Written Statement of 21 June 2004

DEFENCE

  European Defence Agency
  The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon)
  The General Affairs and External Relations Council of the European Union agreed on 14 June to the establishment of a European defence agency in the fields of defence capabilities development, research, acquisition and armaments. The agency will make a major contribution to the development of the military capability of EU member states, a key UK objective for the European security and defence policy. By rationalising and harmonising capability requirements, and linking those directly to industrial and research efforts, it will help improve the military effectiveness of European nations which will benefit both the EU and NATO. The work of the agency will be directed by a steering board consisting of national Defence Ministers to ensure it is subject to appropriate national control as well as being given the necessary political impetus.

  The Government regret that it was necessary to agree to the establishment of the agency, through a scrutiny override, before parliamentary scrutiny had been completed and before the debate, recommended by the European Scrutiny Committee on 9 June (22nd Report, 2003–04, HC42-xxii) could be held. The United Kingdom did not wish to prevent the decision to establish the agency being taken at the Council meeting given benefits expected from the creation of the agency and the influential role played by the United Kingdom in shaping and implementing its formation. I wrote to the Chairman of the European Scrutiny Committee on 10 June setting out this position. The Government are, nonetheless, fully committed to the need for national Parliaments to have proper oversight of EU issues and the establishment of the European defence agency will be debated in European Standing Committee B on 22 June.

  British Forces Post Office (BFPO)
  The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Mr. Adam Ingram)
  Key targets have been set for the chief executive of BFPO for financial year 2004–05. The targets are as follows:

  Key Target 1

  To provide a guaranteed 100 per cent. absolutely secure defence courier service for the carriage of protectively marked material (PMM).

  Key Target 2

  To provide a secure defence courier service for the carriage of protectively marked material (PMM) operating within timescales for scheduled and special items at not less than 98.7 per cent. of that agreed with customers.
  72WS
  Key Target 3

  To provide a resilient and dependable service for the controlled and specialised handling of defence official mails by operating at least 96 per cent. of deliveries within scheduled timings, agreed with customers.

  Key Target 4

  To meet 96 per cent. of the requirements negotiated and agreed with customers for the transit times for delivery and collection at defence mail centres.

  Key Target 5

  To meet 95 per cent. of the agreed customer requirement for the movement of private and official mails from BFPO London to authorised overseas destinations within agrees timescales.

  Key Target 6

  To achieve an overall 2 per cent. increase in efficiency.

CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS

  Elections and All-postal Ballots
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs (Mr. Christopher Leslie)
  Elections were held on Thursday, 10 June 2004 for local authorities in England and Wales, for the London assembly, for the Mayor of London and for the European Parliament. Following the passage of the European Parliament and Local Elections (Pilots) Act, voting in four regions of England—the north-east, the north-west, Yorkshire and the Humber and the east midlands—was by postal ballot.

  The elections were successfully completed. Six thousand and forty-four councillors were elected in England and Wales, twenty five members of the London assembly were elected, a Mayor of London was elected and 78 United Kingdom members of the European Parliament were elected.

  In summary the picture is as follows:
  In the four all-postal pilot regions, overall turnout in the European Parliamentary election has more than doubled from that in 1999, going up from about 20 per cent. to 42 per cent.
  In the other regions, turnout is also up, but by around half on their 1999 figures.
  Nearly 3 million more people voted in the four pilot regions in these European elections than in 1999.
  In places with all-postal local elections last week, turnout was substantially higher than elsewhere, with cities such as Leeds, Sheffield and Liverpool showing increases in turnout of around half as much again since the last local elections.

  We believe therefore that the all-postal pilots have shown, on a significantly larger scale than ever before, that a system in which a postal vote is automatically given to every elector positively encourages participation.

  The Electoral Commission will evaluate the pilots and its report is due to be published in mid-September. The Commission will examine the extent to which the manner in which the elections were conducted affected the incidence of electoral offences or malpractice. During the period of the elections, a number of allegations of malpractice were made. Allegations of

  73WS
  malpractice and fraud will be investigated. But with a small number of exceptions, such allegations are not reflected in either the experiences of the electoral administrators or reports to the Crown Prosecution Service. Regional returning officers are not reporting a higher volume of problems than in previous elections. For example, the regional returning officer for the North-west, Sir. Howard Bernstein, and the Greater Manchester police issued a joint statement saying:
  "While the nature of allegations has changed this year, the scale has not increased—if anything, it has lessened."

  There were also some concerns expressed about the witness signature requirement on the declaration of identity form. Both the Government and the Electoral Commission had reservations about this requirement, and it was almost certainly a factor in limiting turnout. In pilots in local elections in 2003 there was a significantly higher turnout where no witness statement was used. We believe that there are better alternative security arrangements which avoid complexity and avoid the need for an elector to disclose their intention to cast a ballot.

  There were, in addition, a number of technical difficulties experienced during the pilots. Returning officers, the Royal Mail and other suppliers have worked very effectively together to overcome these difficulties where they occurred. Of the 14.1 million ballot packs, over 99 per cent. were issued by returning officers by the deadline of midnight on 1 June. The few remaining packs were issued by 5.10 am the following morning. Royal Mail provided an outstanding service in supporting the administrators and suppliers and ensuring their role in the process was delivered effectively.

  Our judgment is therefore that these pilots confirm conclusions from previous pilots in 2002 and 2003. These have already been evaluated by the Electoral Commission which concluded that, with some further development, there should in future be a statutory presumption in favour of all-postal voting in local elections. The Government are therefore also confirming its intention for the proposed autumn regional referendums in the three northern regions to be on an all-postal basis.

  The success of the all postal pilots will provide a strong base from which we can develop a multi-channel approach to elections in the future, giving further choice and opportunity to electors to have their say. Lessons from the pilots will be incorporated into the Government's wider plans for electoral modernisation, which include both traditional methods of voting and alternatives such as postal balloting and electronic voting.

  Whilst testing all postal voting on this scale was bound to present challenges, those challenges were met, and the Government believe that this is a positive result for engagement and participation in the democratic process.
  74WS
  APPENDIX:

  1999 & 2004 European Election Comparison

  Region

  1999

  2004

  East Midlands

  22.6%

  44.6%

  North East

  19.6%

  41.5%

  North West

  19.4%

  41.5%

  Yorkshire & Humber

  19.6%

  42.9%

  East of England

  24.5%

  36.6%

  London

  23.0%

  37.7%

  South East

  24.7%

  36.5%

  South West

  27.6%

  37.8%

  West Midlands

  21.0%

  36.6%

  Scotland

  24.7%

  30.9%

  Northern Ireland

  57.8%

  51.7%

  Wales

  29.0%

  41.9%

  Total pilot regions

  20.2%

  42.6%

  Total non-pilot regions

  25.9%

  37.2%

  Total

  24.0%

  38.9%

  2004 European and Local Comparison

  Non-Pilot

  Pilot

  Percentage Point Difference

  European

  37.2%

  42.6%

  5.4

  Local

  37.9%

  43.6%

  5.7

  The table below compares turnouts for a sample of local authorities that did not pilot at the May 2003 elections with the results in the June 2004 elections, when all-postal voting was available.

  Local Authority

  2003

  2004

  Percentage Point change

  Liverpool

  21.70%

  33.50%

  11.8

  Leeds

  29.80%

  43.00%

  13.2

  Derby

  30.60%

  46.48%

  15.88

  The table below compares turnouts for local authorities that piloted in 2003 (when witness statements were not required) and again in 2004 (this time with witness statements required).

  Local Authority

  2003

  2004

  Percentage Point change

  Newcastle

  49.90%

  46.80%

  —3.1

  Sunderland

  47.70%

  40.50%

  —7.2

  Gateshead

  54.70%

  47.71%

  —6.99

  Trafford

  52.39%

  45%

  —7.39

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Reform of European Union Staff Regulations
  The Minister for Europe (Mr. Denis MacShane)
  The General Affairs and External Relations Council (GAERC) adopted the proposal to revise the staff regulations for EU officials on 22 March. While we noted that the European Scrutiny Committee had withheld clearance from the proposal when it met on 17 March and had recommended the document (15185/03) for debate, we supported the adoption of the proposal at
  75WS
  the 22 March GAERC. We considered the proposal met agreed UK priorities in the reform of the careers structure, pensions and pay of EU officials and would promote merit, efficiency and staff developments and deliver significant long-term savings in the EU budget.

  I regret however that we were unable to arrange the debate prior to agreement. This was due to the tight time frame involved. As the Parliamentary Under-Secretary
  76WS
  of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Mr. Rammell), explained in his letter to the Chairman of the Committee on 19 March, the GAERC needed to agree to the proposal in March to ensure that the new regulations would be in place in time for enlargement on 1 May. The debate with European Standing Committee B has now been scheduled for 23 June. I will be leading the debate.

  Hydebank Wood Prison
  The Lord President of the Council (Baroness Amos)
  My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.

  I wish to announce that, with effect from 18 June 2004, in accordance with the powers conferred on me by Rule 5(1) of the Prisons and Young Offenders Centre Rules (Northern Ireland) 1995, that part of the site of HM Young Offenders Centre Hydebank Wood known as Ash House and the adjoining land—as indicated on the attached site map—be designated as Hydebank Wood Prison. The parts to be designated as Hydebank Wood Prison are indicated by the words "Hydebank Wood" on the map that I have today placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

  European Union Staff Regulations
  The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean)
  The General Affairs and External Relations Council (GAERC) adopted the proposal to revise the staff regulations for EU officials on 22 March. While we noted that European Scrutiny Committee had withheld clearance from the proposal when it met on 17 March and had recommended the document (15185/03) for debate, we supported the adoption of the proposal at the 22 March GAERC. We considered that the proposal met agreed UK priorities in the reform of the careers structure, pensions and pay of EU officials and would promote merit, efficiency and staff development and deliver significant long-term savings in the EU budget.

  I regret, however, that we were unable to arrange the debate prior to agreement. This was due to the tight timeframe involved. As the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State (Bill Rammell) explained in his letter to the Chairman of the Committee on 19 March, the GAERC needed to agree to the proposal in March to ensure that the new regulations would be in place in time for enlargement on 1 May. The debate with European Standing Committee B has now been scheduled for 23 June. My honourable friend the Minister for Europe (Dr Denis MacShane) will be leading the debate.

  Millennium Dome and Greenwich Peninsula
  The Minister of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (Lord Rooker)
  My right honourable friend the Minister of State for Housing and Planning has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.
  WS 42
  On 29 May 2002, my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer of Thoroton advised the House of Lords that English Partnerships (EP) had entered into legally binding conditional contracts with Meridian Delta Ltd (MDL), a consortium consisting of Lend Lease and Quintain Estates and Development plc, and Anschutz Entertainment Group (Anschutz), for the future use of the Dome and development of approximately 190 acres of land on the Greenwich peninsula. Since then, planning permission and other consents have had to be secured under the terms of the May 2002 contracts, but I am pleased to be able to advise the House today that the conditions attached to those contracts have been satisfied and the overall transaction has gone unconditional. That is a major milestone in the regeneration of the Greenwich peninsula and the growth of the Thames Gateway.

  The long-term benefits that we have secured for future generations of Londoners are a fitting legacy for the Dome project and for the public investment that has gone into the Greenwich peninsula. £4 billion worth of private sector investment, including a £550 million cash return over the next 20 years, will bring new jobs, new homes, new services and infrastructure to London. That is a fantastic result, and it reflects the commitment and vision of all our private and public sector partners. Every £1 of public money on the peninsula has attracted over £6 from the private sector.

  The timetable going forward is now as follows: during the summer, Anschutz will appoint a contractor for the construction of the new arena inside the Dome, for work to start in spring 2005; and at the same time MDL will submit to Greenwich Council a planning application for Millennium Square, the major new public space proposed next to the Dome. MDL expects contractors to start delivering early infrastructure works to facilitate the wider development late in 2004 and, once detailed planning permission has been secured for the first phases, start of work on the housing and other facilities is expected in late 2005 or early 2006. Construction of the arena is expected to be completed in spring 2007, together with other leisure uses under the Dome roof, the plans for which Anschutz will he working up in the coming months. Millennium Square will be completed within the same timetable, and the residential development will be well under way by the time the new arena opens for business in 2007. This stage has been reached only through considerable effort and close co-operation among a number of private and public sector partners.

  English Partnerships has secured contracts that are set to deliver an exemplar sustainable community and a fabulous addition to London's entertainment facilities. EP will continue to work in partnership with the developers as work progresses and land belonging to EP, Quintain and other third parties is drawn down for development. The London Borough of Greenwich granted planning permission on 23 February 2004 for the development and was robust in securing a highly valuable package of measures of public benefit through the Section 106 agreement negotiations and related matters. The Mayor of London, through several of his functions and organisations—primarily Transport for London—has been instrumental in

  WS 43
  facilitating the planning permission and in completing elements of the contractual negotiations. MDL and Anschutz have both invested substantial time and considerable money already in preparing the physical plans and developing other matters in preparation for a long period of activity in developing the site and creating the sustainable community and a magnificent new entertainment hub for London.

  The development will see the creation of an estimated 24,000 new jobs; the building of over 10,000 new homes, 3,800 of which will be social rented, low-cost and family units; significant infrastructural improvements; 48 acres of open spaces and parkland; and the building of new community and healthcare facilities, including new schools. All of that will lead to the wider regeneration of the local area and beyond. Some £4 billion of private sector investment is expected from this transaction alone, and, throughout the peninsula, every £1 of public sector investment will lever in over £6 of private sector money.

  The development will continue the innovation and high quality established at the Millennium Village and elsewhere on the peninsula. The village is already paving the way on high-density living, achieving new levels of energy efficiency, creating the high-quality environment that is needed, and providing integrated services through the new school and health centre that are at the heart of the development. It is setting standards from which important lessons can be learnt and establishing best practice that will influence wider development on the peninsula and elsewhere. The development enabled by the completion of the transaction being announced today will deliver a community several times the size of the Millenniurn Village, while incorporating the type and variety of public facilities and infrastructure that are required of a 21st-century sustainable community. The number of new homes will also make a substantial contribution to delivering the step change announced in the Sustainable Communities Plan, particularly for the Thames Gateway growth area.

  Anschutz will transform the inner part of the Dome into a world-class, 26,000-capacity entertainment and sports arena. Anschutz is committed to investing at least £120 million in the arena, with EP receiving, after a priority return to Anschutz, 15 per cent of the profits. We cannot reveal the details of the priority return, as it impacts on Anschutz's ongoing business and is commercially confidential.

  The arena is only part of the story. In the outer rim of the Dome, Anschutz will construct a mixture of retail, entertainment and leisure facilities. That part of the development is currently known as the Dome waterfront. EP will receive at least a one-third share of the profits, after the developer's priority return. At least a further £65 million will be invested in the area by the private sector. EP will also receive payment for the hotel site next to the Dome.

  On the rest of the land, EP and MDL have agreed that they will develop the site jointly over the next 20 or so years, with an end date of 2025. The detailed terms provide for EP to retain ownership of its land until
  WS 44
  individual plots are required for development. The payout will work as follows: first, EP will receive an agreed, indexed minimum land value on the sale of any parcel of land, which will protect against any downturn in the market; secondly, a share of MDL's profits after deduction of development costs to reflect the enhanced planning consent and the market value at the time of sale to the developer. The share to be received by EP increases over time throughout the development phases from 40 per cent to 75 per cent. Where MDL develops land itself, English Partnerships will receive the agreed, indexed minimum land value plus a share of sale proceeds or the value of the development—both after costs—once the development is complete. That share ranges from 15 per cent to 20 per cent, depending on timing.

  Over the period of the deal, EP expects to receive a financial return of the order of £550 million in cash terms. That is based on a validated assessment of expectation from the sale of the land and includes neither any additional return that may flow from the profit shares in respect of the Dome nor any redevelopment proceeds in the event that the Dome is demolished after 2018. Up to that date, Anschutz and MDL are contractually required to maintain the Dome. Should the Dome structure ever be removed and the land redeveloped, EP will be entitled to a 50 per cent share of redevelopment proceeds. This protects English Partnerships' position on the redevelopment value of the land.

  With the completion of the contracts, English Partnerships' costs incurred in respect of the sale process and decommissioning of the Dome site have now ceased. The total costs incurred by English Partnerships in those areas that have now concluded are as follows:

  First Dome sale competition

  £6.7 million

  Latest sale process

  £9.0 million

  Decommissioning

  £6.7 million

  Total

  £22.4 million

  In addition, EP has already incurred costs of £8.2 million on the management, maintenance, security and insurance of the Dome site up to 31 May, offset by income from events and lettings of £1.4 million. Those figures have been regularly reported to Parliament. As reported to Parliament, EP will continue to meet the Dome's necessary management, maintenance, security and insurance costs until Anschutz completes the construction of the arena. However, those costs will gradually reduce as preliminary works start before the main contract commences. EP estimates that its average monthly cost will fall from the recent £190,000 to around £60,000 when the main arena contract starts in spring 2005.

  All of EP's costs from when it took ownership of the Dome in July 2001 to the completion of the arena's construction, including the costs of the entire sale process, will be recovered from sale proceeds. Based on the above figures to date and an estimate of the likely

  WS 45
  future management, maintenance, security and insurance costs, the total cost that EP expects to incur in relation to the Dome project, over six years and after taking account of offsetting income from events and lettings, is around £33 million.

  The Government, in recognition of the leading role played by the lottery through the Millennium Commission in helping to regenerate the Greenwich peninsula, have consistently stated that it will receive a fair share of proceeds from the sale and development of the Dome. The division of proceeds with the lottery has now been agreed. EP will retain all of the first £30 million of development receipts, to cover most of the Dome-related costs described above, as a first call on proceeds. Thereafter, EP will retain 87 per cent of receipts, and the remaining 13 per cent will be passed to the lottery in recognition of the contribution of the Dome. That share will be reflected in a new legal agreement between EP and the New Millennium Experience Company, which will bind the parties to the respective shares of proceeds over the period covered by EP's contracts with MDL and Anschutz.

  Under the terms of the original acquisition of the land, EP paid British Gas £20 million for the original transfer of the land, plus £4.3 million as a share of EP's sale receipts to date on the southern part of the Greenwich peninsula, as required in the original purchase transaction, which entitled British Gas to 7.5 per cent of all open market value land sales. British Gas has also received a further £10 million in respect of the enhanced value of Greenwich peninsula due to MDL's proposals and the retention of the Dome. That represents good value for money and reduces EP's liability under the original purchase agreement.

  In agreeing the deal, the Government focused on four main aspects: value for money; regeneration benefits for the area; deliverability; and an innovative use for the Dome. With regard to value for money, we made it clear throughout that we would proceed with the deal only if it provided value for money for the Government. That included comparison with the value for money that could be delivered by demolishing the Dome or in alternative development scenarios retaining the Dome. The currently estimated value of the development to EP—assuming that the full scheme is developed—of around £550 million will depend on market fluctuations over 20 years for the eventual out-turn, but we are confident that the structure of the deal will deliver excellent financial returns for the taxpayer as well as enormous public benefits.

  The deal enables the Government to benefit from the increasing value of the land on the peninsula both now and over time. That is sensible and in the public interest. As the development proceeds, land values will increase. That will be reflected in the land value element in the payment to EP when the land is sold for development. In turn, it will enable EP to reinvest more money in creating sustainable communities; in new housing, including for key workers; in environmental improvements; and in supporting the delivery of regeneration and best practice throughout England.
  WS 46
  The regeneration benefits are described briefly above. There is much more, which will become apparent only once the development has begun, environmental improvements are being made, jobs are being filled and homes are being built. It is a programme of fitting scale and quality for a site that was the centrepiece of the millennium celebrations and is now a flagship project for London and the Thames Gateway.

  As regards deliverability and sustainability, the participants in the development include players with established records in delivering developments of the size and quality this project requires. That is their core business. Anschutz Entertainment Group is part of the Anschutz Corporation, one of the largest private corporations in the United States of America. It has worldwide sporting and entertainment interests, including the Staples Centre arena in Los Angeles and the new arena it is building in Berlin. Lend Lease is a major development company, quoted on the Australian stock exchange and operating in 40 countries. It owns Bovis in the UK and has successfully developed the Sydney Olympic village and Bluewater shopping centre. Quintain is a significant player and is quoted on the London Stock Exchange. It is also involved in Wembley and several other large mixed-use developments and regeneration schemes. These players have the resources, the experience and the ability to deliver.

  The arena and associated entertainment and leisure facilities will be a highly appropriate use for what is widely acknowledged to be a world-class landmark building. Public access is assured. Keeping the Dome as the linchpin of the development has been welcomed by the London Borough of Greenwich and the Mayor. The Government believe that the regeneration programme now secured for the Greenwich peninsula amply satisfies all four of the criteria that were set out for it. We look forward to work starting on site in the near future, leading to the delivery of the continued regeneration of a key site in the evolution of Greenwich, London and the Thames Gateway.

  Elections: All-Postal Ballots
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Constitutional Affairs (Lord Filkin)
  Elections were held on Thursday June 10 2004 for local authorities in England and Wales, for the London Assembly, for the Mayor of London and for the European Parliament. Following the passage of the European Parliamentary and Local Elections (Pilots) Act 2004, voting in four regions of England—the north-east, the north-west, Yorkshire and the Humber and the east Midlands—was carried out by postal ballot. The elections were successfully completed. A total of 6,044 councillors were elected in England and Wales; 25 members of the London Assembly were elected; a Mayor of London was elected; and 78 United Kingdom members of the European Parliament were elected.
  WS 47
  In summary, the picture is as follows. In the four all-postal pilot regions, overall turnout in the European parliamentary election has more than doubled, compared to that in 1999, going up from about 20 per cent to 42 per cent. In the other regions, turnout is also up, but by around half on the 1999 figures. Nearly three million more people voted in the four pilot regions in these European elections than in 1999. In places with all-postal local elections last week, turnout was substantially higher than elsewhere, with cities such as Leeds, Sheffield and Liverpool showing increases in turnout of around half as much again since the last local elections. We believe therefore that the all-postal pilots have shown, on a significantly larger scale than ever before, that a system in which a postal vote is automatically given to every elector positively encourages participation.

  The Electoral Commission will evaluate the pilots, and its report is due to be published in mid-September. The commission will examine the extent to which the manner in which the elections were conducted affected the incidence of electoral offences or malpractice. During the elections, a number of allegations of malpractice were made. Allegations of malpractice and fraud will be investigated, but, with a small number of exceptions, such allegations are not reflected in either the experiences of the electoral administrators or reports to the Crown Prosecution Service. Regional returning officers are not reporting a higher volume of problems than in previous elections. For example, the regional returning officer for the north-west, Sir Howard Bernstein, and the Greater Manchester Police issued a joint statement saying:
  "While the nature of allegations has changed this year, the scale has not increased—if anything, it has lessened".

  There were also some concerns expressed about the witness signature requirement on the declaration of identity form. The Government and the Electoral Commission had reservations about that requirement, and it was almost certainly a factor in limiting turnout. In pilots in local elections in 2003, there was a significantly higher turnout where no witness statement was used. We believe that there are better alternative security arrangements which avoid complexity and avoid the need for electors to disclose their intention to cast a ballot.

  There were, in addition, a number of technical difficulties during the pilots. Returning officers, the Royal Mail and other suppliers worked very effectively together to overcome those difficulties where they occurred. Of the 14.1 million ballot packs, over 99 per cent were issued by returning officers by the deadline of midnight on 1 June. The few remaining packs were issued by 5.10 the following morning. Royal Mail provided an outstanding service in supporting the administrators and suppliers and ensuring that their role in the process was delivered effectively.

  Our judgement is therefore that the pilots confirm conclusions from previous pilots in 2002 and 2003. These have already been evaluated by the Electoral Commission, which concluded that, with some further
  WS 48
  development, there should in future be a statutory presumption in favour of all-postal voting in local elections. The Government are therefore also confirming their intention for the proposed autumn regional referendums in the three northern regions to be on an all-postal basis.

  The success of the all-postal pilots will provide a strong base from which we can develop a multichannel approach to elections in the future, giving further choice and opportunity to electors to have their say. Lessons from the pilots will be incorporated into the Government's wider plans for electoral modernisation, which include traditional methods of voting and alternatives such as postal balloting and electronic voting.

  Although testing all-postal voting on this scale was bound to present challenges, the challenges were met, and the Government believe that this is a positive result for engagement and participation in the democratic process.

  1999 & 2004 European election comparison

  Region

  1999

  2004

  East Midlands

  22.6%

  44.6%

  North East

  19.6%

  41.5%

  North West

  19.4%

  41.5%

  Yorkshire & Humber

  19.6%

  42.9%

  East of England

  24.5%

  36.6%

  London

  23.0%

  37.7%

  South East

  24.7%

  36.5%

  South West

  27.6%

  37.8%

  West Midlands

  21.0%

  36.6%

  Scotland

  24.7%,

  30.9%

  Northern Ireland

  57.8%

  51.7%

  Wales

  29.0%

  41.9%

  Total pilot regions

  20.2%,

  42.6%

  Total non-pilot regions

  25.9%

  37.2%

  Total

  24.0%

  38.9%

  2004 European and Local Comparison

  Non-Pilot

  Pilot

  Percentage Point Difference

  European

  37.2%

  42.6%

  5.4

  Local

  37.9%

  43.6%

  5.7

  The table below compares turnouts for a sample of local authorities that did not pilot at the May 2003 elections with the results in the June 2004 elections, when all-postal voting was available.

  Local Authority

  2003

  2004

  Percentage Point Change

  Liverpool

  21.70%

  33.50%

  11.8

  Leeds

  29.80%

  43.00%

  13.2

  Derby

  30.60%

  46.48%

  15.88

  The table below compares turnouts for local authorities that piloted in 2003 (when witness statements were not required) and again in 2004 (this time with witness statements required).

  Local Authority

  2003

  2004

  Percentage Point change

  Newcastle

  49.90%

  46.80%

  -3.1

  Sunderland

  47.70%

  40.50%

  -7.2

  Gateshead

  54.70%

  47.71%

  -6.99

  Trafford

  52.39%

  45%

  -7.39

  Mental Capacity Bill
  Lord Filkin
  The Mental Capacity Bill was published on Friday in the other place. The Bill is the culmination of extensive consultation and careful consideration over many years of the needs of people who lack mental capacity. It also benefits considerably from pre-legislative scrutiny by a Joint Committee. The Committee made 99 recommendations for improvements to the Bill, 88 of which the Government accepted and used to improve the Bill introduced today.

  The overriding aim of the Bill is to improve the lives of vulnerable adults, their carers, families and professionals. It provides a statutory framework for decision making for people who may lack capacity, making it clear who can take decisions, in which situations and how they should go about it.

  The Bill is based on clearly defined principles. Its starting point is that everyone has the right to make their own decisions and must be assumed to have the capacity to do so, unless it is proved otherwise. No one should be labelled as "incapable". Each decision should be considered individually, and everyone should be helped to make or contribute to making decisions about their life. The Bill sets out clear guidelines for and limits on other people's role in decision making.

  The Bill has the potential to improve the lives of millions of people. At some point in their life, everyone is likely to be affected by mental incapacity, either personally or because of caring responsibilities. Up to two million people currently lack capacity, including, for example, over 700,000 people in the UK who suffer from dementia and 145,000 adults in England who have severe and profound learning disabilities.

  People affected by a lack of capacity are not well served by the current law, which has grown up in a piecemeal way. It is difficult to plan ahead for a time when you might lose capacity, and there is no reliable framework to support carers in their decision making. The absence of a clear legal framework means that it is not always clear who can do what, or how anyone can determine where another person's best interests lie. Some people may think that they can do whatever suits them, perhaps because of a family relationship. Others may err on the side of doing too little, worrying about criticism or even prosecution for the actions that they might take.

  We know that there is much good practice in making decisions on behalf of adults who lack capacity. The Bill will, over time, bring about a quiet revolution in public attitudes and practice, building on current good practice and existing statutory and common law rules. The Bill will provide greater empowerment and better protection for vulnerable people and for those who face the difficult and sensitive task of handling decisions on their behalf.

  The Bill offers better protection for people who lack capacity and for carers and professionals. For the first time, it offers statutory guidance to help assess what constitutes someone's best interests. All decisions must be made in the best interests of the incapacitated
  WS 50
  person, with adequate weight given to what they would have wanted—their wishes, feelings, values and beliefs—and ensure the least restrictive effect possible on their basic rights and freedoms.

  Guided by those principles, the Bill provides a legal basis for a person to undertake "acts in connection with care and treatment" on behalf of an adult who lacks capacity. That provision was drafted as a "general authority" in the draft Bill, but we have renamed and recast it to ensure that it is not misinterpreted or misunderstood. The provision is not about granting a new authority to intervene in the life of someone lacking capacity but simply confirms that carers are protected from liability when they demonstrably act in the best interests of a person who lacks capacity to consent to what is done.

  The Bill provides formal mechanisms to support the decision-making process and offer protection to those involved. It establishes lasting powers of attorney (LPAs), allowing people to appoint an attorney to act on their behalf if they should lose capacity in the future. Unlike a current enduring power of attorney (EPA), an LPA can extend to welfare and health matters, as well as financial matters, if the donor wishes. The Bill also creates a system of court-appointed deputies to replace and extend the current system of receivership in the Court of Protection.

  The Bill clarifies, with additional safeguards, the current common law rules about advance decisions to refuse treatment. This confirms that people may plan ahead, if they wish, to refuse specific treatments. A properly made, valid and applicable advance decision has the same weight as a refusal of treatment made by a person with capacity, but doctors will need to consider whether the advance decision is valid and applicable, and any doubt must always be resolved in favour of the preservation of life.

  There are other provisions to protect the needs of the person lacking capacity. The Bill introduces a new criminal offence of neglect or ill treatment that can he used against a carer, attorney or deputy who has ill treated or wilfully neglected a person who lacks capacity. A person found guilty of such an offence may be liable to a term of up to five years' imprisonment.

  The Bill sets up a new Court of Protection and a new statutory figure, the Public Guardian. Both will be built around the needs of those who lack capacity. The new court will have jurisdiction to consider applications for both financial and health and welfare decisions. The Public Guardian will be the registering authority for LPAs and court-appointed deputies and will work with other agencies, such as the police and social services, to respond to any concerns about possible abuse.

  Following the recommendations of the Joint Committee, the Bill provides for properly controlled research that respects the requirements in the Clinical Trials Directive (2001/20/EC) implemented in the UK on 1 May 2004. This will allow for research into

  WS 51
  conditions related to mental incapacity and how people with capacity problems can be helped. Research studies will be endorsed by a research ethics committee to ensure that the project is necessary, safe and cannot be done using people who have mental capacity. There will be stringent safeguards around an individual's participation in a study.

  The Bill will also now provide for an independent consultee to speak up for people who do not have a relative or carer when decisions are taken about serious medical treatment or long-term residential care. The intention is that such consultees will also be involved in annual care reviews for those people, where they have previously been involved in the original decision. There will be a regulation-making power to extend the provision to other serious decisions and vulnerable groups on which we intend to consult stakeholders.

  The Government agree with the Joint Committee that codes of practice will be essential for the proper
  WS 52
  and effective implementation of the new legislation and that drafts should be available to assist parliamentary consideration of the Bill. Therefore, codes of practice will be available at Commons Committee stage. There will be extensive consultation on full codes of practice to accompany the Bill when it becomes law, and they will be laid before Parliament in draft. Copies of the draft codes will be available in the Libraries, the Vote Office and the Printed Paper Office, when they are published at Committee stage.

  The Government very much welcomed the Joint Committee's finding that,
  "many of the fears that have been raised about possible connections between the draft Bill and euthanasia appear to be misplaced".

  The Bill has nothing at all to do with euthanasia. Its aim is to empower and increase protection for thousands of vulnerable adults. For the avoidance of any doubt, the Bill now expressly states that nothing in it affects the law on murder, manslaughter or assisted suicide.