection (11) is important. When the Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform considered it, it commented that while the delegation was not in its opinion inappropriate,
"the House may wish to see the criteria for its exercise, if such criteria can be formulated, set out on the face of the Bill".
That, I think, was an important statement. I have to say that I think that it would be extremely difficult, if not impossible, to formulate criteria for the exercise of the power to cover every type of unforeseen circumstance. We perhaps need to approach the committee's recommendation in a slightly different way. My amendment would ensure that those who are likely to be most closely affected by changes to Schedule 1 should be given an automatic opportunity to have their views heard if ever such changes were proposed.
I hope that the Minister will look sympathetically at all the amendments in this group, but I hope particularly that he will be sympathetic to Amendment No. 8, which to my great pleasure I see has attracted the support of the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, and the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay. I beg to move.
Lord Clement-Jones: Having put my name particularly to Amendment No. 8, but to others as well, I support the noble Earl, Lord Howe. He has made an extremely good case. There are some extremely important sets of regulations. It is, at the very least, vital to hear from the Minister what proposals there are on consultation, but it would be even better to have provisions in the Bill. As the noble Earl pointed out, so many regulations are of crucial importance to the
GC 434
exercise of the Bill, such as—to name but three examples—regulations setting out circumstances where there can be deemed to be consent in relation to adults who lack capacity; regulations enabling the High Court to make exception orders for research; and regulations specifying exceptions to the licensing requirements.
This is a crucial issue and I very much look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff: I reiterate my support for the amendments, particularly Amendment No. 8. The Minister's description of the Bill's history and the previous consultation on it demonstrates the importance of those consultative processes. The different stakeholders involved in any regulation will be able to identify not only problems but solutions to issues that arise in the process. It seems essential that the consultation processes draw in for the Secretary of State the wide body of expertise that, in a rapidly changing society and world, will almost inevitably bring forward new information to inform the thinking and the making of regulations.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: I add one very short point. The need for consultation on the face of the Bill is essential if, when controversial regulations are being made, there is an opportunity to challenge them in the courts on the grounds that consultation did not take place. There are innumerable cases—one is going on at the moment on the totally different subject of airport runways—where it is said in the courts that consultation was required but the consultation undertaken was inadequate. That is the reason for putting it into the Bill. It is not enough for a Minister to say, "Yes, of course; we would not dream of making regulations without consulting widely all those who are going to be affected". That would not stand up in court.
If there is an obligation to consult, as set out in this group of amendments, then there is something which is justiciable. The noble Lord has recognised that this is a highly controversial piece of legislation, for reasons which we entirely understand. Therefore, it will be enormously important with the subordinate legislation and the codes of practice to get it right. To have a statutory obligation to consult is one of the safeguards which can be written into this Bill.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Warner: Having won plaudits from the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, on the previous amendment, I have an uneasy feeling that I am going to say exactly what he said I was going to say. I assure him that we will be consulting on these particular regulations and orders and consulting the key stakeholders as is appropriate, as has always been the custom under successive governments.
It is worth just bearing in mind that the key order and regulating powers are themselves subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. It would be a pretty brave Minister, then, who came along to move these orders and regulations in either House of Parliament and was unable to give some confidence that the key stakeholders had actually been consulted.
I draw the attention of the noble Earl, Lord Howe, to Clause 34(1). That regulation-making power on transplants is directly lifted from the current Human Organ Transplants Act, which requires notification of transplant procedures to UK transplants.
We therefore accept the need for consultation. It is not in the Government's interests not to consult the key stakeholders, or make sure that the regulations or orders are in the appropriate form and have taken account fully of the views of those affected by any of those changes, particularly in relation to any that there might need to be over time to Schedule 1. Therefore, we accept the principle behind these amendments.
The amendments leave it to the Secretary of State to consult whoever he likes or whoever he thinks is appropriate—or, indeed, whoever he thinks is not appropriate. So the way they are framed does not in any way inhibit or determine the range of consultation that the Secretary of State could make. I am not trying to encourage Members of the Committee to table a more restrictive amendment; I merely say that, as framed, the amendments would only require the Secretary of State to make a decision about the appropriate consultation.
It is fair to say, if we look at the history in this and other areas, that Ministers under successive governments have consulted widely. It is in everyone's interests that they consult widely, not just because a Minister has said that they would do so when legislation was going through Parliament.
We are committed to consultation. We do not think these particular amendments are necessary, but we are extremely sympathetic to the thinking behind why the noble Earl has made the proposals.
Lord Walton of Detchant: The Minister will be fully aware that regulations under the affirmative resolution procedure cannot be amended and have to be either accepted or rejected. What is the force of his argument for rejecting them? How can one possibly object to these amendments, which seem to me to be adding to the actual nature and quality of the Bill? It seems a rather curious decision.
Lord Warner: I was trying to say, in as gentle a way as I could, that we do not think that they do add very much to the Bill. The consultations would be taking place with all the appropriate stakeholders on the particular order or regulations. The Minister would need to demonstrate before Parliament that that consultation had taken place. He would have a fairly rough time—and might well have to withdraw the order—if he could not show that that consultation had taken place.
Earl Howe: It was intuitive that I thought the Minister might tell us that this is a listening Government and that it would be unthinkable for them not to listen to the appropriate voices when drawing up regulations. Of course, I am glad that the Minister said that.
He slightly surprised me by criticising the wording of the amendments in that he felt that they allowed rather wide scope for interpretation. I have taken my cue from other statutes where that is standard wording, as far as I am aware. As my noble friend Lord Jenkin said, the key is that there should be meaningful consultation every time. I think that a court would take a view of what that amounted to.
Again, as my noble friend said, the issue is not whether this particular Government say that they will consult, but whether there should be a requirement to do so in the Bill. One can accept the assurances of the Minister and still believe that the Bill needs amendment.
The Minister also said that we should perhaps be reassured that the regulations in question allow for the affirmative resolution procedure. But, in fact, if you look at the regulations relating to Clause 34(1), it is actually the negative procedure for that. Be that as it may. I have listened carefully to what the Minister had to say. I shall reflect on it between now and Report stage. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 9 not moved.]
Clause 1 agreed to.
Schedule 1 [Scheduled purposes]:
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 10:
Page 39, line 10, after "Obtaining" insert "(other than as part of diagnosis and treatment)"
The noble Earl said: The Royal College of Pathologists has raised a matter which I have tried to address through the amendment. It has pointed out that the process described in paragraph 4 of Schedule 1—
"Obtaining scientific or medical information about a living or deceased person which may be relevant to any other person (including a future person"—
is an intrinsic part of the clinical practice of diagnostic histopathology. It is a process that cannot be separated from routine diagnosis.
The following example it gave me illustrates the point. Let us suppose that a middle-aged man is being investigated for jaundice. A liver biopsy is sent to a pathologist for diagnostic interpretation. To ensure that important causes of the patient's liver disease are not overlooked, the pathologist will routinely have the liver tissue sections stained by various methods which can reveal various inherited disorders.
Equally, the biopsy may also reveal evidence of a virus infection. All those conditions, if one takes the wording literally, are "relevant to another person". The inherited disorders are relevant to people genetically related to the patient; the virus infection may be relevant to those who have intimate contact with the patient.
My concern—and the concern of the college—is that unless paragraph 4 is amended, pathologists risk committing an offence if they perform investigations for the patient's benefit which, fortuitously, benefit the health of another person in circumstances where they

GC 437
do not have the person's specific consent. I hope that the Minister can provide reassurance on that point. I beg to move.
Lord Clement-Jones: The noble Earl, Lord Howe, has illustrated that there is a lack of precision in some elements of Schedule 1—in particular, paragraph 4. My Amendments Nos. 11, 12, 14 and 112 essentially try to achieve a greater level of precision.
When I thought about this issue, I nearly said that parliamentary draftsmen "strive for clarity", but I am not sure that that would be correct. "Strive for precision" probably would be closer to the mark. I hope that some of these points, which have been raised with me by the research and medical community, find some favour with the Minister.
The points are mostly self-explanatory. The noble Earl has pointed out that paragraph 4 lacks clarity. Amendment No. 11 tries to tighten that up. Perhaps the Minister would like to comment on whether it is preferable to Amendment No. 10; certainly, it tries to be more precise.
As to Amendment No. 12, simply referring in paragraph 6 to the "human body" does not seem to be as precise as it should be. That is why the words,
"development or use of the whole or any part".
is suggested as an addition.
Amendment No. 14 seeks to insert,
"other than public health monitoring",
in paragraph 6. This is because in part 2 "public health monitoring" is stated as a purpose that does not normally require consent. The amendment seeks to make that clear.
That general point is made by Amendment No. 112. To the experts in this area it is quite clear that some of the purposes in parts 1 and 2 of Schedule 1 overlap in the sense that they could he used to describe the same activity. This includes, for example, public health monitoring and research, research and clinical audit and drug efficacy testing and clinical audit. Where this is the case, it should he clear that only the requirements applicable to part 2 apply.
So the new subsection proposed by Amendment No. 112 would clarify that if an activity could be described as both a part 1 purpose—for example, research—and a part 2 purpose—for example, clinical audit—it would only be regarded as a part 2 purpose.
Clearly, some activities will fall into both parts. That clarity would be an advantage in view of the importance of Schedule 1, which really underpins the whole structure of the Bill.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff: The group of amendments seeks clarity. I should like to focus my remarks around Amendment No. 10 and probe a little further in trying to seek clarity. Let me give an example to try to illustrate the matter.
A clinician who is involved in the diagnosis and treatment of patients needs to do a case series analysis. He wants to look back at the case series of, say, 100 cases. As I understand it, a surgeon would be able
GC 438
to review his notes—indeed, he might even write a paper and present it at a learned society based on perhaps his last 100 cases—by virtue of paragraph 8 of Schedule 3 to the Data Protection Act. That allows processing for medical purposes, if necessary, to he undertaken by a health professional or a person who owes an equivalent duty of confidentiality. "Medical purposes" in this section include medical research.
However, if a pathologist in the same situation wanted to review his last 100 cases, he would be prevented from doing so because he would be examining tissue in the form of slides, rather than case notes as the surgeon had. As such he would have to use this part of the Human Tissue Bill.
So one of the areas of clarification needed relates to clinical activities which are part of a diagnosis and treatment, but where again the information and knowledge is collective in terms of case series analysis.
6 p.m.
Lord Warner: As Members of the Commit tee have said, the amendments are addressed at refining or clarifying the activities covered by Schedule 1, particularly in relation to research. I reassure the Committee that the structure of the schedule accommodates the kind of important research activities with which we are rightly concerned. The amendments are not really necessary and, in some respects, could be unhelpful. I shall deal with them in turn.
Amendments Nos. 10 and 11 are directed at altering paragraph 4 of Schedule 1. The former would allow any tissue to be used as part of treatment and diagnosis in order to obtain information which may be relevant to another person without the consent of the person from whom the tissue came. Alternatively, Amendment No. 11 would mean that the consent requirement applied only where the use of tissue would be to establish whether or how the information would be relevant to another person. It would not necessarily apply where it was known that the tissue would be used to provide such information.
I understand that, particularly in genetics, clinicians will often have stored tissue from a relative of their patient which could be used without the knowledge or consent of that relative, in order to assist the diagnosis of genetic disease. The Bill will require that consent be sought from such relatives before their tissue is used for this purpose. That seems right and proper. The principle of the Bill is that individuals should be able to determine what happens to their bodies and tissue from their bodies, particularly where the tissue is identifiable.
The point is not whether using relatives' tissue would harm those relatives, but that people should be able to say whether or not their identifiable genetic material can be used for purposes not connected with their own diagnosis and treatment. It is fundamental to the Bill that they should be able to do that. That is the context in which we would find it difficult to accept the amendments on principle. As a matter of practice, it seems unlikely that asking for relatives' consent will pose a major problem.
Amendment No. 12 addresses the definition of research in paragraph 4 of Schedule 1. It is not evident that it adds anything to the meaning of that paragraph, which is intended to be all-embracing in the sense of covering research extending to all matters connected with human health and disease. The reference to:
"Research in connection with disorders, or the functioning, of the human body",
is deliberately wide and would include matters concerning the development or use of all or parts of the body. If we add specifics such as those proposed, we risk making the paragraph appear to be a list. That begs the question of what might not be included. We have had the argument before on other legislation; the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, smiles approvingly at that reference back to happy days. I prefer our wider approach, for the reasons that I have given.
The further amendments in the group—Amendments Nos. 14 and 112—seek to ensure that where an activity such as research, in part 1 of Schedule I, could also be considered "Public health monitoring", in part 2 of Schedule 1, it is treated under only part 2. Amendment No. 112 would extend the principle of mutual exclusivity to other Schedule 2 activities.
It is true that the Bill does not closely define each of the purposes which will come within the scheme of regulation. However, it could he dangerous to include a statutory definition purporting to give a comprehensive or exhaustive statement of the meaning of the terms, as there is always the possibility that a meaning in some context would be inadvertently overlooked. The Human Tissue Authority will have the role of monitoring the situation and providing information, advice and practical guidance to persons carrying out the activities within its remit, as well as superintending in relation to the legal requirements. Clearly those are practical issues to be worked out as the Bill is implemented, through the offices of the Human Tissue Authority.
That said, there is a particular point that I would add. If an activity can properly be described as "Public health monitoring", even though in some cases it may be possible to describe it as research, it would be quite proper, because it is indeed public health monitoring, to treat it under part 2 of Schedule 1.
I shall spare the Committee my very lengthy speaking note on particular definitions. If it would assist noble Lords, I would be happy to write to them in the hope that that would provide reassurance. On that basis, I hope that the amendment will be withdrawn.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: Will the Minister add to his note about definitions information on a point that was raised with me this morning by the General Medical Council? Its relevant paragraph reads:
"One of the most important reasons for new legislation is to improve clarity about the responsibilities of those collecting and using tissue. We agree with the BMA and others who feel that some terms in the Bill require further clarification, in particular, 'research'. 'public health monitoring' and 'clinical audit—.
GC 440
The Minister may well already have those definitions in mind.
The GMC continues:
"Boundaries between these activities are difficult to define but it is vital that all those affected by the legislation understand how distinctions are to be made since criminal offences are attached to misuse of tissue".
I will not read the rest of the paragraph. In this area, it could be very helpful if there were a definition. When a body of the status of the GMC raises the question, the Minister would do well to listen.
Lord Warner: I can reassure the noble Lord. Those are very much the topics that I shall cover in my letter.
Lord Clement-Jones: It was very helpful of the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, to quote what the GMC had to say, as it is concerned about the issue. Overlap is important. I liked the Minister's expression, "mutual exclusivity", because that is surely what we are trying to achieve in terms of the clarity of Schedule 1 and its impact on the Bill. The GMC's views are worth considering at some length; it even goes on to say that if there is not clarity there may be a "bias toward classifying projects" in one way or another. That is of considerable importance.
I entirely surrender so far as the dreaded lists are concerned. When a Minister raises the fact that something may be a list, there are no other arguments left in the barrel. Paragraph 6 is important, and it is necessary to consult those who will apply Schedule 1 on a regular basis. It is all very well for us as legislators to look at the matter and talk about clarity, but if those who are to administer the legislation on a day-to-day basis have doubts about its effects, they would be important concerns.
No doubt the noble Earl will respond on paragraph 4. We shall need to consider carefully what the Minister had to say because the area is complex. I look forward to the Minister's letter and I am grateful to him for sparing us the full gory details at this stage.
Earl Howe: There is little that I wish to add, except to thank the Minister for his reply and his offer to write to Members of the Committee, which I am sure will be helpful. However, I shall have to consider carefully what he said in relation to Amendment No. 10, just to make sure that he covered the concerns that I raised. In the interests of time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 11 to 16 not moved.]
On Question, Whether Schedule 1 shall be agreed to?
Lord Jenkin of Roding: I apologise for not having given notice that I would ask a question on whether Schedule 1 should be agreed to, but it follows on well from our previous debate. There is clearly a conflict of objective. The Minister laid great stress on flexibility, which is very important with such a complex piece of legislation. Where one is establishing new criminal offences—this picks up the point of the GMC—there

GC 441
is also a need for clarity. How can one combine flexibility and certainty, which is a better word than clarity?
What will the mechanism be for deciding purposes that normally require consent under Part 1 or do not normally require consent under Part 2? I stress the word "normally". Will it be the subject of regulations? Will it be the subject of guidance? Will codes be published? How will the exceptions to the rules in Parts 1 and 2 be determined, and how will people know in advance that they will be covered by "normally"? I understand the objectives of certainty and flexibility, but the schedule seems to carry them a little far. Can the Minister give us some explanation of how such matters will be determined?
Lord Warner: We have structured the Bill so that we have a clear statement in Schedule 1 of which purposes normally require consent and which do not. As I said, I will write to Members of the Committee to set out some of the definitional issues around particular words and phrases. We have also set up the Bill on the basis that there will be an authoritative body called the Human Tissue Authority, which will produce codes of practice. Those will be prepared in the normal way—after extensive consultation with a variety of stakeholders, including bodies such as the General Medical Council—to produce codes that are helpful to practitioners.
The intention on the Government's part—I am sure that it will be the intention on the part of the Human Tissue Authority—is, within the guidance given in the legislation by Parliament, to produce codes of practice that do not hinder research unnecessarily, but protect the interests of patients and make practical proposals so that people can get on with their jobs. In this area, we have to avoid the danger of trying to be over-prescriptive in a good cause—trying to achieve clarity in the Bill—and ending up having hamstrung practitioners as a result of putting definitions in primary legislation.
I understand the dilemma pointed out by the noble Lord, but the best way to proceed is as we are trying to do; that is, by ensuring that a code of practice is produced by an authoritative body. We will discuss how the Human Tissue Authority is composed, which is set out later in the Bill.
Lord Walton of Detchant: I want to say how much I approve of the use of "normally" in the schedule, if only because a medical practitioner might be accused of breaching the law in relation to the matters set out in Schedule 1, but could very properly argue that exceptional circumstances led to the breach. The word must remain in both parts of the schedule.
The Minister talks about the Human Tissue Authority's guidance. Is it likely to include the kind of definitions of research, audit and other matters to which reference has already been made, but which are not clarified in the Bill?
6.15 p.m.
Lord Warner: It would be surprising if, particularly in the light of the debates here and in another place, the Human Tissue Authority did not give guidance to practitioners and the world at large on what the terms meant in practice from day to day. It will recognise that it has to carry a wide variety of people with it in the interpretation of this legislation, and that it has to produce codes of practice that are helpful and practical for daily use.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: I apologise for coming back on the issue, but the Minister has not entirely answered the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Walton of Detchant. In the absence of any clear exception made in a code of practice by the HTA, would it be open to a doctor to take refuge in "normally"? I would find that difficult. It is as long as a piece of a string. If "normally" is intended to imply that the HTA can issue codes of practice that will allow, in defined circumstances, particular exceptions from the lists in Parts 1 and 2, that is one thing. However, simply to allow a doctor to say, "This was a very strange case so I did not have to apply for consent", would be jolly difficult. Can the Minister add a word or two about that?
Lord Warner: This is a bit like being on "Mastermind". There is an old saying, "You don't buy a dog and bark yourself". We are getting very much into the territory of trying to do the job of the Human Tissue Authority before it has even been set up under the Bill. I have the slight sense that, whatever I say, I will not be able to satisfy the noble Lord because I will not be able to do the job of the Human Tissue Authority in the remaining course of our Committee.
I have offered to write to Members of the Committee with the kinds of definition that will be needed, and we will give our best thoughts on that. We are trying to set up a body of authoritative people who can produce authoritative guidance. As the noble Lord, Lord Walton, said, we need the flexibility that "normally" provides in the Bill. I have done my best to reassure the Committee, but I am running out of creative ideas for further reassurance.
Schedule 1 agreed to.
Clause 2 ["Appropriate consent": children]:
Lord McColl of Dulwich Lord McColl of Dulwich moved Amendment No. 17:
Page 3, leave out line 40.
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 17, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 18. The phrase,
"where the subject-matter of the activity is not excepted material",
seems unnecessary. Excepted material is defined in Clause 12 in a way that already appears to exclude material removed from a dead body for the purposes of anatomical examination. We would be grateful for clarification. I beg to move.
Lord Warner: I accept that the issue is quite complicated and shall do my best to explain it to the noble Lord. Clause 2(5) deals with consent in relation

GC 443
to children, and Clause 3(4) with consent in relation to adults. They ensure that consent to public display of the body or parts of the body after death, and consent to anatomical examination—that is, examination by dissection of the body after death—can be given only by the individual themselves, before death. The consent must be given in writing and be witnessed. Neither a nominated representative nor the next of kin can consent to those activities if the deceased had not, while alive and competent to do so, consented in writing.
The purpose of this provision was to distinguish the donation of whole bodies for these particular purposes from other purposes addressed by the Bill, as it would not be appropriate for a third party to authorise the donation of whole bodies for anatomical examination or public display. We are aware, anecdotally, that on occasion some people do try to avoid funeral expenses by donating the body of a—presumably unloved—relative to medical science. Such donations are not accepted, are not acceptable, and would not be acceptable under our proposals in the Bill, in which anatomical examination as well as public display can be consented to only by the individual. That is the context.
In the Bill as originally drafted, there was no limit put on the material which was covered by this requirement for prior written, witnessed consent in relation to anatomical examination. However, we received representations from scientists in the pharmaceutical industry and others who said that the special consent requirements, combined with the broad definition of anatomical examination, would inhibit research. This was because any research involving examination by dissection on any material might invoke the special consent requirements.
We recognised their concerns and brought forward amendments on Report in another place. In addition to tightening up the definition of an anatomical examination, we introduced at Clauses 2, 3 and 12 the concept of "excepted material". It is only in relation to material which is not excepted material that the special consent requirements apply—that is, whole bodies and material which has come from whole bodies during an anatomical examination.
The purpose of these amendments in another place was to remove from the Bill the obstacles inadvertently placed in the way of research, and the amendments before us would have the unfortunate effect of reintroducing them. I should say to the noble Lord, Lord McColl, that they would have an adverse effect. This is because their effect would be that any act of examination by dissection for particular purposes on any material, including for example material received following surgery, may need specific written consent. This is not what is intended under these provisions and would entail a bureaucratic and unnecessary consent requirement in circumstances where none is needed.
I recognise that this is a rather complicated part of the Bill and a complicated set of arguments. However, I hope that noble Lords will take the time to read carefully what I have said. I have tried to put on the
GC 444
record the thinking behind the Bill and the amendments we moved in the other place, and why the amendments before the Grand Committee would not help. I hope that, in the light of this explanation, the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: Before my noble friend replies, perhaps I may say once again to the Minister that he really needs to draw a distinction between an amendment moved for the purpose of seeing it put into the Bill and an amendment tabled simply as a peg for a query. There is no question that my noble friend Lord McColl is seeking to add these provisions to the Bill. He made the point in his opening remarks and finished by commenting that they would give the Minister an opportunity to explain this part of the Bill.
The last part of the Minister's response comprised a passionate appeal that we should not press the amendments for inclusion in the Bill, but that was never the intention. I hope that the Minister will recognise that there are different ways of doing these things, ones that are likely to speed up the activities of this Grand Committee.
Lord Walton of Detchant: Before the Minister responds, perhaps I may ask a question for clarification. Many years ago when I was dean of a medical school, I regularly received what were known locally as "body letters", whereby people donated in advance their bodies for anatomical examination and/or medical research. My legal advice at the time stressed that such written permission was a very important provision, but that after death the body of the individual belonged to the executors. On rare occasions the executors would give permission for a body—presumably that of an unloved relative as referred to by the Minister—to be used for that particular purpose. I take it that this provision will make that process illegal.
Unless an individual gives consent in advance for their body to be used after death for this purpose, no one else, even the executors, can subsequently grant that permission.
The Countess of Mar: Is there a definition of "excepted material"? I have found a definition of "relevant material", but I cannot work out where "excepted material" is.
Lord Warner: It is in Clause 12. My understanding is that the interpretation of the noble Lord, Lord Walton, is exactly right. I am grateful for the coaching offered by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin. Perhaps I may offer him some on moving his amendments.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: I was once the Minister's boss, so I am entitled to offer the noble Lord some very gentle advice from time to time.
Lord McColl of Dulwich: I should like to thank the Minister very much for his reply. I shall not need to read it in Hansard. His reply was so lucid that I fully accept it and find it very helpful. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Clause 3 ["Appropriate consent": adults]:
[Amenthnent No. 18 not moved.]
Clause 3 agreed to.
Clause 4 [Nominated representatives]:
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 19:
Page 5, line 33, at end insert—
"( ) Where two or more persons appointed under this section are regarded as appointed to act jointly and severally, the consent of any of them in relation to an activity shall have no legal force if another of them has actively withheld his consent to that activity."
The noble Earl said: Clause 4 deals with nominated representatives, which an adult may appoint to take decisions after he has died about what should happen to his organs and his body. The clause makes clear that where there is more than one such representative it will be possible to stipulate that they must act jointly. Failing such a stipulation, they will be taken as acting jointly and severally; in other words, independently from each other.
In the later circumstances, the obvious question arises on what happens when two or more nominated representatives, acting jointly and severally, disagree with one another. Are we to say that as long as one of them agrees to tissue or organs being taken from the body of a dead person and used for research, then it is all right for that to happen? Or, should we say that where there is a disagreement nothing can be removed?
The amendment I have tabled is intended to pose that question. Although I am not a lawyer, it seems to me that it is a question that needs to be resolved on the face of the Bill, unless the Minister can tell me that there are provisions in common law which cover the situation. I beg to move.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff: I seek some clarification about the relationship between this Bill and the proposed mental capacity legislation. As far as I can understand from reading the draft guidance accompanying that Bill, a person will be able to appoint somebody with a lasting power of attorney to take health decisions on his behalf when he becomes incapacitated.
I wonder whether that lasting power of attorney will carry over to decisions after the person has died. For example, someone who is becoming demented with Alzheimer's may appoint someone with a lasting power of attorney whom he trusts to take health decisions in his best interests. However, during the course of that illness, which may be fairly long, the person with the lasting power of attorney may become aware of really ground-breaking research to which post-mortem tissue from the person for whom he is taking decisions might contribute. Aware of that person's wishes before being granted a lasting power of attorney, he may know that the person would want to support advances in medical research. Given that there is a stipulation that the patient must decide, but this patient has handed over clinical decision-making because he is no longer competent to make such decisions, what will the position be?
Will the Bill dovetail with the other legislation? And will the lasting power of attorney need specifically and separately to stipulate the ability to donate postmortem tissues that could be used for the advancement of medical science?
6.30 p.m.
Lord Warner: As the noble Earl, Lord Howe, said, the Bill provides in Clause 4(6) that where more than one person is nominated, they can be appointed jointly and severally or jointly. So, if the person making the appointment wants his representatives to act together, he can appoint them jointly. The appointer can also limit or specify the terms of the consent he wishes the nominated representatives to give. That is set out—this is relevant to the point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay—in Clause 4(2).
A further point is that if one nominated representative could veto the others where they are appointed jointly and severally, that would be out of step with the provisions for the next of kin to make decisions after someone's death. In that case Clause 27(7) provides that the consent of only one will suffice where more than one person has equal status in the hierarchy of qualifying relationships.
I shall have to take advice on the particular point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay. I am not a lawyer, as she is aware. My sense is that this is tied up with Clause 4(2) but I would need to take advice about the particular circumstances she mentioned. I am told that a person appointed under the Mental Capacity Bill would not automatically become a nominated representative under the Human Tissue Bill. A separate appointment as a nominated representative could be needed.
The Human Tissue Authority will issue a code of practice on consent in which guidance on dealing with situations where disagreements occur will be given. That is the best I can do in explaining this point in relation to the circumstances that have been raised. In a sense, the general thrust of the Bill is that where people have concerns about what will happen to their body or parts of their body after death, they need to be clear about who will take the decision on such issues when they make their own provisions. That is the encouragement that is provided in the Bill.
Earl Howe: I am still not quite clear what a doctor is supposed to do if, for instance, a son and daughter are the nominated representatives and one says, "Yes, you can take the tissue" and the other says, "No, you can't". What position does that put the doctor in?
Lord Warner: The point I was trying to make is that where there are those difficult tensions we come back to issues of hierarchies of qualifying relationships. Unless the person had said that the decisions were to be made jointly, in those kinds of circumstances, if it was jointly and severally, there would be an issue as to whose decision was final. That is the kind of issue on which we would expect the Human Tissue Authority's code to give guidance.
Earl Howe: I am grateful to the Minister. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 20:
Page 5, line 40, after "adult," insert—
"( ) he is likely to derive direct personal benefit from the activity for which consent is sought,"
The noble Earl said: In Clause 4(10) the Secretary of State is empowered to make regulations covering the qualifications necessary for a person to act as a nominated representative. We are given no clue as to what those qualifications might comprise, not even in the Explanatory Notes, which is a pity. The only requirement spelt out on the face of the Bill is that a representative has to be an adult.
Obviously, regulations present a more flexible way of dealing with this kind of issue than putting a whole lot of measures on the face of the Bill. But there is perhaps one other attribute, apart from being a minor, which should disqualify someone from exercising a decision under this type of appointment, and that is where the person is set to derive a direct personal benefit from that decision. You surely cannot have a representative consenting to the removal of an organ for transplant if the organ is destined for himself. That would obviously amount to a direct conflict of interest. There are other sorts of example, but this one is perhaps the most obvious. I hope the Minister will tell me that, at the very least, this issue will be covered in the regulations. If so, I will be content.
I am not sure about what other requirements the regulations are likely to lay down. If there are going to be a great many, then one has to wonder about the practicalities. Let us imagine that someone has died and his son has been appointed as the nominated representative. The doctors want a decision about the possibility of removing organs or tissue from the body. It is easy enough to establish that the dead man's son is an adult, and it should be relatively straightforward to go through a brief factual checklist to ensure that he was legally empowered to give consent. But the operating word is surely "brief". If the regulations are likely to contain a whole list of detailed matters, the bureaucratic burden placed on the doctors or hospital administrators will probably prove self-defeating.
So I should be grateful if the Minister could reassure me on this point and say what the Government's intentions are as regards these regulations. I beg to move.
Lord Warner: As the noble Earl said, there clearly could be some anxiety that someone might seek unjustifiably to exploit his position as nominated representative by consenting to scheduled activities for his own benefit. That could happen in theory. In practice, however, we do not think that that is very likely. I am still struggling to think of the kind of mischief against which we would be trying to protect, given that the deceased had clearly and deliberately made the appointment of a particular person to fulfil his wishes.
The noble Earl mentioned the issue of transplantation that could benefit the nominated representative. But are we really to exclude that possibility if the deceased person had appointed the person knowing full well, and possibly even wishing, that that situation could arise? Do we really want to exclude that possibility?
Moreover, there are scheduled purposes where we might anticipate that the whole point of the appointment of, say, a family member was so that the family could benefit from information derived from a post-mortem or from research using tissue from the deceased. It would be unfortunate if a person who could derive benefit from information obtained from the tissue of a deceased person were excluded from acting as a representative. He might be prevented, for example, from finding out about an infectious disease which threatened him, or of an hereditary condition which might be relevant to his health and that of the wider family. Although those are personal benefits, they are not benefits of which I think most of us would wish to deprive a family member.
If it were to come to light that there was a possibility of someone getting a benefit from consenting which he should not get—though, as I said, I cannot see such a situation at present—we could deal with this in the regulations to be made under Clause 4(10). These can specify persons who may not act under such an appointment. They could spell out the particular conditions under which someone should not act as a nominated representative.
As long as we cannot identify any real mischief that we are trying to address, and we have a regulation-making power that could deal with the situation were it to arise, my preference is to leave the Bill as it stands. It gives autonomy to the those who make these decisions prior to their death. We certainly do not have anything up our sleeves in terms of inserts into the regulations about who cannot be a nominated representative.
We have taken the view that if there is a possibility of personal gain by the nominated representative, we should rely on the person appointing his representatives to be well aware of their potential interests. As I have indicated, it could be precisely so that such people may benefit that the deceased would have made the appointment. At the moment, as I have said, we cannot see a real risk here. That is the best explanation that I can give to the noble Earl.
Earl Howe: Not for a minute did I want to suggest that I was against personal representatives deriving a benefit from the taking of tissue from a dead person. But the question is whether we mind or do not mind about conflicts of interest. The Minister says that he does not mind, which I am very interested to hear. I shall have to reflect on that. Of course, the person making the appointment might not be able to predict, at the time of making the appointment, that his personal representative could derive personal benefit from any decision. It is not always possible to build that into the equation.
Nevertheless, I am grateful to the Minister for the trouble that he has taken in his reply. He did not address the wider question about what the regulations will look like and whether they will be long and cumbersome. I hope very much that they will not be. If he has any further particulars to supply to me on that, I would be grateful to have them. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 4 agreed to.
Clause 5 [Prohibition of activities without consent etc.]:
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 21:
Page 6, line 13, after "knows" insert "or should reasonably have known"
The noble Earl said: Clause 5 sets out the offences committed by a person if he proceeds to do any of the activities described in the first three subsections of Clause 1 without consent. It also makes it an offence to make out to someone who is about to undertake such an activity that consent for it has been obtained, when in fact it has not, or is unnecessary, when in fact it is not, in the knowledge or belief that what one is saying is untrue. While that is fine as far as it goes, the problem is that it lets off the hook someone who does not personally undertake any of the activities listed in Clause 1, but who negligently instructs someone else to do them without having obtained the proper consent.
I shall give an example. A doctor on a ward has a patient who dies and he believes that there are good reasons for thinking that the person's tissue may yield interesting results in the laboratory of a medical researcher or as an anatomical specimen. The doctor instructs a pathologist to remove the tissue concerned and tells him that the necessary consent procedures have been complied with. In fact, let us suppose that the consent procedures have not been properly complied with and that the doctor has simply been sloppy in the way that he has set about them, so that the consent is not valid. The pathologist has accepted the doctor's assertions in good faith on the basis of his past dealings with him and therefore reasonably believes that his actions in removing the tissue from the body are lawful.
In that situation, who would be committing an offence? It would not he the pathologist because he has the defence of a reasonable belief that his actions were lawful; or the doctor because he believed that what he told the pathologist was correct. If my understanding of the position is right, we need to question whether that is satisfactory, which I do through this amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Warner: The straight answer to the particular case raised by the noble Earl is that the doctor would be in the dock and not the pathologist. But I shall come back to the issue of what he might or might not be guilty of. Clause 5(2) makes it an offence to forcefully represent to someone else that consent exists or is not needed for an activity that a person may carry out when he knows that the representation is false or does not believe it to be true.
In the case raised by the noble Lord, there was an interesting issue about whether he knew that it was false or whether he was just, as the noble Earl said, "sloppy". As I understand the amendment, in effect, it extends the offence to a person who should reasonably have known that the representation was false. We intended, in drafting this legislation, to target the person who wilfully made false representations to a colleague, for example about the consent status of material required for research. As I said, this amendment extends that offence in effect to the person who is negligent.
We did intend the malicious person to be guilty of an offence. However, if I put it this way, we did not intend the merely stupid, casual or unthinking to be guilty of such an offence. We do not think that this is an appropriate way of dealing with such a person. This sort of case could be dealt with by the Human Tissue Authority also under the licensing regime for storage of tissue. Ultimately, the HTA could revoke a person's licence. That would come down to a judgment about what people deem to be the motives of the doctor or the person involved at the time when the activity took place. So, we are coming down to what was behind this, whether casualness or wilful intent to falsify.
6.45 p.m.
Earl Howe: That was an extremely helpful answer. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 22:
Page 6, line 13, at end insert—
"( ) In all circumstances other than those referred to in subsection (1) and sections 8,9,10,48 and 50, a person commits an offence if knowingly and without appropriate consent he stores—

(a) the body of a deceased person,

(b) any relevant material which has come from a deceased person, or

(c) any relevant material which has come from a human body,

unless—

(i) he is in lawful possession of the body or material with a view to arranging or carrying out its decent and lawful disposal, or

(ii) it is a body, or material from a body, of a person who died before the day on which this section comes into force and at least one hundred years have elapsed since the date of the person's death."

The noble Earl said: This is purely a probing amendment to find out whether, in the Minister's opinion, the Bill covers all the bases as regards offences. My first question is why it does not appear to criminalise someone who, for example, steals a body part which falls short of being an anatomical specimen, let us suppose, and takes it home as a souvenir, or someone who stores a body or body part for no particular purpose. There are probably all sorts of ghoulish scenarios that one could construct involving the possession of bodies or body parts, but it

GC 451
is striking that the only activities made illegal by the Bill are those that it happens to mention and not any that it does not mention.
I am far from clear that Clause 30, as expressed, is sufficient to cover all contingencies which most of us would find unacceptable and repellent. I beg to move.
Lord Warner: Clearly, I have led a more limited life than the noble Earl! I must talk to him afterwards about these exciting circles in which he may be moving.
The Bill resolves significant problems that have become apparent in existing legislation relating to certain uses of human bodies and bodily material. It addresses the failings and difficulties that arose through the ambiguity and lack of regulation or sanctions in the Human Tissue Act 1961 and resolves the inconsistencies that exist between the 1961 Act, the Anatomy Act 1984 and the Human Organs Transplants Act 1989 and the relevant parts of the common law that apply to the application of human tissue in medical treatment and research.
In the latter case it provides for clarity and certainty that is lacking in the present situation, which leads researchers to doubt whether and when they are able to use human tissue. The Bill established the principles by which consent is needed for these various purposes, set out in Schedule 1, which we have discussed.
However, it also establishes offences broadly in respect of two areas. First, under Clause 5 it is an offence to carry out any of the activities for which consent is required under the Bill—that is, consent in relation to scheduled purposes—without such consent. That is fairly straightforward. It also establishes an offence under Clause 8 by which material which is donated by virtue of a consent under Clause 1 cannot be used for a purpose other than a Schedule 1 purpose; that is, diagnosis or treatment, disposal, or a purpose allowed for in the regulations.
So, if material falls within the scope of the Bill, it is properly and fully dealt with. The scope of the Bill extends to the regulation of storage and use of tissues for health-related purposes.
We have accommodated the DCMS provisions on public display and the de-accessioning of human remains from museums, but there has never been an intention as such to regulate all possible uses of human tissue per se. I seek to explain to the noble Earl the limitations in the use of human tissue that are prescribed in this Bill.
The effect of the amendment would be to criminalise an unspecified and unidentified range of activities, the nature and scope of which are not evident to us when the need for such criminal sanction has, to the best of my knowledge, not been raised, let alone established. So we are in a situation where there may be what might be regarded as ethically undesirable uses of bodies or parts of bodies—and I am not suggesting in any way that the noble Earl is a member of the Burke and Hare fan club. These have not been anticipated in terms of prescription and sanction under the terms of this legislation. The Bill is much more sharply focused,
GC 452
which is why it does not seek to deal with some of the more racy aspects of human body use, which we may leave to the conjecture of the noble Earl.
Earl Howe: There was a case involving the artist Robert Lenkiewicz, who stored the body of a tramp in his studio for several years as a kind of memento mori. Even though he did that without anyone's consent, apparently he was not committing an offence of any kind. I found that quite extraordinary. While he might be doing so under this Bill, I shall not second-guess the point.
The thinking behind the amendment is that, in reality, the only legitimate reason for anyone to store a body or body part, unless it is a museum specimen or it is being done for medical research reasons, is that the person has died and is about to be given a funeral. Surely there cannot be any other reason for having a body or body part in your possession without permission. Nevertheless, I hear what the Minister says about the selective nature of the Bill—that there is no wish on the part of the Government to introduce a blanket measure on the possession of human tissue, which is an important and interesting point and one that I note with gratitude. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord McColl of Dulwich Lord McColl of Dulwich moved Amendment No. 23:
Page 6, line 43, leave out sub-paragraph (i).
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 23 I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 24 and 25, 60 to 62 and 73 to 78. The idea of sending a doctor to prison for three years for this offence seems very harsh indeed. I expect that the Government have studied what kind of offences on the statute book can now result in a three-year prison sentence. They include going equipped for stealing, an affray, failure to comply with instructions set out in the Firearms Acts, possessing obscene material, and the taking or making of indecent photographs.
Are the Government really suggesting that the offences under consideration in this Bill are comparable with the crimes I have just outlined? Of course there is no comparison. Some people are sent to prison for three years for having committed manslaughter. The offences in this Bill certainly cause no physical harm to the body.
I recall a lady who came into my clinic. She sat down and asked, "Do you remember me?". "Remember you?" I replied. "With the exceptions of Sundays and holidays, I have thought of you every day for the past 22 years". This somewhat surprised the lady until I explained that, 22 years ago when she was four years old, I removed part of her intestine which was threatening her life, and the piece of intestine was kept in a bottle on my desk with her name on it. I offered it to her, but she declined and asked that I continue to use it to teach medical students.
These specimens are quite often taken to various universities for examination purposes. The only problem that has arisen is if the examiner has been

GC 453
stopped at Customs and, sometimes, the Customs officers have had a bit of a fright. Perhaps I may ask the Minister whether that practice will be made illegal with this Bill.
I was somewhat puzzled by Dr Ladyman's statement in another place. He was asked about those harsh prison sentences. He said that,
"these things are judgment calls. The hon. Gentleman has clearly spoken to some people who think that the penalties are too severe; I assure him that we have spoken to people who do not think that they are severe enough".—[Official Report, Commons Standing Committee G, 29/1/04; col. 133.]
It would be important to know who those people were that he spoke to, their expertise and the basis of their judgment. It is not for us to question the motives of the Government, but we cannot help feeling that someone or some group of people to whom the Ministers have access possibly have a little bias against the medical profession. But whatever the motives or reasons, it is important to point out the effect that these penalties will have. They will result in fewer people going into the pathology service and the coroner's service. Moreover, there will be fewer research proposals and doctors will inevitably become more risk averse.
Perhaps I may point out that even now we have a dearth of paediatric and adult pathologists, which will get steadily worse. Why should doctors be subjected to such harsh treatment when there is no question of malice? We believe that if there is a need to have a prison sentence, one year is perfectly adequate. I beg to move.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff: I support the amendment, which I suppose one could say that "I would, wouldn't I" because I hold a medical degree. However, I am not a pathologist. Certainly, I endorse the comments of the noble Lord, Lord McColl, that there is a shortage of people entering pathology. I support the amendments because I question the purpose of such a long prison sentence. Holding people in custody is to keep them away from others in the population to whom they could do harm, while it is hoped that they are making redress for what they have done.
However, if a doctor commits an offence, as outlined in the Bill, it will inevitably be reported to the General Medical Council. The GMC will take a decision and I would expect it to suspend the person's ability to practice. It would mean that they could not do what they were doing before anyway during whatever period the GMC decided to suspend their registration. That would be tantamount to a prison sentence in terms of an individual, but it would not incur an enormous expenditure to the state by holding a person in custody when we already know all the problems that relate to our prisons.
Therefore, while it seems reasonable to attach a fine, one has to look at the purpose of a prison sentence. If it is just to appease a perception that some people might
GC 454
want revenge, I would gently remind Members of the Committee that there are a lot of people out there who would still want hanging.
Lord Warner: In this legislation, the Government are neither picking on doctors in general nor pathologists in particular. I can reassure the noble Lord that although we have taken a note of his confession, he will not be escorted from the premises to the local police station. I am not expecting the Metropolitan Police to pursue charges under this legislation.
The Government have made it clear on numerous occasions that the offences and penalties in the Bill are there to demonstrate the seriousness with which we view the events that took place in the past at Alder Hey and elsewhere. I think that, under successive governments, it has always been a legitimate view that sentences have a deterrent effect as well as a conventional punishment effect.
7 p.m.
There are already deterrents in legislation and elsewhere in the present arrangements. These include, as the noble Baroness mentioned, disciplinary processes and sanctions from professional bodies.
But the Bill addresses matters that could extend beyond the regulated professions; it is not only about doctors. The people whom it might concern may be outwith the health service and may be in ancillary positions. So it is important that we do not rely on disciplinary sanctions alone within the regulated or self-regulated professions.
I know that some pathologists, in particular, wish to see the penalties reduced as they feel that they will be vulnerable when the Bill takes effect. However, I have tried to indicate that these provisions are not directed specifically at one professional group. In any event, it is difficult to see how a professional such as a pathologist could be prosecuted for going about his proper and legitimate business. The offences and penalties are a backstop.
Offences and penalties already exist tinder the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990. These are for creating and using embryos without a licence and for using people's sperm, eggs or embryos without their consent. The penalties under this Act—not under this Government—range from two years to 10 years. So we already have significant penalties in other legislation.
There are a range of penalties under the Human Organ Transplants Act 1989 and the Anatomy Act 1984—again, not under this Government. Those are for organ trafficking and for carrying out anatomical examinations without a licence or without proper consent. Those two Acts will be repealed and replaced by the Bill. I have to acknowledge that no one has so far been prosecuted under these Acts because they simply define the limits of acceptable practice.
We do not expect anyone to act beyond the bounds of acceptable good practice. We do not start from the position that self-regulated professionals or others in

GC 455
healthcare and regulated activities do not want to conform to acceptable good practice. We have, however, introduced in the Bill penalties that apply more consistently across the range of activities involving human tissue and organs. So while there were offences under the Anatomy Act and the Human Organ Transplants Act and none under the Human Tissue Act, there will now be a consistent approach across all these areas, which are themselves coming together in EU legislation.
To maintain the status quo would not be an adequate response to the wrongs and failures that resulted in the problems of organ retention. Certainly in respect of post-mortem organ and tissue retention without consent, penalties of that order seem to be appropriate.
We have also examined the penalties that currently apply a consistent deterrent across a range of activities that fall within the Bill. In doing so we are mindful of concerns across Europe about issues of organ trafficking, for example, and the fact that strong deterrents will be needed in this area.
The importance of all this is that we have the means—although we hope they will never need to be invoked—of addressing the kinds of wrongs that took place through the systematic removal and storage of organs without the knowledge and consent of families. Let us not underestimate the seriousness of this as a potential offence—I emphasis "potential offence".
A range of penalties is also available—from a fine to imprisonment, or both—to provide for a range of criminal circumstances. Some offences, were they to occur, may well be trivial—I accept that—and some extremely serious. In the unlikely case of a prosecution, it would then be for the courts to decide the appropriate penalty from the range available. It is in the nature of things that the offence would have to be extremely serious for custodial sentences to be imposed in this particular area.
I hope that explanation gives the noble Lord some reassurance.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: While the Minister has been talking I have been listening to him with one-and-a-half ears. I have also been reading again the extract from the book of Professor Raymond Tallis, which was published in The Times under the headline "When grief turned into grievance". The professor gives a very disturbing account, from the side other than the bereaved parents, of what the appalling impact was on the two hospitals—on Alder Hey in particular—which became besieged by the press. They were unable to proceed with their appeal for a new building to treat children, all of whom come from an extremely deprived area.
Professor Tallis turned his considerable talent for invective—which is far stronger than anything I said at Second Reading—against those who, to use my own words, turned the situation into a national horror story. The Minister has demonstrated again this desire
GC 456
to appease the parents who have suffered great grief—one appreciates that; we all pay tribute to that—to the extent that the balance has got out of kilter.
My noble friend did not say much about Amendment No. 23, which simply seeks to remove from magistrates the power to send someone to prison. If someone is to go to prison for an offence under this Bill, the case must go before a High Court judge or equivalent. I do not believe that magistrates should have the power to do that.
This is evidence of the issue getting out of balance. I hope that we may be able to return to the matter. I understand the arguments that the noble Lord has advanced, but he must appreciate, from the way in which the whole matter was handled right from the beginning—and Professor Tallis has described in horrifying detail what happened—that this balance must be redressed.
It may be that the Minister can say, with some justice, that imprisonment would be the very last resort for the most serious kind of offence. But that is not what it looks like in the Bill. Here we have got an offence of taking organs without consent, and if an offence is committed someone can go to prison for three years. It is an extraordinary way of handling what Professor Tallis and others have described as a "medical misfortune".
No one doubts that it caused great grief—it was handled very badly by the doctors and the health authorities concerned—but for goodness sake let us keep a sense of proportion. If one is dealing with people who have nefarious purposes, that is a different matter which could probably be dealt with under criminal legislation; but we are trying to find an appropriate way of ensuring that the rules in the new Bill, which updates the whole process, are observed.
I have the greatest sympathy with the noble Lord, Lord McColl. These measures are too swingeing to go into a Bill of this kind; it gives the wrong message. It does not recognise what has happened to the profession of pathology; it does not recognise what has happened to people who have devoted their lives to the care of sick children, who have suffered grievously as the scandal has multiplied and multiplied.
One has got to get back to a common-sense view of what is right. The amendments would go some way to reversing a very unfortunate and unhappy episode. For a former Minister of Health to describe it as the worst disaster that ever happened to the National Health Service seems to me to be a most extraordinary statement. It should never have been made because it is not that at all.
Lord Clement-Jones: At this stage in Committee I do not want to go on at length. However, some of the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, need to be redressed. I know well many of the circumstances at Alder Hey. Frankly, if I were a prosecution authority and faced with some of the matters for which Dr van Velzen was responsible, I would have wanted to prosecute him: I think many of us would have wanted to give him a gaol term.
We need to put into context, of course, that the culture of the time was not set in stone. Now the medical profession generally is aware that it needs to adopt sounder practices. Of course, no one wishes to tar the medical profession with a single brush, but there were people like Dr van Velzen at the time who gave rise to an absolutely legitimate public revulsion. The Alder Hey inquiry resulted, many felt that it had got it right, and this legislation has ensued.
I have supported many of the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, during the passage of the Bill, but I really do not believe that we should forget the circumstances that have given rise to the legislation we are discussing at the moment.
Lord Warner: I shall reply as gently as I can to some of the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin. The noble Lord acknowledged that he was listening with only half an ear to the points that I was making. If the other half had been deployed, he would have noticed that I said that this was a last resort; that it was a deterrent; and that it was for serious offences. I also mentioned that there is existing legislation—I shall not go through it but I shall send the noble Lord samples—in the Anatomy Act, in the Human Organ Transplants Act and in the Human Tissue Act, where there are three-year custodial sentences as maximum sentences for these offences.
So we are not introducing anything new. If I may make a very narrow political point, all that legislation was introduced under a previous government, which the noble Lord served with such distinction.
I have to put these points on the record. We are not seeking to run around locking up doctors and pathologists. But there needs to be a deterrent in the legislation and there needs to be consistency across the legislation. So by abolishing the Acts we are incorporating greater consistency in the sentencing provisions.
Lord Walton of Detchant: Nevertheless, it is important to recognise that the whole issue has been clouded by an enormous range of misunderstanding. What happened at Alder Hey was quite unforgivable—the doctor concerned, who has been referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, was eventually erased from the medical register by the General Medical Council—but the same strictures were applied to what happened at the Bristol Royal Infirmary, where most of the hearts that were removed from the children were removed and retained at the coroner's behest under the Coroners' Rules.
Here again there was a very serious misunderstanding. I think it is time to put behind us these misunderstandings and the enormous range of concern that has been expressed, and to ensure that the Bill works well.
I believe these penalties are potentially very savage. Nevertheless, I can understand why the Minister feels that they must be retained—although I only accept them with a very heavy heart.
Lord McColl of Dulwich: I thank the Minister for his reply. It is worth pointing out that we have not
GC 458
objected to the penalties in the Bill for trafficking under Clause 32. As far as concerns the human fertilisation scene, the potential for mischief there is far greater than the sphere to which we are referring.
Lastly, does the Minister really think that these penalties are comparable? They are the same as for the offences I outlined—going equipped to steal, affray, firearms, possessing obscene material. Are the offences really comparable?
7.15 p.m.
Lord Warner: Many of these matters come down to judgment. They are also down to bodies such as the Sentencing Advisory Panel, which advises on sentences. The Government have taken what they think is an appropriate line.
I shall certainly look into the range of penalties in the existing legislation and I shall write to noble Lords, but there are custodial provisions. I will check that I have got my periods correct, but there needs to be a deterrent. Our motive is not a matter of vengeance. We need to have a sensible set of deterrents which apply to a range of people, not only to doctors; we are not picking on doctors in this case.
I have the greatest respect and admiration for the noble Lord, Lord Walton, but I should say to him that, in a way, this Bill when enacted will help to achieve some closure on the issue of Alder Hey and on some of the matters that went before. It is important that we do that in a statesmanlike way.
Lord McColl of Dulwich: I thank the Minister for that reply. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 24 and 25 not moved.]
Clause 5 agreed to.
Clause 6 [Activities involving material from adults who lack capacity to consent]:
Lord McColl of Dulwich Lord McColl of Dulwich moved Amendment No. 26:
Page 7, line 10, at beginning insert "the person intending to undertake the activity has taken such steps as are reasonable in all the circumstances to establish that"
The noble Lord said: As it stands, requiring a researcher to establish the absence of an effective decision is considered to be far too onerous, as well as counterproductive in areas such as research into emergency and critical care, where of course time is of the essence. The amendment would create a much more reasonable position and would enable the clinician to care for his patients without having the threat of the law hanging over him.
If the clause remains as it is, the effect on clinicians will be that they do not do anything which could possibly put them at risk. Research will be made much more difficult, or impossible in some spheres. Again the requirement in the Bill is bound to make doctors much more risk averse, inevitably resulting in less effective and less cutting-edge treatment for patients. I beg to move.
Lord Clement-Jones: The amendment is very important. I added my name to it as soon as it was

GC 459
tabled. It certainly reflects the considerable concern in a wide variety of quarters, including medical, research and voluntary organisations. There is a very widespread concern about the impact of Clause 6 as there is a strong belief that it will impede the conduct of research into medical conditions or treatments associated with emergencies or critical care. In order to rely on the clause, there should be no decision of the patient to consent or object in force. That is an absolute statement in the clause.
It is assumed that this will require some level of investigation on the part of the researcher to establish the relevant facts, but where time constraints are severe it might be quite impossible for these facts to be established with absolute certainty. Practically, it is essential that this requirement is qualified to recognise those constraints. The interests of the patient will be further safeguarded, in any event, by the requirement for ethical review.
The effect of the amendment, which is extremely well drafted, would be to qualify the requirement in Clause 6 to establish whether any existing consent or objection is in force. Clarification is certainly needed on how far researchers are required to go to establish whether a person has consented or objected to the use of his tissue in research where the person involved lacks the capacity to consent. Otherwise, this requirement could make certain research in the critical care area impossible. It seems to us that "all reasonable inquiry" is the right way to go. The amendment should be supported.
In addition, it is worth making the point that organisations such as the Parkinson's Disease Society are concerned generally about the operation of Clause 6 and its inter-relation with the Mental Capacity Bill. The society states in its briefing that the expectation had been that the new Mental Capacity Bill would set out a framework for proxy consent when tissue is obtained from people lacking capacity, but the provisions set out in the draft Bill were not broad enough to encompass the range of activities otherwise made criminal by the Human Tissue Bill.
These are considerable concerns which the Government should take into account, possibly through discussion with all those concerned. The amendment would make a good start.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff: I support the amendment, which is extremely important, particularly in the area of critical and emergency care.
Let me outline a scenario for the Minister to illustrate why it is so important. Someone is brought into an accident and emergency department; it is thought that he needs to be given a drug very rapidly which would, for example, act as an anticoagulant factor. However, there is some suspicion that there may be a sub-group among the people who come in with an additional substance in their blood that should be identified—but the blood must be taken before the anticoagulant is given. Indeed, the processing of such blood for research purposes has to be carried out in a particular way. It must be done very rapidly because
GC 460
once it is out of the body and exposed to the air, there is decay. As all doctors in the Committee who know about clotting factors will be aware, the cascade will start in less than a second.
In that situation it is not possible to ask for consent. The process of going through all the layers of requesting consent would delay the treatment—which would be completely unethical. On the other hand, if you do not pursue that line, you will never know whether there is a better treatment and a better way of managing that sub-group of patients.
So, given that the research has to be carefully scrutinised by a local research ethics committee; given that you would have to try to ascertain as quickly as you can—in an emergency room situation—something about the patient's wishes; and given that you would have to go back to him afterwards—if he survives whatever brought him into casualty—to explain that you have done this research and you have the data, it is terribly important to allow for the appropriateness of the measures taken to obtain consent.
Ideally, if you are going to obtain consent, people should be given a cooling-off period. You should explain it to them and then go back the next day, when they have had time to think about it. However, that is completely inappropriate in an emergency situation.
The amendment goes part of the way towards helping another problem that arises. In line 10 of page 7 it states,
"nor a decision of his not to consent to it, is in force".
I should like to explore the position should someone revoke his consent, not in an emergency situation but where he is part of a very large study where perhaps there has been complicated double anonymisation. There would have been two phases to the anonymisation process, which is very complex; data have been collected and are already anonymised, but the person now states that he does not want to participate in the study any longer. Is that researcher bound, as the Bill is drafted, to "unanonymise" doubly and remove all his data, or is he able to carry on using the data if the consent to do so exists, yet seek to take further blood samples or specimens from the person who was in this study in the long term? He would of course be obliged to carry on treating that person without prejudice to his treatment at the time that the patient removed his consent saying that he no longer wished to participate.
There is an additional complexity that could arise with very sick people. A person could say, "I really don't want to participate any more" because he is very ill, tired, has had enough and is dying. He then dies, so you cannot ascertain what his intentions were over the data that you have obtained, which is held through the doubling anonymisation process.
There are some real complexities. The amendment might help a bit, but clarification about revoking consent is important. As drafted, the Bill implies that you either consent or you do not but consent is an ongoing process. A person may revoke and then change his mind and say, "I feel a bit better. I am quite

GC 461
happy to participate again at some time in the future". However, when a patient says that he does not want his blood taken today, of course you stick by that.
Lord Patel: I support the amendment. The reason a change is required has been put very clearly by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, and also by the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay. It will impede the conduct of research into medical conditions or treatments associated with emergencies or critical care. A great deal of important research will be impeded as the Bill stands.
Baroness Andrews: I am grateful to noble Lords who took part in the debate. It was very interesting and pointed out the complexities of some of these issues.
The amendment causes us some major problems in the context of Clause 6. It arises from fears expressed by some scientists that in emergency and acute situations involving people without mental capacity there may be no opportunity to establish whether the individual had given or withheld such consent. The amendment proposes, therefore, that the researcher should be obliged only to take "reasonable steps" to find out. The argument seems to be that this would reduce the risk. The noble Lord pointed out in graphic language that the researcher might fall foul of the law by failing to make exhaustive efforts despite the emergency nature of the situation in which the research is conducted.
Perhaps I can establish our case, to which we hold strongly, in terms of both the effect of the amendment and what the clause is trying to do. We want to maintain the position set out in Clause 6 in order to avoid setting a different and disadvantageous position for mentally incapacitated people compared with that pertaining to people with capacity. We must also maintain it if we are to maintain compatibility with the clinical trials directive in relation to any research involving people with mentally incapacity. I shall describe that in a little more detail later. However, we also need to ensure that what we do in the Bill is consistent with the Mental Capacity Bill and particularly Clause 33(2)(b)of that Bill. That is the purpose of the clause.
Clause 6 of the Bill states that there should not be a prior decision of the person whether to consent or otherwise to the use in question. As for our debates on the nature of consent and the difficulty of establishing consent, the Bill deliberately does not set out the extent to which a researcher, when seeking to establish consent, should be obliged to go to determine whether consent for any person has been given, and nor should it. The experts around this Committee table will know that that is not a matter for legislation; it is, has been and will be essentially a matter for professional judgment. As every doctor will know, those judgments are made daily and on a case-by-case basis.
7.30 p.m.
In relation to people with capacity, there will be an absolute obligation to ensure that consent is either given or not, and people without capacity are entitled to the same protection—no more, no less. To attach a specific qualification, as the amendment does, on the lengths to which a researcher should go to establish a
GC 462
prior consent, but to limit that only to people with a mental incapacity would be discriminatory. I suggest that it is also unnecessary. I shall return to that point.
Perhaps I may restate the purpose of the clause and try to set minds to rest insofar as I can. We are not imposing impossible challenges. In Clause 6 we have provided for regulations that will cover a set of specific circumstances in which tissue from mentally incapacitated patients could be used for necessary scheduled purposes. There are three such circumstances. First, we need to be able to ensure that the consent can be deemed in cases where it would be in the patient's best interests. It is a slightly bizarre notion, but I shall give some predictable examples.
Without this provision it would not be possible to use tissue once removed from an incapacitated person for a scheduled purpose even where it would be in a patient's best interests. There has already been a case of a person without capacity providing bone marrow for a relative. That was considered by the court to be in her best interests. We can see why, because of the dependence relationship. We can imagine other such cases. Such cases will be rare but the provision makes such choices possible if they are in the person's best interests. There will be other cases where it is important to be able to obtain genetic information. This provision could be extremely important in those cases.
The second area covered by the regulations will ensure that the use is possible and consistent with the requirements of the clinical trials regulations. Under the proposed regulations we will be able to provide that where consent has been given by a proxy in accordance with Schedule 1 of the clinical trials (storage and use of materials) regulations from the adult lacking capacity as part of the trial, that should be treated as having been done with consent. We need that provision in the Bill.
The third purpose was alluded to by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, in relation to the Mental Capacity Bill. It is addressed to research that would be allowable under the Bill. Clauses 30 to 33 of that Bill will set out how research should be allowed in the context of a whole set of definitions, which it will also provide in terms of interests and so on. Our Bill needs to align with that so that the tissue can be used in the same circumstances.
Returning to an earlier debate on the nature of consultation and the case raised with the Parkinson Society by the noble Lord, we intend to consult very fully. I am sure that the medical researchers, voluntary organisations and the patients' associations also will be consulted in that context.
I emphasise that both Bills seek to establish the main principle that a person's prior decision regarding the use of their tissue in research should be respected. The Mental Capacity Bill does that in Clause 33(2)(b), which provides that nothing may be done to, or in relation to, a person lacking capacity in the course of research which would be contrary to an advance decision of his that has effect. That would include removing and using material of his in research.

GC 463
Clause 6 of the Human Tissue Bill provides that there should be no prior decision of the incapacitated person regarding such use of tissue. These two Bills must march together.
I should like to make two further points on the wider debate that we had on the nature of consent in emergency and critical care situations. I cannot comment on the nature of the cases to which noble Lords referred because they were clearly extremely specific and complex and I would imagine relatively rare. I say that because the argument seems in all logic to be concerned principally with the lawful removal and use of tissue in an emergency situation. Therefore, I would suggest that they probably fall primarily under the Mental Capacity Bill in relation to research rather than the sorts of conditions that we may be addressing in this Bill.
I can imagine few emergencies where the crucial point is to do immediate and instant research on the spot rather than longer-term research or a process towards clinical trials where the normal ethical considerations would apply.
On the situation described by the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, if research is authorised under the clinical trials directive, the regulations under the Bill will follow through to allow the use of the tissue. The noble Baroness described the case of administering a trial drug. If it is part of a research study, the tissue can still be used if the research is approved by the REC. The case to which the noble Baroness referred is, especially with double anonymisation, sufficiently complex for us to look at it and write to her. I think that that would
GC 464
be the best thing to do in the circumstances. The Bill does not address the use of personal data in research. We would want to reflect on that issue in the letter.
I should like, finally, to try to offer some comfort. The concerns expressed overlook the crucial caveat in the Bill from the point of view of researchers. The defence of reasonable belief will be available to researchers. If prosecution were considered, the Bill makes it explicit, as we discussed today under Clause 5(1), that the defendant does not commit an offence if he reasonably believes that the activity in question is not one to which the consent provisions of Clause I apply. As I said, if the material is to be used anonymously in REC-approved research, no consent would be required anyway.
On the basis of that, and particularly in the light of my remarks on the potentially discriminatory effect of attaching a condition only to people with mental incapacity, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord McColl of Dulwich: I thank the Minister for her very detailed and helpful reply. I recognise that it is a complex business. There is, of course, very strong support for the amendment and we will revisit it later. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Warner: I think that this may be a convenient moment for the Committee to adjourn until tomorrow at 2 p.m.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Thomas of Walliswood): The Committee stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m.
The Committee adjourned at twenty-two minutes before eight o'clock.

  Ulster-Scots Agency
  Ulster-Scots Agency
  Northern Ireland: Postal Voting
  Northern Ireland: Postal Voting
  Northern Ireland: Parades
  Northern Ireland: Parades
  Health and Safety Executive
  Health and Safety Executive
  Hutton Inquiry
  Hutton Inquiry
  Human Rights: International Instruments
  Human Rights: International Instruments
  Human Rights Act 1998: Compensation
  Human Rights Act 1998: Compensation
  Bank Accounts: Registration
  Bank Accounts: Registration
  Cancer: Survival Rates
  Cancer: Survival Rates
  Licensing
  Licensing
  Lambs
  Lambs

  Northern Ireland Staff Commission for Education and Library Boards: Annual Accounts 2002–03
  The Lord President of the Council (Baroness Amos)
  My honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has made the following Ministerial Statement.

  The 2002–03 accounts of the Staff Commission for Education and Library Boards were deposited in the Libraries of both Houses today.

  Elected Regional Assemblies: Information Campaign
  The Minister of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (Lord Rooker)
  My right honourable friend the Minister for Local Government, Regional Governance and Fire has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.

  In August we sent a leaflet to every household in the north-east: An Elected Assembly for the North East—Have Your Say. The leaflet provided information about the regional assembly and local government referendums to be held on 4 November, including details of the options for local government reorganisation.

  An error has been discovered in the information provided about the cost of local government reorganisation in County Durham. The cost figure for option A (one single-tier local authority for the county of Durham) was correctly shown. However, the upfront cost of implementing option B—that is, of restructuring local government to create three unitary authorities to take over the functions currently exercised by the existing county and district councils—was stated as £38 million. It should have been £49 million.

  We will shortly be writing to all households in County Durham correcting this error. The Government will meet the costs of implementing either option, as stated in the leaflet.

  Education: Key Stage 1 Assessment
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Education and Skills (Lord Filkin)
  My honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Skills (Mr Stephen Twigg) has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.
  WS 118
  The trial of the new assessment arrangement at key stage 1 has now concluded and a decision about extending the new arrangements to all schools has been made.

  In 2003, we asked the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority (QCA) to trial an approach which placed more emphasis on teacher assessment and national reporting of teacher assessment levels. Schools taking part in the trial administered the national curriculum tasks and tests in reading, writing and mathematics and the outcomes of these, plus all the evidence from work done throughout the year, were used by teachers to make judgments about children's progress in each subject, which were reported to parents and LEAs.

  An independent evaluation of the new arrangements was carried out by Leeds University on behalf of the QCA. The evaluation proved favourable and we have accepted the QCA's recommendation to extend the new arrangements to all schools at key stage 1 from the current academic year.

  National Service Framework for Children, Young People and Maternity Services
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Lord Warner)
  My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Health has made the following Written Ministerial Statement today.

  In February 2001, we announced that the department would be developing a new national service framework (NSF) to set in place new standards for children's services. I am pleased to announce that the children's NSF is today being published. Copies have been placed in the Library.

  This NSF is the most complex to date, covering maternity services and the full range of issues for children and young people across health and social care, as well as the interface with education. It has been developed through active consultation with young people and the direct participation of over 250 experts and practitioners from the field. We also sought the views of key stakeholders through a major consultation exercise.

  The children's NSF is an evidence-based, 10-year strategy, which advocates a cultural shift in the provision of care, with services being designed and delivered around the needs of children and their families. The NSF recognises that children's needs are different and that it is important they have personalised services which take account of their individual views and beliefs, and enable them to make informed choices about their care. Setting standards for maternity care will also enable women to make real choices about the birth of their babies. It highlights the need for high-quality services that offer choice and are prompt, convenient and responsive and that look at the "whole child", rather than as a presenting illness or problem.
  WS 119
  The broad remit of the NSF is covered in 11 standards, which are:

  promoting health and well-being, identifying needs and intervening early;

  supporting parents or carers;

  child, young person and family-centred services;

  growing up;

  safeguarding and promoting the welfare of children and young people;

  children and young people who are ill;

  children in hospital;

  WS 120

  disabled children and young people and those with complex health needs;

  mental and psychological well-being of children and young people;

  medicines;

  maternity.

  The children's NSF has been developed in line with the Government's wider public sector reform, to devolve power and responsibility to local agencies. Consequently, while this NSF sets out the levels of service quality which we expect services to attain by 2014, it is to be left to local discretion to determine how change should be effected.