Sitting of 25 May 2000

Preamble
The House met at half-past Eleven o'clock
PRAYERS
[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

NEW WRIT
Ordered,
That Madam Speaker do issue her Warrant for the Clerk of the Crown to make out a new writ for the electing of a Member to serve in this present Parliament for the Borough Constituency of Tottenham in the room of Bernard Alexander Montgomery Grant, Esquire, deceased.—[Mrs. Ann Taylor.]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

  LONDON LOCAL AUTHORITIES BILL [LORDS] (BY ORDER)
  Order for consideration, as amended, read.
  To be considered on Thursday 8 June.

  MERSEY TUNNELS BILL (BY ORDER)
  Order for Second Reading read.
  To be read a Second time on Thursday 8 June.

Oral Answers to Questions
  AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  The Minister was asked—
  AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

    Abattoirs
    Mrs. Ann Winterton: If he will make a statement on the future role of small abattoirs in the rural economy. [122400]
    The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Ms Joyce Quin): The Government recognise the importance of small and specialist abattoirs to the rural economy. We have therefore put in place a number of measures to help small and medium-sized abattoirs, including the deferment of charges for specified risk material controls, the freezing of Meat Hygiene Service inspection charges for 1999-2000 and an increase confined to the rate of inflation for the current year, a review of the level of inspection in low throughput abattoirs, and setting up a taskforce to explore a capping approach to meat hygiene charges for small abattoirs.
    Mrs. Winterton: Bearing in mind the fact that small abattoirs are going out of business right, left and centre and that many of them will not survive another year, will the Government use their considerable influence with the Meat Hygiene Service and others to ensure that cost
    1092
    recovery for inspections in abattoirs is moved to a headage payment system, as happens elsewhere in Europe? That would guard against further disadvantaging small rural abattoirs, producers, animal welfare, consumer choice on organic and locally produced meat, and the preservation of rare breeds.
    Ms Quin: I understand the hon. Lady's concerns and I know that there are several small abattoirs in her constituency or the surrounding area. I hope that she will welcome the reviews of meat hygiene prices and of the Meat Hygiene Service, both of which were important elements in the action plan for farming announced by the Prime Minister and my right hon. Friend the Minister at the end of March. She charges us with causing the closure of abattoirs right, left and centre, but the majority of abattoir closures took place under the Conservative Government. It would not be possible for us to close as many abattoirs as the Conservatives did even if we wanted to—which we do not—because there are not that many left.
    Mr. David Drew: May I concentrate on regulation? Anyone with connections with the trade knows that there is a problem. The tension can be seen by anyone who visits an abattoir. How will the Food Standards Agency impact on the operation of the Meat Hygiene Service, and how likely is a reduction in the level of regulation?
    Ms Quin: The Food Standards Agency is taking the issue seriously. The reviews encourage a reduction in regulation. Ministers have a responsibility to negotiate with our European partners to reduce unnecessary regulation and ensure that the regulations that are necessary are as simple and straightforward as possible. As my hon. Friend knows, we are pursuing a number of initiatives on that.
    Mr. Colin Breed: I welcome the changes in the Meat Hygiene Service charges. Is it not time to quicken the pace in reacting to the reports of the red tape working parties? The Pooley report was published in December. In February, the Government announced that they accepted a large number of its recommendations. When will the pace of bringing in those recommendations be increased so that we see real action on the ground? Is there a firm timetable so that we can know when all the recommendations will be realised in farmers' daily lives?
    Ms Quin: We are making a lot of progress on the measures that we announced and the timetable that we are working to. The independently chaired taskforce to look at meat inspection charges is to report by the end of this month. The red tape review, including the Pooley recommendations, was always designed to be taken forward quickly. The last thing that we wanted in setting up the red tape review was to start another long, bureaucratic procedure. The way in which the red tape review reported and the timetables that were subsequently proposed show that we are serious about addressing those issues.

    1093
    Of course, some of the issues are not entirely within our control, because they involve European negotiations. On that front, too, we are vigorously pursuing the points that require further developments at European level.
    Mr. Christopher Gill: Now that the responsibility for the Meat Hygiene Service has passed to Health Ministers, can the right hon. Lady give us an assurance that her Department will be much more robust and aggressive in defence of rural abattoirs, for all the reasons given by my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Mrs. Winterton)?
    Ms Quin: Given the measures to which I referred in my original reply to the hon. Member for Congleton (Mrs. Winterton), the hon. Gentleman should recognise that we have already undertaken a considerable number of initiatives and important measures—for example, in terms of the deferment of charges for specified risk material controls. That is worth some £44 million—a considerable amount. However, the hon. Gentleman makes the good point that giving responsibility to Health Ministers allows us, as Agriculture Ministers, to look at the issues of how farmers and rural communities are affected, without any suggestion of a clash of interests, and therefore I welcome it.
    Mr. Malcolm Moss: In order to help the hard-pressed abattoir sector, will the Minister tell the House what steps the Government are taking to relax the restrictions on the date-based export scheme? When did the Minister last raise with the French Government their illegal ban on British beef? Will she confirm that this matter will be discussed with the French Agricultural Minister in the meeting scheduled for tomorrow?
    Ms Quin: As the hon. Gentleman knows, representations have been made on many occasions in private meetings at the margins of Agriculture Councils, in public and in the French media about the illegality of the action that the French have taken. However, that action is now before the courts. Commissioner Byrne has said that he wants the process to take place as quickly as possible. We believe that the French will lose the case, and those are the procedures that should be adopted.
    The hon. Gentleman is wrong to accuse us of being dilatory in respect of the Meat Hygiene Service, or in our action with the French. This Government's record in promoting and getting accepted the date-based export scheme and in getting the ban on British beef lifted in a large number of countries—I recently produced figures on how many more countries have lifted the ban as a result of our efforts—bears favourable comparison with the pathetically slow progress made by the previous Government.

    Pig Industry
    Mr. Edward Leigh: If he will make a statement on profitability in the pig sector. [122401]
    The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Nick Brown): Market prices for pigs continue to recover, having risen by 25 per cent. since the end of January. With the market price at around 95p per
    1094
    kilogram, most pig producers will be breaking even, at least. The measures that the Government have taken to help the sector have helped to bring about this outcome.
    Mr. Leigh: Twenty-four thousand jobs have been lost in this sector. The problem with the pig industry has not been that it is inefficient—it is not—but is that it must abide by animal welfare standards that do not apply to its competitors. Does the Minister acknowledge that his restructuring grant may actually lead to more jobs being lost? How does he intend to use the grant, and to what purpose? Is not the real problem with the industry the fact that imports do not have to abide by these standards? What is he going to do about it? Will he be tougher? Can he imagine the French putting up with this sort of behaviour? We want a Minister who is less nice and acts more like a Frenchman.
    Mr. Brown: Bonjour, Madam Speaker. I welcome the hon. Gentleman to these exchanges, to which you have been treated at just about every Agriculture questions for almost a year now. The answers to his questions are well known. The real problem in the sector is twofold—supply exceeds demand and the classic pig cycle has plummeted, and that recession has been prolonged. To help the industry through the recession, the Government have taken a range of actions with which most hon. Members will be familiar, because we have discussed them at great length.
    The one measure that the hon. Gentleman urges on the Government—economic protectionism—would be illegal and would invite retaliation and a court case that would incur considerable costs for the British taxpayer. If the hon. Gentleman doubts that, I can tell him—as most hon. Members will have heard me say before—that the best advice available to the Government has been placed in the Library for all hon. Members to see. He advocates a measure that would not work and, worse than that, would do considerable harm to the industry. The constructive approach that the Government have taken, to work with the industry to devise measures to get it through the crisis, has been widely welcomed by the industry and, as the facts show, is having some success.
    Mr. Paul Marsden: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is good news that the price has risen and that what we should do next is reduce costs in the supply chain, add value to the British market and develop marketing in Europe? Those are not my words, but those of Mr. Mick Sloan from the British Pig Executive, reported in the Farmers Guardian this week. Those are the steps that are necessary, not the illegal activities promised by the Tories, which would ruin the industry.
    Mr. Brown: There is no protectionist solution to the problem. The answer for the industry is to get closer to the marketplace. We have worked closely with the industry to get it to work together, rather than just as individual businesses, and to bring it closer to its real customers. I also welcome the Meat and Livestock Commission campaign which has just been launched to bring home to British consumers the real difference between the strong

    1095
    animal welfare measures that we have in place and competitors' products. The battle will be won in the supermarkets.
    Mr. Michael Jack: Sadly, Winnie the pig has left Parliament square and the fount of all our knowledge and wisdom on the subject has gone. Before the pig went, a question was raised with me about research and development in the industry, and the fact that the Minister's package of help measures does not appear to include anything to assist further improvements in the way in which the British industry operates. Has he any positive proposals to put to the House on that matter today?
    Mr. Brown: The industry operates efficiently and it has a good story to tell on meat and bonemeal and on animal welfare. The right hon. Gentleman is making a bid for my research and development programme. If the industry submits projects, they will be considered as other bids are considered and will take their place in the priorities. When the industry applied for marketing support, it received the overwhelming bulk of the support that was available. We are willing to consider bids from the industry across the range of the different projects that the Department sponsors.

    Pet Travel Scheme
    Dr. Doug Naysmith: What representations he has received from pet owners concerning the operation of the pet travel scheme. [122402]
    Dr. Nick Palmer: What steps he is taking to ensure that pet owners are fully aware of the requirements of the pet travel scheme. [122404]
    The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Ms Joyce Quin): We have received numerous representations on the pet travel scheme. The helpline and website are widely advertised in the national press and have been widely used. In addition, every veterinary practice has been sent fact sheets and posters.
    Dr. Naysmith: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply and for ensuring that pet owners in this country are aware of the pilot scheme. When will the full scheme be rolled out, and can she speculate as to when it will be extended to other countries?
    Ms Quin: We aim to implement the full scheme by early next year and I hope that that will be achieved on time. Originally, the existing pilot was estimated to take up to three years, but the Government delivered it in half that time, so we have a good record in that respect. The last time the issue of extension to other countries was raised in the House, the question related to Cyprus. I understand that all problems have been resolved, and it will be possible to include Cyprus in the main scheme. I welcome that, because it is important for our service personnel.
    Dr. Palmer: Will my right hon. Friend accept that the scheme has received very broad support so far from those who have participated in it? There is considerable enthusiasm at the fact that the Government have broken
    1096
    the logjam at last. Is she aware that reservations remain about the extent of the additional vaccination that is needed, and especially about the short time scale available for that before pets re-enter the country? Does she accept that a balance must be struck between the scheme and the need to protect the population against infection? Will she review these matters carefully when the pilot scheme ends?
    Ms Quin: We do monitor the scheme. Before the main scheme is introduced, we shall review the results of the pilot scheme in the various areas that my hon. Friend has set out. However, the measures to which he has referred—in particular, the tick and tapeworm treatment, and the time scale available for it—have been chosen for good animal health reasons. The aim is to prevent the importation to this country of contagious diseases and of diseases that we do not have and do not want.
    Mr. John Bercow: What is the expected administrative cost of the pet travel scheme? On the principle that Ministers ought to practise what they preach, at least in a leap year, will the right hon. Lady tell the House which Ministers have expressed an interest in participating in the scheme? Specifically, has she heard from the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland that he expects his dog Bobby to be an early beneficiary?
    Ms Quin: The hon. Gentleman seems to have forgotten that Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom. We believe that all Ministers, as well as all citizens of this country, are eligible to benefit from the pet scheme. It is not surprising, therefore, that all people, apart from one or two Conservative Members, should have welcomed the scheme as they have. The pilot scheme has proved very effective, and we want to make sure that we learn the lessons from it.
    The hon. Gentleman asked about administrative costs. Although I do not have our cost estimates with me, I shall certainly make them available to the House, as I do not want to quote a figure off the top of my head today only to have to correct it later. We believe that the scheme has been well worth while, and that the costs to citizens are far lower than the costs of quarantine. Quarantine caused a lot of misery, and was an extremely expensive system.
    Mr. Bob Russell: Would the Minister agree that the British sovereign bases in Cyprus should be included in the scheme?
    Ms Quin: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman has just come into the Chamber, or whether he was simply not listening earlier when I announced that the problems in relation to Cyprus had been resolved. We look forward to Cyprus being part of the full scheme.

    Countryside Stewardship Scheme
    Judy Mallaber: What evaluation he has made of the value of the countryside stewardship scheme to rural conservation. [122403]
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Elliot Morley): We believe, as do most environmental organisations, that the countryside stewardship scheme is of considerable

    1097
    value to rural conservation and I recently announced a significant expansion to the sector. An independent study to assess the environmental benefits of the scheme in more detail is due to report shortly.
    Judy Mallaber: I agree with my hon. Friend that the countryside stewardship scheme is of great value to rural conservation. It is also a valuable source of income for hard-pressed farmers. The Ministry has told me that, at present, there is only one such scheme in Amber Valley. What steps has my hon. Friend taken to make sure that farmers in Amber Valley and throughout the country are able to have access to countryside stewardship?
    Mr. Morley: The schemes are very popular, and until recently they have been heavily over-subscribed. Thanks to the measures announced under the rural development programme, we will be able to increase the number of applicants to the scheme from 1,600 last year to 3,000 in the coming year. I have emphasised the benefits of the scheme in meetings with farmers, and many farm and environmental organisations have stressed those benefits too. I have no hesitation in asserting that many more farmers will want to join the scheme, and I am sure that many will be from my hon. Friend's constituency.
    Mr. Peter Atkinson: Does the Minister accept that there is a catch in the small print of the scheme? Income is based on income forgone, which means that if the market price of cereals, for example, falls, farmers will lose money. Indeed, Strutt & Parker has estimated that farmers who enter the scheme will be worse off than those who stay out of it.
    Mr. Morley: I would like to see those figures, because I do not think that that is necessarily the case. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that that the scheme is based on income forgone, although I do not think that that is the best method of calculation. Nevertheless, that is the European rule.
    We are aware of the implications for farmers when their incomes fall and prices go down. Logically, the payments based on those incomes should go down with them as well. We have, however, taken a reasonable and balanced view, and tried to cushion farmers from the worst effects of the changes.
    Mr. Peter L. Pike: Can my hon. Friend confirm that this type of scheme is essential in areas of the Pennines like mine, where land is extremely difficult to farm? It is wild and rugged, but very beautiful, and farmers can be helped considerably by the scheme.
    Mr. Morley: I can confirm that. Areas in my hon. Friend's constituency benefit particularly from stewardship schemes. They have the flexibility to cope with different regions, demands and areas. I am glad to say that the Government will be increasing spending in real terms by £16 million every year for the next seven years.
    Mr. James Paice: It is a pity that the Minister did not say that it was the Conservative Government who introduced the stewardship scheme. We are very proud of the way in which it has developed.
    1098
    Will the Minister confirm that, as of next year, many of our hedgerows will be under threat from the 2 m rule, which still stands to be implemented for the next cropping year? Would it not be better to amalgamate the set-aside scheme with the country stewardship scheme in terms of headlands, allowing a narrower width for set-aside, so that all farmers could be encouraged to convert their headlands to conservation set-aside, and bring some simplicity to arrangements that confuse many farmers trying to work out which way to go forward?
    Mr. Morley: On the first point, the Government are increasing spending on agri-environmental schemes by £1 billion over the next seven years. We could perhaps have increased it even more, were it not for the fact that the European Union contribution towards the rural development programme is 3.5 per cent., based on historically low levels of spending on countryside programmes by the previous Government.
    On the hon. Gentleman's second point, there is a real threat to field boundaries from the Commission's proposals. Thanks to the intervention by my right hon. Friend the Minister with Franz Fischler, we have managed to get a year's grace in which to put forward proposals to deal with the point from the auditors that the area of land that was cropped is less than that which is being claimed for arable aid payments. That is because of historical cropping patterns in this country.
    We want to look at a number of options, such as a more flexible use of set-aside land. We invited Commissioners to look at our proposals in March. They have been over, and we await their response to our ideas.
    Mr. David Taylor: It is true, as the Minister says, that the doubling of funding for countryside stewardship from the niggardly levels bequeathed us by the previous Administration has been warmly welcomed by such organisations as English Nature and the Council for the Protection of Rural England, of which I am a member. Does he agree that this a worthwhile step towards obtaining modern and efficient financial support for farming and countryside development? Is he hopeful that we can take more substantial steps by thoroughgoing reform of the common agricultural policy in similar ways?
    Mr. Morley: I agree with my hon. Friend that, under this Government, spending on countryside programmes has increased by 60 per cent., compared with under the previous Government. In relation to the common agricultural policy, there is no doubt that we need to move funds away from production-based support into agri-environment-based support and support for the wider countryside and rural economy. That is our objective. We have made some progress by putting in place the rural development programme, but we recognise that there is more to do in relation to reforming the CAP, and we are committed to doing that.
    Madam Speaker: Question 6.
    Mr. James Clappison: Has the Minister seen the letter in today's—
    The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Nick Brown): Thanks for the clue about the supplementary question, but I had anticipated it.

    Arable Farming Subsidies
    Mr. Clappison: What recent representations he has received about the use of subsidies for arable farming. [122405]
    Mr. Brown: A number of representations have been received about the position of arable farmers in the United Kingdom. Arable farmers receive more than £1 billion in direct aid payments each year. The arable market continues to be supported by intervention and export refunds. In addition, arable farmers have just received £170 million in agrimonetary aid and will receive a further £57 million in the autumn.
    Mr. Clappison: Has the Minister seen the letter in The Times today from a farmer who sowed a crop of rape seed that, unbeknown to him at the time, was GM-contaminated? When he sowed that crop, the Government had already known for several weeks that there was GM-contaminated seed, but it was several more weeks before that was eventually made public. He has now destroyed the crop and resown, but obviously at additional cost to himself and with a lower yield. In view of that farmer's experience and, no doubt, that of other farmers at sowing time, was the Minister for the Cabinet Office right to say that the Government probably made a mistake in delaying that announcement for so long?
    Mr. Brown: When the company discovered what had happened, it was its responsibility to be candid with its suppliers and customers, so the responsibility is on it. Important issues of civil law are involved, which the Government are considering carefully. There are other issues that relate to the Government's legal responsibilities, which I also have under active consideration, along with my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment. It would be unwise to say more now, but as soon as I can tell the House about the legal issues involved, I will.
    Mr. Alan Simpson: Will my right hon. Friend agree to consider the possibility of extending the subsidy system to include farmer cover, were we to go down the path that the Swedish Government announced yesterday? They instructed all their farmers to plough up their fields of contaminated oilseed rape by 7 July. Will he also extend that examination to the implications that that may have for GM-contaminated maize? The subsidy system that I hope he will consider ought not to preclude the primary responsibility, under the "polluter pays" principle, of returning to the seed suppliers and ensuring that they are not able to corrupt the food system where they have not been able to persuade consumers, farmers or retailers that that is the wisest course of action.
    Mr. Brown: Knowingly to corrupt seed products is of course an offence in this country, as is knowingly releasing them into the environment. That remains the case. I intend to raise the issues about oilseed rape to which my hon. Friend refers with Commissioner Fischler when I meet him on Monday. It is an informal ministerial meeting so we shall have a chance to discuss those issues as Ministers with the Commission. My hon. Friend
    1100
    mentions maize. The Government have had no indication that any conventional maize seeds imported to the United Kingdom contain modified varieties.
    Mr. David Curry: Does the Minister accept that, irrespective of whether one generally supports GM technology or is hostile to it, there appears to be an incoherence in the British Government's response to the issue not merely because it is divided between two Departments but because the Cabinet Office has a role as well? The producers of rape seed, negotiators in the Commission and overseas companies need to know which door to knock on, and where the buck stops and where it starts—preferably in the same place. Will the Minister review with his colleagues whether there is not a strong case for a much clearer system of governance of the issue so that people know where they stand and where to go in case of problems?
    Mr. Brown: It is not the process that is at fault. The issues are these: is there any danger to the public, or is there a risk to their health? The Government found the answer to that early on—it is clearly no, and no-one has alleged anything different. Is there any danger to the environment from what has happened—an accident which should not have happened—with oilseed rape? The answer to that question is also no. Does the matter raise wider questions about seed purity? Yes, it does. As we have said in our answer, as my right hon. Friend the Minister of State said in her written answer, and as I amplified in my statement to the House last week, on a range of fronts the Government are taking those issues forward as a matter of urgency.
    Joan Ruddock: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the only way forward now on seed purity is for him to work with his European colleagues to establish a proper protocol whereby these matters may be determined? Will he also accept that while our farm-scale trials are under way a 1 per cent. contamination of conventional crops with genetically modified crops is absolutely unacceptable? Frankly, Advanta must have known that when it was willing to sell suspect seed in Europe.
    Mr. Brown: I cannot comment on the last matter. We have not agreed contamination levels for the United Kingdom. My hon. Friend is right to say that European Union Ministers should discuss these matters and, if we can, agree a common approach. Certainly, I am willing to play my part and I discussed the matter with my colleague Jean Glavany, the French Minister, on the telephone yesterday. His view is similar to mine.
    Mr. Tim Yeo: The Minister believes that contaminated oilseed rape crops are so environmentally safe that he did not think it necessary even to consult English Nature—and the issue is not even on the published agenda for today's meeting of the Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment. Why did he take a whole month to warn farmers and consumers that these crops are now being grown extensively in Britain? Will not farmers whose crops have been damaged, communities whose environments are threatened and consumers whose ability to choose a

    1101
    GM-free product have been jeopardised all rightly blame the Minister for keeping that information secret for a whole month and failing to take any action?
    Mr. Brown: I am not keeping any information secret. I have gone out of my way to be candid with the House. I put the technical note in the Library and I have now also put the advice from ACRE and from the Food Standards Agency there, so that hon. Members may see it for themselves. They will find that it confirms what I have told the House. I notice that the hon. Gentleman is concentrating on the process, which is, of course, because he has nothing to say on the substance.
    Mr. Yeo: Is the Minister saying that today's reports that large areas of GM-contaminated maize are growing in Britain are not true? Has his Department not received any warning that they may be true? Should not farmers who may have unwittingly planted a GM-maize crop at least be contacted about the possibility? Does he agree with the Environment Minister that the 1 per cent. threshold for GM contamination of seeds proposed by the European Seeds Association is totally unacceptable to consumers and potentially dangerous to the environment?
    Mr. Brown: I have already answered the question of whether I agree with the Environment Minister; yes, I do. The hon. Gentleman seems to be suffering from what I can only describe as Liberal Democrat disease, because I also answered his main question. However, for the avoidance of doubt, let me repeat the answer word for word. We—meaning the British Government—have no indication that any conventional maize seeds imported into the United Kingdom contain modified varieties. The hon. Gentleman asked whether we had any warning. I think that he is referring to a letter circulated by the seed industry—he can correct me if I am wrong—dated 22 May to agriculture departments and other public representatives throughout the European Union. If he is referring to that, it is a letter that all hon. Members should be entitled to read and on which they should be able to make up their own minds, so I am placing a copy in the Library. The letter does not bear the interpretation that the hon. Gentleman suggests.

    Set-aside
    Mr. Derek Wyatt: What his priorities are for the next round of reforms of the common agricultural policy with respect to set-aside. [122408]
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Elliot Morley): The Agenda 2000 agreement provides for a further review of the cereals regime by 2002. Subject to what the Commission proposes, we will use the opportunity to press for an end to obligatory set-aside.
    Mr. Wyatt: I am interested in my hon. Friend's comments on obligatory set-aside—I am sympathetic to that. However, one thing about set-aside that I do appreciate is the number of lapwings, skylarks, buntings and curlews that are now breeding. If there is a change, how will we cope with the fact that nature prefers some aspects of set-aside?
    Mr. Morley: My hon. Friend makes a good point about the benefits of set-aside—especially for farmland birds. The Ministry has given free guidance to farmers on how they can maximise the nature conservation benefits of set-aside. We have no objection to voluntary set-aside being used for nature conservation—that fits with our broader approach on the management of agricultural land for environmental use as well as for food production. However, as a mechanism for food production control, it is expensive and inefficient. The way in which the measures are applied causes a bad image of farmers in the public eye.
    Miss Anne McIntosh: Will the Minister give us an assurance that set-aside will not be used as part of the bid game between northern member states such as Britain, Denmark and Ireland and the Club Med countries? What assurance will he give the House that the future of British interests will be seen in the next common agricultural policy reform?
    Mr. Morley: The Government have always put the interests of our country to the fore in negotiations on changes in the CAP. We are not alone in that; we have supporters because we have tried to find consensus and common ground. That contrasts greatly with the policy of the previous Government.

    Match Funding
    Mr. Paul Burstow: What is the total amount of unclaimed match funding relating to agricultural support available to the UK since 1997. [122410]
    The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Nick Brown): A total of £2,155 million in agrimonetary compensation has become available from January 1997 to date, in several three-year packages. Of that total, £595 million has been or will be paid, of which £584 million is EU funded and £11 million UK funded. However, because of the Fontainebleau abatement, the UK Exchequer contributes about 71 per cent. of the cost—and the total cost to the UK taxpayer is therefore about £426 million.
    Mr. Burstow: Can the Minister confirm that, last year, about £224 million was available through the agrimonetary compensation scheme but only of that £66 million was allocated and drawn down to provide compensation for hard-pressed farmers? Why was the Ministry unable to guarantee that 100 per cent. went to the farmers who needed it, so that they received support when they needed it and were not put out of business because they had not received it?
    Mr. Brown: The regime is permissive; we have the option of drawing down those sums. As I have just said, an overwhelming part of the cost of doing so falls on the UK taxpayer, so any use of that instrument must take its place among competing claims for public expenditure. I have to fight hard in Government the case for making use of that instrument. For the longer term, because agrimonetary compensation is being phased out, the industry—all sections of agriculture—must become more oriented towards the marketplace. There is no future for the industry in continuing to call for supply-side measures to help it from one crisis to the next.
    Mr. Lawrie Quinn: Returning to the real purpose of Question 6, which was about subsidies for arable farming—
    Madam Speaker: Order. We do not go back to other questions. If the hon. Gentleman is prepared to ask a supplementary on this question, I shall listen to him.
    Mr. Quinn: It is a supplementary question, Madam Speaker.
    On Friday evening, I attended a meeting of the National Farmers Union in Scarborough, where there was much concern about the effect of agrimonetary compensation and the impact of the weak euro. Can my right hon. Friend find time to come with me to meet members of the NFU in Scarborough to talk about that subject?
    Mr. Brown: I am more than willing to meet members of the NFU; indeed, I think I have met most of them personally over the past few years. If I have not done so, it certainly feels like that. The Government have made use of agrimonetary compensation to try to provide some short-term support for the industry, but that is not the long-term answer to the industry's problems. I am more than willing to join my hon. Friend to discuss the way forward with local farmers in Scarborough.
    Mr. James Gray: At the recent No. 10 summit, the Minister made great play of the fact that he was giving £66 million in agrimonetary compensation to farmers. However, he should surely have also said in the same statement that he was taking away £110 million of exactly the same agrimonetary compensation. Is it not a classic case of taking away rather more with one hand than he is giving with the other? The agriculture summit was a classic public relations con.
    Mr. Brown: That is completely unfair. The agriculture summit, which pulled together from right across government a wide range of issues that affect farmers, was broadly welcomed by the industry and received a positive response—the more so when people have had the chance to consider the details. The fact that we do not make use of a permissive instrument to spend British public money does not mean that we have taken it away from people who might have been the beneficiaries. One could take that argument to an absurd degree if one wanted, and I suspect that the hon. Gentleman might want to.

  The Solicitor-General was asked—
  SOLICITOR-GENERAL

    Criminal Courts
    Mr. Lawrie Quinn: What contribution the Crown Prosecution Service will make towards the Lord Chancellor's review of the criminal courts system. [122430]
    The Solicitor-General (Mr. Ross Cranston): The Crown Prosecution Service is playing its full part in Lord Justice Auld's review of the criminal courts. An experienced CPS prosecutor, Nasrin Khan, has been seconded to the secretariat to Sir Robin Auld for the duration of the review. Staff from across the CPS are attending the seminars being organised by Lord Justice Auld and there are other contributions to his deliberations.
    Mr. Quinn: Is my hon. and learned Friend able to tell the House what have been the key topics and priorities discussed with Lord Justice Auld about the work done by the Director of Public Prosecutions?
    The Solicitor-General: One of our main concerns is listing in the courts. The CPS has found in the past that magistrates courts often adopt listing procedures that do not take into account the need for an efficient operation of the CPS. Appeals in cases of judge-directed acquittals is another important topic. In some cases, judges have decided on abuse-of-process grounds that charges should be dismissed and we take the view that that matter should be subject to review. The Home Office has referred it to the Law Commission, but a whole range of features involving management and other aspects of the operation of the courts is being considered.
    Mr. Edward Garnier: May I be assured by the Solicitor-General that the CPS will tell the criminal courts review the wholly uncontroversial point that the Government's plans for the reform of the jury system will lead to court delays, increased appeals, loss of public confidence in the criminal justice system and a great deal of extra expense?
    The Solicitor-General: The matter will be subject to some examination by Sir Robin Auld. He is considering the whole procedure of the courts, and the operation of the jury system is one aspect of that. Our proposals will certainly not have the consequences that the hon. and learned Gentleman suggests. On the contrary, they will lead to a more efficient operation of the courts, which is one aspect of the review.

    Drugs Cases
    Mr. Bob Blizzard: If he will make a statement on the application of the public interest test by the Crown Prosecution Service in drugs cases. [122431]
    The Solicitor-General (Mr. Ross Cranston): The Crown Prosecution Service lawyers are guided by the code for Crown prosecutors in relation to offences involving controlled drugs, as with any other offence.

    1105
    Therefore, they must decide whether a prosecution should be brought in the public interest. First, a Crown prosecutor has to be satisfied that there is sufficient evidence to provide a realistic prospect of a conviction. Once that test is satisfied, the public interest test must be considered.
    Mr. Blizzard: I thank my hon. and learned Friend for that answer. May I suggest to him that it is very much in the public interest to continue the fight against all kinds of drugs and not to ease off in any way? May I urge him not to be enticed by the arguments pushed and pedalled by those who make the case for legalisation or decriminalisation? Does he agree that, at a time when we are trying to ban smoking, it makes no sense to take a softer line towards people who mix tobacco with cannabis and then smoke that?
    The Solicitor-General: As I said, the CPS acts in accordance with the code. There must be evidence before consideration of the public interest test can take place. Parliament has not decriminalised cannabis, so the CPS will prosecute those offences. In some circumstances, of course, the police will simply issue a caution and the cases will not come to the CPS. When cases do come to the CPS, public interest factors may sometimes militate against prosecution. For example, in areas in which prosecution for possession of cannabis may lead to adverse community relations, the CPS may decide that it is not in the public interest to prosecute. However, possession is a criminal offence and the CPS proceeds on that basis.
    Mr. John Bercow: Where there is sufficient evidence to prosecute a repeat drugs offender, in what conceivable circumstances could it be against the public interest to do so?
    The Solicitor-General: Repetition of behaviour is one factor that would be taken into account and would certainly point towards prosecution.

    Vexatious Litigants
    Mr. David Drew: How many applications with regard to vexatious litigants the Law Officers have dealt with over the past 12 months. [122432]
    The Solicitor-General (Mr. Ross Cranston): In the past 12 months the High Court has considered 11 applications made by the Law Officers under section 42 of the Supreme Court Act 1981. Of those 11 applications, nine resulted in orders being made, one application was refused and one, although heard, awaits judgment. In the same period, the employment appeals tribunal made two orders under section 33 of the Industrial Tribunals Act 1996, which prevents applications to the tribunal.
    Mr. Drew: I thank my hon. and learned Friend for that reply. Obviously, it is not without interest for the House, given this week's proceedings.
    1106
    What are the implications for the individuals concerned? Clearly, if an order is served on someone, that can lead to considerable restriction of his or her activities. Is that compatible with the European convention on human rights?
    The Solicitor-General: The Attorney-General and I give these applications close consideration when they come before us. One of my constituents is a vexatious litigant, and he constantly reminds me, in the nicest possible way, of the implications that the order has for him.
    We carefully consider such applications, which must then be considered by two High Court judges sitting in the divisional court. On the human rights aspect, Strasbourg has considered the matter on two occasions and said that the orders are compatible with the ECHR. The test is very high. The statute requires habitual and persistent behaviour, and it must be reasonable in the circumstances for the court to make that order. As the figures that I gave my hon. Friend indicate, the number of applications is not significant.
    An order does not prevent vexatious litigants from litigating, but they have to seek the leave of the court to bring an action.

    CPS (Racism)
    Mr. Andrew Dismore: If he will make a statement on the findings of Ms Sylvia Denman in her interim report on racism within the Crown Prosecution Service. [122433]
    The Solicitor-General (Mr. Ross Cranston): Sylvia Denman presented her interim report on race discrimination in the Crown Prosecution Service to the Department on 10 May 2000. The report recognises that some of the most glaring deficiencies in race equality in the CPS have been remedied recently, but concludes that there is evidence that some forms of race discrimination and institutional racism have operated to the disadvantage of black and Asian staff within the service. The report recommends various areas for future work, which will now be addressed by the CPS in consultation with Sylvia Denman and the Commission for Racial Equality.
    Mr. Dismore: I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend for his reply and recognise his personal commitment to dealing with racism in the CPS. Does he agree that Ms Denman has clearly identified a trend within CPS management to downplay the possibility of racism, look for innocent explanations when those may not exist, and indeed, on occasion, blame the victim? Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that something must be done to change the culture at the top of the CPS so that it recognises that there is a real and immediate problem to address?
    The Solicitor-General: As I have told the House on previous occasions, we take the matter seriously. A number of steps have been taken, which I have explained to the House. One matter that I have not mentioned is the fact that all CPS area plans must now set out clearly what is being done to address issues of diversity. There is no doubt that the report makes uncomfortable reading for those at the top of the CPS and those in senior

    1107
    management positions. Something must be done. There is not a sufficient number of black and ethnic minority persons at senior management levels. Now that benchmarks have been established, the CPS must meet them and ensure that the problem is remedied.
    Miss Anne McIntosh: Can the Solicitor-General confirm that Ms Denman's final report will review the impact on the CPS of the change in the burden of proof imposed by Labour MEPs voting in the European Parliament last week?
    The Solicitor-General: That has nothing to do with the law in this country. We operate under the Race Relations Act 1976. We have made it clear that internally, the CPS must lift its game. With regard to the external behaviour of the CPS and the prosecutions that it undertakes, the recently published Mhlanga report showed clearly that there was no racial discrimination.

    CPS
    Mr. Owen Paterson: If he will make a statement on measures to improve the efficiency of the Crown Prosecution Service. [122434]
    The Solicitor-General (Mr. Ross Cranston): The Crown Prosecution Service has a number of initiatives in place to improve efficiency within the service. A major programme of IT modernisation will provide basic IT tools and enable staff to be connected electronically to each other, the police and the Government secure intranet.
    The CPS is developing joint administrations with the police—criminal justice units—to prepare magistrates courts cases more efficiently. Similar arrangements are being developed for the establishment of trial units, which will focus on and raise the standard of preparation of Crown court cases.
    The CPS, working closely with the police and the courts, is playing a significant part in the effective implementation of the provisions of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998. In many cases offenders are brought to court the day after charge. Across much of England and Wales, 60 per cent. of cases are now completed at the first hearing.
    Mr. Paterson: The Solicitor-General missed out the victims of crime. Who measures whether they are happy with the efficiency of the CPS?
    The Solicitor-General: As I have said on previous occasions, victims are central to the policies that we are adopting. We take into account the role of victims. We have instituted pilot studies so that the CPS can operate more effectively with victims and with witnesses. I confess to the House that the pilots have revealed some difficulties in the CPS adopting a more central role, but
    1108
    we are working on that. We hope that, with more resources, we will be able to put the CPS at the centre of a more victim-oriented criminal justice system.
    Mr. Paul Flynn: Would not the efficiency of the CPS be improved if there were fewer vexatious prosecutions, such as those that I listed to one of my hon. and learned Friend's fellow Ministers? I refer to prosecutions against people who use natural cannabis for severe pain. Of the last prosecutions, every one has been thrown out by the juries, who exercised good sense and decided that people who were seriously ill and seeking relief from pain should not be regarded as criminals, prosecuted and imprisoned. When will there be a simple change in the law to allow natural cannabis to be prescribed in the same way as heroin is prescribed legally now?
    The Solicitor-General: I refute my hon. Friend's suggestion that there are vexatious prosecutions. The CPS acts in accordance with the code for Crown prosecutors. There must be evidence, and public interest considerations must be taken into account. As I explained in an earlier answer, the law provides certain offences in relation to drugs. My hon. Friend knows that clinical trials are being held and that money is going into research on the problem that he raises. I refute the notion of vexatious prosecutions.
    My hon. Friend also raises the issue of the jury. In serious cases, juries obviously have an important role to play in the British criminal justice system, and in some cases juries acquit defendants. That does not mean that the prosecutions should not have been brought. The evidence suggested that there was a realistic prospect of conviction and a public interest in bringing a prosecution, but a jury took a different view. So be it.
    Madam Speaker: If the hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) seeks an Adjournment debate, he might get a shorter answer.
    Mr. John Burnett: Last Tuesday on Second Reading of the Crown Prosecution Service Inspectorate Bill, the Solicitor-General told the House, at columns 885-86, that the Attorney-General was making great efforts to improve the funding for the Crown Prosecution Service and that in that endeavour he was being supported by the Home Secretary and the Lord Chancellor. It would assist the collapsing morale of the CPS to know exactly when those negotiations will be over. Furthermore, it would assist the House and the CPS to be assured that the rolled-forward deficits will not continue to be rolled forward in future years.
    The Solicitor-General: I said the other day that I hoped to bring good news to the House very soon. The Chief Secretary to the Treasury is dealing with those matters expeditiously.

Business of the House
12.31 pm
Sir George Young: Will the Deputy Leader of the House give us the business for the week after the Whitsun recess?
The Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office (Mr. Paddy Tipping): The business for the week after the Whitsun recess will be as follows:
MONDAY 5 JUNE—Supplemental Allocation of Time Motion followed by consideration of Lords amendments to the Financial Services and Markets Bill.
TUESDAY 6 JUNE—Second Reading of the Police (Northern Ireland) Bill.
WEDNESDAY 7 JUNE—Opposition Day [12th Allotted Day]. There will be a debate on a motion in the name of the Liberal Democrats. Subject to be announced.
THURSDAY 8 JUNE—Opposition Day [13th Allotted Day]. There will be a debate on an Opposition motion. Subject to be announced.
FRIDAY 9 JUNE—Private Members' Bills.
I regret that I am not in the position to give full details of the business for the following week, but the provisional business is as follows:
MONDAY 12 JUNE—Debate on European Affairs.
FRIDAY 16 JUNE—The House will not be sitting.
The House will also wish to know that on Wednesday 14 June there will be a debate on European Document No: 6230/00: the White Paper on Environmental Liability, in European Standing Committee A.
Details of the relevant documents will be given in the Official Report.
[Wednesday 14 June 2000:
European Standing Committee A—Relevant European Community Document: 6230/00, White Paper on Environmental Liability. Relevant European Scrutiny Committee Report: HC 23-xiii (1999–2000).]
Sir George Young: The House is grateful for the business for the week after the Whitsun recess, and for a hint of the business for the following week.
The Deputy Leader of the House has announced a guillotine motion on the Lords amendments to the Financial Services and Markets Bill. How long does he plan to allow for debate on those amendments? He will be aware that 1,450 amendments to that Bill have been passed, that it has been rewritten since Second Reading in this place, and that 238 amendments were tabled on Report in the upper House. He will also be aware that the Opposition have assisted the Government by agreeing to carry the Bill over from the previous Session, and I hope that that generosity will not be met with a less than generous timetable. One day is simply too ambitious if the amendments are to be properly scrutinised.
Will the Deputy Leader of the House confirm that the debate on European affairs on Monday 12 June will be the usual pre-summit debate, not a substitute for a proper whole day's debate focused on the intergovernmental conference White Paper, for which I have been pressing for some time?
1110
The hon. Gentleman also announced a debate on the Police (Northern Ireland) Bill on 6 June. The next few days are likely to be crucial for Northern Ireland. Will it be in order during the debate on that Bill to discuss the outcome of the Unionist vote and the consequences for Northern Ireland? If not, the House may well want a proper debate on Northern Ireland. As the hon. Gentleman has two or three days blank in our second week back, might we pencil in the much delayed debate on the Wakeham report and a debate on foreign affairs, which has not been held for some time?
Finally, there is widespread concern on both sides of the House about the dome, which I hope the Government will recognise by finding time for us to debate it.
Mr. Tipping: I am grateful for the right hon. Gentleman's comments, and for his help with the Financial Services and Markets Bill. As he says, there has been a great deal of co-operation on that; there has also been a great deal of debate. I am keen to keep the consensus going, and there will be further discussions through the usual channels about the allocation of time motion.
The right hon. Gentleman asked about the debate on European affairs. The details are not yet firm, but I imagine that IGC issues and concerns could be raised—as, of course, could other matters.
As the right hon. Gentleman says, the situation in Northern Ireland is critical and fast-moving, and I do not think that we should prejudge it. If circumstances change there may well be a case for a statement to the House, but I think it entirely possible that a number of wide-ranging issues could be raised in a Second Reading debate, as long as they remained within the scope of such a debate.
The right hon. Gentleman asked about the Wakeham report. As he said, there is space for a debate on that in the second week. I remind him that we had a date pencilled in, but changed it for the convenience of the House.
I have not lost sight of the need for a debate. There has been change in the House of Lords; we have delivered on that, and we are determined to deliver on the Wakeham report. We are determined to build consensus, and to move to a second phase. Consensus between the political parties would help.
I note what the right hon. Gentleman said about foreign affairs. There is a possibility of a debate at a later stage.
I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will visit the dome during the Whitsun recess. If he does, he will join the two and a half million people who have already been there. [HON. MEMBERS: "Is that all?"] The dome is the most popular attraction in the United Kingdom, and I think that those who have been to "do the dome" will want to do it again.
Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: As my hon. Friend will know, many Labour Members are proud of our ethical foreign policy, and think it essential for Governments to maintain a clear and moral stance on many foreign policy issues. Will my hon. Friend therefore tell our right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary that it is essential for Britain not to be seen to support countries in which show trials take place? I am thinking of the 13 Jews who are being tried in Iran.
Mr. Tipping: My hon. Friend has been interested in these matters for many years. I knew of the concerns that

1111
she has raised, and my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary is also aware of them. I will pass her comments on to him.
Mr. Paul Tyler: May I reiterate my weekly plea for an early debate on reform of the House of Lords? We delayed effective reform of the other place throughout the last century; I hope that it will not take the whole of this century for Governments to get off the fence and give us a firm statement of their intentions for full reform.
I understand that the Deputy Prime Minister is holding a rail summit today. Can the Minister give an undertaking that, as soon as we return after the Whitsun recess, a full statement will be made about the important issues that are apparently being discussed—issues that were alluded to in the "Today" programme today? That might enable various former Secretaries of State—including the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young)—to apologise both to the travelling public and to shareholders for the disasters that they caused.
Mr. Tipping: After a hundred years of struggle there has been reform of the House of Lords, and the current Government have brought it about. We intend to go further. We have published the Wakeham report, and have considered it. We support it in principle, and we shall have an opportunity to discuss it here. Let me simply say to the hon. Gentleman that we shall go forward on further reform.
The hon. Gentleman asked about a statement on the rail summit. I am afraid I cannot give him the commitment that he seeks, but I can give him another commitment. In July, we will make a statement on the 10-year strategy for transport that will do away with the fragmentation to which he referred, and will bring extra and much needed investment to the railways.
Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: The usual.
Mr. Tipping: There is some secrecy about this matter, but I have to tell my hon. Friend and the House that I have nothing to report.
Mr. Peter Brooke: Will the hon. Gentleman pass on to the Leader of the House my appreciation of her characteristic courtesy in sending me a copy of the Government's response to the Liaison Committee's report? However, did the Government deliberately intend that response to make them appear, in the Prime Minister's definition, arch-apostles of conservatism?
Mr. Tipping: I will of course pass on the right hon. Gentleman's comments. We need to remember that the Liaison Committee's report was published just a week ago. I understand that the Committee has just met and issued a press release, which has been drawn to my attention. It is a far-reaching matter with consequences for the House.
Mr. Edward Garnier: And for the Government.
Mr. Tipping: Yes—and for the Government. I have no doubt that there will be opportunities for further debate.
Ann Clwyd: Given the concerns expressed by Richard Butler, the former head of the arms
1112
inspectorate in Iraq, that Saddam Hussein may be rebuilding his arsenal of chemical and biological weapons and be within months of having a nuclear capability, I ask my hon. Friend for an urgent debate on Iraq. Those matters are of concern, particularly as the United Nations resolution, which the UK was prominent in pushing through the UN last December, has still not been accepted by the Iraqis.
Mr. Tipping: I understand my hon. Friend's obvious concern and real interest in that important issue. A number of hon. Members have taken the opportunity recently to initiate foreign affairs debates in Westminster Hall, and that may be a possibility. I will convey my hon. Friend's comments to the Foreign Secretary.
Mr. Christopher Chope: Will the Government provide time for an early debate on the park homes working party report, which is of great significance to large numbers of constituents? It has been some two years in the preparation and is well worth a debate.
Mr. Tipping: I share the hon. Gentleman's real interest, and had some input myself into the park homes working party. There is a need to amend the legislation. The report has only recently been published and it needs to be considered carefully. Like the hon. Gentleman, I hope that we can make real progress with that issue.
Mr. David Winnick: I shall initiate a debate in Westminster Hall on 6 June on compensation for former prisoners of war of the Japanese. Would it be possible for the Ministry of Defence to hurry its decision? In view of the intense brutality and outright killings involving prisoners of war, those who managed to survive—including at least three of my constituents—deserve some recognition and compensation for all the terrible things that occurred to them. I hope that when my debate takes place, a fresh and positive approach will be taken by the Government.
Mr. Tipping: The Prime Minister and Defence Ministers met leaders of the Royal British Legion and undertook to look at the matter. That undertaking has also been given to the House. I hope that some progress will be made in my hon. Friend's debate on 6 June.
Rev. Martin Smyth: I understand the points made earlier by the Deputy Leader of the House, but in the light of reported press comments from America, will the House be free in its own place to debate and decide on the Police (Northern Ireland) Bill, or will there be a USA veto?
Mr. Tipping: I am delighted to tell the hon. Gentleman that, as is often the case, press reports of discussions between the Prime Minister and President Clinton are a complete fabrication.
Ms Rosie Winterton: Will my hon. Friend find time for a debate on Government measures to assist young unemployed people? That would be particularly welcome in my constituency because it would provide the opportunity to draw attention to the

1113
start of a foyer scheme to provide housing and training for young people—who not only need a roof over their head but assistance with finding a job.
Mr. Tipping: The new deal has offered a very real deal to young people both in Doncaster and throughout the country. The example of the foyer movement shows that joined-up government can not only work in Westminster, but be delivered on the ground in the middle of an important coal field.
Mr. Stephen Day: Will the hon. Gentleman find time for the House to discuss the Government's apparent renewal of plans to introduce regional assemblies to England? May I make it clear yet again to him and to his colleagues that in the constituency of Cheadle, and, in my experience, throughout the north-west, there is no demand whatever for yet another pointless tier of government?
Mr. Tipping: Some regional development agencies have made real progress. The issue of assemblies will, I think, appear in the next Labour manifesto—and I am sorry to say that the hon. Gentleman does not have much chance of contributing to that debate.
Mr. Alan Simpson: I draw the attention of the Deputy Leader of the House to early-day motion 782:
[That this House is alarmed to discover that up to 100,000 hectares of this year's maize crop in Europe may be subject to GM contamination; is concerned that this is on a larger scale than the recently admitted GM contamination of oilseed rape; believes it is grossly dishonest of the European seed industry and EU officials to respond by demanding a reversal of current European zero contamination rules rather than tackling the central issue of genetic pollution; and calls on Her Majesty's Government to follow Sweden and France in destroying GM-contaminated seeds and crops, to arrange compensation for farmers, to hold seed suppliers fully liable for contamination under the polluter pays principle, and to halt seed imports which lack comprehensive verification as being GM-free.]
Has my hon. Friend also seen the letter from the European Seed Association that was referred to by the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food at Question Time. Will it be possible for the House to have either a statement or a debate that clarifies the United Kingdom position on proposals to change the current European position, which is that there should be zero GM contamination? The European Seed Association suggests that 1 per cent. should be allowed. May I also ask him to convey to the Minister the degree of alarm that that causes Members, and society? The reassurance that there is just a little bit of genetic contamination is no more comforting than the idea of being a little bit pregnant.
Mr. Tipping: I have seen early-day motion 782. As my hon, Friend rightly says, the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has seen it, too. Our policies on safety and science are drawn. We have looked at the claims of the European Seed Association. If any evidence is forthcoming, we will act on it and report to the House.
Mr. Eric Forth: The Minister is well known as a consensual sort of chap.
1114
Today, he again took refuge in that idea in replying to my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young) about the debate on reform of the Lords. The Minister is looking for consensus on the matter before it can proceed. Can he help the House, and, indeed, my right hon. Friend, by defining consensus in that context?
Mr. Tipping: The right hon. Gentleman is—I am sure that he will not mind me saying—not a consensual politician. Indeed, I sometimes think that it is difficult for his own Front-Bench team to agree with anything that he says, but the Wakeham report defines a way forward. It is the best show in town. It is the vehicle to go forward. I know that he does not agree. I understand that he takes the view that if there is an elected upper House, it will have the same rights as the House of Commons. I do not agree. I do not believe that that is the mood of the House.
Mrs. Linda Gilroy: Did my hon. Friend have the opportunity on Monday to read The Guardian and the article in it headlined, "Firework safety law was wrecked by pro-hunt plot"? If so, did he note in particular the comments of John Woodhead, who has long service in the firework industry? He said:
If this bill had become law it would certainly help ministers now to deal with any regulation changes that might be necessary after the disastrous fireworks warehouse explosion in Holland.
Will my hon. Friend make time available for the House to debate that important issue? Does he share my concern at the actions of some Opposition Members, which appear to put the interests of those who kill foxes for fun before sensible measures such as the Fireworks Bill, which would have kept from harm children, human beings and animals?
Mr. Tipping: I have seen the report in The Guardian. I am also well aware of the tremendous interest that my hon. Friend has taken in the matter over a number of years, and of the support that she has received right across the spectrum, from those who are concerned with safety issues to those who manufacture and work with fireworks. It seems that the measure did fall, and the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) said that the measure did not go forward as a punishment for letting Back Benchers play around with hunting. That seems to me an example of the legitimate but silly games that give the House a very bad name.
Mr. John Wilkinson: Can the hon. Gentleman reassure the House that the absence of a debate on London in the next two weeks' business does not mean that the Government believe that the establishment of a Greater London Authority precludes our debating London issues, particularly those that are the responsibility not of the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) or of the London Assembly, but of Ministers? Can he reassure us that we are not precluded from debating issues such as the dome—on which £89 million of public money has recently been spent—and the priority that the Government accord to it, and Harefield hospital, in west London, which is due to close, thanks to the Government's parsimony?
Mr. Tipping: Of course London remains a seriously important issue for the House, just as transport, social security policy and the relief of poverty are issues for the

1115
House. The dome, too, is a matter for the House. The hon. Gentleman will remember that the Government took powers to change the lottery legislation so that money could be spent not only on a dome in Greenwich, but throughout the country. Many projects in London and right across the country are benefiting from that. He also asked about lottery money being used for health. He will remember that this Government—unlike the previous Government—legislated to make it possible to put money into health.
Mr. John Cryer: My hon. Friend will be aware of early-day motion 742, which states:
[That this House considers that sufficient parliamentary time has been allocated to the City of London (Ward Elections) Bill; and calls upon the promoters of the Bill to withdraw this Bill in its current form and to resubmit proposals for a genuine democratic reform of the City of London Corporation.]
My hon. Friend will also be aware that the Bill is the first extension of the business vote since 1832, and is a straightforward attack on democratic accountability. Although the vote on the Bill is unwhipped, as it is a private Bill, I have noticed that, in the past, our helpful friends from the Government Whips Office are always on hand to guide hon. Friends into the pro-Bill Lobby. Have we not wasted enough time on that disgraceful Bill, and is it not about time that the promoters withdrew it or the Government decided not to allocate any more time to it?
Mr. Tipping: I know that my hon. Friend has taken a real interest in that matter, and has spoken at great length about it. However, withdrawal of the Bill is a matter for its promoters. I should also like to reinforce a point that the Leader of the House made not long ago: the Bill is unwhipped business; it is a matter of private business. I should also say that the Whips have not caused me to stray any which way on that particular Bill.
Mr. Owen Paterson: The right hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson), who is now Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, once said that the dome would be absolutely dramatic and fantastic. When he said that, none of us realised that he was referring to the grotesque squandering of £538 million of lottery money—which, as every one of us knows, could have been spent on better lottery projects in our own constituencies. As the issue has developed such a head of steam, both within and outside the House, how can the Minister come here and say that he cannot give us a debate on this national scandal in the next week's business?
Mr. Tipping: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman has been to the dome—
Mr. Paterson: I have.
Mr. Tipping:—but 80 per cent. of those who go to it come out saying that they have enjoyed the experience—which is dramatic and fantastic. The fact is that 6 million people will visit the dome—twice the number who will visit Alton Towers in the same period. Alton Towers is dramatic and fantastic; so is the dome.
Mr. Clive Efford: It is more than a year since Back Benchers had the opportunity to discuss the
1116
activities of Ofsted. A few weeks ago, four of Her Majesty's inspectors entered one of the largest comprehensive schools in the country—it is in my constituency—and, after an inspection spanning only eight school periods, placed the school on special measures. My discussions with the Department for Education and Employment have revealed that only the House can hold Ofsted to account. Therefore, will my hon. Friend consider setting aside some time for us to discuss Ofsted's activities, which, as I said, have not been discussed for more than a year?
Mr. Tipping: I may not be in a position to offer a debate in the House, but the issue warrants discussion. I hope that my hon. Friend will apply for a debate in Westminster Hall. There are some serious issues to consider, including how we improve public services. Many of us believe that they can be improved by praise, reward and good example. That message has been passed to Ofsted.
Mr. Graham Brady: May we have an urgent statement from the Government, preferably as soon as we return from the Whitsun recess, on Labour's policy of closing the remaining grammar schools? On Tuesday of this week, Education Ministers in the Standing Committee considering the Learning and Skills Bill claimed that it was the Government's policy that parents should decide. None the less, a letter that has come into my possession from the Labour leader of Trafford borough council, signed also by the education spokesman, and citing one David Blunkett in support, calls on all members of the Labour party—it begins "Dear Labour party member"—to campaign by stuffing envelopes, delivering letters, canvassing door to door, telephone canvassing and collecting signatures at the school gate. It is now certain that the Labour party is getting involved in a campaign to destroy some of the best schools in the country, despite what Ministers pretend in the House. That is not acceptable. It is time that the Government came clean.
Mr. Tipping: I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman takes such an interest in the fortunes of the Labour group in Trafford, who trounced his party at the May elections. Labour remained in control of Trafford. The Government's policy is clear: it is a matter of choice for parents.
Mr. David Chaytor: I reiterate the concern raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Mr. Efford) about the activities of Ofsted. I draw the attention of my hon. Friend the Minister to this week's Ofsted report on three local authorities that are deemed to be underachieving, one of which—Rochdale—is adjacent to my constituency. Last year, Bury local education authority was praised by Ofsted as one of the leading authorities in the country.
Rather than contracting out to external consultants the responsibility for the management of education in underachieving authorities, would it not be logical to use the expertise that already exists in the public sector, particularly if adjacent local authorities are performing remarkably well? Does my hon. Friend agree that that raises important constitutional issues relating to the

1117
fragmentation of the responsibilities of local education authorities? Will he find time in the near future for a debate on the future role of local education authorities?
Mr. Tipping: The canvas for a useful and wide-ranging debate in Westminster Hall has been set. It is important to look at the roles of Ofsted and of local education authorities. A great many local authorities do valuable and important work. We ought to promote the standard of the best and bring the others up to it. What is important is what works. If the private sector can contribute, it should have a role.
Mr. Stephen O'Brien: Head teachers have confirmed that many schools in my constituency and throughout the country greatly value the ethos and the culture, the identity and the pride in their school uniforms. When will there be time for a debate on the Floor of the House about the cost of implementing the Human Rights Act 1998, which derives from Europe and is coming into force in this country in October? It is causing great concern among head teachers about what they have to do to review their rules as a matter of urgency. It could have a serious and potentially damaging effect on the culture that they have so successfully created in good schools.
Mr. Tipping: I was not aware of the point that the hon. Gentleman raised, which is a serious one. I understand that the Human Rights Act will not have the effect that he spells out, but in view of his concerns, I will draw his remarks to the attention of the Secretary of State for Education and Employment.
Mrs. Louise Ellman: In answering the points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody), will the Minister draw to the attention of the Foreign Secretary an article that appeared in the Teheran Times on 12 April which stated that the holocaust was a zionist conspiracy aimed at defrauding the west? Does he consider that this House ought to have time to consider the advisability of this country cementing its relations with Iran at a time when anti-zionism and anti-semitism are being fomented, and when a show trial of 13 Jews—who are facing a possible death penalty—is being pursued?
Mr. Tipping: I must confess that I have not had the opportunity to read the Teheran Times, but I will procure a copy and make sure that the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary have the opportunity to look at it. I reassure my hon. Friend that in January, the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary pressed those matters extremely hard. I know from discussions this morning that they intend to pursue the issue further.
Miss Anne McIntosh: Will the Minister give our best wishes to the Leader of the House, who, even as we speak, may be winding her way on a caravanning holiday for the recess? Will the Minister confirm that he will make Government time available for a debate in the House on road safety? Will he express his concern about the poor record in North Yorkshire in terms of deaths and injuries—165 per 100,000 population—about which I feel most strongly? Most of the traffic
1118
involved emanates from, and is destined for, areas outside North Yorkshire. At the start of the Bank Holiday weekend, will he promise to make time for such a debate?
Mr. Tipping: I say gently to the hon. Lady that the Leader of the House is diligent—almost religious—in her attendance at this House, and takes these matters seriously. For personal reasons, she cannot be here today, and she regrets that. The hon. Lady has made an important point about taking care when we go on holiday, and there is a responsibility on all of us as individuals. There is a view that we ought to spend more on road safety than on the development of new roads and new transport structures. I think that that is a lively issue, and one that will continue to be debated across the House.
Mr. Paul Marsden: Will my hon. Friend find time for a debate on a small but important issue—the availability of hearing aids in the national health service? I am delighted that today, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health has announced a £4 million pilot to provide new digital hearing aids to the deaf and hard of hearing, and I am proud that the Royal Shrewsbury hospital is one of those pilots.
Mr. Tipping: The extra 35 per cent. real-terms money for the national health service will give people—particularly those with a hearing impediment—new opportunities. I agree with my hon. Friend that there ought to be more choice of equipment for people with a disability.
Mr. Andrew Stunell: May I draw the attention of the deputy Leader of the House to the report issued by his boss in response to the Liaison Committee's report entitled "Shifting the Balance"? The response might well have been entitled, "Not on your Nellie". Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is urgent that we have a debate on this matter? There cannot be much difficulty, bearing in mind that the response of the Leader of the House suggests that the Government see no backlog of Select Committee reports coming to this House for debate. There are serious issues here about holding the Executive to account, and, frankly, many of us believe that the document does not provide an adequate response from the Government.
Mr. Tipping: I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman has looked at the Government's response. "Shifting the Balance" is an important report and has consequences across the House and for the Government. The Liaison Committee met this morning to discuss the response, and there will be further opportunities in due course to take the matter further. On Select Committee reports, the measures that we have taken so far—in which the hon. Gentleman has been involved—allow for three times the number of Select Committee reports to be discussed. A lot has been achieved, but much remains to be done.
Gillian Merron: Will my hon. Friend find time for a debate on the issue of financial support for pensioners, so that we can have an open and honest debate to compare the differences between this Government, who are committed to reducing pensioner poverty, and the Opposition, who plan to offer a small amount with one

1119
hand and take much more with the other? The Opposition's plans would turn the clock back for many of the more than 16,000 pensioners in Lincoln, especially the poorest among them.
Mr. Tipping: I am tempted to promise a debate on pension issues. It is clear that the only part of the pension policy that has just been announced by the Opposition that has any resonance with the pensioners is the removal both of free television licences for the over-75s and of the winter fuel allowance of £150. I would also be keen to discuss pension mis-selling, because we have never had a real apology for that. Part of that debate could also address the issue of concessionary eye tests for pensioners, which the Opposition removed, but which we are restoring. That is lively and fruitful ground for debate, and I will bear my hon. Friend's comments in mind.
Mr. Robert Syms: Can we have an urgent statement on the Government's reorganisation of NHS cleft lip and palate units? Rumours have been going around for several months. The Poole unit is threatened with closure, and we now hear rumours about a centre at Bristol or Oxford. The issue is of great concern to parents and we need some guidance on it.
Mr. Tipping: The hon. Gentleman is making the point that uncertainty is difficult to live with. People can sometimes live with bad news better than with uncertainty. It is important to hear such concerns, and I shall ensure that Health Ministers are made aware of them.
Mr. Paul Flynn: May I further encourage my hon. Friend to arrange a debate on early-day motion 1:
[That this House welcomes the Government's decision to raise income support for pensioners annually in line with average earnings, but regrets the widening gap between the basic pension and income support; notes the Treasury's estimate that by April 2002 the National Insurance Fund's balance will be £8.43 billion above the minimum recommended by the Government Actuary; and urges that part of that surplus should be used to restore the link between the basic pension and average earnings for the remaining years of this Parliament, thus ensuring that all pensioners share in the nation's increasing prosperity and preventing a further increase in the number receiving income support.]
That would give us a chance to expose the hollow opportunism of the Conservatives in trying fraudulently to gain support from pensioners by repackaging existing allowances and taking money from single parents. We could also draw attention to the fact that a major increase in pensions is now affordable, because the national insurance fund contains, above its contingency sum, some £8.8 billion this year, and will have £10.5 billion unallocated next year. We could promise pensioners future increases that are fair and based on genuine increases in inflation. Could we not make a start by linking the level of the basic pension with increases in the wages of Members of Parliament?
Mr. Tipping: My hon. Friend has campaigned on that issue for many years, not just with early-day motion 1. He will now that he was successful in persuading the
1120
Government to adopt a take-up campaign for the minimum income guarantee, and I know that he will continue to campaign for a link between pensions and earnings. We have made a start with the minimum income guarantee, and it is clear from exchanges in the Chamber today that the debate will continue.
Mr. Oliver Letwin: Will the Minister give us an early debate on Government codes of practice? The Government recently conducted a consultation on double taxation relief, but unfortunately they consulted on a proposal that was the opposite of what they then did without consultation. I consulted the Cabinet Secretary, who told me that the judge of whether the Government have obeyed their codes of practice is the Government. The Government, not surprisingly, have adjudged that they did obey the code in that case. In the light of that situation, may we have a debate on how we should enforce Government codes of practice in future?
Mr. Tipping: The hon. Gentleman makes his point in a charming way. He is a member of the Standing Committee considering the Finance Bill, where I understand that he has been making that point very strongly.
Mr. David Watts: Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the facts to emerge from the Rover saga is that British banks will not support British industry or jobs? Will he find time for a debate on how we can change the UK banking system so that it supports jobs and industry?
Mr. Tipping: I cannot promise time for a debate on that subject, but one of the matters that has come up today is the role of regional development agencies. I know that the RDA in my hon. Friend's constituency is working hard to ensure that funds are available for the long-term development of companies with a prosperous future in the north-west.
Mr. Nick St. Aubyn: In evidence given to the Select Committee on Education and Employment earlier this week by the Secretary of State for Education and Employment, it emerged that the Government are prepared for secondary school class sizes to increase as a result of the abolition of the assisted places scheme. Today is the final day of the Standing Committee on the Learning and Skills Bill, and proceedings have been thrown into disarray by the tabling of a slew of amendments concerning city academies.
It is obvious that the Government do not understand how to involve the dynamism and innovation of the private sector in raising standards in our schools. May we have a debate on the Floor of the House on the role of the private sector in our education system? The Government have much to learn from what the previous Conservative Government achieved in improving standards in schools by positively involving the private sector. City academies, and what is happening in Surrey county council and elsewhere, are examples of that.
Mr. Tipping: I cannot promise the hon. Gentleman that debate, but I can promise that the Government will achieve our targets. Places will be provided for all three and four-year-olds who want them, and we are achieving

1121
our targets in infant schools and junior schools. Much has been achieved, although work remains to be done in secondary schools. The Government are achieving our target of raising standards for all children, right across the country.
Mr. Gordon Prentice: Is my hon. Friend aware that I have tabled an amendment to the Countryside and Rights of Way Bill to ban hunting with dogs, and that it is attracting awesome levels of support? I anticipate that the Bill will come back on Report in the week beginning 12 June. Are the Government addressing the possibility of introducing a multi-option Bill, along the lines of the 1994 Bill on Sunday trading? If the Government introduce that alternative, I would be minded not to press my amendment to a vote; if they do not, I might just have to press it.
Mr. Tipping: My hon. Friend has pursued this issue over many years. I have a feeling that he is trying to hunt me down as his prey. I shall not negotiate with him over the Dispatch Box, but I will say that I shall not anticipate when the Countryside and Rights of Way Bill will return on Report, nor when the Burns inquiry report will be published. That report will be received and published shortly, and the Government will then make their position absolutely clear. We are confident that an overwhelming majority of hon. Members in the House of Commons support a ban on fox hunting.
Mr. John Bercow: Can we have an urgent debate in Government time on ministerial responsibility? Given the saga of delay, incompetence and profligacy that has characterised the millennium dome, would not such a debate afford hon. Members the chance to explain that, now that Mr. Stephen Bayley, Miss Jenny Page and Mr. Bob Ayling have carried the can and been booted out, it is time that Ministers accepted responsibility for the dome? Would not such a debate give the House the opportunity to tell the Secretaries of State for Culture, Media and Sport and for Northern Ireland that they should do the decent thing, either through the tried-and-tested method of a glass of whisky and a revolver, or by submitting their letters of resignation without delay to the Prime Minister?
Mr. Tipping: I think that the hon. Gentleman should himself do the decent thing, and acknowledge that the dome was planned by the previous Government, and that Cabinet Ministers from that Government were involved in
1122
the plan. He should then come clean, and remind the House that he advised Cabinet Ministers in the previous Government.
Mr. Tony McWalter: Is my hon. Friend aware that a miracle happened this week, in that Conservative Front Benchers produced a report that was costed, reasonable and worth serious consideration? As an increase in motorcycle use would reduce some of the pressure on our transport infrastructure, will my hon. Friend draw the report to the attention of the Minister for Transport, as well as reminding him that in our integrated transport policy we tried to give motorcycles an important role? Will my hon. Friend do that in the very near future, so that the political kudos that Conservative Members might otherwise obtain will not be long in the tooth?
Mr. Tipping: I always rejoice when miracles are announced, particularly when sinners repent and manage to get their sums right. I think that what my hon. Friend is asking me to do is to ensure that Conservative Members have a chance to get on their bikes and off to a well-deserved holiday. I will bear his comments in mind.
Mr. David Taylor: Am I right to be charitable and to think it a mere coincidence that the Government's contentious waste strategy is to be published today, just before the recess? As the Minister will be aware, many mining and quarrying areas in the east midlands are particularly susceptible to the attentions of landfill operators. We must drive down the amount of waste in landfill sites and increase the amount that is recycled, so that communities such as Boothorpe and Breedon in North-West Leicestershire are not so damaged by what is likely to happen to them. Can my hon. Friend reassure me that there will be a statement on this strategy shortly after the recess, so that there can be a full debate on these important matters?
Mr. Tipping: My hon. Friend raised the matter in the House last week, and, miraculously, the report was published at 11 o'clock this morning.
Mr. Taylor: Post hoc ergo propter hoc.
Mr. Tipping: I hope that my hon. Friend will get a copy. The report was announced, properly, in a parliamentary answer. The target in the report is to drive down landfill by 85 per cent., to 1998 levels. That is a big step forward, and it could be a win-win situation for all of us if we behave properly. If we recycle and use compost, we will lift the landscape and reduce public taxation. I am very keen to have a debate on that subject.

Orders of the Day
  Electronic Communications Bill
  Lords amendments considered.
  Electronic Communications Bill
    Clause 2

      ARRANGEMENTS FOR THE GRANT OF APPROVALS
      Lords amendment: No. 1, in page 2, line 13, leave out—
      ("subsection (3) applies in that person's case") and insert
      ("the condition for the grant of an approval to that person is fulfilled in accordance with subsection (3)")
      1.18 pm
      The Minister for Small Business and E-Commerce (Ms Patricia Hewitt): I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Madam Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 2, 3 and 10 to 14.
      Ms Hewitt: This group of amendments largely stems from a commitment that I made in Committee and on Report when I undertook to see whether the drafting of the clause could be simplified while preserving the necessary powers of the approvals authority. The amendments do that by expanding on the cross-references between subsections (2) and (3).
      It was also drawn to our attention that the description in clause 6(3) of cryptography support services being provided in the United Kingdom related only to clause 2. It therefore seemed sensible that the description should be moved from clause 6 to clause 2. The amendments accomplish that.
      Amendments Nos. 11, 12, 13 and 14 simply correct some grammatical errors in the original drafting. I assure the House that this group of amendments does not change the legal effect of the Bill in any way. I therefore commend the amendment to the House.
      Lords amendment agreed to.
      Lords amendments Nos. 2 and 3 agreed to.

    Clause 4

      REGULATIONS UNDER PART I
      Lords amendment: No. 4, in page 5, line 3, after ("prescribed") insert ("public")
      Ms Hewitt: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Madam Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 5 and 6.
      Ms Hewitt: The three amendments to clause 4 deal with the recommendation that was made by the Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Deregulation in another place. It saw the need for the power conferred by subsection (2)(c), but considered that it was too widely
      1124
      drawn. The amendments mean that any additional gateways for the disclosure of regulatory information must relate to public functions.
      Lords amendment agreed to.
      Lords amendments Nos. 5 and 6 agreed to.

    Clause 5

      ELECTRONIC SIGNATURES AND RELATED CERTIFICATES
      Lords amendment: No. 7, in page 5, line 29, after ("instrument") insert—
      (", which (except in the case of the initial regulations) shall be")
      Ms Hewitt: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Madam Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 8, 9 and 22.
      Ms Hewitt: Amendments Nos. 7, 8 and 22 meet two further recommendations of the Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Deregulation. They deal with the parliamentary control that would be exercised if the Government's preference for self-regulation could not be achieved, and, therefore, we decided to implement the statutory regime under part I. Amendment No. 22 would mean that part I could not be implemented unless each House had approved the commencement order. Therefore, it would include in the Bill the undertaking that I gave during earlier stages to return to Parliament before commencing with part I.
      Amendments Nos. 7 and 8 are closely related. They would mean that the first time that the Secretary of State exercised his resolution-making powers under part I, they would be subject to the affirmative procedure. On subsequent occasions, they would be subject to the negative procedure. Taken together, the amendments strike a sensible balance between ensuring parliamentary control over a decision to implement part I and ensuring that, if we introduced a statutory approvals scheme, it could be operated flexibly and sensibly.
      Amendment No. 9 meets a commitment given in another place to include in the Bill our decision to consult on the approvals criteria.
      Mrs. Angela Browning: I welcome what the Minister has said and especially her honouring of a commitment made to my noble Friend Baroness Buscombe in another place.
      On amendment No. 9 and the need—and the Government's willingness—to consult those affected, a pattern has developed in consultations on secondary legislation, especially those involving business. I urge the Minister to consider the lead times necessary for business to be consulted. Businesses increasingly find that little time is allowed for consultation, especially given the other pressures on their time. I hope that, in recognising the need for consultation under amendment No. 9, the Minister can assure the House that the Department will set realistic timetables for business consultation.
      Mr. Richard Allan: I, too, welcome the Government's commitment, which was expressed by Lord Sainsbury of Turville in another place,

      1125
      to respond to issues that we raised in Committee. The Minister will know that the Opposition remain concerned about the prospect of part I being implemented. Therefore, an extra block on that, such as having to undertake another parliamentary procedure, is welcome. I should be interested to know whether the Minister could give us an update on the progress of the Government's negotiations with industry on the Tscheme proposals. I understand that they represent a way in which to avoid implementing part I and even the commitment that has been made to bring such matters before Parliament.
      On amendment No. 9, to which the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) referred, can the Minister tell us whether the Government have any idea of the time scale that they will set themselves to work with industry? Amendment No. 9 refers to consultation with industry, but such matters would not be dealt with unless and until comprehensive consultations and negotiations on the Tscheme had been undertaken with industry. I hope that the Minister will tell us about the Government's intended time scales for seeking parliamentary approval for the regulations under the amendments, and for laying them before the House and consulting on them. Such matters are important for Britain's future in electronic commerce.
      Ms Hewitt: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) for supporting these and earlier amendments. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I are well aware of business concerns about the need to allow proper time for consultation on this and other matters. I confirm that we are considering that matter and seeking to ensure that there are both adequate consultation periods and adequate periods between the introduction of regulations and their coming into effect. Certainly, if we brought part I of the Bill into effect, we would ensure that there was proper time for consultation.
      On the matter raised by the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan), I am pleased to say that the industry has been making excellent progress in establishing the Tscheme—the voluntary, self-regulatory scheme that we debated in some detail in Committee. Indeed, the second board meeting of members of the scheme was held earlier this week. At this stage, I am confident that the progress which is being demonstrated, and which will, I am sure, be maintained, should make the introduction of part I unnecessary.
      Lords amendment agreed to.
      Lords amendments Nos. 8 to 14 agreed to.

    Clause 8

      POWER TO MODIFY LEGISLATION
      Lords amendment: No. 15, in page 8, line 30, at end insert—
      ("( ) any such provision in relation to electronic communications or electronic storage the use of which is authorised otherwise than by an order under this section as corresponds to any provision falling within
      1126
      any of the preceding paragraphs that may be made where it is such an order that authorises the use of the communications or storage.")
      Ms Hewitt: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Madam Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendment No. 16.
      Ms Hewitt: These amendments are technical and amplify the power contained in clause 8. Amendment No. 15 is intended to ensure that the clause works in the same way when an order facilitates electronic communication as when it authorises such communication. The clause 8 power can operate on both primary and secondary legislation. Amendment No. 16 makes it clear that clause 8 could also operate by modifying a power to make secondary legislation.
      I commend the amendments to the House.
      Mr. Allan: Again, I welcome the amendments. The Minister will be aware that in Committee hon. Members on both sides—including Labour Back Benchers, who made some important contributions—strongly expressed the view that the clause 8 powers should be put in place as swiftly and effectively as possible to facilitate the Government moving towards the use of electronic communications and storage of data. Clearly, the Government took that feeling on board and are trying to do so.
      We welcome the fact that the amendments would facilitate that process and would enable the Government not to find unnecessary blocks further down the road to moving from traditional paper-based methods to electronic methods. In that context, the Liberal Democrats certainly see the amendments as an important addition to the clause. However, I reiterate our desire for the Government to move ahead with clause 8 powers as quickly as they can once the Bill becomes law.
      Lords amendment agreed to.
      Lords amendment No. 16 agreed to.

    Clause 9

      SECTION 8 ORDERS
      Lords amendment: No. 17, in page 9, line 6, at end insert—
      ("and section (Modifications in relation to Welsh matters)(1)")
      Ms Hewitt: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Madam Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 18 to 21.
      Ms Hewitt: This group of amendments is designed to ensure that the National Assembly for Wales can exercise the order-making power in clause 8 to authorise or facilitate electronic communications for functions that are exercisable by the Assembly.
      Clause 9(7) already gives powers to Scottish Ministers. I trust that hon. Members on both sides of the House will want consistency in the application of devolution. The amendments would give effect to that principle. Therefore, I commend them to the House.
      Mr. Allan: Again, we welcome the amendments. On a small note of concern, however, let me say that the Minister will know that we are fully in favour of the devolution process that has taken place and see an important role for the National Assembly for Wales, but the trend seems to be for Welsh provisions to be tacked on to legislation late on. A similar process happened with the Learning and Skills Bill when systems that would put in place a comparable system to those in the Bill for England were added on later.
      We are concerned that we did not see the comparable provisions for Wales in this Bill until this week, late in its passage through another place. I understand that that may be because of the time required to consult with Members of the Welsh Assembly and we certainly want consultation to take place in that way. Members of the Welsh Assembly should have a good look at the proposals before they are put on the amendment paper here. However, I should be interested to know if there are particular reasons why the Minister could not produce the amendments when the Bill was passing through its major stages in this House. Why did we have to wait until the Bill went to another place to see the Welsh provisions? It should have been fairly obvious at an early stage that they were necessary.
      Lords amendment agreed to.
      Lords amendments Nos. 18 to 21 agreed to.

  Adjournment (Whitsun)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Pope.]
  1.30 pm
  Mr. Gareth R. Thomas: I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in the debate. I was lucky enough to be one of the first Members to take part in the NCVO—National Council for Voluntary Organisations—secondment scheme, which mirrors the work of the Industry and Parliament Trust. As part of my stint, I spent two days with Alcohol Concern, including visiting alcohol misuse counselling services in my constituency. It became clear to me that we urgently need a strategy to deal with alcohol misuse.
  I know that the Government are very committed to such a strategy, but I hope that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office will impress on Ministers at the Department of Health the urgency of the matter. If we are serious about wanting to improve our public health, we must tackle alcohol misuse. It crops up in many places—either as a direct cause of ill health or as a key contributory factor.
  The impact of alcohol misuse on the national health service and on the family is well known; it also affects teenage pregnancy statistics and vulnerable people. The effects can be seen in exclusions from schools and in social exclusion in the wider sense. The impact is felt in the workplace and in accidents and crime. One in six people attend accident and emergency units as a result of alcohol-related incidents or problems. About 31,300 hospital admissions are due to alcohol dependence syndrome; there is a huge impact on the NHS.
  In relation to families, between 60 and 70 per cent. of men who are convicted for assault on their partner committed the assault while under the influence of alcohol. Heavy drinking by parents is a factor in more than 50 per cent. of child protection case conferences. It clearly has a powerful impact in cases of child abuse.
  Alcohol misuse affects the vulnerable. About 65 per cent. of suicide attempts are linked to excessive drinking. There are implications for pregnancy—especially teenage pregnancy. About one in five men and one in six women admit to having unsafe sex after drinking too much. That is another strong reason for the urgent introduction of a strategy to deal with alcohol misuse.
  It is surely tragedy enough that 11 to 15-year-olds are drinking, but the mean weekly consumption of alcohol among that group rose from about 5.3 units in 1990 to 9.9 units in 1998. About 20 per cent. of excluded pupils were suspended for drinking at school.
  Between 20 and 30 per cent. of all accidents are alcohol related; 15 per cent. of drownings and about 39 per cent. of deaths from fire are linked to alcohol. Another alarming statistic is that about 50 per cent. of rough sleepers are alcohol dependent.
  I know that the Government are committed to a strategy to deal with alcohol misuse. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will apply some gentle pressure in the way that only he can do to ensure that the strategy is brought forward as a matter of urgency.
  I want briefly to raise two other key issues. The first is the siting of mobile phone masts, an issue that is of great concern in my constituency. I praise Harrow council for

  1129
  the way in which it has sought to ensure that all mobile phone mast applications are carefully considered. Many residents in Salisbury road in the Headstone South ward of my constituency have argued vociferously against the planned siting of a mobile phone mast close to their homes, and the Montesole Court residents have liaised with me about a particular aspect of the process by which mobile phone mast applications are considered. Members of the Pinner Green residents association are also greatly concerned about an application for a mast to be located in their area.
  As a matter of urgency, we need to implement the recommendations of the Stewart inquiry. Members on both sides of the House will be frustrated on occasions by the fact that they cannot stop or overturn decisions to grant planning permission to such masts. I share that frustration given the number of masts that have been sited in my constituency. Rather than assuming that the masts are a good thing, we need to ensure that full and proper consideration is given to the siting of the masts through the normal planning process. When permission has been granted for a mast, we should consider whether residents should not be able to appeal against the decision that has been made.
  I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will stress to the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions the need for one of the recommendations of the Stewart inquiry to be implemented. It concluded that, for all base stations including those with masts under 15 m, permitted development rights should be revoked and that the siting of all new base stations should be subject to the normal planning process. I hope that that point will be identified as a matter for the immediate attention of planning Ministers.
  The final issue that I want to raise is the need for Ministers to encourage the promotion of corporate social and environmental responsibility. In that context, I praise the Co-operative bank, which won an award—the first such award—on the 4 May for the quality of its social reporting. The award was presented by my hon. Friend the Minister for Competition and Consumer Affairs and the bank summed the issue up nicely when it said:
  A social reporting award for the UK is long overdue—the process of producing a "warts and all" report can at times be a painful experience, particularly when competitors produce glossy PR brochures which focus on style over substance.
  The Government should place additional pressure on businesses, particularly large businesses, to follow the auditing and reporting standards set out by AccountAbility—the institute of social and ethical accountability—in its AA1000 standard.
  With those few remarks on three entirely different subjects, I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will be able to encourage action by the Ministers responsible for the issues that I have described.
  1.39 pm
  Mr. Stephen Day: I believe that the House should consider three matters before rising, all of which are of vital interest to my constituents. Two of those matters are not contentious, merely unaddressed.
  First, aircraft noise regulations would give airports statutory authority to fine airlines whose aircraft stray from the official approach and departure flight paths. That
  1130
  matter is of great interest to many of my constituents. I am sure that the Minister is aware that Manchester airport is a great asset to the area that I am privileged to represent, and is an important employer and wealth provider. However, it causes many of my constituents grave concern, given the disruption that aircraft noise can create.
  Many people in my constituency support the idea that the Government should give such powers to airports like Manchester. That would be of great help in reducing the detrimental environmental impact that unnecessary aircraft noise can cause. From experience, I know that the previous Government approved of such regulations in principle. That is also true of the present Government, and, although I am not totally certain, I believe that such regulations exist in draft form. Perhaps the Minister will enlighten me and confirm that that is so. I cannot believe that such a beneficial and non-contentious measure would be opposed in the House, so I hope that the Government can find time to introduce it.
  The second issue that I wish to raise on my constituents' behalf relates to existing regulations and a promise made in a public inquiry that took place as part of the inquiry on the central section of the Manchester airport eastern link road. That section of the road has been built, although the remaining two sections have not, as I shall discuss later. Residents of Chester's Croft live in homes that are classified as mobile homes, although they are permanent, having been in existence for at least 40 years and possibly even longer. The homes have gardens and are raised on bricks, with no wheels in sight.
  Chester's Croft is a very pleasant place to live, but it is right next door to the new road. If its residents lived in normal brick-built residential dwellings—permanent homes, as the law would have it—they would have the right to claim compensation for noise generated by the new road running alongside their homes. However, they do not have that right because of the way in which their homes are classified. The Government agree with me that they should have that right, and the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions in the other place sent me a letter apologising for the fact that the promised regulations have still not been introduced. The residents have waited for at least six years for such regulations, so, again, I hope that the Government can find time for something that they accept will bring only benefit to my constituents and, I suspect, other hon. Members' constituents as well.
  My understanding is that probably since the noble Lord wrote to me to apologise for the delay, the regulations have been and are still being checked by the Department's solicitors. What on earth are they checking? The regulations exist; they simply need to be applied to mobile home owners. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will be able to give my constituents some sight of light at the end of a long, dark tunnel as they wait for the promises to be delivered.
  As hon. Members can see, there are in my constituency a number of outstanding problems of serious concern to the people who live there. The third matter is the Manchester airport eastern link road, a subject that I have raised so many times in the House that I have almost lost count, but I shall persist until that motorway is completed.

  1131
  The central section of the Manchester airport eastern link road is in existence. It runs from the A34 south of Cheadle through to the Woodford road between the villages of Bramhall and Woodford. A junction exists between those villages that was never intended to exist.
  A large campaign was mounted, and more than 7,000 people in my constituency signed a petition. The petition was left in post offices; it was not taken around and people were not asked or pressurised to sign it while they were out shopping. People who went into their local post office willingly signed it, asking the Government to help to complete the road.
  The Manchester airport eastern link road, one would think, should join the airport. It does not. The main route south of the M56 to Manchester airport means that through Finney lane and Heald Green, where the missing western section should be, there is a narrow road through the village of Heald Green. My constituents there cannot get their cars out of their driveways and on to Finney lane during rush hour.
  The eastern section should link up to the A6M Hazel Grove bypass. I see that the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell) is in his place. I shall not say too much about what is, strictly speaking, a matter for him as the local Member of Parliament. I know that he shares my view, and that I will not be expressing any view with which he does not agree. The many hon. Members representing the area want the motorway network completed. What have we got in its place? I am sure that the hon. Member for Hazel Grove would be willing to tell us, perhaps less politely, outside the Chamber.
  We have a study. Wowee! A road network for which my constituents have waited 30 years is again being studied, after umpteen public inquiries into the need for the roads to be completed. That is basically a mechanism for the entire issue to be kicked into touch.
  The petition that I mentioned, with more than 7,000 signatures voluntarily given, was presented to the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions. The previous Government gave a starting date for completion of the western section through to the airport and for completion of the eastern section from Woodford road between the villages of Bramhall and Woodford through to the A523. The A6M is a slightly different story in terms of progress on public inquiries and so on.
  My constituents suddenly found that when the Government changed, the new Government took away everything that had been promised to them. I do not wish particularly to get angry or annoyed with the Government, although many of my constituents would. I know that I am not the only Member of Parliament and my communities are not the only communities in the country to have suffered similarly from such decisions.
  I merely plead with the Parliamentary Secretary on behalf of my constituents to ensure that the study is real, even though I would prefer a decision. We just need the road built. Matters get worse and worse. There is to be a second runway at Manchester airport, and traffic, we know, will increase. We have well over an additional 20,000 to 30,000 car movements a day from shopping centres built alongside the existing section. The pressures are enormous.
  1132
  I wish that the House could have debated and voted on the matter before we rose. If hon. Members came with me—all would be welcome—to Bramhall and Woodford at one end and Heald Green at the other, and, while they were there, went to Hazel Grove, at the invitation of hon. Member for Hazel Grove, they would see that what I am saying is nothing less than the truth, and it is the message that my constituents desperately want to be heard.
  1.50 pm
  Mrs. Ann Cryer: It is appropriate that the hon. Member for Cheadle (Mr. Day) should have spoken about a long, dark tunnel because I want to talk about our railway heritage. I thank my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary for being here today to listen to the debate. Unusually for an Adjournment debate, I shall not ask him or his ministerial colleagues to do anything in particular, other than to give moral support to our railway heritage.
  First, I should say that I have five £10 shares in the Keighley and Worth Valley Railway Company, which is a non-profit-making company, so I do not receive a dividend. I am also president of the Keighley and Worth Valley Railway Preservation Society and vice-president of the Keighley bus museum and the Friends of the Settle to Carlisle railway.
  I want to say a few words in praise of railway preservers or preservationists—I am not sure what to call them, but not, as they are sometimes described in the media, railway buffs, anoraks, amateurs or people playing at trains. I dislike such terms intensely. I am talking about men and women with the many skills needed to run a railway professionally in accordance with the precise and high requirements of the Health and Safety Executive. They simply want the pleasure of preserving the nation's industrial, transport and, often, architectural heritage, so that we and future generations can understand and appreciate what went before.
  The wonderful assistants in the Library have provided me with a list of UK heritage railways. It starts with the Alford valley railway, the Amberley museum and the Appleby Frodingham Railway Preservation Society, and finishes with the Wensleydale Railway Association, West Clare railway, West Lancashire light railway and West Somerset railway. I do not know a great deal about those railways, but there are approximately 100 railway preservation societies, all staffed by men and women who are dedicated to the preservation of railways, locomotives and carriages.
  The preservation society that I know best is the Keighley and Worth Valley Railway Preservation Society so I shall dwell on that, not to the exclusion of all else but, because what has happened during the more than 30 years of that society's history is typical of how railway preservation in Britain has progressed. My late husband, Bob Cryer, started the Keighley and Worth Valley Railway Preservation Society in 1961 as a result of the Beeching closure of the line from Keighley to Oxenhope. He called a meeting which was attended by more than 100 local people. The original idea was that the line should be preserved as a public service, but that was found to be too difficult so the preservation society was established, and still exists.
  At that time, only one other railway was operated by volunteers, and that was the Bluebell railway in Sussex. The Keighley and Worth Valley railway was the second

  1133
  in the country to take on the responsibility of running a railway. I think it is fair to say that the Bluebell railway made the mistake of appointing a "fat controller" or "Sir Topham Hat" to run the railway, and arguments developed between him and the volunteer force. Volunteers like to be treated as what they are—talented, skilled, capable people. I am afraid that what happened with the Bluebell railway did not suggest that that was appreciated, and, subsequently, things started to fall apart fairly quickly. However, the railway changed its schemes later, and I believe that Sir Topham Hat—he was not really called that, of course—was disposed of.
  In the Worth Valley railway society, we learned from that mistake. My husband recognised that the railway needed to be run more like a local authority, or a co-operative. Accordingly, a number of committees were formed to run the various departments. The committees have representatives on the railway's central council, and it operates in the same way to this day. It is a highly democratic organisation: those who do the work make the decisions. I do not think there can be any better demonstration of democracy than that.
  Things have changed during the railway's history. As I said, we took it over in 1961, but I think that about four years passed before we had the right to run trains over the Worth valley metals. The Worth Valley railway society purchased the line from British Railways on the basis of a sort of hire-purchase agreement, and it opened to traffic in 1967. For the first few years it ran trains only occasionally, but the traffic gradually increased. Currently, we run trains throughout July and August, during bank holiday weeks and at Christmas, and we run plenty of special trains. For instance, in a couple of weeks we shall have a "Thomas the Tank Engine" special day or two. Such events attract many people to the railways.
  We need support, but those who give their time and talents to running the railway can do so only if they too are supported by people who pay fares to go on it.
  The Government have supported us indirectly, through the heritage lottery fund. The fund has just given the railway money to build sheds at Oxenhope to house the many locomotives and carriages that we now own. It is not only a rare but a large collection, and it needs to be protected from the severe weather that we have in the Worth valley. We hope that the sheds will eventually be erected at Oxenhope; I thank the Minister for Tourism, Film and Broadcasting for helping us with advice on applying for lottery support.
  We also need places to put our engines and carriages during the railway's redevelopment at Oxenhope. They are very old and will need protection. We expect them to be moved to aircraft hangars and other sites across the country.
  I hope that what I have said will encourage hon. Members and those outside the House to visit, support and possibly even join railway preservation societies. They can be assured of a warm welcome on the Worth Valley railway and, I am sure, many others.
  I thank my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary for listening, and, as I say, I hope that my speech will encourage hon. Members on both sides of the House to visit and become involved with their local railway preservation societies, wherever they are.
  1.59 pm
  Mr. Mark Oaten: I want to raise an issue that I am constantly warned not to raise on the Floor of the House. I am told that raising it seems like self-interest and whingeing, and sends a signal that whoever raises it does not really want to be a Member of Parliament.
  The issue that I want to raise is modernisation of the House of Commons, and changing the role of Members of Parliament. I am aware that it is once more a topical issue, following last week's decision by the hon. Member for Gloucester (Ms Kingham) to announce, quite publicly, that she would not stand at the next election. That prompted considerable concern about the workings of the House of Commons. In my maiden speech, after I was elected three years ago, I made some observations about being a Member of Parliament. I was told by a colleague that that was most unwise, it was better to put up with the situation—not moan or complain—and my constituents would not understand if, having worked so hard to get here, I started complaining about the process.
  There is a reluctance among some hon. Members in all parts of the House to raise the matter because it makes them seem unhappy with the job. I love the job and enjoy being the Member of Parliament for Winchester—but I am deeply dissatisfied with the process by which we serve. I want that changed not out of self-interest but because I genuinely believe that the manner in which we operate is not good for the country. Other hon. Members will follow the hon. Member for Gloucester, and prospective parliamentary candidates may be discouraged from standing for election.
  Over the past week in particular, there has been much press focus on women MPs, who are said to be fed up with the working hours. I believe that there is cross-party disquiet among hon Members of both sexes. If male Members do not argue the point, it will be said that the Blair babes are revolting on the issue when concern goes much wider.
  Much time has been spent studying why the electorate are turned off politics. In the mayoral and local council election a few weeks ago, many attempts were made to improve turnout. Watford, example, tried holding elections on Saturday or Sunday, with polling in Asda or Tesco. I welcome those innovations but the evidence is that turnout did not increase in many cases. I believe that one factor turning off the electorate is the workings of Parliament that they see on television every night of the week.
  Those who argue for a change in our working hours are not doing so to get to lie in bed longer in the morning or take longer holidays. It is a question of using the time that we have more effectively. I am arguing that we should work not fewer hours, but more sensible hours, and that we should structure the parliamentary week in a much better way. When the Modernisation Committee considers the matter the week after we return from the recess, I hope that it will look carefully at the radical options, which include a fixed working week with fixed hours. We could debate for ever what those hours should be. My personal preference is for a guaranteed finish at 7 o'clock, with a change in the hours of Select Committees, with some sitting in the evening.

  1135
  In one sense, time is not the issue. The critical factor is predictability, so that one knows what is going to take place. I do not mind staying here until 2 am to debate emergency situations in Kosovo and Sierra Leone or major domestic issues but I object—
  Mr. John Cryer: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that one of the few weapons available to the Opposition—I will not say whether I approve—is time? Does he propose taking that weapon away from the Opposition?
  Mr. Oaten: No, but I do not believe that that weapon is used by the Opposition. It is used by a couple of hon Members who want to throw the business of the House into chaos. Speeches made by those hon. Members at 1, 2 or 3 o'clock in the morning contain no points of substance. I am not convinced that they are a serious challenge to the Government on key issues. Such speeches are designed to play public schoolboy games. I do not believe people have any time for hon Members who do such a thing at that time of night. I am more than happy to be here if the Executive is being held to account. It is not.
  When I tell constituents about the time scale that we work to, sometimes going through to 1 or 2 o'clock in the morning, they cannot believe that the Government are making critical decisions at that time in the morning. What other sensible organisation would make its most important decisions at 1 or 2 o'clock in the morning, when hon. Members are tired and often tetchy?
  The House of Commons Library has produced a number of figures on how Parliaments operate throughout the world. I have not had a chance to read that in detail, but I believe that we are the Parliament that works longest and that sits until the latest hour, apart from Australia, which sits until 11 o'clock on Mondays, so the Modernisation Committee needs to look carefully at the issue of hours.
  I want to move on to some of the other issues, because we are in danger on getting hung up on thinking that modernisation is just about hours. It is about many more things, too. The tag on to the hour issue is electronic voting and the way in which we physically vote in the House of Commons.
  I know that the issue has been looked at in the past and that Members have rejected it. I think that the various options confused many Members. That was probably one of the reasons why there was no clear vote in favour of electronic voting. If there is a cut-off point of, say, 10 o'clock, when business is guaranteed to end, because of the voting system, the House can often go through to 11 o'clock or 11.30, if there are four or five votes after that time. Again, that is nonsense.
  The argument that we need to have pushing and shoving down two corridors because it is an opportunity for hon. Members to bump into other hon. Members, or indeed to rub shoulders with the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, does not seem credible. Their voting records suggest that those right hon. Members are not in those corridors anyway, so there is not much chance of bumping into them.
  1136
  Divisions are one of the rather amusing anecdotes that we can tell in after-dinner speeches. During a tour of the House of Commons, one of the amusing moments is when constituents are made to push and shove through the corridors. Everyone has a good laugh. It is all very funny when we are showing constituents around in the morning. It is a lot less funny and seems very silly when it is done at 11 and 12 o'clock at night. I see no reason why we cannot quickly move to electronic voting to speed up that process.
  The image of the House of Commons itself raises wider concerns about why we find it hard to engage the public in politics and to encourage young people in particular to get involved in the political system. If we step back and look at the image that comes across on the television screens, what do we see? For example, there is the issue of whether we can clap in the Chamber. If someone makes a good point, instead of clapping—which is universally accepted throughout the world as the way of showing support and appreciation—we all have to go, "Hear, hear, hear" and we sound like a bunch of farmyard animals. When people watch that on television, they do not understand. They cannot understand why that sort of noise is coming from grown men and women. That turns people off from looking at politics.
  There is also the issue of attracting your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Again, when people are looking at the House of Commons, they do not understand why it is that we are all bobbing up and down trying to catch your eye. They write to us asking whether we can make a point on the Floor of the House, raise a question or try to participate in a debate. They do not understand when we say, "I will bob and up and down, but there is no guarantee that I will be called in that debate."
  One of the problems is that, often, not many Members are in the Chamber itself. The difficulty is knowing whether they will be able to catch the Speaker's eye during a debate. There must be a better system of guaranteeing fairness, so that both sides can take part in the debate, obviously allowing for spontaneous interest and for interventions to take place in the debate. Surely, there must be a more formal way in which we can guarantee that Members will get individual slots, rather than having to try to catch the Speaker's eye in the rather old-fashioned way of bobbing up and down.
  I add another thing about image: the issue of calling hon. Members "hon. Members" and not being able to use the word "you" in the Chamber—I am glad, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that you have not just picked me up on that. There are occasions when the word "you" is used and is not meant to be a deliberate phrase against an individual, but the amount of times that I have been picked up on that in Committee is immensely irritating, and it stops the flow of thought. I find it very difficult. I am amazed at how Members and Deputy Speakers can do it, but I cannot remember the names of the constituencies of hon. Members. I would like to refer to them more often, but feel held back from doing that because we have to call them "hon. Members."
  I had hoped to speak for only 10 minutes—to make the point that one of the ways in which the House could be improved would be for hon. Members to speak less—but I beg the House's indulgence to allow me quickly to make two more points, the first of which is on the resources and facilities provided to hon. Members.

  1137
  Like other hon. Members, I have found it extremely difficult to work within our office cost allowances. Although my bank manager would tell me that I have always been bad with money, I have to say that, as evidence shows that more than 100 Members of Parliament overspent their most recent office cost allowance, we cannot all be bad with money. The allocation that we are given to run our offices is simply not adequate.
  By the time that I have paid £12,000 for my rented office in Winchester—where one cannot find a cheaper office—and a similar amount to a researcher and to a secretary, in Westminster, to a dictation secretary, in my constituency, and for computers, I have nothing left. If hon. Members are going to be proper, democratically accountable Members of Parliament, providing a good service, they have a serious problem if they are not being provided with adequate resources to do the job properly.
  I believe that the solution lies in having fewer and better-resourced—but also much more accountable—Members of Parliament. That is why I argue that there should be a legal requirement for hon. Members to produce an annual report, which would go to all their constituents, list what they have done, show that they are accountable and try to restore the link between the public's election of someone to this place and their knowledge of what those individuals are doing here, other than disappearing for four or five years.
  If we made more resources available to hon. Members, but required them to be accountable, we would also help to restore the role of Members of Parliament, which is not highly valued in many constituencies.
  I hope that the Modernisation Committee does not limit its work to narrow changes and to tweaks at the edges. I accept that, in this Parliament, we shall perhaps make progress only on hours and electronic voting. However, I believe that there is an enormous opportunity for the Government—a modernising Government who want to reconsider issues and be positive about creating a new democracy—to do some significant work, to bring in some consultants and to consider examples from around the world, to make real change in the way in which we run democracy.
  My hope is based not on self-interest, but on a genuine belief that the way things are being run is not good, that we are turning off good people from coming into politics, and that we are turning off the electorate from the work that we do.
  2.12 pm
  Dr. Ashok Kumar: I agree with some of the concerns expressed by the hon. Member for Winchester (Mr. Oaten). I agree with his concern about the House's long hours—working, as he said, until 2 am or 3 am—which certainly do not deliver better government. I do not agree with everything that he said, but I agree with some of the sentiments that he expressed. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary will reply to them.
  I should like to raise an issue only briefly, although it is very important issue for one of my constituents—Mr. Whittaker, of Guisborough, which is a market town
  1138
  in my constituency. He is one of a number of now elderly gentlemen who served this country in uniform in a now largely forgotten episode. He served, between 1952 and 1955, as a corporal in the Royal Electrical and Mechanical Engineers, based in Abusultan. I should like to concentrate on the circumstances in which he served this country, and on the national service men who served in Egypt and the canal zone between 1950 and 1955.
  Their service was largely overshadowed by the fact that, at the same time, the Korean war was raging, and, later, by the wars in Malaya and Borneo and the onset of the Suez crisis. I shall not attempt to argue against, or to justify, their presence in Egypt. They were there as a result of the colonial past meshing with the need to protect something that—in the days when there was still an east of Suez dimension to defence and trade policy—was regarded as a key strategic asset: the Suez canal. The bases were established to protect the canal.
  As I said, Mr. Whittaker and his colleagues were national service men, and they probably hoped that their three years in that role would be quiet ones—spent square-bashing or potato-peeling in Aldershot or Catterick. Instead, the then Egyptian Government's abrogation of treaties made between Egypt and the United Kingdom—because of disagreement over management of the canal, and the rise of Nasser's young officers group—resulted in political tension spilling over into riots and guerrilla activity. That activity was intense, involving pitched battles and, sometimes, an armoured response.
  In January 1952, for example, C company of the 1st Battalion Lancashire Fusiliers had to storm a police barracks in Ishmaelia. Under intense sniper fire, they had to have the support of Centurion tanks from the 4th Royal Tank Regiment, which had to shell the complex. Five British service men were killed in that one episode.
  Similar incidents occurred across the canal zone and throughout the complex of British forces bases in the country. Military historians have argued that the intensity of the conflict mirrored the conflict in Palestine—where, some years before, British troops again had to hold the line.
  The incidents were, sadly and inevitably, not without casualties. Officially, it is estimated that 55 to 60 British service men were killed by enemy action. The total death loss, however, was far higher. The Suez veterans group estimates that the total number of service dead reached more than 300, with many deaths being caused by accidents, handling live ordinance or mine clearing.
  I am speaking in this debate for a simple reason: unbelievably, despite this history, those deaths and the fact that Mr. Whittaker and his colleagues were conscripts in what was essentially a war zone, they have never received official acknowledgement of their service and bravery by the award of the General Service Medal.
  I understand that the reason for not making the award was that, in 1952, the Army Council did not consider the canal zone to be a fully fledged active service area. The council's judgment, however, was made in that period and without the benefit of historical oversight, and that view was contradicted by later military judgments, after the Army had had to respond to events as they unfolded. The contradiction has been admitted.

  1139
  In a letter from the Under-Secretary of State for Defence, my hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy (Dr. Moonie)—who was replying to my request for the award of the General Service Medal to Mr. Whittaker and his comrades—I was told:
  I am aware that service personnel were on declared active service during the certain periods whilst in the Canal Zone.
  Active service is active service, whether it is spent in a regular campaign between opposing forces or in combating undercover and sporadic guerrilla activity. There is also an analogy with Northern Ireland, as my hon. Friend admitted in his letter to me. He went on to say that
  members of the Armed Forces who serve in Northern Ireland are eligible for the General Service Medal with clasp Northern Ireland.
  My hon. Friend, to compound the issue, went on to say that service men in Northern Ireland have
  never been formally placed on active service.
  That seems to be pure, absolute rubbish.
  Let us consider other post-war flashpoints in which British service men have been involved, such as: Kenya, where 10 service men were killed; Malaya, where 509 were killed; Palestine, where 223 were killed; Cyprus, where 73 were killed; the 1956 Suez invasion, in which 12 were killed; Borneo, where 79 were killed; and Aden, where 24 were killed. All those operations were seen as eligible for award of the General Service Medal, and the officers and men who fought in those campaigns can wear their medal ribbons with great pride. Mr. Whittaker and his colleagues are not being allowed to do the same.
  I think that it is a matter of total oversight. I believe that the omission is morally wrong. I realise that the line taken by the Ministry of Defence is that the issue has been reviewed, and reviewed by senior military advisers, but those advisers saw no reason to dissent from the Army Council view that contemporary judgment is sounder than retrospective judgment. I beg to disagree with them: I believe that retrospective judgment often is better than contemporary judgment. Retrospective judgment allows for comparison and for historical oversight—which includes matters such as the campaigns that I have listed.
  There is a view—to which I do not necessarily subscribe—that the 1952 decision, in the context of that time, was perhaps militarily and politically expedient. It is time for the Ministry of Defence to do some serious research into the reasons for that decision and for all the papers to be produced.
  One issue above all should be looked at. I have been told that the one person who, above all others, should have been listened to—the then commander in chief of British forces in the middle east, General Sir Brian Robertson—was of the firm opinion that service men in the canal zone should qualify for the general service medal. The issue should be cleared up once and for all. If General Robertson made such a view clear in correspondence, it alters the entire picture and my constituent, Mr. Whittaker, and his colleagues should get the official recognition that they so richly deserve.
  Finally, I urge my hon. Friend the Minister to ask the Ministry of Defence to unlock and dust down the archive files from the Army's historical branch and to undertake a full review. I am not alone in making this request. My hon. Friends the Members for Wentworth (Mr. Healey) and for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) have also
  1140
  raised the issue of justice for canal zone veterans. I am sure that my hon. Friend agrees that we all want this historical injustice to be rectified. I urge him to speak to the Ministry of Defence and press as strongly as he can for the changes that I have asked for. Thank you for allowing me to raise this important issue, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  2.21 pm
  Mr. David Atkinson: On Wednesday 12 April, I sought to catch your eye to speak in the debate on asylum seekers, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I failed to do so. I am glad that I failed, because I can now add to what I had proposed to say on that occasion to reflect an alarming situation concerning asylum seekers in my constituency and elsewhere in Bournemouth.
  At least 10 per cent. of asylum seekers in this country come from countries that are free of persecution. They have minimal grounds for seeking asylum, and instead of a lengthy period awaiting assessment of their claim, followed by a further period for appeal, they should have the fastest of fast-track procedures consistent with international law. There continues to be a case for maintaining a white list of safe countries from which any asylum seekers would more appropriately receive automatic detention.
  I am referring to member states of the Council of Europe. The citizens of most of those countries enjoy the best human rights protection in the world. I am pleased to see the hon. Member for Keighley (Mrs. Cryer) in the Chamber. Like me, she is an active member of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe. The human rights protection in member states is legally provided for by the European convention on human rights, which all member states have to ratify and which is enforced by the findings of the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg, which Governments and member states are obliged to honour. Most member states have adopted the convention as part of their domestic law, as we are now doing.
  A majority of member states have signed and are ratifying the torture convention, the European social charter, the European cultural convention and the new framework convention on the protection of national minorities. It is therefore reasonable to start from the premise that those who seek asylum on the grounds of a well-founded fear of persecution from member states of the Council of Europe are the least likely to have a case. Our procedures should reflect that.
  I exclude from my arguments those who come from the former Yugoslavia and the former Soviet Union, whose recent and current ethnic conflicts provide justifiable grounds for the fear of persecution. However, most of those countries have yet to join the Council of Europe.
  Last year, there were 10,000 applications from Council of Europe member states—3,000 more than the previous year. That figure does not include dependants, so the real figure is much higher. The applications come from citizens of Bulgaria, Hungary, Poland, the Czech and Slovak Republics, Turkey and other member states. It may not be widely appreciated that each of those countries is subject to a procedure that monitors in the greatest detail the commitments and obligations that they have entered into upon accession to the Council of Europe. That monitoring is done by the Parliamentary Assembly, through its monitoring committee, and separately by the Committee of Ministers.

  1141
  Apart from the regular fact-finding visits of the rapporteurs, those procedures take the fullest account of reports and submissions from Human Rights Watch, the Helsinki Foundation, Amnesty International, Christian Solidarity Worldwide and other non-governmental organisations, including those in the countries concerned. There is no doubt that there is no persecution in Poland, Hungary, Romania, the Czech and Slovak Republics or Bulgaria, and there are very few grounds for their citizens to seek asylum elsewhere, yet they represent 10 per cent. of the total coming to this country—7,000 last year—costing local authorities £30 million, which is equivalent to nearly 1,000 new police officers.
  The Government should introduce the most efficient procedures possible to deal with asylum seekers from Council of Europe member states, in which, as our embassies will confirm, there is no persecution. That should also apply to the backlog of those already here from those countries.
  Before someone reminds me, I am aware that there are a lot of dissatisfied Romas—or gypsies—in many of those countries, who complain about police brutality and harassment, the hostility of those who live in their neighbourhoods and an inability to assert their cultural identity. However, those are not grounds for seeking asylum, or for being accepted as seekers of asylum.
  The House may be aware that the issue of the failure of Governments to protect their gypsy citizens is awaiting a ruling in the other place, in response to the appeal of a Slovakian gypsy, Mr. Milan Horrath, who arrived here in 1997 seeking asylum for himself and his family. He claimed persecution not by the state that he had left, but by skinhead thugs.
  If the House of Lords supported the argument of the Refugee Legal Centre, which is backing Mr. Horrath's appeal, that someone who is threatened with being beaten or killed by skinheads can be a refugee, it would open the floodgates to such claimants. If that happened, I hope that the Government would urgently pursue the issue in the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe, because there would be many member states that were, in effect, violating the European convention on human rights, and against whom appropriate action would need to be taken, as well as many other member states that would need to be prepared for many more seekers of asylum.
  I conclude by describing what is happening in one road in my constituency on the way to the Southbourne Overcliff and beach. The road contains 17 hotels and guest houses among its 79 households, as well as three houses in multiple occupation—HMOs.
  A couple of weeks ago, a resident from the road shared with me at my surgery her concerns about what has been happening since those HMOs started accommodating asylum seekers. She told me that the atmosphere has changed for residents and visitors, who are mainly young families, from one of tranquillity, relaxation and contentment to one of threats, fear and alarm. That has been confirmed by many other residents who have phoned my office during the past two weeks, at my suggestion, to share their concerns.
  The picture is the same for all of them. Residents are being woken up or kept awake during the night by loud music, shouting, drinking, partying and cars revving and
  1142
  screeching at all hours. During the day, men, many of whom have mobile phones—my constituents do not know how they can afford them—stand around leering at passers-by, especially young women. There are tales of drinking, shouting and spitting, and of residents having to walk through sick and urine. Windows in the street have been broken by stone-throwers and boarded up.
  Many cars are parked on the street; they are old, battered and wrecked—many are without road tax, and, presumably, are also uninsured. If they were abandoned, no one could tell. There is also a report of someone being taken out of one of the HMOs in a body bag.
  My constituents are feeling threatened. They can see in their street a decline into seediness and squalor. They fear not just the anti-social behaviour of their new neighbours, but the crime that might just follow. They do not complain for fear of being branded racist, or worse, of being accused of retaliation.
  Those who run the 17 hotels and guest houses have every reason to fear that their businesses and livelihoods are now at very real risk. Their regular clientele, built up over years, can be lost through one bad experience. Passing trade will pass on. People's livelihoods are now at risk.
  It is understood that Bournemouth has taken more than 300 asylum seekers in a number of hotels and HMOs used by Kent and the London boroughs. Two weeks ago my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, West (Mr. Butterfill) and I received a letter from the chairman of the Bournemouth tourism advisory board, Councillor Jacky Harris, emphasising that while Bournemouth wants to play its part in the national dispersal scheme, it is essential for the council to have local control of where asylum seekers are accommodated; it is essential for them and for the community.
  It is particularly crucial that nothing is done to discourage visitors and holiday makers from coming to the hotels and guest houses in the designated tourism core planning zones in seaside resorts such as ours where the local economy and jobs rely on tourism.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, West—who wishes to be associated with these remarks—and I have made representations along those lines to the Minister of State, Home Office, the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Mrs. Roche). I was not encouraged by her reply to me on 18 May, telling me that there is no requirement for one local authority to notify another before placing asylum seekers in accommodation in another local authority area. That has to be changed. Local authorities—particularly those such as Bournemouth, which rely on tourism—must have control over the location of HMOs that take in asylum seekers.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, West and I will now write to the Prime Minister, seeking his personal interest and intervention. Last October, we in Bournemouth welcomed the Prime Minister and his party conference and we were pleased to do so. However, they may not return if they find that their hotels and guest houses are in the same streets as HMOs whose residents are behaving as I have described today.
  I look forward to the Minister's response to my constituents' concerns.

  ROYAL ASSENT
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified her Royal Assent to the following Acts:

  Armed Forces Discipline Act 2000.

  Nuclear Safeguards Act 2000.

  Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000.

  Electronic Communications Act 2000.

  Adjournment (Whitsun)
  Question again proposed, That this House do now adjourn.
  2.33 pm
  Mr. John Cryer: Like other hon. Members, I wish to raise a particular constituency issue, which was also raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Thomas)—the erection of telecommunications masts for the burgeoning mobile phone industry. This issue has received a great deal of attention in the House. There have been three Adjournment debates, and, more recently, the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) tabled two early-day motions on the issue. In March, the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) proposed a ten-minute rule Bill on the matter, and raised many of the issues that I want to raise today.
  We now have the Stewart report, produced by the Stewart group, which deals with the problem of mobile phone masts. On the issue of the medical risks that might or might not be entailed by the erection of masts, the Stewart report equivocates to some extent. However, there are some interesting passages in it.
  In the foreword, Sir William Stewart states:
  the balance of evidence does not suggest that mobile phone technologies put the health of the general population of the UK at risk. There is some preliminary evidence that outputs from mobile phone technologies may cause, in some cases, subtle biological effects although, importantly, these do not necessarily mean that health is affected.
  Without wishing to be alarmist about the issue, that is enough to create doubt in people's minds.
  The report also states:
  Exposure to radiofrequency radiation below guideline levels does not cause adverse health effects to the general population.
  However, the Stewart group concludes that
  there may be biological effects occurring at exposures below these guidelines. This does not necessarily mean that these effects lead to disease or injury but this is important information.
  The prevalent fears of medical risks have led to 39 states in the United States banning any further development of mobile phone masts, while in Australia there are exclusion zones of 500 metres around hospitals, schools and residential areas, within which masts cannot be erected.
  In most cases there tends to be a presumption that we will allow things to develop to some extent until there is some evidence to show that there is a medical risk. In Australia and the United States, however, there tends to be the reverse presumption: that such developments will
  1144
  not be allowed—at least, not where people are living, going to school or in hospital—until there is evidence to conclude that there is no risk attached to the erection of this kind of technology.
  I have many constituency cases concerning the erection of mobile phone masts. One example involves Towers junior school in Hornchurch. Orange—a big corporation, as these corporations tend to be—plans to erect a mobile phone mast a few yards from the school. Understandably, that is causing some alarm. I do not wish to be alarmist, because there is no substantial evidence of a risk, but there are fears and suggestions that there may be risks.
  There are also fears that there may be particular risks to the young. It is ironic that Orange wishes to put the mast near a junior school. The brains of young children under 12 are still developing and their skulls are less resistant to radiation. The Stewart report mentioned that, saying:
  If there are currently unrecognised adverse health effects from the use of mobile phones, children may be more vulnerable because of their developing nervous system, the greater absorption of energy in the tissues of the head and a longer lifetime of exposure.
  That suggests that there should be some changes in the way in which we treat mobile phone technology.
  The Government's response to the report contained some welcome elements. For one thing, they plan extensive research into the medical risks. I would like to ask them to consider sending the relevant Minister to the House to make a statement explaining what kind of research will be done, how long it will take and what its nature will be. The statement could suggest what the Government's intentions for the research were.
  More immediately, there are planning issues in connection with the erection of mobile phone masts. At present, as my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West pointed out, masts lower than 15 m do not require planning permission. In their response to the Stewart report, the Government said that they were minded to change that, so that masts under 15 m would need full planning permission. That is extremely welcome, but PPG8 gives a presumption in favour of giving the go-ahead. I should like PPG8 to be made more neutral so that communities' concerns could be taken into account.
  Mr. Oaten: The Government, in their response to the report, felt that they should err on the side of caution and advised that youngsters should not use mobile phones, even though there is no evidence that they are harmful. Would the hon. Gentleman recommend the same cautious approach to positioning masts near schools, even though there is no evidence that they are harmful?
  Mr. Cryer: The hon. Gentleman is right about the advice on the use of mobile phones. I have said that there should be exclusion zones around hospitals, schools and residential areas and that mobile phone masts should be placed in more isolated positions.
  There are problems with planning permission for mobile phone masts because the companies behind the telecommunications industry tend to be extremely large, often multinational, corporations. Although councillors on a planning committee may feel inclined to reject a planning proposal, they will not do so because that would go against council officers' advice that there are no legal grounds for rejection, and the corporation could take its

  1145
  case to a higher court, which might lead to the council being surcharged. It is unlikely that such action would be taken, but that fear has led councillors to give masts the go-ahead when they would rather reject the application until there is more evidence about the precise effects of the mobile phone industry.
  I turn now to the recent announcement by the Ford motor company that it is to end car assembly at Dagenham, where there has been a Ford plant since 1931. Henry Ford had the marshes drained and created that plant, which covers a large area. Ford's land is mainly in the Dagenham constituency, but some of it is in my constituency.
  Ford has announced that car assembly will end, but the diesel engine plant will remain. I have talked at length to trade union officials, many of whom were instrumental in negotiating the deal that seems to have saved Longbridge. Their fear, and that of the work force, is that in the modern car industry it is highly unlikely that a stand-alone engine plant will survive for long. They fear that if car assembly disappears from Dagenham, the engine plant will eventually go, and everything else with it. Those fears may turn out to be unfounded, but I think that they are probably right.
  I have talked about this many times to my hon. Friends, including Ministers, and expressed my fears. Pressure must be put on the Ford motor company to introduce new car assembly to Dagenham, perhaps through Mazda, which Ford now effectively owns, or Volvo, which has recently closed a plant. There may be other avenues, which the unions are exploring. It does not bode well for the plant that Ford has recently taken over Land Rover, which gives the company access to another diesel engine plant in Solihull. One has to ask why a big company, which previously had only one such plant, now needs two.
  The matter involves global issues and more fundamental questions about how the economic system works. The car industry may start to move eastwards over 10 or 20 years, to central and eastern Europe, and, perhaps, the Pacific rim. That is a separate matter that can be dealt with only by Governments and international bodies, but it is the underlying fear of the trade unions and work force at Dagenham and elsewhere.
  I also want to respond to the comments of the hon. Member for Winchester (Mr. Oaten) about how the House conducts itself. I have some sympathy with the idea of programming legislation, particularly at 3 o'clock in the morning when we are hanging around waiting for the next vote. However, Members' views tend to change when they move from opposition into government and vice versa.
  There is a very good quote from the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), when he was in government, in which he says that programming is a marvellous idea. He thought that all legislation should be timetabled because that would stop all the whingers and time-wasters on the Opposition Benches. That is ironic when one considers how he behaves these days—although he used to be a supporter of the Common Market and a member of the Communist party, so he has not been averse to changing his mind on several issues over time.
  When we are in government, we think that the Opposition should not delay and that legislation should be passed—and on the whole, that is the right attitude.
  1146
  I remember that our first all-night sitting was on the National Minimum Wage Bill. The Tories had stayed up all night to do their best to delay that Bill, but at 6 o'clock in the morning, when the final vote happened, we were able to rub their noses in it, which was brilliant because that legislation is one of the best things that we have done since we came into government.
  On the other hand, in the early 1990s, the Tories were passing the poll tax legislation. Obviously, I was not in the House at the time, but I have many friends who were. Labour Members were up night after night trying to delay that Bill, and we were right to do so because it was one of the most iniquitous pieces of legislation that any British Government have passed, certainly since 1945. Programming therefore involves the consideration of many issues.
  I shall always be opposed to electronic voting because it would encourage hon. Members to feel that they could stay away from the House, and there would be less participation in its business. We are here to scrutinise the Executive, and I certainly hope that the hon. Member for Winchester, as a member of the Opposition, would say that that is why he is here.
  Turnout at elections has very little to do with the behaviour in this place. We could introduce electronic voting, change the procedures of the House and programme every piece of legislation, but I bet that there would not be a significant increase in turnout in any of the elections that followed. The real reason for the fall in the number of people voting during the 1980s was the enormous increase in deprivation and unemployment caused by the previous Administration, which led people to feel alienated from the electoral process.
  I remember reading in a national newspaper, about two years before the last general election, about a man in Wales who was prosecuted for pinching four lumps of coal to keep his family warm. It is difficult to imagine that one could convince people living in such poverty that they have a direct connection with the democratic and political process.
  I think that such deprivation and unemployment were deliberately created by the previous Administration, because they tended to affect Labour areas. The closure of the pits and the steelworks and the complete decimation of the shipbuilding industry were politically motivated because they helped to undermine the base of the trade unions and the Labour party, and removed the traditional avenues into political activism. At one time, Hornchurch, and parts of the east end such as Beckton and Canning Town, had many dockers. When the docks went, the basis of political activism disappeared, and the same is true in mining and steel areas. A conscious effort was made to remove that basis.
  Those are the issues that we must address. What can be done by people in Beckton, Barnsley, Glasgow or Liverpool, who might be the third unemployed generation in their family? The Government have started to tackle those issues, and there have been moves in the right direction, particularly in the redistribution of wealth. However, we still have a long way to go before we bring the people who suffered enormously during the 1980s and 1990s back into political participation.
  2.49 pm
  Mr. Andrew Stunell: We have had an interesting debate so far, and I am sure that it will continue in that way. Many demands have been made for Government replies and action, and I am sure that the Minister will have plenty of excuses and explanations to offer.
  During business questions earlier, my neighbour, the hon. Member for Cheadle (Mr. Day), raised the matter of north-west devolution. Many people in the north-west want that project to go ahead, and I am sure that the same is true in other parts of the United Kingdom. I can illustrate the need for devolution by the failure that I have experienced in persuading the Government—or, more accurately, their agencies—to install a right-turn filter at a set of traffic lights on the A6 trunk road in my constituency.
  That is a small example of how my constituents cannot get what is manifestly needed in their area because the necessary powers are exercised 200 miles away by people who do not know that the A6 is a trunk road, that it goes through Hazel Grove, and that it lacks a right-turning lane. The matter is not trivial: there have been several serious accidents in the area in the past six months, and one fatal accident, when a pedestrian was knocked down and crushed by a heavy goods vehicle.
  It would be simple to make the road safe, but my constituents cannot secure the small change needed because it does not fit with the criteria set in London. I acknowledge to the hon. Member for Cheadle that I do not receive long petitions demanding devolution for the north-west, but constituents and relatives of the person who was tragically killed have asked me why the straightforward safety measures that I have described have not been put in place. I believe that ensuring that power is exercised nearer to where it makes a difference will be an important change.
  Mention has been made already in the debate of the problems associated with mobile phone masts, and I doubt that any Member of Parliament has not had difficulties in that regard. The original relaxation of planning guidelines was designed to accelerate the development of the technology, but it has also caused problems.
  The Orange company has erected a mast in Station road in Hazel Grove. The company claimed that the mast was less than 15 m in height and that therefore no permission was needed for its erection, but subsequent investigation found that it was taller than 15 m. The mast is situated in what I can only describe as a courtyard formed by the back yards of four streets of terraced houses, and it causes local residents a good deal of concern and anxiety.
  The council has placed an enforcement notice on Orange because of the height discrepancy. The company—rather cheekily, I believe—has accepted that the mast is more than 15 m tall and has said that it is prepared to chop a bit off, but it has pointed out that the antennae on the mast would then be closer to the first-floor bedroom windows of the surrounding houses.
  The company is challenging the council to say whether it wants to stick to the letter of the law in the matter, with a possible increase in hazard. The alternative is to let Orange get away with having a mast that is taller than the law permits.
  The mobile phone companies have a poor reputation. They are losing the battle to convince residents that the development rights and relaxations that they enjoy are
  1148
  justified. I support the hon. Members for Hornchurch (Mr. Cryer) and for Harrow, West (Mr. Thomas) in hoping that the Minister will emphasise the importance that the Government attach to the matter.
  Modernisation of the House, is a matter that has been raised a number of times. As my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Mr. Oaten) said, it is almost impossible to debate this matter, in the House or elsewhere, without appearing to whinge about terms and conditions of employment for Members of Parliament. That inhibits some hon. Members with more moderate and considered views, who keep silent as a result. The more strident voices are the ones that get heard, which reinforces the impression that we give to the outside world.
  I hope that the Minister will accept that, in my three years of service on the Modernisation Committee, I have tried to suggest some ways in which we might improve the House's procedures. Some improvements have been made, and I believe that they are to the benefit of the House.
  On the assumption that there is a wider audience outside the House, however, I want to stress that modernisation is not about acting as a trade union for Members of Parliament. Our aim is not to ensure that hon. Members eventually only need to vote on Wednesdays before 7 o'clock, and that we can do so from our constituencies. Rather, we want to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of Parliament. It is not about working shorter hours, or getting lots of money, or having access to lots of computers and assistants. Our goal is to ensure that Parliament's procedures are strong enough to enable us to hold the Government to account, to pass sensible legislation, and to represent our constituents effectively.
  Many people, both in the House and outside, believe that Parliament is not effective in any of those ways. The Minister is a seeker of consensus and is, I know, concerned about these matters. I hope that he will reassure the House that the appearance that the Government's initial burst of modernisation has petered out over the past 18 months is deceptive and that the Government will support further modernisation.
  I said earlier today that the Government's response to "Shifting the Balance", the report of the Liaison Committee on the work of the Select Committees, was extremely disappointing. I hope that the Minister will reassure hon. Members that the paper written by his boss, the Leader of the House, was just the opening shot in a process of negotiation, and that the House will be able to reclaim some more powers from the Government.
  Finally, I must mention the plea made by the hon. Member for Cheadle about road schemes in our area. He and I fight shoulder to shoulder on this matter. The review of transport problems in the region is called the multi-modal study of the south-east quadrant of Greater Manchester. That title is a mouthful—if an acronym of it were possible, it would have eight letters—and it is a replacement for a policy.
  As was noted earlier, the second runway at Manchester airport will open early next year. It is projected that the number of passengers using the airport will more than double between now and 2015, rising from 17 million to 40 million. An extra 30,000 jobs are forecast to be created at the airport, and a significant proportion of passengers and workers will travel to the airport on the existing road network through my constituency of Hazel Grove.

  1149
  That network cannot support the traffic that it has to carry at present. There is an urgent need for the multi-modal study to reach a favourable conclusion about investment in roads and other transport options, in my area and more generally in the borough of Stockport.
  I hope that the Minister, when he answers the debate, will reassure the hon. Member for Cheadle and me that the problem will not be relegated to the "too hard to do this year" tray. I hope that the problem has not been palmed off on to a study as a way of deflecting pressure and aggravation. The consequences and impact for my constituents and constituents across Stockport are severe. The existing congestion problems will become worse with the expansion and development of the airport.
  Thank you very much, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for giving me the opportunity to raise these matters in the debate.
  3 pm
  Ms Julia Drown: I wish to raise four issues on behalf of my constituents.
  South Swindon has had significant problems with bus services over a number of years. Of course, many services are fine and a huge proportion of drivers do all that they can to meet their timetables. However, I frequently receive letters and comments from constituents about buses that do not turn up on time, or are dirty, or have drivers who are not sensitive to the fact that my older constituents take time to get to their seats. Such problems put people off using the buses. Unless we can ensure that our bus services are reliable and pleasant, with fares that are easy to understand, we will not deliver on our huge transport agenda which relies on buses as a main form of public transport.
  I welcome the Transport Bill, which gives local authorities powers to strengthen their control over local bus companies. However, I am concerned about whether those power go far enough. We should not be shy about giving maximum powers to local authorities. It is clear that the market does not work when it comes to many local bus services. It is in the interests of two competing bus companies to ensure that their bus gets to the bus stop 30 seconds before the other company's to pick up the passengers. The more powers local authorities have to deal with bus services, the better the bus services will be in my constituency, and the more likely we are to be able to try to get rid of the worst ones. Dealing with the problems will make the buses work in the interests of our constituents—the passengers. I should like the Government to look at whether we have done everything that we can on fare policies and frequency of services so that we can deliver the services that our constituents need.
  I have regular talks with my local bus companies. I think that they are doing everything that they can to make services more reliable, but they are very concerned about the competition authorities, which virtually tell them that they should not co-operate to deliver the services that our constituents need. The bus companies feel the push from the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions to deliver a service, while the competition authorities are ready to slap them down if they are seen to co-operate too much in the market.
  There remain real difficulties, which I hope that the Government will consider as we follow the Transport Bill through to delivery in our constituencies. Unless we can
  1150
  have really good-quality bus services, we will not be able to deliver the whole of the transport and environmental agenda.
  The second issue is child care. The impact of the working families tax credit has been incredible. Family after family has told me what a huge difference it has made. When a bill comes through their door, they do not need to go into a panic or a sweat, because, for the first time, they are being rewarded for being in work, and it is making a huge difference.
  I have had a few letters from constituents who have looked to the working families tax credit to help them with child care costs. They were very pleased that the Government launched a national child care strategy and delivered more child care places in my constituency. However, many of my constituents who are in low-paid work, particularly shiftworkers, want to use nannies, because they want their children to be looked after at home. Not many child minders are willing to look after children at night, which is what shiftworkers need. They are disappointed that, when they look into the detail of the working families tax credit, they find that it does not cover those costs. The Government should look at that problem. I know that the Government are concerned that if they are putting public money into supporting child care, it should be regulated in some way, and I understand that concern. But how much difference is there really between child minders and nannies? Is it not just a case of whether children are looked after in their home or in their neighbours? Surely we can come to a compromise to help low-paid workers in my constituency, particularly shiftworkers, who cannot use child minders. Some people want to have their children cared for at home, and they should have Government support for child care so that they can benefit from the working families tax credit as so many other families are.
  My third point also comes from my constituents. There are strong environmental groups in Swindon, and people have an environmental focus to their thoughts. They want to see much more recycling and much greater emphasis placed on the environment. I know that they will be pleased that the Government published their waste strategy earlier today. It emphasises the need to increase recycling and composting, and to reduce waste at source.
  There is one section of the strategy that immediately raises concerns with me and I know that it will with my constituents, and I hope that we will be able to debate it in the future. It has put the recovery of energy, as it is described—incineration, in other words—on an equal footing with recycling and composting in the waste hierarchy. That has watered down the Government's desire in the consultation paper "Less waste more value" to move away from the previous Government's approach of putting energy recovery on a par with recycling.
  We know the problems that can occur with incineration, such as hazardous emissions, an increase in traffic going to the incinerators and disputes over location. No one wants an incinerator in their back yard. Given those problems, and the huge enthusiasm for recycling, I hope that we can look at the issue further. Recycling creates jobs and contributes to our global environmental aims of carbon dioxide reduction targets. I hope that we will have a chance to debate that in more detail to focus more on recycling.
  There has been some debate about Members of Parliament, and what happens in the House. A while ago I did some research on what happened to the waste from

  1151
  the House. I started it at a time when, unbeknown to me, the House authorities were reconsidering the contract for waste. When I started my research, it was fantastic: all our waste was sorted and, sure enough, the paper went off for recycling. I thought that this was great, and that we were leading by example.
  A little later, I was very disappointed to hear that the contract had changed, and that now all this paper—what some people might regard as all the hot air that is produced in the House and recorded—goes to contractors who make more hot air out of it by incinerating it. I hope that there will be a change in the House and at a national level. We are incinerating our waste and creating energy out of it rather than recycling it in the first place. That is an important issue for the House and the country.
  My fourth and final point is an international one. International issues feature largely in my postbag at the moment. The debt campaign is still alive and kicking, and I am pleased about that. It is a really big issue affecting many countries. I know that the Government have done a lot, but we need to do much more, particularly with the summit in July coming up.
  A number of constituents have also written to me about arms exports and the need for further arms controls. Yesterday, my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr. Cohen) presented an excellent ten-minute Bill that would stop British people and companies being involved in selling arms to countries where arms embargoes apply. We must take a responsible attitude to arms sales, which do huge damage—often to civilians—that can rarely be repaired. Arms sales fuel conflicts, and we should minimise our involvement in them. We should use our talents in more productive engineering and manufacturing, and promote reconciliation and development, not arms sales. I know that the Government recognise the need for further legislation. Four years ago, the Scott inquiry recommended urgent legislation. We should register arms dealers and licence all the deals that involve United Kingdom companies and nationals.
  My constituents have made it absolutely clear to me that dealing with arms sales is a priority. We must find time to take action now. The issue is not only of concern in Swindon but has widespread support in the House. An early-day motion on the subject has attracted support from 153 Members.
  I hope that the Government will continue to look at those four issues, which are regularly raised by my constituents, who look forward to further progress on all of them.
  3.11 pm
  Mr. Alan Hurst: I am pleased to have an opportunity to address the House before it adjourns for a short break. I shall declare an interest; everyone does so these days. I am a member of the Essex wildlife trust. I say that because I intend to speak about its marvellous venture at Abbots Hall farm in Essex, which stems from a former constituent of mine—Miss Elliot. Those who are not intimately familiar with the Braintree division may not have heard of Lake and Elliot's major engineering works in Braintree—a major employer. Alas, it left the scene some years ago, but Miss Elliot continued to live in the town and left more than £1 million in her will to promote nature conservation in the county.
  Having been interested in such matters since I was a boy, I am amazed how rapidly the awareness of nature conservation has grown during the past 40 or 50 years. I
  1152
  was tempted to join a natural history society when nine years old, under the fine example of a teacher at Westleigh school in the constituency of the hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess). I was enthused by the prospects that it holds for people. At that time, the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds had 7,000 members; it now has more members than all the major political parties added together, which shows its popular appeal.
  I originally come from Southend, which had the claim to fame of having one of the first municipal nature reserves in the county. A Southend Member and a former Southend Member are in the Chamber, but, in 1938, some far-sighted citizens had a tremendous battle on the borough council to acquire about 50 acres of ancient woodland on the edge of the town and preserve it for posterity before developers expanded estates over it.
  The accounts of that great battle show that it was not easily won. The same arguments were used. Those who were opposed it as an absolute waste of public money said, "I went to those woods; all I saw was a crow." On that basis, they would have bulldozed the woods. That was not done, and the far-sighted borough councils expanded the woodlands to 100 acres after the war.
  I mention that not because I come from Southend originally or because I represent a different part of Essex, but because it shows the tremendous strides that we have made. In Essex alone, the wildlife trust, which is now 40 years old, has 16,000 members. There are 92 nature reserves and 7,000 acres under nature conservation management in Essex, and it is not unique in such matters. The importance of conserving natural heritage is appreciated across the country. The late Miss Elliot's bequest is especially appreciated because she left so much money in her will to further that cause.
  Abbotts Hall farm takes nature conservation a step further forward because it will never be entirely successful in our country unless there is a partnership between agriculture and nature conservation. Some 80 per cent. of Essex is arable farmland. Unless farmers and conservationists can co-operate we shall not preserve the flora and fauna.
  We often read about the decline in common birds. The English partridge—so called to distinguish it from the French, but now called the grey partridge—has declined by 80 per cent. in the county. The skylark has also declined. People say, "I saw a skylark yesterday." No doubt, they did, but the point is that a few years ago they would have seen 10 or 20 skylarks.
  We must be mindful that common birds are declining at an enormous rate. The only way to reverse that trend is to have a co-operative partnership between conservation and farming. That is why the scheme at Abbots Hall farm, which is on the Essex coast, is so farsighted. The money originally came from Miss Elliot's will, but the lottery and the World Wildlife Fund have put money forward and the Environment Agency is co-operating in the scheme, which raises every important issue in agriculture today.
  The first issue is the managed retreat or managed realignment of coastal defences. The proposal is to adjust the coastline in co-operation with the Environment Agency, which is working closely with the Essex wildlife trust to create lagoons, cattle marsh and salt marsh, the effect of which on bird life is immense.
  Secondly, the Essex wildlife trust intends to run 300 acres of arable land, mindful of the factors that can be used to improve nature conservation, enhance the

  1153
  environment and make a profit. That is a bold test to take upon itself. It could be a beacon—a word that I dare not use normally—or, to put it in English, a way forward as to how it may be possible for farms to make a profit if they are farmed in a conservation-friendly way.
  Those of us who are not farmers should not say, "Yes, we want nature conservation and all the wonders of wildlife, but we want you, Mr. Fanner, to pay for it." If we are genuinely to make great strides in nature conservation and enhancing our farmlands, the state must be more generous in the grants and support given to the farming community for such projects. I hope that the Essex wildlife trust can lead the way at Abbots Hall farm and show how that can be done. If it is successful, I would urge the Government and the European Union to be more broad based and generous in the grants that are available.
  We often hear stories of doom and complaint, but I have referred to a story that, thanks to Miss Elliot's generosity and the co-operation of various agencies and the foresight of people in Essex, is an enormous contribution of which we can all be proud. Some people in the Braintree division say that the reserve should have been created in Braintree. Some earlier parliamentary redistribution took away our coastlines, but Braintree people are nevertheless more broad minded than to say that everything should stop at the Chelmsford boundary. In fact, the scheme will be benefit the people not only of Essex but of the whole country, and I am pleased to have had the opportunity to bring it to the attention of the House.
  3.19 pm
  Mr. David Kidney: I shall take this opportunity to mention two matters that affect my constituency but that have a national application. As that is the case, I appeal to the House to give them support. I appeal to my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary and to the Government whom he represents, as well as to the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young), who is on the Opposition Front Bench. I am sorry that my parliamentary neighbour the hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack) is not with us for today's debate, but he has a happy, family engagement to keep him away from us. He always enjoys such debates and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman enjoys this one in his place. Finally, I appeal to hon. Members who are present for their support—I am content for them to express it by saying, "Hear, hear" at the appropriate moment.
  The first matter concerns the magnificent response to the sad job losses in Stafford. The second is a national project that is planned for Stafford, a national centre for food.
  First, ALSTOM, the power company—a great international company which has 100,000 employees throughout the world and has a base in Stafford dealing with the electrical power industry—unfortunately announced the loss of 730 jobs in Stafford in one go, which is one third of the total work force in the town. The company is the largest private sector employer in Stafford, so the House can imagine the devastation and sadness that that caused. There was a great dip in morale in the town because of the announcement.
  1154
  Stafford has a proud history of connections with the power industry. At the beginning of the 20th century, the Siemens brothers established a factory in Stafford. They moved out with the first world war and English Electric took over, making a great business of it. At the peak, 14,000 people in Stafford worked for that company. With modernisation, the General Electric Company became the owners. It started a joint company with Alcatel, called GEC-Alstom, and eventually sold its share to that company. The business was then floated on the stock market as ALSTOM, with headquarters in Paris, and it remains the owner of the site.
  Transmission and distribution equipment is sent around the world from those premises in Stafford. Recent contracts have been completed in Canada, China, India, south America and south-east Asia. Stafford has a great reputation in the power industry throughout the world, which brings me to the first national application.
  The state of manufacturing in this country takes up much of our time at the moment. The business in Stafford was the sort that we are proud of, with highly skilled, value-added work and a reputation to match any in the world. However, the company has laid off a third of its work force in the town because of difficulty in securing overseas contracts. That is partly due to the present oversupply in the industry, but many of its major competitors are based in euroland countries and are benefiting from the mismatch between the euro and sterling. They have a huge price advantage in every competition to win contracts throughout the world. That is the heart of the difficulty.
  I happen to agree with the Government's argument that there is nothing that we can do in this country to solve the problem of the weakness of the euro. Other organisations and other countries must take the decisions to solve that part of the problem. The job of our Government is to give practical support to manufacturing and to the other sectors that are exposed to the problem—farming and, increasingly, tourism—to get them through this difficult time. That means measures such as setting up British Trade International and giving support with exports, modernising export credit guarantees as we are doing, tax changes, giving capital allowances and research and development tax credits. All those are to the good and we must be determined to target them at our manufacturers.
  When jobs have, sadly, to go owing to restructuring, as we are witnessing in Stafford, it means giving help to the poor people who lose their jobs—giving them the opportunity to find other jobs in their locality. We must not waste the skills that these ALSTOM employees have. Again, that brings me to the national application of the Stafford problem: how do we get those people jobs? There is not a huge number of other employers in the power industry near Stafford, but we have a great reputation in electrical power.
  My vision is that we should carry forward that reputation into a new generation of power. The Government are trying to re-balance our energy demands and supply so that we use more new and renewable energy sources. I would like Stafford to take its part in that agenda of re-balancing the country's energy supplies. I want to make Stafford a centre of excellence for new and renewable energy sources.

  1155
  To that end, I have taken the advice of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, rolled up my sleeves and approached local people to establish a project to do just that. Between us we have arranged for business people, a solicitor and an accountant to give their time for free and for a banker to give free banking for the project, which is proceeding under the company name Renew Stafford. Our aim is to establish Stafford as a centre that is recognised throughout the world for this century's power needs and demands. I hope that in due course we will receive some Government support—after all, it is their policy to promote new and renewable energies—to get that project off the ground.
  The management of ALSTOM throughout the United Kingdom have been extremely co-operative. The company is sad that it has had to dismiss a third of its work force in Stafford and it wants to help, so it is working co-operatively with the directors of the new company, Renew Stafford. I have no direct interest in the company as the business men who are giving their time for free are the directors. I praise ALSTOM, which has given the new company such enthusiastic support, for its responsible attitude. I hope that together we will be very successful.
  Another national dimension of the job losses in Stafford is that the local authority, Stafford borough council, has also accepted its obligation to do something to help and has produced an exceptionally good-quality bid for the sixth round of the single regeneration budget. Its aim is to try to improve business services to link up more businesses in Stafford to the most modern information and communications technologies and to draw in new enterprises along those lines. It has had discussions with me and with the directors of Renew Stafford about how the SRB bid can link in with promoting Stafford's reputation as a centre for modern energy sources. I am pleased that the SRB bid and our proposal for a centre for new and renewable energy seem complementary. I am optimistic that the bid will have a successful outcome when it goes to the Government later this year.
  Therefore, the first item was a sorry story that, I hope, will have a happy ending—we will find out later this year. The second item that I wish to raise is the proposal for a national centre for the culinary arts to be located in Stafford. Clearly, the national application is obvious—it is a national centre and will be the one and only showcase for British food and catering. It is a tremendously ambitious project and I am proud of the people who have had the vision to embark on it—mainly, the board of the British Food Trust. I do not know how many hon. Members know that Prue Leith, the famous cook, chairs the trustees. Having met her, I am delighted with her vision for the scheme, her enthusiasm for it and the breadth of her knowledge and contacts. I hope that she will be successful in locating the scheme in Stafford.
  Stafford has been chosen because of its location in the centre of the country, with good communications by road and by rail. Also, it is in a beautiful part of the country, on the edge of Cannock Chase, with the Staffordshire moorlands to the north. It is an industrial heartland, with Stoke-on-Trent to one side and the black country to the other. Therefore, the site is excellent and premises have been located. English Partnerships, as it was, bought the site of the old St. George's hospital, which covers 28 acres and is in talks with the trust to deliver the project.
  1156
  If it is successful, we will have a place in Britain that we can all visit and that will have exhibitions and displays about British food that is produced and cooked in this country. There will be exhibitions of catering, food processes and kitchens through the ages. People will be able to attend courses on the production, preparation and cooking of food. Related activities will include conferences and displays. There will be hotels and eating places on site, as well as retail outlets linked to the theme of British food.
  I am sure that many Departments will want to support the scheme: the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food; the Department of Trade and Industry; the Department for Culture, Media and Sport because of the tourism aspect; and the Department of Health because of its responsibility for food safety. The scheme offers endless opportunities to attract their interest and support. Indeed, hon. Members too will want to visit this new and exciting development in Stafford. The scheme has tremendous potential.
  Dr. Kumar: rose—
  Mr. Kidney: I shall be happy to give way to my hon. Friend as long as he is not about to tell us that there are plans to build such a centre in Middlesbrough.
  Dr. Kumar: Is my hon. Friend asking for cluster development support from the Government? From his description, the scheme would seem ideal for that form of development, which the Government promoted strongly in the competitiveness White Paper.
  Mr. Kidney: I thank my hon. Friend for that suggestion.
  I mentioned new and renewable energy sources. We are certainly trying to get support from the DTI for a cluster of power-related industries and suppliers. I know that there is Government money to support such development.
  However, the national centre for food will stand alone. It will attract visitors from all over the country and will offer a superb showcase internationally for British food and catering techniques. I am not sure about cluster development for that scheme, although as I live in my constituency, I am optimistically looking forward to the great new eating places that are going to open there. That will be superb.
  In relation to funding and to the point made by my hon. Friend, I think that the food industry, which is extremely successful in the UK, will be interested in supporting the project. I should like to see other developments around Stafford as a result of the industry's support for the national centre. If there is a cluster of locations and jobs, that would be an excellent development.
  There will be much private investment because the idea is unique; it has exciting potential and there will be obvious gains for investors. However, it is intended that entry would be free to the centrepiece of the scheme—colloquially known as the great British kitchen. There would be no fee for displays of, and an education in, the history of British food—the public parts of the scheme. There is no doubt that that aspect will not be so attractive to private sector developers. The trust is concerned about whether the Government would consider the scheme worthy of public support if there were a gap between what

  1157
  those developers would pay for and the overall funding needs of the project. However, I have mentioned so many Departments that it is inconceivable that there would not be some support.
  The one difficulty that has arisen in my discussions with the trust, with Advantage West Midlands—our regional development agency—and with the Government office of the west midlands is that Stafford has never featured on any map of areas of deprivation or those in need of assistance. Sometimes, that is the key to obtaining investment. The Government may need a little ingenuity to justify investment in Stafford.
  I hope that they will show such ingenuity for the following reasons. I described how well Stafford responded to a great shock recently. I am proud to represent an area whose people show such a great can-do attitude. We have never been an area of great deprivation because we have always managed for ourselves. However, at present, we have hit some choppy water and we shall be in some difficulty if we cannot pull through it. We have the right attitude; we want to overcome the problems. A helping hand from the Government at the right time will help us, so that we never appear on a map as an area in need of extra assistance. I hope that a little bit of preventive action from the Government will help us to continue to be the successful area that I am delighted to represent.
  3.34 pm
  Mr. David Amess: The Minister will notice a difference in my tone on local matters. That is because on the first Thursday in May there was a political sea change in Southend. The council moved from Labour-Liberal control by one to Conservative control with a majority of 11. Every Labour candidate was defeated—as were all but two of the Liberal candidates.
  The Conservative party campaigned on several issues; now, it is up to the party to deliver. The Minister will recall that, on occasions such as this, I often share my feelings on such issues with the House. I am, therefore, delighted to tell the House that the new Conservative council has decided to stop the ridiculous idea, introduced by the previous Lib-Lab council, of bus lanes all along the London road. They would have destroyed businesses and damaged the general environment of the area.
  I am also delighted that the Conservative council has decided to change the ridiculous proposals for double yellow lines on either side of Hainault avenue, and that an especially vindictive action of the previous council—charges for people with learning disabilities—has been overturned. If the Minister can come up with a solution to how the Conservative council can defeat graffiti, I should be only too happy to pass it on.
  Two weeks ago, I was privileged to be invited to the Barbican centre to attend the presentation of a bronze award to my constituent, Mr. John Foster. The event was organised by the Royal National Lifeboat Institution. It was the first time for 20 years that a Southend lifeboat man had received such an award. Mr. Foster was supported by helmsmen Michael Whistler and Ian Rees.
  I shall not go into the full details of their heroic actions on 24 October, when they set sail in the Lady Jane. However, they were undoubtedly responsible for saving
  1158
  the lives of three people. We heard two magnificent speeches at the presentation. The first was from the Princess Royal, who shared with us her experiences of the bravery of lifeboat men. Apparently, she launched the boat that rescued the three people—that was a nice touch. The second speech was given by the lady who has presented "Songs of Praise" for the past 13 years; she made a wonderful speech.
  On that occasion, I was struck by the crazy circumstances in which the general public go out to sea—although I am not referring to the events that led to the award for my constituent. I am not a sailor. As soon as the water gets choppy, I feel desperately ill. However, when I learned from private conversations how some members of the public risk not only their own lives but those of lifeboat men, I could hardly believe it. In my extreme ignorance, I did not realise that one could buy any boat and immediately set out on the water. I knew that there was no test such as those for driving cars and motorbikes, but I thought that at least people received some training and a certificate before they could be in charge of a reasonably sized craft.
  I heard of people going out in rough weather—despite all the warnings—without wearing a life-jacket. That is crazy. Will the Minister reflect on that point? If he does not have time to deal with it when he sums up the debate, perhaps he could write to let me know whether the Government have any plans on that matter. Although I applaud the bravery of all our volunteers, it is extraordinarily irresponsible of members of the public to risk not only their own lives but those of others.
  My second point, which is about mobile telephones, has already been touched on. As a result of what I shall say, I will never ever be offered a consultancy by a mobile phone company. I am proud to say that I loathe the things. When I go on a train, I hear members of the public use their mobile phones. Their conversations are not private and they tell so and so—one cannot help listening—that they will be home in 10 minutes or that they have got on to the train. I do not know what their loved ones can do about the fact that they have got on a train. One cannot help listening to inane conversations, which presumably cost money.
  I often wonder whether things are so desperately important that we have to be immediately accessible to a person at the other end of a phone. I have to admit that I own a mobile telephone, but that is because I won it in a raffle. I suppose that I could have given it to someone else, but I thought that it would be churlish to do that. I am not running up a telephone bill, but I buy units and use the phone in a mean fashion just in case someone genuinely thinks that he needs to contact me urgently.
  I do not understand the technology, but, like the technology for fax and other machines, it is wonderful. However, our constituents are alarmed by what is going on. The Minister will probably say that it was all the fault of the Government whom I supported that companies are allowed to put up telephone masts. I must have had my eye off the ball, because I would have been more vocal if I had known that that was happening. If they did, I do not know why this Government cannot intervene to stop the process.
  I wish to share with the House the flavour of the correspondence that I have had on the issue. In Cottesmore gardens, a mast was installed on 16 May.

  1159
  The residents received late notice of its installation and the possible dangers of transmission of electromagnetic radiation. Although there is no evidence available that shows that such masts damage health, it is reported that
  children have been seen as most vulnerable to mobile phone radiation because they are still growing and their immune systems are not fully developed.
  The letters that I have received were triggered by an article that appeared in the Daily Mail. It said:
  The Stewart Inquiry, led by Professor Sir William Stewart, is also expected to advise that mobile phone transmission masts should be kept away from schools, hospitals, and residential areas.
  I have been inundated by letters, but I shall quote from just two of them. The first says:
  I understand that the Stewart Inquiry is expected to advise against the installation of mobile transmission masts in residential areas. If this is indeed the case, surely any morally responsible and reputable company would not have continued with such a plan.
  The second asks:
  Is this really necessary? If it is dangerous to the health of our youngsters, we do not want it.
  Other letters make similar points. I genuinely do not understand the technology of mobile phones; it might be marvellous. However, if it is true that the way in which they work somehow endangers people's health, we need to consider the issue carefully.
  The masts are monstrosities. They look like rocket launch pads, they are being erected all over the country and they are hideous. On that count alone, we should unite against them. That might make us very unpopular with the companies, but so what? The matter is out of control, but I hope that the Minister will offer me some encouragement on that point.
  I notice that hon. Members are beginning to twitch, so I shall make three final points. I asked my secretary to look up constituency correspondence that highlights policies that the Government have failed to deliver or that are unfair. Two of my constituents are happy for me to quote them, but the other one will have to be known as Mr. X.
  The first letter is about Mr. Bowden's jobseeker's allowance. I was contacted by Mr. Bowden who wished to travel out of the country with his wife to attend his sister-in-law's funeral in Paris. However, as he was claiming jobseeker's allowance, he was informed by the Benefits Agency branch in Southend that, on leaving the country, he would have to provide it with a letter stating the dates that he was going and the reasons why. He would then have all benefit stopped while he was out of the country—in his case for a day, because he was going there and back on Eurostar—and, on his return, he would be asked to submit a completely new claim for jobseeker's allowance. The whole application process would begin from scratch. Goodness, that is ridiculous. Anyone with common sense would hope for discretion. Because Mr. Bowden had to travel to a bereavement, surely the behaviour of the agency was unreasonable.
  My constituent contacted me because he thought that he was penalised for being honest. He honestly contacted the Benefits Agency to inform it that he would be absent for a day and because he thought that it could not be reasonably argued that attending a funeral in a close European country, such as France, makes one less available for work—perhaps, he could have had a
  1160
  wretched mobile phone if he needed to be called urgently for an interview—than if he had had to attend a funeral in the United Kingdom.
  I wrote to a Minister, but I shall not name that Minister. However, I will quote the letter that I received in reply. It said:
  Decisions on availability for work, or whether restrictions placed on availability are reasonable, are made by the decision makers, who make decisions fairly and impartially on behalf of the Secretary of State. No one, including Ministers, can interfere with the decision making process.
  The decision maker is the first tier of the decision making process. Their decisions carry the right of apply to The Appeals Service with a further right of appeal, on a point of law, to the Social Security Commissioner.
  My constituent was obviously deeply comforted by that ministerial reply.
  Sometimes we are guilty of hurriedly passing on by phone the covering letter that goes with such ministerial replies. However, that reply was not a very good one. Apart from the fact that it endlessly repeated the word "decisions", the answer was crazy. If the Minister gets a chance, I hope that he will send a message to the Department of Social Security and that, if he has the time, he will write to me about this issue.
  I have the correspondence in which Mr. X wrote to me about television licences for the over-75s. He was concerned about the concession and he pointed out that when a married couple have enjoyed the benefit and the elder partner dies before the younger one reaches the age of 75, the concession will be taken away from the widow or widower until that person reached that age. As the survivor, particularly a widow, will almost certainly be worse off financially, it seems unfair that he or she will have to start paying the cost of the television licence on the death of a loved one. Before Labour Members ask about what the Conservative party suggested yesterday, may I say that I recognise that point? However, we have a Labour Government and it was their idea for television licences. I hope that the Minister will lean on the Department in the hope that we can have a sensible reply to my constituent's point.
  My final point is about a concern expressed by Mrs. Day, a teacher at West Leigh school. This is what has happened to her over the past few weeks. She took up the Government's offer of the computers for teachers scheme in February this year. In order to take advantage of the offer, Mrs. Day borrowed the money from a friend. She paid £1,000 for the computer and duly sent off the completed form, expecting her £500 to be forthcoming.
  The application form states:
  Please allow one month from despatch for receipt of payment.
  It is almost June and Mrs. Day has not received the payment, nor has she been contacted by the Department, despite more than 20 telephone calls. Not one of them has been answered by a human being—just the usual answerphone. She has tried telephoning at all times of the day.
  Finally, on the 21st attempt, the phone call was returned. However, that was in the middle of a teaching day, and Mrs. Day, who did not have a mobile phone with her, was not available to take the call. The lady left two numbers on the answerphone but—surprise, surprise—calls to those numbers have not been acknowledged.

  1161
  In April, Mrs. Day wrote to Caxton house. To date she has not received a response. Shortly afterwards, undeterred, she e-mailed and finally got a response. "Thank goodness!", I hear everyone cry. Unfortunately, the response to the e-mail bore no relation to the query that she raised. She has since found out that it was simply a standard reply.
  We heard the hon. Member for Braintree (Mr. Hurst) mention West Leigh school earlier. Besides Mrs. Day, six other teachers there took up the offer and are still waiting for their money. Without my pouring poison on the situation—I have no idea what the politics of those seven teachers are—I can report that they feel let down by the scheme.
  I have found that locally, since the first Thursday in May, things are improving, but nationally, there are still matters that trouble my constituents, and I hope that the Minister will have good news for them.
  3.52 pm
  Mr. Harry Barnes: Before I outline the main item that I intend to raise, I shall comment on one or two of the contributions made so far.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney), who discussed the employment problems and potential in his area, developed a theme that many of us could expand in relation to our own areas. I find that in North-East Derbyshire, although we are doing quite well in terms of economic growth and development, new jobs coming up, and the new deal, dramatic problems continue to arise.
  Two major firms in the area have gone into receivership. One is Brian Donkin, a foundry at Renishaw, with the loss of 180 jobs. The foundry industry is particularly affected by the problem of sterling, which my hon. Friend mentioned. The second firm is Dema Glass at Chesterfield, which also affects North-East Derbyshire. A third firm that has gone into receivership, although that has not led to any unemployment, is Westwood Care, which runs five nursing homes in the north of Derbyshire. Whether receivership arrangements should apply to nursing homes, whose collapse could create a major problem for social services, is a matter worth considering.
  In response to economic trends, there are moves by an outside firm to take over Biwaters of Clay Cross and Stanton plc in the Staveley area in my constituency. Both companies produce pipes, which are much needed for the movement of water in the third world, and both firms have had good contracts there. Both firms should have great potential, but instead there is considerable worry about what the change and rationalisation will mean. The level of sterling is not helpful. If that were tackled, the picture would be one of steady progress, rather than of steady progress associated with particular problems.
  My hon. Friend the Member for South Swindon (Ms Drown) spoke about the bus service problems in her area, and we have many similar problems in North-East Derbyshire. We used to have excellent bus services—to the north, the South Yorkshire Transport provision was a beacon to the rest of the country, and Chesterfield Transport, which was well respected and served a large part of the area that I represent.
  Now the major problem that we face involves Stagecoach, which operates 60 per cent. of the services in the area. A public inquiry is to be held in Chesterfield on
  1162
  26 June into the operation of one of its licences, and I have received many complaints about other licences. A massive problem has arisen in the Mansfield area nearby, after 72 out of 80 Stagecoach buses were taken off the road—40 after the inspectors had issued notices, and the others removed by the company itself. That has a tremendous knock-on effect on other areas, such as Chesterfield, from where 19 buses have been taken away to serve Mansfield, which has led to a cut in services in the Chesterfield area. I endorse the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for South Swindon with regard to the Transport Bill.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough, South and Cleveland, East (Dr. Kumar) made a valuable contribution on recognition for those who had served in places such as the canal zone. I wondered whether I might be eligible for recognition, because in 1955—one of the years mentioned by my hon. Friend—I spent five days in the canal zone, but that might not qualify, as I was only in transit. I did the rest of my national service in Iraq, and if that had been a few years later, I might have acquired all the medals in the world for the action that was undertaken there. However, during my national service, I only ever heard one shot fired in anger.
  The hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell) spoke about modernisation and told us that he served on the Modernisation Committee. I was struck by the thought that here is someone who is into modernisation, whose trousers do not even match his jacket. Perhaps there is hope for us all—as regards not just modernisation of the House, but the notion of modernisation that is part of new Labour. Some of us whose trousers do not match our jacket may come to terms with that in future.
  The principal matter that I want to raise concerns junk mail, which causes disruption and concern to masses of our constituents. A constituent came to see me at one of my recent surgeries and dumped a large black binliner on the table. It was packed full of unsolicited letters, all of them glossy and professional-looking, which had been sent to her mother.
  The bag contained 390 letters which had been delivered to a 73-year-old over the past six months. The number is now up to 415, as 25 fresh items of junk mail have arrived in the past few days. Those letters are only a small part of what has been sent to a local pensioner. Piles of unwanted mail have simply been thrown away, especially those that arrived before the daughter started to collect a selection of them six months ago.
  I have a handful of letters with me. Some are from addresses in this country, including Rainham, in Essex; Chelsea; a post box number in London; Chiswick high road in London; Surrey; and Luton. The great bulk of letters come from overseas, from Spain, Australia, Denmark, Singapore, France, Belgium, Malaysia, the Netherlands, Canada and the United States of America. A lot come from Canada and the United States, often from different places, but, even if they come from the same place, such as Kansas, often from different companies. This huge problem affects not only my constituent, who may be an extreme case in terms of the quantities received, but many others.
  The letters come from a wide range of organisations, but they follow a similar pattern. They give the impression that the recipients will receive a big cash payment if they reply quickly. Among the enticements

  1163
  are sums of £4,000, $25,000, and even a chance to win £30 million. Only when one reads the small print does one discover how the sender gets out of tipping up the money. The returned entry obtains only a lottery place and there is no way of checking that the lottery will even take place.
  The scam is completed by asking the recipient to send a small entrance fee of, say, £19.95. Such fees are sometimes called a judging fee, a processing fee or a service fee. Others do not ask for a fee, but offer an object for purchase instead. Some people might then buy the object in the mistaken hope that it will give their lottery entry an edge. In one case, our pensioner was asked for £12.97 to obtain a stylised love-knot necklace. I am informed that when people send such money, only junk is returned.
  Unfortunately, it is not illegal for a company to send out unsolicited mail unless the material is obscene, threatening, or deliberately, and, probably, entirely misleading in the offer that it makes. The scams that I have described generally avoid such pitfalls, although a number probably sail close to the wind.
  Mail from overseas is particularly difficult to tackle. In late 1998, the Queensland postal service estimated that it had processed hundreds of thousands of responses from the United Kingdom to a lottery scam operated by a PO box in Australia.
  Avenues to stem the flow of unwanted mail include the Mail Preference Service, the Direct Marketing Association, the Office of Fair Trading and the Advertising Standards Agency, but those are unlikely to staunch the flow of unwanted letters to my constituent. She cannot tackle this wide range of rip-off merchants either collectively or through a one-stop shop.
  My constituent is not alone in her plight. The "Sorted" column in the Daily Mirror has pursued the problem on behalf of thousands of its readers. A standard letter that it sends to readers caught up in such junk mail states:
  Sadly, this is a persistent problem which prompts more letters to Sorted than any other subject.
  We have repeatedly exposed the bogus nature of many of these contests and always advise readers not to send money to claim prizes.
  Many of the mailings use PO boxes and addresses abroad. especially in Holland, Australia and Canada.
  When there is a UK address, it is usually a PO Box which forwards to another address abroad.
  The Canadian government is investigating several companies after we alerted them to the problem.
  Canada is a major source of such letters, but I hope that our Government will undertake a similar investigation. I have numerous details of companies from my binliner to pass to the relevant Minister.
  The starting point for such an investigation has been raised with me in a letter from Michael Greenwood, a reporter on the "Sorted" investigation run by the Daily Mirror. He states:
  The last article we wrote on junk mail was directed at Royal Mail. In my opinion they are one of the few organisations that can help the consumer fight the problem.
  There are so many of these bogus mailings it is impossible to keep track of the companies concerned, let alone confront anyone who runs such firms.
  But what is consistent is that many of the mailings come into this country in envelopes marked with Royal Mail prepaid "HQ" codes.
  1164
  Not only does this give the mailings credence of such a respected national institution but it means the con men are getting a reduced postal rate.
  One code, which we mentioned in the March 24th report, is a particular problem and we have repeatedly raised this with the Royal Mail.
  That is the code HQ5810. It appears on a letter that I have here which is addressed to my constituent, and it is the most common code used on mail in my bag where Royal Mail is employed. Other HQ codes among my constituents' mail are 6050, 4896, 4144 and 2137.
  The reason my constituent receives unsolicited junk mail from numerous companies is that those companies are likely to be interlinked, or perhaps two or three separate junk mail consortiums hold her details. Such organisations have a tendency to prey on pensioners and others who may seem vulnerable. The interlinking of such operations is shown in articles in the Daily Mirror dated 16 April 1999 and 11 June 1999. They show one man, in Australia, Terrance Morris, to be behind campaigns operating under a variety of names in Canada, Denmark, Holland, Sweden, Germany and Switzerland.
  It is said that we live in a global economy—in a global village. We are certainly seeing the globalisation of rip-offs and scams. Therefore, the Government will need to work with other nations to develop an effective strategy to stop such unhealthy developments. I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to inform the Department of Trade and Industry and others that I am more than willing to bring them my black binliner full of letters and to discuss with them this serious problem.
  4.8 pm
  Mr. John Randall: I start by echoing the concerns of the hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes), which I am sure are shared by all our constituents. I am concerned about not only junk mail but junk faxes. I am also perturbed that, from time to time, I receive letters suggesting that I enter a prize draw, which often emanate from the Consumers Association and Which?, which I find rather strange. That is not a scam, but it is certainly a marketing ploy.
  While we are on the subject of postal services, I want to raise a matter which is of great concern in particular to those of my constituents who live in Ickenham who, for many years, have regarded themselves as a separate community with well-defined boundaries. Their postal code of UB represents Uxbridge as the postal town. They are aggrieved that the Post Office does not include Ickenham in that address. This is not just a matter of pride in one's community, although that should be taken into account, and, from time to time, it has led to much confusion.
  Many Members may have had the experience, for instance, of booking tickets by telephone and being asked for first their surname and then their postcode. When they have told the company concerned their postcode, they are told the rest of their address. For instance, people living in the Greenway in Ickenham will be told that it is the Greenway, Uxbridge. However, there is already a Greenway in Uxbridge and another in Cowley, and the postcodes of all three have UB prefixes.
  I know of a sad case in which a golden wedding bouquet from a relation did not arrive at the right address because of the confusion that I have described. I raised

  1165
  the matter with the Post Office, but it was not willing to undertake the simple task of adding just one line to the computer database. The situation is not confined to the people of Ickenham; a member of the Cowley community experienced exactly the same problem.
  I agree with what many hon. Members have said about mobile telephone masts. I can think of three that are causing concern in my constituency, which, in geographical terms, is very small. It is proposed that one should be built in Long lane, Hillingdon, very close to St. Bernadette's school. Another is already on site in Honey hill, Uxbridge, and an application has been made for retrospective permission. It beams straight into the bedroom of the teenage daughter of one of my constituents. The third, on Uxbridge common, must have an effect on people in a residential care home for the elderly in Harefield road, Uxbridge.
  Some of the side effects of the masts seem to be affecting electronic devices. A security officer to whom I spoke recently said that it was not uncommon for home security alarms, or even car locking devices, to be activated by the radio waves sent out by the masts. I am far from convinced that we know enough about the masts. If they are activating those alarms, what might they be doing to individuals? I am sure that we are all concerned about people's safety, and I hope that the Government will consider the matter.
  Several Members, notably my hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle (Mr. Day), raised the question of roads. In Uxbridge and the surrounding area, what we are after is not more roads, but more road safety and less traffic. In the near vicinity, we are threatened by what are, in theory, worthy causes—the construction f two rail freight depots. It may be thought that is difficult to oppose in principle: we are all in favour of taking more freight off the roads and putting it on to rail. However, the construction of the depots would dramatically increase large traffic movements of heavy lorries in and around roads in my area.
  One of the developments is proposed by Central Railway. It has not yet got round to an application, but the development is part of a scheme covering Liverpool and extending, eventually, to Lille. A terrible problem is being caused by the blight that is affecting people along the line. I think the Government should consider the problem of blight when developments have not even been put forward—and this has been going on for a long time.
  I also have a request about roads. Many hon. Members may travel down the A40 tonight on their way to their constituencies. When they see the first bit of open road, they may want to put their foot on the accelerator. I can tell them that the residents of Uxbridge, Hillingdon and Ickenham will not be pleased about that, because traffic noise has been a constant problem to them for many years. Although some measures are now being taken, speed reduction would help. I was surprised to learn that reduction in speed levels could be brought about only for road safety, rather than environmental, reasons, and I hope that the Government will think about that.
  I sometimes think that we hear a lot in this place about the real problems of inner cities and rural areas, but the poor old suburbs are forgotten. They are thought of as leafy, and indeed they contain leafy areas, but they
  1166
  nevertheless experience problems, which, if they are left to their own devices for too long, can only become worse. Hillingdon, for example, has lost many of its public services. We have lost several firefighting appliances, and police numbers are down because staff are sucked into central London.
  Most people move to the suburbs to improve the quality of their lives, but I increasingly hear that that quality of life has been eroded to the point at which people want to move further away. There is, of course, the problem of affordable housing, which involves not just public services but finding people homes near their work, so that local industry can be maintained.
  Finally, let me mention a problem that is near to my heart. I declare my interest as a director—nowadays—of a retail store. In the past, I have worked behind the counters and on the vans of the store.
  We hear a lot about air rage, road rage and violent attacks on public service workers. A few days ago, we heard of the murder of a retailer in west London. That was an extreme incident, but many shop workers are subjected daily to much abuse and threatened violence. Sometimes the abuse and threats come from shoplifters; I am not sure that shoplifting is deemed to be as serious an offence as it seems to people trying to apprehend those who try to steal their property. Increasingly, however, shop workers are subjected to both physical and verbal violence by customers.
  Nowadays, we rightly give consumers a great deal of protection, but I think we should also bear in mind the rights of those who serve the public.
  4.18 pm
  Mr. Alan Simpson: I think that it would be wrong for the House to adjourn without considering the continuing problems arising from the British Coal respiratory compensation scheme. At least 100,000 claims have been made, and I know that many Members, including my hon. Friend the Deputy Leader of the House, have taken up complaints. I shall refer to only three cases, but those cases exemplify the tragedy that still exists because of non-payment of compensation to miners affected by diseases following the years of work that they have put into the industry. I am grateful that my three constituents have given permission to refer to them. They are Enoch Rollo, Jack Betts—via his daughter, Frances Haywood—and Joseph Moore and his family.
  The starting point is an impressive Government policy under which £2 billion has been put aside for compensation payments—a commitment that I hope has the support of the whole House. In March, however, in common with many other hon. Members, I received a letter from my right hon. Friend the Minister for Energy and Competitiveness in Europe, which set out the problems that continue to bedevil the scheme's ability to deliver compensation to miners who rightfully have a claim. My right hon. Friend also expressed her frustration and concerns at the delays:
  The first stage of the medical testing has almost been completed. I am, however, frustrated that we have not yet got the volume we hoped for going through the Main Medical Assessment procedure… We have in place facilities to complete 2,500 MAPs a month by now, but we will make only around 50 this month.
  That hoped-for completion rate has not materialised—and certainly not in time for Joe Moore, who died last week after 25 years of suffering from chronic bronchitis and emphysema. His funeral is tomorrow.

  1167
  Joe Moore joins 620 miners in Nottinghamshire who died before their compensation claims were dealt with, and they are among 40,000 or more miners nationally who died before the scheme delivered compensation. I am concerned at the failure to deliver a commitment made in the House to the households of miners suffering from the lifetime effects of working in the mining industry.
  My right hon. Friend the Minister hoped to deliver 2,500 medical assessments a month, but the fast-track system has not materialised in Nottinghamshire. The 620 miners who died were in effect delayed to death. Since the introduction of the MAP process, only one miner in Nottinghamshire has been assessed.
  The solicitors representing Joe Moore wrote to me earlier this year to express their frustration at the delays:
  When we pass information to IRISC—
  the claims managers for British Coal—
  they send it to Healthcall, the organisation appointed by the DTI to run the Medical Assessment Process. Healthcall then pass it to an organisation called MPS who then obtain each miner's medical and employment records. We understand this is taking some considerable time in each case. In addition, the main cause of the delay is that the Medical Assessment Process is, to the best of our knowledge, not running as yet in this area. At the time of writing this letter the only people that have been tested are miners resident in Wales. Earlier this year, we were informed that the Medical Assessment Process would begin in this area in March 2000 but, as of yet, no one has been tested. We have continuously asked IRISC for an explanation, as the doctors have now been appointed and the test centres have been established, but no answer has been provided.
  Although Joe Moore was close to death, the fast-track process was no track at all for him. It failed to materialise. We cannot allow that situation to continue. We should reflect on why it was so different when a Labour Government introduced a compensation scheme for pneumoconiosis—a scheme that was simpler in many ways, because the number of negotiations was fewer.
  My right hon. Friend the Minister points out that another factor is the proliferation of agencies involved and the delays in the provision of medical records. If the Government have to introduce a defined time framework within which agencies are required to co-operate and supply the necessary information, the health or legal professionals must accept liability for their standard of work and the processing of legitimate claims.
  None of that will be in time for the miners who have already died, but it will make a difference to their families. The debt that we owe to miners must be discharged to their families. Tomorrow, Joe Moore's family will say their last goodbyes to a man was brave, stubborn, honest and hard-working. He received a British Empire Medal for his services to the industry. It is saddening that he devoted his working life to an industry that repaid his commitment with delay and indifference.
  That is not meant as a slur against Joe Moore or his family. He was fortunate to be able to draw on the support of his wife, Beryl, and his eight children—who were able to step in and provide personal support, although that should have been enhanced by the compensation payments that were due by right. Beryl and her eight children—Anthony, Teresa, Patrick, Jacqueline, Andrew, Catherine, Pamela and Yvonne—will be saying goodbye to a man whose life was honest, straightforward and principled. None of those characteristics can be associated with the mechanisms behind the delays that stood between
  1168
  Joe Moore and the financial and practical support to which he had a right, to alleviate suffering in the final years of his life.
  Our continuing debt to miners is a debt of honour. I hope that the House will take whatever steps it can to discharge that debt quickly and honourably for all the miners for whom Joe Moore and his family would demand justice and their rights.
  4.29 pm
  Mr. Vernon Coaker: It is a privilege and pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Simpson), who raises an issue of great importance to everyone in Nottinghamshire and no doubt to constituents of my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes) and other hon. Members who have represented coalfield communities for many years. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office has also been foremost among those who have campaigned for miners on many issues, including compensation—the payment of which should be made as quickly as possible. I hope that we will be able to do that, and that his constituents and ours receive the compensation that is their due.
  Before the Whitsun adjournment, I want to raise three particular issues—two briefly and one in a little more detail—that affect my constituents and that have been raised with me several times. The first was also raised by the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall). It concerns an important point, which many hon. Members raise—the small pockets of deprivation outside inner cities and other city areas, and within suburbs or rural areas.
  My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary will know that I have long campaigned for areas within my constituency where there are small pockets of quite intense deprivation. Those areas often receive very little help through grant or additional funding, which they need to tackle poverty. My hon. Friend will know that I have campaigned for a long time for Netherfield, in my constituency, a very deprived ward—especially some parts of it—which has continually failed to get single regeneration budget money simply because it is the wrong side of the line and does not fit particular criteria.
  In this day and age, we should be able to come up with statistical data that allow us to focus on small pockets of deprivation rather than allowing them to be overwhelmed by the general affluence that sometimes surrounds them. I hope that Netherfield—I am sure that hon. Members will have their own examples of such areas of deprivation—will be able to get the help that it needs to overcome its real problems of poverty.
  The second issue is the iniquity of the education standard spending assessment system. I am pleased that my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney), who is one of the leading lights in the Fair Funding 40 campaign, is in the Chamber. There are real issues in Nottinghamshire and in all the schools in my constituency. Funding for those schools varies significantly from that for schools in exactly the same circumstances in other areas. Primary schools receive tens of thousands of pounds less and secondary schools hundreds of thousands of pounds less.
  The justification for that is the needs index, which means that some areas are funded differently from others. We all accept that: where there are particular problems of

  1169
  deprivation or particular needs to be met, it is fair enough. No one would begrudge that additional funding going to meet that additional need, but when the Fair Funding 40 group met officials from the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, we were told that the main reason for the difference in the education SSAs was that staff pay varied. That beggars belief because, as we know, the salaries of teachers are set on a national pay scale and, apart from some London weighting, there is no real difference between the salaries of teachers and education workers in one part of the country and in another.
  I know that a review is going on, and I hope that between us all, we will be able to rejig the way in which the education SSA works, to come up with a fairer funding mechanism that will allow schools in my constituency of Gedling, all schools in Nottinghamshire, and schools in the other authorities that are adversely affected, to receive some of the additional money that they need—a fairer slice of the education cake.
  The Fair Funding 40 group has never argued that we should take funds from the authorities that already receive money. We do not want to set one authority against another, but we seek a fairer system. Perhaps that requires funding for us all to be lifted to a median level. Perhaps the size of the cake should be increased, so that we all share more.
  Schools, parents and governors in my constituency are putting pressure on me to put pressure on the Government to change the system as soon as they can, and to come up with something that is fairer—something that will allow us to employ teachers, teaching assistants and cleaners, and to have all the other things that go to make up a school. We should have the same level and sufficiency of resources that are available to other authorities.
  The third issue is raised by constituents old, middle aged and young. I say that to emphasise a point, because people often regard the topic as something that older people raise. However, when I have done sixth-form surgeries or talked to younger people, they are just as concerned about it as middle aged or older people. It is a concern that they see all around them—a perceived decline in respect in our communities, a lack of respect for others and, in the most general sense, for authority.
  Whenever we try to address that issue and say that there is a problem with respect for authority, there is an immediate reaction: it is said that our suggestion is linked with fascism and a return to some jackboot type of authority. I do not mean that, and nor does anyone else in my constituency. What we are talking about is the perception in communities that there has been a decline in respect for some of the traditional things and some of those who traditionally exercise authority, which makes it difficult in many respects for our communities and our society to function.
  A couple of examples show the problems. We need somehow to encourage greater respect for the police when they are called on to deal with difficult situations. No doubt we have all had examples quoted to us in which, when a particular problem occurs in a community, the police turn up and people are appalled by the reaction of the young people, or of others, to the police. That is of
  1170
  grave concern to us all, because if the police are not treated with the respect that they deserve, we have a problem.
  Our teachers also struggle to receive the respect that they need to do their work. I remember that, often, when a teacher gave a detention or some sort of punishment for something that had happened in the school, what caused a lot of stress was that immediately, the authority of the teacher to do that—to impose a reasonable level of discipline within the school—was challenged.
  I am not one of those who say that the police or teachers should never be accountable, but if every time a policeman, policewoman, or teacher takes any sort of action, they feel that their authority is challenged, it makes it difficult for them to do their job. I believe—I have argued this in a number of debates and also said it in private conversations—that if any Government, whether Conservative, Liberal Democrat or Labour, want to raise standards in city schools, and if they want to ensure that people all have the opportunities that they deserve, they must create the right sort of learning environment in some of the most difficult schools. However, we cannot create such an environment simply by turfing out those who are causing the problem. They should be included in an environment in which teachers can teach.
  We must respect teachers and police, and re-establish legitimate authority in society. The hon. Member for Uxbridge also mentioned some of the problems experienced by shopkeepers. Respect for people working in that type of environment is important. We also have to respect health professionals. Many doctors, nurses and other health workers could tell us appalling stories of the difficulties that they sometimes have to face in simply trying to perform their professional duties. At times, late at night in accident and emergency wards, they are threatened. Some patients demand a prescription for pills that their doctors do not think that they should have.
  Respect for police, teachers, health professionals and property is a fundamental issue for our society, and I do not think that it is a party political issue. We should discuss together how we can re-establish legitimate authority and respect in our society. Without such respect, we shall always be struggling to raise standards in schools, to improve the health service and to deal with the problems of crime and disorder in our communities.
  Our shared response to the issue should be to ask how we can generate that respect, tolerance and self-respect in our society, without resorting to the type of authoritarian response that is sometimes seen. If we can manage to address the issue, it would be a great boon for many people in our communities—the people whom we represent.
  4.42 pm
  Sir George Young: We have had a debate in the best tradition of the House, with a wide range of themes. If there was one theme that ran through quite a few of the speeches, it was the theme of the environment. However, I think that what a wider public would notice, if they had followed the debate, was, first, the sheer range of different problems with which hon. Members have to get abreast; secondly, the detail that hon. Members go into to assist their constituents—the hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes) was a good example of that; and, thirdly, the amount of

  1171
  technical knowledge that we have to acquire if we are to do battle on equal terms with the Government. I think that those qualities came through the whole of our debate today.
  The hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Thomas) spoke movingly about the consequences of alcoholism in relation to employment, marital breakdown, child abuse, unwanted pregnancies and accidents, and he pressed the Government for a strategy. I think that we would all endorse that.
  The hon. Gentleman also mentioned, as did some other hon. Members, mobile telephone masts. Let me mention in passing the fact that, last month, the Conservative party came up with a policy changing the terms of trade towards the planning authority and the residents, and away from the providers of telephone masts. It sounds as if that policy would have a lot of support.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle (Mr. Day) made the case for fines for straying off flight paths—fines for pilots who go off-message. He made the point that the regulations already exist. Of course, the principle of fining airlines for noisy aircraft has already been conceded, and the fines suggested by my hon. Friend would be a logical extension.
  My hon. Friend also mentioned Chester's Croft, where his constituents do not get compensation because they live in mobile homes, as opposed to permanent homes. Again, it seems that progress is being made, but rather slowly—the Minister may have some good news on that. My hon. Friend also mentioned a road. It sounded familiar; in the previous Government, it may have been one of the roads that was in my programme.
  Mr. Day: It was.
  Sir George Young: If it has dropped out, well, the responsibility lies elsewhere.
  The hon. Member for Keighley (Mrs. Cryer) spoke rather movingly about our railway heritage. I pay tribute to the work of Worth Valley. I think that that was the setting for "The Railway Children", which is how most of us have come across it. The hon. Member reminded us about the age of steam. She also mentioned that she was looking for temporary storage space for some rolling stock. It just occurred to me that the millennium dome might possibly be able to help.
  The hon. Member for Winchester (Mr. Oaten), my neighbour, spoke about modernisation, which is a very topical issue. As a member of the Modernisation Committee, I can say that it is an issue with which we are grappling at the moment. I shall make one or two points in passing. First, whatever hon. Members think about the conditions in this Parliament, they are infinitely better than conditions in previous Parliaments.
  Secondly—looking round the Chamber—I do not think that anyone has been kept out of their bed later and more often than me, and I have been kept out of my bed by Labour Members and Liberal Democrat Members. It is somewhat paradoxical that it is Members from those parties who are now urging me and my colleagues to be more restrained.
  Thirdly, it is not only a matter for the Opposition: the Government have a role to play, in the size of the legislative programme, the complexity of the legislative programme and the quality of the drafting.
  1172
  Finally, one has to be careful, under cover of making this place more civilised and more user-friendly, not to shift the terms of trade even further in favour of the Government and against Parliament. If anything, the terms of trade need to be shifted back.
  On electronic voting, I declare that I am not a supporter. In the most recent survey, the most popular method of voting was the one that we have now. I should be surprised if opinions had changed enormously since then.
  The hon. Member for Middlesbrough, South and Cleveland, East (Dr. Kumar) spoke movingly of Mr. Whittaker being denied a General Service Medal because he was not in an active service area. The hon. Gentleman reminded us that, even when this country is not directly involved, our soldiers and armed forces are at risk. He listed the number of fatalities in conflicts in which we were not a direct party, but in which, sadly, members of the armed services were killed. He reminded us of the debt that we all owe to those who are in the services.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Atkinson) spoke about asylum seekers and made a very reasoned case for looking rather carefully at the 10 per cent. of asylum seekers who come from countries that are actually free of persecution, because they are members of the Council of Europe. The pressure on his local authority and on the Home Office would be less if that 10 per cent. were not part of the queue.
  My hon. Friend also referred to a key appeal that is about to take place in the House of Lords. I am sure that the Government will be watching that carefully, because, if the case goes in favour of the Roma, there are very wide implications indeed. My hon. Friend then went from the macro to the micro by explaining the consequences in his constituency of the increased number of asylum seekers who have arrived and the impact on residents and the wider economy.
  The hon. Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Cryer) was one of a number of Members to mention problems involving telephone masts, particularly when they are sited close to schools. Many schools have welcomed the income that they derive from having those masts, although they may be reconsidering that. The hon. Gentleman made a sound case for more research and for caution in the mean time. He expressed concern about the future of Ford and the viability of a stand-alone engine plant. I hope that his fears are unfounded.
  The hon. Gentleman also pointed out that opinions about modernising can change. The plea from the hon. Member for Winchester was sandwiched between speeches from the wife and the son of one of the Members of Parliament who kept me out of my bed more often than almost any other—Bob Cryer. The hon. Member for Hornchurch implied that the Conservative party had conspired to close huge sections of British industry to reduce the number of trade unions and weaken our political opponents. That is a rather simplistic approach to the changes in industry in this country. It was containerisation that led to the closure of the docks. The present Government face the same challenge as the previous one in trying to respond to changes in patterns of industry and to provide new jobs when jobs have been lost.

  1173
  The hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell) made the most modest request of the debate, asking for a left filter at a traffic light.
  Mr. Stunell: A right filter.
  Sir George Young: I am sorry. If it is a right filter, I am certainly able to support the hon. Gentleman. He also reminded the House of our duties as Members of Parliament. We should not lose sight of that when we talk about the related issues of our conditions and working hours. He pointed out that it was up to the House to reclaim from the Executive some of the powers that we have lost. I certainly endorse that. Government Back Benchers are the only ones who can do that. The Opposition cannot reclaim powers from the Government on their own. Government Back Benchers have a heavy responsibility if we want to get the terms of trade back.
  I agree entirely with what the hon. Member for South Swindon (Ms Drown) said about buses. They are the dark horse in the public transport debate. They can do most of what light railways can do, but at a fraction of the cost. I agree entirely with what she said about a constructive partnership between local authorities and bus companies to provide a better service. In my experience, information about buses is often missing. People would like to go by bus, but they do not always have sufficient information about where buses run and at what times.
  I was interested to hear what the hon. Lady said about the working families tax credit. There have been problems in my constituency with the transition from social security payments to payment by employers. One or two people in my constituency have been without funds for some time. I hope that those transitional problems will be resolved.
  I hope that we can have a full debate on the important White Paper on waste that was published today. Like the hon. Lady, I have been impressed by the sheer volume of correspondence about the debt campaign. The postcards keep rolling in month after month. That has an impact on Members of Parliament.
  The hon. Member for Braintree (Mr. Hurst) spoke about his local wildlife trust, its broad base of support in his constituency and the pioneering work of Miss Elliot. He focused on the crucial interface between agriculture and conservation. Farmers are often the best conservers, as long as they have the income with which to do it. The current debate centres on what to do about conservation when farm incomes fall. He said that there was a case for the Government to step in on conservation grounds to ensure that farmers were able to look after the heritage.
  The hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney) paid tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack), who would normally wind up this debate, but is attending an important family occasion. We were sorry to hear about the redundancies at ALSTOM. I hope that it can win fresh contracts elsewhere. The weak euro means that we must do all that we can to ensure that we are competitive in other areas by remaining deregulated, having low taxes and attracting inward investment. I was interested to hear about the single regeneration budget bid. That innovation of the previous Government was not wholeheartedly welcomed at the time by the Labour party, but I gather that it has now been embraced.
  1174
  I am not sure whether the Minister took the precaution of having something to eat before we started business questions. When the hon. Member for Stafford started talking about the national culinary centre, I realised that that was the closest to nutrition that I was going to get for some time. We hope that his constituency is successful in establishing that important new institution.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess) reminded us of the Conservative party's success in the recent local elections and the transformation that is now taking place in Southend as a result. He reminded us of the work of the RNLI, which gets no help from the Government, not because the Government refuse to give help, but because the RNLI has not asked for help and does not want any. He reminded us that prevention is better than rescue. My hon. Friend declared himself to be an enemy of mobile phones, particularly on trains, and spoke about phone masts, as did other hon. Members.
  The hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire has obviously done an enormous amount of research on junk mail. My experience is that writing to the mail preference service solves most of the problems, although there are still problems from Nigerian citizens who write to Members of Parliament asking for details of our bank accounts so that they can expatriate some funds that they have somehow accrued and in return pass on a small percentage to us. It is, of course, a scam. All that they want is details of our bank accounts so that they can access them. I hope that there can be a response to the problem that the hon. Gentleman raised. He has done a service just by publicising it, because that will alert more people to the risks of subscribing. Junk faxes have virtually stopped since the law was changed. At the beginning of this Parliament, one found in one's office a stream of faxes inviting one to buy a holiday or fax paper or to recruit staff. That has virtually stopped, but junk e-mail is becoming slightly more of an issue.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall) referred to the problem of mobile phone masts and to rail freight depots. We all want more goods to be transported on the railways, but there is a problem with depots and of an increase in rail traffic at night. We need to think that through. My hon. Friend mentioned also the suburbs; the suburbs are, after all, where most people live, and one should not ignore their needs by focusing too much on inner cities and rural areas.
  There was a moving speech from the hon. Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Simpson) about compensation for miners from the coal industry and I hope that the bureaucratic process can be speeded up. The Minister is probably closer to that problem than anyone else, and will have sympathy with it.
  The hon. Member for Gedling (Mr. Coaker) mentioned pockets of deprivation. When I was a Minister at the Department of the Environment responding to debates, there was a "Yes, Minister" reply which said that a well-resourced authority ought to be able to cope with pockets of deprivation, and that resources were focused on those areas with lots of pockets of deprivation. No doubt that response is still on the wordprocessor at the DETR and will be wheeled out. The hon. Gentleman's comments on respect for authority struck a chord with all of us.

  1175
  This may be the last Whitsun Adjournment debate of this Parliament. As we go away, politics is beginning to get more exciting. I hope that the Minister will not be distressed if I say that, recently, we have seen some fumbled responses from the Government to some of the initiatives from my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition—they have been rather like a rabbit in the headlights.
  We go away without having time to debate a number of early-day motions. Eleven Labour Members have signed an early-day motion on Britain's competitiveness, expressing concern at the level of sterling. Fifteen have signed an early-day motion critical of the Home Secretary's decision to admit Mike Tyson. Ninety Labour Back Benchers have signed an early-day motion on National Air Traffic Services, urging the Government to reconsider. More than 50 Labour Back Benchers have signed an early-day motion on the millennium dome.
  I see before me a dispirited and demoralised party that is about to go on a recess that it desperately needs, confronted by a reinvigorated and confident Opposition, greatly encouraged by our success in the local elections. We, too, will return from our recess even more invigorated.
  On behalf of the Opposition, I say to the occupants of the Chair, the servants of the House and all hon. Members that I hope that they have a well-earned rest.
  4.57 pm
  The Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office (Mr. Paddy Tipping): This has been a useful and, as always, interesting debate. The right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young) spoke about the theme that came to him from the debate, which was the environment. There were strong environmental themes, but what struck me throughout the debate was the praise given from both sides of the House to voluntary and community organisations.
  Governments are not good enough at saying thank you to people, and there are thousands and thousands of voluntary organisations and community groups across this country that raise the standard of our lives. We rarely have the opportunity to say thank you. This evening, I want to thank all of them for their efforts to increase the quality of civic society.
  I was struck by the moving and inspiring speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Braintree (Mr. Hurst) about the Essex wildlife trust. I have not been to the site, but I will go and have a look. He was right to say that we must move away from our present means of support—support for production—to a system that allows for greater grants and input for conservation, lifting the landscape and enhancing the environment. There is a good moral there in Essex that is worth exploring.
  I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mrs. Cryer) that I have done my bit for the Keighley and Worth Valley railway. It is an excellent railway that continues to develop and do well. As my hon. Friend said, it is run and managed by the stakeholders to whom it belongs. I am pleased that she is one of them, and I am delighted that the national lottery has been able to help, in a small way, with a heritage lottery grant of almost £600,000. There are hundreds of such railways around the country, and the people who run them also deserve our thanks.
  1176
  We also need to say thanks to the Royal National Lifeboat Institution, and I too should like to put on record my appreciation for John Foster. The RNLI is not supported by the Government, because its members choose to be independent. They do an important and marvellous job, as do those who raise funds for the organisation.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Thomas) spoke about other work done by community groups. He described the campaigns by the Pinner Green residents association and the Montesole Court residents association in connection with mobile phone masts—a matter to which I shall return later.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Cryer) made a different point about community action. He said that, some decades ago, people used to organise around their places of work. That is where the Labour movement and the trade union tradition came from, and it is where the notion of solidarity was born. Perhaps I should draw to my hon. Friend's attention one or two of the papers that have crossed my desk recently, which have argued that the new place for solidarity is in the voluntary sector and in community groups. If we were organising now, that is the sector in which we would start.
  The hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell) spoke about a related point—the need to devolve decision making and to empower people. He said that local people should be allowed to find local solutions to local problems. I regard that not as a difficulty, but as something that we ought to celebrate and support. The growth of community groups will help to bring back respect for authority. My hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Mr. Coaker) expressed strong concern about that, and his sentiments were of a piece with what the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall) said about the service given by shopkeepers. The hon. Gentleman said that the right to be served by a shopkeeper entailed a responsibility on the part of the customer.
  I think that Members of Parliament are very good at arguing for rights—perhaps too good at it—and that we do not argue enough for responsibilities. In that connection, my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough, South and Cleveland, East (Dr. Kumar) made a good and well-organised speech. He spoke of his constituent, Mr. Whittaker, who served in the Suez canal zone, and he made a very powerful case on behalf of all canal zone veterans—including those, such as my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes), who were there only for five days. I shall certainly press the matter, and draw it to the attention of colleagues in the Ministry of Defence.
  Several hon. Members spoke about transport and road issues, which formed one of the themes of the debate. The hon. Members for Cheadle (Mr. Day) and for Hazel Grove made it clear that they wanted a road, not a study. From previous encounters, I know the strength of the Hazel Grove action group in that regard. I confess that I may be part of the problem: I am not an infrequent visitor to Manchester airport and can confirm that it is an extremely difficult place to get to. If we are to achieve an integrated transport structure, we must establish an appropriate structure for access to the airport. I shall, of course, pass on the hon. Gentlemen's comments on that subject.
  My hon. Friend the Member for South Swindon (Ms Drown) talked about the importance of bus services. Buses are work horses, and they are dark horses too. They

  1177
  can deliver the goods, but only if the transport service that they offer is of high quality. If we are to be proud to use buses, they must be clean and tidy, and their drivers and conductors—where they have them—should be polite and ready to supply passengers with information. One of the things that has fascinated me recently is the growth of computer-aided bus stops. We can stand at the bus stop and see the bus coming towards us on a graph. If we can bring bus services into the modern age, more people will switch to using them. I know that my hon. Friend has campaigned very hard for this in Swindon, and all power to her elbow.
  The hon. Member for Cheadle spoke about the problems of noise at Manchester airport. I am making inquiries about this. He is right to say that there is some kind of consultation exercise taking place. I confess that I cannot remember the details, but I will write to him about it.
  A number of colleagues talked about job losses in their area. As always, it is extremely sad. However, what struck me from their comments was that out of decline is coming growth. My hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney) talked about the problems at ALSTOM, a world leader, but also the desire to move towards the cutting edge of technology, to get into the business of renewables and to ensure that ALSTOM and people who work in Staffordshire are at the forefront of the new technology.
  That certainly seems to be the case with the great British kitchen. My hon. Friend asked what help could be given. Advantage West Midlands will be looking at the issue. I have in my possession a letter from the Prime Minister to Prue Leith. Armed with that supportive letter, I think that the project bodes well for the future. I commend my hon. Friend on his efforts in this regard. I know that within the last day or so he went to see my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to pursue the issue on behalf of his community.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Gedling was, as always, pressing the case for Netherfield. There is a case for doing better in areas of small-scale deprivation. Across Government, a whole range of initiatives to do with regeneration and reclamation are being brought together. They were sold initially as pilot schemes and experiments. We have not been as good as we might have been about learning the lessons from those experiments and making them a mainstream part of Government business.
  The modernisation of the House of Commons was discussed at some length. What struck me, as always, was the amazing range of views that we heard. What also struck me is that politics is a circle. A party may be in government today and in opposition in, perhaps, 20 years' time—it might take about four elections. A sensible Government would always balance the needs of the Opposition.
  There was no consensus about electronic voting or about the hours. Key members of the Modernisation Committee are in the Chamber this afternoon, and I have to say that it would be helpful to have some certainty about our hours. We can live with bad news, but we cannot live with the lack of certainty and the ability to make plans. If such a decision emerges from the Modernisation Committee, that would be a major improvement.
  1178
  For my part, I would like us to experiment with electronic voting. The down side to that is that I frequently use the opportunity to lobby Ministers at the vote. As I said recently, in the Lobby Ministers may try to run but there is nowhere for them to hide. It is important to use our opportunities.
  Several colleagues raised slightly smaller but more important points. My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West told us that he had taken part in an Industry and Parliament Trust placement with a voluntary organisation. That is a good initiative, which should be praised. My hon. Friend the Member for Gedling has also been involved with Age Concern under the same scheme.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West asked about the Government's alcohol strategy. We shall publish a consultation paper in the summer. I hope that that important document will help us to make progress on some of the issues that he raised.
  The hon. Member for Cheadle referred to mobile homes—a subject that is close to my heart, too. They are an eccentricity in planning terms. Their tenants are in a difficult situation and have no real powers in law. He made a point, which had not occurred to me before, about their not being able to apply for compensation for traffic noise and the building of a new road. He will be pleased to learn that the mobile homes working party—which includes colleagues from the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, mobile home owners and the parks' owners—has recently finished its work. Its report contains a range of recommendations. If we can make progress with them, we can make life much better for the occupants of mobile homes.
  I should like to make life better for those who live in Bournemouth. It is especially sad that an area that people have cared about has suddenly and dramatically gone downhill and that an area of civic pride has become one of seediness and squalor. The Government are concerned about asylum. The Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 began to bite on 4 April, and I hope that it will make a difference. The hon. Member for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Atkinson) talked about membership of the Council of Europe and asked whether we could have a different regime. Those matters are governed by the 1951 United Nations charter on refugees and the change that he recommends would not be possible at present, but I know that the issue has been on the agenda of my colleagues in the Home Office. We shall certainly take his point very seriously.
  My hon. Friend the Member for South Swindon said that the working families tax credit does not apply to nannies. That issue is on Ministers' desks at the moment. I make no commitment that it will be resolved, but I noticed that, as she spoke, there was a lot of nodding around the Chamber so it is clearly a problem.
  I, too, am keen to discuss waste management strategy, which is a big and pressing issue. Landfill sites are ticking time bombs. We must do better; we cannot go on filling holes in the ground with waste as we do now. We all have a responsibility as householders and consumers to recycle, to make compost in our gardens and to choose goods that are not over-packaged. If we behave better, we will make the difference for our children and their children.
  The hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess) mentioned some hard cases, which seemed to involve bureaucracy and a lack of appropriate response from

  1179
  Government services. I will not comment on them now, but he can be sure that I will take them up in the relevant quarters.
  My hon. Friend the Member for North-East Derbyshire wanted me to take him and his black plastic bag to Victoria street to talk to Ministers about junk mail. I shall try to deliver that bag for him. I like the notion of his walking down Victoria street with a black plastic bag over his shoulder. There appears to be a problem, and we should try to make progress with the Department of Trade and Industry and the Royal Mail.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Gedling raised matters close to my heart—a better funding deal for schools. My. hon. Friend the Member for Stafford has also been involved in that campaign. I remind them that a consultation paper on the problem is to be issued this summer and I remind all hon. Members that schools throughout the country will receive cheques in the next few days, which will vary from £4,000 for the smallest primary school to £60,000 for the largest secondary school, so that they can do better. Labour colleagues are particularly proud of that initiative.
  After I leave this place, my first appointment in the morning will be with the organisation that deals with compensation for chronic bronchitis and emphysema. I am delighted that my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) has joined us. We have campaigned hard for two decades to get such compensation. When we started, we were told that there was no chance, but we all worked together. We campaigned together and we won in the High Court—the biggest civil compensation case in history. We will pay out on 100,000 claims to former miners. We have £2 billion to put in people's pockets. What peeves us all is that we are not doing the job more quickly—£70 million has already been paid out, but much more remains to be done. Tomorrow, I will see the chief executive of IRISC, which is the body that is running that. I will have a full and frank discussion with him, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover would put it. I will poke the organisation in the eye a little on the matter because I want us to achieve the target that we set ourselves—to pay out to 2,500 people a month. These miners have given their health—in some cases, their lives—to keep us warm and we must do better.
  I am conscious that I have been asked to pass on many messages and to ensure that ministerial colleagues are aware of a range of issues. I will do so. I will write to those colleagues who have raised matters that I have not answered.
  The right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire said that we were going away for a few days of rest. What struck me was not that colleagues needed a rest, but that they would be going back to their constituencies full of vigour to deal with various problems and initiatives—the things that need to be done. I am conscious of a matter raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling. He was putting pressure on me to put pressure on Ministers to ensure that we get change. This debate shows that a lot has been achieved, but much more remains to be done.
  Mr. Jim Dowd (Lord Commissioner to the Treasury): I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

  Learning Difficulties
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Dowd.]
  5.18 pm
  Mr. James Clappison: I am pleased to have this opportunity to raise Government funding for persons with learning difficulties in Hertfordshire , which is a subject of great interest to my constituents and more widely in Hertfordshire.
  Before I deal with that matter, I must make two things clear. First, Hertfordshire has a good tradition of meeting the needs of people with learning difficulties through the work of voluntary groups. It is in large part due to the work of such groups that people with learning disabilities make a positive contribution to the community in Hertfordshire and are valued members of it. I pay tribute to all those who work in voluntary groups in my constituency and throughout the county.
  I wish to explore whether Hertfordshire county council receives an appropriate level of support through the arrangements for providing support for local government from central Government. The Minister and her Department have received communications from Hertfordshire county council on this matter. The council has carried out a great deal of work; it recently commissioned a report from PricewaterhouseCoopers on demand for learning disability services in Hertfordshire. The report included some technical detail about the standard spending assessment.
  Hertfordshire county council contends that the SSA does not adequately reflect demand for services in the county and that, as a result, the council spends more than its SSA for personal social services. The starting point for that situation is that, compared with other local authorities, there is a high incidence of people with learning disabilities in Hertfordshire. National research shows an indicative population for people with learning difficulties—irrespective of whether they receive local authority support—of about 3.75 to 4.04 per thousand of the general population. However, in Hertfordshire, that proportion is exceeded; the ratio is 6.61 per thousand.
  According to Department of Health records, the number of local authority supported residents with learning disabilities in Hertfordshire is above average; there are more than seven such residents per 10,000 of the population. Those figures do not take account of the significant number of people from long-stay institutions who have been placed in local authority residential care under the provisions of the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990. I should make it clear that such people are funded by the health authority and thus do not enter the general argument, although they may provide part of the explanation as to why Hertfordshire has a high incidence of people with learning disabilities.
  The number of people in Hertfordshire who have moved to local authority residential care from long-stay institutions is high because of the preponderance of such institutions in the county—many of them in and around my constituency. That is a historical feature of the region. Although those people are funded by the health authority, it is possible that, as their disabilities become more complex and severe with age, they will make additional calls on the Hertfordshire personal social services budget.

  1181
  At present, they are funded under the 1990 Act. In any event, quite apart from those people, demand for residential placements for people with learning disabilities is set to grow at a relatively high rate—as the report from PricewaterhouseCoopers established.
  That is the picture of need in Hertfordshire. How well does Government funding help Hertfordshire county council to address it? Of course, revenue support grant is distributed to local authorities through the SSAs. In this case, it is divided into seven service sectors, of which the relevant one is that for personal social services. That SSA has four categories—I do not want to go into them too deeply, but I must touch on some of the technical detail in order to make my argument.
  The first three categories comprise children's services and elderly residential and elderly domiciliary services. The fourth—the important one for my argument—is described as "other services" by the Government; it covers the provision of services for people aged between 18 and 61, including people with learning disabilities.
  In the first three categories, the SSA follows the client group for which the service is provided. Research work has been carried out to identify the relationship between need and expenditure in those cases. However, in contrast, the SSA for the fourth category, which includes people with learning disabilities, does not follow the client group; it follows certain broad socio-economic indicators—reflecting economic and health factors and accommodation provision.
  I do not want to get too technical about the issue, but the underlying point is that funding from central Government for people with learning disabilities is not distributed on the basis of potential client group numbers and the need for the local authority to incur expenditure on that client group. To put it more broadly, because of the formula controlling distribution, money does not follow the needs that it is supposed to address.
  I do not want to go into any more detail, but I invite the Minister to consider the research that has been prepared by Hertfordshire county council in support of its case. The report makes the argument on strong, robust and technical grounds that the SSA formula does not reflect the relative need that local authorities may have for client groups, including people with learning disabilities. It also points out that the issue will become increasingly important as demand for residential places grows. It suggests technical ways in which the SSA can be reformed to reflect need.
  My contention is that Hertfordshire loses out on funding that should go to people with real and important needs—those with learning disabilities in my constituency and the rest of Hertfordshire. As matters stand, according to the leader of Hertfordshire county council, Mr. Robert Ellis, it may be that Hertfordshire loses out by as much as £9 million to £10 million each year.
  Against that background, I hope that I have taken a realistic attitude. I know that it is a technical and complicated matter that presents difficulties for the Government, who have to take account of a wide range of issues. Hertfordshire county council is conducting further research, but I hope that the Minister will suggest that she is at least able to consider the possibility of further research by her Department and that she will consider
  1182
  favourably any request by the council for help with its research and, particularly, for help with the collection of data to support its contentions.
  I hope that the Minister will have an open mind towards the possibility of further studies. I understand that that does not necessarily entail any Government guarantees about the conclusions on the SSA, but they should at least consider the research. Hertfordshire county council has done some good work and it has made a strong case that is supported by robust and well argued research.
  I hope that the Government are willing to listen to the council, which speaks on behalf of an important section of the community that is much valued in my constituency. People want to help, but they wonder whether those in that group are receiving the help that they should receive from central Government through funding for the important services that have to be provided for them.
  5.28 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Ms Beverley Hughes): I congratulate the hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) on securing the debate and on giving us an opportunity to consider the financing of local government in Hertfordshire and to set the record straight on some of the points that he made.
  The hon. Gentleman knows that the financing of local government for this year is settled, but I accept that he has spoken largely about the future. In February, the House approved the distribution of revenue supports grants, and local authorities, including Hertfordshire, have decided their budgets and set their council taxes. In that sense, the settlement is fixed for this year.
  I remind the House that, this year, the settlement has increased support for local government by much more than the rate of inflation. It is important to bear that context in mind. We have provided 5.8 per cent. more in grant for local authorities this year on top of a 5.5 per cent. increase the year before. In three years, we have increased the grant to local authorities by £6 billion, a real-terms increase of 7.8 per cent. The hon. Gentleman must acknowledge that that figure contrasts sharply with the previous Government's cut of 4.3 per cent. in real terms in their last three years in office. The general context is that local authorities, including Hertfordshire, have received substantial increases in grant above the inflation rate.
  Hertfordshire has shared in those increases. Indeed, some authorities would argue that it has had a disproportionate share of them. It has received increases greater than those of the average shire county, its total standard spending assessment has increased by more than £40 million and its grants have increased by 5.4 per cent or £27 million. Hertfordshire social services SSA has increased more in the first three years of this Government than it did in the last five years of the previous Conservative Government. Again, in comparison with the previous period, social services have received substantial increases in grant above the inflation rate.
  The hon. Gentleman said that Hertfordshire does not get fair treatment from the grant system, but that is hard to square with the figures. Of the other 33 shire counties, only two get a bigger SSA than Hertfordshire. Hertfordshire has increased its budget by a bigger percentage than the average shire county, but has

  1183
  increased its council tax by a smaller percentage than the average shire county. Only two of the other 33 shire counties charge a lower council tax.
  On the face of it, those facts do not suggest that Hertfordshire is badly treated by the present grants system. That is highlighted by some groups of authorities that make representations, such as the so-called E40 group of authorities, which are primarily rural shire counties and unitary district authorities. They feel that they do not receive a fair share of education funding and frequently cite Hertfordshire as an example of an authority which, in their view, receives an over-generous SSA.
  That is the context for the funding of Hertfordshire social services and its impact on funding for learning disability services, which was the main point of the hon. Gentleman's argument. The Government made social services funding a priority in the 1998 comprehensive spending review and, for the first time, we guaranteed that provision nationally would increase in the three years between 1999 to 2002. As a result, local councils could plan ahead with greater confidence across the range of social services. In the period covered by the spending review, the provision for social services is for an additional £2.8 billion which, on average is more than 3 per cent above inflation for each of the three years. I hope that the hon. Gentleman concedes that that demonstrates the importance that the Government attach to social services, including services to people with learning disabilities.
  In the second year of the period covered by the comprehensive spending review, the provision for local social services has increased by £492 million, which represents an increase above inflation of 5.6 per cent in cash terms and of 3.1 per cent in real terms. That is a measure of the substantial additional resources that we have given to all local authorities, including Hertfordshire, for personal social services standard spending assessments. That is the background to the matter, covering the general position on grants and the way in which that specifically affects social services SSAs and grants.
  Audit Commission performance indicators confirm that, as the hon. Gentleman said, Hertfordshire has a higher than average number of people with learning difficulties. I understand that that is largely because the area once had three long-stay hospitals. Consequently, when responsibility for the services provided by those hospitals was transferred to local authorities, many of the hospital residents remained in Hertfordshire, regardless of where they had originally come from.
  While the Audit Commission shows that Hertfordshire's spending on services for those with learning difficulties is above average, its performance indicators show that its circumstances are by no means exceptional. In terms of the proportion of its population who are supported on account of their learning difficulties, Hertfordshire just makes the top quarter of shire county authorities, and nationally, barely makes the top 50. Hertfordshire is in the wide top band, but it is by no means exceptional.
  The hon. Gentleman will know from his own experience in my Department that Ministers are told, rightly, that all authorities have spending pressures. It is for each authority to decide how best to meet the needs of all its residents, given the available resources.
  1184
  The hon. Gentleman mentioned that the county asked consultants to come up with a different formula for allocating standard spending assessments. The consultants initially tried to base a formula on an analysis, but were thwarted by the lack of reliable data—the sort of data that the hon. Gentleman wants us to use—so they devised what they described as a "judgment-based" formula.
  On their first attempt, the consultants produced an analysis which showed that Hertfordshire should have another £60 million. Realising that that would probably be treated with some scepticism, they moved to the judgment-based formula. On the basis of that formula, they calculated that Hertfordshire should receive another £9.7 million.
  However, the formula would also shift about £100 million of SSA away from inner London and the metropolitan areas, which have their own pressures on their budgets. Would the losers be fairly treated if we relied on a judgment by those advising Hertfordshire, which would be a big gainer? Even the consultants say that
  this formula is not adequate for the purposes of Central Government departments.
  Although I understand what the hon. Gentleman says about the pressures in Hertfordshire, and I have acknowledged that there is an above-average number of people with learning difficulties in that county, his overall argument is weak. I could cite to him the case made by a range of local authorities, metropolitan authorities and rural authorities, each of which would identify a different pressure, but none the less a pressure, on its budget.
  Mr. Clappison: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way. Will she address the point that applies to all authorities: if money is provided from central Government for people with learning disabilities, should that not reflect the number of people with learning difficulties in the authorities concerned?
  Ms Hughes: I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman would know from his time as a junior Minister in the Department that it is a long-standing feature of the standard spending assessment formula—which we are committed to changing. and which he knows is under review—that all the indicators used in the formula should be outside the direct policy influence of the local authority. In other words, it should not be possible, by using a particular indicator, for the decisions that a local authority takes—in this instance, perhaps, to accept more people with learning difficulties—to be used as a mechanism for increasing its grant.
  That is why, in relation to people with learning difficulties as well as a range of other services provided by local authorities, the indicators used are indirect indicators in terms of the general characteristics of the population. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is well versed in this. I understand the argument that Hertfordshire has advanced, but it is not an argument that we have been prepared to accept, because that would unravel a long-standing feature of SSAs and leave the SSA formula open to influence by the policy decisions of local authorities.
  Mr. Clappison: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way again. I am not interested, as she seems to

  1185
  think, in comparisons with previous Governments, as I do not believe that that is helpful. I understand her point about other authorities, and I hope that I anticipated that in my remarks. I appreciate the difficulties, but will she listen to Hertfordshire county council and look at the research? Will she at least do that?
  Ms Hughes: We have considered PricewaterhouseCoopers' research, but, for the reasons that I have just outlined, we cannot accept the point made by Hertfordshire that, on the basis of that research, the SSA formula should include a direct indicator of the number of people with learning difficulties.
  The hon. Gentleman seems to have missed some of the points that I have made. It is interesting that he is not particularly interested in comparing Governments, but my reference to the previous Government was valid. I was careful to point out the substantial increases since 1997 that all local authorities have received generally and for personal social services. That is a valid point in terms of evaluating whether Hertfordshire should have enough money to allocate to services for people with learning difficulties in their area.
  Mr. Clappison: The hon. Lady introduces a partisan element, which is not necessary and will not be well received in Hertfordshire. I hope that she will at least consider the further research that has been done by Hertfordshire county council and reflect on the fact that, further to her point about local authorities attracting people to their areas, people with learning difficulties are already in Hertfordshire—the hon. Lady knows the historical background—and are not getting the money that they need for their services. I understand the difficulties, but will the hon. Lady at least consider the research in an open-minded way, put aside partisan considerations and help Hertfordshire?
  Ms Hughes: I do not accept that I am being any more partisan than the hon. Gentleman. The hon. Gentleman refuses to acknowledge the substantially improved finances for all local authorities that I have outlined. I dare say that he has not pointed that out to his constituents in Hertfordshire either, and he should, because not only does that result in an improvement generally, but it means that Hertfordshire has done particularly well. I have explained Hertfordshire's financial position relative to other shire counties, but the hon. Gentleman refuses to acknowledge that. He has not said that he has pressed Hertfordshire on why it is not allocating sufficient resources for people with learning difficulties.
  1186
  I do not want to finish without making some general points about the grant distribution system and the priorities for people with learning difficulties in particular. I accept that the grant system attracts criticism. It is a long-standing and opaque system. It has operated for many years and it makes it difficult for authorities to see how their overall grant has been calculated and to plan ahead to improve their services. That is why, with the consent of local authorities, we have started to review that system.
  As the hon. Gentleman knows, in the context of that review and with the agreement of local authorities, for the three years that that review will take the SSA formula will be frozen, apart from data changes. The certainty of increased grants, albeit on an SSA formula, gives local authorities time in which to plan, while allowing us to review the situation.
  We are not specifically considering the issue raised by the hon. Gentleman within that review, but if Hertfordshire wants to send any research in addition to that done by PricewaterhouseCoopers, my Department will be happy to receive it and consider it in that context. If that is the assurance that the hon. Gentleman seeks, I am happy to give it.
  Support for people with learning difficulties is an important priority for the Government, and for my Department and the Department of Health in particular. A significant group of people, including users and carers, as well as professionals, and including a member of a voluntary organisation from the hon. Gentleman's area, has been drawn together to work with us to develop a strategy for improving those services. Given the change of thinking around such services and the belief that such services should be based in the community, the improvement of services generally is one of our priorities and we will continue to strive for that.
  I repeat that we have given much more support to local authorities, and also to people with learning difficulties. Funding to provide such people with services has increased substantially in the past three years. We have recognised the limits of the system of grant distribution that we inherited, and we are conducting a review. As I have said, I shall be happy to receive any information that the hon. Gentleman wishes to contribute to that review; but I cannot accept his basic contention that Hertfordshire has fared relatively less well than other authorities. Indeed, as I think that I have made clear, relatively it has fared very well. I hope that it will consider the funds that it has received and seek to improve services for people with learning difficulties in the way that we—and, I am sure, the hon. Gentleman—would like.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at fourteen minutes to Six o'clock.

ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS

  Departmental Vehicles
  Mr. Pearson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many(a) cars and (b) commercial vehicles operated by his Department were manufactured (i) in the UK, (ii) in the EU and (iii) elsewhere. [122260]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 17 May 2000]: The position at 1 April 2000 was as follows:

  Cars

  Commercial

  Total

  UK

  179

  361

  540

  EU

  317

  79

  396

  Elsewhere

  118

  42

  160

  Total

  614

  482

  1,096

  Regional Airports
  Mr. Plaskitt
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he proposes to begin the consultation on proposed changes to planning regulations in relation to small regional airports. [122784]

  Mr. Mullin
  The Department has no plans to change planning regulations for small regional airports. If my hon. Friend wishes to write to me with more details of his concerns in this area, I will provide a substantive reply.

  Local Authority Housing
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what estimate he has made of the funds required to clear the current backlog of repairs to and modernisation programmes of local authority housing stock; and how much this figure represents per dwelling. [123013]

  Mr. Mullin
  We estimate, on the basis of sample data collected in the 1996 English House Condition Survey, that the backlog of renovation work on the council housing stock amounts to around £10 billion with a further £9 billion being required for improvement/ modernisation work. This equates to an average of between £5,500 and £6,000 a dwelling. The renovation backlog will have been tackled in around a quarter of a million homes by March 2002 as a result of the extra resources we have made available for housing investment.

  Joannou and Paraskevaides Group
  Mr. Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what representations his Department has received from the Joannou and Paraskevaides Construction Group in the last three years. [123139]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 22 May 2000]: The Department is not aware of any representations received from the Joannou and Paraskevaides Construction Group in the last three years.

  Mr. Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what construction contracts his Department has awarded to the Joannou and Paraskevaides Group in the last three years. [123143]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 22 May 2000]: None.

  Mr. Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what planning appeals his Department has received involving the Joannou and Paraskevaides Construction Group in the last three years. [123141]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 22 May 2000]: I am not aware of any planning appeals received from the Joannou and Paraskevaides Construction Group in the last three years.

  Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what studies he has carried out to ascertain the possible contamination by methyl tertiary butyl ether from the discharge of unburned fuel from water craft on inland waters in England and Wales. [123444]

  Mr. Mullin
  I am not aware of any studies currently under way on this issue. Although the Environment Agency considers that the main risk from MTBE is to groundwater and has commissioned research on this, it has also carried out limited monitoring for MTBE in surface waters. Many water craft are powered by diesel fuel which does not contain MTBE.

  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the(a) terms of reference of and (b) people carrying out, the study on the incidence of methyl tertiary butyl ether in groundwater in England and Wales; and when he expects the study to be completed. [123442]

  Mr. Mullin
  The Environment Agency has commissioned a study to investigate known fuel oxygenate occurrence in groundwater in England and Wales, gathering evidence from(a) Environment Agency regional and area records (b) water companies, and (c) additional bodies and sources of information; to review and evaluate the presence and behaviour of oxygenates in groundwater; to inform the EA's strategic regulatory thinking, the risk assessment process and monitoring strategy, and to recommend any future research directions. The study, which is being carried out by the environmental consultancy firm Komex Clarke Bond, is expected to be available in the summer.

  Fire Safety
  Ms Drown
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 12 May 2000,Official Report, column 485W, on housing, what plans he has to include guidance to local authorities and fire authorities on the standard of fire safety provision for houses in multiple occupation, in the guidance documents that accompany the draft legislation; and whether that guidance will include reference to the installation of residential automatic fire sprinkler systems. [123532]

  Mr. Mullin
  As we indicated in the Housing Green Paper we are developing a housing health and safety rating system to replace the existing housing fitness standard. Within this we envisage risk-based guidance on

  Site operator

  Site location

  Type of facility

  Waste planning authority area

  Shanks and McEwan

  Brogborough

  Landfill

  Bedfordshire

  Cory Environmental

  Mucking

  Landfill

  Thurrock

  Cleanaway

  Pitsea

  Landfill

  Essex

  Shanks and McEwan

  Stewartby

  Landfill

  Bedfordshire

  Clean away

  Ockendon

  Landfill

  Thurrock

  Greenways Waste Management

  Aveley

  Landfill

  Essex

  Viridor

  Great Blakenham

  Landfill

  Suffolk

  Cory Environmental

  Stanway

  Landfill

  Essex

  SITA

  Godmanchester

  Landfill

  Cambridgeshire

  Shanks and McEwan

  Arlesey

  Landfill

  Bedfordshire

  Lafarge Redland

  Radlett

  Landfill

  Hertfordshire

  Shanks and McEwan

  Dogsthorpe

  Landfill

  Peterborough

  Fenside Waste Management

  Warboys

  Landfill

  Cambridgeshire

  Star Quarry Products

  Hertford

  Landfill

  Hertfordshire

  Anti Waste

  Milton

  Landfill

  Cambridgeshire

  Greenways Waste Management

  Ongar

  Landfill

  Essex

  Cory Environmental

  Barling

  Landfill

  Essex

  Anti Waste

  Buckden

  Landfill

  Cambridgeshire

  Pioneer Aggregates Ltd.

  Ware Quarry

  Landfill

  Hertfordshire

  Hales

  Ugley

  Landfill

  Essex

  Greenham Construction Materials

  Elsenham

  Landfill

  Essex

  Anti Waste

  Feltwell

  Landfill

  Norfolk

  Mick George Haulage Ltd.

  Southorpe Quarry

  Landfill

  Peterborough

  Hales

  Attlebridge

  Landfill

  Norfolk

  Lafarge Redland

  Roxwell

  Landfill

  Essex

  St. Albans Sand and Gravel

  Ware

  Landfill

  Hertfordshire

  St. Albans Sand and Gravel

  St. Albans

  Landfill

  Hertfordshire

  Suffolk Waste Disposal Company

  Lackford

  Landfill

  Suffolk

  M. Dickerson

  Hemingford Grey

  Landfill

  Cambridgeshire

  Housing Associations
  Mr. Coaker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of the mechanisms for ensuring the accountability of housing associations for their decisions; and if he will make a statement. [123771]

  Mr. Mullin
  Housing associations (now known as registered social landlords) are regulated by the Housing Corporation, an Executive NDPB of my Department, through published performance standards covering governance, finance, lettings, tenant involvement, development and management. Registered social landlords are expected to meet these standards. Where they do not, the Housing Corporation has regulatory powers to enforce compliance.
  572W
  fire safety precautions for certain high risk houses in multiple occupation. The guidance will include advice on when residential sprinklers might be appropriate.

  Waste Disposal
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list in order of the quantity of waste dealt with the main waste disposal facilities in the east of England. [123383]

  Mr. Mullin
  [holding answer 23 May 2000]: The list of main waste disposal facilities in the east of England, in order of quantity of waste dealt with, is given in the table. For the purpose of this response, a main waste disposal facility is taken to mean their taking in excess of 90,000 tonnes of waste per year. The figures relate to 1998–99 (or the nearest available year).

  In the course of this year, the Housing Corporation is reviewing governance arrangements in the registered social landlord sector. It will be issuing revised performance standards, following consultation, in April 2001.

  My Department has also contributed to the work of the Committee on Standards in Public Life in producing its reports on Local Public Spending Bodies.

  Leasehold Reform
  Mrs. Lait
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he plans to publish the White Paper on leasehold reform; and if it will contain the draft Bill. [123660]
  573W
  Mr. Mullin
  As was announced in the Gracious Speech given on 17 November 1999,Official Report, columns 4–7, we intend to publish a draft Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Bill for consultation during this session.

  Incineration
  Mr. Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions which sites in the UK are under consideration for building new incinerators. [123713]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  My Department does not keep a central record of sites under consideration for new incinerators. However, it is the responsibility of individual local planning authorities to consider planning applications for incinerators and they will keep their own records.

  Timber
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if the Government's procurement policy will include a commitment to buying timber and timber products from certified legal and sustainable sources. [123165]

  Mr. Mullin
  The Government's model policy statement for greening Government operations includes a commitment to purchase sustainably produced timber and timber products by, for example, requiring suppliers to provide documentary evidence that the timber has been lawfully obtained from forests and plantations which are managed to sustain their biodiversity, productivity and vitality, and to prevent harm to other ecosystems and any indigenous or forest-dependent people.

  Rural Services (SSAs)
  Sir Peter Emery
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will increase the level of Standard Spending Assessments of local authorities in respect of costs specific to provision of services in rural areas. [123915]

  Ms Armstrong
  Standard Spending Assessments already include elements that recognise that there are additional costs in providing services in rural areas. In the White Paper, "Modern Local Government—In Touch With The People", we said that we did not expect to make fresh changes to the method of calculation of Standard Spending Assessment while we conduct a review of the system of grant distribution.

  Statistics
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what statistics relating to the responsibilities of his Department are collated by parliamentary constituency, indicating the dates covered in each case. [123843]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  The Department's statistics are not compiled routinely by parliamentary constituency.

  Abnormal Loads
  Mr. St. Aubyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) what plans he 574W
  has to commission a third party to undertake independent verification of the abnormal indivisible loads notification system, with particular reference to evaluating the robustness of the software to analyse the strength of bridge structures; [123022]

  (2) what dates for (a) internal and (b) external implementation for the abnormal indivisible loads notification system were specified when the system was put out to tender; and what is his latest estimate of each of the dates; [123023]

  (3) on what date software was due for final delivery under Highways Agency tender no. 3–276 (Abnormal Indivisible Loads Notification System Trial); and if the software was delivered by that date. [123024]

  Mr. Hill
  I have asked the Chief Executive of the Highways Agency, Mr. Peter Nutt to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Peter Nutt to Mr. Nick St. Aubyn, dated 25 May 2000:
  I refer to the recent questions you asked The Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions regarding progress of the Abnormal Indivisible Loads Notification System which is being developed for the Highways Agency under tender number 3/276. The Secretary of State has asked me to provide you with a detailed reply since it concerns an operational matter for the Highways Agency.
  The contractor (W. S. Atkins) has yet to appoint the independent checker to evaluate the structural software associated with the system. However this remains a contractual requirement and will be undertaken prior to the completion of the trial. This element of the system is subject to the Highways Agency's Technical Approval procedures. Consequently, the appointment of the independent checker will be subject to the agreement of the Highways Agency as the Technical Approval Authority.
  It was envisaged that the internal trial of the Abnormal Indivisible Loads computer system would be carried out (in Highways Agency Maintenance Area 2) following a six month development period, and once the system had been checked and validated to the satisfaction of the Highways Agency's Designated Officer. The contract was awarded on 11 October 1999 and is scheduled to run for a period of twelve months. However, amendments to the contract programme agreed by the Highways Agency have resulted in the validation testing being delayed from 10 April 2000 until 10 July 2000 with a start revised date for the internal trial of the 1 August 2000. Final delivery of software was originally due 12 months after contract award, following the development and trial phases. It is now programmed for 11 January 2001.
  A programme for external application (in other Highways Agency Maintenance Areas) of the automated abnormal load system has yet to be finalised. This will depend on the outcome of the trial and agreement between other interests responsible for dealing with abnormal loads including DETR, local highway authorities and other bridge owners.
  I hope this provides you with the information you require. However, should you wish to discuss the project further, our Designated Officer for the contract, Martin Lynch, would be pleased to hear from you. He can be contacted on Tel: 0117 987 8560.

  Hydrofluorocarbons
  Mr. St. Aubyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) which(a) countries and (b) sections of the European Commission his Department consulted before announcing the change in its hydrofluorocarbons policy, referred to in DETR Climate Change Programme-HFC Policy Change; [123025]
  575W
  (2) which countries have indicated their agreement with the change in his policy on hydrofluorocarbons, announced in DETR Climate Change Programme-HFC Policy Change; and which countries have recently announced similar changes in policy; [123026]

  (3) which (a) engineering bodies, (b) industry bodies and (c) manufacturers in the United Kingdom air conditioning and refrigeration industry his Department consulted before announcing the change in its hydrofluorocarbons policy, referred to in DETR Climate Change Programme-HFC Policy Change. [123027]

  Mr. Meacher
  My Department did not hold any formal consultation before the Government's new HFC policy was announced in the draft climate change programme, which was published for consultation on 9 March 2000. However, officials have been involved in meetings that have taken place at international and European level between technical experts, industry representatives, officials from other countries and officials from the environment and enterprise sections of the European Commission on the use and projected trends in emissions of hydrofluorocarbons.

  In addition my Department commissioned a report in 1998 from March Consulting Group to provide updated annual UK emissions data for HFCs, PFCs and SF6 in each user sector. This also covered projects to 2020 and assessed the costs and benefits of options to reduce future emissions. In compiling their report, March Consulting Group consulted many companies within the UK air conditioning and refrigeration industry, and industry was given the opportunity to comment on the report.

  My Department has not formally consulted other countries about the new HFC policy. However, several countries such as France, Italy, Germany and Finland indicated initial broad support at official level. Other countries will be considering their policies on HFCs as part of their development of programmes to deliver their Kyoto targets, but few have yet made clear statements on their position. The Danish Government have recently announced their new HFC policy, which would ban the use of HFCs in many applications.

  Laptops
  Mr. Keith Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many laptop computers used by Ministers, officials and special advisers in his Department have been(a) lost and (b) stolen since May 1997. [123735]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  Since May 1997 seven laptop computers have been stolen and one has been lost in transit.

  London Bodies (Transfers)
  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement about the programme for transferring existing organisations or parts of organisations to the Greater London Authority, London Transport Users' Committee, Transport for London and the London Development Agency. [124187]
  576W
  Mr. Hill
  The transfers of existing bodies takes place on four main dates. As I announced in response to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, Central (Mr. Davies) on 1 April 2000,Official Report, columns 420–21W, the London Ecology Committee, London Planning Advisory Committee and London Research Centre were abolished, and their staff, assets and liabilities were temporarily transferred to the Secretary of State.

  On 8 May these staff, assets and liabilities (other than those relating to a small number of London Research Centre staff who will transfer later to Transport for London) transferred to the Greater London Authority (GLA), along with a small number of planning staff from the Government Office for London, and the GLA Transition Team and staff newly recruited for the GLA.

  Transfers to Transport for London (TfL) and the London Development Agency (LDA), and to the London Transport Users Committee (LTUC), will take place on 3 July. On that date the following will transfer to TfL:

  London Regional Transport, excluding London Underground Ltd. and some residual parts of LRT;

  the Traffic Control Systems Unit;

  the staff, assets and liabilities of the Traffic Director for London;

  the Docklands Light Railway;

  the part of the Highways Agency dealing with London roads;

  certain roads from London boroughs and the City of London;

  certain roads in Docklands from the Commission for the New Towns;

  the Public Carriage Office;

  a small number of staff from the Government Office for London, and from the centre of the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions.

  On the same date the following will transfer to the LDA:

  the London region staff of English Partnerships, and associated assets and liabilities;

  some staff from the Government Office for London, together with staff newly recruited for the LDA.

  On the same date the staff, assets and liabilities of the London Regional Passengers Committee will transfer to LTUC, which will report to the Assembly of the GLA.

  Most of the above transfers will be achieved through transfer schemes prepared under powers in section 409 of the GLA Act. In preparing their transfer schemes, predecessor bodies are identifying which of their property, rights and liabilities, such as buildings, contracts, staff or other assets, will transfer to the GLA's functional bodies and which will remain with the predecessor body itself or be transferred elsewhere. Among other things, they will need to consider whether existing contracts can transfer in their existing form or whether changes will be needed to meet the needs of the functional bodies.

  In addition, those predecessor bodies, such as the Highways Agency, which are designated as Public Records bodies under the Public Records Act 1958 will need to review those records which are intended to transfer to the functional bodies to see whether particular records are worthy of preservation in the national archive. Predecessor bodies will also need to identify whether all of their existing records are appropriate for transfer to the functional bodies, on the basis that all relevant records should transfer, unless

  577W
  they identify any papers, such as advice to Ministers of the present and previous administrations, which would be inappropriate for transfer. We expect that each predecessor body will identify very few, if any, papers which are unsuitable for transfer. In conducting this exercise they will need to ensure that they take full account of existing and proposed freedom of information legislation and the openness regime under which the GLA and functional bodies will operate.

  Budgets for the GLA, TfL and LDA are as set out on 17 February 2000, Official Report, column 637W.

  To permit the GlA, TfL and LDA to start functioning immediately on their respective start dates, orders to facilitate the transition have been made under powers in sections 405 and 406 of the GLA Act. These enable the new organisations to make arrangements for their financial operations and, where necessary, to prepare standing orders for their initial meetings. In addition temporary appointments of certain statutory office holders in the GLA, TfL and LDA have been made by the Secretary of State using powers in section 407 of the GLA Act.

  To remove any doubts about the application of the Transfer of Undertaking (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981 to transfers of staff to the new organisations, an order has been made applying the 1981 Regulations to all transfers of staff by means of transfer schemes or orders under the GLA Act powers. A further order added the new organisations to the list of bodies eligible to be members of the Local Government Pension Scheme.

  Oceans
  Mr. Ian Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what outcome he expects from the forthcoming UN Informal Consultative Process on the Oceans to be held in New York on 30 May to 2 June. [124190]

  Mr. Prescott
  The establishment of a UN Informal Consultative Process is a new and promising development. For a long time, I have been calling for a single global focus for integrating action on the oceans. At the 1999 meeting of the Commission on Sustainable Development, I particularly highlighted the need for better preparation of the annual UN General Assembly debate on Oceans and the Law of the Sea and better implementation by all states of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea and Chapter 17, Oceans and All Seas, of Agenda 21. I believe that the new Informal Consultative Process will address both these points.

  The UK has played a leading role in getting the new Process established and we are looking forward to participating in a productive meeting. Although all aspects of the oceans and seas are closely interrelated and need to be considered as a whole, discussion should focus on one or two main areas, to get agreement on the progress to be made. In this inaugural meeting, the issues of tackling illegal, unregulated and unreported fisheries and the economic and social implications of marine pollution have emerged as issues of particular concern. These are important issues and we want to ensure that the new process makes a real difference to progress in tackling them. In particular, there needs to be early entry into force of the UN fish stock agreement and full implementation
  578W
  of that agreement, the FAO Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries, and the Global Programme of Action against land-based marine pollution. The new Process should promote concerted action for this purpose by all the different international bodies involved.

  Standard Spending Assessments
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the age-related demographic factors used in setting SSAs. [123296]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  A wide range of indicators is used in working out Standard Spending Assessments. The following age-related demographic factors were used in calculations for the 2000–01 settlement:

  Resident population aged 0–4; 5–10; 11–15 11+; 16–24; 0–17; 18–64; 65+; 75–84; 85+

  Household residents aged 65+; 75–84; 85+

  Pupils aged 4; 5–10; 11–15; 16+

  Resident pupils aged 5–10; 11–15

  Children of lone parents

  Children of Income Support/income-based Jobseeker's Allowance claimants

  Country of birth indicator; proportion of household residents under 16 years of age who were born outside the UK and whose head of household was born outside the UK, the Irish Republic, USA or the Old Commonwealth

  Children in one adult households

  Children living in flats

  Children with limiting long-term illness

  Elderly in receipt of Income Support/income-based Jobseeker's Allowance

  Elderly in receipt of Attendance Allowance or Disability Living Allowance

  Pensioners living in rented accommodation

  Pensioners not in a couple and not head of household

  Pensioners living alone

  >Elderly household residents with limiting long-term illness

  Elderly residents with limiting long-term illness

  Young male unemployment-related benefit claimants

  Income Support/income-based Jobseeker's Allowance claimants aged 18 to 64

  Standardised morbidity ratio 18 to 64

  Standardised mortality ratio (constructed using age banded data)

  The proportion of household residents living in a lone parent family with at least one dependent child.

PRIME MINISTER

  Honours (Removal)
  Dr. Tony Wright
  To ask the Prime Minister on how many occasions honours have been removed from those who received them, and for what reasons, in the last ten years. [122904]

  The Prime Minister
  In the last ten years, there have been 13 cases of forfeiture of honours for which the Prime Minister is responsible. The reasons leading to these forfeitures are:

  (i) corruption (mis-use of their position): five cases;

  (ii) company fraud: three cases;

  579W

  (iii) sexual offences against children: three cases; and

  (iv) theft: two cases.

  Dr. Tony Wright
  To ask the Prime Minister if a conviction for perjury constitutes grounds for recommending the removal of a life peerage. [122905]

  The Prime Minister
  This would require legislation to be passed by both Houses of Parliament. Once a Peer has been created, neither the Sovereign, the Prime Minister nor the House of Lords alone can cause his or her title to be forfeited.

  Debt Relief
  Mr. Reed
  To ask the Prime Minister what discussions he had with the Japanese Prime Minister about debt relief at their recent meeting. [123105]

  The Prime Minister
  Prime Minister Mori and I met on 3 May. We covered issues in preparation for the G8 Summit in Okinawa in July, and agreed on the importance of discussing debt issues at the Summit. We are both concerned to see that the debt relief measures agreed at the Cologne Summit last year are implemented.

  Rural Economies
  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will place the responses received by his Department to the Performance and Innovation Unit's report, "Rural Economies", in the Library; and if he will make a statement. [123397]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 24 May 2000]: The Performance and Innovation Unit's report, "Rural Economies", asked for comments on the report to be sent to the Rural White Paper Team at the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions by 11 February 2000. Copies of the responses received will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses in due course (except for those which respondents request remain confidential).

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Ethiopia
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he and the Ministers in his Department last had a meeting with the Ethiopian Ambassador to the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement. [123528]

  Mr. Hain
  I last met the Ethiopian Ambassador when he accompanied the Ethiopian Foreign Minister, Atto Seyoum Mesfin, who called on me on 9 December 1999. I saw him again on 23 May when I strongly criticised Ethiopia's renewal of fighting against Eritrea.

  Zimbabwe
  Mr. Anthony D. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he has received the report from the National Democratic Institute for International Affairs on the prospects for free and fair elections in Zimbabwe; and if he will make a statement. [124185]
  580W
  Mr. Hain
  I understand that a distinguished, international delegation organised by the National Democratic Institute visited Zimbabwe from 15 to 22 May. After over 30 meetings with representatives of government, political parties and civil society the delegation called for "heightened observation" of the elections by the international community. Their findings reflect an atmosphere of anxiety and fear, a news bias in favour of the ruling party, and that the Registrar General has so far failed to establish an open and transparent electoral process. We hope that the delegation's observations are closely heeded in Zimbabwe.

  Burma
  Mr. Anthony D. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what changes have been made to EU sanctions in place against Burma. [124186]

  Mr. Vaz
  On 26 April the Council of the European Union adopted a Common Position (2000/346/CFSP) which enhanced EU sanctions against Burma by strengthening the existing visa ban, imposing a freeze on the funds of those individuals subject to the visa ban and imposing a ban on the supply of equipment which might be used for internal repression or terrorism.

  Following from this Common Position, the Council adopted Regulation 1081/2000 on 22 May. The Regulation prohibits the sale, supply, export or shipment of goods listed in an Annexe to the Regulation, directly or indirectly, whether or not originating in the Community, to any person or body in Burma or to any person or body for the purpose of any business carried on in, or operated from, the territory of Burma.

  The Regulation also provides that all funds belonging to individual listed in an annexe to the Regulation shall be frozen and that no funds shall be made available, directly or indirectly, to or for the benefit of those persons.

  The Regulation applies within the territory of the Community including its air space and on board any aircraft or any vessel under the jurisdiction of a member state and, to any person elsewhere who is a national of a member state and any body which is incorporated or constituted under the law of a member state.

  The Regulation entered into force on 24 May and is directly applicable in the UK. Legislation to provide for enforcement, including penalties, will shortly be in effect.

  Laptops
  Mr. Keith Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many laptop computers used by Ministers, officials and special advisers in his Department have been(a) lost and (b) stolen since May 1997. [123736]

  Mr. Battle
  There are three instances of FCO laptops going missing. In two cases, overseas, these are recorded as losses. But every loss may, in fact, be a theft. The third instance was theft, again overseas.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Sporting Opportunities
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what action the Government are taking to increase the level of sporting opportunity in areas of high deprivation and social exclusion. [123524]

  Kate Hoey
  Our recently published sports strategy—A Sporting Future for All—and the report of Policy Action Team 10, recognise the unique contribution which sport can make to tackling social exclusion. As a result, we will be working with other agencies to develop creative and innovative ways of using sport to re-engage people and equip them with the skills and confidence to re-join the main stream of society. We have also asked all funding bodies in sport to ensure that the promotion of social inclusion is a key part of all their work, and have called for a concerted effort to recruit, train and support more women, people with disabilities and people from ethnic minority groups as coaches, officials and sports administrators. All agencies receiving public funding will be required to demonstrate that they have adopted pro-active solutions to any inequities which exist.

  Sport England's Lottery Strategy, which was published in May last year, sets out its commitment to target funding at social inclusion and deprived areas. This means that at least two-thirds of its Lottery funds are invested in community facilities or activities, of which at least 50 per cent. will go to areas of greatest need; young people, recreationally deprived groups and people with disabilities are a priority; and equality of access for all. Specific programmes include the Priority Areas Initiative which targets deprived areas and allows a higher rate of funding and Sport Action Zones, the first 12 of which were announced in January, which aim to provide comprehensive sports development infrastructures aimed at increasing opportunities for participation in some of the most recreationally deprived areas of the country. Sport England will also be using its powers of solicitation to invite applications for funding from schools in Sport Action Zones, Education Action Zones and Excellence in Cities areas.

  Millennium Experience (Financial Support)
  Mr. Ian Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if the Millennium Commission has any further plans to provide financial support to the Millennium Experience at Greenwich; and if he will make a statement. [124339]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  On 22 May the Millennium Commission considered an application for additional grant totalling £38.6 million from the New Millennium Experience Company (NMEC). While the Commission had serious reservations about providing further grant, they concluded that it would be foolish to withdraw support when the best of the year for visitor attractions is yet to come. They also felt that the value of the Dome as the centrepiece of the nation's millennium celebrations 582W
  should be recognised and continued. The potential costs to the public sector arising from immediate closure, along with the economic impact on employment and tourism were other factors taken into account.

  In light of this, the Commission announced that a further grant of £29 million, subject to stringent conditions, would be made available to NMEC. The Commission's decision was taken after an independent review of the NMEC's financial systems and business plans. The conditions are that there should be:
  strengthening and restructuring of NMEC's management and governance;
  a revised business plan showing substantial additional cost savings and enhanced marketing plans; and
  an enhanced financial team at NMEC, to be joined by a dedicated member of the Millennium Commission's own financial staff.

  All the Millennium Commissioners expressed confidence in NMEC's Chief Executive, P-Y Gerbeau, and are appreciative of the changes he has made to the operation and running of the Millennium Experience.

  Despite lower than predicted visitor numbers, the Dome is the most popular and highly rated paid visitor attraction in the UK, with a wide range of educational benefits. NMEC is also running a National Programme of events and activities across the UK. In addition, the largest derelict site in southern England has been regenerated and the foundations have been laid for a lasting legacy providing jobs and homes for thousands of people.

  In line with the commitment made by the previous administration that any additional Lottery funds required to support the Dome should not be at the expense of the Millennium Commission's wider programme of work, the Government confirmed that Lottery money would, if necessary, be made available to the Commission to ensure that it's wider programme does not suffer.

  Lottery Grants (Coalfields)
  Mr. Ronnie Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how he intends to help coalfield areas to benefit further from the National Lottery. [124188]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  I am committed to ensuring that Lottery funding is distributed fairly and equitably both geographically and across all groups of society. On 5 June my Department will be publishing a report which examines the impact of the National Lottery on coalfield areas. Copies of the report will be available in the Library of the House. My Department and distributors will follow up the recommendations in that report in order to help coalfield and other areas of low take-up to benefit.

  Opinion Research
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what was his Department's budget for opinion research in the financial year 1999–2000. [123850]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  None. My Department has no budget set aside for this purpose.
  583W
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will place copies of the results of all market and opinion research carried out by his Department, agencies and non-departmental public bodies since May 1997, in the Library. [123805]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  Given the extensive number of sources and documents, many unpublished, this material could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Statistics
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what statistics relating to the responsibilities of his Department are collated by parliamentary constituency, indicating the dates covered in each case. [123842]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  Since 1993 my Department has maintained a database of National Lottery awards, from which a breakdown by parliamentary constituency is available on the DCMS website (http:/www.culture.gov.uk)

  Art Loans
  Mr. Gareth R. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many indemnity undertakings were given by departments under section 16 of the National Heritage Act 1980 for the six month period ended 31 March; and what was the value of(a) any contingent liabilities in respect of such undertakings given at any time under that section which remain outstanding as at 31 March, (b) non-statutory Government indemnities in respect of loans handled by the Government Art Collection which remain outstanding as at 31 March and (c) non-statutory undertakings to Her Majesty in respect of loans from the Royal Collection which remain outstanding at 31 March. [124189]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  The provision for the Government Indemnity Scheme is made by the National Heritage Act 1980. The scheme facilitates public access to loans of works of art and other objects for public display made to museums, galleries and other such institutions by private owners and non-national institutions. It does this by indemnifying lenders against loss or damage to their loan. Loans covered by the scheme must be for public benefit. The scheme also covers loans of such objects for study purposes within borrowing institutions where this would contribute materially to the public's understanding or appreciation of the loan. Examples of this are enhancing interpretation or explanation to the public of objects or bringing into the public domain, the conclusions of any study.

  In the six month period ended 31 March 2000, the following undertakings to indemnify were given under section 16 by the relevant Departments for objects on loan to national and non-national institutions:

  Department

  Number

  Department for Culture, Media and Sport

  626

  Scottish Executive Education Department

  102

  The National Assembly for Wales

  59

  Department of Education for Northern Ireland

  11

  584W
  The value of contingent libilities in respect of undertakings given at any time under section 16 and which remained outstanding as at 31 march 2000 is:

  Department

  £

  Department for Culture, Media and Sport

  1,829,371,639

  Scottish Executive Education Department

  795,068,302

  The National Assembly for Wales

  54,029,174

  Department of Education for Northern Ireland

  4,727,317

  The Value of non-statutory Government indemnities to cover loans handled by the Government Art Collection and which remained outstanding as at 31 March 2000 is:
  Value: £5,475,000.

  The value of non-statutory Undertakings given to Her Majesty in respect of loans from the Royal Collection and which remained outstanding as at 31 March 2000 is:
  Value: £227,307,975.

TREASURY

  Computers within Reach
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what technical specifications he has set for the computers he plans to be leased to people on income support. [123380]

  Mr. Wills
  I have been asked to reply.

  The specification set under the Computers within Reach initiative for low-income learners and families is for a desktop computer with a minimum of a Pentium 1 processor, preferably a 133 MHz processor or faster, or Apple equivalent. The specification also includes a minimum of 32 Megabytes of RAM, 1 Gigabyte hard disk drive, 20-speed CD-ROM drive, V90 56k modem, an operating system and web browser software. The specification is set at a relatively high level given the intended duration of the initiative until 2002.

  Monetary Policy Committee
  Mrs. Lawrence
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he plans to change the remit of the Bank of England's Monetary Policy Committee. [124311]

  Mr. Gordon Brown
  In accordance with Section 12 of the Bank of England Act 1998, I have today written to the Governor restating the MPC's remit and how it will be held accountable for meeting the remit.

  My letter has been laid before Parliament and a copy has been sent to the Chairman of the Treasury Committee. Copies are also being deposited in the Libraries of both Houses.

  National Insurance
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) how many married women actively revoked their decision to pay the reduced rate of National Insurance contributions in each year from 1977 to the present; [120999]
  585W
  (2) what decision he has reached about undertaking a further information campaign to advise married women paying the reduced rate of National Insurance contributions about their options; [120998]

  (3) if he will estimate, for the latest year for which data are available, the number of married women currently paying the reduced rate of National Insurance contributions who would pay less in National Insurance contributions if they were to pay the full rate of National Insurance contributions; and if he will provide corresponding estimates for 1990; [121199]

  (4) if he will place in the Library a copy of the current version of Form CF383 relating to the certificate of election for married women to pay reduced rate National Insurance contributions, together with a copy of the corresponding form issued in 1978; [122122]

  (5) if he will place in the Library a copy of the mailing which was sent in 1989 to all women still paying reduced rate National Insurance contributions alerting them to the impending reform to the structure of NICs; and if he will estimate the number of such letters which were issued. [123882]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 5 May 2000]: The number of women who actively revoked their election to pay the reduced rate of National Insurance contributions is not available. A series of the number of women paying at the reduced rate is available in Table 11 of "Contributions and Qualifying Years for Retirement Pension 1995/96-Volume 2", a copy of which is in the Library of the House. However, the year on year reductions in the numbers paying at the reduced rate will be due only in part to those actively revoking their election.

  A copy of the 1989 mailshot has been placed in the Library. The mailshot was issued to around 300,000 married women. The coverage went wider than those whose election might have resulted in them paying more NICs at that time.

  A copy of a 1978 CF383 and a current version of CF383 have been placed in the Library.

  I can confirm that a further publicity exercise will be undertaken later this year. It will be aimed at all women who hold a valid election to pay National Insurance contributions at the reduced rate.

  Working Families Tax Credit
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what recent representations he has received about working families tax credit; what plans he has to make changes in the working families tax credit system; and if he will make a statement. [123280]

  Dawn Primarolo
  In the Budget, the Government announced their intention to build on the success of WFTC by introducing an integrated child credit and an employment tax credit from 2003.

  The integrated child credit will bring together the support for children in WFTC and IS/JSA and the new Children's Tax Credit to create one payment to the main carer. This will create a seamless and transparent system
  586W
  of support for children which will further help to deliver the Government's commitment to end child poverty within a generation.

  The adult credit element of WFTC will, along with the Disabled Person's Tax Credit and the Employment Credit component of the New Deal 50 plus, form the foundation of a new employment tax credit which will extend the principle of WFTC to people without children. Paid through the wage packet the employment tax credit will form a single visible instrument, underpinned by the national minimum wage, to make work pay.

  The budget paper, "Tackling Poverty and Making Work Pay—Tax Credits for the 21st Century", sets out this next stage of reform in more detail.

  We have received a number of representations regarding the development of the new credits and we will continue to discuss the proposed reforms with interested parties.

  Mr. Field
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 19 May 2000,Official Report, column 294W, on poverty, if the figure of £2.7 billion extra financial support for children from the working families tax credit given in chart 5.2 of the March 2000 Economic and Fiscal Strategy report includes expenditure on the disabled person's tax credit. [123855]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The figure for the extra financial support delivered through the Working Families Tax Credit includes the additional expenditure on the Disabled person's Tax Credit for families with children.

  VAT (Listed Buildings)
  Mr. Greenway
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the annual cost of(a) a 10 per cent., (b) an 8 per cent. and (c) a 5 per cent. rate of VAT on restoration work for listed buildings. [123723]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Customs and Excise do not have estimates of the costs of reducing the VAT rate on restoration work for listed buildings because reliable estimates of amounts of VAT which have been paid in the past on such work are not available.

  EU Environmental Taxes
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer which environmental taxes he approves under EU proposals for Common EU environmental taxes. [123792]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Any EU proposal on tax is considered by Treasury Ministers, and follows the normal process set out in my reply to the right hon. Member of 9 May 2000,Official Report, column 334W.

  Child Poverty
  Mr. Field
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 19 May 2000,Official Report, column 294W, on poverty, (a) when 1.2 million children will be lifted above the 60 per cent. of median household income threshold and (b) if this figure is net of those children in households whose income moves below this threshold. [123853]
  587W
  Dawn Primarolo
  On(a), the estimate that 1.2 million children will be lifted above 60 per cent. of median income looks at the effect of all personal tax and benefit changes announced in the past four Budgets; all of these measures will have taken effect by April 2001. On (b), the estimates given in Box 5.1 of the Economic and Fiscal Strategy Report are net of any children in households whose incomes move below the income thresholds.

  Mr. Field
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 19 May 2000,Official Report, column 294W, on poverty, if the figure of 1.2 million children to be lifted above 60 per cent. of median earnings includes tapering for (a) housing benefit and (b) council tax benefit. [123854]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The definition of income used in this figure is consistent with that in "Households Below Average Income" and includes Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit. The estimate of 1.2 million children therefore includes the effect of the Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit tapers.

  Opinion Research
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will place in the Library copies of the results of all market and opinion research carried out by his Department, agencies and non-departmental public bodies since May 1997. [123808]

  Mr. Timms
  I regret that this information is not held centrally and can be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Landfill Tax
  Mr. Loughton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much has been paid from the landfill tax to each of the top 20 recipients among independent environmental trusts; and if he will name them. [123753]

  Mr. Timms
  Information about which environmental bodies have received contributions under the Landfill Tax Environmental Bodies Credit Scheme and how much they have received is a matter for the Regulator for the scheme, ENTRUST. I have therefore asked them to provide such data as they hold and I will place a copy of their response in the Library.

  Mr. Loughton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to make changes to the way landfill tax credits are paid to environmental trusts. [123754]

  Mr. Timms
  My right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment will shortly publish the Waste Strategy 2000. This will set out the Government's plans to encourage greater support for sustainable waste management activities through the Landfill Tax Environmental Bodies Credit Scheme.

  State Pension
  Dr. George Turner
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what he estimates would be the cost to the Treasury of tax relief for the basic state pension if such relief were(a) restricted to the 10 per cent. tax rate, (b) restricted to the 22 per cent. tax rate and (c) unrestricted. [120547]
  588W
  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The information is not available.

  Laptops
  Mr. Keith Simpson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many laptop computers used by Ministers, officials and special advisers in his Department have been(a) lost and (b) stolen since May 1997. [123747]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Of the laptops used by HM Treasury, one was reported as lost and six as stolen, since May 1997.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Statute Law Database
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what progress has been made with the Statute Law Database; and if he will make a statement. [123598]

  Mr. Lock
  Subject to a few exceptions, the Statute Law Database currently holds electronic versions of all public general statutes that were in force on 1 February 1991 as well as all statutes and printed statutory instruments, both general and local, enacted since that date. The Statutory Publications Office is editing statutes on the database, grouped together according to subject matter, bringing them fully up to date by the application of amendments made by subsequent legislation. During the course of the year 2000, successive groups of statutes will become available to end users in a fully updated form. The inquiry facility is currently available to selected Government users.

  Civil Justice Review
  Mrs. Fitzsimons
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department when he intends to publish the Review of Civil Justice in Northern Ireland. [124191]

  Mr. Lock
  The final report of the Civil Justice Reform Group will be published on 16 June with a consultation period until the end of September. Copies will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Laptops
  Mr. Keith Simpson
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many laptop computers used by Ministers, officials and special advisers in his Department have been(a) lost and (b) stolen since May 1997. [123741]

  Mr. Lock
  Figures for lost or stolen laptop computers within the Lord Chancellor's Department and associated offices since May 1997 are shown in the table.

  Lost or stolen computers—Lord Chancellor's Department and associated offices

  Lost

  Stolen

  1997

  0

  0

  1998

  0

  1

  1999

  0

  2

  2000

  0

  1

  Sentence Committals
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many committals for sentence there were at the Crown court by magistrates in each of the last five years for which figures are available. [123864]

  Mr. Lock
  The total number of cases committed for sentence to the Crown court by magistrates courts for the last five years are:

  Years

  Number

  1995

  8,757

  1996

  9,287

  1997

  11,835

  1998

  26,090

  1999

  27,086

  Opinion Research
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will place copies of the results of all market and opinion research carried out by the Lord Chancellor's Department, its agencies and non-departmental public bodies since May 1997, in the Library. [123811]

  Mr. Lock
  Copies of all published items relating to market and opinion research since May 1997 will be placed in the Library.

  Statistics
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what statistics relating to the responsibilities of his Department are collated by parliamentary constituency, indicating the dates covered in each case. [123831]

  Mr. Lock
  No statistics relating to the responsibilities of the Lord Chancellor's Department are collated by parliamentary constituency.

HEALTH

  Meat Hygiene Service
  Mr. Livsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if an Office of Veterinary Services contract has been awarded by the Meat Hygiene Service in respect of the new meat plant at Merthyr Tydfil; and if he will make a statement. [121218]

  Ms Stuart
  [holding answer 10 May 2000]: I am advised by the Food Standards Agency that the Meat Hygiene Service (MHS) has yet to put out to tender the contract for the provision of Official Veterinary Service (OVS) duties to the new abattoir currently being built at Merthyr Tydfil. This plant has yet to be licensed by the Food Standards Agency and has not commenced operations.

  The contract for the provision of OVS duties to the licensed cutting plant that is currently operating from the same site was awarded to the Abbey Veterinary Centre at Abergavenny.
  590W
  The MHS makes extensive use of contract OVSs which it obtains by means of best practice competitive tendering procedures.

  Private Health Care
  Mr. Simon Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health in what ways he intends the provisions of the Care Standards Bill [Lords] will affect the regulation of private hospitals. [123130]

  Mr. Hutton
  Our plans for the regulation of private hospitals and other independent health care establishments were published in "The Way Forward" in December last year, following a wide-ranging consultation exercise. A further paper, "Developing The Way Forward", was published in March this year. This outlines how we envisage regulation of independent health care by the proposed National Care Standards Commission, to be established by the Care Standards Bill, will work in practice. These documents have been placed in the Library and are available on the Department's website at:

  "The Way Forward"—www.doh.gov.uk/regulate2.htm

  "Developing The Way Forward"—www.doh.gov.uk/regulate4.htm

  The regulation of the private and voluntary health care sector in Wales, including private hospitals, will be the responsibility of the proposed new care regulatory arm of the National Assembly.

  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what policies his Department has to protect the interests of consumers of private health care; and if he will make a statement. [123635]

  Ms Stuart
  Independent sector health care establishments are currently regulated under the Registered Homes Act 1984. Our proposals for the future regulation of private hospitals and other independent health care establishments were published in "The Way Forward" in December last year, following a wide-ranging consultation exercise. A further paper, "Developing The Way Forward", was published in March this year. This outlines how we envisage regulation of independent health care by the proposed National Care Standards Commission, to be established by the Care Standards Bill, will work in practice. Ensuring safeguards and quality assurance for patients will be addressed. These documents have been placed in the Library and are available on the Department of Health website at:

  "The Way Forward"—www.doh.gov.uk/regulate2.htm

  "Developing The Way Forward—www.doh.gov.uk/regulate4.htm

  Social Services Inspectorate
  Mr. Stunell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the reports he has received from the Social Services Inspectorate about the implementation of Circular HSC1999/162: LAC (99) 28; how many of them indicate that the Circular is being implemented properly and fully at local level; and if he will make a statement. [123081]

  Mr. Hutton
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow) on 20 April 2000,Official Report, column 624W.

  Disabled People (Care at Home)
  Ms Moran
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people with(a) physical and (b) mental disabilities are cared for at home by their families. [123291]

  Mr. Hutton
  The requested information on the number of people cared for at home by families is not available.

  However, the General Household Survey (GHS) indicates that there are around 5.7 million people who are carers in Great Britain. The table shows the percentage of people who are acting as carers by the type of disability of the dependant. The number of carers who are looking after people by disability of dependant can not be estimated accurately because of small sample sizes.

  Disability of main dependent by whether that dependant lived in carer's household, 1995 Great Britain

  Percentage

  Carers with main dependant

  Dependant's disability

  In the same household

  In another private household

  Total

  Physical only

  66

  57

  60

  Mental only

  7

  7

  7

  Physical and mental

  22

  12

  15

  Old age

  5

  23

  17

  Other

  0

  1

  1

  Source:

  1995 GHS

  Dioxins
  Mr. Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent research the Government have commissioned to assess dioxin levels in meat and dairy products(a) produced in and (b) imported into the United Kingdom. [123490]

  Ms Stuart
  [holding answer 3 May 2000]: I am advised by the Food Standards Agency that it has a continuing programme of surveys on dioxins in food consumed in the United Kingdom, including meat and dairy products. The results show the levels of dioxins and polychlorinated biphenyls in food are continuing to fall. The average dietary intake of these chemicals in the UK is below the Tolerable Daily Intake recommended by the UK Committee on Toxicity of Chemicals in Food, Consumer Products and the Environment. Details of all surveys are available on the Agency's website at www.foodstandards.gov.uk.

  Ambulances
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate has been made of the effect on the cost of ambulances of the recent EU Directive relating to ambulances; and which European producers make ambulances consistent with the Directive. [123326]

  Ms Stuart
  [holding answer 23 May 2000]: No estimate of the potential costs to National Health Service Ambulance Service trusts has been made of introducing the standards recommended by the Comité Européen de Normalisation (CEN) and adopted by the British Standards Institute (BSI). The NHS Purchasing and Supply Agency is working with the ambulance services
  592W
  and manufacturers to determine the costs. Currently no European manufacturers make ambulance vehicles to the new CEN/BSI standards.

  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement setting out the implications of the EU Directive on ambulances; what the object of the Directive was; and what was the policy of Her Majesty's Government on it. [123325]

  Ms Stuart
  [holding answer 23 May 2000]: Following a period of consultation with manufacturers and users, two new European standards for ambulance vehicles and their equipment were recommended by the Comité Européen de Normalisation (CEN) in August and September last year. Membership of CEN is wider than European Union member states and their recommendations have force only through the Public Procurement Legislative Programme. The object of this programme is to reduce technical barriers to trade throughout the European Free Trade Area.

  The British Standards Institute adopted the CEN recommendations as national standards in January 2000. New ambulance vehicles and their equipment will be expected to conform to these standards in the future. We recognise that good purchasing practice by the ambulance services requires the inclusion of agreed standards in specifications where these exist.

  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many ambulances in the United Kingdom are consistent with the requirements of the EU Directive. [123327]

  Ms Stuart
  [holding answer 23 May 2000]: The new British Standards for ambulance vehicles and equipment were adopted in January this year and apply only to new vehicles specified and purchased after that date. The National Health Service Purchasing and Supply Agency is currently working with NHS Ambulance Services trusts and vehicle manufacturers to identify those elements of the standards with which they are currently able to conform and the time scale for full compliance with the standards.

  Teenage Pregnancy
  Mrs. Heal
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what progress he has made on setting up an independent national advisory group on teenage pregnancy. [124314]

  Yvette Cooper
  I am pleased to announce that the Independent Advisory Group on Teenage Pregnancy has now been established, and that the first meeting of the Group will take place today. It will be chaired by Winifred Tumim, who is currently Chair of the National Council of Voluntary organisations.

  The Group's role will be to provide advice to Government and to monitor the overall success of our strategy to cut teenage pregnancy rates and reduce the risk of long term social exclusion for teenage parents and their children.

  Children's Homes
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health which institutions housing young offenders come within the definition of a children's home in section 1 of the Care Standards Bill [Lords]; what discussions he has

  593W
  had with the Home Office and the Youth Justice Board regarding the definition of a children's home; and if he will make a statement. [123599]

  Mr. Hutton
  Clause 1 of the Care Standards Bill defines what is a children's home for the purposes of the Bill. In relation to institutions housing young offenders, the current definition of a children's home will not be altered. For that reason, we have had no discussions with the Home Office or the Youth Justice Board regarding the definition of a children's home, as institutions housing young offenders do not come within the definition of a children's home.

  Wheelchairs
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list how many(a) electronically powered indoor/outdoor wheelchairs and (b) wheelchair vouchers were issued by each health authority in (i) 1997, (ii) 1998 and (iii) 1999; and what was the cost to each health authority. [123505]

  Mr. Hutton
  Table 1 shows the totals for numbers of electrically powered indoor/outdoor wheelchairs issued to users and numbers of people issued with a voucher for 1997–98 and 1998–99, along with forecasted outturn figures for 1999–2000, in England.

  Table 2 shows the totals for the total committed spend on electrically powered indoor/outdoor wheelchairs, and total actual spend on vouchers for 1997–98 and 1998–99, along with forecasted expenditure figures for 1999–2000, in England.

  A breakdown by each health authority of these national figures has been placed in the Library.

  Table 1

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  Numbers of electronic indoor/outdoor wheelchairs issued to users

  4,464

  4,033

  3,263

  Numbers of people issued with a voucher

  560

  5,010

  6,217

  Table 2

  £

  Total committed spend on powered indoor/outdoor wheelchairs

  Total actual spend on vouchers

  1997–98

  6,428,468

  764,000

  1998–99

  8,098,511

  3,457,516.51

  1999–2000

  6,936,225.91

  3,968,668.66

  Notes:

  1. Data are based on National Health Service financial accounting years.

  2. Figures for 1999–2000 are based on forecasted returns for quarter 4 1999–2000.

  3. As health authorities were required to have voucher schemes in place by 1 April 1998, data returns on numbers of people issued with a voucher were not compulsory during 1997–98.

  4. In February 1998–99 health authorities were authorised to transfer any voucher scheme underspends to mainsteam or powered wheelchair provision. This expenditure is not reflected in the report of expenditure on actual vouchers.

  Mobile Telephone Emissions
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when Sir William Stewart first indicated the likely contents of his report and the conclusions of the inquiry into mobile telephone emissions to officials in his Department; and when this information was made known to ministers. [122334]

  Yvette Cooper
  [holding answer 16 May 2000]: From 1 November 1999, the Government publicly stated that,
  "Officials of the Department of Health and the Department of Trade and Industry are observers at the Group's meetings while it is taking evidence and may also be observers when the Group considers, in private, its conclusions and recommendations for the report. Such information will not be released outside Government".

  Officials saw draft conclusions and recommendations which were being formulated by Sir William Stewart and members of the group during the period to 23 March. Ministers did not see these drafts, nor were they briefed on their contents. Officials were not present for the final deliberations of the Group nor did they see the final set of conclusions and recommendations. Ministers and officials took receipt of the completed report on 3 May 2000.

  Pensions (Part-timers)
  Mrs. Lait
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what effect the European Court of Justice's ruling on pensions for part-timers will have on NHS pensions; and what estimate he has made of the maximum and minimum cost to NHS pension funds of the ruling. [123263]

  Mr. Rooker
  I have been asked to reply.

  I refer the hon. Member to my written answer on 23 May 2000, Official Report, column 484W.

  Grazing Land
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to implement the recommendation of SEAC that the spreading of liquid condensate on grazing land should cease; and if he will make a statement. [118536]

  Ms Quin
  I have been asked to reply.

  We are actively considering how to take forward the SEAC advice and hope to consult on proposals shortly.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Civil Servants
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what was the average percentage increase in salaries of non-industrial civil servants, excluding members of the senior civil service, in his Department for 1999–2000; and to what extent the pay awards were staged. [121680]

  Dr. Howells
  [holding answer 18 May 2000]: The headline pay settlement was 2 per cent. on the paybill and, together with the additional funds from staff turnover, staff in post received in total performance related increases averaging 4 per cent. The increases were not staged.

  Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, pursuant to his answer of 3 April 2000,Official Report, column 325W, if he will list the companies and sites in the United Kingdom that manufactured methyl tertiary butyl ether in 1999. [123453]

  Mrs. Liddell
  One company, TotalFina Great Britain Ltd., manufactured methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE) in the UK in 1999, at Lindsay Oil Refinery, South Killingholme, Humberside.

  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, pursuant to his answer of 3 April 2000,Official Report, column 325W, what large-scale manufacturing processes in the United Kingdom other than in the petroleum industry include the use of methyl tertiary butyl ether. [123449]

  Mrs. Liddell
  Methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE) is used in small amounts by the oil refining industry, with the average concentration of MTBE in UK petrol about 1 per cent., well below that permitted under EU law. The chemicals and pharmaceuticals industries also use MTBE in small amounts.

  Northern Region (Relocations)
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list the executive agencies, non-departmental public bodies and local public spending bodies for which his Department is responsible that(a) have been transferred since 1992 and (b) are planned to be transferred (i) to and (ii) from the Northern Region. [123408]

  Dr. Howells
  None of the Department's executive agencies or non-departmental public bodies has relocated since 1992 either to or from the area covered by the North East and North West Government Offices. There are no current plans for such relocations.

  Coal Industry Pension Schemes
  Mr. Caton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans he has to reduce the percentage of the surpluses from the Mineworkers Pension Scheme and British Coal Staff Superannuation Scheme taken by the Government. [123438]

  Mrs. Liddell
  Since 1994, the DTI has acted as guarantor to the former British Coal pension schemes. In doing so it underwrites 100 per cent. of any downside risk to guaranteed benefits in the event of scheme deficits. The guarantee means that basic pensions will always rise at least in line with inflation and will never fall in cash terms. In return the Government receive 50 per cent. of any actuarial scheme surpluses—the remaining 50 per cent. being available to the scheme Trustees for distribution among their memberships. The Government have no plans to re-open the guarantee arrangements, but it is discussing with the Trustees whether there are opportunities to build upon them to the mutual benefit of Scheme members and Government.

  Ms Squire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he next plans to meet trade unions to discuss the use of the surplus in the Mineworkers' Pension Scheme and the British Coal Staff Superannuation Scheme. [123126]
  596W
  Mrs. Liddell
  [holding answer 24 May 2000]: Decisions on the allocation of the members' share of any surpluses in the coal pension schemes are principally issues for the Trustees of the schemes. I meet representatives of the mining unions regularly and I am always prepared to discuss a broad range of issues including the Mineworkers' Pension Scheme.

  Manufacturing Industry
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what action the Government are taking to support manufacturing industry in the north-west; what related discussions he has had in the north-west during the last year; and if he will make a statement. [123527]

  Mr. Caborn
  Support for manufacturers is listed at Annexe A of the DTI report, "Manufacturing in the Knowledge Driven Economy". This report provides contact details for further information and can be found on the DTI website: www.dti.gov/comp/knowledge.htm.

  In addition there are a number of initiatives which will assist in the creation and development of manufacturing companies—Regional Capital Venture Funds; a Phoenix Fund, the UK High Technology Fund and the Innovative High Growth Start Up Initiative which will be open to companies across the whole of the North West. As part of the Government's response to the financing problems of SMEs, we have introduced the new Enterprise Grant scheme. It is proposed that this will cover 64 per cent. of the population in the north-west.

  We are also consulting Regional Development Agencies on the potential for the development of Regional Centres for Manufacturing Excellence and Productivity.

  Ministers have regular discussions on regional matters. As my hon. Friend is aware, I am due to be in the region on 2 June to meet him and my hon. Friends the Members for Rossendale and Darwen (Janet Anderson) and for Hyndburn (Mr. Pope).

  Regulations
  Mrs. Browning
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many regulations have been repealed by his Department since May 1997; and what estimate he has made of the resulting cost savings. [123302]

  Mr. Byers
  [holding answer 23 May 2000]: My Department revoked seven regulations between May 1997 and the end of March this year. In most cases the effects were cost neutral. In the period between May 1995 and May 1997 only four regulators were revoked. These were cost neutral.

  Regional Selective Assistance
  Mrs. Browning
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he expects to submit an application to the European Commission for the approval of £25 million of regional selective assistance for the proposed new Marconi site at Ansty; and if he will make a statement. [123307]
  597W
  Mr. Byers
  [holding answer 23 May 2000]: The Government's offer of Regional Selective Assistance for this high quality project is, like any such offer, subject to the rules governing state aids. Individual notification of the project to the European Commission will not be required.

  Opinion Research
  Mrs. Browning
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) if he will list opinion research projects undertaken on behalf of his Department in the financial year 1999–2000, broken down into(a) focus group research, (b) quantitative surveys and (c) other market research surveys; and if he will list in each case where and when the results were published; [123308]

  Surveys involving an element of opinion gathering carried out during the 1999–2000 financial year

  Title

  Purpose

  Regular surveys

  Census of hospital-treated firework injuries

  Advertising campaign evaluation

  Survey of gas suppliers

  Quantitative research

  EMIC user satisfaction questionnaire

  Customer satisfaction

  Business information security survey

  Programme evaluation

  Tracking study on business support needs

  Customer satisfaction

  Benchmarking and awareness tracking (EMRS)

  Programme evaluation

  Subtotal (6)

  Ad-hoc Surveys

  Survey of school science teachers

  Programme research

  Evaluation of the Renewable Energy Programme in the UK

  Programme evaluation

  Survey of small firms awareness, knowledge and access to information on individual employment Rights

  Programme evaluation

  Market research into the introduction of automated payroll service

  Programme evaluation

  Supply and availability of facilities to manufacturing bio

  Market research

  Measurement, requirements, awareness and practices of SMEs

  Programme research

  UK business potential for virtual reality

  Programme research/state of industry

  Central Accounting Unit Customer Survey

  Customer satisfaction

  Assessment of centres of expertise

  Programme research/state of Industry

  Evaluation of small firms publications

  Programme evaluation

  New minimum wage ethnic campaign

  Programme evaluation

  British trade international branding customer survey

  Programme evaluation

  EuroPlanner evaluation

  Customer satisfaction

  Evaluation of the Link Programme on hydrocarbon reservoirs

  Programme evaluation

  Update of unwanted computer equipment: A guide to re-use

  Campaign evaluation

  Survey of local authority enforcement of the Working Time Regulations

  Programme evaluation

  Subtotal (16)

  Queen's Awards
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the impact of the Queen's Awards to Industry. [123547]

  Mr. Byers
  [holding answer 24 May 2000]: The Queen's Awards for Export, Technological and Environmental Achievement (formerly The Queen's Award for Industry) were reviewed in 1999 by a Committee under the chairmanship of HRH The Prince of Wales. The Review Committee made 16 key recommendations including a new generic title, "The Queen's Awards for Enterprise", with broader criteria for the three categories: International Trade, Innovation, and Environmental Achievement. The Committee also recommended further work to define criteria for a Queen's Award in the field of sustainable development to be incorporated into the Awards in 2001. The Committee's recommendations were accepted in full by Her Majesty The Queen and the Prime Minister in September 1999.
  598W
  (2) how much his Department spent on opinion research in the financial year 1999–2000. [123309]

  Mr. Byers
  [holding answers 23 May 2000]: (i) The following table lists all surveys carried out by the DTI and it's agencies in the financial year 1999–2000, which involved an element of opinion research, and which are subject to survey control. All of the surveys listed are considered to contain an element of opinion research, but it is not possible to break these down further into Focus Group, Quantitative and other sub-divisions with any accuracy. Details of where and when results have been published can be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  (ii) The total cost to the department for all surveys carried out in the financial year 1999–2000 containing an element of opinion research was about £578,000.

  The Review commissioned market research into perceptions of the Queen's Awards among a structured sample of businesses across a wide range of sectors of business activity. Almost 90 per cent. of all respondents said that British business continued to attach importance to the Queen's Awards; over 90 per cent. of organisations said that people employed in Award winning units continued to be enthusiastic about the Awards and that the Awards provided recognition of outstanding achievement; 74 per cent. of respondents said that the Queen's Awards were the most prestigious awards for achievement in the UK economy; and 78 per cent. of Award winners said that the Awards provided an incentive to outstanding achievement.

  Since the Awards were first introduced in 1966, a total of 45,534 applications have been submitted with a total of 4,282 applicants being granted a Queen's Award. Each year many previous Award winners reapply because of the highly positive effect on their marketing of the use of the Queen's Awards emblem on their products, stationery

  599W
  and advertising material. They also cite the enhanced morale and team spirit among their staff which flows from the company winning such a prestigious accolade.

  SMART and SPUR
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will estimate the ratio of(a) sales and (b) profit to Departmental grant under the SMART and SPUR schemes in each year since the inception of the schemes. [123537]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  [holding answer 24 May 2000]: The data are not available to provide all the information requested. However, an evaluation of SMART in 1991 forecasted a grant:profits ratio of 9:20 resulting from awards made in 1988. A second evaluation of SMART in 1994 calculated a grant:sales ratio of 1:6. An evaluation of SPUR in 1994 concluded that it was too early to assess the grant:profit ratio, given that SPUR had only started in 1991. A further evaluation of Smart is planned for later this year.

  Ilisu Dam
  Mr. Gummer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry which Middle East countries have informed him of their support for Turkey's planned Ilisu dam project. [123797]

  Mr. Caborn
  No Middle East countries have notified us that they support the project.

  Mr. Gummer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what recent assessment he has made of the impact of the proposed Ilisu dam on the built heritage in the area to be inundated. [123826]

  Mr. Caborn
  We are currently awaiting the updated Environmental Impact Assessment Report, which is expected to cover, among other issues, the impact on heritage, and the Turkish plans for mitigating this.

  Mr. Gummer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry against what environmental consideration the Ilisu dam will be assessed in relation to ECGD support. [123775]

  Merger referred

  Date referred

  BA/CityFlyer

  January 1999

  Johnston Press/Portsmouth & Sunderland Newspapers

  February 1999

  News Communications and Media/Portsmouth and Sunderland Newspapers

  February 1999

  Newsquest/Portsmouth and Sunderland Newspapers

  February 1999

  Air Products/DeVilbiss Medequip

  February 1999

  Hepworth/Naylor Industries

  March 1999

  Trinity/Minor Group

  March 1999

  RIM /Mirror Group

  March 1999

  NTL/Newcastle United

  April 1999

  Whitbread/Allied Domecq

  July 1999

  Alanod Aluminium/Metalloxyd

  July 1999

  Universal Foods/Pointing Holdings

  August 1999

  CHC Helicopter Corporation/Helicopter Services Group

  September 1999

  NTL/CWC

  November 1999

  Vivendi/BSkyB

  November 1999

  Newsquest/News Communications and Media

  December 1999

  Johnston Press/News Communications and Media

  December 1999

  600W
  Mr. Caborn
  ECGD support for Ilisu will be assessed on the basis of the updated Environmental Impact Assessment Report, which will be reviewed in the light of internationally accepted standards.

  Fuel Market
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what evidence he has of smuggled petroleum products being offered to petrol retailers in the North West of England since 1999. [122946]

  Mrs. Liddell
  [holding answer 24 May 2000]: There is no substantiated evidence of smuggled products being offered to petrol retailers in the North West of England.

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what was the size of the road transportation retail fuel market in England and Wales for(a) diesel and (b) petrol in (i) 1998 and (ii) 1999. [122945]

  Mrs. Liddell
  [holding answer 24 May 2000]: Retail sales for all types of petrol in England and Wales were 19,662 thousand tonnes in 1998 and 19,444 thousand tonnes in 1999. Retail sales for automotive diesel (DERV) were 6,018 thousand tonnes in 1998 and 6,329 thousand tonnes in 1999. These figures exclude direct deliveries to commercial customers. The 1999 data are provisional.

  Office of Fair Trading
  Mrs. Browning
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he plans to appoint a new Director General of the Office of Fair Trading. [123751]

  Mr. Byers
  A successor to John Bridgeman as Director General of Fair Trading is currently being recruited through open competition. My intention is to appoint someone to take over when John Bridgeman's term ends on 30 September 2000.

  Mrs. Browning
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list the cases where he has referred mergers to the Competition Commission(a) on the advice of and (b) against the advice of the Director General of the Office of Fair Trading. [123782]

  Mr. Byers
  The table lists all the merger cases that I have referred to the Competition Commission.

  The Director General of Fair Trading (DGFT) does not advise on newspaper mergers. With the exception of NTL/CWC, all other references were made in accordance with the advice of the DGFT.
  601W

  Merger referred

  Date referred

  Trinity Mirror/News Communications and Media

  December 1999

  Carlton/United News and Media

  February 2000

  Granada/Carlton and United News and Media

  February 2000

  Independent News and Media/The Belfast Telegraph

  March 2000

  Air Canada/Canadian Airlines

  May 2000

  Mrs. Browning
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) if he will make a statement on the(a) role, (b) size and (c) powers of the board he is proposing for the Office of Fair Trading; [123750]

  (2) when he plans to introduce legislation to change the structure of the Office of Fair Trading. [123749]

  Mr. Byers
  I have proposed that a new Authority for the Office of Fair Trading (OFT) should be established to increase the breadth of experience and expertise guiding the OFT's work. Recent legislation including the Competition Act 1998 has increased the regulator's powers significantly. The role of the new Authority will be to work under the chairmanship of the Director General of Fair Trading to promote effective and competitive markets which benefit consumers. The Authority will have a minimum of five members. The Authority will have the powers currently vested in the Director General of Fair Trading. We will introduce legislation to create an Authority when parliamentary time allows.

  Vertical Integration (Competition)
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what his Department's policy is on vertical integration in relation to competition matters; and if he will make a statement. [123637]

  Dr. Howells
  I examine each merger case that comes before me on its own merits. I reach my decision in the light of the Director General of Fair Trading's advice.

  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) what assessment his Department has made of the views expressed by the OFT in November 1999, concerning further vertical integration of BUPA's private healthcare activities; and if he will make a statement; [123636]

  (2) what assessment he has made of the risks posed by vertical integration in the private healthcare sector in respect of (a) competition in the provision of private medical insurance, (b) competition in the provision of private hospital services, (c) the interests of consumers of medical insurance and (d) the interests of consumers of private hospital care; and if he will make a statement. [123632]

  Mr. Byers
  An assessment of the private medical insurance (PMI) and private medical services (PMS) market was made by the Office of Fair Trading (OFT), which under UK competition law in the first instance has the responsibility to investigate allegations of anti-competitive behaviour and possible abuses of a dominant position.
  602W
  The OFT announced the results of its inquiry on 5 November 1999. It cleared the sector of major competition problems, but highlighted the need for much greater clarity and accuracy in the information available to policy holders.

  The OFT said that it would consider very carefully any further vertical integration of BUPA's or PPP's businesses.

  In the specific case of BUPA's proposed acquisition of Community Hospitals Group, I will decide whether or not to refer this case to the Competition Commission in the light of the Director General of Fair Trading's advice. Each case is considered on its individual merits.

  Minimum Wage
  Ms Julie Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment he has made of the number of companies in Wales which are not paying the minimum wage. [123935]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  The Government have asked the Low Pay Commission to assess the impact of the minimum wage. Their Second Report, published on 15 February, said early indications were that the vast majority of businesses throughout the UK were meeting their obligations to pay the national minimum wage and that the Inland Revenue had made a successful start to enforcement. As at the end of April 2000, minimum wage compliance offices have dealt with 204 cases of suspected underpayment of the national minimum wage in Wales.

  Power Station, Runcorn
  Mr. Roy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he will announce his decision on ICI Chemicals and Polymers Ltd.'s proposal to build a combined heat and power station at Runcorn, Cheshire. [124315]

  Mrs. Liddell
  I have today given clearance under Section 14 of the Energy Act 1976 to ICI Chemicals & Polymers Ltd. to build a 250 MW gas-fired combined heat and power station at the ICI Chlor-Chemicals works, Runcorn, Cheshire. The decision has been taken in accordance with the policy set out in the White Paper entitled "Conclusions of the Review of Energy Sources for Power Generation and Government response to fourth and fifth Reports of the Trade and Industry Committee" (Cm 4071).

  The decision to give clearance to the proposal on energy policy grounds is without prejudice to any decision that may be taken on whether or not consent is granted under section 36 of the Electricity Act 1989.
  603W
  Copies of the Press Notice and the clearance letter are being placed in the Library of the House.

  Laptops
  Mr. Keith Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many laptop computers used by Ministers, officials and special advisers in his Department have been(a) lost and (b) stolen since May 1997. [123745]

  Dr. Howells
  During the period since May 1997 there have been 10 laptop computers stolen and three lost from my Department. These figures reflect central records for the core Department and exclude Executive Agencies.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  Euro
  Mrs. Lait
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment which(a) local education authorities and (b) organisations for which his Department has budgetary responsibility (i) have set up and (ii) are setting up projects to prepare for the UK adopting the euro; what these projects are costing each organisation; what the total cost to the Department is; and from which budget sums already spent have come. [122812]

  Ms Jowell
  An update on changeover planning in the public sector was given in the second Outline National Changeover Plan published on 9 March.

  Teacher Re-training
  Mr. Letwin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make available grants for re-training to qualified teachers seeking to re-enter the profession. [123132]

  Employment tribunal statistics for sex discrimination cases

  ACAS arbitration settled

  Heard at tribunal

  Successful at tribunal

  Year

  Total number of applications

  Number settled

  Percentage settled

  Number heard

  Number successful

  Percentage of cases heard

  1976

  243

  35

  14

  119

  24

  20

  1977

  229

  63

  28

  77

  17

  22

  1978

  171

  29

  17

  67

  14

  21

  1979

  180

  46

  26

  61

  16

  26

  1980

  181

  46

  25

  70

  15

  21

  1981

  259

  53

  20

  92

  19

  21

  1982

  150

  42

  28

  56

  24

  43

  1983

  265

  64

  24

  116

  62

  53

  1984

  314

  102

  32

  118

  52

  44

  1985

  414

  124

  30

  150

  39

  26

  19861

  612

  167

  27

  201

  48

  24

  1987

  691

  200

  29

  208

  46

  22

  1988

  935

  366

  39

  250

  78

  31

  1989

  1,046

  384

  37

  280

  86

  31

  1990

  1,078

  335

  31

  298

  78

  26

  1991

  1,104

  378

  34

  268

  90

  34

  1992

  1,386

  504

  36

  369

  127

  34

  1993

  1,969

  824

  42

  461

  176

  38

  1994

  4,052

  1,005

  25

  690

  340

  49

  1995

  3,677

  1,464

  40

  574

  218

  38

  1996

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  1997

  2,839

  1,005

  35

  676

  224

  33

  1998

  4,025

  1,791

  44

  797

  270

  34

  604W
  Ms Estelle Morris
  In the current academic year, the Teacher Training Agency is providing funding for 56 courses for teachers who wish to refresh their skills. Course structures and the tuition fees charged by providers vary considerably. Local education authorities have power to make grants to teachers who attend these courses under the local education authority (Post-Compulsory Awards) Regulations 1999.

  College Lecturers (Silver Book Contracts)
  Mr. Illsley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many college lecturers are still employed on Silver Book contracts; and what proposal he has for their assimilation onto new contracts. [123277]

  Mr. Wicks
  Over 95 per cent. of all lecturers have agreed to new contracts which are not based on the Silver Book. Contracts are a matter to be agreed between individual colleges and their staff.

  Equal Opportunities Legislation
  Mr. Ruane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many applications have been made to industrial tribunals under the Equal Pay Act 1970 and the Sex Discrimination Act 1975; and what percentage of such applications were successful through being settled with an award(a) before a hearing and (b) following a hearing. [123466]

  Ms Hodge
  [holding answer 23 May 2000]: The following tables show employment tribunal statistics for sex discrimination and equal pay cases since 1976. The percentage of cases each year which were settled through arbitration is given. Information is not available on whether cases were settled before or after a hearing. The percentage of those cases heard at a tribunal each year which were successful is also given.
  605W

  Employment tribunal statistics in equal pay cases

  ACAS arbitration settled

  Heard at tribunal

  Successful at tribunal

  Year

  Total number of applications

  Number settled

  Percentage settled

  Number heard

  Number successful

  Percentage of cases heard

  1976

  1,742

  106

  6

  709

  213

  30

  1977

  751

  56

  7

  363

  91

  25

  1978

  343

  33

  10

  80

  24

  30

  1979

  263

  29

  11

  78

  13

  17

  1980

  91

  10

  11

  26

  4

  15

  1981

  54

  9

  17

  27

  6

  22

  1982

  39

  8

  21

  13

  2

  15

  1983

  35

  5

  14

  15

  9

  60

  1984

  70

  15

  21

  24

  11

  46

  1985

  302

  84

  28

  64

  37

  58

  19861

  517

  71

  14

  161

  44

  27

  1987

  1,043

  89

  9

  24

  7

  29

  1988

  813

  95

  12

  63

  14

  22

  1989

  397

  64

  16

  55

  33

  60

  1990

  508

  64

  13

  35

  10

  29

  1991

  227

  45

  20

  81

  5

  6

  1992

  240

  102

  43

  55

  21

  38

  1993

  780

  50

  6

  43

  19

  44

  1994

  418

  98

  23

  25

  8

  32

  1995

  694

  128

  18

  82

  36

  44

  1996

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  1997

  1,483

  253

  17

  91

  18

  20

  1998

  1,530

  517

  34

  316

  7

  2

  1From the end of 1985 the figures were calculated by financial year rather than by calendar year

  2Because of changes to the tribunal handling system in 1996, comparable information for 1996–97 is not available

  Source:

  Collated from Labour Market Trends

  Teachers (Early Retirement)
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many teachers in each local education authority were offered early retirement in each of the last 20 years. [123113]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  [holding answer 22 May 2000]: The number of teachers taking early retirement from the maintained nursery, primary, secondary and special sector in each local education authority in England for the last 20 years is contained in tables, copies of which have been placed in the Library.

  Astra Group Pension Scheme
  Mr. Dawson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement on the winding-up of the Astra Group Pension Scheme. [123324]

  Mr. Wicks
  [holding answer 23 May 2000]: The process for winding-up the Astra Group Pension Scheme started on 1 April 1999. Since then no new pensions have been awarded as members reach age 60, but payments to existing pensioners have continued to be made. The scheme's administrators still have some outstanding issues about the restoration of members' rights in the state pension scheme. These need to be resolved to establish the amount of money available to buy annuities to protect current pensioners and preserved annuities for members with preserved pensions. Until this process is completed, nobody will know the extent of any shortfall in the scheme's assets to meet its liabilities.
  606W
  I am unable, at this stage, to give any indication of when the winding-up process will be completed.

  Pupil Performance
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what recent research he has commissioned on the performance of the upper quartile of 15-year-old pupils in(a) comprehensive schools and (b) selective schools; and if he will make a statement. [123503]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  [holding answer 24 May 2000]: The Secretary of State has not commissioned any recent research on this topic. Analytical Services have calculated the comparative performance of 15-year-old pupils in (a) comprehensive schools and (b) selective schools and the statement reflects the comparative performance of the two groups.

  The first group (a) included the top 25 per cent. (or quartile) of 15-year-old pupils in comprehensive schools—based on their total GCSE/GNVQ point score (in order not to include and exclude some pupils with the same point score, the actual percentage of pupils included was 24.5 per cent.). Their results were:

  Percentage/average point score

  Percentage achieving 5+ grades A*-C at GCSE/GNVQ

  100

  Percentage achieving 1+ grades A*-G at GCSE/GNVQ

  100

  Average point score per 15-year-old pupil

  60.9

  607W
  The second group (b) included all 15-year-olds in selective schools. Their results were:

  Percentage/average point score

  Percentage achieving 5+ grades A*-C at GCSE/GNVQ

  96.4

  Percentage achieving 1+ grades A*-G at GCSE/GNVQ

  99.6

  Average point score per 15-year-old pupil

  60.7

  Ofsted Inspections
  Mr. Blizzard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) what was the average amount paid per day to Ofsted inspectors, and what was the average profit made by organisations carrying out inspections in(a) secondary and (b) primary schools, in the last year for which figures are available; [123787]

  (2) what was the average cost, per pupil, of Ofsted inspections in (a) secondary schools and (b) primary schools in the last year for which figures are available. [123793]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  These are matters for HM Chief Inspector of Schools, Chris Woodhead. I have asked him to write to my hon. Friend and to place a copy of his letter in the Library.

  Autism
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what studies he has carried out of the incidence of autistic conditions among the school population; and what guidance he has issued to local education authorities in connection with these conditions. [123162]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 24 May 2000]: Figures are not collected on the incidence of particular types of special educational need. Provisions in the Education Act 1981, now consolidated into the Education Act 1996, require schools to submit information on numbers of pupils with special educational needs. In accordance with the recommendation of the Warnock Committee, there is no requirement for them to record the nature of the disability or learning difficulty and we have no current intention to require them to do so.

  Guidance on meeting children's special educational needs is contained in the "Code of Practice on the Identification and Assessment of Special Educational Needs". The Department has established an Autism Working Group which is investigating examples of good practice and will be publishing practical advice on early identification and making provision for children with autism. In its advice the Group will be taking account of the work of the special educational needs regional co-ordination projects, one of which, in the West Midlands, has been concentrating on provision for children with autism.

  Instructors
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will break down by subject the instructors in service in maintained schools in England in January, as referred to in Statistical First 608W
  Release 13/2000; and how many of these instructors have the same basic maths and English qualifications as qualified teachers. [123589]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  Information is not available centrally on instructors' basic qualifications or subject taught.

  Pensions (Part-timers)
  Mrs. Lait
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what estimate he has made of the maximum and minimum costs to teachers' pension funds of the European Court of Justice's ruling on pensions for part-timers. [123262]

  Mr. Rooker
  I have been asked to reply.

  I refer the hon. Member to my written answer on 23 May 2000, Official Report, column 484W.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  RUC Mobile Support Unit, Mahon Road
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list by rank the number of officers within the Royal Ulster Constabulary Mobile Support Unit based at Mahon Road, Portadown. [119712]

  Mr. Ingram
  There are two Mobile Support Units based at Mahon Road, Portadown. In 1997, the establishment of each MSU was:One Inspector; four Sergeants; and 21 Constables and Reserve Constables.
  One Inspector; four Sergeants; and 23 Constables and Reserve Constables.

  Both units are not normally on duty at the same time.

  Travellers
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what progress has been made in effecting the transfer of responsibility for traveller accommodation to the Housing Executive. [123061]

  Mr. George Howarth
  Responsibility for providing housing for those travellers who wish to move into settled accommodation already rests with the Housing Executive and many traveller families have been provided with homes in existing Housing Executive estates. In addition, work to provide three pilot group housing schemes, specifically tailored for extended traveller family groups, is due to commence in the current financial year.

  It is proposed to transfer responsibility for serviced sites from District Councils to the Housing Executive and provision for this will be included in future legislation.

  Prisoners (Reintegration)
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland further to the undertakings given in the 6 May letter jointly signed by the Prime Minister and the Irish Taoiseach,(a) what measures are being taken to facilitate the reintegration of prisoners into the community, (b) what related issues are being addressed and (c) what body has been tasked with responsibility for implementation of each measure. [123058]
  609W
  Mr. Ingram
  The Government are committed to meeting their obligations under the Good Friday Agreement. Government policy is that prisoners should be given every assistance to enable them to play a full and active role in society, and that they should have full, though not preferential, access to the range of social support generally available to members of the public.

  The Government are conscious that the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act 1998 has resulted in the release over a relatively short period of significant numbers of long-term prisoners, many of whom will not have been able to prepare for release in the normal way. In order to meet its overall aims within these special circumstances, the Government set up a co-ordinating group to ensure that released prisoners had proper access to support services, and that services themselves were aware of and geared to cope with the likely patterns of release. Potential difficulties in both immediate and longer-term provision for prisoners have been addressed in a manner consistent with ensuring that there is no differential in provision between ex-prisoners and the general public.

  Many wider reintegration issues would involve changes to current practices or laws. The Government are reluctant to make changes to existing legislation without the support of the Assembly, given the particular sensitivity of reintegration and the fact that many of the matters of concern are the responsibility of the devolved administration.

  I have had meetings with Assembly party representatives to discuss reintegration issues prior to devolution. The Government are committed to working co-operatively with the devolved administration on these issues.

  Irish Language TV and Film Production
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what body has been tasked with drawing up a two-year implementation plan for the Irish language TV and film production pilot announced to start by April 2001. [123059]

  Mr. George Howarth
  The Department for Culture, Arts and Leisure is currently considering with other Departments how to give effect to the undertaking to begin an Irish language, television and film pilot by April 2001.

  Maze Prison
  Mr. Donaldson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland who was the duty governor in charge of HMP Maze on 27 December 1997. [123231]

  Mr. Ingram
  On security grounds, I am not prepared to name the governor in question.

  Rate Collection Agency
  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what performance targets have been set for the Rate Collection Agency in 2000–01. [124427]
  610W
  Mr. Ingram
  For 2000–01, the following performance targets have been set for the RCA:Output
  To collect 97.55 per cent. (or the 1999–2000 outcome if higher) of the Gross Domestic Collectable Rate (excluding late assessments) by 31 March 2001.
  To collect 98.80 per cent. (or the 1999–2000 outcome if higher) of the Gross Non-Domestic Collectable Rate (excluding late assessments) by 31 March 2001.
  Efficiency
  To achieve a forecast unit cost of £11.56 (representing a 2 per cent. improvement in the real value of the unit cost) for collecting rates per hereditament by 31 March 2001.
  To achieve a forecast unit cost of £18.54 (representing a 2 per cent. improvement in the real value of the unit cost) for processing Housing Benefit cases by 31 March 2001.
  Quality of Service
  To process 98 per cent. of Housing Benefit claims free from error.
  To achieve an average turnaround time of 28 working days for 1regular non-annual Housing Benefit applications.
  To issue all 2eligible rate refunds within 14 days of approval.
  To achieve by 31 March 2001 a satisfied rating for overall service from at least 75 per cent. of those customers responding to the annual survey.
  Financial Management
  To live within budget allocations for 2000–01.
  1Where the Agency is not required to seek any additional information to determine the outcome of the application.
  2Where the Agency has all the necessary relevant information to enable the refund to be processed.

SCOTLAND

  New Deal
  Mr. Sarwar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will assess the success of the New Deal in creating opportunities for employment and training in Glasgow and across Scotland. [121472]

  Dr. Reid
  The success of the New Deal is making a significant contribution to increasing employment in Glasgow and across Scotland. Employment in Glasgow rose by 11,000 in the year to February 2000 and across Scotland by 26,000 in the year to March 2000, and is at around its highest level since 1966.

  Shipbuilding (Clyde)
  Mr. Davidson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what actions he has recently taken to help retain shipbuilding on the Clyde. [121807]

  Dr. Reid
  This Government are firmly committed to improving the competitive position of the shipbuilding industry not just on the Clyde but across the whole of the UK. I have had recent meetings with ministerial colleagues, trade unions and management of the Govan shipyard and continue to promote the strengths in shipbuilding that exist on the Clyde.

  Penalty Clauses
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the contracts entered into with private sector companies for the provision of goods or
  611W
  services since May 1997 where penalty clauses were triggered for non-performance; and if he will make a statement. [122013]

  Dr. Reid
  The information requested is not held centrally and could be collated in respect of the period before 1 July 1999 only at disproportionate cost. Procurement by the Scottish Executive since 1 July 1999 is a matter for the Scottish Parliament. There have been no requirements to trigger penalty clauses in the Scotland Office since 1 July 1999.

  Assisted Areas
  Mr. David Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, pursuant to his answer of 9 May 2000,Official Report, column 378W, how many responses received by his Department in respect of the revised assisted areas map (a) objected to and (b) supported the removal of Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey from the proposed map. [122149]

  Dr. Reid
  The responses received are not readily capable of analysis in the form requested by my hon. Friend.

  Copies of the consultation responses received by my Department will be placed in the Library of the House in due course.

  Departmental Vehicles
  Mr. Pearson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many(a) cars and (b) commercial vehicles operated by his Department were manufactured (i) in the UK, (ii) in the EU and (iii) elsewhere. [122255]

  Dr. Reid
  [holding answer 17 May 2000]: My Department does not operate any cars or commercial vehicles. Details of vehicles operated by the Government Car and Despatch Agency, for the Government as a whole, were given in the reply from my right hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Cabinet Office on 17 May 2000, Official Report, column 141W.

  Ferry Services
  Mr. Charles Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what recent discussions he has had with the European Union over the future of the Highlands and Islands ferry services; and if he will make a statement. [123072]

  Dr. Reid
  My hon. Friend the Minister of State, Scotland Office, recently met in Brussels with representatives of the European Commission to discuss a wide range of issues affecting transport in remote and peripheral regions in Scotland and elsewhere in Europe. Responsibility for ferry services operating within the Highlands and Islands is a matter for the Scottish Executive who have been kept fully informed of the Commission's views as they affect these services.

  Skye Bridge
  Mr. Charles Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when the DTZ Pieda Economic Impact Assessment on the Skye Bridge will be published. [123283]
  612W
  Dr. Reid
  The Scottish Office commissioned the Economic Impact Assessment of the Skye Bridge, by DTZ Pieda, which was carried out between May 1998 and June 1999. The publication of the results of this assessment are now a matter for the Scottish Executive.

  Statistics
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what statistics relating to the responsibilities of his Department are collated by parliamentary constituency, indicating the dates covered in each case. [123838]

  Dr. Reid
  Monthly statistics on unemployment and New Deal figures are allocated on a constituency basis.

DEFENCE

  Serbia
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment the Government have made of the views recently expressed by NATO's Supreme Allied Commander Europe concerning use of electronic methods against Serbia as an alternative to aerial assault. [122637]

  Mr. Spellar
  I assume that my hon. Friend is referring to the comments made by the previous SACEUR, General Clark, at the Senate Committee on Armed Services on 21 October 1999. No formal assessment has been made by MOD of the views he expressed then. However, we agree that co-ordinated international pressure on all fronts, diplomatic, economic (trade and financial) as well as military, is an important factor during crises. Electronic methods on their own would be unlikely to have achieved the desired result against Serbia.

  Kosovo
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what estimate he has made of the number of Federal Republic of Yugoslavia tanks and armoured personnel carriers destroyed during the war in Kosovo. [122636]

  Mr. Spellar
  NATO's assessment of the number of Federal Republic of Yugoslavia tanks and armoured personnel carriers destroyed during the Kosovo conflict was made public by the then Supreme Allied Commander Europe, General Wesley Clark, on 16 September 1999. General Clark's analysis, based on access to a wide range of sources, concluded that 93 tanks/self-propelled artillery pieces were successfully struck (in other words destroyed or damaged), with physical evidence of 26 such vehicles having been destroyed (14 tanks and 12 self-propelled artillery pieces) remaining on the ground after NATO had entered Kosovo—the remainder of the assessment is underpinned by evidence from other sources. NATO assessed there to have been 153 successful strikes against Armoured Personnel Carriers, with the destruction of 12 such vehicles confirmed by evidence on the ground. The methodology used to put together the NATO assessment is explained in detail in the transcript of General Clark's presentation, available on the internet at the NATO website: www.nato.int/kosovo/press/p990916a.htm. Battle Damage Assessment is not an exact science, but these are the most comprehensive figures available.

  Royal Artillery Radar
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the cost of procurement of the Mobile Artillery Monitoring Battlefield Radar for the Royal Artillery; what is the time scale for this programme and the total cost; and if he will make a statement. [122375]

  Dr. Moonie
  The MAMBA programme covers the procurement of radar systems to meet the Army's requirement for a lightweight and mobile weapon locating radar. It is currently in the concept stage of the procurement process and it is planned to commence the assessment phase in June 2000 when the procurement options and associated costs will be addressed in detail.

  The current plan is for the radar systems to be in Service by 2008–09. However, in order to satisfy a capability gap identified by the Service Customer, it is planned to provide an initial operating capability by 2002–03 with the balance of deliveries by 2008–09.

  Light Weight Howitzer
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assistance has been requested from the Ministry of Defence by BAE Systems to develop a US production base for the XM777 Light Weight Howitzer; and if he will make a statement. [123001]

  Dr. Moonie
  XM777 is based on the Ultra-lightweight Field Howitzer (UFH), which was designed as a private venture in the United Kingdom by the then Vickers Shipbuilding and Engineering Ltd., now part of Royal Ordnance Defence. The UFH won a competition run by the US Marine Corps and became the XM777 Light Weight Howitzer in the US Engineering and Manufacturing Demonstration (EMD) phase of acquisition.

  No request for assistance to develop a US production base has been received by the Defence Procurement Agency.

  ALSL
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what his Department's requirements are for the Alternative Landing Ship Logistics; what is the payload breakdown of the ALSL; when the final decisions on awarding contracts for construction will be made; what is the target price; and if he will make a statement. [122980]

  Dr. Moonie
  The ALSLs are required to move men, equipment and stores to wherever they are required in the world and to be able to deploy them as a fighting force. Each vessel's minimum payload will include 350 military personnel, 500 linear metres of vehicles, 106 tonnes of war maintenance reserve plus two Landing Craft Vehicle and Personnel (LCVPs) and two Mexeflote powered rafts. The achievement of greater payloads, within cost constraints, is being sought in the Invitation to Tender.

  Contract placement for the design and build of two new ALSLs is planned to occur later this year. The estimated target price for the construction of the two vessels is approximately £138 million.

  Shipbuilding
  Mr. Sarwar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the planned timetable for his Department's shipbuilding orders this year. [122901]

  Mr. Hoon
  We expect to place contracts for two Survey Vessels during this summer, and, by the end of this year, for the Demonstration and First of Class manufacture of the new Type 45 Anti War Warfare Destroyer, and for two Alternative Landing Ships Logistics. These ships will all be built in the UK. We also plan to procure a range of smaller craft during the year.

  It is also intended to procure a strategic sealift under Private Finance Initiative arrangements later this year which will involve the construction of six ro-ro ferries although in this case the vessels themselves would be ordered by the service provider not by the MOD.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Line of Route
  Mr. Gale
  To ask the Chairman of the Administration Committee if the Committee is in a position to advise the House of the likely amount visitors will be charged for a guide in order to undertake line of route tours during the summer Adjournment. [124312]

  Mrs. Roe
  Following negotiations between the authorities of both Houses and organisations able to carry out the booking and guiding arrangements, it has been established that two separate companies will be required for these functions. The result of having to divide these services means that a minimal charge of £3.50, to cover the guide fees and ticketing arrangements, will have to be made. Pre-booked tickets for a timed guided tour will go on sale after the Whitsun Adjournment.

  Pensions (Part-timers)
  Mrs. Lait
  To ask the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire, representing the House of Commons Commission, what estimate the Commission has made of the maximum and minimum costs to the House of Commons pension fund of the European Court of Justice's ruling on pensions for part-timers. [123288]

  Mr. Kirkwood
  The House of Commons Staff Pension Scheme anticipates very minimal costs, arising from the European Court of Justice's ruling on pensions for part-time staff. The House has always sought to employ part-time staff to work more than the 15 hours per week limit which in the past would have excluded staff from the pension scheme.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Stakeholder Pensions
  Kali Mountford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when the stakeholder pensions regulations will be laid. [124340]
  615W
  Mr. Rooker
  Following extensive consultation on the detailed arrangements and the draft regulations, the Stakeholder Pension Schemes Regulations 2000 (SI 2000/1403) have been laid today. Copies are available in the usual way and the regulations will also be available on the internet at www.legislation.hmso.gov.uk.

  State Pension
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will estimate the level of the basic state pension if it represented the same percentage of the average wage as it did in November 1982; and if he will estimate what would be the annual cost of raising the basic state pension to that level. [122682]

  Mr. Rooker
  The information is in the tables.

  The link between the basic pension and average earnings was broken in 1979. No-one is expected to live on the basic pension alone. Latest figures for single pensioner incomes are £132 a week, 36 per cent. of average earnings.

  Rate of full category A basic state pension, assuming same percentage of average earnings as November 1982

  April 1999

  April 2000

  Average weekly earnings

  £400.10

  1£422.51

  Basic pension rate as a percentage of earnings in November 1982

  23.1

  23.1

  Assumed rate of basic pension

  £92.40

  £97.60

  1Assumed

  Costs of raising basic state pension to levels shown in Table 1

  £ billion

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  Gross

  14.8

  17.3

  Net

  11.7

  13.8

  Notes:

  1. Average weekly earnings figure for April 1999 is for all full-time employees, taken from the New Earnings Survey. An equivalent April 2000 earnings figure is not available. The assumption used to derive April 2000 figure is that April 1999 earnings grow by 5.6 per cent. over following year (based on March 2000 annual growth in the average earnings index).

  2. Basic state pension rates are rounded to the nearest 5p.

  3. Costs are rounded to the nearest £100 million and are in 2000–01 benefit rate terms.

  4. Gross costs are estimated by the Government Actuary's Department.

  5. Costs net of income-related benefits are estimated using the Policy Simulation Model.

  6. Source of pensioners' incomes figure Family Resources Survey and New Earnings Survey.

  7. The latest data for which pensioners' incomes estimates are available is 1997–98. This is expressed as a percentage of average earnings in April 1997, £368.

  Press Officers
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many press officers his Department employed in(a) May 1997 and (b) May 2000. [122475]
  616W
  Mr. Rooker
  The information is as follows:

  Number of press officer posts within this department and its agencies

  Year

  Number

  May 1997

  128.25

  May 2000

  22.25

  1Includes two posts held in the Contributions Agency which transferred to the Inland Revenue in May 1997.

  Note:

  It should be noted that the structure of the Department has changed during the intervening period. Direct comparison of numbers between the years in question would therefore not be appropriate.

  Parental Leave
  Ms Kelly
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will estimate the gross cost to the Exchequer on an annual steady-state basis of paying parental leave at the rate of(a) £60 and (b) £100 a week, assuming the take-up by fathers is (i) 10 per cent., (ii) 15 per cent., (iii) 20 per cent., (iv) 25 per cent. and (v) 30 per cent. and the take-up by mothers is (1) 30 per cent., (2) 40 per cent., (3) 50 per cent.,(4) 60 per cent. and (5) 70 per cent. [123437]

  Mr. Bayley
  The information is in the table.

  The gross cost to the exchequer on an annual steady state basis of paying parental leave for 13 weeks to employees who have a child under five at the specified rates

  £ million

  Take up—percentage

  £60 a Week

  £100 a Week

  Fathers

  10

  30

  55

  15

  50

  80

  20

  65

  110

  25

  80

  135

  30

  95

  160

  Mothers

  30

  75

  125

  40

  100

  165

  50

  125

  250

  60

  150

  250

  70

  175

  290

  Notes:

  1. Take-up is assumed to be the same across the entire earnings distribution. Up to 415,000 fathers, and 315,000 mothers, would become entitled each year.

  2 The assumptions on which these calculations have been made are:

  that the Exchequer meets the full costs of the paid parental leave; that the 13 weeks of parental leave are spread evenly over the first five years of the child's life;

  that every parent has only one child in the age group;

  that qualifying periods by length of service are taken into account.

  Source

  Family Resources Survery 1997–98, uprated to 1999–2000 Prices using March 1999 Treasury Economic Assumptions.

  Ms Kelly
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will estimate the gross cost to the Exchequer on an annual steady-state basis of paying parental leave at(a) full earnings replacement value, (b) 90 per cent. of earnings replacement value, (c) 50 per cent. of earnings replacement value and (d) 30 per cent. of earnings replacement value, assuming the take-up by fathers is 50 per cent. and the take-up by mothers is 90 per cent. [123436]
  617W
  Mr. Bayley
  The information is in the table.

  Gross cost to Exchequer on an annual steady-state basis of paying parental leave for 13 weeks to employees who have a child under 5

  £ million

  Rate of payment

  Mothers

  Fathers

  Full earnings replacement

  745

  1,305

  90 per cent. earnings replacement

  670

  1,175

  50 per cent. earnings replacement

  375

  650

  30 per cent. earnings replacement

  225

  390

  Notes:

  1. Take-up for fathers of 50 per cent., and mothers of 90 per cent. is assumed to be the same across the entire earnings distribution. Up to 415,000 fathers, earning on average £480 a week, and 315,000 mothers, earning on average £200 a week, would become entitled each year.

  2. The figures above correct the answer given to the Written Answer on 17 May 1999, Official Report, columns 251–52W.

  3. The assumptions on which these calculations have been made are:

  that the Exchequer meets the full costs of the paid parental leave; that the 13 weeks of parental leave are spread evenly over the first 5 years of the child's life;

  that every parent has only one child in the age group;

  that no qualifying periods by length of service are taken into account.

  Source:

  Family Resources Survey 1997–98, uprated to 1999–2000 prices using March 1999 Treasury Economic Assumptions

  Pension Forecasts
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if his proposals to provide all national insurance contributors with annual pension forecasts is on target; and if he will make a statement. [123289]

  Mr. Rooker
  The first combined pension forecasts, which include details of both state and private pension rights, were issued to Prudential customers in April as part of a series of pilots. Other pilot employers and pension providers will issue combined forecasts later this year. We are on course to meet or exceed our target to start the full-scale service from 2002.

  We are committed to providing better pensions information. Combined pension forecasts will, for the first time, provide individuals with a clear indication of what sort of retirement income to expect. This will enable them to make better-informed decisions on what savings they need to make.

  Older People
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) which organisations representing older people the members of the Inter-Ministerial Group for Older People consulted during 1999; and in which regions the programme of public consultation took place; [123033]

  (2) what issues and concerns were raised during the public consultation undertaken by the Inter-Ministerial Group for Older People; [123034]

  (3) how he plans to respond to the results of the consultation undertaken during the past year by the Inter-Ministerial Group for Older People. [123035]
  618W
  Mr. Rooker
  During 1999 the Inter-Ministerial Group for Older People led a programme of listening events across the UK. The events were put on by a partnership between the Inter-Ministerial Group, the UK Secretariat for the International Year of Older Persons and mainly voluntary sector organisations working with older people. The locations where these events took place and representative organisations involved are set out in the newsletter report "Life begins at 50—the 1999 Listening Events" and summarised in the table.

  A number of issues and concerns were raised during the listening events programme. These are covered in the research report "Building a Better Society for Older People—Report on the Listening Events to the Inter-Ministerial Group for Older People" by Annette Boaz and Carol Hayden, Warwick Business School, the University of Warwick.

  We published on 17 May a report "Life begins at 50—A Better Society for Older People" setting out the key points raised by older people at 1999 listening events, the action the Government have already taken to address them, and the action they will take in the future. On the same day the Secretary of State hosted a National Event in London aimed at promoting positive perceptions of older people; feeding back to those people who had been involved in listening events; and setting out plans to help build a better society for older people.

  Copies of all the above publications are in the Library.

  Listening to older people events in 1999

  Date

  Host and location

  25 May

  Age Resource, London/world wide web

  15 June

  Age Concern, Northern Ireland Stormont, Belfast

  5 July

  Belfast Third Age Trust, Newcastle

  20 July

  Age Concern, Leamington

  29 July

  Age Concern Cymru and the Welsh Office, Cardiff

  8 September

  Age Concern, England Harrow

  11 October

  NIACE, Liverpool

  18 October

  Southampton City Council and Meridian TV, Southampton

  25 October

  Help the Aged, Truro

  19 November

  Scottish International Year Committee, Aberdeen

  26 November

  Age Concern and local partners, Wolverhampton

  Minimum Income Guarantee
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many pensioners in(a) Shrewsbury and Atcham and (b) Shropshire will benefit from the minimum income guarantee increases in April 2001; and if he will make a statement. [123096]

  Mr. Bayley
  We estimate that some 8,000 pensioner households in Shropshire will benefit from increases to the minimum income guarantee in April 2001. This includes 3,000 in the constituency of Shrewsbury and Atcham.

  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security of those pensioners who are excluded from gaining the minimum income guarantee because of(a) ownership of excess capital, (b) receipt of an occupational pension and (c) both ownership of excess capital and an occupational pension, however many and

  619W
  what proportion have a total income or calculated income (i) £0–£5 above, (ii) £5 to £10, (iii) £10 to £15 and (iv) £15 to £20 above the minimum income guarantee. [121621]

  Mr. Bayley
  [holding answer 11 May 2000]: The information is in the tables.

  Income in relation to the minimum income guarantee

  Caseload (000s)

  Percentage

  The total number of pensioners who would no longer be excluded if all capital rules were removed, and the percentage in different income bands

  Below MIG levels

  40

  7

  £0 to £5

  40

  8

  £5 to £10

  40

  7

  £10 to £15

  20

  4

  £15 to £20

  20

  3

  £20+

  330

  70

  Total

  480

  100

  The total number of pensioners who would no longer excluded if all income from occupational pensions was disregarded, and the percentage in different income bands

  Below MIG levels

  0

  0

  £0 to £5

  100

  9

  £5 to £10

  80

  7

  £10 to £15

  70

  6

  £15 to £20

  80

  7

  £20+

  790

  70

  Total

  1,120

  100

  The total number of pensioners no longer be excluded if both polices are removed, and the percentage in different income bands

  Below MIG levels>

  40

  2

  £0 to £5

  130

  8

  £5 to £10

  120

  7

  £10 to £15

  90

  6

  £15 to £20

  90

  6

  £20+

  1,120

  71

  Total

  1,580

  100

  Notes:

  1. This question has been answered using the Policy Simulation Model (PSM) for Income-Related benefits, based on 1997–98 Family Resources Survey data This is uprated to 2000–01 prices and benefit levels.

  £ million

  Expenditure1

  1995–96

  1996–99

  1997–99

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  Christmas Bonus—contributory2

  124

  129

  123

  124

  120

  Christmas Bonus—non-contributory

  15

  15

  16

  16

  16

  Total

  139

  144

  139

  140

  137

  1Figures are consistent with Table 1 of the Social Security Departmental Report 2000 (Cm 4614)

  2Expenditure paid from the National Insurance Fund

  Notes:

  1 Figures may not sum due to rounding

  Laptops
  Mr. Keith Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many laptop computers used by Ministers, officials and special advisers in his Department have been(a) lost and (b) stolen since May 1997. [123744]

  Angela Eagle
  The information is not available in the format requested. Such information as is available is in the table.
  620W
  2. The State Earnings-Related Pension Scheme has been excluded from the calculation of occupational pensions.

  3. Pensioners with incomes below the minimum income guarantee are excluded on other grounds such as full-time employment if appropriate.

  4. Numbers are rounded to the nearest 10,000 and shown in thousands.

  5. Sums may not total because of rounding.

  6. Tariff income is calculated using all capital held by a case above the lower limit.

  Winter Fuel Payments
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) if he will backdate winter fuel payments for 1999 for those who were in temporary respite care over the period 20 to 26 September 1999; [123071]

  (2) what plans the Government have to make eligible those people who will be in temporary respite care for 12 weeks or less from the week commencing 18 September 2000 for winter fuel payments. [123054]

  Angela Eagle
  To ensure that no-one who enters residential care for a temporary period misses out on receiving a winter fuel payment the eligibility rules have been amended from next winter.

  Under the revised regulations, someone who has been in residential care for less than 13 weeks at the end of the qualifying week (week ending 24 September 2000) will be treated as being temporarily in residential care and will be eligible for a winter fuel payment on the basis of their usual home circumstances.

  These revisions can apply only to next winter's payments and future payments. They cannot apply to any of the three previous winters.

  Christmas Bonus
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how much has been spent in each of the past five years on the pensioners' Christmas bonus. [122571]

  Mr. Bayley
  The information is in the table.

  The Christmas Bonus is not paid exclusively to pensioners. It is also paid to other groups, such as widows and disabled people, who meet the qualifying conditions.

  From the available information, none of these losses/ thefts have been incurred by Ministers or special advisers.

  Number of laptops or stolen April 1997-May 2000

  Date

  Numbers lost or stolen

  1 April 1997 to 31 March 1998

  23

  1 April 1998 to 31 March 1999

  17

  1 April 1999 to 23 May 2000

  12

  Total

  52

  Opinion Research
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will place copies of the results of all market and opinion research carried out by his Department, agencies and non-departmental public bodies since May 1997, in the Library. [123814]

  Mr. Rooker
  Research commissioned under the Department's Research Programme has included public opinion research to inform the development and evaluation of policy. All such research is published on completion and available in the Library. In addition, the War Pensions Agency carries out a Customer Service Survey annually, the results of which are published.

  The Communications Directorate of the Department commissions research to develop and evaluate publicity campaigns or to inform other presentational issues. All reports are either placed in the Library or are available on request. If a report is not available, this may be because the full research has not yet been completed (i. e. reports not yet finalised by contractors, or the fieldwork is still in progress) or findings are still being employed to inform communications activity.

  Statistics
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what statistics relating to the responsibilities of his Department are collated by parliamentary constituency, indicating the dates covered in each case. [123844]

  Mr. Rooker
  The information is as follows:

  Income Support: Figures for this benefit are available at Parliamentary Constituency level on a quarterly basis from August 1998, the latest available being November 1999, with February 2000 due to be published 25 May 2000.

  Jobseeker's Allowance: Figures for this benefit are also available at Parliamentary Constituency level for August 1998, and the two quarters August 1999 and November 1999, with February 2000 due to be published on 8 June 2000.

  Family Credit: These figures are available at Parliamentary Constituency level only for May 1999 and was replaced by Working Families Tax Credit in October 1999.

  Attendance Allowance: Figures at Parliamentary Constituency level, based on a 5 per cent. sample, are available for this benefit on a quarterly basis as far back as November 1995. However, figures based on 100 per cent. data (and therefore more accurate) are available for August 1996, May 1998, and May 1999.

  Disability Living Allowance: Figures at Parliamentary Constituency level, based on a 5 per cent. sample, are available for this benefit on a quarterly basis as far back as August 1992. However, figures based on 100 per cent. data (and therefore again more accurate) are available for May 1998, and May 1999.

  Incapacity Benefit: Figures are not normally published for this benefit at Parliamentary Constituency level, although they are available on request depending on sample sizes.
  622W
  Client Group Analysis of the Working Age: Figures on the number of people of working age claiming a key Social Security Benefit by Parliamentary Constituency, are available on request relating to May 1999 or August 1999. November 1999 figures will become available from 29 June 2000.

  No information is available at Parliamentary Constituency level for Housing Benefit, Council Tax Benefit, Retirement Pensions, Occupational Pensions, Lifetime Labour Market Database, Industrial Injuries Disablement Benefit, Invalid Care Allowance, Child Benefit, and War Pensions. It is hoped however, that information at Parliamentary Constituency level will become available for Child Benefit and War Pensions within the next three months.
  Note:
  Cases are allocated to each Parliamentary Constituency by matching the postcode against the relevant version of the Postcode Directory for the relevant year. Constituency boundaries are represented as at May 1997.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Victim Support
  Ms Rosie Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what measures he is taking to improve the position of victims in the criminal justice system. [124313]

  Mr. Straw
  I shall be announcing tomorrow my plans to give victims and their relatives a greater say in the criminal justice process.

  Stafford Prison
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the 1999 Annual report of the Board of Visitors of HM Prison Stafford, with particular regard to the issue of health care. [123098]

  Mr. Boateng
  Since the Board of Visitors' report was submitted, significant improvements have been made in the standard of health care at Stafford prison. In a recent audit, standards were rated satisfactory. A health needs assessment is currently being conducted by the prison in partnership with the Stafford Health Authority. That assessment will form the basis for developing a health improvement programme.

  I am arranging for a copy of my full reply to the report to be placed in the Library.

  Child Pornography
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) men and (b) women have been convicted and imprisoned for possession of child pornography in England and Wales during the last 12 months. [123377]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The available information, taken from the Home Office Court Proceedings Database, is given in the table.
  623W

  Number of persons convicted and sentenced to immediate custody at all courts for child pornography offences by sex, England and Wales, 1998–991

  Total convicted

  Total given immediate custody2

  Take, make, distribute, show, possess with intent to distribute or show, publish any advertisement conveying the distribution of indecent photographs or pseudo-photographs of children3

  1998

  M

  82

  37

  F

  0

  1

  19991

  M

  130

  55

  F

  3

  1

  Possession of an indecent photograph or pseudo-photograph of a child4

  1998

  M

  104

  32

  F

  1

  —

  19991

  M

  95

  23

  F

  2

  —

  1Provisional

  2Persons sentenced at the Crown Court may have been convicted in an earlier year at the magistrates' court

  3Protection of Children Act 1978 Section 1 and 6 as amended by the Criminal Justice and public order Act 1994, section 84

  4Criminal Justice Act 1988 section 160 as amended by the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, sections 84(4) and 86(1)

  Cyclists (Fixed Penalties)
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many cyclists have been fined for riding on pavements since the introduction of the fixed penalty. [123381]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Information on the new fixed penalty offences introduced on 1 August 1999 is not yet available, nor is information on court imposed fines since that date.

  Police forces have been asked to monitor the new fixed penalty provisions and it is hoped to publish the figures later in the year.

  Working Time Directive
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the impact of the Working Time Directive upon fire authorities dependent upon retained firemen; and if he will make a statement. [123298]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Under the Central Local Partnership, the Home Office works closely with the Local Government Association's Fire Service Expenditure Forecasting Group to assess future resource demands. The Group has estimated the cost to the fire service in England of the new arrangements for paid annual leave for retained firefighters, agreed in the light of the Working Time Directive, as £3–£4 million a year, with back pay costs of up to £9 million.

  Green Transport
  Mr. Moore
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the key buildings for which his Department(a) submitted and (b) did not submit green transport plans by March. [122621]

  Mr. Straw
  [holding answer 18 May 2000]: Travel Plans covering the following key buildings have been completed:

  Abell House, London

  Advance House, Croydon

  Apollo House, Croydon

  Aragon Court, Peterborough

  Becket House, London

  Cleland House, London

  Clive House, London

  Forensic Science Laboratory, Chepstow

  Forensic Science Laboratory, Chorley

  Forensic Science Laboratory, Huntingdon

  Forensic Science Laboratory, Lambeth

  Forensic Science Laboratory, Wetherby

  Glasgow Passport Office

  Government Buildings, Sandridge

  Grenadier House, London

  Hampton House, Belfast

  The Hawkhills, Easingwold

  Horseferry House, London

  India Buildings, Liverpool

  Langhurst House, Horsham

  Litherland House, Bootle

  Lunar House, Croydon

  National Police Training, Ashford

  National Police Training, Bramshill

  National Police Training, Bruche

  National Police Training, Cwmbran

  National Police Training, Durham

  National Police Training, Harrogate

  National Police Training, Leicester

  National Police Training, Loughborough

  National Police Training, Ryton

  Norfolk House, Birmingham

  Olympia House, Newport

  Priory House, Birmingham

  Queen Anne's Gate, London

  Quest House, Croydon

  Status Park, Hayes

  Whitgift Centre Blocks B, D and E, Croydon.

  A travel plan has not been submitted from Crown House, Corby or by any Prison Service establishments. A revised target date of 31 December 2000 has been set for the completion of travel plans by Prison Service establishments.

  Police Officers (Funding)
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many police officers are funded(a) in full and (b) in part by parish councils. [122278]
  625W
  Mr. Charles Clarke
  [holding answer 15 May 2000]: Parish Councils may provide grants to police authorities under section 92 of the Police Act 1996. They also have powers under Section 31 of the Local Government and Rating Act 1997 to install and maintain equipment for the detection or prevention of crime in their area.

  The Crime and Disorder Act 1998 requires local authorities and the police to work together at district level to develop and implement strategies for reducing crime and disorder in the area. In doing so, they must work in co-operation with a number of other key agencies including parish councils. These partnerships can assist the police in considering how best to deploy existing resources to target local needs.

  No detailed information is available centrally on these forms of support.

  Immigration
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will(a) investigate the immigration status of Sheikh Abu Hamza and Sheikh Omar Bakri Mohammed and (b) request the United States authorities to investigate the immigration status of Muhammed Jameel; and if he will make a statement. [123662]

  Mr. Straw
  The person referred to as Sheikh Abu Hamza was granted British nationality in 1986. Omar Bakri Mohammed was granted infinite leave to remain in the United Kingdom in 1993. The immigration status of any individual in the United States of America is a matter for the United States of America authorities.

  Opinion Research
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will place copies of the results of all market and opinion research carried out by his Department, agencies and non-departmental public bodies since May 1997, in the Library. [123810]

  Mr. Straw
  I refer to the reply I gave the hon. Member on 19 July 1999,Official Report, columns 391–92W, giving details of market and opinion research undertaken by my Department. I propose to write to the hon. Member further as soon as my officials are able to update the available information and I will place a copy of the letter in the Library. I also refer to the reply I gave the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) on 9 February 2000, Official Report, columns 164–65W, which covers publication of research commissioned by my Department.

  The Department conducts or commissions market or opinion research only when it is justified by the specific needs of a particular policy or programme and this is the most economical, efficient and effective way to achieve the purpose. Consulting and involving the public helps inform both policy formulation and the delivery of better quality public services.

  Probation Service
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) when he will roll out a further version of the CRAMS, to be known as 4.6.1, for the Probation Service in England and Wales; [123594]
  626W
  (2) how the proposed probation IT system Copernicus differs from the existing system, known as CRAMS; and if he will make a statement; [123590]

  (3) when Bull Information Systems will set up a Helpdesk to deal with user problems with Probation Service IT; what is the cost of the contract providing this service; and if he will make a statement; [123596]

  (4) if he will list the errors and user difficulties which are currently identified in the Case Recording and Management System for the Probation Service in England and Wales; and if he will make a statement; [123592]

  (5) if the new version of CRAMS will be accompanied by release notes and acceptance certificates; [123595]

  (6) if Bull Information Systems have been given a new contract to maintain and correct faults contained in the Case Recording and Management System for the Probation Service in England and Wales; and if he will make a statement; [123591]

  (7) how many faults have been identified in the Case Recording and Management System version 4.6 for the Probation Service in England and Wales; how those faults are being prioritised; and if he will make a statement. [123593]

  Mr. Boateng
  Bull provides support and maintenance of the Probation Service infrastructure. A replacement contract has recently consolidated a number of previously separate contracts. This does not extend the lifespan of the Bull contract and there is no new provision.

  Within the overall support and maintenance arrangements, there is a process in place for users to bring problems to the attention of Bull and the Probation Unit via a Helpdesk. We keep the overall position, including priorities for action, under constant review. It would not be appropriate to list specific issues as these are commercial in confidence.

  The existing version of CRAMS in use by Services is 4.6.1. There are no plans for further versions of CRAMS. However, outstanding user issues are considered for inclusion in planned maintenance releases of CRAMS. The next is being planned for late summer. This will be known as release 4.7.

  Planned maintenance releases of CRAMS are quality assured and accepted before release. Release notes will accompany the release planned for late summer.

  The Copernicus system is being designed to meet the future needs of Probation Service staff. It will replace CRAMS and be designed specifically to support National Standards and performance management.

  Details of costs are commercial in confidence and, therefore, cannot be disclosed.

  Blantyre House
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many day releases were authorised at HMP Blantyre House during 1999. [123639]

  Mr. Boateng
  The exact figure is not available, but it is estimated that there were approximately 16,000 day releases in connection with work and community placements. The available information is that there were
  627W
  15,118 releases on temporary licence between 1 April 1999 and 31 March 2000. However, this figure includes authorised absences for periods of less than a whole day and also for longer periods, while for prisoners involved in work or community placements, a single licence may cover a number of daily absences.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prisoners at HMP Blantyre House are on work and community placements. [123640]

  Mr. Boateng
  The numbers fluctuate slightly from day to day. On 23 May, there were 19 prisoners on community placements, five on work experience and 38 at work.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many assaults were registered at HMP Blantyre House in 1999. [123643]

  Mr. Boateng
  None.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department for what reasons a search was authorised by the Prison Service at HMP Blantyre House on 5 May; how many staff were used on 5 May to search and secure HMP Blantyre House; what was the outcome of the search and if he will list those items found; what were the results of the drug tests on prisoners taken following the search; and if he will make a statement. [123644]

  Mr. Boateng
  The Director General of the Prison Service authorised the search in the light of intelligence suggesting that some prisoners on the working out scheme might be engaging in criminal activity.

  Sixty-two officer grades (prison officers, senior officers and principal officers) from other establishments were involved in the operation. This included 28 officers in specialist control and restraint teams who were primarily on hand in case of any indiscipline on the part of prisoners. In the event, they were not required for this role and were redeployed to expedite the completion of the search.

  The search made 98 finds of unauthorised articles, including cash to the value of £370, nine mobile telephones, 25 bank and credit cards and banks' books, a small quantity of illicit drugs, 12 cameras, two computers, two televisions, a set of building tools, seven examples of hard core pornography, tattooing equipment, computer disks, screwdrivers and blank visiting orders for Elmley prison.

  Blantyre House carries out important resettlement work with long-term prisoners. I do not expect this operation to lead to any change in Blantyre House's ethos and role, but it was necessary to maintain the confidence in the establishment without which its valuable work could have been jeopardised.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the reconviction rate for prisoners discharged from HMP Blantyre House in the latest 12 months for which figures are available. [123641]

  Mr. Boateng
  The two-year reconviction rates for prisoners discharged from Her Majesty's Prison Blantyre House in 1995 was 20 per cent. The reconviction rate has been derived by analysing a stratified random sample of 628W
  discharges from all prisons during the year; the sample contained just 12 offenders who were discharged from Blantyre House.

  There is a selection criteria for inmates of Blantyre House which means that the reconviction rates for this prison are not directly comparable with reconviction rates for other prisons.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many drug tests were positive at HMP Blantyre House in 1999. [123642]

  Mr. Boateng
  The available information is for the 12 months to 31 March 2000. In this period, there were two positive drug tests at Blantyre House.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the average population was at HMP Blantyre House in 1999. [123638]

  Mr. Boateng
  Provisional information shows that the average population at Blantyre House Prison in 1999 was recorded as 115 persons.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he intends to publish the next HM Inspectorate of Prisons report on HMP Blantyre House; and if he will make statement. [123645]

  Mr. Boateng
  The last inspection of Blantyre House took place on 21–25 January this year. No publication date for the report has yet been set.

  Under the protocol on the publication of inspection reports, the Prison Service is given the opportunity to check the report in draft for any factual inaccuracies. The Director General of the Prison Service is currently discussing a number of points from the draft with the Chief Inspector.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many senior staff have been removed from HMP Blantyre House since 4 May; and if he will make a statement. [123646]

  Mr. Boateng
  The governing governor, Eoin McLennan-Murray, was transferred to the post of deputy governor at Swaleside prison on 5 May. Another governor grade was also moved on detached duty to fill an essential specialist post elsewhere.

  Reoffending Rates
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent research his Department has conducted into(a) short-term and (b) long-term reoffending rates for criminal offences; and if he will place copies of that research in the Library. [123862]

  Mr. Boateng
  Reconviction rates for offenders discharged from prison during 1995 and those sentenced to community penalties during 1995 were published in Home Office Statistical Bulletin issue 19/99 on 25 October 1999. Further information on reconviction rates for prisoners appears in chapter 9 of "Prison Statistics England and Wales 1998". Copies of both publications have been placed in the Library.

  There are several ongoing research projects on offenders participating in various crime reduction programmes. Reconviction rates are used as one of the measures of

  629W
  success for many of these projects, which include evaluations of Welfare to Work and the effectiveness of probation programmes via the Pathfinder and other projects. Copies of the latest findings from these research projects will be placed in the Library upon completion.

  Offences against Children
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) in the latest year for which figures are available, how many people were convicted of, and what was the(a) average prison and (b) maximum sentence received for, (i) offences against children listed in paragraphs one, two and three of Schedule 4 to the Criminal Justice and Court Services Bill, (ii) assault occasioning actual bodily harm committed against a child, contrary to the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 and (iii) unlawful supply of drugs to a child, contrary to the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971; [123863]

  (2) how many persons were convicted in the last five years for which figures are available of (a) offences under section 54 of the Criminal Law Act 1977, (b) offences under section 1 of the Indecency with Children Act 1960, (c) offences under section 1 of the Protection of Children Act 1978, (d) offences under section 160 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 and (e) offences under the following provisions of the Sexual Offences Act 1956 committed against persons (i) under and (ii) over the age of 16 years (1) section 1 (rape), (2) section 5 (intercourse with a girl under 13), (3) section 6 (intercourse with a girl between 13 and 16), (4) section 10 (incest by a man), (5) section 11 (incest by a woman), (6) section 12 (buggery), (7) section 13 (gross indecency), (8) section 14 (indecent assault on a girl), (9) section 15 (indecent assault on a boy), (10) section 16 (assault with intent to commit buggery), (11) section 23 (procuration of girl under 21) and (12) section 28 (causing or encouraging prostitution of, intercourse with, or indecent assault on, girl under 16); and what was the average sentence (A) received and (B) served for each offence. [123600]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  I will write to the hon. Member.

  Kudlip Sander
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the Government's response to the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in the case of Kudlip Sander. [123601]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The court's judgment, which was limited to the facts of this case, means that in future similar cases where the judge is aware of evidence of jury bias it may be necessary to discharge the jury to achieve a fair trial. The Judicial Studies Board, which includes training on equal treatment issues in its core training for judges, is currently considering the training implications of this judgment. Notices will also be placed in jury retiring rooms, reminding jurors of their duty to be impartial in trying the case.

  Criminal Justice (Mode of Trial) Bill
  Sir Nicholas Lyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer to the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe), of 2 March 2000,Official Report, column
  630W
  377W, on the Criminal Justice (Mode of Trial) Bill, (1) what proportion of the total number of Crown Court defendants in either way cases is represented by the 14,000 defendants who would be tried in the magistrates courts, indicating (a) the total assumed number of such defendants, (b) the proportion of the total who are assumed to plead guilty, (c) the proportion of the total that are assumed to have been tried according to the evidence, (d) the proportion of the 14,000 assumed to have pleaded guilty in the Crown Court, (e) the proportion of the 14,000 assumed to have been fully tried in the Crown Court, (f) the proportion of those fully tried which it is assumed would have been convicted and (g) the average sentences which it is assumed those convicted would have received; [123856]

  (2) of the 14,000 defendants assumed to have remained in the magistrates court, what proportion (a) would have pleaded guilty, (b) would have been fully tried and (c) would have been convicted; what is the average length of trial assumed in the magistrates court; what legal prosecution and defence costs are assumed in the cases of (i) plea of guilty and (ii) full trial; what proportion of those convicted are assumed to have received a custodial sentence and of what length; what profile of sentences of non-custodial sentence is assumed in relation to what proportion of the remainder; and on what basis assumptions as to the relevant length of sentence have been made; [123857]

  (3) what average remand times have been assumed in respect of Crown Court cases, and magistrates court cases in relation to savings from shorter sentences; what profile of offences has been assumed and what average sentence has been assumed in relation to each such offence in the Crown Court and the magistrates court; and how many relevant previous convictions have been assumed in each case; [123858]

  (4) how many separate hearings have been assumed in the Crown Court, and in the magistrates court, in relation to each case; [123860]

  (5) what has been taken as the average length and costs of a contested trial in (a) the Crown Court and (b) the magistrates court; and what are the equivalent figures in each court in respect of cases where the defendant eventually pleads guilty. [123859]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  In 1997, some 63,000 defendants were committed for trial at the Crown Court in either-way cases; 14,000 represents about 22 per cent. of that number. In 1998, the proportion of defendants pleading guilty to either-way offences in the Crown Court was 66 per cent., but, for costing purposes, our model assumes a higher guilty plea rate of 80 per cent., which has the effect of minimising the savings which might be expected from the reform. About 38 per cent. of defendants contesting either-way offences in the Crown Court were convicted, and a similar rate was assumed for costing purposes.

  The savings for the Criminal Justice (Mode of Trial) (No.2) Bill were measured using the flows and costs model which was developed by the Home Office in collaboration with the Lord Chancellor's Department and Crown Prosecution Service to estimate the cost of initiatives in the criminal justice system. The costs are

  631W
  based on a theft and handling case in the Crown Court and an average indictable case in the magistrates courts. The particular assumptions made in relation to the 14,000 defendants who would be tried in the magistrates courts as a result of the Bill are given in the table:

  Assumption

  Remand time avoided

  9 weeks

  Timeous guilty plea rate

  80 per cent.

  Late guilty plea rate

  10 per cent.

  Not guilty plea rate

  10 per cent.

  Appeal against mode of trial decision

  25 per cent.

  Average sentence imposed at the Crown Court

  10.9 months

  Average sentence imposed in the magistrates courts

  3.6 months

  Custodial sentence rate in Crown Court

  46.5 per cent.

  Custodial sentence rate in the magistrates courts

  22.5 per cent.

  It has also been assumed that these cases involve no more and no fewer hearings then equivalent cases in their class and venue. There are a number of other variables, such as length of trial, which are not specifically included in the costing exercise but which were reflected in the costs and flows model. Assumptions have been made about remand time avoided rather than about average remand times. No information is available on the cost of proceedings and sentences by number of previous convictions.

  The background to the costs and flows model is available on the internet at http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/areas/econpf.htm

  Animal Welfare (Circuses)
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent representations he has received on the welfare of animals used in circuses. [122415]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  This year, the Home Office has received 50 letters about the welfare of circus animals from individual members of the public and Members of Parliament. There have been six Parliamentary Questions on the subject. In addition, over 1,500 pre-printed letters have been received as part of an Animal Defenders campaign connected with elephants in a particular circus. A large Animal Defenders petition to the House of Commons, seeking a ban on the use of animals in travelling circuses and the licensing of circus winter quarters, has also recently been passed to the Home Office. I met representatives of Animal Defenders and the Captive Animals Society on 31 January.

  Terrorist Training
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will make a statement about the activities of Al-Muhijiroon; [123661]

  (2) what action he proposes to take in respect of the activities of Salina Security Services relating to British Islamic fundamentalists and firearms and explosives training in the United States; and if he will make a statement; [123666]

  (3) if he will raise with the United States enforcement authorities the activities of Muhammed Jameel and Salina Security Services; and if he will make a statement; [123664]
  632W
  (4) if he will make a statement about links between Sheikh Omar Bakri Mohammed, Sheikh Abu Hamza and Salina Security Services run by Muhammed Jameel; and if he will make a statement; [123663]

  (5) if he will make a statement about the Internet advertisement, The Ultimate Jihad Challenge. [123665]

  Mr. Straw
  I have seen the recent report about alleged terrorist training of United Kingdom nationals overseas. The investigation of any illegal criminal activity is, of course, a matter for the police. I understand that they are aware of these latest allegations and are looking into them. The police meet with their United States counterparts on a regular basis to discuss matters relating to terrorism.

  Criminal Justice and Court Services Bill
  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimate he has made of the average cost to public funds of a drug abstinence order made under part III of the Criminal Justice and Court Services Bill; what estimate he has made of the number of orders that will be made annually; what estimate he has made of the number of other community orders that will include drug abstinence requirements; if magistrates courts will be able to make such an order; and if he will make a statement.[115823]

  Mr. Straw
  [pursuant to his reply, 22 March 2000, c. 560W]: In referring to piloting the Drug Abstinence Order and Drug Abstinence Requirement, the correct estimate of numbers receiving either, should have been 225 each year. The figure of 3,500 offenders, included in my reply, is the estimate for national roll-out.

  Institutional Racism
  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the extent to which(a) his Department and (b) other Government Departments, non-departmental public bodies and executive agencies are institutionally racist; what criteria he uses to define institutional racism; and if he will make a statement. [121996]

  >Mr. Straw
  [pursuant to his reply, 12 May 2000, c. 519W]: The information contained in the third paragraph was incorrect. That paragraph of the reply should have read:
  The Government are determined that the public sector should lead on race equality. The legislation currently going through Parliament will, when enacted, outlaw discrimination in public functions not currently covered by the Race Relations Act 1976, place a positive duty on all public authorities to promote race equality, and prove a key lever in tackling institutional racism.

  Pensions (Part-timers)
  Mrs. Lait
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimate he has made of the maximum and minimum cost to police and fire service pension funds of the European Court of Justice's ruling on pensions for part-timers. [123265]

  Mr. Rooker
  I have been asked to reply.

  I refer the hon. Member to my Written Answer on 23 May 2000, Official Report, column 484W.

SOLICITOR-GENERAL

  Serious Fraud Office
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Solicitor-General how many prosecutions were pursued by the Serious Fraud Office in 1997 and 1998; what percentage of those resulted in convictions; and if he will make a statement. [122435]

  The Solicitor-General
  In the year 1997–98 the Serious Fraud Office obtained 37 convictions from the 39 defendants tried, a conviction rate of 94.9 per cent. In 1998–99, it obtained 34 convictions from the 42 defendants tried, a conviction rate of 81.0 per cent.

  CPS
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Solicitor-General what steps are being taken following the recent stress survey to ensure that the views of Crown Prosecution Service staff at all levels are taken into account as the reforms of the Crown Prosecution Service are implemented. [122436]

  The Solicitor-General
  CPS staff are being consulted on the findings of the staff survey and stress audit. An action plan is being drawn up by a steering group which includes Area staff and representatives of the main departmental trades unions. The action plan will be presented to the CPS Board shortly. The network of Area Sounding Boards will provide feedback from staff at all levels on the results of the survey and audit as well as on the wider reform programme. As I explained to my hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet (Dr. Ladyman) on 13 January 2000,Official Report, columns 420–21, the CPS has an extensive consultation programme in place which provides regular feedback from staff on progress with the reforms.

  Travellers
  Mr. Fabricant
  To ask the Solicitor-General if he will make a statement on the Government's policy concerning the prosecution of offences arising from travellers' trespassing. [122437]

  The Solicitor-General
  The principles applied by the Crown Prosecution in relation to offences involving travellers trespassing, as with any other offence, are governed by the Code for Crown Prosecutors. In order to prosecute, a Crown Prosecutor must be satisfied that the evidential and public interest tests set out in the Code are met.

  UK/Scotland Liaison
  Mr. David Heath
  To ask the Solicitor-General what arrangements he has for consultation with the Advocate-General before providing advice to the Government on matters which may affect both UK and Scottish legislation. [122439]

  The Solicitor-General
  The Attorney-General, Advocate-General and I consult frequently on matters of mutual interest, such as matters which may affect legislation both in Scotland and England.

  Laptops
  Mr. Keith Simpson
  To ask the Solicitor-General how many laptop computers used by Ministers, officials and special advisers in his Department have been(a) lost and (b) stolen since May 1997. [123740]

  The Solicitor-General
  No laptop computers used by Ministers, officials and special advisers in my Department have been either lost or stolen since May 1997.

  Mr. Bernard Griffin
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Solicitor-General for what reason the Northern Ireland Director of Public Prosecutions dropped charges against Mr. Bernard Griffin. [123561]

  The Solicitor-General
  The Department of the Director of Public Prosecutions for Northern Ireland issued a direction of no prosecution in relation to charges brought against Mr. Griffin and his brother Mr. Kenneth Griffin because it was concluded that notwithstanding the provisions of section 13 of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1996 there was insufficient evidence to afford a reasonable prospect of conviction of either person for those offences.

  The Department wrote to the solicitors acting for Mr. Griffin and his brother giving the reasons for the decision in general terms on 19 January 2000. Following a request for detailed reasons, the Department provided further information explaining the decision on 12 May 2000.

  Road Accidents (Prosecutions)
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Solicitor-General how many drivers were prosecuted in the last five years for which figures are available in relation to fatal road accidents involving cyclists; and with what offences they were charged. [123588]

  The Solicitor-General
  The Crown Prosecution Service holds no central records in respect of specific offences. The information is held on individual case files and could only be obtained by examining every relevant file in each CPS office. The cost of this exercise would be prohibitive.

WALES

  Opinion Research
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will place copies of the results of all market and opinion research carried out by his Department, agencies and non-departmental public bodies since May 1997, in the Library. [123816]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  For the former Welsh Office for the period from May 1997 to the end of June 1999, this information could be provided only at disproportionate cost, as explained in the reply to the hon. Member's previous question on 6 July 1999,Official Report, column 505W.

  The Wales Office does not have any agencies or non-departmental public bodies, and has not carried out any market or opinion research since it was established on 1 July 1999.

  Laptops
  Mr. Keith Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many laptop computers used by Ministers, officials and special advisers in his Department have been(a) lost and (b) stolen since May 1997. [123746]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  From May 1997 to 30 June the Welsh Office had(a) no recorded cases of lost laptop computers and (b) two reported thefts of laptop computers.

  From 1 July 1999 to date, the Wales Office has not recorded any cases of either lost or stolen laptop computers.

CHURCH COMMISSIONERS

  GM Crops
  Sir Sydney Chapman
  To ask the hon. Member for Middlesbrough, representing the Church Commissioners, what advice the Commissioners have received about the growing of GM crops on their land; how they intend to monitor the result of the current round of trials; and if he will make a statement. [123048]

  Mr. Stuart Bell
  Following extensive study and wide consultation, the Church of England's Ethical Investment Advisory group has recommended to the Commissioners that new agricultural tenancies should contain a clause restricting the use of genetically modified seeds. Therefore genetically modified seed could only be grown on church land with the express consent of the Church Commissioners. The Commissioners have considered and accepted this advice. Currently no GMO crop trials are taking place on Church land.

  The Advisory Group is currently establishing a process to monitor the GMO crop trials programme in collaboration with government agencies and respected plant science organisations. The Commissioners will therefore continue to receive expert advice as the GMO testing trials proceeds.

  The Ethical Investment Advisory's Group guidance is published in full and is available on request and on the Church of England's website at www.cofe.anglican.org. I am also arranging for a copy to be placed in the House of Commons Library.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Laptops
  Mr. Keith Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how many laptop computers used by Ministers, officials and special advisers in her Department have been(a) lost and (b) stolen since May 1997. [123739]

  Clare Short
  (a) No laptops have been lost.

  (b) Since May 1997, eight laptop computers have been stolen from DFID. Seven of these computers were stolen from DFID premises, and one from a car belonging to a member of staff.
  636W
  The breakdown of these thefts by year is as follows:

  1997: Three unallocated laptops were stolen from Abercrombie House.

  1998: Two unallocated laptops stolen from 94 Victoria Street.

  1999: One laptop stolen from an adviser in 94VS.

  2000: One new, but unissued laptop stolen from 94VS.

  One laptop was stolen from an AH official's car.

  Departmental Vehicles
  Mr. Pearson
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how many(a) cars and (b) commercial vehicles operated by her Department were manufactured (i) in the UK, (ii) in the EU and (iii) elsewhere. [122266]

  Clare Short
  My Department makes use of three official cars supplied by the Government Car and Despatch Agency. All three are manufactured in the EU.

  Street Children
  Ms McCafferty
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what were the total UK bilateral aid contributions for street children in(a) 1997, (b) 1998 and (c) 1999; and if she will provide a breakdown by country and region. [123290]

  Clare Short
  Our development support for street children includes programmes in Brazil, Ecuador, Kenya, South Africa, Russia, Bangladesh, India, Tanzania, Zambia, Uzbekistan, Kardistan. In addition to country specific initiatives, we support organisations with programmes for street children in a large number of countries. These include the Consortium for Street Children, UNICEF and the International Programme for the Elimination of Child Labour of the ILO.

  Much of our work in support of street children is done in the context of broader based activities, and it is therefore not possible to provide specific figures for work in this particular area.

CABINET OFFICE

  COI Targets
  Mr. Rooney
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what performance targets she has set out for the Central Office for Information for 2000–01. [124338]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  I have set the following key performance targets for the Central Office of Information for 2000–01.
  Financial
  1. To achieve break even on an accruals basis.Efficiency
  2. To achieve a unit cost reduction of 2 per cent.Quality of service:
  To obtain the following results from customer satisfaction feedback:

  (a) an overall customer satisfaction score of at least 8.25 (out of 10);

  (b) at least 96 per cent. of returns to score 6 or more;

  (c) a 5 per cent. increase in the response rate (from 54 per cent. to 56.7 per cent.)

  Pensions (Part-timers)
  Mrs. Lait
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what estimate she has made of the minimum and maximum cost to the Civil Service Pension Fund of the European Court of Justice's ruling on pensions for part-timers. [123264]

  Mr. Rooker
  I have been asked to reply.

  I refer the hon. Member to my Written Answer on 23 May 2000, Official Report, column 484W.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Fur Farming (Prohibition) Bill
  Mr. Love
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has received concerning the Fur Farming (Prohibition) Bill. [122409]

  Mr. Morley
  In excess of 2,500 representations have been received about the Bill. All but a few have been from members of the public and animal welfare organisations supporting the banning of fur farming.

  Global Warming
  Shona McIsaac
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what recent assessment he has made of the threat of global climate change to low-lying areas of the UK. [122412]

  Mr. Morley
  Low lying areas are already at risk from flooding and depend on flood and coastal defences. They could be at increased risk through climate change. We need to respond to this challenge primarily by ensuing that, where necessary and appropriate, existing defences are replaced and upgraded.

  Fishing
  Mr. Michael Jabez Foster
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he is taking to combat the illegal landing of fish in the UK. [122413]

  Mr. Morley
  As I have made clear on previous occasions, the conservation of fish stocks is essential for the long-term future of the fishing industry, and all concerned-fishermen, merchants and processors—have a key part to play in preventing the trade in blackfish. This Government have not flinched from taking tough measures to curb such activity whether at the national level or through the Community.

  Pet Travel Scheme
  Mr. McCabe
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the implementation of the pet travel scheme. [122414]

  Ms Quin
  The Pet Travel Scheme has been a radical and welcome change for pet owners throughout Britain and Western Europe. It allows pet cats and dogs to enter the UK without quarantine for the first time in decades without increasing the risk of importing rabies. Over the first 11 weeks of the scheme, 2,243 pets have entered the UK without having to go into quarantine.

  EU Enlargement
  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he is taking to reform the common agricultural policy with a view to EU enlargement. [122416]

  Ms Quin
  We are pursuing opportunities created by anticipated market pressures, the reviews contained within the Agenda 2000 agreement and the existing commitment to review the sugar regime by 2001 to push for the reform process started at Berlin to be completed. Such an outcome would facilitate enlargement.

  >Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) what estimates he has made of the cost to the existing members of the EU of accepting into the Common Agricultural Policy(a) Poland, (b) Hungary, (c) the Czech Republic, (d) Estonia, (e) Malta, (f) Cyprus, (g) Slovakia, (h) Bulgaria, (i) Romania, (j) Slovenia, (k) Latvia, (l) Lithuania and (m) Turkey; [122962]

  (2) what the Government's policy is on the funding of the additional costs involved in accepting (a) Poland, (b) Hungary and (c) the Czech Republic into the Common Agricultural Policy. [122963]

  Mr. Nick Brown
  [holding answer 22 May 2000]: The Financial Perspective for 2000–06 agreed at the Berlin Council in March 1999 set aside around 12.5 billion euro at 1999 prices to finance the CAP for up to six new member states over the period 2002–06. The Government's aim is to ensure that this ceiling is not breached.

  Farming Business Advice
  Mrs. Lawrence
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what measures he is taking to provide business advice to farmers. [122417]

  Mr. Nick Brown
  Under the Action Plan for Farming announced on 30 March, farmers in England will benefit from business advice worth in excess of £8.5 million in the current financial year. Additional support will also be provided for farmers involved with diversification projects under the England Rural Development Plan.

  Mrs. Dean
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps his Department is taking to help farmers in marketing and product development. [122423]

  Ms Quin
  We have a range of measures to help farmers improve their marketing and better meet the needs of consumers. These include the Agricultural Development Scheme, which is currently open for applications, and new schemes under the England Rural Development Plan, which will be introduced in the summer, subject to clearance by the European Commission.

  Exports
  Mr. Bill O'Brien
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the value of food and drink exports from the UK to the European Union in the past three years. [122418]

  Mr. Nick Brown
  UK exports of food and drink products to the European Union have exceeded £5 billion in each of the last three years.

  Organic Farming
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what forecasts his Ministry has made for the economic prospects of the organic farming sector over the coming year. [122419]

  Mr. Morley
  Estimates made by the organic sector itself indicate the size of the retail market for organic food to have been just short of £400 million in 1998–99 and project its growth to £1,500 million by 2002–03.

  Jackie Ballard
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many farms(a) with registered organic status and (b) in the process of conversion to organic status are likely to lose that status due to the presence of genetically modified crops nearby in the next year. [123076]

  Mr. Morley
  We understand that no organic farmer is currently facing deregistration because of proximity to a GM crop. However, the organic inspection bodies' investigations are not yet complete.

  Countryside Stewardship Scheme
  Helen Jackson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has to expand the countryside stewardship scheme. [122420]

  Mr. Morley
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for South Ribble (Mr. Borrow) on 13 January 2000,Official Report, column 239W.

  I announced plans for a major expansion of the Countryside Stewardship Scheme on 7 December. Over the next seven years, spending on agri-environment schemes will double. Of the £1 billion to be allocated during this period to these schemes, £500 million will be for the Countryside Stewardship Scheme. The extra money will bring the total budget in 2000–01 to over £35 million, rising to £126 million in 2006–07. Initial predictions are that when this year's application round closes on 31 May, we shall be able to accept around 3,000 new agreements, more than double the number in 1999.

  Agenda 2000
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what estimate he has made of the impact on food prices of the Agenda 2000 reform of the common agricultural policy. [122421]

  Ms Quin
  Once the reform has been fully implemented, and provided price reductions are passed on in full to retail, food retail prices will be 2 per cent. lower than otherwise, equivalent to 0.25 per cent. off the All Items Retail Prices Index.

  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what estimate he has made of the benefit to livestock farming of the Agenda 2000 reforms of the CAP. [122406]

  Ms Quin
  Agenda 2000 represents a very good deal for our producers. We forecast that, compared with the position in the absence of Agenda 2000, incomes on cattle and sheep farms will increase once all the reforms are implemented.
  640W
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has received from his counterparts in non-EU OECD nations in regard to the outcome of the Agenda 2000 negotiations on CAP reform, stating for each nation the nature of its reaction. [122959]

  Mr. Nick Brown
  [holding answer 22 May 2000]: Since the adoption by the European Union of the Agenda 2000 CAP reforms I have met Ministers from Australia, New Zealand and the USA. They were generally supportive of the direction of CAP reform achieved in Agenda 2000 but would have preferred it to have gone further.

  Common Agricultural Policy
  Dr. George Turner
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what are the Government' s priorities for further reform of the common agricultural policy on modulation issues. [122422]

  Mr. Nick Brown
  The Agenda 2000 agreement takes us a significant step closer to securing a more competitive and sustainable industry with a stronger market orientation. It lays down the foundation for a new European agricultural and rural development framework in which lower levels of direct support for agricultural production will be complemented by higher levels of targeted assistance for sustainable rural development. The UK is implementing modulation to bring about a limited shift from production support towards rural development measures within this framework.

  We continue to press for the reform process started at Berlin to be completed.

  Dairy Industry
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what current proposals he has to assist the dairy industry; and if he will make a statement. [122424]

  Ms Quin
  The Action Plan for farming announced on 30 March indicated that we would be paying around £22 million in agri-monetary compensation to dairy farmers this year. It also included the removal of dairy hygiene inspection charges in England. Dairy farmers will also benefit from the lifting of the maximum weight limit on payments under the over-thirty-months scheme from 5 June. In addition my right hon. Friend the Minister announced last autumn the deferral of cattle passport charges worth some £12 million in total to dairy farmers.

  Common Fisheries Policy
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list his main objectives for the review of the Common Fisheries Policy due to take place in 2002. [122425]

  Mr. Morley
  The Government wish to maintain key features of the present arrangements such as national quotas based on relative stability and access restrictions within national 6/12 mile limits. At the same time, we want to secure improvements to the Common Fisheries Policy including enhancing the regional dimension and integrating environmental considerations more fully.
  641W
  Mr. Wilkinson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will assess the effectiveness for the conservation of fish stocks of the European Common Fisheries Policy. [122426]

  Mr. Morley
  The Government believe that improvements are needed in the Common Fisheries Policy to make it a more effective instrument for conserving fish stocks.

  Mrs. Humble
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what action he is taking to secure a greater regional dimension to the common fisheries policy. [122427]

  Mr. Morley
  The Irish Sea cod recovery programme demonstrates the benefits of a regional approach which involves fishermen directly in developing fisheries management measures affecting them. We were instrumental in securing Commission and Council agreement to this. It indicates the direction in which we want the Common Fisheries Policy to develop.

  Rural Development Plan
  Mr. David Taylor
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what evaluation he has made of the effect on farm incomes of the rural development plan for England. [122428]

  Ms Quin
  The impact of the Plan on farmers is described in section 7 of the England Rural Development Plan, copies of which are available in the Library of the House.

  Animal Welfare
  Joan Ruddock
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of the implications for animal welfare of further liberalisation of trade in agricultural products.[122429]

  Ms Quin
  The Government's objective is to achieve agricultural trade liberalisation alongside reductions in production-related support. The relationship with farm animal welfare is complex and varies within and between sectors. However, the guiding principle is that liberalisation should be achieved in a way which takes account of animal welfare along with other non-trade concerns.

  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what evaluation the Government have made of the use of the Green Box of the World Trade Organisation Agriculture Agreement to compensate farmers for the extra costs of Britain's animal welfare standards. [122991]

  Mr. Nick Brown
  The Government are pressing for the relationship between farm animal welfare standards and trade rules to be addressed in the World Trade Organisation (WTO). One of these ideas we are currently examining is permitting payments made to offset additional costs associated with farm animal welfare requirements to be included in the "Green Box" under the WTO Agreement on Agriculture. The effect of this would be that any such payments were not included in the aggregate measure of domestic support which is subject to reduction commitments.

  EU Farming Regulations
  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what discussions he has had with his European colleagues about ensuring uniformity of farming regulations across Europe. [122407]

  Ms Quin
  The Minister and I regularly meet colleagues from the other member states and the European Commission to discuss agricultural legislation. We are committed to the proper implementation of European legislation but also aware of the burdens that regulation can place on farmers. The recent Action Plan for Farming reaffirmed that we will avoid all gold plating of legislation.

  Apiculture
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to his answer of 16 March 2000,Official Report, column 311W, what steps he has taken to ensure beekeepers take appropriate measures to contain varroa in the current season. [122411]

  Mr. Morley
  In the UK, the Government fund a range of measures costing around £1.5 million annually. The National Bee Unit, in England, provides a free diagnostic and inspection service for the beekeeping industry, and training and guidance for beekeepers.

  Sugar
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to his oral statement of 11 May 2000,Official Report, column 1027, what the Government's policy is on the appropriate level of support for sugar. [122965]

  Mr. Nick Brown
  [holding answer 22 May 2000]: The Government's view is that the EU sugar regime needs to be reformed and simplified. This was also the view of the previous Administration.

  Agri-monetary Compensation
  >Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food from what date agri-monetary compensation has been available to the Government; and what was the maximum amount of agri-monetary compensation available to Britain in each year of the system's existence. [122970]

  Mr. Nick Brown
  [holding answer 22 May 2000]: The UK has been eligible for agri-monetary compensation since 1997. The following amounts became available (in three year degressive packages) in each year:

  £ million

  1997

  1,036

  1998

  248

  1999

  579

  20001

  291

  1To date

  Hedgerows
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to his statement of 11 May 2000,Official Report, column 1036, concerning hedgerows, if the

  643W
  European Commission has abandoned plans to re-interpret IACS rules in a way that would penalise farmers for maintaining hedgerows over a given width. [122992]

  Mr. Nick Brown
  [holding answer 22 May 2000]: The European Commission has accepted that we should continue for this year to apply our existing rules and practices for measuring field margins. As regards 2001 and subsequent years, MAFF officials are continuing to work with the Commission Services to clarify what types of margins will be acceptable for inclusion in aid claims.

  Over 30-Months Scheme
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what the level of expenditure on the Over-30-Months scheme was in each year since its introduction; what the expected level of expenditure is in the current year and in each of the next five years; and, for each annual figure, how much is contributed from(a) UK funds and (b) EU funds. [122994]

  Mr. Nick Brown
  [holding answer 22 May 2000]: The information is as follows:

  £ million

  Year

  Expenditure

  Contributed from UK funds

  Contributed from EU funds

  1996–97

  858

  389

  469

  1997–98

  432

  230

  202

  1998–99

  380

  195

  185

  1999–20001

  394

  208

  186

  Current forecasts:

  2000–01

  329

  176

  153

  2001–02

  329

  176

  153

  1Provisional

  The forecasts through to 2001–02 are set out in the MAFF/IB Departmental Report 2000. As part of Spending Review 2000 these forecasts together with forecasts for 2002–03 and 2003–04 are being reviewed. They will be announced as part of the SR2000 settlement in the summer.

  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if a request was made by the Government to discuss the lifting of the Over-30-months scheme weight limit at(a) the first and (b) the second Beef Management Committee meetings in April. [121429]

  Mr. Nick Brown
  Officials wrote to the Services of the European Commission on 5 April asking them to make a proposal to the Beef Management Committee on 14 April to remove the weight limit on payments of Over-30-months scheme cattle. The Commission were unable to prepare a proposal in time for submission to that meeting, and there was no second meeting of the Management Committee in April. A proposal to remove the weight limit was agreed at the Beef Management Committee on 12 May.

  Farm Waste Grant Scheme
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to his answers of 18 April 2000,Official Report, column 333W and 5 May 2000, Official Report, column 245–46W, concerning the Farm Waste
  644W
  Grant Scheme, if he will reconcile the figures for expenditure on the Scheme in 2001–02 given in the two answers. [123017]

  Mr. Nick Brown
  [holding answer 22 May 2000]: The figure which I gave to the hon. Member on 17 April, on the aid measures in respect of the Farm Waste Grant Scheme announced as part of the Action Plan for Farming, represents the new funding which will be made available in 2001–02. The figure, which I gave him on 5 May, is the total amount, which will be available to farmers under this Scheme from 2001–02, including the current provision.

  Secondments
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many staff from his Department were seconded to private sector companies in(a) May 1997 to April 1998, (b) May 1998 to April 1999 and (c) May 1999 to April 2000; and if he will list in each case the companies to which staff were sent, the names and ranks of the staff involved and the duration of the secondment. [123421]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 24 May 2000]: Secondments and attachments are part of the Interchange Initiative which promotes the exchange of people and good practice between the Civil Service and other organisations. All sectors of the economy are involved: Voluntary, Education, Health, Public and Private. Interchange is a key component of the reform agenda. The Modernising Government White Paper committed us to increasing interchange, in particular by bringing in more people on secondment and sending more of our people out.

  The information requested in the question subparts:
  (a) For the period May 1997 to April 1998 two staff were involved in secondments to:
  Coopers and Lybrand, Grade 7 (3 November 1997 to 3 September 1998)
  Capita/RAS. Grade 7 (10 November 1997 to 5 February 2000)
  (b) For the period May 1998 to April 1999 two staff were involved in secondments to:
  Alternative Crops Technology Information Network, HSO (1 June 1998 to 30 November 1999)
  Capita/RAS. Grade 7 (15 September 1998 to 30 September 2000); Grade 7 (10 March 1999 to 9 July 2000)
  (c) For the period May 1999 to April 2000 see (b).

  Websites
  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what his Department's policy is on(a) advertising and (b) acknowledging company sponsorship on the websites of his Department, agencies and non-departmental public bodies; which companies (i) have placed advertisements and (ii) are acknowledged as sponsors on those websites; how much revenue has been received for each financial year since 1997 from such advertisements and sponsorship; and if that revenue has been retained within the budget of his Department, agencies and non-departmental public bodies. [119551]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 19 May 2000]: As far as core MAFF, its agencies and non-departmental public bodies are concerned, the current position is that there is no commercial advertising or sponsorship on websites.
  645W
  The acceptance of advertising and the acknowledgement of sponsors by MAFF Non-Departmental public bodies are matters for the discretion of the Accounting Officer of the Non-Departmental public body concerned.

  The British Potato Council and the Home Grown Cereals Authority both acknowledge their IT consultants as suppliers. No revenue is received.

  The Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew acknowledges on its website the following companies, including Trusts and Foundations, who have supported the Millennium Seed Bank Project: Millennium Commission, Wellcome Trust, Orange plc, The Esmee Fairburn Charitable Trust, Glaxo
  646W
  Wellcome plc, The Maurice Laing Foundation, The Rufford Foundation, Tate and Lyle plc and the Philecology Trust. The total revenue received from sponsors since 1997 is as follows.

  Year

  £000

  $000

  1996–97

  1,075

  0

  1997–98

  2,355

  13

  1998–99

  5,569

  100

  1999–2000

  9,045

  100

  The revenue received has been retained to spend on the Millennium Seed Bank Project.

Preamble
The House met at eleven of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Hereford.

Community Care: Charging Policies
Lord Campbell of Croyasked Her Majesty's Government:
What action they are taking to rationalise the uneven incidence of charges made by local authorities for community care services needed by some disabled and elderly people, described in the recent report of the Audit Commission.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Lord Hunt of Kings Heath): My Lords, the current charging methods of some local councils for home care are unacceptable. We intend to propose an amendment in another place to the Care Standards Bill to allow guidance to be issued under Section 7 of the Local Authority Social Services Act 1970.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that welcome reply and news. As about one-third of local authorities charge for these services without exempting those on low incornes—described by the commission as unacceptable—will the Government not only introduce the amendment but also make sure that severely disabled people who are hard up are not tempted to give up services which they certainly need but cannot afford?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I take the noble Lord's point. While some local authorities have very good charging policies, many do not and there is a great deal of inconsistency between them. It is hard at times to see why one local authority has arrived at one decision and a neighbouring authority has arrived at a completely different one. I understand the noble Lord's point about people on low incomes or in receipt of benefits. I assure him that those issues will be considered as part of the consultation on the statutory guidance.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, does my noble friend accept that community care services should be free if they are essential for disabled people, but that they are in fact subject to widely varying contributory charges, ranging from £1 to £120 for 12 hours' care? That leaves some people with an amount that is below the income support poverty level. It is absolutely outrageous. Although national guidance would be helpful—I hope that my noble friend will be able to give a positive answer on that—for the time being will he announce a moratorium on all charges, given the
870
present shambles? Until the situation is sorted out, that moratorium should apply to charges throughout the country.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I take my noble friend's point. It is our intention to consult on the draft statutory guidance in the summer. It is my hope that, as a result of the consultation and the amendment that is to be introduced in another place, we shall be able to issue guidance to local authorities as soon as possible. In the meantime, we expect individual local authorities to take careful note of the contents of the Audit Commission report and to review their current charges on that basis.
Earl Howe: My Lords, is the Minister aware that there are perverse incentives for some local authorities to move people out of their own homes and into residential care before they need to go, because once someone has sold his or her house, the cost to the council of providing care is often very much lower? Does the Minister agree that, until the larger issue of funding long-term care is resolved, those perverse incentives are likely to remain?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, in examining services in this area, it is important that we review situations which may give rise to perverse incentives. So far as concerns the long-term funding of care, the Government have considered carefully the recommendations of both the majority and minority reports within the Royal Commission, and we shall produce a White Paper in the summer.
Lord Addington: My Lords, will the Minister give an assurance that, under the new national guidance—which is well overdue—the effects of individual disabilities will be worked into the costing? That would provide people with a well-informed, coherent idea from the centre about the costs of individual types of disability and at least where to look for those costs?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I do not want to be drawn any further than I have stated in relation to how these issues are to be dealt with. We have committed ourselves to full consultation with all interested parties and will ensure that the kinds of issues raised by the noble Lord will be considered.
Lord Morris of Manchester: My Lords, will the very welcome amendment referred to by my noble friend recognise that it is just as inhumane and self-defeating for local authorities to charge people on income support as much as £l8 a week for local services—on which they rely for their independence—as it is for the Independent Living Fund to charge a severely disabled young man, who has to ventilate at night in order to stay alive, £310 a week for the personal assistance without which he will no longer be able to work, thus forcing him onto the scrap-heap? Do we not very urgently need to address the whole rag-bag of charging policies that now confront disabled people?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, in relation to home care services, I certainly agree that the Audit

871
Commission report indicates a wide variation in charges that is wholly unacceptable in many cases. I believe that it is right to leave some discretion with local authorities. It is worth making the point that some local authorities make no charge at all, and any national guidance needs to be able to allow them to continue that policy. However, I am convinced that the right way to approach the matter is to provide statutory guidance to make it much clearer to local authorities what is acceptable and what is not.
Baroness Platt of Writtle: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that for both disabled and elderly people it is most important that they remain in their homes surrounded by neighbours who often provide a good deal of help? Does the Minister also agree it is important that local authorities should have a sliding scale of charges and that, while these services should be provided free to people who cannot afford them, those on middle incomes are willing to pay in order to stay at home rather than go into residential care which, after all, is much more expensive?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, all of these matters need to be taken into account by local authorities when they formulate their charging policies. One of the aims of the statutory guidance will be to enable each local authority to develop a much more transparent system of charging so that the rationale behind it is well understood by users of these services. I very much agree that the best approach is prevention. If by intervention in home care services we can prevent people from being admitted to nursing or residential care homes, everything must be done to encourage it.
Baroness Wilkins: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the report of the Audit Commission demonstrates that no account is taken of the true long-term cost of charging policies? The report points out that few councils even quantify the cost of collection of the charges and for those that do the cost can be as high as 40 per cent of the money raised. More importantly, no account is taken of long-term effects which can lead to health breakdown and far higher NHS costs. Not only is there stress arising from the assessment of cost and trying to meet charges out of meagre funds, but many people do not take up the services they need because they cannot afford them, which leads to breakdown of health in the long term. Will the Minister reconsider the suggestion of my noble friend Lord Ashley that there should be a moratorium on charges while the true cost of long-term effects is taken into account?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, at the moment the local authority has absolute discretion in deciding its charging policy. For that reason we shall move an amendment in another place to give us power to issue statutory guidance. However, I have no doubt that individual local authorities should be encouraged to review their current policies and prepare for changes. I agree with my noble friend it is striking that not only is
872
there a variation in charging policies among many local authorities but the commission reports that many of them provide poor information to users and control of costs in terms of levying charges. Most importantly, there is lack of strategic management and vision as to the impact of charges on care provision generally.

Written Questions: Electronic Answers
11.15 a.m.
Lord Lucasasked Her Majesty's Government:
Why, nearly three years after the request was first made, they are still unable consistently to provide copies of Answers to Written Questions by e-mail.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the Central IT Unit of the Cabinet Office has investigated the feasibility of answering parliamentary Questions for Written Answer electronically, and the Central Computer and Telecommunications Agency has been developing a detailed operating system. CCTA is now working towards implementation of the system, and we shall provide a report to the Library and Computer Sub-Committee of the House in June.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for that Answer and for letting me see the current state of the system this morning. However, I do not have the slightest gratitude to the Government for the glacial slowness with which they have addressed this matter. In three years they appear to have made progress which might have taken a determined commercial company two or three months. Is this not a quite unnecessary but typical disrespect for Parliament? Likewise, is it not a typical example of the difference between what the Government promise—electronic government by 2005—and what they deliver? Is the noble Lord prepared to answer a similar Question from me in six months' time, for I fear that if I asked it 12 months from now I would have to ask a Member of my own Front Bench?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I was about to accept the justice of the noble Lord's rebuke until he went over the top. I am afraid that I cannot accept it. Progress has been too slow, but there is one very good reason for it: the Government Secure Intranet has only just achieved critical mass and been implemented in all departments. Until that happened the security of origin of the electronic answer could not be guaranteed. Therefore, there is no disrespect to Parliament. Progress has been made as a result of the implementation of the Government Secure Intranet. As to whether the noble Lord's Question will be answered in six months' time, that depends on our ability to ensure that all departments use the system which is now becoming available.
Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe: My Lords, is the Minister aware that I serviced the entire captain's office on HMS "Siskin" with an old Imperial typewriter and a Gestetner? Does my noble friend accept that as to

873
respect for Parliament there are some in this House who regard individual judgment as much more important than a lot of newfangled stuff?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: No, my Lords. My noble friend elevates stubbornness to a virtue which it does not deserve.
Lord Rotherwick: My Lords, can the Minister advise the House on whether the critical mass to which he referred will stop viruses, such as the "I Love You" virus of the other day, going round the Intranet? I am well aware that that virus had to come from the Internet to get into the system, but it was the Intranet which passed it round to all the recipients.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I do not think that that is the case. The virus came from outside. It came into the PDVN without reference to GSI, the secure Intranet. The secure Intranet secures internal communications between and within government departments. That has no relevance to the virus. The virus had to be dealt with by anti-virus activities; and it was.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, irrespective of the method of delivery, does the Minister agree that it is the quality of the answers which counts? Does he further agree that that quality has been greatly enhanced since 1st May 1997?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, on behalf of my colleagues, I thank my noble friend.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, I might have disputed what the Minister's noble friend said, but I shall riot do so at this stage.
Will the Minister kindly pass on to the people who operate the parliamentary network my grateful thanks, and possibly those of many Members of this House, for the very good way in which they help us to handle our e-mails and other Intranet transactions? My computer was infected by a nasty bug which they had picked up before I opened the e-mail. They warned me instantly. I appreciate the service they give.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am sure that those concerned will be pleased to hear the noble Countess's words.

Diabetes
11.21 a.m.
Earl Howeasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether the quality of services provided by the National Health Service to patients with diabetes is satisfactory.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, we are developing a national service framework for diabetes
874
to raise the overall quality of services and reduce unacceptable variations of the type highlighted in the Audit Commission's recent report.
Earl Howe: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. Is he aware that diabetes now affects at least one in every 30 of the population and that, according to the recent report by the Audit Commission, the cost of diabetes to the NHS is probably around £2 billion a year? Is the noble Lord further aware that the incidence of diabetes looks set to double over the next 10 years? What will the Government do to ensure that there are enough consultants and specialist nurses and podiatrists available to meet the steeply rising levels of demand for diabetes care?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, the noble Earl is right to draw attention to the major impact which diabetes has on the health service. I understand that the figure is 1 in 40, about 1 million people. There are differing views on that. I also understand that diabetes and its implications in terms of other diseases accounts for 9 per cent of healthcare costs. Clearly diabetes is a major priority. I assure the noble Earl that, in addition to mapping out the services we need to develop in the health service, the national service framework will consider carefully workforce implications.
Lord Harrison: My Lords, when drawing up the review and framework, will the Minister recognise the problem as regards the diet provided in prisons for insulin dependent and non-insulin dependent diabetics who are detained at Her Majesty's pleasure? It is often unsatisfactory and inconsistent with the therapy for diabetics.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I am interested in my noble friend's point. A joint unit within the Department of Health and the Home Office is concerned with the effectiveness of medical services within prisons. I shall ensure that that point is considered.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, clearly diabetes should be a major priority, in particular because in its late onset form it leads to heart disease. The Audit Commission's report referred to specialists. It is clearly a key issue which the Government need to resolve now and in the future.
In their announcement on 6th April of more specialist consultants, why was no mention made of more diabetes specialists? Will the new national workforce development board have the resources and authority to ensure that there are adequate diabetes specialists?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, the history of the NHS demonstrates that plans as regards the workforce never match the service needs. There has often been a mismatch between the priority for services and the number of doctors, nurses and other staff available. We are determined to put that right through the workforce planning mechanisms that we have

875
developed. The national service framework gives us the opportunity to consider the implications of developing the service in the ways recommended and ensuring that we have the workforce that matches service requirements.
Lord Astor of Hever: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the incidence of diabetes is particularly severe among ethnic minorities? What plans do the Government have to address this issue?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, the noble Lord is right. The prevalence among black and minority ethnic groups is considerable. Local studies show that diabetes is three to four times more prevalent among, for instance, south Asians than the remainder of the population. The prevalence is similarly high among African Caribbeans. Within the national service framework we are ensuring that that aspect is taken fully into account.
We are also aware of some interesting local initiatives. In particular the Bradford Health Action Zone is focusing on the issue. It ensures that, combined with users and all the statutory agencies, there is an effective service to deal with that problem.
Lord Patel: My Lords, is the Minister aware that one of the areas of concern highlighted in the Audit Commission's report is the present system of payment for GPs? It is linked neither to the quality nor volume of the diabetic services. Early diagnosis of hypertension retinopathy fails and complications develop. Will the Government consider that issue in relation to the national service framework?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, yes, there is no doubt that primary care is very important. The Audit Commission indicated that 4 in 10 GP practices lacked referral guidelines on diabetes. In many places the chronic disease management programme, to which the noble Lord refers, is not working effectively. I believe that the national service framework—it is co—chaired by the President of the Royal College of General Practitioners— will ensure that much focus is given to improving the delivery of services within primary care.
The Lord Bishop of Hereford: My Lords, have the Government any plans to introduce or increase the use of preventive measures? I refer, for example, to the identification of patients with a family history of diabetes who could be given the glucose tolerance test. The incidence and onset of diabetes could be deferred or avoided, saving great costs in the long run.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, these are all matters which the national service framework will need to consider. The National Screening Committee has recently completed a project on screening for diabetic retinopathy. Ministers will receive that report shortly. That, too, will be considered by the national service framework.
876
One factor which may underlie the rise in diabetes is the sedentary life of many people in this country. Proposals within Our Healthier Nation publication to encourage people to lead more active lifestyles should have an impact on the issue.

Dame Stella Rimington: Memoirs
11.27 a.m.
Baroness Trumpingtonasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will agree to the publication of the memoirs of Dame Stella Rimington, the former Head of MI5.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Bassam of Brighton): My Lords, Dame Stella Rimington, who retired as Director-General of the Security Service in 1996, has submitted a manuscript of an autobiography to the Government and requested clearance for publication. This is fully in accordance with the normal rules applying to someone in her position. Those rules require that any serving or former member of the security and intelligence agencies obtains clearance before publishing anything relating to the work of the agencies.
The manuscript is being looked at very carefully. It is too early to say what the outcome of consideration of the text will be. Dame Stella shares the Government's overriding concern that nothing should appear which is damaging to national security.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. However, is the noble Lord aware that at Bletchley Park I signed the Official Secrets Act, as I did again as a Minister? That implies a lifetime of confidentiality. Is the Minister not amazed that this lady should even think of breaching that Act? What happens if Dame Stella goes abroad, like Peter Wright, and publishes?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, the noble Baroness is right. Those who work in the security services have that lifetime obligation. It would be inappropriate for me to speculate as to whether Dame Stella might wish to travel abroad and publish her memoirs abroad. That would be quite wrong. She has acted fully in accordance with the procedures that are currently in place. As I said earlier, we are carefully considering the manuscript, which was submitted in February of this year. Consideration of that text will take some considerable time. We cannot at this stage comment on the likely outcome of our considerations, but of course we will be actively considering these matters in due course.
Lord Merlyn-Rees: My Lords, am I right in recalling that the decision on matters of this nature is not one for government or for the Cabinet but is ultimately a matter for the Attorney-General, acting in his independent role and taking into account the public interest?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, the noble Lord speaks with greater experience than I do and he also speaks with great wisdom. Yes, such issues must be carefully considered. The lifetime obligation is extremely important and ultimately such acts must be fully in accordance with the law.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, as the resident "spook" in this House, I hope that your Lordships will allow me to speak. Perhaps I may say at the outset that I came out of the service at the request of the Government, the Cabinet Office and my own service, and not at my own wish.
I understand that one consideration is that under the human rights legislation it may be difficult to oppose the publication of such a book. If so, will the Government give the strongest consideration to the human rights of the men and women who work for our services and who risk their lives, and have always done so, on the assumption that they will be protected for life? They have a right to that. The publication of such a book, particularly by someone as distinguished and senior as Dame Stella, will open the gates to other people. It will then be impossible to ensure that the floodgates will not open and that many more things will be said.
That is unacceptable. There are still evil regimes on which we need intelligence. There is still terrorism on which we need intelligence. It takes courage to penetrate those. The men and women of our services must be able to rely on absolute protection throughout their lives. Will the Government take strong account of that and remember that, if they do not, we shall have no more Gordievskys?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, the noble Baroness made many comments with which I entirely agree. Her knowledge of the matter is great and she is right. However, it is worth reminding your Lordships that agency staff have that lifelong duty of confidentiality and that they cannot legally publish anything about the agency without approval. Furthermore, one must respectfully put on record that Dame Stella Rimington has properly followed all the procedures which are in place to ensure that that course of action is abided by.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the Human Rights Convention and the Human Rights Act ensure that a fair balance is maintained between, on the one hand, the fundamental right to free speech and, on the other, the necessity to protect national security and confidentiality? That is done in this country by the Cabinet Secretary and his advisers, by the Attorney-General and ultimately by the courts, in all of whom Members of this House have great confidence.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, the noble Lord is no small expert on human rights matters and he is right in all that he said. The overriding concern must be national security and the national interest. That is precisely the way in which we are approaching this
878
delicate matter and I am sure that all Members of your Lordships' House will appreciate that and support the Government in the action which they take.
Lord Hoyle: My Lords, from what my noble friend has said, I gather that, rightly, for security reasons the published memoirs will not be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Therefore, what is the point of publication?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, that is an amusing and novel response. All I can accurately and fairly say is that whatever is published, national security and the national interest must come first and foremost. No doubt Dame Stella, with her distinguished record of service, will follow that clear rubric.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, when considering this matter, will the Government bear in mind the unfortunate precedent of the SAS, when the floodgates did indeed open?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his supportive observation. He is right.
Viscount Slim: My Lords, is it not a fact that one of the weaknesses, whether we are talking about the security services or the special forces, is that the Official Secrets Act no longer stands up in court? Is it not vital that the Government bring forward new official secrets legislation or a new form of contract which lasts for the lifetime of a member of the security services or special forces?
The weakness is that signing the Act does not seem to matter. Is the Minister aware that in a recent case we as a nation lost business because the friendly country with which we dealt said that it would rather employ the services of another government because they do not write books?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I am interested in what the noble Viscount has said. I am duty bound to say that we have no plans to revisit and revise the Official Secrets Act and that we believe that the measures and steps we have taken with regard to the possible publication of memoirs are measured and effective. Obviously, only time will tell, but I have the greatest confidence in the standing of Dame Stella Rimington and her approach to these matters. I also have the greatest confidence in our officials who are carefully considering all the issues that the publication of those memoirs might raise.

Wireless Telegraphy (Television Licence Fees) Bill [H.L.]
11.37 a.m.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to make provision about fees for television licences in residential care accommodation. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.

879
Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time.—(Baroness Anelay of St Johns.)
On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

Postal Services Bill
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Sainsbury of Turville, I beg to move the Motion standing in his name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That it be an instruction to the Committee of the Whole House to whom the Postal Services Bill has been committed that they consider the Bill in the following order:

Clause 1,

Schedule 1,

Clause 2,

Schedule 2,

Clauses 3 to 62,

Schedule 3,

Clauses 63 to 81,

Schedule 4,

Clauses 82 to 94,

Schedules 5 and 6,

Clauses 95 to 111,

Schedule 7,

Clauses 112 to 119,

Schedules 8 and 9,

Clauses 120 to 123.—(Lord McIntosh of Haringey.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Child Support, Pensions and Social Security Bill
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lady Hollis of Heigham, I beg to move the Motion standing in her name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the amendments for the Report stage be marshalled and considered in the following order:

Clause 1,

Schedule 1,

Clauses 2 to 6,

Schedule 2,

Clauses 7 to 15,

Clauses 83 and 84,

Schedule 8,

Clauses 16 to 26,

Schedule 3,

Clauses 27 to 31,

Schedule 4,

Clauses 32 to 56,

Schedule 5,

Clauses 57 to 68,

Schedule 6,

Clause 69,

Schedule 7,

Clauses 70 to 82,

880

Clauses 85 and 86,

Schedule 9,

Clauses 87 and 88.—(Lord McIntosh of Haringey.)

Lord Renton: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that taking clauses and schedules out of their numerical order often causes great confusion? Can he explain why Clauses 83 and 84 and Schedule 8 are to be taken before Clauses 16 to 26?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I understand that the decision has been reached in agreement with the usual channels. Presumably, therefore, it is for good reason.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Regulation of Investigatory Powers Bill
11.38 a.m.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I beg to move that the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Bill be now read a second time. I commend the Bill to your Lordships and in doing so take the opportunity to explain the thinking of the Government in bring it forward and, more particularly, their thinking in relation to some of the considerations highlighted in another place.
First, I have seen it said that this is a complicated piece of legislation, the purpose and impact of which is not immediately clear on first reading. However, I can assure noble Lords that the concept behind the Bill is very simple. It regulates six investigatory powers. Five of the powers are used already and the Bill will ensure that that use is regulated in accordance with the requirements of the European Convention on Human Rights.
Although, strictly speaking, the sixth power is new, it arises only as a response to developments in technology. Technology has the potential to limit considerably the capabilities of law enforcement and other agencies in preventing crime. The sixth power in the Bill will go some way towards redressing the balance.
The first power relates to the interception of communications. The Interception of Communications Act 1985 is the current statute on the basis of which law enforcement and intelligence agencies currently are able to intercept communications. It will be apparent to your Lordships that technology has changed significantly since 1985. I believe that it is accepted in all quarters that the existing legislation needs to be updated in order to reflect the current communications technologies and to provide for further potential developments in the years ahead.
At the same time, the update to the legislation is necessary in order to ensure that interception of communications takes place under a regime which is fully compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights. A notable gap in the current provision relates to interception by the state on private networks.

881
In the case of Halford, the European Court found our existing regime to be deficient. The Bill corrects that deficiency.
The second power regulated in the Bill provides for access to communications data. Law enforcement and other agencies routinely use communications data in a variety of investigations. At present, they are handed over voluntarily by service providers under the Data Protection Act. The Bill introduces a new regime which requires the requesting agency to go through a number of checks before it can make a request of a service provider. A subsequent audit of the requests will he carried out under the auspices of the Interception of Communications Commissioner, who will report annually to the Prime Minister.
Some people have said that the acquisition of communications data is as intrusive in nature as the interception of communications. I do not accept that. The vast bulk of communications data is of a routine and low level nature, such as who phoned who, when, where and for how long. As such, that is far less intrusive than listening to the contents of a phone call between two parties. There are safeguards in place for the accessing of communications data but they are not as stringent as those relating to interception because the invasion of privacy is not as great.
The third power regulated by the Bill is called "intrusive surveillance". This power is very similar to the existing arrangements for interference with property, covered in the Police Act 1997 and the Intelligence Services Act 1994. Under those Acts, where agencies wish to place a device in someone's home in order to listen to a conversation, they must seek authorisation from a Secretary of State or prior approval from a surveillance commissioner, as appropriate. However, the requirement for them to do so is based entirely on their need to interfere with property in order to place the device. We consider that in certain cases where there is no need to interfere with property, the intrusion into privacy will be as great; for example, where the Prison Service consents to the placing of a bug in a prisoner's cell. Another example may be where a device is used from outside which consistently provides the same quality and detail of product as could be obtained from inside. In those circumstances, we believe that stringent tests should apply before these techniques can be used. The Bill provides for that, and the tests are the same as those in the Police Act 1997 or Intelligence Services Act 1994.
The fourth power regulated by the Bill is called "directed surveillance". Whereas, typically, intrusive surveillance will involve placing a device in someone's house or car, directed surveillance will involve following an individual through the course of his daily life. In so far as much of this would not take place in private but in places where others have access, the invasion of privacy would seem less significant. None the less, it is still a significant intrusion and one that should be authorised where it is planned in advance. It should also be subject to oversight by a judicial figure. That is provided for by the Bill and we believe that it is required by the European Convention on Human Rights.
882
These powers do not only affect law enforcement agencies in their pursuit of criminals; the Bill also regulates the use of covert surveillance by all public authorities. A beneficial side-effect of the Bill has been the public identification of all the agencies which use this technique in order to ensure that surveillance is regulated and controlled to the same standard across all public authorities.
The fifth power regulated by the Bill is the use of covert sources. More commonly, this technique is described as "the use of agents or informants". Tasking an informant to report back to a police officer on the intentions or habits of a particular individual represents an invasion into privacy. We recognise that fact. For that reason, the Bill provides strict regulation of this type of activity. It must be authorised in advance, records must be kept, and it must be subject to judicial oversight. As with directed surveillance, these activities happen now. Everyone expects them to happen in the interests of preventing crime, among other purposes, and the Bill simply ensures that they continue to happen in regulated circumstances after the Human Rights Act comes into force on 2nd October.
I have described five powers in the Bill, none of which is new but which nevertheless should be properly regulated to ensure compliance with the European Convention on Human Rights. That is what the Bill will achieve.
I described the sixth power as the only new power in the Bill. Even this—the power to demand that data be decrypted—is simply a necessary response to new technologies. In simple terms, a wide variety of situations exist under which at present law enforcement and other agencies can acquire data. That may be through the interception of communications; it may be through a production order under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act; or it may be because an individual has wandered into a police station and handed over a floppy disk. In all such cases, we would expect the person to whom the data were handed to be able to read them. In its various guises, the current law provides for that. However, the development and marketing of encryption technologies means that the recipients of those data may not be able to read them in future. The Bill provides them with a power to demand that the data be decrypted.
I have outlined the six powers which are regulated by the Bill. In so far as they are not new powers, and in so far as the main aims are to ensure that the powers are used in a way that is compatible with convention rights, I hope that the Bill will be entirely welcome to this House. Further, support for the second aim of ensuring that law enforcement powers are updated in respect of modern technology must also be shared across the Floor of the House. Those are the two objectives of the Bill: that the six powers in question should be used in a way that is compatible with the convention and that they should be available to cope with developments in modern technology.
I know that there are no disagreements in principle as to the desirability of providing laws which meet those twin objectives. However, questions have been

883
raised about the particular route that we have chosen in the Bill, and I should like now to mention briefly one or two issues that have arisen in respect of the Bill as it has been brought forward from another place.
In the most recent debates in another place, three particular concerns were highlighted. I shall deal with each of them in turn. The first was that the Bill does not give law enforcement the powers that it needs. I cannot accept that suggestion. The reality is that the Bill updates the power of interception to take account of technological advancement; it puts other intrusive investigative techniques on a comprehensive statutory footing for the first time; and it gives law enforcement new powers to help to fight the threat posed by the criminal use of encryption.
We maintain that the powers must be properly regulated—the Bill does that—without unduly tying law enforcement agencies' hands. Without the measures, and even if the Bill is subject to delay, there will be a significant impact on the ability of law enforcement and other agencies to combat crime and other menaces.
Secondly, concerns were expressed in another place about the potential impact of the Bill on the development of e-commerce in the UK. Our goal is to make this country the best and safest place in the world in which to carry out e-commerce. I know that industry, too, wants a secure environment in which to operate. We are taking a lead in updating our laws for the digital age. The Electronic Communications Bill, which, it is hoped, is finishing its parliamentary stages in another place today, will help to create further trust in the use of new technologies. The Regulation of Investigatory Powers Bill complements that. We do not want to see the burgeoning e-commerce market overrun by criminals against whom law enforcement agencies find themselves effectively powerless. So, in driving forward the e-commerce revolution, we need to ensure that law enforcement powers are similarly updated. That is precisely what the Bill does.
I can state, unequivocally, that we have no intention of placing unreasonable burdens on industry. We recognise that some parts of industry have concerns about parts of the Bill; for example, Clause 12 and the Internet industry. There are significant questions of costs here which we recognise. My colleagues in another place were at pains to point out how the interception regime will simply not work without the co-operation of industry. But it is in no-one's interests to force businesses overseas; so there can be no point in imposing unreasonable requirements on industry. None the less, the desire to ensure that new communication networks can be intercepted is an important one and reflects policy that has been in existence for many years. We have offered a number of reassurances on the implementation of Clause 12. The Bill was amended in another place to ensure that the order under Clause 12 should be subject to affirmative resolution.
We have published a report, which is available on the Home Office website, discussing the details and potential costs involved in creating interception
884
facilities on the Internet. We are consulting with the relevant industry players on these matters. These are detailed and sometimes technical matters which will change with time. They are properly the subject of subordinate legislation. This subordinate legislation will be subject to the approval of Parliament.
The final area of concern in another place focused on the offence at Clause 49 of the Bill. This is the offence of failing to comply with a decryption notice. There are suggestions, supported by an opinion obtained by Justice, that the offence may not be ECHR compatible. We take those concerns very seriously, and have considered them. At various stages in another place, we reiterated why we believe that the offence is satisfactory as expressed. In particular, we took issue with the suggestion that the offence reverses the burden of proof. It has also been suggested that individuals can be locked up for two years for forgetting a password. We do not believe that that is likely. We have set out in detail in another place the reasons why we do not believe that it will happen. None the less, we welcome continued debate on how the construction of the offence might be improved.
There will be other matters which no doubt your Lordships will want to question and probe, perhaps today and certainly when we consider the Bill in detail in Committee. In my remarks today, I have sought to set out what the Bill aims to do in terms of ensuring compliance with the European Convention on Human Rights and to ensure that the armoury of law enforcement is equipped to deal with modern and future technologies. I have also addressed some of the points which were of a more contentious nature in another place, particularly in respect of the Internet industry. Here, the Government are acutely aware of the need to minimise any potential impact of this Bill and to foster the prospects for e-commerce in this country. We have taken some steps in amending the Bill and in offering reassurances in another place. We remain willing to take further steps should they be identified and compatible with the overall objective. That said, I believe that the Bill, in its current state, represents the best balance that can be struck between the requirements of law enforcement, the requirements of the rights of the individual, and the requirements of industry.
It would be remiss of me, at this stage, not to thank the Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Deregulation for the rapid way in which it has come forward with a close reading of the text of our Bill. We are extremely grateful to that committee for considering the Bill so swiftly. We shall give our considered response in Committee.
That committee made two recommendations to date, both of which I welcome. The first recommendation asks that we tighten up the arrangements for adding to the purposes for which various investigatory powers can be used. It is worth putting on record today that there may be something we can do in response to that clear recommendation. Certainly, we have always thought that the powers

885
would be limited in practice by the Human Rights Act. If it seems better to this House to reflect that limitation on the face of the Bill, I see little difficulty with that.
In its second recommendation, the committee admitted that that raises rather more complex issues. Our intention is to table a schedule listing public authorities which can conduct investigations under Part II of the Bill. I believe that that will go a long way towards meeting the concerns of the committee.
Having reflected briefly on the commentary of that committee, I commend the Bill to your Lordships' House—
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, before the noble Lords sits down, perhaps I may ask a brief question. Where a reasoned disagreement arises as to whether there is a breach of the European Convention on Human Rights in a Bill such as this—as happened on a previous Bill—will the Minister on this occasion disclose the substance of the advice and the reasoning on which the Government rely? Will he, in effect, waive his entitlement not to disclose? In such a situation, if we continue without the reasoned argument, we shall waste a lot of time.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his question. It is customary for Ministers to discuss and debate matters relating to human rights and human rights conventions during the passage of legislation. That is the course which has been adopted in the past. I see no real reason to depart from that practice in future. I commend the Bill to the House.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Bassam of Brighton.)
11.57 am.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, the Minister has set out the general purpose of the Bill and the necessity for it, with which I believe we all agree. As far as I know, those outside who are concerned in these matters also agree with the fundamental purposes which the Bill sets out to achieve.
It is, therefore, surprising that the Bill has generated vociferous opposition from an extremely wide spread of commentators: from industry, human rights groups and the media. We talk about the rapid growth of the number of e-mails, and so forth; the Bill has generated a huge amount of "e-traffic", almost all hostile to one aspect or another of the Bill. The problem is the way in which the Government have chosen to frame the Bill in certain respects, to which the Minister referred briefly.
In some respects the Bill seems weak. We shall propose amendments to toughen it up. In other respects it is worryingly vague and open-ended. We all accept the fantastic speed with which electronic communications have developed and are developing, even as we speak. That makes it difficult for the Government to live up to the aims of the Bill.
Three aims lie behind the Bill: to catch criminals and terrorists and prosecute them successfully; to preserve our human rights—both as outlined in the convention
886
and the new Act—and our traditional freedoms; and, at the same time, to ensure that Britain can remain competitive in the new electronic age. These matters are difficult to balance and combine, but each is important. The Government seem sometimes to understand that it is clearly of key importance to our country that our businesses remain competitive. That applies not only to new electronic businesses but to all businesses. Every business in the land is affected.
Similarly, human rights have been much emphasised in recent debates. But, in practice, this Bill also somewhat threatens our traditional freedoms, as well as introducing the new tribunal and the new commission, and so on. Just as business takes advantage of new electronic possibilities, so do criminals and terrorists, and new possibilities have opened up for crime just as they have for business. It is, of course, important to combat them. International crime, however, requires international solutions. We shall be pressing the Government about what other countries are doing and how what they are doing compares with this Bill, because all countries share the same problems.
The Home Secretary boasted in another place that, as a result of this Bill and others, the United Kingdom is now ahead of Europe in e-commerce enforcement, without seemingly realising that regulation kills business and is in danger of driving it overseas. This country must not become the one where electronic communications are regulated more officiously arid more tightly than anywhere else. It is not to our benefit. New business, and a lot of old business, will simply go overseas, which is now very easy to achieve in the electronics sphere.
For economic reasons, as well as for our human rights and freedoms, we all want companies and individuals to be able to communicate and conduct their business in confidence, in the security of their communications. Of course, we have all accepted for many years that telephones should be able to be tapped, with warrants and safeguards, by those whom we charge with protecting us from crime, terrorism and spies. But, of course, we want the tapping to be a controlled affair, and the Bill improves that in some respects. However, the problem is that it is very difficult to achieve that with electronic communications that are so complicated. There are some very worrying features of the Bill in this respect.
The Minister said that the Bill gives the agencies the powers that they need. It does not, however, give the National Criminal Investigation Service the power that it seeks to be able to request a judicial warrant to search for a cryptographic key. I do not understand why that is refused. The Minister will no doubt be able to explain it in Committee, if not today.
In some respects, the Bill is very open-ended, and the powers that it seeks are not properly defined. The Minister rightly paid tribute to the Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Deregulation and its prompt consideration of the Bill. The Clerk to the committee was kind enough to send me a copy of her letter to the Minister, setting out the committee's views so far.

887
They are important, and I was glad to hear the Minister say that he believes progress will be made on the lines suggested by the committee. Perhaps I may quote from the letter so that other noble Lords will understand the strength of view expressed by this very important committee. The letter states:
"There are four provisions in the bill which authorise surveillance or other action for specified purposes but allow the list of purposes to be extended by subordinate legislation".
The four clauses are then set out:
"The scope of these significant investigatory powers is thus not determined by the bill, and so by the decision of Parliament, but can be extended to 'any purpose' specified by an order made by the Secretary of State, subject to negative procedure—which is clearly inappropriate. The Committee can see no justification for the use of language which is apparently at large but which is intended to be limited in practice by the Human Rights Act. In its view, if these powers are to remain in the Bill they should be explicitly limited on the face of the bill to the protection of morals and the protection of the rights and freedom of others. They should also be made subject to the affirmative resolution procedure".
That is obviously an important matter, to which we must return.
As the Minister said, there is also a second group of powers which raises more difficult issues, to which the committee also drew attention. He described them briefly to the House. The point is that the powers in the three clauses referred to here are conferred on various public authorities, and the Bill lists the authorities which are to be able to exercise the powers but allows that list to be added to. The committee pointed out that during the passage of the Bill through another place it became apparent that as many as 32 public authorities may be added to the current list of only seven on the face of the Bill.
The letter continues:
"The Committee considers this delegation, in an area which touches on the rights of the individual, inappropriate. In its view the bill should be amended to list all the public authorities which the Government wishes to have the power, and any amendment should be limited to changes made necessary 'because structures within an authority may change'",
and the order may require change for that reason. The committee also said that that should be subject to affirmative resolution, with which I agree. These are important observations, to which we shall return, as the Minister said.
It is significant that Clause 6 of the Bill contains another list of agencies able to seek interception warrants, but that does not include the Benefits Agency. We know that there is massive fraud involving benefits, sometimes international and highly organised. There is in today's newspapers a reference to a new Audit Commission report on fraud of this character, which outlines some very alarming figures. I have not yet had an opportunity to study that report. It seems to us that the Benefits Agency ought to be able to seek warrants to pursue this enormous amount of fraud, with similar safeguards to those provided for the other authorities. There are clearly points of principle, as well as legislative drafting points, which lie behind those.
888
There are also some fundamental practical difficulties about intercepting and studying e-mail and such traffic. The Government do not seem to have wholly solved the problem. The problem begins with the fact that e-mail traffic goes in penny packets through a wide variety of complex routes chosen automatically by the system, which can vary enormously in the middle of a single e-mail message. In addition, Internet service providers come in all sizes and of all different characters, and British residents can, of course, use overseas service providers if they wish. There is a very instructive report from the Smith Group about all these aspects.
The Government seem to be proposing that all email should be monitored, so that the ones which they need to see can be selected. That is not, of course, to follow the analogy of telephone interception of the traditional kind, where the warrant is limited to a single person or telephone calls from a single telephone. Quite apart from apparently wanting an awful lot of information, they also want to obtain it primarily at the expense of the Internet service providers, although the Government generously say that they will make a contribution, as yet unspecified. Nothing is specified in this part of the Bill. The Minister used honeyed words about Clause 12 and told us that consultations were proceeding. But this is the law we are trying to agree here and it is difficult for us to give blanket powers such as those suggested in the Bill and expect the Government to settle it all later.
In relation to paying for what is required to intercept e-mail, let us turn the argument around. Let us imagine that the Government said, "We will pay for the new equipment to work these controls, but we will impose a tax on independent Internet service providers as a contribution towards that expense". In that way the unlimited part of the bill—we have no idea how large it will be—would fall to the Government who are to make the decisions on what is to be done and therefore what the cost will be. The drafting of the Bill produces a sloppy piece of tax legislation. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer had introduced this as a Finance Bill—though we in this House would not be given the opportunity to examine it—he would in effect be saying, "We want permission to send out tax demands of unspecified amounts to Internet service providers. They will not be too large because we aim to make a contribution, but they will be considerable". Another place would not feel that that was a satisfactory piece of tax legislation, but that is what we are asked to consider in this Bill. The danger remains that if the bill is too large, the services will be bought from overseas in order to avoid paying this stealth tax.
The Government have not yet found a solution to that problem and instead are asking for these massive, open-ended powers. But both Parliament and the industry need to know much more about what the Government intend; about what it will cost and who will pay the bill. Parliament can then decide whether or not to give the Government these powers and business can decide whether or not it wants to stay in this country.

889
Another problem arises which the Bill does not seem to tackle; that is, dial-through fraud. That takes place when somebody rings into a private system, usually a free line, and then uses that system to make their own calls, often to overseas numbers. That way they obtain their calls free, or at least at the expense of the owners of the private branch exchanges. That came to public notice with the recent case of Morgan v. DPP, which could not be pursued under existing law. I understand that there is a possibility of amendments being made to this Bill, which would be apt, to cover that situation and enable dial-through fraud to be successfully prosecuted. It will be helpful if the Minister can tell us, if not today, later, whether such an amendment is to be proposed.
Part III involves encryption. This is the hot potato that the DTI dropped from the Electronic Communications Bill and which the Home Office picked up. The Home Office is used to picking up hot potatoes and probably hardly blinked when it did so. Here the Government are saying, in effect, "We cannot define what we want, so we will criminalise everybody who cannot or will not help with the key to the encryption and make them prove a negative to get out of it". But they seem to want the keys to everything and in the process be able to give them to whoever they choose within the various agencies. That gives rise to concerns about confidentiality and security. There is also a strong suspicion that the Government are trying to go back to the idea of key escrow by means of intimidation. I hope that the Minister is in a position to contradict that, preferably today.
The level of punishment for forgetting a key is also a point of concern. The Minister mentioned that the penalty can be up to two years in prison. For the genuinely forgetful, that is a heavy penalty and the Minister said it would not be used. But for the criminal who faces a much worse sentence if his encrypted file is read and his nefarious doings come to light, then it may be a light sentence in comparison. We shall be seeking to toughen the offence by introducing the element of intent, which the courts are constantly trying to judge in other contexts. That will enable a commensurate sentence to be imposed so that criminals will not have such an incentive to refuse the key.
A further problem in relation to that part of the Bill arises from the fact that the person on whom the warrant is served cannot tell anybody else. That may give rise to claims from overseas for breach of contract. It is also likely to lead to overseas companies avoiding using UK services. Those are all complications which we will need to explore.
We all want to support the police, Customs and Excise, the security and intelligence services and the other agencies. We rejoice when they succeed in catching drug dealers, paedophiles and terrorists, particularly the big ones. I believe that the techniques covered by the Bill are essential for them to do their work of protecting our country and our society. But the safeguards are essential to protect our freedoms and to allow our businesses to compete and flourish. It is important therefore to have a sound and balanced
890
Bill. This Bill, for the reasons I have tried to set out, seems to be a half-cooked piece of legislation on which a great deal of work remains to be done. I am grateful to the Minister for his willingness, which he expressed at the end of his remarks, to listen to what will be said in the course of our more detailed deliberations. But if the Bill is to become acceptable, then a great deal of that work will have to be done when the Bill passes through your Lordships' House.
12.18 p.m.
Lord McNally: My Lords, the noble Lord. Lord Cope of Berkeley, referred to the report of the Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Deregulation. Like him, I received a copy this morning and, apart from the comments he made, it may be better to leave proper deliberation of it to a later stage of the Bill. However, the report seems to echo some of the concerns made by my honourable friends in another place in relation to the wide-ranging nature of the secondary legislation and delegated powers contained in this Bill. It is certainly a matter to which we will have to return.
As the noble Lord, Lord Cope, indicated, three elements of this Bill need to be examined. There is a need to make sure that the powers given to the police and security services match the advances in technology and their use in crime. There is also the need to ensure that our regulatory systems allow us to reap the full benefits of e-commerce to our economy, as well as the need to protect civil liberties.
Given some of the reaction to the Bill to which the noble Lord, Lord Cope, referred, perhaps I may immediately assure the Minister that I see him as a most unlikely candidate for "Big Brother". Nevertheless, as the noble Lord, Lord Cope, indicated, although the Minister said that this Bill is a simple and updating measure, it involves many issues of a fundamental nature that I believe it is the duty of this House to examine most thoroughly. The Bill was thoroughly examined in another place where my honourable friend Mr Simon Hughes made it clear that we generally welcome the Bill as a step forward.
A certain amount of interception of communications and surveillance has always been carried out by the state, but much of it has been outside a clear and comprehensible legal framework. The Bill establishes such a framework and places it within the context of the convention on human rights. If we do not have this Bill, or something like it, this would in no way stop surveillance by the state but would mean that the legal framework for it would remain inadequate to the detriment of our citizens' human rights. That is our basic welcome for the Bill.
My noble friend Lady Harris, with her considerable experience as chairman of a police authority, will address some of the police matters covered by the Bill. As something of an outsider in these matters, what struck me was the provision for five different commissioners to regulate various parts of the Bill; for example, the surveillance commissioner, the interception commissioner, the covert investigations

891
commissioner, the security services commissioner and the intelligence services commissioner. I am sure that they will all do an excellent job, but I wonder whether some simplification or amalgamation of roles would be possible. There seem to be an awful lot of commissioners.
The other question on policing that I shall simply raise at this stage is whether the police structure is adequate to meet the new challenges; for example, how many police forces have their own computer crime units? I understand that the High Tech Crime Policy Unit is financed by means of all the police forces chipping in. That is not always the best recipe for ensuring that a body is adequately funded. One of the criticisms made is that the police are still too intent on shoring up intervention technology which is doomed to failure because, if not this generation of technology, the next one will make such intervention well nigh impossible.
We shall return to the policing matters, but let no one be in any doubt about this: we want a Bill that is effective in giving the police and the security services the necessary powers to fight crime, terrorism, drug and pornography trafficking, as well to deal with the other criminal and security threats to the country. However, we want such powers to be within a context that does not hamper the legitimate exploitation of the full economic benefits of the new technologies.
I have just returned from a visit to Japan, where I looked at the electronic industries and some of the other developments in that country. All I can say to the House is that I have seen the future—and it works with awesome efficiency. The convergence of telephone and television technology will provide a whole range of new products that will have immense benefit, both economic and social; but, as always with these developments, this will also provide an immense capacity for the criminal to find ways to make mischief and cause damage.
It may be interesting for noble Lords to know something about the context in which we are working. It is estimated that it took 40 years from initial development for electricity, motors and telephones to reach market saturation; it took 20 years for radio and television to reach that point; and it has been guessed that the Internet will achieve the same 90 per cent penetration in our society within the next five to 10 years. I have some experience of television legislation. It seemed to me that we were always legislating for what had just happened in the broadcasting industry rather than for what would happen next. I worry about this and shall want to examine, with the assistance of outside advice, whether we are making some of the same errors in approaching the new technologies.
892
In yesterday's Financial Times, Professor Jim Norton, who is head of e-commerce at the Institute of Directors, described this legislation as, "a classic own goal" that would undermine the Government's aim of making Britain a centre for e-commerce. He also said:
"This is a clear case of the futility of government treating Internet policy as a national issue when what is needed is international agreement—
a point also made by the noble Lord, Lord Cope, in his remarks. Indeed, I also agree with the noble Lord that the e-mail traffic on this Bill has been fairly substantial over the past few days.
The European Encryption Working Group made the following point to me:
"We are concerned … that the Bill as written could lead to the imposition of mandatory technical and design requirements on communications services … we urge that the Bill be amended to state explicitly that the Home Secretary does not have the authority to impose design and technical requirements upon communications systems and to place the burden of proving possession of the encryption key on the prosecution".
Again, the noble Lord, Lord Cope, referred to such matters. Yet another organisation from the industry, British Music Rights, has e-mailed me with the following comment:
"Private enforcement bodies are often at the forefront of detection of copyright infringement. They have a vested interest in doing so and devote much effort and their own resource to identifying criminal activity in this area. At a time when the Patent Office has been consulting … for the improvement of criminal penalties and powers to pursue copyright infringement it would be an irony if the RIP Bill was a set back to those private industries which work on behalf of rightsowners".
I have just one further quotation to put before the House. Taking up the point about costs, Vodafone says that it is "essential" that,
"the Government takes into account the views of industry in relation to establishing what a reasonable intercept capability is and how much it should cost".
It adds that the Government must make a strong commitment in the Bill to consultation with the industry about,
"the amount of the contribution to be made by the Government towards these costs".
Bearing in mind the amount of money that Vodafone paid for its licence, I think that the Government have a vested interest in ensuring that it is able to pay all its debts in these matters.
However, a serious point arises from this issue. On the matter of e-commerce we have almost a national consensus that we want to succeed in this area. There is a kind of "Rubik cube" facing the Government; in other words, where they are trying to solve one problem, they may possibly be creating problems in other parts of the industry. We do not envy the Minister in finding the solution to this "Rubik cube", but, as ever, we on these Benches are anxious to help him in that direction.
The next leg of the examination that lies ahead of us comprises civil liberties concerns. As the Minister said, this matter also has its "Rubik cube" aspect. On the one hand, he may be accused of taking inadequate powers to address the criminal threats posed by the new technologies; on the other hand, he may be

893
accused of adopting an over-intrusive approach. As one would expect, we on these Benches will examine closely the civil liberties aspect of the Bill. We shall consider carefully where the Bill needs to be strengthened and tightened up in that regard. The briefing I have received from Liberty very much encapsulates the worries of those involved with civil liberties. Liberty states that,
"the clandestine nature of the operations regulated by the legislation heightens the care needed to ensure that necessary official activities impinge as little as possible on citizens' rights; against that background, the current criteria for authorising interception and surveillance are objectionably vague and overbroad; the safeguards and scrutiny arrangements the law provides are insufficient to ensure that the interference with individual rights is strictly proportionate to the legitimate needs of the agencies concerned".
Like my honourable friends in another place, Liberty argues for much wider "prior judicial sanction" to be included in the Bill and for,
"the individual's right to complain of an infringement of rights",
not to be reduced to "a matter of chance". Liberty expresses concern about—the noble Lord, Lord Cope, referred to this—
"the creation of a 'tipping off offence".
Liberty also expresses concern about the risk of the Bill,
"reversnig the burden of proof".
I do not doubt in any way the Government's broad commitment to civil rights. I do not take a "holier than thou" approach to this matter. However, when such legislation comes before the Houses of Parliament, and particularly before this House where noble Lords have a wide range of experience of the matters we are discussing, we have a firm duty to ensure that it is examined extremely thoroughly.
I make a slightly tangential point, but one which may increase the e-mail traffic; namely, the massive imbalance of power between opposition parties and the Government when dealing with such a complex matter. I am extremely grateful to various outside bodies and lobbying groups which have sent me briefing material. Groups within industry and civil rights groups are examining the Bill extremely carefully. I hope that as we approach the Committee stage they will continue to give us the benefit of their advice and experience. I do not want to score political points, rather to ensure that the Bill is examined thoroughly both from the point of view of its implications for human rights and civil rights and from the point of view of its economic impact.
Liberty encapsulates that point in its brief which states:
"The subject-matter of this Bill raises the challenge of striking the proper balance in a democracy between, on the one side, the protection of society from real threats to its integrity and, on the other, the need to preserve the very values that make a democratic society worth protecting: the rule of law, respect for individual liberty, and abhorrence of arbitrary or unjustified interference with citizens rights".
We shall approach the Committee stage with those sentiments in mind.
894
The speed with which the new technologies converge and become more widely available lends urgency to our deliberations. However, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Cope, that it would be foolish of us to construct simply national standards for what everyone acknowledges to be a global market-place. Therefore, we shall want to consider how our measures comply, or compare, with those of other jurisdictions, not least those of our closest competitors.
Although this matter is urgent, the House has a responsibility not to be "bounced" into accepting a pig in a poke. I give the Minister fair warning that he faces a thorough Committee stage. I am sure that his ministerial colleagues envy him as he seems to be allocated all the "fun" Bills to deal with. I understand that we shall consider the Bill shortly after we return from the Recess. As both the noble Lord, Lord Cope, and I have indicated, we intend to examine the Bill thoroughly but constructively.
12.36 p.m.
Baroness Thornton: My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend the Minister on an excellent explanation of the Bill.
I am concerned primarily about those parts of the Bill which address the investigation of electronic data protection by encryption. My concern is centred around the protection of children and the opportunities which new technology offers to those who seek to harm them.
It is important at the outset not to exaggerate the dangers to children arising from the Internet. Of course we should emphasise its tremendous potential as an educational tool and as a source of great fun. But, equally, we would fail the public if we did not articulate and reflect the genuine fears that exist.
There is a rising tide of concern among parents about Internet safety for children. I refer to the recent case in Milton Keynes, where a 13 year-old girl turned up to meet someone she had first met and talked to online in a chat room. She believed him to be a 15 year-old boy, only to discover that he was in fact a 47 year-old man who had travelled down from Durham to see her. That case must have sent a shiver down every parent's spine.
Earlier this week there was the case of Kenneth Lockley, who was arrested following what he believed was an attempt to procure sex with a nine year-old girl and who received a derisory prison sentence at the Old Bailey. It was derisory because of the limited options available to the judge in that case.
Then there are the porn sites and the web pages depicting violent or racist images, some of which are illegal in this country, and all of which are grossly offensive and highly unsuitable for children. E-mail is also being abused, both by paedophiles seeking to make contact with children, and by a whole host of rogues and villains seeking to part people from their hard-earned cash.
There is a strong sense that the law is not keeping up with developments. Therefore this Bill is an important and welcome development. It is important that we get

895
it right and that we strike the right balance. With the advent of strong encryption technologies, criminals are being handed a gift; a gift which will help them hide their criminal activities, or conceal the evidence of them. If a paedophile has on his computer, files, e-mail messages, pictures, and so on, which disclose a serious sexual offence against a child, an offence for which he knows he could face a prison term of 10 years or more, in future he will encrypt the lot. Then, if he is investigated by the police, he will simply refuse to hand over the key to decrypt the files. Thus deprived of the evidence of a serious offence, it is entirely possible that the only charge the man might face is for the refusal to hand over the key, an offence for which the maximum sentence—the maximum, mark you—is two years and a fine.
With time off for good behaviour, such a man might spend only a few weeks in prison and then be out again, possibly even applying for, and getting, employment with children in a school or residential care centre. There will be nothing on his record to indicate that he has any history of sexual offences. Why? Because encryption technology will have allowed him effectively to cover his tracks.
Perhaps I may explain this by referring to the Gary Glitter case. If Mr Gary Glitter had encrypted the tawdry contents of his hard-drive and had then refused to hand over the key, the present law could have done nothing about it. Under this legislation, he could have been prosecuted for refusing to hand over his key, fined or perhaps sent to prison. On release from prison or on payment of his fine, he would not be included in any register of sex offenders—and presumably, therefore, he would have been able to go and work with children had he so desired.
I understand the Government's anxiety about being asked to increase the possible sentence for failure to hand over a key to decrypt files. I understand also that one cannot simply jump to conclusions about the kind of material the accused may have been hiding through the use of encryption. It would be quite wrong, for example, to put anyone and everyone who refused to comply with a notice to hand over their decryption key onto the sex offenders' register or List 99. So there is a problem.
Perhaps there is a case for having a new register—a register simply of those people who refuse to hand over their keys to decrypt and who are subsequently successfully prosecuted for that offence. In one sense, a register will be kept anyway as registers are kept of all prosecutions. The issue is who can have access to that information and how.
However, the fact that someone has been using strong encryption software and has deliberately refused to co-operate with a police investigation into what it is concealing is a material fact that many potential employers would like to know. I have in mind, especially, children's organisations, schools and so on, but many other potential employers may take a similar view—for instance, banks, pharmaceutical companies and so on. They should all be able easily to verify whether or not a potential employee has been
896
down this route. Even though it would not in itself be grounds for refusing to offer someone a job, it would at least alert potential employers and cause them to ask questions.
I acknowledge immediately that my main interest in this debate relates to the protection of children. Perhaps we really need a more wide-ranging review of how sexual and other offences might be committed, and are being committed, against children where the Internet and other new technologies play a major part, either in facilitating or executing the crime or in hiding the evidence of it. Perhaps our laws need updating across a broader front; perhaps the police need more resources, as other noble Lords have rightly said; perhaps we need more vigorous public education campaigns. Perhaps we need all of those things.
I am, of course, aware that other countries are taking a different view on this, but other countries do not do many of the things that we do in Britain. I wonder how long the so-called liberal regimes of other countries will survive if they gain a reputation for being the preferred haven for paedophiles, drug dealers and gun runners—a kind of cyber Cayman Islands. We must decide what we think is right and what we think is for the best, and persuade other countries to agree with us and to support us.
I understand also the Government's desire not to frighten off potential investors in our e-economy and to make Britain the best nation in the world in which to do e-business. But surely what businesses and consumers want is a transparent and trusted regime. They do not want the Internet to become synonymous with criminals and shady characters who are a danger to children.
I am absolutely certain that if we sit back and wait for another, and then another, and yet another Internet outrage to happen—and there is plenty of evidence from the USA of what could happen over here—then our inactivity will never be forgiven, and quite rightly. We will end up with a public clamouring for "something to be done", and we will be stampeded into possibly ill-thought out and ill-considered legislative action which would indeed harm potential investors in our e-economy. So it is very important that we get this right; there is a great deal at stake.
While welcoming the Bill, I hope that during its passage through your Lordships' House a balance can be found which addresses these issues.
12.44 p.m.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, this is a Bill which, if it remains as it is, we should not be afraid to destroy. I agree with a great deal of what was said by my noble friend Lord Cope. We can all support many of the purposes and much of the wording set out in the Bill—but rosy-red and vitamin-packed was the apple eaten by Snow White. It is not that there is not a lot of good in this Bill, but that there are some parts of it that we should not swallow—or, if we do swallow them, which will do a good deal of damage to the citizens of this country.

897
The liberty of the citizen is not something which is dear to this Government—particularly not to the Home Office. Already we have had to "junk" a particularly obnoxious Bill on the mode of trial, and in this Bill we are looking at similar infringements on the liberty of the citizen. We are looking at the reversal of proof in Clause 49; we are looking at effectively giving the Government rather ill-defined and vaguely controlled powers to examine all our communications. In practice, we are, effectively, giving the Government carte blanche to look at anyone they want to, at any time, and, in this electronic age, to discover exactly what they have been up to.
We should rest on principle in these matters. The Bill is not incapable of amendment—we can get to the point where it is acceptable—but if it stays as it is, we should recognise that it is our duty to defend the liberty of the citizen and throw out the Bill at Third Reading.
Having said that, I turn to the first aspect of the Bill on which I wish to concentrate from the other point of view—that is, to ask whether Clause 1 is wide enough. Clause 1 refers to doing something,
"at any place in the United Kingdom".
A "place" is extraordinarily difficult to define for electronic communications purposes. If something is done in France which causes a message to be sent to a computer in the UK, which then causes that computer in the UK to transmit some of the communications passing through it to France, what has been done in the UK? Is that covered by the Bill? If a virus is sent to a satellite which is transmitting communications within the UK or between the UK and other countries, is that action carried out in the UK or in another country?
We need to look at how the powers in the Bill will mesh with similar powers in other countries. We need to ensure that criminals making use of the lack of locality in electronic communications do not find loopholes whereby they can escape the consequences of this Bill and similar legislation elsewhere by carrying out activities from one country to another country, or via another country.
I am also concerned that we are not addressing the practical use of hacking technology for the interception of communications. As has been pointed out by several noble Lords, encryption imposes severe difficulties on law enforcement and intelligence agencies in finding out what is going on. The practical way round that problem is likely to be through hacking technology—for example, by putting viruses in files that end up on other people's computers, thereby causing those computers to act in ways which make it either possible to break the encryption when the computer is seized, or to transmit information over the Internet to other people.
What would happen if I were to put such a virus on a computer in France with the intention that, when the person using that computer activated the virus, it would send an e-mail to the person I was targeting in the UK, resulting in the communications of that person in the UK becoming transparent to me? Are the security forces authorised to do that? Can they be
898
authorised to set loose a programme, which might end up on all kinds of people's computers, in order that it should eventually work its way back to the person targeted? Or, indeed, can the security services work it the other way round and place the virus at the centre of a criminal organisation, with a view to spreading it around to an unknown number of computers within that organisation, which would all then start sending back information to the security services? Will the Bill allow the security services to carry out that kind of action but prevent undesirable organisations doing so?
As to aspects relating to the liberty of the citizen. I think that these will best be dealt with largely in Committee. They are detailed and technical. The areas that concern me most are, first, the question of packet switching. As my noble friend Lord Cope said, in order to access a particular conversation, the technology effectively requires the Government to see everything, and then just pick out the conversation they want. It is not like tapping a telephone line where you know what line is being tapped. It means taking the whole of the traffic on the Internet and, out of that, filtering out the part you want.
In those circumstances, we must have an effective assurance that the Government will look at only the part they are authorised to look at. At the moment it is proposed that this is done electronically; that there are no effective human interventions in that process. It takes very little for someone to add something to a program somewhere in Government Communications Headquarters, or elsewhere in government, and thus breach the rules without any practical hope of detection unless someone, with a right of access, and the skills and knowledge to exercise it, is involved on behalf of the citizen. At present there does not seem to be provision for that in the Bill.
Secondly, we need to look at the area of communications data. At the moment, of course one understands that the police want access to people's telephone bills. The question of who a person has been telephoning, of who has phoned you and when, has been an aspect of detective fiction for as long as I can remember. But this will become much more universal. Looking 10 years ahead, I would expect to be conducting most of my life electronically. Everything that I have done in every aspect of my life will be recorded in communications data. We need to make sure that when someone is getting access to that. they do so in a way which is proper, authorised and consistent with the general liberty of the citizen. I think it is possible that the Bill is drafted correctly in that respect. I do not necessarily share the doubts that have been expressed, but it is something we shall have to look at with great care.
Lastly, we come on to the question of Clause 49. I very much share the concerns expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton. It is very important that we should recognise how people will seek to use the offence of failing to reveal a key. We need to look at the practical way in which this will work. We need to consider how in practice people keep keys and what should happen if someone does not want to reveal them. How will we prosecute someone for what may be

899
an underlying offence if it is impossible to produce the evidence that there actually is an underlying offence? Again, we are moving into technical and difficult areas, but I think that the Bill's current wording is entirely unacceptable.
We cannot have a situation where the principle of legislation is that someone is guilty until proven innocent. That is not the way we do things in this country. It is not a principle which we should sacrifice in any small part anywhere in our system of legislation. Government work by precedent. Once the precedent is established in one place, it will become accepted in others. This is not a sacrifice of liberty that we should make in favour of the state. The state has to work out ways of dealing with the fact that, as an absolute principle, people in this country are innocent until proven guilty. It is not impossible. It may well require different methods of investigation. It may well require a different approach, which is probably necessary anyway, to dealing with crimes which are covered by encryption.
There is a good deal we can do in Committee to improve the Bill. I hope that the Government will look at it constructively. But if we find ourselves on the final "ping-pong" between this House and another place, or, perhaps even earlier, at Third Reading, with a Bill which amounts to a fundamental infringement of the liberties of the citizen in this country as long established, we should reject it.
12.54 p.m.
Baroness Harris of Richmond: My Lords, this is the first time I have been deeply involved in a Bill in your Lordships' House. I cannot help thinking I should have picked a less technically challenging one, as noble Lords will no doubt soon find out. However, I shall do my best, and explain that my interest which stems from my being a member of the National Crime Squad Service Authority—whose officers, of course, will be dealing with the consequences of the Bill—and also as chair of a police authority whose officers will also be using the powers proposed in the Bill. However, I must assure your Lordships that I speak entirely in my own capacity as a member of your Lordships' House and not as a representative of either of those two bodies.
Last year the Association of Chief Police Officers, the National Crime Squad and HM Customs and Excise issued codes of practice on covert law enforcement techniques in anticipation of the European Convention on Human Rights and the Human Rights Act. The Government also commenced work to create legislation that would place on a legal footing private side telecommunication interceptions and all other covert policing activities in order to be compatible with Article 8(2) of the convention. This states that any interference by a public authority is required to be conducted in accordance with law and in a democratic society.
Let me say, first, that the police service welcomes this legislation which, for the first time, as the Minister said, will regulate covert policing activities. Up to now,
900
of course, these have been governed, but by guidelines and protocols only. The Bill will establish a framework which places them within the context of human rights.
Police officers have always carried out covert surveillance and operations, and interception of communications, and now we have the means by which this can, and must, be properly regulated, as the noble Lord, Lord McNally, reminded us. Police officers will have to be able to state that the surveillance or interception they wish to use must be justified. It must be proportionate, and it must be necessary. As an example, interception might be justified and lawful in cases of large-scale heroin trafficking, but not in small-scale local cannabis dealing between adult friends. Directed surveillance would be justified, however, and lawful to prevent or detect small-scale cannabis dealing between adult friends but would neither be lawful nor justified to determine whether a married person was perhaps conducting an affair. The protection of moral values is not a justified ground. Unfortunately, however, the Secretary of State can add any ground he thinks fit. I hesitate to give your Lordships any examples of what those might be.
Dealing with the "proportionate" example, the intrusiveness of a technique must be commensurate with the evil it is designed to combat. In other words, a sledgehammer must not be used to crack a nut. The necessity principle is applicable only to the most intrusive techniques. However, while the police may be reasonably happy with the proposals in the Bill, there are some concerns which need addressing. One concerns the definition of "prevention of crime" which falls in Parts I and II of the Bill concerning interception, surveillance and human intelligence sources. It is thought that there is too narrow an interpretation of the phrase throughout the Bill in determining the grounds when certain techniques may be used. For example, in Part I, Chapter I, Clause 5(3)(b); Chapter II, Clause 21(2)(b); and Part II, Clause 28(3)(b).
The problem with this restricted definition is that it means that law enforcement agencies would not be able legitimately to use certain techniques in a wide variety of cases. I am advised that, as it stands, the Morgan ruling would prevent police forces from using directed surveillance, tasking informants or obtaining billing data to obtain intelligence about an individual who is suspected of being involved in serious crime, or determining the whereabouts of an absconder who has been charged with an offence and fails to appear in court. It also means that interception could not be used to locate a very dangerous offender who is unlawfully at large. Practically, I am advised, that severely restricts law enforcement's options in tackling crime. It would therefore be enormously helpful if the Minister were able to reassure me on that point and perhaps agree the definition of "prevention of crime" to cover the whole intelligence gathering, investigation and prosecution process. Now is perhaps not the time to offer amendments or suggestions as to how that might be achieved, but I may well come back to it at a later stage.

901
Perhaps the definition of "intrusive surveillance" might also be considered. Perhaps an appropriate entry in the codes of practice would help in the following situation. A publican whose premises had been broken into on a number of occasions would not be able to consent to the use of covert video within those premises even though everyone within the premises knew that it was there. It is quite possible that the burglary of commercial premises would not meet the "serious" threshold and so the technique would not be available. I note that concern was expressed in the other place about the number of agencies which will use surveillance and covert human intelligence sources—undercover officers, agents, informants and so on—but which are not named either on the face of the Bill or in a schedule. It would be helpful if that point, too, could be considered.
However, the main concern is about Part III of the Bill and encryption. As it stands, serious and organised criminals would prefer to risk a two-year penalty if the encrypted material held would provide evidence of serious criminality—drugs trafficking or paedophilia—for which, if convicted, they would be imprisoned for 10 years to life. The noble Lord, Lord Cope of Berkeley, and the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, who gave an excellent example of the problem, referred to this point. The penalty provides little deterrent to major criminals, the very ones we want to catch. What will happen to the innocent defendant who will have to prove to the court that he is not lying about having lost or otherwise forgotten his key number? It appears that he can be punished as a criminal for failing to prove that he does not have the information. That is a crazy state of affairs.
It is important to keep a balance and to ensure that we comply with the European Convention on Human Rights. I am sure that that is the Government's intention, but I fear there is imbalance in some areas of the Bill. In particular, I cite the power proposed to be given to the Secretary of State to designate any body that has the right to intervene without coming back to Parliament with legislation. It would be far better to let a judge decide on the merits of the case whether to allow some form of intervention than, as is proposed, the Secretary of State. At least a judge is usually seen to be dispassionate and separated from the Minister. The Minister is part of the executive and is in charge of policing and therefore might be construed as having rather too close an interest in any application for interceptory powers.
Finally, I should like to touch on the issue of costs. It will cost £25 million to set up the GTAC monitoring centre, which may be obsolete fairly quickly because of the speed of technological advances. Would not that money be better spent developing the tools that the police could use for what is known in the trade as "forensic hacking". Not being a "techie" myself, I have no experience of how this would work, but I am assured that it would be a far better way of catching targeted criminals without the need for any physical contact with them.
902
I hope that the Minister will consider those points. I have no doubt that we shall return to them when we come to discuss the Bill in Committee.
1.3 p.m.
The Earl of Northesk: My Lords, none o us can object to the premise upon which this Bill is based. The state has a duty to protect its citizenry from criminality. In our computer age, the ingenuity of criminal elements—be they organised or not—has been quick to adapt itself to the new technology. To be effective, the defences deployed by the state against these criminal elements have to keep pace. Intelligence gathering is an essential part of the process. It is appropriate that the procedures for information gathering are consolidated and regulated on a statutory basis. Hence this Bill. All good and well, so far.
One does not normally think of legislative drafting as being a riveting read. But this Bill's rites of passage have been so labyrinthine that I have, over time, come to think of it as a good thriller. Its vocabulary—"interception of communications", "covert human intelligence", "surveillance", and so on—is the stuff of spy fiction. Imagine my delight therefore when, in delving into its background. I stumbled upon an article that opened with the sentence:
"These are exciting times for conspiracy theorists".
The inspiration for the article was,
"the recent mass of revelations about the vast web of covert national security operations in Britain and abroad".
Intriguing, my Lords. It seems that there are those who trace the genesis of this Bill back to the security pact of 1947 known as the "Quadripartite", or "United Kingdom-United States" agreement, a text which some refer to as,
"probably one of the most secret documents in the world".
As I understand it, its prime objective is to ensure that all communications throughout the world can be intercepted for the benefit of its signatories. That agreement eventually spawned ENFOPOL, the EU package of proposed legal requirements intended to make telecommunications systems legally interceptible through decryption techniques. The thrust of this policy had been formulated by an organisation known as the International Law Enforcement Telecommunications Seminar—or ILETS—set up by the FBI in 1993. Working firmly behind closed doors, so far as I have been able to understand, it has been instrumental in having its plans adopted as EU policy and enacted into national legislation in a number of countries, notably the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act in the United States.
In fact, following consistent opposition to it under the Finnish presidency of the EU, ENFOPOL has all but died a death. Attempts were made to rekindle its embers by grafting it on to the mutual legal assistance directive. But, in the event, the European Parliament threw out the relevant amendments. One could have

903
hoped this was the end of the matter but, as Joe McNamee, spokesman for the European Internet Service Providers Association, warns:
"The Council of Ministers can ignore the decision because, technically, it is not a single market issue. Some people desperately want to see this legislation go through and, when you look at the 15 justice ministers who will preside over the resolution, you see that Jack Straw, the man behind the RIP bill, is in the chair".
QED, my Lords. As I say, this is the stuff of spy fiction. At risk of seeming facetious, perhaps the Government have in mind a forthcoming sale of the movie rights?
None the less, this background is instructive. It is indicative of the context in which RIP has been conceived— the encroachment of national security agencies on some of the most fundamental of our freedoms, particularly those of privacy and speech. To be fair, the Minister made ample reference to this in his introduction.
All of this would be farcical were it not so serious. And it is serious for a number of reasons. First, more prosaically than I have explained it, the Foundation forInformation Policy Research has observed that:
"The bill represents the endgame of a policy shambles that has lasted four years, and is one of the outstanding historical failures of civil service policy machinery of the past several decades".
There are many aspects to this. The Government have sought to make a virtue of their intention to make the UK the best place in the world for e-commerce. The Minister repeated the mantra again today. I have no complaints about that. The Electronic Communications Bill—irespective of how lukewarm the industry is towards it and irrespective of how limited its effect will in fact be—is a manifestation of that aim. And yet, in their wisdom, the Government are resurrecting the original Part III of that measure, albeit the impression of a watered-down version, on the face of this Bill. Echoing my noble friend Lord Cope, the idiocy of this is that it will place a severe regulatory burden and considerable costs on the e-commerce industry that will stifle its growth. Self-evidently this is antipathetic to the Government's stated intention. A summary of the current position was provided in the Connected supplement of the Daily Telegraph earlier this month:
"The upshot for a company considering where to base its e-commerce business: Britain is more expensive, with a potentially hostile regulatory regime for one of the most important security technologies, and a tricky legal environment".
In the same vein, on 11th May Computer Weekly reported that:
"UK users have given up on the Government's proposed interception regime and are already moving their IT processing operations abroad to avoid its powers".
That is hardly an endorsement of the UK as the best place in the world for e-commerce. What was the Government's response? The Home Office Minister with responsibility for the Bill, Charles Clarke, wrote petulantly to Computer Weekly stating that its reports were "simplistic in the extreme".
904
To compound matters, as David Banisar, deputy director of Privacy International, has observed,
"Britain is the only country that thinks it can get ISPs to do its spying. It's crazy. And it and America are the only major western countries trying to increase police power [in this area]. It's the same old alliance we had over key escrow".
This is particularly important in the context of the international dimension of this area, to which both my noble friend Lord Cope and the noble Lord, Lord McNally, referred. However, the problem goes deeper than that. The Irish Times has commented that:
"Unfortunately, law makers in Ireland. Europe and the US are staggeringly e-naive about the effects these new laws … will have on their future. The problem is one of ignorance".
For example, one would have thought that by now the Government would have realised that the single biggest barrier to the development of e-commerce from consumers and traders alike revolves around confidence in and trust of the security of transactions online. This applies as much to protections from an over-mighty state as it does from criminal elements. Moreover, as the information revolution marches on, increasingly our lives are lived on the net. As FIPR puts it:
"The explosive growth of e-commerce, coupled with anticipated high penetration of interactive digital television and third-generation mobile phones, means that the Internet is on the verge of becoming a single conduit carrying comprehensive transaction data, tracing virtually every facet of private life".
Under the Bill as drafted and because of the convergence of these technologies, it will be lawful for any public authority to obtain this vast wealth of "communications data" on anyone without a ministerial or judicial warrant. However inadvertently, the Bill sanctions mass domestic surveillance. I make the point in passing that measures such as this are without parallel anywhere outside, of all places, Zimbabwe. This, combined with the scope of the Bill in terms of its inferential endorsement of increasingly sophisticated analytical techniques such as data-mining, triangulation of data, "friendship trees", "traffic analysis" and so forth, has huge implications for the privacy of the individual. Just as significantly, it begs the question of the extent to which the Government understand the needs of the e-commerce industry in respect of trust and confidence.
More specifically, the Government—almost uniquely—do not seem to be able to understand that a major reason for the failure of the key escrow policy was that it can be so easily circumvented. The same is true of vast tracts of this Bill. An essential ingredient of information technology is to develop work-arounds and "patches" to resolve problems. Thus, the Internet community—the noble Lord, Lord McNally, touched on this issue—is already working up counter-measures to the thrust of the Bill's provisions: for example, steganography. A likely result is that, should it be enacted in its current form, it could well have the perverse effect as far as data traffic is concerned of actually reducing rather than increasing interception capability.
Nor does the policy shambles end there. The Minister may recall the exchanges he had with my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway during the

905
passage of the Representation of the People Bill. My noble friend argued that there were conflicts between the measure under consideration and the Human Rights and Data Protection Acts. This being so, the integrity of the Section 19 certificate on the face of the Bill, signed off by the noble Lord, was brought into question. Well, I am bound to say that this Bill poses many of the same problems.
The Minister has already said that he is acutely aware of the various human rights concerns that have been raised. He also made reference to the preliminary decisions of the Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Deregulation, and I am grateful to him for his earlier indication that the Government will respond positively to those. The noble Lord also referred to the legal opinion obtained by Justice and FIPR, revealing serious concerns that Part III would contravene Articles 6 and 8 of the ECHR. I shall not explain it in detail, but it is enough to say that this argues convincingly, among other things, that Part III violates the presumption of innocence, infringes the right not to self-incriminate and that there are inadequate safeguards against abuse of the interception regime.
Given the experience of my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway, I simply draw the attention of the Minister to the words of Madeleine Colvin, legal policy director at Justice:
"As these are significant breaches, we expect the Home Office to engage in open debate on how far this Bill will fail to be human rights compliant in practice, rather than merely asserting that it is"
In that context, the noble Lord will recall the injunction from the Trade and Industry Select Committee of another place when it investigated this issue in its original form in the Electronic Communications Bill. Its recommendation was unequivocal:
"Having certified that legislation does not contravene the ECHR, Ministers must be able to demonstrate, when challenged, that this is indeed the case. We recommend that the Government publish a detailed analysis to substantiate its confidence that Part II … does not contravene ECHR".
I am of course grateful for the assurance given by the Minister that he will welcome further debate on these matters, and his response to the intervention of my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway. But, bluntly, if the House cannot scrutinise these matters properly, not only does that make for bad law, it also undermines and demeans the purpose of Section 19 certificates.
As regards the Data Protection Act, it is my recollection—no doubt the Minister will correct me if I am wrong—that:
"Personal data shall he obtained only for one or more specified and lawful purposes, and shall not be further processed in any manner incompatible with that purpose or those purposes".
Moreover,
"Personal data shall be adequate, relevant and not excessive in relation to the purpose or purposes for which they are processed".
The problem here, as both my noble friends Lord Cope and Lord Lucas have mentioned, is that interception of "communications data" is, of necessity,
906
indiscriminate. The Internet is a packet-switching system which, for technical reasons that are way beyond my understanding of the subject, means that it is only possible to tap anything by tapping everything. In effect, the Bill as drafted is in breach of the data protection principles.
It gets worse. It is a safe assumption that ISPs will need to be—indeed they already are—registered under the terms of the Data Protection Act as data controllers. Accordingly, they are obliged in law to comply with the seventh data principle, which states that:
"Appropriate technical and organisational measures shall be taken against unauthorised or unlawful processing of personal data and against accidental loss or destruction of, or damage to, personal data".
And yet the Bill explicitly requests ISPs to ignore their appropriate technical and organisational measures to allow the interception regime to operate. Additionally, as I have already explained, the Internet is a packet-switching system. It is therefore inevitable that when interception of communications data takes place, unauthorised or unlawful processing of personal data will also take place.
Like my noble friend Lord Lucas, I believe that the Bill is deeply flawed. By way of summary, I offer these observations from Caspar Bowden, the director of FIPR. The RIP proposals:
"seem to have been devised by redeployed cold warriors who want to put Britain on a paranoid infowar footing. Meanwhile the rest of the e-world plans a prosperous future based on trust in robust security without unwarranted interference".
The proposals
"will enmesh us further in a culture of secrecy, which will corrode our democracy…A law which replaces the presumption of innocence with a medieval trial-by-ordeal is simply wrong, not a 'question of balance'."
And his conclusion?
"Ministers come and go, but the legislation they leave defines our rights and freedoms. There is nothing in RIP that stops these powers being used arbitrarily…The RIP Bill cannot be patched up. It must be withdrawn and rewritten."
No wonder the Observer has described the Bill as the worst UK legislation ever.
1.20 p.m.
Lord Brightman: My Lords, perhaps I may turn for a few moments from the substance of this most important Bill in order to invite your Lordships' attention to the curious way in which the Bill is drafted, and to express the hope that it will not establish a precedent. The curiosity is that the Bill has two general interpretation clauses, each of which is expressed to apply to the whole Bill; one to be found at the beginning of the Bill and the other at the end.
The unfortunate result is that if the reader wishes to find out whether a particular word or expression has a special meaning, and what that meaning is, he must turn first to the general interpretation clause at the beginning of the Bill and, if he does not find it there, he must then go to the second general interpretation clause at the end of the Bill.

907
I do not think that I have seen before a general interpretation clause split into two halves in this way. It is, of course, common to find an interpretation clause at the end of a part or chapter of a Bill, covering words used in that part or chapter. It is usual to find a general interpretation clause at the end of a Bill, covering words used throughout the Bill. But to have a Bill with two general interpretation clauses, each expressed to extend to the entire Bill, one at the beginning and one at the end, doubles the researches which might have to be made by the reader.
The two general interpretation clauses in this Bill are Clause 2 on page 3 and Clause 72 on page 76. Your Lordships will see that Clause 2 starts with the words "In this Act" and there follow some 15 words and expressions which have a special meaning. Similarly, Clause 72 on page 76 starts with the words "In this Act" and there follow some 32 further words and expressions which have a special meaning.
The inconvenience of this curious division of defined expressions can be illustrated just by reading Clause 1 of the Bill. It begins:
"It shall be an offence for a person".
I pause there to see whether the word "person" has its usual meaning or a special meaning. I search Clause 2, the first general interpretation clause, and I do not find "person" there. So I turn to Clause 72, the second general interpretation clause, and I find that the word does indeed have a special meaning: page 77, line 21. I read on until I come to line 10 on page 1, where it says:
"intentionally and without lawful authority to intercept, at any place in the United Kingdom, any communication".
I now wish to find out whether the word "communication" has a special meaning and, if so, what. I turn to the first interpretation clause, Clause 2 on page 3, and I find that the word "telecommunication" is defined there but not the word "communication". So I turn to the second interpretation clause, Clause 72, and—lo and behold—I find the word "communication" defined there at line 32.
I continue my reading of Clause 1 at line 12 on page 1, which states:
"in the course of its transmission by means of a public postal service or a public telecommunication system".
I turn to the first interpretation clause and am grateful to find both "public postal service" and "public telecommunication system" defined there, so I need search no more.
Is it sensible to compel the reader to dodge between two general interpretation clauses, one at the beginning and one at the end of the Bill, each of which is expressed to apply to the whole Bill? Why not have just one general interpretation clause at the end of the Bill, like other Acts of Parliament?
908
That is not quite the end of the confusion arising from the two general interpretation clauses. The word "modification" is defined in the first interpretation clause as including—I am quoting from page 4, lines 43 and 44—
"the attachment of any apparatus to, or other modification of or interference with",
a stated subject matter. In the second general interpretation clause, the word "modification"—I am now reading from line 17 on page 77—is defined for a second time: this time as including "alterations, additions and omissions". Why do we have different definitions of the same word in the two general interpretation clauses?
There is a further curiosity. The word "apparatus" is made use of in the first interpretation clause and it will be found on page 4, line 44. But, strangely, if I wish to find out what "apparatus" means, I must turn to the second interpretation clause and read line 26 on page 76. So we have a word used in the first interpretation clause that is defined not in that clause but in the second interpretation clause. In other words, you have to use the second interpretation clause to discover the meaning of a word used in the first interpretation clause.
I ask again: why not have just one interpretation clause and save the reader a whole lot of trouble? I am sure that it would not be difficult for the Government to table an amendment combining the two interpretation clauses, rewriting them as a single interpretation clause in the usual way, and getting rid of the anomalies which I have mentioned.
To put it shortly, I think that Clauses 2 and 72 could do with a little tidying up. I have great respect for the skill of those who draft our Bills, but I do wish that the drafting could be just a little more user-friendly, so as to make life easier for us and for the public who are our readers. I did not give the noble Lord the Minister notice of the points that I intended to make, so I do not expect a reasoned response today. Perhaps the noble Lord will be kind enough to give the matter some consideration before we reach Committee stage.
1.29 p.m.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, perhaps I may take the comments of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, first. I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for what seems on the face of it a fairly withering analysis of Clauses 2 and 72 and I give a commitment to undertake to provide at the earliest opportunity the response for which he has asked. The noble and learned Lord and the House deserve no less.
The debate has been wide-ranging. I have listened with care to all of the contributions and the various points made. I was delighted to hear from the noble Lord, Lord McNally, that I was not "Big Brother". That will cheer up my friends and particularly my family. However, I was rather worried, listening to the comments of the noble Earl, Lord Northesk: I thought that I was about to fall into the trap of becoming "Big Browser"! As to the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, the Bill is obviously a measure that he wants to "RIP". I got

909
the noble Lord's message. However, he did offer some constructive comments and it is our intention to focus more precisely on his concerns in Committee.
I thank also the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, for her comments. I am grateful to her for concentrating constructively on the concerns expressed by those who are rightly in the business of raising issues relating to child protection and child safety. The noble Baroness's comments were very helpful.
The twin objectives of the Bill are essentially uncontroversial. All will agree that there is a pressing need to ensure that these powers are regulated in accordance with the European Convention on Human Rights. Many speakers commented powerfully on human rights and civil liberties. Clearly, the House must pay close attention to those concerns.
Whether or not people like the detail of the proposals, I believe that there is common agreement that the existing legislation needs revision in the light of the rapid changes in technology. Concerns have been expressed about the precise drafting of the Bill. As I listened to the debate, I realised that for some Members of this House the measures were too wide in their remit and application; for others, they were far too narrow. Such observations are frequently made about systems of regulation. But, in examining the challenges of new technology, in large part what we are doing is bringing together legislation and revising and updating it. So noble Lords will be familiar with much of the content of the Bill. There is just one area where we are beginning to open up and extend the provisions, because there is an essential need to do so. I am acutely aware that the proposals in the Bill will not work unless the Government work closely with the communications industry in implementing them. I shall say more about consultation later.
Many questions were raised during the debate. If I do not manage to provide answers to all of them today, I shall endeavour to do so in writing. The noble Lord, Lord Cope, in his generally constructive approach to the issues raised by the Bill, asked a number of wide-ranging questions. However, the noble made the general point—as did other noble Lords, notably the noble Earl, Lord Northesk, and the noble Lord, Lord Lucas—that we are embarking upon a course that could drive e-business overseas.
On the evidence so far, we have not found there to be a flow away from the UK of e-commerce and e-business as a result of the Bill being considered. We believe that we are ahead of the game compared with our European partners, both in terms of e-commerce and law enforcement legislation. We make no apology for that. In fact, we are delighted at the progress that we have made.
Law enforcement agencies world-wide are worried, as we are, about the threat from the criminal use of encryption. The United States has proposed a package of new law enforcement measures to combat the encryption threat. I refer to the Cyberspace Electronic Security Act, whose provisions are very much along the lines of our own approach to the problems.
910
Some critics have referred to the Irish legislation, and have made much of the comparison between what was said to be the Irish approach to encryption policy and the RIP Bill. The Irish published their e-commerce Bill last month, and it is now clear that we are not comparing like with like. Such investigative powers as are contained in the Irish Bill concern only offences under the legislation itself. These are limited to the fraudulent use of electronic signatures or certificates—which is nothing like the RIP Bill. Similarly, a provision in the Irish Bill stating that keys may not be demanded relates only to those limited circumstances. The bigger question of access to keys for wider law enforcement purposes remains open.
The noble Lord, Lord Cope, also raised a question with regard to dial-through fraud. We have listened with great care to the industry and we have carefully studied the recent case of Morgan v DPP. We hope to bring forward amendments making prosecution of dial-through fraud far easier.
The noble Lord asked why the NCIS request for a power of search was turned down. We fully understand and appreciate the position put forward by NCIS, but we consider that to add to the Bill a special power of search would probably be a step too tar. That case has already been made by some. The new decryption power works only in relation to material that can lawfully be obtained now under existing search powers. Law enforcement agencies already have powers to search for material and we are not convinced that a new power is entirely necessary. Importantly, given the way in which the technology works—through encryption—the key law enforcement wants may not be held by the suspects but with a third party. That raises the spectre, whether justified or not, of entirely innocent premises being searched. I understand that members of the party opposite did not press their amendment at Report stage in another place, but clearly the issue is of fundamental concern.
The noble Lord, Lord Cope, also raised the issue of why the Benefits Agency is not an intercepting agency. The Bill places the Benefits Agency in the same position as every chief constable in England and Wales. In serious cases the agency may apply to NCIS to carry out interception on its behalf if the application is authorised by the Secretary of State. The noble Lord also ventured to suggest that the Government seemed to be proposing the monitoring of all e-mails. That is not the case. We have never said that. It is not our intention, and the Bill will not permit it to happen.
The noble Lord, Lord Cope, raised a question regarding the use of key escrow. I can advise the House that the issue of key escrow is firmly off the agenda. The PIU report last year recommended that key escrow be dropped, and the Electronic Communications Bill explicitly rules out its reintroduction. There is nothing in this Bill which endeavours to bring it back.

911
I said earlier that I enjoyed listening to various comments of noble Lords. In particular, the noble Lord, Lord McNally, made some constructive observations. Without wishing to kill off the Bill, he believed that your Lordships' House would give it a thorough test on two particular grounds: civil rights and human rights. I believe that that is correct. The noble Lord also referred to the cost to e-commerce and industry. If we approach this legislation in that vein, I believe that our debates in Committee and beyond will be measured and well considered.
The noble Lord was right to pay tribute to the lobby groups. Although Ministers may from time to time find lobby groups somewhat irritating, they ensure that we focus on hard and difficult issues.
The noble Lord asked why there were so many commissioners. We believe that we have the balance right. However, we have reviewed the situation and have agreed in another place to remove from the Bill the separate covert investigation commissioner. The functions which he would have dealt with will now be taken over by the surveillance commissioner. Therefore, we have managed to pare back in the noble Lord's direction. In paying tribute to the concerns of various lobby groups, the noble Lord was perhaps touching on the need for continued consultation. I made clear at the outset that I saw value in that.
I was asked just how extensive had been our consultation arrangements in the production and formulation of the legislation. Clause 12 of the Bill requires consultation. The Home Office has spoken formally and informally about this Bill to a large number of organisations. All 40 PTOs have been invited to a briefing and discussion on the Bill. The ISPA and ISPs generally have been invited. The list also includes: AOL, BT, Demon, Linx, Research Machines, VCB net, BT internet, Energis/Planet Online/Freeserve, Fastnet, Uunet; AICES, OFTEL, FIPR, ICX, AEB, EURIM, ACPO, Royal Holloway College, ISPCon, Scrambling for Safety—I have been scrambling for words after such a list!—and so on. We have consulted very extensively. Other organisations feature on the list, not least the child protection groups.
Lord McNally: My Lords, to enable the noble Lord to give a commercial, he has invited Members of your Lordships' House to the Moses Room for a briefing on the Bill shortly after the Recess. Does the Minister hope to win over support, or what is the intention of that briefing?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I am always encouraged to brief by the Chief Whip. (Perhaps I should not say that.) We try to provide an opportunity for detailed briefing, and that is precisely what we seek to do in this exercise. We are happy that any Member of your Lordships' House should attend to put useful and valuable questions.
I have spent a long time trying to summarise the main points of concern. There are a number of other questions to which I am happy to try to respond.
912
However, I am aware that noble Lords will want to make progress. The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, asked whether I regard Clause 1 as satisfactory. He questioned whether it would catch international actions. I am satisfied with the construction of the clause which follows a detailed consideration of technical and legal issues. I shall be happy to consider specific scenarios in Committee, but nothing that the noble Lord said today causes me particular concern. The noble Lord asked whether there was a definition of "in the UK". The answer to that question may well be found in Clause 2(4). Perhaps some close textual analysis will serve the noble Lord well.
The Earl of Northesk: My Lords, I gain the impression that the noble Lord is beginning to wind things down. The noble Lord will have noted from my speech that I am particularly concerned about the interaction of this Bill with the Data Protection Act. Is the Minister prepared to comment further on that?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl for the prompt. In constructing the legislation we have had to pay particular regard to other legislation in the same field, and there has been close liaison on that. No doubt in Committee the noble Earl will want to raise particular points about those areas in which he believes matters have not been joined up. I look forward to his further and more detailed questions on that point.
The Earl of Northesk: My Lords, I simply refer the Minister to what I actually said.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I shall pay particularly close attention to Hansard in due course. The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, asked whether the Security Service could be authorised to plant a virus that would cause a computer to send back information. It has been a long-standing policy of successive governments not to comment on the kinds of operation undertaken by the Security Service. I can assure the House that the service operates entirely within the legislative framework which governs its actions. I do not believe that anyone would wish us to depart from that.
The noble Baroness, Lady Harris, asked about the meaning of "prevention and detection of crime". That issue was raised in Morgan v. DPP. We are giving careful consideration to the implications of that case, and I am grateful to the noble Baroness for reminding us of it. The noble Baroness also asked about adding purposes to the Bill. The Secretary of State cannot add any purposes that he sees fit. The Human Rights Act makes it unlawful for him to make an order which is incompatible with the ECHR. However, we shall look at possible amendments to restrict the order-making powers.
This has been a long debate in which I have enjoyed the contributions of noble Lords. We shall be very much in listening mode. I have tried to answer as many points as possible this afternoon, and I hope that I have provided your Lordships' House with careful

913
reassurance. Doubtless when we return to these matters at a later stage I shall be able to explain the position of the Government more fully and listen closely to detailed concerns. In the mean time, I commend the Bill to the House.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Budget Assessment 2000–01
1.47 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That this House approves, for the purposes of Section 5 of the European Communities (Amendment) Act 1993, Her Majesty's Government's assessment as set out in the Financial Statement and Budget Report 2000–01 and the Economic and Fiscal Strategy Report 2000–01.—(Lord McIntosh of Haringey.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Lord Carter: My Lords, your Lordships will understand that the House must now adjourn to await Royal Assent to a number of Bills. I beg to move that the House do adjourn during pleasure until 2.30.
914
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 1.47 to 2.30 p.m.]

Royal Assent
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Nicol): My Lords, I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified her Royal Assent to the following Acts:

Armed Forces Discipline Act,

Nuclear Safeguards Act,

Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act,

Electronic Communications Act.

Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Bill [H.L.]
Returned earlier from the Commons agreed to.

Electronic Communications Bill
Returned earlier from the Commons with the amendments agreed to.
House adjourned for the Spring Bank Holiday Recess at twenty-nine minutes before three o'clock.

  The Queen Mother's 100th Birthday
  The Queen Mother's 100th Birthday
  Civil Justice Review, Northern Ireland: Publication
  Civil Justice Review, Northern Ireland: Publication
  Joint Committee on Human Rights
  Joint Committee on Human Rights
  Committee on Standards in Public Life
  Committee on Standards in Public Life
  Written Questions: Electronic Answers
  Written Questions: Electronic Answers
  Free Television Licences Concession
  Free Television Licences Concession
  Millennium Dome: Funding
  Millennium Dome: Funding
  Tobacco Smuggling
  Tobacco Smuggling
  A14 Road Bridges, Huntingdon
  A14 Road Bridges, Huntingdon
  Public Footpaths and Bridleways
  Public Footpaths and Bridleways
  Guide Dogs Carried in Taxis: Regulations
  Guide Dogs Carried in Taxis: Regulations
  Right of Access to Countryside: Assessment of Litter Problem
  Right of Access to Countryside: Assessment of Litter Problem
  Prison Service Projects
  Prison Service Projects