asked Her Majesty's Government:

My Lords, the national programme for NHS IT is currently developing improved anonymisation services to support activities that rely on NHS patient information. We expect that by 2007 the Patient Information Advisory Group will have evaluated these services, advised the Government on where anonymised information must be used as an alternative to disclosing confidential patient information without consent, and indicated whether there is a need for continuing legislative support for key work. Consideration can then be given to whether there is a continuing need for an advisory group.

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his reply. I should like to quote him back to himself. He said in a debate on 7 January,

"it remains to be seen whether the wonders of IT will ultimately remove the need for identifiable data for the purposes of epidemiology.[Official Report, 7/1/04; cols. 209ߝ10.]

My Lords, I pay tribute to the work of the cancer registries. I, as always, retain a healthy scepticism about all sorts of things, but in this particular instance, the Government are ensuring that nothing is changed from the present arrangements until PIAG has seen that the new secondary uses services that will be introduced under the new IT programmes are working satisfactorily.

My Lords, is my noble friend aware how much the Government's change of view on some issues in the Human Tissue Bill has been welcomed by the medical research community? I remind the House of my interest, as chairman of Cancer Research UK. On informed consent and the transfer of information, will my noble friend do all he can to make sure that the Government take an equally practical and pragmatic approach in order to safeguard life-saving research?

My Lords, as I was trying to indicate, the Government will, through their new IT programme, be setting up a secondary uses service, which is for the people who do not deal with direct patient care, such as researchers and public health communities. They will have that service, which will protect their research interest. Taking a belt and braces approach, we are keeping the PIAG system in place to ensure that everything is satisfactory and the best interests of researchers and patients are served.

My Lords, the setting up of PIAG—for which my noble friend Lady Northover must take a great deal of credit—was a very important step in allowing the transfer of information to cancer disease registries, as the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff, pointed out. When we debated this in January, the Minister said that decisions were imminent, yet we still seem very slow in giving certainty to the disease registries. Has the Minister considered making cancer notifiable so that the information can be passed without recourse to PIAG?

My Lords, we keep those issues under review. However, I thought that I was giving certainty in my Answer. I said that by 2007 PIAG would be able to evaluate the new services and see whether changes are necessary.

My Lords, is the Minister aware that there is quite a deal of concern in the medical community about the national patient record system and the effect on patient confidentiality that it may have? Can he assure me that this is being looked at closely and that the department is taking it seriously?

My Lords, Professor Aidan Halligan, one of the deputy chief medical officers in the department, has been given the job of making sure that the needs and concerns of clinicians are fully met as the NHS IT national programme is rolled out.

My Lords, will this information be held centrally, because there are many health bodies, and nobody quite knows what each does? Will the information be available to universities and those people who want it for research?

My Lords, the NHS programme for IT will create a new national patient record system in England. There will be a range of abilities to access it, based on people's need to know and the confidentiality and security arrangements that are appropriate. Researchers in universities and elsewhere who are involved in this area will be regarded as secondary users and will have the services that I have described.

My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. In doing so, I should declare that over 30 years ago, I was diagnosed with anorexia.

My Lords, implementation of the National Institute for Clinical Excellence guidelines on eating disorders is a matter for primary care trusts, with strategic health authorities and the Healthcare Commission maintaining an oversight role.

My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. Is he aware that more than 1.1 million people, most of them young people, are suffering from those illnesses? Their access to treatment is, at best, patchy and, in many places, inadequate. Surely GPs and practice nurses should receive advice on how they can recognise those illnesses so that they can prevent possible death.

My Lords, services for people with eating disorders are available throughout the country, in both primary and secondary care, but we recognise that expertise and services are unequally distributed around the country. That is precisely why the National Institute for Clinical Excellence guidelines were published in January as part of a programme to improve services.

My Lords, one of the problems with eating disorders and their treatment is, to a large extent, the lack of a clinical evidence base on the most effective treatments. There has been some concern about the impact of regulations made under EU Clinical Trials Directive on the ability of those trials to be carried out. What can the Minister say on that subject?

My Lords, we have been over the ground of the EU Clinical Trials Directive many times and no doubt we will go over it again. The Government's position is clear. We have implemented the EU directive. I am not aware that it is going to have any adverse effect on research in that particular area.

My Lords, does the Minister agree that the recommendations and guidelines from the National Institute for Clinical Excellence in this field are extremely welcome? Nevertheless, does he accept that many patients who suffer from eating disorders are very difficult indeed for doctors to identify because they often have a remarkable expertise in concealing the nature of their condition from their doctors, their parents and others who care for them? Does he feel that the guidance from the national institute is good enough to help doctors to identify patients with those conditions?

My Lords, that guidance was the result of a great deal of discussion and consultation with a wide range of interests. It recommends the best practice that is available in this country.

My Lords, do those patients come under mental health as a specialty?

My Lords, the issue of eating disorders was covered in the National Service Framework for Mental Health. The National Director for Mental Health, Professor Louis Appleby, is conducting a review of the provision of all specialised mental healthcare to provide advice to the commissioner. That review will cover eating disorders as well.

asked Her Majesty's Government:

My Lords, all forms of generation require some degree of back-up to cater for unexpected interruptions. The fact that wind power is intermittent has implications for the level of back-up required, but work undertaken by the National Grid Company following the energy White Paper indicates that the electricity system could manage with the increasing reliance on wind generation implied by our renewable targets and aspirations. The back-up could be provided either by conventional or non-intermittent sources of renewable energy such as hydro or biomass.

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. Are the costs of that full-time fossil fuel back-up currently factored into the costs of wind farms? Does he agree that having full-time fossil fuel back-up generation in place for wind farms means that no matter how many wind farms we build, we will still not attain our emissions target?

Yes, my Lords, that is factored into the cost. Where wind power provides up to 10 per cent of the renewable target, that back-up has little effect on the cost. If one reached the probably extreme position of 20 per cent of the renewable target being met by wind, one would begin to need to factor in the cost of the back-up, but that would probably come to about 0.5p per kilowatt hour. I see no reason why that should prevent us meeting our emissions targets.

My Lords, will the Minister advise us once more about the situation in south-west Scotland? That is the best area for wind generation, yet the Ministry of Defence consistently opposes any form of wind farm being sited there. Therefore, how are the Government going to meet their target for renewable energy if the ministry continues to cause delay in planning applications for wind generators?

My Lords, the answer is exactly the same as it was on the previous occasion. The MoD and the Civil Aviation Authority, via the wind energy and civil and military aviation working groups, are working to resolve the planning issues to make certain that wind turbines are properly sited.

My Lords, in view of the relatively small contribution that wind power is making to electricity generation and to the back-up required, is it not time for the Government to reconsider extending the same kind of incentives to other ways in which emissions can be reduced, such as combined heat and power—the Minister will not be surprised to hear that from me—clean coal technology and the recovery of methane from coal mines?

No, my Lords, if that were the right course of action, the Government would have taken it.

My Lords, is it the case that wind power is inefficient and unreliable, having only a 30 per cent load factor, and that it is also environmentally unattractive, intrusive, noisy, harmful to wildlife and ruinous of our countryside? Against that background, would it not be more sensible to place more reliance on the more efficient, reliable and durable source of nuclear power?

My Lords, I repeat what I said previously. It is quite extraordinary to refer to wind turbines as environmentally unattractive and promptly suggest that the environmental solution is to have nuclear power. Whatever one's view is about nuclear power, there are considerable and very real environmental issues involved. As far as the cost is concerned, the load factor is taken into account in the calculations, which still show that the market is making the right judgment, which is that, as of today, the cheapest source of renewable energy is almost certainly wind power.

My Lords, is my noble friend aware of academic studies which tend to show that when fossil fuel power stations are ramped up—to use the current expression—when the wind does not blow, that almost entirely negates the benefits of wind power when the wind blows? Does he agree with those studies or not?

My Lords, I am not aware of those studies. I would be very surprised if that is the case. As far as I am aware, it is quite clear that you can have back-up, particularly if it is gas-fired conventional generation, which very quickly can provide the necessary back-up. That in no way negates the benefits. I find it hard to see how it can, given that it is intermittent, negate the benefits of the renewable.

My Lords, have the Government made any calculation of the point at which the expansion of wind power will require the expansion of stand-by generating capacity to deal with the fluctuations which might arise from that wind power?

My Lords, it depends on making judgments about a whole series of issues, such as the geographical dispersal of wind farms, and so on. But as I indicated, up to about 10 per cent of energy from wind turbines has very little impact. If 20 per cent of energy comes from wind turbines, a significant amount of plant margin is needed. But, as I explained, it is only about 0.5p per kilowatt hour that increases the cost.

My Lords, is there not a real danger to security of supply by relying on wind turbines as part of the spare capacity? Unless we are going to waste power station output by keeping them running— but not feeding to the grid because there are windmills—we are in fact saving nothing, but also putting security of supply at risk. Will the Minister not listen to the growing dissent about the construction of wind farms as being unacceptable environmentally and useless so far as productivity is concerned?

My Lords, I think the noble Lord is unaware that one can turn the back-up on and off as required.

My Lords, does the Minister agree that tidal power is constant and reliable? Is he confident that his department is doing all it can to bring tidal power forward?

My Lords, clearly tidal power is another very useful source of energy, but it remains very expensive. Research is under way on how to bring that into an area in which it will make economic sense.

My Lords, is the Minister aware that his right honourable friend the Prime Minister said this morning in a Select Committee that one of the reasons for not committing to nuclear at this stage was because it was more costly than other sources of energy?

My Lords, of course the Prime Minister was right. That is an article of faith for all junior Ministers. I shall explain why he is right. He is right because at the moment there are very few data which give the cost of nuclear power to date—there are practically no up-to-date— nuclear power stations being built in the West, although there have been some in South-East Asia. There are very few data about which one can confidently say that they give the current costs of nuclear power.

My Lords, have the Government taken any steps to arrest the anticipated reduction in electricity generation from nuclear and fossil fuel sources?

My Lords, that is what the whole renewal programme is about. It is to provide alternative sources to fill the requirements as we go forward.

My Lords, far be it from me from this Bench to add to the wind unnecessarily a wind that blows where it will, according to the Holy Scriptures. Does the Minister acknowledge that the sheer volume of questions on this and similar subjects which has arisen in this House over the past year indicates quite a widespread anxiety about the combination of reliance upon intermittent sources and increasing quantities of gas imported over very large distances? It indicates an underlying concern about security of energy supplies in the future.

My Lords, that is entirely right. There clearly is anxiety in this House about this question of energy security. That is an important area for this country as we move into a world where we are an importer of energy. It is right that this House should consider this matter very seriously. Equally, it is for the Government to point out what action we are taking.

asked Her Majesty's Government:

My Lords, the Government are determined to tackle corruption globally, including in Africa. Corruption is a complex phenomenon and the Government are engaged in a range of measures to tackle corruption in Africa, as well as in other regions of the world—for example, by raising governance standards in African countries. Part 12 of the Antiterrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 makes a small contribution to that. It gives the UK courts extraterritorial jurisdiction over offences of bribery committed overseas by UK companies or nationals.

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for that Answer. Given the last point she made—that the whole purpose of Part 12 was to enable us to prosecute UK companies here, where their corruption or bribery had been in states incapable or unwilling to enforce it there—why is it that extra resources have not been made available to the prosecuting authorities here so that they can do the job? I would ask her particularly about the Democratic Republic of the Congo where, according to a recent United Nations report, British companies were identified as being exploiters of its mineral wealth and yet nothing has happened so far. Why is that? Will the Minister not accept that unless there is prosecution here under the Act, the Act is pointless?

My Lords, we are well aware of the strong interest of the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, in the possibility of progress in the DRC. I will come to the UN panel issue that he raised on the DRC in a moment. Part 12 of the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act allows for the prosecution of offences of bribery committed by UK nationals and incorporated bodies abroad. It does not, as the noble Lord knows, apply to other criminal offences.

My Lords, I declare an interest as a member of Transparency International UK's advisory council, and as a member of the scrutiny committee on the draft Corruption Bill. I ask my noble friend the Minister to join me in congratulating the African Union on its preparations for its own convention against corruption, which is I hope being agreed in Addis Ababa as we speak. Can she tell me how our Government's plans are progressing for our legislation, including the legislation that we need to ratify the United Nation's convention against corruption? We do not want to lag behind the African Union, do we?

My Lords, I certainly agree with my noble friend that we congratulate the African Union on its preparations for the convention against corruption. Indeed, we welcome such regional initiatives, which are designed to complement the aims of the convention.

My Lords, could the Minister give an example of our ability to influence those other countries, with the aid of our African friends who are on the same side—perhaps starting with Mr Mugabe as a specimen?

My Lords, on the issue of Zimbabwe and corruption, under the Cotonou agreement between the European Community and the African, Caribbean and Pacific states, consultations have led to the application of appropriate measures against Zimbabwe, as the noble Lord will know, under Article 96, which deals with breaches of essential elements of democracy, human rights and rule of law.

My Lords, the Minister began by referring to good governance in Africa, and I am sure that we would all agree with her. However, may I suggest that we should start with better governance in the United Kingdom?

My Lords, perhaps the noble Baroness would allow me to write to her in detail about the disappointment that she has experienced over the correspondence she has had with the Home Office. The UK's anti-money-laundering regime involves directing primary legislation in the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 and secondary legislation against the menace presented by money-laundering to the UK and internationally.

My Lords, will the Minister confirm that the OECD is also examining the position of overseas subsidiaries? What international consensus on methods do the Government favour for dealing with corruption within those subsidiaries?

Yes, my Lords, I am aware of the OECD's involvement in that matter. The noble Earl will know that we have signed arid ratified the OECD's anti-bribery convention, under which we are obliged to do all that we can to combat bribery of foreign public officials in international business transactions. This month we have interviews with officials from the OECD to discuss how our own domestic legislation allows us to conform with the convention. We look forward to those interviews. Other countries that have recently been interviewed are France, Mexico, Canada, Korea and Turkey.

My Lords, does the Minister accept that some of the rest of us in this House have also pressed the Home Office on the total failure to respond to the Nigerian Government's issues with regard to the banking of funds that properly belong to them? Will she further accept that the tackling of corruption internationally and specifically in Africa is extremely difficult in the absence of effective and accountable political structures, as in the Congo; in the absence of the rule of law, as in Zimbabwe; and in the absence of effective and supportive neighbourly community life, as in many parts of Africa?

My Lords, I very much agree with the latter part of the right reverend Prelate's remarks. The Government, together with our international partners, are doing all that we can to tackle the cancer of corruption in many regions of the world. On the issue of repatriation of assets to Nigeria, we have agreed to transmit the evidence that we have on Abacha's assets to the Nigerian authorities. However, Abacha's solicitors have lodged an appeal.

My Lords, will the Government urgently review whether there are sufficient resources for enforcement of overseas corruption offences? Have the Government ever repatriated any confiscated assets to an African country, or do they intend to do so in the near future?

My Lords, we are not aware of any cases in which assets have been repatriated, and we believe that it is unlikely that there have been any. All cases are dealt with, as the noble Baroness will know, in line with the provisions of international arrangements and UK legislation. She will also know that under the UN Convention against Corruption, the UK will be obliged to return assets to the requesting state when the case involves the embezzlement or laundering of public funds.

My Lords, can the Minister say how many cases of alleged or suspected overseas bribery have been recorded by NCIS and what arrangements exist for sharing that information between European jurisdictions—for example, via Interpol?

My Lords, we do work with international partners. I cannot give details today, but I shall certainly write to the noble Lord with details of our work with Interpol. He asked me about the number of reports that we have received on corruption. Seven allegations have been reported by our diplomatic posts, one of several sources of reports. In total, 22 allegations have to date been reported to the UK investigating authorities. Noble Lords may be interested to see the UK bribery and corruption law leaflet that is distributed to all diplomatic posts, to businesses and to NGOs to enable people to learn more about what they can do to tackle corruption.

asked Her Majesty's Government:

My Lords, the letter from the most reverend Primates the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Archbishop of York was addressed to my right honourable friend the Prime Minister. That letter was intended to be private. My right honourable friend has replied by letter recently. The reply, as was the intention with the original letter, is private.

My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply so far as it goes. Were not the most reverend Primates absolutely right to state that the happenings in Abu Ghraib prison severely undermined the moral authority of the West? Is it not therefore very important that the forthcoming trials of former members of the Iraqi regime are not also a political own goal? Was it not therefore disappointing that in the court proceedings last week Americans ran the proceedings, the only civilians in the court were American soldiers dressed as civilians, the defendants had no legal representation, and most astonishingly of all, the transcript of the court proceedings was censored by the American military? Is it not essential that these trials should be credible and not just a staged event?

My Lords, of course, we understand the concern that has been expressed, including by senior clergy in the Church of England, about the alleged abuses of detainees in Iraq. The House will know that we take extremely seriously any allegations that are made against United Kingdom Armed Forces, and we investigate them. Eighteen investigations have been initiated relating to individuals detained by our Armed Forces, but only one of those relates to an incident at a formal detention facility. I want to make it clear that there is absolutely no evidence of systematic human rights abuses by UK forces either at detention centres or elsewhere.

My Lords, the Minister will know that the American Secretary of State, Donald Rumsfeld, published 24 interrogation techniques which had been applied to prisoners in Guantanamo. Senior people from Guantanamo went to Iraq. Is there a similar list of interrogation techniques published by this country, or available to be published by this country, and, if so, will the Government kindly publish it? It will be appreciated that Mr Rumsfeld admitted that four of the interrogation techniques employed were not in accordance with international standards or with the Geneva Convention.

My Lords, Guantanamo is rather wide of the Question, which specifically concerns the letter from the Archbishops of Canterbury and of York. I am not in a position today to comment in any detail on Guantanamo. However, the investigative methods used by UK troops and police are absolutely in accordance with the Geneva Convention. There is absolutely no question that any of those proceedings are carried out in a way that would be unacceptable to the noble Lord.

My Lords, is the Minister aware that while the two Archbishops wrote a letter that was not intended for publication, they wrote on behalf of, and with the encouragement of, their fellow Church of England bishops about a range of issues relating to Iraq and the Middle East, many of which have also been raised on these Benches on previous occasions? Is the Minister also aware that the priority of the letter was to promote a secure understanding of the importance of respect for human dignity, the rule of law and the indivisibility of religious freedom?

My Lords, I am grateful to the right reverend Prelate for his questions. We are very aware of the spirit in which that correspondence took place. It was written after a meeting of bishops. It is unfortunate that somehow or other that letter managed to find its way into the public domain, but it did and that is the fact of the matter. The more important part of the right reverend Prelate's question concerns the issues of moral authority that he raises. We agree that the matters that were raised in the letter were of great importance and significance.

My Lords—

My Lords, might it not be a good idea to look back to 1973 to the Compton inquiry into the ill treatment of detainees in Northern Ireland? It is most informative and relevant to the subject under discussion.

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend. We shall certainly take on board his suggestion.

My Lords, while all abuse of detainees and prisoners is absolutely disgraceful— the Archbishops are right to be concerned about it— and should be investigated properly and thoroughly, as I believe is being done, does the Minister agree that that in no way typifies the very dangerous and difficult work undertaken by the British Armed Forces in Iraq in carrying out their daily programmes and operations, and that they deserve full, continuous and repeated support from all quarters?

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his question. Of course, I agree with him completely. Our Armed Forces have done, and continue to do, an outstanding job in southern Iraq. The House may be interested to know that more than 55,000 servicemen and servicewomen have served in Iraq and that a tiny, tiny minority is alleged to have been involved in incidents involving the ill treatment of Iraqi civilians. A number of those have already been cleared of any wrongdoing. It is important not to exaggerate the numbers, as has been done in some cases, and to realise, as the noble Lord suggests, that what our Armed Forces have done in Iraq is, frankly, to get rid of the tyrant, Saddam Hussein, and give that country a chance to enjoy peace and democracy.

My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.

My Lords, on behalf of my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor, I beg to move the Motion standing in his name on the Order Paper.

My Lords, on behalf of my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.

My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill do now pass.