Sitting of 18 December 2000

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]
SOCIAL SECURITY
The Secretary of State was asked—
SOCIAL SECURITY

  Means Testing
  Miss Anne McIntosh: What representations he has received on the impact of means testing on the take-up of benefits; and if he will make a statement. [141802]
  The Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Alistair Darling): The fact that almost three quarters of a million people have responded to the latest minimum income guarantee take-up campaign suggests that, until now, lack of awareness was probably a more significant influence.
  Miss McIntosh: Can the Secretary of State explain why he has cancelled the quinquennial review of the Benefits Agency? Is the Department of Social Security trying to hide something sinister, or is he trying to frustrate the House's scrutiny of the work of the Department and the agency—perhaps to prevent the discovery that the Government's means-testing policy of
  2
  the past five years has resulted in lower benefits take-up rates? Is he concerned that his previously clean-shaven image is being severely tarnished?
  Mr. Darling: I can see that the hon. Lady spent a weekend practising her question. In fact, she asked two questions. As it is Christmas, Mr. Speaker, perhaps you will allow me to address both important issues that she raised.
  First, the House will be aware that, on 15 March this year, I think, the Prime Minister announced that the Government intended to bring together the Employment Service and those parts of the Benefits Agency that deal with people of working of age to create a new agency, which will be established next year. Consequently, as the Government have already decided to bring together the Benefits Agency and the Employment Service, the usual quinquennial review of the Benefits Agency—which, in simple terms, is conducted to establish whether the Benefits Agency should continue for another five years—was clearly rendered redundant. That is why there is no quinquennial review.
  Additionally—for the sake of completeness—the hon. Lady will be aware that, at about the same time, I announced our intention to establish a separate organisation dealing with pensions and pensioners' interests. That deals with the first part of her question.
  Secondly, one of the interesting facts to emerge from the take-up campaign is that three quarters of a million people have responded to that campaign. To me, that implies that stigma, or reluctance to claim, is not the big disadvantage that people thought it was. The fact that three quarters of a million people have responded to the take-up campaign implies that they are interested and would like to know more about the minimum income guarantee.
  It is interesting also that, of those who did not receive the minimum income guarantee, just over half failed to do so because they had higher incomes than the current minimum income guarantee—which is why we are increasing the minimum income guarantee to £92 next year, and to

  3
  £100 in 2003—and 41 per cent. failed because they had too much money in the bank. As the hon. Lady will be aware, we are the first Government to get rid of the completely arbitrary and unreasonable limits that stop people receiving help just because they have modest sums in the bank. That is why we propose to scrap the capital rules.
  Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: My right hon. Friend will know that many lone parents are working very hard just to keep their heads above water. As failure to claim the guarantee is, in many cases, just ignorance, and as the world is full of ad men trying to get money out of the Government, will my right hon. Friend find someone very imaginative to do a campaign to bring that very excellent support to the attention of those who most need it?
  Mr. Darling: I agree with my hon. Friend that we want to get all those who are entitled to the minimum income guarantee to claim it. That is why we ran the advertising campaign to which three quarters of a million people have responded. However, as I told the House a moment ago, until now, the problem has been that many people who would have qualified for help have failed to do so because there is such a low limit on the sum that they can have in the bank before help is excluded. That is why we are scrapping the capital limits, as many of us have advocated doing for years. Additionally, in two years, we are introducing the pension credit so that, for the first time, saving is rewarded. We will be able to say to people that it always pays to save. Interestingly, Conservative Members oppose both those measures.
  Mr. Steve Webb: May I raise the issue of a benefit that has one of the lowest take-up rates—council tax benefit? A couple of weeks ago, the Department of Social Security published figures showing that 1 million pensioners—about 1,500 people per constituency—are failing to claim an average of £300 each to which they are entitled. Given that the number of people is, if anything, increasing slightly, is the Minister concerned about it? What does he plan to do specifically about council tax benefit?
  Mr. Darling: We are anxious that those who are entitled to benefit should receive it. Although we cannot make people claim money to which they may be entitled but which, for one reason or another, they do not want to claim, I think that two measures will help pensioners. First, as I said in reply to the hon. Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh), we are establishing a new organisation specifically to ensure that we can do more to get to pensioners money to which they are entitled far more quickly and effectively.
  Secondly, we are greatly simplifying the claims process and the claim form itself. As I have said before, I am confident that we can get rid of the current 40-page claim form and reduce it to fewer than 10 pages. I think that that will be a great help to all those who are entitled to benefits.
  Mr. Ian Davidson: Has my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State paid adequate attention to the percentage of poorest people applying to take up benefits? I appreciate that many more people are filling in the forms, but many of us are not convinced that
  4
  benefits are reaching those in greatest need. Will the Minister ensure that we focus on the poorest, many of whom retain the sense of stigma attached to claiming from the state?
  Mr. Darling: I disagree with my hon. Friend about the reluctance to claim. The Department of Social Security wrote to 2.5 million people whom it thought might be entitled to the minimum income guarantee, and 750,000 responded. That is far more than ever before.
  Mr. David Willetts: How many were successful?
  Mr. Darling: Just under half were successful. People are prevented from getting the minimum income guarantee either because they have too high an income—we are addressing that by raising the minimum income guarantee to £100 from 2003—or because they have too much money in the bank; that is, they have more than the permissible amount.
  The Conservatives argue that, because they are against the minimum income guarantee, they would give less to poorer pensioners. That is an absurd position, especially for the party that presided over a huge growth in the number of pensioners living in poverty. I agree with my hon. Friend that we need to do more to ensure that those who are entitled to the minimum income guarantee get it. We shall do more, but the evidence suggests that it is not stigma or fear of claiming that get in the way, but the current rules, nearly all of which we have pledged to get rid of over the next couple of years. That will mean that more people will get the help to which they are entitled.
  Mrs. Jacqui Lait: In order to assure us that the ranks of those on means-tested benefit will not be added to by Equitable Life policyholders, will the Secretary of State tell us whether either he or his Department has been in touch with that company or with the Financial Services Authority? If so, what advice did he give or receive? If not, what were his reasons—as a champion of older people—for not doing so?
  Mr. Darling: The answer to that question is that responsibility for the prudential supervision of insurance companies lies with the Financial Services Authority.

  Housing Benefit (Students)
  Mr. Simon Thomas: If he will make a statement on the payment of housing benefit to eligible students with loans. [141803]
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Angela Eagle): Most full-time students are supported by the student support system, which is designed to meet their needs. Full-time students in vulnerable groups and all part-time students are entitled to claim housing benefit.
  Mr. Thomas: The Government's policy of taking into account student loans as full income for housing benefit purposes is affecting mature students in particular, including students at the universities at Lampeter and Aberystwyth. Why count loans as income at all? After all,

  5
  they are usually paid back with interest at the end of a certain period. Why count loans as income in full, especially if an individual student has not taken out a loan or has taken out only a very small loan?
  Angela Eagle: It is our policy to count all eligible income, and that includes student loans. At the moment, only part-time or vulnerable students can apply for housing benefit. Extra protections are in place to ensure that we do all that we can to enable people in those categories to take advantage of the right to study. Changes will be introduced to the treatment of student loans in income-related benefits, which will mean that lone-parent students will be likely to receive more help during July and August than they have previously.
  The Department for Education and Employment will also introduce the child care grant, based on the cost of child care, which will help students who look after dependent children. I hear what the hon. Gentleman is saying, and we are doing our best to tailor the system to enable those who wish to take advantage of education to do so in a practical way.

  Winter Fuel Allowance
  Helen Jones: How many pensioners in Warrington, North are receiving the winter fuel allowance. [141804]
  The Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Alistair Darling): Our latest information is that around 11 million payments have already been issued for this winter, 16,300 of which have been made to those entitled in Warrington, North.
  Helen Jones: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Is he aware that pensioners in my constituency are very grateful for the ability to turn up their heating without worrying about the bills in winter? In the light of that, can he assure me that all eligible pensioners will receive their cheques before Christmas? Can he also tell the House what assessment he has made of the imp let on the health and well-being of pensioners if the Opposition were ever in a position to withdraw the winter fuel allowance?
  Mr. Darling: Everyone who has received a winter fuel payment in previous years should now have received their winter fuel payment. People who need to claim will also get their money by Christmas if they claimed by the beginning of November. We are still looking at the claims of a small number of people who have claimed since that time, and they will be paid early in the new year.
  As for the health of pensioners in the future, most Labour Members recognise the very real problem of fuel poverty, particularly among pensioners, that we inherited. When people judge the political parties, whenever the election comes, they will wonder at the Conservatives, who are making it clear that they will give less money to poor people and that there will be no Christmas bonus, no reward for saving, no free television licence and no winter fuel payment. That sounds like a remarkable manifesto—[Interruption.]
  Mr. Speaker: Order. May I make a request to the Secretary of State not to talk about Conservative policy? It is his policy that I am interested in hearing.
  Mr. John Bercow: Is the right hon. Gentleman genuinely satisfied that all backdated winter fuel payments to people in the Warrington, North constituency have now been received? In reflecting on his answer, is he conscious that on 11 April he said that all backdated payments would be made as soon as possible; that on 20 July, the Under-Secretary of State for Social Security, the hon. Member for Wallasey (Angela Eagle), said that they would all be made by the end of September; and that on 13 November, the hon. Lady said that the target date for ensuring that those backdated payments would be made was the end of March 2001, although she could not be certain that that target would be met? In the light of that, can the right hon. Gentleman tell us when he will get his act together? Secondly, can he offer us some indication of which will arrive first: the backdated winter fuel payments that are due or Billy Bunter's postal order?
  Mr. Darling: If the hon. Gentleman had his way, those payments would never arrive at all, because he wants to get rid of them. As I have just told my hon. Friend, all those who have received winter fuel payments in previous years should now have received them because they were sent out in good time for Christmas. The only people who needed to apply were men aged between 60 and 65, whose addresses the Department of Social Security does not necessarily have because there is no obligation on men of that age to tell the DSS where they live.
  All those who made their claims before the beginning of November should now have received their payment. A small minority of people applied after that time; their claims have to be processed, and we want to make those payments as soon as possible. We are anxious to ensure that all those who are entitled to this year's winter fuel payment of £200 get it. The payment is having a big impact on pensioners—something upon which the hon. Gentleman might care to reflect.

  Fuel Poverty
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: What steps the Government are taking to reduce fuel poverty. [141805]
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Hugh Bayley): We are developing a comprehensive strategy to tackle fuel poverty. The winter fuel payment makes an important contribution. For this winter only, we have increased the amount to £200—double the amount paid last winter.
  Mr. Bennett: May I assure my hon. Friend that the pensioners in Denton and Reddish are delighted with the £200? However, will he address two particular problems? First, some pensioners are reluctant to spend that money on heating and still live in houses that are inadequately heated. Spending the money on heating will improve the quality of their life no end, so will he plead with them to do so? Secondly, is he aware that too many pensioners

  7
  still live in houses that are heating the neighbourhood, and that he needs to work very hard to promote the Government's home energy saving scheme?
  Mr. Bayley: I thank my hon. Friend for those questions. Eliminating fuel poverty is important, and more needs to be done. The Government will soon publish their strategy on fuel poverty, which will address the issues raised by my hon. Friend. The reason why a one-off payment is made at the start of winter is precisely to encourage people to use it for the purpose of heating. It would be far less likely that the money would be spent on heating if the winter fuel allowance were abolished, or paid in weekly instalments.
  The old home energy efficiency scheme provided grants of up to £315 per household; the new scheme, which we introduced in June, can make payments of up to £1,000 per household and £2,000 for households with people aged over 60. That is a substantial improvement. By 2004, the new HEES budget will be £600 million and the scheme will be helping 800,000 vulnerable households—more than half of which will be pensioner households.

  Social Fund (Administration)
  Mr. Peter L. Pike: What percentage of the social fund is spent on administration costs. [141806]
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Angela Eagle): In 1998–99, social fund payments and recoveries amounting to £1,114 million were made at an administrative cost of £215 million. That cost represents 19.3 per cent. of both expenditure and recoveries.
  Mr. Pike: Although those figures show a massive improvement in the administrative costs of the social fund from those under the previous Conservative Government, does my hon. Friend agree that, as the Labour Government's priority is to help the poorest section of the community and as the social fund is aimed at that group, the fund and loans through it remain too expensive administratively? Is it not time that we introduced a better and fairer system to help the people who are most in need?
  Angela Eagle: We keep the system under review. Clearly, we need to drive down administrative costs as much as possible, although any system that entails us making detailed inquiries into individual circumstances will, by its nature, cost more than a more automatic scheme, such as child benefit. The Conservatives have said that they would take £90 million from the social fund; that would make it increasingly harder to give money to the poorest and most vulnerable.
  Mr. Julian Brazier: Will the Minister confirm that there was a 9 per cent. rise in a single year—last year—in applications to the social fund? What are the implications of that for the Government's progress in tackling poverty?
  Angela Eagle: The rise, I suspect, has something to do with the changes to the budgeting loan system, which we introduced last year and which enabled more people to apply. There has been a 9 per cent. increase in the
  8
  number of grants given; that is because extra people became eligible after the changes to the budgeting loan system.
  That system and the social fund can only be the fund of last resort. We are trying to tackle child poverty and other forms of poverty at their source. That includes introducing programmes such as the working families tax credit and enabling tone parents to go out to work to support themselves and their children by setting up child care and by allowing them to have access to initiatives such as the new deal for lone parents—which the Conservatives would scrap. We believe in dealing with the causes of poverty as well as its symptoms.
  Ann Clwyd: Will my hon. Friend confirm that the overall administration costs of the DSS may have increased because of its extra responsibilities of dealing with the miners compensation scheme? Is there a case either for scrapping that clawback altogether, or for increasing the number of administrators at the DSS to speed up the average of 28 days taken to deal with those claims?
  Angela Eagle: I can reassure my hon. Friend that the miners compensation scheme does not feature at all in the administrative costs of the social fund. I know that my colleagues at the Department of Trade and Industry are doing all that they can to speed up payments and to ensure that the oldest and most ill people are the first to receive the payments that they deserve.

  Minimum Income Guarantee
  Mr. Paul Flynn: What is his most recent estimate of the take-up of the minimum income guarantee. [141808]
  The Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Alistair Darling): The latest estimate is that nearly 2 million pensioners are claiming the minimum income guarantee. That will mean that the poorest pensioner households are at least £15 a week better off in real terms as a result of the measures that we have introduced since 1997.
  Mr. Flynn: It is a wonderful achievement for the Government that both the minimum income guarantee and the pensioner credit will be increased by the top level of inflation—by the earnings rate—and that the increase in pensions next year will he the first for 25 years that has been higher than both measures of the inflation rate. However, should we not now consider combining all those measures into a simple scheme—a new national insurance fund, free-standing and run by independent managers paid by results? Such a scheme would give pensioners what they want, which is an assurance that their incomes will not be reduced by future inflation.
  Mr. Darling: I assume that my hon. Friend's first remark was an acknowledgement of what the Government have done for pensioners, both through next April's increase in pensions and by ensuring that we do more to help the poorest pensioners.
  However, I disagree with my hon. Friend's second point. The problem that we have to deal with is that the inequality between pensioner incomes now is as great as it

  9
  was nearly 40 years ago, and an across-the-board pension increase would not deal with that inequality. We wanted to do more for the poorest pensioners. That is why we introduced the minimum income guarantee, which will rise to £100 in 2003. Crucially, we also wanted to do more for the millions of pensioners—more than half the pensioners in this country—who have a little money in the bank and some modest savings, and who should be rewarded for their thrift, whereas under the present system, which we inherited, they are penalised for having saved.
  I also disagree with my hon. Friend in that I believe that there should be a partnership between state provision and people's own funded provision. What my hon. Friend suggested sounded suspiciously like moving everybody into totally funded provision. That is not the right thing to do, particularly for lower earners as everybody knows, they should not be in funded provision, because it would not suit them.
  Mr. Archy Kirkwood: In answer to Question 2, the Secretary of State gave the House the welcome news that three quarters of a million people had responded to the minimum income guarantee campaign asking for further details. In the next sentence, he went on to say that half those people had made successful applications. I am sure that that is wrong. For the avoidance of doubt, will he tell us how many people made successful applications?
  Secondly, the Department's own figures recently suggested that £2 billion to £4 billion in possible expenditure is left unclaimed. Those figures are almost the same as the sums talked about in connection with fraud within the Benefits Agency system. Will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that local offices can take initiatives on take-up campaigns themselves, in addition to the national strategic advertising campaign for the minimum income guarantee?
  Mr. Darling: About 143,000 additional claims have been processed. I was referring to the fact that just under three quarters of a million people had responded to the campaign. My point was that the problem does not appear to be stigma, or a reluctance to claim, but the fact that, because of income levels, or because people can lose all entitlement to help unless they have £8,000 or less in the bank, too many people do not qualify. Those are not rich people; they are people who need assistance, and we are determined to ensure that they get it.
  The hon. Gentleman made a further point about unclaimed benefits. Undoubtedly there are unclaimed benefits, but the fact that so many people responded to us suggests that, rather than there being a reluctance to claim, many people simply do not qualify because of the rules that we inherited. That is why we are scrapping the capital rules when the pension credit starts in two years' time, and why we have increased the minimum income guarantee to £92 next year, rising 10 £100 the year after. I want to ensure that all who need help get it. No doubt the hon. Gentleman will be aware that the embryo of that policy was what the Liberals proposed at the general election.
  Mr. Gordon Prentice: I am not entirely sure that I can agree with all that, because six weeks ago the Minister told me that 500,000 elderly people who were
  10
  entitled to the MIG did not apply for it. It is not that they applied and got knocked back; nine months after the start of the take-up campaign, 500,000 elderly people are still not applying. It seems to me that those people are likely to be very elderly and frail, with failing eyesight and hearing. If we mean what we say about reaching the poorest pensioners, might not the only way of doing that be to employ people to knock on doors, speak to those people and encourage them to take up their entitlement?
  Mr. Darling: At the last Social Security questions, it was probably right that 500,000 had then responded. The figure is now nearly three quarters of a million, simply because more people have responded in the past five weeks. My hon. Friend makes a perfectly legitimate point—some pensioners who are entitled to the minimum income guarantee and other help have not yet applied for it, and we are constantly looking at what to do about that. I tell him and the others who complain about the minimum income guarantee that it is the most effective way to get far more money to some of the poorest people in this country. They are getting fives times more than they would have done if we had restored the earnings link. By all means let us consider what further steps need to be taken to reach some of those pensioners, but our proposal is the only way to ensure that we can get more help to those pensioners who live in poverty, which was never done when the Tories were in power. I am determined, and I am sure my hon. Friend is, to ensure that pensioner poverty is a thing of the past.
  Mr. David Willetts: The Secretary of State is perhaps about to give the House some useful information—it is a bit like extracting teeth, but we can put together the answers that he has recently given. He says that 600,000 application forms have been returned and that 130,000 or 140,000 forms are being processed. He said earlier that half the applications were successful. So is he saying that there have been between 60,000 and 70,000 successful claims for the minimum income guarantee as a result of his take-up campaign, as against approximately 700,000 pensioners who are entitled to it but are not claiming it?
  Mr. Darling: Let me explain the position so that even someone with two brains can understand it. Just under 750,000 people have responded to the latest take-up campaign. I make the point yet again that that implies that stigma, or the reluctance to claim, is not the problem in relation to the minimum income guarantee. In answer to a further question, I said that 143,000 additional new claims have been processed. A large number of people were told when they phoned that they would not qualify because they had too much money in the bank, or because their income was too high. That is why fewer claims are being processed, but more claims are still in the pipeline. Some 62,000 claims have been successful.
  The hon. Gentleman may weep crocodile tears about the number of people who are successful, but he opposes the minimum income guarantee and would ensure that pensioners received even less money as a result. He did absolutely nothing about the growing levels of pensioner poverty when he was in office. If people were to vote for the Conservatives again, they would be faced with scrapping the minimum income guarantee, the winter fuel

  11
  payment, free television licences and the Christmas bonus. As a result, millions of pensioners would be worse off under his proposals.
  Mr. Willetts: It took questions from three different parts of the House, but we have got there: we now know that there have been 62,000 successful claims for the minimum income guarantee as a result of the massive take-up campaign, although the Government know that more than 600,000 pensioners are entitled to it but are not claiming it. Thus we are talking about a success rate of less than 10 per cent. Does not that show that the Government's take-up campaign has been a conspicuous failure and that it would be a jolly sight better to put the money into a straightforward increase in the basic pension?
  Mr. Darling: The hon. Gentleman is not proposing to do that; he is against the minimum income guarantee and against giving more money to the poorest pensioners in this country. With respect, he is missing the point. The fact that 750,000 people responded to the campaign suggests to me that the real problem is not stigma, or a reluctance to claim, but the artificially low limits on the amount of money that people can save before being denied help—something that his Government did absolutely nothing about in the 18 years that they were in office. A further problem is that, until now, those pensioners who are the poorest in society have been getting too little, which is why we are increasing the minimum income guarantee. But make no bones about it, the Tories do not propose to give the poorest pensioners more money. More than 2 million pensioners do not even qualify for the full pension, so an across-the-board increase would do absolutely nothing to help them. The Tories presided over a record growth in the number of pensioners living in poverty, and if they got their chance, they would continue exactly the same policy again.

  Means Tests (Pensioners)
  Mr. Simon Hughes: How many more pensioners will be means-tested in the next financial year under measures announced in the pre-Budget statement. [141809]
  The Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Alistair Darling): We estimate that a further 500,000 pensioners will benefit from the significant increase in minimum income guarantee rates and capital limits from next year. The poorest pensioners will gain £12.45 a week as a result of the measures that we announced last November alone.
  Mr. Hughes: If someone applies for asylum and does not succeed, the Government and others call him a bogus asylum seeker, but someone who applies for the minimum income guarantee and does not succeed—most applicants appear not to—is simply called someone who did not succeed. I hope that the Government will apply some consistency in their language.
  I have a simple question. What increase in the basic pension would the Government have to make to ensure that the majority of applicants for the minimum income guarantee received it?
  Mr. Darling: They would not get it. The hon. Gentleman is attempting to grapple with a problem. Many people have expressed an interest in the minimum income guarantee, but he and others have argued that people are reluctant to claim it because of the stigma that is attached to claiming. Those arguments do not stand up. We have identified the fact that people are unsuccessful either because they have too much money in the bank—we are getting rid of the capital limits to remove that artificial prohibition on receiving help—or because they have too much income, and we are dealing with that by raising the minimum income guarantee to £92 next year and up to £100 the year after that.
  On the hon. Gentleman's specific question, when we increase the capital limits next year as a stepping stone to getting rid of them, nearly 500,000 people will gain as a result.
  I remind the hon. Gentleman and other Liberal Democrats that their policy at the previous election was not based on a huge across-the-board pensions increase. They said:
  We will create an additional top-up pension for pensioners with incomes below the income support level. This will be indexed to earnings and tapered as outside income increases.
  In other words, they proposed the embryo of what we are enacting. As a result of what we have done, 2 million pensioners are £15 a week better off.
  Mr. Bob Blizzard: It has been claimed that many elderly people are simply too proud to claim the minimum income guarantee. I have yet to find any such person in my constituency. I find that, when people know about the guarantee, they want to claim the money. Some people still do not know about it, so will my right hon. Friend think of ways in which we could further increase awareness? For example, we could use local media outlets, local campaigns and local officials who could visit sheltered accommodation and places where many elderly people live to promote awareness.
  Some claims have not succeeded because of the savings limit, so will my right hon. Friend write directly to all the people who have been affected and advise them of the doubling of the limits and of their eventual disappearance and replacement with the pensioner credit?
  Mr. Darling: We will get in touch with the people who have just missed out. It is important that they realise that they may be eligible for help after next April.
  My hon. Friend makes an important point. It is not stigma or a reluctance to claim that is the problem. The problem is that artificially low limits have been imposed on the amount that pensioners can save. We want to make sure that those artificial limits are removed, which is why we are getting rid of the capital limits.
  We also want to make sure that we can do far more than an across-the-board increase could ever do for the poorest pensioners, and that leads me on to another difference between us and the Conservatives. At present, if people do what successive Governments have told them to do and save for their retirement, they will lose out and be penalised. That is why the pension credit will ensure that, when people save for their retirement, they will receive a cash top-up to reward them for their thrift. That is a strategy to encourage more people to save for their retirement and will remove the problem that we inherited.

  13
  In this, the fourth largest economy in the world, we were left by the Tories with 2 million pensioners who did not have enough to live on. That state of affairs has no place in a decent society.
  Mr. Peter Viggers: Before the Government were elected, their spokesmen made moving speeches about abolishing means-testing for pensioners, but now that they are in office, 55 per cent. of all pensioners will be on means-tested benefits within three years. Has there been a change of policy or has something gone wrong?
  Mr. Darling: More pensioners are getting more money under Labour. I hope the hon. Gentleman has got that. I hope that that situation continues because I would not want to leave pensioner poverty in the same state as the Conservative party left it. Pensioner poverty has no place in a decent society and we are going to make absolutely sure that it does not happen. There will be more pensioners with more money under Labour.

  Winter Fuel Payments
  Mr. Lindsay Hoyle: How many pensioners in Chorley will benefit from the winter fuel payment. [141810]
  The Minister of State, Department of Social Security (Mr. Jeff Rooker): Some 17,600 winter fuel payments have been made to people in Chorley who are entitled to them.
  Mr. Hoyle: I welcome that. The payment is warmly welcomed in Chorley and its residents look forward to it being paid in years to come. Will my right hon. Friend assure me that that will be the case for the lifetime of this Government and that, unlike the Conservatives, we are committed to providing that payment?
  Mr. Rooker: Yes, following the exchanges on Question 4, it is clear that we are committed to that payment. It is extremely popular and it gets money to people over the age of 60. I do not want to fall out with you, Mr. Speaker, but I hope that that is taken on board by my hon. Friend's Tory opponent at the general election.

  Fraud
  Dr. Lynne Jones: What his estimate is of the annual cost of fraud in the social security system. [141811]
  The Minister of State, Department of Social Security (Mr. Jeff Rooker): Social security fraud is estimated to cost the country at least £2 billion a year. We recently published figures that show a significant fall in fraudulent claims for jobseeker's allowance and income support. As a result, we are on target to reduce fraud by 10 per cent. by 2002 and to halve it by 2006.
  Dr. Jones: Will my right hon. Friend clarify whether those figures include the cost of measures that have been introduced to detect fraud? Does he agree that prevention is better than cure and that designing out fraud is as important as rooting out fraud? Will he report on progress
  14
  in simplifying the social security system so that more people can understand it and in reducing dependency on means-tested benefits and credits?
  Mr. Rooker: My hon. Friend asks several questions. The answer to the first is no. The figure that I gave of £2 billion of fraud is established as a loss. Other figures have been bandied about, but they are based on strong or mild suspicion. We have a programme protection system. It costs several hundred million pounds a year to run and it protects a budget of £100 billion. However, it is necessary.
  We have made considerable savings in the cost of fraud in this Parliament. We have saved more than £1 billion by implementing checks on new income support claimants, which is an improvement on the situation that prevailed before we took office. We have introduced several measures, which I could read to the House, and new legislation was forecast in the Queen's Speech. It is important to ensure that the correct benefit is paid to the correct person at the start of the claim and to keep that right. That is the one way to prevent fraud from entering the system.
  Mr. Edward Leigh: The Minister might recall that in a previous Question Time I referred to an article in The Economist, which suggested that the amount of disability fraud is now so large and prevalent that the Government have given up trying to calculate it. The Minister was unable to estimate the level of disability fraud, but as time has now passed will he share such information with the House?
  Mr. Rooker: No, not without being given notice of such a specific aspect of fraud. It is true—there is no question about it—that it is at a high level. We shall introduce legislation to fill gaps in our armoury against fraud, which I hope all hon. Members will support.
  We have better-trained fraud investigators than ever before. The Department has recently taken on the former deputy director of MI5 and the former head of investigations at Customs and Excise. We are bringing into the Department people with better experience of rooting out fraud within the system. There is too much fraud, and we must do everything possible to cut it, whether it occurs in claims for disability benefits or other benefits.
  Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Would the Minister care to consider for a moment that there is another form of fraud that his Department urgently needs to address? I refer to cases in which the administration and delivery of housing benefit is contracted out to various companies, which blatantly fail to perform that task. That results in thousands of people mistakenly being assigned rent arrears and, if they are local authority or housing association tenants, being threatened with the loss of their home, or, in the case of many private tenants, losing their home.
  Is the Department prepared to look seriously at the appalling record of many of those companies—particularly IT Net, which administers the service in Islington and Hackney—with a view to terminating those

  15
  contracts, ensuring that the job is done efficiently in-house and removing for many people the threat that they will lose their home?
  Mr. Rooker: My hon. Friend raises important issues. In the administration of housing benefit, there are incompetent local authorities, just as there are incompetent private companies. The contracts to which my hon. Friend refers are awarded by the local authority, and it is not within my Department's competence to terminate them. The benefit fraud inspectorate scrutinises housing benefit authorities and publishes reports. In some cases there is collusion between tenants and landlords, and we must take steps to root that out as well.
  It is outrageous that someone's home should be put at risk because of the straightforward incompetence of the private company to which benefit administration has been contracted out or the public sector that has not supervised the contractor sufficiently.
  Mr. Eric Pickles: Does the right hon. Gentleman regret the answer on benefit fraud that he gave me on 13 November at column 640, when he said that the guidelines on the protection of customer information were identical to those that had previously been issued? It is clear that the discretion given to staff under the new guidelines is much greater than before and that there are other material differences.
  Does the Minister also regret the written answer that he gave on 30 November, promising to deposit the old guidelines in the Library so that Members could compare them with the new ones? A few minutes before Question Time began, those guidelines had still not been placed in the Library.
  Unarguably, paragraph 519 of the guidelines makes it clear that the Department will withhold from the police the identity of burglars, muggers and thieves. It is also clear from paragraph 511 that assaults on the Department's staff warrant disclosure, but assaults on members of the public do not. Is the Minister aware that, despite the guidance given in paragraph 517, the police are still struggling to get co-operation on matters as serious as murder? Is it any surprise that police morale is at an all-time low? Will the right hon. Gentleman stop defending the indefensible and change the guidelines?
  Mr. Rooker: May I, first, apologise to the hon. Gentleman about the placing of the guidelines in the Library? Frankly, there has been a complete and utter breakdown. I answered a question and gave specific instructions. I rewrote the answer to the effect that, for comparison, I would put the previous guidelines in the Library until the last day of this year. They should be there, and I regret that they are not. I hope that they will be there by the end of Question Time. The delay is unforgivable and I apologise to the hon. Gentleman.
  In a letter to the hon. Gentleman or in one of my answers I said that there were on-going discussions between my Department and the Home Office. They went on for a considerable time, and they have been concluded to my satisfaction and that of the Minister of State, Home Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Clarke). A new concordat will be written and agreed by my Department, the Home Office and the police, so that there will be no complaints about the police not being
  16
  able to get the information that they need from DSS officers in the pursuance of crime. There will be a change, as I forecast in one of my answers to the hon. Gentleman.

  Prisoners of War (Far East)
  Jane Griffiths: How many former far east prisoners of war have applied to the War Pensions Agency for payment. [141813]
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Hugh Bayley): I checked the numbers this morning and can confirm that, as of today's date, 12,200 forms have been issued and 11,300 completed claims received.
  Jane Griffiths: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply, which will be welcome to those of my constituents who are eligible to apply. Does he agree that the speedy issuing of forms and the acceleration of claims will be good news for my constituent, John Darby, who was captured in 1942 and served on the infamous railway of death? Now in his 80s, he is not in the best of health and he hopes to receive his compensation before his health worsens further.
  Mr. Bayley: I know that my hon. Friend has taken a close interest in the matter and that she secured a debate in the House on compensation for far east prisoners of war two years ago. I can guarantee that the Government will move as quickly as they can to make the payments. We hope to be able to start making payments—indeed, to make the majority of them—in February next year.
  Mr. Patrick Nicholls: The Minister will recall that his hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Defence was praised—rightly so—for the apparently comprehensive nature of the original settlement. Is he aware that it is now being said that those Gurkhas who became far east prisoners of war will, uniquely, be excluded from the scheme? I appreciate that the matter is not the direct responsibility of the Under-Secretary of State for Social Security, although it does arise from today's question, but if he cannot give me an assurance today, will he ensure that I am written to in the near future? Given the service that they have rendered this country, it would be i4uite unthinkable to leave Gurkhas out of the arrangement.
  Mr. Bayley: The policy is a matter for my right hon. and hon. Friends at the Ministry of Defence, who will read the hon. Gentleman's comments. I have enormous respect for the Gurkhas—indeed, last year, for the first time, Gurkhas served in the regiment based in my constituency, 2 Signals Regiment. However, as the hon. Gentleman is aware, the position during the second world war was different, in that there were no Gurkha regiments in the British Army; s such regiments were all members of the Indian army. On India becoming independent in 1948, responsibility for all matters relating to Indian army regiments passed to the Indian Government and subsequently the Indian and Pakistani Governments.
  Mr. Nicholls: There is a moral responsibility.
  Mr. Bayley: The reason the Canadian Government have a similar scheme to ours is that they take responsibility for the Canadian service men who were imprisoned in the far east during the war. Responsibility for each contingent of the allied forces lies with the Government under whom those forces served.

  Pension Credit
  Mr. David Borrow: What representations he has received in respect of the proposed pension credit. [141817]
  The Minister of State, Department of Social Security (Mr. Jeff Rooker): To date, we have received slightly more than 150 responses to the pension credit consultation exercise, which runs until 28 February next year.
  Mr. Borrow: Thousands of pensioners in my constituency who receive only modest occupational pensions have repeatedly told me that they feel that, having made provision for their old age, they receive no practical benefit for having done so and that, in many ways, they wish that they had not made that provision. The announcement of the pension credit is a major step toward satisfying such concerns. However, will my right hon. Friend ensure that, in the scheme's introduction, consideration is given to ensuring that any application form is as simple and as straightforward as possible, and that his Department will examine imaginative ways of ensuring that all those who are eligible to apply for the pension credit do so?
  Mr. Rooker: The application form for pension credit will be unlike any other form ever issued by my Department. It will be short, simple, easily understood and an absolute joy to fill in for the millions of pensioners who will gain from the pension credit, for whom the Conservatives, who oppose the credit, do not have the time of day.
  Mr. Paul Burstow: The Minister might not be a Member of Parliament when the form becomes available, but can he answer the following question? As the current take-up campaign for the minimum income guarantee is being conducted on such a scale and is eliciting so many responses, why did his Department not include in that exercise questions that could have enabled it to identify those who would benefit from the pension credit?
  Mr. Rooker: As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said, the pension credit had not been introduced when we started the MIG take-up campaign, and it took several months to plan it. We have information from those who made unsuccessful MIG claims. As my right hon. Friend said, both the income and capital figures are changing next April. It should be easy to access the information provided by unsuccessful claimants. We have tried to make the process as simple as possible. Introducing other information—we could not do so, because the scheme was not announced—would have put people off. It would have added to the complications of the form that they had to complete.

  Carers
  Ms Linda Perham: Which groups of elderly carers will gain from his recently announced changes in benefits for carers. [141818]
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Hugh Bayley): We intend to remove the upper age limit for claims to invalid care allowance. Subject to parliamentary approval, this measure will allow carers aged 65 and older who meet the normal entitlement conditions to be awarded ICA. Carers whose rate of basic state pension is less than the rate of ICA will benefit, as will carers receiving the pensioner minimum income guarantee, who will receive the carer premium.
  Ms Perham: I thank the Minister for that answer. Is he aware that those measures are widely welcomed in my constituency, especially those for older carers? On the day that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced the uprating of benefits in November, I was addressing the annual meeting of Redbridge Carers Association. It particularly welcomed the extension of ICA for over 65-year-olds. How many people will benefit from this measure and from the eight-week run-on for the bereavement allowance for over 65s?
  Mr. Bayley: I pay tribute to the work that my hon. Friend has done, in both her constituency and the House, on behalf of carers. Our announcement to extend eligibility to apply for ICA to people over 65 has been warmly welcomed. For instance, the Royal Association for Disability and Rehabilitation wrote:
  We are particularly pleased that older carers will now have their work recognised by the extension of "carers allowance" to people over 65.
  We believe that 40,000 pensioners will gain as a result of the changes that we intend to make. Some 15,000 will gain eligibility to ICA, and some 25,000 will gain entitlement to the carer premium.

  Disability Benefit
  Mr. Andrew George: What assessment he has made of the effect of disability benefit withdrawal from people seeking jobs. [141819]
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Hugh Bayley): It is important not to penalise anyone who is seeking work. Disability living allowance is based on a person's care and mobility needs, and is paid irrespective of whether they are working, not working or seeking work.
  Mr. George: I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. Does he accept that many disabled people face, in effect, a precipice of benefit withdrawal as they enter work and come off benefit? That applies not only to the independent living fund but to many other forms of benefit. What action will the Minister and the Department

  19
  take to ensure that disabled people who are rightly seeking to enter the job market—many thousands of them are—can do so with confidence of future security?
  Mr. Bayley: We are putting in train a number of changes to the benefit system to remove disincentives to work for those people who are disabled, who want to work and who are able to secure a job. For instance, we extended the linking rule in incapacity benefit from eight weeks, when we took office, to 52 weeks. For those who benefit from the disabled person's tax credit, we stretched the linking rule further from eight weeks to two years. We have made changes to the rules of the independent living fund, so that ILF customers who are able to work can keep a greater proportion of their income.
  Through the new deal for disabled people, we continue to make it possible for more disabled people who want to work to do so. According to the Government's labour force survey, more than 1 million disabled people are on incapacity benefits and they say that they would like to work. Our policies—the changes to the benefit system and the new deal—are making it possible for more disabled people to achieve their ambition to get a job.
  Mr. Tim Boswell: As the Minister mentioned disincentives, does he accept that they are a factor in the considerations of disabled people who want to return to the labour force? Will he continue to press the matter, with particular reference to the independent living fund? The package that he announced, on its own and unsupported, is by no means adequate to get people back to work at a reasonable level of income, and the perverse disincentive has not been eliminated. What other action does he plan to reduce the elements of disincentive that remain in a system in which the Government pile on further means tests and, by implication, further disincentives to honest employment, when all that those people want is honest employment?
  Mr. Bayley: I know that the hon. Gentleman means well, but the very tight means test on the independent living fund was introduced by his party. We relaxed it to enable those ILF customers who work to keep a larger proportion of their earnings. We made that change to provide the sort of incentive to work that the hon. Gentleman suggests ought to be provided. I agree that it ought to be provided. It is just a shame that it was not provided by his party when it was in government.

Point of Order
3.31 pm
Dr. Julian Lewis: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I seek your further guidance on the leaking of the contents of White Pipers by Government Departments to the press, in advance of statements being made to the House. You will recall that I raised the matter twice on points of order, on 28 November and 7 December. On the latter occasion, you assured me that you
would disapprove of giving someone sight of a White Paper or of any discussion of its content—[Official Report, 7 December 2000; Vol. 359, c. 134.]
before a statement was made to the House.
I apologise for not raising this point of order last week, as I was abroad with the Select Committee on Defence.
Your assurance to me was given on 7 December. On Sunday 10 December there were detailed reports in both The Sunday Times and The Sunday Telegraph of the contents of the communications White Paper, about which a statement was not made to the House until Tuesday 12 December. I shall be grateful if you and members of your staff could investigate how, so soon after your previous guidance on the matter, the Department for Culture, Media and Sport flouted it.
Mr. Speaker: I assure the hon. Gentleman that I will look into the matter.

Point of Order

  ESTIMATES
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 145 (Liaison Committee),
  That this House agrees with the Report [13th December] of the Liaison Committee.—[Mr. Mike Hall.]
  Question agreed to.

Orders of the Day

  Vehicles (Crime) Bill
  Order for Second Reading read.
  3.33 pm
  The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Jack Straw): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  As the House knows, vehicle crime is a serious problem, and one of the crimes that most concerns the public. Nearly 400,000 cars are stolen each year and 120,000 of those are never recovered. Vehicle crime accounts for nearly a fifth of all recorded crime and costs, at a conservative estimate, about £3 billion a year. It causes great distress and inconvenience to victims, as all of us know who have suffered from vehicle crime—in my case, before 1997, although I accept that it has gone on since 1997—[Laughter.] Thank you. Vehicle crime also ties up the resources of the criminal justice system.
  Two years ago my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister set a national target of reducing vehicle crime by 30 per cent. by 2004. As the Minister with responsibility for delivering the target, I thought that that was, in the current parlance, challenging, but I accepted it none the less. There is a good possibility that we will reach that target. The Bill forms an integral part of our strategy for reducing vehicle crime.
  Although it is some time since I suffered from vehicle crime—there were special reasons for that—it is still a serious problem. None the less, vehicle crime has already fallen by 17 per cent. according to recorded crime figures. In a different context, I must tell my right hon. and hon. Friends that, after about two months of denying its veracity, yesterday the Leader of the Opposition prayed in aid the British crime survey, which is the most thorough and authoritative survey of the total levels of recorded and unrecorded crime. The survey shows a similar trend for vehicle crime, and shows that it fell by 15.1 per cent. in the period—
  Mr. Crispin Blunt: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Straw: Of course, in one second.
  Mr. John Bercow: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Straw: Just let me finish the sentence. That period covered the calendar year 1997 and the calendar year 1999. The reduction in vehicle crime is the result of effective targeting by the police, working in partnership with manufacturers and the community. However, we have to do more. I shall give way, first to the hon. Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt) and then to the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow).
  Mr. Blunt: The Home Secretary referred to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition. Will he take the opportunity to make it clear that he does not believe that

  23
  my right hon. Friend is a racist or was guilty of racism? If people have taken the Home Secretary's remarks in that way and believe that, will he apologise for their effect?
  Mr. Straw: The answer is no. I cannot believe that the hon. Gentleman's question is in order, as we are discussing the Vehicles (Crime) Bill. However, if the hon. Gentleman wishes me to say parenthetically in the House, as I have done outside, that I believe that the Leader of the Opposition played the race card in his speech, I am happy to do so. In case the hon. Gentleman has not caught up with the news, I note that the apologies on the record have been forthcoming from the shadow Home Secretary, who said that she was extremely sorry if the Taylor family was distressed about the remarks made by the Leader of the Opposition. That is my understanding of what has been said.
  Miss Ann Widdecombe: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Straw: Yes, of course.
  Miss Widdecombe: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. Is his position that, any time that we decide to raise the issue of stop and search or the aftermath of the Macpherson report, that is playing the race card? Will he note that I did not apologise for comments made by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition? The only thing for which I expressed any regret at all was any distress that might have been felt. However, I did not believe that that was caused by my right hon. Friend's remarks, but rather by the press coverage and the interpretation of those remarks by the Home Secretary.
  Mr. Speaker: Order. Now that the right hon. Lady has finished, we will get on to the Second Reading of the Bill.
  Mr. Straw: I shall return to the Bill. The hon. Member for Buckingham wished to ask a question.
  Mr. Bercow: Given the Home Secretary's enthusiasm for the British crime survey, will he confirm that he accepts its finding that vehicle crime is approximately twice the level of that which is recorded in the official statistics?
  Mr. Straw: Yes, I will. The British crime survey tells us what we already knew—that the number of recorded vehicle thefts is pretty near 100 per cent. of the figure shown by the survey. When people's vehicles are stolen, most of them report that for insurance purposes. However, the recording of thefts from vehicles is much lower than that for vehicle theft, not least because the items stolen are sometimes below the excess on the insurance. Speaking personally, during the ancien regime, my stereo was stolen twice when my vehicle was parked at Preston station. On both occasions, I did not report the theft, because it was not really worth it. The vehicle was then stolen from outside my house in Blackburn.
  Miss Widdecombe: Why did the right hon. Gentleman not use a crook lock?
  Mr. Straw: I did use a crook lock but, unfortunately, a crook lock has not yet been designed that can anchor
  24
  the stereo to a vehicle. That may, however, be dealt with in the next Conservative manifesto, which might tell us that the Conservatives have solved that geometric problem.
  I was about to point out—this comment is both in order and timely—that when my vehicle was stolen, I reported its theft not only to the police, but to the world's most important newspaper, the Lancashire Evening Telegraph. I offered as a reward two tickets for the next game to be played at Ewood Park by Blackburn Rovers. I am pleased to say that the temptation of the tickets was such that, within half an hour of the newspaper's appearance on the streets, someone had telephoned the local criminal investigation department to tell it who had stolen the vehicle. Someone else who happened to spot the vehicle also phoned the local CID to tell it where it was. As a result, I got my vehicle back and the offenders were arrested, charged and subsequently convicted.
  Mr. Jonathan Shaw: I do not know whether my right hon. Friend can tell the House whether the Bill extends to dodging bandwagons, but will he comment on whether it extends to abandoned vehicles? Such vehicles are currently dealt with by the Refuse Disposal (Amenity) Act 1978. Does the Bill have scope to criminalise the abandonment of vehicles? Kent county council has given me statistics showing that 1,472 vehicles were abandoned between 1997 and 1998. It is estimated that that figure will increase to 11,600, which will cost the council and the council tax payer in Kent some £650,000. The increase is set to continue, as the price of scrap and of cars is falling. Is there scope in the Bill to deal with the problem?
  Mr. Straw: As my hon. Friend knows, the Bill does not cover abandoned vehicles, although it applies where they are subsequently put into the salvage system.
  Mr. Dennis Skinner: What about flat-backed lorries?
  Mr. Straw: I dare may that bandwagons and flat-backed lorries are also covered.
  We are open to arguments on whether the Bill should include other arrangements for abandoned vehicles and on whether the problem with abandoned vehicles is an inadequacy in criminal law or in its enforcement.
  Miss Anne McIntosh: Did the right hon. Gentleman plead guilty to contributory negligence for failing to fit a crook lock when he lost his vehicle? Furthermore, does he accept that the Bill does not go far enough on the investigation and seeking out by the police of stolen vehicles? Will he consider contributing proper resources to that investigation, which is more important than the issue of an incident number for insurance purposes?
  Mr. Straw: The hon. Lady's first point gives me the opportunity to return to the traumatic moment when I lost my vehicle. I thank her for that opportunity, as it was thanks to the great affection in which Blackburn Rovers is held that I got the vehicle back—a fact that enables me to put on record in Parliament my affection and support for the team and my congratulations to it on its magnificent victory against Burnley yesterday.

  25
  [Interruption.] There is no point in Opposition Front Benchers chuntering. There have been few more important occasions in Blackburn and Burnley than yesterday's victory.
  The hon. Lady's second and more serious point related to investigation. The police are doing a great deal of work on investigating the criminal rings that are often responsible for vehicle theft and are trying not to treat each such theft as a single crime committed by an individual crook without any other criminal record. That is why we are investing a lot of resources in intelligence analysis. I accept that a good deal more can be done, but the decrease of recorded and unrecorded vehicle crime, including thefts of and from vehicle is a testament to the partnership between manufacturers and the community that I mentioned earlier.
  Fiona Mactaggart rose—
  Mr. Bercow rose—
  Mr. Straw: If I may, I shall make progress, but I shall take more interventions later.
  We believe that the Bill will make a significant impact in achieving our target. In drawing up the Bill, we were advised by the vehicle crime reduction action team, which included representatives from even sector of the vehicle industry as well as the police, motorists and insurers. I helped to launch its report at about this time last year in Leicester.
  A number of problems that are not covered by existing legislation were identified by the action team. There is no control over motor salvage dealers, who may receive stolen vehicles, nor, astonishingly, has there been any control over the supply of number plates to unscrupulous motorists. Indeed, plenty of motorists who get a number plate, as I did not long ago for a trailer, are surprised that they can walk into the premises of any supplier of plates and tell the supplier what numbers they want. A plate can be supplied without any record being held.
  Mr. David Chidgey rose—
  Mr. Michael Fabricant rose—
  Mr. Straw: I shall give way in a moment.
  Written off cars may be repaired I and returned to the road without any check being made on their identity. As we know, some are stolen vehicles in disguise.
  Mr. Chidgey: On registration plates, is the Home Secretary aware that some 7 million plates are produced every year, and that 2 million go on new cars and 2 million on trade-ins? Where do the others go?
  Mr. Straw: Well, as I also know, occasionally—[Interruption.] No. A lot of plates will replace those of existing vehicles—for example, when someone has backed into another vehicle or been backed into.
  Mr. Fabricant: What estimate has the Home Secretary made of the number of extra police officers who will be required to enforce the new legislation? Has he had a
  26
  chance to read this week's edition of The House Magazine, which carries an article by the chairman of the Police Federation entitled "Policing in Crisis"? He says:
  There's a huge suspicion and a powerful sense of unease in the police service …
  There is a drive to reduce costs whatever the consequences.
  Morale is the worst I have ever seen it.
  Has the Home Secretary read that article? How can the legislation be enforced with police numbers lower than those recorded in 1997?
  Mr. Straw: As it happens, I have not read the Christmas edition of The House Magazine, but look forward to doing so. I am familiar, however, with the article to which the hon. Gentleman refers, but I do not accept that the police service is in crisis. I happen to note that the chairman of the Police Federation, for whom I have a lot of regard, tends to make such remarks about every six months and has been doing so for the past 10 years—they are just a hardy annual. On other occasions, he has claimed that the single most damaging policy—pursued not only by this Government, but by the previous one—was the abolition of the housing allowance in 1994 in the wake of the Sheehy report. A direct consequence of that was that it became more difficult to recruit additional police officers, which is why, perhaps, the reduction in the Metropolitan police service under the previous Administration was significantly greater than that recorded since we have been in office. Those numbers are, at last, turning round.
  We want costs to be reduced in the police service, as we do in every other public authority, and that is happening. We are now all agreed that the British crime survey is the best measure of crime and I am therefore delighted to note that, not least as a result of the good work of the police service, overall crime has gone down under this Administration by 10 per cent.
  Mr. Oliver Heald: Will the Home Secretary give way?
  Mr. Straw: No, no. The rates of vehicle crime, domestic burglary and crimes of violence are also down.
  Fiona Mactaggart: I echo the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Mr. Shaw). There are matters that the Bill does not necessarily cover that my constituents would want it to include, such as the frustrating issue of dumped vehicles. I have the dishonour to represent the car crime capital of Britain—there are more thefts from motor vehicles in Slough than in any other constituency. Obviously, that has nothing to do with how the local force polices, and although vehicle crime in my constituency has increased over the past year, it has reduced by a third in Milton Keynes, which is in the same police force area. Will the Home Secretary consider extending the scope of the Bill to include measures to reduce theft from motor vehicles and to deal with the problem of dumped cars?
  Mr. Straw: I hope that I have already given an answer about the problem of dumped cars. It is already a serious criminal offence to abandon a vehicle. However, we have undertaken to re-examine the offence, and we shall do so.

  27
  Manufacturers themselves have undertaken a great deal of work to ensure that thefts from vehicles are less likely. The figures we have published show both an inverse relationship between the value of a vehicle and the likelihood of its being stolen or broken into, and a direct relationship between a vehicle's age and the propensity for crimes against it. Although more modern vehicles are much more valuable, they are also much less likely to be broken into because breaking into them is more difficult.
  Mr. Heald: Will the Home Secretary give way?
  Mr. Straw: No; I want to say more about this.
  Mr. Fabricant: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In the frenzy of the debate, the Home Secretary—who is normally assiduous in answering questions—may have forgotten about one of my questions. I asked how many extra police officers would be required to enforce the legislation.
  Mr. Speaker: That is not a point of order. The Home Secretary is responsible for replying to the hon. Gentleman's question.
  Mr. Straw: I was about to reply. The answer is none, because no more officers are needed.
  We have got vehicle crime down, and we aim to get it down further. The idea that every change in the law that is designed to drive crime down will lead to an increase in demands on the police is utter nonsense. Indeed, because we have driven crime down, there are fewer demands on the police in respect of crime, not more—although I fully recognise that that has been compensated for by additional calls in respect of disorder and other matters.
  There was a long period during which the Conservative Government understood that, intellectually and financially. It is no good Conservative Members going on about police numbers now, insinuating that they would increase those numbers, because the one thing that the shadow Chancellor has absolutely refused to do is even promise to match our spending on the police, still less increase it.
  Miss Widdecombe rose—
  Mr. Straw: We are going to hear a promise, are we?
  Miss Widdecombe: Will the right hon. Gentleman just tell the House this? Three years ago, we were funding 3,000 more police officers on a lower budget. What on earth has the right hon. Gentleman done with the money, given that he cannot afford them now?
  Mr. Straw: What happened was this. It explains why, in January 1997, the right hon. Lady told the House that the budget she was presenting for 1997–98 would provide for 5,000 more officers, when in fact it provided for fewer officers. The budgets that were set did not properly take account of cost pressures on the police service. It is not a question of any kind of magic. In particular, those budgets did not take account of the increased pressures of pension payments.
  28
  I should add that, under a Bill for which the right hon. Lady's party was responsible, the police service was relieved of requirements to follow any direction from the Home Secretary involving overall police numbers, which then became a matte for individual chief constables. Some chief constables decided to use the limited resources available to them to maintain police numbers, but many decided to spend their resources for other purposes, such as civilianization—those numbers have remained stable—and information technology.
  Miss Widdecombe: But the Government have reduced the number of civilians as well.
  Mr. Straw: No; the number of civilians has increased marginally since 1997.
  The right hon. Lady may be interested to learn that I have had various analyses carried out to find out whether there is any correlation between forces whose total budgets have been increased or reduced, forces whose total officer and civilian numbers have been increased or reduced, and forces that have experienced an increase or a decrease in crime. The answer is that there is no correlation between those three variables, which is very interesting. The right hon. Lady must understand. She asks what I have done with the money. I have done absolutely nothing with it because it is spent not by me, but by the police authorities.
  Mr. Blunt: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Straw: No.
  If the right hon. Lady bothered to ask the police authorities, they would tell her that the money had been spent. If she wants to increase police numbers even further than we are proposing, she will have to increase the money even further. There is not a voter in the country who does not understand that.
  Mr. Heald: Will the Home Secretary give way?
  Mr. Straw: No. I am sorry, but I wish to make some progress.
  In addition to the other problems that I have specified, the police have no general right of access to the motor insurers' database, which would allow them to identify uninsured drivers as they drive past. The Bill will tackle those problems.
  The Bill will make vehicle crime less attractive by reducing opportunities for professional car thieves to profit. The estimate is that it could prevent up to 39,000 car thefts and 6,000 fraudulent insurance theft claims each year.
  Mr. Heald: Will the Home Secretary give way?
  Mr. Straw: I will give way to the hon. Gentleman, but I want to make some progress first.
  The Bill will extend the time limit for prosecuting car thieves or those who take a car without the consent of the owner. It will make it easier for the police to detect uninsured driving. It will enable magistrates courts'

  29
  receipts from fixed penalties for speeding and for jumping red lights to be directly applied to the funding of more safety cameras.
  Mr. Heald: Does the Home Secretary agree with the Motor Vehicle Dismantlers Association of Great Britain, which deals with salvage, which has said that, to meet his target of preventing 39,000 thefts, there must be effective enforcement of the laws? If so, how will he do that with no extra police officers? If he is to achieve that with the same police officers, what jobs will they not be able to do?
  Mr. Straw: What the hon. Gentleman has to grasp is that, to enforce such a measure, additional police officers are not necessarily required. When they were in government, we heard Conservative Members talk time and again about the need to make all public services more effective. I do not exclude the police service from that, even though there is a tiny minority of police officers who do not like the fact that we are trying to make the system more effective.
  We are trying to deal, for example, with unnecessary sickness absence. We have already cut the paperwork, but there are a few police officers who do not mind paperwork because it keeps them out of action on the street—not very many, but a few. That needs to be borne in mind, too.
  The police service is no different from other organisations. The quality of what that service delivers depends on the quality of the individuals employed by it, which can vary, and the quality of the management and the leadership.
  Mr. Blunt: Will the Home Secretary give way?
  Mr. Straw: No.
  We know clearly that even within London the level of crime recorded—robbery, burglary, vehicle theft and many other offences—in different boroughs varies a lot. It is dependent not on the number of officers in those areas, but on the quality of the leadership and of the officers on the streets. It is one of the matters about which I have asked the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis to raise performance—he has fully embraced that. We need to identify the boroughs that are not performing well and to raise their performance to the level of the best. It is in that way, as well as through our huge additional investment in the police service, that we will be able to make this country safer, after the appalling 18 years when crime doubled.
  Mrs. Linda Gilroy: Has my right hon. Friend had an opportunity to look at what we do in Plymouth to cut down on car crime and, in particular, the joint approach that is taken through environmental health, taxation and the police? The law is difficult to enforce at the moment. The Bill should make things much easier. The detection of vehicle crime will take up not only less police time, but that of other departments' staff.
  Mr. Straw: I am indeed aware of what is going on in Plymouth because I was told about it by Sir John Evans, who was the chief constable. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising the matter. There are many examples—Plymouth is one, Milton Keynes is another—where police
  30
  using similar resources per head are able to do significant things. There are lessons there for other boroughs, whether they are represented by Conservative, Labour or Liberal Democrat Members, that are not doing as well. They can make progress with more imagination. Often, greater imagination by the police service and better partnerships with local authorities and others can ensure that fewer resources are used more effectively.
  Mr. Blunt: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Straw: No; I shall take the House through the Bill.
  Part I introduces regulation of motor salvage dealers. Most salvage dealers already operate to high standards and fully within the law; however, as all hon. Members know, some do not. Almost one third of stolen cars are never recovered, and the motor salvage industry offers opportunities for the identities of stolen cars to be disguised and for stolen cars to be broken up and resold as parts.
  There is also a link between salvage dealers and insurance fraud. Some cars that are reported stolen are sold to motor salvage dealers and broken up for their parts, or they are given the identity of written-off cars and resold. Therefore, clauses 1 to 6 establish a registration system, and clauses 7 to 11 will allow us to ensure that registered dealers keep appropriate records, including a note of the destruction of vehicles.
  Part II regulates the supply and issue of number plates. I cannot believe that there will be any argument at all in the House about that scheme, except perhaps about whether it goes far enough.
  Mr. Fabricant: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Straw: No; I have already given way to the hon. Gentleman.
  As all hon. Members know, the effects of the number plate problem go beyond vehicle crime. Burglars may use false number plates to cover their traces when making a getaway, and terrorists also may use them. Many other people may use false plates simply to avoid penalties from safety cameras.
  Clauses 16 to 22 require number plate suppliers to register with the Secretary of State—which, in this case, in practice, means with the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency. Number plate suppliers will have to allow police to enter and inspect their premises without a warrant. It will also be an offence for a wholesaler to supply an unregistered supplier and to sell fake plates. The prospect that details of the transaction will be recorded should deter prospective purchasers of number plates who require them for criminal purposes. Record keeping will provide police with the means of tracing the source of plates used in criminal activities.
  There will be a power in clause 33 to make regulations prescribing additional information to be held on number plates and the way in which it should be contained or displayed. Therefore, it will not be easy to forge plates. The information on the number plate will link it to the vehicle for which it is intended, making it difficult to swap vehicle identities.
  Mr. Simon Thomas: I offer a general welcome to the provision that the Home Secretary of State

  31
  has just outlined, but may I ask him to address himself to a problem that has arisen in Wales—the display of the Welsh flag on number plates? I have received a note from the Library saying that, currently, such display is illegal. I should also tell the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Chidgey) that some of the number plates in Wales have been created simply to show off the Welsh flag.
  Will the Home Secretary clarify whether such display is illegal? Will it remain illegal to display a Welsh flag or an English flag? Will it be necessary to display an EU flag? Does clause 33 give the Home Secretary the power to vary the restriction, to make it legal to display the Welsh flag? Will he consider doing that?
  Mr. Straw: It says in my brief—I knew it anyway because I am a swot—that use of the Euro symbol will be permitted as a means of aiding the circulation of vehicles in Europe, and also of increasing the blood pressure of Conservative Members of Parliament. No other emblems will be permitted as they could cause confusion. The Welsh Assembly and the Scottish Executive were consulted on that and—the brief says—raised no objection.
  I am happy for the issue to be raised in Committee. There are other places on the back of vehicles where those who are proud of their national heritage can display a sticker identifying their nationality, and long may that continue. In the legislation, we are addressing only the issue of identification on the vehicle plate.
  Mr. Eric Forth: Will the Secretary of State give way?
  Mr. Straw: I thought that that might wind up the right hon. Gentleman. I shall give way.
  Mr. Forth: Will the Secretary of State clarify whether it will be permitted, if not mandatory, to show the European Union symbol on British car registration plates, but illegal to show the Union flag on British car registration plates? Is that what he is telling the House?
  Mr. Straw: It is permitted to show the European Union symbol, and country identification letters are also shown on the vehicle number plate. I have no briefing on the Union flag, but I would be happy for that question to be dealt with in the winding-up speech. There is nothing to stop motorists from proudly displaying a representation of the Union flag on the rear of their vehicles—many do—but not necessarily on the vehicle plate.
  Mr. Bercow: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way? It is a matter of great importance.
  Mr. Straw: If it were, I would, but it is not, so I shall not.
  Part III of the Bill deals with vehicle licensing and registration, and other measures to combat vehicle crime. The present law allows written-off vehicles to return to the road without being checked. That means that the unscrupulous can get away with illegal tampering. The Bill will change that by insisting on an identity check before a new registration document can be issued.
  32
  Part III also contains our proposals for tackling uninsured driving. That offence too often goes undetected, yet uninsured drivers are often dangerous and, like those who speed, may well have broken other laws. To combat the problem, the motor insurance industry has proposed that the police should have bulk access to its new database, which will be available from 2003. The Bill will enable that to happen.
  Clause 36 extends the time limit for prosecuting unauthorised vehicle taking. Those who take vehicles without the consent of their owners, as well those who thieve from them, cause great distress to their victims and are often also involved in accidents. At the moment, such people can escape justice because of the six-month time limit on the prosecution of offences that are summary only. Advances in DNA and fingerprinting mean that evidence may come to light after the six months have expired.
  Clause 37 represents a real improvement in joined-up government. It will allow money received by magistrates courts from fixed penalties for speeding or from jumping red lights to be used to fund the roll-out of safety cameras.
  Mr. Andrew Miller: I am sure that the whole House welcomes the decision by the Law Lords a fortnight ago to overturn the rather silly decision in Scotland about the use of speed cameras. Does my right hon. Friend accept that the evidence in the pilot areas now clearly shows that increased use of speed cameras saves lives, and that they are a worthwhile investment? Will he join me in encouraging the House to campaign vigorously against the right-wing libertarian view, as expressed in the Daily Mail, that these measures would be controversial and used as an incentive to trap more motorists? They are a means of saving lives, and that is the justification for them.
  Mr. Straw: I share my hon. Friend's view about this improvement. What those at the Daily Mail have to say about it is a matter for them. I dare say that that newspaper opposed the introduction of the breathalyser and the use of seat belts on a similar basis, yet those changes have helped to create a much safer environment for road users. When I was a young man, people used to drink and drive, friends of mine lost their lives, and terrible damage and injury were caused to others. The number of road deaths and injuries is still far too high, but we should be proud that this country's record is far better than that of any other European country that I can think of. We must continue to make progress to improve that record still further.
  To give a direct answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller), since the pilot schemes came into or operation in eight police force areas, there has been a 20 per cent. improvement in road safety in those areas.
  Mr. Bercow: I am not sure why the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller) used the description "right-wing libertarian" as though it were a term of abuse. I am more than happy to have that description conferred on me.
  Although we have no objection to the use of speed cameras in principle—or, very often, in practice—will the Home Secretary accept that our concern is with the

  33
  avoidance of regulation for the sake of regulation? We are also concerned to avoid yet another stealth tax from the Government.
  Mr. Straw: I note what the hon. Gentleman says. This road safety measure has broad support across the country, and if the Conservatives want to oppose it, that is a matter for them. However, I am in no doubt that speed cameras moderate drivers' behaviour. After I was apprehended because of a speed camera in 1993—after I had paid my fine and got three points on my licence—my driving behaviour improved, and I think that that is true of other people. I say that from personal experience—incidentally, I have not had any points since then.
  I have put on record the need for the Bill and hope that it will have the endorsement of the whole House. I do not doubt that it could be improved in Committee—indeed, I have not introduced a single Bill in the House that has not been improved as a result of the parliamentary process.
  We want to build on the Government's strong record in fighting vehicle crime. We should be able to unite against the criminal on the issue of vehicle security. There is a comprehensive set of proposals in the Bill which, I hope the House will agree, deserves a Second Reading. It is a measured response to a number of serious problems, and I commend it to the House.
  4.11 pm
  Mr. John Bercow: I should say at the outset that the official Opposition does not intend to divide the House on Second Reading. The principle of the Bill is unobjectionable and its purpose is valid, although we are at this stage uncertain about its probable effects. The jury is out on that, and we shall have to wait and see.
  I greatly enjoyed the Home Secretary's speech—there is nothing unusual in that. I cannot promise that my contribution will be exciting or racy on this important subject, but I will endeavour to address the facts.
  I was intrigued by what the right hon. Gentleman said about car crime. He started off by giving the clear impression that he regarded it as a matter of great seriousness, and that although he was pleased that some progress had been made, he was fully conscious of the seriousness of the incidence of offences that still plague the country. However, as he continued, he seemed to display a certain insouciance towards those of us who criticised the Government's record, suggested that an improvement would require an additional resource and were not convinced that the Government's bona fides on the subject were satisfactory.
  For the avoidance of doubt, let the facts be placed on the record. I think it very likely that Labour Members will have the precise figures for the number of offences committed over the past couple of years. The hon. Member for Warrington, North (Helen Jones), for example, is a veritable walking—or, in this case, sedentary—encyclopaedia on the Labour Benches. She always knows the facts. However, there may be some who require clarification.
  Between March 1998 and March 1999, 1,482,889 car crimes were committed. The following year, there was, interestingly, a reduction in the incidence of car crimes of exactly 7,000, taking the figure down to 1,475,000.
  Mr. Fabricant: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Bercow: In a moment, if my hon. Friend will just contain himself. That figure represented a cut in the incidence of car crime of 0.5 per cent., of which more anon.
  Mr. Fabricant: My hon. Friend is, as ever, more than generous to me. Does he agree that some of the reduction in car crime is due to the introduction of closed circuit television cameras? In that respect, will he pay tribute to the previous Government who were responsible for the widespread introduction of closed circuit television cameras throughout the United Kingdom?
  Mr. Bercow: I am delighted to pay tribute to the previous Government. I do not always do so on every subject, but in that respect their record was very good. We got the CCTV programme under way and it secured real benefits. My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to that point.
  Mr. David Lammy: As the hon. Gentleman gives credit to the previous Government for the introduction of CCTV, does he agree that, because many police officers are scrutinising those videotapes, they may not be on the streets—the point he has been going on about over the past few months?
  Mr. Bercow: The hon. Gentleman makes a slightly ungracious point. I hope that he does not deny the significance of CCTV in combating crime; it has an important role to play. I am well aware that, in general, the hon. Gentleman identifies with what might be described as the new Labour philosophy and programme, so he will want to be fully on-message. He will appreciate that Members on the Treasury Bench are accustomed to drawing attention to the plans for the expansion of CCTV schemes in the following year; I hope that he will not cavil at that.
  Obviously, the study of the videotapes takes time and requires the commitment of certain officers. Despite Labour Members' unrealistic expectations of the police, it goes without saying that the police cannot be expected to do two things at once. Manifestly, if an officer is studying the video, he or she cannot also be out detecting crime and apprehending criminals.
  Mr. Simon Thomas: I am rather surprised to hear the hon. Gentleman describe CCTV as a libertarian measure. I should have thought that his libertarianism would mean that he thought of CCTV as non-libertarian. However, as he accepts CCTV, does he agree that there is no difference between the use of CCTV and of speed cameras?
  Mr. Bercow: I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's analogy. While we are engaged in a philosophical discussion about what constitutes libertarianism, I emphasise that nothing incumbent on someone who takes a broadly liberal-minded view of the world obliges him to oppose measures that are likely to be successful in reducing the incidence of crime.
  The point that I am making about speed cameras is that there is no justification for a massive, universal roll-out of such cameras across the country. The resource required to facilitate such a roll-out is enormous. One can only

  35
  assume that Ministers are anxious to extract rich pickings from unsuspecting motorists in the form of heavy fines. In so far as that policy is by way of being a stealth tax, it does not commend itself to Her Majesty's Opposition.
  Mr. Miller: I hope that the reduction in deaths that would occur as a result of such a policy commends itself to Her Majesty's Opposition.
  Mr. Bercow: I am in favour of reducing both car crime and the incidence of death on the roads. The idea that in order to reduce death on the roads a universal system of CCTV or video speed cameras is required across the country is not sound. If the hon. Gentleman wants to persuade the House of the merits of his argument, I hope that he will be successful in catching your eye in due course, Mr. Speaker.
  I shall not be distracted by Labour Members from emphasising that there had been a reduction of 0.5 per cent.—[Interruption] It is no good the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller) chuntering at me from a sedentary position. He wants to cover his blushes; he is embarrassed about the record, which shows clearly that in the period to which I referred
  Mr. Miller: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Bercow: I have already given the hon. Gentleman an opportunity to intervene and he made a mess of it—I do not see why I should cause him to suffer embarrassment a second time.
  Between March 1998–99 and March 1999–2000, there was a reduction of 0.5 per cent. in the incidence of vehicle crime. The significance of that reduction should surely not be lost on even the most obsequious and sycophantic Labour Member. As the Home Secretary helpfully explained, the Government have committed themselves over a five-year period to a 30 per cent. reduction in car crime. The point that I am making—a point that is so blindingly obvious that only an extraordinarily clever person could fail to see it—is that, at present, the Government are a long way from meeting their target. If in the first year, they have secured a cut of only 0.5 per cent. that does not augur well for the prospects of achieving by 2004 the 30 per cent. reduction that the Home Secretary himself described as challenging, but to which the Prime Minister has nevertheless committed the Government. There would need to be an improvement of about 900 per cent. in the Government's performance over the next four years if they were to meet the target for the reduction of vehicle crime with which the Prime Minister has lumbered the Home Secretary.
  The Home Secretary is, of course, justified in pointing out the progress that has been made. He is normally a generous man, not only in providing people with match tickets but in conferring praise on those who deserve it. I therefore hope that he will join me in congratulating the previous Government on securing a 26.6 per cent. fall in vehicle crime between 1993 and 1997. That was a real and creditable achievement. I wish the Government well in reducing car crime. It was, shall we say, bold to set the target of a 30 per cent. cut over five years, but at present it does not look as if the Government are likely to achieve it.
  36
  It is important to clarify the categories of car crime about which we are speaking. The figure that I mentioned, of slightly fewer than 1.5 million offences between March 1999 and March 2000, included 374,686 offences of the theft of a vehicle, but also 669,232 offences of theft from a vehicle. A clear and large majority of the offences committed are thefts from, rather than of, vehicles.
  I was sorry to hear about the Home Secretary's personal misfortune, in respect both of the theft of his car and of the extraction of his stereo. I wanted to intervene to congratulate him on his generosity in offering match tickets, but I could hardly have congratulated him on the measures that he took—or failed to take—to protect his property. He gave the distinct impression that he had failed to secrete his stereo or cassette player in one of the obvious places. He could have put it in the glove compartment or the boot, or he could have wandered off to his next meeting with it on his person.
  Mr. Straw indicated dissent.
  Mr. Bercow: It is perfectly possible to extract the frontage to prevent a stereo from being stolen.
  Mr. Steve McCabe: Is that general advice from those on the Opposition Front Bench—that if some me has a fixed stereo unit they should dismantle it and secrete it in the glove compartment?
  Mr. Bercow: I grant that if the unit is fixed that makes it more difficult. I have a different arrangement myself, and I would be happy to communicate the obvious benefits to the Home Secretary. If he wishes to accompany me to the car park I will show him my system, which has a real advantage over his, and I could advise him on what steps to take so as greatly to reduce the chances of his suffering such a crime again.
  The significance of car crime is well understood, but so too, should be the significance of Government policy in relation to it. I acknowledge that the Government have taken some steps to counteract the threat of car criminals, but they have also taken other steps that give altogether the opposite impression of their intentions.
  I hope that I shall enjoy the support of my right hon. and hon. Friends when I say that it is pitiful that since the inception of the home detention curfew scheme in January 1999—I remind the House that that has resulted in the early release of 27,000 serious offenders—no fewer than 300 car thieves have been let out of jail early. Typically, as the figures demonstrate, they are released before they have served half their sentence.
  That sends the wrong signal. The undesirable message is: "Don't worry. You will be caught, sentenced and locked up, but you will only be incarcerated for a short time. Then you will be released and have the opportunity to resume your life of crime." That is an extraordinary state of affairs. It is peculiar that the Government should, on one hand, introduce the Bill—which has at least the appearance of robustness—and, on the other, pursue a policy that genuinely merits my recent description of the Home Secretary as a lily-livered liberal.
  Is it any wonder that this country's criminal classes are praying for a Labour election victory? [Interruption.] I am surprised that that causes such surprise among

  37
  Government Members; they must know that if they pursue soft penal policies and release people from jail before they have typically served half their sentence, people will be encouraged in the belief that crime is not taken all that seriously and that they can come out of prison and, either immediately, or after a reasonable, decent interval, embark on a continuing life of crime. I must emphasise the fact that that is so obvious that it is surprising that anyone chooses to dispute it.
  I was grateful to the Home Secretary for his confirmation of the position as shown by the British crime survey. I know that he is greatly attached to that survey; he clutches sheaves of statistics to his breast every time he comes to the Chamber, but I was pleased that he confirmed the British crime survey's finding that the level of car crime is roughly twice what is officially recorded. Interestingly, as the Home Secretary will know and as my right hon. and hon. Friends should be aware, 61 per cent. of thefts are from vehicles and only 11 per cent. are thefts of vehicles. That confirms the overall trend, and it is relevant to the Bill, for as I will say later, and I have support from outside organisations in doing so, the Bill overwhelmingly deals with the theft of vehicles rather than with the statistically more significant phenomenon of theft from vehicles—[Interruption]—as the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Chidgey) concurs from a sedentary position. So we are talking about 28 per cent. of all recorded crime in 1999–2000—crime that costs about £3.5 billion a year.
  The Home Secretary was right to emphasise the effect of such crime, but unless I misheard him he did not emphasise its full effects. He rightly said that financial loss, inconvenience and personal distress are involved, but more than that is at stake. Vehicle crime is not only distressing to its victims, but represents a gateway to the commission of other serious offences, such as drug trafficking and terrorism. Hon. Members on both sides of the House will agree that we need to view such crime in that context.
  The target for the reduction is good, challenging and bold; it might even be describedw—this will terrify the Home Secretary—as a brave target. Despite the announcement of the target, we know two facts about the Bill. First, almost certainly, it will not reach the statute book before the Prime Minister tames the day for a general election, so it should be considered in context. I do not doubt that on the basis of pager messages and Millbank tower briefings, there will be no shortage of supportive speeches from Labour Members; they will rush to shower confetti on the Home Secretary, tell him what a good chap he is and embolden him to pursue the measures contained in the Bill; but the reality is that the Bill, introduced at the fag end—if that is not a politically incorrect term—of this Parliament will not reach the statute book before a general election takes place.
  Mr. Forth: I have no doubt that my hon. Friend will deal with this matter later in his speech, but in the context of what he has just said, does he agree that, lest anyone should imagine that the Bill is uncontroversial, clause 9 contains our old friend, the right to enter and inspect premises? I pick that clause at random to emphasise the fact that if the Government are under any illusion that they can introduce the Bill now, declare it uncontroversial
  38
  and try to blackmail both Houses of Parliament into slipping it through without very thorough scrutiny, they will be very much mistaken.
  Mr. Bercow: I entirely agree with my right hon. Friend's observation. It is no secret that he and I have what in political terms might be described as a symbiotic relationship; periodically, I can anticipate my right hon. Friend, but he is invariably able to anticipate me. Lest he should worry, I assure him that I intend to say something about that provision. What is more, I had fully intended to do so even without his characteristically helpful observation. The Bill will not become law before the election in any case.
  The second fact that we know about the Bill is that there will be 3,000 fewer police officers to enforce it. I was as shocked as my right hon. Friend the shadow Home Secretary by the Home Secretary's alarming display of complacency. Of course, we do not have to increase the size of the police force every time a new Bill is introduced, but people outside the House will now start to get the clear message that there is a chronic mismatch—a gaping chasm—between Ministers' rhetoric and the reality of the policies that they pursue. Again and again, Ministers promise more, but deliver less. It is not reasonable of them to push through legislation, to make highfalutin promises and to commit themselves to great policy objectives while expecting others who are reduced in number, increased in terms of pressure and diminished in terms of political support from those on the Treasury Bench still to achieve those objectives.
  The leaders of our police forces do not lightly speak out in public. I hope that, when they do so, the Home Secretary will listen. I was concerned when, in a response to an intervention from my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant), the Home Secretary airily dismissed the observations of a senior policeman by saying that he says something every six months or so, that he has been doing so for about 10 years and, therefore, that no special significance should be attached to his remarks. I remind the right hon. Gentleman that, just as he is an important, highly influential and greatly respected man with a full diary, the same goes for the chairman of the Police Federation. When the chairman of the Police Federation speaks out, the Home Secretary should listen, especially because the chairman has castigated the right hon. Gentleman for the inadequacy of the support that he has made available to the police while increasing their responsibilities all the while.
  Let us consider the detailed proposals for cutting car crime. The Home Secretary rightly referred to the vehicle crime reduction action team. As he well knows, its strategy focuses on several objectives. The first is better vehicle security and several measures offer the prospect of improving the detection of car crime and deterring its incidence. Electronic immobilisers on new cars are compulsory under the European Union law of 1998 and the anti-theft directive of 1995–96.
  It is now proposed that it should be compulsory for cars that are seven to 10 years old to have electronic immobilisers. Instead of applying the idea simply to new cars, it is possible that the owners of old cars will be requested—or more likely, obliged—to install immobilisers. I have not yet observed my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) quivering at that suggestion, but it is only a matter of time

  39
  before he becomes alarmed. It is a cost issue, and we have to strike a balance. Although we want to improve vehicle security, we do not want to impose burdens that people cannot realistically be expected shoulder. I do not know what the cost of developing the policy would be, but it is incumbent on the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, the hon. Member for Streatham (Mr. Hill), to share that information with us when he winds up.
  The Government have not yet pursued the idea of making the installation of electronic immobilisers compulsory on cars of seven to 10 years old. I do not know whether they intend to do so, but I am sure that the Under-Secretary can enlighten me. I hope that he will. The vehicle crime reduction action team has estimated that such a development could result in the commission of 60,000 fewer offences by 2004.
  That raises an interesting question. Do the Government intend to make installation compulsory for seven to 10-year-old cars? The answer is important. If they do not intend to do that, there will be a saving—a burden for consumers forgone—but the prospect of reducing offences by 60,000 by 2004, after which the Under-Secretary no doubt hankers, will be removed. If they intend to go ahead with the compulsory policy for older vehicles, they might have a slightly greater chance of achieving their car crime reduction target, but only at the personal expense of a large number of car buyers of—I must emphasise—more modest means.
  Mr. Desmond Swayne: Has it escaped my hon. Friend's notice that drivers of more modest means drive more modest and older vehicles and are much less likely to have their vehicles stolen, precisely as a consequence of the modest and elderly nature of the vehicle?
  Mr. Bercow: I am not sure that that is true. Some car criminals are fairly undiscriminating. We know that they steal to feed a habit. It is uncertain that they take a sophisticated view as part of the car cognoscenti. For once, I am sorry to say, I fear that my hon. Friend might be wrong.
  Mr. Chidgey: Perhaps I can help. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that the hon. Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne) might be wrong. Work by Sallybanks and Thomas shows that the highest number of vehicles stolen are owned by people on the lowest incomes, who live in the most disrupted areas and whose cars are of a lower value and older.
  Mr. Bercow: That is a helpful observation. It might be churlish to suggest this, but I wonder whether that important information was given to the hon. Member for Eastleigh by my very good friend, the excellent prospective Conservative parliamentary candidate for Eastleigh, Mr. Conor Burns. I know not—but it is likely.
  We have talked about better vehicle security, but we should also mention better enforcement. I must emphasise that enforcement is a great task for the police, but they have suffered a huge cut in numbers, which will not change immediately. It is also a challenge for the crime
  40
  and disorder partners. Although there is no strict statistical relationship between areas in which police numbers have been reduced and those in which car crime is alarmingly high, it must logically follow that if fewer officers are available, it is more difficult to investigate thefts. The trend, therefore, is not likely to improve, but over a period it will be exacerbated.
  The Government have emphasised the importance of a safer environment. They are right to do so, because 22 per cent. of vehicle crime occurs in car parks. Ministers are justified in highlighting the need for CCTV. The secured car parks scheme is also significant, but has not been mentioned. It is supported by the Association of Chief Police Officers and some evidence suggests that it is achieving worthwhile results. Ministers tell us that £153 million is available until March 2002 for CCTV. We anticipate that they will not get around to spending that money because we hope to have crossed to the other side of the House by then, but we are strongly committed to continuing the programme.
  There is also a role for the modernisation of information systems. The motor industry anti-fraud and theft computerised database holds information about insured vehicles that are stolen or subject to insurance write-offs. The register will be linked to DVLA from next year, which augurs well for the prospects of a reduction in car crime. The motor insurance database will hold details of all insurance policies on individually insured vehicles and will, I think, be operational in 2001. It will link directly to the police national computer and should enable uninsured drivers to be more easily identified. I think that I am also correct in saying that the MOT record is to be computerised and fully operational from 2002–03. That bodes well, although I am getting no signal from the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions on that point.
  Part I deals with the regulation of motor salvage operators, on which the Home Secretary dwelt for a few minutes. Let us be clear about our definitions. Salvage or recycling companies are defined as
  any person, persons, company or organisation taking possession of or dealing in stolen and recovered, damaged or redundant motor vehicles for the purpose or repair, salvage or recycling.
  The Bill defines motor salvage as:
  the recovery for re-use or sale of salvageable parts from motor vehicles,
  followed by the
  sale or other disposal for scrap of the remainder of the vehicles concerned.
  It goes on to define it as:
  the purchase of written-off vehicles and their subsequent repair and re-sale.
  It should be emphasised that most decent, reputable motor salvage operators provide an excellent service, which consists of disposing of about 1.5 million vehicles each year. In 1998, about 430,000 vehicles were written off by insurance companies; it is those vehicles that currently provide the cover to disguise the true identity of some of the 120,000 vehicles stolen and not recovered in 1997–98. The police estimate that about 65 per cent., or 78,000, of the stolen and unrecovered vehicles are either rung—of which more anon—or broken for spare parts: it is thought that approximately 25 per cent. are rung and 40 per cent. broken for spare parts. In addition, insurance

  41
  fraud is thought to account for a further 20 per cent., or 24,000 vehicles, some of which will end up in the salvage industry and be reported stolen by the owner.
  Advocates of statutory regulation contend that the lack of it provides a green light for the disposal of stolen vehicles. Existing regulation is controlled by the insurance industry and the trade associations. The British Vehicle Salvage Federation represents 75 larger salvage dealers which together represent about 75 per cent. of the insurance industry salvage business. The Motor Vehicle Dismantlers Association of Great Britain represents smaller dealers whose primary function is dismantling; it represents only about 10 per cent. of the 2,000 to 2,500 dismantlers in Great Britain, which is significant in the context of the Bill's regulatory provisions. So that we are aware of the terms and the context in which we are debating the Bill, the sector as a whole consists of about 2,500 to 3,000 companies, which together employ between 20,000 and 30,000 people.
  The trade associations operate a code of practice that is based on co-operation with the DVLA and, through it, with the police, but that approach is thought to suffer from several weaknesses. First, the ability of those organisations to police their own members is limited. Secondly, the code of practice has not been adopted by hire companies or by the Crown, which operates large fleets of vehicles that carry their own insurance against total loss. Thirdly, and most significantly, up to 25 per cent. of the salvage business and up to 90 per cent. of the dismantling business are not covered by the code. That is the rationale behind the issuing by the Home Office of its consultation document on the proposed regulation of the motor salvage industry. I feel sure that my right hon. and hon. Friends are aware that that document flagged up several possibilities, of which statutory regulation was one. If memory serves correctly, of the 26 organisations that responded to the exercise, 22 favoured the option of statutory regulation.
  Mr. Fabricant: I have been listening with great interest to my hon. Friend's comments on the failure to some extent of self-regulation within the industry. Does that not imply that, for the legislation to be successful, there must be a degree of supervision by the regulatory authorities, in this case the police? Does that not provide prima facie evidence either that there will have to be extra police officers to do the work, or that other aspects of law and order will suffer as a consequence?
  Mr. Bercow: My hon. Friend is invariably perceptive, and his observation was no exception to the general rule. He is right. It upsets and perturbs me that the Home Secretary, who much of the time is a sensible fellow, persists in ignoring or denying this obvious point.
  I can see that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Mr. McCabe) is becoming itchy, so I shall give way.
  Mr. McCabe: I want to clarify a simple point that arises from the intervention of the hon. Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant). Does not clause 13 give the local authority powers to prosecute and supervise in relation to that part of the Bill?
  Mr. Bercow: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that observation. He is partly right, but he should be
  42
  aware—I do not dispute his textual reference—that there will be a responsibility on police constables as well. I am sure that he will not dispute that. If there are fewer of them, if there is more crime to detect and if the political pressure on them to be successful in doing so is greater, I appeal to the hon. Gentleman to recognise that somewhere along the line the equation breaks down. That is not fair on the police.
  I find it curious—I am sure that this has not escaped the attention of my right hon. and hon. Friends—that whereas in respect of many of the great public services, Labour Members rush to the defence of those employed in delivering them and are always anxious to improve their conditions in recognising what a difficult job they do, when it comes to the police they are happy to increase the burdens but not ready to pay tribute to the enormous work against the odds, often under severe physical threat, that the officers undertake. I am not applying that point to the Home Secretary, but many Back-Bench Labour Members are guilty of that approach.
  Under part I, motor salvage operators will need to be registered with the local authority in which they are based. The local authority will have powers to refuse renewal of registrations, having originally granted them. Operators will have to keep records of the vehicles entering the industry and of disposals. The Government believe that their policy could avoid about 39,000 vehicle thefts and 6,000 fraudulent insurance claims each year, with an economic benefit of £183 million.
  Allan Greenouff on behalf of the British Vehicle Salvage Federation, John Hesketh on behalf of the Motor Vehicle Dismantlers Association, Richard Allen on behalf of the Association of British Insurers, Sandy Dalgano on behalf of the National Salvage Group, the AA, and Ken Williams, the chief constable of Norfolk and the representative of the Association of Chief Police Officers on VCRAT, have all welcomed the Bill. Nevertheless, several issues require the close attention of the House. My right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst characteristically identified one of them at an early stage in the debate.
  I have in mind, of course, clause 9, which will give police constables the power to enter and inspect registered motor salvage premises and their records without warrant. It makes provision for searches with warrants to take place at premises that are unregistered or where a police constable has previously been refused entry.
  Is that necessary? It is not clear to me that it is.
  Mr. Fabricant: Will there be enough officers?
  Mr. Bercow: It is not even clear to me, as indicated by the sedentary intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield, that there will be sufficient police officers effectively to discharge the statutory obligation.
  There appears to be a slightly curious differential between the treatment of premises that are registered and that of those that are not. Why are registered operators apparently subject to harsher treatment than that meted out to their unregistered counterparts? I shall be grateful for the comments of the Under-Secretary of State when he replies.
  Secondly, clause 8 will require all motor salvage dealers to provide notifications of the destruction of a vehicle. At present, under the code of conduct, those who

  43
  belong to the BVSF and the MVDA comply with that process. They already send certificates, which are V860s, to the DVLA. The idea behind the code of conduct was that when the DVLA has received a V860 for a vehicle, it will refuse to issue a V5 in response to any future request as it would know that the car in question was permanently broken and that the request must therefore be fraudulent.
  I consider myself no great authority on the matter, but I am told that the arrangement worked well for a while, before someone spotted a loophole in the law. Apparently—I should be grateful for comeback on this point from the Under-Secretary, who is looking earnestly in the direction of those who advise—the DVLA is technically not allowed to refuse a V5 request. All that it can do is to issue the V5 and ask the police to investigate. I feel sure that I am carrying my right hon. and hon. Friends with me on this important theme.
  Now the DVLA must issue V5s for cars that it knows no longer exist, and it can only notify the police—the underfunded, overburdened, insufficiently supported police. In practice, of course, the police investigate different proportions of such referrals in different police areas. Some routinely investigate all, but some investigate only a few.
  Mr. Forth: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Does he concede that it is his experience, as it is mine and that of many other people, that the police, rightly but regrettably, give greater priority to crimes involving violence, violence against the person, housebreaking and so on, and that vehicle offences come, rightly, pretty low down on the priority list of most, if not all, police forces? If my hon. Friend agrees with that general contention, what does he think will be the effectiveness of the role of the police in discharging the responsibilities given to them by the Bill?
  Mr. Bercow: My right hon. Friend's judgment of the significance of car crime in the overall scale of police priorities is almost certainly right. They are more likely to focus on violent crime and they are especially justified in doing so in light of the figures for increasing violent crime over the past 12 months or so. In other words, the position on violent crime is being made substantially worse. In London, for example, another 36,000, I think, violent offences were committed over the past 12 months. That requires a police resource.
  The police will have to focus first and foremost on that, yet they are faced with the introduction of the Bill. I would like to think that Ministers will be modest, but I suspect that they will trumpet the provisions of the Bill, claim to be robust and insist that they are involved in a ferocious crackdown on vehicle crime.
  All that the Home Secretary will have done, which is not an insignificant accomplishment, but it is an exiguous one, is to pilot through the Bill. Police officers will have to do the dirty work—police officers of whom there are not enough, who face greater regulatory burdens and who are confronted with a large increase in violent crime, not least as a result of the lily-livered feebleness that the right hon. Gentleman has displayed over the past three and a half years.
  Mrs. Gilroy: A moment ago, the hon. Gentleman correctly made the link between motor vehicle crime and
  44
  drug crime. He will acknowledge, I think, that there is also a link between drug crime and violent crime. Will he therefore give a little more credit to our police to assign priority to such matters?
  Mr. Bercow: I am sorry to be so misinterpreted by the hon. Lady, who usually has a keen ear and attends closely to what is said. I was not in any way criticising or casting aspersions on the police. For the avoidance of doubt, I. was criticising and casting aspersions on the Government's record, from which both the innocent public and the police suffer.
  I am not cavilling at the achievement of the police, nor am I saying—I emphasise this to the hon. Lady—that they should not give priority to the pursuit of violent criminals. [Interruption.] It is no good the hon. Lady chuntering from a sedentary position in an entirely unintelligible manner, when I am seeking to respond effectively to the half-point that she made.
  Of course, the police are right to focus on violent crime. However, they are being charged with additional responsibilities under the Bill, but are not being promised increased resources to discharge those responsibilities. I made that point earlier, but I am repeating it, as it is so obvious that it is extraordinary that even a new Labour apparatchik can choose to ignore or deny it.
  Mr. Fabricant: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for being generous in giving way for the third, or even fourth, time. Is he surprised to learn that the office of the chief constable of Staffordshire has informed me that the latest Government initiative—the crackdown on yob culture—will be difficult to achieve on a Friday or Saturday night in Lichfield, where there are only three or four police officers, backed up by, perhaps, five or six special constables? How will those police officers meet the provisions of clause 9? The clause states that, in addition to cracking down on yob culture,
  A constable may at am reasonable time
  enter and inspect premises for the purposes of the Bill.
  Mr. Bercow: Police officers will be able to do that only with great difficulty, if at all. The experience in the centre of Lichfield to which my hon. Friend referred is by no means atypical. He will find that it is replicated throughout the country in constituencies of my right hon. and hon. Friends and importantly, those of Government Members. I hope that Government Members will have something to say about the mismatch between the responsibility that will be imposed and the resources that will be provided. How ever, I am not to be distracted from the important point.
  Mrs. Gilroy: The hon. Gentleman may wish to take advice from the hon. Member for South-West Devon (Mr. Streeter), in whose constituency violent crime has gone down in the first eight months of this year. Violent crime has gone down by 23 per cent. in Plymstock Radford in that constituency; by 13 per cent. in my constituency; by 38 per cent. in Efford; by 21 per cent. in Plymstock Dunstone; by 4 per cent. in Plympton St. Mary; and by 18 per cent. in Plympton Erle. Therefore, there are examples to which the hon. Gentleman can look to see what works.
  Mr. Bercow: I am grateful for the hon. Lady's observation, but I am not sure that she has advanced her

  45
  cause greatly. Of course, there are examples of the reduction of crime. I join the hon. Lady in celebrating the reduction in violent crime. However, I hope that she will acknowledge that, statistically, it is clear that, overall, violent crime is increasing substantially. We know that in London, the Thames valley area, and throughout the country.
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Sylvia Heal): I remind hon. Members that this is a debate about vehicles. It is not a debate about statistics and the levels of crime.
  Mr. Bercow: I am grateful to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for steering me back on to the path of virtue, along which, as you know, I ordinarily tread. I am not going to be diverted again by observations about violent crime, and shall focus on vehicle crime.
  As I said a few moments ago, I want to emphasise the fact that the DVLA must issue V5s for cars which, it knows, no longer exist, and of which it can only notify the police. In practice, the police investigate differently in different areas. Some police investigate routinely, but others investigate only a few offences. It is notable that an experienced observer advised Her Majesty's Opposition that, nationally, the chance of being investigated is about 7 per cent. I must tell the Home Secretary that I can see nothing in the Bill that will change the law and allow the DVLA to refuse V5 applications for vehicles for which it has received V860s. Is that not a loophole, and do the Government intend to close it? If not, Ministers must provide more police to allow for routine investigation of such cases, which the fight against crime and the protection of the public patently require.
  Mr. David Kidney: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his usual courtesy in giving way. To help him, does not clause 32 enable the Secretary of State to make new regulations to permit the DVLA to refuse to issue the new certificate?
  Mr. Bercow: I am not sure that the hon. Gentleman is right in supposing that the Bill will prevent the automatic issue of V5s. I have looked at the Bill closely and consulted on it. However, I am a generous and gracious chap, so I say to the hon. Gentleman, who is a keen observer of all our proceedings, that I shall happily concede to him if he is right and I am wrong. I hope that he is right, but I am not optimistic.
  Mr. Kidney: I shall listen out in Committee.
  Mr. Bercow: The hon. Gentleman is welcome to do so and he knows that I shall not seek to avoid responsibility for dealing with the point.
  Page 4 of the Home Office consultation paper on the proposal to regulate the motor salvage industry contains a statement that should be of some concern to the House. Paragraph 34 states:
  It is not considered that it would be necessary to formally monitor the effectiveness of the regulation.
  I shall not dwell on the split infinitive, but I point out that that observation is complacent and irresponsible. Ministers should intend to monitor closely, regularly and publicly the outcome of any measures in the Bill if they eventually become law.
  46
  There are a number of other concerns about part I. For example, the British Motorcyclists Federation thinks that it is deficient in particular respects and is susceptible to amendment in Committee. For now, however, I shall focus on part II, which deals with the regulation of registration plate suppliers. It is estimated that approximately 27,000 outlets assemble number plates and that they supply about 6 million to 7 million plates each year. About 2 million plates are fitted to new vehicles and a further 2 million are trade-ins. Replacement plates account for the balance.
  The main objective of part II is to regulate the supply of number plates in order to combat vehicle ringing and cloning. [Interruption.] The Home Secretary is pointing to the time. I am sure that other hon. Members want to contribute, but, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, the matter must be thoroughly examined. Earlier, he referred indirectly to the phenomenon of vehicle ringing, but did not define it. It is, however, important, as it is central to the Bill. To elucidate for people outside the House who are listening to our proceedings, I should point out that vehicle ringing is the name attached to the process of giving to stolen vehicles the identity of legitimate vehicles that have been seriously damaged or written off. Vehicle cloning uses the identity of an existing vehicle to disguise another vehicle.
  I think that I am right in saying that Sweden, which has tightly controlled number plate supply since 1993, is much more successful in deterring criminal offences and in identifying those that have been perpetrated. Part II, which contains clauses 16 to 30, provides for the registration of persons who supply number plates and allows the Secretary of State to make details of the register available to the police. It provides also for the charging of a registration fee and confers a power by which the court may suspend registrations of persons who contravene it. In addition, it provides a power to prosecute for contravention of statutory requirements.
  Mr. Fabricant: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Bercow: I shall do so in a moment. Part II also allows the Secretary of State to remove from the register persons whom he believes to have ceased trading. There is some uncertainty about the reason for the specific provision on that. However, before I come to that concern, I must, of course, come to my hon. Friend's aid.
  Mr. Fabricant: After his study of the Bill, does my hon. Friend know whether licence plate manufacturers will be subject to a tighter obligation to ensure that they produce plates in the proper manner? Has he noticed the number of licence plates with italic writing or strange graphics that make them difficult to read? Such plates are not printed in Roman, sanserif script, which is the prescribed form.
  Mr. Bercow: I do not know how heavy an obligation will be placed on plate manufacturers. On the plates' composition and appearance, my feeling is that what counts is the capacity to detect crime. If virtual or total uniformity of appearance aids and abets the detection of crime, I am happy to settle for it. However, I must emphasise to my hon. Friend that if the different composition or appearance of number plates seemed to be insignificant to the level of crime, I would be much more

  47
  relaxed about that. Fighting crime is what matters, although, in general terms, as he knows, I favour choice and diversity.
  I want to deal with the point about removing people from the register of practising plate suppliers, about which, I say to the Home Secretary, I was a little quizzical. If memory serves me correctly, the Bill provides a power, which he can exercise, to deregister a registered plates supplier who has not practised that trade or profession for 28 days. I do not want to do him a disservice: the Bill provides for such an individual to make representations, there is a period of grace—14 days, if memory serves me correctly—in which to make those representations, there is the prospect of an appeal and, ultimately, in the event of a continuing disagreement between a plate supplier and the Secretary of State, the matter can go to a magistrates court. However, I am intrigued, first, as to why 28 days was chosen. I have made discreet inquiries and understand that the figure was a brainwave of those in his Department who advise him, though it was plucked arbitrarily from the air and there is no particular reason for specifying 28 days rather than 42 or 56.
  Secondly, what would lead Ministers to suspect that someone had ceased to trade? I may have failed to notice an obvious point, but feel sure that the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, the hon. Member for Streatham, would put my mind at rest in such circumstances. I put it to the Home Secretary that it is entirely possible that someone might cease to trade for such a period because he or she had gone abroad or for personal or family reasons, so it seems rather draconian to put or to threaten to put such a person out of business. What scope will there be for recompense should it transpire that an error has been made in deregistering him or her?
  Mr. Blunt: That point also applies to the regulation of motor salvage operators. The Bill will not allow them to receive restitution should their business be affected by local authority registration and should they successfully appeal through the magistrates courts and on through the legal system. Why does not it enable them to obtain such restitution, as required under the European convention on human rights, even though the explanatory notes refer to that convention? I am grateful to the Clerks for acknowledging that there has been an administrative error. There may be a convention problem in respect of the lack of provision for restitution.
  Mr. Bercow: My hon. Friend asks why the Bill does not make such provision. I do not know because I am not psychic, but I feel sure that Ministers know and they will be able to advise us during the winding-up speech or before.
  Clause 25 will give police constables and local authority inspectors the power to enter and inspect registered suppliers and their records without a warrant. It also provides for searches with warrants to take place on unregistered premises. Again, I flag up the concern that that seems to be harder on suppliers who are registered than on those who are not. In that context, the Bill also creates three new offences, one of which is knowingly supplying plates to a person who is in the
  48
  business of selling fake registration plates. That will be hard to prove, and I should be interested to know what thinking took place on the measure, but I certainly wish Ministers God speed in relation to it.
  Clause 20 will allow the Secretary of State to cancel a person's registration if he is satisfied that the registered person has ceased trading. That relates to the point about ceasing to trade for 28 days. I must re-emphasise that we need to know not only the rationale for that proposal, but what recompense would be available should a mistaken decision be made.
  Another concern of some importance has been raised by the European Secure Vehicle Alliance. A plate that does not meet the technical design specifications established by the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions and which is intended, for example, to deceive a roadside camera will be deemed to be counterfeit. Is it also intended to deem counterfeit plates that are supplied without due diligence to a buyer seeking to deceive the purchaser of a vehicle of uncertain provenance? I feel sure that Ministers know the answer, and I hope we shall hear it in the winding-up speech.
  Clause 33 allows the Secretary of State, by regulations, to prescribe specifications for number plates, and/or to require them to contain or display such information as he thinks fit. The DETR consultation paper raised the possibility—alluded to earlier by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst—that the information would include anything from the vehicle inspection number to the European flag. It would be helpful to know whether the Government plan to include vehicle inspection numbers, and what impact Ministers think that would have on vehicle security and car crime.
  If the Government intend to make the change, will it be made to coincide with the introduction of the new licence-plate system next year? For my part, I have little doubt about the impact of any European-flag provision: it would probably damage the car, and it would certainly damage my concentration when driving it.
  I was a little perturbed to hear the Home Secretary say that he had no briefing on whether it would be possible to display a Union flag. If the right hon. Gentleman had allowed me to intervene, I would have said I assumed that—as a senior and respected Minister—he ran his Department, and did not allow his Department to run him. If he agrees with my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst that a person should be allowed to display a Union flag, why does he not just say so?
  If the Bill requires amendment in order to facilitate that option, let it be amended in Committee. It would, however, be intolerable to be presented with a scenario allowing people to display a European Union flag, but not a Union flag. The only succour I can derive from what we have been told so far is that, at least for the time being, the provision in respect of the display of the European flag is permissive rather than prescriptive: that is, its display would be voluntary rather than compulsory.
  I am not a great driver; I am not even an enthusiastic driver. I am happy to vouchsafe that I regard driving as an unavoidable necessity—a chore—a means by which to get from A to B. Unlike most men, I do not claim to be a good driver. In certain circumstances, I could be tempted to desist from driving at all, and one of those circumstances would be an obligation to display a European Union flag. If for the remaining years of my

  49
  parliamentary service—and I hope there will be many—I had to travel to and from my constituency by means other than a car, I would do so, if the alternative were being obliged to display a vulgar—
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind the hon. Gentleman that the subject of the debate is clearly not to do with the European flag. We are actually debating vehicle crime.
  Mr. Bercow: I am grateful for your guidance, Madam Deputy Speaker. You have brought me to book, and I hope you will not have reason to do so again.
  Mr. Forth: As car registration plates are a matter directly connected with the Bill, and as my hon. Friend is now correctly discussing the issue of car registration plates, he may consider this point relating to car registration plates.
  My hon. Friend will know of recent reports that London taxi cab drivers have been prohibited from displaying the English flag on their registration plates. A question was asked earlier about the display of the Welsh flag on Welsh car registration plates, which would of course be covered by the Bill. Does my hon. Friend agree that we face very peculiar circumstances, in which we shall apparently be unable to identify ourselves voluntarily with a specific part of this country—whether by means of a flag or by other means—but obliged to subscribe to the idea that we are all Europeans?
  Mr. Bercow: I am genuinely alarmed by the news that my right hon. Friend has volunteered. You, Madam Deputy Speaker, pointed out that I must not dilate on the subject of the European flag, however great the temptation otherwise so to do might be. Of course, I immediately comply with your instruction, but I point out that clause 33 specifically enables the Secretary of State by regulation to provide specifications for registration plates—it will not have escaped the beady eye of my right hon. Friend—
  (whether relating to their size, shape, material of manufacture or otherwise).
  "Otherwise" is an all-embracing term. Specifications may relate to size, shape and material of manufacture, but also "otherwise". I emphasise to the Home Secretary—I do not think that he will deny it—that, if he wanted, under the Bill and specifically under clause 33(1)(a), he would be able to specify either that people could fly a particular flag on the plate, or that they could not do so. That is perfectly within his competence under the clause.
  Mr. Blunt: I think that my hon. Friend will find that the European Union flag will come under subsection (b), the next one in the Bill, but I do not understand what his complaint is. If this country is unfortunate enough still to have the Government after the next election, the flag of the European Union will indeed be his national flag.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind all hon. Members that "Erskine May" makes it clear that the Second Reading debate should not extend to the details of clauses. I therefore ask the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) and others not to anticipate debates that are properly held in Committee.
  Mr. Bercow: I am grateful for that guidance. I simply accept the correction that my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt) issued.
  50
  A number of important issues in relation to vehicle crime are covered by part III. The proposed vehicle identity checks, for example, have received a mixed reception, but the Association of British Insurers welcomes them. However, it emphasises that many total loss vehicles are not regulated by the current code of practice because they do not pass through the hands of insurers.
  That prompts two concerns. I feel sure that the Home Secretary is listening attentively to the two concerns that I wish to highlight.
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. Keith Hill): Why should he?
  Mr. Bercow: The Under-Secretary of State says, "Why should he?" I will tell him why the Home Secretary should be listening and why he should be concerned. There are real grievances about the Bill. There are anxieties about cost. There are concerns about over-regulation. There is a desire that it should achieve the purpose that has been established for it.
  If the Under-Secretary of State in the fag end of the Parliament is so arrogant as to suppose that, simply because officials draft a Bill and the Home Secretary commends it to the House, there should be no further significant debate on the principles which inform it, he is wrong. So long as I and my right hon. and hon. Friends are in the House, he is to be disappointed because we will continue to argue the toss. We will look at the detail. We will expose the mismatch between Government words and Government deeds. If he wishes to provoke me further, he can do so. We will not abandon our obligation, which is to look at the detail.
  I said that the ABI emphasised that total loss vehicles were not regulated by the current code of practice because they did not pass through the hands of insurers. There are two concerns on that front. First, some vehicles are returned by the owner either because he does not wish to give up the salvage to the insurer who has settled the claim—perhaps because he wishes to rebuild the car—or because he was himself liable for the accident and is not comprehensively insured. In the latter case, the insurer may never become aware of the damage to the vehicle.
  The Government apparently believe that human rights legislation prevents them from compelling those motorists to hand over their vehicles to insurers, or to ensure that they are disposed of in accordance with the code of practice. The ABI believes that that is contrary to the public interest. I should genuinely be grateful for the response of the Under-Secretary of State when he winds up the debate.
  Secondly, there is the numerically larger problem of "self-insured" vehicles. Some large organisations give securities or deposits and have no commercial insurance cover at all. Certain Crown vehicles come into that category. Other vehicles have insurance cover only for the third party element of any claim, and their owners themselves are therefore responsible for the disposal of damaged vehicles. The Association of British Insurers would like those organisations to abide by the code of practice because the higher specification newer models of which they dispose are a prime source of vehicles for ringing.

  51
  Clarification of the Government's intentions on those two types of cases would be helpful. However, in both types of cases, the ABI emphasises that it is essential that vehicle identity checks are conducted on total-loss vehicles returning to the road and that the regulations will be drafted accordingly.
  I gather that the initial legislation will also require the conduct of vehicle identity checks on only three of the four total-loss categories. Do the Government intend to extend the provision to the fourth category? I am looking in eager anticipation of some guidance on that point from the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, whose at least partial responsibility it is. The fourth category, of course, is that in which a vehicle is reparable but still written off by the insurer to minimise overheads during the repair period, if the Government intend that the provision should apply to the fourth category, can Ministers give some idea of when they intend to ensure that it does so?
  Clause 36 will extend the time-limit for bringing prosecutions for theft of a vehicle. As the current provision effectively prevents many car criminals from being apprehended and prosecuted because the time-limit has been reached, that extension seems to be an eminently sensible change. The current situation is silly, and we are right to try to assist the fight against crime as the Government seem to be proposing.
  Clause 37 will allow the Lord Chancellor's Department to make payments to magistrates courts to cover their costs in administering and hearing speed and traffic-camera cases. That provision, too, seems unobjectionable in principle.
  I now come to the matter of costs. It is estimated that costs on business will be about £13 million to £20 million in the first year, and £11 million to £18 million annually thereafter. We are told by Ministers that costs to the Exchequer will be met from within departmental limits. The impression is given, therefore, that there is nothing with which we need to concern ourselves.
  We are told that the cost to police will be about £110,000 annually. Ministers seem relaxed about that cost, too, on the basis that, as the checks would form part of the routine police investigation, police would "absorb the costs". It is rather less certain that police are quite as relaxed about the burden that Ministers have cheerfully imposed on them.
  On behalf of the British Vehicle Salvage Federation, Allan Greenouff—I think that the Home Secretary owes it to the sector to pay attention to this—stated:
  any costs, particularly for registration, which will fall on the vehicle salvage industry, as a result of the new legislation, must be kept to a minimum. So many requirements are being imposed on the industry at the present time, which is a very bad economic period, and any additional costs must be fixed for administration only and should not include any costs for police enforcement. If this is not the case, the new law will represent an unfair burden on the salvage industry which could lead to more withdrawals in the market. This would be disastrous at a time when maximum capacity is needed to handle end of life vehicles according to the forthcoming ELV directive and the ever increasing problem of abandoned vehicles.
  Mr. Greenouff adds that the proposed regulations on vehicle identity checks are a cause of concern to his members. He is sceptical of the cost and practicality of
  52
  the proposals in part III, and he gives notice that the drafting of proposals that are both workable and acceptable may
  result in protracted negotiations in the coming months.
  We have glancingly referred to the subject of regulations. No fewer than nine clauses in the Bill—clauses 7, 8, 17, 23, 24, 32, 33, 34 and 35—provide for government by regulation. When will the regulations be published in draft? Will they be debated in the House, or are they to be rammed through under the negative procedure, which allows no debate? Can the Home Secretary guarantee that a minimum of three months will be allowed for consultation? How much notice will be given of the intended date for implementation?
  The regulation issue is important. Small business has to negotiate a sea of regulation that is unprecedented in the history of the United Kingdom. I call to mind an important observation made by the director-general of British Chambers of Commerce, Mr. Chris Humphries—on 20 January 2000, if I remember correctly—that, despite the Government's rhetoric, they had dramatically increased the regulatory burdens that threaten small business competitiveness. In Britain, 99.6 per cent. of businesses employ fewer than 100 people. Those businesses account for approximately 57 per cent. of the private sector work force and generate two fifths of national output.
  I am sure that the Home Secretary will acknowledge from the figures that I gave earlier, and from his own knowledge of the motor salvage and dismantling industries, that the great majority of companies in the sector are small businesses. Indeed, some of them qualify for the Department of Trade and Industry's description "micro-businesses", because they employ fewer than 10 people. If regulation can be justified because the benefit that it will achieve outweighs the cost that it will impose, we are game for that. However, it makes sense to ensure that the regulation is proportionate.
  I hope that the Home Secretary, as an experienced Minister, will accept that one of the problems that has bedevilled business over the years—under Governments of both complexions, I readily concede—is that British officials have tended over-zealously to interpret European directives and regulations to the detriment of British businesses. Whereas our continental counterparts sign up to highfalutin declarations with only the vaguest intention of complying with them, we play by the Queensberry rules and regard that as an earnest of our serious intent to get on with the business of proper enforcement and compliance without delay. I do not object to that, but let us not make regulations over-elaborate. Let us not impose a burden that the pubic policy objective does not justify.
  What is the lesson of the past three and a half years of the Labour Government? The Home Secretary knows that I admire him personally, but I fear that the Government's record is of hyping policy, raising expectations, failing to deliver and letting people down. Despite the considerable personal qualities of the right hon. Gentleman, his performance as Hon to Secretary has confirmed that general drift. The Government make great claims for what they are going to achieve and encourage people to believe that major progress will be realised, but then fail to match reality to rhetoric and people end up feeling deflated. At best, people think, "Oh, is that all that came of all the good intent and fine words?" At worst, they feel bitterly betrayed and let down by the inadequacy of the Government's performance.

  53
  My advice to Ministers is to be honest and realistic and not to over-hype the measure and make out that it is going to make dramatic strides towards the achievement of the target of a 30 per cent. reduction in vehicle crime by 2004. It is unlikely to do so. As the European secure vehicle alliance put it:
  There is little evidence that this proposed legislation will make an immediate impact on organised vehicle crime but it must be the intention of all parties to create the climate whereby we increase the risk of detection of organised vehicle crime.
  Ministers should not give the wrong impression. They sometimes like to create an image of themselves rushing to the rescue. Previously, we all quaked in our boots and shivered in our beds at the prospect of our cars being stolen, or of objects being taken from them, but now we need no longer worry, because jumping Jack Flash is at hand. That is an unwise approach for Ministers to take.
  It would surely be sensible to be modest about the impact of the Bill, because, as the European secure vehicle alliance stresses, it focuses entirely on the theft of vehicles, but makes no reference to theft from vehicles—the incidence, albeit not the cost of which is much greater. Moreover, the Bill will struggle to reach the statute book before Britain goes to the polls, so Ministers should keep calm and stick to the facts.
  I offer Ministers two facts about the attitude of Conservative Members. First, we shall scrutinise the Bill fully and fairly. Secondly, we propose to tackle car crime by restoring the numbers of police, increasing their visibility and instilling fear into the hearts of criminals. Such an approach is the offer of a breath of fresh air after 43 months of miserable failure by the Labour Government.
  5.30 pm
  Mr. Steve McCabe: I begin by declaring a non-pecuniary interest in this matter. I am a vice-chairman of the European secure vehicle alliance—ESVA—to which the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) referred. As the organisation is dedicated to combating vehicle crime, I obviously welcome the Bill and many of the measures that it contains, for which ESVA has campaigned for a number of years.
  It is fair to say that this has been a light-hearted and good-humoured debate so far. Over the past hour and 19 minutes, we have witnessed almost the full range of the hon. Gentleman's parliamentary repertoire. Perhaps that is it for the term—I do not know. However, this is a serious matter, and we have to pay attention to its serious elements.
  Vehicle crime not only concerns us at a national level but has international implications. It crosses all boundaries and impacts on all people at different levels in society. It is certainly not confined to cars nor, as the hon. Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne) suggested earlier, to new vehicles. In fact, older vehicles are more likely to be stolen, although there is clearly a market in stealing to order high-performance sports cars and other specialist vehicles, which often end up in former Soviet Union countries such as Russia
  Vehicle crime is not confined to motor vehicles. It also covers motor cycles, plant and machinery and quite costly pieces of equipment.
  Mr. Fabricant: And farm machinery.
  Mr. McCabe: Indeed, it covers farm machinery as well. As vehicle crime has a serious impact on people's
  54
  livelihood, we must put it in perspective and treat it seriously. Many of us regard the figures in the explanatory notes to the Bill as an underestimate, but if it is true that 375,000 vehicles were stolen last year, with a recovery rate of around 70 per cent., that means that about 112,000 were not recovered, which in turn means that about 300 vehicles a day were lost and never recovered. So we must treat the matter seriously, however light-hearted the debate.
  This is not the kind of problem that we can deal with exclusively through Government measures. The Bill provides measures from the top that can make a difference and tackle some areas with which we are familiar, but we also need measures at the bottom through the community safety partnerships. For example, my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Mrs. Gilroy) referred to the situation in Plymouth. Measures can be taken at a local level, and I think that a combined approach will have the most useful impact.
  The Government have demonstrated that they treat the matter seriously. We should welcome the vehicle crime reduction action team initiative and the Government targets. I was somewhat surprised when the hon. Member for Buckingham suggested that his figures showed that the achievement towards the target had been only 0.5 per cent. I may have misunderstood him, but I think that I am right in saying that the most recent British crime survey shows something like a 15 per cent. reduction between 1997 and 1999.
  Mr. Bercow: I am listening with interest and some respect to the hon. Gentleman's contribution. If I may clarify my remarks, I was referring to the change from the period of March 1998–99 to March 1999–2000. I no longer have my speech in front of me, but I think that I said that the figure in March 1998–99 was 1,482,889 and that it had gone down by exactly 7,000 12 months later. That represents a reduction, over that 12-month period, of only 0.5 per cent.—welcome, but modest.
  Mr. McCabe: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that clarification. It demonstrates why we should all support the Bill; if we want to make quicker progress, we need to implement the measures that would enable us to do so. I would have thought that that was self-evident.
  We can draw on the example offered by the approach on road safety where there was a 30 per cent. target for the reduction of accidents. Significant progress was made, although the figures dipped during some periods. Two lessons from that approach could be effective in the present case. The first is that such a system works best when there is co-operation among all the parties. The second is that, if there are deficiencies in the system, it is best for the Government to introduce supplementary measures to plug the gaps. It seems to me that we are trying to do that with the Bill.
  It is fair to say that, in England and Wales, the rate of vehicle theft is the highest and the rate of recovery the poorest in the developed world. Despite some good operations recently by the West Midlands police, the Birmingham and west midlands area has one of the worst recovery rates in western Europe. From talking to policemen and to my constituents, I know that they are desperately worried about the problem of vehicle crime; they are anxious to see measures to tackle it.
  Mr. Fabricant: The hon. Gentleman is aware that I know his constituency and at least two of his constituents

  55
  extremely well. Does he believe that there might be a correlation between the fall in police numbers in the west midlands and the inability of the police to recover stolen vehicles? He will be aware that the West Midlands police force has experienced one of the greatest drops in numbers in England and Wales.
  Mr. McCabe: If my information is correct, the figures show a slight drop in vehicle crime in the west midlands, because of the operations that the police have been carrying out. I am not sure whether that necessarily supports the hon. Gentleman's observations. I shall make no comment about the people he knows in Hall Green.
  I do have some comments on police operations. Earlier, there was some debate as to whether the Bill would add to the pressures on the police. In my conversations with officers in the west midlands, they admit that vehicle crime operations are labour intensive, but they enjoy undertaking them because of the other crimes and criminal activities that they uncover. The police consider that, although such operations are labour intensive, they have significant benefits because they enable the police to clear up and identify other forms of crime. That is a judgment on the use of police resources.
  I welcome measures to develop more rigorous and integrated information systems. That will be of considerable benefit. The hon. Member for Buckingham referred to the Swedish experience. Theft rates in Sweden are only about half those in the UK and there is a much higher clear-up rate—almost 90 per cent. One of the clear reasons for that is the much greater use made in Sweden of integrated information systems, so that, when the police stop a vehicle, they can almost immediately, at the road-side, establish its excise duty, insurance and MOT status as well as the identity of the owner. If anything, we might argue that although the Government have gone some way towards addressing the problems and information gaps in our system, they could have gone much further. Had they looked more closely at the Swedish experience, that aspect of the Bill might have been better.
  I strongly support the measures introducing registration and enforcement schemes for the salvage industry and those who deal in number plates. As both the Home Secretary and other hon. Members have said, there is a real problem in this country because it is so easy to produce and acquire number plates. That is clearly a contributory factor in vehicle crime.
  It is true that there will be some costs. We heard something about those towards the end of the speech of the hon. Member for Buckingham, and I would be the first to acknowledge that there will be some cost burden. However, we should balance those against the enormous costs associated with vehicle crime, which are estimated to amount to about £3 billion a year.
  Everyone is affected. People cannot go to work because their vehicles have been stolen or damaged, vital machinery is taken from contractors, and hire purchase and vehicle rental companies lose their vehicles. In that context, although it is important to guard against the costs of the Bill being too onerous, we must set them against the existing costs to society. Provided that the burden is not excessive, the price will be worth paying.
  56
  We should welcome the measures relating to the salvage industry, and acknowledge that they are long overdue. It should no longer be possible for vehicles that have been written off to have their identities swapped with those of stolen vehicles, which can then be put back on the road. We should also try to reduce the market in spare parts, and the sale of goods such as the Home Secretary's stereo.
  We should also try to tighten the regulations to ensure that vehicles written off in a smash are not patched up, put back on the market and passed on to some innocent unsuspecting buyer. That would not be directly related to the provisions in the Bill, but the restraining of the salvage industry will have a welcome impact on such activity.
  I was a bit surprised to hear people asking whether the police should have the power to enter premises to inspect the register. It would seem strange to give tacit approval to legislation that requires those in the salvage industry to keep a register, yet deny the police the power to gain access to it. That is the worst kind of burden to put on industry, because it would create a register without providing any mechanism whereby the information in it could be used. That would be absurd.
  Mr. Bercow: The hon. Gentleman will recall that the main concern that I highlighted was the seemingly differential treatment between registered and unregistered operators, to the disadvantage of the former. What is his view of that?
  Mr. McCabe: There is a simple answer to that concern. There is an expectation that the police will build up good relationships with registered dealers and will know who is who, so they will be able to work with them in a way that is not intrusive or burdensome. As for unregistered operators, the police, through their intelligence, will now have a clear ready-made target. That is a persuasive argument for the approach being taken, as I hope the hon. Gentleman would agree.
  The hon. Member for Buckingham asked whether someone who supplies plates without due diligence will be guilty of supplying counterfeit plates. I should be grateful if the Minister would make that point clear.
  The Bill is welcome, so far as it goes. Some things are missing from it and there are areas where we could strengthen it. As at least two or three of my hon. Friends said earlier, it does not cover theft from vehicles, which is a crime of much greater proportions, although the financial sum involved may be less. As we are dealing with vehicle crime, it would be sensible to tackle not only the theft of vehicles, but theft from them. I do not know whether there is scope to study that in Committee, but it would be welcome.
  We should wonder why there has not been greater concentration on the industry. We should acknowledge the efforts that it has made in the past few years. The theft of new vehicles has decreased in direct relation to the measures that the industry has taken and such crime would be further reduced if further measures were taken. The introduction of laminated glass for side glazing panels is a simple example. I understand that, at the current rate, it will take 10 years for that to apply to most vehicles. If the industry were required to speed up that introduction, we could make more significant progress and reach the target more quickly.
  Mr. Bercow: I am sorry to trouble the hon. Gentleman, but this is an important point. The target of a 30 per cent.

  57
  reduction by 2004 is challenging, in the Home Secretary's words. Would he bet on its achievement, and if so, how much?
  Mr. McCabe: I am afraid that I cannot help the hon. Gentleman because I do not gamble. That is why I am a Labour Member of Parliament.
  I am surprised that the Bill does not contain measures on the way in which the insurance industry deals with vehicle theft. There are enormously high pay-outs and no restriction on people continuing to make claims. There was some debate earlier about the measures that people should take to protect their property. If people persistently do not take action to protect their property and continue to receive insurance pay-outs, we encourage the notion that such crime is victimless, but we know that everyone pays for it through increased premiums. The Bill could provide the opportunity to oblige individuals to protect their property. If they do not, insurance companies might take that fact into account in determining pay-outs.
  An interesting experiment recently took place in Merseyside, where the police and an insurance company worked jointly to recover stolen vehicles. People may be worried about the Bill's impact on the police, but that experiment had the great advantage that the insurance company made money available to the police, so extra resources were available to target vehicle crime. The consequence was a massive increase in recovery and the insurance company gained because the pay-outs were dramatically reduced. We could learn from that example. Perhaps the Bill should include enabling powers to try to encourage that approach in other parts of the country.
  The Bill is primarily about trying to reduce the market for stolen vehicles and, therefore, the opportunities for vehicle crime. In that sense, it is inevitable that it is a regulatory Bill, and we cannot object strongly to that fact despite some of the comments that have been made. However, we could take complementary measures that would immensely strengthen the approach to such crime. For example, the European secure vehicle alliance has campaigned for some time on the issue of education. We must try not only to reduce the market for stolen vehicles, but to change people attitude's to vehicles and to the theft of vehicles. That involves our notions of ownership and behaviour.
  To some extent, the Government have acknowledged that point in their advertising campaigns. The campaign to reduce crime focused on individual behaviour, but the Government have been reluctant to consider the issue of younger people. We know that, sadly, younger people are over-represented in some crime statistics and in the accident statistics. At present, there does not appear to be a process by which we attempt to educate younger people about responsible driving, safe behaviour and the ownership and security of vehicles.
  One complementary measure that the Government could consider would involve the Home Office, the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions and the Department for Education and Employment working together. They could consider key stage 4 requirements for those youngsters who do not respond to the conventional or standard national curriculum. Such youngsters already opt out and they are in danger of drifting, but we have an opportunity to develop a community safety education model that is designed to complement the other regulatory
  58
  work that aims to reduce the market for stolen vehicles. The other side of the equation is to educate the next generation of drivers to be more responsible and to treat driving more seriously.
  Mr. Heald: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that some projects in the voluntary sector, such as the "wheels" project in Hertfordshire and the excellent project in Oxford, concentrate on exactly the point that he is making? They seem to be achieving good results with young people, including those who have had difficulties with the police.
  Mr. McCabe: I agree with the hon. Gentleman; he makes my point for me. We already have one or two examples that show how effective such an approach can be. It is complementary to the other measures designed to tackle crime, so it would be helpful if the three Departments could come together to give a further boost to such work and to consider whether something could be done at key stage 4 of the curriculum.
  I am conscious that I have spoken for rather longer than I intended and that other Members wish to speak. With that in mind, I conclude my remarks.
  5.53 pm
  Mr. David Chidgey: I listened to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Mr. McCabe) with great interest. He made several important points. In particular, he confirmed that hon. Members on both sides of the House share concerns about the amount of vehicle crime in this country. It is one of the most pervasive, far-reaching and invidious crimes from which we suffer. According to the analysis of the European secure vehicle alliance, to which the hon. Gentleman referred several times, one in three car owners in England and Wales fear that their vehicle will be stolen. In fact, one in eight vehicles owners had their vehicle stolen last year.
  For most people, a car is probably their most expensive purchase after buying their home. For non-home owners, it is certainly the most expensive purchase. Cars are often bought on credit and the period of repayment often stretches up to five years. To have one's vehicle stolen and to go through the misery of trying to obtain its full worth from an insurance company is quite a traumatic experience that should not be underplayed or ignored.
  Every day 1,000 cars are stolen in England and Wales. Thirty per cent. are never recovered, and of the 70 per cent. that are recovered more than half are damaged beyond repair. Vehicle crime is a major feature of the criminal statistics. The Home Secretary gave a figure of less than 20 per cent., but some estimates put the figure at more than 20 per cent. However, it is clear that it is a major area of criminal activity.
  Vehicle crime takes up a disproportionate amount of the resources of the criminal justice system, crime detection, prosecution and front-line policing. A reduction in vehicle crime might lead to a reduction in the police resources needed to pursue and prosecute offenders.
  So far I have referred to recorded crime, but the British crime survey—everyone seems to recognise it as a valuable source of information—suggests that fewer than half the thefts from vehicles are reported to the police, and that fewer than 60 per cent. of reported thefts are recorded by the police. Therefore, only a quarter of thefts from vehicles

  59
  enter the statistics of recorded crime. The Bill deals exclusively with the theft of vehicles, but theft from vehicles is a major area of criminal activity that should be tackled with equal vigour. Theft from vehicles accounts for two thirds of all recorded vehicle crime. The work of Joanna Sallybanks and Nerys Thomas provides an important reference point, and I shall return to that point.
  Although the Bill is limited in its aspirations, it proposes useful measures aimed at reducing vehicle crime. As other hon. Members have said, the draft Bill was welcomed by many organisations as disparate as, among others, the European secure vehicle alliance, the Automobile Association, the RAC and the Motorcycle Action Group. The industry and those interested in motor vehicles have broadly accepted the Bill, and we certainly welcome it in principle. However, we have some particular concerns that I shall discuss later. I am sure that they will be examined as the Bill goes through the due process. Improvements can be made by amendment. I listened to the Home Secretary and I hope that his remarks referred not just to the spirit of accepting amendments, but to the practice of accepting them. There are many ways in which the Bill can usefully be improved.
  The Home Secretary and other hon. Members have referred to the Prime Minister's commitment to reduce vehicle crime by 30 per cent. in five years. That commitment has been described as "challenging" or "frightening", and there has been much argument about how much progress has been made. However, it is clear that we are still a long way from the target and the clock is ticking. There is not much time left.
  The Bill is aimed specifically at reducing crime in the ringing of stolen vehicles and breaking them for spare parts. The Home Office estimates that, along with a reduction in insurance fraud, the Bill could reduce vehicle crime by 36,000 vehicles a year. That is an admirable aim, but we have to compare that figure with the fact that 375,000 vehicles are stolen every year. Whatever the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) said about his figures, it is a fact that reducing the number of vehicles stolen by 36,000 represents less than 10 per cent. of the vehicles stolen every year. Those are Home Office figures.
  The Bill will make no impact on reducing the 130,000 vehicles that are stolen every year and recovered, but wrecked beyond repair. It will have no impact on the more than 700,000 thefts from vehicles every year. Those are recorded thefts, but they represent probably only a quarter of actual thefts from vehicles. To put the Bill in the context of the research carried out by Sallybanks and Thomas and the statistics of the British crime survey, it aims to reduce vehicle crime by about 1.5 per cent. of the total. It is still a good objective, but let us be realistic and admit that the Prime Minister's target is, indeed, challenging.
  England and Wales suffer some of the highest vehicle crime rates in the developed world. Other hon. Members have highlighted the fact that we are far in front of many other western countries in that respect. Hardy's work on European vehicle crime shows that the most reliable comparison of the rate of vehicle crime is the rate of theft deducted from the total number of vehicles in the vehicle "parc" in a particular country. It is worth considering
  60
  those figures and putting the scale of the problem in context. In England and Wales, the rate of theft is 16 per cent. higher than it is in France, 70 per cent. higher than it is in Italy and nearly four times higher than it is in Germany.
  Vehicle crime rates in England and Wales are not universal. There are significant regional variations, but the most important variations are due to demography. The Conservatives seemed to be unsure about what cars were stolen most frequently I can advise them that the highest levels of theft occur from low-income, inner-city estates and in areas with the highest incidence of disorder, and that the highest rates of theft are of lower value, older and less-secure vehicles. The issue of vehicle crime is clearly wider than just preventing the ringing of stolen vehicles or the recycling of stolen vehicle parts.
  Although the Bill's aims are welcome, there are wider issues to consider in connection with vehicle crime, such as crime prevention, law enforcement and community policing. A major aspect of vehicle crime is the theft of parts, which is estimated to cost our economy five times as much as vehicle theft. Although the Bill attempts to regulate the trade in second-hand parts, much more needs to be done to prevent their theft.
  The hon. Member for Hall Green was right to say that the industry has a responsibility to produce better-designed vehicles and to make parts more secure and more easily traceable. It is common sense to produce a car in which the spare wheel is kept within the main body and not in a tray that is accessible outside the car. It is simple for the design shop to incorporate lockable wheel nuts before a car is produced, and they are a vital aid to ensuring that car wheels are not stolen. I feel for the Home Secretary, who commented on the fate of the audio systems in his car, but surely the technology is available to make them more secure. As the hon. Member for Hall Green said, we should accelerate the introduction of laminated side glazing so that it is a standard feature on all cars. We should not wait another eight years, when we shall hit the end of the 10-year programme.
  There is great scope for improving vehicle crime prevention measures. Industry must take the lead, with Government prodding, probing, persuasion and, if necessary, regulation to ensure that such issues take a higher priority in the design of cars. However, the Bill does not address that.
  Mr. Heald: I am following carefully what the hon. Gentleman says about the areas from which cars are likely to be stolen. Does he agree that the people most at risk are on low incomes, are unemployed or are single parents? Is it enough simply to say that the manufacturers must find solutions, because many of those people's cars would require retrospective fitting to make them more secure? Where would the money come from for that?
  Mr. Chidgey: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his comments, which accurately reflect the research by the scientists to whom I referred. I said that in areas where such vehicle crime is prevalent, it is necessary to put more emphasis on crime prevention, law enforcement and community policing, because the crime from which those communities suffer is part of a wider scene of criminality and disorder. We must see such crime in the wider sense of crime prevention, and not just in terms of preventing vehicle theft.

  61
  A more significant aspect of vehicle crime prevention is secure parking. That is not addressed in the Bill, but several hon. Members alluded to it. A quarter of all vehicle thefts are from car parks. For the past five years, the AA has been administering secure car park schemes on behalf of the police, but fewer than 700 out of an estimated 10,000 car parks have achieved that secure status.
  According to the law, a motorist who buys a ticket and enters a car park is merely paying a licence fee for the space. The car park operator has no duty of care for a car that is parked on his land. Most car park operators do not provide basic security—why should I they when there are queues of motorists at the entrance to most car parks around our major cities? Either the industry must be confronted and made to embrace the secure car parks scheme, or consumer protection legislation must be introduced so that a payment for car parking is a payment for a service, and not just a licence fee to enter the land. Until there is radical change, public car parks will continue to be the honeypot for cat thieves.
  Mr. Simon Hughes: I endorse my hon. Friend's comments on car parks. In addition, will he consider the fact, which I learned in Oxfordshire, that railway station car parks are traditionally policed by the British Transport police and not the local police? As the British Transport police cannot be in all places at all times and station car parks are not on their patch in the same way as they are for local police does he agree not only that the landlord should take proper responsibility but that there should be a change in policing to ensure that community parking is the responsibility of the community police service, and not people who are rarely there?
  Mr. Chidgey: My hon. Friend makes an interesting point. I agree that we need not only joined-up government, but joined-up policing.
  The main thrust of the Bill is aimed at reducing the number of unrecovered stolen vehicles, which is a small proportion of vehicle crime. In that regard, its measures are broadly welcome. However, we need to consider how effective they might be. Some 30 per cent. of stolen cars are not recovered. In proportion to cars that are stolen from the fleet, they are, by definition, practice and statistics, of the highest value. They tend to be top of the range and the police estimate that professional theft of such cars is rising.
  About 20 per cent. of uncovered stolen vehicles are in that category, and the number is increasing. Many are stolen to order and, within hours, are crated up whole or stripped into parts and exported to mainland Europe for resale, where they are virtually untraceable. There is no requirement to include full details on shipping documents for container transport. Individual stolen cars can be driven out of the country and are unlikely to be checked. There is clearly a need, which the Bill could address, to consider how we can improve checks and identification at our ports to help to reduce the number of vehicles that are exported by professional thieves.
  It is unclear what measures are proposed to reduce crime as the Bill relates to other categories of vehicles. The hon. Member for Hall Green mentioned construction plant and motor cycles. Other hon. Members referred to agricultural equipment, and there is a roaring trade in second-hand caravans that have been stolen from forecourts or drives.
  62
  The theft of construction plant involves individual items and vehicles that are often valued at hundreds of thousands of pounds. There is a thriving world market in those expensive and highly valuable items, and professional criminals certainly specialise in their theft and export to that market. The important point is that many of those vehicles are outside the DVLA system, and will not be covered by the Bill's provisions on notification of ownership. They are not necessarily registered as road vehicles.
  The most serious issue pertaining to those categories of vehicles is the theft of motor cycles. Car theft is falling, but the theft of motor cycles, scooters and mopeds is soaring, and the RAC Foundation reports that there has been a dramatic 25 per cent. increase in the past 12 months. Statistics show that only 14 per cent. of those bikes will be recovered, which is less than a fifth of the recovery figure for cars. The Association of Chief Police Officers has confirmed that its computer lists more than 80,000 bikes as stolen and not recovered. It believes that most are broken for spares, and estimates that there are already nearly £400 million-worth of black market spares in circulation.
  It is essential that the Bill fully addresses the rising rates of motor cycle theft. It is far easier to steal a motor cycle than it is to steal a car; it is a simple matter of loading it into the back of a van and driving off. There is a strong case for crime prevention measures such as the provision of more secure on and off-street parking for motor cycles.
  I turn now to the details of the Bill. I am cognisant of the Chair's advice that "Erskine May" requires us to consider the clauses not in detail, but in general, and I shall try to obey that ruling. An important omission from the Bill is any mention of safety. The regulations on rebuilt vehicles and recycled parts concentrate on the provenance of those goods, but it is equally important that they are safe when they are offered for sale. There is a strong case for introducing inspection for fitness of purpose to the regulatory chain.
  In the main, we agree with the aims in part I to bring the motor salvage industry within the framework of statutory regulation. It is important to reduce opportunities for disposing of stolen vehicles and to assist the police in their investigation of those offences. The majority of salvage operators are extremely responsible and law-abiding citizens who run properly regulated companies, but it is important to eliminate opportunities for the minority to give stolen vehicles the identities of legitimate vehicles that have been written off or seriously damaged. It is important to eliminate opportunities for them to break stolen vehicles and use their component parts for repairs or for resale to the second-hand market and fraudulently to report vehicles as stolen to insurance companies and dispose of them through the trade. Many hon. Members have emphasised that point, and those aspects of the Bill are very important.
  Concerns have been expressed outside the House that part I is incomplete. The British Motorcyclists Federation has expressed concern that it does not cover situations in which breakers use their legitimate business as a cover to purchase stolen parts from criminals or break stolen vehicles and sell the parts on. It does not cover dealers who buy stolen vehicles along with legitimate second-hand cars so that they can ring the cars or strip them and supply other vehicles with the parts.

  63
  I turn now to the role of local authorities as registrars, as it were, of salvage companies. Part I does not supply local authorities with funds to pursue inquiries into the fitness of an applicant for registration, nor does it require them to provide the funds themselves, so there is no statutory requirement for them to give any priority to vehicle theft prevention. It might be only one of the jobs that they have to do, but I should have thought that it was important to have a sense of priority if we are to hit the Prime Minister's target of a 30 per cent. reduction in car crime in five years.
  What provisions does the Bill contain for effective liaison with the police? They, more than anyone else, have a strong motive for ensuring that applicants for registration are fit and proper persons. I am sure that the police would welcome the right to express to local authorities their concerns about particular applicants in the area. Part I recognises that some local authorities would welcome statutory guidance on who constitutes a fit and proper person to act as a motor salvage operator, and there is scope for amending the Bill to expand and amplify that guidance.
  Part II deals with the regulation of registration plate suppliers. Other hon. Members have compared the Swedish system with that in this country. It is clear that our system is a mess, with 27,000 outlets supplying between 6 million and 7 million plates a year. In Sweden, one supplier produces and distributes registration plates within a carefully regulated system. As the hon. Member for Hall Green said, that allows the police to make immediate roadside checks to ensure that a vehicle is properly taxed and insured and has an MOT.
  Mr. Forth: I am curious about whether it is a new Liberal policy that having one supplier is superior to having many. Does that apply in all circumstances, or only in this one, and how far does it rely on the effectiveness of the regulatory regime to deliver value for money and security of supply?
  Mr. Chidgey: As always, I am delighted by the right hon. Gentleman's curiosity, but the issue is the regulation of plates to ensure that they are not manufactured and distributed illegally. The supply chain must be audited, whether there is one supplier or several. The right hon. Gentleman will recognise that I was merely quoting the example of Sweden. We want to achieve the end result that Sweden achieves, not necessarily to use the same system.
  Clearly, the laxity of this country's vehicle document and registration procedures are a major factor contributing to our high rate of non-recovery of stolen vehicles. New registration plates are essential for a "rung" vehicle, and denying them could reduce the number of unrecovered stolen vehicles by as much as a quarter. The Association of British Insurers estimates that the losses through ringing amount to more than £100 million a year.
  The regulation of registration plates is clearly long overdue, and we broadly welcome that part of the Bill, provided that it is aimed at vehicle crime prevention. However, we must ask whether it is also aimed at reducing, or monitoring, motor offences in general. That would raise concerns about civil liberties, and we need to know how those would be addressed and overcome.
  64
  Part III deals with vehicle licensing and registration. The vehicle crime reduction action team has reported that the most effective way of combating crime, particularly ringing, is to raise the standards of the vehicle registration document, the V5. I support the requirement of proof of identity at the time of issue of the V5, the compulsory transfer of the appropriate part of the V5 when the vehicle is sold, the production of the V5 when applying for a vehicle excise duty licence and the compulsory collection of mileage data. The latter provides an important opportunity to stop what is commonly called "clocking" cars and selling them to an unsuspecting buyer.
  Part III also deals with information requirements, allowing the police access to insurance information. I understand that this important measure is intended to enable the police to have access to the motor insurance database, in conjunction with the automatic number plate recognition system, and to help them to detect people without insurance. The cost to the Motor Insurers Bureau of covering and aiding the victims of accidents in which the perpetrator is uninsured is £215 million a year. In addition, the direct cost to insurance companies is at least as much again. That cost is passed on to bona fide policyholders, and we all end up paying £15 to £20 a year extra. There are benefits to be derived from identifying unlicensed and uninsured drivers, and there is widespread support in the industry for improvements. The Parliamentary Advisory Council on Transport Safety supports a proposal to link the DVLA database to the police national computer, and I think that it is worth exploring, along with introducing access to other databases. However, we must ensure that the Bill does not fall foul of data protection and civil liberties provisions.
  Clause 37 covers the funding of certain magistrates courts' costs relating to the administration of speed and traffic camera cases. Let me make it clear that I and my colleagues welcome the reduction in the number of injuries and accidents that has resulted from the introduction of speed cameras. The measure is an important one that should help to finance the introduction of speed cameras in areas where great need has been proved. However, I do not want speed cameras to proliferate willy-nilly, perhaps with the aim of exploiting the opportunity to raise revenue, rather than reducing the number of accidents. If speed cameras are installed, it is most important that they work. I shall not detain the House with my explanation of the reverse collapse theory of traffic management, but those who know about it will know that a law work; only when it is self-enforcing and it is known to be self-enforcing. It is hopeless to have alongside the road little grey boxes with no cameras inside, because people, who use a route regularly get to know quickly which cameras work. Correctly channelled, we would support raising funds to install cameras that work in places where they are needed.
  My final comments relate to the financial effects of the Bill. I find rather strange the calculation of costs to the salvage industry, estimated to be £285,000 a year, of checking the identity of vehicles and recording details. That sum assumes a labour rate of £5 an hour, but most people recognise that today, the cost of labour includes an overhead, which is rarely less than 50 per cent. and is sometimes as much as 100 per cent. Therefore, if a calculation states that £5 an hour is the cost of labour, either it is assumed that salvage operators pay less than the national minimum wage, or a gross error has been

  65
  made. The costing exercise at the back of the Bill is riddled with lots of rather broad a estimates—for example, the time for vehicle identification inspections is estimated at between 12 and 18 minutes, a 50 per cent. difference. The figures must be examined and made into a more robust analysis of the real costs to the industry and other financial effects.
  Despite the issues that I have raised and our concerns about the opportunity to amend the Bill later to address those issues, Liberal Democrats welcome the Bill and we hope to help to speed its passage.
  6.23 pm
  Mr. David Kidney: I declare a non-pecuniary interest as one who, with the hon. Member for Worthing, West (Mr. Bottomley), co-chairs the Parliamentary Advisory Council on Transport Safety—PACTS. Later in my speech, I shall focus more on those parts of the Bill that have the potential to improve road safety, but I shall comment first on the provisions that have the potential to help to reduce vehicle crime.
  My reading of the explanatory notes leads me to understand that scrap merchants have been registered since at least 1964, but that motor salvage dealers and the sellers of registered number plates are not registered. It strikes me as high time that consistency was established through a registration scheme for all. Vehicle crime accounts for almost one fifth of al1 recorded crime, and the Bill as it stands—several hon. Members have voiced ambitions to extend it—cracks down on three types of vehicle crime: the replacing of written-off cars with stolen ones, or "ringers"; the breaking up of stolen cars and the sale of the parts; and falsely claiming an insurance pay-out for the theft of a car that has, in fact, been disposed of by some other means.
  The value of the vehicles involved is high: the Association of British Insurers says that insurance pay-outs for vehicle crime totalled £498 million last year; and the explanatory notes estimate potential savings of as much as £112 million each year. Therefore, in terms of the cost of vehicles and their value to the economy, it is important to crack down on vehicle crime. Other hon. Members have commented on the importance of protecting the public. Vehicles that have been stolen, changed and given a false identity might well be unsafe on the road. Anything we can do to stamp out their use and keep them off the road is a safety gain.
  I should give credit to the motor manufacturing industry for its great efforts to make vehicles more secure from theft and removal, and I believe that the Bill will complement their efforts. It will protect all of us from unknowingly buying stolen vehicles and protect legitimate dealers in salvage and number plates from unfair competition that is, quite literally, criminal. In addition, as the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Chidgey) said, the costs of our motor insurance should fall.
  Information systems have the potential to contribute to the fight against this type of crime. There are five legal requirements to meet before one drives a vehicle on our roads: a driving licence, an insurance policy, an MOT test certificate if applicable, the excise licence and the registration document. A different organisation collects the information relevant to each of those requirements and holds it electronically, but, in most cases, it cannot pool that information with other agencies, nor share it
  66
  with them. Another major player in the collection of data about the movement of vehicles and their occupants is the police national computer. The Bill contains a provision to enable the police to have access to the insurance industry's databases, but I would argue that it should be extended to address the broader issue of information exchange between all of the agencies. In any sharing of information that takes place, it is important to protect the individual's reasonable expectations of privacy, but the goal of reducing crime and making our roads safe is worthy.
  I should like Ministers to consider the provision of a new time limit for prosecuting offences of taking vehicles. Many offences are dealt with summarily and are subject to a six-month time limit for commencement of prosecution. The justification for extending the time limit in respect of only one offence is that modern investigation techniques and the availability of DNA analysis might result in the police coming upon evidence more than six months after a crime was committed. However, that argument can be used in respect of all other summary offences, and I suspect that the provision is the forerunner to a wider debate on extending time limits generally for summary offences.
  Clause 35 is a crime-cutting measure, but I contend that it also relates to road safety. It would allow the police access to motor insurance databases. The Government have been encouraging insurers to form a common database containing details of policyholders—the motor insurers database, or MID. That should help the police to identify those who are driving without insurance. The more police are given responsibility for processing automatic fixed fines, such as those levied when someone is caught speeding on a speed camera, the more helpful it would be to have access to such information during the process of prosecution. In that way, having detected someone committing a speeding offence, for example, the police will have the ability to check whether another offence has been committed, such as driving without insurance. That is important. Over the weekend, a newspaper reported that there are about 80,000 drivers who are not covered by insurance. Some people are doing so because they have not bought insurance for the vehicle that they are using. Others do not have insurance because they cannot obtain it. They may be disqualified by age and should not be driving. Others may be disqualified by a court order. That disqualification may be because their driving record is so bad that they have forfeited the right to drive. Detecting those who have been disqualified is very much an attempt to make our roads safer for those lawfully using them.
  Clause 37 is indisputably a road safety measure. It will allow a proportion of speed fines to be recycled for use in increasing the use of speed cameras and traffic light cameras. I drew attention to the contribution that speed cameras make to road safety in an Adjournment debate that I initiated about a year ago. I gave figures for casualty reduction in Staffordshire, and I shall give the latest figures shortly.
  The Government responded positively to my Adjournment debate. The Minister announced that they intended to set up a pilot scheme to test giving back to the police and local authorities a proportion of the income collected from fines imposed for speeding. From April, eight authorities have been allowed to use a proportion of speed fines to invest in more cameras. Although it is a

  67
  two-year scheme, we have before us suggested primary legislation to enable a national scheme to be established. Is that because the results of the pilot schemes are so obviously successful already?
  I understand that over the first six months in Northamptonshire, for example, there has been a 20 per cent. reduction in deaths and injuries, with a fall of 50 per cent. in August alone. I return to the success of Staffordshire, which was an early authority to invest in speed cameras. It started to do so in 1995 and—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Order. The hon. Gentleman is straying into too much detail. He must remember that this is a Second Reading debate.
  Mr. Kidney: I need only to show that there is a safety implication in allowing the police to have access to some of the money that comes from fines imposed for speeding. Results in Staffordshire tell us that the number of vehicles travelling at speeds in excess of the fixed penalty level has fallen by 98 per cent. Eighty five percentile speeds, on roads with speed limits of 30 or 40 miles per hour that are monitored by speed cameras, have reduced by between 6 to 40 per cent. Most important of all these statistics, the three-year personal injury records at county sites show a reduction in fatal and serious injuries of 60 per cent., and 24 per cent. for all injuries.
  According to the Government's new safety strategy, which is called "Tomorrow's Roads—Safer for Everyone", speed is a factor in one in three of all collisions. With about 3,400 people dying on our roads every year, it can be seen that reducing excessive and inappropriate speeds can contribute greatly to meeting the Government's new challenging target for reducing the number of people killed or seriously injured on our roads by 40 per cent. by 2010. The target is 50 per cent. for children.
  Reducing speed is only one element in making roads safer. Education, enforcement, road engineering and careful evaluation all have a role. In Staffordshire, the speed camera strategy is only one part of a comprehensive road safety strategy, and one that has been remarkably successful. Fatal and serious injuries have been cut from 628 in 1994 to 350 last year. We have performed well in Staffordshire to date. The local authority and the police have set themselves a target of meeting the 300 figure that the Government's new targets imply for Staffordshire by 2005 instead of 2010.
  I have concentrated on road safety to show that more speed cameras nationally will be a means towards making roads safer. In this way, I hope that I can reassure those who fear that the measure is only a money-raising scheme.
  Staffordshire's experience of the finances derived from speed cameras would contradict any critic who talks of a stealth tax. The local authority and the police have invested £2.5 million in speed cameras since 1995. In the same period, the sum of all the fixed-penalty tickets for speeding offences has been £2 million. That money has gone to the Exchequer, but clearly it has not even covered the investment.
  A further reassurance can be gained by studying the criteria by which we decide on where to site speed cameras in Staffordshire. An assessment is made that is based on a points system. Points are awarded for various
  68
  factors, including the number of collisions involving personal injury, the severity of the injuries and the volume of traffic.
  To keep the public's confidence, the message must be that more speed cameras are intended to make our roads safer, not to raise more money. The message will be reinforced by expressly indicating that the siting of new speed cameras will be in accordance with objective criteria.
  There is a financial benefit to the public purse in introducing more speed cameras, and one that we should publicise widely. Fewer fatal and serious injuries mean less expenditure to deal with the aftermath, fewer attendances by emergency services at the scene, less use of stretched health services and reduced social security payments. The Government estimate that the cost of one fatality on our roads is about £1 million. For a serious injury, the cost is about £100,000. Little wonder that Staffordshire reports a first year economic rate of return on its investment in speed cameras of 1,200 per cent.
  The answer to the allegation of a stealth tax is that the true purpose and effect of using speed cameras and traffic light cameras more widely is to reduce law-breaking and to reduce deaths and serious injuries on our roads. The overall objectives of the Bill—reducing vehicle crime and road casualties—should be welcomed by everyone.
  6.38 pm
  Mrs. Linda Gilroy: I am pleased that the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) has returned to his place. His contribution from the Opposition Front Bench was the usual pessimistic and, at times, pedantic perambulation.
  Mr. Bercow: I am content to plead guilty to the charge of pessimism. Will the hon. Lady now, without further ado, give me one example of pedantry?
  Mrs. Gilroy: I would prefer to make progress to relieve the pessimistic mood in which the hon. Gentleman left the Chamber. I hope to show that there is every reason to be optimistic about the Bill and that some of his worst fears will not come to light.
  In contrast, the remarks of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary were restrained and responsible in referring to some of the tools that are essential for places such as Plymouth, which have been able to bear down significantly on car crime generally and on the theft of motor vehicles, about which the hon. Gentleman made a great deal. Places such as Plymouth, which have a significant track record, especially need the proposals that are set out in the Bill to continue to bear down on car crime.
  My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary referred to the reduction of 17 per cent. in vehicle crime nationally since the election, and that achievement is even more marked in Plymouth, where we have been fortunate in being able to build on six years of partnership between the police, the council it and the community to reduce crime and improve community safety. The Plymouth community safety partnership was set up during the time of a Labour-led council, and more than 100 partners have contributed to the success of the crime reduction strategy in Plymouth.

  69
  From the beginning, auto crime has been one of the key elements of that strategy. That is hardly surprising. Even with the lower level of vehicle crime in Plymouth, it represents almost one in four of all reported crimes. The success of the strategy in Plymouth has resulted in a fall from the initial audit level in 1994–95, the year before the partnership came into being, of 2,555 crimes—that is, theft of vehicles—to 1,300 in the past full year. That is a reduction of 50 per cent. in theft of vehicles. Car crime as a whole fell by 50 per cent. in the first three years and is approaching 70 to 80 per cent. for the whole period.
  Plymouth's success is all the more remarkable when one considers the difficult background against which the partnership emerged. According to the 1995 index of local conditions, the St. Peter ward in Plymouth, Sutton was the poorest ward in England, with high unemployment. However, education, employment and health action zones have enabled us to pull together to address that effectively. The city now has unemployment at the national average for the first time in 20 years. Unemployment has plummeted from 12,000 to fewer than 4,000, and a further 2,000 people who were not even registered as unemployed are now in work.
  Over the first three years of the community safety partnership, theft of vehicles fell by 29 per cent., and in the three years from the year of the election, such offences fell by a further 29 per cent. They have continued to fall but, naturally, after such successes, it becomes much more difficult to see significant results. A figure of 1,300 car crimes in Plymouth is still too many. Despite some success in prosecuting some of the individuals responsible for substantial amounts of such crime—
  Mr. Heald: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way. Can she help us by saying what impact closed circuit television has had in the change that she describes, and tell us when it was introduced?
  Mrs. Gilroy: Yes. I am happy to admit that CCTV has had some impact, but the greater impact has come from the people involved in the community safety partnership—the 100 partners from neighbourhood watch schemes and others, which I may mention if time permits.
  The Bill will help us by making it much more difficult to profit from car theft, by licensing those involved in the salvage industry and controlling the supply of number plates. Both proposals will reduce the opportunities for criminals to disguise the identity of stolen cars, by preventing criminals from swapping the identity of a vehicle that they have stolen with that of a written-off or scrapped vehicle. They will take the profit out of stealing cars.
  The Bill will also help to prevent unsuspecting purchasers from buying stolen cars, which in turn will bring benefits to the vehicle insurance industry and its customers. It will back up the work that the vehicle insurance industry is undertaking to develop the motor insurers database to prevent uninsured driving which, we know, costs each policyholder about £20 a year and the insurance industry more than £400 million.
  I hope that the Bill will also help the work of trading standards officers. The hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Chidgey) highlighted some interesting points. Some of the most difficult cases with which trading standards officers have had to deal entail spotting cut and shut
  70
  vehicles before they become a problem, with huge safety implications for consumers, whom their service aims to protect. The ownership of stolen vehicles has always been a problem for purchasers who find that they have paid a significant sum for something that turns out to belong to someone else. I hope that we will draw on the long experience of trading standards officers in such matters, to ensure that safety, title to property and car clocking are dealt with more effectively in future.
  Re-investing money from speed camera enforcement in road safety will be popular with many of my constituents. We have in Plymouth one of 20 pilot home zones, and I know that all over the country there is huge demand for effective traffic calming, including the use of more speed cameras. Like many hon. Members, I have had to explain to too many constituents who fear for their own and their children's safety that speed cameras are not available for all the circumstances that might merit their use. The most recent discussion that I have had about that was at this time last week, when I was speaking to some young members of the Efford youth club. One of them asked me what we could do to stop speeding motorists like the one who had recently knocked down and injured his cousin.
  I understand that the shadow Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe), visited my constituency on Friday. I am delighted that she did so, and especially that she visited the St. Peter ward, which I mentioned earlier. I understand that she visited the Millfields police station, which was opened after a campaign in that community supported by local residents, their Labour councillors and myself, and which received a positive response from our then local chief inspector of police, Mr. Russ Mitchell.
  I am delighted that the right hon. Lady viewed that important project, which has brought local policing back to an area that is still among the poorest in the country. I am only sorry that I did not know in advance about her visit. Perhaps hon. Members on the Conservative Benches will bring to her attention my remarks about aspects of vehicle crime and how we are tackling it in Plymouth, which I would have been delighted to show her.
  For although the lives of my constituents are still spoiled by levels of deprivation and crime—including vehicle crime—that are far too high, the right hon. Lady could not have chosen a better constituency or ward to see how things are at last turning round, and how our policies are working to improve people's lives and give them back the feeling that they have some control over their quality of life.
  The local community is working on a neighbourhood compact. The ward will get five more police with the extra funding from the crime-fighting fund and the Devon and Cornwall police budget, which will help to combat vehicle crime, using the new measures. The statistics for the eight months to October this year show an overall 8 per cent. reduction in crime in that ward, and 13 per cent. in Plymouth as a whole.
  The impressive reduction in car crime in Plymouth is the more remarkable because it occurred against the background of deep-seated poverty, which was getting worse when we were elected in 1997. The people of Stonehouse showed early determination to deal with that appalling Tory legacy. The successful campaign to re-open a police station in the area was one early result. The work with an adjacent ward of Sutton produced some

  71
  remarkably successful projects to tackle vehicle crime. The significant reduction of some 50 per cent. in car crime over the period could not have happened without such initiatives.
  If I were to pick out a project that illustrates why Plymouth has been so successful, I would suggest Treads, a training programme in which more than 500 young people have participated this year. It makes a special contribution to working with those who have a history of involvement in auto crime. The partnership is led by the Devon Youth Association and involves Plymouth city council and the Devon and Cornwall constabulary. Young people are referred to the programme by the youth offending team, and they learn responsible driving and car mechanics. The programme has Open College Federation accreditation.
  Just last week, two young people from North Prospect received a Crimebeat award of several hundred pounds for a project to build a car from a kit. The award was made in the presence of Major Ranulph Rayner, Devon's high sheriff, who is backing such Crimebeat initiatives during his term of office, and Sir John Evans, our chief constable.
  In addition to showing the right hon. Member for Maidstone and the Weald that excellent project, I would have shared with her my concern about the car park at the rear of the Theatre Royal.
  In May this year, the Tories took control of the council [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Well, it is not "hear, hear", as far as we are concerned. Since May, there have been several worrying signs that the Tories do not fully understand the importance of putting time and money into the partnership work for which Plymouth has become well known. In the case of the crime partnership, they have cut the council's contribution to the youth offending team. Personally, I should have thought that that would be one of the last things that one would think of cutting. Even less would one expect the Tories to cut car parking charges within weeks or almost days of taking office. In fact, they did not just cut them, but abolished them on evenings and Sundays.
  The car park that I am concerned about is inspected by patrols, which see whether cars have tickets. In doing so, those patrols provide a degree of security against theft from, and of, cars. The Tories say that they will maintain the patrols, but there are signs that crime in the car park is going up. The police have introduced dog patrols since December, which may help for the time being and over Christmas.
  The idea is to create a partnership. The Tories on Plymouth city council, however, seem to think that people who can afford to come in and pay £20 for a theatre ticket and, often, have a meal out as well—but who do not even pay our community charge—cannot afford to contribute to the cost of car parking and security for their own cars.
  Mr. Heald: I followed with great interest the hon. Lady's comments on Treads, which is the sort of scheme that I mentioned earlier. However, I do not understand what she is saying about the Conservative group on Plymouth council. From what she is saying, it has not only cut car parking charges, but is continuing the checks made on vehicles in car parks. Dog patrols have also been
  72
  introduced. Surely, that is an improvement. I am sure that local residents quite like not having to pay car parking charges.
  Mrs. Gilroy: Those people are not local residents, as they come from outside Plymouth. Plymouth city council is losing £400,000 in income this year, and would lose £800,000 in a full year. That could be used for better things and for work under the community safety partnership.
  Mr. Heald: It is a tax cut.
  Mrs. Gilroy: It is not a tax cut, but a cut in the funding for fighting crime. It is a public services funding cut by stealth.
  Angela Smith: A stealth cut.
  Mrs. Gilroy: Indeed, it is a stealth cut. In my constituency, the Tories will have to make stealth cuts such as that, and, in the city of Plymouth, cuts amounting to £55 million to meet their £16 billion pledge of cuts.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. For a little while, the hon. Lady has been straying rather too far from the Second Reading of the Bill.
  Mrs. Gilroy: I take your advice, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  Mr. Bercow: Will the hon. Lady give way?
  Mrs. Gilroy: I think that I might be tempted down another path along which I ought not to be tempted, so I shall not give way at this stage.
  I urge my hon. Friends and the Home Secretary to try to ensure that Opposition Members understand that all the initiatives that I have described work together. I have tried to highlight the point at which successful community safety partnerships have apparently achieved as much as they can. While other types of crime are going down, the one that is showing signs of edging up again by a percentage point or two is vehicle crime, especially theft of vehicles. As we have reached that point, the Bill provides useful tools, which are not currently available, to plug the gaps. As we discussed earlier, those tools make far better use of the time of the police and other enforcement agencies. That ensures that their time is used in the best possible way so that they can tackle car crime, violent crime and other sorts of crime.
  As we are discussing vehicle crime, when my hon. Friend the Minister comes to sum up, will he consider whether he could add a clause or two to the Bill to control the Tories' wish to drive a coach and horses through our partnership work? My hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Mr. Shaw) referred to clauses perhaps being added for protection. I am not sure whether he meant that bandwagons should be protected, but they certainly should be protected from Tories who are constantly leaping on them, thus proving to be a great danger to themselves and other people.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Until those particular bandwagons need registration plates, the hon. Lady is out of order.
  Mrs. Gilroy: The bandwagons to which I was referring are particularly badly maintained as they keep backfiring

  73
  loudly, frightening Opposition Members rather more than they frighten anyone else. Seriously, however, I have real fears for partnership work and I hope that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary can find a means of enabling Opposition Members to get their heads around the need to tackle the issue of auto crime from both non-legislative and legislative angles; otherwise, I fear that the measure's great potential to bear down on vehicle crime in Plymouth and elsewhere will be neutralised—or, indeed, worse. That would be dispiriting for all those involved in working together in community organisations in the city and throughout the county of Devon, as well as those in the community safety partnership team. I know that my right hon. Friend understands those things, and I hope that he will try to educate the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald, who speaks for the Opposition.
  Plymouth's community safety partnership has matured and developed over a longer period than most crime and disorder partnerships. As other partnerships have a chance to develop and achieve similar successes to Plymouth's—which they ought to be able to achieve faster once we introduce the Bill's provisions—they will find that those new tools are essential.
  Mr. Bercow: I have been listening to the hon. Lady with no little interest. She will be aware that the largest two parts of this four-part Bill concern the regulation of motor salvage operators and number plate suppliers. In order that the House can get a feel for the significance of the Bill's regulatory impact in the hon. Lady's constituency, will she say approximately how many motor salvage operators and plate suppliers there are in Plymouth, Sutton?
  Mrs. Gilroy: I am reliably advised that there are about five. As we discussed earlier, it will not be necessary for the enforcement agencies to focus on all of them. As the hon. Gentleman himself has pointed out, many of those in the salvage industry make a highly respected contribution to the local economy. As with all trading standards issues, they have as much to gain as anybody else from the proper regulation of their trade, which will safeguard their reputation.
  Earlier, the hon. Member for Buckingham said that it was important to have enough police to make good use of the provisions in the Bill. As I indicated, I believe that, throughout the country, there are now 400 community safety-type partnerships under the Crime and Disorder Act 1998. They have been in existence for only a year or two but, in Plymouth's case, we have been working on the issues for six years. I was making the point that police time would be freed up to be used in a better way if legislation were clarified and the police could enforce things far more quickly.
  The Bill's contents are extremely important to all of those who take auto crime seriously. I referred to Tory bandwagons and coaches and horses. I hope that, in five to 10 years' time, those will be the only vehicle crimes still causing problems. Who knows? With appropriate amendments in Committee, we, might even have eliminated them.
  6.59 pm
  Mr. Michael Fabricant: I have been following the debate with considerable interest. The hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Mrs. Gilroy) made an
  74
  interesting point; she thought that it was wrong that a council under Conservative control should cut taxes, yet provide additional services. She then showed a complete incomprehension of local business men in her area, by saying that the worst thing was that 14,000 people from outside the constituency came into her city to shop. How wrong that is.
  Mrs. Gilroy: Not only is Plymouth city council reducing the youth offending team budget—one of the last budgets that should be cut—but it is also closing old people's homes. Those are not my priorities or those of the people of Plymouth.
  Mr. Fabricant rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Before the hon. Gentleman responds, I would ask him to return to the Bill.
  Mr. Fabricant: I accept your advice, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and shall not discuss the sad position of the people of Plymouth, Sutton with their Member of Parliament.
  The hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney) waxed lyrical about the number of speed cameras in Staffordshire, but not once did he speak about the appalling loss by Staffordshire of 240 police officers. He mentioned his consultation with the chief constable's department, but he did not say how difficult it would be to enforce the Bill without sufficient police numbers.
  Such a Bill is needed, however. As we heard earlier, the British crime survey said that 2,956,000 thefts occurred in 1999, representing about 20 per cent. of all British crime. Slightly more than one in 10—or 11 per cent.—of those crimes were thefts of vehicles. We are discussing these matters hot on the heels of the Queen's Speech, in which we heard about another Home Office initiative to control yob culture in our streets. How can that aim be achieved without the police officers necessary for enforcement?
  As we heard earlier, the 18 December issue of The House Magazine contains an article entitled "Policing in Crisis" by the chairman of the Police Federation. It is worth repeating two lines of the article that are directly relevant to the Bill:
  There's a huge suspicion and a powerful sense of unease in the police service … Morale is the worst I have ever seen it.
  I remind hon. Members that those are the words of Fred Broughton, chairman of the Police Federation. Although we all welcome the Bill, we must ask how it will be enforced.
  Mr. Bercow: Does my hon. Friend agree that it was alarming to hear the Home Secretary accuse, to all intents and purposes, the chairman of the Police Federation of crying wolf?
  Mr. Fabricant: Very few things shock me in this life nowadays. Having just had my 50th birthday, I have seen many things. However, it is frightening to hear a Home Secretary say that the comments of the chairman of the Police Federation are pointless and useless, and that he cries wolf and makes similar statements every six months. I shall not pursue the matter in detail, because you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, would rule me out of order. I point out, however, that the Home's Secretary's remarks are especially

  75
  alarming as, according to the article, the Police Federation is making its first ever call for the establishment of a royal commission to consider the future of policing in this country.
  I can forgive the Home Secretary, as he said that he had not read this most serious article in The House Magazine, but I hope that my raising the issue again will ensure that he reads it. No matter what the right hon. Gentleman says, no sensible person would doubt that police officers will be needed to enforce the Bill. We all welcome the legislation, providing that the Home Office supplies resources for the police officers who are necessary to enforce it.
  Mrs. Gilroy: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Fabricant: Of course I shall give way to the charming hon. Lady.
  Mrs. Gilroy: I thank the kind hon. Gentleman for giving way. Is he aware that the police training schools are full to overflowing, to the extent that it has been necessary to open a new facility? When did such circumstances exist under the previous Conservative Government?
  Mr. Fabricant: The hon. Lady knows that record numbers of officers are leaving the police force and that the numbers are higher now than they ever were during 18 years of Conservative government.
  Mrs. Gilroy indicated dissent.
  Mr. Fabricant: Will the hon. Lady then quote the relevant figures?
  Mrs. Gilroy: I welcome the opportunity of pursuing a point that I cut short in my speech. I did so because I was afraid that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, might stop me continuing. In Plymouth, there will be 41 extra police officers, of whom I have seen some of the early recruits. I imagine that the shadow Home Secretary was told when she visited the St. Peter ward on Monday that five of the officers would be located there.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have allowed the hon. Lady and the hon. Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant) to pursue that point, but we have now had enough background remarks on the number of policemen. I ask the hon. Gentleman to return to the contents of the Bill.
  Mr. Fabricant: I shall not speak further about police officer numbers. [Interruption.] The hon. Lady laughs from a sedentary position, but I make that comment only because I am obeying your correct instruction, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  It is, however, worth setting out a little background. Interestingly, 12.6 per cent. of vehicle-owning households have been victims of car crime at least once. Of those households, 8.1 per cent. suffered thefts from their vehicles and 3.7 per cent. suffered attempted thefts. For those who belittle attempted thefts, I point out that such thefts often involve damage to the car, whether it is
  76
  caused by smashing side windows, forcing boots or breaking locks. Anyone who has been a victim of such crime knows that it involves considerable cost, either directly, through payment to avoid loss of a no-claims bonus, or indirectly, through the loss of such a bonus.
  I have never been a victim—I touch the wood of the Bench in front of me when making this comment—of vehicle crime in this country. In the past three years, however, I have suffered it twice in France. That will be almost my only Euro-sceptic remark this evening. I may be tempted to say a bit more when we discuss provisions on the production of licence plates.
  People who have suffered crime feel not only that they have lost something tangible, but that they have been emotionally affected. That is understandable, but revealingly, the British crime survey states that 89 per cent. of victims reported anger. Again, that is understandable; indeed, I am surprised that only 89 per cent of people felt anger. However, only 22 per cent. of people whose cars were broken into or stolen reported shock. We should consider that figure for a moment, as it demonstrates what this country has come to. The statement that only 22 per cent. of victims were shocked implies that 78 per cent. of them expected the crimes to occur.
  Mr. McCabe: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that that might be the case because people were conditioned during 18 years under the previous Administration to expect soaring vehicle crime, cuts in police numbers and other law and order failures?
  Mr. Fabricant: Police officer numbers increased under the previous Government and vehicle crime fell by 27 per cent. In the past three years, however, such crime has fallen only by 2 per cent. That is why I cannot agree with the hon. Gentleman, whose remarks are not logical. As my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) said, the Government build up an exciting picture of what will happen, only to disappoint people later. That happens because adequate resources are not being made available.
  Mr. Forth: Before my hon. Friend leaves the matter of expectation, disappointment and rage, does he have any figures on the regional and rural/urban breakdown of the incidence of such events? Those blanket figures are informative, and I am grateful to him for bringing them to the attention of the House, but must not we be much more aware of the enormous variations—between one area or region and another and among different parts of our communities—that underlie those figures and the bearing that they must have on policy making and direction of resources?
  Mr. Fabricant: Sadly, I do not have the figures, but my right hon. Friend is absolutely right to ask that question. I hope that the Minister, who is listening to the debate keenly, will be able to report some of those variations in his winding-up speech.
  Mrs. Gilroy: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Fabricant: In a moment. I will say that the hon. Lady is a marvellous advocate for her constituency, or at least tries to be.

  77
  We may find that there is a variation between urban and rural areas. For too long, the Government have underestimated the amount of rural crime throughout the United Kingdom. I believe that the constituency of the hon. Member for Birmingham. Hall Green (Mr. McCabe) has more vehicle crime than other parts of the west midlands, though I would be the last person to blame the sitting Member for that.
  Mrs. Gilroy: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Fabricant: I give way to the hon. Lady for the final time.
  Mrs. Gilroy: On that point, I have a specific example. The hon. Gentleman will no doubt be extremely pleased to hear that there were a mere 15 thefts of motor vehicles in a ward in the constituency of his colleague, the hon. Member for South-West Devon (Mr. Streeter), in the seven months from April to October 2000. However, there were 73 such thefts in the inner-city ward of St. Peter, to which I have referred. That shows the stark contrast between rich and poor areas and between the leafy suburb and the inner city. No doubt the hon. Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant) represents an area akin to the leafy suburb.
  Mr. Fabricant: I thank the hon. Lady for her helpful intervention, which shows that there huge differences not only in regions or between urban and rural areas, but in small regions. However, I do lot represent only the leafy lanes of Lichfield—far, far from it. My constituency lost Stone because of a boundary change, but has gained the small ex-mining town of Burntwood, which is slightly larger than Lichfield and was Labour controlled. All I can say is that that shows that I am a Member of the House because of the loyalty of the people of Lichfield.
  I am interested not only in the number of cars that have been stolen or broken into, but in the rather startling difference in the recovery rate for stolen vehicles, which I find disturbing. Again, I have to ask whether the figures arise directly from the lack of police officers in Staffordshire, the west midlands and elsewhere. In particular, two figures stand in stark contrast: 63 per cent. of all stolen vehicles were recovered in 1997, but after just three years of Labour government, that has fallen to 58 per cent. The sad fact that we face is that that directly mirrors the fall in the number of police officers. Vehicle crime fell by 27 per cent. under the previous Government, but over the past few years there has been a decrease of only 2 or 3 per cent., which is appaillingly low.
  Although we welcome the Bill, the key fact is that we need extra police officers to ensure that its provisions are observed. Police constables—not local council employees, as the Home Secretary suggested—will have the right to enter certain premises, but to facilitate that, constables on the ground must be available. That means either providing extra constables or constables entering such premises instead of doing other jobs. It is facile of the Home Secretary and others to say that constables could perform such functions in the normal course of their duties.
  Mr. Forth: Does not my hon. Friend think it slightly bizarre that the Bill, which is supposed to be an anti-crime measure, allows and by implication encourages the entry
  78
  by constables and others of registered premises, although it says nothing about premises from which criminal activities are being pursued? Is it not perverse that the heavy boots of Mr. Plod will enter premises that are already registered and therefore known to the authorities and that, by implication, there are not enough resources for the police to root out those operating from unregistered premises?
  Mr. Fabricant: My right hon. Friend raises a fascinating point, although I have not read the Bill closely enough to deal with it. Perhaps the Minister will address it in his winding-up speech. Are police officers expressly forbidden—explicitly or by implication—to enter non-registered premises? By definition, registered premises will be those of law-abiding people who have registered, whereas those who break the law will not register.
  Mr. McCabe: There is a slight danger that Conservative Members have been so programmed on their script about police numbers that they have missed the point of the Bill. That is a serious omission. I put a simple question to the hon. Gentleman. Does he agree with Chief Superintendent Mike McAndrew, the Metropolitan police operational command unit commander and a member of the national executive of the Police Superintendents Association, who said:
  The Police Superintendents' Association … welcomes the proposals …
  The proposed measures illustrate our view that this is not a job for police alone. The involvement of local authorities in the regulation of the motor salvage industry and improvements in vehicle licensing and registration will provide much needed backing for prevention and detection activity by the police service …?
  Is not that the whole point of the Bill and have not he and his colleagues missed it?
  Mr. Fabricant: The hon. Gentleman has not been listening to what I have said. We welcome the Bill, and I certainly welcome the statement made by the representative of the superintendents, but the hon. Gentleman himself said that the job is not for police officers alone. As was said during a previous American presidential election, "read my lips": there are 3,000 fewer police officers than in 1997. Until those numbers are restored, how can such legislation be successfully introduced? I shall not vote against the Bill, but how can it be effectively enforced?
  Mr. Robert Syms: The Bill will allow an officer to enter premises without a warrant, but is not that insidious, dangerous and part of a trend? The Transport Act 2000 deals with congestion charging and workplace parking and also gives powers for individuals to enter private property to carry out certain functions. Does not that represent a slippery slope?
  Mr. Fabricant: That could be a slippery slope, but I shall not go into detail, as that would be completely out of order. However, I have been involved in scrutinising private legislation—the Kent County Council and Medway Council Bills—under which Kent county council and Medway council are asking for similar powers for police officers to enter registered premises dealing with second-hand goods. Hon. Members have discussed those very issues and whether it would be right for the police to have such powers. That question, however, must be balanced against the attempt to prevent crime.
  Mr. Bercow: Nothing said by the hon. Member for Hall Green detracts from the point that we Conservatives

  79
  have been making, which, as my hon. Friend knows, relates to the nature, extent and differing application of police powers. Does my hon. Friend share my understanding that the police will require a warrant to inspect unregistered premises, but will require no such warrant to inspect their registered counterparts?
  Mr. Fabricant: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The Bill clearly states that registered premises require a police officer only to visit and inspect, and that no warrant will be required. What worries me is the presence of an imbalance almost favouring those who act unlawfully, rather than those who carry out their business lawfully.
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I have been following my hon. Friend's argument, as well as the interventions that have come thick and fast. Can my hon. Friend tell me whether council employees—who, I gather, may be involved in these matters—will have to be accompanied by a police officer, or can themselves enter a registered property without a warrant, or an unregistered property with a warrant? I am interested in this, because I share the fear expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Mr. Syms) that we are beginning to live in a rather dangerous state.
  Mr. Fabricant: While my hon. Friend asked his question, I was looking feverishly through the Bill. I am well aware that on Second Reading we should not go into the details of individual clauses, but I think it worth mentioning, in the context of principle, that clause 9(1) states:
  A constable may at any reasonable time enter and inspect premises for the time being entered in the register of a local authority.
  The subsection goes on to cite certain premises, such as those occupied as a motor salvage yard. I think it implies that the constable would have to be a police officer, and that no one could enter the premises without a police officer being present.
  I see no reference in clause 9—here I return to the subject of police numbers—to local authority officers entering the premises. Those who enter can only be police officers, which can only result in a demand on police officers' time and resources. If that takes police officers away from the beat—if it stops police officers preventing hideous crimes like those we have witnessed over the past few weeks—it must be wrong. It is the presence of police officers on the beat, and on housing estates, that prevents crime. I do not know how anyone can seriously argue against common sense like that.
  Mr. Heald: According to the Motor Vehicle Demolishers Association, the absence of effective enforcement of registration could penalise the honest, hard-working demolisher. Others who did not register would be able to go about their business while breaking all the laws under the sun. Is it not important for registration to be enforced properly—and, if that is to be done, do we not need the officers to do it?
  Mr. Fabricant: What my hon. Friend says is self-evident. Without such enforcement, there will be no disincentive to prevent dishonest people from registering. By their nature, if they think they can get away with it,
  80
  they will. As my hon. Friend says, police officers—or at least the threat of a check by them—will be needed to make dishonest people register and thus, presumably, become honest.
  A few details in the Bill worry me. It says, for instance, that local authorities will have discretion in the levying of a fee for the processing of applications by demolishers. I thought that the more technical term was "motor salvage operators", but—as a chartered engineer—I will not get on to my favourite subject and start talking about the fact that people call themselves engineers when they are really technicians, because they want to give themselves a grand name. My point is this: if local authorities are to have discretion in the levying of fees for the processing of applications, I wonder whether fees will vary from authority to authority.
  I can envisage the hon. Member for Plymouth. Sutton arguing that the fees should be very high. She does not argue in favour of stealth taxes, because she thinks that taxes should be obvious in her constituency. She spoke earlier about parking charges. I can well imagine her standing up—if she were a local councillor, which she is not—and arguing that registration charges in her area should be high. As she said earlier, they would pay for old-age homes. In fact, the money would go into two separate funds.
  Mrs. Gilroy: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Fabricant: I would be churlish if I did not.
  Mrs. Gilroy: I have never been a councillor, but as a Member of Parliament I have a very good relationship with my local branch of the Federation of Small Businesses. I think it would be very alarmed to hear that I had advanced such arguments, and I hotly deny having done so.
  Mr. Fabricant: At least we have one thing in common: neither of us has been a local councillor.
  Mr. Heald: I misread my notes earlier: I should have referred to the Motor Vehicle Dismantlers Association. I apologise to the House.
  The Federation of Small Businesses has made clear its view that small businesses should be exempt from requirements to register, and from the regulation for which the Bill provides. Does my hon. Friend agree with that, and did he hear the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Mrs. Gilroy) say she supported it?
  Mr. Fabricant: No, I did not. No doubt, if there is a vote, she will vote to ensure that small businesses are brought into the ambit, or orbit, of the Bill.
  I am worried about the apparent absence of a right of appeal. Salvage operators are obliged to register. In some circumstances a local authority may remove someone from the register, or may feel that someone working on the fringes of the business should be on the register. I do not think there is currently a right of appeal if an authority decides that someone ought to have been registered, or will be taken off the register. I hope the Minister will tell us whether there will be a right of appeal, or, if there will be none in the Bill,. whether he will accept amendments in Committee allowing a procedure for people to appeal if they have to.

  81
  Part II deals with the regulation of registration suppliers. Like the Home Secretary, I am surprised by how easy it is to go into Halfords or any other shop and ask for a licence plate to be made. It is only necessary to specify a licence plate number: there seems to be no check on whether you own a car with that licence.
  I have a particular irritation in life. Now that I am forced on to the road and am no longer able to take a train to Lichfield—there do not seem to be any trains from Lichfield to Trent Valley station any more—I see cars on the motorway with licence plates in italics, barely legible. My hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham—who has drifted from the Front Bench to the Back Bench, and is now drifting back—told me that he welcomed choice and variety.
  Mr. Bercow: Diversity.
  Mr. Fabricant: I too welcome diversity, up to a point.
  I do not know whether the Minister will talk about the latest licence plate recognition technology using mobile cameras. It will be a marvellous new and important innovation when it is introduced into this country. It will enable a police officer anywhere in the country to enter the licence plate of a stolen or wanted vehicle. If a car with that licence plate drives past the mobile camera, wherever it may be, it will automatically be read by a computer and flagged up, so that the police will know where that particular car is.
  The question is: will the cameras recognise all sorts of licence plates? Will the registration always have to be in sanserif script, of which I spoke earlier?
  Mr. Forth: I am fascinated by that analysis of a matter that is relevant to the Bill and to the licence plate regime that is proposed. Is my hon. Friend not worried, as I tend to be, about the possible effect on that technology of either stray dirt, or a strategically placed item to change the nature of a letter or a number, which is prevalent, as he will know? How confident can we be that the technology, in which I know he places great faith, will be able to produce accurate and not misleading information on vehicle registration plates?
  Mr. Fabricant: We can never be confident of that. A machine will always be a machine and will never be able to think in quite the way we think, although some people might say, "Thank God for that." Nevertheless, it is important that we try to standardise to some degree licence plates to ensure that they are readable—if nothing else, by police officers from a distance when they are following in a police car.
  We heard a eulogy for speed cameras from the hon. Member for Stafford. He would wish to see them in every street, every lane and every village of Staffordshire, let alone the rest of the country.
  Mr. Kidney: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that he is misrepresenting the speech that I made in this very Chamber on this very day, and that it is important that speed cameras are in areas where they will reduce casualties? We should not put them in every street in the country.
  Mr. Fabricant: I am greatly relieved to hear that, but what a shame that we did not hear about how there are so
  82
  few police officers in Staffordshire to arrest the people who have gone over the speed limit and then do not pay their fine.
  There needs to be a register of those who supply registration plates to ensure that they supply plates to people who own the cars with that particular registration. That makes good sense. The register will be held centrally by the Secretary of State—by the Home Secretary presumably, although I am not sure. Will it be held by the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions? Perhaps the Under-Secretary of State can clarify that.
  The Secretary of State will have discretion to levy a fee to cover "all reasonable costs incurred". What does that mean? What if I am not Halfords plc, but a small dealer in auto spares who also makes money by making licence plates? How much will I have to pay to be registered with the Secretary of State? Is another burden on small businesses being imposed by the Government?
  How easy will it be for me to register? How will I get the form? Will it be available on the internet? Three years ago, the Government boasted that, within two years, we would have internet-based government, where every form could be downloaded. Nothing has happened—it is another broken promise. What burden will there be on small businesses to register? We need the details. The small business man needs the detail.
  Mr. Syms: My hon. Friend is developing an argument about information and processing information. Under clause 35, it is clear that the Government wish the insurance industry database to be made available to the police. There may be good reasons why that should be so, but there is an issue of data protection. I served on the Committee that considered the Data Protection Bill, which was based on a European directive. Is there not a danger that the Government will have to go to Europe to get a derogation to allow the database to be available to the police?
  Mr. Fabricant: That comes under the new police powers, which I will go into later, but, again, there is the problem of intrusion into people's private lives. It is a question of balance. I will not condemn it outright. There must be some control over the activities of people who might be behaving unlawfully.
  It is like the debate that we hear from time to time on identity cards. The civil liberties people say that they are dreadful. I am not arguing for them tonight—far from it—but people say that they are terrible because they would give police and other authorities extra access to information about our private lives, but let us not kid ourselves. There is a central police database. There is the database for cars at DVLC in Swansea. They are all interconnected anyway, so there is already a fair amount of intrusion into our lives. We have to trust those who are stewards of that information to ensure that they hold it for the betterment of the good. We have to trust that they are not big brother and that those who are behaving lawfully and decently have nothing to fear.
  It seems fairly logical that people such as you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, my hon. Friend and I, who pay a lot of money for fully comprehensive insurance, should not pay a proportion of that insurance for people who are uninsured. A person involved in a car accident where the

  83
  person at fault is not insured finds that his insurance company has to bail him out. It puts up the cost for those of us who are law abiding.
  Therefore, the move is a logical extension of modern technology. I welcome it, provided, again, that there are safeguards. There need to be safeguards to ensure that this country's privacy laws and databases are not—[Interruption.] Would my hon. Friend the Member for West Derbyshire (Mr. McLoughlin) like to intervene? No.
  With regard to the register for licence plate suppliers, we must discuss what will happen where an error is made in adding or deleting a person from the register. Where will the line of accountability be? Will it lead to the decision maker, and if so, who is the decision maker in that instance? There need to be adequate provisions for the vehicle plate supplier to seek recompense where an error is made.
  Clause 33 allows the Home Secretary to make regulations on the size and content of registration plates for motor vehicles. It is a particularly interesting matter. Does the Secretary of State—again, I wonder whether it will be the Home Secretary or the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions—envisage a change in the shape of licence plates? We are aware of the fact that, for example, Belgium has much smaller licence plates. Holland's licence plate sizes are similar to our own.
  Mr. Syms: My hon. Friend is developing a good point. Many licence plates are not particularly traditional. Under existing law, many of those may be illegal, but it is still a burden on the police to chase people up. Given police numbers, does he think that that will be a priority?
  Mr. Fabricant: My hon. Friend raises a valid and powerful point. I will repeat it for a third time, although I shall not push the—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I would be grateful if the hon. Gentleman did not repeat it. He is getting very repetitive, particularly on police numbers.
  Mr. Fabricant: I certainly shall not mention the number of police, of whom there are fewer now, but it is worth answering the question; I think that that is in order.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: No.
  Mr. Fabricant: It is not, so I shall not answer the question, but I fear that little can be enforced if there are not the police officers there to do it.
  Clause 33 allows the Home Secretary to make regulations on the size and content of registration plates. That is understandable. Does that mean that there will be a change in the size of number plates? If that happens, will those who have the "wrong-sized" licence plates have to change them? If so, how long will they have to do so? How much will it cost them to change their plates? The Home Secretary did not address those issues in his speech.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The reason why they were not addressed is that they are issues for consideration in Committee. I remind the hon. Gentleman that we are on Second Reading.
  Mr. Fabricant: I thank you for your advice, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  84
  The other issue that was not addressed, possibly because it is for consideration in Committee, is that of national identification on licence plates.
  Mr. Bercow: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way, and of course I shall observe your exhortation, Mr. Deputy Speaker, not to discuss the Bill's specific details. However, does my hon. Friend agree that it is important to know whether the regulatory impact assessment, in making a judgment on the costs imposed by the Bill, has taken account of the potential for change as a result of the specifications provided for in clause 33? We need to know whether the prognosis on cost has fully taken on board that potential for change, or whether it has failed so far to do so.
  Mr. Fabricant: I rather suspect that the Government have failed to take account of that cost. I do not believe, from the question-and-answer session that we had during the Home Secretary's speech, that the Government have considered the cost of implementing any of the Bill's provisions, or the change in costs for those who are affected by the provisions.
  Will we, for example, be forced to have the European Union flag on our licence plates? At one point, the Home Secretary said that having the flag would be an option, not a necessity. Later, however, he said that he thought that it would be a necessity. I certainly share the sentiments expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham on that matter. Even without trains to Lichfield, I will be blowed if I am going to go in a car with a European Union flag on the back of it. Will we have to have a European Union flag on our licence plates? As I have a Union flag stuck on the side of my licence plate, am I committing an offence?
  Mr. Heald: Does my hon. Friend agree that the whole purpose of that part of the Bill is to make licence plates more distinctive and less easy to forge, to make them easier for police to detect? Does he also agree that the smaller the geographical area depicted on the licence plate, the better? For enforcement, would it not be better to have, for example, the Union flag or the cross of St. George rather than something like the European flag, which covers a large geographical area and 350 million people, soon to become half a billion?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Not only is that matter too detailed for this debate, but it has already been dealt with today. I ask the hon. Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant) to deal more specifically with the Bill and Second Reading.
  Mr. Fabricant: Of course I shall abide by your instruction, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  A licence plate is there to be recognised. That is the important point. Anything that impedes recognition of a licence plate by a police officer—where police officers are available—or by an automatic camera has to be wrong. Those are the types of issue on which we need clarification.
  If I may, ever so briefly, I should like to make this one interesting point—at least I think that it is interesting. A survey has shown that the British flag is the most recognised flag in the world. Is not that something to be proud of?
  Mr. Mark Hendrick: Does the hon. Gentleman accept, first, that the free movement of goods,

  85
  services and people is allowed within the European Union? Therefore, as the boundaries in which we can move freely are far greater than those of individual nation states, would it not be more appropriate to have a European Union flag than a Welsh flag, the flag of St. George or the Union flag?
  Secondly—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The first point will be enough. We have also dealt more than enough with any type of flag.
  Mr. Fabricant: I shall not deal even with flags of convenience, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  Let us move on to the issue of funding new traffic cameras. I agree with the hon. Member for Stafford that traffic cameras are to be encouraged when they minimise injury and death at accident black spots. However, as we have all read in various newspaper articles, many traffic cameras do not contain film. Nevertheless, that is not a problem as long as we do not know whether the cameras contain film, as they would still act as a deterrent, which is the point of speed cameras. The point of speed cameras is not to catch people, but to deter them from committing the crime initially.
  Too many people know, however, that lack of police funding has led not only to fewer police officers, but to a financial inability to put film in cameras. I do not know the specific situation in Staffordshire, because—fingers crossed—so far I have not been caught by a traffic camera there. However, I have to admit that, on one occasion, on Park lane, a flash went off, making me realise that I had been going just a few miles over the limit. For three or four weeks, I waited anxiously to see whether I would receive a speeding ticket. I did not. I can only assume that the Metropolitan police, who are so underfunded, did not have film in their camera.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Several hon. Members have mentioned speeding, but the Bill has nothing at all to do with speeding.
  Mr. Fabricant: Mr. Deputy Speaker, the funding of new traffic cameras is the key provision of part III.
  I shall, however, deal with the provision in clause 9 of new police powers. To some extent, I have already dealt with that matter, partly because of the helpful interventions of my hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Mr. Syms). The clause states:
  A constable may at any reasonable time enter and inspect premises for the time being entered in the register.
  It is worth rehearsing again the argument about whether a police officer should have access to premises—at a reasonable time or a not reasonable time—without a warrant. If we think that it is good that police have access to registered premises, would it not be even better to provide that police have similar rights to enter unregistered premises where people may be conducting unlawful business? As I said, it seems strange that those who are sufficiently decent, honest and law-abiding to register can be inspected regularly, whereas those who are deliberately conducting unlawful business and choose not to register are protected in law and are not required to submit to an inspection unless the police obtain a warrant.
  86
  I have heard of many occasions when the police have heard about illegal activities at specific premises, but, by the time that they obtained a warrant and gained entry, the illegal act was finished and those who committed the act were long gone and could not be brought to book. As ever more legislation is requiring people to join a register, we have to ask if there is not an imbalance and the police should not have powers to enter the same type of premises regardless of whether they are registered or unregistered.
  For all the reasons that I have mentioned, I welcome clause 35, which grants the police access to insurance industry databases. To some extent, I share the concern expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Poole that such access could be an invasion of privacy. However, when I consider my car insurance bill of £1,000—which seems excessive; perhaps I should use one of those telephone insurers—I cannot help but think that 25 per cent. of my premium is subsidising those who are not insured. Anything that will help to reduce the cost of insurance is to be welcomed. More importantly, anything that will bring to book those who are committing a crime by not taking out insurance is to be applauded. I am not sure how the proposals would be affected by the Data Protection Act 1988. I invite the Minister to go into considerable detail, in what I suspect will be a rather lengthy summing-up, on that.
  Mr. Bercow: My hon. Friend has just focused on clause 35, one of the nine clauses in the Bill introducing regulations. Does he agree that the Minister should tell us whether those regulations will be subject to the negative or the affirmative procedure, because that is not clear from the Bill?
  Mr. Fabricant: I have heard my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham make that point before to Ministers and it has floored them. I have no doubt that the Minister could answer now with a lightning riposte. However, he does not have to do so, because he will give us the answer at about 10 o'clock tonight, having had two hours' notice, and after the officials have provided him with the information.
  Mr. Hill: I know the answer.
  Mr. Fabricant: Clearly, the Minister knew that he would be facing my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham, and that he might be asked that question. I challenge the Minister to intervene and to tell us the answer.
  Mr. Hill indicated dissent.
  Mr. Fabricant: The Minister chooses not to intervene, and I suspect that that could be because of the doleful glare of the Government Whip.
  In summary, of course I welcome the Vehicles (Crime) Bill. Anything that can prevent vehicle crime is to be applauded, and anything that can use new technology is to be applauded. However, the legislation—which I fear will not see the light of day before the end of the parliamentary Session—is so much like other Bills being introduced by the Government. They glitter in the short term, rather like a sparkler on new year's eve or on 5 November, but after a few seconds of bright, shining light, they phutter out. They phutter and die, because the

  87
  Government do not give them the resources that they need. Like the Bill on yob culture, and all the other proposed legislation about which we hear so much from the Home Office, this measure will phutter and die because the resources for extra police officers are not being given. The police need extra money, extra resources and extra policemen on the ground, if only to restore them to the levels that they had when Labour came into power in 1997.
  7.53 pm
  Helen Jones: I intend to be brief, unlike the hon. Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant), largely because I am still reeling from the shock of being complimented by the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) at the start of the debate. He has managed to put the kibosh on what little hope I had of a political career in one fell swoop.
  I want to talk about the principles of the Bill, as you have instructed, Mr. Deputy Speaker. There was much discussion in last week's debate on the Loyal Address on the problems of lawlessness and anti-social behaviour, and the climate of fear and insecurity that they create. However, it struck me that there was little reference in that debate to the problems of vehicle crime, which accounts for one fifth of recorded crime, or to the effects of those crimes on the public. That is symptomatic of the way in which we often treat such offences, and indicative of why we have to change and why we need the Bill.
  Many people, especially those who live in areas where car theft is prevalent, know that such crime contributes to the climate of insecurity that was being discussed last week, and blights people's everyday lives. They know only too well the awful feeling that one has when one hears a noise outside and has to look to see whether one's car is being damaged or stolen. They also know the relief that one can feel in the morning, in certain areas, when one opens the curtains and finds that the car is still there. That happens to many people. Like many crimes, it affects not only those who are the victims of the crime, but those who fear that they might become the victims of such crimes.
  I welcome any measure to ensure that we create a climate in which it will be more difficult for car thieves to operate. The Bill contains several sensible measures of that nature. I was concerned to see it damned with faint praise by the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke), who said that it was
  worthy but not terribly important.—[Official Report, 12 December 2000: Vol. 359, c. 539.]
  I can only assume that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has never had a car stolen, and never known that sinking feeling when one returns to where one thought one had parked, only to discover an empty space, especially at night.
  Like many hon. Members, I have experienced that feeling. I have had two cars stolen—one in Manchester and one in Liverpool, so I am quite even-handed between the two cities. Recently, we had another car damaged on our driveway. At that stage, I was nothing like a woolly liberal. I thought that those events were important, and my constituents find such matters important, as well. However, there has been too great a tendency to treat such
  88
  matters almost as victimless crimes, as though we can simply shrug our shoulders and say, "Well, the insurance will deal with it, and that is that." Nothing could be further from the truth. We all pay, through increased insurance premiums.
  This kind of crime hits those on the lowest incomes the hardest. They have to cope with the logistical problems of getting to work and getting the children to school without any reserves of cash. However, they often incur a serious financial penalty; if their car is old, but runs perfectly well, the insurance pay-out that they receive might not be enough to purchase a vehicle in similar condition. Many families on low incomes, who might have no savings on which to fall back, and who find it difficult to borrow money, could then find themselves desperate to meet the shortfall. If we fail to get a grip on crimes such as these, people on low incomes in places such as the centre of my constituency will pay the price. That is why we should welcome the Bill.
  It is precisely because it is so difficult to catch car thieves in the act that we ought to make it harder for people to profit from disposing of stolen vehicles. I particularly welcome the proposals in the Bill to regulate the motor salvage industry and scrap metal dealers to reduce the opportunities for ringing or for using stolen vehicles for spare parts. It is not surprising that the replies to the consultation document that went out before the Bill was produced were overwhelmingly in favour of a statutory scheme of regulation. I say to Conservative Members who seemed concerned about this measure that the Bill will deal with precisely those people who would not conform to a voluntary code of practice: the dodgy dealers, the Arthur Daleys of this world.
  Mr. Fabricant: The hon. Lady makes a powerful point. However, does she agree that, if someone does not register voluntarily, and if there is no methodology by which the police can detect those people who ought to have registered but have not done so, there will be a problem as to how the measure can be enforced? The Bill sets up a register only for those who voluntarily allow themselves to be registered.
  Helen Jones: Yes, of course, but the hon. Gentleman ignores the fact that the Bill creates an offence. People will have to register, and local authorities will maintain the register. That is the compulsion in the Bill, and a very necessary compulsion it is. Those who want to register or participate in a voluntary code of practice are precisely those who are likely to be running a genuine business. We need to deal with the others.
  Mr. Bercow: Will the hon. Lady give way?
  Helen Jones: In a moment. If, as is estimated, 78,000 vehicles a year are used for ringing or broken up for spare parts, the more we can do to reduce that number, the greater will be our contribution to reducing vehicle crime. In the spirit of Christmas, I will now give way to the hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Bercow: I am very grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way. The majority of respondents to the consultation who supported statutory regulation might well be justified in doing so. However, will the hon. Lady concede that one of the organisations that expressed

  89
  opposition to the statutory regulation model was the Federation of Small Businesses, which is a highly respected and worthwhile organisation, and that at least part of its reason for objecting to the statutory route was that it calculated that about two and a half times as many businesses will be affected by the regulation as the Government calculate?
  Helen Jones: I understand the hon. Gentleman's point, and we can debate the precise figures in Committee. However, I cannot see the logic of arguing that we should try to prevent these crimes from taking place in large businesses but not in small ones. There is no sense in that argument.
  The Bill provides for regulating the supply of number plates and registering those who supply them. We should see that not only as a method of tackling car crime but as an important contribution to making it difficult to commit other crimes as well. Fake number plates are often used in robberies, burglaries and—God forbid—in terrorist activities. We have to make it as difficult as possible for criminals to behave in that manner. We should certainly not be making it easy for them to dodge recognition when they commit crimes.
  I also want to comment on the measures to give the police access to the insurance industry database to help detect people who are driving without insurance. Before I came to the House I was a solicitor, specialising in personal injury. I have seen too often the results of accidents caused by uninsured drivers. In my view, they are a menace on the road, and this proposal will make an important contribution to road safety as well as crime reduction. Uninsured drivers are much more likely to be in vehicles that are not well maintained and are thus much more likely to be involved in accidents. If they cause personal injury, their victims have one more hurdle to cross before they can claim compensation for their injuries.
  There are, of course, many other important provisions. Right hon. and hon. Members who have said that we should judge the regulations by their outcome are quite right. The Bill imposes more regulation in certain areas, but it is regulation for a good purpose. It is intended to stop a major cause of crime and a major problem for many of my constituents.
  There are other issues on which I could comment, but I know that some of my colleagues wish to speak. So I hope that I have said enough to convince the House that the measure is far from unimportant. It sets out to tackle a real problem for many of the people whom we represent. It is an important part of the Government's overall strategy of tackling anti-social behaviour and the yob culture and the resulting fear and insecurity. Accepting such crimes as a part of life is likely to lead to their increase. It is time that we took them seriously and introduced proper measures to protect our constituents. The Bill will go a long way towards doing that, and I commend it to the House.
  8.4 pm
  Mr. Jonathan Shaw: I too welcome the Bill. It will give the police and local authorities another club in the fight against vehicle crime. It is not a panacea; instead, it should be seen as part of a package of measures with which to tackle the problem.
  90
  This is a very important issue. As my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington, North (Helen Jones) said, it affects people's lives. When people have their cars stolen, it affects their livelihood, causing misery and hassle. I was pleased to hear the hon. Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant) mention agricultural vehicles. Farmers in my constituency report a growing concern that plant taken from farms is difficult to trace.
  Closer co-operation between the agencies will lead to better intelligence with which to deal with this menace. We have seen that happen in Kent and Medway. Kent is a model of excellence in terms of using the intelligence-led model of policing. Car crime in Kent and Medway has fallen. It is a tribute to the Medway towns that they have beacon status for their community partnerships and for tackling crime.
  I am concerned about people living on limited means who require a car and cannot always afford to buy a new one if theirs is stolen. I have not had my car stolen—although there has been an attempt to break into it—but I have sat on the jury at the trial of a car ringing gang. It was clear that the people before the court were not making vast sums out of car ringing. They were very much at the bottom of the food chain; they operated a small garage in a deprived area of Chatham. They bought the cars, so they were up for handling. It was quite a serious crime, and they were found guilty and sentenced.
  During the deliberations, the judge said to one of the defendants, "What do you actually do to these cars when they are brought to you?" The defendant replied, "We T-cut the cars and we did the tappits." The judge looked at him rather curiously and said, "T-cut? What is this T-cut? And, pray tell me, who are the tappits?" So he was clearly in touch with car crime. 1 told a colleague who is a lawyer, and he said that that was just lawyers' humour. From the perplexed reaction on the judge's face, I was not convinced.
  I welcome the measures to allow the police to have access to insurance companies' records. People who drive without insurance are, more often than not, dangerous drivers. Co-operation between insurance companies and the police will be very welcome.
  I welcome the idea of hypothecating the fines resulting from speed cameras to fund other ones. That is absolutely right. Communities which have to suffer the menace of people driving through their area at dangerous speeds should get something back. If that means that they get speed cameras, and it drives down the number of accidents in the area, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney) suggested, that is welcome.
  The registration of scrap dealers is also welcome. In my former career as a social worker, one of the foster carriers whom I supervised for a period was very keen to get her hands on a people carrier when they first came out. She eventually found one that she could afford. She drove it around for a couple of months, but discovered when it had its MOT that it was actually two vehicles. She had been driving around children for whom she was responsible, and one can imagine her concern and anguish as to what could have happened. So the registration measure is very welcome.
  In an intervention on my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, I referred to abandoned cars. He suggested that he would be willing to consider further provisions in Committee. I am grateful to Mr. David Alexander of Kent

  91
  county council and to Mr. Les Preston of Medway council for providing me with some statistics. The number of such vehicles has risen dramatically—mainly because the value of scrap has fallen and cars are cheaper. It is the responsibility of local authorities to clear abandoned cars from our streets, under the auspices of the Refuse Disposal (Amenity) Act 1978—there is some irony in that because 1978 has not gone down in Labour's history as the best year for collecting rubbish from the streets.
  The increase shown by the statistics is alarming. Between 1997 and 1998, 1,472 vehicles were abandoned throughout the county of Kent and it is estimated that in 2000–01 that the number will be 11,600. The cost for that is £650,000—for removal as well as storage costs. In 1999–2000, the cost to Medway council will be about £57,000—an increase of about 132 per cent. since last year.
  Mr. Syms: The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. There will be widespread support throughout the House for dealing with abandoned cars. It is most frustrating for residents to find such cars outside their homes, with the wheels taken, the vehicle burnt and a complete wreck—the whole area goes down.
  Mr. Shaw: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. I agree with him. He is absolutely right; not only are such vehicles an eyesore, they are extremely dangerous. More often than not, the largest concentration of abandoned vehicles is found in less well-off and more deprived areas. In my constituency, there are Victorian terraces that were designed for horses and carts—not cars—and such vehicles occupy much-needed parking space.
  I hope that Ministers will look closely at those matters. I shall do all that I can—as will Kent county council, which has prepared an excellent document—to assist in drafting the necessary provisions. Current legislation is outmoded. We need to review it and the Bill provides us with an excellent opportunity to do so.
  The measure will assist the police and agencies to co-operate in tackling a menace—an unacceptable scourge. We should not say that such crimes just happen in our society; that is not good enough. We must provide the law enforcement agencies with the means to tackle them. I hope that the Bill will successfully provide that and that Ministers will carefully consider drafting amendments to deal with abandoned vehicles. I am only too willing to be a member of the Standing Committee and to table such amendments.
  8.13 pm
  Mr. Keith Darvill: I, too, welcome the Bill. I apologise to the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) for leaving the Chamber during his speech, but I had to attend a Standing Committee meeting.
  The Bill, combined with other measures to which I shall refer, will make a significant contribution to achieving the Government's target of a 30 per cent. reduction in vehicle crime by 2004. That target offers a challenge; it will be difficult but not impossible to reach, provided we allocate resources and a range of initiatives has a combined effect. The measure will undoubtedly protect motorists from car theft and will protect legitimate salvage traders.
  92
  I echo the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Mr. Shaw) and other Members who referred to abandoned vehicles. I support the point made by hon. Members that the measure should be considered more broadly. My hon. Friend's proposals should be considered during proceedings on the Bill; some thought should be given to tightening the existing law to which he referred, so as to assist with its enforcement. I urge the Government and the House to do so.
  Such provisions would mesh well with the measure and we should not stray too wide of the mark if we considered them at present. In my constituency, the number of abandoned vehicles is increasing considerably—so much so that the local authority officers responsible for removing such vehicles find that, at the end of a week, they have more cars to deal with than they did at the beginning. Abandoned vehicles are an aspect of vehicle crime that is of increasing concern to our constituents.
  The cost of dealing with such vehicles adds to the overall costs of vehicle crime, which are well documented in the Library research paper analysing the Bill. Vehicle crime is the largest single category of recorded crime in England and Wales. In 1999–2000, 1,475,889 such crimes were recorded, including 374,686 thefts of vehicles and 669,232 thefts from vehicles—28 per cent. of all recorded crime during the period.
  The estimated cost of vehicle crime is £3.5 billion a year; that includes the costs of the criminal justice system. Of course, that is only part of the misery. As the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Chidgey) pointed out, the fear of vehicle crime is great and the impact on victims ranges from nuisance to disaster and severe financial loss. The Home Office estimates that the average economic cost—including justice costs—of each stolen vehicle is about £4,700; that amounts to £367 million a year. There are about 12,000 cases of insurance fraud, estimated at £2,800 each, giving a total cost of £400 million a year. Those statistics show the need for better legislation.
  The measure is important and will benefit many of our constituents. However, despite its importance to our constituents and despite the overall economic and public sector costs of vehicle crime, we need to ensure that the regulatory burdens that we impose have an overall benefit. In the light of that, I urge hon. Members to consider the regulatory impact assessments that have been made by the Home Office.
  Opposition Members often make points about increasing red tape They made such points regularly while they were in government, but did precious little about the matter. In the unlikely event that they were to return to government, they would do no better. In essence, to tackle problems such as vehicle crime—where businesses can be used by unscrupulous people and those with criminal intent—we need regulation. The overall benefit to the public of such regulation must be balanced against the burden that it imposes.
  Mr. Bercow: To what, if not to a reduction in police numbers, does the hon. Gentleman attribute the deterioration in the rates of detection and recovery of stolen vehicles during the past three years?
  Mr. Darvill: I have not analysed the statistics for the detection of those crimes, but clearly police numbers will

  93
  have an effect. We also need to consider the effect of other measures. Reducing any type of crime will have a beneficial effect on the police force generally, and may affect the other decisions that chief constables may make. To answer the hon. Gentleman's question, one would need to analyse the overall crime pattern in an area.
  That is why the local crime partnerships are welcome. For example, I have estates in my constituency where vehicle crime is particularly prevalent, and the local authority and the police can target resources so as to have an impact on that.
  Mr. McCabe: Is not one obvious answer to the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) to say that the various engineering and voluntary arrangements put in place over the past few years have now achieved their maximum effect, and the improvement is levelling off? Is that not why we need further enforcement measures to tackle the vehicle crime that we have not previously been able to reach?
  Mr. Darvill: My hon. Friend makes a good point. As I listened to his speech I recognised his expertise on the subject. Where voluntary measures have no impact, clearly the ability of the police will be diminished. If I read the results of the consultation aright, there is a general consensus in favour of regulation, so that attacks on such crimes can be further developed. There appears to be considerable agreement about the legislation, and approval of the proposals for regulation.
  The purpose of part I is to bring the motor salvage industry within a framework of statutory regulation, so as to reduce the opportunity for the disposal of stolen vehicles. That will also assist the police and the other authorities investigating such offences. It is believed that regulating the industry could prevent about 30,000 vehicle thefts and 6,000 fraudulent insurance claims each year.
  When my hon. Friend the Minister responds to the debate, will he let the House know what the cost burden of carrying out their registration duties will be for local authorities, and whether he believes that the schemes will adequately cover councils' costs?
  I realise that there has been consultation, but my reading of the references in the Library research paper suggests that the costs, if the regulatory regime is to be effective, have been underestimated. Although there are gains to be made from the measure, I have some sympathy with some of the points made earlier by Conservative Members. This is not a party political point, because when the Conservative party was in government it made the same mistakes. Often we pass good measures in the House, but do not give local authorities the necessary resources to enforce them.
  If we allow registration to take place in a cursory way, without insisting on the possible advantages of correct enforcement, we shall not get the benefits of that registration.
  Mr. Fabricant: The hon. Gentleman is making a good and powerful point, but does he agree that something else that will affect the effectiveness of the legislation is the criminal's perception of the capabilities of the police? If
  94
  the criminal believes that he can get away with something because the police do not have the resources to enforce the Act adequately—
  Mr. Forth: If?
  Mr. Fabricant: My right hon. Friend is right; the criminal will try to get away with it. Perception is all-important, and if that sort of perception is to be overcome, the police will have to have adequate resources.
  Mr. Darvill: I do not share the criminal mind of someone who might want to steal vehicles, but surely the point is that we want to make the legislation work. It is a combination of crime partnerships, police resourcing and a range of other measures that will deter the criminal.
  We must approach the Bill in a bipartisan way, because the cost benefits for the country will be considerable. There is unlikely to be much division between us in terms of supporting the principle behind it.
  Before leaving part I, we need to consider the end of life vehicles directive, which will be with us by April 2002. The Government will ask police forces and local authorities to monitor the impact of the regulations, which they intend to review in the light of the implementation information, and of the directive.
  There are opportunities here for a more joined-up approach, because there is an environmental aspect to the way in which we deal with end-of-life vehicles—the abandoned vehicles that I mentioned earlier. Within the next two years there might be some opportunity to mesh the various provisions to give a better cost benefit for the public sector.
  That might mean greater co-operation between local authorities, the police and so on, and the matter needs considering in detail. There might be an opportunity to make some provision in the Bill, so that when the end of life vehicles directive comes into force the necessary regulations can be amended. That would be easier than using primary legislation again.
  Part II deals with the registration of number plate suppliers. The United Kingdom is the only country in Europe where number plates are so readily accessible. The Bill will ensure that plates are issued only for genuine reasons, and are used only on the correct vehicles. That long-overdue provision will help to reduce crime.
  Mr. Bercow: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that clause 33 contains an enabling power for the Secretary of State to specify the size and shape, and the other dimensions and particulars, of registration plates. Does he agree that that provision should not enable the Secretary of State, in the name of uniformity, to do away with personalised number plates, which I think add to the colour and gaiety of the nation? As a humble son of toil, I, of course, do not possess personalised number plates, and I have no expectation of possessing them at any stage in my career. None the less, I defend the right of those who can afford to buy them to continue to do so. Does the hon. Gentleman also defend that right?
  Mr. Darvill: I defend the right of anyone to do that, provided that the overall effect is not negative—but if there were an advantage to be gained in more conformity

  95
  and more standardised provisions in terms of technology, enforcement and detection, and if the overall benefit of that could be proven, I would be happy to go along with it. I have no desire for personalised number plates myself, but I appreciate that some do. To me, it is not a major issue.
  I welcome the provisions on disclosure of information, especially those in clause 17(7) about the police information technology organisation. That will be a powerful provision and will have some benefit.
  It is interesting that when the views of small and medium-sized businesses were sought, to assess the effectiveness of the proposed regulations in this part of the Bill, none opposed them, and all considered the potential costs to be insignificant.
  On part III, I particularly welcome clause 36, which deals with the extension of time limits for prosecution, and clause 37, which provides that the income that criminal courts receive from speed camera penalties can be used to fund more speed cameras and to improve road safety. The impact of speed cameras has been generally beneficial. More speed cameras are required in my area and funding from that source will be welcomed. I should be interested to learn how those funds will be allocated between areas—perhaps my hon. Friend the Minister will tell us in his winding-up speech.
  In conclusion, the Bill will not end vehicle crime, but it will help to reduce it. That must be welcome. Public awareness initiatives, greater security in car parks, extended CCTV, improved vehicle design, schemes targeted at those young people at risk of involvement in vehicle crime and a range of other initiatives will all contribute to meeting the Government's targets. Hon. Members should not ignore the range of initiatives that will have that impact. With the Bill on the statute book, the fight against crime will be helped, and for that reason it will receive my support and, I hope, that of the rest of the House.
  8.31 pm
  Mr. Robert Syms: I want to contribute briefly to what has been a pretty good debate. I begin by declaring my interest, as stated in the Register of Members' Interests: I have a family business in the building industry, and I intend to mention plant and equipment.
  The hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Chidgey) made a good contribution, because he set out the background against which the debate is taking place. He mentioned the fact that, after the purchase of a house, the purchase of a car involves the largest sum that people spend. People are very attached to their cars; they are important parts of their lives. Most of us who represent rural constituencies know that cars are a necessity of life; our constituents cannot do without them. Therefore, any threat to those vehicles, which they perceive as enabling them to live a free life, is treated very seriously.
  Broadly speaking, I welcome the fact that the Government have introduced the Bill. Of course, the devil is in the detail and it is for the Committee to consider the various proposals to determine whether they will achieve the Government's ambitious target of a 30 per cent. reduction in such crime by 2004. Nevertheless, why
  96
  should not we be ambitious and set targets, especially on car crime, from which many people have suffered greatly? The debates in Committee will be interesting.
  As the hon. Member for Eastleigh also mentioned, such crime does not purely involve road-going vehicles; there has been a growth in the theft of farm vehicles and plant. The building industry has suffered greatly from its plant and equipment being stolen from sites. Some years ago, the vehicle registration authorities used to register, for example, vibrating rollers for no fee. However, because no tax was paid on such vehicles, the registration authorities introduced a form of tax and builders had to choose whether to play to license them, or not to license them and keep them off the road on building sites. Those decisions, which the industry has been pushed into taking, have contributed to the rise in such crime. It is right and proper that vehicle crime should be a high priority for the Government. Where they are right, they will receive the support of Conservative Members.
  The hon. Members for Chatham and Aylesford (Mr. Shaw) and for Upminster (Mr. Darvill) raised the issue of abandoned cars. Many of us feel pretty strongly about that matter. I do not think that there is a Member whose constituents have not written to him or her about abandoned cars in their streets and communities and the frustration involved in writing to the police and the vehicle licensing people. They are trying to get rid of vehicles that cause great angst; kids play on them and their windows are broken, which presents a danger to children. Often reasonable-looking vehicles are quickly torn to pieces and sometimes torched. Even in my constituency, many such vehicles can be counted in certain estates. I urge the Government to consider whether the law on abandoned cars should be reviewed in Committee; we all think that more should be done about them.
  As has been said, it is important to get the balance right when setting up a regulatory framework. Various figures for the costs have lot en cited—£13 million to £20 million in the first year and £11 million to £18 million thereafter. There is always a danger that law-abiding people will sign up, but those who are not reputable will try to avoid doing so. It is important to ensure that there is widespread acceptance of the legislation before cracking down on the rotten apples in the barrel.
  Mr. Bercow: My hon. Friend wisely draws attention to the importance of thoroughly considering the proposed regulations. Therefore, does he agree that it is essential that, either tonight or very soon, the Government undertake to introduce a minimum period—perhaps three months—during which affected organisations are consulted and that decent notice of the requirement to implement the regulations is provided to those who will have to give effect to them?
  Mr. Syms: That is a good point. Many people are trying to run their businesses—life as a small business man can be hard—and they may not initially be aware that they must comply. Therefore, there should be reasonable consultation and a reasonable period before the regulations come into force, but sufficient penalties should be imposed on those who do not comply with the law of the land, so that the scheme receives widespread acceptance as early as possible.

  97
  Local authority costs have been mentioned. All Governments are guilty of underestimating the costs to local authorities. I spent 12 years as a local councillor, and such proposals always cost more than was originally thought. If a charging regime is introduced through local government, those in the inner cities may have to charge higher fees because they have more client businesses. That is a problem.
  Mr. Shaw: I referred to high figures for local authorities, but does the hon. Gentleman agree that the cost of dealing with abandoned vehicles should not be placed on council tax payers and that those who abandon the vehicles should face far stiffer and higher fines?
  Mr. Syms: That is a good point. I too, would focus on abandoned vehicles. If we could trace their owners and impose a large fine, that might be the solution. Of course, hon. Members on both sides of the House will be aware that there is a risk that either local authorities will have to bear the costs, and all local authorities are under pressure these days, or they will have to recover those costs by charging people in the industry. We all know that costs are eventually passed on to those who use the authority's services, and we must all be aware of that.
  We have debated funding for new traffic cameras. One of the great successes of the past 20 years has been the way in which people have accepted the drink-drive laws. Attitudes have changed considerably It is also important to obtain public support for speed cameras. It is not enough to pass laws; we must change people's attitudes.
  Mr. Fabricant: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Syms: I will give way in a moment.
  It is important that people understand that the overwhelming priority in the installation of speed cameras is safety and saving lives. They must appreciate that cameras have not been put in particular spots to catch people and to be used as an easy means of raising revenue. When the Bill goes to Committee, we need to be reassured that the priority will be safety and saving lives.
  Mr. Fabricant: My hon. Friend has almost answered my question by developing his argument. However, does he not think that people have a responsible attitude towards drinking and driving because of the limits for alcohol in the blood that have been set? Does he not also think that certain aspects of the speed limits that have been set must be reconsidered? Does he not think that, at times, speed limits are set too high or too low? If there are to be many more speed cameras and much more enforcement, we must take a more rigorous approach to the limits.
  Mr. Syms: My hon. Friend makes a good point, but I do not want to stray too far into a discussion of that issue. This debate is not about drinking and driving. However, legislation will be accepted if it contains a reasonable balance.
  My principal point is that if people understand that speed cameras are intended to save lives and to prevent accidents, there will be widespread acceptance of them. However, if people think that they are intended merely to annoy drivers and to raise extra revenue, there will not be
  98
  such acceptance. On some patches of road, people know where the speed cameras are and they slow down for a mile. However, the moment they have passed the cameras, they put their foot down to make up for the delay in their journey. Therefore, if money is recycled from magistrates courts to providing more cameras, we need to be reassured that safety will be the No.1 priority.
  I do not have the figures to hand, but the costs to the nation of road accidents were quoted earlier. We would make substantial savings if we could reduce the number of casualties on the roads. The casualties are not only drivers; too many children are knocked over.
  Clause 35 and police access to the insurance industry's database were mentioned. There might be benefits to the insurance industry and the police if that happens, but certain data protection issues will have to be examined in Committee. Under the current Data Protection Acts, a local authority housing department cannot give housing information to another department in the local authority, because access to the information is strictly controlled. Therefore, giving all the insurance companies' information to the police is bound to raise data protection issues.
  This country is slightly unusual. We have many company cars and many of them are insured under block policies. Cover notes are also widely used when people purchase vehicles. Unless insurance companies have very up-to-date data systems that keep daily track of cover notes, it will not be worth providing information, because many thousands of vehicles are covered by cover notes. The police might think that they have stopped someone who does not have proper insurance only to find that he has a cover note. The proposal needs to be thought out carefully.
  Under current law, the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency is unable to refuse to grant a licence to a vehicle when one is requested. That means that vehicles that it knows to be fraudulent are issued with roadworthiness certificates. Nothing in the Bill will alter that law and, as a result, the new provision will have little practical effect. We should consider that point in Committee. It was highlighted by Sandy Dalgano of the National Salvage Group, and we need further clarification on it.
  To some extent, the issue of police numbers has been done to death, but the fact is that there are 3,000 fewer police officers than in 1997. The police face tremendous pressures, and, as a society, we constantly introduce crime Bills but do not grapple with crime. The Government have promised to tackle the problem, and I was pleased to hear from several hon. Members that the police colleges are filling up with recruits. They will be needed because of the amount of legislation that is being introduced.
  Overall, a Bill on vehicle crime is a good proposal, but the devil will certainly be in the detail. I am not sure that the Government have got all their proposals right, but there will be a lively debate on them in Committee. I hope that we eventually have a Bill that does the job of reducing vehicle crime, which most people believe needs to be done.
  8.44 pm
  Mr. Eric Forth: Surely our task as the House of Commons is—if nothing else—to assess the balance of benefit that the Government's proposed measures might bring to our constituents. I am always more suspicious when consensus breaks out

  99
  because it usually means that a measure is ill considered. That is especially the case when my Front-Bench colleagues sign up to it—that almost guarantees that it is rotten. The debate has some way to run and, although I am mindful of the need to allow adequate time for Front-Bench spokesmen to sum up—no doubt consensually—it is incumbent on us to identify less-than-perfect aspects of the Bill before we rush headlong into agreeing to it.
  Nearly every contribution has referred to the Government's target to reduce vehicle crime by 30 per cent. I confess that I have always been suspicious of the concept of targets. I am not sure what they mean. I do not know where the figure of 30 per cent. came from; I do not know what it means or to what it relates; I do not know who thinks that it is an ambitious or unambitious target and, what is worse, I am not sure what happens if we do not meet it.
  My Government went through a phase of being fond of targets. They are presentationally sexy and it looks good for Ministers to say, "We have set a target" for a reduction in, for example, smoking. Indeed, I recall that one of our Health Ministers set a target for the reduction of suicide. That must be the ultimate in a triumph of hope over expectation.
  Mr. Syms: Did the number of suicides go up or down in the 18 years that the Conservatives were in government?
  Mr. Forth: To be honest, I do not know the answer. Even if I did, I suspect that Madam Deputy Speaker might take a dim view of an excursion too far into that territory.
  A vehicle crime reduction target of 30 per cent. is utterly meaningless and has no substance. If, at the end of the arbitrary period for which the arbitrary figure was set, we discovered that the target had not been achieved, would that mean that the measures were a failure? Would it mean that we needed more, fewer or different measures? The issue of targets should be set aside and be paid far less attention.
  Mr. Fabricant: My right hon. Friend is often persuasive, but he is failing to persuade me with that argument. Does he not think that a target—provided that it is reasonably realistic—gives one something to aim for and to measure success against?
  Mr. Forth: No, I do not. It should surely be the objective of any Government, judicial system and police force constantly to reduce crime. That should be their very essence. Does my hon. Friend think that if a heavy-handed bureaucrat or politician says, "I am now going to set a target of 30 per cent.", police officers and civil servants will work harder and the judiciary will play its part? I doubt it. I question the concept of targeting and its likely effect.
  Mr. Bercow: I should put it on the record that I have not expressed support for the Bill. However, although the Government's target to reduce vehicle crime by 30 per cent. by 2004 is ambitious, is my right hon. Friend aware that they have gone so far as to set out in some detail
  100
  the means by which that is to be achieved? In short, the Government expect 50,000 offences to be prevented by the secure car parks scheme, 50,000 by improved DVLA procedures, 50,000 by better regulation of the salvage industry, 180,000 by improved use of security features and new car security and 80,000 by what is conveniently described as better policing and community responses, which is a total of more than 400,000. Do the words "pigs flying in front of one's very eyes" spring to my right hon. Friend's mind?
  Mr. Forth: Indeed they do, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend for illustrating my point even more effectively than I have, which is not an unusual occurrence.
  I would be more convinced by targeting if we heard more Ministers say, as some have said, "If the target is not achieved, I will resign." In a debate on a subject akin to that of the Bill, the Deputy Prime Minister said that if car usage had not fallen by the end of the Labour Government's first term, they would have failed. If there was more of that, I might be more attracted by the notion of targeting; so far, however, I regard it as a distraction.
  It is always useful to mine the explanatory notes to a Bill. In this case, we find our old friend "consultation". Paragraph 6 of the notes usefully provided by Her Majesty's Government states:
  Twenty-six organisations replied to the consultation document. Of these twenty-two endorsed the proposal for statutory regulation.
  It would have aided the cause of transparency if the Government had told us which organisations they had consulted.
  Mr. Darvill: When going through the Home Office website, I found in the regulatory impact assessment a list of the organisations that were consulted.
  Mr. Bercow: Read it out.
  Mr. Darvill: I shall not, save to say that the list begins with the Association of British Insurers and ends with the Welsh Development Agency.
  Mr. Forth: What?
  Mr. Darvill: The Welsh Development Agency.
  Mr. Forth: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I do not do websites, so that information would have evaded me. However, the fact that the Welsh Development Agency said yes to its paymasters does not surprise me in the slightest. I should have been astonished if the bureaucrats of that agency had slapped their paymasters in the face by saying that the idea was a rotten one and they opposed it.
  That makes my case. I do not know whether this website thing reveals who said no during the act of so-called consultation. It might well list all those who said yes and it might even tell us who boldly and bravely said no, but my point is altogether different. It is that when regulation is on offer in a consultation, as it was in this case, it is highly likely that the bureaucratic organisations responding to the consultation will be in favour. Bureaucracies like regulation. The association of this and the institute of that will tend to be sympathetic to the idea of regulation, because it allows them to continue to exist

  101
  and enables them to charge their hapless members greater membership fees to deal with the regulations to which they have agreed. There is a circularity in the process which I have always found highly suspicious.
  Furthermore, large businesses tend to favour proposals for regulations. They have administrative structures that enable them to respond to regulation in a way that small businesses cannot and do not.
  Mr. Heald: Is my right hon. Friend interested in the fact that the Federation of Small Businesses has expressed a desperate desire for small businesses in the sector to be exempted from such regulation? Does that not reinforce his argument?
  Mr. Forth: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who must look up websites like the hon. Member for Upminster (Mr. Darvill). Perhaps one of these days I shall get into the websites thing, but I have resisted it so far. My hon. Friend is quite right.
  The other aspect of that important point is that a regulatory regime tends to lessen the likelihood of new businesses being created. Is it not odd that Governments—I do not exclude Conservative Governments—constantly say how much they want to encourage the creation of new businesses and the growth of small businesses, but, at the same time, show no reluctance to heap ever heavier regulation on such businesses? I should have thought that those who deal in car number plates would tend to fall into the category of small business. Throughout the debate, we have been congratulating ourselves on how wonderful the Bill is, but let us not forget that the very people who will, almost inevitably, be most adversely affected by its plethora of proposals are not the bureaucracies, the representative bodies, or the large firms with their administrative and clerical resources, but small businesses.
  For that reason, I am not convinced by the consultation process. Consultation is something that Governments like to say that they are doing and they like to go though the motions, but only rarely have I found an example of a Government quietly dropping a proposal after a majority of those consulted, however measured, have said no to it. If I had found more cases of Government's behaving in that way, I might be more impressed by the so-called consultation process mentioned in the explanatory notes.
  Of course, a totalitarian regime can deliver an almost crime-free society. We will all remember the proud boast of the Soviet Union, as it was, and other totalitarian regimes, that they were free of drug abuse and street muggings and that there was almost no car crime. There was almost no car crime because nobody could afford a car. The more heavy-handed, interventionist and regulatory the Government of a society is, the more they are likely to claim that they have reduced or eliminated crime. It is not a difficult thing to do
  At the other end of the spectrum I suppose that the freer a society is—the freer people are to move around and the freer they are from identity checks, for example, and registering addresses with the police—the more likely it is that acts of criminality will be committed. In the context of the Bill, our job is surely to make our judgment on where within the spectrum we want to place ourselves as a society, the Government and the legal system.
  I am suspicious of Bills of this sort because all too readily they reach for the apparatus of regulation and intervention to claim a reduction in crime. No one would
  102
  argue that a reduction in crime is not a good thing, but it is not an absolute in the sense in which it is often argued to be. Surely our job is to make an assessment. How far do we believe that it is proper, advantageous and beneficial in an overall sense to allow for increasing encroachment on individuals, their families and their businesses by bureaucracy and the forces of law and order to deliver a reduction in crime?
  I am uneasy because I believe that in many important ways the Bill potentially tips the balance too far. In his excellent analysis, my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) identified many areas of the Bill where new regulations and regulatory measures will be introduced. If I heard him correctly, he said that there are nine. If my hon. Friend says that, we can bet that it is correct.
  That should give us pause for thought. The Bill is introducing nine distinct regulatory regimes, mechanisms and apparatuses. It is worse than that because it is all that goes with them. We have only to glance at the summary of clauses 1 to 15, with all the references to registration, renewal, cancellation, representations, appeals and the introductions of the courts, which are brought in almost casually. We have the maintenance of records and notifications of change. All that is before we get into the detail.
  We have our old friend, rights of entry and inspection. Given the nature of the Bill, that should claim our attention. The oddity or irony is that the proposed regime will say, "Those who have taken the trouble to obey the law"—that is if it becomes the law—"register and be identified, will be vulnerable to the right of entry being exercised by a constable." Those who have not registered—those who persist in trying to dismantle vehicles and deal in vehicle registration plates outside the regime—will not be subject to entry or inspection by the police. First, almost by definition, the police will not know where they are. Secondly, I suspect—I am open to correction because I am not a lawyer—that if the police want to invade the premises of someone who is not registered, they will have to obtain permission or a warrant, which they would not have to obtain to inspect someone who had registered. That must be the ultimate absurdity, yet it is set out in the Bill.
  Mr. Fabricant: My right hon. Friend makes an interesting point about the imbalance in the protection of registered and unregistered dealers. Would he argue that there ought to be equality between them as regards rights of entry? If so, would he argue that a warrant should be necessary for entry into the property of registered as well as unregistered dealers, or would he go so far as to say that the property of both registered and unregistered dealers may be entered by the police without a warrant?
  Mr. Forth: Certainly not the latter. I confess to my hon. Friend, as it is relevant to his question, that I have always been uneasy about the general powers of entry that we give, for example, to Customs and Excise in respect of value added tax and other matters. If I had to express my preference, it would be against a general power of entry. I would want to rely on the more traditional British or English approach, if I may so characterise it: that one's

  103
  property is sacrosanct unless a judicial authority such as a judge or a magistrate gives the forces of law and order the authority to enter those premises.
  Mr. Bercow: Will my right hon. Friend accept that in that view, he is not alone? I, for one, regard with extreme distaste the prospect of hundreds, if not thousands, of petty officials charging into people's property across the country, without let or hindrance and usually without a warrant. I find that prospect deeply unattractive.
  Mr. Forth: I am grateful to my hon. Friend.
  The problem is slightly different. The Bill explicitly gives to constables the power of entry. As my hon. Friends have been at pains to point out all through the debate, whether we have sufficient constables and whether they should spend their time in that way is a matter on which we must exercise our judgment. Again, I may return to that later in my remarks.
  Suffice it to say at this stage in my preliminary analysis that the burdens placed on local authorities and more particularly on businesses to comply with the mechanisms set out in the Bill will be very much greater than the Government have so far been prepared to concede. As my hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Mr. Syms) said, we tend to say rather glibly that local authorities exist almost to have regulatory burdens imposed on them. That is almost their raison d'etre, if I may slip briefly into another language. We should challenge that belief, but I am much more concerned about the burdens on business to which the Bill will give rise.
  From a glance at the Bill, one begins to realise the enormity of its consequences for business. In clause 2 the responsibilities laid on local authorities are set out. I must praise the draftsmen, as the Bill is much more comprehensible and readable than are most Bills. That is a welcome development.
  Clause 2(1) states:
  Every local authority shall establish and maintain a register for their area of persons carrying on business as motor salvage operators in that area.
  That immediately raises the prospect of a variation in the approach that could be taken by our many authorities to the principles on which they will set up the register, to say nothing of the bureaucracy implied by it.
  Clause 2(9) goes on to state:
  The local authority shall secure that the contents of the register are available for inspection by members of the public at all reasonable times subject to such reasonable fees (if any) as the local authority may determine.
  The possibility arises that there could be considerable variation in the fees charged by local authorities.
  Part II gives responsibility to the Secretary of State, rather than to local authorities. There we have the monolith of the Secretary of State, who will administer that part of the Bill, as opposed to the great patchwork or mosaic of local authorities to which responsibility is given in part I. That variation in the terms of the Bill itself suggests that one approach or the other may be the correct one, but almost certainly not both.
  Mr. Fabricant: My right hon. Friend rightly pointed out that there could be a large variation in the sums that
  104
  salvage operators might be charged for registering on their local authority register. Does he share my suspicion that a local authority may choose to set abnormally high fees as an alternative to panning, to try to drive some types of business out of its area? Alternatively, it may try to drive certain businesses out of the area for political reasons, to create higher unemployment.
  Mr. Forth: I am happy to say that I do not think that that would be the case. Subsection (9) states:
  subject to such reasonable fees (if any) as the local authority may determine.
  That includes a double lock, as the implication is that fees may not be the norm. Our old friend "reasonable" comes to the rescue. What a wonderful English word it is; we should be proud of it. In English jurisprudence, history and culture the word "reasonable" has probably been one of the greatest barriers against the abuse of authority over the centuries. I regret that our continental friends have not yet learned to share it. In fact, I do not think that such a word—rather like fair play—exists in most of the languages of the European Union; I can therefore reassure my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant), who asked a good question. I hope that he will accept that the inclusion of "reasonable" in clause 2(9) gives a degree of protection. However, I am worried about the basis on which the local authority will admit people to the register. Clause 3(3) refers to the fact that the local authority must be satisfied that someone is
  a fit and proper person to carry on business.
  Who on earth in a local authority is in a position to judge whether someone is fit and proper to carry on a business? I should have thought that that was almost a contradiction in terms. Local authority people may be excellent and skilled in drains, planning and all sorts of other things. Whether someone whom I would characterise, I hope not unkindly, as a bureaucrat can judge who is fit to carry out a proper business is another matter—I doubt it very much indeed.
  It gets worse, clause 3(4) states that, when judging people's suitability, the local authority shall "in particular" consider whether they have
  been convicted of any offences.
  That rather gives away the psychology behind the measure. The main criterion against which we are being urged to judge people's suitability for running a business seems to be whether they have form, which strikes me as an odd, simplistic and completely wrong approach. I hope that that matter will be looked at in Committee.
  Mr. Bercow: Does my right hon. Friend agree that quite apart from any other objections to the clause, the suggestion or inference that someone convicted of an offence might reasonably be decided to be an unsuitable person to operate a motor salvage business is inconsistent with the principle of the reform and resettlement of offenders, to which, I believed, the Government adhered?
  Mr. Forth: That is yet another contradiction that becomes apparent the more that we start to look at the Bill. We shall come on to consider the length of time that it is proposed be made available for the Bill's Committee stage. The more that I listen to the debate, most of which I have heard, and the more I hear what my hon. Friends have to say, the more I realise that a long Committee stage

  105
  will be needed to do justice to the Bill, which is very substantial. The more that we look at it, even in this broad tour d'horizon of Second Reading—I must try not to lapse into these ghastly foreign phrases—the worse it appears. The people who have the honour to be on the Committee will have a fascinating time.
  Let me give another example. I am moving on swiftly, you will be happy to hear, Madam Deputy Speaker, and making great progress through the Bill, as I am now at clause 5(6), which deals with representations. I am happy that that important right is in the Bill Then, however, the Government spoil it. Every time they do something useful, positive and helpful, such as providing a right to make representations, they ruin the whole thing. Clause 5(6) states:
  If the person concerned informs the local authority that he desires to make oral representations, the local authority shall give him—
  this is the good news—
  an opportunity of appearing before, and being heard by—
  and this is the bad news—
  a person appointed by the local authority.
  As a citizen, I shall be expected to be happy and content that my rights are being well protected by the Government because I shall be heard by somebody who is appointed by the local authority. That is not good enough. The measure is that of a bureaucrat's bureaucrat, and I fear that the worst may happen.
  Mr. Fabricant: My right hon. Friend disagreed with me just now on excessive charges, on the basis of the principle of reasonability. Does he believe that there could be large variations between councils in the people who are appointed to hear appeals and the judgments that they make?
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Sylvia Heal): Order. We are now straying into considerable detail. I must again remind hon. Members that that is not permissible on Second Reading.
  Mr. Forth: I am grateful for your, guidance, Madam Deputy Speaker.
  I was about momentarily to argue against myself. This debate has been very one sided, and I am the only hon. Member who seems prepared to introduce another side. I take issue with a phrase that appears in clause 9(1), which deals with rights to enter and inspect premises. It states:
  A constable may at any reasonable time enter and inspect premises …
  That provision seems to undermine the idea of entry and inspection. I do not know how a reasonable time will be defined, but we will eventually be given a definition, as we must all understand what is reasonable. Will it mean office hours? Do salvage operators work office hours? They may work 24 hours a day, for all I know. What is a reasonable time? Furthermore, why should the time be reasonable? If constables are to inspect premises in which crimes are committed, I want them to enter at unreasonable times if that is effective. I am uneasy about the right of entry and inspection, but, if it is to be introduced, I would prefer constables to be given more freedom to enter at unreasonable times to identify the crimes that are allegedly being committed, rather than for their hands to be unreasonably tied.
  Mr. Bercow: Has my right hon. Friend noticed that clause 9(2) refers to the right of a constable at any reasonable time to
  inspect and take copies of or extracts from any records which the person carrying on business … is required to keep?
  Does he accept that there is an important difference between taking copies—an activity that does not threaten to impede the conduct of the business—and taking extracts from records, which might impact adversely on a motor salvage operator?
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind hon. Members that interventions are supposed to be brief.
  Mr. Forth: I am grateful, Madam Deputy Speaker. My hon. Friend is right to make that point, which should be further considered in Committee. Later in my remarks, I should like to refer to a peculiar element of the Bill; I notify the House that I think that it is contained in clause 39(6). The point that I shall make is not unadjacent to that made by my hon. Friend, as, bizarrely, that provision relates to the electronic transmission of some rather important documents. In spite of my hon. Friend's excellent question, I shall not go into any detail on the matter, although I should point out that when such a measure is being considered, hon. Members must be careful of its viability, security and integrity as a process, if we are to make it of any value whatever.
  Many questions arise in respect of technology. For example, where would the copies be made? Is it assumed that they will be made on the premises, or will they be removed? If they are to be removed, how much security will there be and for how long will they be kept away from the premises? All those questions will arise when we consider the Bill in detail.
  I shall move very swiftly on because I do not want to delay proceedings. I am conscious of the passage of time and know that my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) is itching to get stuck into his summary of the Bill, but I want to comment on one or two other items. I have already reached clause 28(1)—what a leap, Madam Deputy Speaker—although I have passed over a lot of material that I had wanted to cover. It is another loose provision that does no justice to the Minister or, dare I say it, to the draftsmen. It deals with the offence of supplying vehicle registration plates to unregistered persons and who would be guilty of an offence, referring to a person who
  supplies a plate, device or other object to an unregistered person who is carrying on a business which consists wholly or partly in selling registration plates …
  The grammar is somewhat doubtful and there are clauses in the wrong place, but I pass over that and simply ask how I would know whether a person was registered or unregistered. Have we reached the stage at which people who do business with one another, probably through small businesses, will have to go through a process of satisfying themselves as to whether those with whom they are dealing are registered or unregistered? I think that we have. How will all that be done? What sort of intrusion on the business of doing business, personal privacy and business confidentiality does the measure represent? I believe that such a phrase in such a Bill could cause untold difficulty.

  107
  Furthermore, subsection (1)(b) refers to someone who
  knows or reasonably suspects that the plate, device or other object will be used for the purposes of that other person's business …
  Going through a process of establishing whether a person reasonably suspects that the item that he is selling to or buying from someone else will be used
  for the purposes of that other person's business
  will put a terrible burden on small businesses. I believe that it stretches the matter way too far, and we must give that a lot of detailed consideration.
  I draw the attention of the House to clause 32. Should we vote for the Bill's Second Reading, I hope that the Committee will also pay it close attention. Although I had wanted to go into detail, I shall not do so, even though the measure represents the high point of bureaucratic absurdity. It starts innocently enough—such things ever do—by referring to vehicle identity checks and applies to regulations
  which confer a power on the Secretary of State to refuse to issue a new registration document in respect of a registered vehicle if he is not satisfied that the vehicle for which the document is being sought is the registered vehicle.
  Well, that is a bit convoluted. I praised the Bill for its clear English, but I am afraid that that high standard has been deserted.
  The measure is a bureaucratic nightmare. Subsections (2)(a) and (b) and (3)(a) to (j) set out in chilling detail what the regulations provide for, such as
  the examination … of all vehicles for which new registration documents are being sought … the provision of other evidence in relation to
  those vehicles. They also refer to
  notification of examinations … the issue of duplicates or copies … the correction of errors in certificates … the payment of fees for examinations—
  yet another burden enters the matter—and
  the making of appeals … courses of instruction … the authorisation of examiners …
  The clause is truly a construct at which we must wonder. It contains all the favourite elements of a Government out of control who cannot wait to get their hands round the necks of innocent businesses: notifications, duplicates, errors, fees, appeals, instructions, examiners—we have gone mad! We have finally taken collective leave of our senses.
  I regret to say that many of my hon. Friends have said all through the debate that the Bill is rather a good idea. Well, I am sorry, but I ask them to read clause 32 before they vote and hope that they will think again. I do not know how long those on the Front Benches want for their winding-up speeches. I am looking at the clock; I am aware of the passage of time. The Minister and my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hertfordshire look pretty relaxed to me. [Interruption.] My hon. Friend has just indicated with his inimitable body language—his body certainly exudes language—that he is anxious to get on with his summing up.
  I shall not keep my hon. Friend waiting much longer, nor will I detain the House on the subject of flags as we have heard a lot about them tonight. All I will say is that I hope that the Minister will favour hon. Members with
  108
  his detailed explanation of exactly what the Government and the Secretary of State intend by the reference to registration plates in clause 33.
  I believe the Government owe it to the House, and to those outside, to tell us the direction in which they will take us, because people attach great importance to the issue. We recently encountered controversy about the flying of the European Union flag outside Departments of State, and I have reason to believe that the Government may have thought better of that.
  The Government must tell us what they intend with regard to either mandatory or optional display of European Union symbols on British car registration plates, and/or prohibition of the use of the Union flag—or, indeed, the flags of member countries of the Union—on registration plates. If the Government have nothing to be ashamed of, let the Minister tell us in clear language what they are going to do and why. We shall then be able to use that in deciding whether to support the Bill, either tonight or on Third Reading.
  I cannot share the enthusiasm displayed by others. Of course, I have had only a short time in which to talk about the Bill: I have been able only to skip over it superficially. That falls far short of my normal standards, but I want to leave as much time as possible for my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hertfordshire. Because I am sure he has much to say, and because I know that regrettably we must finish at 10 pm, I shall end my speech. However, I hope that, both at this stage and subsequently, my hon. Friends will not regard the Bill as an unalloyed benefit that does not contain problems, difficulties and disadvantages.
  It is possible that if we are not ultimately satisfied by the answers given to my hon. Friends and me, we shall have to think very carefully about whether to support the Bill; but with a bit of luck the general election will intervene, and we shall hear no more of it for some time.
  9.22 pm
  Mr. Oliver Heald: My right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) has done me a great courtesy in sitting down. It is clear from the way he spoke that he could have said a good deal more about the Bill.
  We have had a good debate. Not only my right hon. Friend but my hon. Friends the Members for Poole (Mr. Syms) and for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant)—all of them speaking from the Back Benches—demonstrated what my hon. Friend the Me member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) made obvious from the Front Bench: the fact that the Bill raises a host of issues. They are important issues; difficult issues; perhaps not the sort of issues that would lead to a Division on Second Reading, but none the less the sort of issues that will require full scrutiny, and—as my right hon. Friend said—which will take up considerable time in Committee.
  All who spoke acknowledged the seriousness with which we should all take vehicle crime, which is the largest single category of recorded crime in England and Wales. As the hon. Member for Upminster (Mr. Darvill) pointed out, it represents 28 per cent. of all crime. There were nearly 1.5 million offences in the last year, and 375,000 thefts of vehicles—1,000 a day, as the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Chidgey) pointed out.

  109
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Poole illustrated so graphically, car crime causes great distress to its victims. The problem is not just the damage to property, but the damage to a prized item—a means of transport, which is important to many people's quality of life. Cars are obviously important to all of us, but one of the cruellest aspects of these offences is that they are usually perpetrated on the poorest and most vulnerable members of society. The vehicles are often elderly, but necessary for their owners to go to work and lead their lives.
  We are talking about a serious offence, or set of offences. My hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield summed it up when he described the feelings people have when they see that their vehicles have been damaged or stolen, or that items have been taken from them.
  The background and the history of vehicle crime have been well documented and detailed in the debate. It is right to give credit to the previous Government. Of course I would say that, having been a junior Minister in it, but even the Under-Secretary of State might be prepared to because, between 1993 and 1997, there was a substantial fall in vehicle crime: it went down by 27 per cent. The combination of the introduction of closed circuit television, the rise in the number of police constables under the Conservatives, and a series of measures such as the code of practice concentrating on dealing with security of vehicles led to the start of that fall.
  The Home Secretary is right to say that the target to cut vehicle crime by 30 per cent. by 2004 is challenging. It is challenging because the rate of improvement—the diminishment in the number of offences—is declining. In 1998–99, there was a fall in vehicle crime of 2.2 per cent., but last year, the decrease was just 0.5 per cent. The trend is not a happy one. I can see why the Government wish to take measures to improve the position.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst was correct to say that there was a balance to be struck in regulating. Part I requires the registration of all motor salvage operators on pain of criminal conviction. It would allow local authorities to control the membership of the register by cancellation and registration, allow the Secretary of State to specify records to be kept, require notifications of destructions, and allow a power of entry for the registered, although a warrant would still be needed for the unregistered; but we are right to look at the balance and to see how those measures would affect businesses.
  If one reads the consultation responses and the Government's documents in relation to the Bill, one of the things that is worrying is that it is not even clear how many businesses will be affected. The Government say between 2,000 and 2,500, but the Federation of Small Businesses is clear: it says 7,500.
  The British Vehicle Salvage Federation and the Motor Vehicle Dismantlers Association of Great Britain suggest that 2,500 to 3,000 companies employing 20,000 to 30,000 people may be involved, but as the House of Commons Library says, it is difficult to estimate exactly how many companies will be affected. I notice that, between them, the two trade organisations represent about 325 of the estimated 2,500 to 3,000 companies involved. There is no way of knowing how they have made those estimates. The trade organisations cover quite a small proportion of the total number of operators.
  110
  Can the Under-Secretary of State help us a bit on that? Is not one of the major problems with assessing the size of the industry the fact that many vehicle and car repairers will undertake a small amount of salvage work when it presents itself? Their main business is car repair, but if there is an opportunity to salvage parts, they will.
  We could do with an assurance from the Under-Secretary of State—the point was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield—that the registration provisions will be supported by an effective enforcement regime. In answer to the consultation, the Motor Vehicle Dismantlers Association of Great Britain felt strongly that the targets for fewer vehicle thefts could be achieved only if enforcement was effective. Does the Minister agree that, if registration is not fully enforced, there is a risk that some small operators will comply but that others will not, putting the responsible operators at a competitive disadvantage?
  The Government have so far said that enforcement will be by the police, that the costs, which they estimate, thanks to the Association of Chief Police Officers, at £110,000, will be absorbed and that enforcement will form part of routine investigations. As the Home Secretary knows, £110,000 is not much money when it comes to providing police officers to undertake duties—it is about four police officers fully engaged for a year. Is the Minister seriously saying that, if there are 2,500, 3,000 or even 7,500 businesses, four police officers fully engaged for one year will be adequate to police the registration scheme and inspections? It seems to me that that is not a lot of money to conduct such an exercise. If regulation is not effective, some people—honest, genuine motor vehicle salvage operators—will lose out.
  Opposition Members take Government pledges on action in such matters with a pinch of salt. The fact is that we need police officers if we are to enforce regulations. We know that the Government's record on police numbers is deplorable. Police numbers are down by 3,000, and there are 5,000 fewer special constables. In this debate, we have also heard quoted the Police Federation chairman's remarks on the crisis among police officers.
  Just today, I received a reply from the Minister of State, Home Office, the hon. Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Clarke), telling me that, since 1997, just in London, in addition to the police stations that have been closed, 27 police stations have reduced their hours. When police numbers are stretched, will it be possible for police simply to absorb the costs of enforcing the regulations? Will there be a great headline proclaiming "Government take action on vehicle crime", but very little action? I ask the Minister to tell us what work will be done for £110,000. How many police hours and visits will that provide? What enforcement will that sum make possible? It is not at all clear to the Opposition that that sum is adequate.
  Mr. Miller: I accept the hon. Gentleman's comments on those figures. In my own constituency, for example, a police station is no longer manned in the evenings. The problem, however, is that such decisions are of course for chief constables. Does the hon. Gentleman believe that the matter of station coverage should be dealt with by the Home Secretary?
  Mr. Heald: The key point is that the reason why chief constables make those decisions—
  Mr. Miller: No.
  Mr. Heald: This is the answer. The reason chief constables make those decisions is that the Government, in their first years in office, have underfunded them and spent the money on other things. The fact is that, if we are to solve those problems, we need a change.
  Mr. Straw: So why was it that, between 1992 and 1997–98, 75 police stations were closed in North Yorkshire, which covers the constituency, among others, of the Leader of the Opposition?
  Mr. Heald: I am always very happy to answer the Home Secretary in my own way. In the Conservative years, there was never a year in which the number of police constables decreased. As the National Audit Office has made clear, under this Government, that trend has been completely reversed.
  I am not privy to the reason why a chief constable closes a particular police station in a particular place. I do not know what happened in North Yorkshire. However, I can tell the Home Secretary that 1 do know, from talking to police officers across the country, that they want to do a job of high-visibility policing and that they want to have open police stations, which he is failing to provide. If he is happy that, during his period in office, 27 police stations in London have reduced their hours and other police stations in London have closed, he should not be. We need a visible presence on the streets of London if we are to do the job. It is not good enough that a police presence is visible on the streets only when the Home Secretary is there.
  Does the Minister agree that there are concerns about the effect of registration on the availability of salvage services? We have heard much in this debate about the rash of abandoned vehicles across the country. If the effect of registration and record keeping is that small operators regard them simply as Government-created hurdles that they are not prepared to jump, would not one of the primary losers be those who wish an end to the rash of abandoned vehicles? Is there not a risk that the cost to vehicle owners of salvage disposal will rise, leading to more cars being abandoned in public places? What effect is the Bill likely to have on the cost of vehicle removal to councils and the police? If more cars are abandoned, will not that lead to a reduction in the amount of recycling taking place? I know that the Minister considers that matter important.
  Will the Minister tell us the case for universal registration? Would it not be possible instead to employ a light touch on the tiller and introduce measures to bar those who transgress from operating—and, perhaps, improve record keeping and police powers—without insisting that every small car repairer who might want to do a couple of salvages a year must be registered in this way?
  Is the relationship between the regulatory regimes important—a point made by the hon. Member for Upminster? Given the nine regulatory regimes proposed in the Bill, there could come a point at which some business men might decide that all that regulation was too much for them. Scrap metal dealers already have to register under the Scrap Metal Dealers Act 1964. Some salvage operators already have to be licensed or registered
  112
  under the European directive on end-of-life vehicles. The Bill proposes nine other forms of regulation. Is there some way of simplifying the scheme? What is the Minister's view on the relationship between all these regulatory approaches? Is it not a bit of a mess? Should he not have found a way of achieving these aims more simply?
  Number plates have been much discussed. My right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst was very keen that we should not end up with a system such as the one in Sweden, which has one supplier for the entire country. Obviously, it would be good if we could ensure that false plates were not available to criminals. Some of the worst criminals use plates that do not belong to a vehicle to commit crimes without being detected. Every other European country has a tougher regime than ours, so we welcome the proposals to deal with the problems relating to number plates.
  The form that number plates will take, under the regulations, has also been discussed. In other countries, counties, cantons, and Länder are represented on number plates. However, we have been told that the only symbol to be permitted in this country is the European Union symbol. What is the logic of that? The Home Secretary promised that the Minister would give us an answer on this matter. Why cannot we have the Union flag, the cross of St. George, or the Welsh dragon—symbols that relate to a smaller area? Surely the purpose of the measure is to ensure that number plates are more distinctive, easier to identify and more difficult to forge.
  I have one or two points on the ability of the police to undertake certain other duties. No one in the House will disagree with measures that will allow the funding for a speed camera to be placed somewhere useful, such as in a hotspot or a place where numerous complaints have been made about speeding. However, concerns have been expressed that such measures could introduce something of a stealth tax. Speed cameras could be positioned everywhere, with the parameters for camera use set at very low levels. That could become a way for the Government to raise revenue by the back door—an area in which they are uniquely competent. Will the Minister reassure us that the measure will be properly targeted?
  Reference was made to designing out crime. A case was made for improved car security, better door locks, better glazing, better immobilisers, and improved car park security. Can the Minister assure us that he is doing something about that, and that it is not all just talk? One of the task group's recommendations was that action should be taken on measures to design out crime.
  The Conservative party achieved a huge fall in vehicle crime between 1993 and 1997—it went down by 27 per cent. We support initiatives that will genuinely cut car crime further. The Bill introduces measures that may be useful, but simply introducing laws will not stop crime. As so many right hon. and hon. Members have said, enforcement is important. A Government who have cut police numbers, let out 300 car thieves under the early release scheme, and introduced a whole raft of regulation must be suspect in this respect. So let us have a clear pledge from the Minister as to exactly what enforcement is to be provided. Is it just £110,000 worth? The worst thing would be to raise expectations without providing adequate enforcement. That would let down the public

  113
  and the honest motor vehicle salvage operators. It is not what the House wants. So let us see firm action, but let us ensure also that there is firm enforcement.
  Overall, the Government's problem is that they talk a great deal. There is a lot of rhetoric, but precious little delivery. We want to see a Government in power with the will to tackle crime. It will be a Conservative Government, and that day is not far away.
  9.41 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. Keith Hill): This has been a long and, on the whole, interesting debate, with an exceptionally large number of questions for me to deal with in my winding-up speech. I calculated that there were between 30 and 40 before the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) spoke, and he has just asked another 20. I mean to answer them all, if possible. Some questions I shall respond to as I comment on the various contributions to the debate, and others in the course of my substantive speech. I shall, of course, be responding to the questions of the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire.
  I turn first to the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow), my former representative on Lambeth council. The hon. Gentleman made an exceptionally long speech. I might even say that it was excruciatingly long, but I am not in a mood to provoke the hon. Gentleman, who needs little excuse to leap to his feet. His speech ranged from the wildly general to the highly particular. As Madam Deputy Speaker said, Mr. Speaker, most of his points were more appropriate to the Committee stage. As far as I am able to identify the issues of priority to the hon. Gentleman in his lengthy performance, I shall endeavour to deal with them.
  On safety cameras, the hon. Gentleman, predictably, had the gall to produce the familiar canard—if I might adopt the model of the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth)—of a stealth tax. His sidekick, the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire, made the same allegation. We heard about rich pickings from unsuspecting motorists. The speed limit is the speed limit, and a red light is a red light. If this is a tax, it is a tax on those who break the law. Are we to understand that the Opposition's tax guarantee would mean lower fines for crime?
  Mr. Miller: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Hill: If my hon. Friend does not mind, I will not because I have an awful lot to cover and awfully little time in which to do so.
  The hon. Member for Buckingham and many of his colleagues made much of the issue of police numbers. Although enforcement of the regulations applying to the salvage industry will fall to the police, much of the day-to-day scrutiny will fall to local authorities, probably in the form of trading standards officers. Local authorities will have responsibility for processing applications to be entered on a register. They will have discretion to refuse or cancel registration—a point effectively made by my hon. Friend the Member for Birningham, Hall Green (Mr. McCabe).
  The measure will allow local authorities to close down salvage operators about whose activities there are serious questions. The new arrangements will act as a deterrent
  114
  on questionable operators. What is more, ACPO—the Association of Chief Police Officers of England, Wales and Northern Ireland—is one of the Bill's greatest supporters. ACPO was fully involved in VCRAT and was consulted about all elements of the Bill.
  The purpose of the Bill is to reduce vehicle crime; it will provide the greatest scrutiny of the salvage industry and a greater deterrent to rogue salvage operators. If vehicle crime is reduced by as much as we think it will be, police resources will be freed up for better enforcement—as the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Chidgey) correctly observed.
  I shall deal with some of the particular issues raised by the hon. Member for Buckingham. He and the hon. Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant) asked why registered salvage dealers will be treated differently from non-registered dealers. The answer is that all salvage dealers will have to be registered—that is made clear in clause 1, which makes it an offence not to be registered. If the police believe that someone is operating as a salvage dealer without being registered, they can enter premises with a warrant. Greater safeguards, by way of a warrant, are needed for unregistered premises as there would be only a suspicion that the person was operating as an unregistered dealer. By virtue of the fact that dealers are registered, they know that the police can enter at any time—they have signed up to that.
  The hon. Member for Buckingham also asked about V5s—the registration documents. He said that currently, if a request for a V5 is made, the DVLA notifies the police if the vehicle is supposed to have been crushed or broken up. That is true. The Bill adds strength to that practice; it makes provision for a refusal to issue a V5 if the DVLA is not satisfied that the vehicle for which the V5 is sought is the registered vehicle. The vehicle will have to pass a vehicle identity test before a V5 will be issued.
  The hon. Gentleman asked whether vehicle identity numbers—VINs—would be included on the plate. That is rather a detailed point, but in the spirit of glasnost, I am willing to respond to it. That provision will be introduced by order. We shall hold consultations about what is to be included—VINs may not be included as it has been suggested that they might help ringers; it is more likely to be a manufacturer's mark, so that the police can trace the maker of the plate.
  The hon. Gentleman asked whether there would be consultations before the introduction of the provisions. Yes, there will be consultations. We have already consulted industry and will do so again before the introduction of secondary legislation—that will, incidentally, be by means of negative resolutions.
  We shall issue guidance notes on number plates and salvage, and shall hold consultations on the matter. In his ever-inquisitive way, the hon. Gentleman asked why there is no provision for restitution if the names of number plate suppliers are mistakenly removed from the register. There should be no need for such a provision, as only a genuine cessation of trade will result in de-registration. The operator will not be removed from the register without notice; he will be notified prior to any de-registration and will thus have the opportunity to make representations if he has not ceased trading.
  Finally—although I hope to cover other points made by the hon. Gentleman in due course—[HON. MEMBERS: "Keep going".] I have no hesitation whatever about

  115
  keeping going—nor any problems in doing so. The hon. Gentleman asserted that the Federation of Small Businesses was opposed to the statutory regulation of number plates. That is not true. I am holding a letter that shows that the FSB welcomes the measures. In a letter sent to the Government on 11 December, the transport spokesman for the FSB states:
  The FSB welcomes the decision that the Secretary of State for Transport should hold the proposed register of number plate suppliers … The FSB has never opposed the Government's efforts to combat vehicle crime by controlling the supply of number plates.
  After that lengthy aside, I now turn to the contribution by my hon. Friend the Member for Hall Green. I am grateful for the welcome that he extended to the measure. His was a wide-ranging and highly knowledgeable speech, as we would expect from the vice-chairman of the European secure vehicle alliance. We shall want to study his remarks carefully, because there is much food for thought in them.
  My hon. Friend asked about counterfeit plates. A registered supplier will not be guilty of an offence if he inadvertently supplies a plate to someone who is not entitled to it—but again, that is a detail that would perhaps more appropriately be dealt with in Committee.
  The speech by the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Chidgey) was characteristically reasonable and well informed, and drew on his wide experience in civil engineering and transport consultancy. I am grateful that he, too, gave the Bill a broad welcome. Clearly, he had a number of ideas for improving it, which we shall, of course, be ready to consider with an open mind in Committee.
  The hon. Gentleman asked several questions, which I shall try to deal with later, but he also asked specifically about costs, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Upminster (Mr. Darvill). We have already consulted local authorities and business about costs, but the provisions will be introduced through secondary legislation, and we shall be happy to consult further; indeed, we have promised the industry that we shall do so. I hope that that is at least some reassurance to the hon. Gentleman.
  I now come to the speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney), the first of a cabal of lawyers who participated in the debate—a prospect that I had anticipated with some foreboding, but in fact, I was grateful for their eminently reasonable contributions and support.
  My hon. Friend made a learned and supportive speech, and he made an interesting point, in connection with the proposed sharing of the motor insurance database, about wider sharing of information in the interests of road safety. I imagine that we are likely to hear more about that in Committee.
  I pay tribute to the campaigning work on safety cameras that my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford has done. We all remember his Adjournment debate earlier this year. He asked whether the experience of the eight pilot schemes had encouraged us to go for a national extension of safety cameras, and the answer is yes. As my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary said, the evidence so far is of a very significant 20 per cent. reduction in road accidents.
  116
  My hon. Friend was right to condemn the facile attacks on those proposals by people who call them a stealth tax. The excellent example of Staffordshire shows the clear benefits and the saving of lives brought about by an effective safety carnera network.
  Mr. Miller: All the, data available show that, as well as the pain and suffering for the bereaved families, every death on the roads costs the country more than £1 million, so does my hon. Friend agree that it is nonsense to talk about a stealth tax? The truth is the reverse: such an investment will save both money and lives.
  Mr. Hill: My hon. Friend is absolutely right; as a leading member of RoadPeace, he speaks with knowledge and passion, and we are grateful to him for contribution on this subject.
  I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Mrs. Gilroy) for her warm support of the Bill. She described Plymouth's impressive record in reducing car crime as a result of an effective partnership between the police, the local authority and other agencies, in the form of a community safety partnership.
  My hon. Friend also asked a number of questions that I hope to deal with later. Obviously, in her we have another willing member of the Standing Committee; I admire her commitment.
  I now turn to the long speech made by the hon. Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant). I do not talk of pressed men in this context, but until late in the debate, his promised to be the only speech that we would hear from the Conservative Back Benches. In the event, we heard only three speeches from Conservative Members—a telling comment on the low priority that they attach to vehicle crime, for all their bluster on the subject and their ludicrous claims to represent the party of law and order.
  Notwithstanding the perhaps excessive length of the contribution of the hon. Member for Lichfield, he made several interesting and thoughtful points. He asked a specific question about rural crime, and I should point out that, according to the British crime survey, for every crime in rural areas, there are two crimes in urban areas and four in the inner cities. Those are the figures for crime in general, although the hon. Gentleman will be interested to know that the pattern for vehicle crime is less clear—the urban-rural distinction is less marked.
  If I may say so, the hon. Member for Poole (Mr. Syms) piggy backed on the speech of the hon. Member for Lichfield in asking about data sharing and data protection. He asked whether it will be necessary to go to Europe to secure a derogation from the motor insurers database provision.
  Mr. Heald: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Hill: If the hon. Gentleman will wait just a second and allow me to finish the point.
  Mr. Heald: The Home Secretary said that the Minister would answer the question about flags on number plates.
  Mr. Hill: I am coming to that. If the hon. Gentleman will contain himself, I shall deal with that.

  117
  On whether we will need to go to Europe to get a derogation from the MID provision, the answer is no. The EU directive on data protection and the Data Protection Act 1998 allow exemptions from the data protection principles for disclosures and data sharing where necessary for the prevention and detection of crime—of course, that applies to the Bill.
  I now turn to the well adumbrated issue of the Union flag on number plates. It is important that number plates remain uncluttered and easily legible, particularly because they need to be read quickly by safety cameras or people reporting crimes. The Europlate, which incorporates the 12 stars with the national identity of the member state below, will be optional for vehicles registered in the United Kingdom from September 2001. Motorists will not be allowed, however, to place other distinguishing signs on the number plates for the reasons that I have given. I agreed with the hon. Member for Lichfield when he said that we have dealt more than enough with flags of any description, so I propose to draw a line under that issue.
  I turn briefly to the contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington, North (Helen Jones), who spoke with authority and from personal experience about car theft. She rightly drew attention to the greater impact of car theft on those on low incomes. She spoke powerfully in condemnation of those who drive without insurance, whom she called a menace on the road. I am most grateful to her for welcoming the Bill.
  I turn to the contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Mr. Shaw). Like my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton, he spoke about the benefits of community partnerships in reducing crime locally. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington, North, he highlighted the severity of vehicle crime for the less well-off in society. I am grateful to him for his support for the Bill.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Upminster (Mr. Darvill)—another highly knowledgeable contribution from another solicitor—made a powerful point in saying that, although we need to take a cautious approach, further regulation is clearly justified in this case. I am grateful to him for his support for the Bill.
  The hon. Member for Poole made a typically rational and brief speech, for which the House is grateful. He raised several interesting points, which I am sure we shall eagerly pursue in Committee. I turn finally to the speech of the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth). He also made a typical speech, in which he bounced off the contents of the Bill as he perused them in the Chamber. I urge the House to give its whole-hearted support to the measure.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time.

  Vehicle Crimes Bill (Programme)
  9.59 pm
  Mr. Hill: I beg to move,
  That the following provisions shall apply to the Vehicles (Crime) Bill:

  Vehicle Crimes Bill (Programme)

    Standing Committee
    1. The Bill shall be committed to a Standing Committee.
    2. Proceedings in the Standing Committee shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion on Tuesday 23rd January 2001.
    3. The Standing Committee shall have leave to sit twice on the first day on which it shall meet.
    The motion includes the provision that the Bill's Committee stage will finish by 23 January. That has been agreed by both the official Opposition and the Liberal Democrats.
    Timetabling is eminently sensible and has benefits for those on both sides of the House. Above all, it will ensure that prime slots are given for consideration of the main parts of the Bill, and that will allow adequate opportunity to focus debate on the really important issues.
    Mr. Heald: The Minister may have inadvertently made a mistake by suggesting that the official Opposition are happy with the programme motion. We are not.
    Mr. Hill: I fear that the hon. Gentleman has inadvertently indicated his ignorance of the arrangements that have been made through the usual channels. My clear information is that there has been agreement on both sides of the House that the Bill's Committee stage will finish by 23 January.
    Mr. Heald: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it in order for a Minister to go into the deliberations of the usual channels, particularly when the issues involved are contested?
    Mr. Speaker: This is a strict programme motion, and I expect each and every Member to stick to the terms of the debate. I was slightly distracted and did not quite hear what the Minister said, but I am listening now.
    Mr. Hill: To be entirely accurate, Mr. Speaker, I did not go into the detailed deliberations of the usual channels. I merely alluded to the conclusions of those deliberations. The confusion between those on the Opposition Front Bench and those in the Opposition Whips Office is typical of the entirely shambolic condition that the Conservative party is in at the moment.
    Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: There is no confusion. The point was made perfectly clear by my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald). No agreement has been reached on the timetable motion.
    Mr. Miller: Another Tory U-turn.
    Mr. Hill: As my hon. Friend says, that is another Tory U-turn.
    Mr. Bercow rose—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. We must have good order. If Members think that the Minister is incorrect or

    119
    misinformed—[Interruption.] Perhaps, they do. My suggestion is that we wait until I call the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman. He can put the record straight.
    Mr. Hill: I am grateful to you, Mr. Speaker. I have no intention of apologising for the statement that I made. The fact of the matter is that my hon. Friend the Member for Hyndburn (Mr. Pope) agreed in good faith with his opposite number about this matter. It was reported to me in that sense, and, as far as I am aware, that is the position.
    Let me explain the reasons for timetabling the Bill. Timetabling is particularly suitable for this Bill. It is a medium-sized Bill of 45 clauses and we shall need to time to debate the clauses of greatest interest to ensure that they receive thorough scrutiny. That includes the clauses on the substantial parts of the Bill: regulating the motor salvage industry, controlling the supply of number plates and the clauses, such as those using the receipts of magistrates courts to fund more safety cameras, that raised questions on Second Reading and in the media.
    Some clauses will need less discussion. I am thinking of those at the end of the Bill—clauses 38 to 45—which cover the general and administrative provisions typical of most Bills. By suggesting an end date of 23 January, we will allow sufficient time in Committee and it will be able to start its consideration soon after the new year. It goes without saying that the programming sub-committee will consider the detailed timetable and it may decide that it is necessary to sit more frequently than usual. I commend the motion to the House.
    10.4 pm
    Mr. Heald: Three weeks ago, we had the week of the guillotine—proceedings on the Freedom of Information Bill, the Countryside and Rights of Way Bill, the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Bill, the Disqualifications Bill and the Police (Northern Ireland) Bill were all guillotined.
    The Government have set a pattern. It is a disgrace that there have been 25 guillotines in three years. The Minister has the effrontery to say that the arrangements have been agreed through the usual channels, but it is unprecedented to intervene in those discussions in such a way. My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Norfolk (Mr. Simpson) is the other Whip involved and he denies that an agreement was reached.
    The Conservative party believes that such motions are wrong. The Government should not stipulate how long a Committee can sit before they know the scope of the debate. The Minister is pointing his finger, but, as he admitted, 50 issues were raised in the debate, and there is a huge scope for discussion in Committee. How on earth is it possible to programme the sittings of a Committee before Second Reading? That is nonsense. The 10 Committee sittings that are proposed in the programme motion are inadequate. We need many more than that.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) spoke for one hour and 19 minutes, and every point was concise. The issues that he raised are relevant not only to the Bill's broad thrust, but to detailed discussions in Committee. The same is true of the contributions that were made by hon. Members on both
    120
    sides of the House. Serious matters have been raised. It is unacceptable to table, ahead of Second Reading, a motion that allows wholly inadequate time for discussion in Committee. It is clear that eight or 10 sittings will be inadequate.
    I have referred to the bread of the issues, but it is worth mentioning that Member after Member highlighted important issues. The Government were asked how the law will operate with regard to the retrospective fitting of immobilisers and how Home Office reports and the Bill have dealt with research into the use of cars in crime. Hon. Members asked whether the powers of search should discriminate against one vehicle dismantler in favour of another. Why should the registered person have a harsher regime imposed on him than the non-registered person? The Government were also asked whether the DVLA is able to refuse to produce documents for a vehicle even when it is known that it has been dismantled.
    Many issues were raised about the way in which cancellations will work. What will be the period for cancellation? What recompense might be made available if people are falsely deregistered? The Government were asked whether the inclusion of VINs on the plates was the way forward, or whether there would be a different method of identification. There was concern that the European convention on human rights might stop vehicles being returned to the owner after they have been written off.
    The views of the Association of British Insurers were challenged. The Government were asked whether it was right to reallocate the money from traffic cameras in a way that was akin to taxation. There were many questions about the costs on business. [Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. There is far too much noise and conversation in the Chamber.
    Mr. Heald: The Bill has raised a substantial range of issues. Many of the questions are important to business. There is concern that a balance should be struck in the regulation of motor salvage operators. Is it right to impose burdens on the smallest car repairer who might choose to salvage two vehicles a year? Is it right that he should be subject to the same regulation as a large company that deals with thousands of vehicles? Will we be able to ensure that abandoned vehicles are collected by motor salvage operators if we over-regulate them? What are the costs involved? We did not even know how many motor salvage operators there were.
    We must consider enforcement. The Motor Vehicles Dismantlers Association has made it clear that the regulation will work only if it is rigorously enforced. Honest operators will register and follow all the procedures in the Bill, but those involved in crime will not do so and they will gain a competitive advantage. It is important that the balance of regulation should be properly considered. My right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) made salient points, as he so often does, and teased out some of the difficulties in the regulation.
    Hon. Members questioned the practicability of the vehicle inspection regime, which has been questioned by industry sources. The Bill contains nine sets of regulations, and it was described by one hon. Member as a sea of regulation. My hon. Friend the Member for

    121
    Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant) pointed out that assurances are always needed when there is a risk of legislation being gold-plated.
    Mr. David Maclean: Surely one of the iniquities of this heinous programme motion, which will provide only five days of consideration of this complex Bill, is that it will deprive us of the chance to table new clauses. It is inevitable that, in considering such a Bill, the industry and all those who are interested, including the police, will spot problems, but there will be no time to table new clauses for consideration at the end of the Bill because there will be only five days in Committee.
    Mr. Heald: My right hon. Friend makes an excellent point. The Bill gives rise to a wide range of issues, and a number of bodies have an interest. The Federation of Small Businesses is most concerned about the measure, but other industry representatives take a different view. Each and every one of the 26 bodies that responded to the consultation should have the chance not only to suggest a new clause at the beginning of the consideration but to see how the debate unfolds and to respond accordingly.
    In a recent Standing Committee, my right hon. Friend and I found that it was only after about 10 sittings that we started to discover the full detail and scope of the Government's intentions. That was largely because we received representations about the Bill from outside bodies and because many members of the Committee happened to have experience of Home Office matters and were able to tease out some of the difficulties. Over time, that led to better amendments and new clauses being tabled in Committee and, at a later stage, to the Government taking steps to improve the Bill. It is often a mistake for the House to rush through legislation, rather than allowing it to go through the proper stages and be given adequate time.
    The Labour party is associated with the idea that modernisation means less time for debate. If the Government were honest, they would admit that it is extremely bad for their image. Apart from demonstrating contempt for the history of this place, marginalising Parliament and ensuring that there is no proper scrutiny of legislation are not actions that any true democrat could seek to justify.
    The Opposition do not disagree with the broad principles in the Bill, but we are entitled to play our traditional role and to scrutinise it in great detail, if we think it necessary. In this case, debate has demonstrated that there is a range of issues to be considered, and the time provided in the programme motion is inadequate. We ask the Government to think again.
    Mrs. Anne Campbell: I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman is objecting to the timetable motion before the House, or to timetabling in principle. We all know that timetabling enables us to make progress and spend time on the contentious parts of a Bill, which is what we all want to do.
    Mr. Heald: I object to both. First, let me examine the principle of programming. I was a silent one—a Whip—when the House considered the Bills that became the Government of Wales Act 1998 and the Scotland Act
    122
    1998. I spent a great deal of time discussing how long was needed for each group of clauses; however, it is not easy to judge what the mood of the House will be or in which direction the debate will turn. One of my objections is rooted in the fact that, on occasion, we programmed Bills in good faith and by agreement, but found that hon. Members who had a strong opinion on an issue and sensible comments to make were unable to speak in the House. Is that democracy? In my view, it is not.
    At the outset, I was quite in favour of programming, because it seemed modern and I like modern things, as the hon. Lady knows—she recently praised my website in The House Magazine, so she is aware that I am not of the luddite tendency. However, I believe that in programming lies a danger to democracy. People who come here from their constituencies, perhaps with a constituency angle on a national question, do not get a chance to express it. To programme the Committee stage before Second Reading has taken place is nonsense.
    Mr. Blunt: I am extremely concerned about the remark made by the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell), that we have only to focus on the contentious issues. Issues of contention between the parties are not necessarily the ones that should be focused on. We are about making decent legislation, and we are not going to be able to put decent legislation on the statue book after only eight Committee sittings.
    Mr. Heald: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making a point that ties in with the comment made by our right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean), which is that a certain amount of time is needed for a debate to mature and for outside bodies to arrive at an understanding of the details of the legislation. Given the range of issues involved in the Vehicles (Crime) Bill, merely to guess how long will be required is not adequate.
    Mr. Maclean: A moment ago, when my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt) said that we were in the business of making good legislation, Government Members chuckled. Is not the truth that, in the past few months, thousands of amendments have come through from the other place, having been made by an incompetent Government who have bashed through legislation under guillotines? Do we not face the danger that, in the other place, the Vehicles (Crime) Bill will be subjected to hundreds of amendments with which this House will be unable to deal appropriately during consideration of Lords amendments?
    Mr. Heald: My right hon. Friend makes an important point. Because Bill after Bill has been poorly drafted and debate in this House has been curtailed, a whole new Bill, in effect, has on occasion been drafted for consideration by the other place. We, the people who are elected to Parliament to debate the law, are short-changed in terms of debate. It simply will not do. There were 118 amendments to the Freedom of Information Act 2000, of which 77 were not debated by this House. There were 268 amendments to the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000, of which 47 were not debated here. There

    123
    were 666 amendments to the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000, of which 522 were not debated here. Is that democracy? No.
    Mr. Douglas Hogg: There is a further problem, to which my hon. Friend has not yet addressed his remarks. Parts I and II of the Vehicles (Crime) Bill do not apply to Scotland, yet we could find the Committee stuffed full of Labour Members representing Scottish constituencies who can prattle on at great length without having any legitimate democratic right to do so; they might take up the time allotted, with the consequence that Members who represent English and Welsh constituencies do not have ample time in which to express their proper point of view.
    Mr. Heald: My right hon. and learned Friend makes an important point. If members of the Committee come from a different jurisdiction, it is reasonable that they will not understand the intricacies of the law in England and Wales. They do not live in those countries, and debates will take longer. I mean no disrespect in any way to Scotland or to the Scots, Mr. Speaker. We do not know until the Committee of Selection meets how many Members there will be in Committee with that disadvantage.
    We already have far less time than we need. However, we do not know how much longer will be needed because the detailed circumstances of consideration in Committee are unknown. Representations as yet unknown will come from industry and will subsequently take the form of new clauses and amendments. If someone who is as succinct as my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham can speak for an hour and 19 minutes on the Bill, making cogent point after cogent point eloquently and extremely effectively without trespassing on the good will of the House, we need more than 10 sittings.
    Mr. Nicholas Winterton: The point has not yet been put that programming appears to be very much between those on the two Front Benches. What input is likely to be heard from Back Benchers on both sides of the House, either as individuals or as groups, who may be interested in a part of the Bill that the Government think is not controversial? The matter may be extremely pertinent to certain constituencies.
    Mr. Heald: As ever, my hon. Friend makes an excellent point. One of the difficulties in programming a Committee before a Bill's Second Reading is trying to assess the mood of the House, including Back-Bench Members. When we considered the Government of Wales Bill, there were Labour Back Benchers who did not share the views of the Government. Conservative and Liberal Democrat Back Benchers had a slightly different viewpoint on certain issues. As a result, debate was extended. That was impossible to assess in advance. That is what is so wrong with the principle of programming in this way. It seems that it will happen with every Bill, and I see that as a deleterious step.
    Mr. David Winnick: The hon. Gentleman is making a reasoned case, as the Opposition have a duty to do. I have no complaint about that. My
    124
    only reservation is a remark that he made about Scottish and Welsh Members. May I implore him not to follow a path that would divide the House into two kinds of Assemblies? Will he accept that this is a United Kingdom Parliament? Perhaps he would bear in mind the remarks of the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry), who successfully opposed a ten-minute Bill that would have divided Parliament into Scottish, Welsh and English parts. We are a United Kingdom Parliament, and let us remain so.
    Mr. Heald: I am sure that you would not allow me, Mr. Speaker, to go into the West Lothian question in huge detail. However, as the hon. Gentleman is aware, the legal system in Scotland is different from that in England and Wales. The issue is between two legal jurisdictions and not between England, Wales and Scotland. If someone comes from a different jurisdiction legally and he is trying to contemplate laws that may be different, with the court systems being different, it is surely fair to suggest that consideration in Committee might take a little longer.
    Mr. Hogg: There is another point. An essential element of democracy is that those who make laws should be accountable to those who are affected by laws. If individuals are not affected by laws, those who represent them have no legitimate standing.
    Mr. Heald: That point was eloquently made by my right hon. and learned Friend when the Bills to which I referred went through the House. I do not disagree with him, but on a programme motion it would not be right for me to discuss an aspect of principle of the West Lothian question and fair votes for England. However, it is right for me to highlight the time aspects.
    The programme motion is a disgrace. It has been presented as being agreed by the official Opposition, when that is not the case. I have no doubt that that is the case. It has been presented by a Government who are making guillotining the business of the House a regular feature, and that is a denial of democracy. When we considered the Financial Services and Markets Bill, which I did not mention earlier, 675 amendments were not debated.
    Mr. Michael Jack: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Did he notice that, when the Minister proposed the motion, he gave an indication to the House, if I understood his words correctly, that more time might be needed? He referred to the programming sub-committee, suggesting that it might have to consider whether more time was needed. Will my hon. Friend comment on that admission from the Minister?
    Mr. Heald: As ever, my right hon. Friend identifies an important point. It is interesting that, in the previous debate, the Minister was unable to answer any of the questions that I posed in my closing remarks, and several points made by my right hon. and hon. Friends were not answered, because there was not enough time.
    As my right hon. Friend says, the Minister admitted that more time may have to be allowed for consideration of the Bill. Should not the hon. Gentleman do the decent thing and withdraw the programme motion? It is not right that the House should be asked to vote for a motion with which the Minister who proposed it at the Dispatch Box does not agree.

    125
    The programme motion is inadequate. The House should not be made to curtail the time during which it may debate such an important measure. There is a wide range of issues, and I ask the House to reject the programme motion.
    10.27 pm
    Mr. Paul Tyler: The Minister was wrong when he introduced the motion. He did so under false pretences. He said firmly that he had the agreement of the Opposition parties. The hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) made it clear that the Minister did not have the support and agreement of the Conservative party, and he certainly did not have my support or that of my colleagues. I have great respect for the Minister. I hope that he is a big enough man to admit that a mistake has been made in the communication between his Whips Office and himself.
    If the Minister does not believe me, let him look at the Order Paper. When there is an agreed programme motion, I put my name to it and a spokesman for the Conservative party puts his or her name to it. There is no name on the Order Paper from either of the Opposition parties. This is not an agreed programme motion.
    On many occasions, my colleagues and I supported programme motions, when we believed that a realistic assessment had been made of the time necessary to assure all hon. Members that the major points would be covered. That is not the case tonight. I attended much of the debate this evening. The attendance now is higher than on Second Reading, but it is clear that hon. Members have important points to raise. It is clear that the Committee stage will be convoluted, complicated and important if we are to get the Bill right.
    If the Minister means what he said about giving the House a proper opportunity to debate the issues that matter, it is the right course of action for him, having obviously unwittingly misled the House, to withdraw the motion.
    10.29 pm
    Mr. Forth: This is the first opportunity that the House has had to consider the new principle that the Government have imposed on us. It is an important occasion, but there will, of course, be many others. On each occasion, the House will have a proper opportunity to consider whether it is a proper way to consider the Bill under discussion and whether to support the proposals.
    Mr. Hogg: Is not one of the problems of the procedure on which we are embarking the fact that the House does not have an opportunity to amend the motion? We might think that a timetable is appropriate, but we might also conclude that much more time should be given. The defect of this procedure is that we do not have the ability to extend the time from, say, 23 January to 18 February. I make that as a suggestion.
    Mr. Forth: I am not sure that my right hon. and learned Friend is right on this occasion I was under the impression that such motions are subject to amendment, but we can pursue the matter later. Suffice it to say that, on this occasion, the House of Commons must decide whether it is appropriate and proper to bind the Committee so that it has only a certain period in which to consider the Bill.
    126
    We have already seen the difficulties that can arise when it is assumed that a small, unrepresentative group of Members of Parliament, masquerading under the title, "the usual channels", can impose on the rest of the House a timetable to which it might not agree. We have seen that that is the wrong way to approach the matter. As my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) pointed out, if that is to be the mechanism with which we have to work until the House sees better and throws it out, people who are not from the usual channels should be involved so that, at the very least, there can be a degree of representation from Members of Parliament who are not in a privileged and titled position. It is important and productive that we have already seen that the Government have sought to demonstrate that the Liberal Democrat and Conservative Front Benches had signed up to the motion when, in fact, they had not.
    Mr. Bercow: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is especially unsatisfactory that the Government should seek to circumscribe debate by proposing only 10 Committee sittings for the consideration of 45 clauses when, as he is aware, no fewer than nine of those clauses provide enabling powers for the Government to issue regulations? That is despite the fact that Ministers have not given any indication that they intend to provide the House or Committee members with early sight of a draft of the regulations.
    Mr. Forth: My hon. Friend is correct and he touches on another point that should not be forgotten. How can the Government decide the length of the Committee stage before Second Reading and before the House has had an opportunity to demonstrate whether the Bill is controversial and whether it includes detailed matters that require lengthy consideration by the Committee?
    Mr. Hogg: It might assist my right hon. Friend to know that he is right to say that the motion is amendable. Perhaps he would like to emphasise that point. Does he agree that, when such motions are proposed in future, the proper course for Opposition Front Benchers is to table an amendment that extends the date, which we should have an opportunity to debate at length?
    Mr. Forth: My right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench should certainly seek to amend the motion. However, my right hon. and learned Friend, other right hon. and hon. Members and I might have our own thoughts on the matter.
    Mr. Miller: If the right hon. Gentleman's assertion is right, and if Opposition Front Benchers were correct in saying that they were not in agreement with my hon. Friend the Member for Hyndburn (Mr. Pope), they could have tabled such an amendment. They chose not to, which proves that my hon. Friend the Member for Hyndburn was correct.
    Mr. Forth: No, that does not follow. My hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) said that we disagreed in principle and in fact with the substance of the motion. We do not therefore have to try to amend it; we can simply vote against it. I hope that we will do that. I intend to do so, and to try to give hon. Members the opportunity to do that.
    Mr. Maclean: Does my right hon. Friend accept that there is a difference in principle between the usual channels

    127
    being involved in discussions on Bills about which there is some general agreement and their involvement when the Government change Standing Orders to drive through ruthless automatic guillotine machinery? Does he agree that, in the latter case, it is inappropriate for the Opposition's usual channels to be involved?
    Mr. Forth: I believe that it is inappropriate for the usual channels to be involved in anything, and I do not believe in the existence of uncontroversial Bills. Most of the worst measures that have emanated from the parliamentary process have been deemed consensual, all party and uncontroversial. They usually end up as thoroughly bad legislation because they have been so poorly scrutinised. The Government are in danger of imposing poor scrutiny on the House as a general principle. That leaves only the prospect of another place conducting proper scrutiny, with us as a subsidiary Chamber.
    Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Will my right hon. Friend comment on our Front-Bench spokesmen's remarks, which have been repeated by the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler)? He said that, despite the Under-Secretary's claim, the programme motion had not been agreed through the usual channels. Given that this is the first time that such a motion has been put before the House, and that the hon. Member for North Cornwall and my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) say that it has not been agreed, will my right hon. Friend give the Minister time to reply to the debate, and to do the courteous and decent thing by withdrawing the motion?
    Mr. Forth: I wish that that was a realistic prospect. Sadly, I do not believe that it is. In tonight's sordid episode, on the first occasion that the ghastly new mechanism that the Government have imposed on the House has been used, Ministers have given a less than truthful account of the background to the event. We have received neither a retraction nor an apology from them. That is regrettable but, sadly, typical of the Government. We are faced with an improper and inadequate response to the Second Reading debate.
    Mr. John Butterfill: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is even more worrying that the timetable motion may mean that the clauses that grant power to make regulations will go through all their stages without the regulations being published? Is not that an even more worrying trend?
    Mr. Forth: Given the likely detailed and complex content of the regulations, and their number—we identified at least nine on Second Reading—we are unlikely to get any realistic idea of their content in time for the Committee proceedings.
    Mr. Hogg: Is not there a further risk, with which my right hon. Friend is familiar, that the Bill will go to another place without being properly discussed, and return to the House with a host of amendments? They will be the subject of yet more guillotine motions, and we will thus never have an opportunity properly to discuss the Bill's provisions.
    Mr. Forth: I regret that my right hon. and learned Friend is correct. The Bill contains 45 clauses; it became
    128
    clear on Second Reading that many of them are complex and controversial. They include, for example, the right of entry, powers of inspection and powers to levy fees. Yet we are allowed only five Committee days to consider the Bill, and we do not know what a Committee day will constitute.
    Paragraph 3 of the motion states:
    The Standing Committee shall have leave to sit twice on the first day …
    However, we do not know whether "twice" will mean 10.30 am to 1 pm and 4 pm to 7 pm, or 10 am to 10 pm without a break. What will a Committee day comprise? Simply saying that the Committee
    shall have leave to sit twice
    does not tell the House how much time the Committee will have to begin consideration on that crucial first day. Although five sitting days have been allowed for, the motion does not tell us how long they will be. We are faced with a controversial, complex 45-clause Bill, but we are being asked, in effect, to sign a blank cheque, even though the Government had no idea of what the response of the House would be when they embarked on the Second Reading debate.
    We teased out many questions on Second Reading and, during the winding-up speeches, the Minister told my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hertfordshire that he had about 50 questions to deal with and that, probably, there were more yet to be answered. All those 50 points require detailed consideration in Committee.
    Mr. Heald: Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the great mischiefs here is that regulation-making powers may not even be discussed in Committee and that the regulations will all be made under the negative resolution procedure? Important regulations for an important industry could be made without any discussion taking place.
    Mr. Forth: That is right. We see the potential horror of the programming measure that the Government have imposed on the House. I hope that we have none of that and reject it.
    Mr. Roger Gale: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I feel a growing sense of unease. As one of those who, in another capacity, is required from time to time to adjudicate on matters of order, I have listened to the points made from the Opposition and Government Front Benches. I have worked over many hours with the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, the hon. Member for Streatham (Mr. Hill), and believe him to be an entirely honest and honourable man. I say that without equivocation. However, it is clear that two stories have been given—one by the Minister and another by Opposition Front Benchers. As this is the first time that such a matter has been discussed in the House in such a form, you might consider adjourning the House to allow both sides to reach an agreement and to allow either the Minister or Opposition Front Benchers to withdraw their remarks.
    Mr. Speaker: Those are matters for debate. I certainly would not be inclined to adjourn the House.
    Mr. Hogg: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. It is within my knowledge that when an agreement is

    129
    made between Front Benchers it is often communicated to the Speaker. Have you received notice of such an agreement being made?
    Mr. Speaker: It is often best that the Speaker does not know about such agreements.
    10.42 pm
    Mr. David Maclean: Tonight's debate has shown that an arrogant and dictatorial Government are in power—a Government so arrogant that they decided the Bill's Committee timetable before the debate on Second Reading had begun. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) said, the Government decided that a 45-clause Bill shall be considered in Committee for five days, or for 10 sittings, before hearing a single word of debate in the House. The Government did not care whether hon. Members on both sides or on either side of the House were concerned about the provisions, whether the Bill would go through on the nod or whether the whole House was up in arms about it. In their mind, they had already concluded that the Bill would be ruthlessly guillotined and that there would be no, time for discussion. We know why.
    Over the past few months, the Government's experience has been of Bills returning from the other place with hundreds of Government amendments to them because they had been so badly drafted and because of their own incompetence. They have been humiliated over their drafting of legislation, so they have introduced an automatic guillotine system.
    It being forty-five minutes after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER, pursuant to Order [7 November], put forthwith the Question necessary for the disposal of proceedings to be concluded at that hour.
    Question put:—
    The House divided: Ayes 305, Noes 147.

    Division No. 9]

    [10.44 pm

    AYES

    Abbott, Ms Diane

    Bradshaw, Ben

    Ainger, Nick

    Brinton, Mrs Helen

    Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

    Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

    Allen, Graham

    Buck, Ms Karen

    Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

    Burden, Richard

    Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

    Burgon, Colin

    Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

    Butler, Mrs Christine

    Atherton, Ms Candy

    Caborn, Rt Hon Richard

    Banks, Tony

    Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

    Barnes, Harry

    Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

    Barron, Kevin

    Campbell-Savours, Dale

    Battle, John

    Cann, Jamie

    Bayley, Hugh

    Caplin, Ivor

    Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

    Casale, Roger

    Begg, Miss Anne

    Caton, Martin

    Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

    Cawsey, Ian

    Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)

    Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

    Bennett, Andrew F

    Chaytor, David

    Benton, Joe

    Clapham, Michael

    Bermingham, Gerald

    Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

    Berry, Roger

    Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

    Betts, Clive

    Blears, Ms Hazel

    Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

    Blizzard, Bob

    Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

    Borrow, David

    Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

    Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

    Clelland, David

    130

    Clwyd, Ann

    Hoyle, Lindsay

    Coaker, Vernon

    Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

    Colman, Tony

    Humble, Mrs Joan

    Cooper, Yvette

    Hurst, Alan

    Corbett, Robin

    Hutton, John

    Corston, Jean

    Iddon, Dr Brian

    Cousins, Jim

    Illsley, Eric

    Cox, Tom

    Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

    Cranston, Ross

    Jamieson, David

    Crausby, David

    Jenkins, Brian

    Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

    Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

    Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

    Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

    Cummings, John

    Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

    Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)

    Darvill, Keith

    Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)

    Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

    Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

    Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

    Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)

    Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

    Dawson, Hilton

    Dean, Mrs Janet

    Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

    Denham, John

    Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

    Dismore, Andrew

    Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

    Dobbin, Jim

    Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa

    Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

    Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

    Doran, Frank

    Keeble, Ms Sally

    Dowd, Jim

    Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

    Drew, David

    Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

    Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

    Kemp, Fraser

    Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

    Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

    Edwards, Huw

    Khabra, Piara S

    Efford, Clive

    Kidney, David

    Ellman, Mrs Louise

    Kilfoyle, Peter

    Ennis, Jeff

    King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

    Etherington, Bill

    King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

    Field, Rt Hon Frank

    Kumar, Dr Ashok

    Fisher, Mark

    Ladyman, Dr Stephen

    Fitzpatrick, Jim

    Lammy, David

    Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

    Lepper, David

    Flint, Caroline

    Leslie, Christopher

    Flynn, Paul

    Levitt, Tom

    Follett, Barbara

    Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

    Foster, Rt Hon Derek

    Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen

    Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

    Linton, Martin

    Foulkes, George

    Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

    Galloway, George

    Love, Andrew

    Gapes, Mike

    McAvoy, Thomas

    Gardiner, Barry

    McCabe, Steve

    George, Bruce (Walsall S)

    McCafferty, Ms Chris

    Gerrard, Neil

    McCartney, Rt Hon Ian (Makerfield)

    Gibson, Dr Ian

    Gilroy, Mrs Linda

    Godsiff, Roger

    McDonagh, Siobhain

    Goggins, Paul

    Macdonald, Calum

    Golding, Mrs Llin

    McIsaac, Shona

    Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

    Mackinlay, Andrew

    Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

    McNamara, Kevin

    Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

    McNulty, Tony

    Grocott, Bruce

    MacShane, Denis

    Grogan, John

    Mactaggart, Fiona

    Hain, Peter

    McWalter, Tony

    Hanson, David

    Mahon, Mrs Alice

    Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

    Mallaber, Judy

    Healey, John

    Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

    Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

    Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

    Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

    Marshall, David (Shettleston)

    Hendrick, Mark

    Marshall-Andrews, Robert

    Hepburn, Stephen

    Martlew, Eric

    Hesford, Stephen

    Maxton, John

    Hewitt, Ms Patricia

    Meale, Alan

    Hill, Keith

    Merron, Gillian

    Hinchliffe, David

    Michael, Rt Hon Alun

    Hodge, Ms Margaret

    Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

    Hoey, Kate

    Miller, Andrew

    Hope, Phil

    Mitchell, Austin

    Hopkins, Kelvin

    Moran, Ms Margaret

    Howells. Dr Kim

    Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

    131

    Morley, Elliot

    Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

    Morris, Rt Hon Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

    Smith, John (Glamorgan)

    Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

    Morris, Rt Hon Sir John (Aberavon)

    Soley, Clive

    Spellar, John

    Mountford, Kali

    Starkey, Dr Phyllis

    Mowlam, Rt Hon Marjorie

    Steinberg, Gerry

    Mudie, George

    Stevenson, George

    Mullin, Chris

    Stewart, David (Inverness E)

    Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

    Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

    Naysmith, Dr Doug

    Stinchcombe, Paul

    Norris, Dan

    Stoate, Dr Howard

    O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

    Straw, Rt Hon Jack

    O'Hara, Eddie

    Stringer, Graham

    Olner, Bill

    Stuart, Ms Gisela

    O'Neill, Martin

    Sutcliffe, Gerry

    Organ, Mrs Diana

    Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

    Pearson, Ian

    Perham, Ms Linda

    Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

    Pickthall, Colin

    Taylor, David (NW Leics)

    Pike, Peter L

    Temple-Morris, Peter

    Plaskitt, James

    Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

    Pond, Chris

    Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

    Pope, Greg

    Timms, Stephen

    Pound, Stephen

    Tipping, Paddy

    Powell, Sir Raymond

    Todd, Mark

    Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

    Touhig, Don

    Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

    Truswell, Paul

    Primarolo, Dawn

    Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

    Prosser, Gwyn

    Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

    Purchase, Ken

    Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

    Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce

    Turner, Neil (Wigan)

    Quinn, Lawrie

    Twigg, Derek (Halton)

    Rammell, Bill

    Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

    Rapson, Syd

    Vis, Dr Rudi

    Raynsford, Nick

    Walley, Ms Joan

    Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

    Ward, Ms Claire

    Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)

    Wareing, Robert N

    Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

    Watts, David

    White, Brian

    Roche, Mrs Barbara

    Whitehead, Dr Alan

    Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff

    Wicks, Malcolm

    Rooney, Terry

    Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

    Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

    Rowlands, Ted

    Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

    Roy, Frank

    Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

    Ruddock, Joan

    Wills, Michael

    Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

    Winnick, David

    Ryan, Ms Joan

    Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

    Sawford, Phil

    Woodward, Shaun

    Sedgemore, Brian

    Woolas, Phil

    Sheerman, Barry

    Worthington, Tony

    Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

    Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

    Singh, Marsha

    Wright, Tony (Cannock)

    Skinner, Dennis

    Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Smith, Angela (Basildon)

    Mr. Mike Hall and

    Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

    Mr. Kevin Hughes.

    NOES

    Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

    Butterfill, John

    Amess, David

    Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)

    Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

    Baldry, Tony

    Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

    Beith, Rt Hon A J

    Bercow, John

    Chope, Christopher

    Beresford, Sir Paul

    Clappison, James

    Blunt, Crispin

    Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

    Boswell, Tim

    Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

    Collins, Tim

    Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

    Cormack, Sir Patrick

    Brazier, Julian

    Cotter, Brian

    Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

    Cran, James

    Browning, Mrs Angela

    Curry, Rt Hon David

    Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

    Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

    Burns, Simon

    Duncan, Alan

    132

    Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

    Mates, Michael

    Evans, Nigel

    Maude, Rt Hon Francis

    Fabricant, Michael

    Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

    Fallon, Michael

    Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)

    Fearn, Ronnie

    Moss, Malcolm

    Flight, Howard

    O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

    Forth, Rt Hon Eric

    Öpik, Lembit

    Fraser, Christopher

    Ottaway, Richard

    Gale, Roger

    Page, Richard

    Garnier, Edward

    Paice, James

    Gibb, Nick

    Pickles, Eric

    Gidley, Sandra

    Prior, David

    Gill, Christopher

    Randall, John

    Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

    Rendel, David

    Gorman, Mrs Teresa

    Robathan, Andrew

    Gray, James

    Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

    Green, Damian

    Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

    Greenway, John

    Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)

    Grieve, Dominic

    Ruffley, David

    Gummer, Rt Hon John

    Russell, Bob (Colchester)

    Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

    St Aubyn, Nick

    Hammond, Philip

    Sanders, Adrian

    Harris, Dr Evan

    Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

    Hawkins, Nick

    Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

    Hayes, John

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

    Heald, Oliver

    Spelman, Mrs Caroline

    Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

    Spicer, Sir Michael

    Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

    Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

    Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

    Streeter, Gary

    Howard, Rt Hon Michael

    Stunell, Andrew

    Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

    Swayne, Desmond

    Hughes Simon (Southwark N)

    Syms, Robert

    Jack, Rt Hon Michael

    Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

    Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

    Taylor, John M (Solihull)

    Jenkin, Bernard

    Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

    Key, Robert

    Taylor, Sir Teddy

    King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

    Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

    Tonge, Dr Jenny

    Kirkbride, Miss Julie

    Townend, John

    Kirkwood, Archy

    Tredinnick, David

    Laing, Mrs Eleanor

    Trend, Michael

    Lait, Mrs Jacqui

    Tyler, Paul

    Lansley, Andrew

    Tyrie, Andrew

    Letwin, Oliver

    Waterson, Nigel

    Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

    Webb, Steve

    Lidington, David

    Wells, Bowen

    Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

    Whitney, Sir Raymond

    Livsey, Richard

    Whittingdale, John

    Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

    Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

    Llwyd, Elfyn

    Wilkinson, John

    Loughton, Tim

    Willetts, David

    Luff, Peter

    Willis, Phil

    Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

    Wilshire, David

    MacGregor, Rt Hon John

    Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

    McIntosh, Miss Anne

    Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

    MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

    Yeo, Tim

    Maclean, Rt Hon David

    Young, Rt Hon Sir George

    Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert

    McLoughlin, Patrick

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Madel, Sir David

    Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown

    Malins, Humfrey

    and

    Maples, John

    Mr. Peter Atkinson.

    Question accordingly agreed to.
    Ordered,
    That the following provisions shall apply to the Vehicles (Crime) Bill:

    Standing Committee
    1. The Bill shall be committed to a Standing Committee.
    2. Proceedings in the Standing Committee shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion on Tuesday
    3. The standing Committee shall have leave to sit twice on the first day on which it shall meet.

  VEHICLES (CRIME) BELL [MONEY]
  Queen's recommendation having been signified—
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 52(1)(a) (Money resolutions and ways and means resolutions in connection with bills),
  That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Vehicles (Crime) Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of—

  (a)any expenditure incurred by a Minister of the Crown in consequence of the Act, and

  (b)any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable out of money so provided by virtue of any other Act. —[Mr. Pope.]

  The House divided: Ayes 327, Noes 114.

  Division No. 10]

  [10.57 pm

  AYES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

  Ainger, Nick

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Clelland, David

  Allen, Graham

  Clwyd, Ann

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  Coaker, Vernon

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

  Colman, Tony

  Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

  Cooper Yvette

  Atherton, Ms Candy

  Corbett Robin

  Banks, Tony

  Corston, Jean

  Barnes, Harry

  Cotter, Brian

  Barron, Kevin

  Cousins, Jim

  Battle, John

  Cox, Tom

  Bayley, Hugh

  Cranston, Ross

  Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

  Crausby, David

  Begg, Miss Anne

  Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

  Beith, Rt Hon A J

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

  Cummings, John

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)

  Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

  Bennett, Andrew F

  Darvill, Keith

  Benton, Joe

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Berry, Roger

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

  Betts, Clive

  Dawson, Hilton

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Dean Mrs Janet

  Blizzard, Bob

  Denham, John

  Borrow, David

  Dismore, Andrew

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Dobbin, Jim

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

  Brinton, Mrs Helen

  Doran, Frank

  Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

  Dowd, Jim

  Buck, Ms Karen

  Drew, David

  Burden, Richard

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Burgon, Colin

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Butler, Mrs Christine

  Edwards, Huw

  Caborn, Rt Hon Richard

  Efford, Clive

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Ennis, Jeff

  Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)

  Etherington, Bill

  Fearn, Ronnie

  Cann, Jamie

  Field, Rt Hon Frank

  Caplin, Ivor

  Fisher, Mark

  Casale, Roger

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  Caton, Martin

  Fitzsimons, Mrs Loma

  Cawsey, Ian

  Flint, Caroline

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Flynn, Paul

  Chaytor, David

  Follett, Barbara

  Clapham, Michael

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

  Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

  Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

  Foulkes, George

  Galloway, George

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Gapes, Mike

  134

  Gardiner, Barry

  Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen

  George, Bruce (Walsall S)

  Linton, Martin

  Gerrard, Neil

  Livsey, Richard

  Gibson, Dr Ian

  Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

  Gidley, Sandra

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Gilroy, Mrs Linda

  Love, Andrew

  Godsiff, Roger

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Goggins, Paul

  McCabe, Steve

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  McCafferty, Ms Chris

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  McCartney, Rt Hon Ian (Makerfield)

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Macdonald, Calum

  Grocott, Bruce

  McIsaac, Shona

  Grogan, John

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Hain, Peter

  Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert

  Hanson, David

  McNamara, Kevin

  Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

  McNulty, Tony

  Harris, Dr Evan

  MacShane, Denis

  Healey, John

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

  McWalter, Tony

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Hendrick, Mark

  Mallaber, Judy

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Hesford, Stephen

  Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

  Hewitt, Ms Patricia

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Hill, Keith

  Marshall-Andrews, Robert

  Hinchliffe, David

  Martlew, Eric

  Hodge, Ms Margaret

  Maxton, John

  Hoey, Kate

  Meale, Alan

  Hope, Phil

  Merron, Gillian

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Michael, Rt Hon Alun

  Howells, Dr Kim

  Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  Miller, Andrew

  Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

  Mitchell, Austin

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

  Moran, Ms Margaret

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)

  Hurst, Alan

  Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

  Hutton, John

  Morley, Elliot

  Iddon, Dr Brian

  Morris, Rt Hon Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

  Illsley, Eric

  Morris, Rt Hon Sir John (Aberavon)

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Jamieson, David

  Mountford, Kali

  Jenkins, Brian

  Mudie, George

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

  Mullin, Chris

  Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

  Naysmith, Dr Doug

  Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)

  Norris, Dan

  Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  O'Hara, Eddie

  Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)

  Olner, Bill

  O'Neill, Martin

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Öpik, Lembit

  Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Organ, Mrs Diana

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  Pearson, Ian

  Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa

  Perham, Ms Linda

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Pickthall, Colin

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Pike, Peter L

  Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

  Plaskitt, James

  Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

  Pond, Chris

  Kemp, Fraser

  Pope, Greg

  Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

  Pound, Stephen

  Khabra, Piara S

  Powell, Sir Raymond

  Kidney, David

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

  Primarolo, Dawn

  King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Purchase, Ken

  Kumar, Dr Ashok

  Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce

  Ladyman, Dr Stephen

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Lammy, David

  Rammell, Bill

  Lepper, David

  Rapson, Syd

  Leslie, Christopher

  Raynsford, Nick

  Levitt, Tom

  Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)

  135

  Rendel, David

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

  Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff

  Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

  Rooney, Terry

  Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Timms, Stephen

  Rowlands, Ted

  Tipping, Paddy

  Roy, Frank

  Todd, Mark

  Ruddock, Joan

  Tonge, Dr Jenny

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Touhig, Don

  Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

  Truswell, Paul

  Ryan, Ms Joan

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Sanders, Adrian

  Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

  Sawford, Phil

  Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Turner, Neil (Wigan)

  Sheerman, Barry

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Singh, Marsha

  Tyler, Paul

  Skinner, Dennis

  Vis, Dr Rudi

  Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  Ward, Ms Claire

  Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

  Wareing, Robert N

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Watts, David

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  Webb, Steve

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  White, Brian

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

  Whitehead, Dr Alan

  Soley, Clive

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Spellar, John

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

  Starkey, Dr Phyllis

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

  Stevenson, George

  Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

  Stewart, David (Inverness E)

  Willis, Phil

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Wills, Michael

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  Winnick, David

  Stoate, Dr Howard

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  Straw, Rt Hon Jack

  Woodward, Shaun

  Stringer, Graham

  Woolas, Phil

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  Worthington, Tony

  Stunell, Andrew

  Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Wright, Tony (Cannock)

  Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Mr. Mike Hall and

  Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

  Mr. Kevin Hughes.

  NOES

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  Flight, Howard

  Amess, David

  Forth, Rt Hon Eric

  Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

  Fraser, Christopher

  Baldry, Tony

  Gale, Roger

  Bercow, John

  Garnier, Edward

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Gibb, Nick

  Blunt, Crispin

  Gill, Christopher

  Boswell, Tim

  Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

  Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

  Gray, James

  Brazier, Julian

  Green, Damian

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Greenway, John

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Grieve, Dominic

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  Gummer, Rt Hon John

  Burns, Simon

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

  Butterfill, John

  Hammond, Philip

  Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

  Hawkins, Nick

  Hayes, John

  Chope, Christopher

  Heald, Oliver

  Clappison, James

  Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

  Collins, Tim

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Cran, James

  Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

  Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

  Jack, Rt Hon Michael

  Duncan, Alan

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Evans, Nigel

  Key, Robert

  Fabricant, Michael

  King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

  136

  Laing, Mrs Eleanor

  Ruffley, David

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  St Aubyn, Nick

  Lansley, Andrew

  Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

  Letwin, Oliver

  Spelman, Mrs Caroline

  Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

  Spicer, Sir Michael

  Lidington, David

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Streeter, Gary

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

  Swayne, Desmond

  Loughton, Tim

  Syms, Robert

  Luff, Peter

  Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  McIntosh, Miss Anne

  Townend, John

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  Tredinnick, David

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Trend, Michael

  Malins, Humfrey

  Tyrie, Andrew

  Mates, Michael

  Waterson, Nigel

  Maude, Rt Hon Francis

  Wells, Bowen

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

  Whitney, Sir Raymond

  Moss, Malcolm

  Whittingdale, John

  O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

  Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

  Ottaway, Richard

  Wilkinson, John

  Page, Richard

  Willetts, David

  Paice, James

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Pickles, Eric

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

  Prior, David

  Yeo, Tim

  Randall, John

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Robathan, Andrew

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

  Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  and

  Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)

  Mr. Peter Atkinson.

  Question accordingly agreed to.

  VEHICLES (CRIME) BILL [WAYS AND MEANS]
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 52(1)(a)) (Money resolutions and ways and means resolutions in connection with bills),
  That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Vehicles (Crime) Bill, it is expedient to authorise—

  (1) the charging of fees in connection with a registration scheme for registration plate suppliers;

  (2) the payment into the Consolidated Fund of any sums received by a Minister of the Crown in consequence of the Act.—[Mr. McNulty.]

  The House divided: Ayes 326, Noes 110.

  Division No. 11]

  [11.10 pm

  AYES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Berry, Roger

  Ainger, Nick

  Betts, Clive

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Allen, Graham

  Blizzard, Bob

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  Borrow, David

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Atherton, Ms Candy

  Brinton, Mrs Helen

  Banks, Tony

  Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

  Barnes, Harry

  Buck, Ms Karen

  Barron, Kevin

  Burden, Richard

  Battle, John

  Burgon, Colin

  Bayley, Hugh

  Butler, Mrs Christine

  Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

  Caborn, Rt Hon Richard

  Begg, Miss Anne

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Beith, Rt Hon A J

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

  Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)

  Bennett, Andrew F

  Cann, Jamie

  Benton, Joe

  Caplin, Ivor

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Casale, Roger

  137

  Caton, Martin

  Hanson, David

  Cawsey, Ian

  Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Harris, Dr Evan

  Chaytor, David

  Healey, John

  Clapham, Michael

  Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

  Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

  Hendrick, Mark

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Clark Paul (Gillingham)

  Hesford, Stephen

  Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

  Hill, Keith

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Hinchliffe, David

  Clelland, David

  Hodge, Ms Margaret

  Clwyd, Ann

  Hoey, Kate

  Coaker, Vernon

  Hope, Phil

  Colman, Tony

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Cooper, Yvette

  Howells, Dr Kim

  Corbett, Robin

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  Corston, Jean

  Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

  Cotter, Brian

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Cousins, Jim

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

  Cox, Tom

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Cranston, Ross

  Hurst, Alan

  Crausby, David

  Hutton, John

  Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

  Iddon, Dr Brian

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Illsley, Eric

  Cummings, John

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

  Jamieson, David

  Darvill, Keith

  Jenkins, Brian

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

  Davidson, Ian

  Johnson, Miss Melanie (Walwyn Hatfield)

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Lanelli)

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

  Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)

  Dawson, Hilton

  Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Denham, John

  Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)

  Dismore, Andrew

  Dobbin, Jim

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

  Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Doran, Frank

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  Drew, David

  Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Edwards, Huw

  Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

  Efford, Clive

  Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Kemp, Fraser

  Ennis, Jeff

  Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

  Etherington, Bill

  Khabra, Piara S

  Fearn, Ronnie

  Kidney, David

  Field, Rt Hon Frank

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Fisher, Mark

  King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

  Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Flint, Caroline

  Kumar, Dr Ashok

  Flynn, Paul

  Ladyman, Dr Stephen

  Follett, Barbara

  Lammy, David

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Lepper, David

  Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

  Leslie, Christopher

  Foulkes, George

  Levitt, Tom

  Galloway, George

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Gapes, Mike

  Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen

  Gardiner, Barry

  Linton, Martin

  George, Bruce (Walsall S)

  Livsey, Richard

  Gerrard, Neil

  Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

  Gibson, Dr Ian

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Gidley, Sandra

  Love, Andrew

  Gilroy, Mrs Linda

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Godsiff, Roger

  McCabe, Steve

  Goggins, Paul

  McCafferty, Ms Chris

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  McCartney, Rt Hon Ian (Makerfield)

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Macdonald, Calum

  Grocott, Bruce

  McIsaac, Shona

  Grogan, John

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Hain, Peter

  Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  McNamara, Kevin

  138

  McNulty, Tony

  Sawford, Phil

  MacShane, Denis

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  McWalter, Tony

  Singh, Marsha

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Skinner, Dennis

  Mallaber, Judy

  Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

  Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Marshall-Andrews, Robert

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  Martlew, Eric

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Maxton, John

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

  Meale, Alan

  Soley, Clive

  Merron, Gillian

  Spellar, John

  Michael, Rt Hon Alun

  Starkey, Dr Phyllis

  Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Miller, Andrew

  Stevenson, George

  Mitchell, Austin

  Stewart, David (Inverness E)

  Moran, Ms Margaret

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

  Stoate, Dr Howard

  Morley, Elliot

  Straw, Rt Hon Jack

  Morris, Rt Hon Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

  Stringer, Graham

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  Morris, Rt Hon Sir John (Aberavon)

  Stunell, Andrew

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Mountford, Kali

  Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Mudie, George

  Mullin, Chris

  Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

  Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Naysmith, Dr Doug

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Norris, Dan

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

  O'Hara, Eddie

  Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

  Olner, Bill

  Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

  O'Neill, Martin

  Timms, Stephen

  Öpik, Lembit

  Tipping, Paddy

  Organ, Mrs Diana

  Todd, Mark

  Pearson, Ian

  Tonge, Dr Jenny

  Perham, Ms Linda

  Truswell, Paul

  Pickthall, Colin

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Pike, Peter L

  Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

  Plaskitt, James

  Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

  Pond, Chris

  Turner, Neil (Wigan)

  Pope, Greg

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Pound, Stephen

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Powell, Sir Raymond

  Tyler, Paul

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Vis, Dr Rudi

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Ward, Ms Claire

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Wareing, Robert N

  Purchase, Ken

  Watts, David

  Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce

  Webb, Steve

  Quinn, Lawrie

  White, Brian

  Rammell, Bill

  Whitehead, Dr Alan

  Rapson, Syd

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Raynsford, Nick

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

  Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

  Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)

  Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

  Rendel, David

  Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

  Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

  Willis, Phil

  Wills, Michael

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Winnick, David

  Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  Rooney, Terry

  Woodward, Shaun

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Woolas, Phil

  Rowlands, Ted

  Worthington, Tony

  Roy, Frank

  Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

  Ruddock, Joan

  Wright, Tony (Cannock)

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Ryan, Ms Joan

  Mr. Don Touhig and

  Sanders, Adrian

  Mr. Jim Dowd.

  139

  NOES

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  Letwin, Oliver

  Amess, David

  Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

  Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

  Lidington, David

  Baldry, Tony

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Bercow, John

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Loughton, Tim

  Blunt, Crispin

  Luff, Peter

  Boswell, Tim

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

  McIntosh, Miss Anne

  Brazier, Julian

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Malins, Humfrey

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  Mates, Michael

  Burns, Simon

  Maude, Rt Hon Francis

  Butterfill, John

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

  Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

  Moss, Malcolm

  O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

  Chope, Christopher

  Ottaway, Richard

  Clappison, James

  Page, Richard

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Paice, James

  Pickles, Eric

  Collins, Tim

  Prior, David

  Cran, James

  Randall, John

  Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

  Robathan, Andrew

  Duncan, Alan

  Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

  Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxboume)

  Evans, Nigel

  Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)

  Fabricant, Michael

  Ruffley, David

  Right, Howard

  St Aubyn, Nick

  Forth, Rt Hon Eric

  Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

  Fraser, Christopher

  Spelman, Mrs Caroline

  Gale, Roger

  Spicer, Sir Michael

  Garnier, Edward

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Gibb, Nick

  Streeter, Gary

  Gill, Christopher

  Swayne, Desmond

  Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

  Syms, Robert

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

  Gray, James

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Green, Damian

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Greenway, John

  Townend, John

  Grieve, Dominic

  Tredinnick, David

  Gummer, Rt Hon John

  Trend, Michael

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

  Tyrie, Andrew

  Hawkins, Nick

  Waterson, Nigel

  Hayes, John

  Whitney, Sir Raymond

  Heald, Oliver

  Whittingdale, John

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

  Wilkinson, John

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Willetts, David

  Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Jack, Rt Hon Michael

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Yeo, Tim

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Key, Robert

  King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Mr. Peter Atkinson and

  Lansley, Andrew

  Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown.

  Question accordingly agreed to.

  National Lottery
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): It may be for the convenience of the House to take motions 6 and 7 together.
  Hon. Members: No.
  11.23 pm
  The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Mr. Chris Smith): I beg to move,
  That the draft Millennium Commission (Substitution of a Later Date) Order 2000, which was laid before this House on 23rd November, in the last Session of Parliament, be approved.
  Two closely connected orders are before the House this evening, and I should like to begin by describing what the first does. The Millennium Commission (Substitution of a Later Date) Order 2000 extends the Millennium Commission's funding life until 20 August 2001. After that date, the commission will continue to operate as a grant-giving body, but we propose that it will receive no further direct income from the national lottery.
  The Millennium Commission was established by the National Lottery etc. Act 1993. Its purpose is to fund projects to mark the year 2000 and the beginning of the third millennium. Under the 1993 Act, the Millennium Commission would stop receiving funding on 31 December this year. However, the Act recognised that that date might have to be extended and allows that to be done by order.
  The decision to extend the funding life of the commission was made by the previous Administration. The then Secretary of State for National Heritage quoted a statement made by her Department on 18 January 1997. It said:
  An Order will accordingly be brought forward to extend the funding life of the commission for one year.—[Official Report, 20 January 1997; Vol. 288, c. 448W.]
  The reason for that decision was to cover variations from the estimates in the millennium exhibition's business plan without prejudicing the commission's existing grant programme. This Government reaffirmed that commitment.
  Mr. Douglas Hogg: I want to be absolutely clear. Does extending the date to 20 August 2001 enable the commission to receive a grant in the period from 31 December 2000 to 20 August 2001 that it would not otherwise have received? Will the right hon. Gentleman undertake that no further funding will be made available to the commission in that period?
  Mr. Smith: The right hon. and learned Gentleman's question confuses the commission with the exhibition. The answer to the first part of his question is that the extension that we are now debating is an extension of the income life of the Millennium Commission. That means that the commission will receive extra income from the national lottery for the period from 31 December this year through to 20 August next year. I shall explain shortly exactly what the expected figures for that will be.
  The right hon. and learned Gentleman also appeared to allude to the grant of money by the Millennium Commission to the New Millennium Experience Company, which is running the dome. If he is referring

  141
  to that, I can tell him that it is not our expectation or intention that any further funds will be made available by the Millennium Commission to the dome.
  Mr. Hogg: Expectation and intention are not the same thing as an undertaking. Would the right hon. Gentleman now care to give an undertaking?
  Mr. Smith: I can go further than that. I can assure the right hon. and learned Gentleman that none of the funding that is being debated in the order relates in any way to any additional funding for the dome. I will come to that point more explicitly in a moment or two.
  The Government reaffirmed the commitment that had been made by the previous Government about the protection of the existing programme of the Millennium Commission. The order extends the Commission's funding life to 20 August 2001. We estimate that that will mean that the Millennium Commission will receive £2,286.5 million of income from the national lottery. After that date, we propose that the commission will receive no further income from the proceeds of the national lottery. I should point out that the previous Administration had proposed an extension until the end of 2001. Our proposed extension is clearly shorter than that.
  Let me say a few words about how we arrived at the new figure of £2,286.5 million, which is an increase—this answers the right hon. and learned Gentleman's point—of £269.5 million on the previous announced total of £2,017 million. The purpose of the increase is twofold. First, we agree with the view of the previous Administration that the Millennium Commission's other projects should not be adversely affected as a consequence of additional grants to the dome. This accounts for £198 million of the increase—£179 million of grants and £19 million of lost interest on that amount.
  Secondly, there are some additional worthwhile activities that we believe that the commission should undertake within its lifetime budget. Those account for the remaining £71.5 million of the increase.
  The additional £71.5 million will enable the commission to do a number of things that would not have been possible under its previously agreed income ceiling. It will be able to put £6.5 million towards the cost of new year's eve 2000 celebrations. A further £10 million will be available to support projects reflecting the achievements and aspirations of the black communities in the UK. An additional £30 million will be available to support the commission's existing £3 billion programme of projects, many of which are still being completed. With that funding, the commission will be able to ensure that its capital projects have a solid foundation on which to build for the future.
  The order also allows the commission to use £25 million to support science centres. The commission is minded to set up an endowed fund to provide resources in a few years for refurbishment work on the network of science centres around the UK which the commission has funded. As well as being interesting to visit, science centres are playing a key role in informal education, both for schoolchildren and for adults. It is increasingly important that people have the opportunity to widen their knowledge of science, technology and medicine, as these will have a major impact on all our lives.
  I am pleased to say that the Wellcome Trust, the world's largest medical charity, which has also made a major contribution to science centres across the UK,
  142
  has agreed to consider working in partnership with the commission and providing funds to increase the value of the endowment that we propose. That fund will enable the centres to maintain their attractiveness both as visitor centres and educational resources.
  All those are extremely worthwhile initiatives, and I am pleased that the commission will be able to support them if the order is approved.
  Mr. Robert Maclennan: May I take the Secretary of State back to the £30 million for projects that are not yet complete? If those projects did not go ahead, for reasons unconnected with the Millennium Commission funding—such as a failure to find partnership funding—would the money then revert to the commission to be spent subsequently?
  Mr. Smith: That is correct. That happened with the third phase of the Earth centre project near Doncaster, which will not now proceed. The money that the commission had earmarked for the third phase of that project has returned to the commission's fund and has been used for other projects.
  Of course, there are projects that are proving to be extremely successful and which are incurring additional expenditure, for various reasons that are not necessarily the fault of those running them. For example, the Eden project in Cornwall, which is well known to the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler), has run into cashflow difficulties. That is an excellent project, which is proving to be extremely popular with visitors even before it is fully open. To assist the project, the commission has decided to make available modest additional funding. Such problems are arising in a variety of extremely worthwhile projects throughout the country, and this funding will enable the commission to tackle them sensibly and rationally.
  Mr. Robert Marshall-Andrews: On the subject of money returning to the Millennium Commission, would my right hon. Friend tell us how much, if any, of the sums that are to be paid by Legacy in respect of its purchase of interests in the New Millennium Experience Company and the Greenwich site will find its way back to the commission?
  Mr. Smith: First, it is not for me to speak about the precise details of any arrangement with Legacy, because I have not been involved in any of the direct discussions. Furthermore, the matter is not yet finalised: Legacy has been declared to be the preferred bidder and negotiations with the company are continuing. Until those negotiations are complete and 1, with other Members of Parliament, know the exact terms of the deal that has been concluded, it would be premature of me to answer in a specific fashion the question asked by my hon. and learned Friend.
  Mr. Marshall-Andrews: May I press my right hon. Friend on that point? I phrased my question deliberately: I did not ask how much money would come, but how much the commission anticipated would come. The commission is like any other board of trustees or company board of directors; it must anticipate some funding. Is it anticipated that any money will return to the commission as a result of the Legacy bid? Is only a small sum

  143
  anticipated? Can my right hon. Friend give a ballpark figure for the sum that the commission anticipates it might have to spend?
  Mr. Smith: For the reasons that I advanced, it is impossible for me to give my hon. and learned Friend a ballpark figure. However, I can say that it is certainly the expectation of the commission that any funds provided by Legacy as part of a deal, as and when it is agreed, will return in part to the Millennium Commission through the New Millennium Experience Company, and in part to English Partnerships, which owns the ground on which the dome stands. However, I should state that there will be substantial costs associated with the decommissioning of the dome, which will have to be met from such proceeds. That is why it is impossible for me, at this stage, to give my hon. and learned Friend ballpark figures. However, it is my expectation that there will be a return to the Millennium Commission from such a disposal.
  Mr. Syd Rapson: If the life of the commission is not extended, might such schemes as the Portsmouth tower be jeopardised by a possible failure to receive funding?
  Mr. Smith: Yes. If the order is not passed, several potential projects earmarked for funding by the commission will not receive their funding. In addition, any extra funds needed by projects such as the Eden project to ensure their successful completion would not be available from the commission.
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth: May I take the Secretary of State back to the question posed by his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Medway (Mr. Marshall-Andrews)? Is not the right hon. Gentleman being needlessly coy about the value to the commission of the Legacy deal, if it goes ahead, given that a precedent was set by the Nomura transaction? If memory serves correctly, that transaction was to be worth about £105 million and the commission was to receive £40 million from that. Would it not be sensible to apply the same proportions in the case of Legacy?
  Mr. Smith: We are talking about a deal that has not yet been concluded, figures that have not yet been finalised, and decommissioning costs that remain the subject of discussion and detailed analysis, so I cannot answer the hon. Gentleman in the specific fashion that he requires. However, I can say that the principle on which any such arrangement is likely to be based is that some funds will return to the New Millennium Experience Company and, through it, to the commission, and some funds will return to English Partnerships. Given the yet unresolved final nature of any such deal, I cannot give exact figures.
  Mr. David Maclean: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Smith: No. I must make some progress.
  Much of the increase that is before us is required to make good the undertaking by this and the previous Administration that the Millennium Commission's other
  144
  programmes should not be affected by grants to the dome. Without the order, there would be a hole in the commission's budget plans due to the grants made to the dome. The order repairs that hole and ensures that the commission's other programmes do not suffer. In other words, some of the additional money is a consequence of the dome, but it is not for the dome. It is to make good the money that the commission has already agreed to pay to the dome so that the commission can carry out all its other non-dome related activities, which are the vast bulk of its work.
  I can assure the House that particularly in the light of NMEC's improved financial position, we do not intend any additional money to be provided to the dome. I can confirm that none of the additional money provided in the order beyond that already reported to Parliament will be paid to NMEC or any other body that may become responsible for the millennium dome.
  11.41 pm
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth: The debate will not be followed by a debate, except for a deferred vote. The Opposition are opposed to splitting debates from the votes that should naturally follow them.
  The Secretary of State has his customary look of being rather pleased with himself written all over his face. He has no right to he pleased with himself, because the order represents a humiliating admission of failure. In retrospect, it was prudent of the previous Administration, in which my right hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine), whom I am pleased to see in his place, played a distinguished part, to put in place a mechanism for protecting the interests of the Millennium Commission and its projects in the event of the dome failing. However, nobody could have believed that under this Government that failure would be such a huge and appalling disgrace, with such enormous repercussions for other worthwhile causes.
  The public are rightly angered by the Government's handling of the dome project and by the hundreds of millions of pounds of overspending and waste that it represents. It became clear early this year that the dome was not financially viable, yet the Government and the company insisted that the entire project was a great success. I shall remind the House of the figures that lie behind the need for the order.
  The original contribution from the national lottery to the dome was £399 million. To that, in the autumn of last year, was added £50 million of supposedly repayable contingency funding. Will the money ever be repaid? In February, the dome received a further £60 million, again ostensibly repayable. Will that money ever be repaid? In May, yet further money was poured into the dome—£29 million. In August and September, further sums of £43 million and £47 million respectively were sunk in the project. Will any of this money ever be repaid?
  There came a point when not even the Government could spin the dome as anything but a dome and a drain on the national lottery. What did they do? They started to blame other people. Everybody was responsible but them, and to incompetence they then added cowardice. It remains a matter of lasting shame on the Government that no Minister, not even Lord Falconer, has seen fit to do the honourable thing and resign. However, not even Lord Falconer's resignation, richly deserved though it might be,

  145
  could bring back the millions of pounds that have been flushed down the project—so we have the order before us tonight.
  Parliament was not, of course, asked to approve any of the additional grants to the dome. We had no say in that, but we in the Opposition have made our views known. It was wrong, and everyone, including Ministers, knew that it was wrong to continue to bail out the dome. That was done for the worst possible reason: it was done for expediency.
  Mr. Chris Smith: Will the hon. Gentleman therefore answer this question: if he had been faced with the advice that we were given at the time, that the choice was between making an additional grant to the dome or incurring far greater expenditure to the public purse by pulling the plug at that stage, which decision would he have taken?
  Mr. Ainsworth: Once the full information about the project is available, which it is not yet, we may be in a better position to consider that question. On two occasions the Millennium Commission's accounting officer advised not giving the dome more money, on the ground that it would not be a prudent use of public funds, and on two occasions the Secretary of State had him overruled. That does not say much for the right hon. Gentleman's prudence.
  Mr. Maclean: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. By this year, when the dome was making a loss, that was because of the Government's interference since the election, particularly by the right hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson). They filled the dome with Labour-inspired ideas which the public did not want to come and see. If they had put proper stuff in it, the dome might have been a success.
  Mr. Ainsworth: My right hon. Friend is exactly right, but I am sure that at this time of night Mr. Deputy Speaker would not want me to be tempted down a route that may not be strictly relevant to the order. If the dome had had anything halfway decent in it, it would not have been the financial disaster that it became. If it had had halfway decent financial management, the problem of low visitor numbers would have been considerably mitigated.
  The dome was bailed out for reasons of political expediency. It was done to save the Prime Minister's face. The project which the Prime Minister described as
  the first paragraph of my next election manifesto
  had become so closely allied to the image of new Labour that new Labour could not afford its demise.
  If the Secretary of State thinks that he can claim any credit, except perhaps from the Prime Minister, for wasting hundreds of millions of pounds on political expediency, he can think again. The money spent on the dome will never be seen again. It has gone for ever. It is possible that some may be recouped by the proceeds of the sale of the dome, but not enough.
  Having bungled the operation of the dome, Ministers are bungling the disposal of the site. When Nomura pulled out of its deal last September, an opportunity existed to open up the future of the dome to a new competition designed to maximise any payback of commission funds
  146
  and raise additional sums for regeneration. Instead, the Government stubbornly returned to exclusive discussions with a bidder that they had previously rejected.
  Again, the Government are being driven by expediency. They want the dome off their books before the general election. Ministers have refused to deny reports that Government advisers have said that, without the dome, the site could be worth a further £300 million. That would be enough to pay back the lottery good causes. It would be enough to obviate the need for the order, and leave some to spare.
  It is clear that major doubts exist about the viability of the proposed sale to Legacy. The hon. and learned Member for Medway (Mr. Marshall-Andrews) made a valiant stab at trying to get the information that we have been trying to get for weeks about the status of the Legacy deal and what it might mean for Millennium Commission funds. I do not know, and I do not know whether the Secretary of State knows, whether the present discussions with Legacy will lead to a deal. Ministers have been curiously vague about that.
  The attempt to stitch up a cosy deal with Legacy before the general election may yet fall through. Given the Government's pig-headed approach to the disposal and future use of the dome, it is not possible to factor any future sale proceeds into calculations about the overall cost of the dome to the lottery.
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) made an important point and attempted to get to the bottom of what, precisely, the order is about. I am grateful to the Secretary of State for repeating the assurance of Lord McIntosh of Haringey, who said in another place:
  none of the additional money provided for in this order … will be paid to NMEC or to any other body which may have responsibility for the Millennium Dome.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 14 December 2000; Vol. 620, c. 512.]
  I am not only grateful for the Secretary of State's unequivocal assurance, but extremely relieved to have it. I assure him that we shall hold him to it. I say again, as I have often said before, that not another penny must be spent on that failed project.
  It is a great pity that the Government have come to share that view only in December, when they had the option and opportunity to stop the rot in February, May, August and September. The dome will cast a long shadow over the Government, but Conservative Members do not want it to blight other millennium projects. The vast bulk of the additional millennium money—£198 million worth—that will become available as a result of tonight's order is attributable to the dome. That is the scale of the outrage. A sum of £198 million is attributable to the dome, but will not be spent on it. It will be spent on other projects whose funds have been hijacked by the dome.
  I note what the Secretary of State said about £30 million—a large sum—being set aside for other commission projects. However, I should be grateful if, in her closing remarks, the Minister for Tourism, Film and Broadcasting told the House which projects funded by the Millennium Commission are likely to need extra lottery funding over and above their agreed budgets. Will she comment on the thought that those projects are finding it difficult to obtain the sponsorship money that they need to complete because of the problems associated with the dome and the fact that the Government have managed to give even the millennium a bad name?

  147
  The House will also wish to know on what basis spending £6.5 million on fireworks for the coming new year's eve is reckoned to represent good value for a good cause.
  Mr. Maclean: That is the second chapter of the manifesto.
  Mr. Ainsworth: It is certainly not in Ken Livingstone's manifesto.
  I am happy to endorse the funding for science centres which, I very much hope, will create places of lasting educational value. It seems perverse to spend a quarter of the amount allocated to science centres on a single night's partying. This is an unhappy occasion and Ministers should be ashamed of themselves. They should be ashamed of the way in which they have handled the dome, of the waste and of creeping in here late at night to debate this sad order.
  11.53 pm
  Mr. Robert Marshall-Andrews: I shall be brief, given the time and the hour. We are here to debate whether the House should breathe new life into the Millennium Commission, which is a creature of statute and unique in many ways. However, in legal terms, it is no better and no worse than trustees. We are therefore talking about a board of trustees. It is not the Government; indeed, several trustees who sit on the commission are not Government Members. The right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) is here—I hope that he will speak later, perhaps in defence of the commission—and he is a member of the board.
  We are here to consider whether the House is justified, given what has occurred over the past year, in placing its confidence in the same board of trustees as has held the stewardship of the Millennium Commission in that period. I suggest that it is not, and that the way the board of trustees has conducted its affairs in the past year should mean that it forfeits the confidence of the House.
  When we vote on Wednesday, we will cling to nurse for fear of finding something worse. However, even if we vote to end the board's existence, my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, North (Mr. Rapson) can rest in peace about the project in his constituency. The answer that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave him was plumb wrong. Even if we got rid of the board, the money in the trust fund would continue to exist, the law would take its course, and other trustees would have the responsibility for administering it. My hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, North can therefore relax.
  An aggregate vote in early-day motions over the past year totals hundreds of hon. Members who, whatever their political complexion, have expressed time and again their abhorrence at the hundreds of millions of pounds that have been leached out of the Millennium Commission. It is a privilege to serve on the commission. There are few pleasures so great as giving away money. If it is not one's own money, the pleasure is lessened; none the less, it is a great privilege and pleasure to be charged with the stewardship of £2 billion to donate for the public good and according to the public will. However, it is not difficult. All one has to do is to examine a project and
  148
  decide whether it provides best value for the money. In charitable terms, best value is simply defined. It means that it inures the public good to the value of the money that is being spent. If one is voting millions of pounds, on every occasion, one asks whether the project fulfils that criterion.
  I do not agree with the censure of the hon. Member for East Surrey (Mr. Ainsworth). My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State had every right to come to the House and look happy and self-satisfied when he arrived. I could not see whether he did, but he was justified in doing so. Most of what has come from the Millennium Commission is a joy beyond telling. I sometimes drive past the new botanical gardens in Wales. They are a joy—in learning, scholarship and entertainment.
  Although we have every right and duty to praise, we also have a right and duty to criticise and indict when it is clear that hundreds of millions of pounds have been used not for the public good, but to purchase the political and commercial debt of Government. That has happened in the case of the millennium dome. It is worth re-examining the dome's history to provide a short chronology.
  It is clear from the auditor's report that, as we all knew, the dome was commercially unviable by the beginning of the year. By February, it was clear that it was trading insolvently, and thus illegally under insolvency legislation. My right hon. Friend wrote to Charles Falconer to tell him that the dome was trading insolvently. At that time, £60 million was donated to the company. It was difficult to criticise because there was reason to suppose that granting the extra money, on top of the £449 million, was just sustainable. However, that did not apply in May, when £29 million was given directly to the New Millennium Experience Company after the PricewaterhouseCoopers report.
  The PricewaterhouseCoopers report starts with this stark sentence:
  The company is insolvent. This will be a matter of concern to the directors.
  I have dabbled at the edge of commercial jurisprudence and can tell you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that I have never seen an accountant's report so stark in its conclusion. The Millennium Commission gave that completely insolvent company £29 million of public money and subsequently gave it a further £90 million of public money, without hope of redress or reward. Why? I suggest that the answer is to be found buried in the middle of the auditor's report.
  That report is clear that, on 22 June, the NMEC directors went to the Government to demand an indemnity. They did so because they knew that they were trading illegally, and the Government gave it to them. I did not know that; the House did not know it. That was not revealed, to my knowledge, until we received the auditor's report. At that point, because of that indemnity, the Government, and nobody else, were liable for the company's debts. If the company, which had been trading since January 2000, had gone into liquidation, the Government would have been responsible the minute that indemnity was given.
  Mr. Michael Heseltine: Do I understand the hon. and learned Gentleman to be saying that the Government gave the NMEC directors an indemnity that public money would be put behind their undertaking?
  Mr. Marshall-Andrews: That is absolutely, and with precision, what I am saying.
  Mr. Heseltine indicated dissent.
  Mr. Marshall-Andrews: I have the letter here, because I asked for a copy and my hon. Friend the Minister for Tourism, Film and Broadcasting was good enough to give one to me. The right hon. Gentleman reacts with shock, but I am sure that he would have done the same had he seen this paragraph. I can tell him what it says:
  In consideration of their continuing to act as directors
  the Government
  will indemnify the directors of NMEC in respect of any personal civil liability—
  I would like my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to listen with particular care to this—
  (including without limitation wrongful trading or similar misfeasance actions by reasons of the company's insolvency)…
  That was the guarantee—the indemnity given to the directors. Without the knowledge of, and without recourse to, the House, the NMEC directors were given by the Government an open-handed, retrospective indemnity against wrongful trading—trading while insolvent—for the millennium dome.
  From that point on, the Government, and nobody else, were liable for the trading of the NMEC. I am appalled that the right hon. Member for Henley did not know that, because when he, with other commissioners, voted £119 million of public funds in May, August and September, he should have known and, indeed, should have been told that what he was paying for—the debt that he was buying—was one owed not by the commission, but by the Government. That is the point that answers what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said.
  Mr. Heseltine indicated dissent.
  Mr. Marshall-Andrews: The right hon. Gentleman will make his own speech soon, and I want to hear what he has to say.
  That answers the point raised continually by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State about the PricewaterhouseCoopers report, which says that we knew in May that the cost of closing the company would be greater than that of keeping it open and subsidising it. I have a question, which I hope will be answered, and I pose it to the right hon. Gentleman and to my right hon. Friend: cost to whom? The commission had no legal liability to bail out the Government—absolutely none at all. The commission is a board of trustees. Its only liability was to its beneficiaries—to the public, not to Government.
  When the accounting officer went to the chairman of the commission and said, "I will require your personal signature before I endorse this," that is precisely what he was saying. He was saying that the commission was acting outside the ambit of its trust: it was buying Government debt and nothing else from May onwards. That is absolutely clear.
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth: The hon. and learned Gentleman touches on an extremely important point. With respect to my right hon. Friend the Member for Henley
  150
  (Mr. Heseltine), I must say that it is not inconceivable that commissioners were not informed of the request for indemnities. It is, however, inconceivable that Lord Falconer was not informed. What has the hon. and learned Gentleman to say about the fact that, giving evidence to the Select Committee in July—a month after the indemnities had been granted—Lord Falconer denied any knowledge of them?
  Mr. Marshall-Andrews: I cannot answer for Lord Falconer. I can only express my surprise that anyone would not have known about the indemnities, so critical were they. Had they not been given, the entire board of NMEC would have resigned. The members of the board knew that they were personally liable, and—well heeled though most of them undoubtedly are—a liability of £200 million-odd would have been more than they would have wished to bear.
  On those indemnities everything then hung. I hope very much that the right hon. Member for Henley will tell us whether he knew of them in May—as a commissioner—at the time he voted, as he must have, for £100 million-odd of public money. If he did not, there was a singular failure on someone's part.
  My right hon. Friend well knows that it gives me no pleasure to speak in these terms. He also knows, as does every Member present—it is an open secret—that he was not in favour of the project at the outset. It landed on his desk, and he has weathered the storm—rightly or wrongly, but that is another matter. Anyway, that is what he has had to do, and storm it has undoubtedly been.
  This has been a sad, sad tale of a lack of public accountability. I shall end my speech now, because the hour is late; but the tale is summed up by something that Charles Falconer said to me, not in private but in public, on a radio programme. When we were talking about the use of the Millennium Commission for payment of the money, he said, "What you must understand is that we treat the Millennium Commission as a bank."
  By virtue of its structure, the Millennium Commission consists of trustees. Trustees are not a bank, and if Members are being asked to continue the life of a bank, they should refuse to do so.
  12.8 am
  Mr. Robert Maclennan: The debate has taken a somewhat wider turn that might have been expected, although I suppose that Conservative Front Benchers will miss no opportunity to discuss the fate of the dome.
  There have been extensive discussions, which will doubtless continue; but I think that this modest proposal to extend the life of the Millennium Commission until 20 August is entirely justifiable, in the terms advanced by the then Government when they anticipated that this might well have to happen. The then Secretary of State made it plain that contingencies would result if the life of the Millennium Commission and its funding were extended.
  Notwithstanding what the Secretary of State said about the dome's indirect impact on the Millennium Commission's finances, there is considerable justification for allowing the work that the commission has begun on several other projects to be properly completed. If fault there is in the management of the dome project, it would

  151
  be unfortunate if the fallout were to damage those projects irreparably. They are of a scale of expenditure that is all together different from that encompassed by the expenditure on the dome. They are modest in total and should have the support of the House in principle. It should allow the order to go through without opposition.
  12.11 am
  Mr. Michael Heseltine: I start by declaring an interest as a millennium commissioner. Indeed, I was one of the original millennium commissioners, with my right hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke).
  When we came to deal with the problems of financing the dome and with the decision to set up a public body to organise the arrangements, NMEC's directors asked questions as to their liabilities. Without being specific about the date, which is secondary to the substantive issue, the hypothesis was put to me as the Minister most immediately responsible: what happens if we are faced with a serious financial situation? Self-evidently, no member of the public will accept Government-organised directorships if there is a risk that they personally would carry a liability if the project failed. We would never be able to recruit citizens to public bodies if they had to put their personal resources at stake.
  At that time, it looked as though we had reached the point at which the project itself was at serious risk because the one absolutely clear decision that the previous Government took and that the present Government have maintained is that there would be no public money in the project; there would be no taxpayers' money ever in the project. Faced with that question by the NMEC directors, I personally devised the arrangement that the Secretary of State has outlined: in the event of the dome producing a negative financial situation, the life of the commission would be extended by order to finance any uncosted deficit that might arise.
  Therefore, I know how it happened. I personally designed the arrangement. It was designed to deal with a contingency that none of us believed would arise, but that hypothetically had to be addressed. Sadly, as we have said in earlier debates, the financial position of the dome worked out very differently from the way we had hoped, but we had put in place the arrangements that we are discussing today.
  As a millennium commissioner, it is incumbent on me to make it clear that I will vote for the extension of the order. How could I do anything other than that, having designed the arrangement to deal with the very contingency that we are now discussing?
  I tell my hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey (Mr. Ainsworth) that I have spent many years—although not many more now—in this place, but I have never yet been characterised as one who spends his time trying to make life easy for Labour Members and their activities. However, in that particular context, if I have failed in the high standards that I have set myself as a Conservative Member, I offer my profound apologies to my Front-Bench colleagues. I did not realise that, in the many months in which we have wrestled with the dome issue, particularly in recent years, I was writing the Labour party's next manifesto or bailing out the fortunes of this or that Minister in the current Government.
  152
  If that is the way in which the Millennium Commission's decision-making process is seen, I can only say that that is not how we interpreted the process. Without wishing in any way to trespass on the good will of my fellow commissioners, I think that one or two of them might find it marginally surprising to learn that the deliberations in which they have been conducting themselves were designed to help the Government's fortunes. I am thinking, particularly of my noble Friend Lord Glentoran, who is a Conservative Front Bencher in the House of Lords and has been a distinguished commissioner for as long as I have. I think that he, too, would be marginally surprised if it were reported to him—I am sure that he will read the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey—that he was acting for the motives that have been suggested.
  The circumstances were not those that we sought, but they had to be dealt with. I tell the hon. and learned Member for Medway (Mr. Marshall-Andrews) that I do not think that, faced with the circumstances facing us, any hon. Member would have taken the simplistic decision to close the dome. We had invested hundreds of millions of pounds in a project that, at that time—I will be the first to say it—was beginning to show troubles. However, considerations in closing the dome would have included enormous potential debts and unquantified legal actions. None of us could have known where the matter would have ended, what the courts would have determined and what writs would have been issued.
  I am not talking only about the simplistic issue of the creditors who would have queued up for their money. Presumably, the hon. and learned Member for Medway was implying in his speech that the creditors should go hang and that, if the dome had closed, all those who believed that it was in some way a public organisation would have been told that they had just got it wrong. It would have been explained to them, "Bad luck, old boy." The staff who would have had to be made redundant would not have been paid. Presumably that is what was in the mind of the hon. and learned Gentleman.
  From the hon. and learned Gentleman's very erudite speech, I suspect that he knows that one cannot pick and choose which creditors one supports. One either stands behind a project or one does not. It is incalculable where the project would have ended up. It is perfectly true that the Millennium Commission's accounting officer did say to us that there were not value for money grounds on which we could justify the project's continuation. However, at the same time, he very clearly said that there were other grounds on which we could justify continued support for the project. One of those grounds—for me, the overwhelmingly most important one—was regeneration of the Greenwich peninsula.
  Mr. Marshall-Andrews: The right hon. Gentleman has addressed various issues that I raised. Just now, he said that the accountant said that there were other grounds to support the project, such as rejuvenation of the Greenwich peninsula. However, he is simply wrong about that. He is totally, 100 per cent. wrong about that. The accountant said—I have read the report—that, in May, that justification was no longer tenable because all the benefit of rejuvenation had already been realised. That is what he said to the chairman. I would like the right hon. Gentleman to check that point because he is wrong.

  153
  The right hon. Member for Henley says that I have implied that the creditors should go hang. I am sure that that is not a deliberate misinterpretation of what I said, but it is certainly a clear one. I have said in the clearest possible terms that it was absolutely clear to anyone looking at this matter that the liability was the Government's, not the commissioners'. With great respect to the right hon. Gentleman, he had been, but was no longer, a member of the Government; he was a commissioner, with all the duties of a commissioner.
  Mr. Heseltine: I have not been given legal advice on this, but I understand that the Government would have said two things. First, all directors of such public bodies have such an underwritten assurance, which is within normal practice. Secondly, in any assurance that the Government gave about the underpinning of the organisation, they were merely resting upon the assurance that I had first given to the Millennium Commission that the Government would use their powers to extend the life of the commission and therefore its access to lottery funding. It was on that basis that the Government were able to give assurances about the cash flow requirements of the dome. That is how I would imagine the present Government would have seen the situation, because that is how I would have seen it had I been in that situation—knowing that the Chancellor of the Exchequer under the previous Government and this one had an iron rule that no public money was to flow.
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth: If such a blanket cover existed on behalf of the directors, why does my right hon. Friend think that they went to the Government in May to seek personal indemnities against any action for unlawful trading?
  Mr. Heseltine: I cannot know; I am not and never have been a director, and I did not talk to the directors about any anxieties that they may have had. I cannot answer that interesting question from my hon. Friend; it is not my responsibility to do so. However, a director in circumstances where hypothetical contingencies are becoming of greater concern every day is bound to ask such questions not only of his lawyers, but of the Government of the day. These questions are more for the Secretary of State than for me; this matter did not have to be addressed by the Millennium Commission.
  Mr. Chris Smith: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the accounting officer of the Millennium Commission said to the commissioners, in terms, that although his precise advice was that the grant under consideration was not value for money, none the less there were other material factors that commissioners could and indeed should take into account in making any decision? Has not he subsequently confirmed that had he personally been a commissioner making that decision, he would have made the same decision as the commissioners?
  Mr. Heseltine: The Secretary of State reinforces my point, which the hon. and learned Member for Medway sought to challenge. There is not the slightest doubt that on one of the earlier occasions when we gave additional funding to the dome project, the accounting officer gave us advice that the funding was not value for money in the narrow sense, but was totally justifiable in the wider sense
  154
  of the regeneration of the Greenwich peninsula. I remember that clearly. There were other circumstances later in which different advice was given. However, there was always a clear option for the Millennium Commission to take a wide perspective as to its responsibilities and ambitions for the project. It was always within that context that we preserved the legal base on which we took our decisions.
  We all know that the dome project has not worked out in the way we hoped, or originally conceived and planned. However, I do not believe that there was a time when a responsible Millennium Commission would have closed the project down. If we had ever done so, no one knows what costs might have been incurred on the project. My experience in government tells me that it is as near unthinkable as any practical policy is for a Government organisation to close down and let the creditors and employees go hang. That would have been a wholly unacceptable decision, and I am delighted that the Millennium Commission refused to take it.
  12.25 am
  Mr. David Maclean: May I say how pleased we are to see the Secretary of State here tonight? On nights when the House no longer meets after 10 o'clock, it is refreshing to see a Secretary of State handling an order such as this. We are, unfortunately, used to important measures and Second Readings being dealt with by junior Ministers, and that is an insult to the House. On a motion that is reasonably important but not a mega-issue, to see the Secretary of State here as well as the Minister for Tourism, Film and Broadcasting says a lot for the right hon. Gentleman, and I congratulate him.
  No one could accuse my right hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) of helping to write the Labour party manifesto, or of doing anything, as a Minister or a commissioner, designed to assist the Labour party. He will be as disappointed as everyone else about what happened to his marvellous vision of the dome. It was to be full of the best of British, showing the development of Britain as a nation over the past few hundred years and all the progress in science and technology that we can make in the next millennium. Unfortunately, after 1997, the project was hijacked by the Labour party and the dome was filled with cool Britannia pap. If that had not happened, more people might have been willing to visit it.
  We all saw the press releases and comments in the press from those who inspected what the Government put in the dome. We read about the interference of the right hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson) when he was responsible for the project, and how he contradicted the New Millennium Experience Company and changed his mind. It was not surprising that the number of people going to the dome was drastically below expectation, with the resulting financial consequences for the company.
  I am generally in sympathy with extending the time limit from 31 December, but I do not believe that 20 August is the right date. We need longer—the proposed period is too short for the Millennium Commission to deal with the necessary issues.
  The Secretary of State rightly pointed out that some projects are behind schedule and new problems are arising daily, requiring the Millennium Commission to continue in existence for some time and allocate more funds to deal with those problems. He mentioned the Eden project

  155
  which, he seemed to suggest, was somewhere in Devon or Cornwall. We know a bit about Eden up in Cumbria, given that that is where the River Eden is. I know that I cannot get a reply to this point tonight because I did not anticipate Eden being mentioned or that I would make a constituency point. However, I should be grateful if the Secretary of State and the Minister would look carefully at the problems experienced in Carlisle by a project called Hadrian's bridge, to go across the River Eden. We may need considerably longer than the 20 August in which to sort out the problem.
  I am not making a blatantly political point, but the problem is that the previous Labour council—perhaps because of the constraints to get contracts signed in time and the pressures that it was put under by the Millennium Commission—signed agreements for various projects in Carlisle, one of which was a bridge across the River Eden.
  Mr. Chris Smith: The project was discussed at the last meeting of the Millennium Commission. We await with great interest and sympathy proposals from Carlisle city council for Hadrian's bridge.
  I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that the date of 20 August applies not to decisions taken by the Millennium Commission but only to the flow of funds into the Millennium Commission from the national lottery distribution fund. The flow of funds ceases on 20 August, but the commission stays very much in being.
  Mr. Maclean: I am grateful to the Secretary of State. I was not being misleading—I suggest to him that the date should be later because I want more funds to be allocated for some special projects.
  I am grateful for the right hon. Gentleman's comments on Hadrian's bridge. There were problems: the previous Labour council let the contracts before the local government elections; there was pressure from the Millennium Commission; and the bids for the bridge proved grossly inaccurate, even though the structural engineers—with the best will in the world—thought that they were accurate. The new council faces the problem that the river is extremely sandy at that point, and the engineers suggest that the bill for installing deeper pilings to hold up the bridge will be at least £1 million.
  I do not want to go into more detail on the matter, but I flag it up for Ministers and suggest that, when proposals are received from the Conservative council in Carlisle, they recognise that the council is wrestling with that inherited problem—that is as political as I shall be. The new costs are grossly in excess of the original estimates made by the previous Labour council and accepted by the Conservatives when they came into power. In those circumstances—the speed with which the Labour council felt that it had to move and the new costs that have been incurred—I hope that Ministers will consider the proposals carefully.
  I am interested in the fact that the Millennium Commission concluded that it is legitimate for a trust fund to be set up to deal with the future refurbishment and repair of the science projects. If it is legitimate to set up a trust fund for the on-going maintenance of certain
  156
  projects, why would it not be in order to do so for the on-going maintenance of other projects? If it is legitimate to spend—
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Sylvia Heal): Order. The right hon. Gentleman is going a little wide of the motion.
  Mr. Maclean: I take your criticism, Madam Deputy Speaker. It was the Secretary of State who raised the issue of trust funds for science projects—I see the right hon. Gentleman nodding. However, although he may have gone down the wrong route—I do not want to follow him and earn your wrath, Madam Deputy Speaker—my point is directly relevant to the date. If 20 August has been specified and if the Millennium Commission has decided to spend money on trust funds for science projects, I suggest that, on the same principle, it would be perfectly legitimate to set up trust funds for other projects. That would require additional money and the date of 20 August would need to be set back, so that additional money could go to the Millennium Commission to be allocated.
  Similarly, if it is legitimate to spend £6 million not on a capital project, but on a big fireworks display for the millennium, surely it would be legitimate to pick up some of the running costs of some of the projects that have already been funded. I realise that, according to the original plan, only capital costs would be covered, but if we can have trust funds for future refurbishment, surely it is sensible to set up such funds to deal with the running costs of some of the millennium projects that are sitting empty—they are white elephants.
  Is it not true that a pop music museum in Sheffield is a complete economic disaster? That is not the fault of the Government, nor of the Millennium Commission—probably—but the fault of over-optimistic financial guidelines.
  Mr. Chris Smith: I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that the national centre for popular music in Sheffield has nothing whatever to do with the Millennium Commission.
  Mr. Maclean: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for that correction; perhaps I picked the wrong example. If the Secretary of State can assure me that every capital project funded by the Millennium Commission is still working properly and does not have problems with running costs, I shall completely withdraw my suggestion. However, is it not true that numerous millennium projects are experiencing dire running cost problems? That is not the fault of the commission or of the Government; it is due to the over-optimistic claims of those who designed the projects in the first place. Are we to leave those projects empty and do nothing with them?
  I suggest that the deadline of 20 August should be extended for at least another year, possibly until 30 December 2002, so that extra funds can be put in and the projects do not become white elephants. The Millennium Commission could set up a new trust fund to deal with the running costs.
  Mr. Eric Forth: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Maclean: Yes, I shall happily give way to my right hon. Friend, but then I want to conclude my speech.
  Mr. Forth: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, as the order is not amendable in any way, we have the

  157
  difficult choice of whether to support it in full as it is, or vote against it because the date is too early, or should not be there at all? Is that not the unenviable decision that we regrettably have to make?
  Mr. Maclean: My right hon. Friend is right. Some Opposition Members may wish to vote against the order because they totally oppose the Millennium Commission's continuing one minute beyond 31 December. I may have severe criticisms of some of the decisions made by the commission, and of some of the projects that have been funded, but some very good projects have also been funded. In my constituency, we now have one of the best village halls in the country, and we are grateful for the £70,000 that the Millennium Commission gave towards it. It is one of the best bargains, and one of the best-constructed buildings, in the country.
  I am in favour of the commission's continuing, and also in favour of the order—except that it does not go far enough. I therefore intend to vote against it, so that the Government can replace it with an order to extend the period slightly and allow sufficient funds to be provided to deal with some of the problems that I have mentioned.
  12.36 am
  Mr. Peter Brooke: I shall be brief, and I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) for having finished speaking when he did. I declare the briefest interest as a former chairman of the Millennium Commission; it was a great pleasure to serve on that commission with my right hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine). The one contribution that I may have made was to help advise the then Prime Minister on its membership. I congratulate my successors who served on the commission on a series of striking successes, which it helped to choose, support and sustain.
  The hon. and learned Member for Medway (Mr. Marshall-Andrews) asked about Legacy, and I congratulate the Secretary of State on the cautious words with which he responded, particularly in the context of the principle of the preferred bidder. I recall that that principle also appeared in connection with the letting of the new lottery contract—and, on the whole, it is a pretty dangerous concept to work with. The Secretary of State was prudent to use such cautious language.
  During the imbroglio that we discussed in the earlier part of the debate, I asked the right hon. Gentleman an oral question about what the money that was lent to the New Millennium Experience Company would have been spent on if that loan had not been made available. In other words, would some projects go unfinanced simply because the money had been distributed? The Secretary of State gave me the reassuring answer that, to the best of his knowledge, none of the commission's other plans would be affected.
  However, my hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey (Mr. Ainsworth) has implied that some other plans were affected by the porousness of the dome's finances. Frankly, that is now a matter initially, possibly, for the Comptroller and Auditor General, and subsequently for historians. I do not propose to probe it further this evening.
  I have one elegiac question to ask the Secretary of State in his present capacity as the chairman of the Millennium Commission, which will probably be answered by the
  158
  Minister for Tourism, Film and Broadcasting when she winds up. It is about what will happen to the programme of bursaries after 20 August 2001. The bursary scheme has always seemed an admirable programme, which my right hon. Friend the Member for Henley and I can remember discussing as long ago as 1994. In my view, the benefits of the programme are exemplified by the designer of coracles in County Down, who, as I recall, was one of the guests selected to come to the Royal Gallery on new year's eve.
  Will the Minister—or the Secretary of State, who appears to be about to intervene—tell me what the basis for financing the bursaries will be after 20 August next year?
  Mr. Chris Smith: The position is that the commission has made £100 million available for millennium awards, as they are now called, during the current period—the four or five years bestriding the millennium year. That programme is now well under way; many thousands of people have received those awards. However, our intention is that a further £100 million should form an endowment for the future in perpetuity. The income from that endowment will be used to finance similar awards in perpetuity—provided, of course, that the order is passed tonight. If it is not passed tonight, the £100 million endowment will be put in jeopardy.
  Mr. Brooke: If those are the last words that the Secretary of State utters on the order, I am pleased that they were happy and pleasurable, and I am grateful to him for them.
  12.40 am
  Mr. John Greenway: The debate has shown the strength of feeling across the House about the millennium dome's funding, especially the almost £200 million extra that the Millennium Commission has given the dome, which is the cause of the Government's having to introduce the order tonight. Many right hon. and hon. Members feel extremely strongly about that.
  I was interested in the comment of my right hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) —I think that I heard him correctly—that the scale of the failure was not envisaged at the start of the project, although his prudence in ensuring that such a mechanism existed to provide the Millennium Commission with on-going funding has been borne out by events.
  The exchange of views between the hon. and learned Member for Medway (Mr. Marshall-Andrews) and my right hon. Friends will become required reading for those who wish to delve further into the issues relating to the awarding of the extra money to the dome and the extent to which Parliament was not properly informed of what was going on. It would not be unreasonable to suggest that there is reason to doubt whether Parliament would have approved that extra money if we had been asked to grant it under the kind of order that we are debating tonight. Of course it could be argued that matters are made worse by closing down the dome prematurely, but the real issue is that Parliament has never been told the whole truth.
  From what we have heard in this brief debate, we can take it that the serious criticism of the ministerial handling of the millennium dome is justified. As my hon. Friend

  159
  the Member for East Surrey (Mr. Ainsworth) rightly said, no Minister has resigned; no one has seen fit to take responsibility for what has happened. However, the debate is not about awarding more money to the dome; it has already been given the money.
  We welcome the assurance that the dome will not receive any more money, but I should be grateful if the Minister would make it clear in winding up that the promise, if I understand it correctly, is that the dome will receive no more money from the lottery. I want the difference to be made clear. Will it receive no more money from the Government, or is not there a possibility that they will have to underwrite some of the dome's decommissioning costs if a deal, such as that involving Legacy, goes through? That is not the same as saying that there will be no more lottery money. Will the dome be given public money? We certainly read in the newspapers the suggestion that it might be. Money has been earmarked for other worthy projects, and we would like to know in due course which projects will be supported by the £30 million to which the Secretary of State referred.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) spoke of what is happening in his constituency, but the real point about this debate is that we are being asked to replace money that is being filched to support the dome so that other projects will not lose out. Parliament has been placed in an impossible position. To provide more money would add insult to injury, because many parts of Britain think that the dome is a London project. London has already received more than its fair share of Millennium Commission money.
  The regions feel impoverished, and they will feel more so if the order is not accepted. The Government have mismanaged the dome project and the order is proof of that. However, this debate is by no means the final chapter of a very sorry mess. My hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey said that it was a sad order, but we would exacerbate the sadness if other millennium projects failed for lack of money. I therefore urge my right hon. Friends not to vote against the order on Wednesday.
  12.46 am
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Janet Anderson): I thank hon. Members for their contributions to the debate and for staying late to make them. Several points have been made and, although I have little time left, I shall try to respond to as many of them as possible. However, many questions have been answered in the debate.
  I shall briefly remind the House why the order is important. The first point to reiterate is one that has already been made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport. The order is not directly about the dome. None of the additional funding provided in the order, beyond that already reported to Parliament, will be paid out in connection with the dome. However, both this Administration and, as the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) reminded us—it was his proposal initially—the previous Administration gave undertakings to the Millennium Commission that its support for the dome should not damage its other programmes. We continue to believe that that is the correct approach, and that is why we have introduced this order to extend the Millennium Commission's life until 20 August 2001.
  160
  I note that the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) said that he thought that that date was too early. I know the Eden river very well, because my parents used to live in his constituency. Sadly, they never voted for him.
  The order honours the commitment that the commission's existing grant programmes and worthwhile new initiatives should not be damaged by its grants to the dome. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has already outlined some of the programmes that will be made possible by the order.
  In addition to allowing the commission to continue its current programmes—which would be in danger if the order were not approved—the additional resources will enable it to implement some excellent new programmes. For example, £6.5 million will go towards the cost of the new year's eve 2000 celebrations; £10 million will support projects reflecting the achievements and aspiration of black communities in the United Kingdom; and £30 million will be available to support the commission's existing £3 billion programme of projects, many of which are still being completed. As my right hon. Friend said, the funding will enable the commission to ensure that its capital projects have a solid foundation for the future.
  I also remind the House of the exciting opportunities offered by the proposed link between the commission and the Wellcome Trust, which will lever in more money to support science centres. The proposed endowment will enable those centres to maintain their attractiveness as visitor centres and as educational resources.
  The hon. Member for East Surrey knows only too well that Parliament was first made aware of what would happen on 20 January 1997. The then Secretary of State for National Heritage announced that an order would be introduced to extend the funding life of the Millennium Commission to make provision to cover variations from the estimates in the millennium exhibition's business plan without prejudicing the commission's existing grant programme.
  The hon. Gentleman asked whether I could list some of the projects whose funding might be affected if the order is not approved tonight. Some 100 projects are not completed, and it is open to them to apply to the Millennium Commission for funds. I cannot be expected to predict the decisions that the commissioners will make if such applications are made, but there is no doubt that the funding of some projects would be affected.
  I remind the House about the regeneration potential of the dome. It has already created about 5,000 jobs in construction and operation. Taking the peninsula as a whole, about 13,000 people have gained work in the construction and operation of projects. Greenwich council predicts that 30,000 jobs will be created over the next seven years as a direct result of the catalyst created by the dome.
  My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Medway (Mr. Marshall-Andrews) spoke at some length about insolvency and the indemnity that was granted to the directors of the New Millennium Experience Company. I know that he is much more well-versed in legal matters than I am, but the fact that the directors sought an indemnity does not demonstrate that the company was trading while insolvent. The directors reasonably wanted

  161
  to protect themselves, and the right hon. Member for Henley made a point about the difficulties of recruiting people to public bodies.
  The indemnity does not exceed that which is routinely offered to board members of all non-departmental public bodies, in line with Treasury and Cabinet Office guidelines. The Department for Culture, Media and Sport, as sponsor Department, issued the indemnity as NMEC lacks the necessary powers to do so. The indemnity is limited and is offered on the basis that directors have first recourse to an existing commercial policy. The Treasury's advice was that the NMEC indemnity did not need to be separately reported to Parliament as it was covered by a Treasury minute of December 1998 reporting indemnities to all NDPB board members. I hope that that helps to clear up that point.
  162
  I thank the right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Mr. Maclennan) for his measured contribution and his support. I thank the right hon. Member for Henley for his welcome contribution. Like him, I cannot think for a minute that many members of the Millennium Commission would view themselves as friends or supporters of the Labour party. We should remember that the commission is an all-party body. I commend the order to the House.
  Question put:—
  Madam Deputy Speaker: I think the Ayes have it.
  Hon. Members: No.
  Division deferred till Wednesday 20 December, pursuant to Order [7 November 2000].

  National Lottery
  12.53 am
  The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Mr. Chris Smith): I beg to move,
  That the draft Apportionment of Money in the National Lottery Distribution Fund Order 2000, which was laid before this House on 23rd November, in the last Session of Parliament, be approved.
  The previous order extended the funding of the Millennium Commission until 20 August 2001, after which it will receive no more proceeds from the lottery. This order takes up the story from that point, by determining what happens to the commission's share of lottery funding thereafter.
  It has been long-standing Government policy that once the commission's share of lottery income ceases, it should be transferred to the new opportunities fund. The order gives effect to that policy. It provides that immediately after the commission stops receiving new income from lottery proceeds, the new opportunities fund's share of lottery income increases from its present 13⅓ per cent. to 33⅓ per cent. In other words, from 21 August 2001 the new opportunities fund will receive £1 out of every £3 paid into the national lottery distribution fund.
  The creation of the new opportunities fund as a new UK-wide lottery distributor focusing on health, education and the environment reflected the Government's intention to target lottery funding more directly on key areas of social inclusion and disadvantage. The fund has established itself as a major grant maker and developed innovative grant-making practices. It has enabled much needed educational, environmental and health-related initiatives, which would not otherwise be funded, to go ahead. Barely two years on from its creation, the fund is already having an impact on the nation's quality of life. From a healthy living centre for the elderly in Devon to new child care provision where none previously existed in County Tyrone, new opportunities fund money is flowing into projects of great benefit to people and communities.
  A recent survey has confirmed that the public support the targeting of lottery funding on those areas—health, education and the environment—in which the fund distributes grant. When asked to identify the two or three most important areas for lottery funding out of a list of 10, 69 per cent. of respondents identified health, 55 per cent. education and 26 per cent. the environment. More than 2,000 grants have been awarded, many involving large numbers of individual projects. More than —614 million has been allocated to projects. The impact of those grants already includes: child care schemes that will create more than 110,000 new child care places; training in the use of information and communication technologies for more than 160,000 teachers; new cancer equipment in hospitals, and new preventive health services for deprived communities.
  The new opportunities fund's increased income will allow it to target more areas where a real step-change in the quality of people's lives can be achieved. On 6 November, the Government launched the consultation paper "New Opportunities from the Lottery" which proposed a number of new initiatives for the new opportunities fund to fund.
  164
  In summary, those proposals are —750 million for additional sports facilities for schools and wider community use; —50 million for outdoor adventure and other activities for young people; —300 million to boost the fight against heart disease and stroke, to provide extra money for the fund's existing initiative to combat cancer, and to provide palliative care for adults and children with life-threatening and chronic illness; —200 million for the provision of child care places for children aged up to three, with further support for the over-threes, especially in deprived areas; —150 million for a programme of environmental renewal and community regeneration, which would support community regeneration, promote recycling and develop renewable energy sources; and an amount to be provided as small grants for community groups to support local health, education and environment projects.
  The order also fulfils a second purpose. In the event that the Millennium Commission gets more than —2,286.5 million in the period up to 20 August 2001, the order ensures that any additional amount is transferred to the new opportunities fund. In other words, the order acts as a cap on the Millennium Commission's income. I commend it to the House.
  12.58 am
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth: As the Secretary of State says, the effect of the order is to hand over to the Government's new opportunities fund one third of all the national lottery distribution fund from 20 August next year. Although I shall voice concern about the order, I should state at the outset that the Conservatives do not begrudge any of the beneficiaries of the new opportunities fund the money that they have received. Indeed, if after-school projects in my constituency had received the —92,000 that the new opportunities fund has bestowed in Islington, South and Finsbury, instead of nothing, I should be the first to congratulate them. If good causes can be ranked, there is no doubt that most people would rank cancer research above bailing out the dome.
  We are not against funding cancer research, out-of-school activities or environmental projects, and we applaud the fact that the original lottery distributors have already done much in each of these areas. However, we have deep reservations about the new opportunities fund, and we cannot support awarding the fund a third of all the national lottery money. I emphasise again that that is not because we do not care about the projects that the new opportunities fund supports. It is because we do not believe that it is right that the Government should take so direct a hand in the award of lottery money.
  Mr. Chris Smith: I am intrigued as to where the argument is leading the hon. Gentleman. He says that he supports the beneficiaries of new opportunities fund money, but he does not will the means to provide that money to them. Does he support new opportunities fund money going to good causes in health, education and the environment, or not?
  Mr. Ainsworth: If the Secretary of State is patient, he will find out.

  165
  It has been said that the
  lottery should not be seen as providing … money for the Government to distribute—[Official Report, 16 December 1994; Vol. 251, c. 1333.]
  Those were the words of the Minister for Sport, who happens also to have responsibilities for the lottery. It is always pleasant to see the Minister for Tourism, Film and Broadcasting in the Chamber, and perhaps she will explain why the responsible Minister is not present for this important debate about the future of the national lottery. The Minister for Sport said that the lottery was not to be used by the Government to provide extra funding.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major), to whom we owe the existence of the national lottery, recently wrote:
  The Government must not get its sticky paws on any more lottery money … It's not the Government's lottery, it's our national lottery.
  My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. As a result of his introduction of the lottery, many thousands of good causes have benefited. The lottery has been an enormous success and immensely popular. It was established to provide additional funding to areas of life—sport, charities, the historic environment and the arts—that have always tended to be, and probably will always tend to be, at the back of the queue for Exchequer funding.
  The creation of the new opportunities fund has already taken money away from the original good causes, the original lottery beneficiaries, which are under growing pressure to meet demand. As the joint lottery distributors made clear in a recent submission to the Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport, they are already receiving far more applications for lottery funding than they can possibly support. For example, the National Lottery Charities Board can provide only £1 for every £6 requested.
  Since the general election, the Arts Council of England and Sport England have each found themselves with respectively £97 million and £96 million less lottery money to distribute. That is in part a direct consequence of the creation of the new opportunities fund. A similar reduction has taken place at the National Lottery Charities Board and the heritage lottery fund. We know also—it has been recognised on both sides of the House—that charities especially have suffered an impact from the national lottery, and it seems particularly unfair that they should not receive the share of the lottery distribution fund which was originally envisaged for them.
  The new opportunities fund is robbing Peter to pay Paul, where Peter is independent of government and Paul is an agent of government. We believe that if lottery money is to be truly additional to core government spending, it should be independently administered. The order will expand the role of government and extend patronage where we believe that it should be reduced. The introduction of the new opportunities fund has added new bureaucracy to the administration of lottery funds and further needless complications.
  There is considerable overlap between the activities of the new opportunities fund and the activities of other lottery distributors. That is perhaps most visible in sport, but it also applies to the charities and heritage funds which have supported worthwhile schemes in health care, the environment and out-of-school activities. When the Government reviewed their policy on the lottery, it would
  166
  have been possible to expand support for those causes without creating a new Government machine to control the process.
  The establishment of the new opportunities fund had less to do with the causes that it supports than with the Government's desire to expand and to exercise control. We do not approve of that in principle and, given the record of the Secretary of State on the dome, Wembley and the national lottery licence award, we do not approve of it in practice, either.
  The order effectively extends the hand of the Treasury into one third of the lottery. It reduces independence in the distribution of lottery funds and it expands the role of the state. I therefore ask my right hon. and hon. Friends to join me in opposing it.
  Mr. Chris Smith: Will the hon. Gentleman now answer the question that I posed earlier and which he singularly failed to answer in the course of his remarks? Would he scrap the new opportunities fund and thereby deprive its beneficiaries of the funds that they receive, if he got into government?
  Mr. Ainsworth: The right hon. Gentleman clearly has not been listening carefully enough to my remarks; nor have I quite concluded them.
  When I ask my right hon. and hon. Friends to join me in opposing the measure, I anticipate that the Government's spin doctors will, as usual, be hard at work saying that that is an example of heartless Tories being cruel to sick children. Nothing could be further from the truth, and nothing could be more despicable than using the case of vulnerable children for party political advantage. Nothing that I have said tonight can justify such a view. Still less would it justify the cynical exploitation of the vulnerable.
  A Conservative Government would honour all the new opportunities fund's existing commitments and reform the way in which the lottery works to make is less bureaucratic, more independent of Government and more responsive to the aspirations of communities and the needs of vulnerable people throughout the country. The order is symptomatic of a Government who are greedy for the public's money and paranoid about trusting anyone or anything that they cannot control.
  1.7 am
  Mr. Robert Maclennan: I take as my text tonight the words of the Prime Minister, who stated:
  We don't believe it would be right to use Lottery money to pay for things which are the Government's responsibilities.
  Those words have been quoted by the Government on a number of occasions, but seem wholly inconsistent with the intention set out in the order.
  The Secretary of State is aware that my right hon. and hon. Friends and I do not believe that the new opportunities fund should have been established in the way it was, or that it should be re-financed as the Government propose. We do not believe that it should have a third of the total lottery funds.
  Mr. Ainsworth: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. Is it not the case that had he had his way, there would have been no national lottery at all?
  Mr. Maclennan: That is true, and I have repeated it a number of times on the Floor of the House. I am conscious of the regressive nature of the lottery, and I observe that some of the poorest people in the country contribute to it, often evidently unable to afford it and with little prospect of any direct return.
  The lottery was established by the previous Government and supported by the present Government, and is clearly here to stay. I am not about to spit in the wind on that issue of principle, but I do not regard the new opportunities fund as an appropriate use of the resources. If the Secretary of State starts to invoke arguments about where public opinion lies, that suggests that even the money that is retained for the four original causes will be at risk. I doubt whether those people who have been consulted in the manner that he described will have a different view about what is being spent on the arts or sport.
  Mr. Chris Smith: I assure the right hon. Gentleman that we have given a guarantee to the four existing distributors for the arts, sport, heritage and charities that, at the very least, they will continue to receive their current share of the lottery for the duration of its next franchise.
  Mr. Maclennan: Yes, I am aware of that. However, I do not think that the Secretary of State can do that and, at the same time, pray in aid public opinion, as that runs against the evidence that he cited in his opening remarks to our short debate. To be candid, the point of the lottery was to find money for meritorious projects that did not enjoy enough public support for taxpayers' money to be proposed for them by Government or voted for by Parliament. That distortion of the lottery's purpose is unfortunate and it contradicts the Government's intention, as stated by the Prime Minister.
  Before I am asked, I shall answer directly the question, "Do you not approve of the objects that will receive money from the new opportunities fund?" Of course, I approve of them, as they all seem to be meritorious projects. Those that have already benefited from expenditure in the fields of health, education and the environment are all justifiable as objects of taxpayers' expenditure. If they had been put to the taxpayer in the kind of questionnaire that the Minister cited, they would undoubtedly have enjoyed support. Without question, many of them seem to be the direct responsibility of Government. Why, for example, should computer training for teachers be dependent on the largesse of the lottery, as it seems to be at the core of teacher training in the new millennium?
  There are many other examples, such as healthy living centres. Public health and preventive medicine are among the most important central functions of Government and should not be dependent, as they have been, on expenditure from the new opportunities fund. I face squarely the issue of cancer funding. The Government have not shouldered that burden, but I personally attach a great deal of importance to cancer. Perhaps I have an interest to declare, although not a financial one, as I am a member of the council of the Cancer Research Campaign, which had spent £60 million at the last annual count.
  168
  No one could use me of not caring about cancer. That head of expenditure could clearly be described as one that should attract Government responsibility, not simply the vagaries of a lottery.
  Those are not new points for me, or any Liberal Democrat Member, to make, and they reflect our consistent view. I welcome the fact—and this is a modest point—that several proposals emanating from the new opportunities fund appear to have been within the programmes of existing lottery spenders.
  For example, let us consider the £750 million for sports facilities for communities and schools. The redistribution of that money to one of the existing lottery distributors could have been justified as being within the terms of the original lottery pitch. However, that is not true of some of the other sums. I regret that. I do not believe that the body should have been established and I shall encourage my hon. Friends to express our view in the Lobby on Wednesday.
  1.15 am
  Mr. Peter Brooke: In opening the debate, the Secretary of State referred to the Government's long-standing policy on the new opportunities fund and the allocation of resources. Perhaps it is worth outlining the previous Government's intention, which brought the lottery into being.
  The House will recall that the original distribution of percentages in the National Lottery etc. Act 1993 was: arts—20 per cent; heritage—20 per cent; sport—20 per cent; charities—20 per cent; and the Millennium Commission—20 per cent. That distribution was not amended during the measure's passage and it emerged unscathed. The previous Government used those percentages throughout their time in office.
  There was unease during the initial debate on the Bill that introduced the lottery about charities and the lottery's potential effect on their receipts from other sources. The only direct paradigm was the Republic of Ireland, and its experience produced a somewhat variable note. Some charities had no complaints, while others had clearly suffered. No amendment was tabled, but there was pressure to return to the question of how much money charities received when we had more experience of the way in which the lottery worked.
  We included in the Bill the ability of the House to review the five 20 per cent. figures at least once a Parliament. The then Government gave a commitment to effect in secondary legislation the House's preference as expressed in a day-long debate. In the context of the problem of the charities, it was said that the 20 per cent. for the Millennium Commission was available as a reserve that could be diverted to charities. It was therefore conceivable that the charities figure could have increased to 40 per cent.
  Mr. John Greenway: My right hon. Friend is introducing an element to the debate that I find difficult to understand. Is he saying that much of the pressure for support for charities came from the Labour party, which was then the loyal Opposition? If so, is it not incongruous

  169
  that their first act in government in respect of the lottery was to reduce the amount for charities? The Government have made no effort to restore the amount tonight.
  Mr. Brooke: I recall that I gave way approximately 30 times during my speech, which lasted about an hour, on Second Reading. The question of charities was raised during the debate, and continued to be raised in Committee, on Report and on Third Reading. I would be surprised if the question did not reassert itself in another place, given its natural sympathy for charities.
  The Government chose a different course, and their initial trawl of ideas bypassed the House. The Secretary of State has described that course. Consultation, to which the Secretary of State referred, has taken place. It is not surprising that alternative producer interests preferred other uses of lottery money to those that had been enjoyed previously. I personally regret the paring of the allocations of other lottery distributors at an earlier stage to create the initial tranche for the new opportunities fund. That happened prior to tabling the order that we are discussing.
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth: I am extremely grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way —and delighted to see him here. It is only proper that I recognise the important role that he played in establishing the national lottery.
  My right hon. Friend will recall that, as with charities, so with the arts. When the original legislation was passed, there was a great deal of pressure from the arts in particular for lottery money to be additional to, and administered separately from, Government spending. What do the arts make of the establishment of the new opportunities fund and the fact that from August next year, 30 per cent. of all lottery money will be taken by the Government?
  Mr. Brooke: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his kind remarks about the early stags of the lottery's gestation. I have said before in the House that a decent-sized architectural practice could be staffed by those who claim to be the architect of the national lottery. I made no claim other than that I was the master mason, but that was a pleasurable role to fulfil.
  My hon. Friend is right that pleas were made by those supporting others of the distributors to increase the amount, though my judgment that the fivefold 20 per cent. figure would survive turned out to be right, because those who might have amended that figure to make it larger realised that someone else might amend it to make it smaller. He is also right about that concern; indeed, the issue of additionality was fundamental to the original decision that the money should go on capital schemes until we knew how matters would work out, perhaps for the better.
  The consequence of the order is that the new opportunities fund will receive, if my arithmetic is correct, twice as much as any of the other distributors. Additionality is believed in by the Secretary of State, and I pay ready tribute to him for that, though he will recall a particular moment in the House when his then deputy—the right hon. Member for Coatbridge and Chryston (Mr. Clarke) —had no little difficulty in explaining what additionality was, and said that the Secretary of State would tell us an hour or so later.
  170
  I, too, acknowledge the fact that the new opportunities fund is supposed to be in charge of the money that it distributes and to be an arm's-length distributor in the same way as the others, but the then Secretary of State for Health wrote to tell me the specific beneficiaries for cancer treatment in my constituency before the new opportunities fund had written to me on the same subject, which suggested that the Government were using a longish spoon in the distribution of those particular prizes.
  The right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Mr. Maclennan) mentioned information and communications technologies training for school teachers. Capita, which, as I understand it, is bestowing the training in this part of the country, has written to ask me whether I would like to observe it. I have politely responded that I would rather it started to deliver housing benefit to my constituents promptly and accurately before asking me to observe anything else that it seeks to do.
  I have put to the National Lottery Charities Board the question whether the new opportunities fund's concentration on health, education and the environment means that the board will no longer be expected to make grants to charities concerned with health, education and the environment. If that is so—the Minister might care to comment—it will not solve the original problem of the charities almost certainly losing out as a result of the lottery, but it will make a small contribution to doing so. However, it will not take away the support that I offer to my hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey (Mr. Ainsworth) and the right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross in terms of the inappropriateness of that fund's diverting money, which was clearly being used by the then distributors responsibly and additionally to Government expenditure, to the uses to which it is now put.
  1.24 am
  Mr. John Greenway: The order constitutes the most telling evidence yet of the scale of the Labour party's change of attitude to the national lottery between being in opposition and being in government.
  When the lottery was created, Labour spokesmen—then shadow spokesmen—made great play of the need to ensure that the principles of arm's length and additionality were an integral part of the decision-making on the basis of which good causes should be supported. Moreover, as my hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey (Mr. Ainsworth) said, one current Minister at the Department for Culture, Media and Sport—the Minister for Sport—strongly supported the additionality principle.
  Actually, that applies to two Ministers. Back in 1993 the Minister for the Arts, the right hon. Member for Newport, East (Mr. Howarth), expressed strong support for additionality. And—as the right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Mr. Maclennan) reminded us—even on gaining office, the Prime Minister himself reiterated Labour's commitment to additionality, saying that this money should not be spent on matters that were the responsibility of Government.
  The Government increasingly interfere in decisions on lottery funding, demanding that more and more money be ring-fenced for specific projects. More important is the fact that my right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major)—who I think my right hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster

  171
  (Mr. Brooke) would acknowledge was the architect of the lottery, if he was the master mason—said in The Mail on Sunday on 29 October:
  since Labour came to power, they have eyed the lottery pot of gold with avarice. Slice by slice it has sought to control it. It set up NOF"
  —the new opportunities fund—
  under the specific direction of the Government and cut the share of funds to the other good causes.
  The order takes us even further down the road of Government control over lottery spending, by awarding to the new opportunities fund all the current 20 per cent. of lottery funding paid to the Millennium Commission in order to fund projects that have been determined by Ministers. The debate is not about whether the causes that will be supported are worthy—[Interruption.] It is not. It is about whether it is right for at least a third of lottery proceeds to be spent under Government direction, and with the clear involvement of Government Departments.
  Mr. Chris Smith: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Greenway: Just a moment.
  When we debated sport the other day, I asked the Minister for Sport how the £750 million for sport in schools would be spent. We are told that a forum will be established, including the Department for Culture, Media and Sport and the Department for Education and Employment, but not local authorities. There will not even be a bidding process. In other words, Government Departments will determine where the money is spent.
  Mr. Smith: The debate is about whether, after the flow of funds to the Millennium Commission has finished, lottery money should be spent on health, education and the environment. That is the issue, and it would appear that that is what the Opposition are opposing.
  Mr. Greenway: The right hon. Gentleman is wrong. It is about the mechanism, the architecture, of the lottery, not about which individual good causes will be supported.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster explained the original percentages that were awarded to the then five good causes. He expressed regret that the funds paid to those original good causes had been cut, and, in particular, that charities were losing out. My hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey made it clear that we would honour all the commitments made by NOF to the various projects for which funds had been announced. For example, I have already made it clear that we will honour the £750 million for school sports promised by the Prime Minister.
  In his article, my right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon reminded us that sport in schools would be a major beneficiary of the redistribution of Millennium Commission funds. However, the decision about the distribution of such funds should be the decision of Sport England and the three other home country sports councils. They have the necessary expertise. The Government should trust them. As it is, it will be the Government who decide whether that money is spent.
  I come to the Secretary of State's criticism. Arguably, more money for charities, including health charities, could be distributed at arm's length by the National Lottery
  172
  Charities Board, the very body that, as every hon. Member knows, is under greatest pressure from applications for good causes—more applications have been turned down for lack of funding. Is it not interesting that the very body that Labour, when in opposition, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster confirmed, wanted to see as an important fifth good cause—charities—should have been short changed by Labour in office? If the order is passed, it will be short changed not temporarily on the creation of the sixth good cause, but permanently.
  In awarding the entire Millennium Commission funding to NOF, the Government have disregarded the effects of their cut in the funding of the other lottery distribution bodies. The cut in income to the sports lottery fund has already led to many worthy projects being turned down. More to the point, as the vice-chairman of Sport England pointed out in March, applications are being actively discouraged for lack of funds. Projects that would have been rubber stamped two and three years ago will now not be funded.
  It is astonishing that Ministers could ever think that they know best where lottery money should be spent, when their track record in respect of the projects in which they have been involved has been spectacularly unsuccessful. We have already debated the abysmal mismanagement of the dome, the continuing uncertainty over the Wembley project and the likely venue for the World athletics championships in 2005. All those projects share the common curse of ministerial interference.
  The Government came to power promising to create a people's lottery, but they are creating a "Government's lottery". The debate provides a timely opportunity for Parliament to make a stand on the re-establishment of the arm's length and additionality principles. I warn the House that failure to do so will project us further down the slippery slope, leading to a lottery where all the money is spent by Government diktat. Nothing would be more likely to destroy the public's enthusiasm for the national lottery. Decisions on funding should be the preserve of genuinely independent lottery funding bodies, not Ministers. For that reason, we shall oppose the order.
  1.33 am
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Janet Anderson): As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport has explained, the order provides that, after the extension period, all the lottery income that previously went to the Millennium Commission will instead be allocated to the new opportunities fund. He has outlined the many valuable and popular programmes that NOF is carrying out, or has planned. We want that good work to continue; hence the order.
  NOF's increased income will allow it to make a real change in the quality of people's lives. I make no apology for that. Indeed, in the light of some of the comments by those on the Opposition Front Bench, it is important to remind the House what the new NOF initiatives are. There is £750 million for additional sports facilities for schools and wider community use. The hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) has said that the Conservative party, should it ever come to power again—heaven forbid that that should happen—would honour that commitment. However, he has not given us any commitment on the

  173
  other projects, such as £50 million for outdoor adventure and other activities for young people. Would Conservative Members support those projects?
  Would Conservative Members support the use of £300 million to boost the fight against heart disease and stroke, to provide extra money for the fund's current initiative to combat cancer and to provide palliative care for adults and children with life-threatening and chronic illness? What would Conservative Members do about that?
  Mr. Paul Tyler: I am very confused by the Minister's comments. Is she saying that those very worthy objectives which surely should be central to all Government programmes would not be funded if there were not a new opportunities fund? That is the logic of what she is saying. Why is she now advancing a case for lottery funding that was not thought to be relevant or appropriate when the lottery was first established?
  Janet Anderson: I shall deal with the hon. Gentleman's point on additionality in the course of my closing remarks. However, I remind him that all the projects that I am outlining are additional to the extra money that the Government have already put into health and education. Would Opposition Members support the NOF provision of £200 million for child care?
  Mr. Brooke: Is there not a difference between the way in which the lottery was established initially, when distributors were allowed to choose what they spent the money on—admittedly, at the behest of the then Opposition, with a concentration on capital projects—and the way in which, under the current Government, decisions on where money should be spent on health, education or the environment are being taken by the Government as their central focus, so that the new opportunities fund has to decide only how it should spend the money? However, I have to assume from the letter that I received from the Secretary of State for Health that the fund is taking Government advice on that matter, too.
  Janet Anderson: I cannot agree with the right hon. Gentleman. It was stated very clearly in legislation that was passed by a majority of the House that more money would be put into health and education through the new opportunities fund. However, that money is additional to that which the Government are spending already. I shall deal with that point later in my speech
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth: The hon. Lady has asked a load of fatuous questions to which I have already given the answers. She has the misfortune of coming to the House with a prepared speech. Having failed to the listen to the debate, she is now stuck with her speech and asking questions that I have already answered. I have already told the House today that a Conservative Government would honour the existing commitments of the new opportunities fund. Although I am not going to set out in minute detail what Conservative policy might be, I said that we would review the operation of the national lottery. I have also indicated to the House that absolutely nothing has
  174
  prevented the National Lottery Charities Board, for example, from funding exactly the type of projects that we all applaud and support.
  Janet Anderson: If I may, I shall deal with the point about charities later, after I have made some progress. I shall also attempt to answer the hon. Gentleman's questions. However, he has still not told us what Conservative Members, were they ever in a position to take the decision, would do with the new opportunities fund. We have to conclude from some of their statements today that they would scrap it.
  Mr. Ainsworth: The hon. Lady is working herself up into a complete lather about this. She should form no such conclusion. We have, however, said that we would review it. Why on earth does she not listen?
  Janet Anderson: Whatever the hon. Gentleman might decide to do—should he ever be in a position to make a decision, which I think is extremely unlikely—it could probably be aptly described as the no opportunities fund.
  It has been suggested that arts and sports have lost out because of establishment of the new opportunities fund. However, both arts and sports good causes will have received significantly more by the end of the current licence period than was originally projected. That is a fact and it is important to put it on the record.
  As for additionality, although the Government established the new opportunities fund's broad initiatives, NOF reaches its funding decisions independently. Although we have given each initiative a clear focus, enabling the new opportunities fund to provide added value and complement Government and other lottery programmes, NOF is not taking over core responsibilities. It funds specific time-limited initiatives additional to core taxpayer-funded programmes.
  Mr. Ainsworth: Will the Minister give way?
  Janet Anderson: No, I will not. The hon. Gentleman wants his questions answered; perhaps he would be patient and give me an opportunity to do so.
  On healthy living centres, the Government remain committed to the principle of additionality. The new opportunities fund, like the other good causes, should only support initiatives which add to, and do not substitute for, existing Government-funded programmes. Healthy living centres help people to improve their health and well-being. The aim of the centres is to provide advice, information and activities, focusing on health promotion. Healthy living centres do not do things which are properly the responsibility of the national health service and do not undermine existing provision from other sectors.
  The right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Mr. Maclennan) referred to IT training for teachers. The task of training all serving teachers in information and communications technology to bring them up the same standard had never been undertaken before. This is, therefore, a one-off initiative to give existing teachers the necessary skills and ability to operate in the 21st century.
  Mr. Maclennan: Is the Minister really saying that because expenditure had not been embraced by

  175
  the Conservative Government, the Labour Government therefore regard it as not core expenditure? That seems to be carrying imitation of the Conservatives a stage too far.
  Janet Anderson: The right hon. Gentleman must remember that this funding is in addition to all the money that the Government are putting into education. This has never been done before; it is a one-off initiative.
  Mr. Ainsworth: Does the Minister regard cancer screening as a core Government commitment?
  Janet Anderson: I do not know where the hon. Gentleman has been, but I have repeatedly referred to the extra money that the Government are putting into health and education—millions more than the Conservative party did. These initiatives are in addition to that.
  Lottery-funded IT training for teachers does not support the basics of operating the technology, but focuses on helping teachers to use the technology in the classroom to enrich teaching and learning and raise standards. Our commitment to improving initial teacher training, funded from tax revenues, will ensure that new entrants have the necessary skills from the start.
  Comments have been made about charities allegedly losing out as a result of the establishment of the new opportunities fund. The evidence is mixed; some are perhaps losing, but some are gaining. However, I remind the House that the changes introduced on charitable giving by the Chancellor in his Budget will have a more marked effect on income to charities than anything else.
  Mr. Brooke: Does the Minister recall the Finance Bill and Act 1997, which took away from charities a massive amount of money in terms of advance corporation tax—for which I acknowledge the Government are, a long time after, finding some means of making amends?
  Janet Anderson: I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman has welcomed the changes that the Chancellor has introduced in terms of charitable giving to charities. I thank him for his support.
  We have had a very good debate. I am sad that Opposition Members do not feel able to support the order tonight and I am sure that people outside the Chamber will take a message from that. I commend the order to the House.
  Question put—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): I think the Ayes have it.
  Hon. Members: No.
  Division deferred until Wednesday 20 December, pursuant to Order [7 November 2000]

  National Lottery

    DEREGULATION
    Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 18 (1)(a) (Consideration of draft deregulation orders),
    176
    That the draft Dereulation (Sunday Dancing) Order 2000, which was laid before this House on 28th November, be approved.—[Mr. Dowd.]
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: I think the Ayes have it.
    Hon. Members: No.
    Division deferred till Wednesday 20 December, pursuant to Order [7 November 2000].

    SITTINGS IN WESTMINSTER HALL
    Motion made,
    That, following the Order [20th November], Mr. Nicholas Winterton, Mr. John McWilliam, Mr. Barry Jones and Mr. Frank Cook be appointed to act as additional Deputy Speakers at sittings in Westminster Hall during this Session. —[Mr. Dowd.]
    Hon. Members: Object.

    SELECT COMMITTEES (JOINT MEETINGS)
    Motion made,
    That, for the current Session of Parliament, Standing Order No. 152 (Select committees related to government departments) be amended as follows:
    Line 37, before the word 'European' insert the words `Environmental Audit Committee or with the'.—[Mr. Dowd.]
    Hon. Members: Object.

    BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
    Motion made,
    That Private Members' Bills shall have precedence over Government business on 2nd and 9th February, 9th, 16th, 23rd and 30th March, 6th and 27th April, 11th and 18th May, 8th and 15th June and 20th July 2001.—[Mr. Dowd.]
    Hon. Members: Object.

    BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
    Motion made,
    That, at the sitting on Thursday 21st December, the Speaker shall not adjourn the House until he shall have notified the Royal Assent to Acts agreed upon by both Houses.—[Mr. Dowd.]
    Hon. Members: Object.

    HUMAN RIGHTS (JOINT COMMITTEE)
    Motion made,
    That—
    the Lords Message [12th July] communicating a Resolution relating to Human Rights (Joint Committee), be now considered;
    this House concurs with the Lords in the said Resolution; and the following Standing Order be made:
    (1) There shall be a Select Committee, to consist of six Members, to join with the Commttee, appointed by the Lords as the Joint Committee on Human Rights.—[Mr. Dowd.]
    Hon. Members: Object.

    HUMAN RIGHTS
    Motion made,
    That Jean Corston, Mr. Desmond Browne, Mr. Andrew Miller, Mr. Gareth Thomas (Clwyd, West, Sir Patrick Cormack and Mr. A. J. Beith be Members of the Select Committee appointed to join with a Committee of the Lords as the Joint Committee on Human Rights.—[Mr. Dowd.]
    Hon. Members: Object.

  PETITION

    Heswall and West Kirby Fire Stations
    1.45 am
    Mr. Ben Chapman: I beg leave to present a petition organised by residents and businesses of the Wirral who are protected by the fire stations of Heswall and West Kirby. It is signed by 1,962 people who are resolutely opposed to the changes of shift to day manning only at the fire stations at Heswall and West Kirby as proposed by the Merseyside fire authority. The petition is signed in the main by constituents in Wirral, South, but similar views have also been expressed in a petition signed by constituents of my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral, West (Mr. Hesford).
    The petition sheweth
    That it is proposed to change 24-hour manning at Heswall and West Kirby fire stations to day manning only and that the undersigned vigorously oppose the planned manning hour changes at Heswall and West Kirby fire stations in the light of the major and unnecessary risk that property and lives me would be put under if these proposals were to be implemented, given the minimum of four minutes attendance time that would be added.
    The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Secretary of State for the Home Department to reject this proposal by the Merseyside fire authority.
    To lie upon the Table.

  School Swimming
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Dowd.]
  1.46 am
  Valerie Davey: Despite the hour, I am pleased to have the opportunity to continue the debate about the state of swimming education in primary schools and particularly to follow the previous debate on the order which has established further funding for the new opportunities fund, especially the£750 million for school and community sport from which I trust that school swimming will benefit, as it should.
  During my previous Adjournment debate on this subject in June 1999, also in the early hours, I concluded on the basis of information from more than two thirds of local education authorities in England that the resourcing of primary school swimming in terms of time, funding, professional staff and facilities was a matter of serious concern. I also reported, from the same source of evidence, that the percentage of children in school able to swim 25 m varied from 99 per cent. to as low as 28 per cent.
  The then Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment, my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Clarke), stated the Government's belief in the importance of swimming, both for its intrinsic value as a sport and as an essential safety tool that all young people should have. He informed the House that Ofsted was considering a specific survey of swimming in schools which, he hoped, would help to develop a clearer picture of school swimming provision and help the Government to decide what policy steps to take.
  The Ofsted report "Swimming in Key Stage 2", subtitled "An Inspection Report on Standards and Provision", was finally published last month and is available on the Ofsted website. Some 301 schools were inspected in November 1999. I am unclear as to the extent of swimming lessons inspected, as the report says that, where provision took place before the inspection or was planned for, inspectors' judgments were on the basis of evidence from discussions with head teachers and scrutiny of their records. The report also noted that, where a school did not make provision for swimming, this was clearly stated on the inspection record. How many of the 301 schools did not make provision, and why not? How were the children at those schools accounted for in the subsequent statistics on attainment?
  Before turning to the main findings of the report, I want to register my disappointment that only 301 schools were inspected, and apparently no overall survey was made via the local education authorities. By comparison, the joint report into swimming in July this year by the Central Council of Physical Recreation and The Times Educational Supplement contacted 769 schools and found that one in 20 primary schools does not include swimming in the curriculum.
  The Government are to be commended on retaining swimming as a compulsory element of the primary curriculum even when—between September 1998 and September 2000—some relaxation was allowed so as to give priority to the literacy and numeracy strategies. The swimming curriculum includes not only teaching children, by the age of 11, to swim unaided, competently and safely

  179
  for at least 25 m, but helping them to develop confidence in the water and showing them how to rest, float and adopt support positions. Children must learn a variety of means of propulsion—using either arms or legs or both—and to develop effective and efficient swimming strokes on the front and the back, and—importantly—the principles and skills of water safety and survival.
  Those are the requirements, but what is the picture of provision and attainment that emerges from the two recent reports? Both show a sharp decline in the time allocated to swimming. Ofsted states that 50 per cent. of schools report a decline in that time over the past three years—sometimes by as much as half. Three reasons are given. The first is the closure of local pools—especially learning pools—and their replacement by leisure pools that are often not conducive to the formal teaching of swimming. Secondly, there is the impact of the literacy and numeracy strategy and the resulting pressure on the remainder of the curriculum. Thirdly, increased costs are involved—especially for transport. The CCPR-TES report found that more than two in five schools ask for a parental contribution, which can be as much as £3.60 a week.
  That confirms the statement made in July by David Hart of the National Association of Head Teachers. He said:
  We are seeing a deplorable decline in school sport and swimming in particular, largely as a result of the enormous pressure on the core subjects and the pressure on school budgets … children are missing out on swimming which everyone regards as a crucial skill.
  The Ofsted report also documents the worrying diversity in swimming attainment between schools, contrasting especially those in rural areas, where 91 per cent. of children reach the required standard, with those in inner cities, where the figure is 77 per cent. Ofsted found that nearly one in five children, or 17 per cent., could not swim 25 m unaided at key stage 2. That hides the more serious situation for schools in the free school meal band 5, where one in three, or 33 per cent., do not reach that level.
  It is clear that provision of an appropriate swimming programme has not been an entitlement for all; those in the lower social and economic groups are more likely to receive an inadequate schedule. As the Amateur Swimming Association notes, there is a danger that the opportunity to learn to swim will become a privilege for those in higher income groups, while others will be put further at risk as a result of not having the opportunity to develop this essential life skill. That must be of concern to the Government who are so committed to tackling social exclusion.
  A further concern, which I share with Ofsted, is that almost half of all schools make no special provision for children who do not develop sufficient competence in swimming, or who are unlikely to be able to swim, by the end of key stage 2. Ofsted also points to a minority of schools that do not cover the element of the curriculum relating to water safety and survival. Ofsted notes that this is "a worrying omission". It is worrying—especially because the 1999 report of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents showed a 50 per cent. increase in drowning in the under-15 age group; 54 drowned in 1999, compared to 36 in 1998. RoSPA stresses that deaths occur especially among those able to swim, but unable to recognise danger. To make an analogy with cycling,
  180
  learning to cycle for 25,50 or even 100 m is not sufficient to allow a person to venture alone on to the quietest road. Thanks to the Ofsted and CCPR-TES reports, we now have a clearer, albeit still incomplete, picture of swimming in primary schools.
  For the future, however, monitoring needs to be improved. Swimming is part of the national curriculum, and it is not enough to rely on ad hoc reports. Within the regular inspection of primary schools, swimming provision should be documented. With this information, evidence-based comment on swimming standards can then be made by Her Majesty's chief inspector in the annual report.
  Monitoring, however accurate, does not in itself improve anything. The Government must now decide what action to take. The priorities remain the same: the availability of time, funding, trained staff and facilities to ensure that all children have the opportunity to learn to swim.
  The Ofsted report shows a clear correlation between the time allocated to swimming in the curriculum and the standards achieved by pupils. At present, there are no guidelines on how much time should be spent in the pool at key stages 1 and 2, and I recommend that some guidelines should be drawn up, requiring, as recommended by the Amateur Swimming Association, that at least two terms at key stage 1 or 2 should include swimming tuition.
  Resources should be earmarked to provide lessons, and more intensive courses, outside school hours or during school holidays for children who are unable to swim to the required standard. As swimming is not a requirement within the secondary school curriculum, there is no obligation to follow up non-swimmers.
  I pay tribute to the qualified teachers and instructors at primary and secondary school level, at swimming clubs such as AquaPlan in Bristol and in voluntary youth groups, for it is their skill and commitment that give many children a level of proficiency which, as is not the case in many other sports, they can enjoy and benefit from for the rest of their lives, into old age.
  I thank BT again for the£0.5 million that it has contributed towards training primary school teachers. I trust that, given its proven value, that training programme will be supported with further Government funding. I also urge that swimming training be reintroduced into initial teacher training courses, to include the effective teaching of water safety as well as the teaching and development of swimming itself.
  Within schools, funding has to be improved and ring-fenced, so that a parental contribution is not necessary. With an ever-increasing proportion of funding delegated to schools, the disparity in the cost of swimming needs to be reflected. For example, of the 90 schools using local authority pools in Bristol, in 19 cases the children can walk to the pool, and in the rest transport is needed, but with differing journey lengths.
  Mention of pools brings me to the most urgent and costly of the requirements to improve swimming standards at every level. The Sydney Olympic games highlighted the fact that there has been chronic underfunding in swimming infrastructure over many years. It was revealed that there are only 19 Olympic-size pools in Britain. The Australian state of Queensland alone has more such pools than the whole of the United

  181
  Kingdom—and for the first time since 1936 our Olympic swimmers came home with no medals. Investment in swimming is a long-term requirement and necessity.
  The situation in Bristol is probably reflected in other cities. Of the eight main local authority pools, one was built in the early 1920s, four in the 1930s, two in the 1960s, and the most recent in 1974. The city council is beginning to address that issue, and last September it set up a citizens jury. The jury did not make detailed recommendations, but it produced a useful list of principles for improving swimming facilities. In summary, members stated that future provision had to attract new swimmers, ensure access and inclusiveness in the widest sense—that includes meeting the needs of disabled swimmers—guarantee future viability, and invest in young people.
  Bristol councillors are now drawing up proposals to link swimming pools to other sporting and leisure facilities, and to bring into the equation both school requirements and what provision schools may already have. A citywide swimming strategy involving leisure and education departments is both exciting and daunting, with the inevitable questions to be answered about cost and time scale.
  Today, Sport England informed me of the work that it is doing to upgrade and develop new pools. It gave me a list of 11 such school pools. Interestingly, those receiving the greatest sums were dual use, and I welcome that, but there were only 11 pools on that list. My spirits genuinely lifted when, last month, Minister for Sport announced the creation of the School Sports Alliance to oversee the£750 million lottery fund allocated for school sport and community sport, together with further Government funding promised for future years.
  The Minister replying to this debate welcomed that announcement and her Department's involvement, working closely with the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. I hope that she will be able to assure the House that the needs of school swimming, as highlighted in recent reports, are on the agenda for action by the Department for Education and Employment and the School Sports Alliance.
  2.1 am
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Jacqui Smith): I am pleased to welcome the debate instigated by my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, West (Valerie Davey). As she said, she has raised this issue before. She is a well-informed, doughty campaigner for swimming in our schools. I wish only that she could initiate such debates earlier in the day, as this debate is even later than the one she managed to initiate with my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Home Office.
  I reiterate the importance of swimming. It is not only important educationally; it promotes healthy life styles and exercise that, as my hon. Friend says, can be continued as an adult. As she strongly emphasised, it is crucial for personal safety. I hope that there can be no question about the Government's commitment to promoting swimming in the primary school curriculum. It has always been a compulsory element of the PE national curriculum. As she reminded us, it remained so even when programmes of study for the non-core subjects were
  182
  temporarily suspended to allow the national literacy and numeracy strategies to be established between September 1998 and July 2000.
  Swimming and water safety are an important and compulsory part of the revised national curriculum for physical education introduced in our schools in September 2000. My hon. Friend detailed what children should have covered by the age of 11. It was important that the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority and my Department took note of the concerns of the subject communities about swimming during the review of the national curriculum. As a result the programme for swimming was renamed "swimming activities and water safety" to emphasise its vital contribution to safety and a non-statutory programme was included in key stage 1, in addition to the revised statutory programme in key stage 2. It is also important that good practice in delivering swimming is shared and that teachers are supported. Detailed schemes of work for teachers, including swimming, have been produced to ensure consistency of teaching and to support the new national curriculum.
  My hon. Friend mentioned the £750 million announced by the Prime Minister to support sport in schools. That, of course, follows the important planning work that has been done by my hon. Friend the Minister for Sport and me in the Department for Education and Employment to produce the Government's sports strategy and the implementation work now progressing with the assistance of many partners, including representatives from the ASA, and being put into operation under the auspices of the School Sports Alliance.
  Mr. Bob Russell: The Minister has given a very encouraging report, but when will all children receive the minimum two hours' a week physical education, not just swimming, which is part of the Government's aims and objectives? She will agree that 25 per cent. currently do it, but 75 per cent. do not.
  Jacqui Smith: I hope that the hon. Gentleman realises that I shall come to that point in a minute.
  I will refer to aspects of the subject that particularly relate to school swimming later, but my hon. Friend raised the issue of the need for suitable facilities. Following the publication of the strategy, we are commissioning consultants to provide a full audit of local education authority sports facilities, including swimming facilities. Sport England and the Local Government Association have been asked to carry out a nationwide audit of sports facilities in England.
  The Government are committed to raising standards in all areas of the physical education curriculum. As an extremely important component of the national curriculum, improvements in swimming facilities will be considered where shortfalls in provision are identified nationally or by local education authorities. I want to take this opportunity to commend the examples that my hon. Friend outlined of the imaginative use and development by local authorities of their swimming facilities.
  We are seeking constantly to improve and build up the evidence base about what is effective in schools and about areas that require closer attention. To that end, and in an attempt to understand the issues affecting the teaching and

  183
  learning of swimming, we commissioned Ofsted to produce a report on swimming at key stage 2. It was published in November.
  Ofsted's remit, in addition to its normal inspection requirements, was to evaluate and report on the standards of swimming achieved by pupils by the end of key stage 2; the quality and effectiveness of the teaching or instruction through the observation of swimming lessons, and any related activity, such as classroom-based work; the steps taken by schools to give particular support to non-swimmers or poor swimmers; and the curriculum and assessment arrangements made in respect of swimming, in particular, within the PE curriculum and, in general, as part of the whole school curriculum, making reference to the quality of planning, time allocation and organisational requirements.
  My hon. Friend compared the Ofsted report unfavourably with the survey carried out by the Central Council of Physical Recreation and The Times Educational Supplement. It is, in our view, effective to use a section 10 inspection to focus in more detail on a specific aspect, as happened in that case. The inspections were comprehensive, involving observation and evaluation. That, of course, takes longer to conduct and evaluate than a survey such as that carried out by The Times Educational Supplement and the CCPR.
  Although all information is helpful, the Ofsted report gives us some important qualitative information. My Department has welcomed the generally positive report, which showed that, in the schools inspected, four out of five children were able to swim 25 m at the end of key stage 2. It also showed that pupil attainment was satisfactory or better in most lessons; that progress was satisfactory or better in the majority of lessons; and that pupils made good progress in three quarters of lessons.
  The report also showed that the teaching of swimming was found to be good or better in four out of five lessons. I agree with my hon. Friend that teaching is crucial to developing good swimming education. Nearly half the swimming lessons were taught by swimming instructors, the large majority of whom are experienced and hold nationally recognised qualifications, such as the ASA lifeguard qualification. A similar proportion of lessons were taught by teachers from the school, usually a member of staff with a qualification in the performance or teaching of swimming such as an ASA teacher's certificate. A small number of lessons were taught by adults other than teachers who have a personal interest in swimming and usually hold a water safety qualification.
  It is vital that we improve the support and quality of teaching in swimming and in PE in general. Teachers in primary schools are not usually PE specialists. We recognise the need for support there, and that is why the school sports co-ordinators programme, which will have 6,000 primary schools involved in three years' time, will provide an important opportunity for training and sharing the resources of secondary schools, including sports colleges.
  We recognise that PE is a very demanding, multi-disciplinary subject. We are working with the Teacher Training Agency and subject associations to develop support materials and summer schools to help with that. The way in which teachers are training is
  184
  changing rapidly, and it is important that PE and swimming keep up with innovations. We are committed to ensuring that that happens.
  My hon. Friend highlighted the important issue of time. The Ofsted report judged that 85.5 per cent. of schools had satisfactory or better time allocation for swimming. We know that schools have concentrated hard on introducing the literacy and numeracy strategies, and we make no apologies for emphasising those crucial skills. I do not believe that there is a conflict in aiming for high standards of reading, writing and maths and for good swimming and PE provision. However, we have asked the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority to provide good practice to schools about how to achieve the Secretary of State's aspiration that children should have access to two hours a week of physical activity inside and outside the curriculum.
  Although most swimming takes place in year 5, an increasing number of schools are introducing swimming in years 3 and 4. Schools that target the younger pupils enable those pupils who cannot swim 25 m at the end of year 4 to continue to go swimming when they are in year 5 and year 6 until they achieve that standard. That is an example of good practice that, along with the opportunities offered by the non-statutory framework at key stage 1, points to the importance of starting early, not least because support can then be targeted at those who have not achieved the required standards.
  The report found that 60 per cent. of schools funded swimming from their own budget; some schools were funded directly by the local education authority, and some LEAs targeted funding through "learn to swim" grants. LEAs tended to devolve the budget for swimming, and schools used that to buy back transport facilities to take children to swimming pools. I share my hon. Friend's concern that we ensure that good practice in funding for swimming is disseminated widely among schools and LEAs.
  The report shows that there is some very good teaching in swimming lessons, that the overwhelming majority of pupils look forward to their lessons and that almost all pupils were enthusiastic and well motivated. However, my hon. Friend is right to highlight concerns that must be addressed.
  Some aspects of the report concerned us. A large majority of schools made adequate curricular provision for swimming, but a small minority did not cover the full programme of study, in particular the area of water safety. Half the schools in the report did not make special provision for pupils who do not develop a sufficient competence in swimming and are unlikely to swim by key stage 2. My hon. Friend rightly highlighted the significant variation depending on schools' location and free school meals banding. That must be a cause of concern.
  Other concerns raised by the report are that half of schools have no specific policy or provision for pupils who are non-swimmers or reluctant swimmers, and more than half of schools have reduced the time allocated to swimming.
  I hope that schools will take note of the findings of the Ofsted report and will include within their development plans action to address the concerns raised. There are some very positive findings in the report, but we have to address the small number of very serious concerns. We will meet Ofsted to analyse the findings in more detail.

  185
  My hon. Friend is right to say that we need to be clear about the messages in the report. It is not clear, for example, how many of those pupils who do not meet the target of 25 m are non-swimmers, and we plan a meeting for early in the new year to consider that detail.
  We are also establishing a small action group, which may comprise representatives from Ofsted, the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, the QCA and swimming associations. It will be charged with urgently producing a list of immediate and robust actions to address concerns.
  The group will review the findings of the Ofsted report on swimming and any other recent research, and identify the key issues that need to be addressed to improve the provision of swimming in the curriculum. The group will
  186
  also make immediate recommendations to improve the standards and quality of swimming and especially to ensure that pupils reach the 25 m target by the end of key stage 2. I shall meet the Amateur Swimming Association in January, and I hope to meet other relevant organisations to discuss an action plan to provide more opportunities for swimming.
  In conclusion, I thank my hon. Friend for raising this important issue. I hope that she is convinced that the Government believe in the importance of swimming and that we shall act to ensure that all children have that entitlement.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at fifteen minutes past Two o'clock.

ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS

  Waste
  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how much waste was imported for use in cement kilns in each of the last 10 years. [142262]

  Mr. Meacher
  The estimated quantity of hazardous waste imported into the United Kingdom from 1997 to date for use as fuel in cement and lime kilns is as follows:

  Tonnes

  1997

  3,580

  1998

  2,932

  1999

  8,209

  2000

  7,150

  Final figures for 2000 will not be available until the summer of 2001 since, under European law, the kilns have 180 days following receipt of the waste to provide the UK regulatory authorities with a certificate of recovery confirming the actual quantity of waste used as a fuel.

  Accurate information about imports solely for cement kilns, rather than for cement and lime kilns can be provided only at disproportionate cost. Information about waste burnt imported for burning at such facilities before 1997 is not available since the UK regulatory authorities do not hold such data.

  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what emission standards are applicable to cement kilns and high temperature incineration plants. [142259]

  Mr. Meacher
  Processes subject to Directives 89/369/EEC and 89/429/EEC on the reduction of air pollution from municipal waste incineration plant, and 94/67/EC on the incineration of hazardous wastes are required to comply with the emission limits set out therein. Other processes subject to Integrated Pollution Control (IPC) are expected to achieve the benchmark emission standards set out in the Environment Agency's published guidance notes in accordance with BATNEEC. Benchmark emission standards for cement works are set out in the Agency's IPC Guidance Note S2 3.01, and for incinerators in Guidance Note S2 5.01. Where hazardous waste is burned in cement kilns, the processes must comply with the terms set out in the Hazardous Waste Incineration Directive. Specific emission limits have been set for each plant and are stated in individual authorisation, which can be obtained from the public registers located at the relevant local Environment Agency or local authority office.
  2W
  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will amend planning regulations to require a planning application to be submitted when composition of materials to be burnt in cement kilns is modified significantly. [142263]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  The modification of the composition of materials to be burnt in cement kilns would not, in itself, constitute a change of use for which planning permission would be needed. We therefore have no intention to amend the planning system to require a planning application in such cases.

  Any proposal to burn a modified composition of fuel will, however, require the operator to submit an application for a variation to their authorisation where they are regulated under the Integrated Pollution and control regime. If the variation is significant, the Environment Agency must consult with interests parties prior to its determination.

  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what tonnage of hazardous waste was disposed of in cement kilns and high temperature incineration plants in each of the last 10 years. [142260]

  Mr. Meacher
  The estimated quantity of hazardous waste disposed of in cement and lime kilns, and high temperature incinerators from 1997 to date are set out in the table.

  Tonnes

  Quantity in cement and lime kilns

  Quantity in high temperature incinerators

  1997

  51,895

  126,978

  1998

  131,325

  123,646

  1999

  117,937

  117,996

  Final figures for 2000 will note be available until the summer of 2001 since, under European law, both types of facilities have 180 days following receipt of imported hazardous waste to provide the UK regulatory authorities with a certificate of disposal or recovery confirming the actual quantity of waste handled.

  Accurate information about waste disposed of in cement kilns, rather than for cement and lime kilns can be provided only at disproportionate cost. Any information about waste disposed of at these facilities prior to 1997 could be provided only at disproportionate cost, since the UK regulatory authorities are not required to hold data for previous years.

  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) if he will list the locations of cement kilns and high temperature incinerators in the UK; [142257]

  (2) what tonnage of emissions there were for each cement kiln and high temperature incineration plant per year in each of the last 10 years; [142261]

  (3) if he will list the cement kilns with combustion-emission monitoring equipment in place. [142265]

  Mr. Meacher
  A list of 15 cement kilns and 64 high temperature incinerators1, including three merchant high temperature incinerators, has been placed in the House Library. All of the cement kilns listed have equipment in

  3W
  place for monitoring emissions to air. Reported emissions from each site are publicly available on the Environment Agency's Pollution Inventory for each year since the site was authorised under Integrated Pollution Control. IPC was phased in during the early to mid 1990s. The Pollution Inventory can be accessed on www.environment-agency.gov.uk. Details of emissions prior to authorisation under IPC are not held centrally and can be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  1 All processes listed under Chapter 5.1 of the Environmental Protection (Prescribed Processes and Substances) Regulations SI1991/No.472.

  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list emission limits applicable to plants burning fuel. [142266]

  Mr. Meacher
  Plant burning fuel which are subject to regulation under Part I of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 are required to use the best available techniques not entailing excessive cost (BATNEEC) for preventing the release of harmful substances; where that is not possible emissions must be minimised and rendered harmless.

  Plant burning fuel listed under Chapter 1.3, Part A, of the Environmental Protection (Prescribed Processes and Substances) Regulations SI1991/No.472 are expected to achieve the benchmark emission standards set out in the Environment Agency's published guidance notes in accordance with BATNEEC. Benchmark emission standards for combustion processes are set out in IPC Guidance Note S3 1.01, for combustion plant. Specific emission limits are set for each plant and stated in individual authorisations which can be obtained from the public registers located at the relevant local Environment Agency or local authority office.

  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to allow the export of hazardous waste from the UK. [142264]

  Mr. Meacher
  The legally binding UK Management Plan for Exports and Imports of Waste currently prohibits all exports of waste for disposal. This approach is consistent with longstanding UK policy that developed countries should be self-sufficient in waste disposal. Consistent with the UN Basel Convention, exports of hazardous waste for recovery are permitted only to OECD countries and Liechtenstein.

  This summer the UK Government went out to consultation on revised UK export and import policies. The consultation paper proposed an exception to the current prohibition on exports for disposal in two tightly defined circumstances:

  (a) to allow exports from Northern Ireland to Ireland for disposal so long as such movements are consistent with local waste management plans being drawn up under Northern Ireland's waste strategy; and

  (b) to allow exports to other EC member states and countries covered by the European Free Trade Area for trial runs. This is to allow UK companies to evaluate waste management processes in the EU and help decide whether or not to import the technology into the UK.

  The consultation paper proposed no change to UK policy on exports of hazardous waste for recovery.
  4W
  The Government are currently considering responses to the consultation exercise.

  Houses in Multiple Occupation
  Mr. Ruane
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many deaths there were from(a) carbon monoxide poisoning and (b) fire in houses in multiple occupation in (i) each of the last 20 years in England and (ii) 1980 to 1998 in Wales. [141687]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 11 December 2000]:
  Carbon monoxide (CO) poisoning

  I refer my hon. Friend to my answer of 13 November 2000, Official Report, column 479W which provided information on carbon monoxide poisoning deaths from all fossil-fuelled appliances from 1985–2000, and carbon monoxide poisoning, deaths from the supply and use of flammable gas from 1981–2000. These data do not separately identify poisoning deaths in homes in multiple occupation, and it is not therefore possible to provide the additional information requested.

  Fire

  The information is in the table.

  Deaths from fires in multiple occupancy dwellings, England and Wales, 1980–99

  Year

  England and Wales

  England

  Wales

  1981

  192

  1—

  1—

  1981

  191

  184

  7

  1982

  165

  162

  3

  1983

  181

  173

  8

  1994

  158

  157

  1

  1985

  162

  160

  2

  1986

  189

  186

  3

  1987

  168

  162

  6

  1988

  187

  181

  6

  1989

  176

  168

  8

  1990

  167

  164

  3

  1991

  143

  134

  9

  1992

  169

  163

  6

  1993

  118

  114

  4

  1994

  121

  119

  2

  1995

  148

  143

  5

  1996

  154

  145

  9

  1997

  150

  144

  6

  1998

  150

  141

  9

  19992

  114

  110

  4

  1 Not available

  2 1999 Data are provisional

  Source:

  Home Office, Fire Damage Report Form (FDRI)

  Energy Efficiency
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many people over 60 years(a) have had work carried out and (b) he estimates will have had work carried out by 31 March 2001 under the new home energy efficiency plus scheme. [142485]

  Mr. Meacher
  The table identifies the number of people over 60 years of age who have(a) received HEES and HEES Plus measures up to 30 November 2000; and (b) are projected to do so up to 31 March 2001:
  5W

  Financial year 2000–01

  HEES

  HEES plus

  Completed jobs as of 30 November

  10,430

  35,363

  Completed jobs projected from 1 December to 31 March 2001

  25,028

  85,478

  The new Home Energy Efficiency Scheme (HEES) for England was launched on 1 June 2000. It replaced the more limited scheme that operated since 1991. HEES provides packages of insulation and heating measures, linked to the condition of the property and the circumstances of the householder. The grant maximum has been increased from £315 to £2,000. The scheme is broken down as follows:
  HEES—for households with children in receipt of an income-related benefit and those households receiving a disabled benefit. Some 4 million households are eligible. The grant maximum is £700 for households using mains gas, solid fuel, oil or off-peak electric for heating.
  For households using more expensive on-peak electric, bottled gas or paraffin for heating, the maximum grant is £1,000.
  HEES Plus—for over 60s in receipt of an income-related benefit. Some 3.7 million households are estimated to be eligible. The measures include, for the first time, installation of central heating systems for the main living areas. The maximum grant is £2,000.
  In addition HEES Plus recipients who live in a Home Office designated high crime areas' may be able to have security measures—door and window locks—provided through a separate Home Office grant.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many grants were awarded under the home energy efficiency scheme in the Eccles constituency between 1997–98 and 1999–2000; and what was the(a) total value of grants and (b) average value of grants. [142482]

  Mr. Meacher
  The table identifies the value of grants and the average spend per property in the Eccles constituency for the financial years 1997–2000:

  £

  Financial year

  Value of grants

  Average value of grants

  1997–98

  296,960

  168

  1998–99

  365,397

  246

  1999–2000

  423,702

  227

  The new Home Energy Efficiency Scheme (HEES) for England was launched on 1 June 2000. It replaced the more limited scheme that operated since 1991. HEES provides packages of insulation and heating measures, linked to the condition of the property and the circumstances of the householder. The grant maximum has been increased from £315 up to £2,000. As a consequence, the average value of work per household will substantially increase in the current financial year.

  (London) Traffic
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what recent discussions has he had with the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police on ways in which to increase the speed of flow of traffic in the London metropolitan area. [142530]
  6W
  Mr. Hill
  None. The Mayor of London and Transport for London are now responsible for strategic transport matters in London.

  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he next plans to meet leaders of the transport industry to discuss ways in which HGV vehicles can be discouraged from using roads in central London. [142533]

  Mr. Hill
  Neither my right hon. Friend nor I have any such plans. This is a matter for the Mayor of London and the Association of London Government's Transport and Environment Committee.

  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) how many times in the last year he has met staff of the Mayor of London to discuss(a) the average speed of road traffic in London and (b) the ways in which the flow of traffic on London roads can be improved; [142564]

  (2) how many times in the last year he has met the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis to discuss the flow of traffic on London roads. [142695]

  Mr. Hill
  Neither my right hon. Friend nor I have had any such meetings. However, before 3 July 2000, officials of the Government Office for London, the Highways Agency and the Traffic Director for London had regular meetings with the Metropolitan police at operational level. On that date the Mayor of London and Transport for London became responsible for strategic transport matters in the capital.

  Unlicensed Cabs
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) when he last met representatives of the London Hackney Carriage Trade to discuss the activities of unlicensed private hire vehicles in central London; [142528]

  (2) when he plans to introduce regulations concerning competition between licensed taxis and (a) minicabs and (b) unlicensed operators in central London; [142555]

  (3) what steps he is taking to curb the activity of unlicensed private hire vehicles in the centre of London; [142554]

  (4) what recent discussions he has had with minicab companies in central London concerning the (a) safety of vehicles and (b) training of drivers. [142529]

  Mr. Hill
  A system of licensing London's private hire operators, drivers and vehicles is being introduced in three stages through the implementation of the Private Hire Vehicles (London) Act 1998. From 22 January next year, Transport for London will start licensing London minicab operators; from 22 October it will be an offence to operate minicabs without the appropriate licence. Transport for London will take forward the second and third phases of implementation. I understand that they are having discussions with the taxi and private hire trades. It is already an offence to tout for minicab services; enforcement is a matter for the police.

  Heathrow Express
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he expects the speed restrictions on the Heathrow Express to be lifted. [142580]

  Mr. Hill
  Railtrack says that as at 15 December there is currently one 40mph emergency speed restriction on the down line at Ladbroke Grove, imposed following the Hatfield derailment. Railtrack is working to remove this emergency speed restriction as soon as possible.

  Road Casualties (London)
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what recent discussions he has held with transport safety organisations to discuss the level of(a) cyclist and (b) pedestrian casualties in metropolitan London. [142535]

  Mr. Hill
  DETR Officials have met officers of Transport for London and the Road Safety Officers of the Boroughs on a number of occasions to discuss these issues, particularly in the context of the Mayor's Transport Strategy.

  Railways
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what financial assistance the Government have provided to(a) Railtrack and (b) rail operating companies in each of last three years. [142877]

  Mr. Hill
  Government subsidies are paid to train operating companies (TOCs) in the form of Support for Passenger Rail Services (SPRS) paid by the Franchising Director and grants paid by Passenger Transport Executives (PTEs). The table provides details, for 1997–98, 1998–99 and 1999–2000, of SPRS and PTE payments to TOCs.

  Passenger grants paid to TOCs, etc.

  £ million cash prices

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  SPRS payments

  1,429

  1,196

  1,031

  PTE payments

  375

  337

  312

  Total Government subsidies to TOCs

  1,804

  1,533

  1,343

  Since privatisation, no Government subsidies have been paid direct to Railtrack, but the company's profitability is contingent on public money. Some 85 per cent. of Railtrack's income is paid to the company by TOCs in access charges, a substantial proportion of which are supported by Government subsidies.

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 13 December 2000,Official Report, column 160W, concerning the rail network, if he will provide the same information for the period 1992 to 1997. [143357]

  Mr. Hill
  Due to the implementation of a new database by the Health and Safety Executive, the information requested by the hon. Member is not currently available. I will write with the information in January and a copy will be placed in the Library of the House.

  Ports Directive
  Mr. Syms
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) what representations he has received from United Kingdom ports on the proposed EU Directive on ports services; [142840]

  (2) if it is Her Majesty's Government's policy to oppose the proposed EU Directive on port services; [142839]

  (3) what assessment he has made of the cost of the proposed EU Directive on port services; [142838]

  (4) when United Kingdom ministers will discuss the proposed EU directive on port services with their counterparts in other EU member states. [142841]

  Mr. Hill
  [holding answer 15 December 2000]: The European Commission has not yet published its proposals for a Directive on access to port services, but officials have been keeping in touch with the Commission's thinking, and we understand that proposals may be launched early in the new year. Once these are public, we shall consult widely on them, aiming to take account of the full range of views on the possible impact, including port and terminal operators, port service providers, port users and customers, trade unions and other interests. There will also be opportunities for discussions with other member states. There are likely to be a number of important issues that will need to be addressed. Representations have been received from the UK Major Ports Group and we are also aware of the views of the British Ports Association and a number of port and terminal operators. Our general policy is to support the broad principles of liberalisation and competition in the provision of port services, subject to appropriate safeguards and standards.

  Legacy plc
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what due diligence inquiries have been undertaken into the financial supporters of Legacy plc. [143272]

  Ms Armstrong
  Inquiries were made by the competition team, as is normal practice in a matter of this nature. The competition team has advised on bids and bidders throughout the process and will continue to advise while negotiations carry on with Legacy plc.

  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) when Treasury Holdings acquired a financial interest in Legacy plc; and what that financial interest is; [143271]

  (2) when he was informed of Treasury Holdings' financial interest in Legacy plc. [143275]

  Ms Armstrong
  The precise details are commercially confidential. However, Treasury Holdings' involvement in the Legacy plc bid has been known for some time.

  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what guarantees have been(a) sought from and (b) given by Legacy plc regarding the retention of the Millennium Dome structure for a minimum period of time. [143274]
  9W
  Ms Armstrong
  Details of negotiations with Legacy plc are commercially confidential. However, the rules of competition require that the Dome structure is retained for a minimum of 15 years.

  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what the involvement is of BT, 3Com, Sun Microsystems and NTL in relation to Legacy plc's bid for the Millennium Dome. [143273]

  Ms Armstrong
  Such information is commercially confidential while negotiations with Legacy plc continue.

  Homes Bill
  Mr. Dawson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if the provisions contained in Part I of the Homes Bill relate to park homes. [143313]

  Mr. Mullin
  Possible changes to the provisions on the sale of park homes are being considered separately following the report of the Park Homes Working Party, published earlier this year. We have consulted on, and are considering, the Working Party's recommendations.

  Structural Funding (Merseyside)
  Mrs. Ellman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions which projects put forward for Objective 1 funding in the Merseyside programme are being re-assessed in relation to the rulings made by the European Commission concerning state aid. [143175]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  None of the projects presently receiving funding from the 1994–99 Structural Funds Objective 1 programme on Merseyside have been re-assessed because of state-aid issues. The Merseyside Structural Funds Programme Secretariat is currently appraising applications for funding under the 2000–06 Objective 1 programme. It is a condition for the receipt of grant that all projects accepted for funding must comply with the European Commission State Aid rules and the appraisal process will take this into account for all applications.

  Private Rented Sector
  Ms Glenda Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will give additional powers to local authorities to enable them to more fully investigate complaints from private rented sector tenants about harassment and unlawful eviction by landlords. [143311]

  Mr. Mullin
  Local authorities already have powers under the Protection from Eviction Act 1977 to investigate and prosecute complaints of harassment and illegal eviction.

  My Department has recently published a research report on harassment and unlawful eviction, and accompanying best practice guidance for local authorities on dealing with harassment and illegal eviction, including advice on overcoming barriers to effective action.

  We have discussed the position with representatives of Tenancy Relations Officers, but have no current plans to change the law.
  10W
  Ms Glenda Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will publish a national register of actions taken by local authorities against the harassment and illegal eviction of private rented sector tenants. [143312]

  Mr. Mullin
  We have no plans to publish such a register.

  Gas Installation (Safety)
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many prosecutions have been initiated by the Health and Safety Executive in each of the past five years under the Gas Safety (Installation in Use) Regulations 1998. [142641]

  Mr. Meacher
  The Gas Safety (Installation and Use Regulations) 1998 replaced the Gas Safety (Installation and Use) Regulations 1994. The number of informations laid in each of the last five years under these regulations is as follows:

  Year

  Number

  1995–96

  113

  1996–97

  144

  1997–98

  223

  1998–99

  256

  1999–2000

  208

  The 1999–2000 figures are provisional. Finalised figures for prosecutions in 1999–2000 will be available during April 2001.

  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what steps he is taking to protect the public from the dangers arising from do-it-yourself gas fitting work; and if he will make a statement. [142640]

  Mr. Meacher
  By law only a competent person can carry out gas fitting work. The Government, the Health and Safety Commission and the Health and Safety Executive undertake various awareness-raising and publicity activities to make the public aware of this. The Executive's leaflets and its Gas Safety Advice Line explain that do-it-yourself work can be dangerous and is likely to be illegal. Retailers have been contacted to encourage them to remind purchasers of gas fittings about the importance of using only competent, registered installers for gas fitting work.

  The Commission addressed this question in its recent Gas Safety Review. Its review report proposes increased publicity to discourage do-it-yourself gas work, more encouragement to retailers to provide 'point of sale' safety advice to consumers and encouragement to equipment manufacturers to include warnings in product literature.

  While the Commission has concluded in its Review that there is insufficient hard evidence from incident data at present to justify the introduction of a legal ban, it has proposed that the Executive should introduce improved arrangements for the reporting of incidents and the identification of accident causation, including do-it-yourself activity, so that the scale of the potential problem can be more accurately assessed. It is envisaged that the legal position will be reviewed again when this information has become available.

  Aircraft Noise Limits
  Fiona Mactaggart
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he has reached a decision on the outcome of the 1997 to 1999 consultation on his proposals to reduce the noise limits for aircraft departing from Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted and to improve monitoring of efficiency; and if he will make a statement. [143599]

  Mr. Mullin
  On 24 November 1997 the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions published a new consultation paper proposing lower noise limits and improved monitoring arrangements. This consultation followed the Court Order of 16 April 1997, made after challenges by the International Air Transport Association (IATA) to the 1996 decision on this subject. The Order, made with the consent of the parties, enabled interim arrangements to be put in place until the outcome of the new consultation. The November 1997 paper was also challenged by IATA but the association withdrew its application for leave to apply for judicial review when the Department undertook to publish a supplementary consultation paper. That was done on 26 March 1999. All the proposals were unchanged. They were:

  (a) to relate the noise limits to a fixed reference distance, 6.5 km from start of roll;

  (b) to continue to monitor noise levels at the fixed monitors in Lmax dBA and to apply the noise limits to all departing aircraft except Concorde and a number of specified exemptions (see (h));

  (c) to reduce the noise limits by 3 dBA (daytime) and 2 dBA (night-time), to 94 dBA and 87 dBA respectively;

  (d) to retain the five monitors at Gatwick and eight monitors at Stansted currently operating under the interim arrangement, but to resite a Stansted monitor to a better position. At Heathrow to keep the eight sites in the interim arrangements and to add two further monitors as previously proposed;

  (e) to calculate the positional adjustments on a revised basis;

  (f) to allow a reduction of not more than 2 dB of the noise recorded in specified tail wind conditions;

  (g) to require aircraft to be at a height of 1000 ft aal at 6.5 km from start of roll;

  (h) to exempt from the new daytime noise limits certain aircraft given exemptions from the Chapter 2 phase out requirements in accordance with the provisions of the EC Directive;

  (i) to begin a further review of both monitoring efficiency and noise limits in 2000.

  Comments were invited on any aspect of the proposals and on the details covered in the supplementary paper. The closing date for responses was 4 June 1999. Taking account of the information and comments we received, we have decided to implement the proposals, with two modifications:

  (a) to reduce the night-time noise limit by 2 dB, to 87 dba as proposed, but to apply it only during the night quota period (2330–0600), retaining the present night-time limit (89 dBA) for the rest of the night period, 2300–2330 and 0600–0700;

  (b) to implement the new daytime noise limit of 94 dBA from 25 February 2001 but to implement the new night-time noise limit from the start of the next summer night restrictions season (ie from 25 March 2001), rather than between 2–3 months from the date of the decision announcement, as was indicated in the consultation paper.

  Also, for technical reasons, for the purpose of the tailwind allowance I have decided to use wind data from an alternative source to that described in the consultation
  12W
  paper. I am satisfied that it is appropriate to use data from the on-airfield anemometers and wind vanes in the formula for the tailwind allowance proposed in the consultation paper (i.e. without making it necessary to adjust the formula).

  The reduction of 3 dB in the daytime limit represents a halving of noise energy but only a small reduction in loudness. This is a long accepted scientific fact; it is not disputed in the responses. The cumulative effect of even small improvements should be of benefit to many local residents, particularly those living under the departure routes from about 6.5 km from start of roll out to about 15 km. These small improvements will occur whenever an aircraft flies overhead that has changed its procedures (or adopted other measures) to meet the new noise limits.

  Some major airlines consider they will incur disproportionate costs to achieve these small benefits; conversely, many of the local authorities and other groups representing those living around the airports consider there should be greater noise reductions, to give greater benefits. I am satisfied that the requirements announced today are reasonable, having regard to what is operationally achievable (as explained in the consultation paper), to the costs that may be incurred by some airlines, the benefits that will accrue to many local residents, as I have already indicated, and the disbenefits that will be caused to others, particularly the far smaller number of people living very close to the end of a runway. Operators of heavily laden services bound for Asia-Pacific destinations that are scheduled to take off in the late evening, which would have particular difficulty in meeting the new night-time noise limit if delayed beyond 2300 hours, should be able to plan their operations with greater certainty in the light of our decision not to apply the toughest limit until 2330. I should emphasise that I do not want to encourage late departures. On the contrary, I trust operators of these services will continue to do their best to minimise delays: that will be of benefit both to their customers and to local people.

  The full decision, and the reasons for it, are set out in the document 'Noise limits for aircraft departing from Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted airports: decision of December 2000' copies of which have been placed in the House Library.

  Copies of all the responses, excepting details for which the author has requested confidentiality, are available for inspection by prior appointment at the DETR Library and Information Centre, Ashdown House, 123 Victoria Street, London SW1E 6DF.

  Planning Guidance (South-East)
  Fiona Mactaggart
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he intends to make an announcement about Regional Planning Guidance for the south-east. [143600]

  Mr. Raynsford
  Earlier this year, the Government published for consultation proposed changes to draft Regional Planning Guidance for the south-east. We have listened to comments made and strengthened our policies for delivering an urban renaissance, providing affordable housing, avoiding profligate use of land, promoting a living countryside and encouraging development to the east of London in Thames Gateway.
  13W
  We have given local authorities the tools they need to achieve this. Our planning guidance for housing (PPG3) contains a clearly-stated presumption that previously-developed land and existing buildings will be re-used for housing before consideration is given to developing greenfields. The draft revised RPG will set a target for the south-east that 60 per cent. of additional dwellings should be provided by recycling land or converting existing buildings.

  We have separately published advice on better design of development and on undertaking urban housing capacity studies. We have also made available (initially for comment) guidance on how to manage the release of land in such a way as to minimise unnecessary loss of greenfields to development.

  A particular concern expressed by respondents to the previous consultation was about the availability of affordable homes in the region. We agree that affordability is of key importance, not least to maintain economic growth in the south-east. The draft revised RPG now provides stronger guidance on the provision of affordable homes. We also set out measures to help increase the supply of affordable homes in the Housing Policy Statement made to the House last week and especially the Government's proposals to introduce a new Starter Home scheme to help around 10,000 key workers, particularly teachers, nurses and police officers, buy their own homes.

  Moreover, we are significantly increasing resources available for housing. We are doubling funding for the Housing Corporation's Approved Development Programme between 2001–02 and 2003–04 to support new social rented housing. In additional, there will be more than £360 million spending next year by housing authorities in the south-east outside London.

  In our Proposed Changes in March, we made clear that we rejected the rigid "predict and provide approach" taken by the Panel chaired by Professor Crow which conducted the public examination into the draft RPG. Nor could we accept the proposals of the regional planning body (SERPLAN) which did not take proper account of the region's future housing needs. We proposed to provide 43,000 additional houses on average each year throughout the region outside London. This compared with the 55,000 dwellings a year recommended by the Panel and the local authorities' (SERPLAN) proposals for 33,000 a year.

  We have now decided in the light of consultation to revise the proposed housing provision downwards to an average of 39,000 a year, at least for the next five years. As a result of our policies, backed up by the new tools we have recently announced, we intend that no more land should be used for housing than SERPLAN assumed would be required in planning for 33,000 additional dwellings a year. After 2006, it is likely to be necessary to plan for the higher figure of 43,000 individual dwellings to meet housing needs but that will be a matter for review under our flexible 'plan, monitor and manage' approach. The review will take full account of the proposed studies on the potential growth areas of Milton Keynes, Ashford and the London-Stansted-Cambridge corridor.
  14W
  We asked SERPLAN to advise on how the proposed rate of housing provision should be distributed across the region. That advice was not forthcoming. We have therefore proposed in the new draft RPG a county distribution in line with that set out in the existing RPG9: that took account of the need to regenerate the Thames Gateway which is a continuing aim. Comments are invited on this proposed distribution by 12 February 2001.

  Copies of the draft revised RPG and accompanying documents are being distributed to those who participated at the Public Examination earlier this year and those who responded to the public consultation on the previous document, "Proposed Changes to Draft RPG9". Copies have also been placed in the Library and made available to Members representing constituencies in the region.

PRIME MINISTER

  EU Institutions
  Mr. Lilley
  To ask the Prime Minister which areas of responsibility undertaken by European Union institutions he is seeking to remove from them. [141318]

  The Prime Minister
  This Government are firmly committed to the reform of the EU's institutions to make them work better and more efficiently. Furthermore, a key concept governing the EU is that of subsidiarity, whereby action should only be taken by the European Union if the objectives cannot be achieved by the member state alone.

  Ministerial Visits
  Sir Brian Mawhinney
  To ask the Prime Minister if it remains his policy that Ministers should notify right hon. and hon. Members in advance if Ministers plan to make an official visit to their constituencies. [141531]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 11 December 2000]: Yes.

  Nice Council
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list those agreements reached at the European Council Meeting in Nice to permit enhanced co-operation on matters not within the scope of existing EU treaties stating the position taken by the United Kingdom on each such agreement and the reasons for it. [142385]

  The Prime Minister
  No such agreements were reached. Enhanced co-operation will remain possible only within the limits of the EU's competence.

  CCT and Best Value
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his oral statement of 6 December 2000,Official Report, column 31, what was the basis for his statement concerning the costs of compulsory competitive tendering and Best Value. [142508]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 13 December 2000]: The net benefits of Best Value are considerably greater than those of compulsory competitive tendering (CCT). The estimates of annual savings under CCT were in the region of £500 million to £550 million per annum. Best Value aims to improve efficiency by 2 per cent. per

  15W
  authority per annum—a total saving equivalent to £1.5 billion per year. It has only been in place since 1 April this year, but already the first Best Value reviews are revealing the very significant scope for savings which will be available to reinvest in improving services.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Sri Lanka
  Mr. McDonnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations the Government have made to the Government of Sri Lanka concerning the massacre of 25 Sri Lankan youths on 25 October. [143387]

  Mr. Hain
  We were shocked to learn of the terrible massacre at the Bindunuwewa Rehabilitation Centre. We have made clear our concerns to the Sri Lankan Government and I raised the incident with the Sri Lankan Prime Minister when I visited Colombo last month. We are pleased that the Government quickly undertook to conduct a full inquiry into the massacre. We have underlined the need for the inquiry to be independent, swift and transparent.

  Kenya
  Mr. McDonnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent talks(a) he and (b) his officials have had with the Kenyan Government on the economic, environmental and political prospects of Kenya. [143385]

  Mr. Hain
  During my most recent visit to Kenya on 27 November I had detailed discussions with President Moi and a wide range of his Government officials on the political and economic prospects for Kenya. Our High Commission maintains a constant dialogue with all sides of the political debate in Kenya on a wide range of issues.

  Entry Visas
  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his reply of 12 December 2000,Official Report, column 122W, how many of his decisions to overturn the refusal of entry visas at posts in India since October 1999 involved applications for workers employed by (a) SHRICO and (b) other companies to work on the new Temple in Wembley. [143068]

  Mr. Vaz
  None of my decisions to overturn visa refusals at Indian posts have involved workers employed by SHRICO or other companies to work on the new Temple in Wembley.

DEFENCE

  Ship Repairs
  Mr. Duncan Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when HMS Ark Royal will return to operational service; when(a) HMS Bulwark and (b) HMS Albion will enter into service; and when he expects the repairs to HMS Tireless to be completed. [143071]
  16W
  Mr. Spellar
  [holding answer 15 December 2000]: HMS Ark Royal is currently in refit and will be available for operational duties from spring 2002. HMS Bulwark and HMS Albion both enter into service in 2003. We plan to complete the repair of HMS Tireless by the end of March 2001.

  Swiftsure Submarines
  Mr. Duncan Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which Swiftsure class submarines he expects to be operational next year. [143046]

  Mr. Spellar
  [holding answer 15 December 2000]: HMS Superb, HMS Sceptre and HMS Splendid are expected to be operational next year.

  DERA
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he intends to privatise the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency by means of(a) outright sale to an existing plc or a consortium of plcs, (b) sale to venture capital strategic investors, (c) an initial purchase flotation and (d) other means; and what is his timetable for the privatisation. [141354]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 12 December 2000]: I refer the hon. Member to the announcement which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence made in the House on 24 July 2000, Official Report, columns 777–89, about our intention to proceed with the implementation of the Core Competence model for the DERA Public Private Partnership (PPP). Under Core Competence, around three quarters of the current DERA organisation will be turned into a company, referred to as NewDERA. For strategic reasons, the remainder will be retained within MOD to carry out functions that could not appropriately be transferred to the private sector.

  The exact method and timing of sale will depend on value for money considerations, but our preference is to seek a flotation on the stock market as soon as the company's potential is suitably developed. We will keep open the option to seek a strategic investor as an interim step.

  The PPP timetable is challenging and envisages organisational separation of NewDERA and the retained elements will be complete early in the new year. This will be followed by a period of shadow operation to test the organisations and their infrastructures. Once this is complete, NewDERA would be vested with its assets and established as plc.

  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what discussions he and his officials have had with(a) employee representatives, (b) management and (c) pension fund companies about future pension arrangements for current DERA employees. [141359]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 12 December 2000]: Officials have worked closely with employee representatives in designing pension arrangements for employees who will transfer to the new company. Trade Union representatives were invited to, and have participated in, a pension scoping group which was established to explore potential pension schemes. As this

  17W
  work has progressed, dialogue has continued with employee representatives and we will shortly begin a period of formal consultation on a selected scheme.

  In addition to formal consultation, a series of roadshows for all affected employees will be conducted in the new year and these will offer staff the opportunity to learn more about the detail of the new scheme benefits and to have their options explained.

  To ensure that the new scheme meets the Government's commitment to providing broad comparability with the public sector pension scheme, detailed discussions have taken place between DERA management, MOD officials and relevant Government Departments including the Government Actuary's Department, HM Treasury and the Cabinet Office. These discussions will continue as the scheme is established and its rules and administrative arrangements are developed.

  Early in the process, DERA appointed actuarial and pension fund consultants to assist them in the development of occupational pension arrangements. There have been no discussions with pension fund companies.

  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if DERA Boscombe Down will(a) remain a military airfield and (b) become a civil airport subject to the Civil Aviation Authority; and if he will make a statement. [141355]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 12 December 2000]: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave earlier. The future regulatory status of the DERA Boscombe Down airfield has yet to be confirmed. Work to achieve this is part of the detailed implementation process currently under way and includes discussions between the Ministry of Defence and the CAA.

  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence by what legal process he will change the status of the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency from an agency of his Department to(a) a Government owned company and (b) a plc; and what will be the timetable. [141356]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 12 December 2000]: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave earlier. On the date of Vesting, the relevant assets of the existing DERA will be transferred via a Business Transfer Agreement into a wholly Government owned company created under the Companies Act 1985.

  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement about the future status of DERA Boscombe Down within the proposed private-public sector partnership. [141357]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 12 December 2000]: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave earlier. Under Core Competence, only those most sensitive parts of DERA such as the Chemical and Biological Defence laboratories at Porton Down will remain in MOD. DERA activities at Boscombe Down will form part of the new company, NewDERA.

  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will set out the timetable for(a) the introduction of shadow structures and operations and (b) the establishment and ownership of a plc at DERA Boscombe Down. [141358]
  18W
  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 12 December 2000]: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave earlier. The timetable for the implementation of the Core Competence model envisages organisational separation of NewDERA and RDERA will be complete early in the new year. This will be followed by a period of shadow operation to test both organisations and their respective infrastructures. Only once this is completed satisfactorily will NewDERA (of which DERA Boscombe Down would be part) be vested with its assets and established as a plc wholly owned by Government. The precise timing of any transaction thereafter will depend on value for money considerations.

  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many DERA employees will cease to be civil servants from 1 April 2001. [141360]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 12 December 2000]: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave earlier. At the point of Vesting, around three quarters of current DERA employees, approximately 9,000 personnel, will cease to be civil servants.

  Drug Rehabilitation
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the role of drug rehabilitation activity in the Armed Forces. [143101]

  Mr. Spellar
  The Armed Forces regard drug taking as a matter of the utmost seriousness. A comprehensive drugs education and awareness programme, together with a random Compulsory Drugs Testing (CDT) programme is employed to dissuade Armed Forces personnel from taking drugs. A positive CDT test result by a member of the Services will, in most cases, lead to an administrative discharge which no rehabilitation offered. Those few personnel who test positive, and are retained under exceptional circumstances, receive a formal warning and are closely monitored and subject to no-notice drug re-testing for a period of between two and five years. They also attend the routine Services' drug education and awareness programme during the monitoring period.

  The position for those Service personnel who are detained at the Military Corrective Training Centre (MCTC) following a conviction for a drug related criminal offence is slightly different. MCTC employ a civilian drugs counsellor to provide confidential counselling and advice to drug offenders. This support is enhanced further by a civilian medical officer and welfare officer.

  War Widows
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on service pensions for war widows who have subsequently remarried. [141825]

  Dr. Moonie
  I will assume that the hon. Member refers to those widows who have been awarded a War Widow's Pension by the DSS War Pensions Agency and who have, in addition, been awarded an attributable forces family pension under the Armed Forces Pension Scheme (AFPS). Attributable pensions for widows and widowers of ex-Service personnel were introduced to the AFPS in 1973.
  19W
  The Defence and Social Security Secretaries announced, on 20 July 2000, that widow and widowers in receipt of an attributable forces family pension are to retain their pension if they remarry or cohabit. These changes, took effect from 31 October. Previously, an attributable widow's pension was withdrawn on remarriage or cohabitation, although it would have been automatically restored on second widowhood or at the end of a period of cohabitation. Those widows or widowers who had already remarried (before 31 October), and had their attributable pension withdrawn, were not included in the change. Those in receipt of a DSS War Widows' Pension or a non-attributable widows or widowers' pension were also not affected by the change; their pensions will still cease on remarriage or cohabitation.

  The question whether widows who had already remarried should have their pensions restored was considered; however, it was decided not to include them because those women had chosen to remarry in the full knowledge that their pension would cease. Furthermore, successive Governments had held fast to the principle that improvements to public sector pension schemes are not applied retrospectively because the cost of doing so would mean it would be extremely difficult to introduce any improvements for current members of the armed forces.

  HMS Invincible
  Mr. DuncanSmith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which helicopter squadron(a) is allocated to HMS Invincible and (b) will be allocated to her in 2001. [143037]

  Mr. Spellar
  [holding answer 15 December 2000]: No anti-submarine warfare (ASW) squadron is being specifically allocated to HMS Invincible in 2001. A Carrier Air Group including a ASW helicopter component will always be available for the Fleet Flagship Aircraft Carrier if required. HMS Invincible will continue in this role until April 2001, when she hands over to HMS Illustrious. 820 Naval Air Squadron will provide the ASW component in 2001.

  RAF-Luftwaffe Tornado Squadron
  Mr. Duncan Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what progress has been made in the establishment of a joint RAF-Luftwaffe Tornado Squadron. [143027]

  Mr. Spellar
  [holding answer 15 December 2000]: There are no plans to form a joint RAF-Luftwaffe Tornado squadron.

  Theft (Faslane)
  Mr. Duncan Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what investigations are taking place into alleged thefts at Faslane naval base; and if he will make a statement. [143049]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 15 December 2000]: The Ministry of Defence Police currently has 74 cases of alleged theft at Her Majesty's Naval Base Clyde under investigation. It would not be appropriate for me to comment further regarding on-going police investigations.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  Dyslexia
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what improvements he(a) has made and (b) intends to make for meeting the special educational needs of dyslexic pupils. [141958]

  Jacqui Smith
  We are committed as a Government to helping all children with special educational needs (SEN) to develop their full potential. We are taking a number of steps to raise the awareness of dyslexia and help teachers to improve the identification and assessment of children who have or may have dyslexia, including through baseline assessment, which—although this is not its primary purpose—can be a useful first screen to help teachers identify where a child has learning needs which may require further, more specialist investigation and assessment. The Qualifications and Curriculum Authority is now consulting on our proposals for revising statutory baseline assessment, including our proposal that the 90 current baseline assessment schemes be replaced by a single national scheme, which should help to improve the identification of learning needs. Any national scheme will incorporate the features of local schemes that have been most successful in identifying possible SEN. Training for teachers to support the new scheme would focus on how to use it to identify learning needs needing further investigation and how to devise strategy to help children progress.

  The National Literacy Strategy has raised standards for all children, including those with dyslexia, and we have started to build on this success by introducing pilot projects in September in 17 LEAs involving over 200 schools to transform standards in English and mathematics for 11 to 14-year-olds. We will implement this nationally in 2001.

  We are also taking work forward in partnership with some of the voluntary organisations that support children with dyslexia, including the British Dyslexia Association and the Dyslexia Institute. This includes the Department, together with the National Lottery Charities Board and WH Smith, funding a two year "Spell It" (Study Programme to Evaluate Literacy Learning through Individualised Tuition) research project run by the Dyslexia Institute to evaluate the effects of structured programmes of intervention, targeted at seven year old pupils who are experiencing specific difficulties in learning to read, write and spell. Two key aspects of the project are to develop activities that parents can do at home and to share the knowledge and skills of specialist teachers more widely.

  Following a seminar convened by the DfEE in July 1999 to bring together bodies with an interest and expertise in the field of teaching children with dyslexia, the Pathways Group was formed consisting of representatives from the DfEE and key partners in the field of dyslexia. The Group has been engaged in producing a leaflet designed to help teachers interested in pursuing further training on specific learning difficulties to access relevant training. It is envisaged that the leaflet will direct these teachers towards more detailed course information which will be available via the Department's Inclusion website.
  21W
  Children with dyslexia, along with all children with SEN, will also benefit from more general measures we are taking to support children with SEN. These include: the Special Educational Needs and Disability Bill, announced in the Queen's Speech in 6 December; the revision of the SEN Code of Practice, and the Standards Fund, through which we are spending £82 million in 2001–02 to improve support for children with special educational needs, which represents a 50 per cent, increase from the £55 million this year.

  Statutory Scrutiny
  Tony Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many (i) further education trusts, (ii) foundation schools and (iii) city technology colleges were in existence on 1 April; and if they are(a) statutorily required to publish annual reports, (b) statutorily required to publish annual accounts,

  Question

  FE sector

  Foundation schools

  City Technology Colleges

  A

  Statutorily required to publish annual reports?

  FE sector do not have to publish an annual report just examination results.

  Yes

  14 of the 15 CTCs are limited companies and as such are required to prepare and publish an annual report. The remaining CTC has no legal status, an annual report is prepared but not published.

  B

  Statutorily required to publish annual accounts?

  Yes. Requirement of instrument of government.

  Yes

  14 of the 15 CTCs are limited companies and as such are required to prepare and publish their annual accounts. The remaining CTC has no legal status, an annual account is prepared but not published.

  C

  Subject to the jurisdiction of the parliamentary or local government ombudsman?

  No. The funding councils are subject to the parliamentary ombudsman. Complaints about individual colleges can be made to either the funding council or the Secretary of State.

  Yes

  No, the commissioner would only be able to test whether CTCs were in his jurisdiction if a complaint were made to him.

  D

  Subject to audit by the National Audit Office?

  No, but the NAO have the right to inspect accounts (section 53 of the FHE Act 1992).

  Yes

  No, the NAO have inspection rights but do not audit.

  E

  Subject to audit by the National Audit Office?

  No

  Yes

  No

  F

  Statutory requirement to admit the public to committee meetings?

  No. It is up to the governing body to decide who can attend a governing body or committee meeting. Members of the public do not have a statutory right to attend such meetings.

  No. It is up to the governing body to decide who can attend a governing body or committee meeting. Members of the public do not have a statutory right to attend such meetings.

  No

  G

  Statutory requirement to hold public meetings?

  No

  Yes, at least one a year.

  No, but they are required to hold an Annual Governors meeting with parents.

  H

  Statutory requirement to publish the agendas of meetings?

  Yes. (Instrument of Government)

  Yes

  No

  I

  Statutory requirement to publish the minutes of meetings?

  Yes. (Instrument of Government)

  Yes

  No

  22W
  (c) subject to the jurisdiction of the parliamentary or local government ombudsman, (d) subject to audit by the National Audit Office, (e) subject to audit by the Audit Commission, (f) statutorily required to admit the public to committee meetings, (g) statutorily required to hold public meetings, (h) statutorily required to publish the agendas of meetings, (i) statutorily required to publish the minutes of meetings, (j) statutorily required to publish the papers or documents for meetings, (k) statutorily required to keep and make publicly available a register of members' interests, (l) statutorily required to consult and report to local authorities in their areas on their plans and policies and (m) statutorily subject to scrutiny by local authorities in their areas of operation. [142398]

  Mr. Wicks
  On 1 April 2000 there were(a) 425 colleges in the FE sector, (b) 858 foundation schools and 19 foundation special schools and (c) 14 City Technology Colleges and one City College for the Technology of Arts.
  23W

  Question

  FE sector

  Foundation schools

  City Technology Colleges

  J

  Statutory requirement to publish the papers or documents for meetings?

  Yes. (Instrument of Government)

  Yes

  No

  K

  Make publicly available a register of members' interests?

  Yes. (Instrument of Government)

  Yes

  No, but most CTCs have or are in the process of preparing registers of interests.

  L

  Statutory requirement to consult and report to local authorities in their areas on their plans and policies?

  No. FE colleges are self governing bodies.

  Yes

  No

  M

  Statutorily subject to scrutiny to local authorities in their areas of operation?

  No. FE colleges are self governing bodies.

  Yes

  No

  Cross-sectoral Bodies
  Tony Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list the local, sub-regional and regional partnerships, boards of zones and other cross-sectoral bodies supported by his Department; and the funding streams with which they are associated. [142184]

  Mr. Wills
  This information is not held centrally. Recent reports point to a wide range of formal, informal, statutory and non-statutory partnerships covering a wide range of interests. As a result, the Government are trying to encourage greater rationalisation. The recently issued draft guidance on local strategic partnerships is intended to encourage the development of a single co-ordinated framework for partnership arrangements at the local level. We have also set up the Regional Co-ordination Unit. The Unit has recently published an action plan which sets out how the Government intend to modernise the way it works at regional and local level and improve the way services are delivered on the ground.

  Modern Apprenticeships
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many Modern Apprenticeships there are in the engineering industry. [141696]

  Mr. Wicks
  [holding answer 11 December 2000]: On 30 June 2000 (the latest date for which figures have been published) there were 17,200 young people on Advanced Modern Apprenticeships in Engineering Manufacturing and Engineering Construction in England, accounting for 13 per cent. of those in training on all Advanced Modern Apprenticeships. For Foundation Modern Apprenticeships, there were 3,000 young people in Engineering Manufacturing in England, accounting for 4 per cent. of the total.

  Classroom Assistants
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) how much money has been paid in subsidies to schools to recruit classroom assistants under the New Deal; [141690]

  (2) how many jobs as classroom assistants have been created under the New Deal. [141692]
  24W
  Ms Jowell
  [holding answer 11 December 2000]: The New Deal is about making people employable, through training and experience of work for example, rather than directly creating jobs. People who find jobs helped by New Deal do so in the regular labour market.

  Civil Records Bureau
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and employment what representations he has received from youth organisations on the effects of having their volunteers checked by the Civil Records Bureau. [142699]

  Mr. Wicks
  My Department has received representations from the National Council for Voluntary Youth Services, three other national voluntary youth organisations, and one local council for Voluntary Youth Services, about proposals for the payment for checks on the suitability of volunteers to work with children and young people.

  School Inspectors
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will provide statistical analysis of the professional background of those serving as school inspectors in England. [142585]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  Information is not held centrally about all those who undertake inspection work in schools in England. Ofsted holds information about HM Inspectors of Schools and those who are registered or enrolled to conduct or assist with inspections of schools under section 10 of the School Inspections Act 1996. I have asked HM Chief Inspector of Schools in England, Mike Tomlinson, to write to the hon. Member and to place a copy of his letter in the Library.

  University Funding
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what overall average amount of funding per student English universities received in each of the last four years. [142587]

  Mr. Wicks
  The publicly planned funding per full-time equivalent higher education student in England is published annually in the departmental report for the Department of Education and Employment. The table shows the publicly
  25W
  planned funding per full-time equivalent higher education student in England, at 1999–2000 prices. Unit funding per student rounded to the nearest £5 is:

  £

  1989–90

  7,620

  1990–91

  6,935

  1991–92

  6,585

  1992–93

  6,090

  1993–94

  5,745

  1994–95

  5,585

  1995–96

  5,335

  1996–97

  4,980

  1997–98

  4,845

  1998–99

  4,820

  1999–2000

  4,785

  2000–01

  4,750

  The rate of decrease slowed appreciably in the last four years, and my right hon. Friend announced on 18 July that for the first time in over a decade there will be a real-terms increase in funding per student in 2001–02, which will be sustained in the following two years.

  School Travel
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many schools in(a) London and (b) the rest of England take part in schemes to promote walking to school. [142198]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 13 December 2000]: The information requested is not held centrally. However, the Government, working with the School Travel Advisory Group (STAG), have introduced a number of initiatives to support safer routes to school, including promoting walking to school. We have also produced guidance to schools, governors and Local Education Authorities to help them put in place measures to encourage healthier, safer and more sustainable school travel.

  NVQs
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will report progress on the re-accreditation of national vocational qualifications. [142296]

  Mr. Wicks
  [holding answer 13 December 2000]: There has been a 20 per cent. reduction in the number of NVQ titles since they peaked in 1997. The QCA accredits NVQs on a rolling basis and future market needs will be reflected through their re-accreditation programme.

  Standards Fund
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will set out, for each local education authority in England for 2000–01, the amount of standards fund grant(a) contribution received from central Government, (b) contributed by the local education authority, (c) devolved directly to schools and (d) spent centrally by the local education authority in total. [142488]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  [holding answer 13 December 2000]: Nationally, the DfEE is providing £1,741 million in grant for the Standards Fund this year, and local
  26W
  education authorities are contributing £604 million. At least 75 per cent. of all Standards Fund grants must be devolved to schools.

  Tables showing the contributions made by DfEE and local education authorities, on an individual local education authority level, split between revenue and capital grants, have been placed in House of Commons Library.

  Figures on the precise level of Standards Fund grant which individual local education authorities have devolved to schools, and have held centrally, are not available. The LEA comparative table of budgeted expenditure, published on 29 June, shows each local education authority's level of delegated funding, including devolved Standards Fund grant. A copy of the table has been placed in the House of Commons Library.

  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how much money was paid to Cambridgeshire schools through the Standards Fund in each year since 1997–98. [142871]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The following table shows payments made to, or to be made, to Cambridgeshire County Council from the Standards Fund in 1997–98, 1998–99, 1999–2000 and 2000–01. The figure for 1999–2000 is provisional, subject to audit. The figure for 2000–2001 is the total grant currently expected to be paid to Cambridgeshire this financial year. The figures include all grants paid through the Standards Fund payment system, excluding New Deal for Schools Capital, which is not part of the Standards Fund programme. The amount actually paid to schools will depend on local expenditure decisions by schools and the local authority.

  Standard Fund payments to Cambridgeshire County Council

  £

  1997–98

  2,599,357

  1998–99

  3,374,197

  1999–2000

  5,365,139

  2000–01

  14,881,499

  Rudolph Steiner Schools
  Mr. Coaker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what decision he has made on the public funding of Rudolph Steiner schools; and if he will make a statement. [142822]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  We are considering, in discussion with the Steiner Waldorf Schools Fellowship, what the scope might be for providing public funding to Steiner schools. No conclusions have yet been reached.

  Education Policy
  Mr. Coaker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what discussions he plans to have with(a) the Children and Young People's Unit and (b) the Minister for Youth about consulting children and young people on the development of education policy. [142825]
  27W
  Ms Estelle Morris
  I attach great importance to ensuring that the views of young people are taken into account in developing education policy and assessing its impact. I shall be working closely with the Children and Young People's Unit and the Minister for Young People to ensure that good practice is shared and built upon.

  School Rolls
  Mr. Coaker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what data he collects on the(a) numbers and (b) circumstances of pupils who are not on school rolls. [142826]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  Section 19 of the Education Act 1996 places a responsibility on local education authorities to provide suitable education outside school for children unable to attend school because of illness, exclusion from school or otherwise. By 2002 provision for pupils excluded from school must be full time.

  LEAs reported that in January 2000 there were 15,089 pupils of compulsory school age not on the roll of a school or pupil referral unit. This figure includes those pupils being educated at home by local authorities, in community homes or units and arrangements made for the education of children in travellers' families. We do not collect centrally the number of pupils educated at home by their parents.

  The January 2000 Schools' Census reported that 8,479 pupils were being educated at pupil referral units (PRUs).

  Statutory guidance from the DfEE advises local education authorities to set up systems for collecting data on the number of children of all ages who are out of school, and their achievements. Such a register will help authorities ensure that vulnerable groups do not become lost in the system between education and employment.

  Training and Enterprise Councils (Assets)
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a progress report on negotiations with training and enterprise councils for the apportionment of their assets spent; and how many(a) have or (b) have not yet reached agreement with the Department, the value of assets taken into public ownership or divested elsewhere and the value of such public assets put under the control of local learning and skills councils. [142630]

  Mr. Wicks
  [holding answer 14 December 2000]: Discussions are progressing well with individual TEC/CCTEs about the precise distribution of their asset base. We expect to reach decisions in principle with all TECs early in the new year. The final position will not be know until well into the new financial year after TECs have delivered their contracts and completed their final year's accounts. I will update the hon. Member on progress in the new year.

  Learning and Skills Council
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement on the readiness of the Learning and Skills Council's information technology systems for its opening for business in April 2001. [142631]
  28W
  Mr. Wicks
  [holding answer 14 December 2000]: The Learning and Skills Council's information technology (IT) systems are currently under development. A number of IT suppliers have been appointed, including FI Group for systems development and ICL for the support and maintenance of IT equipment. The general approach is to manage the transition to the Learning and Skills Council by making maximum use of existing systems from Training and Enterprise Councils and the Further Education and Funding Council and then gradually phasing in new systems. Some Learning and Skills Council systems, eg for payroll and finances, are already in place. Others will be brought in before the Council becomes fully operational.

  Women in Public Life
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement on progress made towards the achievement of the Commonwealth Heads of Government target on the proportion of women in decision-making roles in political, public and private sectors by 2005. [142513]

  Ms Jowell
  [holding answer 14 December 2000]: Statistics are not currently held centrally on all areas listed. However, of the 35,000 appointments made to public bodies some 33 per cent. are held by women. This represents a rise of 10 per cent. on the position in 1991. The Government intend that 50 per cent. of all public appointments should be held by women. In some areas, such as appointments to NHS bodies, this has already nearly been achieved (some 48 per cent.), and the Women's Unit and the Public Appointments Unit are working closely together on strategies which will be sustainable over time to accelerate the overall rate of progress towards that target.

  Eighteen per cent. of those elected to the House of Commons, 37 per cent. of those elected to the Scottish Parliament and 40 per cent. of those elected to the National Assembly of Wales are women. 23 per cent. of Cabinet members are women. While the Government believe that a more representative proportion of women in political office strengthens the democratic process, selection procedures remain a matter for the political parties concerned.

  Statistics are not held centrally on women's participation in decision-making across the private sector. However, work continues to develop opportunities for women to participate equally in decision making in the private sector. For example, the Government's work-life balance campaign aims to raise awareness of the benefits of introducing policies and working practices which enable employees to balance their work with other responsibilities and needs in their lives.

  Specialist Colleges
  Caroline Flint
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what steps he is taking to help schools in coalfield communities meet the match funding requirements for the establishment of specialist sports or arts colleges. [143142]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The Government part fund the Youth Sport Trust and the Technology Colleges Trust to help schools seeking to apply for sports and arts college
  29W
  status. This help includes advice and support on seeking and attracting appropriate sponsorship from the private sector including donations from charitable foundations, private trust funds and individuals.

  The Government recognise the difficulties which some schools face in raising the private sector sponsorship to support their applications for specialist schools status. It is a challenging task, particularly in areas of socio-economic and rural deprivation. In recognition of this the Government have recently reduced the minimum sponsorship requirement from £100, 000 to £50,000. In return, a school designated as a Specialist School receives a further £100,000 towards its capital building project and additional annual grants totalling around £500,000 over four years.

  Free Alarm Clocks
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many free alarm clocks have been distributed to jobseekers by his Department. [142836]

  Ms Jowell
  [holding answer 15 December 2000]: We are determined to help people into work as quickly as possible. Local managers have the authority to decide the best way of doing that for each individual, including buying alarm clocks where that makes a difference to someone's chances of finding work We do not hold records centrally on the numbers of alarm clocks that have been given to jobseekers.

  Connexions
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what the proposed salary scale is for Connexions personal advisers; and whether the scale is linked to the pay of teachers. [142814]

  Mr. Wicks
  Connexions Personal Advisers will be employed directly by Connexions Partnerships be seconded to partnerships from a range of organisations, or be employed by organisations sub-contracted to deliver Personal Adviser services. We are also working with Partnerships to broaden the pool of people from which Personal Advisers will be recruited. It would not, therefore, be appropriate to impose national salary scales, and there will not be a direct link to the pay of teachers. We have, however, been working with Connexions Pilots on how best to harmonise terms and conditions, and I will shortly be issuing guidance on setting salary scales to Connexions Partnerships.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Vibration White Finger
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on medical examinations for vibration white finger in respect of the intermittent nature of the condition. [142153]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The medical assessment process for Vibration White Finger (VWF) has been developed with experts in the area of vibration disease. It allows for a claimant with a history of exposure to vibration to undertake a number of controlled tests and to set out for the examining doctor their symptoms.
  30W
  This enables the doctor to build up a detailed picture of the claimant's hand condition in order that the diagnosis can be confirmed and the severity of the condition assessed.

  In severe sufferers there is a continuous disability.

  Foundries
  Mrs. Organ
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what recent representations he has received from the foundry industry concerning new(a) domestic and (b) European regulations. [142524]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  On 23 November I chaired a metals tripartite meeting involving the trades unions and the metals industry trade associations. The foundry industry representatives took the opportunity to draw my attention to their increasing concerns about the burden of domestic and European regulations, particularly in respect of the environment, health and safety, energy and employment. Previous foundry industry representations to Ministers have involved my right hon. Friend the Minister for Trade on anti-dumping issues.

  In addition the foundry industry and its representative bodies continue to have a good working relationship with DTI officials and matters such as these are discussed.

  Mrs. Organ
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what estimate he has made of the compliance cost to the foundry industry of the climate change levy to be implemented in April 2001. [142729]

  Ms Hewitt
  There are no compliance costs associated with payment of the climate change levy, as the sum payable will be added to energy bills. However, there may be some limited compliance costs for those businesses who enter Negotiated Agreements to deliver energy or carbon savings in return for the 80 per cent. discount, depending on the existing level of energy monitoring within individual businesses.

  Mrs. Organ
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many(a) foundries have closed and (b) jobs have been lost from the foundry industry in the last two years. [142685]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  We estimate that just over 75 foundries have closed or announced the intention to close over the last two years resulting in some 3,600 job losses.

  Mrs. Organ
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what recent assessment has made of the economic situation of the foundry industry. [142522]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  The Department has recently commissioned a new series of competitiveness analyses of the metals sectors, including the foundry industry. Work is under way and the final reports are due to be completed in spring 2001. The outcome of the research will be shared with the trade associations representing the industry in due course.

  Mrs. Organ
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what support from(a) central Government and (b) RDAs the foundry industry has received in each of the last two years. [142523]
  31W
  Mr. Alan Johnson
  The DTI has provided grant funding of £480,111 (1998–99) and £233,193 (1999–2000) under the Innovation budget (including Sector Challenge) for sectoral competitiveness work in support of the foundry industry. The Department is also supporting other foundry industry projects this financial year as well as the new competitiveness analysis study, but to date only a proportion of the funding has actually been paid (£55,582).

  In addition, Regional Selective Assistance grants totalling £465,000 (1998–99), £773,000 (1999–2000) and £169,000 (2000–01 to end November) have been paid to companies in the foundry industry.

  It is not possible to separately identify financial support from other DTI (or other Government) schemes that have directly benefited companies in the foundry industry.

  Information on specific RDA support to particular industry sectors is also not readily available.

  Departmental Advertising
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list for(a) 1996–97, (b) 1997–98, (c) 1998–99, (d) 1999–2000 and (e) 2000–01, (i) his Department's total spending on advertising campaigns, (ii) the cost of each individual advertising campaign and (iii) the criteria that were established to gauge the effectiveness of each campaign; and what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of each campaign based on these criteria. [142709]

  Dr. Howells
  The DTI's expenditure on advertising through the Central Office of Information is set out in the tables. The criteria for assessing the effectiveness of each publicity initiative varies depending on the nature of the policy or service involved, and a judgment on the best means of getting messages to the target audiences. Specific advertising strategies form part of a wider range of activities to publicise individual policies or services, and it is sometimes difficult to untangle the impact of advertising from other actions. However, measures of success are incorporated into the planning for all campaign and advertising expenditure, and full account is taken of the guidance issued by the Cabinet Office on the use of public funds for this purpose.

  DTI advertising expenditure through COI

  Period

  Advertising activity

  Amount (£)

  1996–97

  Queens Awards

  185,295

  Export licences

  8,510

  Import licences

  58,674

  Biotechnology Means Business

  178,991

  Business Links

  2,527,747

  Fireworks safety

  85,150

  Invest in Britain

  9,377

  Miscellaneous

  110,230

  Total

  3,163,974

  32W

  DTI advertising expenditure through COI

  Period

  Advertising activity

  Amount (£)

  1997–98

  Import licences

  58,110

  Export licences

  6,808

  Languages for Export

  21,545

  Firework safety

  73,096

  Business Links

  1,331,702

  IT for All

  653,289

  Invest in Britain

  21,750

  Queens Award

  24,500

  Miscellaneous

  182,837

  Total

  2,373,637

  1998–99

  Import licences

  48,776

  Export licences

  7,659

  Queens Award

  228,159

  Firework safety

  73,863

  Working Time Regulations

  646,150

  Business Links

  1,021,351

  Carbon monoxide

  46,260

  Trade-UK

  7,198

  IT for All

  100,641

  National Minimum Wage

  3,363,881

  Total

  5,543,938

  1999–2000

  Export awareness

  19,402

  National Minimum Wage

  377,585

  Import licences

  58,417

  Export licences

  12,699

  Information Society Initiative

  852,375

  Miners compensation

  164,768

  Queens Award

  61,512

  Metrication

  22,213

  Carbon Monoxide

  71,805

  Export USA

  2,915

  Foresight

  55,605

  Miscellaneous

  15,277

  Total

  1,714,573

  2000–01 (to date)

  Import licences

  7,300

  Export licences

  8,648

  Small Business Service

  92,234

  National Minimum Wage (Youth)

  732,552

  National Minimum Wage (autumn)

  3,505,048

  Distance selling

  17,953

  Miners compensation

  142,899

  Miscellaneous

  4,887

  Total

  4,511,521

  Minimum Wage
  Mr. Alexander
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many employers have been found to be in contravention of national minimum wage legislation since its inception. [142700]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  During the period April 1999 to November 2000, as a result of their investigations, National Minimum Wage Compliance Officers found some 2,500 employers to be in contravention of national minimum wage legislation.

  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if subpostmasters are covered by minimum wage regulations; and if he will make a statement. [143095]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  The National Minimum Wage Act and Regulations apply to "workers" as defined in section 54 of the Act, plus agency workers and home workers as defined in sections 34 and 35. It is for
  33W
  employment tribunals to determine whether certain individuals do or do not count as workers, depending on the facts in each individual case. The contractual arrangements of subpostmasters may vary from case to case. Where there is a dispute about an individual's status for minimum wage purposes, section 28 of the Act puts the burden of proof on the alleged employer to prove that the individual is not a worker. If this cannot be proved, then the individual will be taken to be a worker.

  Mr. Alexander
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many calls have been received by the Minimum Wage Hotline(a) nationally and (b) from Scotland to date. [142690]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  During the period April 1999 to November 2000 over 170,000 calls in total were handled by the National Minimum Wage Helpline. In addition, a private sector helpline took 50,000 calls between January and March 1999. Therefore the total number of calls received up to the end of November 2000 is in excess of 220,000.

  Information on the location of callers is not recorded by region or country. The vast majority of calls to the helpline are simply for information and advice and there is no need to take personal details.

  Developing Countries
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the impact of the General Agreement on Trade in Services on developing countries. [142512]

  Mr. Caborn
  [holding answer 14 December 2000]: The General Agreement on Trade in Services was one of the agreements concluded at the end of the Uruguay round. It applies to all member countries of the World Trade Organisation (the majority of whom are developing countries) and includes specific provisions relating to flexibility for individual developing countries, particularly the least-developed countries.

  The GATS provides for successive rounds of negotiations aimed at achieving progressive liberalisation of trade in services. Each member country, including developing countries, chooses for itself both which sectors they want to liberalise and the extent of that liberalisation by choosing the commitments they make (the "bottom-up" approach). They do not have to liberalise if they choose not to. In the current round, which began in January 2000, developing countries have sought to emphasise the importance of liberalisation in sectors of export interest to them, such as tourism services and movement of people. The Government support the GATS negotiations and believes that its results should bring benefits to all WTO members, including developing countries.

  Fuel Prices
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list the average retail price of petrol and diesel in each EU country indicating the percentage of the price which is accounted for by taxation. [142741]
  34W
  Mrs. Liddell
  [holding answer 14 December 2000]: The latest available information for premium unleaded petrol and diesel prices and taxes is for September 2000 and is shown in the table.

  Pence per litre1

  Pump price

  Tax and duty

  Per cent. tax component

  EU unleaded and petrol prices2, 3

  Austria

  59.16

  35.24

  59.6

  Belgium

  68.54

  42.96

  62.7

  Denmark

  69.48

  45.64

  65.7

  Finland

  73.75

  47.58

  64.5

  France

  70.08

  47.58

  67.9

  Germany

  64.59

  43.36

  67.1

  Greece

  50.47

  25.70

  50.9

  Ireland

  58.72

  33.39

  56.9

  Italy

  68.58

  43.30

  63.1

  Luxembourg

  52.84

  28.45

  53.9

  Netherlands

  74.74

  47.67

  63.8

  Portugal

  54.38

  25.62

  47.1

  Spain

  51.22

  29.83

  58.2

  Sweden

  71.97

  47.02

  65.3

  UK

  80.17

  60.76

  75.8

  EU diesel prices3

  Austria

  50.25

  26.12

  52.0

  Belgium

  56.68

  27.60

  48.7

  Denmark

  59.39

  32.96

  55.5

  Finland

  54.60

  28.51

  52.2

  France

  57.14

  33.37

  58.4

  Germany

  53.20

  30.51

  57.4

  Greece

  47.46

  22.52

  47.5

  Ireland

  52.03

  29.25

  56.2

  Italy

  56.88

  32.86

  57.8

  Luxembourg

  46.01

  21.48

  46.7

  Netherlands

  55.70

  29.85

  53.6

  Portugal

  38.19

  20.61

  54.0

  Spain

  43.99

  22.60

  51.4

  Sweden

  59.41

  33.21

  55.9

  UK

  82.31

  61.08

  74.2

  1 Prices converted to pounds sterling using mid September exchange rates

  2 Premium unleaded 95RON

  3 Prices as at mid September 2000

  Source:

  European Commission Oil Bulletin

  Ultra-low Sulphur Petrol
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will estimate how much ultra-low sulphur petrol was distributed by oil companies to garages in the UK in the last month. [142743]

  Mrs. Liddell
  [holding answer 14 December 2000]: According to the latest data collected by HM Customs and Excise, 42 per cent. of deliveries released for consumption in the UK were ultra-low sulphur petrol.

  Mineworkers' Compensation Scheme
  Mr. Ennis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) how many bereavement awards have been granted to date to the widows of former miners under the mineworkers' compensation scheme; [142818]

  (2) what (a) maximum and (b) minimum bereavement award has been granted to the widows of former miners under the mineworkers' compensation scheme. [142819]
  35W
  Mrs. Liddell
  As at 3 December the Department had paid some 4,400 Bereavement Awards and Loss of Society Awards (the equivalent in Scotland), totalling nearly £37 million, to widows of former miners suffering from respiratory diseases. Individual awards ranged from £3,591 to £13,490, with the average award being £8,492 (these vary because of the different statutory awards, dependent on the date of death, and accumulated interest).

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will waive the additional Government-sponsored health test from those former miners who are assessed by the Benefits Agency as suffering from chronic bronchitis and emphysema. [142634]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The Department is legally obliged to ensure that compensation is properly paid out in accordance with the High Court ruling on the conditions for which British Coal were found liable. An examination has been made of the possibility of using the DSS medical; regrettably, they are not sufficiently detailed to allow an accurate assessment of the degree of injury for which compensation is to be paid and take no account of exposure to dust or of smoking or the progression of disability over time, which are required by the court to enable the accurate assessment of special damages.

  Type 45 Destroyer
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment his Department has made of the industrial implications of the Ministry of Defence moving from a competitive to a non-competitive procurement strategy for the Type 45 Destroyer programme. [142744]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  [holding answer 14 December 2000]: I am advised by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence that his Ministry has not moved from a competitive to a non-competitive procurement strategy for the Type 45 Destroyer programme. I have therefore not undertaken any such assessment.

  START
  Mr. Page
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on START; and what progress has been made since May 1997. [R] [142880]

  Mrs. Liddell
  [holding answer 15 December 2000]: START, built and operated by the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority at Culham in Oxfordshire from 1991, was a pioneering innovation in the research into the generation of electricity by means of nuclear fusion. START was the world's first working spherical device (the 'spherical tokamak') in which magnetic fields are used to confine the very high temperature plasmas required for energy release from fusion.

  There were two important achievements in the period from May 1997. First, a world record for the ratio of plasma pressure to magnetic pressure was demonstrated, three times greater than the record from less compact tokamaks. Secondly, it was demonstrated that the spherical tokamak plasma could easily be made to enter a stable, improved mode of operation, in which energy leakage from the plasma is reduced.

  START ceased operations on 31 March 1998. Since then its larger successor MAST ("MegaAmpere Spherical Tokamak") has been built at Culham and is confirming
  36W
  the great promise of START. Following the success of START, spherical tokamaks have been built in the US, the Russian Federation, Japan and Brazil.

  I have asked UKAEA to send the hon. Member further information on START and MAST and copies will be placed in the Libraries of the House.

  Universal Banking Services
  Sir Peter Emery
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what progress has been made on plans for a universal bank for the Post Office. [142694]

  Mr. Byers
  The Post Office and the banks are working together to develop the concept of universal banking services.

  Mr. Page
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans he has to cap the number of people who may hold a basic bank account with the universal banking services. [142959]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  [holding answer 15 December 2000]: There are no plans to cap the number of people who may hold a basic bank account.

  Royal Mail
  Mr. Syms
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what action he has taken to resolve the dispute between the Royal Mail and trade unions affecting Royal Mail services in London NW1. [142956]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  [holding answer 15 December 2000]: Industrial relations at Royal Mail are a matter for the Post Office and the trade unions.

  Mr. Syms
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on Royal Mail postal deliveries in London NW1. [142953]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  [holding answer 15 December 2000]: Royal Mail postal deliveries in London NW1 and nationally are an operational matter for the Post Office.

  Sub-post Offices
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry under what powers he plans to instruct the Post Office to maintain the rural network of sub-post offices. [142881]

  Mr. Byers
  [holding answer 15 December 2000]: My hon. Friend the Minister for Competitiveness placed a formal requirement on the Post Office to maintain the rural network and to prevent any avoidable closures of rural post offices in a letter dated 17 November to the Chief Executive.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Digital Television
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (1) what plans he has to set a date beyond which non-digital television sets cannot be sold; [141631]
  37W
  (2) what estimate he has made of how many television sets (a) able and (b) unable to receive digital television transmissions have been sold since his announcement in November 1999 that analogue services would be cut off. [141632]

  Janet Anderson
  Around 25,000 integrated digital television sets were sold in the last 12 months. Nearly all of the other new television sets sold are also able to receive digital television transmissions by using a set-top box. Some cheaper sets may not have the necessary socket, though we have no information about the exact number. We are currently negotiating a European directive stipulating that all the television sets sold in Europe should have at least one open interface socket permitting the connection of a digital receiver.

  A date beyond which non-digital television sets cannot be sold can be set only with the agreement of the European Commission. Such a measure is currently being considered by the European Commission.

  Wembley Stadium
  Mr. Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will make a statement about the future of Wembley Stadium. [142591]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  [holding answer 14 December 2000]: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for East Surrey (Mr. Ainsworth) on 15 December 2000, Official Report, column 294W.

  Millennium Dome
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will make a statement on the sale of the Millennium Dome. [141898]

  Janet Anderson
  [holding answer 11 December 2000]: On 20 November, the Government announced that Legacy plc had been awarded preferred bidder status. Legacy plc confirmed that they will resolve all outstanding contractual issues within an agreed timetable. Negotiations continue, and if all goes well the Government expect to exchange contracts during February. Progress will be reviewed regularly.

WALES

  Urban II Initiative
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what assessment he has made of the extent to which the Urban II initiative bid for Wales will be affected by the European Commission's rejection of the United Kingdom's overall submission. [143164]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  The Commission has not rejected the United Kingdom's proposals. Discussions are continuing about the total number of programmes which can proceed. However, I am confident that this will not affect the position of the West Wrexham bid.

  Regional Development Agencies
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if the strategy funds for Regional Development Agencies, announced in the pre-Budget Statement, also apply to the Welsh Development Agency. [142584]
  38W
  Mr. Paul Murphy
  The pre-Budget Report announcement concerned English Regional Development Agencies, and gave them more budgetary flexibility, and a new Strategic Programme, allowing Regional Development Agencies to switch resources into the new Strategic Programme for innovative schemes that meet their economic and other strategic aims.

  The Spending Review provided increased resources for Regional Development Agencies and Wales received Barnett consequential of those increases in the usual way. It is for the Assembly to determine how to allocate its resources among its programmes according to its own priorities, and its recent budget announcements set out detailed plans, including increased funding, for the WDA for the next three years.

  Census Form
  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement as to the proposed census form for Wales. [142379]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  The Government have made an unprecedented commitment to ensuring a successful census in Wales. Anyone who writes that they are Welsh in the ethnic identity section of the census form will be counted as such. Unlike a simple tick box this will identify those Welsh people who are from black, asian or other backgrounds. We are explicitly recognising the diversity of those who regard themselves as Welsh and who have other ethnic backgrounds.

  As with every census there will be an advertising campaign to make sure that everyone fills the forms in. But in Wales there will be additional emphasis on making sure that people are aware that they can state that they are Welsh.

  A question on the country of birth will enable people to indicate that they were born in Wales and respondents will be asked whether they can understand, speak, read or write in the Welsh language.

  An expanded and enhanced Labour Force Survey will ask questions about Welsh identity for the first time, and the Office for National Statistics has pledged to publish a special report based on these findings, combined with information from the census.

  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what discussions he has had with the First Secretary of the National Assembly for Wales on the proposed census form for Wales. [142380]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  I have regular discussions with the First Secretary about a range of issues, including the 2001 census.

  As the census informs billions of pounds of spending in Wales, whether through the Welsh Block grant, allocations to police or fire services, or overall measures of economic performance and thus economic aid, we have discussed how any disruption of the census, either through non co-operation or eleventh hour changes to its format, runs the risk of losing precious resources for Wales.

SCOTLAND

  McDermott International Ltd.
  Mr. David Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received about the winding up of the occupational pension plan operated by the UK section of McDermott International Ltd. [143085]

  Dr. Reid
  I have received representations from my hon. Friend about this matter. I know my hon. Friend is meeting OPAS (the Pensions Scheme Advisory Service) which can provide advice on these issues. The responsibility for ensuring the proper statutory procedures of occupational pension schemes rests with the Occupational Pensions Regulatory Authority. The Pensions Ombudsman can investigate complaints of maladministration from members of occupational pension schemes.

HEALTH

  Fluoride
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the York Review of fluoride in drinking water; and if he will make a statement as to the implications for public policy. [142239]

  Mr. Denham
  The report of the systematic review of water fluoridation undertaken by the National Health Service Centre for Reviews and Dissemination at the University of York concluded that fluoridating water helps to reduce tooth decay and found no clear evidence of adverse effects on general health.

  The report did, however, identify the need for more good quality research and we have asked the Medical Research Council to set up a working group to advise on whether further research in the area of water fluoridation and human health is required. We will be discussing the report with representatives of the water industry. When this action is complete we will review the need for legislation.

  Departmental Policies (Blackpool, South)
  Mr. Gordon Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will set out, including statistical information relating as directly as possible to the constituency, the effect on the Blackpool, South constituency of his Department's policies and actions since 2 May 1997. [142228]

  Mr. Denham
  The income and expenditure figures for North West Lancashire health authority for the last four financial years, as per final accounts, are in the table.

  £000

  Total income

  Total expenditure

  1996–97

  313,497

  312,965

  1997–98

  295,579

  294,947

  1998–99

  313,804

  313,769

  1999–2000

  374,664

  376,367

  Note:

  The overspend in 1999–2000 was a combination of a planned overspend supported by the balance sheet, provisions and prescribing.
  40W
  Capital allocations to the two National Health Service trusts based in and around Blackpool were as follows:

  £000

  Blackpool, Wyre and Fylde

  Blackpool Victoria

  Unconditional1

  1996–97

  1,004

  2,190

  1997–98

  1,004

  2,190

  1998–99

  803

  1,752

  1999–2000

  857

  2,072

  2000–01

  883

  1,925

  Conditional2 (approved)

  1996–97

  -300

  3,752

  1997–98

  —

  5,119

  1998–99

  —

  3,800

  1999–2000

  —

  9,528

  2000–01

  755

  5,200

  1 Unconditional, i.e the trust is free to determine use of the money.

  2 Conditional, i.e the allocation relates to a specific, agreed project.

  Clinicians
  Tony Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if clinicians are allowed to participate in clinical governance arrangements; and what sanctions are available if they do not. [142188]

  Mr. Denham
  The arrangements for clinical governance provide a coherent and comprehensive framework of measures to assure and improve the quality of patient care in the National Health Service. These arrangements are multi-disciplinary and all clinicians are expected to participate in their delivery.

  The Health Act 1999 places a duty of quality on primary care trusts, health authorities and NHS trusts. They must ensure that this duty is discharged properly by putting and keeping in place arrangements for continuously monitoring and improving the quality of health care they provide through the implementation of clinical governance. NHS organisations are responsible for ensuring that clinicians participate fully in clinical governance arrangements.

  The Commission for Health Improvement will monitor the implementation of clinical governance through a rolling programme of clinical governance reviews.

  Clinical governance is underpinned by arrangements for professional appraisal. The NHS Plan proposes that, subject to Parliament, by April 2001, all doctors working in primary care, whether as principals, non-principals or locums, will be required to be on a list of a health authority and be subject to clinical governance arrangements. These will include annual appraisal and mandatory participation in clinical audit.

  The NHS Plan also sets out provisions for making annual appraisal and effective job plans mandatory for all consultants. The intention is to introduce an agreed mechanism for employer-based appraisal, by April 2001, as a contractual requirement. The outcome of the appraisal process will need to be compatible with, and to feed into, the processes of clinical governance and General Medical Council revalidation, which will require all doctors to demonstrate that they remain fit to practise in their chosen field.

  Mixed-sex Specialist Wards
  Mr. Bruce George
  To ask the secretary of State for Health (1) how many representations he has received against the abolition of mixed-sex specialist wards in the last year; [142553]

  (2) from whom he has received recent representations against the abolition of mixed-sex specialist wards; and what plans he has to review his policy in response to them. [142547]

  Mr. Denham
  I have not received any representation against the abolition of mixed-sex specialist wards.

  Mr. Bruce George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans his Department has to utilise specialist-trained nurses and how many will become available if specialist mixed-sex wards are abolished. [142549]

  Mr. Denham
  It is for local managers to decide how best to use their staff but it is likely that any specialist-trained nurses currently employed in mixed-sex wards will be re-deployed to deliver specialist services in a single sex environment.

  Mr. Bruce George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will retain multi-bay mixed-sex specialist dermatological wards in order to provide specialist treatment. [142552]

  Mr. Denham
  We remain committed to achieving the three specific objectives we have set for eliminating mixed-sex accommodation. These are:Ensuring that appropriate organisational arrangements are in place to secure good standards of privacy and dignity for hospital patients;
  Achieving fully the Patient's Charter standard for segregated washing and toilet facilities across the National Health Service; and
  Providing safe facilities for patients in hospital who are mentally ill which safeguard their privacy and dignity.

  It is our aim to achieve these objectives in the vast majority of health authorities by 2002.

  Mr. Bruce George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent assessment his Department has made as to the cost-effectiveness of single sex wards and whether they comprise best practice in respect of the provision of specialist treatment; and if he will make a statement. [142548]

  Mr. Denham
  It is a matter for National Health Service trusts, after appropriate liaison with their local health authorities and NHS Executive regional offices, to identify cost-effective ways of achieving our objectives on eliminating mixed-sex accommodation.

  Many hospitals are able to deliver specialist services to their patients in a single sex environment. It is our view that it is best practice for NHS trusts to enhance privacy and dignity, thereby increasing the quality of the service they provide to patients.

  Food Labelling
  Dr. Iddon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what assessment he has made of the work of the Food Standards Agency in previewing food labelling in respect of proposals that will provide consumers with accurate 42W
  and comprehensive information about the contributions of some food products to the reduction of disease risk exposure; and if he will make a statement; [142707]

  (2) what steps he is taking at a European level to promote initiatives to improve labelling information for consumers of food products to provide accurate and comprehensive information about the contributions of certain food products in the reduction of disease risk exposure; and if he will make a statement. [142763]

  Ms Stuart
  We have accepted the advice of the Food Standards Agency (FSA) that in the interests of informed consumer choice, European Union legislation should allow those foods which play a role in reducing the risk of certain diseases to make relevant claims. It has also agreed that there should be an effective and practical system at EU level for the verification and approval of such claims.

  The FSA is pressing the European Commission to amend European Community food labelling rules to improve the level and clarity of information on food labels.

  A summary of the changes being pursued has been published by the FSA in its action plan on food labelling, copies of which are available in the Library.

  Hospital Waiting Times
  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what percentage of patients have been waiting over one year for inpatient treatment in(a) West Surrey and (b) Durham in (i) 1997 and (ii) at the latest date for which figures are available. [142992]

  Mr. Denham
  The information requested is given in the table.

  Percentage

  Proportion of patients waiting over a year for inpatient treatment as on:

  31 March 1997

  31 October 2000

  West Surrey Heath Authority

  5.5

  11.7

  County Durham and Darlington Health Authority

  0.0

  1.5

  Source:

  QF01 quarterly waiting times return/monthly waiting times return

  We are committed to reducing waiting times for outpatient appointments and inpatient treatment. We addressed this in the National Health Service Plan announced in July where we pledged that, by the end of 2005, the maximum inpatient waiting time will be cut from 18 months now to six months and the maximum outpatient waiting time will be cut from over six months now to three months. Provided we can recruit the extra staff, and the NHS makes the necessary reforms, our eventual objective is to reduce the maximum wait for any stage of treatment to three months by the end of 2008.

  Stroke Patients
  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on access to NHS specialist services for people with stroke; what plans he has to end the postcode variations in care for stroke patients; and if he will make additional resources available for the treatment of this condition. [142835]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 15 December 2000]: "Saving Lives: Our Healthier Nation" included stroke as a priority for action and proposes a target reduction in stroke mortality of at least two fifths by 2010 for people under 75.

  The forthcoming National Service Framework (NSF) for Older People will drive up the quality, and reduce variations in services for older people. It will set national standards and define service models for the health and social care older people receive; put in place programmes to support implementation; and establish milestones and performance indicators against which progress will be measured. It is expected that the NSF will cover conditions prevalent among older people such as stroke and that it will apply to all stroke patients.

  The Budget last March provided around £4 billion extra year on year for England for this year and the next three years (ie 2000–01 to 2003–04).

  Ambulance Service
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will estimate the number of additional ambulances and crew required for the London Ambulance Service to achieve an average eight-minute response rate for urban trusts. [142139]

  Ms Stuart
  It is not possible to identify the additional number of ambulances and crew required for the London Ambulance Service to achieve an average eight-minute response rate for urban trusts.

  Hospital Discharges
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will set out for each health authority, by NHS region, the reason, number and percentage of over 75-year-olds whose discharge was delayed in each quarter of the last three years. [141457]

  Mr. Denham
  The information requested has been put in the Library.

  Health Authority Funding
  Mr. Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much Government funding has been allocated for 2000–01 for each health authority in England and Wales(a) in total and (b) per head of population. [142888]

  Mr. Denham
  The 2000–01 allocation and the 2000–01 allocation per weighted head of population for each health authority in England are given in the table. All figures include the additional £660 million announced on 28 March 2000.

  Funding of health authorities in Wales is a matter for the Assembly for Wales.
  44W

  Health authority

  2000–01 allocation (£000)

  Allocation per weighted head of population (£)

  Avon

  641,970

  681

  Barking and Havering

  281,533

  694

  Barnet

  228,234

  691

  Barnsley

  171,548

  669

  Bedfordshire

  344,831

  663

  Berkshire

  484,623

  666

  Bexley and Greenwich

  318,047

  729

  Birmingham

  749,780

  693

  Bradford

  344,396

  684

  Brent and Harrow

  342,135

  704

  Bromley

  201,306

  688

  Buckinghamshire

  407,599

  668

  Bury and Rochdale

  276,730

  687

  Calderdale and Kirklees

  402,907

  687

  Cambridgeshire

  442,411

  671

  Camden and Islington

  357,147

  710

  Cornwall and Isles of Scilly

  345,751

  701

  County Durham

  452,736

  674

  Coventry

  221,753

  669

  Croydon

  223,107

  681

  Doncaster

  216,860

  688

  Dorset

  487,298

  701

  Dudley

  200,507

  677

  Ealing, Hammersmith and Hounslow

  524,548

  688

  East and North Hertfordshire

  318,662

  679

  East Kent

  431,841

  705

  East Lancashire

  384,249

  683

  East London and the City

  547,564

  666

  East Riding

  395,257

  689

  East Surrey

  267,914

  703

  East Sussex, Brighton and Hove

  551,376

  705

  Enfield and Haringey

  356,859

  691

  Gateshead and South Tyneside

  278,161

  682

  Gloucestershire

  364,311

  708

  Herefordshire

  108,512

  685

  Hillingdon

  169,434

  684

  Isle of Wight

  100,622

  736

  Kensington, Chelsea and Westminster

  321,111

  637

  Kingston and Richmond

  237,277

  706

  Lambeth, Southwark and Lewisham

  638,243

  705

  Leeds

  516,653

  694

  Leicestershire

  570,686

  670

  Lincolnshire

  429,691

  681

  Liverpool

  379,504

  702

  Manchester

  380,061

  704

  Merton, Sutton and Wandsworth

  455,914

  700

  Morecambe Bay

  224,098

  710

  Newcastle and North Tyneside

  365,337

  696

  Norfolk

  504,549

  688

  North and East Devon

  328,698

  697

  North and Mid Hampshire

  320,050

  693

  North Cheshire

  217,660

  694

  North Cumbria

  217,846

  691

  North Derbyshire

  249,371

  684

  North Essex

  555,679

  687

  North Nottinghamshire

  260,428

  672

  North Staffordshire

  335,037

  678

  North West Lancashire

  352,074

  688

  North Yorkshire

  474,576

  684

  Northamptonshire

  356,996

  694

  Northumberland

  215,290

  687

  Nottingham

  428,772

  673

  Oxfordshire

  364,378

  672

  Portsmouth and South East Hampshire

  364,591

  688

  Redbridge and Waltham Forest

  323,694

  714

  Rotherham

  174,259

  682

  Salford and Trafford

  340,055

  701

  Sandwell

  224,323

  684

  Sefton

  211,790

  709

  Sheffield

  399,623

  698

  Shropshire

  270,975

  678

  Solihull

  133,724

  690

  Somerset

  318,840

  691

  South and West Devon

  419,811

  698

  South Cheshire

  443,804

  694

  45W

  Health authority

  2000–01 allocation (£000)

  Allocation per weighted head of population (£)

  South Derbyshire

  375,652

  677

  South Essex

  463,389

  677

  South Humber

  216,561

  701

  South Lancashire

  206,248

  702

  South Staffordshire

  352,315

  686

  Southampton and South West Hampshire

  359,457

  688

  St. Helen's and Knowsley

  258,206

  684

  Stockport

  193,464

  691

  Suffolk

  434,142

  694

  Sunderland

  219,431

  682

  Tees

  405,341

  682

  Wakefield

  232,337

  693

  Walsall

  179,574

  679

  Warwickshire

  320,497

  699

  West Hertfordshire

  346,924

  691

  West Kent

  618,824

  694

  West Pennine

  325,991

  676

  West Surrey

  401,226

  706

  West Sussex

  513,306

  684

  Wigan and Bolton

  410,052

  667

  Wiltshire

  380,058

  702

  Wirral

  248,242

  710

  Wolverhampton

  175,993

  677

  Worcestershire

  329,672

  692

  England total

  34,234,888

  688

  Health Pay Review Bodies
  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the reports and recommendations of the health pay review bodies. [143602]

  Mr. Milburn
  I am responding on behalf of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to the reports of the Review Body on Doctors' and Dentists' Remuneration (DDRB) and the Review Body on Nursing staff, Midwives, Health Visitors and Professions Allied to Medicine (NPRB), which are published today. I understand that a similar announcement is being made by the First Minister and the Minister for Health and Community Care in Scotland. Copies of the reports are available in the Vote Office and the Library. I am grateful to the chairmen and members of both Review Bodies for their hard work.

  The pay recommendations of the two Review Bodies are being accepted in full and without staging.

  Nurses, midwives and health visitors are to get an across the board increase of 3.7 per cent. For the third time in three years, the award is being paid nationally in full without staging. In addition one discretionary point is being consolidated into pay ranges of grades F, G, H and I, and the flat rate elements of London Allowance, on call and standby payments are also increased by 3.7 per cent. and the flat rate elements of London Weighting are being harmonised in line with rates paid to staff above grade B.

  On top of these increases, we are also introducing Cost of Living Supplements from 1 April 2001. These will be worth between £600 and £1,000 for qualified NPRB staff in London, and between £400 and £600 for equivalent staff in high-cost areas in the South of England.

  The minimum starting pay of a newly qualified nurse will rise to £15,445, an increase of 30 per cent. in cash terms over the salary paid at 31 March 1997. In Inner London, starting pay for a new nurse will be £19,178,
  46W
  including London Weighting and the new cost of living supplement—an increase of 7 per cent. on the April 2000 figure.

  The pay of an experienced ward sister or charge nurse on the maximum of grade G will rise by 5.5 per cent. to £25,420. This reflects the 3.7 per cent. award and the consolidation of one discretionary point. An equivalent nurse in inner London will earn £29,535 including also the new cost of living supplement—a 9 per cent. increase over the April 2000 figure.

  On the issue of midwives' grading, the NPRB has endorsed the agreement reached between the parties and recommended that it be implemented from 1 April 2001. This means that all midwives will be able to move through to the maximum of grade F without needing to be promoted.

  This year, the largest increases go to the most experienced nurses, midwives and health visitors who are in the vanguard of delivering the modern NHS—providing leadership, assuring clinical and environmental standards and getting all aspects of basic nursing care right for the patients.

  The NPRB has also recommended an across the board increase of 3.7 per cent. for physiotherapists, radiographers and other professions allied to medicine (PAMs). Starting pay for basic grade PAMs with a degree after four years' training will increase on 1 April 2001 to £15,920. PAMs in the pay ranges of the Senior II, Senior I and Chief/Head/Superintendent IV, and the Chief/Head/Superintendent III grades are also to have one discretionary point consolidated in recognition of the extra responsibilities placed on them by the NHS Plan. In addition, the qualifying period for discretionary points will be reduced to one year in line with the arrangements for other NPRB staff.

  These awards are fair and reflect the contribution of the key staff in the Review Body groups to the delivery of the NHS Plan and the whole modernisation agenda.

  The Doctors' and Dentists' Review Body (DDRB) has recommended an overall pay increase of 3.9 per cent. for salaried doctors and dentists and general medical and dental practitioners.

  To encourage the retention of general medical practitioners, the DDRB has also recommended a 7 per cent. increase in seniority allowances, worth in the region of £500 for a general medical practitioner with 25 years service. This is in addition to the 3.9 per cent. increase in intended average net remuneration.

  For consultants this 3.9 per cent. increase comes on top of the £50 million package to recognise increased work load, contribution to NHS and intensity of work. Within this over £40 million will be paid out in intensity supplements to consultants this year, paid in January 2001 backdated to April 2000.

  The DDRB pay rise takes the starting consultant salary to £50,810 and a consultant on the maximum of the scale with maximum distinction award to £128,935. The number of distinction awards has also been increased by 176 which will support the Government's proposals to reform the existing schemes to give more opportunity to reward consultants for their commitment and contribution to the NHS.
  47W
  Doctors in training will benefit from this increase as well as from the new pay and banding system introduced in December 2000. This deal replaced the old, unfair system of half pay for extra hours with a banding system to reflect total hours worked. As well as giving doctors in training significant increases the pay deal acts as an incentive for employers to reduce excessive hours. With the addition of this pay increase a Pre-Registration House Officer (PRHO) on minimum of scale working more than 48 hours at most unsocial times (band 2A) will receive £26,903 and a SHO on the maximum of the scale, again in band 2A, will receive £44,820.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Flooding
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what research he has carried out to determine which rivers in(a) England, (b) Wales and (c) Scotland have flood conditions which exceed (i) 10 ft and (ii) 15 ft above low water level, at the frequencies of (1) one in 10 years, (2) one in 50 years, (3) one in 100 years, (4) one in 200 years and (5) one in 500 years; and where information arising from such research has been published. [142030]

  Mr. Morley
  Flood defence is a devolved responsibility. I am not aware of any research that has been undertaken to provide the information sought on a consolidated basis for rivers in England. Depth of potential flooding is highly variable even within an individual river catchment, as it depends on the flow and the degree to which it is confined or controlled. However, where schemes for flood alleviation or management are proposed, a significant part of the investigation is the derivation of such information on a site-specific basis.

PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL

  Departmental Policies (Blackpool, South)
  Mr. Gordon Marsden
  To ask the President of the Council if she will set out, including statistical information relating as directly as possible to the constituency, the effect on the Blackpool, South constituency of her Department's policies and actions since 2 May 1997. [142225]

  Mrs. Beckett
  The Privy Council Office's core role is as a Secretariat. As such it has no policies of its own which would directly affect my hon. Friend's constituency.

CABINET OFFICE

  Task Forces
  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office when she will publish the next six-monthly update of information on task forces, ad hoc advisory groups and reviews established since 2 May 1997. [143497]

  Mr. Stringer
  I have today placed in the Libraries of the House lists containing updated details about those live task forces, ad hoc advisory groups and reviews established between 2 May 1997, and 31 October 2000.
  48W
  The lists also contain details about those bodies that have been wound up during the period 1 May 2000 to 31 October 2000.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Business Watch Schemes
  Mr. Bill O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many industrial business watch schemes are in operation in England working to prevent crime and theft on industrial estates; and if he will make a statement; [142181]

  (2) what assistance his Department offers to industrial business watch schemes; and if he will make a statement. [142178]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  We do not provide any direct formal or financial assistance to industrial business watch schemes, and there are no central records available as to the number of such schemes. We do, of course, welcome any such initiatives to combat crime. Among the projects to assist business to reduce crime is Business Crime Check which seeks to create, maintain and promote a database of information relevant to those who wish to reduce crime against business.

  Mr. Bill O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many businesses took part in the National Retail Business Watch scheme; and if he will make a statement. [142180]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  I am not aware of the National Retail Business Watch scheme. The Government's drive against retail crime is being taken forward by the Retail Crime Reduction Action Team (RCRAT) and its work with the police and others in the public and private sectors has already had an impact on retail crime. RCRAT has produced a comprehensive guide to setting up and managing a Retail Crime Reduction Partnership and to date almost 250 of these partnerships have been established, covering all the major shopping centres in England and Wales.

  Statutory Scrutiny
  Tony Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many police authorities were in existence on 1 April 2000, and if they are(a) statutorily required to publish annual reports, (b) statutorily required to publish annual accounts, (c) subject to the jurisdiction of the parliamentary or local government Ombudsman, (d) subject to audit by the National Audit Office, (e) subject to audit by the Audit Commission, (f) statutorily required to admit the public to committee meetings, (g) statutorily required to hold public meetings, (h) statutorily required to publish the agendas of meetings, (i) statutorily required to publish the minutes of meetings, (j) statutorily required to publish the papers or documents for meetings, (k) statutorily required to keep and make publicly available a register of Members' interests, (l) statutorily required to consult and report to local authorities in their areas on their plans and policies and (m) statutorily subject to scrutiny by local authorities in their areas of operation. [142400]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  There were 41 police authorities in existence in England and Wales, outside London, on 1 April. The Metropolitan Police Authority was established
  49W
  on 1 July 2000. The main legislative provisions relating to police authorities are incorporated in the Police Act 1996, the Police and Magistrates' Courts Act 1994 and various items of local government legislation. Police authorities are statutorily required to publish annual reports and annual accounts. They are subject to the jurisdiction of the Local Government Ombudsman, but not the Parliamentary Ombudsman. They are subject to audit by the Audit Commission, but not by the National Audit Office. Section 100 of the Local Government Act 1972 as amended by the Access to Information Act 1984 sets out the legislative position regarding public access to meetings and documents relating to those meetings. Police authorities are statutorily required to admit the Public to committee meetings, but not to hold additional public meetings. They are also statutorily required to publish the agendas, minutes and papers or documents for meetings. The public can be excluded from meetings during consideration of exempt items (as outlined in Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972) and papers relating to such items may also be withheld from public access. Police authorities are statutorily required to keep and make publicly available a register of members' interests. There is no statutory requirement to consult and report to local authorities in their areas on their plans and policies and they are not statutorily subject to scrutiny by local authorities in their areas of operation.

  Feltham Young Offender Institution
  Jackie Ballard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the staffing ratios for Feltham Young Offender Institution are(a) for juveniles only and (b) for 18 to 21 year olds. [142725]

  Mr. Boateng
  The information, as at 11 December 2000, is as follows:

  Staff to prisoner ratio

  Juveniles

  1: 0.99

  18–21 year olds

  1: 1.10

  Jackie Ballard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will provide a breakdown of staff at Feltham Young Offender Institution in the following categories:(a) full time, (b) part time, (c) prison officers and (d) others. [142726]

  Mr. Boateng
  The information, as at 11 December 2000, is as follows:

  Full Time

  Part Time

  Total

  Prison officer grades

  382

  6

  388

  Other grades

  229

  23

  252

  Total

  611

  29

  640

  Jackie Ballard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the sickness rate for 1999–2000 was among prison officers at Feltham Young Offender Institution. [142724]

  Mr. Boateng
  The sickness rate for 1999–2000 for prison officer grades at Feltham young offender institution was 14.76 working days.
  50W
  Jackie Ballard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the rate of turnover of prison officers at Feltham was in each of the past three years. [142865]

  Mr. Boateng
  The information requested is provided in the table:

  Percentage

  Turnover rate

  1997–98

  18.2

  1998–99

  13.9

  1999–2000

  22.7

  2000–011

  11.7

  1 April 2000–11 December 2000

  The figures represent the number of basic grade officers, senior officers and principal officers to have left Feltham young offender institution each year, as a proportion of staff in post. Transfers to other Prison Service establishments are included.

  Jackie Ballard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prison officers have(a) left and (b) joined the Prison Service since 1989. [142866]

  Mr. Boateng
  Due to a change of computer system during 1995–96, reliable data on staff movements into and out of the Service are not available prior to April 1997. Between 1 April 1997 and 12 December 2000, 3,098 prison officer grades (including senior and principal officers) left the Service. Between 1 April 1997 and 12 December 2000, 3,821 people joined the Service as prison officers.

  Gurpal Virdi
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will estimate direct and indirect costs to the Metropolitan police of the costs and investigation in relation to Gurpal Virdi. [142498]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  I have been informed by the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis that the recorded costs incurred by their Directorate of Legal Services, together with the award of compensation on the first Employment Tribunal claim by Mr. Virdi, is estimated at £401,688 (£250,000 legal costs and £151,688 compensation award).

  As well as these legal costs, there are the costs incurred in the investigation itself and the discipline hearing, which included witness attendance. To quantify these costs could be done only at disproportionate cost. It should be noted, however, that the majority of these costs are "opportunity costs" (that is work carried out in the normal course of an officer's duties) and not additionally incurred.

  Criminal Cases Review Commission
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proportion of applicants in Criminal Cases Review Commission cases which have been referred back to the Court of Appeal, have had legal representation during their application to the Commission. [142589]
  51W
  Mr. Charles Clarke
  I understand that in 98 of the 108 cases that the Criminal Cases Review Commission has to date referred to an appellate court, the applicant has been legally represented by the time their case was referred, a proportion of 91 per cent.

  Prison Service
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations the Director General of the Prison Service has received concerning the establishment of a union for prisoners; and what response he has given. [142795]

  Mr. Boateng
  The Prison Service has been approached about the formation of representative organisations for prisoners to address matters of common interest to them. It is unclear how these organisations would operate and the Prison Service is currently seeking clarification from the parties involved.

  Rural Crime
  Sir Peter Emery
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action he is taking to combat the rise in rural crime, with special reference to the south-west. [142696]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The British Crime Survey shows that crime levels are significantly lower in rural areas than in urban areas, with levels of burglary, violent and vehicle crime declining. Nevertheless, tackling crime and the fear of crime in all areas, including rural areas, remains a high priority for this Government. Our approach in all areas is to assist the police and the local crime and disorder partnerships to address local crime effectively.

  We announced in June that rural police forces were to benefit this year from an additional £15 million from the Police Modernisation Fund. The allocation to forces in the south-west is as follows: Avon and Somerset, £494,892; Devon and Cornwall £1,554,673; Dorset £221,858; Gloucestershire £387,093; and Wiltshire £544,900. The money rises to £30 million next year.

  This money will make a real difference to policing in rural areas. In addition, we are providing funding for a range of initiatives and projects in rural areas as part of the Government's Crime Reduction Programme. In Devon and Cornwall, these include £81,000 to tackle persistent offending in east Devon and £950,000 to tackle alcohol related crime across the force area as part of the Targeted Policing Initiative; and £367,200 for four projects as part of the Reducing Burglary Initiative.

  Freemasons
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make it his policy to require police officers to disclose membership of the Freemasons. [142521]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave him on 9 November 2000,Official Report, column 402W. The deadline for police service responses to the Home Department consultation on this subject is 31 December.

  Illegal Drugs
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans the Government have to audit the costs of enforcing the law relating to illegal drugs. [142212]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  [holding answer 13 December, 2000]: Assessing the costs of anti-drugs activities is inherently difficult because these often form part of wider functional service expenditure. For instance, up to one third of all property crime is thought to be drugs related, imposing a considerable burden on the Criminal Justice System. Broad assessment of the costs imposed by illegal abuse on public services and the proactive measures centred on tackling their root causes were made in the 2000 Spending review. Indicative spending totals for the latter were published in the Spending Review White Paper (Cm 4807).

  The Government are committed to improving their understanding of these totals. As part of its Service Delivery Agreement, the Cabinet Office, which is responsible for the United Kingdom Anti Drugs Co-ordination Unit, will implement a robust system for tracking total anti-drugs related expenditure and outputs by March 2002 and demonstrate that by March 2004 there will have been a 45 per cent. increase in spend on proactive effort on a 2000–01 base.

  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people, broken down by ethnic group, were convicted of dealing in illegal drugs and other offences involving illegal drugs in the UK in each of the last three years. [142294]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  [holding answer 13 December, 2000]: The requested information is not available centrally. The annual publication "Statistics on Race and the Criminal Justice System" to be published in January 2001 will provide some related information. For the first time, it will show, by police force area and ethnic appearance, the number of persons arrested and the number cautioned by the police in England and Wales for drugs offences in general. Copies of this publication will be available in the Library.

  Juvenile Offenders
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many secure accommodation places there are for juvenile offenders in Wales; [142586]

  (2) if he will make it his policy to increase the number of secure accommodation places for juvenile offenders in Wales. [142583]

  Mr. Boateng
  The only Welsh secure accommodation currently available for juvenile offenders is at Hillside, a local authority secure unit in Neath. 14 of its 18 places are provided under a block contract with the Youth Justice Board, and when they are available the Board can also spot purchase from among the remaining four places.

  The Board aims to expand capacity in Wales by 2003–04 through its commissioning strategy. It is currently examining possible sites and also in discussion with the Prison Service.

  Anti-social Behaviour Orders
  Mr. Hilary Benn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list, by local authority area, the number of anti-social behaviour orders that have been(a) applied for and (b) granted. [143000]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Over 140 anti-social behaviour orders have been issued since the measure was implemented on 1 April 1999. Figures, by local authority area, for the numbers of orders applied for and obtained during that period are not held centrally.

  Street Lighting (Denbury)
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will take steps to ensure that street lighting on the Home Office Estate in Denbury, South Devon is set to GMT; and if he will make a statement on the administrative costs of collecting the annual fee from each household on the estate for this street lighting. [142943]

  Mr. Boateng
  The street lighting has been set to take account of the change to GMT. The annual charge to each private owner on the former Prison Service quarters estate for the street lighting and other services is collected on behalf of the prison by a collecting agent who charges the Prison Service an administrative fee of £25.75 per property.

  Crime and Disorder Partnerships
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much central Government funding has been allocated in total to local crime and disorder partnerships in each year since they were established under the Crime and Disorder Act 1998. [142602]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  [holding answer 15 December 2000]: The bulk of the project funding for Crime Reduction Programme Initiatives detailed in my letter of 20 November to the hon. Member, and available in the Library, is channelled through the crime and disorder reduction partnerships established under the Crime and Disorder Act 1998. The Home Department also has in place an annual £1 million programme of research, consultancy support and training and seminars to help partnerships achieve their crime and disorder reduction objectives. In addition, a further £3 million this year, and £20 million in each of the following three years is available for general partnership and support.

  Police Stations
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the police stations in the Metropolitan police area which are planned to have reduced hours when they are open to the public. [142981]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  [holding answer 15 December 2000]: The decision to restrict the opening hours of police stations is an operational matter for the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis. I understand from the Commissioner that there are currently no plans to reduce the opening hours of any police station in the Metropolitan police area.

  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the police stations in the Metropolitan police area which are planned to close. [142985]
  54W
  Mr. Charles Clarke
  [holding answer 15 December 2000]: The decision to close police facilities is an operational matter for the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis. I understand from the Commissioner that there are currently no plans to close any police stations in the Metropolitan police area.

  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the police stations in the Metropolitan police area on 1 December,(a)(b) 1997, (c) 1998 and (d) 1999. [142984]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  [holding answer 15 December 2000]: I understand from the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police Service that police stations within the Metropolitan police area at 21 November 2000 were as follows. Information for earlier years is not available.

  Borough

  Police stations

  Barking and Dagenham

  Barking

  Dagenham

  Marks Gate

  Barnet

  Barnet

  Colindale

  Finchley

  Golders Green

  Whetstone

  Bexley

  Belvedere

  Bexleyheath

  Sidcup

  Brent

  Chalkhill

  Harlesden

  Kilburn

  Kingsbury

  Wembley

  Willesden

  Bromley

  Beckenham

  Bromley

  Orpington

  Penge

  West Wickham

  Camden

  Albany Street

  Grays Inn Road

  Hampstead

  Kentish Town

  West Hampstead

  City of Westminster

  Belgravia

  Charing Cross

  Harrow Road

  Marylebone

  Paddington

  St. John's Wood

  West End Central

  Westminster

  Croydon

  Addington

  Croydon

  Kenley

  Norbury

  South Norwood

  Ealing

  Acton

  Ealing

  Greenford

  Norwood Green

  Perry Vale

  Southall

  Enfield

  Edmonton

  Enfield

  Ponders End

  Southgate

  55W

  Borough

  Police stations

  Greenwich

  Eltham

  Greenwich

  Plumstead

  Thamesmead

  Woolwich

  Hackney

  Dalston

  Hackney

  Shoreditch

  Stoke Newington

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  Fulham

  Hammersmith

  Shepherds Bush

  Haringey

  Hornsey

  Tottenham

  Wood Green

  Harrow

  South Harrow

  Havering

  Harold Hill

  Hornchurch

  Rainham

  Romford

  Upminster

  Hillingdon

  Hayes

  Ruislip

  Uxbridge

  West Drayton

  Hounslow

  Chiswick

  Feltham

  Hounslow

  Islington

  Holloway

  Islington

  Kensington and Chelsea

  Chelsea

  Kensington

  Notting Hill

  Kingston upon Thames

  Kingston

  Surbiton

  Lambeth

  Brixton

  Cavendish Road

  Clapham

  Gypsy Hill

  Kennington

  Streatham

  Lewisham

  Catford

  Deptford

  Lewisham

  Sydenham

  Merton

  Mitcham

  Morden

  Wimbledon

  Newham

  East Ham

  Forest Gate

  North Woolwich

  Plaistow

  Stratford

  Tarling Road

  Redbridge

  Barkingside

  Ilford

  Wanstead

  Woodford

  Richmond upon Thames

  Richmond

  Teddington

  Twickenham

  Southwark

  East Dulwich

  Peckham

  Rotherhithe

  Southwark

  Walworth

  Sutton

  Sutton

  Wallington

  56W

  Borough

  Police stations

  Tower Hamlets

  Bethnal Green

  Bow

  Brick Lane

  Isle of Dogs

  Limehouse

  Poplar

  Waltham Forest

  Chingford

  Leyton

  Leytonstone

  Walthamstow

  Walthamstow Town Centre

  Wandsworth

  Arndale Centre

  Battersea

  Jubillee House

  Lavender Hill

  Tooting

  Wandsworth

  Heathrow

  Heathrow

  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will list the police stations in the Metropolitan police area which reduced the hours when they are open to the public in(a) 1999 and (b) 2000 [142982]

  (2) if he will list the police stations in the Metropolitan police area which have reduced the hours when they are open to the public since 1 May 1997. [142983]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  [holding answer 15 December 2000]: It is for the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis to determine the hours of business of police station public counters. I understand from the Commissioner that the following police stations reduced their opening hours in the calendar years since 1997:

  1997
  Kingsbury

  1998

  Belgravia

  Greenford

  Norwood Green

  North Greenwood

  Southgate

  Sydenham

  Beckenham

  Belvedere

  Edgware

  Gypsy Hill

  Hayes

  Penge

  Pinner

  Ponders End

  Rotherhithe

  Rushton

  Sidcup

  Surbiton

  Tooting

  Wanstead

  Wealdstone

  West Drayton

  West Wickham

  57W
  2000

  East Dulwich

  Kings Cross Police Office

  Harrow Road

  Orpington

  Paddington Green

  Uxbridge

  West Hampstead.

  Community Beat Officers
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what measures he has taken to encourage the(a) use of community beat officers and (b) assigning of named officers to patrol neighbourhoods; and if he will make a statement. [142617]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  [holding answer 15 December 2000]: The Crime and Disorder Act 1998 put police participation in local crime and disorder partnerships on a statutory footing and the Government have made it clear that they see this local partnership approach as the way forward in fighting crime. The use of community beat officers is an important part of delivering this. In his thematic inspections "Winning the Race" and "Winning the Race Revisited", in 1997 and 1999, Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Constabulary endorsed the use of community beat officers responsible for problem solving within their local areas. Progress on implementing those recommendations will be assessed in a further thematic inspection report to be published in January.

  Mandatory Sentences
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on recent Court of Appeal judgments relating to the use of mandatory sentences under the Crime (Sentences) Act 1997. [142616]

  Mr. Boateng
  [holding answer 15 December 2000]: On 9 November 2000, the Court of Appeal gave judgment in the cases of Matthew Offen, Peter McGilliard, Darren McKeown, Christova Okwuegbunam and Stephen Saunders. The first four cases were appeals, while the last, Saunders, was referred by the Attorney-General under his powers to refer for unduly lenient sentences. In all the cases challenges were made to the lawfulness of the automatic life sentence provisions introduced as section 2 of the Crime (Sentences) Act 1997 (now contained in section 109 of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000) on the grounds that the imposition of such a sentence was incompatible with rights under the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) as protected by the Human Rights Act 1998.

  Section 109 of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000 provides that an offender committing any of a list of certain offences (either sexual or violent) on two separate occasions should receive a mandatory life sentence unless there are exceptional circumstances relating to either of the offences or to the offender which would justify it not doing so.

  In giving the judgment of the Court, the Lord Chief Justice confirmed the compatibility of the legislation with the rights protected by the ECHR. It therefore remains the position that a life sentence must be given to a person
  58W
  who commits a second of the serious sexual or violent offences covered by the provision unless there are exceptional circumstances which would make it unjust to do so.

  The court upheld Offen and McKeown's appeals, substituting determinate terms of three years in place of a life sentence; dismissed Okwuegbunam and McGilliard's appeals, confirming their automatic life sentences; and found in favour of the Attorney-General in the Saunders case, quashing the 12-year determinate sentence and imposing a new automatic life sentence.

  The detailed matters for consideration relate to what should constitute "exceptional circumstances". We are currently giving consideration to these aspects of the judgment and their implications for sentencing policy.

  Police Recruitment
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what measures he is undertaking to improve(a) retention and (b) recruitment of police officers; and if he will make a statement. [142601]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  [holding answer 15 December, 2000]: In order to improve retention of police officers we have:
  encouraged police authorities to ensure that officers are retired on grounds of ill-health only where they satisfy the requirements as to permanent disablement for police duties set out in the Police Pensions Regulations;
  been considering whether changes to those Regulations are required and we will be consulting the police service about the precise terms of revised Regulations shortly;
  set a target of 2 per cent. for reducing sickness absence in police forces in England and Wales as poor management of sickness absence may be a precursor to unnecessary medical retirement. In 1996–97 the average number of days sickness per police officer was 12.80. This declined to 11.55, or by 1.25 days per officer by 1999–2000.

  In order to improve recruitment of police officers we have:
  established the Crime Fighting Fund to enable forces to recruit 9,000 officers over and above the number they had previously planned in the three years 2000–01 to 2002–03;
  launched the first ever national recruitment advertising campaign.

  In order to improve both retention and recruitment my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary agreed to increase from 1 July 2000, by £3,327 per annum, London Allowance for officers in the Metropolitan police service and City of London police who joined on or after 1 September 1994 and receive no housing allowance.

  The Police Negotiating Board is currently looking at whether there should be an allowance for officers in any other forces, and my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary awaits any recommendations it may make on this or any other issues in relation to police pay and allowances.

  Wastage rates from the police service are very low—4.8 per cent. of total strength in 1998–99, 4.7 per cent. in 1999–2000 and 2.3 per cent. for the six months to 30 September 2000. Police recruitment is rising. In the six months to 30 September 2000, for the first time since March 1997, the number of officers recruited into the service exceeded those leaving it.

  Court Orders
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) anti-social behaviour orders, (b) sex offender orders, (c) parenting orders, (d) child safety orders, (e) reparation orders, (f) action plan orders, (g) supervision orders and (h) detention and training orders (i) have been made, (ii) have had appeals made against them and (iii) have been breached; and if he will make a statement. [142603]

  The number of new orders (as introduced under the Crime and Disorder Act 1998) made, appealed against or breached within pilot areas and nationally up to 30 June 20001

  Type of order

  Made up to 31 May 2000

  June 20001

  Appealed against

  Breached (up to 30 June 2000)1

  Anti-Social Behaviour Order2

  104

  9

  8—

  19

  Sex Offender Order3

  32

  4

  8—

  8—

  Parenting Order4

  —

  23

  8—

  1

  of which given at:

  Civil and family proceedings courts

  —

  1

  —

  —

  Criminal courts

  —

  22

  —

  —

  Child Safety Order4

  —

  —

  8—

  5,9—

  Reparation Order4

  —

  282

  8—

  35

  Action Plan Order4

  —

  263

  8—

  42

  Supervision Order6

  17,954

  764

  8—

  1,539

  Detention and Training Order7

  1,791

  460

  8—

  4

  1 Provisional.

  2 Implemented from 1 April 1999.

  3 Implemented on 1 December 1998.

  4 Piloted from 30 September 1998 and implemented nationally from 1 June 2000.

  5 If the child fails to comply with any requirement, the court may, on application of the responsible officer, discharge the order and make in respect of him a care order under s31(10(a) of the Children Act 1989. To date X such care orders have been recorded.

  6 S71 and 72 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 amended the Children and Young Persons Act 1969 strengthening the existing community penalty of a supervision order for serious young offenders. Data given in the first column covers all types of supervision orders and all young offenders. It covers the period from 1 January 1999 up to 31 May 2000.

  7 Implemented from April 1999 but data collected centrally from July 1999 onwards.

  8 Not available.

  9 Not applicable.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) reprimands and (b) warnings under the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 have been issued in each month since their introduction; and if he will make a statement. [142604]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  [holding answer 15 December 2000]: Under the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, reprimands and final warnings replaced cautions for young offenders. They were introduced in seven pilot areas from the end of September 1998 until 1 June 2000, when both reprimands and final warnings became available nationwide. During the final quarter in 1998, 1,126 reprimands and 576 final warnings were recorded (these data were collected as part of the pilot). Centrally recorded data for 1999 are given in the table. We also show provisional data for the first two quarters of 2000.

  Number of persons aged 10–17 given reprimands and final warnings within the seven pilot areas by month, 1999 and up to 30 June 20001

  Reprimands

  Final warnings

  1999

  January

  397

  202

  February

  298

  133

  March

  384

  117

  April

  491

  167

  May

  471

  242

  June2

  483

  229

  July

  317

  169

  60W
  Mr. Charles Clarke
  [holding answer 15 December, 2000]: Available information is given in the table.

  Anti-social behaviour orders have been taken out by the police and local authorities in a variety of cases and with considerable success in tackling the crime and disorder that can blight the lives of the community. Police forces and probation services have welcomed the new sex offender orders and regard them as a useful tool.

  Number of persons aged 10–17 given reprimands and final warnings within the seven pilot areas by month, 1999 and up to 30 June 20001

  Reprimands

  Final warnings

  August

  320

  174

  September

  279

  144

  October

  281

  137

  November

  188

  141

  December

  347

  196

  Total

  4,256

  2,051

  20001

  Quarter 1

  3,622

  1,060

  Quarter 2

  7,223

  2,681

  1 Provisional.

  2 Data given for Quarter 2 2000 cover the whole of England and Wales for the last month in the quarter as both reprimands and final warnings were introduced nationwide as from 1 June 2000.

  Note:

  It is thought that the centrally recorded data for these new disposals may be subject to a small amount of under-recording.

  Sentencing
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) on how many occasions the Sentencing Advisory Council has made proposals on(a) framing and (b) revising guidelines on sentencing since its establishment; and if he will make a statement; [142605]
  61W
  (2) what measures he has taken to improve consistency in sentencing between courts; and if he will make a statement. [142607]

  Mr. Boateng
  [holding answer 15 December 2000]: Section 81 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 established a new Sentencing Advisory Panel, to provide advice on sentencing to the Court of Appeal. The Panel must be informed when the Court is considering guidelines, and then provide advice, consulting with other interested parties. The Panel may also propose that the Court frame or revise guidelines if it considers this necessary or when directed to do so by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. These provisions came into effect on 1 July 1999.

  The Sentencing Advisory Panel has made a proposal that the Court of Appeal should frame a sentencing guideline on four occasions. No proposals have yet been made to revise an existing guideline.

  On 21 September 2000, the Panel issued a consultation paper on a proposal that the Court of Appeal frame a sentencing guideline on handling stolen goods. It is hoped that advice will be submitted to the Court of Appeal in the new year.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the current mandatory sentences, including fixed penalty fines, and the date each came into force; and if he will make a statement. [142615]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  [holding answer 15 December 2000]: Life imprisonment is the mandatory sentence for murder. Section 109 of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000 provides for an automatic life sentence for a second serious sexual or violent offence. Section 110 of the 2000 Act provides for a minimum seven years imprisonment for a person convicted for a third time of a Class A drug trafficking offence. These provisions were both implemented on 1 October 1997. Section 111 of the 2000 Act provides for a minimum sentence of three years imprisonment for a third time domestic burglary. This was implemented on 1 December 1999.

  There are a range of motoring offences that carry an obligatory period of disqualification from driving. A substantial number of motoring offences also carry obligatory endorsement of the offender's driving licence. Although a substantial number of offences may be dealt with by a fixed penalty, the majority of which are road traffic offences, this form of disposal cannot be regarded as a mandatory sentence.

  The Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000 also makes provision for mandatory referral of certain young offenders to Youth Offender Panels where the offender and Panel will discuss and seek to agree a youth offender contract.

  Fixed penalty notices are issued at the discretion of the issuing authority. The offender is offered the choice of avoiding prosecution by paying the penalty or electing non-payment and attending court. Any sentence passed following conviction for the offence is entirely at the discretion of the court.

  Neighbourhood Warden Schemes
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the number of Neighbourhood Warden schemes in operation; what central Government funding has been(a) allocated and (b) spent on Neighbourhood Warden schemes since May 1997; what guidelines are in place relating to the operation of warden schemes; and if he will make a statement. [142606]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  [holding answer 15 December, 2000]: Neighbourhood Wardens are an important part of the Government's regeneration and neighbourhood renewal programme and of our partnership approach to tackling crime and disorder. The Policy Action Team Report 6 on Neighbourhood Wardens surveyed 50 schemes. Subsequently the Government have made funding available for Neighbourhood Warden schemes. In September this year I announced the first 50 successful new schemes, and that 42 further bids were being deferred for development. These enhanced bids have to be submitted for consideration by 15 December. I will make further announcements about these schemes in due course. It is too soon to make any formal assessment of how many schemes will be funded; we will however be evaluating the schemes in a similar way to other schemes funded under the Crime Reduction Programme.

  We have allocated a total of £13.5 million (from the Home Department and the Department for the Environment, Transport and the Regions) for Neighbourhood Warden schemes over the period 2000–03. The total value of the first tranche of approved schemes is £7.6 million.

  The Neighbourhood Wardens Unit is providing technical support and guidance notes to all schemes as they develop their implementation plans. Guidance is routinely placed on the crime reduction website (crimereduction.gov.uk). Draft guidance on warden induction training has recently been circulated to successful schemes.

  Domestic Violence
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what measures(a) have been and (b) are planned to be taken to (i) reduce the level of domestic violence and (ii) strengthen support for victims of domestic violence; and if he will make a statement. [142608]

  Mr. Boateng
  Since 1997, the Government have undertaken a broad range of measures to reduce the level of domestic violence and strengthen support for victims. Significantly, a £7 million violence against women initiative within the Crime Reduction Programme is designed to evaluate the most effective and cost-effective interventions.

  Other recent measures include: the issue of multi-agency guidance to agencies dealing with domestic violence and of specific guidance to Health Service professionals; the issue of a new Home Department circular to the police; the inclusion of domestic violence within police Best Value performance indicators; the provision of £120 million additional capital funding for a new Safer Communities Supported Housing Fund for

  63W
  specified vulnerable groups, including the survivors of domestic violence; and, increased funding for Victim Support.

  Other current initiatives include work with the Association of Chief Police Officers on a circular on effective use of provisions in the Protection from Harassment Act; the evaluation of probation service domestic violence perpetrator programmes; the development of a domestic violence toolkit on the Home Department's crime reduction website; planned research on possible future publicity work; and the inclusion in the British Crime Survey 2001 of a special module on domestic violence.

  Public Disorder
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what his definition is of a public disorder incident for the purposes of the performance measures and targets set out on page 4 of the Criminal Justice System Business Plan 2000–01. [143010]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  [holding answer 15 December, 2000]: The definition of a public disorder incident adopted for the purpose of the 2000–01 business plan is
  a breach of the peace of which police are aware, which may require police intervention, or action in partnership with others.

  The offence codes covered by the definition are disturbance in public place/licensed premises/private property; drunkenness; domestic incident; march/ demonstration; civil dispute; racial/homophobic incident; neighbour dispute; other unlisted disorder/nuisance; public/sports events and hunt saboteurs. We are however considering whether alternative ways of measuring public disorder, including possibly a measure based on people's perceptions of disorder, should be used in future years.

  Drug Treatment and Testing Orders
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what guidance he has issued to young offender teams about the implementation of drug treatment and testing orders. [143018]

  Mr. Boateng
  [holding answer 15 December, 2000]: General guidance issued to probation services about the drug treatment and testing order, in the form of probation circulars, has been widely circulated and discussed with youth offending teams (YOTs). A specific circular for YOTs managers has been developed jointly by the Home Office Probation Unit and Youth Justice Board to identify best practice for the implementation of the Order as it relates to young offenders. This is being finalised and will be issued to all YOTs early in the new year.

  Court Sanctions
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department in how many cases sanctions available to the courts in the event that a person convicted of a criminal offence fails to pay a fine were used in each of the last five years broken down by sanction; and if he will make a statement. [143004]
  64W
  Mr. Charles Clarke
  [holding answer 15 December, 2000]: Apart from information about the number of people imprisoned for fine default, the information requested is not available centrally. The most recent available figures for imprisonment are given in the table.

  Receptions of adult fine defaulters into prison in England and Wales

  Male

  Female

  1995

  18,787

  1,370

  1996

  8,094

  461

  1997

  5,964

  372

  1998

  5,048

  326

  1999

  3,512

  215

  Source:

  Prison Statistics for England and Wales, 1999, table 1.14

  Trials of provisions in the Crime (Sentences) Act 1997 made additional disposals available to a small number of courts for a limited period to deal with fine defaulters who would otherwise have gone to prison. The use made of those disposals by the courts was published in the report of the trials, "New measures for fine defaulters, persistent petty offenders and others", in February 2000. A decision has not yet been taken about making these disposals available nationally.

  Millennium Cities
  Maria Eagle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will announce the result of the competition for city status to mark the Millennium. [143421]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  I am pleased to announce that, on the advice of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, Her Majesty The Queen has commanded that city status should be granted to Brighton and Hove, Inverness and Wolverhampton to mark the Millennium.

  Although the grant it of the honour remains a rare mark of distinction, The Queen accepted the Prime Minister's recommendation to grant city status to more than one town to commemorate the Millennium. City status will be granted by Letters Patent, which will now be prepared for presentation to Brighton and Hove, Inverness and Wolverhampton in due course.

  The unsuccessful applicants will, of course, be disappointed not to have been honoured on this occasion. The quality of the 39 applications received was very high, however, and demonstrated the pride in their communities felt by local people in towns across the United Kingdom. They will all have an opportunity for their applications to be considered again, for the grant of city status to mark Her Majesty's Golden Jubilee in 2002. The Queen has agreed to the Prime Minister's recommendation that Her Jubilee should be marked, exceptionally, by grants of city status to a suitably qualified town in each of Wales, Northern Ireland, England and Scotland.

  My officials will now initiate a review of the procedures used in the Millennium competition. Further details of the Golden Jubilee competition will be announced during the first half of next year.

  Complaints (Police)
  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will announce the Government's proposals for a new system for dealing with complaints against the police. [143422]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  I am publishing this afternoon a framework of a new system to handle complaints made against police officers. There are some areas which require further work and we are inviting views on these so that they can be finalised.

  It was last May that I published the Government's consultation document which was based on reports of two separate studies. The first study was commissioned from the management consultants KPMG in order to take forward recommendations made by the Home Affairs Select Committee in its report on the police disciplinary and complaints procedures and by Sir William Macpherson's Report of the Stephen Lawrence Inquiry. The second study was by the human rights organisation Liberty.

  The outcome of the consultation is that the Government propose to set up a new body to handle complaints; it will be called the Independent Police Complaints Commission.

  I have previously indicated my sympathy for the principle of an independent system for investigating complaints against the police and I am pleased to announce that a key element of the new system will be the independent investigations of the more serious complaints. Two other key elements of the new system will be easier accessibility to the system for complainants and more openness in dealing with complainants.

  I am very grateful to all those who took part in the consultation. In particular, the Police Complaints Authority (PCA), which has called repeatedly for reforms so that it could increase its effectiveness and independence. The PCA's response pointed the way towards independent investigations, easier accessibility and more openness.

  I have arranged for copies of the framework document to be placed in the Library.

  Firearms Certificates
  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent reports is he has received from HM Inspector of Constabulary into delays in processing standard renewal applications for firearms certificates; and if he will make a statement. [143109]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Under the provisions of the Local Government Act 1999 all forces are required to carry out a five year rolling programme of Best Value reviews of all areas of business. In the current year five forces have indicated that they will be reviewing their firearms licensing departments in this way. The outcome will be examined by Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary in accordance with their inspection protocols which were circulated to all police forces in March 2000 and which make specific reference to firearms licensing. The results will be made available through the appropriate police authority in due course.
  66W
  My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has recently announced an increase in the fees which the police can charge for issuing or renewing firearms or shot gun certificates. This will enable forces to allocate additional resources to this task where this is needed to reduce delays.

  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many current firearms certificates have been issued by Cheshire Police. [143108]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  There are currently 2,391 firearms certificates and 12,699 shot gun certificates on issue in Cheshire.

  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many firearms certificates fall due for renewal each week in the Cheshire Police area. [143105]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  I understand that on average over the current calendar year a total of eight firearms certificates and 62 shot gun certificates fall due for renewal each week.

  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many applications for the renewal of standard firearms certificates have(a) been received and (b) been processed by Cheshire Police in each of the past six months. [143106]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  This information is given in the tables.

  Firearms/shot guns renewal applications received between 1 June 2000 to 30 November 2000

  Firearms

  Shot gun

  June

  69

  276

  July

  57

  260

  August

  36

  275

  September

  36

  315

  October

  40

  330

  November

  40

  317

  Firearms/shot guns renewed between 1 June 2000 to 30 November 2000

  Firearms

  Shot gun

  June

  50

  277

  July

  51

  219

  August

  17

  228

  September

  2

  203

  October

  5

  123

  November

  9

  42

  Child Curfew Orders
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what has been the total expenditure to date on the development, administration and implementation of the child curfew order. [143097]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  We estimate development and administration costs within Government as £15,000. We do not collect data from local authorities on their development and administration costs: they would vary between authorities but we believe scoping work on a possible local child curfew scheme would cost under £5,000. No schemes have been implemented.

  Cambridgeshire Police (Suspensions)
  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) police officers and (b) civilian staff concerned with (i) administrative and (ii) operational firearms matters are suspended in the Cambridgeshire Police area. [143107]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Currently one member of the support staff for the Firearms Licensing Department is suspended on full pay to allow an investigation to take place into internal staff issues.

  Self-inflicted Death (Prisons)
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) self-inflicted deaths and (b) incidents of self-harm there were (i) in each Prison Service establishment and (ii) in total, in 2000; how many there were in total in each of the previous three years; and if he will make a statement. [141750]

  Mr. Boateng
  The information requested is given in the tables. I regret that I am unable to provide figures for the numbers of self-harm incidents for this year. The Prison Service is looking at putting in place a new system for recording such incidents, but this will not provide data for 2000–01.

  The Prison Service is reconsidering with Ministers its suicide/self-harm strategy and an announcement will be made early in 2001.

  A. Self-inflicted deaths in HM prison establishments in England and Wales by establishment, 1997–20001

  Calendar year

  Establishment

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  Total

  Altcourse

  —

  2

  3

  —

  5

  Aylesbury

  2

  —

  3

  2

  7

  Bedford

  —

  —

  1

  1

  2

  Belmarsh

  4

  1

  1

  1

  7

  Birmingham

  1

  2

  2

  3

  8

  Blakenhurst

  —

  —

  2

  1

  3

  Blundeston

  —

  1

  —

  1

  2

  Brinsford

  —

  —

  2

  3

  5

  Bristol

  1

  3

  2

  1

  7

  Brixton

  2

  1

  4

  2

  9

  Brockhill

  —

  1

  1

  2

  4

  Bullingdon

  1

  —

  —

  1

  2

  Bullwood Hall

  1

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Canterbury

  —

  —

  1

  —

  1

  Cardiff

  1

  4

  1

  —

  6

  Castington

  —

  —

  1

  1

  2

  Chelmsford

  1

  2

  1

  1

  5

  Dartmoor

  2

  1

  —

  —

  3

  Doncaster

  —

  5

  1

  5

  11

  Dover

  1

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Durham

  2

  2

  3

  1

  8

  Eastwood Park

  —

  —

  —

  3

  3

  Elmley

  —

  2

  —

  1

  3

  Erlestoke

  —

  —

  1

  —

  1

  Exeter

  1

  1

  —

  2

  4

  Featherstone

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  Feltham

  2

  —

  —

  1

  3

  Full Sutton

  1

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Garth

  3

  —

  1

  —

  4

  Gartered

  1

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Glen Para

  1

  2

  1

  1

  5

  Gloucester

  —

  —

  2

  1

  3

  Grendon

  1

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Haverigg

  1

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Highdown

  3

  —

  —

  —

  3

  68W

  A. Self-inflicted deaths in HM prison establishments in England and Wales by establishment, 1997–20001

  Calendar year

  Establishment

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  Total

  Highpoint

  —

  —

  1

  —

  1

  Hindley

  2

  1

  1

  —

  4

  Holloway

  —

  1

  2

  1

  4

  Holme House

  2

  —

  3

  1

  6

  Hull

  2

  2

  —

  1

  5

  Kingston

  —

  1

  —

  1

  2

  Lancaster Farms

  1

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Leeds

  1

  4

  5

  3

  13

  Leicester

  —

  —

  3

  4

  7

  Lewes

  2

  2

  3

  1

  8

  Lincoln

  —

  2

  —

  —

  2

  Littlehey

  1

  1

  1

  —

  3

  Liverpool

  5

  1

  —

  2

  8

  Low Newton

  1

  1

  —

  —

  2

  Maidstone

  1

  1

  —

  —

  2

  Manchester

  —

  4

  8

  1

  13

  Moorland

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  New Hall

  —

  1

  1

  1

  3

  Northallerton

  —

  1

  —

  —

  1

  Norwich

  1

  5

  2

  1

  9

  Nottingham

  2

  2

  2

  3

  9

  P. E. C. S.

  2

  —

  5

  —

  7

  Parc

  1

  3

  1

  —

  5

  Parkhurst

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  Pentonville

  —

  —

  1

  1

  2

  Portland

  —

  —

  1

  —

  1

  Preston

  3

  2

  3

  2

  10

  Ranby

  —

  —

  1

  —

  1

  Reading

  —

  3

  —

  —

  3

  Risley

  2

  —

  1

  —

  3

  Shrewsbury

  —

  1

  —

  1

  2

  Stafford

  —

  1

  2

  1

  4

  Stocken

  —

  1

  1

  —

  2

  Stoke Heath

  —

  —

  1

  —

  1

  Styal

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  Swansea

  1

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Swinfen Hall

  1

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Wakefield

  —

  1

  2

  —

  3

  Wandsworth

  —

  2

  —

  7

  9

  Wetherby

  —

  —

  1

  1

  2

  Whitemoor

  —

  1

  —

  —

  1

  Winchester

  2

  5

  2

  4

  13

  Wolds

  —

  —

  1

  1

  2

  Woodhill

  1

  2

  1

  —

  4

  Wormwood Scrubs

  —

  —

  1

  1

  2

  Wymott

  1

  —

  —

  1

  2

  Total

  68

  82

  91

  79

  320

  1 As at 12 December 2000

  B. Total incidents of self-harm 1996–97 to 1998–99

  Prison

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  Total

  Acklington

  23

  14

  33

  70

  Albany

  11

  11

  18

  40

  Altcourse

  —

  11

  38

  49

  Ashwell

  3

  2

  4

  9

  Askham Grange

  4

  4

  0

  8

  Aylesbury

  18

  32

  71

  121

  Bedford

  18

  39

  46

  103

  Belmarsh

  26

  143

  61

  230

  Birmingham

  77

  84

  71

  232

  Blakenhurst

  29

  53

  76

  158

  Blantyre House

  0

  —

  0

  0

  Blundeston

  24

  19

  9

  52

  Brinsford

  157

  90

  105

  352

  Bristol

  52

  64

  98

  214

  Brixton

  34

  70

  186

  290

  Brockhill

  11

  69

  67

  147

  Buckley Hall

  12

  11

  12

  35

  69W

  B. Total incidents of self-harm 1996–97 to 1998–99

  Prison

  1997–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  Total

  Bullingdon

  43

  47

  70

  160

  Bullwood Hall

  0

  97

  234

  331

  Camp Hill

  11

  9

  22

  42

  Canterbury

  9

  17

  16

  42

  Cardiff

  78

  77

  91

  246

  Castington

  13

  13

  22

  48

  Channings Wood

  11

  15

  5

  31

  Chelmsford

  147

  136

  179

  462

  Coldingley

  2

  0

  0

  2

  Cookham Wood

  46

  23

  15

  84

  Dartmoor

  47

  78

  27

  152

  Deerbolt

  114

  87

  81

  282

  Doncaster

  288

  599

  479

  1,366

  Dorchester

  28

  30

  31

  89

  Dover

  9

  10

  7

  26

  Downview

  4

  2

  1

  7

  Drake Hall

  14

  9

  9

  32

  Durham

  13

  168

  224

  405

  East Sutton Park

  1

  0

  0

  1

  Eastwood Park

  176

  95

  154

  425

  Elmley

  243

  339

  371

  953

  Erlestoke

  3

  0

  0

  3

  Everthorpe

  46

  20

  8

  74

  Exeter

  21

  103

  37

  161

  Featherstone

  27

  26

  40

  93

  Feltham

  241

  292

  292

  825

  Ford

  0

  0

  1

  1

  Foston Hall

  —

  3

  17

  20

  Frankland

  32

  30

  44

  106

  Full Sutton

  33

  14

  16

  63

  Garth

  28

  11

  16

  71

  Gartree

  9

  6

  7

  22

  Glen Parva

  79

  136

  119

  334

  Gloucester

  47

  24

  47

  118

  Grendon/Spring Hill

  14

  8

  0

  22

  Guys Marsh

  22

  28

  29

  79

  Haslar

  12

  6

  4

  22

  Hatfield

  4

  1

  2

  7

  Haverigg

  7

  4

  0

  11

  Hewell Grange

  1

  0

  0

  1

  Highdown

  44

  56

  61

  161

  Highpoint

  2

  53

  63

  118

  Hindley

  40

  79

  72

  191

  Hollesley Bay

  19

  41

  22

  82

  Holloway

  139

  252

  250

  641

  Holme House

  154

  127

  95

  376

  Hull

  90

  103

  54

  247

  Huntercombe

  6

  18

  9

  33

  Kingston

  8

  1

  5

  14

  Kirkham

  2

  7

  1

  10

  Kirklevington

  0

  0

  1

  1

  Lancaster

  4

  5

  11

  20

  Lancaster Farms

  33

  31

  63

  127

  Latchmere House

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Leeds

  59

  95

  59

  213

  Leicester

  25

  106

  89

  220

  Lewes

  16

  30

  69

  115

  Leyhill

  1

  1

  0

  2

  Lincoln

  208

  87

  19

  314

  Lindholme

  8

  7

  0

  15

  Littlehey

  38

  41

  71

  150

  Liverpool

  127

  130

  98

  355

  Long Lartin

  36

  43

  26

  105

  Low Newton

  47

  65

  51

  163

  Lowdham Grange

  —

  1

  25

  26

  Maidstone

  13

  17

  18

  48

  Manchester

  86

  35

  13

  134

  Moorland

  42

  93

  97

  232

  Morton Hall

  1

  0

  1

  2

  Mount, The

  16

  2

  4

  22

  New Hall

  116

  190

  180

  486

  North Sea Camp

  0

  1

  0

  1

  Northallerton

  61

  47

  56

  164

  70W

  B. Total incidents of self-harm 1996–97 to 1998–99

  Prison

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  Total

  Norwich

  76

  58

  37

  171

  Nottingham

  2

  66

  227

  295

  Onley

  49

  75

  77

  201

  Parkhurst

  2

  14

  56

  72

  Pentonville

  51

  41

  94

  186

  Portland

  31

  16

  34

  81

  Prescoed

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Preston

  67

  100

  68

  235

  Ranby

  30

  41

  85

  156

  Reading

  70

  72

  36

  178

  Risley

  128

  190

  62

  380

  Rochester

  15

  34

  75

  124

  Send

  0

  1

  0

  1

  Shepton Mallett

  8

  9

  6

  23

  Shrewsbury

  33

  38

  18

  89

  Stafford

  35

  32

  30

  97

  Standford Hill

  0

  1

  0

  1

  Stocken

  9

  15

  15

  39

  Stoke Heath

  50

  61

  115

  226

  Styal

  92

  96

  144

  332

  Sudbury

  1

  4

  1

  6

  Swaleside

  9

  7

  32

  48

  Swansea

  61

  133

  68

  262

  Swinfen Hall

  32

  13

  8

  53

  Thorn Cross

  3

  1

  0

  4

  Usk

  1

  0

  1

  2

  Verne, The

  6

  11

  4

  21

  Wakefield

  24

  22

  27

  73

  Wandsworth

  168

  307

  305

  780

  Wayland

  25

  23

  20

  68

  Wealstun

  2

  5

  2

  9

  Weare

  —

  12

  5

  17

  Wellingborough

  0

  7

  3

  10

  Werrington

  11

  25

  5

  41

  Wetherby

  52

  24

  42

  118

  Whatton

  1

  3

  0

  4

  Whitemoor

  45

  49

  55

  149

  Winchester

  36

  26

  69

  131

  Wolds

  30

  32

  43

  105

  Woodhill

  155

  155

  86

  396

  Wormwood Scrubs

  85

  118

  185

  388

  Wymott

  15

  26

  62

  103

  Total

  5,373

  7,022

  7,397

  19,792

  Autistic Prison Inmates
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimate he has made of the number of inmates of prisons who suffer from autism. [142847]

  Mr. Boateng
  No such estimate is available.

  Operation Pre-empt
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will call for a report from the chief constable of Humberside police on the review of Operation Pre-empt; and if he will make a statement; [142761]

  (2) how many persons of Irish origin, descent or background have been the subject of notifications to the Special Branch in each year since Operation Pre-empt became live in the Humberside police area; and how many of these persons became the subject of notifications as a result of (a) being brought into custody, (b) being subject to a routine street or driver check, (c) being subject to a police inquiry for any reason and (d) being brought to the attention of the police by a member of the public; [142756]
  71W
  (3) how many persons of Irish origin, descent or background (a) reside and (b) work in the Humberside police area; [142757]

  (4) how many persons of Irish origin, descent or background in the Humberside police area are the subject of the files maintained by Special Branch; [142758]

  (5) if he will list those police authorities which operate a scheme similar or analogous to Operation Pre-empt developed in the Humberside police area; [142759]

  (6) how many files Special Branch maintains on persons of Irish origin, descent or background and how many notifications of Irish persons have been passed on to Special Branch from each police authority area. [142760]

  Mr. Straw
  Operation Pre-empt was limited to the Humberside police area and was an operational matter for the Humberside police. I understand that the chief constable asked for a review of the policy. As a result of this review the operation was withdrawn on 12 December.

  There were 4,728 people of Irish descent resident in the Humberside area at the time of the 1991 Census.

  Information held by Special Branch is the responsibility of the chief constable.

  The Government fully support the police in work to counter terrorism. The basis for this work is whether there is any information or intelligence which might link an individual to a terrorist organisation or activity, and not the nationality of those involved.

  SOCIAL SECURITY

    Lone Parents
    Mr. Heppell
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many lone parents are receiving benefits in the East Midlands. [141801]

    Angela Eagle
    The latest figures show that in August there were 55,400 lone parents receiving Income Support in the East Midlands—7,400 less than in May 1997.

    Prisoners of War (Far East)
    Mr. Andy King
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when the War Pensions Agency will start making payments to former far east prisoners of war. [141812]

    Mr. Bayley
    I refer my hon. Friend to the oral answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, East (Jane Griffiths) earlier today, Official Report, column 16.

    Long-term Illness
    Mr. Quinn
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what steps his Department is taking to reduce the number of people leaving work because of long-term illness. [141821]

    Mr. Bayley
    We believe that people with long-term illnesses should have the support to remain in work. The Inland Revenue has introduced a Disabled Person's Tax Credit (DPTC) Fast-Track to make it financially possible for sick and disabled people to stay in work. This allows people who become long-term sick or disabled while they 72W
    are in work to receive DPTC on their return to work where they need to move to a job with lower pay (e.g. because of reduced hours).

    This Department is also working with the Department for Education and Employment and the Department of Health to implement, from next year, a series of Job Retention and Rehabilitation pilots to test the effectiveness of better co-ordinated, earlier work-focused interventions by health and employment services in helping people to stay in work.

    Pension Credit
    Mr. Brazier
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what estimate he has made of the likely administrative cost of the pension credit. [141822]

    Mr. Rooker
    I refer the hon. Member to paragraph 16 of chapter 4 of the pension credit consultation document (Cm 4900).

    Mr. Coaker
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what discussions he has had with groups representing the elderly about the new pension credit. [141826]

    Mr. Rooker
    We plan to meet the main organisations representing pensioners during the consultation process.

    Mr. Casale
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what assessment he has made of the potential impact of the pension credit on pensioners on low and modest incomes. [141829]

    Mr. Rooker
    The credit will ensure that pensioners on low and modest incomes will be able to share in this country's growing prosperity.

    Mr. Chope
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many more pensioners will be subject to means testing as a result of the pension credit. [141807]

    Mr. Rooker
    The Pension Credit, which rewards savings, will be of direct financial benefit to around half of all pensioners.

    Benefits Advice Workers
    Mr. Grogan
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on the importance of benefits advice workers in maximising take-up of benefits among those who are entitled to them. [141823]

    Mr. Rooker
    We recognise the importance of advice workers in encouraging take-up. As part of our MIG take-up campaign we are working closely with local authorities and voluntary organisations to ensure that pensioners get the help they need.

    Housing Benefit
    Mr. Allan
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what assessment he has made of the impact of the Housing Benefit verification regulations on Housing Benefit claimants. [141824]

    Angela Eagle
    The Verification Framework secures the gateway onto Housing Benefit by defining the minimum standards for collecting evidence before a claim can be paid. When operated efficiently by local authorities, it
    73W
    ensures that claims can be assessed accurately from the start, ensuring that honest claimants are paid the right amount.

    ONE Service Pilots
    Mr. Healey
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on the emerging results from the ONE service pilots. [141827]

    Angela Eagle
    ONE is a radical new programme helping people of working age achieve their potential and independence.

    The first evaluation reports, on the voluntary stage of ONE, were published on 30 November. These reports indicate support for the service and a positive experience of claiming for those participating. There is also evidence that early intervention is helping clients move into work in the short and longer term.

    Housing Benefit Fraud
    Mr. Randall
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security he will make a statement on his policy for the detection of Housing Benefit fraud. [141828]

    Angela Eagle
    We continue to invest to help local authorities root out Housing Benefit fraud. We have provided over £100 million since 1998 so that local authorities can implement the Verification Framework which protects the gateway to benefit by setting out minimum standards for collecting evidence before claims are paid.

    Over 350 councils are now using the Royal Mail scheme to stop benefit cheques being re-directed from the address they have been claimed for. Our £2 million programme to make better use of IT has given 404 local authorities on-line access to essential benefit information held on departmental systems, reducing the scope for fraud and error.

    We are now building on this through the integrated inquiry service, which will give authorities access to further information to help combat fraud, including the Department's database of National Insurance numbers.

    We are working with 10 local authorities to pilot a single fraud hotline from January 2001, allowing the public to report suspected Housing Benefit fraud as well as suspicions of other benefit fraud. Our new anti-fraud incentive scheme is being phased in from next April and will make the gateway to Housing Benefit more secure, putting the focus on prevention as well as detection. The new scheme sets out the anti-fraud activities we expect local authorities to undertake, and it introduces new financial rewards for authorities that act to prevent fraud from happening in the first place.

    Mr. Grieve
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what measures his Department will take in respect of local authorities which have a poor record for addressing Housing Benefit fraud. [141832]

    Angela Eagle
    The Benefit Fraud Inspectorate is evaluating councils' performance in delivering Housing Benefit and helping them overcome weaknesses in their administration and in tackling fraud and error. Nearly 80 Inspectorate reports have been published so far. Where the Inspectorate finds evidence of service failings we 74W
    expect councils to act immediately to put matters right. If they do not, we will use our powers to direct them on the standards they are to achieve, and by when. To date we have made one such direction, to Northampton Borough Council in August 2000.

    Medical Assessments (Benefits Agency)
    Mr. John Smith
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what recent representations he has received regarding medical assessments by the Benefits Agency; and if he will make a statement. [141830]

    Mr. Bayley
    No recent representations have been received other than correspondence relating to individual claimants. In June we published the Government's response to the Social Security Select Committee's report on Medical Services. A series of regional presentations about Medical Services for representatives of welfare rights organisations took place between January and July this year.

    Fraud
    Mr. Jack
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many announcements of social security fraud reduction targets he has made since 1997; and which targets have been fully achieved. [141831]

    Mr. Rooker
    In March 1999, for the first time, we set a public service agreement target to reduce fraud and error in Income Support and Jobseeker's Allowance by at least 10 per cent. by March 2002 with a further target of a 30 per cent. reduction by March 2007.

    In July we announced, and are committed to achieving, revised targets to reduce fraud and error by 25 per cent. by March 2004 and by 50 per cent. by March 2006.

    The latest figures from the Government Statistical Service show a significant fall in fraud and error in Income Support and Jobseeker's Allowance and demonstrates we are well on track to meet our first target by 2002.

    Dr. Gibson
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what recent steps have been taken to counter benefit fraud. [141816]

    Mr. Rooker
    We are taking effective action to combat Social Security fraud. We are implementing a strategy to ensure that from the start of the claim the right benefits are going to the right people at the right time. Among the new measures we have introduced are a new fraud bill, tighter checks on new Income Support claimants, cross-checking DSS records with information from other Government Departments and the automatic transfer of claims related data from the Benefits Agency to local authorities.

    Benefit Withdrawal
    Mr. David Heath
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what arrangements he will make to ensure the welfare of dependants of those from whom benefits are withdrawn. [142141]

    Mr. Rooker
    Withdrawing benefit from those who have failed to honour their responsibilities is an established feature of the benefit system. So too are safeguards to prevent hardship.
    75W
    Our recent proposals to sanction, to withdraw or to reduce benefits payable to those twice convicted of benefit fraud will be underpinned by these safeguards. Thus, those without any other means will be able to apply for help on a similar basis to that provided to unemployed claimants who have failed to make themselves available for work. Moreover, the new proposals will not affect benefits payable for dependants, such as child benefit.

    Disability Benefits
    Sir Teddy Taylor
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what estimate he has made of the savings which will accrue to public funds from the cancellation of disablement benefits; and if he will make a statement. [142142]

    Mr. Bayley
    The reforms of Incapacity Benefit are not being driven by a need to make savings. We are committed to targeting help on those in greatest need. The cost of the improvements we are making for carers and disabled people will exceed any savings that may be made by the Incapacity Benefit reforms.

    Between April 2001 and April 2002 we will spend around £200 million more on support for disabled people and their carers. Over the period 2001–04 we will spend an extra three quarters of a billion pounds on targeted benefits for these groups.

    Benefits Agency Medical Services
    Mr. Efford
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what assessment he has made of the performance of the Benefits Agency medical services contract; and if he will make a statement. [142143]

    Mr. Bayley
    In February 2000 the Social Security Committee published a report on Medical Services.

    Our response to the report was published on 30 June 2000 (Command Paper No. 4780), and this included four additional targets which we expect Sema to meet:
    within six months to reduce the proportion of 'C grade' medical reports which fail to meet the Department's standards by 10 per cent. and within one year to reduce the proportion of `C grade' reports across all benefits to less than 5 per cent;
    within one year to demonstrate improvement in compliance with the agreed medical scrutiny guidelines for Incapacity Benefit claims so that the proportion of non-compliant reports is less than 5 per cent;
    within one year to deliver training to all doctors covering: the assessment of people with mental health problems; behaviours, attitudes and sensitivities for dealing with people with disabilities; and distress-avoiding techniques for the examination of people with musculo-skeletal conditions;
    within two years to improve customer satisfaction rates to at least 90 per cent.

    The Department is working closely with Medical Services to address these and other issues identified within the SSSC report.

    Wide-ranging audit of medical quality standards is being carried out by the Department's Chief Medical Adviser to identify and rectify poor performance.

    SERPs
    Mr. Rendel
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he next expects to review the rebate rates for those who have contracted out of SERPs and taken out private pensions. [142144]

    Mr. Rooker
    The Government Actuary is shortly expected to report to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on the level of National Insurance rebates for those contracting out of the state additional pension for the period 2002–07. Next year, when my right hon. Friend has considered the Government Actuary's advice, he will lay a report before both Houses setting out the proposed level of the rebates.

    Mr. Stunell
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what has been(a) the cash flow and (b) the interest payment benefit to his Department of delays in payment of SERPs to qualified newly retired pensioners for each financial year since April 1997; and if he will make a statement. [141517]

    Mr. Rooker
    The information could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

    Pensioners (Ethnic Communities)
    Mr. Dismore
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on the support he is giving to pensioners from ethnic communities. [142145]

    Mr. Rooker
    Pensioners from ethnic minorities benefit from targeted policies such as the Minimum Income Guarantee. Pensioners from ethnic minorities can call the Minimum Income Guarantee tele-claim centre and speak to an interpreter, and many departmental leaflets are available in a range of languages.

    Winter Fuel Allowance
    Mr. Gerald Howarth
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security for what reason the Winter Fuel Allowance has been increased to £200 for the current year only; and what the administrative cost is of this change. [142146]

    Mr. Rooker
    As part of the transitional arrangements to our new pension reform, we decided to increase the Winter Fuel Payment—for this winter only—to £200. This is double the amount paid last winter to qualifying households.

    Within the overall context of the scheme as a whole, the extra cost of making this change is likely to be very small.

    Mr. Webb
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many automatic payments of winter fuel payment are outstanding; and how many of these he expects to have been paid by Christmas. [143090]

    Mr. Rooker
    All automatic payments where a clear entitlement has been established have been issued.

    Mr. Webb
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will estimate how many men aged 60 to 64 years are eligible to receive backdated payments of winter fuel payment; and how many had not applied to receive a backdated payment by the deadline of 3 November 2000. [143091]
    77W
    Mr. Rooker
    We estimated that there may be up to 1.7 million men eligible for payments in respect of previous years of the scheme; however, not all of them have claimed. We have already paid 976,495 men who have chosen to claim. There is no deadline for claiming winter fuel payments for past winters.

    Benefit Policy
    Mr. Viggers
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what steps he takes to ensure that his policies are shaped so that benefits are made available on a basis which is fair. [142147]

    Mr. Bayley
    We are refocusing both policies and delivery to better address the needs of different client groups:

    Children and families are at the heart of the welfare reform agenda. More than a million children will be lifted out of poverty by measures introduced over this Parliament, including changes to Child Benefit and the introduction of the Working Families Tax Credit.

    We are setting up a new agency for people of working age that will provide a single access point helping those who can work to find work, and providing proper support for those who cannot.

    We are also committed to ensuring that pensioners share in the rising prosperity of this country. The Minimum Income Guarantee has boosted the income of the poorest pensioners. And we at e creating Pension Credit to help pensioners with modest savings, occupational pensions or earnings, to ensure they are rewarded for working hard to make their own provision. We are also creating a new pensions organisation that will provide pensioners with a modern, integrated service.

    Minimum Income Guarantee
    Mr. Gordon Prentice
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what estimate he has made of the take-up of the Minimum Income Guarantee. [142148]

    Mr. Rooker
    I refer my hon. Friend to my earlier response to our hon. Friend the Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn),Official Report, column 8.

    Caroline Flint
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what his estimate is of the(a) number and (b) proportion of senior citizens in the Don Valley constituency qualifying for the minimum income guarantee; and how many have (i) submitted, (ii) applied for and (iii) already received this benefit. [142053]

    Mr. Rooker
    There are 2,200 pensioners receiving the Minimum Income Guarantee in the Don Valley.

    Information about how many senior citizens have submitted or applied for the Minimum Income Guarantee is not available.

    Notes:

    1. Figures are based on a 5 per cent. sample and are therefore subject to a degree of sampling error.

    2. Pensioners are defined as where the claimant, and/or partner are aged 60 or over.

    3. Figures are rounded to the nearest hundred.

    Source:

    Income Support Quarterly Statistical Enquiries, August 2000
    78W
    Mr. Gordon Prentice
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will use television and radio advertisements to urge those entitled to the Minimum Income Guarantee to apply for it. [142581]

    Mr. Rooker
    The Minimum Income Guarantee take-up campaign included a national television advertising campaign.

    Mr. Gordon Prentice
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list the principal reasons for the failure of applications for the Minimum Income Guarantee from those prompted to apply by the take-up campaign. [142582]

    Mr. Rooker
    The main reasons to date why those that applied for the Minimum Income Guarantee were unsuccessful are too much income or too much capital. Changes in income and capital limits take effect in April 2001.

    Mr. Alexander
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of advertising in increasing the level of uptake for the Minimum Income Guarantee(a) nationally and (b) in Scotland. [143168]

    Mr. Rooker
    The full effect of the Minimum Income Guarantee take-up will not be known until it comes to a conclusion. There are thousands more claims in the pipeline, and the effects of the last stage of the campaign will impact on claims processed up to January next year.

    Area Benefit Reviews
    Mr. Field
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he plans to publish area benefit reviews every six months. [142556]

    Mr. Rooker
    The Department will be publishing headline figures on fraud and error in Income Support and Jobseeker's Allowance every six months, to cover October to September and April to March periods.

    More detailed annual reports covering the financial year will also be published. These will also cover both ABR and QS results in full.

    The publication of all of these reports will follow National Statistics guidelines and publication will be pre-announced via the Office for National Statistics.

    Pensioners
    Mr. Corbyn
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list the average income levels for pensioner households for each English region for(a) the latest date for which figures are available and (b) each of the last four years. [142302]

    Mr. Rooker
    [holding answer 14 December 2000]: The information is given in the tables. It should be noted that, due to the small sample sizes on which these estimates are based, year-on-year comparisons and comparisons between regions should be treated with extreme caution.
    79W

    Median net income of pensioners, by Government Office Region in England—Single pensioners

    Incomes in £ per week at July 1998 prices

    Government office region

    1995–96

    1996–97

    1997–98

    1998–99

    North East

    106

    113

    113

    114

    North West and Merseyside

    110

    114

    113

    116

    Yorkshire and Humber

    109

    110

    108

    111

    East Midlands

    108

    111

    113

    116

    West Midlands

    111

    110

    112

    116

    Eastern

    112

    113

    119

    118

    London

    123

    127

    130

    129

    South East

    117

    121

    126

    126

    South West

    111

    121

    117

    116

    Median net income of pensioners, by Government Office Region in England—Pension couples

    Incomes in £ per week at July 1998 prices

    Government office region

    1995–96

    1996–97

    1997–98

    1998–99

    North East

    175

    195

    198

    192

    North West and Merseyside

    191

    207

    207

    211

    Yorkshire and Humber

    193

    190

    207

    200

    East Midlands

    183

    195

    197

    193

    West Midlands

    187

    194

    211

    201

    Eastern

    203

    217

    215

    216

    London

    206

    216

    217

    245

    South East

    212

    237

    230

    238

    South West

    201

    223

    209

    228

    Notes:

    1. Estimates are based on small sample sizes and are subject to large margins of error. Therefore estimates should be treated with extreme caution. In particular, estimates will only give a very broad indication (if any) of trends over time. Likewise, comparisons between regions in any given year should also be treated with caution.

    2. Estimates relate to the median net income of pensioner units within each region, in £ per week, at July 1998 prices.

    3. Pensioner units are defined as single people over State Pension age (65 and over for men, 60 and over for women) and couples (married or cohabiting) where the man is over State Pension age.

    Source:

    Family Resources Surveys

    Child Support Agency
    Mr. Webb
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he has received notice of a pending legal challenge to the process by which the contract for the new computer system for the Child Support Agency was awarded. [143089]

    Angela Eagle
    No.

    Benefit Forms
    Mr. Baker
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what steps he plans to simplify benefit forms. [141814]

    Angela Eagle
    We are determined to ensure that all those entitled to claim a benefit can do so. The Department is currently developing a new Minimum Income Guarantee claim form. The lessons learned from that work will be extended to other benefits.

    McDermott International Ltd.
    Mr. David Stewart
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what representations he has received about the winding up of the occupational pension plan operated by the UK section of McDermott International Ltd. [143084]

    Mr. Rooker
    We have received representations from my hon. Friend in relation to the distribution of surplus of this occupational pension scheme.

    Occupational Pension Plans
    Mr. David Stewart
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many occupational pension plans were wound up by employers where a surplus was recorded, for(a) 1990, (b) 1991, (c) 1992, (d) 1993, (e) 1994, (f) 1995, (g) 1996, (h) 1997, (i) 1998, (j) 1999 and (k) 2000 to date; and what was the amount of surplus retained by each employer. [143087]

    Mr. Rooker
    The information requested is not available.

    IT Infrastructure
    Mr. Webb
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security which consortium was responsible for his Department's IT infrastructure prior to 23 November 2000; how long that consortium had been so responsible; how much money had been paid to that consortium over the period; which projects started by that consortium are not to be carried on by the Arcway consortium; for what reasons the contract was withdrawn from the previous consortium; when hon. Members were first told that a change was being considered; and if he will make a statement. [143088]

    Angela Eagle
    Two separate service providers—ICL and Sema—were responsible for the Department's IT network infrastructure prior to 23 November 2000, under the terms of the Focus '95 contracts. These contracts were awarded for a period of five years and had a collective value of approximately £250 million. Work in progress started during this period is being taken forward by the BT-led consortium Arcway to ensure continuity of service.

    The contract with Sema has subsequently expired and has not been renewed. On current plans the contract with ICL is due to expire May 2001. The contract awarded to the BT-led consortium Arcway, through competition, will enable the Department to move forward to a secure modernised IS/IT service.

    Announcements were made in 1996—at the start of the Accord procurement for the next generation of the Department's IS/IT systems—and in 1999 when overarching contracts were awarded to three competing consortia.

  TREASURY

    Climate Change Levy
    Mr. Clappison
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many horticulture firms have(a) applied for and (b) received support from the Climate Change Levy Energy Efficiency Fund. [142625]

    Mr. Timms
    [holding answer 14 December 2000]: As announced in Spending Review 2000, energy efficiency funding from the climate change levy will be administered by a business led, not for profit, limited companyߞthe Carbon Trust, which is currently being set up through the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions.

    Mr. Clappison
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 12 December 2000,Official Report, column 118W, on the Climate Change Levy, how many small and medium enterprises are covered by the Pollution Prevention and Control Regulations. [1430771

    Mr. Timms
    Approximately 20 per cent. of the sites covered by the Pollution Prevention and Control Part A regulations are operated by small and medium sized enterprises. However, significantly more small and medium sized enterprises will be entitled to climate change levy rebates as the size thresholds in the regulations—other than those thresholds relating to combustion plant—will not apply for this purpose.

    Mr. Clappison
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what relief from the Climate Change Levy is available for(a) vehicle manufacturers and (b) brewers in the UK; and in how many cases relief has been granted. [143075]

    Mr. Timms
    Significant parts of these sectors will be entitled to 80 per cent. CCL rebates under negotiated agreements and applications are currently being processed. As with other sectors, vehicle manufacturers and brewers will also be able to benefit from the NICs rebate, the exemptions for renewables and Combined Heat and Power, support for energy efficiency spending and Enhanced Capital Allowances for energy saving investments.

    Mr. Clappison
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what his most recent estimate is of the amount of climate change levy revenue which will be forgone as a result of agreements with business sectors or individual firms. [143073]

    Mr. Timms
    The Government expects that offering an 80 per cent. discount on the climate change levy to firms which sign up to demanding negotiated agreements will save those sectors £360 million in 2001–02.

    Mr. Clappison
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the cost of the climate change levy for the china clay industry. [142486]

    Mr. Timms
    [holding answer 13 December 2000]: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer I gave him on 12 December 2000, Official Report, column 117W.

    Mr. Clappison
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what his most recent estimate is of the cost of the introduction of the climate change levy for the United Kingdom horticulture industry. [142620]
    82W
    Mr. Timms
    [holding answer 14 December 2000]: The climate change levy will raise an estimated £1 billion in its first year, all of which will be recycled to business via a 0.3 percentage point cut in employers' National Insurance Contributions and £150 million of spending on energy efficiency. We expect the levy to be broadly neutral between services and manufacturing. The effect on any specific business, sector or region will depend on a number of factors, including their future energy consumption, the level of employment, eligibility for discounts, use of renewable or combined heat and power energy, and take up of enhanced capital allowances. In recognition of the unique position of the UK horticulture sector, a special package of measures—including a 50 per cent. discount on levy payments—was announced in Budget 2000.

    Mr. Clappison
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the effect of the reduction in public sector national insurance contributions resulting from the introduction of the climate change levy on the level of public expenditure. [142964]

    Mr. Timms
    [holding answer 15 December 2000]: The impact of the introduction of the climate change levy package in April 2001 is broadly neutral for both the public and private sectors.

    Energy Efficiency Fund
    Mr. Clappison
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many small and medium enterprises have(a) applied for and (b) received grants from the Energy Efficiency Fund; and what is the value of the grants so made. [143076]

    Mr. Timms
    As announced in Spending Review 2000, energy efficiency funding from the climate change levy will be administered by a business led, not for profit, limited company—the Carbon Trust, which is currently being set up through the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions.

    Inheritance Tax
    Mr. Matthew Taylor
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the revenue yield and cost of(a) increasing and (b) reducing the length of time that inheritance tax is chargeable on gifts made within seven years before death by one year. [142245]

    Dawn Primarolo
    Increasing to eight years the period within which gifts are charged would yield about £10 million in a full year. Reducing it to six years would cost about £15 million in a full year.

  Census 2001
  Mr. Andrew George
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what consultation was carried out regarding the accessibility of the design of the England and Wales Census 2001 forms for visually impaired and deaf-blind people; [141548]

  (2) if Census 2001 returns in England and Wales from blind, partially sighted and deaf-blind people will be accepted if they are submitted in alternative formats, with particular reference to (a) large print, (b) Braille, (c) disc, (d) audio-tape and (e) e-mail; [141550]
  83W
  (3) what arrangements are in place to provide one-to-one assistance to visually impaired and deaf-blind people with completion of Census 2001 forms in England and Wales; [141551]

  (4) what provision has been made for Census 2001 enumerators in England and Wales to receive specific visual impairment and deaf-blind awareness training; [141552]

  (5) what provision has been made for Census 2001 forms in England and Wales and accompanying information to be made available to blind, partially sighted and deaf-blind people in accessible formats, with particular reference to (a) Braille, (b) large print, (c) disc and (d) audio-tape. [1415491

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  [holding answer 12 December 2000]: The information requested falls within the responsibility of the National Statistician. I have asked him to reply.

  Letter from Len Cook to Mr. Andrew George, dated 18 December 2000:
  As National Statistician and Registrar General for England and Wales I have been asked to reply to your recent questions concerning provisions in the 2001 Census for those who are visually impaired or deafblined (141549–52).
  An important new initiative for the 2001 Census is the Community Liaison Programme, through which the Office for National Statistics (ONS) Census staff have consulted and work with community liaison groups and national organisations specifically to assist those who would find the completion of the Census questionnaire difficult. A great deal of consultation has already taken place with several organisations including the Royal National Institute for the Blind, Help the Aged, the Royal Association for Disability and Rehabilitation and the Royal National Institute for the Deaf to ensure that we meet the needs of disabled people, including visually impaired and deafblind people.
  General information about the Census will be available in leaflets in Braille, and in a large print version. The questions and instructions from the official Census form in Braille will be available on request. An audio tape explaining the Census and the questions is expected to be available February 2001. The Census web site will feature disability awareness issues and the text phone Helpline for the deaf will be operating from 1 April 2001.
  We do not propose to provide the Census forms themselves in Braille or in large print version since the Census is being processed using scanning and image recognition technologies which cannot accommodate forms other than in the standard format. Help in completing the form will, however, be provided by Census enumerators, on a one-to-one basis if necessary, and the blind will be able to provide their Census information by telephone to the Census Helpline or via e-mail using the Braille leaflet as a guide to the questions.
  Census Area Managers have received specialist training presented by external expert in disability awareness and this training is being cascaded down to all members of the field force. A guide for all the field staff which includes disability awareness issues is also being produced.

  Working Families Tax Credit
  Mr. Alexander
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many calls have been received by the Working Families Tax Credit Hotline to date(a) nationally and (b) in Scotland. [142691]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Working Families Tax Credit (WFTC) helpline, and the response line, together handled about 8.4 million calls up to the end of November 2000.
  84W
  A separate count of calls from Scotland is not available, but about 9.5 per cent. of WFTC awards are to families in Scotland.

  Mr. Alexander
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to evaluate the impact of the Working Families Tax Credit. [143125]

  Dawn Primarolo
  A comprehensive programme of evaluation is in progress. The programme of work spans several years and comprises qualitative and quantitative research and analysis.

  Mr. Alexander
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the impact of the Working Families Tax Credit on increasing the financial incentives for women to work. [143166]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The WFTC provides support for low and middle income working families with children.

  The WFTC has been of particular benefit to lone parents, 90 per cent. of whom are women, helping to tackle poverty and support lone parents as they move off benefit and into work.

  Working Families Tax Credit, along with other tax and benefit reforms implemented during this Parliament, delivers a Minimum Income Guarantee of £208 per week for families working 35 hours a week and £152 for families working 16 hours a week. 50 per cent. of WFTC recipients are lone mothers and another 10 per cent. are couples where the woman is the main earner.

  On average, families are £30 a week better off on WFTC than on Family Credit and 35 per cent. more lone parents are receiving WFTC compared to Family Credit. The net income for a lone mother with two children is now £30 higher than it was under Family Credit.

  In addition, the Childcare Tax Credit reimburses up to 70 per cent. of parents' eligible child care costs, thereby tackling one of the main obstacles for women wanting to work. Over 100,000 lone parent families are now receiving the Childcare Tax Credit, more than twice the number that benefited from the child care disregard in Family Credit.

  Beer
  Mr. John M. Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what his estimate is of the loss of revenue to the Treasury resulting from the purchase of beer in Europe for transport to the UK(a) legally and (b) illegally in the last three years. [142828]

  Dawn Primarolo
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Mrs. Lawrence) on 26 November 1999 Official Report, columns 254–55W.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the impact of the level of the United Kingdom beer duty on the quantity of illegally imported beer from Europe into the United Kingdom. [142829]

  Dawn Primarolo
  No such assessment has been made.

  Integrated Child Credit
  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when the proposed integrated child credit will be implemented. [143256]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Government's intention, subject to the legislative timetable, is to introduce the new integrated system of support for families with children from 2003.

  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what preparations his Department has taken to prepare for the implementation of the integrated child credit. [143253]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Treasury departments are working with the Department of Social Security and the Department for Education and Employment on plans for the introduction of the proposed new integrated system of support for families with children

  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he will publish a consultation paper on the details of the integrated tax credit. [143255]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Paper 6 in the series "The Modernisation of Britain's Tax and Benefit System" ("Tackling Poverty and Making Work Pay—Tax Credits for the 21" Century") sets out the case, and a possible framework, for a new integrated system of support for families with children.

  Children's Tax Credit
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many claim forms were issued for his new Children's Tax Credit and on what date; how many forms were returned in each month since then; what are the implications of the failure to return a form for the ability of a parent to receive the credit in April 2001; and if he will make a statement. [143094]

  Dawn Primarolo
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) on 24 November 2000,Official Report, column 341W.

  Hospital Building Programme
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if the Government hospital building programme is subject to VAT at the standard rate. [143390]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The construction of hospitals and similar buildings is standard rated for VAT, but VAT is taken into account in the funding of National Health Service Trusts.

  Income Tax
  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what income tax was payable in(a) 1999–2000 and (b) 2000–01 by a retired married couple aged 59 years with an income of £6,000 paid to the man alone, with no dependent children and with no other allowances. [143449]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The amount of tax that an individual will pay will depend on their individual circumstances.
  86W
  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what income tax was payable in 2000–01 by(a) a married couple, the man born on 5 April 1935, the woman aged 61 years, with a household income of £6,000 with no dependent children, the woman receiving no income beyond her share of the state pension and with no other allowances and (b) a married couple, the man born on 6 April 1935, the woman aged 61 years, with a household income of £6,000, with no dependent children, the woman receiving no income beyond her share of the state pension and with no other allowances. [143443]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The amount of income tax that an individual will pay will depend on their individual circumstances.

  National Insurance
  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much income tax and national insurance is payable in(a) 1999–2000 and (b) 2000–01 by a married man claiming the married couples allowance with a working income of £6,000 with no dependent children and no other allowances. [143429]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The amount of tax and national insurance that an individual will pay will depend on their individual circumstances.

  New Taxes
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list for each new tax introduced since June 1997(a) the actual revenue raised and (b) the original revenue estimate. [143431]

  Dawn Primarolo
  All changes to the tax system are included in the relevant Financial Statements and Budget Reports. Estimated costs of tax expenditures and reliefs are given in Tax Ready Reckoner and Tax Reliefs, published on 8 November 2000. Both of these are available in the Library of the House.

  Aggregates Tax
  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what account he has taken of the(a) remoteness and (b) sparse population in the Highlands and Islands of Scotland when calculating the fixed rate of the proposed aggregates tax; and if he will make a statement; [142967]

  (2) what account he has taken of (a) the lower environmental impact of quarries and (b) the difficulties of recycling aggregates in the Highlands and Islands of Scotland when calculating the fixed rate of the proposed aggregates tax; and if he will make a statement. [142965]

  Mr. Timms
  The aggregates levy is based on independent research commissioned by the Department for the Environment, Transport and the Regions which has verified that there are significant environmental costs associated with quarrying that are not already covered by regulation, including noise, dust, visual intrusion, loss of amenity and damage to biodiversity. The research looked at sites in both densely populated areas and in remote and sparsely populated areas.
  87W
  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the social and economic impact of the proposed aggregates tax on the Highlands and Islands of Scotland; and if he will make a statement. [142966]

  Mr. Timms
  The aggregates levy will bring about benefits by making the price of aggregates better reflect 88W
  their true environmental costs. This will provide an incentive for all business to use more sustainable materials and to use all aggregates more efficiently. A proportion of the proceeds from the levy will be available in a Sustainability Fund to help the Scottish Executive deliver local environmental benefits. The remaining proceeds will fund a cut in employer NICs which will deliver economic benefits nationwide.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Bath and Wells.

Molucca Islands
Baroness Cox Baroness Cox asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is their response to reports of escalating conflict in the Molucca Islands of Indonesia.
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: My Lords, We have repeatedly made clear to the Indonesian Government our deep concern at the climate of tension and violence which continues to reign in a number of Indonesian provinces, including Maluku. My honourable friend John Battle raised the matter personally with the Indonesian Foreign Minister on 12th December in the margins of the EU-ASEAN Foreign Ministers' meeting. Representatives from EU embassies in Jakarta visited Maluku from 12th to 14th October. They found the situation in north Maluku to be much improved, but real problems definitely remain in Ambon.
Baroness Cox: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that encouraging but realistic reply. Of course, both Muslims and Christians have suffered in this conflict. However, is the Minister aware that recently the Lasker Jihad warriors have received reinforcements? They have stated that they will drive all the Christians out of Ambon and that no church bells will ring in Ambon this Christmas.
Will the Government therefore urge President Wahid, who is committed to the principle of religious tolerance, to require the removal from the region of all the Lasker Jihad warriors to ensure that his military forces provide effective protection to both Muslim and Christian communities?
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: My Lords, as one would expect from somebody with her expertise of the region, the noble Baroness asks a relevant question about the activities of the Lasker Jihad in Maluku. The Government have also heard reports of threats that church bells will be silenced in Ambon this Christmas. Such reports are extremely worrying. Robust action is needed to halt the violent activities of the Lasker Jihad and other groups which perpetrate violence and destruction in Maluku. We believe that President Wahid is committed to restoring order and promoting reconciliation between the rival communities. The noble Baroness is right to point out that he is committed to religious tolerance. The international community should continue to support his efforts.
Lord Clarke of Hampstead: My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for the concern she expressed
566
in her Answer to the Question. In the light of that concern, will Her Majesty's Government consider sending human rights monitors to the Moluccas as a matter of urgency? Will they also consider whether or not emergency relief will be granted 10 these unfortunate people?
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: My Lords, I can assure my noble friend that Her Majesty's Government will continue to monitor the situation in Maluku through the UN Resource Centre and the European Union Heads of Mission in Jakarta. We would also consider a follow-up visit to the visit in October, to which I referred in my first Answer. We would then address the matter after that.
Lord Pilkington of Oxenford: My Lords, does the Minister consider that heads of religious communities in the United Kingdom could help in mediation in this matter? Have the Government approached the Church of England and the Muslim communities in the United Kingdom? Positive action is demanded from the Government because great suffering is involved. It may be that our religious communities could assist in a small way.
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: My Lords, I am sure that the noble Baroness who asked the Question is better able to expound the various connections between religious groups in this country and those in Indonesia than the Government. We are doing everything we can to facilitate conflict resolution in Indonesia, as we do in other parts of the world. It is up to religious communities, NGOs and religious organisations of all kinds to make their own direct links in the countries concerned, where relevant. However, I know that I do not need to point out to noble Lords that that must always be done with a high degree of delicacy so as not to fall foul of local sensitivities.
Lord Archer of Sandwell: My Lords, I appreciate the concern that the Government have undoubtedly shown. However, can my noble friend confirm that, unless there is an effective rescue operation, either by the Indonesian Government or internationally, thousands of innocent people are likely to be butchered? I appreciate that the Minister cannot answer for the Home Office. However, can she chance her arm and assure your Lordships that genuine refugees coming to this country will receive a sympathetic reception?
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: My Lords, I never chance my arm at the Dispatch Box. However, I am sure that genuine refugees arriving in this country do indeed receive a sympathetic reception.
Lord Elton: My Lords, given the scale of what is happening in Indonesia, it is clear that if that was happening in the Balkans we would be in there by now. It is not sufficient merely to make representations to

567
the responsible government. Will Her Majesty's Government urgently consider taking this matter to the Security Council of the United Nations?
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: My Lords, the UN considered the situation in Indonesia and pronounced on it. It is unlikely that an approach to the UN Security Council at the moment will lead to any direct intervention inside Indonesia. The international community has said again and again—for example, in the European Union's statement of 28th November—that we fully support Indonesia's territorial integrity but are in favour of a strong, united, democratic Indonesia. We encourage the Indonesian authority to find a solution to regional disputes through dialogue rather than by force. We must remember that disputes exist in many parts of Indonesia, not just Molucca. There are those in Aceh, East Timor and so forth. All that the international community can do at the moment is support the democratic regime of President Wahid and try to give him all the help we can in his efforts to find peaceful solutions to the problems of his country.
Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, against the background of spreading violence, is it not particularly sad and regrettable that the armed forces are reported to be taking sides in a partisan way in some of the atrocities and violence? Is it not even more regrettable, in the light of the strongly-expressed EU concern in this regard and the European Union's code of conduct on the export of armaments, that there are reports that the French are supplying some of the armed forces with the weapons used in those horrors? Will the Minister look into that?
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: My Lords, I cannot comment on the reports of French arms being used. However, there is no evidence that UK-supplied military equipment has been used for internal repression. We make every effort to ensure that no licences are granted for any such arms or military supplies.

Hepatitis C
2.45 p.m.
Lord Morris of Manchester Lord Morris of Manchester asked Her Majesty's Government:
What recent new help they have given to those who were infected with hepatitis C by contaminated National Health Service blood products and the dependants of those who have since died in consequence of their infection.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Lord Hunt of Kings Heath): My Lords, on 31st October the National Institute for Clinical Excellence recommended that patients suffering from moderate or severe hepatitis C should be given the combination therapy, Alpha Interferon
568
with Ribavarin. My department will also make funding available to the Haemophilia Society over three years to help improve counselling for people with haemophilia infected with hepatitis C.
Lord Morris of Manchester: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for his reply. Is he aware that contaminated NHS blood products have now taken the lives of 1,000 people with haemophilia in what my noble friend Lord Winston has called the worst treatment disaster in the history of the NHS? Should there not be a public inquiry into the disaster, as the Haemophilia Society requests? Again, why cannot safer recombinant treatment be available to all adults and children in England as it is already in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland? And why cannot people infected with hepatitis C be given the same "no fault" financial help as people with HIV?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I pay tribute to my noble friend as president of the Haemophilia Society for bringing this serious concern of what has happened to many people to your Lordships' attention. The Government reviewed the decision taken by the previous government not to offer financial assistance to haemophiliacs infected with hepatitis C through blood products. Our decision was that an exception could not be made to the general rule that compensation or financial help is only given when the NHS or individuals working in it have been at fault.
There is no evidence that recombinant synthetic factor 8 and factor 9 are more effective or safe than plasma-based products. However, I understand the anxieties expressed by the haemophilia community. That is why we instructed health authorities to provide recombinant products to new patients and children under 16 with haemophilia. I understand the point made by my noble friend. I shall be meeting with the Manor House Group later today and with the Haemophilia Society in the new year. I am sure that this will be one of the issues we discuss.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, in a debate in March the Minister claimed that the department had no legal liability towards haemophiliac sufferers because blood testing was introduced as soon as technology was available. Recently, there have been reports in the Scotsman that regional directors of blood transfusion centres met in 1986 and decided not to go ahead with hepatitis C screening because of lack of time and resources. Does not that alter the complexion on the matter? Is it not high time the department altered its view and gave financial compensation to those sufferers?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I have not seen the report in the Scotsman. I shall be prepared to look at it if the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, will pass it to me. But it is not my understanding that there is any move from the position that the English NHS was not shown to be at fault. As the noble Lord will understand, an inquiry by the Scottish Administration

569
took place recently. However, that was not a general inquiry into hepatitis C and blood products. It looked specifically into whether or not Scottish haemophilia patients were exposed to the risks of hepatitis C for longer than they should have been, given the fact that Scotland developed successful heat treatment later than England. Scottish Ministers considered a report in that regard and concluded that there was no evidence that the relevant authorities did other than their best for patients.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I ask the Minister to think again about his answer when he said that there was no evidence that recombinant was safer than normal blood products. I thought it had been clearly established that all hepatitis C infections came about because of the product being derived from normal blood. Is it not a fact that one of the big stumbling blocks has been VAT on the chemical product? As we have been told repeatedly that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would investigate that matter, can the Minister say whether he has done so because such a move could save many people from contracting hepatitis C?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, VAT issues are always under discussion, but I have seen no evidence that recombinant factors are more effective or safer than plasma-based products. That is the advice I have received. However, as I have said, I understand the concerns expressed by the haemophilia community and will be discussing them with the Manor House Group and the Haemophilia Society.
Earl Russell: My Lords, may I thank the Minister for small mercies? However, is he aware that the failure to respond to the question my noble friend Lord Clement-Jones asked about compensation discredits government and therefore diminishes the standard of our politics?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I did not fail to respond to the noble Lord but I reiterated the Government's decision in the light of the careful review which they undertook when they came to office. These are difficult decisions but nevertheless one was arrived at s
and it was the appropriate decision.

Heathrow: Fifth Terminal Inquiry
2.51 p.m.
Lord Jenkins of Putney Lord Jenkins of Putney asked Her Majesty's Government:
When they expect to receive the report of the inspector appointed to inquire into the proposal for a fifth terminal at Heathrow airport.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Lord Whitty): My Lords, the public inquiry into the proposed fifth terminal at Heathrow closed in March 1999. The inquiry inspector then said that he
570
intended to deliver his report within two years of the end of the inquiry but that he hoped to improve on that.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, I hope that the length of the report indicates that the issue is being examined with great thoroughness. I am sure that my noble friend will agree with that. However, is he aware that a fifth terminal at Heathrow would overcrowd a situation which is already verging on the dangerous? It is surprising that it takes two years to come to a conclusion which one might have thought was verging on the obvious.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the inspector has taken what he considers to be appropriate time for the report. It would be wrong of me to comment further.
Lord Berkeley: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that even before the inspector has delivered his report on the fifth terminal, certain airlines, including BA, are reported to have been demanding a sixth terminal and a third runway at Heathrow? Will he pass to the airlines the Government's suggestion that the days of predicting and providing are over, because thought must be given to the severe environmental effects both in the air and on the ground?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, before I answer that question I want to point out that anything I say has no bearing on the Terminal 5 decision. Clearly, there is a problem of congestion on the ground as well as in the air and the environmental dimensions of aviation policy need to be addressed in the context of all those decisions.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that evidence has been given to the inquiry in one direction by the CAA, the BAA, the airlines and the trade unions concerned? Is that right or wrong?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, it would be totally inappropriate for me to comment on the evidence given to the inquiry.
Lord Hunt of Chesterton: My Lords, will the Government ensure that future plans for Heathrow will be consistent with their new noise strategy? Are they aware that studies carried out by the Department of Health show that noise has a significant impact on children learning at school. which should also be taken into account in any development plans for the area?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, again, I wa:nt to point out that anything I say in reply to the question has no bearing on the Terminal 5 decision. It is important to recognise that the noise climate around Heathrow has substantially improved during the past two decades. There has been a significant decrease in noise despite a substantial increase in the number of movements.

571
However, today the Government are announcing new noise limits for aircraft departing from Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted to be implemented from 25th February 2001. The main provisions will be a reduction in the daytime noise levels by three decibels to 94 between 0700 hrs and 2300 hrs and during the night period the noise levels will be reduced by two decibels to 87.
As regards the health aspect, there is a need to take that into account in the forward development of noise policies.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, will the Minister say how much the inquiry has cost?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I believe that the total cost of the inquiry has been in the public arena. However, I cannot immediately turn to the amount. I shall write to the noble Earl.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester: My Lords, regardless of the decision which is ultimately taken about Terminal 5—and I am trying to be of help—does not my noble friend agree that it is imperative that public transport links to Heathrow airport are improved? In particular, will the Government take a sympathetic view of the plans to extend the Heathrow Express westwards, so that it will cover Reading and points west, and the plans for the new rail link from the south?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, again, without commenting on the Terminal 5 decision, surface access to Heathrow and other airports is an important dimension. All parties at Heathrow and other main airports are intent on increasing access by public transport of all kinds. The strategy for so doing is being developed within London and by the BAA and other authorities at Heathrow.
In order to avoid my letter to the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, being lost in the Christmas post, perhaps I may indicate that the total cost of the inquiry to all participants is estimated at £83 million. Of that amount, the private sector is estimated to have spent some £64 million and in terms of government money the DETR and its agencies have spent some £6.2 million.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, does my noble friend believe that the long period taken to produce the report is indicative of a thorough examination being undertaken, not merely providing an opportunity for an untoward event to occur in the meantime? Let us hope that all will go well during the two years and that the conclusion will be that which I should have thought was obvious at the beginning; that Heathrow does not need and should not have a fifth terminal.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I note my noble friend's remarks but further than that I could not possibly comment.

Hazardous Waste
2.58 p.m.
The Countess of Mar The Countess of Mar asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they are contemplating any re-designation of hazardous waste products in order that they may be used as fuel.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, no. The definitions of "waste" and "hazardous waste" are set out in European Community directives. We cannot, therefore, unilaterally redesignate wastes as "products" or hazardous wastes as "non-hazardous" in order to facilitate their use as fuel. Many wastes and some hazardous wastes are already used as fuels in certain industrial processes and power-producing facilities. The use of waste as a fuel is strictly controlled as a waste recovery operation.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for confirming my belief. Is he aware of attempts by Castle Cement to undermine the directive and UK law by getting the definition of "hazardous waste" changed in order to use it as fuel? I understand that it is called "cemfuel" and that its constituents vary with each batch that is mixed. It can include waste pesticides, heavy metals such as arsenic and cadmium, and various other products which no one would normally burn. Indeed, the company has made an application for a new kiln at Padeswood in North Wales. Although it states that it will be a cement kiln, once it is built there is nothing to prevent the company from changing its use to one which burns hazardous waste. Will the Minister's department, together with the Wales Office, keep a very close eye on what is happening at that establishment?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I find myself in a difficulty similar to that which arose on the previous Question. I am very much aware of the case involving cemfuels. The dispute relating to the application by Castle Cement is subject to judicial review which is to take place this week. I hope noble Lords agree that it is inappropriate for me to comment further. However, the department is fully aware of the points that the noble Countess raises.
Baroness Sharpies: My Lords, how does a doctor know the way to treat a patient who has been exposed to cemfuel?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the toxic effects of hazardous waste on the human body are fairly well known, and that is why the thresholds have been set at their present levels. Therefore, as far as concern the constituent elements the medical knowledge is there.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, can the Minister confirm that the Environment Agency carefully monitors the

573
emissions of cement manufacturers and that Castle Cement burns a considerable number of redundant tars which would otherwise go to landfill?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I confirm that to a degree the cement industry burns such elements effectively as fuel. Likewise, as to the role of the Environment Agency I confirm that, together with other regulatory agencies, it keeps a very close eye on the situation to ensure that existing European standards are enforced.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, is the Minister aware that, compared with other European countries, this country recycles a considerably lower proportion of waste and the proportion that is incinerated or put into landfill is considerably higher? What steps are the Government taking to increase the recycling of waste to match the 30 to 40 per cent achieved, for example, in the Federal Republic of Germany?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the Government have recently developed a waste management strategy and are committed to developing recycling and renewable sources of energy. As the noble Baroness indicates, the UK recycles a significantly lower proportion of waste and the amount that goes to landfill is significantly higher. As to incineration, some Scandinavian countries and the Netherlands have commendably high recycling rates and also a significantly larger number of incinerators than the UK. Those incinerators are operated in accordance with very tight European regulations which apply in the area of incineration.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, will the Minister look further into the matter raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Sharples? Does the Minister agree that because each batch of cemfuel is very variable doctors are unable to determine exactly the toxic chemicals to which their patients have been exposed? The data sheets merely refer to solids, liquids and gas.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, both the noble Countess and the noble Baroness may well have a point, and I am prepared to examine the matter. I believe that it is inappropriate to go further because of the judicial review relating to cemfuel that is currently taking place. But it is important to ascertain that, whatever the source of the emission, there is sufficient medical knowledge to enable doctors to treat anybody if emission thresholds are exceeded.

Social Security Fraud Bill [H.L.]
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Social Security (Baroness Hollis of Heigham): My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to make provision, for the purposes of the law relating to social security, about the obtaining and disclosure of information; and to make provision for restricting the payment of social security benefits and war pensions in
574
the case of persons convicted of offences relating to such benefits or pensions and about the institution of proceedings for such offences; and for connected purposes. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time.—(Baroness Hollis of Heigham.)
On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

Private Security Industry Bill [H.L.]
3.5 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Bassam of Brighton): My Lords. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
This is the first of the programme of five Home Office Bills announced in the Queen's Speech to be introduced in your Lordships' House. It forms part of the Government's commitment to reduce crime and disorder and introduces for the first time statutory regulation into the private security industry in order to drive out criminals and drive up standards. This is a regulatory Bill but it makes straightforward and sensible arrangements for the private security industry. The Bill is entirely consistent with our general aim to keep regulation to the minimum necessary and to remove unnecessary controls. We propose to regulate those sectors of the industry where there is genuine public concern over the activities of the criminal or cowboy end of the business. We do not propose to regulate for the sake of it in areas where public concern does not justify action or where the regulatory burden might be disproportionate
The private security industry is a thriving and diverse industry which has grown rapidly in recent years. Where once the public may not have been aware of its activities, it is now part of daily life. We are all used to seeing private security personnel in shopping centres and department stores and in office blocks and delivering cash to banks and building societies. At present there is no statutory regulation of the industry. The industry has taken significant steps in recent years to improve its act and image through its highly responsible trade associations and training and inspectorate organisations.
But voluntary self-regulation is not enough; it cannot deal with the criminal or unscrupulous elements within the industry. There are no effective controls to prevent such people leaving one area or one firm and setting up again elsewhere, 'which seriously hampers the work of the police in dealing with them. Clients of the private security industry, by definition, give privileged access to those who provide their security, and these providers are placed in particular positions of trust, with inside knowledge of their clients' weaknesses. This trust can be abused in ways which can have damaging or tragic consequences.
A recent survey indicated that some 350,000 people were wholly or mainly employed within the private security industry. The industry has a total annual turnover of over £2 billion. Despite the industry's size

575
and role, there is no proper regulation in place. That is why the public have reservations about the activities of those sectors of the industry which are particularly prone to exploitation by rogue elements and both the private security industry itself and the police have long sought statutory regulation. A statutory framework is the best way to drive out the undesirable elements and thus increase public confidence in the industry and the services it provides.
We have waited a long time for regulation of the private security industry. In 1995 the Home Affairs Select Committee in another place recommended a proper licensing system. The Conservative government of the time decided, however, that statutory regulation was not the answer. They relied instead on the ability of the industry to regulate itself. The Labour Party said at the time that this response did not go far enough, and we indicated our intention to regulate the industry on our return to office. That is what we are doing today.
Very soon after taking office we undertook a consultation exercise with those most directly concerned: the industry itself, the police service, local authorities and, importantly, the entertainments industry. As part of this, we met typical small to medium sized security firms. They saw regulation as a way to promote confidence in the industry as well as to protect the public. They were willing to be regulated, even if it came at a cost. Having considered carefully what we heard in these consultations, we published a White Paper in March 1999 outlining our proposals and inviting further comments. The White Paper has been deposited as a background paper to this Bill in the Library of your Lordships' House.
The key aspects of our proposals were, first, that it was essential to vet people working in the industry in order to exclude criminal elements; secondly, that companies providing a recognised standard of service should be recognised through a voluntary inspection scheme; and, thirdly, that regulation would help to raise standards within the industry, building on progress made through self-regulation. We received roughly 180 responses to the White Paper, from a wide range of bodies, generally supportive of the proposals and strongly in favour of regulation.
The Bill essentially reflects the proposals contained in the White Paper. Its overarching provision is to establish a new non-departmental public body. At this point I am sorry to have slightly to disappoint the noble Lord, Lord Cope, by confirming the suspicions which he raised during the debate on the Address: the new body will not be called "Offbounce". It will, rather more prosaically, be called the security industry authority, and it will have responsibility for licensing individuals offering services under contract in designated sectors of the private security industry; regulating those involved in door supervision—that is "bouncers"—and wheelclamping services, both those offering services under contract to others and those employed in-house; inspecting companies in response to voluntary applications and issuing approved
576
contractor status to those meeting an acceptable standard; and setting and raising professional standards within the industry.
The Bill extends to England and Wales, and has been welcomed by both the industry itself and by the police service. It does not apply to Scotland, which is considering what, if any, steps to take to regulate the private security industry there. The functions of the new security industry authority are clearly set out in Clause 1 and are essentially to license individuals and to approve companies with the help of an inspections regime; to keep under general review the private security industry and the legislative framework within which it operates; and to set, approve and ratchet up standards.
Who is affected by the Bill is determined by the employment status of the individuals concerned and the type of security services they provide. Clause 3 defines the employment status of those who will be covered by the regulatory framework. All individuals directly providing security services themselves, their supervisors and managers, and the directors or partners of their company or firm will be required to have a licence. That applies also to those supplying services on an agency basis.
Schedule 2 defines the sectors of the industry which are regulated. There are two main groups: those providing manned guarding services; and those engaged in immobilising vehicles; that is, wheelclampers. Manned guarding is a diverse activity but has the common feature of guarding premises, property or people. We have all encountered activities that will be caught within this definition: for example, the security guard sitting at a reception desk or on patrol in a shopping centre; his or her colleague patrolling premises at night; and others delivering cash to banks out of armoured vehicles.
The Bill proposes that individuals in the manned guarding sector should be licensed if they are providing services under contract to a client. We do not propose to require them to have licences if they are employed in-house by companies. These companies will already have satisfied themselves about their employees, and the Government do not wish to foist on to them an additional layer of checking where it is not necessary. An important sub-set of the manned guarding sector regulated by the Bill is door supervisors—more commonly called "bouncers"—who are required to screen people entering pubs and clubs. There are professional and reputable companies and operatives providing door supervisor services. But the fact that door supervisors operate most often at pubs and clubs, particularly at venues where young people are likely to gather, has unfortunately meant that, on too many occasions, disreputable and sometimes criminal elements have infiltrated the sector.
We know of door supervisors who have turned a blind eye to drug dealing on the premises they are meant to be protecting. Worse still, we know of door supervisors who have used their positions to deal in drugs themselves. There is an unhappy record of

577
bouncers committing physical assaults against the public. The Bill therefore requires all door supervisors to be licensed, whether they provide their services under contract to a client or are employed in-house by a pub or club.
The second important sector regulated by the Bill is wheelclampers. The mischief we are addressing is wheelclamping on private land; that is, land which is not a road to which the general public has access. Roads are separately regulated under the Road Traffic Acts. Owners of land must be able to take action against those who park on it without their permission, and wheelclamping, or at least the threat of it, may be a very effective way of dealing with irresponsible parking. However, it must be carried out in a reasonable manner. To some extent, case law has already enshrined these principles. In 1995, the Court of Appeal adjudged, in the case of Arthur and Arthur v Anker, that dampers had acted legally as adequate warning signs had been displayed, the release fee was reasonable and there was a reasonable method of payment.
The judgment of the Court of Appeal provided useful guidelines to courts faced with similar cases, but only in the broadest of terms. It did not define a general standard for the size of signs or what a "reasonable" release fee might be. That leaves the motorist who is aggrieved by having his or her car clamped on private land with only limited practical means of redress. Unless the behaviour of the damper is quite outrageous, the motorist may well be uncertain of his or her rights. Moreover, he or she might well be dissuaded from going to court by the potential cost of legal fees.
This gap in the law needs to be put right. The Bill does this by ensuring that all wheelclamping on private land which is done as a business or as part of one's employment or for a release fee is regulated by a licensing system. Thus each individual who provides wheelclamping services I o others will need a licence, as will his or her director or manager. We considered whether the licensing regime needed to cover wheelclamping by businesses of cars on their own land where they used their own employees—in-house wheelclamping, if I may call it that. We concluded that it did. Immobilising a car gives the damper such power over the car owner, with all the inherent danger of that power being abused, that we would be leaving the public open to the risk of further abuses.
However, in the case of in-house wheelclamping the Bill does allow the authority to avoid undue regulation by being able to require a licence only of the employer, if it is satisfied that the employer will vet employees to a suitable standard and ensure their compliance with all the requirements and conditions of the licence. Finally, the Bill requires a landowner to be licensed if he or she wishes to engage in do-it-yourself wheelclamping which involves charging a release fee.
The Bill also regulates three other sectors: private investigators, security consultants and keyholders. These groups are much smaller than manned guards and wheelclampers and their activities give far less
578
cause for concern. None the less, practitioners are in a special relationship of trust with regard to the security of their clients, and our proposals in the White Paper to take them into a statutory regulatory framework were welcomed. The Government believe that the public is justified in expecting those who offer such services under contract to be subject to a proper form of regulation. That is therefore what the Bill proposes for them. It does not affect operatives in these sectors who are employed in-house by companies; once again, we believe that employers' own screening processes are and should be sufficient.
That completes my description of who will he covered by the provisions of this Bill. To summarise: all the individual employees, supervisors, managers or directors in the sectors I have described—roughly 300,000 people in all—will be required to have a licence. It will be an offence for anyone to engage in licensable conduct as defined in the Bill without a proper licence. It will also be an offence to take on as an employee providing security services an unlicensed person. A licence will be required for each designated security service provided. So, for example, if someone legitimately works as both a manned guard and a wheelclamper, he will need to be licensed for both activities.
The Bill allows for exemptions from the need for a licence where an individual is already subject to a type of vetting that affords a level of protection for the public which is at least equivalent to that achieved by the criteria imposed by the authority.
The authority will determine the criteria against which it will issue licences. The criteria will be published, so that those applying for licences—and the public—will know what are the requirements. There will be two types of criteria. First, the authority will check an individual's criminal record with the newly established Criminal Records Bureau. For licence applicants in all but one of the regulated sectors, the authority will obtain a criminal record certificate showing both spent and unspent convictions. Because of the particular concerns about door supervisors which I mentioned earlier, they alone will be the subject of an enhanced criminal record certificate showing spent and unspent convictions together with convictions for minor offences and local police intelligence.
The Government believe that these exemptions from the provisions of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act are fully justified in order properly to license private security operatives. This belief was widely shared by those providing comments during our consultation period. The authority will determine what weight to give to any criminal convictions shown in these checks. It would be unreasonable to say that any criminal conviction whatsoever should automatically bar the grant of a licence; the authority will need to consider each licence application on its own merit and in the round. But it is likely that, certain serious offences relating to violence or, in particular, drugs will disbar an applicant from gaining a licence.

579
The second criterion that the authority will take into account will relate to skills and training. The authority will have an important role in setting and raising standards in the industry generally, and the Government will wish it to consider very carefully how to ratchet up minimum quality thresholds. The authority will clearly need to discuss proposals carefully with the industry itself. The authority will be able to attach conditions to a licence and it will be an offence to contravene them.
The authority will also be able to refuse, modify, suspend or revoke a licence. Its criteria for doing so will be published. There will be a standardised system of licence applications and procedures and a standard format of licence to help with public recognition and to enable the licence holder to work anywhere in the country. The authority will be able to charge a fee for licence applications. We want this fee to be the minimum necessary to allow the authority to be self-financing. We do not want to erect artificial financial barriers to employment in the industry. We believe that that would be entirely counter-productive. The exact fee will be determined by several factors, such as the level of charge that will be levied by the Criminal Records Bureau, but we expect the fee to be in the region of £35 to £40 for a licence normally lasting for three years.
There will be an avenue of appeal against the authority's decisions to refuse, modify or revoke a licence. I should tell noble Lords that, although Clause 10 is drafted permissively, it is the Government's clear intention to establish these appeal mechanisms. Although the Bill vests licensing powers centrally with the security industry authority, the Government know that many local authorities operate schemes to register door supervisors and wish to continue to have a role in licensing them. So, while setting licence criteria will remain the sole responsibility of the security industry authority, the Bill envisages the possibility of local authorities undertaking the grant of licences to door supervisors. However, we have no intention of foisting these duties on local authorities against their will and the authority, once established, will need to have detailed discussions with local authorities about the practicalities.
The final major element of the licensing system will be a public register listing every licensed person and the terms on which they have been licensed. The public and, of course, the police will thus be able to establish clearly whether an individual is properly licensed to engage in regulated security activities.
I should now like to move on and describe briefly the second main strand of the security industry authority's functions. The Bill establishes a system under which providers of security services who meet certain standards can obtain recognition from the security industry authority. The Government are aware that some bodies in the industry favour making this a compulsory scheme, but we have decided against this, at least for the present. We do not believe that the case is made out for imposing this additional burden across the board on the industry. We believe that the majority
580
of reputable companies will want to seek approval under the voluntary system. Providers of security services will be able to apply to the authority for approval against a set of published criteria. If the standards are met, the company in question will be able to display in advertising the fact of its approval under the scheme.
The supporting regime is similar to that for the licensing of individuals; that is to say, the authority will draw up and publish its criteria. It can withhold or delay approval until the criteria are met; it may attach conditions to the grant of an approval; and it may charge a fee for processing the application. An appeals mechanism against authority decisions will be established and there will be a public register of approved companies. It will be an offence falsely to claim approval under the scheme. It is important that the authority is able actively to police the licensing regimes it establishes. The authority will therefore have appropriately delimited powers of entry and inspection. Any regulated person—simply put, that is anyone who should have a licence—may be required to produce relevant documents or information about licensable conduct, as defined in the legislation. It will be an offence to obstruct any duly authorised person in the exercise of his functions and a balancing offence for any authorised person to disclose information revealed to him or her, except for the purposes of carrying out authority functions, or for any criminal proceedings.
The Government believe that the benefits accruing from this Bill are several. For those important sectors of the private security industry that legislation brings under its wing, the security industry authority will, for the first time, introduce a licensing regime that is universal, consistent and, above all, transparent. By licensing all door supervisors, the authority will drive down the incidence of violence and drug offences in pubs and clubs. By licensing all wheelclampers, the authority will deter the cowboys who prey on innocent motorists. The authority will begin to ratchet up standards across the regulated sectors, and will continue to do so at a demanding yet realistic pace.
The security industry authority will play a central role in the future relationship of the private security industry, the police, the Government and the public, whom we all serve. It will be important for the authority to work closely with the industry it will regulate in order properly to discharge its functions. But it is crucial that the authority is also wholly independent of that industry. This will enable the public to have increased confidence in the quality of the service and reliability in the specified sectors of the industry. This is, in turn, likely to lead to increased market opportunities for the industry. For all of those good reasons, I commend the Bill to the House.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Bassam of Brighton.)
3.28 p.m.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, this Bill is not controversial in its principle. The proposals have been

581
widely discussed for some years and, as the Minister pointed out, they were the subject of a report published five years ago by the Select Committee on Home Affairs of another place. Studies have also been carried out by the Association of Chief Police Officers and others. As has also been said, the provisions have the support of the security industry, the British Entertainment and Discotheque Association, and other trade associations.
At present, the industry has in place a measure of self-regulation covering at least the major firms. Furthermore, some local authorities have been running registration schemes covering part of the scope of the Bill. The Bill itself follows the lines of a command paper—it was not a White Paper—of March 1999. We accept the judgment of the Government that it is time to legislate. But we are always cautious about placing new regulatory burdens on industry, even when companies and trade associations ask for them.
It is a truth universally acknowledged that when everyone agrees in principle about a Bill, then critical faculties are dulled and publicity is at its least. A Bill is then most susceptible to the law of unintended consequences. In case anyone does not know, this basic law of government holds that the unintended consequences of any legislation are normally greater than the intended consequences. In a case of this kind, governments and those in an industry focus on the intended consequences but other people on the fringes get caught up in the unintended consequences. It is for Parliament to try to spot and eliminate the unintended consequences. To this end, the regulations should be clear and kept to the minimum possible. We shall want to assure ourselves that the Bill does not go further than is necessary or desirable.
New regulations are often desirable in themselves, but it is the totality of new regulatory burdens which makes life difficult for industry and business. I am not so concerned about big companies in the mainstream of the security business or those running clubs and so on. They have been consulted and will, no doubt, master the new regulations and forms because it is their business to do so. I am more concerned about companies and other organisations which are not primarily in the security business but which may find themselves involved because they have a security man or two. They probably do not know about this Bill yet and, in the nature of things, will not know until they find themselves in breach of some regulation brought in under the Bill. Few newspapers bother to record unsensational matters for the record these days, and so a new industry of parliamentary and government consultants has grown up to help businesses and others to watch out for the effects of legislation on their clients. I hope that they are watching this Bill, particularly if their clients have nothing to do with the security industry, because they are the people likely to he affected by it.
The Bill is called the Private Security Industry Bill, but its effects will cover a lot of people and firms which are not involved in that industry—if one can call it an industry. I am thinking, in particular, of publicans
582
who will be affected; some large pubs nowadays regularly have bouncers. Stewards at football matches will presumably be caught under the Bill, even if they are employed by the clubs themselves or work voluntarily. Those who run church halls may find themselves affected in certain circumstances. At the least, it would seem right to consider exempting functions not held for commercial reasons, such as private functions. If one's friends help to keep the wrong people from gatecrashing a party or a wedding in a hotel and so on, will that be an offence? They will, after all, be acting as bouncers.
The core of the difficulty, as usual, lies in the definitions. One looks first to the definition of "licensable conduct". That turns out to be the carrying out of "designated activities". So we look for the definition of "designated activities" for the purpose of the Bill. Unfortunately that is not in the Bill; it will be contained in an order under Clause 3(3). 1 hope that the Minister agrees that the draft order defining "designated activities" should be available to us and to the public well before the Committee stage. We shall then know exactly what we are talking about.
There are greater complications—at least they appear so to me—with the definition of "security operative". This is not defined in the interpretation clause, Clause 23, but in Schedule 2. Paragraph 1(1) of the schedule states that security operatives are those to whom a number of ensuing paragraphs apply. But sub-paragraph (5) of paragraph 2 states that the paragraph does not apply to someone who maintains order or discipline incidentally to activities which are not the activities of a security operator. That is a circular definition which I, at least, will need spelling out more carefully if I am to understand precisely those who are supposed to be caught or not caught. We know roughly from the Bill and the command paper what activities are to be covered. but "roughly" is not enough for the purposes of legislation.
Turning to wheelclamping, firms which have a private car park for staff or customers will. in future, need a licence if they want to use the threat of wheelclamps to protect their car spaces from those who are not supposed to park there but find it convenient to do so when there is a shortage of car parks. I recently heard of a dentist, whose surgery is near some shops, who has had to resort to this protection. From what the Minister said, it is the dentist who will need a licence from the security industry authority rather than his employee who carries out the clamping should it prove necessary. I am not sure that the dentist in question, or others, necessarily realise that. I also know of a private club which is trying to preserve its car park for its members. Presumably it, too, will need to be licensed by the authority.
In the Bill there are some examples of unintended consequences being eliminated in advance. Those who check tickets at the doors of theatres and so on are excused licensing under Schedule 2, paragraph 2(4). But, as I said, a publican who may need his staff to eject those who have had too much to drink will need a licence for each member of staff and for himself.

583
Journalists are exempt from the requirement for a private investigations licence by reason of Schedule 2, paragraph 4(5). That exemption could go very wide indeed. Anyone who says that he or she is collecting information for the purposes of publishing it in a newspaper is exempt, whether or not there is any chance of it being published in a newspaper or anywhere else in the media. We all know that quite a lot of people have information which they would like to be published in a newspaper—they may have collected it for that purpose—but not all of them are journalists within the normal meaning of the word.
With a general election coming up, I have looked at the question of political canvassing. It would seem that those seeking knowledge of who intends to vote for a particular candidate are exempt under Schedule 2, paragraph 4(9), which covers "market research". That is defined as,
"obtaining information…for the purpose of analysing public opinion on any matter".
That would probably get the canvasser out of the private eye provisions.
At the end of the Minister's remarks, I was not sure about the position of someone who sends an employee to a bank to deliver or collect cash. If he hires a private security company to deliver or collect cash, that is covered, but I am not sure whether or not an ordinary firm or shop—which, for example, sends an employee to put money in the night safe last thing at night—needs a licence. Clearly cash in transit will be covered—or is intended to be covered—when it is carried by large firms, but an awful lot of smaller cash-in-transit operations go on as well.
We shall also wish to examine the inclusion of training in the Bill. I am not quite sure what is envisaged and how much the authority will intervene in training, or, for that matter, to whom this officially approved training will be relevant. Presumably there will be some kind of national curriculum for bouncers and for those covered by other aspects of the Bill, but we shall inquire as to whether successful completion of training will be a condition of a licence. That would be going a good deal further. All this is to be controlled by the new security industry authority, although, as I have suggested, it goes much wider than is generally understood by the security industry.
What kind of people will be appointed to the authority? The Minister says that it must be wholly independent. I agree. But will those appointed include a policeman—which I believe to be desirable? Is it intended, on the other hand, to exclude representatives of firms involved in the industry with their natural interest in seeing a monopoly for registered firms if possible? The nature of the appointments is certainly of interest.
The Minister spoke also about appeals against a decision of the authority. Clause 10 provides for an appeal, but at present the provision is vague. It provides for the possibility of an appeal tribunal of some kind being set up, but there is no detail about what is envisaged. This is an important point. The
584
livelihoods of some people will depend on the decisions of the authority. There may be people who have worked for some time in this area but who may find themselves unable to continue in their work because they cannot obtain a licence. They may lack the necessary training or they may have had a conviction in the past. So the authority's decisions need to be subject to appeal; otherwise, apart from anything else, the new Human Rights Act may come into play.
The Minister did not say when the Bill comes into effect. Many people will be affected. The Minister says that 300,000 people will need to be licensed. That is a considerable job for the authority to take on; to examine the background of 300,000 people and to approve some and not others. There is a considerable turnover. In some parts of this industry it is 70 per cent. It is not just a matter of licensing 300,000 people and then just a few each year as new people take over. There is a much larger turnover than that. Some hundreds of thousands will need to be approved or otherwise each year.
Part of the job may be delegated to local authorities. Again, Clause 12 is vague as to the exact intention. It says that the Secretary of State "may" permit some activities to be delegated to local authorities. I am not sure what the Government envisage.
Next, there is the question of the disclosure of convictions. It is not clear to me whether spent convictions in particular—which are of more concern than recent convictions, because we all believe in the rehabilitation of offenders—will be disclosed only to the authority, or whether they will be disclosed to companies which make inquiries. I hope not. My initial thought is that they should be disclosed only to the authority. The authority should also be under an obligation, if such an obligation does not exist under current law, to keep confidential any information it gains about previous convictions. If local authorities are to have a bigger role in these matters, these questions must be asked about local authorities as well.
There is also the question that I mentioned in the debate on the Queen's Speech regarding the responsibility of the new authority for the licensing process that it carries out. If, with the full authority of the SIA, a company employs a licensed guard, for example, to carry cash to the bank, and the employee turns out to be bent and goes off with the cash, can the company expect compensation from the security industry authority, having relied on the licence that the SIA awarded? Clearly, if the SIA were negligent, an ordinary civil action might be possible if a company had relied on it in employing the individual concerned. But is that the end of the matter? Is the authority to have any special responsibility towards those who will rely on the licences?
There is a suspicion among those of a suspicious turn of mind—unlike myself—that the Bill may be a covert attempt to replace some of the functions of the police so that the private security industry, newly regulated, will in due course take over some of those functions. If that is so, the Government ought to let us know.

585
I realise that the Minister will not be able to respond to a large number of detailed points today. Apart from anything else, we seem to be a rather exclusive band discussing the Bill. Apart from the Minister, no Labour Peer seems to want to contribute. Perhaps those on the Benches opposite want to get home for Christmas just that little bit earlier. I understand. that I shall not receive an answer to many of these points today; however, we shall return to them in Committee, and there will no doubt be others. To appreciate the nature of the Bill, it is necessary to examine the detail, not just the general principles behind it. It may help to give advance warning of at least some of the matters that we shall want to raise in the later stages to permit the Minister to respond more easily.
I agree with those in the industry who point out that effective security of this character helps to prevent crime and that if it is in the wrong hands crime can be facilitated. That is the underlying justification for the Bill—which I accept. However, new regulations that apply to a wide range of businesses must be thoroughly scrutinised and justified.
3.48 p.m.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, we on these Benches welcome the Bill. We shall try constructively to suggest ways in which it may be improved. I have to agree with the noble Lord, Lord Cope, that many aspects of the Bill are vague and the purpose behind the provision needs to be clarified and that the terminology needs sharpening up.
In an industry of this size, with a £2 billion turnover, one needs regulation of this character. There are estimated to be 125,000 active security officers in the United Kingdom. To give some idea of that proportion, it is the equivalent of the number of police officers that we have in this country. Greece is the only European country where the industry remains unregulated. Although the fetters of regulation are not always acceptable, they are certainly necessary in an industry that directly affects the safety and security of the public. I suggest that in this field a balance needs to be struck between permitting free competition between legitimate enterprises that provide security services, and a free-for-all in which pilot organisations of unscrupulous people may come out on top.
The security industry authority may well have a larger remit than the Government appear to envisage from their financial calculations. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Cope, in that respect. The Bill sets out a wide range of functions. In addition to licensing and approvals and appeals therefrom, there is monitoring, inspecting, the setting of standards of conduct, training and levels of supervision. Could all these functions be carried on a self-funding basis, as envisaged by the Bill?
In the White Paper the recurring costs were estimated at £1.68 million annually, on the basis of an administrative staff of 22 and seven inspectors. That was the level of staffing that was suggested. On that basis, the individual licence fee in the White Paper was put at about —22. I noticed today that the licensing fee
586
has been put up into the region of £3.5 to £40. I suggest that those estimates of staff and costs are wildly out and that, if the scheme is to be self-financing, there is the danger that fees may be prohibitive for the individual, or for the company or partnership that employs him. I also agree with the noble Lord, Lord Cope, that there should not be too high a t hreshold, which might create artificial barriers to employment.
On the question of membership of the authority, as set out in the first schedule to the Bill, it seems to be entirely in the discretion of the Secretary of State. I respectfully suggest that consideration should be given as to whether it should be a requirement to have members drawn from the security industry, the police, police authorities, customer interests, employees and a balance of independent persons. I believe that the inclusion of someone from the security industry would be helpful so as to give an insider's view of how the industry works.
However, the Government have drawn in their horns a little in a number of respects since the White Paper was published. For example, the White Paper encompassed regulation of alarm installers, In paragraph 5.12 it stated that,
"although reputable companies do exist [at the lower end of the domestic market] it is likely to be those that are most vulnerable who will be most at risk from unscrupulous operators. Concerns also exist about the probity of those running companies … and those who install alarms in people's homes. It is particularly important in terms of public safety that those who install alarms in private homes, where there may often be only a sole occupant, should be of good character. Those who install or maintain alarms and CCTV systems have a unique opportunity to gain inside knowledge of the systems which could be used to facilitate or commit crimes".
That is what the White Paper says, but the Bill says nothing about alarm installers. They are not to be regulated. One wonders what has happened. Was there, or is there, a problem about alarm installers? Are there any statistics on the amount of criminality that is derived from the installation of alarms, as set out in the White Paper? Why has this change of policy taken place?
Another area where horns have been drawn in relates to in-house security services. At paragraph 5.4, the White Paper said:
"The Government believes that to exclude in-house security personnel from the scope of licensing would create an unacceptable loophole and reduce confidence in the system".
But the Bill envisages that a firn can, without licensing, employ its own personnel for the purposes of guarding. Again, one wonders what reason there is for this very considerable change of policy.
However, more than that, under Clause 4 the Secretary of State may grant exemptions from licensing requirements if he is satisfied that the company concerned has made, "suitable alternative arrangements". So the whole scheme of licensing is no longer designed to apply to,
"the whole of the manned guarding sector",
as the White Paper stated. Firms of the size of Group 4 will not have to bear the costs of licensing. Yet, paradoxically, that company has issued a briefing

587
that calls for a mandatory system to apply to the whole industry. Perhaps I may declare a distant interest here in that I was advising Group 4 on its agreements 25 years ago.
The scheme of the legislation is to establish a voluntary register of approved contractors; that is to say, it is only on the application of a particular company that approval will be considered. The conditions of approval are in the most vague terms. Clause 14(3) states that the applicant must comply,
"with such technical and other requirements, as may be prescribed".
He must also be willing to carry out the conditions of the approval, whatever they may be, and must "otherwise" be,
"a fit and proper person".
to be approved. That chestnut of a definition has made many at the Bar who specialise in licensing matters very happy chappies.
But why does this have to be "voluntary"? In some areas, especially those that provide the "door supervising" function—the bouncers, who are bounced more often than they manage to bounce others—there is much to be said for requiring mandatory approval of their management, training and organisation. The noble Lord, Lord Cope, wondered what sort of training is given to bouncers. I happen to know that in a reputable firm door supervisors are trained in the application of various grips that are designed not to cause injury to the people whom they eject, for example, down the steps of the club and into the street. That is the sort of training that such door supervisors undergo; no doubt that also includes rage control, and so on.
It would be flying in the face of experience not to recognise that turf wars do break out between competing companies of door supervisors. It is not enough that just the operatives should have individual approval; the companies that supply door supervisors should also require approval and be subject to the sanction of having that approval removed. In that way a rogue outfit could be put out of business altogether. In any event, there should be a provision to review the approvals of companies and organisations, whether voluntary or mandatory, at fixed intervals—say, every three years.
Another weakness that we see in the Bill is the failure to create any mechanism to update the register. Although there may be informal arrangements between the police and the proposed authority to inform the authority of any fresh convictions, it should be a statutory requirement for either the police or a court to give particulars to the authority of fresh convictions when they occur. Of course, a sentencing court will know of the existence of a licence under the legislation from the antecedents of the convicted person. That is an area in the Bill which should be considered with some care.
588
Pirate clamping is a recognised nuisance. The RAC has records of dampers threatening, for example, to hold a mother's three-year-old daughter to ransom until she collected £60 from the bank. In Sheffield, dampers demanded that a female motorist's gold tooth be handed over as payment and, on another occasion, a hearse was clamped outside a church, although there was a body in the back. Clampers have even demanded sex from a young woman who was unable to pay the removal fee.
In Scotland, the courts robustly described such activities as "extortion" and "theft", but, as the Minister mentioned, the Court of Appeal in this country upheld clamping on a private business car park in Truro in the case of Arthur and Arthur v Anker. The miscreant Mr Arthur had seen the notice, which warned him of a clamping fine. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Bingham, who sat in the Court of Appeal at that time, said,
"no wrong is done to one who consents".
That gave rise to considerable debate in this House. The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, remarked that the law was inadequate and based on laws of some antiquity relating to straying animals. Unhappily, the then Conservative government did not have time to update the law before they left office.
We are therefore glad that proposals have now been brought forward to deal with dampers. However, the problem is to find out what those proposals are. Part II of Schedule 2 states that the activities of such cowboys will be subject to additional controls. However, as far as I can see, it leaves it to secondary legislation to spell out what the controls will be. Some clarification of what is proposed would be helpful.
The appeal tribunals were referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Cope. They are to be set up under Clause 17. Is there any precedent for the introduction of a judicial body of this nature by way of secondary legislation in a Bill such as this? I cannot think of such a precedent. I should be grateful to be told whether there is one. Appeal tribunals are, of course, necessary for the reasons that the noble Lord, Lord Cope, gave, but they should not be set up by way of secondary legislation.
In the foreword to the White Paper the Home Secretary stated:
"The Government's commitment to a partnership approach to crime and disorder as set out in the Crime and Disorder Act means that there will be the opportunity for the private security industry to play a wider role in securing community safety".
What is that "wider role"? What did the Home Secretary mean by that? He also stated:
"It has also been suggested recently that the private security industry might be able to assist the police by performing a form of complementary patrol service. The Government is considering the issue and welcomes constructive debate in this area".
This has caused Fred Broughton, the chairman of the Police Federation, writing in this month's edition of that illustrious journal, our very own House Magazine, to state that the police have a real sense of foreboding. Mr Broughton writes of a huge suspicion and a

589
powerful sense of unease in the police service about what is going to happen in the future. He wrote in the House Magazine:
"Are the standards going to be lowered? Is the patrol of our streets going to be given up to a different body of people such as neighbourhood wardens? … Are we going to start policing in a different way? Is the professional policing body going to withdraw to headquarters and bureaucracy and leave the street issues to a lower standard of policing?"
If it is the hidden agenda of this Government that the private security industry should be brought up to scratch so that it can start policing the streets, the Government can rest assured that the Liberal Democrats will oppose such proposals to the utmost. Patrolling private property is one thing but private patrolling of public areas is little better than vigilantism.
We Liberal Democrats have a mantra which is helpful to an insomniac like myself; namely, "More bobbies on the beat". We do not support any move which would replace the "size 12" of the bobbies on the beat with the cat-like tread of the Pirates of Penzance. I would welcome an assurance from the Minister that the Government envisage nothing of that kind in their proposals.
4.4 p.m.
Lord Windlesham: My Lords, if this Bill in some ways is characteristic of the Government's disposition to regulate and to control, it is an irony that the need to regulate is sometimes enhanced by a characteristic of previous administrations.
Not so long ago—it seems a different era—privatisation was a keynote of many policies of the then government and party to which I adhere. Who would have anticipated that such a diverse range of what had hitherto been regarded as essentially public service responsibilities would be delegated to private commercial organisations? In the penal field alone, I cite three examples: first, the escort to and from the courts of persons charged with criminal offences and remanded in custody; secondly, the establishment of some prisons, initially for remand prisoners, but shortly afterwards for adult or juvenile sentenced prisoners as well, to be built, staffed and managed by private sector companies; and thirdly, electronic tagging, a device to monitor the whereabouts of offenders subject to curfew orders or who had been released early from custody under home detention curfews.
I may be wrong, but my recollection is that all those changes were opposed, often passionately, by Labour spokesmen in both Houses. Yet the White Paper issued last year by the Home Secretary, to which reference has already been made, sets out proposals to regulate the private security industry. It appears to accept that as each of the activities which I have mentioned is already adequately controlled by existing legislation there is no need for them to be included in the Bill. I ask the Minister to confirm that these three existing private sector functions—there may be others—at the heart of the penal system are excluded, even though they may be supplied by providers who will be regulated, such as Securicor or Group 4.
590
The arguments for greater regulation of the private security industry are overwhelming, and have been for some years. It should be as extensive as possible and cover as much of the industry as can be practically arranged. It should not be confined to the manned-guard sector or to the other activities listed in the second schedule to the Bill. As has already been mentioned, the United Kingdom is now one of only two European countries—the other being Greece—where private security firms are not yet regulated.
While the main employers and their trade association, the British Security Industry Association (BSIA) are responsible enough, and are to be commended for having readily co-operated with the Home Office and for setting up independent security inspectorates—having been encouraged by the Home Office to do so—the fact remains that there are still too many unsuitable persons operating in different capacities.
In its evidence to the House of Commons Select Committee in 1995—this was referred to by my noble friend Lord Cope—the Association of Chief Police Officers estimated that some 2,600 offences a year were committed by private security employees.
A Home Office study of door supervisors showed direct or indirect involvement in drug offences, and identified individuals working in the industry with a background of serious criminal offences. That is stated on page 27 of the White Paper. This must be one of the rare occasions where the leaders of an industry about to be regulated evidently want to go further than the Government. In welcoming the Bill the BSIA. through its chairman, accepted the extra cost of compliance, but expressed disappointment that in-house security staff and alarm installers had not been included in the licensing plans. The noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, made the same point. The BSIA chairman said that in order to confer greater credibility on an industry that had fought to protect its image from a minority of disreputable operators, the association hoped that Ministers would widen the scope of the Bill to encompass those areas.
In the White Paper published as recently as March of last year, prefaced by the Home Secretary himself, outlining government proposals, a section was included which made a clear arid unequivocal acceptance of the case for including staff in these categories within the licensing scheme. Paragraph 5.12 states:
"Those who install or maintain alarms and CCTV systems have a unique opportunity to gain inside knowledge of the systems which could be used to facilitate or commit crimes. Security firms are also tending to offer a whole 'package' or security including alarms, CCTV and security guards and it would be wrong if one part of the business had to be licensed but the other did not.
"The Government therefore proposes that all those who install, monitor and maintain alarm systems should be licensed".
In reply, will the Minister explain why there has been a change of mind and, if so, whether he is ready to accept amendments or further debate on the matter in later stages of the Bill?
4.14 p.m.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I intend to confine my remarks to the issue of wheelclamping on private land. To my recollection, this has been debated in this House and elsewhere for at least 10 years. It has been debated frequently here. The previous government issued a consultation paper in 1993. I am glad that, finally, something is being done about it. It is an industry worth an estimated £150 million a year.
There have been many examples of abuse, including cowboy firms wheelclamping vehicles on land that was not even theirs and having no authorisation from the owner to do so. There have also been cases of a bizarre and excessive nature. Until a couple of years ago, I was for a number of years on the public policy committee of the RAC. I recognise the examples given by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, of the gold tooth and the hearse. There are others. Unfortunately, there is a large number of cowboys.
As has been said, in Scotland in 1992 the Lord Justice General ruled that clamping on private land was extortion and theft. He said that an activity as sensitive to abuse as wheelclamping requires careful regulation under law. Since then, in Scotland the activity was judged illegal. In England it has been allowed to carry on. The Minister referred to the case in 1995 which brought some clarity to the issue.
I agree with the Minister that, of course, the private landowner is entitled to protect his property from those who would take advantage of it for parking without paying the fee. That refers not only to the private landowner but the public landowner as well. Hospital car parks spring to mind, especially in London and other major cities where adjacent on-street parking can be very expensive. I welcome the parts of the Bill which will license those who undertake this activity.
However, aside from complaints about some who are thoroughly disreputable, which I hope licensing will address, the way in which the activity is conducted must be considered. Some of the main complaints have been that the piece of land is not adequately signed to warn you that your car will be clamped if it is parked there or if the fee is not paid or if you have overstayed the time limit. Clear instructions are needed about how to get the vehicle released and how much it will cost. I believe that the cost should also be reasonable, not extortionate, and probably in line with the charges for on-street parking. We need to know the name of the clamping firm involved. We need to know the hours during which it can be contacted for release and how long it will take from contacting the company to release.
I believe that a written contract with landowners authorising clamping on their land should be available for motorists to see. The size, number and format of warning signs should be standardised. A standardised appeals procedure should be established and special provision made for the disabled. Motorists should be free to pay by cash, cheque or credit card and given a reasonable time in which to find the money. Cars should be towed away only if they are to be stored in
592
a secure compound whose address is given to the motorist involved. A receipt should be provided; and vehicles should be released immediately after payment.
The Minister will probably say that all that and more will be covered in the regulations made by the Secretary of State or by the authority. But I should like to see at least some of them on the face of the Bill. I shall hope to move amendments in Committee to do just that unless the Minister can persuade me otherwise. As the Lord Justice General of Scotland said, it is a sensitive issue requiring careful regulation. I think that the public are entitled to see provisions on the face of the Bill so that there is consistency in all areas of the country.
The Bill is already quite specific in the details of the conditions for obtaining a licence but it is silent about the operation. I believe that it should be more specific.
4.17 p.m.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, this may not be a party politically controversial Bill but, as my noble friend Lord Brabazon indicated, it deals with some extraordinarily sensitive issues involving the potential confiscation by wheelclampers of one's property and the means of personal travel, and the restraint of private individuals by private sector employees. I believe that the proposals to some extent deal with earlier initiatives of the previous government when in office. Clearly if we are to have a regulatory system, it must work well. There will be many difficulties when we discuss the detail of the Bill.
There could almost be a parallel—I do not go too far down that line—with the vexed issue of the regulation of minicabs. Regulation is required. The industry currently, and somewhat unfairly, has a poor reputation in some quarters caused no doubt by a minority of companies which practise less than reputable schemes. We welcome the fact that the Bill is supported by the security industry but there may be difficulties with regard to the detail.
If we put in place a system of regulation which looks powerful but is not, I suggest that we shall be worse off than if we had done nothing or if self-regulation had been left to the industry itself. Therefore, we must be extremely clear about the exact level of scrutiny that the new authority will take forward.
I suggest that uncertainty currently exists in relation to the powers of private security operators. I should have thought that a census of individuals employed in the industry—particularly perhaps in the marginally less reputable end of the industry—would provide a number of different answers about what the powers of, for example, doormen or bouncers would be if customers were unruly or drunk or had committed a criminal offence on a property. With regard to restraint, the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, referred to his knowledge of arm locks and so forth. However, clearly the doormen would be at risk of facing criminal prosecution if they exceeded their authority. With the passage of this Bill, I hope that the new authority will be able to shed light on that specific issue.

593
With regard to the dealing of illicit drugs in night clubs, there appears to be a considerable body of evidence that some disreputable doorkeepers not only turn a blind eye to the dealing of drugs but are actively involved in it themselves. Therefore, I believe that we should look closely not only at the regulation of the individual but also at the companies which employ them. I shall return to that matter a little later in my remarks.
On the subject of wheel-clamping, we have heard a number of examples of cases where less than reputable practices have been deployed. Indeed, in some circumstances it would seem that traps have been set for the very purpose of generating fines or fees for the release of vehicles rather than providing parking facilities for authorised personnel. The principles behind the level of fees, the type of service offered by the declampers in terms of their response time, the placing of notices, and so forth, clearly all require more scrutiny.
The implementation of this Bill could well be central to our consideration of it. A large number of people potentially will require regulation—we have heard various figures mentioned referring to between 150,000 and 300,000 individuals. It is a substantial task, and I refer back to the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, regarding the number of people who will be deployed to ensure that the licences are issued in a reasonable time. I believe that we shall need more information from the Minister regarding what a reasonable time for the implementation of the schemes would be and what transitional arrangements would be in place when some people were licensed and some were not.
I suggest that mistakes that may be made during the roll-out of the scheme, with a great deal of pressure being applied to the new authority to issue licences. If it were to succumb to that pressure, mistakes made at that stage, perhaps due to a lack of resources at its disposal, could be prejudicial to the whole scheme.
Similarly, I am sure that in Committee we shall pursue in some depth the definitions of who will and who will not be covered by the Bill. We can all think of examples which throw up lacunae. We have heard about people who install alarms. I understood that the Bill made provision to cover those who advise on security issues. Perhaps the Minister could refer to that in his closing remarks. I should have thought that someone who was fitting an alarm, for example, could be said to be advising on the security of a house; so, for that matter, could a locksmith, a builder or a double-glazing company.
We have also heard about the exemptions within the Bill, such as those that relate to people for whom security work is incidental to their principal role within a company. That appears to be a vague definition. Similarly, we have heard about journalists being exempted. I am sure that that is not the case simply so that the Minister may receive a fair wind for his Bill in the press. On the other hand, who is a journalist? If I submitted a short article on this very measure to the House Magazine, perhaps I could be considered to be
594
a journalist and would then be allowed to rummage around in the rubbish bins of the glitterati in order to further my career and generate money. Perhaps I would be covered; perhaps I would not. I believe that we shall require further clarity on that issue.
Standards are most important to this industry but they appear to vary considerably. I suggest that there is some justification for a varying of standards; for example, the doorkeeper at White's Club has a different set of skill requirements to a bouncer at an East End nightclub where 2,000 young people are attending a rave party. Thus, I return to the issue of training, which is so closely linked to standards. We hope that the Bill will give a harmonisation of standards where appropriate, and a harmonisation upwards.
Finally, I consider the balance between the regulation of the employee—the individual security guard or bouncer—and the regulation of the company which employs him to be absolutely vital. Clearly, close regulation of the individual is one strand of the issue. However, perhaps it could be said that the real villainy is to be found in the employment of substandard bouncers and doormen and those of a criminal tendency.
Surely, if we are to have a system of regulation, it must work. That means that considerable emphasis must be put on those who have the most to lose; in other words, the company which employs the doormen. I am sure that such companies would be willing to sacrifice one or two employees who could easily be replaced by fresh doormen, perhaps from other parts of the country. That would not be a very strong sanction, but I suggest that a greater focus on the company would be. Therefore, I am not clear why the approved contractor scheme is voluntary. We know that in other industries—for example, the financial securities industry—both the individual personnel and the companies that employ them are regulated. There are good reasons for that. I would draw a parallel with the security industry itself.
In our consideration of the Bill it is clearly our duty to ensure that the regulations work and that the public can derive from them the comfort that they need. We shall return to these issues in Committee.
4.28 p.m.
Lord Gladwin of Clee: My Lords, with permission I should like to intervene briefly in the debate. Before doing so, I declare an interest. For 30 years I was an official of the GMB trade union—the major union in the security industry. Therefore, on behalf of that union and others, I give the Bill a warm welcome.
The Bill is the culmination of years of campaigning to persuade successive governments to introduce a legislative framework for regulating this industry. However, I wish to put one or two concerns to my noble friend. The Bill still contains a voluntary element in that registration will be voluntary. I believe that that means that no minimum standards of operation will be in place. Companies which do not register and which do not meet the voluntary standards will still be

595
allowed to operate legitimately. I would welcome an assurance that my noble friend will not allow a return to the two-tier system in which cowboys or disreputable elements in the industry undercut and undermine reputable security companies.
Finally, there is the question of the membership of the authority. That matter was referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, and other noble Lords. The authority must be independent; it should have an independent majority. But we need people on the authority who know about the security industry. Even if they are not direct representatives of the companies, they must be experienced in the industry. I ask my noble friend to ensure that representatives of people who understand the aspirations and concerns of employees in the industry also have a voice and a. place on the authority.
4.30 p.m.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, the Minister looked rather lonely on the speakers' list at the beginning of the debate. He had no support from his side. But the noble Lord, Lord Gladwin, has come to his rescue and showed that not all his party have gone home for Christmas.
The Bill will set up the security industry authority. As the Minister said, and as I understand from the industry, up to 300,000 people may be employed by the industry. As my noble friend Lord Cope has pointed out, there is a large turnover within the industry. It is up to 70 per cent in certain areas, but, practically, the average may be 50 per cent.
Therefore, this new quango, which is what it is, could in its first year have to deal with up to 450,000 new licences. That is a very steep task for the body, particularly, as we have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, given the Government's original plan for the number of employees it is to have. We need to be assured by the Minister that it will be able to deal with this huge task. It is not just a matter of issuing licences; it is a matter of looking into the backgrounds of those people who are going to be employed. At the moment, if any quango, police force or regulatory body was suddenly asked to issue an additional 450,000 licences to people, it could not possibly take on that job and deliver them.
The major grey area in the Bill and the biggest problem that it poses relates to the transitional period. How will it work? My noble friend Lord Goschen was concerned about that. How long will it take to process all these applications? Have the Government done any assessment of how that will happen? The industry cannot just grind to a halt because the new authority has not managed to process the applications. What is going to happen? It has been suggested that if an application is put in to the authority in the transitional period, the power given to the Secretary of State in Clause 2 might cover the matter. But I should like the Minister's comments on whether that is the case.
We must consider also that under Clause 2 the Secretary of State has a wide power with regard to the licence. Indeed, if one then looks at Clause 7, one
596
discovers that the new authority will be able to set additional conditions over and above those that are prescribed by regulation. We do not know what those additional conditions will be. We do not even know in which areas they may be. Will they be conditions depending on the nature of the individual or conditions depending on the nature of the job? The Minister needs to tell us how that will work. Furthermore, before we get to Committee stage we need to see what the Secretary of State has in mind in terms of some of those powers.
In Clause 12 there is a power for delegation to local authorities. The Minister has not explained how that will work. I should like to know what consultations have been carried out with local authorities. Have any of them agreed in principle that they will take on that responsibility? How will local authorities deal with the sensitive information that will be made available so that they can take on the programme? I should like to know, for example, whether a local authority, say, Newcastle, will be able to issue a licence that will work in London. Will it mirror a national power or will it relate only to the local area? We need to know much more about that, because there will be enormous gaps and we shall end up with a mishmash of responsibilities between local authorities and the new proposed security industry authority.
We know what the Government intend, but it is not clear exactly what is covered by the licence. My noble friend Lord Cope asked whether it included stewards at football matches. How does one define in-house security personnel? What happens if he or she steps outside for five minutes?
My noble friend Lord Windlesham raised some extremely important points about whether the Prison Service and the transfer of prisoners and such issues will be covered. I look forward to the Minister's replies on those questions.
There is an important point of principle with regard to spent convictions. Under the Bill the authority will have the power to look at those. But if spent convictions are to be disclosed and taken as a factor for any job within the industry, how does that stand with the Government's intention that under the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act—which they supported—someone may have a clean start? It would be wrong totally to exclude anyone like that from starting in this industry. Therefore, I should like the Minister to expand and explain the Government's thinking on this issue. Is he saying that no one who has ever had a criminal offence of any kind will ever get a job and is automatically debarred and excluded by the authority?
Perhaps I may turn to training. Noble Lords would like to know whether or not that will be subject to licence conditions. What will be the requirements? Will they vary from place to place? If a local authority issues a licence, will there be different training from that available if the new authority issues one? The noble Lord, Lord Thomas, called it "training in rage control". Are we going to have rage control NVQs? It will be interesting if door supervisors have to undergo such training.

597
There are order powers in the Bill. In Clause 3(3) there is a definition of "designated activities". I repeat again, it is crucial to the way we look at the Bill to know what is in the Government's mind.
The Bill is supported by the industry; but it is supported particularly by the larger operators in the industry which have the resources and the money to fulfil all the conditions that are required. However, we are not concerned only with the larger operators; we are concerned also with the smaller operators and how the provisions will work for them. It is extremely important that this is not something that drives out small operators, leaving only two or three national companies in the industry because they are the only ones that can fulfil the complicated requirements.
Perhaps I could briefly turn to wheelclamping. That is an issue that concerned my noble friends Lord Goschen and Lord Brabazon of Tara. There have been some terrible problems with "rogue clampers" or "dodgy clampers". We need to define the controls on these people by secondary legislation under the Bill, otherwise we run the risk of legitimising "dodgy clampers". That is a real risk that we need to consider closely. As my noble friend Lord Brabazon said, we need to look at all the issues surrounding that.
This is a new quango. It is largely welcomed. It will imposes costs on the industry. But there will be continued pressure—as with all quangos—for it to extend its remit. It will be tempted to extend its remit. So we need very clear boundaries on what it is and is not going to do. As we have seen, the authority can place conditions on licences over and above any that are required by the Secretary of State. In other words, the authority can impose any requirements it thinks up on the day. They might be fair; they might not he fair. We shall have to consider whether that is a fair use of power. Indeed, we shall have to consider the Government's proposals relating to who will serve on the new authority.
I declare an interest as a director of a public company which has 12 bars; 10 of which are in London's West End. The company has over 650 employees, over 80 of whom are what one might call "door staff'. I am told that we have an average number of customers (approximately 60,000 per week), so it is a substantial business. On a Saturday night, we probably have 12,000 people drinking in our bars. As far as I can see from the Bill, at least 80 security staff will be included under its provisions, as will managers and, indeed, directors. I am a director of a holding company which is a quoted company. If I have to apply for a licence, I shall do so as fast as I possibly can. I shall give the Minister's name to the new authority as a referee. I am sure that that will mean that the licence will come winging back by return of post.
However, perhaps I may raise a serious issue about licences, as there is some confusion. Will doormen in hotels be covered by licences? They stand on the street and decide who may or may not enter an hotel. If the Doorkeepers in your Lordships' House go out to the car park or into the public road to assist your
598
Lordships, will they be covered by this licence? We shall have to consider that matter carefully. Unless we get right the definitions, the Bill will not work. In all Bills, particularly those that emanate from the Home Office, the devil is always in the detail. However, we shall consider closely the detail during the Bill's stages through this House.
Perhaps I may end by repeating an issue which I regard as of supreme importance. If we are to give the Bill proper scrutiny in Committee—we all look forward to doing that—it is crucial that the Government publish in draft the orders that they intend to lay alongside the Bill. Without that, we shall not be able to see how the Bill will work.
4.43 p.m.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I listened with more than the usual level of interest to the debate and the comments on the Bill. I am pleased that there seems to be a fairly unanimous welcome for the Bill, even if there is not unanimous accord to all its details and content.
The other matter which I find particularly pleasing this afternoon is the concern expressed by Members of your Lordships' House to get right the detail of the Bill. I believe that the Committee stage will provide a useful scrutiny of the Bill because there is much interest. We have just heard from the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, that he has an interest to declare. I am sure that is of value to us because he speaks from personal experience.
It was personal experience which excited my interest on Saturday evening. One of the delights of being a Minister is that one has to experience much of the legislation, or at least where it will be put in place. Sussex Police kindly extended to me an invitation which I could not possibly refuse—after all, it was from the police. There I was, on a cold, windy, Hastings seafront at one o'clock in the morning watching how the industry operated and how the police interacted in a spirit of partnership. I have to say that I would have preferred to have been in bed. Nevertheless, it was instructive and most helpful.
A number of questions have emerged about the detail of the Bill. I know that I shall fail in my duty to respond to all of them; I give notice of that. However, I shall try to work through some of the points raised. Those that I miss I shall happily add to the burden of the correspondence department of the Home Office and pick up later if Members of your Lordships' House wish me to do so. No doubt we shall return to many of the issues in principle and detail in Committee.
Perhaps I may start with the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Cope, who generally welcomed the effect of the legislation. He seemed unsure as to whether he wanted more or less regulation. However, he nevertheless welcomed the legislation. He asked a number of specific questions, one of which concerned the impact of the Bill on small companies, not primarily in the security industry but those which may be caught because they have a security man or two at

599
their disposal. To some extent, the Bill will catch publicans. To some extent it will catch stewards at football matches. If they are provided in-house, they will not be subject to regulation because it will be assumed that the company, the football club, will have properly trained them and will be responsible for improving standards and so forth. However, if in the instance of stewarding football matches the football club decides to hire in a company, licensing will apply. Perhaps I may reassure the noble Lord that it is certainly not our intention to catch companies not involved in the private security industry. The Bill is clear as to who is meant to be covered. Regulations will obviously further clarify inclusions and exclusions.
The noble Lord, Lord Cope, also raised the issue of a need for a draft order showing designated sectors and suggested that it should be available before Committee. The authority will need to get up and running. We believe that probably in the first instance there will be no real need to bring forward draft orders, as the noble Lord suggests. However, we reassure him that the first sectors in terms of priority of implementation will be manned guards and wheelclampers and there will be careful consultation on those sectors.
The noble Lord also asked about a particular instance where an employee might be sent to a bank to deliver or collect cash. In such circumstances the person would clearly not be a private security operative as defined in the legislation and would not be caught by the Bill.
The noble Lord, Lord Cope, also asked about the role of the authority in setting standards in training. He asked whether successful completion of training would be a condition of the licence. That may well be the case. It will not be for the authority to decide the precise conditions. However, I think that there will be a firm obligation set out on training. That is clearly one of the defined areas of interest for the authority to take carefully into consideration.
The noble Lords, Lord Cope and Lord Thomas, asked about composition of the board. They asked whether it would contain members of the police service and exclude members of the industry. ACPO will be invited to nominate a representative. The inclusion or exclusion of industry representatives will be given careful consideration. It is important that the authority has advice from the industry and the sector. However, the way in which we might provide for industry representation will have to be carefully and clearly constructed so as to provide for the authority's independence.
Perhaps I may also make that observation in reply to the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Gladwin, about the importance of ensuring that employee representation opportunities are provided for.That is a matter which we shall have to carefully consider, but we must protect the independence of the authority.
The noble Lord, Lord Cope, asked about the reputation of the industry as a prelude to contracting out police core functions. A number of Members of
600
your Lordships' House raised the issue of whether the regulation of the sector is a precursor to a further extension, as they saw it, of privatisation within the police service. That is not our intention in bringing forward the Bill. We have no great desire to contract out core police tasks. We believe that the police service is properly in the public sector. As many of your Lordships will know, we have spent extra resources and put more money into the police service. We want to shore it up. We do not want to hack away at it for fundamentals. There is no intention of using this as a precursor to any form of contracting-out, though we fully recognise that in some circumstances within the criminal justice system, as the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, said, it has been entirely appropriate for contracting-out to be used.
The noble Lord, Lord Cope, also asked whether spent convictions would be disclosed only to the authority. I can say positively that that will be the case; there will be no need to disclose spent convictions to anyone else.
The noble Lords, Lord Thomas of Gresford and Lord Windlesham, asked about the position of alarm installers and why, when there had been clear reference in the White Paper to the need to regulate that sector of the industry, we, as a government, have since had a rethink. We take the view that that sector is already well regulated. It already has to meet high police and insurance standards and purposes. Also, it consists of many small businesses. As the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, said, it would be unreasonable and perhaps unfair to squeeze out those small operators. We do not want to do that through what may accurately be described as disproportionate over-regulation.
The noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, raised the question of why we exclude in-house guards. We have changed our thinking in that regard since the White Paper. In-house guards are vetted by employers and we see no need to add a further layer of bureaucracy. But the Bill is flexible enough to include them later by regulation if it becomes necessary or desirable.
The noble Lord asked also about the compulsory approval of door supervisor firms to prevent violent "turf wars" developing. We hope that the arrival of the security industry authority will prevent turf wars. But we do not believe that the threat of withdrawal of approval will necessarily be a deterrent if companies feel that illegal activities are the way to gain their business objectives. Reputable companies will want to be approved. The absence of such approval will be a powerful market signal to potential customers.
The noble Lord, Lord Thomas, also raised the fact that there was an absence of a requirement to update the register of licences. The Bill requires the authority to establish and maintain a register. So there is a requirement to keep the register up to date. The noble Lord asked also about the precedent for establishing appeal tribunals through subordinate legislation. I am advised that there are plenty of precedents of powers to create bodies being put into Bills, leaving their establishment to be delegated through secondary legislation.

601
Finally, the noble Lord asked what the additional controls are to be on wheelclamping. Those controls are set out in the Bill and comprise the extra licensing requirements that apply to wheelclampers and bouncers. They are set out in paragraphs (g) to (j) of Clause 3(2) and a careful reading of that clause will bring out the information the noble Lord seeks.
The noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, asked about the Bill excluding the running of curfews. The Bill regulates sectors of industry described in Schedule 2. It does not give new responsibilities to the industry so we do not believe that that eventuality will come to pass. The noble Lord also asked about alarm installers and I hope that I properly addressed that point.
The noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara, asked about the way in which clamping is conducted and the costs, method of payment and written contracts with landowners. It was suggested that such provisions could be included on the face of the Bill. We agree that the manner of clamping needs to be well regulated. However, the level of detail suggested by the noble Lord should not go into the Bill; it is more properly dealt with in codes of practice. No doubt careful consultation in that regard will take place with the security industry authority when it is up and running.
The noble Viscount, Lord Goschen, asked about the powers of private security operatives and the possibility of their being exceeded. He suggested that the new authority should shed light on the uncertainties and inconsistencies in that regard. I agree. But we take the view that the activities of door supervisors and others are already subject to laws of assault and other offences. The authority will no doubt want to consider excessive use of authority as part of the training standards. That makes good sense. It will also want to establish benchmarks and standards for managing those difficult situations.
I believe I have covered most of the main points.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, he did not cover the important issue of the transitional period. I look forward to his reply.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, the noble Viscount anticipated me. There will be phased implementation of the Bill. We expect the authority to be set up within 12 to 18 months of the passing of the legislation. The points made by the noble Viscount were very relevant. As I said earlier, we expect early regulation of manned guards and wheelclampers because we see those as being a priority. We shall discuss carefully with the industry the implementation of the provisions. We are sensitive to the points made. We want to get this right. We believe that this is good legislation; it is legislation on the side of the angels. Because of the widespread consensus about its need and importance, we shall be careful in introducing it over a period of time. No doubt we can come back to that point in Committee and focus attention on it.
I have spoken at length in covering all the points raised. I apologise for that. I am sure there is other important business for Members of your Lordships'
602
House to undertake today, but this is an important piece of legislation. I am looking forward to its detailed consideration in Committee. We have had a constructive debate today. This legislation will go a long way to improving the quality of regulation of the private security industry. It has been long awaited and broadly welcomed. For those reasons, I commend the Bill to the House.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Commit tee of the Whole House.

Sudan
4.58 p.m.
Baroness Coxasked Her Majesty's Government what is their response to recent developments in Sudan.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I am grateful for this opportunity to discuss Sudan and I thank all noble Lords who will be speaking this evening. I received a message from my noble friend Lady Park to say that, sadly, she has had to withdraw because of a clash in commitments. I am happy to say, however, that my noble friend Lord Elton is willing to say a few words in the gap.
I particularly thank the noble Lord, Lord Carter, for replying for the Government. Without his willingness to accept that task, which is somewhat remote from his normal responsibilities, this debate would have been deferred. But the need is urgent. With over 2 million dead and 5 million displaced in recent years, Sudan's toll of suffering exceeds that of Rwanda, Somalia and former Yugoslavia put together.
I emphasise that my concerns do not reflect a prejudiced, one-sided commitment. In our advocacy, we try to take into account all points of view and to be critical of those who violate human rights, whoever they may be.
The Islamist National Islamic Front (NIF) regime, currently referred to as "the government of Sudan", took power by military coup, throwing out the coalition government. It represents no more than about 7 per cent of the people of Sudan and is hated by the vast majority. But, to hear all points of view, I visited Khartoum and the NIF leadership. I met their éeminence grise, Dr El-Turabi; I heard President El-Bashir address the crowds for the celebrations of the fourth anniversary of the coup; I met many political leaders and visited many areas under NIF control. It was patently clear that the NIF is committed to a jihad. When I sent my report to our hosts as a courtesy, they endorsed it.
The word "jihad" has many meanings. But I have since been to Sudan more than 25 times and in this case I can say that "jihad" means "struggle" in its most violent and brutal form. The victims include Africans, Arabs and the Beja people, Christians, Muslims and traditional believers. The weapons of the jihad include unlawful arrests, torture and extra-judicial killing of

603
individual civilians; massive military offensives against civilian communities; the manipulation of aid; and slavery.
This war is not a Muslim/Christian conflict. Many people who oppose the NIF are Muslims, such as the SPLM/A commanders, who are friends of mine, in the Nuba Mountains and in Southern Blue Nile. In Yabus, soon after NIF forces had been thrown out, I asked some Imams what they thought about the defeat of the NIF army in their region. They said that they were glad, as the NIF represents ideology, not "true" Islam, and that they could now pray as they ought to pray. They said that if the NIF returned, they would fight it again.
One noble Lord has said that he will disagree with my analysis. Perhaps I may urge him not to underestimate the gravity of the situation we have witnessed in many parts of Sudan—unless he has visited those parts and can speak from first-hand experience. If I had been only to Khartoum and to government-controlled areas, or to areas in the south where the UN Operation Lifeline Sudan is allowed to operate, I would have no idea of the enormity of the suffering inflicted by the NIF on its own people. I might also believe the widely circulated misinformation as I could not put it in context.
It is not only the NIF which violates human rights. Opposition forces, such as the SPLA, have been guilty, too, and we have criticised them. But Professor Eric Reeves, referring to the recently published Human Rights Watch report, highlights a massive asymmetry. While the SPLA is criticised for some diversion of civilian food aid and under-age military recruitment, for which the NIF is also criticised, he claims:
"But no one reading this report will be under any illusion as to which is the overwhelmingly culpable party in Sudan's civil war … the NIF receives—appropriately—far and away the most, and the harshest, criticism. There is only one side in the conflict (the NIF) that is engaged in the aerial bombardment of innocent civilians and humanitarian workers, there is only one side that is engaged in massive scorched earth warfare to secure the southern oil regions".
Time does not permit many details, so I offer only one typical scenario: a massive military offensive against civilian communities in which low-flying helicopter gunships gun down people as they try to hide; then high-flying Antonovs drop 500 kilogram bombs; then ground troops come in combined forces, up to 2,000 strong, with government soldiers, Popular Defence Force mujahadeen and murahaleen tribesmen armed by the government. They kill men; beat old people, leaving them to die; and abduct women and children into slavery. They burn homes, churches, mosques, animist shrines, schools and crops. They steal and slaughter cattle. I could show your Lordships film footage of the times when we have gone "footing" for mile upon mile through the NIF's carnage and destruction.
At the same time, the NIF declares these areas as "no go" locations for UNOLS and other aid organisations. The victims of the raids are thus left bereft of aid or advocacy. In Christian Solidarity
604
Worldwide, we try to reach such people who are trapped behind closed borders, left to suffer and die, unreached, unhelped and unheard.
The NIF does not like us going to "no go" areas for we see what it does not want the world to see. It has told us that it will shoot us out of the sky if it can; and it expends a vast amount of time and money discrediting us, as do its friends such as David Hoile, and the European Sudanese Public Affairs Council, who publish perhaps flatteringly frequent publications misrepresenting me, with selective quotations and distortions of my position.
I turn to reality. Events in the past 18 months are a cause for growing concern. In the early winter of 1999, Bashir launched an effort to neutralise Turabi and contain his international terrorism empire. In the following months, Bashir expressed a desire to normalise relations with the Arab world and the West. To that end, he gave commitments to undertake serious internal reforms and to cease hostilities in the south so that western companies would come to develop the oil resources. However, the high-level Sudanese emissaries who delivered the message were misinformed by their president. While discussions were in progress, there was an escalation of fighting, including intentional bombing of civilian targets such as schools and hospitals, as well as granting the Chinese military widespread concessions and access to the oil fields.
The NIF also invited Egyptian and Libyan expeditionary forces to assist in the escalation of the military drive in the south, beyond the capabilities of its own forces. In recent months, there has been the gradual rehabilitation of Turabi and the resumption of terrorism sponsorship operations; and the NIF-related policy of slave redemption has proved farcical. So one must sadly conclude that Bashir's initiative was a ploy or that he could not deliver because he is not in control. Either way, normalisation of relations with Sudan should not be considered with the current regime by anyone concerned with human rights.
I highlighted two issues in my contribution to the debate on the gracious Speech. The first was the possible use of chemical weapons by the NIF and reasons why tests of a limited number of samples, which did not find toxic substances, in no way proved that the NIF had not used unconventional weapons. The second was concerns over the Government's sale to Sudan of dual-use supplies which could be used for civilian or military purposes, including chemicals which are known precursors for chemical weapons.
Today, I add to the catalogue of concerns, first the ethnic cleansing of the African peoples who live in the oil-rich areas. Secondly, I refer to the continuing deliberate bombing of civilian targets, such as schools and hospitals, as recently as 24th November over Panlit village in Bahr-El Ghazal. Thirdly, I refer to, for example, the continuation of slavery, encouraged by the NIF. I pay tribute to the US Under Secretary of State, Dr Susan Rice, who recently visited Southern Sudan and met women and children who had been rescued from slavery.

605
In August, I and CSW colleagues were in a nearby area and we engaged in the sad, macabre business of buying the freedom of 353 women and children. Those who have not been there criticise us for freeing slaves. They say that we are encouraging the slave trade. But that is not so. Slavery would persist as it is one of the weapons of the jihad and is used by the NIF for the forced Arabisation of Africans and the forced Islamisation of those who are not Muslims.
Of course, buying freedom is not the solution. The solution must be to stop the slavery. But while slavery exists, I defy anyone to hear the women and children tell of their experiences as slaves; to hear them say, "If you were not here, we would not be here—we would still be slaves", and then to say to them, "I am sorry, you are going to have to remain in slavery".
President Clinton has condemned the NIF for its brutal policies, including slavery. He hopes that European nations will do the same. But currently, in stark contrast to the robust stance taken by the USA, the British Government have been entertaining the NIF Foreign Minister with red-carpet treatment; encouraging trade with Sudan; enhancing the NIF's legitimacy; promoting its economy; and enabling it to use its resources more effectively to kill its own people.
Sudan has also been condemned for sponsoring terrorism. It hosts Islamist terrorist training camps and exports terrorists to other countries. Muslim friends gave me a video of Sudan's jihad training schools. It was distributed to raise money for the jihad in Sudan and elsewhere. It gave an address in Leicester. Other people followed up the contacts and documented terrorist training centres here in England, where Islamist leaders such as Abu Hamsa and Sheikh Bakri Mohammed teach recruits not to obey the laws of this land; and terrorist techniques, such as blowing up aircraft coming into Heathrow airport. Sudan's involvement with international terrorism is well known and has been condemned by the UN Security Council.
I conclude with three questions. Will the Government consider recommending "no fly zones" and "safe havens" to protect civilians from air and ground attacks? Will the Government give a lead to European partners by denouncing the barbaric practice of slavery and by giving no respite to the NIF until there is unequivocal proof that the slave raids are stopped and that every man, woman and child who has been abducted into slavery is freed and reunited with their families? In the land of William Wilberforce, the Government should do no less.
Finally, I ask a question I asked last week: will the Government reconsider their policy of so-called "critical dialogue", which is long on dialogue and short on effective criticism? Will they consider a stance more consistent with the United Nations Security Council and the United States? Might they even consider helping to bring to account, as guilty of crimes against humanity, those responsible for the genocide, the ethnic cleansing and the slavery which are well and widely documented in Sudan today?
5.10 p.m.
Lord Ahmed: My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, for once again affording the House an opportunity to comment on some recent developments within Sudan. We have discussed that country on a number of occasions, and rightly so. Sudan, the largest country in Africa, is a nation and people with whom the United Kingdom has enjoyed a close historical and social relationship.
I declare an interest. Before I came to this House I led a delegation of British local government councillors to observe the presidential and parliamentary elections in Sudan in 1996. Earlier this year I was there again, spending some time visiting the oilfields of south central Sudan as a guest of the International Council for People's Friendship. While my involvement has not been as lengthy or Intensive as that of many noble Lords, I have followed Sudanese issues as closely as possible for several years.
We continually hear what can only be described as preposterous claims about Sudan. Earlier this year we read in the Sunday Telegraph that 700,000 Chinese soldiers were either in Sudan or on their way to the Sudanese oilfields. This was so ridiculous a claim that even the Clinton Administration were forced to distance themselves from it. Perhaps the Minister can update us on whether Her Majesty's Government have any evidence of the presence of these hundreds of thousands of Chinese.
We have also previously heard equally discredited accounts of several hundred Iraqi Scud missiles arriving in Sudan by some means. August of this year was the second anniversary of the disastrous American cruise missile attack on the Al Shifa medicines factory in Khartoum, which resulted from similarly unfounded claims. This House has spent considerable time discussing allegations about the use of chemical weapons in southern Sudan, despite the fact that dozens of samples provided by several independent, even pro-opposition, sources have been extensively tested by reputable laboratories in North America and Europe, including Porton Down in the UK, and have shown no evidence of such use.
We should exercise considerable caution in listening to what is said. It is perhaps time to discount the dead hand of propaganda and misinformation with regard to the Sudanese conflict which only serves to prolong the conflict and confuse observers. What is clear is that there has been a remarkable shift in attitude towards Sudan within the international community over the past year or so. This House must accept that, as a result of changes within the country and regionally, Sudan has moved from a position of relative isolation towards international acceptance. In 1999, for example, the European Union commented on signs of improvement in the Sudanese situation. In January of this year the EU acknowledged and welcomed the normalisation of regional relations.
But, more importantly, we should listen closely to both Sudan's neighbours and the Sudanese themselves. Surely, Sudan's neighbours and regional groupings such as the Intergovernmental Authority on

607
Development and Africa-wide bodies such as the Organisation of African Unity are considerably closer to the issues than we are. Those countries and bodies which interact every day with Sudan are only too aware of developments and changes within that country.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, I apologise for interrupting. I should like to put a question to the noble Lord who is much more familiar with this matter than I am. The noble Baroness referred to the terrible killings that had occurred recently in the Sudan. Does the noble Lord accept that figure?
Lord Ahmed: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for his question. I said earlier that I was not a specialist in this field. I shall speak only to those matters of which I am aware. I cannot confirm the figures, but later I shall refer to statements made by various countries.
Khartoum now has improved relations with neighbouring countries such as Egypt, Ethiopia and Eritrea. As many noble Lords will be aware, Sudan is still, technically, subject to the limited diplomatic sanctions imposed in 1996 following the attempted assassination of the Egyptian President, Hosni Mubarak, by Egyptian terrorists while visiting Ethiopia in 1995. Both Egypt and Ethiopia have called for the lifting of those sanctions. The Egyptian Government state that they have seen,
"a number of positive and encouraging indications on the part of the Sudanese government".
The Ethiopian Government have stated their conviction that,
"the concerns that gave rise to the sanctions … no longer apply … Ethiopia is, therefore, of the view that it is now time for the lifting of the sanctions imposed on the Sudan".
Those views were echoed by the Secretary-General of the Organisation of African Unity, Salim Ahmed Salim. Interviewed by Reuters in June this year, he stated:
"The lifting of sanctions imposed on Sudan is not only urgently called for, but would also positively contribute to efforts aimed at promoting peace, security and stability in the region".
We should remember that the sanctions were originally imposed at the behest of Egypt, Ethiopia and the OAU. They now wish to see them removed because of positive developments in Sudan. We should also take note that Sudan has had considerable support from the international community in relation to sanctions. South Africa and Algeria, in the capacities as chairmen of the 114-member Non-Aligned Movement and the 22-member Arab Group of states, have also publicly called on the Security Council to withdraw the sanctions. It would appear, therefore, that Sudan has attempted to address international concerns about issues such as support for terrorism.
As the Minister may be aware, the Sudanese Government have repeatedly invited the United States to send their own anti-terrorist teams to Sudan to investigate any information they may have about Sudan's alleged involvement in terrorism. The
608
American Administration eventually accepted the offer, and an American team comprising experts from the CIA, FBI and State Department have spent considerable time in Sudan this year. Does the Minister have any knowledge about how that has progressed?
As the Minister will also be aware, in July 2000 the Organisation of African Unity nominated Sudan, over Uganda and Mauritius, to succeed Namibia to represent the African continent as a non-permanent member on the United Nations Security Council. Sudan was ultimately unsuccessful due in large part to American pressure and lobbying.
Apart from international developments, we should also listen carefully to the Sudanese themselves. It is clear that there has been a significant realignment in Sudanese politics. The last elected Prime Minister of Sudan, the Umma Party leader Sadiq al Mandi, has returned to Sudan after four years in exile. Last year he stated:
"There are now circumstances and developments which could favour an agreement on a comprehensive political solution".
The Umma Party leadership has now returned to Sudan and its armed wing has abandoned the military struggle. There is a new constitution in Sudan, and even as we speak Sudan is holding multi-party presidential and parliamentary elections.
During my visit to Sudan this year I spent some time in discussions with Umma Party leaders and sensed that things had changed within the country. If the Umma Party and other opposition leaders believe there have been positive changes in Sudanese politics we, too, must give Khartoum the benefit of the doubt.
I have run out of time and must therefore conclude my contribution.
5.18 p.m.
Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe: My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Baroness for providing another opportunity to debate the affairs of this very tortured country. It came as no surprise to me this morning to receive in my mail a bundle of literature from the European Sudanese Public Affairs Council. As the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, is aware, that has become a familiar body over the years. If one sums up that literature, it calls into question the integrity and credibility of the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, which is a very counterproductive step. We have had the pleasure and honour of knowing the noble Baroness for a number of years. The council should bear in mind that the interests of the noble Baroness in furthering the well-being of communities are not confined to the Sudan. She travels to many parts of the world where people are in trouble and her efforts are greatly appreciated. We do not get literature from those other countries seeking to damage her integrity. The European Sudanese Public Affairs Council really is out on a limb on this matter and should consider its position. What it does is totally counterproductive. We know the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, and the good work that she does.

609
I should like to say a few words about the problems of the Christian community in southern Sudan. The noble Baroness covered very well the general position in the country. During the debate on the Queen's Speech on 12th December the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Guildford said:
"This House needs to know that the Christian community across the world judges our policies here in the light of our Christian history".—[Official Report, 12/12/00; col. 247.]
That may well be true—I would not dispute it for one moment—but, with respect, it seems to be almost the Church's equivalent of a Fabian summer school. When I was a younger man, at the weekends we used to discuss these topics and have a very pleasant time. I should like to see the Church taking much more interest in the persecution of our Christian brothers and sisters abroad.
If the Sudanese council does not like what the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, says, let us turn to Christian Aid. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Guildford is chairman of the Board of Christian Aid. I should like to refer to what I found on Christian Aid's website. It stated that Christian Aid's co-ordinator for Northern Ireland, Deborah Doherty, travelled to southern Sudan to report on the work of local partners in the midst of an ongoing war. She talked of arriving in Yei just 24 hours after government of Sudan forces had bombed the town's market place, killing 20 and injuring 54. She went on to refer to a deliberate campaign of bombing against civilians conducted by the Government of Sudan since the beginning of the year. She gave the figures—133 such bombings in November alone.
That is an additional source to the noble Baroness, Lady Cox. Perhaps we shall be hearing from the Sudanese council calling that into question. To me, this is evidence of brutality against the civilian population and we should take it very seriously. It is the kind of situation to which the dreadful term "collateral damage" has now been attached. What it really means is that ordinary civilians are being killed in large numbers.
During his speech in the debate on the Queen's Speech the right reverend Prelate went on to talk about Israel. Several noble Lords spoke about Israel and devoted substantial parts of their speeches to it, yet it is a country the size of Wales. There is an almost obsessional interest in Israel. The Sudan is actually 10 times the size of the United Kingdom, yet we cannot generate even a minuscule amount of interest in it compared with the obsessional interest in Israel. I am concerned about generating more interest in the Sudan because it offers an example of the persecution of Christians.
I am going to weary the House yet again with the quotation which I gave in a speech on the Sudan on 8th December 1998. I drew attention to a report which had been commissioned by the United States State Department and was published in the spring of 1997
610
by the Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights—Issue No. 1426–1693, Volume 5, No. 2. The following is a quotation from it:
"Though religious persecution is being experienced by people of different faiths (Moslems, Hindus, Jews, Christians. Bahais and others) the overwhelming majority of cases worldwide have to do with Christians. This situation reflects the fact that Christians are today the single most persecuted religious group in the world".
We should be much more aware of that. We should do what we can and the Christian Churches should unite not only on the question of giving economic aid to people in other parts of the world but to highlight the persecution of our Christian brothers and sisters wherever it is happening in the world. If we did that, we could not only exert very much more pressure internationally but we could revive the Churches, which complain of falling attendances, and generate a real sense of purpose. We could then help people not only economically but help them to escape this persecution which is far more widespread than is generally realised.
5.25 p.m.
The Earl of Sandwich: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, for this further opportunity to debate Sudan and for again bringing to the House her first-hand accounts from the field. I can share some of her frustrations. I, too, was in Sudan recently on behalf of Christian Aid and Save the Children. I saw for myself some of the terrible effects of civil war in the south—the bombed-out schools and homes, roads blocked by mines, and armoured cars blown up. In the north I met some of the displaced families where 2 million southerners, mostly refugees from the war, live in poor conditions.
I do not intend to swap atrocities tonight or to heap all the blame at the door of the Sudanese army and air force. As the noble Baroness mentioned, there are many factions on both sides of this war, and the SPLA and its allies are not the shining knights that the United States and others portray. Nevertheless, no one who visits the south can be unaware of the government bombs which fall day after day from Antonov aircraft on small towns like R.umbek and Yirol, which I recently visited, killing civilians, destroying livelihoods and spreading fear among the population. In November alone, I can confirm that the Church agencies reported 133 such bombings. In art attack on Yei market on 20th November at least 18 were killed and 53 wounded, 11 of them critically. Fortunately, the staff of a demining team, Operation Save Innocent Lives, were present and able to transport people to hospital. In the same week, a relief 'worker who had just completed training with Christian Aid in emergency work was killed by a bomb at Ikotos, in eastern Equatoria.
Whatever message the Government send to Sudan through the Chief Whip today, they will, I hope, urge the government of Sudan to stop their vicious bombing campaign, observe the ceasefires and allow humanitarian work to proceed.
But there are other messages. Outsiders are quick to judge and slow to understand the underlying reasons for conflict. War is of course to be avoided, but it is not

611
enough for us to express outrage and urge ceasefires on the government of Sudan or quote UN resolutions in the air. It seems obvious to me that after 17 years, although the UN sanctions have had some limited effect, there is no international political will to apply force in Sudan on the scale of Kosovo, Kuwait or Timor. In other words, there is no present alternative to a policy of constructive engagement.
This is the policy which our Government are attempting to pursue quietly, while condemning the war and human rights violations. If we meekly follow the line of the US—whatever that may now be—we can hardly expect to have any influence in Khartoum. Unlike the noble Baroness, I should like to see more, not less, contact with Sudan, not only on grounds of our historic links and potential economic ties, but because I believe that we can help the people of Sudan, north and south, through our diplomacy and eventually our aid programmes, slow as they are in coming.
The conflict in Sudan is not a simple jihad of Muslim north against Christian south. Sudan has a much more sophisticated culture than that. Like Egypt, it has a history of religious tolerance which has been distorted by fanatical minorities and by extreme forms of fundamentalism which is in itself a purifying force. The influence of Dr el Turabi, while important, is currently on the wane—that is a positive sign—while the Umma Party of Sadiq el Mandi is in the ascendant. The NIF government are unelected and autocratic but they are not monolithic. The army, the civil administration, the wali of Khartoum and the various religious parties all speak with different voices. The opposition forces are equally divided. No internal solutions are in sight, yet the political scene is changing and the government of Sudan do seem to want to rejoin the world and are seeking diplomatic allies.
In my view, the IGAD process has dragged on for long enough. Only the more active involvement of the powers already represented, including Libya, Egypt, the EU and the new US administration can together arrive at a satisfactory settlement. These powers, including ourselves, need to show the people of Sudan that they are ready to help. As at Addis Ababa in 1972, the Churches and civil society can play a part following their successful initiatives on the ground over the past two years, which already have the potential of a lasting peace.
In my opinion, this peace must be built on the unity of Sudan, not on two states, but one which recognises ethnic minorities and human rights—and on its economic strength, which is necessarily based on the new oil supplies in Upper Nile, the scene of so much of the fighting today. This oil belongs to the whole country, but if much more time elapses, it will continue to flow into the coffers which fuel the war instead of revitalising the areas which so badly need it.
This is a country which once had a tremendous agricultural potential, as the noble Lord, Lord Carter, will know. The Gezira scheme, which started in the 1920s, has about half the country's 2 million hectares under irrigation and still claims to be the world's
612
largest para-statal farming enterprise. However, owing to mismanagement, successive droughts and the decline of the cotton industry, this project has become a shadow of its former self, although it could be revived. The Kanana sugar scheme and the ambitious Jonglei Canal have suffered similarly, and even the success of cereal production in the north-east has failed to offset an annual food deficit of over 1 million tonnes. The result has been a collapse of the economy, which is beyond rescue, even given the oil reserves, while the war continues.
Unfortunately, the UN is also in some disarray. Two years ago, the combination of drought and war tested to the limit Operation Lifeline Sudan (OLS), which is supposed to bring food and medicines to victims. OLS has delivered a great deal of aid, but it has not reached everyone in need; for example in the Nuba mountains. It is at the mercy of both the government of Sudan and the SPLA, neither of which respect ceasefires which they themselves have painstakingly agreed. The NGOs are divided in their allegiance to Operation Lifeline Sudan. The UN is low in morale and attempting to redeploy, with the United Nations Development Programme itself drastically cutting its traditional development projects.
Despite the cruelty of the bombings and the war, there are many other reasons for hope. I have already mentioned the peace process. The conflict continues, but other opportunities for development are already presenting themselves. Some NGOs, including Christian Aid, Save the Children, Oxfam and CARE, have remained in both the north and the south throughout the war and are reliable channels of development aid as well as emergency relief. Our embassy is well aware of this and is very active, but it is time that the whole Government recognised the longterm value of much of these agencies' humanitarian work and interpreted their requests more generously.
Having spent a week in Bahr el Ghazal, I know how desperate are the needs. Health centres and schools need to be resupplied, if not completely rebuilt. The rehabilitation of health, education and water supply projects do not always imply putting up buildings which can be targeted from the air. Basic communications must be improved; it took me several hours to travel 100 miles along a causeway across flood plains close to the Nile. Markets need to be revived as trade is almost at a standstill. Goods are being carried long distances on bicycles, which provide the only transport when no other vehicles are available.
There are now many professional Sudanese development agencies ready to carry out these tasks, given the resources. I shall mention only one which I met, the Bahr el Ghazal Youth Development Association (BYDA), which has an impressive record of civic education, self-help and community development, encouraging even people in desperate need to support themselves.
Above all, people need to be confident that the outside world is willing to help. The dioceses of Salisbury and Bradford also provide important links.

613
With nearly a generation lost, there is a great deal to be done to restore our educational and English language ties through such bodies as the British Council, which would like to expand its work, and Skills for Southern Sudan, which has recently carried out a fascinating survey based on its experience of preparatory training in areas of conflict such as Uganda and southern Africa.
Finally, I should like to quote from an appeal by three aid agencies involved in Sudan, which stated:
"The world's governments must act urgently, coherently and innovatively if we are to end the tragic cycle of Sudan's suffering. Humanitarian assistance is vital, but not enough. The UN Security Council and its member states must make use of every means at their disposal to bring Africa's longest running war, finally, to a close".
5.35 p.m.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, there are only three words with which I can suitably begin my few remarks: "Non sum dignus"—I am not worthy to take part in a discussion of the kind we have had today. We have heard four speakers, all of whom have first-hand knowledge of the Sudan and who have recently visited that country. We have just listened to a moving address from the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, who undoubtedly is one of the finest representatives of the younger generation in this House today.
I have to confess to a bias. I believe that the rules on the declaration of one's interests have been tightened up of late, even where no financial connection is concerned. Given that, I shall have to declare my interest in support of the noble Baroness, Lady Cox. We do not know each other on a personal basis, but I shall express my admiration for her. I am glad, too, that the noble Lord, Lord Elton, is to say a few words in the gap. He leads an inspired prayer group which I attend regularly. At almost every meeting we pray for the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, as she goes about her dangerous work. She travels all over the world working on behalf of Christianity and humanity. I start, therefore, with a bias in favour of anything she says. I know that the noble Baroness has some enemies. I recently saw a document attacking her. However, due to partial sightedness, I am lucky in that I cannot read all that much. That document went very quickly into the wastepaper basket. So far as I am concerned, the enemies of the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, might as well go and jump in the lake.
I understand that we shall not vote on this matter, but I wonder whether we take seriously enough the whole issue? Surely, we must be horrified by the terrible stories we have heard today. Whether things are slightly better or slightly worse, the whole situation is pretty awful. I believe I heard the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, say that some 2 million people have been killed in the Sudan. Are we not bothered by that? Do we not feel that we should do something about it? However, I know that this little island cannot control the whole world and put everything right.
Recently I met a taxi driver who had just returned from Cambodia. He told me that some 50 per cent of the population is 15 years old or under, all the older
614
people having been murdered. The most awful things are happening all over the world. But do we not have a special responsibility towards the Sudan" Perhaps I am a little biased, other than in my tremendous admiration for the noble Baroness, Lady Cox. I have mentioned before my only claim which may be unique to this discussion. Some 85 years ago i1 had the pleasure of meeting Lord Kitchener. I was only a little chap. That great man was attending a garden party given by my grandmother, Lady Jersey, at Osterley Park. The great man bent over and said to me, "Who are you, my little man?". I responded by saying, "I am the grandson of grandmama". That was accepted. I shall always think of Lord Kitchener of Khartoum as a kindly old gentleman.
More recently, I have become a close friend of Lady Aitken, the mother of Jonathan Aitken. Her father, who became Lord Rugby, whom I came to know later by playing golf with him in Abu Dhabi where he was what we would now call the ambassador, was at one time Governor-General of the Sudan. As a girl, Lady Aitken, often went out there to stay. She said—I heard it from many sources—that there was a very close relationship between the British and the Sudanese, that the British liked the Sudanese and the Sudanese respected the British. There has been a connection between Britain and the Sudan—this is my only point and I shall sit down when I have made it—and I suggest that, although we cannot control the whole world and put it to rights, we have a special responsibility to act to improve matters in the Sudan. It is a responsibility that we are not shouldering at present. I hope that we shall do better in the future.
5.40 p.m.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I speak with great diffidence, but at least my interests have been declared by the noble Earl, Lord Longford. I am moved to speak because today we started by considering the persecution and slaughter of Christians in Indonesia at the hands of a Muslim jihad and we are concluding by considering the slaughter. among others, of Christians in the Sudan under a Muslim government imposing Sharia law. To both, my noble friend Lady Cox has directed the attention of this House. She is a combination of a roving Christian ambassador arid a reconnaissance force for the Churches, who has performed an enormously valuable service to us and continues to do so.
As to the specific issue we are debating, it is beyond question that the atrocities she has described have taken and are taking place. Nothing the noble Lord, Lord Ahmed, has said and nothing the noble Lord, Lord Cocks, has received through the post has actually gainsaid the fact that she, personally, has brought people out of slavery. We could be talking about the Middle Ages; this is a lesser of the many evils that are being perpetrated.
How do we as a country with a Christian tradition, and with many practising Christians in government and opposition, try to stop this happening? The first thing I would suggest, in the few words that convention permits me, is that the moment the word

615
"oil" emerges, all governments' motives are suspect. I ask Her Majesty's Government to recognise the proper priorities in this case, which are not economic but compassionate and moral. It does not matter what is the faith or the colour of the skin of the people who are suffering. They are fellow religionists with me, but I would have as great a duty to them if they were not. That goes also for the Government.
The second question is how can we exert ourselves to bring the killing to an end. Here we have a contradiction of views between people of equal experience and commitment as to whether it should be through constructive engagement or outright and arms' length condemnation. There can be no dispute that there must be outright condemnation; the question is whether that should be at arms' length. There should be clear alternatives offered to the Government of the Sudan between some kind of amity brought about by a cessation of this obscene violence and the availability of aid, counsel and support.
We as a country have a duty in the world to support what is right and to oppose what is wrong. Whenever in the past we have failed to do this we have finished up in the most appalling mess; a great many people have been killed, and in the end a lot of them have been British. This is happening on a different continent and the threat, the danger, of temporisation may therefore seem less because it is further away. But the world is a great deal smaller now than it was in 1939 and a great deal smaller still than it was in 1914. I do not think that we can abandon moral imperatives without inviting physical disaster. I urge the Government to be round in their condemnation of what is being done, whatever may be the commercial risk. In the end, the risk of not doing that is much greater.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, I had not intended to speak in the debate. I would not have done so had I not received this morning—like other noble Lords—an extraordinary package from the European Sudanese Public Affairs Council consisting of a letter from a Mr David Hoile, of whose interests one is not aware, and no less than two pamphlets and a booklet. The booklet runs to 120 pages and does not carry a price tag. One can only assume that it is for distribution purposes and not for open market consumption.
I intervene merely to underline what other noble Lords have said about my noble friend Lady Cox, with whom I have had the privilege to be associated for nearly 20—yearsfirst in her capacity as a nurse when she had something to say to the last but one Conservative government about the plight of nurses in this country. She was courageous enough to take on my noble friend Lady Thatcher at the height of her power and, as a Conservative Peeress, marched down Whitehall arm in arm with trade unionists in protest against what was then happening in the nursing profession. We see today how right she was.
616
We might have done better in this country if we had heeded what my noble friend also had to say about what was going on in our education system. We did not, and the Labour Government are doing their best today to sort out the problems created at that time which could perhaps have been solved slightly earlier.
My noble friend's interests then took her overseas to many areas of the world where she has become a voice for the voiceless. I was privileged 10 years ago to go with her to Nagorno Karabakh, a troubled part of the world where she has done much for the Armenian community.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Ahmed. It is time for the dead hand of propaganda to be removed from this debate. We should listen to my noble friend Lady Cox.
5.47 p.m.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, the greatest tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, is that every time she raises the subject of Sudan, we all receive this flood of bumph from the European Sudanese Public Affairs Council and the egregious Mr Hoile, who is sometimes referred to as "oily Hoile". Unlike some other noble Lords, I always read his pamphlets with great care, except when they arrive immediately before a debate and I do not have time to do anything more than open them. I can assure Mr Hoile that I shall read his remarks, but not until after the debate. He must send them a little earlier if he wants me to entertain them before I speak.
I have been in correspondence with Mr Hoile on a number of occasions. I have asked him if he would tell me how the European Sudanese Public Affairs Council is financed, and I have yet to receive any response. I should like to know. It is a matter of legitimate interest to everyone who is in receipt of these documents.
Once again, we are greatly in the debt of the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, for drawing our attention to the formidable problems of Sudan, which has suffered, as she said, from the effects of a civil war of unparalleled ferocity. She pointed out that it has resulted in the deaths of 2 million people and the displacement of another 5 million people.
Like many other countries in Africa, Sudan was carved out by the British imperialists, with no regard to the affinities of its people, bringing together under one sovereignty the Arab and Muslim inhabitants of the north and the African Christian and animist peoples of the south. Not only were those differences the causes of the conflict but, as the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, said, there are many other subdivisions which equally have led to strife among the people. But that is the main division and the reason for this civil war.
It has proved impossible to find a solution through the efforts of IGAD, the forum in which the states of the region come together, mainly because the NIF regime prefers to impose its will on the south by military force rather than to negotiate on the basis of self-determination for the south. However, IGAD has at least produced a Declaration of Principles which

617
calls for a referendum, and the latest talks have been about what areas constitute the south for the purposes of this test of public opinion.
The south has made its own mistakes. Colonel G.arang's policy of "New Sudan", which entailed an alliance with northern opposition forces, is in tatters, as the leader of the NDA, Mohamed Osman El Mirghani. prepares to defect and Sadiq el-Mandi, leader of the Umma Party—as the noble Lord, Lord Ahmed, pointed out—made a triumphant return to Khartoum last month, leaving the southerners effectively on their own. The so-called NDA forces, which seem to have been entirely southern SPLA troops, suffered a crushing defeat outsided Hamish Koreib in eastern Sudan at the beginning of November, showing the folly of Garang in trying to widen the conflict into a revolution against the NIF regime throughout the country.
The return of el-Mandi could be a catalyst for change. He has been characterised in the past as having intrinsically limited support because he is the leader of the Ansar sect, and that is represented by the Umma Party, but it was estimated that as many as 2 million people turned out to meet him when he arrived back in Khartoum on the 23rd November. He immediately struck a conciliatory note when he said to a crowd of several hundred thousand at Friday prayers the day after his return that in a country as diverse as Sudan in terms of culture and religion, there was not going to be an Islamic state. He was even more daring when he pointed out that the laws of Islam as handed down by the Prophet had changed very little, while the world had changed enormously. He said that Muslim scholars and jurisprudence had to adapt and change the laws. El-Mandi also insists that the agreement he has made with the NIF regime contains the right of self-determination for the south, which is lacking in the Libyan-Egyptian proposals endorsed by the NDA.
While the break between General el-Beshir and Dr Hasan el-Turabi signalled the abandonment of the hard line ideology previously adopted by the regime, and thus prepared the ground for a return to pluralism, it is not yet clear how the Umma Party and the DUP can play any immediate role in determining the policy of the state. The regime was determined to proceed with the presidential and parliamentary elections that are now being held over a 10-day period ending on 23rd December. But in 112 of the 360 constituencies there were no candidates other than those of the government; in the remainder, the main opposition parties urged a boycott and very few people have gone to the polls, at least in Khartoum. The new parliament will thus lack any democratic legitimacy, while in the presidential election el-Beshir's opponents are a former incumbent who was deposed in the coup of 1985 and three unknowns. The real opposition will continue to be extra-parliamentary, and that cannot be a recipe for greater stability in Sudan over the next five years.
On the human rights front, the situation remains as bad as ever. In spite of an order by el-Beshir to stop bombing in the south, warplanes resumed the indiscriminate attacks on civilians in July, as
618
Susan Rice saw for herself when she visited the south last month. The town of Yei has been mentioned several times. It has suffered repeated attacks; an attack in the middle of November killed 40 people and put the only hospital out of action, supposedly as a message to Susan Rice, who was due to visit Yei but did not in fact go there.
Susan Rice met women freed from slavery, and demanded an end to what she called a heinous practice. The UN estimates that 15,000 southerners have been abducted in raids by tribesmen from the north, encouraged by their government, over the past 10 years and taken to the north as slaves.
Although el-Beshir speaks about religious tolerance and co-existence, Christians are not allowed to build churches; apostasy from Islam is punishable by death; and family law is heavily biased against non-Muslims. Students, political activists and human rights defenders are targeted. They are frequently detained without trial, and a number have been murdered by agents of the state.
All these and other issues have been covered by the Special Rapporteur in his report to the General Assembly published in September this year. He confirms allegations that have been ma de about particular human rights 'violations associated with oil developments in Upper Nile. Ethnic cleansing has replaced the local Dinka and Nuer people with northern Baggara tribesmen and the oil-producing area is being violently Arabised. I agree with the comment of the noble Lord, Lord Elton, that oil is a dangerous catalyst for human rights violations. Although a humanitarian crisis is developing, OLS has been prohibited from bringing in aid, and 40,000 displaced people in Bentiu are mostly in an alarming nutritional state. The Special Rapporteur says that further influxes may be catastrophic.
On top of all the man-made disasters, Sudan is beginning to suffer drought in the south and west of the country, in Darfur and Kordofan. The WFP country office says that food stock levels are at a dangerously low level, cereal prices are rising and livestock prices are plummeting; and wells, dams and other water resources are drying up. About 700,000 people are said to be affected.
What can Britain do? We have provided financial and political support for a permanent negotiating secretariat in Nairobi and we are in regular contact with all the parties, pressing the case for talks and explaining the benefits that peace would bring to the civilian population. I think that we should go further and tell Khartoum that we deplore the resumption of bombing, and that we hope that they will refrain from new offensive operations in the dry season. We should also tell John Garang that he is off-side in opening hostilities anywhere outside the south. We should try to understand what Sadiq el-Mandi's agenda is, and how this can be pursued outside the framework of parliamentary politics; and we should urge General el-Beshir to hold talks with el-Mandi, and with the DUP,

619
to establish a basis for returning to a genuine multiparty system based on religious and ethnic equality, and implementation of the IGAD Declaration of Principles.
5.57 p.m.
Baroness Rawlings: My Lords, I, too, am grateful to my noble friend Lady Cox for giving us the opportunity to discuss this vitally important subject. As always, my noble friend speaks with great authority and first-hand knowledge on these sensitive subjects, in a country where so much still needs to be done. Sadly, it is in complex areas such as these that the West has so many shortcomings. As the noble Lord, Lord Cocks, rightly said, we do not show nearly enough interest in the Sudan.
It is timely, too, that we should be having this debate so close to Christmas and that we should take time to think of people who are so less fortunate than we are in this country. I hope that some help may come out of this debate for an area that has been blighted for so long—especially as we are lucky enough to have the noble Lord the Government Chief Whip to answer it.
I read through the BBC World Service briefing on the history of Sudan since its independence in 1956; it is a sorry tale. It is a country with a litany of disasters and catastrophes as it lurches towards yet another coup or civil war. It has one of the world's worst human rights records. Even as recently as September this year, the Governor of Khartoum issued a decree barring women from working in public places. The imposition of Sharia law will certainly restrict individual freedoms still further. All this is taking place in the largest country in Africa—a beautiful place, dominated by the Blue and White Nile so well described in Alan Moorehead's eponymous books.
In the short time that is available I shall concentrate briefly on three areas, all of which are inter-related: the oil revenues, mentioned by my noble friend Lord Elton in his superb speech; the human rights situation; and the latest political position.
The big change in Sudan is the discovery of oil: the first oil exports in 1999 gave a growth rate of nearly 40 per cent in one year. This means that its revenue has grown from 530 million to 1,327 million dollars. Unfortunately, little of this enormous revenue has been spent on education, healthcare, or on measures to alleviate the terrible poverty. Reports even tell us that more and more is being spent on weapons. Until democracy is properly rooted, the advent of the oil revenues will do nothing for the population as a whole. Her Majesty's Government have constantly been questioned in both Houses as to what pressure we have put on the Sudanese Government. I ask the Minister that same question again tonight. Further, can the noble Lord tell us what is our latest aid policy in the light of all their new-found wealth?
I turn to my second point. I am embarrassed and, like the noble Earl, Lord Longford, I feel unworthy because we have so little time to address the really serious problems that stem from the violation of
620
human rights in Sudan. If we had more time, I would try to do it justice. I wholeheartedly agree with my noble friend Lady Cox, the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, and my noble friend Lord Elton, all of whom have described the horror of the present human rights situation in Sudan far more eloquently than I could have done.
Thirdly, I turn to the political situation. No resolution has yet been found to the dilemma of whether government should be using religious, strict Islamic law or secular law. That is one of their main problems. Even though the noble Baroness, Lady Symons of Vernham Dean, was unsure in her response to my question on October 19th, can the Minister say whether we still consider Sudan a terrorist state? With the United States, China, France and Russia, we support Her Majesty's Government on having blocked Sudan becoming a permanent member of the UN Security Council. The Freedom House, a human rights group, recently denounced the Sudanese Government as "genocidal".
As we have heard, the current situation in Sudan is horrific. It is even more horrific as the election that is now being held is unlikely to change anything. The European Union declined to send official observers, which means that we did not send any. There is also state censorship of the media, adding to our lack of confidence in the proceedings. Can the Minister say how the Government will know that these were fair elections? Further, what are the plans of Her Majesty's Government in respect of Sudan after the election?
Such advances as have been made in terms of democracy have been put on hold, while the sporadic fighting between the north, mainly Muslim, and the south, mainly Christian, has continued with only 11 years of peace since 1956. Can the Minister say to what extent the Government are prepared, especially in the light of the publication of the recent White Paper, to use their influence in the promotion of good governance in line with their ethical foreign policy? I look forward to hearing the response of the Government Chief Whip to that and all the other questions that have been raised tonight.
6.3 p.m.
Lord Carter: My Lords, like other noble Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, for initiating this debate and for her continuing interest in the fortunes of the Sudanese people. We have had an excellent debate. I shall, with some trepidation, do my best to reply in the time that is available to me. However, if I am not able to reply to all the points raised, I shall, as always, ensure that the noble Lords receive a reply in writing.
I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Elton, referred to the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, as a "reconnaissance force". I think that all governments would prefer to call her a "rapid reaction force"—that is, if the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, does not mind my using that phrase!
All those who have spoken in the debate agree that the current situation in Sudan is both tragic and complex. However, regrettably, it is not a new one, nor

621
indeed is the suffering in that country. As we all know, the tragedy of the continuing civil war has not only claimed the lives of millions of Sudanese of more than one generation; it has also prevented the development of the country and its relations with its neighbours and the international community.
The Government believe that peace is the only long-term answer to the suffering of the Sudanese people. We have given the search for peace in the Sudan a new priority. Indeed, to pick up the words used by the noble Lord, Lord Elton, compassion and morality must be at the forefront of our endeavours. We have engaged with all sides to the conflict. The Sudanese Government and the opposition parties are well aware of our views. Recent events in Khartoum and elsewhere in the region, as hinted at in the debate, suggest that it is time for a concerted push for peace. The international community should do all that it can to help.
It may be useful if I outline a brief history of the most recent international efforts to promote peace in Sudan. The Intergovernmental Authority on Development (IGAD) launched an initiative in September 1993 to mediate an end to the civil war in southern Sudan. IGAD groups include Kenya, Ethiopia, Sudan, Uganda and Eritrea, along with Djibouti and Somalia.
In May 1994, IGAD adopted a declaration of principles for settlement of the conflict. At the time, the Government of Sudan rejected the declaration. The previous British government, along with the governments of the Netherlands, Norway, Italy and the United States formed the Friends of IGAD to support IGAD's efforts. The Friends of IGAD offered both diplomatic and material support to the peace process. But, as I am sure noble Lords will know, the IGAD process ground to a halt in May 1995. However, under concerted military and diplomatic pressure, the Government of Sudan agreed in 1997 to renewed IGAD talks on the basis of the declaration of principles. That is, indeed, a step forward.
International efforts to support the IGAD process have intensified in the past two years. The IGAD Partners Forum—or IPF, as the Friends of IGAD is now known—has provided political and financial support to the IGAD secretariat. The British Government continue to be an active member of the IPF and hosted a meeting in London in October of a number of key member countries. The co-chairs of the IPF, Norway and Italy, expect to call an IPF meeting in Rome early in the new year. Therefore, efforts are continuing.
We see IGAD as the best chance to bring about a negotiated peace settlement and support the IGAD declaration of principles as the basis for settlement of the civil war. One reason for our support of IGAD is that the two main parties to the conflict—the Government of Sudan and the SPLM/A—have told us that they regard it as the only serious forum for negotiation. There are other initiatives aimed at promoting peace in Sudan. We welcome that interest, particularly in the region. The latter was also hinted at
622
during the debate. However, we are keen to ensure that all these initiatives work alongside the IGAD process. We would not want to allow the parties to "forum hop" when the going gets tough, as no doubt it will.
The noble Baroness, Lady Cox, rightly condemns human rights abuses in Sudan. The Government share her concerns. Again, the European Union sponsored resolutions at this year's UN Commission on Human Rights and the UN General Assembly set these out. Human rights also form part of the EU-Sudan dialogue, which is about to enter its second year. There has been some progress: for example. the work of the Committee for the Eradication of the Abduction of Women and Children; agreement with the Office for the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights on having a representative in Khartoum; a greater number of visits by monitors; arid a LTN needs assessment mission being allowed into the Nuba mountains.
However, there are still many more issues to be addressed. Like the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, we find the aerial bombings in southern Sudan completely unacceptable. Our ambassador in Khartoum has made our views absolutely clear to the Government of Sudan. He did so most recently last Tuesday. But the problem of aerial bombings emphasises yet again the need for peace. We can argue with the Sudanese Government about the political acceptability of these bombings and, indeed, their military effectiveness. But by achieving a ceasefire in the first instance we would remove the government's argument of self-defence. A peace settlement would not only stop the killing of Sudanese people from all groups; it would also pave the way for the country's full re-integration into the international community.
We have heard much today, and rightly so, about the suffering of the Sudanese people. The British Government share the concerns of all who worry about their humanitarian plight. The United Kingdom is one of the largest bilateral donors of humanitarian assistance to Sudan. 'We have committed over £200 million since 1991. But, of course, the humanitarian situation is not helped by the civil war. We shall continue to work with the United Nations, international NGOs and others to deliver the humanitarian assistance which is required but we cannot consider development assistance programmes until the fighting has stopped.
The noble Baroness, Lady Cox, mentioned reports of the possible use of chemical weapons by the Government of Sudan. We take all reports of the use of these weapons seriously. As the noble Baroness knows, tests of particular samples at CBD Porton Down and at US and Finnish laboratories showed no evidence to substantiate allegations that chemical weapons were used in specific incidents in Sudan. Sudan acceded to the Chemical Weapons Convention last year. The appropriate mechanism is therefore now in place to deal with future investigations. We continue to encourage the Government of Sudan to co-operate in the fight against international terrorism. I shall return to that.

623
Despite the hopeful remarks of my noble friend Lord Ahmed, the British Government fully support the EU arms embargo against Sudan and expect it to remain as long as the civil war continues. All export licence applications are rigorously assessed to determine the risk of the proposed export being misused in contravention of our national export licensing criteria and those in the EU Code of Conduct on Arms Exports, including the risk of diversion or re-export to undesirable end users. We have pressed for oil revenues to be used for development projects and for transparency in the oil account. In return, the Government of Sudan have made some public assurances to this effect. We shall look to them to honour those assurances and shall remain firmly focused on this issue. The FCO and the DTI have no ongoing campaign promoting investment in the Sudanese oil industry, nor do we have any policy to halt all commercial interests.
The abduction of women and children is a serious and distressing issue to which we pay particular attention. As I have mentioned, the European Union sponsored UN Commission on Human Rights resolutions last year and this. These called on the Government of Sudan to investigate reports of abduction, bring to trial persons suspected of involvement and accept international participation in the investigation into the cause of abduction. Following from this, the Government of Sudan established the Committee for the Eradication of the Abduction of Women and Children last year which is working with UNICEF and Save the Children. So far, we understand that the committee has facilitated the return of over 300 abductees. There is still much work to be done. We shall be looking for more action as a result of this initiative. Through the EU we have been part funding the committee and our ambassador has been active in visiting the areas affected and attending workshops in order to show our concern and to urge much greater effort.
We regularly denounce slavery to give a lead to our European partners. As I have just said, the ambassador regularly attends workshops of the Committee for the Eradication of the Abduction of Women and Children and Her Majesty's Government support the work of UNICEF and Save the Children in the return of abductees.
As noble Lords will be aware, we now have a fully operational embassy in Khartoum. The British Government use that important channel to ensure that the Government of Sudan are made fully aware of our concerns in a timely way.
I shall respond to some of the questions that were raised. The noble Baroness, Lady Cox, asked about no fly zones and safe havens. I shall reply to the noble Baroness in writing and place a copy of the reply in the Library as the matter requires a little more research than we have time for this evening. It is important that the critical dialogue which we pursue with our EU partners brings home to the Government of Sudan the weight of international opinion. This has led to results such as the creation of the committee I mentioned on
624
abduction. The critical dialogue involves criticism. The criticism would be easily dismissed without that broader dialogue. To pick up the phrase of the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, we wish to see constructive engagement.
I believe that the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, mentioned evidence of Sudanese support for terrorism. The UN imposed sanctions and adopted Security Council Resolution 1054 in April 1996 which called on the Government of Sudan to ensure the extradition of three suspects in the attempted assassination of President Mubarak and to desist from engaging in terrorist activities. The UN sanctions have not yet been suspended or lifted. We continue to encourage the Government of Sudan to co-operate in the fight against international terrorism. I understand that the Security Council may consider the issue again in April.
My noble friend Lord Ahmed asked about Chinese soldiers and Scud missiles. We have no evidence to support charges that there are hundreds of thousands of Chinese soldiers or, indeed, any number of Scud missiles in Sudan. The noble Baroness, Lady Rawlings, asked about the elections in Sudan. We, as members of the European Union, were party to the decision not to send election monitors. Appropriate conditions were not in place for the proper monitoring of the elections. It is, of course, unfortunate that the opposition decided not to take part in the elections. We shall continue to urge the Sudanese Government to talk to the opposition parties where possible.
The noble Baroness's Question is wide-ranging. I have tried to give as full a reply as possible. But in essence our approach to Sudan is dictated by a belief that the only way to end the terrible human suffering in Sudan is through a negotiated settlement to the war. Peace negotiations are therefore our overriding priority and recent events have given us more reason to press ahead. The UK has been at the heart of international efforts to help reinvigorate the regional peace initiative, IGAD, and seek other ways of putting real impetus into the talks.
Our return to Khartoum has ensured that we are once again in an excellent position to influence all the parties to the conflict. Her Majesty's Government remain convinced that constructive and critical engagement with all concerned is the most productive policy.
The Earl of Sandwich: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, why has he not mentioned the United States, given that we are now in a promising situation with a new administration taking seriously the problems of the Middle East? Is there any particular reason why the noble Lord did not mention the United States?
Lord Carter: My Lords, the fact that it is a new administration makes me a little cautious in terms of giving a quick reply to the noble Lord. I shall write to him and place a copy of the reply in the Library.
House adjourned at twenty minutes past six o'clock.

  Iraq: Kuwaiti Hostages
  Iraq: Kuwaiti Hostages
  Burma
  Burma
  Israeli Occupied Territories: Human Rights
  Israeli Occupied Territories: Human Rights
  Smoking: Reduction Measures
  Smoking: Reduction Measures
  Blood Donor Selection Criterion
  Blood Donor Selection Criterion
  National Institute for Clinical Excellence
  National Institute for Clinical Excellence
  NHS Local Policy: User Consultation
  NHS Local Policy: User Consultation
  Multiple Sclerosis, TSEs and AIDS: Research Funding
  Multiple Sclerosis, TSEs and AIDS: Research Funding
  National Diet and Nutrition Survey: Urinary Fluoride Measurement
  National Diet and Nutrition Survey: Urinary Fluoride Measurement
  Health Staff Pay Review
  Health Staff Pay Review
  Sugar Regime Reform: EU Policy Implications
  Sugar Regime Reform: EU Policy Implications
  Brown Rat Population
  Brown Rat Population
  SERPS and Public Service Pensions Increase Mechanism
  SERPS and Public Service Pensions Increase Mechanism
  Special Areas of Conservation
  Special Areas of Conservation
  King's Road, London: Accidents
  King's Road, London: Accidents
  Wandsworth Bridge Road, London: Accidents
  Wandsworth Bridge Road, London: Accidents
  Advertisements on Agricultural and Siting Control
  Advertisements on Agricultural and Siting Control
  C5 Disinfectant Combined with Diazinon: Research
  C5 Disinfectant Combined with Diazinon: Research
  Stafford Derailment, 19 October: Line Closures
  Stafford Derailment, 19 October: Line Closures
  Eurostar Class 92 Locomotives: Sale
  Eurostar Class 92 Locomotives: Sale
  Software Counterfeiting
  Software Counterfeiting
  Computer Use in Schools: Safety
  Computer Use in Schools: Safety
  Chinook Helicopter ZD 576
  Chinook Helicopter ZD 576
  Naval Service: Improved Personnel Management
  Naval Service: Improved Personnel Management
  ICANN: Internet Code Fees
  ICANN: Internet Code Fees
  Lawful Business Practice Regulations and Data Protection Act
  Lawful Business Practice Regulations and Data Protection Act
  Telecommunications Sector Debt Level
  Telecommunications Sector Debt Level
  Parliament Acts: Use since 1949
  Parliament Acts: Use since 1949
  Government Defeats in the House of Lords
  Government Defeats in the House of Lords