Westminster Hall Sitting of 22 October 2003

Preamble
[DAVID TAYLOR in the Chair]

Law Commission Report (Child Deaths)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned.—[paul Clark.]
9.30 am
Dr. Desmond Turner: The publication of the Law Commission report represents what I hope is nearly the end of a saga. For me, it has been going on for at least five years; for many others involved in child protection, it has been going on much longer.
Over the past five years, while the topic has been under earnest debate, approximately 750 children will have been killed or seriously injured by their parents or carers. That gives us an insight into the scale of the problem. Of those deaths and injuries, few will have resulted in prosecution—and virtually none in prosecution for an offence that reflects the gravity of the crimes that have been committed.
The problem first came to my attention when a series of babies in my constituency died over a number of years. Only with the last two deaths was it realised that the deaths were not accidental but were the result of gross neglect and physical abuse. The National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children reports of those cases made the same sort of harrowing and grisly reading as the account given in the Climbié report.
Not unnaturally, the matter was taken very seriously. It was the result of a total failure on the part of the child protection services, and it led to a prosecution. The parents were jointly charged with murder. However, the trial did not proceed far: the judge stopped it, I think even before the prosecution had finished their case, on the ground that it was not possible to bring a safe conviction against either parent because, from the evidence given to the court, it was not possible to decide who had done it.
That is the nub of the problem of joint enterprise. Everybody knows that one or both members of a couple—or even more—must be guilty of a serious crime, yet it is impossible to find evidence to decide which of them struck the fatal blow. I hasten to add that there was a successful prosecution of the couple in the end, but only for neglect. They received prison sentences of one and a half years and two and a half years respectively, and were probably released almost immediately.
My first action on hearing of that case was to see the then Home Secretary, together with the detective inspector who had been involved in the case, and relatives, to put to him the seriousness of such cases and the fact that gaps not only in the provisions of the law but in court procedures and rules of evidence had prevented a successful prosecution. The Home Secretary was sympathetic and promised that he would refer the case. He then referred it to Lord Justice Auld, who was conducting a review of the judicial system. It
256WH
was later referred to the Law Commission for consideration. After years of earnest deliberation, we finally have the commission's report.
The National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children convened a working group with the aim of gaining an idea of the number of such cases in the country. The same detective inspector undertook an intelligence-gathering exercise involving 43 police forces in England and Wales, the results of which were disturbing. He found that in the three years covered by the investigation, an average of three children under 10 were either killed or seriously injured every week. Of those cases, 83 per cent. involved children under two. In 61 per cent. of cases, there was no prosecution because of decisions taken by the police or the Crown Prosecution Service. There were convictions in only 27 per cent. of those cases, and those were only for the relatively minor offences of neglect or cruelty.
The disturbing situation is that murder—the only reasonable desrciption—is being committed with impunity by parents or carers, and that there are no prosecutions because of the conundrum of not knowing who did it. If neither party is prepared to give evidence against the other, it is difficult to decide who did it. I cannot imagine that the police or the CPS would allow an adult murder to go unpunished and unprosecuted so easily.
It is a sad fact that the authorities do not pursue cases involving the deaths of small children with the vigour appropriate to the gravity of murder. I put it to hon. Members that the unlawful death of a human being is equally grave whether the victim is one month old or 70 years old. How can we resolve the imbalance of justice that allows the most serious of crimes to go unpunished in literally hundreds of cases? The balance of justice is very much tilted in favour of the perpetrator of the crime because of the perfectly natural and laudable legal principle that before a person can be convicted of a serious crime, one must be absolutely confident that he or she did it.
Unfortunately, that principle gets in the way of successful prosecution. That is echoed in the Law Commission's early consultative report, which states:
"We conclude that there is ample evidence from disparate sources that the present rules of evidence and procedure which apply in criminal trials represent a significant obstacle to effective investigation into and identification and punishment of those who are guilty of the most serious offences against the most vulnerable member of society. Furthermore, the alternative offences, for which the present rules and procedures do permit convictions, do not appear satisfactorily to reflect the responsibility for the death of a child, either through the labelling of the offence which attaches to the conduct or in the severity of the penalties available."
I doubt whether anyone would disagree with those words. What we need now is action. For many years, learned colleagues have cogitated on it and, until now, failed to find a way through the dilemma. Sooner or later, in every judge's deliberation, the classic case of Lane and Lane comes up, and we can go no further.
The question is what to do in a situation in which it is known, beyond all reasonable doubt, that either one or both of two people were responsible for a capital offence. Clearly, it is not possible to prosecute for the full gravity of murder in such circumstances. However, the original proposal, which was the line of thinking of

257WH
the then Home Secretary, was a slightly lesser offence of killing as a result of cruelty, which would carry a sentence of, say, up to 14 years, which can be prosecuted according to the lesser standard of evidence, as long as we are confident that the murderer or murderers were part of a couple. That is what we have come back to.
I submit that that is reasonable, because even if one of the couple was completely innocent of throwing the baby at the wall, for example, they were complicit in, or at the very least accessories to, the act of murder by virtue of their silence, given that they knew the circumstances, and of their failure to take steps to protect the child. It would be reasonable, in such circumstances, to prosecute for joint enterprise. That also means changing the rules of evidence and procedures in court, and the Law Commission's recommendations coincide reasonably with the amendment to the Criminal Justice Bill tabled by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Redcar (Vera Baird) and me. We did not press it to a Division, as we were awaiting the outcome of the Law Commission's report, which is now before us.
I remind the Minister that Baroness Gould tabled the same amendment in the House of Lords, which corresponds to, takes into account and anticipates the Law Commission's recommendations. There is still time for the Government to incorporate them into the Criminal Justice Bill by accepting the amendment. I await my hon. Friend's response to that fact with great interest.
Alternatively, the Government could proceed by putting the Law Commission's recommendations into effect on their own. I hope that my hon. Friend will tell me that they will do so. The recommendations are couched at great length in legal language, but the nub of them is fairly simple: the offence of killing by cruelty; a further offence of failing to protect; the requirement for a judge to allow the full case to be presented to the court before intervening to prevent the possibility of what he believes could be an unsafe conviction; and for the court to be able to draw conclusions from the silence of either or both of the accused, so that the court can bring in a verdict under the conditions of joint enterprise.
If the Government are not minded to accept the amendment, which is currently being considered in the House of Lords, I seek an assurance that they will legislate to put the recommendations into effect at the earliest opportunity. The current Home Secretary, Lord Falconer and the Solicitor-General have assured me that the Government have a strong will to do so. I will put my hon. Friend on the spot—that is what Ministers are for—by seeking from him an assurance that the Government will accept the legislative opportunity offered by our amendment to the Criminal Justice Bill or that the Queen's Speech will announce a domestic violence Bill that incorporates the new charges and changes to rules of evidence that arise from the report's recommendations.
This is a very serious matter. The current situation totally undermines the work of child protection agencies. It is not that prosecution by itself is necessarily a deterrent—we know that the abolition of the death penalty made no difference to the incidence of murder—but that society expects a reasonable degree of
258WH
punishment for a very serious offence. It can do nothing for the morale of social workers, investigating police officers or health visitors, who must go through some difficult exercises to do their work, to know that they will end up with no result other than a dead child. It is therefore essential that this large gap in the operation of the legal system should be plugged at the earliest opportunity. We do not guarantee that this will stop parents from neglecting, battering or murdering their children, but it will contribute to a reduction in the incidence of such horrendous occurrences.
9.49 am
Tim Loughton: I am grateful for the opportunity to speak on this subject, in which I have been interested for a number of years, both as Front-Bench spokesman on children's issues and from constituency experience, which the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Dr. Turner) knows well. I congratulate him on raising the subject again in this Chamber. As he said, he has been involved with it before. Uncharacteristically, I want wholeheartedly to support his case and the comments that he eloquently made. As he says, there is a gap in the law that must be plugged: it amounts, literally, to adults getting away with murder.
We in Sussex know—all too well, sadly—the problems of child abuse, cruelty and murder. The hon. Gentleman recounted several cases from his constituency, and I want to refer to a specific case that happened in my own. There was the murder of Sarah Payne a few years ago. I have been attempting to push the child rescue alert scheme, which was piloted by Sussex police, as a means of countering child abductions. The Minister knows that we currently have a few problems with that; I am glad that I shall meet his colleagues in due course.
Part of the problem nationally is that too many children are still being killed, let alone suffering abuse and serious injury, at the hands of their parents or carers. The number of children who die at the hands of their parents or carers is still said to average 79 or 80 a year, of whom—incredibly—over half are under the age of one. That figure has been fairly consistent over a number of years, despite improvements in the system of detection, and a greater awareness of child abuse problems, and it is still alarmingly high. We hope that improvements will take place as a result of Lord Laming's Climbié report, and the Green Paper that the Government announced last month, which we greatly welcome—but the proof of the pudding will be in the eating, and we need to see much more detail. We hope that, as part of the linking exercise between those who come into contact with children—be it social workers, teachers, GPs, other health workers, or police—that we can do something to bring down that number of deaths. At the same time, the point of today's debate, and the required legislation, is to ensure that the deterrent against those parents or carers who commit such heinous crimes is of sufficient severity to discourage them from doing so. A two-pronged approach is needed, which is why it is right that the hon. Gentleman proposes changes in the law.
The NSPCC, working with the Sussex police child protection unit, has done a lot of work on the subject. The hon. Gentleman referred to a study in which it

259WH
considered a number of cases of non-accidental child deaths at the hands of carers, and surveyed 366 cases. In 225 cases, no further action was taken, not even the charging of parents or carers with a lesser offence—those cases never even proceeded to court. The perpetrators obviously got away with their crimes scot free. There were convictions in only 99 of those 366 cases, very few of which were for murder, as most were on lesser charges. The indictment rate for such cases has also been falling in recent years. It seems that the law is not being tightened up; if anything, it is going the opposite way.
I have taken up the issue in most of the six years that I have been in the House. Earlier this year, I revisited the subject with a private Member's Bill, urging the Government to do something about the joint enterprise loophole. What brought my attention to it was the case in my constituency in 1999. A four-year-old, John Smith, who I think was in the care of Brighton and Hove social services, had been placed with foster carers in Fishersgate in my constituency. The carers were the child's prospective adopters and were apparently sufficiently trusted by social services to put him in their care.
On Christmas eve 1999, the child died from brain injuries after six months of systematic abuse, resulting in 54 bruises, three adult bite marks and numerous burns being found on the body when the child eventually succumbed to the abuse. Those responsible, Simon and Michelle McWilliams, were prosecuted. In 2001, they were jailed for eight years, but on a charge of cruelty rather than murder, because each one denied responsibility and did not try to pin it on the other, so the joint enterprise loophole came into play. Amazingly, the couple appealed against their conviction, but fortunately the appeal was turned down and they are still serving part of that eight-year sentence—they could well be out in four years for good behaviour.
The verdict was an enormous blow to all the people who knew that the parents were guilty of a much more serious offence than cruelty. The report had enormous ramifications: social workers lost their jobs and health workers, including my constituents, were heavily criticised. Systemic failures were exposed in the case, and we hope that the Green Paper recommendations will resolve them. The frustration and demoralisation of professional workers who just want to do their best for the young people in their care is enormous when they see people getting away with murder altogether or facing much lesser charges.
The Government must revisit this issue. Whether through the amendment in the House of Lords, which the hon. Gentleman mentioned, or otherwise, we need to find a solution to plug the loophole. I am not a lawyer and do not know the technicalities of what would and would not wash in the legal system. However, I do know that a solution must be found and I support his proposal, as I, too, have suggested that there should be a charge of killing by cruelty, for which the sentence would typically be a maximum of 14 years.
The hon. Gentleman spoke about a responsibility on a parent or carer to have a joint duty of care for the welfare of the child and to take action if he or she reasonably believes that the partner is abusing the child. We can learn from the Scottish system. Changes made
260WH
to Scottish law in the 1990s introduced a duty of care over children for whom parents or carers had a joint responsibility.
I do not suggest any practical, specific solutions at this stage, but I add my weight to the case advanced by the hon. Gentleman. The number of children who are abused and killed in our society is a terrible indictment of it, certainly when compared with the experience in other European countries. There must be a two-pronged solution. We need a better system working to prevent such cases, with properly joined-up professionals who are properly in touch with the intelligence on the ground and who have the power and the teeth to do something about it. The buck should stop with the person who can ensure that something is brought to bear. Equally, the law must be tightened up so that anyone who is minded—incredibly—to inflict the terrible injuries on children that we all find extraordinary will think twice about the odds of being prosecuted and the severity of the implications of a successful prosecution. At present, the chances of a serious prosecution with serious consequences are simply not high enough to act as a deterrent.
I hope that the Minister will take those points on board and that we can see a change in the law to make such child killings a real offence, punishable by a charge equivalent to murder.
9.59 am
Vera Baird: First, I apologise for my late arrival, which was attributable to the Victoria line for about the 15th time in the past few weeks. It is discourteous of me, and it also means that I did not hear what my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Dr. Turner) said. If I start to repeat what he said, I hope that someone will pull a face at me. I pay tribute to both him and the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton). Both have worked with great fortitude to change the anomaly in the law, and I am pleased to be able to add my support.
Reference has been made to the work done by an NSPCC committee, which collected figures on children who are killed or receive serious injury. I heard the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham talking about the numbers—476 children in three years, which amounts to three a week. On those figures, by far the highest homicide rates for both males and females are among infants. A casual thinker might guess that young men between the ages cf 18 and 20 or 25 were the most likely people to be killed. In fact, 33 such young men per million are killed by homicide, whereas 44 little boys per million are murdered.
The causes of death are almost as horrific as the numbers. More than 60 per cent. of the 476 deaths were caused by either a skull fracture or an intracranial injury, including a haemorrhage, which suggests that the child was shaken, thrown against a wall or banged on the head. Another 10 per cent. of deaths were from suffocation or strangulation. The hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham noted the different figures. Let me specify the important one: only a quarter of the cases that were reviewed resulted in a successful prosecution.
As the hon. Gentleman demonstrated, and I am sure that it was said earlier too, that is principally because few cases go to court. When cases reach court, the

261WH
conviction rate is well above average, but few get there. The point has also been made that although the rate is above average, convictions are often for a lesser offence, under section 1 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1963.
Like others, I must pay tribute to the NSPCC's work and the "Which of You Did It?" working group, which has been chaired by Judge Isobel Plumstead and in progress since 2000. A principal reason why convictions are difficult is that more than one person often bears direct responsibility for the child's death. Even when they are not killed, small children are often unable to say who harmed them, and a child old enough to give information is rarely able to go to court.
Carers cannot be compelled to give an account, as there is a justifiable privilege against self-incrimination in court. I have never understood why people are surprised about that privilege. People cannot be forced to talk; we do not torture them. However, we can back up the exercise of that right with consequences if it is unreasonably exercised.
As I am sure that others have referred to the case of Lane and Lane, I shall do so fleetingly. It ruled that in the absence of evidence that indicated which person of several had inflicted assault or that they acted together, none of the people involved could be convicted of murder or manslaughter. In some cases, conviction for cruelty or neglect under section 1 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1963 might follow, but there is no reason to settle for that. If a person has been killed at the hand of another, the right charge is murder or manslaughter, depending on how the facts marry up. There is nothing to justify having only lesser charges available when the killing is of the most vulnerable youthful members of society.
Section 1 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1963 has served as an excellent back-stop in many cases, but even that is sometimes difficult to achieve. The law was not designed to be the way it is, and nobody wants it to be so. We have a common-law system and a non-codified criminal system, which means that if an issue arises in a trial or on appeal, the decision in strict law is made in a piecemeal way and is specific to the case. That then stands as a precedent for other cases that cannot be distinguished from it, unless or until it is overturned by a higher court.
One could never have expected the Lane and Lane case to be overturned in a higher court, because it conforms to the main principles of criminal evidence and justice. The courts do not say, "This is not how it should be, so we will change it." They apply the law; they do not take into account what might be called public policy if it conflicts with ordinary criminal law. They take little account of what is desirable in society, or in that case, of what is utterly undesirable. In Lane and Lane, the Court of Appeal said that, distressing though it may be, a serious crime is likely to go unpunished. It is absolutely certain that one of two people in that case, and in most such cases, committed the most serious offence known in law on a child, so that statement was a significant understatement.
Lane and Lane took place in 1987. The verdict was never morally correct, as opposed to technically correct in the limited confines in which judges are allowed to
262WH
think. For 17 years that has been the law, and nobody has done anything significant about it, although many social workers and CPS lawyers have tried to find a way around it, usually through section 1. However, that law has prevailed, many children have been killed, and many deaths have gone unpunished for an extremely long time.
For the courts, it represents what Lord Justice Buxton described to the Law Commission as a
"depressingly accurate account of the way in which the courts have felt obliged to subordinate the particular interests of child protection to the demands of general and non-situation specific rules of English procedure".
It is curious that judges have the responsibility to apply the law systematically and almost mechanistically. When they see, as they must, something wrong with that application, there is no systematic channel for ensuring that that news passes to those who could, many years ago if the will and knowledge had been available, have done something to change it.
Before I discuss the current proposals for change, I want to point out that the figures collected by Judge Plumstead's working group showed a large discrepancy in the outcome of such cases among the police forces that were surveyed. The figures are small, so not too much can be based on them, but it is worth noting that although the West Midlands force achieved a successful prosecution in 50 per cent. of all cases that came to it—not just those that it took to court—in Essex, there were only four successful prosecutions, which represent 8 per cent. of the total. The remainder of cases in Essex resulted in no further action and did not get near court. That is a massive discrepancy between the two.
It is possible that, because of Lane and Lane, which has existed for so long, police, CPS lawyers, lawyers at court and judges may have developed the idea that there is not much prospect of success if there is a possibility that two or more people committed the offence. That may then become a self-fulfilling prophecy, rather analogous to the way in which rape has historically been treated. If there is perceived to be only a remote prospect of a successful outcome, it is probable that less effort is put in all the way along—for example, there might be insufficient active investigation to try to secure evidence that would point to A as opposed to B.
There is also the possibility of the impact of imminent legislative changes. I am strongly opposed to the admission of previous convictions in prosecutions because those convictions are there. However, if the Criminal Justice Bill successfully completes all its stages and is implemented, it will be possible for previous offences, acquittals and violent behaviour to be admissible, where relevant, in cases of this kind.
Before turning to the new proposals, I shall make only one further point, because it is difficult, in a debate of this sort, to have the sort of debate that one would have in Standing Committee about the technical nature of the law. However, I shall make that point as strongly as I can.
There is powerful evidence that cruelty to children, assaults on children, and killing of children are closely linked to domestic violence in general. As long ago as 1996, evidence presented by Brandon and Lewis showed that in half of 105 cases of children who had been killed or injured by a carer, domestic violence had taken place in those families.

263WH
Two conclusions may be drawn from that. First, with regard to what I said earlier about the Criminal Justice Bill and the proposed wider admissibility of evidence of previous conduct, if domestic violence has occurred, there may be evidence of earlier violent conduct by one party or another, demonstrated by police call-outs.
Secondly, the domestic violence victim is a potential witness, particularly if the woman concerned called out the police. As we know, 90 per cent. of domestic violence is man on woman, so I shall speak as if the woman was the victim, while taking due regard of the fact that it is sometimes the other way around. As is fairly well known, women tolerate a very great deal in domestic violence cases. They sometimes ask for help and often stay even after the help has come, but it is often when an assault has occurred on a child that the link breaks, and the woman realises that she must make the move. An assault that results in death or serious injury can happen suddenly, so the woman has no time to protect against it or to leave, but in that situation she may be a useful witness, rather than a defendant.
However, the approach taken must be a cautious one. Women do not easily talk about domestic violence; it fills them with shame and guilt, and they are sometimes too afraid to talk about it. That represents a challenge for the police. They must be aware that there is a well-proven link between child killing or child injury and domestic violence against an adult partner, but it is critical that that issue is approached with care. It is also critical that policewomen be involved in that delicate area, and that both parties are represented by solicitors who understand the implications.
Even now, prior to any change in the law, some steps could be taken that might mean that more cases are successfully prosecuted. I have discussed the provisions of the Criminal Justice Bill and the understanding of the potential impact of domestic violence, which is likely to have been present, and have asked the question whether the existence of Lane and Lane for so long has led to a state of mind in which the police and the CPS do not pursue cases as actively as they should.
I respectfully suggest that a thematic review by the inspectorate of constabulary and the inspectorates of the CPS of how such cases are prosecuted would be a good step, pending legislation—I do not know when it will be possible to legislate, and I am as keen as other hon. Members who have spoken to encourage it quickly. That would not be like the usual inspections of police forces in, say, Cleveland or Essex; rather, we should look at all the police forces and ask how they are doing this. Is there best practice that can be learned from? Is there best practice that can increase the rate of conviction, even on the law as it currently stands?
In 2002 there was such a thematic review of the law on rape and how rape is prosecuted, which was very important indeed in unlocking some of the measures that are now being taken to improve prosecutions and convictions. A similar course could unlock some of the no further action cases and lead to more being carried on with, irrespective of any changes in the law. However, there are also good recommendations from the Law Commission for changes in the law, and I, too, urge that they be taken up quickly.
At trial, the prosecution go first and present their evidence. Given the evidence, they might say, "It's more likely to have been A," or, "It's more likely to have been
264WH
B," or, "The circumstances suggest that they were working together on this," or, "In the instant when the action took place, they were of the same mind and are parties to a joint enterprise." If so, the case just stops, because the defence then have a right to say, "We don't have anything to answer here, as there is no case against either A or B." That has happened many, many times. A and B will have said nothing in the police station, and will of course never have to face the prospect of saying anything in court, because only the prosecution are heard from. The two do not have to answer if there is no case presented against them at court.
It is not the work of wicked lawyers to tell people not to speak, however. In the aftermath of Lane and Lane it would be gross negligence if a lawyer did not say to a person in the police station, "You must say what you wish, but let me tell you, if there is no evidence that picks out that it's either you or her, there will be no conviction against either of you."
There is an inference in the law from silence, but it does not work at that early stage, when the prosecution case is being called. It therefore cannot carry someone over that halfway stage, because they have not been given a chance to speak or say nothing in court in order to rectify their silence in the police station, so the inference does not work. There is an excellent proposal from the Law Commission that echoes the amendment that my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown and I tabled in Committee, which is that the right to submit that there is not a case for a defendant to answer should be deferred to the end of the defence case and not taken at the end of the prosecution case.
At first sight there is a logical inconsistency about that proposal, because it is a bit funny to make a submission that there is no case to answer after one has given one's evidence or chosen not to do so. However, that is just a pedantic turn of phrase. We need a system in which, because solicitors will perhaps for the first time not give such advice so freely, people will have to consult their conscience about what they intend to do. Their child or a child whose care they were responsible for has been killed. They are now before a court, a case has been presented and the jury are looking to them. Can they sit throughout the case when the judge says to their barrister, "Have you told this person that now is their opportunity to give their explanation? Have you told them that it can be held against them if they don't?" In such circumstances, people will find it far harder to keep their heads down and their mouths closed through that stage, and more are likely to speak.
The Law Commission also has a proposal to beef up the adverse inference that would follow if either or both of the accused did not speak. Once one has passed the end of the prosecution and has started on the defence, the adverse inference works—juries can draw such inference as they think proper from the failure of defendants to speak, and in many cases they will. However, there is an irony in that. Because one cannot carry the adverse inference over from the end of the prosecution case and set up a case to be answered, if there is no more evidence at the end of the defence case because the defence have not spoken at all, but have kept mum and brazened it out, there is no more evidence than there was at the halfway mark. Logically, the adverse inference should not carry one any further in the absence of positive evidence one way or the other.

265WH
That is why the Law Commission proposes beefing up the process by setting up a statutory duty on a person who has care of a child, so that should anything happen to that child, he or she would have to give an account of how it occurred and what he or she knows about it. The Law Commission believes that that is key. It will permit more powerful adverse inference to be brought into play: in court, the moral pressure will be twice as large if one does not merely recite the ordinary rules but says, "You have a statutory duty to speak now," and the person still remains quiet. The Law Commission's view is that if somebody remains quiet in the face of that, the adverse inference should be large enough to allow for a conviction.
Mr. Dominic Grieve: Clearly, it will remain the case that, notwithstanding any adverse inference, if the evidence is not there at the close of the defence case—even with the statutory obligation to give an account—some prosecutions will have to be thrown out by the judge. That issue has troubled me, too. Can the hon. and learned Lady give examples of cases in which the statutory duty to give an account will make a difference if the evidence is not there in the first place that would have carried the prosecution through under the present rules?
Vera Baird:I know exactly what the hon. Gentleman means. While I was in durance vile on the Victoria line, I went step by step through the proposals, trying to cast my mind around what difference it would make in practice.
First, we should think about the period before trial and consider the police investigation. It would be a potent tool for police to tell people that they had a statutory duty to tell them what had happened, and that if they did not speak out either then or when the matter came to court, everybody would know that they had failed in their statutory duty. When the matter came to trial, it would also be a powerful tool for the judge to announce in the face of a jury that the person would be failing in that statutory duty by not speaking. I hope that the impact will be to encaurage more people to speak, but it might work in the odd case even if they do not.
Dr. Turner:Is this not a lesser problem than it might seem, because we are talking strictly about a situation in which we have hard evidence of every element apart from which defendant did it. We know that there is a dead child, and we are confident that one or both of the two people were responsible. It is a self-confining and self-defining situation, and the proposed new rules will put enormous pressure on both defendants, if they wish to defend themselves, to speak. If they fail to speak, they can be reasonably assumed to be guilty.
Vera Baird:I am grateful for my hon. Friend's intervention, although I do not entirely accept his last point. For instance, one would have to be very careful in a case where domestic violence could have taken place, because the victim of that violence may be intimidated and so not speak. Only the adverse inference that it is proper to draw can be drawn. If the jury think that A is
266WH
not speaking because A is scared, or is protecting B rather than himself or herself, that will still lead to some difficulty. Creating a statutory duty, rather than leaving the law as it is now, can make a difference. All the pressure that I have referred to will come to bear on people, and will enter the mind of the jury as a factor for consideration.
A judge who thinks at the end of a defence case that there is no evidence that points either way or shows joint enterprise will still have a duty to throw out the prosecution. Some cases will have to be withdrawn; we are not legislating to achieve 100 per cent. convictions. In fact, it is probably not appropriate to have 100 per cent. convictions. However, we are trying to improve matters in the ways that we can.
As my hon. Friend said, one could envisage that in certain circumstances, where there was a dead child, the jury would see A and see B and assess from their silence in the face of their statutory duty whether the evidence about the circumstances allowed the view to be formed that the two might well have acted together. There are juries that convict because it is clear that two defendants are acting together in deciding not to speak. Members of the jury take back an inference that if the defendants are conspiring to keep quiet, it is probable that they conspired together before.
All such circumstances need to be examined carefully, and the jury will have to ask whether there is something in the evidence that, coupled with the silence of A and of B, makes it possible to be satisfied either that A is responsible, or that A and B were acting together. The extra power that the Law Commission proposes to add to that inference is probably important. It also suggests an extension of the section 1 offence, which would include neglect or assault from which death follows. That would be helpful, but it cannot be a substitute for charges of murder and manslaughter.
My hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown and I toyed with another approach. That was to state that anybody with a duty to protect who is present when a child is killed or injured, is guilty, unless they could say that they took all reasonable and practical steps, and could satisfy the court that they did so. In other words, they would have to speak or they would be convicted. That would not reverse the burden of proof once they had spoken; that is, in a sense, the Law Commission's idea of a duty to explain—backed up by a conviction. That approach, however, is probably a step too far.
In the 1997 case to which the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham referred, an inquiry took place in Sussex. In April 2000, the police met the then Home Secretary, now Foreign Secretary, who said that the Home Office was urgently considering changing the law. The "Which of You Did It?" working group has been sitting since 2000.
My hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown and I raised the issue at the outset of the Criminal Justice Bill. We both raised it in Committee. The then Home Office Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, Central (Hilary Benn) said that it is wrong that those who abuse children should be able to play the system and get away with it. The Law Commission was asked to produce a consultative document in haste, in the hope that something could be

267WH
put into the Criminal Justice Bill. On Third Reading, the Home Secretary said that he was keen to legislate. Finally, last week, on 15 October in the other place, Baroness Scotland said that the Government were immensely keen to legislate. All of that has passed, the Law Commission has done its best and the final report of "Which of You Did It?" is imminent and is going to be far more about procedure and less about the law, because the Law Commission has dealt with that.
My question is now: have we not passed the stage at which asking as a tool for examination the rhetorical question, "Which of you did it?" has got to change to asking the Government directly, "When are you going to stop it?"?
10.30 am
Mr. David Heath: I congratulate the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Dr. Turner) on having secured the debate. We have already heard two very important contributions. Sadly, the 10 minutes allotted to the Front Bench in these circumstances is barely adequate to cover a matter that has been niggling away for years. I pay tribute both to the hon. Members who have already spoken and to organisations such as the NSPCC and various constabularies, particularly that in Sussex, for taking the subject so seriously. They do so because all of us consider infanticide to be a uniquely repugnant crime and all of us are concerned about the apparent gap in the law that is so amply demonstrated by the huge disparity in the prosecution rates for those suspected of killing a child in their care and those suspected of killing a child who is a stranger. That tells an important story.
As has been said, we had a canter down this course during the Committee stage of the Criminal Justice Bill. I see many of the contributors to that debate in the Chamber today. As the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown and the hon. and learned Member for Redcar (Vera Baird) know, in Committee I was very supportive of their amendment, with one exception. They included a provision for admitting pre-trial incriminating statements made by one defendant against another. I was unhappy with that, feeling that it was likely to be a breach of human rights legislation, and I am happy that the Law Commission formed the same view.
We need to dwell on what the Law Commission has said in dealing with the narrow legal points, but we should also recognise that there is a wider aspect to the matter. Improvements need desperately to be made in protection—I do not say deterrence, because I accept the view expressed by the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) that deterrence is of limited value in this area. Protection is certainly a proper concern, and we should provide a better service to children and young people.
I would also consider investigation. I wholly endorse what the hon. and learned Lady said about a thematic review of both investigation and prosecution procedures. That is a sensible suggestion that should be acted on at the earliest opportunity. I also feel that there is a gap in paediatric pathology that needs to be addressed as a matter of urgency. We do not necessarily have experts who are doing the job as well as they should be, and that has been illustrated in a number of cases.
268WH
I am pleased that the Law Commission is absolutely clear about the need for the prosecution to prove that a crime has been committed before the rest of its provisions come into force. There have been serious question marks over some cases that have been brought even though it is not clear that a crime has been committed, and people have been wrongly convicted on the basis that a crime has been committed, although the event was happenstance or accident. We must clearly distinguish such cases, because to put them together is to confuse the situation.
Various hon. Members have referred to Lane and Lane, and I am not going to quote others unnecessarily. I think that the hon. and learned Lady quoted Lord Justice Croome Johnson. It is a huge misfortune that, so many years after that case, nothing has been done. Looking back, I was surprised that the royal commission on criminal justice in 1993 came to such a weak conclusion about identifying an area of difficulty. It did not accept an argument about evidence at that stage, and expressed sympathy about the public concern over such cases but did not come to firm conclusions. That was an error.
Since then, some cases have provided partial remedies. The Law Commission refers to them: in relation to inferring joint enterprise it refers to the cases of Marsh and Marsh v. Hodgson, and Russel and Russel, as well as matters relevant to increasing the penalties for lesser offences. However, it does not get to grips with the basic issue that the Law Commission has now addressed.
As we have heard, the Law Commission has made proposals relating to the evidential and procedural arguments, and to new offences, with the statutory statement of responsibility. I believe that that is a productive and beneficial move, which ties in with what hon. Members proposed for the Criminal Justice Bill. A knock-on consequence, which has been referred to briefly, is a requirement for separate legal advice for the parties in the case, because the possibility of conflict of interest becomes so much greater. That must apply from the moment of arrest and interview at the police station. A change in solicitors' procedure may be needed for such cases.
The second point made by the Law Commission is that in certain cases the judge may not decide whether the case should be withdrawn from the jury until the close of the defence case. The hon. and learned Member for Redcar explained the consequences of that. Her analysis is correct, and I support her in it. The Law Commission has also dealt with the inference from failure to provide evidence.
As to the new offences of cruelty contributing to death and failure to protect a child, I cannot believe that anyone would argue about the first of those. It is self-evidently a valuable prosecution tool that that offence should be available, to he treated with the greatest seriousness. There is an argument for extending the offence of failure to protect a child, to make it apply more widely than to those with the connections set out in the Law Commission framework, resulting in a wider and more general duty to protect a child. I can see that it would be a difficult matter to enforce or prosecute, but it might also be a useful deterrent in statute. I should like to explore that possibility further.

269WH
The other question that needs to be discussed in relation to failure to protect a child is the maximum penalty of seven years. I can see the balancing act that the Law Commission is trying to carry out. Clearly, the offence is a lesser one than murder, but in some cases it may be a substitute for a murder charge. Is seven years the appropriate maximum penalty? I am not sure. In due course we shall need to address that matter.
What the Law Commission has come up with is a viable framework for reform, which appears in the draft Bill on offences against children. We have already heard that the Government are committed to act on this. The then Home Office Minister, who is now Secretary of State for International Development, said:
"We are committed to legislating en the matter, once we have found the right solution."
That was keeping the door open. He went on:
"We will then proceed with legislation as quickly as possible, either in the Bill if there is still time,"—
he was referring to the Criminal Justice Bill—
"or in a future Bill, because we are committed to making a difference on that aspect of the law."—[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 4 March 2003; c. 1269.]
It is clear to me that the matter that we are considering is one of urgency in the law. The Law Commission has done good work on it. There remains theoretically an opportunity to amend the Criminal Justice Bill. I would understand if the Minister's response was to say that there are so many interconnections between the proposed legislation and other legislation currently passing through the House that it would be better to have a freestanding Bill in the next Session. If that is his argument, I will accept it, provided that there is indeed a freestanding Bill in the next Session. What I cannot countenance, and I hope that he will not accept this either, is the matter simply sitting on a shelf gathering dust while the situation described by the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown continues. This problem is susceptible to a remedy, which the Law Commission has pointed out, and it behoves Parliament to do its job by producing legislation at the earliest opportunity.
10.40 am
Mr. Dominic Grieve: This debate has been needed for a long time, and the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Dr. Turner) is to be warmly congratulated on bringing this matter to our attention.
I declare at the outset that I am in favour of a reform to the law in this area, so I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I start with two words of caution before I talk about the details of the Law Commission's proposals. The first point, which my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) made very tellingly, is that the number of incidents in which very young children are killed by their carers or parents is surely an indication less of wilful evil in those carers or parents and more of an appalling and systematic failure in socialisation and the teaching of parenting skills in this country.
It is noteworthy that that failure has been constant for a very long time. I therefore do not believe that we should look to legislation that may raise the conviction
270WH
rate in such cases to provide a deterrent against the perpetration of the offences. I very much doubt that if we were to increase the rate of conviction to 90 per cent., there would be a substantial diminution in the number of these terrible killings.
We have always hoped that society would evolve and become a better place through education and the intervention of social services, and that we would be able to see an improvement. The terrible truth, which I know from numerous episodes in my constituency, is that social services departments are ill equipped to deal with these problems, which continue from one generation to another. Parents who are likely to be violent to very young children, out of frustration or because they have violent personalities that have never been subdued and contained through the usual processes of education in their own childhoods, have often been subjected to violence themselves. The remedy that we are looking for in legislation will not solve that problem.
The second issue, which the hon. and learned Member for Redcar (Vera Baird) properly highlighted, is that there is no point in saying that Lane and Lane is an outrageous statement of the law. Lane and Lane is merely a statement of the general principles of our law, which no one, as far as I am aware—certainly no one during the passage of the Criminal Justice Bill through Parliament—has said they want to tear up, applied to the particular problem that arises when two or three people must have committed the offence but no one can tell who did it.
The only reason why we focus on this problem in this particular framework is that it happens over and over again that a young child is killed by carers, one of whom must have committed the offence, but there is a risk of convicting the person who had nothing to do with it if we start tinkering with the existing rules and principles of our law, which state that the prosecution must satisfy the jury that they are sure that the defendant was involved in the offence. The difficulty in such cases is that it is a question that the court knows only too well the jury will be unable to answer—as in cases such as Lane and Lane, where there is no evidence on which one could decide which of the two people did it.
I am sympathetic to seeing what could be done to try to address that problem. However, I must tell the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown and others who have participated in the debate that we must be careful not to construct special rules that do away with the general principles of our law. Although one or two hon. Members have suggested that they should be done away with, on the whole such a move is resisted, and the Government have never suggested that they should go. Indeed, the human rights convention, which is now incorporated into our law, derived many of its principles from the way in which our common law had been applied. The privilege against self-incrimination, the right to a fair trial and the burden of proof being on the prosecution are all principles that I would not wish to be done away with.
It seems to me that the Law Commission has come up with an interesting formula. I have no difficulty with the principle of changing evidential and procedural rules for murder and manslaughter, as suggested by the Law Commission, in order to allow a decision to be taken at the end of the defence and not at the end of the prosecution case. If it has the beneficial result that the

271WH
hon. and learned Member for Redcar suggests, I would be wholly comfortable with it. I question the extent to which that may happen, but I emphasise that we should not raise too many hopes that it will lead to a revolutionary new position in respect of murder or manslaughter trials of two carers or parents accused of killing a young child. It may lead to some benefit, but it will not lead to a major shift. Indeed, the Law Commission considered a number of draconian proposals that would do away with the general principles of English law, but it rightly decided to reject them.
I am also quite happy about emphasising to the jury that they should take into account the responsibility on carers or parents for the welfare of a child when considering whether an inference can be drawn against the defendant or whether the case has to be withdrawn at the close of the defence's case. However, as I pointed out in an intervention, although that may help in one or two limited grey area cases, as defendants often stay silent until the end of the defence case, and as their lawyers argue that there is no evidence to say which of the two people did it and no evidence of joint enterprise, I think that we will still see acquittals under the commission's proposal.
I believe that the Law Commission is right to look beyond that to whether there should be changes in the substantive law, and the principle that an offence of child cruelty under section 1 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1963 that leads to death should incur a much bigger penalty. Again, I think that it is right to consider whether 14 years is the correct maximum. That is a matter that the Government should take on board.
I also welcome the idea of a new offence, where a person who undertakes responsibility for a child fails, so far as is reasonably practical, to protect that child from serious harm deriving from ill-treatment. The merit of such an offence is that it would enable action to be taken if a parent or carer had allowed the other parent or carer to carry out a systematic campaign of cruelty towards that child, potentially leading to its death.
These are important proposals, and I welcome the opportunity to discuss them. However, they are complicated. If they were to come back as an amendment to the Criminal Justice Bill—as a Lords amendment, to he discussed in the Commons—it would be rather difficult to be satisfied that we had achieved the correct outcome. I would urge the Government to introduce a short Bill in the next Session—I assure the Minister that the Opposition would co-operate to achieve short Bills on discrete issues—or to use the vehicle of the proposed domestic violence legislation. There is certainly a close correlation between the two offences. I look forward to the Minister's response.
10.49 am
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Paul Goggins): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Dr. Turner) on securing this important debate. He said that he became interested in the issue with a constituency case, and that is often the driving force for hon. Members to raise issues of national importance and policy. The hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) reminded us of the dreadful case of John Smith. He, too, has rooted his concerns in that constituency case.
272WH
I pay tribute to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Redcar (Vera Baird) and others, who have assiduously pursued the issue at each and every opportunity. We have had debates on the matter on the Criminal Justice Bill and, as recently as 15 October, in the House of Lords. Baroness Gould moved amendments that were not the same as those moved by my hon. Friend and his colleagues in the House of Commons. My noble Friend Baroness Scotland asked for those amendments to be withdrawn, given the assurances—I give them again—that the Government will introduce legislation at an early date.
I pay tribute, as other hon. Members have done, to the work of the NSPCC. The "Which of You Did It?" initiative has clearly been instrumental in informing and expanding the campaign, and the analysis provided is very helpful. The deeply worrying conclusion that only one quarter of cases result in a successful prosecution should concern us all. The challenge—as simple as it is complicated—is how to prosecute a case in which a child is looked after by two people, in which the Crown can prove beyond reasonable doubt that the child has suffered non-accidental death or injury, and in which it is clear that one or both must be guilty of the offence, but either through silence or because they blame each other, it is impossible to say precisely who. Parliament is united in a deep conviction that it is entirely wrong that, whatever reason is given, people can walk away from the court, one guilty and neither convicted.
Whether that is a cynical ploy on the part of the two people involved, or the result of domestic violence, it is clearly a matter of deep concern. My hon. and learned Friend spoke about the issue of domestic violence and how it is relevant. I accept that, for many women in domestic violence situations, this is the breaking point at which they decide that enough is enough. I can only begin to imagine the anguish of a woman who cannot protect her child and at the same time cannot protect herself. We also need to bear that scenario in mind.
We now have the Law Commission's report and recommendations. It is a detailed analysis on which it has consulted widely. We are always grateful for the commission's thinking on issues involving extremely complex areas of the law, particularly in a case such as this, in which the issues have seemed intractable for such a long time. The analytical part of the report brings home how widespread the problem may be, so it is good to read its conclusions and believe that it may have helped us to get a little closer to the solution.
The Law Commission proposes two new offences and a number of procedural measures designed to tackle the problem. The first builds on the current offence of child cruelty in cases in which the child dies. The second applies to a much wider group of people and goes beyond circumstances in which a child is killed. I assure the House that we are carefully considering those offences with a view to introducing firm proposals. We have been working closely with the Law Commission and shall continue to do so, but I do not think that we have yet arrived at the complete answer.
The Law Commission published its report on the non-accidental death or serious injury of children on 15 September 2003. The report recommends two changes to the substantive law. First, an offence of cruelty contributing to death—a new and aggravated form of child cruelty offence—should be created. Secondly,

273WH
there should be a new offence of failure to protect a child, which would be committed if a person responsible for a child failed to take reasonable steps to prevent the commission of the offence. The commission also advocates evidential and procedural changes, to which my hon. and learned Friend referred. They include a statutory responsibility on all those responsible for the child when he or she sustained the injury or was killed to give the police or the court such account as they can of how that came about.
There is a second recommendation, that in certain cases the judge must not decide whether the case should be withdrawn from the jury until the close of the defence case, so the defence will have to decide whether to give or call evidence without the protection of the present obligation on the court to consider a submission of no case to answer at the conclusion of the prosecution case. It also recommends that if a defendant in such a case fails to give evidence, the jury should be permitted to draw such inferences as may be proper from that failure.
Helpful as the Law Commission's work has been, we are concerned that the two offences that it proposes do not solve the problem. The first offence would still require there to be a causal link between the assault or neglect, the child cruelty offence, and the eventual death. That means that we would need to know a considerable amount about how the child died and, probably, who committed the act as a result of which the child died.
We are not sure that building on the child cruelty offence is the best way forward. Child cruelty and neglect are mainly offences that are proved on the basis of past abuse. In those circumstances, both defendants may be found guilty, but it does not follow that the court will accept that one or both can be found guilty of a more serious offence when the prosecution has been unable to prove who was responsible for the fatal blow.
The second Law Commission offence is of failing to protect a child. It is drawn very widely to include any relative of the child. It requires the prosecution to prove that the defendant had not taken reasonable steps to prevent the offence, but it would apply to the risk of an
274WH
offence taking place anywhere, so the parent who knows that the child may be attacked or injured by a bully at school but does not take action, or the 16-year-old babysitter who knows that a child is at some risk from someone and does nothing about it would be caught. That is to draw the offence very widely indeed, and deals with a different set of issues from that of ascertaining who actually killed the child.
We are considering the evidential and procedural measures proposed by the Law Commission. There is merit, for example, in the proposal to delay the point at which the judge decides whether a case should be withdrawn until after the defence has presented its case. We are keen, too, to ensure that inferences from silence should be capable of being drawn in appropriate circumstances. We need to think carefully whether a statutory duty to co-operate with the police would provide further help in these cases.
We need to consider carefully how any new offence would interact with the procedural and evidential measures that have been proposed. As far as possible, we wish to produce a coherent and integrated set of proposals that will encourage people to give evidence and is targeted on the problem cases that we have discussed.
It seems from previous comments that I am the last in a long line of Ministers who have promised hon. Members that we intend to legislate. I make that promise again today. I cannot confirm to my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown precisely when the measure will be announced or when it will be introduced, but it will be at an early opportunity. We must be confident that the offence is correctly drawn up, and about how it will interact with the procedural changes that we may also introduce. We have to know that it is compatible with human rights legislation and we must have an appropriate Bill within which to include it. In dealing with this matter, soon is not soon enough, but we must introduce the legislation properly so that killers are brought to justice and those who stand by are brought to account. I cannot confirm when, but I can confirm that the Government will introduce the legislation.

Zimbabwe
10.59 am
Kate Hoey: As the Minister knows, I visited Zimbabwe during the summer under cover. I am grateful to both the Minister and the Foreign Secretary for taking a copy of my report and spending some time discussing it with me. Among the many brave people whom I met while I was there were some of the staff of The Daily News. That was a vital and precious source of information for the oppressed people of Zimbabwe as it was the only daily newspaper not controlled by Mugabe's ZANU-PF. I saw how, whether they are photographers, reporters, directors or street corner news-vendors, those people and their families live in fear of violent attack from gangs dispatched by the ruling ZANU-PF regime.
The crisis in Zimbabwe has now dragged on for a very long time. Every time it plumbs new depths we are told that it can plunge no deeper and the regime must surely soon collapse. That is not so. Since my visit, when things were already desperate, the situation has taken a grave turn for the worse. The ban on The Daily News closed down the last vestige of independent reporting. Associated Newspapers of Zimbabwe, the newspaper group that launched The Daily News in March 1999 and The Daily News on Sunday in May 2003, refused to register with the state-run Media and Information Commission because it regarded the law that established it, the infamous Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act, as unconstitutional.
On 11 September the Supreme Court of Zimbabwe ruled that because it had not registered, the ANZ was operating illegally. The following day police raided The Daily News offices and printing works to stop production, occupied the premises and confiscated all computers. After the Supreme Court ruling, the ANZ unsuccessfully applied for registration with the MIC, which rejected its application on the basis that it was an "illegal" organisation and did not meet the requirements of the law. The ANZ has now appealed to the administrative court to have the MIC's decision overturned, claiming that the commission was both biased against it when it rejected its application and improperly constituted.
The closure of The Daily News is the culmination of a long campaign of intimidation by ZANU-PF; in January 2001 its printing presses were bombed and its editorial staff have endured frequent harassment and detention. Every day, journalists who worked on the newspaper are still being called in by police and face prosecution. On 25 September I chaired a meeting in the Jubilee Room to help to mobilise an international response from media and human rights lawyers, trade unionists and press organisations. Among the organisations represented were the International Bar Association and the Commonwealth Press Union, both of which have played a magnificent part in alerting their respective professions to developments in Zimbabwe and in mobilising a response.
One of the most moving contributions made at that meeting came from Ephraim Tapa, President of the Zimbabwe Civil Service Employees Association, and a member of the general council of the Zimbabwe Congress of Trade Unions. In February 2002 he and his
276WH
wife Faith were abducted, and he was held hostage for nearly a month, during which time he was regularly beaten and tortured. He told us that thanks to the fact that he was able to smuggle notes to The Daily News, which then told the people of Zimbabwe and the wider world what was happening to him, just as his captors were preparing to kill him he was freed and his life was saved. He stressed that under a tyrannical dictatorship such as that of Robert Mugabe an independent press is not simply a debating forum; it can be, as in his case, a matter of life and death.
Also at that meeting in the Jubilee Room less than a month ago was Beatrice Mtetwa. She is the courageous lawyer who has defended many of those whom the regime has sought to persecute. We saw her on our television srceens berating officials as they bundled Andrew Meldrum, The Guardian correspondent, out of Zimbabwe in May this year. She was also, for a time, a director of the ANZ. I had met Beatrice when I was in Harare in July. When she came to London I spent some time with her, and even managed to get her on to the London Eye. I think that she was able to forget, for a few moments, the terrible things that are happening in her country.
Last week, we heard that Beatrice had suffered severe bruising and cuts to her body after being beaten by the police. That incident occurred on 12 October, when she called the police to assist her after thieves had attacked her car. When the police arrived, they accused her of driving while under the influence of alcohol. She was held in custody for three hours and beaten by a policeman in the car on the way to, and while at the police station. She was kicked all over her body and sustained blows to her face that rendered her unrecognisable to colleagues. The assault was in full view of other policemen, who refused to intervene. On her release from custody, Beatrice sought medical treatment for her injuries and had them documented. The fact that one of the police officers told her that, "The tables have turned," shows that the police knew who she was, and that the attack was clearly a vicious act of retribution for her past legal work, or an attempt to intimidate and silence her. She will not be silenced.
I thank the Foreign and Commonwealth Office for sponsoring Beatrice's visit to this country. Similarly, I congratulate the Government on standing firm on refusing to break the EU travel ban on named members of the Mugabe regime by not granting visas to attend the Inter-Parliamentary Union annual conference, which was due to be held here next March. The conference will now be held elsewhere, but it would have been entirely unacceptable to welcome the Speaker of the Zimbabwean Parliament, Mnangagwa, who is Mugabe's right-hand man. He is a former head of the dreaded state security service and is responsible for the deaths of tens of thousands of Matabele people in the massacres of the early 1980s. The action of Her Majesty's Government in upholding not only the letter but also the spirit of the travel ban stands in stark contrast to some of our partners in the EU, who are prepared to waive the ban at almost any opportunity.
The EU has been an unnecessary constraint on Government policy on Zimbabwe. France, in particular, appears to see any split between Britain and its former colonies as an opportunity to extend French influence. It has been difficult for us to hold the EU to a

277WH
firm stance. Our policy has been to maintain EU unity on the issue, which has meant accepting the lowest common denominator for EU support. Will the Minister consider taking action without waiting for EU agreement?
So far, when Britain has acted, it has by and large done so only as an EU member; for example, with targeted sanctions against the ZANU-PF leadership. We have avoided having our own policy on Zimbabwe. If the aim of that approach was to deflect Mugabe's anger, it has not worked. Britain is still singled out and vilified far more than any other EU member.
Britain has historic responsibilities towards Zimbabwe that we have tried hard to observe. We strongly disapproved of white racist minority rule, so we refused to recognise Smith's regime, and we imposed sanctions for 15 years at considerable cost to our own economy. We then guaranteed a democratic settlement and supervised elections, helping to usher in majority rule. We gave the new Government every assistance, including development aid and financial support for land reform.
That all means that Zimbabwe is a very special case for Britain, yet our high commissioner in Harare is routinely the target of insults and outrageous allegations from Mugabe and other members of his Government. Only last week, Sir Brian Donnelly was accused of conspiring to wreck the Zimbabwean economy by colluding with so-called Zimbabwean traitors to engineer shortages of fuel.
Her Majesty's Government make no reply to many such allegations. Even when we are alleged to be acting illegally—plotting war, or conspiring with the opposition—our responses, when there have been any, have been extremely mild. The most extreme example of that happened when I was in Zimbabwe: Mugabe openly threatened to use British and US citizens in Zimbabwe as hostages in the event of any Anglo-American attempt at regime change. At the very least, we might have declared in no uncertain terms that we would not tolerate such threats to British subjects, but we did not. The headlines of The Daily News on Sunday stated that Mugabe had warned the US that if it attacked Zimbabwe, US children would be killed. That was also a warning to Britain.
The general message is that the regime is free to use Britain as an Aunt Sally whenever it wishes. The US mission also attracts Mugabe's criticism, but it is not vilified to anything like the same extent, even though the US has been far more outspoken against the Mugabe regime than we have.
I am sure that the Minister knows that the demonisation of Britain has virtually nothing to do with the way it behaves. It is an imperative of the mobilisation of the ZANU-PF faithful that Mugabe should re-fight the colonial struggle, putting us in the dock despite the fact that his fight was with Smith, not the British. We were his ally as a co-liberator, and the midwife of independence, handing over power after the elections.
I want my Government to adopt a far more robust attitude in refuting the lies and misrepresentations put out by Mugabe's propaganda machine. They are all too
278WH
easily and conveniently accepted at face value by world leaders who should know better. The targeted travel bans and assets freeze against 79 individuals were portrayed in the communiqué from the recent Southern African Development Community summit in Tanzania as sanctions that hurt ordinary people.
Our food aid should be extended only on the basis that food supplies must be for the needy, without discrimination on any grounds other than need. We cannot trust ZANU-PF on aid, and I hope that the Minister, together with colleagues at Department for International Development, will continue to examine ways to ensure the fair and impartial distribution of food, free from interference from ZANU-PF. Food distribution should also sometimes be done independently of aid officials, who need to send back glowing reports to ensure that their careers are not set back by an admission of failure.
Britain's response to Mugabe has been constrained by a wish to maintain Commonwealth unity, which, in practice, has meant trying to keep Presidents Mbeki and Obasanjo on side. President Mbeki in particular has given advance notice that he wants Zimbabwe to be accepted back into the Commonwealth by the end of the year, without debate. He reckons that, as soon as Mugabe and the Movement for Democratic Change can be said to be talking to each other, there can be no grounds for excluding Zimbabwe. He will try to rally an African and Commonwealth majority to his view. If Mugabe, who is an acknowledged torturer, murderer and election-rigger, were accepted back into the fold, all the Commonwealth's democratic pretensions would fall away.
If we are honest—I hope that the Minister will be honest today, as he always is—we acknowledge that President Mbeki of South Africa has been a huge constraint. Like Mugabe, he is domestically fearful of the trade unions as a political threat to ANC supremacy. He has little time for Morgan Tsvangirai and the large number of his supporters with roots in the trade union movement. President Mbeki also tried to rig the verdict of election monitoring teams to say that Mugabe was properly elected. He provides electricity and other resources on credit to Mugabe, and continually insists that the problem is on the verge of solution, which is merely a way of buying more time for Mugabe and protracting the suffering of the Zimbabwean people. The latest version of that is to insist that Mugabe may be going soon—never now, always six months later on a constantly receding horizon.
For a long time President Mbeki insisted that the Zimbabwe problem should be left to his quiet diplomacy, which was simply a cover to support Mugabe. It is now more than three years since the Victoria Falls conference in April 2000, when he publicly undertook to resolve the Zimbabwe crisis, and all his attempts have utterly failed. Dialogue does not work, but just buys more time for Mugabe and his kleptocratic colleagues to pillage Zimbabwe.
There will be celebrations in London this week to mark 10 years of majority rule in South Africa, and senior figures of the South African Government will be in London. I hope that the Minister will take every opportunity to remind them of the international support that was mobilised in support of their struggle. I am struck by how many of those who are standing up

279WH
against the ZANU-PF regime in Zimbabwe also stood up against apartheid and the Rhodesian Front regime. The South African Government must face up to their responsibilities and stand alongside the people of Zimbabwe in their hour of need, and their struggle for freedom and democracy.
Any celebrations of majority rule in South Africa will be hollow as long as its Government organise vetoes at the UN and other international bodies of any resolutions referring to the lack of respect for human rights in Zimbabwe. The South African Government's blind solidarity with the corrupt and violent regime of Robert Mugabe, rather than with the suffering of the oppressed people of Zimbabwe, stands in sad contrast to the noble battle fought by many around the world for freedom in South Africa. Sometimes we have to tell our friends the truth. That is why there will be a picket this weekend to call on South African Foreign Minister Zuma to acknowledge the situation in Zimbabwe.
EU targeted sanctions such as travel bans and assets freezes on senior PF officials must be stringently enforced. Many people that I met in Zimbabwe urged that spouses and children should also be included in the ban, since both groups are able to escape the hardships that the party has created in Zimbabwe, and they may act as a means of moving illegally acquired wealth out of the country. Will the Minister respond to that specific question? Britain has decided that it must defer to South Africa on the matter, which is tantamount to deferring to Mugabe.
We must remind Commonwealth Heads of Government, and the Commonwealth's own election observers, that they concurred with the USA and EU that President Mugabe rigged the last election and so cannot be considered a legitimate Head of State. The human rights abuses of which he has been guilty have steadily worsened, so there is no prospect that he can be allowed back into the Commonwealth if that body preserves any pretensions to democracy.
During my visit I met many victims of torture and, as a Member of Parliament, met a number of Opposition MPs who had been tortured and abused. The accounts were horrifying. In January this year, one Opposition MR Job Sikhala, was tortured by having electrodes attached to his genitals and given electric shocks. He was beaten on the soles of his feet with planks of wood and forced to drink toxins and urine. I spent an evening with an MP whose election agent had been abducted and is presumed murdered; he has never been seen again. Intimidation against the MDC is constant.
We must ensure that these stories are widely known amongst Commonwealth parliamentarians so that Mugabe's charade of pretending that the crisis is about land reform can finally be laid to rest. The chaotic and illegal fast-track land reform process has not resulted in the resettlement of the landless poor. It has been a tool for a dictator's patronage: coveted farmsteads have been handed out to keep party officials sweet. Meanwhile, the rich agricultural land reverts to bush and skilled farm workers are prevented by force from cultivating even small plots for their own subsistence—I saw the effects of that for myself. They are made to depend on food handouts paid for by the UK and USA—the countries that Mugabe vilifies at every opportunity. Have the Government seriously examined ways of ensuring that the human rights violators who
280WH
now occupy so many of the farmhouses are not able to get rich quick by selling plundered produce through British markets?
Ahead of the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting—an important conference that will be held in Nigeria at the beginning of December—we must constantly remind African, Caribbean and Pacific members of the Commonwealth that this crisis has lasted for more than three and a half years, in which time Mugabe has abided by none of the agreements made. He seems to be listening to no one. I would be interested to hear from the Minister what steps the Government have taken to disseminate reports of human rights violations by the Mugabe regime and to alert other Commonwealth members to Zimbabwe's many breaches of its obligations under international law. What will the Government do if Mugabe turns up, without an invitation, at the meeting in Nigeria?
The crackdown continues day to day. Only two weeks ago, on 8 October, when the Zimbabwe Congress of Trade Unions called a national demonstration, heavily armed police arrested more than 150 protesters in Harare, Mutare and Bulawayo, including the secretary-general of the Progressive Teachers Union of Zimbabwe, the president of the ZCTU, Lovemore Matombo, and the union's secretary-general, Wellington Chibhebhe. When trade union demonstrators were injured in running battles, police refused ambulances permission to carry them to hospital.
The attack on trade unions has led to widespread international protest from other trade unions. I have with me a copy of a letter from Derek Simpson, the general secretary of Amicus, which is the largest private sector trade union, with 1.1 million members, to the Zimbabwe high commission. He writes:
"We are appalled to hear that members of the Zimbabwe Congress of Trade Unions … were arrested.
We believe that this action by the Zimbabwean Government is a violation of human and trade union rights and urge the Zimbabwean Government to release immediately all those trade unionists arrested this morning.
Amicus firmly believes that the right to peaceful demonstration is a right that should be afforded to every person throughout the world and is a fundamental human right."
We are seeing more and more activity from trade unions in the UK, which are not prepared to allow the situation in Zimbabwe to continue.
I hope that the Minister will be able to tell us how he plans to go about alerting the world to the fact that Mugabe's dictatorship grows more vicious month by month. An abiding impression that I brought back with me from my visit to Zimbabwe was that Zimbabweans of all backgrounds expect that the British Government should be able to do something to help them. They feel no animosity—although some feel forgotten or overlooked. It was interesting to see that more black than white Zimbabweans now have close links with the UK. They either have family members living here or were educated here. The bonds between Zimbabwe and the UK are more than an historical accident; they are a current reality. Zimbabweans feel that we owe them a responsibility in this time of crisis.
The Daily News may have been silenced for the time being, but until there are free and fair elections in that beautiful country the people of Zimbabwe will never

281WH
give up. I know that the Minister may not like The Daily Telegraph, but I shall conclude by reading the final section of an editorial on the position of Zimbabwe which appeared in that newspaper yesterday. The editorial examines the different things that have happened—the history and the terrible abuse of human rights—and ends as follows:
"Almost exactly a year ago, Tony Blair publicly pledged himself to Africa. Yet in the country where Britain has the most recent responsibility, he has been reluctant to act. Far more could be done, with active support for pro-democracy activists"—
and trade unionists—
"and genuine sanctions against the regime's supporters, including the seizure of their assets pending possible compensation claims by their victims. It is too late to avert disaster, but at least we can salvage some honour."
11.19 am
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Chris Mullin):My hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey) raises a very serious issue. Her commitment to the cause of democracy in Zimbabwe is well known and much appreciated. She sets out in graphic detail the oppression faced by journalists, democrats and many other people in Zimbabwe. I shall not rehearse the facts in the short time available, except to say that the events that she desrcibes are wholly unacceptable, and to pay tribute to the many brave Zimbabwean journalists and others who work daily in a climate of fear and intimidation and who are continually at risk of arbitrary arrest.
It is not without irony that a newspaper in the 1960s called the African Daily News was banned by Ian Smith's Government for questioning the policy of the Rhodesian Front regime. Nearly 40 years later, the Government of the new Zimbabwe behave in exactly the same way as the old colonialist regime. The man who was the founding editor of the African Daily News is now ZANU-PF's Secretary for information.
I understand that The Daily News has appealed in the administrative court against the commission's decision not to grant it a licence and that a ruling is likely to be made on Friday. I shall follow proceedings with great interest.
My hon. Friend will be aware that there was a strong international reaction to the closure of The Daily News. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary made two robust statements. The European Union made a statement and plans further representations to the Government of Zimbabwe. The World Association of Newspapers protested to the Zimbabwean Government. The International Press Institute unanimously condemned the events, and the Commonwealth Press Union spoke out. The South African National Editors Forum raised the issue with the Government of South Africa. In many people's view, The Daily News has become a symbol of the oppression and lack of respect for human rights that are a daily reality in Zimbabwe.
There are still one or two other independent newspapers, although they are published weekly, not daily, and even those have been threatened of late. The
282WH
head of the Media and Information Commission is reported to have said recently to a journalist from one of those newspapers, "Oh, you're from The Standard. We will be coming for you." The Information Minister described the remaining independent newspapers as "trash" and "imperialist running dogs", but those newspapers continue to operate in that atmosphere. Again, I pay tribute to the brave journalists who continue to work.
State-run newspapers now have a monopoly of the daily market. One of the strangest things in Zimbabwe's wonderland world is that the access to information Act makes it an offence to publish any statement knowing it to be false, yet the state-run newspapers print blatantly false information every day, and they form the only source of written information available to many Zimbabweans.
I understand and share my hon. Friend's frustration at the apparent lack of progress in Zimbabwe. As she said, South Africa has a key role to play, and we see increasing signs that many South Africans are keen to play that role. I mentioned the South African National Editors Forum. Other important South African bodies, notably the Congress of South African Trade Unions, have also called for an improvement in the situation in Zimbabwe. Archbishop Desmond Tutu, who we would all agree is a truly great South African, recently said:
"The time has come for African leaders to stand up and express their concern over the deteriorating human rights abuses in Zimbabwe. If human rights abuses continue to worsen, the political and economic crisis in Zimbabwe will be difficult to heal."
I agree with that.
My hon. Friend mentioned the forthcoming Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting. As she knows, Zimbabwe is suspended from the councils of the Commonwealth, and President Obasanjo of Nigeria and the Commonwealth secretary-general have confirmed that, in line with precedent, Zimbabwe and Pakistan, which also does not have a democratically elected Government, have not been invited. The question of Mr Mugabe's attendance therefore does not arise. President Obasanjo has said publicly that it would take a sea change in Zimbabwe for him to change his mind. I would welcome any such change, but at present there is no way in which the Prime Minister, or several other Commonwealth Heads of Government, would wish to attend a summit in which Mr Mugabe participated.
Kate Hoey:My point was about our position if Mr. Mugabe turned up anyway. What would it be?
Mr. Mullin:As I said, President Obasanjo made it clear that Mr. Mugabe is not invited, and the Nigerians naturally control access to Nigeria. I repeat: there is no way in which our Prime Minister, or several other Commonwealth Heads of Government, would want to attend a summit with Mr. Mugabe. That is clear.
We are discussing Zimbabwe's role in the Commonwealth with many other Commonwealth partners. Some, such as the Pacific Islands Forum countries, have gone on record about their abhorrence of the degrading human rights situation. Others, including a number of African and Caribbean countries, take a similar line with us in private. If it is Mr Mugabe's aim to split the Commonwealth along racial lines, he is failing.

283WH
My hon. Friend suggested that the UK should be more outspoken on Zimbabwe. We have not been quiet, and I cite the Foreign Secretary's recent statements about The Daily News and the arrests of trade unionists as evidence. My hon. Friend quoted The Daily Telegraph, so let me quote back to her an interview that Morgan Tsvangirai gave to that paper in June, which I always bear in mind. In it, he said that Britain should keep a low profile to avoid
"playing into Mugabe's hands and giving him an excuse to launch more nonsense propaganda".
We will not be silenced on Zimbabwe, but nor will we give Mugabe and his supporters the chance to ignore the real causes of their country's crisis by pretending that it is all our fault.
The right approach is to work multilaterally with partners who share our analysis of the situation in Zimbabwe, which is why we work closely with our partners in the EU. ZANU-PF would say that the EU has a common position on Zimbabwe simply because the UK dragged its partners into it. If only working in the EU was so easy—the EU has a common position, because its member states decided unanimously to make a stand against the human rights abuses taking place in Zimbabwe. It is because we take that common position seriously that we took our stand on the Inter-Parliamentary Union conference, which was planned to take place in London next year but now will not.
My hon. Friend raised the idea of putting the families of human rights abusers on the banned list. We have not done that yet, as there are strong arguments that spouses and children should not suffer for the actions of their fathers or mothers. However, there are also arguments that such people are the chief beneficiaries of the elite's constant feathering of their nests, and so their travel and assets should be frozen. I am sure that that will be discussed when the EU next debates the Zimbabwean banned list.
My hon. Friend also suggested that some of the other EU countries are not as robust in enforcing sanctions as we are. France recently refused Robert Mugabe a transit visa, for which he applied to travel to the United Nations, and I am sure that she will agree that that is a welcome sign.
The problems facing The Daily News are a clear symptom of the humanitarian crisis in Zimbabwe, and it is especially important that the world focuses on the daily erosion of human rights. The Commonwealth secretary-general, speaking in Johannesburg last week, stated that Zimbabwe would have to meet five conditions to be readmitted to the Commonwealth. I do not have time to set them out, but it was a robust statement. I look forward to the day that Zimbabwe meets those conditions and those who are friends of Zimbabwe can get together to help its people reconstruct democracy in their beautiful country.
11.29 am
Sitting suspended until Two o'clock.

Police Funding (Norfolk)
2 pm
Norman Lamb: I welcome this opportunity to raise serious concerns about the funding situation facing Norfolk police, and I want to make it clear from the start that Norfolk MPs of all three parties have presented a united front in arguing the case for a fairer deal for Norfolk. I am pleased to see here the hon. Members for Mid-Norfolk (Mr. Simpson), for North-West Norfolk (Mr. Bellingham), for South Norfolk (Mr. Bacon), and for Great Yarmouth (Mr. Wright), and I know that the right hon. Member for South-West Norfolk (Mrs. Shephard) would have been here, but she is away from Westminster today.
Norfolk is a widely dispersed rural county, and that presents policing problems. The Minister will be aware of a widespread perception in rural Norfolk, and in comparable areas, that people are unprotected and vulnerable. Crime rates might be relatively low, but fear of crime is very real. Norfolk police have done what they can with the resources that are available to them to maximise their presence. They have introduced three mobile police stations that tour rural areas and stop off in village centres. However, the fact remains that Norfolk has the fourth lowest ratio of police officers to population in the country.
I shall describe the financial pressures with which the police authority has to grapple. Norfolk police authority inherited in 1995 a force that was seriously under-resourced as a result of many years of underfunding. There were insufficient support staff; it was one of the few forces with no information and communications technology infrastructure—essential for effective policing, I am sure we all agree—and there had been little investment in other technology and equipment, or in the estate. Staff were working from poorly maintained and inappropriate buildings, and they had no dedicated air support unit, which is particularly important in a geographical area that is as large as Norfolk.
That was the situation in 1995. What has happened since then? It is important to acknowledge that there has been a significant increase in financing for Norfolk police. The Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy confirms that there has been a 21 3per cent. increase between 1995–96 and 2002–03—from £86 million to £104 million. I welcome that. However, I have serious concerns about how some of that money is spent. My main case is that the increase in the number of police officers that we have achieved should not be put at risk. Indeed, the force wants to see the number of officers increase still further. The authority has undertaken a review, and it has concluded that the minimum police officer establishment in Norfolk should be 1,800. We currently have about 1,500, and there is no hope of getting anywhere near the total that the authority believes is needed.
I also want the police authority to be in a position to complete the development of the ICT infrastructure. There are several other aspirations, including full-time air support coverage. Those objectives must be achieved without putting a still heavier burden on those on low incomes, including many pensioners.

285WH
That brings me to the current financial situation. As things stand, it looks as though the average budget increase that local forces are likely to receive for 2004–05 is 3.3 per cent. However, it is estimated that, simply to stand still, forces will require a 6 per cent. increase in funding. I understand that that comprises about 3 per cent. for pay and price increases, 1.5 per cent. for police pension costs and another 1.5 per cent. for information and communications technology, forensic science and other technology costs. The problem is that for every 1 per cent. shortfall in police force budgets, it is necessary to increase the council tax precept by some 4 per cent.
Norfolk is therefore facing a likely increase in the police precept of around 15 per cent. That comes on top of last year's increase of 21.5 per cent. That situation is not unique; the Association of Police Authorities is so concerned about the national situation that it has launched its own campaign. Our impression is that the Home Secretary shares these concerns. To some extent this debate is an opportunity to strengthen the Home Secretary's hand in his negotiations with the Treasury.
The Government should be in no doubt that the funding situation is dire. If nothing changes, the prospect is of totally unacceptable increases in council tax or the Government-imposed capping of increases, which could lead to painful and damaging cuts in frontline services. The Association of Chief Police Officers has warned of possible reversals in civilianisation programmes and a loss of some civilian staff, which would result in police officers having to replace them and losing their presence on the front line.
The burden on the Norfolk council tax payers has shifted over the past few years. The Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy has produced figures that show a dramatic increase in the extent to which council tax funds the Norfolk police. Funding from the council tax—a heavily regressive tax—has increased by 104 per cent. from 1995–96 to the current year. In 1995–96, just over £13.5 million of the Norfolk police budget came from the council tax, whereas the figure is now more than £27.6 million. There has also been a steady decline in the Home Office contribution as a proportion of the total funding of the Norfolk police authority. The proportion of council tax has inevitably had to increase to offset that. In Norfolk over that eight-year period, it has increased from 15.5 per cent. of total financing to 26.5 per cent.—a steeper increase than the average for other non-metropolitan police forces in England.
There is a growing recognition that the council tax has reached the limits of public acceptability—a view shared by the Minister for Local Government, Regional Governance and Fire. A Government who purport to believe in progressive taxation can no longer justify the shift to such a regressive system of taxation to finance local services, including the police. Pensioner households on low fixed incomes are bearing the brunt of financing our police forces and other local services.
There is a sense of gross injustice in my constituency of North Norfolk, which has one of the highest proportions of pensioners anywhere in the country. My mailbag—I am sure that other hon. Members' mailbags
286WH
are no different—shows the strength of feeling among local people. Until the Government accept the case for the abolition of the council tax and its replacement with a fairer and more progressive system, they must provide sufficient support.
There is also a widespread view that bureaucracy has burgeoned, which takes money away from policing. The APA points out that in 1995–96 there were only two sources of ring-fenced grants, whereas now there are a staggering 28, which include funding for police community support officers, the Airwave police radio project, the street crime initiative and the crime-fighting fund for additional officers. Those are all good, but the funding is ring-fenced. Most of those initiatives involved a bidding process, which can be enormously time-consuming. It ties up authority and force staff in unproductive work, and fails to allow police authorities, in Norfolk and elsewhere in the country, to determine their own local priorities and to decide where they want to spend the money to meet local needs. A simplification of the funding system is surely long overdue.
There has been a substantial increase in the extent to which performance is measured and monitored locally, and that is then interpreted nationally. I have been told by an authoritative source that the Home Office has now increased the number of civil servants dealing with its own bureaucracy, enforcement and micro-management to nearly 10,000. That is twice the number of extra officers on the front line.
In Norfolk, there appear to be about 83 staff who might be defined as unproductive. That excludes staff working for the police authority; it consists of those working on the bureaucratic burdens that I have described. Measuring performance is important, but it seems that the balance is horribly wrong. Another result of centralised control is that Home Office rules sometimes get in the way of pragmatic, practical solutions.
For example, Norfolk desperately wants and needs full-time coverage for air support. I understand that Home Office rules provide for a possible 50 per cent. of the funding for a new helicopter. The problem is that Norfolk police authority cannot afford the other 50 per cent. from its budget, which is already under intense strain, so it came up with a practical solution. The authority planned to purchase a second-hand helicopter for half the price so that the Home Office would pay for it. That would have involved no extra cost to the Home Office and Norfolk would have got its helicopter. However, that is not allowed under the rules; funding is permitted only at the 50 per cent. level.
What about a grant to allow the force to extend the rental agreement with the current provider? That would be an excellent example of public-private partnership in action, but Norfolk police authority tells us that that is not permitted under the rules either. Its efforts to think outside the box and to come up with new ways of sorting out the problem were thwarted by over-restrictive Home Office rules. Would the Minister agree to look into that, and to get back to us?
One other problem faces Norfolk police authority. It has relatively few capital assets. The main police station in Norwich, on Bethel Street, is occupied on a licence from the city council. That goes back to the local

287WH
government re-organisation in 1974. However, the consequences of the arrangements fixed in 1974 continue to hold back the authority.
Many other forces have been able either to sell assets to finance investments, such as information and communications technology, or to use assets as collateral to borrow money. Norfolk cannot do that. The authority surveyed 39 other police authorities and found that Norfolk had the 10th lowest stock of assets. That means that one alternative route for funding investment is not open to it. Can the Minister investigate that? Could an authority's level of assets not be taken into account in determining Home Office grants to local police authorities? It clearly constrains how they are able to raise money for local investment.
I have raised a number of issues and I hope that the Minister will respond constructively. We are confronting the issue on an all-party basis. We want the best for Norfolk police authority, and for Norfolk policing. We know that there is enormous pressure from the authority and local people for a good level of policing in our county. We are held back at the moment by over-restrictive rules and unfairness in the allocation of money to authorities. In our view, Norfolk is not getting a fair deal.
2.13 pm
Mr. Anthony D. Wright: I congratulate the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb) on securing the debate. The hon. Gentleman has spoken well. I am sure that many of the facts, figures and issues will be repeated in the debate.
It is important that we in Norfolk build on the successful partnership that has been developed between the Government and Norfolk police authority in a clear and transparent way. That is certainly true with regard to the potential shortfalls for 2004–05 that were outlined by the Norfolk police authority. Although I differ from my Norfolk colleagues on many issues surrounding the unprecedented policing standards achieved over the past five years, which were achieved through investment in the Norfolk police constabulary and the hard work of the force, I agree with their call for the funding gap faced by the constabulary to be closed as quickly as possible.
The gap, which is primarily the result of an increase in the cost of pay and pensions, represents a threat to the continued increase in standards that we have come to expect from the force. It must be made clear as soon as possible whether the additional resources to close that funding shortfall, which are estimated at about 6 per cent., will come from the Government or from increased council tax contributions. A reduction in force effectiveness by making cuts to front-line services—a radical way of addressing the funding gap—is an unacceptable third alternative that should be avoided at all costs, because it could hamper the good partnership that the Norfolk constabulary and the Government have forged in bringing safety and security to our county.
With regard to safety from criminal activity in Norfolk, Sue Howl, crime reduction director for the eastern region, welcomed the 2003 figures on crime in the east. She said:
"It is reassuring that this region is still one of the safest places to live and work, and that across the board we fare well. That however does not make us complacent and we are working hard
288WH
alongside the police forces and local crime and disorder reduction partnerships to make sure people are—and crucially feel—safer in their own homes."
In line with a broader national initiative backed by the Home Office, the force is setting tough targets on tackling domestic violence, and it is investing in order to raise the numbers of arrests made in cases of domestic violence to 60 per cent. in 2003–04.
The Department for Work and Pensions, the Pension Service, the immigration service, Norwich and district citizens advice bureau, the Norfolk fire service and the First bus company have worked in partnership to establish a mobile bus service to help to address rural concerns in the county. By fielding various inquiries and visiting 40 locations every month, the bus provides a vital link to our communities. It shows how integrated partnership between the Government and the Norfolk constabulary can go to the heart of our community.
Funding of the Norfolk family protection unit has been an essential strategy of the Norfolk constabulary. In line with new legislation brought in by the Home Office in 2002, new victim focused supporting witness suites are to be introduced throughout the county. The county's intention to invest in those centres, and in police premises in general, received another boost with a recent Government announcement that as well as the 4 per cent. funding increase, which is inclusive of centrally spent funds and ring-fenced monies that the Norfolk constabulary will gain this year, the constabulary can also submit two bids with a maximum capital grant of £500,000 each, as part of the premises improvement fund. For the second year, the fund is channelling an additional £20 million to forces throughout England and Wales.
Operation Harrier is another example of money well spent on the Norfolk constabulary. More than 200 arrests were made during the first month of an operation to deal with those who perpetrate drug, theft, burglary and other offence. The Norfolk constabulary is prepared to respond toughly to criminal activity. That operation is coupled with community partnerships to deal with criminals.
When examining how funding has improved Norfolk's crime fighting figures in general, we have to remember the positive achievements that I have already outlined, and realise that changes in the reporting of crime statistics make comparison with previous years impossible. Despite those changes, which led to higher crime rates being officially recorded, the figures show that Norfolk suffered only a marginal increase in the reporting of burglary and vehicle crimes. The increase of 4.5 per cent. in burglary and 9.6 per cent. in vehicle crime is not a true reflection of the increases in relation to past years, and I believe that in 2004 the rigorous targets set by the Norfolk constabulary in conjunction with the Home Office will be more than met.
However, I am concerned about the increase in violent crime, because although the rise of around 75 per cent. this year was largely due to the change in reporting measures, part of it cannot be based on that. I am looking to the constabulary to find new and innovative ways of tackling the increasing problem in Norfolk.
The policing of Norfolk, backed by continued investment and support from the Government, includes new, fresh and innovative ways of tackling local issues

289WH
in a community-centred way. In addition to what I have already outlined, the air support unit has assisted in more than 782 cases, and has directly assisted in more than 130 arrests. Ring-fenced funding for Airwave is bringing state-of-the-art technology to the battle against crime on the front line in Norfolk. In areas with fixed and mobile cameras, serious accidents have reduced by more than 50 per cent., indirectly saving the local health authority hospitals an estimated £4.6 million and providing another example of money well spent.
Perhaps the Minister will comment on that aspect, and will say something about directing resources into those initiatives. Those success stores should be built on through addressing the funding gap. That is what we are achieving through the investment and partnership that the Government have promoted over the past five years.
I want to show what increased central spending and strong joint Home Office and polio targets have meant for the Norfolk constabulary. The constabulary's annual report and policing plan summary of July 2003 stated:
"The year 2002/03 ended with the largest number of police officers Norfolk has ever seen. The Constabulary's target of 1,500 officers meant there would be another 26 officers to police our county in addition to the 46 extra officers of 2001/02. Not only was this achieved, the year actually ended with 1,505 officers. This is 5 over target and reflects the importance that the Police Authority, within the resources available, attaches to increasing officer numbers."
Additional resources were also provided in Norfolk for 12 community police support officers: funding for those officers totalled £136,000. They will be an excellent addition to the Norfolk constabulary in its fight against crime. It will bring more police on to our streets with the powers to arrest and detain people In Norfolk, and they will be greatly aided by the powers in the Anti-social Behaviour Bill.
In the past five years there has been continued investment in human resources, resulting from an overall increase in Government investment for the service, coupled with stronger legislation and higher standards in the fight against crime. In Norfolk, the combined total of the police grant, transitional grant, police standard spending assessment, SSA reduction grant, central support protection grant and capital financing SSA increased from £86.5 million in 2000–01 to £91.5 million in 2001–02—an increase of 5.8 per cent. The Home Secretary announced a further rise in the budget that local forces will be expected to receive in 2004–05, from an average 2.5 per cent. for this year to an estimated 3.3 per cent. next year.
That increase is part of the continued improvement in funding of local police authorities that Norfolk constabulary has benefited from since 1997. However, owing to pay and price increases of 3 per cent. and the rise in the cost of police pensions of 1.5 per cent., as well as a 1.5 per cent. increase for ICT, forensic and technology costs, a funding gap has emerged this year. Norfolk police will require a 6 per cent. increase to maintain their current structure and service without risking a loss in front-line services or increasing local council tax charges by around 14 or 15 per cent., which would be unacceptable.
290WH
In view of that, I ask the Government to look seriously into the potential funding shortfall, which is largely caused by pension and pay increases within the police force, and to decide whether the burden of the increase should be borne nationally by the Government or locally through an increase in council tax—I hope not the latter. The Government should state clearly whether capping powers would be enforced in relation to police forces that are attempting to close the deficit.
Through the clear and defined approach to the funding shortfall that the Association of Police Authorities has announced, the police will be able to continue the rapid movement towards increasing police standards and further driving down crime figures. With regard to ring-fenced funds, in the spirit of partnership that I have mentioned, there must be a true understanding of the need for local police forces to be flexible about community needs and for the Government to ensure that the priorities that they set to increase our safety and security are met in the most effective and economical way.
The increase in funding for Norfolk police authority of around 4 per cent. next year will be reduced to 2.5 per cent. after account has been taken of central costs and centrally ring-fenced funding for projects such as Airwave. Concern has grown about the relative merit of such ring-fenced initiatives. In my opinion, the right balance has been struck. As the annual report for 2003 stated:
"The current roll-out of our high-tech computer support systems is vital to the provision of information technology and underpins the delivery of information, applications and modern infrastructure facilities across the county."
The Government want to ensure that that happens in Norfolk, providing mobile forces with access to information on the ground to fight crime more effectively. That will continue to be implemented.
I commend the Norfolk constabulary on its performance, and support its request that the funding shortfall that it has predicted for next year is adequately filled. That is in line with the Government's commitment over the past five years to better county police forces. Year on year, past neglect has resulted in shortfalls in funding and personnel. I certainly do not want us to return to those days of neglect, or for this issue to become a party political matter, but I am concerned that a true and practical consideration of the matter could be lost, despite the cross-party support that we have seen today.
We have moved on in Norfolk, thanks to the new partnership developed between the Government and the police. I do not want cross-party politics to hijack that partnership or to take away from any investment in the force. I refuse to have the campaign for better resources in Norfolk and Great Yarmouth hampered by prejudice.
I urge the Minister to give a clear response. How does she propose to make up the shortfall, and to ensure that the benefits that have been brought to the Norfolk constabulary in the past five years will not be forgotten?
2.25 pm
Mr. Keith Simpson: I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb) on initiating this important debate.

291WH
Norfolk MPs may have a sense of déjà vu because we debated similar issues a year ago, not only on police funding, but on the local government finance settlement. We have not progressed very far in one year. Sadly, our pessimistic conclusions have become a reality, and we are here again, putting our case to the Minister.
Last year, local government funding was taken directly from the shire counties and redistributed to other areas. Whatever Ministers say, that is a fact, and one that is known by local Norfolk councils of all political background, and by local council tax payers. Alas, we face the prospect that that will be repeated this year. As two hon. Gentlemen have pointed out, central Government's grant for local policing is falling well short of the amount required to keep policing at a standstill position, as the hon. Member for North Norfolk put it.
Last year, the national gap was £162 million. This year, it is estimated to be £250 million. Last year, the average precept rise by authorities across the country was 25 per cent., which was, on average, slightly more than that in Norfolk. That was a great shock to our taxpayers. Nationally, the highest level was 76 per cent. According to the latest Home Office information, the average budget increase that police forces are likely to receive in the year 2004–05 will be 3.3 per cent. Authorities will be subject to a floor of 2.6 per cent. and a ceiling of 3.5 per cent.
I cannot emphasise enough that forces will require at least a 6 per cent. increase simply to achieve a standstill position. In Norfolk, a standstill position would entail a similar uplift in budget. Nationally, an average precept increase of 14 to 15 per cent. would be required to hold services at their current level. It is estimated that, for the Norfolk police authority, that would be about the same, or slightly higher, at 19 per cent.
Local government and police authorities, not only in Norfolk but nationally, are between a rock and a hard place. The Norfolk police authority is determined to protect front-line operational services, and to maintain the progress made since 1995 in officer numbers and resources, as the hon. Member for Great Yarmouth (Mr. Wright) put it. However, it is aware that any significant increases in the precept or council tax will be opposed, particularly by pensioners. I am sure that the Minister is aware, from her own constituency, of how much anger there is.
I would like to hear from the Minister on the Government's policy on this issue. We hear a lot about joined-up government, but we seem to get conflicting messages on capping. The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister is on record as having threatened capping but, in a meeting attended by the Prime Minister, Ministers, chief constables and police authorities, the Home Secretary gave the impression that police authorities will not be capped. Who is correct: the Deputy Prime Minister or the Home Secretary? We need to get that clear today.
Those budgetary decisions will have a real impact on the police, the public and crime in our county. Norfolk is the second largest county in the United Kingdom, with a very long coastline. It has large urban areas such as Yarmouth, King's Lynn and Yarmouth, where there is social deprivation. There is also social deprivation in rural areas in mid-Norfolk, such as in my constituency.
292WH
We have between 3 million and 5 million visitors and tourists to the county every year. Many of them—the overwhelming majority—are honest and law-abiding, but a minority are not, so we have enormous churning in our population.
We not only have local crime, but we are vulnerable to commuting criminals from the east midlands. If my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Norfolk (Mr. Bellingham) is lucky enough to speak, he may comment on the repercussions of the case of his constituent Mr. Tony Martin. We also have criminals commuting from Essex and London. Fear of crime in rural areas is real, precisely because the police appear either not to be there at all or to be a long way away, which does not mean that they cannot respond, but that perception is very strong indeed.
As the hon. Member for Great Yarmouth put it, the Norfolk police authority and the chief constable are now successfully targeting crime. The previous chief constable, Ken Williams, put in motion many of the things that his successor, Andy Hayman, is now carrying out. Operation Harrier is but one high-profile operation to take the offensive against criminals. I had the pleasure of being at the police headquarters on 30 July for the launch of the Norfolk home watch association, which is an important, active part of police operations.
As the hon. Member for North Norfolk pointed out, we now have three mobile police stations, which I commend. They are working in my constituency and are an excellent example of the police showing their presence and gathering information. In the market town of Reepham in my constituency there is a one-stop community office, for which the police are paying the rent and where there is a police presence, the old police station having been closed down—I can well understand the reasons behind that.
The problem for the Norfolk police authority is that the budget is being squeezed owing to central Government devolving more and more responsibilities and new costs. National insurance is an obvious example and is affecting all the public sector. A lot of the budgets, as other hon. Members have said, are top-sliced and ring-fenced. One aspect of the Norfolk police authority budget which creates a great deal of cynicism among councillors and the police is the best value exercise, which costs the authority £650,000 a year. Norfolk does not think that it gets very much out of that exercise, and it would rather have the £650,000 to deploy itself—perhaps to acquire a helicopter permanently.
The Norfolk police authority has a long priority list for funding. I want to conclude by emphasising merely two of them. First, will the Minister confirm that any changes to the police funding allocation do not disadvantage Norfolk and that ring-fenced funding that is currently outside the formula, such as the rural policing fund and the crime fighting fund, will continue to be provided at least at the current levels? If they are not, we are in for an even worse budget than we thought.
Secondly, the hon. Member for North Norfolk made the point that I took up with the Minister's predecessor a year ago, which is the need for dedicated air support. Norfolk is one of only four forces in England and Wales that does not have a helicopter available round the clock. Will the Minister consider that again, to see if the

293WH
Home Office can provide some funding, or at least some flexibility in funding? We are the second largest county, with a very long coastline. We are lucky at times to have the support of the Royal Air Force, which provides support that it is not legally forced t o provide. I shudder to think where we would get the necessary air support from if there were a major terrorist incident in Norfolk.
Will the Minister look again at that serious issue, and can she guarantee the funding that Norfolk receives already under the rural funding? That would go some way to meeting our concerns. Our concern is that a standstill budget, which is the best that we have to look forward to, would mean that we should have to cut back on the operational effectiveness that the Government have already provided for Norfolk. That would have a detrimental effect on our constituents.
2.35 pm
Mr. Richard Bacon: I am grateful to have the opportunity to speak, and add my congratulations to the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb). I am grateful also because it is not often, after one takes part in a debate and the Minister has wound up, that one has a chance to wind up on the Minister's winding-up. In the debate on the police the other day, she mentioned the question—referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Norfolk (Mr. Simpson)—of extra burdens on the police. She was worried about my description that
"the need to introduce diversity in the police force and to deal with child protection"—[Official Report, 15 October 2003; Vol. 411, c. 219.]
were bureaucracy. I was quoting from the chief constable of Norfolk's report to the police authority, and I hope that she will accept that I was enumerating a list of burdens. Whether good or bad, they are still burdens. I shall not list them all again, but they are at column 208, and include everything from best value—which is of questionable value, as my hon. Friend said—to things such as activity-based costing, the recommendations of the Climbié report, and equal opportunities. I was making the point that whether such things are good or bad, if the Home Office requires local constabularies—including Norfolk—to do them, they impose extra time and resource costs.
I also want to pick up on my hon. Friend's point about helicopters, and the fact that we do not have air cover. I have read a study published by the Public Accounts Committee on the royal family's air and rail travel. By adopting a more flexible approach, and by starting to lease and charter more, the royal family succeeded in more or less doubling the miles that they flew while cutting overall costs from about £17 million to £5 million. The Government constantly remind us that they are accruing assets for the future by paying for them over a period, such as the private finance initiative building for the Home Office, never mind that for the Treasury, so what is sauce for the goose should be sauce for the gander. During our visit to the chief constable of Norfolk's top team, we were told that the Home Office had said, "We will give you a cheque now for half the capital costs of the helicopter, but the rules do not allow you to lease or charter". That seems insane. I hope that the Minister will take that seriously.
294WH
I want to raise four issues: first, the effect of under-policing in rural areas, such as parts of my South Norfolk constituency; secondly, custody provision in the central area, including the city of Norwich, the urban parts of Broadland district and all of south Norfolk; thirdly, the special constabulary; and fourthly, Government targets.
The central area is central to the operation of Norfolk constabulary because it includes the city of Norwich. As one officer told me, if central area is performing well, Norfolk constabulary is performing well. The central area comprises the urban parts of Broadland and all my constituency, which includes some very rural areas, down to the Waveney valley and along the south-east to the borders of Yarmouth—some of the most rural and sparsely populated parts of Norfolk. Under-policing has an even more dramatic effect in those rural areas. The majority of crime occurs in the area around Norwich, so the biggest gains are made by deploying most of the central area's resources in and around Norwich. As a result, there is a constant battle in my constituency of South Norfolk to get anything even approaching adequate cover. The police sector that is managed from Diss, which excludes the north-west of my constituency around Wymondham but includes almost all the rest, covers a population of some 70,000 people and an area of about 270 square miles, but has only two police vehicles and four officers. Greater London is just over 600 square miles, so the area is about half the size of Greater London. To use an example closer to the Minister's home patch, the city of Manchester—not Greater Manchester—is 45 square miles, so the area is six times bigger than the city of Manchester. As I said, there are four officers in two vehicles, and that is assuming that nothing happens. That thin cover can be removed when there is the slightest problem.
The entire custody provision for the central area is undertaken in Bethel street police headquarters in Norwich. I visited those facilities to see the conditions in the early hours of the morning, and I can vouch for the fact that the quality and quantity are insufficient. On a busy night, it is not uncommon for the Bethel street custody suite to be closed simply because it is full, so that officers who apprehend people have to take them elsewhere.
A few months ago, a police night crew arrested someone in Loddon in my constituency and had to transport the individual to King's Lynn, which is in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Norfolk (Mr. Bellingham). That is some 55 miles by road, so it is a three-hour return journey, which more or less renders the crew inoperable for the rest of the shift. If we add on the processing time once they get there, they are not only inoperable, but out of area for the rest of the night. If there is then just one extra incident in the city of Norwich that requires one extra crew to be called in from South Norfolk, as sometimes happens, an area half the size of Greater London has no police cover at all. My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Norfolk was correct to say that this is sometimes a matter of perception, but unfortunately it is also sometimes a reality that very large swathes of rural England, covering many tens of thousands of people, have no police cover for long periods.

295WH
That brings me to my third point, which is about specials. In Diss, there used to be 12 members of the special constabulary; there are now eight. Nationally, the figures have fallen significantly—by several thousand. The Government should look into that seriously, because apart from anything else, providing specials is financially smart. It is also good recruiting ground for the regular constabulary. It may be appropriate to pay a bounty. I think that some forces are doing so. When I was in the Territorial Army, a bounty was paid. It was not significant and I certainly did not join the Territorial Army because of it. I joined because I wanted to play my part in ending the cold war, and I am pleased to say that within five years of my joining the Territorial Army, the cold war had ended. I felt, therefore, that I could leave.
My fourth point is about Government targets. There are targets for burglaries, robberies and vehicle crime, as has been said, but one officer said to me that when he meets people in my constituency, in police forums and at parish councils, he finds that for the most part those are not typically the crimes that people worry about. He said that people worry mainly about crimes such as graffiti, vandalism and the other low-level crime that we hear so much about, and certainly people complain directly to me about that sort of incident. The problem is that the targets lead the police to take those issues rather less seriously, even though they know that those are the main concerns of local residents. The incentive is to prioritise other crimes, which people do not necessarily complain about quite so much.
Those are the key issues that I wanted to raise. I again congratulate the hon. Member for North Norfolk on initiating this Adjournment debate, and I look forward to the Minister's reply.
2.43 pm
Mr. Henry Bellingham: I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb) on securing this important short debate. I also praise the Norfolk police authority and particularly its chairman, Jim Wilson, for the excellent briefing with which he provided Norfolk Members, for the consistent pressure that he has been applying and for the considered and effective way in which he has always argued his case.
In recent years, the situation has improved for the Norfolk constabulary in terms of police numbers, initiatives and resources, but that was not always the case. It is worth remembering that, from 1997 to 2000, when I was outside Parliament, there were cuts in Norfolk's police budget, with the result that we had fewer officers. Only now has the nominal roll of police officers in Norfolk been made up to the 1997 level. However, progress has recently been made, which 1 will describe later in my remarks.
My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Norfolk (Mr. Simpson) mentioned my constituent, Tony Martin. I had not intended to refer to Tony Martin, but I will do so because it was as a result of that case that the Norfolk constabulary came into public focus. As a consequence of the case, several important initiatives were introduced and, as a consequence of those initiatives, one or two important measures are now in place of which we can be rightly proud.
296WH
One of those initiatives was to set up a beat station in Terrington St. John, in west Norfolk. There is now a beat station in that marshland area of Norfolk, which is sparsely populated and where policing is difficult because of the distances involved. In the past, policing in that subdivision was carried out from Downham Market.
The use of Ford Galaxies and mobile police stations are excellent ways of enabling the police to get out into the community and provide a much more visible police presence.
I should like to congratulate chief superintendent Alan Hayes, who has been an extremely proactive and imaginative area commander in our area. He believes in a zero tolerance policy. He takes the view that if a crime is important to local people, it is important to him. It does not matter if the crime is broken windows, graffiti or other antisocial behaviour, it is important to him to try to sort it out, and he will make every effort to prioritise it.
I have attended several parish council meetings with chief superintendent Alan Hayes. His can-do, no-nonsense attitude and zero-tolerance approach to policing, which is, I gather, endorsed by the chief constable, Andy Hayman, has done a great deal to reassure the public and build up local confidence in the police.
I should also like to congratulate Alan Hayes and his team on the way in which they responded to Tony Martin's release. When a high-profile prisoner such as Tony Martin is returned into the community with hundreds of press and cameramen in attendance, who pursued him relentlessly after his return to Bleak house, imaginative and sensitive policing is required. Obviously, such policing can take place only in the context of what the individual is prepared to put up with and co-operate with, but in that situation the police were marvellous. I should like to put on record my gratitude to them and also congratulate them on the way in which they responded to a difficult and sensitive situation.
We have heard today about some of the current budget challenges. The hon. Member for North Norfolk mentioned that a 6 per cent. increase will be necessary simply to stand still. I agree with what he said about the bidding process for the different schemes—bidding for those costly "pots" is far from simple and straightforward, and takes up a great deal of time, resources and effort. I have spoken to many police officers who find the whole process very stressful.
I am sure that the Minister will discuss the overall figures for police budgets. We must remind her that, although they may look good on paper, much of the global figure is being kept back by the Home Office. Some £155 million is being held back for centrally controlled national initiatives and priorities. Top-sliced funding of £586 million will be held centrally by the Government and earmarked for more specific initiatives. If the Minister wants to avert what will undoubtedly be a serious funding crisis, it would help if those schemes could be made simpler, but it would also be helpful to trust local constabularies to run schemes that will suit the problems and conditions on the ground. Rather than holding all that money back, why not give it to the police forces and trust them? When there are chief constables of the competence of Andy

297WH
Hayman, and area commanders of the ability of Alan Hayes, surely they can be trusted to get the job done locally. They do not have to be put in a bureaucratic straitjacket and be drip-fed funds from different pots. They should be left to get on with it.
I endorse what several hon. Members on both sides of the House said about air support. The response to Norfolk constabulary's reasonable request for a helicopter was Government pigheadedness gone mad. Some common sense is needed to cut through the prevailing Whitehall attitude.
I will bring my speech to a close, as we want to hear from the Front Bench spokesmen, and especially the Minister, as we will be very pleased with what she has to tell us. No one would deny that excellent progress has been made, as the hon. Member for Great Yarmouth said, but that is threatened. Morale will suffer enormously if there is not the opportunity and ability to continue with the schemes.
I endorse what several hon. Members have said: it would be completely unfair and utterly perverse to place a burden beyond the rate of inflation on the council tax payers of Norfolk. As my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Norfolk said, many of them are on fixed incomes and it would be wrong to ask those people to pay more money when there have been year-on-year inflation-busting increases in the council tax.
I look forward to the Minister's reply. We have an increasingly effective local police force and we want that to continue.
2.51 pm
Mr. David HeathI congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb) on securing the debate. Being surrounded by a posse of Norfolk Members on all sides of the Chamber must be of great help in pressing the case for Norfolk. The boundary commission was hardly imaginative in naming constituencies in the county, which have a marked similarity to each other.
It is a coincidence that yesterday the Government published their police performance monitoring book for 2002–03. I looked at the entry for Norfolk, and took seriously the Minister's point in her press release that the diagrams are simple to look at. That may be so, but to understand them is a different concept. I am not yet convinced by the spidergram as a useful tool for understanding.
Setting aside the crime statistics—I take the point made by the hon. Member for Great Yarmouth (Mr. Wright) that there is a heavy qualification on the figures for this year—what worried me in Norfolk's case was the score for those residents who think that the police do a good job. It was shown as 43 per cent., one of the lowest of any force in the country. From what I have heard in the debate and elsewhere, the Norfolk constabulary are not doing too bad a job with their available resources, but there is a mismatch between the public perception of the efforts made by the chief constable and his officers and the results on the ground. That should concern all of us, not least the Minister, as it is reasonable for her to say that extra resources have been put into policing in the past year or so.
298WH
I entirely agree with the point made by the hon. Member for North-West Norfolk (Mr. Bellingham) that when the Government took office they delayed putting extra resources into policing. There are now extra police, yet public confidence is not increasing, and we should take careful note of that. Despite extra personnel in Norfolk and in almost every other force, resources are stretched to breaking point and beyond. Despite falling crime in some areas overall, the perception of vulnerability to crime, particularly in rural areas, is growing exponentially. Somehow, a way must be found to reconcile those issues.
Two concerns for Norfolk have been expressed today. The first is rural policing, which is a subject dear to my heart in my constituency. The second is the council tax increase. I would like to talk briefly on both topics.
Many people in rural areas suffer from a small crime rate in comparison with the national or international average. However, it is also true that their level of concern has increased over recent years, because they feel intensely vulnerable, and do not believe that they have a level of police service that is consonant with the level that they want in order to feel reassured. That feeling can be picked up in almost any village or small town in the country. It is made worse by the influence of larger conurbations, as referred to by the hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr. Bacon) in his comments on Norwich. Norwich is hardly the crime capital of the country, but it is a significant large city. From the point of view of my constituency, Bristol is unfortunately a significant area for crime.
The fact that resources are constantly sucked into the cities away from rural areas has a real and immediate effect on the level of policing in rural areas. Now is the time to address rural policing differently, although I am not about to deliver a new policing policy on behalf of my party. I am rapidly reaching the conclusion, which I think is shared by others—I hope for a serious and sensible debate—that the issues of serious, organised and national crime are interfering with keeping the peace throughout most of Britain. We must separate the tiers of responsibility and the functionalities of the police to give a better deal and a more efficient system. That needs to be considered carefully, and I think that all three parties are coming to a similar conclusion.
We need a much closer relationship between the level of policing in rural areas and the aspirations of the local crime reduction partnerships and local authorities. We need almost a contractual arrangement for a minimal level of service, which would mean that police officers would not be continually abstracted from the rural beat to help out with the latest national policing objective in the big cities.
We must consider how to achieve a higher visibility for the patrol function in rural areas. I understand why there are no longer police officers in small rural police stations or police houses in villages, and why the police need to be on the move and in a car. However, local communities need to see visible signs that they are being policed. We need more of what I have always called intelligent patrols, to ensure that the police are seen in the right places at relevant times. In that way, people are reassured and can share in community policing by passing on low-level intelligence when they see police officers. I do not know what the Norfolk police

299WH
telephone system is like, but I must say that the system in my constituency is a disaster for the public who want to get in touch with a local police officer.
Mr. Bellingham:One of the complaints that I keep getting is that people ring the Norfolk switchboard and talk to someone in Wymondham who does not know the nooks and crannies of small villages in north-west Norfolk. I am sure that my three Opposition colleagues agree that that is a real problem.
Mr. Heath:I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. He has confirmed what I suspected. This is not just a problem for my constabulary; it is a national problem. The more efficient we make these call centres, the less well they serve the public because they are more remote and it is more difficult to get the right message through to the right person in the right place at the right time. That is a concern.
There are things that could be done immediately. I have long argued that we need a new status of police officer in rural areas. We need the retained officer, which is not so different from what the hon. Member for South Norfolk described. We have done it for firefighters for years. We could not run a fire brigade in Norfolk, certainly not in Somerset, without the retained firefighter, and yet there is no such category of police officer. We rely on either the special police constable or the regular full-time police officer. I accept that there are now some part-time officers, but we have nothing analogous to the retained officer. That is a mistake. If we want visibility in policing in rural areas, that is one way to achieve it.
The rural crime fighting fund has plugged some gaps but it is centrally administered. There is no certainty of continuity. If we are convinced that there is a problem with the formula as it applies to rural areas, let us wrestle with that and get the formula right rather than constantly adding little bits to try to put it right later. That is not the way to run a distribution formula, and it puts rural forces at a huge disadvantage.
We are quickly reaching a crisis in council tax increases. I will not repeat either the figures for Norfolk or the national figures. The public and we, on behalf of the public whom we represent, are saying that enough is enough. It is simply not acceptable to have huge increases in the council tax year after year without a corresponding increase in the level of service. Like my hon. Friend the Member for North Norfolk, I have grave doubts about whether council tax is an appropriate mechanism for raising the funds for local authorities and whether there are not better alternatives. Even within the context of the current tax, the gearing on it and the reduction of effective support from central Government have resulted in an unsustainable situation. People are being asked to pay a lot more each year without getting an improved service.
Years ago we asked people whether they would be happy to pay an extra fiver in return for a better police force, and they said yes. There is no shortage of good will here, but people are not prepared to pay a 14 or 15 per cent. increase in their precepts this year on top of the double-figure percentage increase that they paid last year if they cannot see any results. There will be a real problem for the Government unless they address it
300WH
before the announcement of the support levels for next year. We know what the Treasury's intention is and that it is entirely inconsistent with what the Home Office is trying to achieve in policing levels.
We cannot have that argument in this Chamber. We can merely support the view that the Home Office has to be extremely clever at presenting its case with the Treasury and that the present projections simply will not work. The hon. Member for Mid-Norfolk (Mr. Simpson) pointed out the inconsistency between the Home Secretary's intentions and the Deputy Prime Minister's plans for capping. We need clarity on that because it is important to police authorities in planning their budget for next year. However, even if there is the utmost clarity it will not help the poor council tax payer who will receive an increased bill unless something else gives.
Constabularies such as Norfolk need "a new deal", to use the new Labour term. Let us have a new deal for rural policing that recognises the difficulties besetting these forces. Let us recognise that there are bigger issues that perhaps are properly dealt with at a different tier. Many Members referred to the air support that is available to Norfolk. When I was chairman of the Avon and Somerset police authority some 10 years ago, I was in the same position, as we had no air cover, so we ended up making collaborative arrangements with our neighbouring police authority in Gloucestershire, in which one helicopter served both areas. However, I agree that the current rules are a nonsense and should be changed.
If we are to see a real and sustainable improvement in policing and increase the figure of only 43 per cent. of residents in Norfolk thinking that the police do a good job, we will need security of funding that goes a long way beyond what is now available. Unless the Home Secretary acts quickly, we will see a great deal of trouble in the near future.
3.5 pm
Mr. James PaiceI was interested in the opening comment of the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) about the Boundary Commission's unimaginative terminology for Norfolk constituencies. Given the problem that many Members have in pronouncing Somerton and Frome correctly, the general geographical approach adopted for Norfolk is probably wiser.
I was also interested in the hon. Gentleman's statement that he would not announce a new Liberal Democrat policy; we await with interest an announcement that there is one at all.
I add my congratulations to the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb) on securing the debate. As my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Norfolk (Mr. Simpson) said, it is a re-run of one that has taken place before. We could have a similar debate on every force in the country—if I were not debarred because I am on the Front Bench, I could introduce one about Cambridgeshire. However, it is particularly appropriate that we are debating Norfolk, because Jim Wilson, chairman of the Norfolk police authority, is leading for the Association of Police Authorities on the problem of next year's funding.
My constabulary in Cambridgeshire shares a secretariat with Norfolk, which shows what co-operation can take place. It seems odd that I receive all

301WH
my communications about Cambridgeshire police from Wymondham in Norfolk, but that is the way that the force operates.
All hon. Members referred to council tax and increasing bureaucracy. The hon. Member for North Norfolk was generous to the Government in saying that just under 10,000 civil servants are employed in the central part of the Home Office, as the figure is actually nearer 11,000. That is nothing to do with any of the other non-police departments, and as he said, it exceeds the number of extra police officers.
Hon. Members also spoke about Home Office impositions. Some referred to the request for a helicopter and asked why the Home Office could not provide 100 per cent. funding for a second-hand one instead of 50 per cent. for a new one, or why it could not help arrange a naval leasing. I have some sympathy with the Minister, as I am sure that she will not be able to explain the basis for that decision. It is not her decision, or even the Home Office's: it will have been imposed by Treasury rules. Those of us who have been lucky enough to be in government know that the Treasury's fingers are in everything—that seems even more so under the present Chancellor.
As several Members have said, the issue of police funding is rapidly coming to a head. I am sure that the Minister will laud the Government's achievements and describe the extra resources that the police have received. It would be foolish to argue that they have not put more money into the police, as there has been a welcome increase in police officers in the past three years—the second half of the Government's period in office: the first half was spent running down police numbers. However, it is no use the Government talking about increased resources only in global terms when they are also increasing the burden of cost on police authorities and on other public service. We have seen massive increases in costs during the past few years.
The hon. Member for Great Yarmouth (Mr. Wright) referred to Airwave, which has been on the stocks for a long time. I do not know anyone who is opposed to Airwave—unless it means erecting a Tetra mast in our constituency, when we all find a reason to oppose it. However, it is a huge extra cost. Simply saying that the Government are spending all this extra money while ignoring the extra costs is only half the argument.
National insurance increases and considerable changes to the police pay structure are now coming into play, and they will put huge extra costs on the police force. The Association of Police Authorities estimates that that will result in an average of 6 per cent. expenditure next year. It forecasts that next year's council tax will have to increase by 15 per cent. on average just to stand still. As Members from all parties have said, we cannot go on raising council tax. There has been a more than 70 per cent. average overall rise in the police precept since the Government came to office, and in last year alone it rose by 25 per cent.
I agree with the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome that the Government will shortly reap their own harvest. The public will not tolerate ever-increasing hikes in council tax. I understand one of the reasons why the Government have adopted that approach: it is easy
302WH
to blame somebody else, such as local authorities. They can shift the burden on to council taxpayers, and then say that if local authorities have not been able to make efficiency savings that is their fault. The Secretary of State for Education, who is another Norfolk MP, tried that last year—this present financial year—with schools in Norfolk, but he had to eat his words. It was obvious that the fault was nothing to do with local education authorities, but was the responsibility of the Government Department, which had got its figures wrong. I fear that that will happen across the board with the police and other public services.
Several hon. Members have referred to the issue of top-slicing—that is the phrase that I like to use—in relation to central specific projects. It is perfectly true—I am sure that the Minister will claim that it is—that such money is eventually spent on policing and some of it goes to police authorities. However, as the hon. Member for North Norfolk and others have said, that system creates a huge bureaucracy of its own, because forces have to bid for the money, often to no avail or for very small sums. I am told that there is one fund of just £2 million for video facilities. If the 43 police forces have a crack at bidding for that, I suspect that an equal amount of money will be spent just on the bidding process. In my opinion, that is central-controlled top-slicing gone mad.
Last year, there was a 58 per cent. increase in the amount of money withheld at the centre for specific grants. That is a worrying trend, because it is another example of the Home Office taking ever more control over how we go about our policing. The other aspect of all these specific funds is that many of them are time limited. At the end of the day, the force is faced with deciding whether to go on with a certain form of expenditure or curtail it; it then faces the resulting opprobrium of doing that. We need only consider the example of community support officers. Without going into the rights and wrongs of such a scheme, which we have done on many occasions, Home Office funding for community support officers, which this year starts at 100 per cent., goes down to 50 per cent. in 2005–06. If those forces that have taken up community support officers want to continue with them, there will be a huge shift of burden from the specific fund to the general fund, and I very much doubt that sufficient money will go into the general fund.
I shall turn now to how the money is being spent and how well we are using it for improvements in policing in Norfolk, Cambridgeshire, the metropolitan area and elsewhere. As several hon. Members have said—including the hon. Member for Great Yarmouth, who finds himself in a difficult position in this debate—there have been improvements in policing. Of course, Norfolk police, along with others, have developed new initiatives and new partnerships, and have improved things. Nobody denies that. However, as several hon. Members have also said, public perception is that crime is getting worse, particularly in rural areas, and that fewer police are visible and available to respond to a call-out. Now when people ring up they just get given an incident number so that they can claim on their insurance.
The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome referred to yesterday's figures. The sad fact is that about 97 per cent. of crimes that involve a victim—rather than retail crime—never result in a conviction. People might say that we live in a peaceful society, but that figure shows

303WH
that that is not the case. I will not pretend that the country is lawless, but the situation is far from satisfactory.
Contrary to the assertions of the Prime Minister in the House earlier today, the problem is not primarily with the criminal justice system. I am not defending that system as it is far from perfect, but well over 50 per cent. of those who are prosecuted end up being convicted. The big problem is detecting the crime and getting to the point of prosecution—that is where the largest proportion of that 97 per cent. fall out of the system.
Part of the problem is the ever-increasing central control that the police are being put under. As a result, police authorities and chief constables are unable to concentrate on the needs of their own area. They are for ever responding to Government pressures—funding pressures for special funds, meeting national policing plan arrangements, and so forth. In a nutshell, police officers are spending more and more time chasing targets and less time chasing the criminals, which is what we expect them to do.
There must be a dramatic change: responsibility must be shifted away from central Government to local police authorities. They should be given a transparent, block grant, and allowed to decide whether they want a new or a second-hand helicopter and how many police officers and community support officers they need. They should make the decisions and set the targets, and account to local people if they fail to meet them.
We also need a quantum shift in the number of police officers. I welcome the increase that there has been in the last few months, but it is nowhere near enough. My right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) and I have repeatedly made the point that the force should be increased by about a third—approximately 40,000 officers. We would make resources available to police authorities for them to achieve that.
The constant centralisation of control, of targets and of the management of the funding, combined with the Treasury rules that we have heard about, will come back to haunt the Government. I hope that the Minister has a way out of this predicament.
3.17 pm
The Minister for Crime Reduction, Policing, and Community Safety (Ms Hazel Blears):I am delighted that the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb) managed to secure this debate. It has provided a useful opportunity to air local concerns. I was not the Minister responsible for policing when a similar debate took place last year, so I have appreciated hearing from a range of Members from all parties about the issues in their communities. A couple of weeks ago, I had a chance to go to Newmarket to have a question and answer session with the police authorities—I think that it lasted for two and a half hours. I got a real flavour of what the concerns were in that local community.
I am pleased to have this opportunity to respond to what has been said, and I hope that I will be able to answer most of the questions that have been raised. I intend to make an announcement on the 2004–05 provisional police funding settlement in about mid-November. Therefore, Members will have to have a bit of patience and bear with me, because I will not be in a position to give specific information until I make that announcement.
304WH
To reply to the point made by the hon. Member for Mid-Norfolk (Mr. Simpson), we have not yet set floors and ceilings, so no figures have been decided. We will announce them at the same time as the settlement. Expenditure on policing supported by the Government has increased by 30 per cent. over the past three years, which is a significant investment. I acknowledge that hon. Members have recognised that. That will be increased by a further 4 per cent. next year. That increase covers the general grant through the formula spending, specific grant and Home Office direct expenditure.
Mr. Bacon:I would be most grateful if the Minister could tell me the total cost of the extra civil servants employed in the Home Office since 1997. If she cannot, I should appreciate her writing to me.
Ms Blears:I was going to come to that in responding to what the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) said. I understand that many of them are employed as asylum caseworkers processing much of the shambles that was left to us to sort out. I will gladly provide the hon. Gentleman with full details and let him know exactly what is done. His comments are similar to the argument that is often raised about administrators in the health service. When we come to unpick the issue, we find that such people are cleaners and porters and are doing a useful job. Let us have the facts out. I shall write to the hon. Gentleman.
On the general financial situation, the Home Secretary has said that under the 4 per cent. figure no police authority will receive an increase of police authority general grant below the level of inflation, which we estimate at the moment to be around 2.5 per cent.
Several hon. Members referred to the pressures on council tax in general and precepts for the police in particular. We acknowledge that those pressures have existed for a couple of years. The public, especially people on lower incomes, are struggling with some of the council tax rises. The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister and the Home Office are speaking with one voice on council tax rises and the required precept.
I know that police authorities have been constructive in talking to their local communities and seeking to justify their precepts. I want them to continue to make well-justified cases for any increases. I know that they will want to consolidate the gains that we have made in recent years where they are able to do that. The gains in the numbers of police and community support officers have universal public support. However, the police authorities must bear in mind the Government's concern that the current trend in council tax rises is unsustainable.
There have been one or two large precept rises at the margins, the highest being 76 per cent. That is not a reasonable position for us to be in. I am conscious of the different pressures out there. The ODPM has said that next year it could use targeted capping powers if people have acted unreasonably. That applies as much to police authorities as it does to local authorities as a whole.
This year Norfolk was allocated a general policing grant of £79.6 million—an increase of 3.7 per cent. That was considerably higher than the floor. Some 19

305WH
authorities got only 3 per cent. Norfolk increased its budget by 8.8 per cent. because it wanted to provide an increase in services to the community. The precept was increased by 21.5 per cent. Although that seems like a large increase, it amounts to 42p per week, increasing the amount to £122 a year. Sometimes the percentage increases do not reflect the tangible sums asked for. The increase in Norfolk was a little bit lower than the general increase of around 28 per cent in shire authorities.
Several hon. Members raised the issue of the fairness of the funding formula. There is an element in the funding formula that takes account of capital receipts and whether there are a great deal to dispose of, and another element takes account of people on holiday in an area—it takes account of overnight visitors, not just the resident population. The funding formula was updated last year to try to be a little more sophisticated and sensitive to the needs of different communities, and it has wide buy-in from a range of stakeholders. We will consider with the policing community how we can make the formula more sensitive and responsive to local people's needs.
Specific grants, as well as the general grant, have been developed in recent years—whether one calls them ring-fenced, top-sliced or whatever. I am trawling the budget for room to manoeuvre to maximise the general grant where possible. However, I am sure that hon. Members would not want the rural policing grant put into that pot; they probably still want it as a separate pot. We need to recognise the problem of the sparsity of policing in rural areas, and we should try to ensure that we keep that separate pot available.
Norfolk gets £3.07 million from the crime fighting fund. I assure the hon. Member for Mid-Norfolk that the crime fighting fund for recruits will continue indefinitely; we have no plans to roll that back into general grants. I am pleased to be able to give that reassurance.
There is also £3.23 million for Airwave. I am delighted that Airwave is a robust and resilient mobile communications service for the force, which is taking it up extremely well. I hope that the use of the text and data applications as well as the mobile communications will give extra value, and will help the force to reduce form-filling and bureaucracy. Norfolk also gets funding for community support officers; there are 12 in Norwich, and there is permission to recruit another 18. Community support officers are proving extremely popular.
There is £500,000 for direct basic command unit funding, £500,000 in special priority payments and nearly £750,000 for DNA funding so that forces can utilise forensics and technology in supporting what they do.
Many ring-fenced or top-sliced grants are for things that the police have themselves declared to be a priority. I was interested to note that during the 1990s the previous Government provided funds in the general pot for an extra 5,000 police officers. I am told that practically none were delivered, as police authorities spent the cash on other priorities. So there is often a balance to be drawn between having things in a general pot and having them ring-fenced.
306WH
Norfolk's share of the rural policing fund was £2.08 million; it was one of the top four beneficiaries of that fund. That is an important fund for the area. We do not envisage changes to that. Police authorities do not have to bid for rural grants; the grants are allocated, so there is no bureaucracy. They add 2.5 per cent. to Norfolk's policing budget; that is a significant amount, which can do some of the extra things that hon. Members have talked about.
Police numbers are at record levels in Norfolk, I am delighted to say, as they are throughout the country—there is more high-visibility policing. Hon. Members have raised the issue of pensions; they are an important consideration for the whole of the service. I am considering some proposals, which clearly will not help us this year. However, in years to come I am prepared to grasp the nettle on pensions to see whether we can make improvements for the future. I am very conscious of a bulge of people coming through, which will be a huge burden for many authorities.
I am intrigued by the question of air support. My information is that we agree to provide part funding for air support, provided that forces are also prepared to put something in the pot. Norfolk was not able to do that. However, I understand that it made an application to purchase a second-hand helicopter. I hate to call it that—it sounds a terrible description for a helicopter—perhaps "pre-used" is better. However, there was a question about that helicopter's suitability for its purpose. If we can reach an agreement in which Norfolk would make a contribution, I will certainly consider the matter, as I have already said in correspondence to hon. Members. However, I am not aware that it has put a bid in for next year. If it is prepared to come to the table and make a contribution, we are prepared to consider it. So far that bid has not been made. I am prepared to reconsider the matter if there are some genuinely constructive ways forward.
Hon. Members have rightly raised the issue of specials, whose numbers have gone down. We now have a big programme with pilot schemes to pay some specials to see whether that makes a difference. Specials are torn on the matter of payment: some say that they would like to remain volunteers, others say that they would like payment. I am really keen to get more specials.
I am delighted that my hon. Friend the Member for Great Yarmouth (Mr. Wright) has been present to explain the positive things going on in his area. He has a policing priority area in the Regent ward in Great Yarmouth, where they are doing tremendous work to achieve a closer partnership. I know that the hon. Gentleman, unlike the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath), thoroughly supports the Government's Anti-social Behaviour Bill and the powers that it will give us to make communities safer. I hope that the Liberal Democrats will reconsider their ill thought-out position on the whole antisocial behaviour agenda, which it would serve them well to do.
Finally, Norfolk is a pretty safe place to live. I know that people want to see more police on the streets, but the force is doing an extremely good job, led by a very able chief constable and a good local authority, and is having a real impact on Norfolk. I hope that hon. Members thoroughly enjoy living there and being part of the community in the years to come.

Visa Charge(International Students)
3.30 pm
John Barrett: I welcome the opportunity to debate the impact that the new Home Office visa charges will have on non-European Union international students studying in the United Kingdom.
I want to thank Jim Thompson, the welfare officer, and Sarah Nicholson, vice-president for representation, of the Edinburgh University Students' Association, who first raised the issue with me and helped me to prepare for this debate. They have been campaigning hard on this issue, as have universities, colleges and students organisations throughout the UK. I hope that the debate will give the Minister an opportunity to respond to some of their concerns. I know that they will be listening closely to her words.
The debate stems from the press release issued by the Home Office on 11 July 2003, which announced that from 1 August all foreign nationals applying to extend their stay in the UK would have to pay a charge for the processing of their applications. The Home Office stated that applications by post would cost £155, and that the so-called premium same-day service for personal callers would cost £250. That cost would have to be paid each time an application was made. One of the largest groups of foreign nationals who are now subject to this charge are international students who are living and studying in the UK and who originate from outside the EU.
The British Council's figures show that there are some 187,000 such students in the UK, 16,000 of whom are north of the border. The charges will have a major impact on the thousands of international students in my home city of Edinburgh. Edinburgh universities have a long and proud tradition of attracting students from all over the world. Well over 3,500 non-EU international students attend Edinburgh university, Heriot-Watt university, Queen Margaret university college and Napier university, and hundreds more attend Stephenson college, Edinburgh college of art and Telford college, which is based in my constituency. Almost all those students, from a total of almost 4,000, will have to pay the Government's new charges to extend their visas.
Before I talk about the principle of the charges, I want to comment on the very disappointing way in which the charges were announced and introduced. Four years ago, during the passage of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999—the Act that established the principle of visa charging—the then Home Office Minister, the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. O'Brien), gave specific and quite categorical assurances to those in further and higher education that international students would be given special consideration. More importantly, however, he promised that universities and colleges would be fully consulted before the introduction of any visa charges.
The Government not only completely reneged on the promise to give students special dispensation, but announced the charges without any consultation whatsoever with universities, colleges or student bodies. The way in which the Home Office announced these charges treated the further and higher education sectors with contempt. It has left many students and chancellors dismayed and confused as to why the assurances that they were given proved to be so hollow.
308WH
I anticipate that it is probably too much to expect an apology from the Minister today. I hope, however, that she will at least recognise that the charges could have been introduced in a much better way. Unless the Home Office shows that serious lessons can be learned for the future, universities and colleges will have no reason to believe the Government when similar assurances are given again.
Sue Doughty: This is a very important subject. Is my hon. Friend aware that I had to bring to the attention of the House the treatment of these students by the Home Office and the real problems that they experienced in obtaining visas, which were constantly being lost? That created a very bad impression of the British Government and the British way of life. Only this week, I received a letter from 138 Chinese students at the university of Surrey on this issue.
John Barrett:I am aware of some of the problems for which students are having to pick up the tab because of Home Office errors, and I shall come to that.
The announcement of the charges, without consultation, was made all the worse by the way in which they were introduced. The Home Office announcement on 11 July stated that the new system would start on 1 August. It gave relevant student organisations and student welfare officers a mere 21 days to prepare. As the principal and vice-chancellor of Edinburgh university, Professor Timothy O'Shea said:
"With only three weeks' advance notice ahead of the implementation of these charges, universities have had no opportunity to highlight their impact nor to forewarn the students about them."
He went on to say:
"The charges have been launched at a time of year, shortly before the start of the new academic year, guaranteed to hit the higher education sector hardest."
Can the Minister tell me why the Home Office chose 11 July to announce the new charges? Was any consideration given to the impact that the timing would have on the further and higher education sectors?
Mr. Graham Brady: The hon. Gentleman is right to highlight the problems for the further and higher education sectors. He might also be interested to know that it is a major problem for overseas students attending boarding schools. A market worth over £200 million to this country has been thrown into chaos by the changes.
John Barrett:I take note of that point.
What about the impact of the charges? International students represent the largest single group of applications for extensions in the UK. It cannot be argued that students represent the most well-off group in society, so the new visa charges will, without doubt, impact on them to a greater degree than they will on other non-EU visitors working to extend their stays. As the Minister will know, many international students do not have access to yanking facilities, as banks often refuse to issue them with debit cards or cheque books. That will force many of them to pay the visa charges by postal order, adding again to their costs.

309WH
Even without postal order charges, the cost is already considerable. As I mentioned, the charge will be at least £150 per application, which bears no resemblance to the likely charge of £90 of which the hon. Member for North Warwickshire advised the Standing Committee on the Immigration and Asylum Bill in 1999. As the Council for International Education pointed out, there has not been 72 per cent. inflation since then. Can the Minister tell us how the figure off 150 was reached and give an indication as to why the original estimate proved to be so far out? In addition, why do the charges compare so unfavourably with similar application fees, such as the £36 for an initial student visa?
I ask these questions because the answers are important and have not, so far, been forthcoming. Unlike those for many other foreign nationals, the new visa charges will not be one-off charges for the students who have to pay them. Despite central guidance, many students are not given permission to stay which covers their entire courses, and they need to extend their stay to complete their degree or even to attend graduation. Many short-term students are granted entry on conditions that preclude them from working as other international students can. Those students must then apply for a change in conditions. In all such cases, students will have to pay the Home Office's new charge.
The trouble does not stop there. Students in further education and, for example, on English language courses are often given permission to stay for only a year at a time. Others only get permission to extend for each of their short courses. Those students might have to pay the charge four or five times. What about research students, who are approaching the end of their studies? At present, they often have to make several applications for short extensions to cover final write-ups, re-submissions or further oral examinations. What about students who are on pre-sessional or foundation courses in preparation for degree courses? Such students will have to extend their stay after completing their first courses. How about the many students who are here thanks to scholarships and are on particularly limited budgets?
Finally, what consideration has the Minister given to students—I can assure her that there are many—who need to correct mistakes that have, as my hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Sue Doughty) said, been made by entry clearance officers in their home countries or by an immigration officer on entry into this country? Should they be charged for the Government's incompetence? All those students will be hit hard by the new charges, and without question there is a risk that the charges will deter foreign students from studying in the UK. That is despite the Prime Minister's clearly stated and repeated aim of attracting more international students to the UK.
Mr. Barry Sheerman: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that our country is at the leading edge in international education provision, and that the charges represent a tax on that education and on a thriving industry?
John Barrett:I certainly do agree. Other countries are well aware of the contribution that students can make to
310WH
their way of life, to their education system and to their economies, and while we are adding tax many other countries are trying to get students to go and attend their educational establishments. It is a double-edged sword.
Edinburgh university has been particularly keen to respond to the Prime Minister's initiative. However, the new visa charges have severely hampered its efforts, and for what reward? The Minister for Citizenship and Immigration, the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Beverley Hughes), said in the original Home Office press release that
"charging will help us to continue to improve the efficiency and speed with which we process these applications, leading to ever higher levels of customer service."
Unfortunately, neither I nor those working in our colleges, universities and boarding schools are convinced that that will be the case.
The chief executive of Universities UK has asked whether the immigration and nationality directorate will be able to provide a level of service that is appropriate to the level of charge. If the Government think that the Home Office proposal of a maximum of 13 weeks for processing an application is a high level of service, they ought to be prosecuted under the Trades Descriptions Act.
Where do we go from here? Naturally, I and many other hon. Members would like the Home Office to do an about-turn and remove the charges. That may be a little unrealistic, despite the fact that such a move would receive the overwhelming support of colleges and universities. Nevertheless, the Government could take some simple and relatively straightforward steps to help to mitigate the very negative impact of the Home Office's new policy.
What consideration can the Minister give to postponing the charges at least until the new year? Such a deferral, although short, would make an enormous difference to those organisations that are still trying to get to grips with the Government's recent and sudden announcement. Not only would it allow for greater consultation on the implications of the charges, but those students who are affected will have more time to become fully aware of the new rules and to begin budgeting for the charges.
The Minister should be aware that advice services at many educational institutions are coming under great pressure because of the charges, especially as it comes at their busiest time of the year. That is certainly the case in Edinburgh. A deferral of the charges would allow the consideration of new and different systems—perhaps differential fees for shorter or longer extensions—and for the publication of new guidance on the length of student visas for different courses.
Whether or not the charges are postponed, will the Minister assure me that new guidance will be issued to immigration officers at UK ports and to entry clearance officers abroad on granting consistent entry extensions in order to minimise the potential for mistakes and the need for repeat extension applications? If the Minister believes that the charges will result in an improved service, will she assure me that additional and better trained staff will be placed at ports, to avoid students having to make applications to the Home Office soon after their arrival?

311WH
Will the Minister also make clear her intention to provide a means by which students can dispute permissions that are incorrect or that fail adequately to meet their circumstances without the payment of additional fees? Such a commitment would go a long way to allaying concerns that students may be picking up the bill for the mistakes of the Home Office.
A strong consensus has now emerged on the issue. The Council for International Students, Universities UK, the National Union of Students, the Council for International Education, and vice-chancellors, rectors, student unions and associations throughout the UK, have lined up to urge the Government to reverse their position on visa extension charges. I am delighted that hon. Members from six parties have already signed early-day motion 1729 in my name, which calls on the Home Office to consider the issue again. There is a consensus that the Government cannot and must not ignore.
I am keen to ensure that the Minister has as much time as possible to respond to my points. I hope that I have made clear the seriousness of the Home Office actions, and the depth of feeling on the issue. I appreciate that she may not be able to answer all my questions in the short time that she has to respond, but the debate has given me an opportunity to put the case of universities, colleges and students, and to put on record some important and, in some cases, detailed questions. I also ask that she and her officials respond in writing to any points that cannot be addressed today, so that the concern and dismay felt by those in further and higher education can finally be brought to an end.
Overseas students contribute to our education system and our economy. We should follow the example of other countries, which not only encourage them in their studies but facilitate their long-term involvement with the country. The current actions of the Government are short-sighted and must be reconsidered.
3.45 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Fiona Mactaggart):I welcome the opportunity to respond to this debate on behalf of the Government. The hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (John Barrett) is right to say that the subject has not been fully aired in public, and I am glad of the opportunity to respond to the points that he has made.
Historically, in administering people's applications to remain here as students, we have provided a service that has, at times, been flawed. The Government's view, as expressed in the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999, was that the service should properly be paid for by the people who benefit from it. The fees are set, in accordance with Treasury rules, to cover the full administrative cost entailed in considering each application, and no more.
The hon. Gentleman asks how the policy was developed and why it has been introduced now. Those are important subjects, and they connect with the issue of service raised by the hon. Member for Guildford (Sue Doughty), who has left the Chamber. The Home Office recognises that, at the standard of service that was common in the past, it would be difficult to sustain a charging regime. Quite properly, we therefore ensured that the Department was able to provide a proper quality of service before fee proposals were introduced.
312WH
As a consequence, substantial investment was made to get the service to a level of effectiveness and efficiency that would merit charging.
We have set stringent service standards. The aim is that 70 per cent. of postal applications will be dealt with within three weeks of receipt in the immigration and nationality directorate, with the remainder being dealt with within 13 weeks. Of course, we recognise that 13 weeks is not a high quality of service, but we aim to guarantee that as a maximum. I have assured myself that, within just 13 weeks of the announcement, only I per cent. of the applications made in the week following the announcement are still to be decided. We are meeting those standards, and I understand that we are exceeding the three-week target for 70 per cent. of applications.
Personal callers with correct documentation who do not require further inquiries will get a decision on the same day, and we are delivering that for 100 per cent. of personal callers. In comparison, a year ago, only 50 per cent. of postal applications were considered within three weeks, and only 87 per cent. of personal applications received a same-day service, so there has been substantial improvement in the service.
If we had not made the investment that we have put in because of the charging regime, the service improvements could not have been delivered. My aim is to deliver further improvements because I share the view that 13 weeks for the determination of a case is longer than one would want. It is not appropriate for a student, whether at school or university, to wait that long for a decision to be made. We can make improvements only through a charging regime, as there are already too many demands on public funds. Would that be a disincentive to students; would it cause them problems? It is important to recognise the size of the charge compared with the other costs of studying in the UK. It is substantially smaller than the cost of student fees and tuition fees, the cost of living here and so on.
When the subject was first debated—
Mr. Sheerman:Will the Minister give way?
Fiona Mactaggart:If I may, I shall first finish the sentence.
When the subject was first debated, it was quite easy for overseas students to work for up to 20 hours a week in addition to studying. That automatic permission to work was introduced in 1999, and it made it much easier for students to meet additional costs while they were here.
Mr. Sheerman:Surely the point is whether the charge is fair, and whether it will stop students coming here? International students provide 12 per cent. of the income of UK universities. As a governor of the London School of Economics, I know that many institutions will face bankruptcy if they lose a substantial share of that market. The cost is still high.
Fiona Mactaggart:Frankly, compared with the other costs of overseas study, £150 is not very high. I do not accept my hon. Friend's point that the cost will substantially deter students. If we compare fees in the United Kingdom to those in other countries that have

313WH
had fees in place for some time, our regime—which has been in place for only a matter of weeks—sits between the charges made by Australia and those made by America, our major competitors as English language nations that offer places to overseas students.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: What consultation took place with the universities?
Fiona Mactaggart:I was coming to that point. It is regrettable that there was no extensive consultation on the matter. There are two reasons for that. First, getting everything into place to allow delivery to take place was more complex than the Department understood. We were in a position to do that only shortly before the announcement was made. That created real difficulties of timing and of creating opportunities for consultation.
Secondly, and most important, in the period of just under three weeks between the announcement and the introduction of the fees, the number of applications was two and a half times the usual number. It is quite possible that, had we undertaken extensive consultation before the charge was introduced, the service improvements that I described could not have been sustained. That would not have been acceptable.
We find ourselves in the regrettable situation of having introduced the fee without the quality of consultation that we might have hoped for. There was no possibility of consulting over the level of fee, as it is determined by Treasury rules, although we could have consulted properly on some of the details. I apologise to the universities for that. I can announce today that, in looking at what has happened so far and at what should happen in the future, we will engage with universities and student organisations.
I will be happy to hear representations from student organisations that have been burdened by the advanced consequences of the charge. We need to learn from the early weeks of the experiment to ensure that, if there were any unintended consequences or impacts, we can see whether steps can be taken to remedy the impact. I recognise that the lack of consultation caused complications for institutions and individuals. That is regrettable, and I can confirm that, although it is not possible to do what the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West wants, which is to unpick the fees paid to date, it is possible to learn from the process, to listen to representations on how to proceed and to invite universities and student unions to comment. We are currently considering how that consultation should go forward.
John Barrett:Will the Minister say who was consulted?
Fiona Mactaggart:We used the negative resolution procedure, so the only consultation was within the Government. I understand that that is not a satisfactory procedure, and there were two reasons for that. The first was the need to be confident that we had in place the service improvements, which were necessary precursors to charging. The second reason was the potential consequences of the closing-down sale on our ability to
314WH
sustain that quality of service, partly because of its timing. That is in the past, and we will now proceed with consultation of the quality for which we have aimed.
Treasury rules on full cost recovery are completely clear. However, the timing, and some of the issues raised by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West, such as the length of visas and the advice to immigration officers, can be consulted on.
Mr. Jim Cousins: The different categories of overseas students were raised at the beginning of the debate. I was shocked to be told, in a letter from the Minister for Citizenship and Immigration, my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston (Beverley Hughes), that the Home Office accounting structure does not provide for differential fees. Will the Minister tell us when that problem will be put right, so that we can consider differential fees?
Fiona Mactaggart:No, I cannot; that is the honest answer. That is one reason why we are examining the terms of future consultation. We have managed significant service improvements, and that has been the priority, rather than the development of highly sophisticated charging regimes. If, in response to what has happened so far, there is an overwhelming demand for a complex system of different charges, we may consider that. However, my judgment is that the cost of introducing complex differentials is probably not worth the cost of that infrastructure.
Mr. Sheerman:My hon. Friend is generous in giving way again, and I appreciate the tone of her response. I do not want a complex system of fees, but what would she say about reconsidering the repeat fees? That goes to the heart of the question.
Fiona Mactaggart:I can confirm that, in phase 2 of the consultation, we will consider having differential fees. We have instituted systems to try to ensure that, to reduce repeat fees, the entry clearance officers or immigration officers grant leave for the full length of the course.
As the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West pointed out, there are problems when people take an English course, and then a further course. Frankly it is not right or possible for the Home Office to give someone leave for longer than the length of their course. However, we have instituted measures to allow immigration officers to give concurrent leave to people who have completed their course so that they can return, for example, for their award ceremony. We must consider people in subjects such as science and engineering who might stay to get work experience at the end of their course.
We are trying to reduce some of the consequences of the measures, and I think that we will be able to minimise some of them; they are already being sorted out in practice. The first introduction has been a motor for the improvement of the quality of service. In my view, the lack of quality of administration of applications by overseas students was a bigger barrier to their being able to come to Britain to study than the level of fee. In the second layer of consultation, we need to ensure that we improve the way in which we deal with fees.

Electoral Registers
4 pm
Chris Ruane: I welcome this opportunity to raise the important issue of under-registration on electoral registers. I was first made aware of this issue some five months ago by my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Mr. Brown).
I tabled a written question asking for a list of the 100 constituencies with the greatest fall in electorate, which I forwarded to the Minister. In my constituency, the drop was some 5.2 per cent., or 3,140 electors over a six-year period. I followed up the question with some research from the Library, which gave me a ward-by-ward breakdown of the loss in electorate in my constituency. The greatest drop occurred in the wards with the greatest social deprivation, and the greatest increase occurred in the most affluent wards.
In the West ward of Rhyl, which is the most deprived of 850 council wards in Wales, there was a 30 per cent. drop from 3,602 in 1997 to 2,489—1,113 electors were lost from the register. The ward contains hundreds of houses in multiple occupation, which may account for part of the drop, as it is very difficult for electoral or party-political canvassers to get beyond the front door of a house in multiple occupation, which may contain more than 50 people. Having said that, it was the case five years ago, too; the houses were there, and the people behind the doors still lived there, so why has the drop occurred?
The ward with the second biggest drop, of 15.2 per cent., or 210 electors, was Denbigh Central, which also contains a number of houses in multiple occupation. The South West ward of Rhyl had the third biggest drop of 13.2 per cent., or 492 electors, but that ward is of a different nature. It is a more settled, stable community; two-thirds of the residents are in social housing. My street-by-street analysis of the ward, which is where I grew up, showed that the streets with the greatest loss of electors, some with as much as a 30 per cent. loss in the electorate, were those with the most deprivation, and those with the greatest incidence of registration were the wealthier, more affluent streets.
Why do people forgo the fundamental democratic right to register and to participate in the electoral process? The Electoral Commission's excellent report on the electoral registration process summarises a number of possible reasons for the decline in registration, including disengagement from the political process and politics generally. People do not register because they are not interested in voting, but because that means that they are avoiding the authorities; the report states that that might be for criminal or other reasons. I am not sure whether that is the case; perhaps some research is needed on the matter.
Another reason may be the wish to avoid debt collectors. An official register is the debt collector's first port of call and if people's names are on it there is the risk that the debt collectors may come after them. I had dinner today with members of the North Denbighshire citizens advice bureau and we discussed that issue. By January next year, they will be able to tell me, on a ward-by-ward, street-by-street basis, where the people suffering from being in debt live. If it matches the non-electors, it may prove the case conclusively.
316WH
The report also states that the fact that the register is used for other reasons may be a factor in under-registration, although this may have been limited by regulation changes in 2002. Insufficient data-sharing of personal details between the authorities and resentment by some members of the public about supplying their details to different council departments at different times is cited as another reason. The report goes on to say that anecdotal evidence suggests that some members of the public believe that if they give their personal details to the council tax department, it will automatically relay them to the electoral registration department.
I shall examine a couple of the reasons put forward for non-registration by the Electoral Commission in the context of my constituency. Is under-registration a legacy of the poll tax? Do people think they have more of a chance of avoiding the council tax if they are not on the electoral register? In my county, the council had one of the worst records in Wales for collecting council tax and council rents. The council had a purge on non-payment and now has one of the best records in Wales. That has happened over the past three years. Is non-registration the public's response to this crackdown? I do not know, but research could help us to ascertain that.
Political disengagement was cited as another reason. People in these wards may feel disconnected from the political process. They may feel that they are not being listened to by their MP, their Assembly Member or their councillors. If that is the case, I take some of the blame. Unemployment in Rhyl West and Rhyl South West has been halved in the past six years but it still accounts for 40 per cent. of the unemployment in my constituency and 33 per cent. of the unemployment of the whole county. There are 33 wards in the county and two of them account for 33 per cent. of the unemployment.
A young person has eight times the chance of going to university in the richest ward in my constituency, Tremeirchion, which had the highest increase in electorate, than they do in the poorest, Rhyl West. Primary schools in the west and south-west of Rhyl receive as little as £1,300 per pupil compared with £6,000 per pupil in some of the smaller rural schools. That may illustrate why people feel disconnected from the political process.
Deprivation in my constituency has had an impact on registration. The three wards with the biggest drops are in the poorest quartile of council wards in Wales. There are 850 council wards in Wales. The three wards with the biggest increase in electors are in the richest quartile. What may be the case in my constituency will not necessarily be the case in all constituencies. Some hon. Members to whom I have spoken accept that the decrease in their electorates is down to rural depopulation or a Bight from the inner cities, but I believe that it should be a key focus of any research that is commissioned. One of the recommendations made in the document, "Turnout in Local Elections", issued in May 2000, was that immediate research be undertaken. That was also a key recommendation of the Electoral Commission's report on electoral registration published in May 2003.
There has been a three-year gap in which research has not taken place. I tabled a parliamentary question last week, which was answered last night. I asked what

317WH
research had taken place and what research would take place. The Minister conceded that no research had taken place in the past three years but that research will take place and be completed next year. I am glad about that. However, when I rang the Electoral Commission on Monday it was a little unsure about that. It may take place at the end of the next financial year, perhaps not. Perhaps the Minister can clarify exactly what type of research has been commissioned and when it will report. I urge the Minister to consider commissioning this research urgently and to consult with the Electoral Commission, MPs and other elected representatives, as well as the electoral returning officers.
I also ask the Minister to take immediate action to increase the electoral registration and not just to wait for this report. Certain actions can be taken straight away to ensure that electoral registration is increased. Research has been carried out and best practice has been gleaned from around the country and there are a number of lessons for us to learn from that. There are wide variations between local authorities. Some have been highlighted in the document "Turnout at Local Elections", published in May 2000 by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. The report states that there is a considerable range in local authority budgets for electoral registration, as measured by the amount spent per head. London boroughs with the best registration spent five times as much as those with the poorest.
In a parliamentary question last week, I asked for a list of the amount per head spent by each local authority, and the reply was that the information was not held centrally by the Department. I urge that it should be, so that it becomes possible to keep a finger on the pulse, and find out how seriously local authorities take the issue.
Another issue highlighted in the report is the design of the registration forms. Eighty per cent. of local authorities have changed the design in the past five years. Some were able to quantify the effect of those changes, and I urge Ministers to study the results, and perhaps to issue a standardised form to all local authorities, or, at a minimum, to remind electoral officers which forms are best, so that they can use them.
Some local authorities stress the importance of registration in obtaining consumer credit. People who want consumer credit, or want to start a bank account, need to be on the electoral register. A check is done automatically. That is being used as the worm on the hook to get people registered. It is a sad day when one must appeal to the electorate's consumerist tendencies, rather than their democratic tendencies, to get them on the first rung of the ladder, which is registration.
Other authorities have introduced an extensive training programme for their canvassers, and given them small, more manageable areas to cover. There are those who have paid by results: not necessarily by the number of houses that canvassers call at, but by the numbers signed up. Some authorities use telephone to contact non-responders, or leave a calling card.
A carrot and stick approach has sometimes been adopted. I believe that one authority says that if people fill in their electoral registration form they can have six months' free attendance at the local baths. Perhaps it
318WH
should up the stakes to gain appeal, but at least lateral thinking has been used. That was the carrot. Other authorities have told people that if they do not register, they will take them to court, where they can be fined £1,000. Perhaps the carrot and stick approach should be considered more widely. Some electoral registration officers have said that, when they have taken people to court—something that takes up a great deal of officer time—only a £10 fine has been imposed, so it was not worth repeating the exercise.
Other sound advice offered in "Turnout at Local Elections" includes liaising with other departments in the council. Often, council departments are reluctant to share information, because of the Data Protection Act 1998. The Act is used by many officers—and others—as a reason for inaction. I urge the Minister to go into the specifics of the issue, and to set out guidelines on what is acceptable or unacceptable in the sharing of data between local authority departments.
The two streets in my constituency with the highest levels of non-registration are on a council estate. Both the housing department and the council tax department have the details of who lives at those addresses. Information exchange could easily lead to a rapid increase in registration, but the officers need guidance.
Another sensible suggestion is that local authorities should work in consortiums to encourage registration. They may want to engage in joint advertising. In north Wales four authorities have, I believe, clubbed together, and are advertising on the back of buses. We should also carefully consider the matter of anonymous registration. If people believe that they can register anonymously, they may be more willing. The relevant wording needs to be correct.
Many of the measures for improving voter registration that I have outlined have been aimed at local government electoral registration departments. I have spoken to several electoral registration officers and to MPs and listened to their point of view. The officers would like central Government, or the National Assembly for Wales, to help promote registration. Some felt that central Government could undertake more central advertising in the local as well as the national press. Many electoral registration officers are overworked. Do they have the time, the training or the budgets to hold seminars and training on best practice?
Mr. Russell Brown: I congratulate my hon. Friend on succeeding where I failed, in securing the debate. He and I would agree that one of the major issues that has led to the decrease in numbers on the register is legislation that was recently passed in this House. In 2002, Scotland lost 140,000 electors. I do not believe that the electoral registration officers were prepared for that legislation. Would he agree that we need to encourage electoral registration officers and their staff to ensure that there is a follow-up on every doorstep, as we do at census time?
Chris Ruane:Yes, my hon. Friend raises some valid points that I have put to the Minister. He has written to me on the matter and has pointed out that the changes that we introduced two years ago allow local authorities a two-year carry-over: if a person registers in one year, he can stay on for two years. In the past, the law allowed

319WH
only one year. I point out to the Minister that that might have been the law, but the common practice was that those people stayed on in that house until somebody new went into it. Law and practice need to be considered.
Some electoral registration officers feel that MPs, councillors and National Assembly members could play a visible role in encouraging the electorate to register. If I had been asked not long ago what role I or other hon. Members had played in helping to encourage registration, I would have had to say that I had done nothing. Since I have been made aware of the issue, I have put down parliamentary questions and sponsored this debate. We have an important role, and we have to be careful how we approach the electoral registration officers. They do a good job with limited budgets, and often do not have the status that they deserve; people are interested in them only at election time, then they fade into the background. We need to work in co-operation with them, and to recognise their professionalism.
I have mentioned data exchange between council departments. Will the Minister also look at data exchange between Whitehall Departments and local authorities? What information could be legitimately exchanged, for example, with the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Authority? The United States has introduced "motor voter"—when one goes to licence a car one is automatically put on the electoral register. Could we adopt similar policies in this country?
The main areas of non-registration are, as I have mentioned in the poorest wards. Should the Benefits Agency give details to the electoral registration departments? Again, whenever such initiatives are mentioned, the blinds go down and we are told, "Data Protection Act; we cannot do anything." If the rules on data protection allow the exchange from certain Whitehall Departments to local authorities, please can advice and guidelines be issued to encourage those Departments and authorities to take it up? If the rules do not allow it, can the Minister ask Cabinet colleagues to review data protection legislation in order to allow it?
In summary, I ask the Minister, first, to commission research on electoral registration, taking into account key factors such as poverty; secondly, that he collate practices that he knows to have increased voter registration and circulate them; thirdly, that he carefully monitor key elements of electoral registration, such as budgets allocated to local authorities' electoral departments, electoral registration figures and the take-up of best practice; and fourthly, that he undertake a massive, centrally funded advertising campaign, especially in the constituencies that are known to have electoral under-registration, while urging MPs to get involved in that process.
Will the Minster also have a word with the Boundary Commission? That is key. It has freeze dates at which the electoral roll is recorded—the one in my constituency was last December, and there are now 3,000 potential electors in my constituency who have not been taken into account. Such figures should be taken into account. Finally, will he work closely with other Ministers to ensure maximum information exchange between Whitehall and local government? If all the above were successful, registration would dramatically improve and so would the democratic process
4.19 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs (Mr. Christopher Leslie):I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Clwyd (Chris Ruane) on securing the debate. He motored through myriad good and interesting suggestions and made important points that merit a lot of scrutiny. In the short time available to me, I shall try my best to answer some of those points. I thank him for being so assiduous and determined to pursue this issue through parliamentary questions and elsewhere, because it is a topic that does not often receive as much attention as it deserves.
My hon. Friend was correct to say, at the outset, that voter registration is the fundamental building block of the democratic process. That might seem obvious, but it is true, and it is the basis for all our other electoral processes. We fully recognise the importance of an accurate and up-to-date electoral register. Without being on the electoral register, a person cannot exercise their right to vote. A significant drop in registration levels, if it were due simply to eligible persons not, for whatever reason, registering to vote, would be a matter for serious concern.
Let us consider how the electoral registers are assembled. We recognise that local authorities have a key part to play in publicising voter registration arrangements and in ensuring that people complete and return voter registration forms. The Representation of the People Act 1983 requires electoral registration officers to compile the electoral register. Regulation 23 of the Representation of the People Regulations 2001 permits an electoral registration officer to require anyone to give information required for the purposes of his duties in maintaining registers of parliamentary and local government electors. My hon. Friend wanted to see those powers given to registration officers, and I am glad to see that they have been granted, at least in part, in more recent regulations.
It is an offence punishable on conviction by a fine not exceeding £1,000 to fail to comply with a request for information from an electoral registration officer, or to give false information. Prosecutions for non-compliance are initiated at local discretion. Although no central record is kept of such prosecutions, I understand that they are relatively rare—only a handful over the past year or so.
What are the possible reasons for the apparent fall that my hon. Friend mentions in the statistics that he has compiled through parliamentary answers? It is not clear what is behind those falls in registration levels. A decline in population may be one cause in certain areas; a number of constituencies involved are inner-city seats where there has been an established trend of a fall in population. Under-registration of certain categories of voters, such as young people and minority ethnic communities, may also be an issue, as might the general sense of disengagement from the political process. Differing promotional strategies adopted by electoral administrators have also been mentioned as a possible factor.
However, the laudable tidying-up of the electoral register, bringing greater flexibility and, more important, greater accuracy, following some of the new measures, may also have inflated some of that cyclical

321WH
decrease. A newer register might be a more accurate reflection of the genuine position than the apparently larger, but older and more outdated register. In any event, we should take care not to prejudge the work being undertaken on registration issues by the Electoral Commission, which my hon. Friend asked me about, and which I shall talk about shortly.
What action are the Government taking on the important issue of voter registration? We have taken a number of steps to improve procedures. Following recommendations made by an all-party working group on electoral procedures in 1999, we introduced provisions for a number of changes in the Representation of the People Act 2000.
Those measures included rolling registration. That enables people to register at any time of the year, whereas previously electors had only one chance to register, which was each autumn. If they missed it, they had to wait until the next year before they could register. The change has been particularly helpful for people who move during the year, as they may now apply to register at their new address as soon as they take up residence. It also assists others who may have missed the annual canvass for whatever reason or who find that somehow they have been missed off the register. Rolling registration makes it easier for individuals to register to vote and for electoral registration officers to achieve more accurate and up-to-date electoral registers.
The 2000 Act recognised that registration officers should continue to be required to review the electoral register each year, to sweep up people who may have moved and not registered under rolling registration. In response to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Mr. Brown), I can tell him that there continues to be an annual canvass, which is conducted with reference to residence on a particular date—15 October is the current date—alongside rolling registration. The changes mean that, for the first time, people without a permanent address can register to vote by making a declaration of local connection. That formally separates the franchise from property for the first time. That means that homeless people, patients in mental hospitals and prisoners on remand can now register to vote.
The 2001 regulations also provide for electoral registration officers to retain a person's details on the register for an extra year when he or she has not returned the annual canvass form. That means that an elector can continue to appear on the register without any confirmation from them that they are resident and eligible to vote, if the electoral registration officer is satisfied that they should still be registered. Only if a person has not completed the annual canvass form for two consecutive years will that person's details be removed from the register. That contrasts with the previous arrangements, in which registration officers were required to remove a person's name after only one failure to renew.
322WH
Some concern was voiced about that change resulting in voters being wrongly removed from the register, but, as I have explained, we have relaxed the previous arrangement in which names were required to be removed after one failure to return the canvass form. We now allow persons to stay on the register for two years before they are removed. I hope my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Clwyd will agree that it is reasonable that after two years, the registration officer should require confirmation that a person is still resident at a particular address and eligible to vote before they are included on the register. That is a sensible measure, which was recommended by the all-party working group that I mentioned earlier.
My hon. Friend also mentioned data and data sharing and suggested that we should not rely only on electoral registration officers to find information. The new powers also allow electoral registration officers to inspect records kept by the local council that appointed them and those kept by a registrar of births, deaths and marriages to enable them to maintain accurate details on the register. That means that when, for example, an electoral registration officer suspects that a person should be registered but has not received a canvass form, he can confirm that person's residence by reference to other data.
The point about the poll tax effect and people being scared off registering to vote because it will make them eligible to council tax is not a concern. Regulations prohibit council tax officials from using the electoral register as a taxation base, so the idea that information will feed back should not deter people from registering to vote. Other changes, including those to service voter regulations, also mean that the electoral register can now be more accurate.
Under-registration requires attention, and some research suggests that certain people, especially younger people and minority ethnic communities, are concerned about registration. We will not be complacent and will continue to work on that. My hon. Friend asked about the Electoral Commission's research; it is reporting on several matters. It is independent of Government, and it is right for it to focus on different issues. It recognises that there is a problem with under-registration; it has a publicity strategy for long-term registration activities, and it is undertaking a lot of further research. I understand that it plans to complete its research early next year, and I will examine my hon. Friend's suggestion about the date of commencement. We welcome the commission's work.
Registration levels are central to the democratic process, and it is right that we should be interested in them. We must ensure that all aspects are understood and taken into account in deciding whether there is a genuine problem and, if so, in considering any solution. The Electoral Commission will no doubt assist in that, and I confirm that we will consider seriously any of its proposed solutions.
It being half-past Four o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the sitting lapsed, without Question put.