Sitting of 13 November 2000

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

    UK/Australia Pensions
    Mr. Robert Maclennan: If he will make a statement about the ending of the social security agreement between the United Kingdom and Australia and its effect on pensioners reaching pension age after 28 February 2001 who have spent periods of their working life in Australia. [136106]
    The Minister of State, Department of Social Security (Mr. Jeff Rooker): People who are already receiving benefit with the help of the agreement with the Australian Government will not be affected when it terminates. We are aware that there are implications for people currently residing in the UK who had previously lived in Australia and are not yet retired. We are actively considering the full implications of the Australian Government's decision, and in particular what we can do to protect the position of those people.
    Mr. Maclennan: More fundamentally, will not the Government end the discrimination whereby they index-link the British pensions of British pensioners living in the United States and European Union countries, but not those of pensioners living in the Commonwealth countries—Australia, Canada and New Zealand? Will the Government at least make arrangements to protect the thousands of United Kingdom pensioners who will retire after 28 February next year and who are unable to count their years in Australia towards their basic pension, and who do not have the opportunity to supplement their pension?
    Mr. Rooker: We have no plans to change the present policy. I must make that clear, so that we do not give anybody false information. I have already said that we are looking actively at what we can do to protect those people who retire after the agreement finishes at the end of February. A perverse arrangement could come about whereby the UK Government could gain from the change. I do not see that that would be morally justified, so we want to do what we can to protect such people. However, there are a few myths that we must knock on the head. I must tell the right hon. Gentleman that there is no basic
    628
    state pension in Australia: it is all means-tested. [Interruption.] It is not all means— tested in this country. If the Government did change their policy in respect of Australia, we would be paying to the Australian Treasury. The only people who would gain in Australia are those who are so well off that they do not get the age pension in Australia.
    Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: What is the justification for the disparity in arrangements between Commonwealth countries, as compared with the United States? There is no logic in it. Is not there a need for a conference of social security Ministers of the key countries where ex-pats live? Is not liberty also involved? People want mobility in retirement, and the current arrangements are an impediment to that, particularly when abroad they can enjoy not necessarily the support of the taxpayer, but the love and succour of their families?
    Mr. Rooker: I have already said that I am not prepared to defend the logic of the present situation. It is illogical. There is no consistent pattern. It does not matter whether a country is in the Commonwealth or outside it. We have arrangements with some Commonwealth countries and not with others. Indeed, there are differences among Caribbean countries. This is an historical issue and the situation has existed for years. It would cost some £300 million to change the policy for all concerned. We must also consider that as the European Union expands—pension upratings are, naturally, paid in the EU—the issue will not go away. I accept that.

    Pensions Upratings
    Mr. David Heath: What assessment he has made of the relationship between the indices used to calculate annual pensions upratings and patterns of expenditure by pensioners. [136108]
    The Minister of State, Department of Social Security (Mr. Jeff Rooker): Each year, when considering the uprating, consideration is given to a wide range of factors, including the retail prices index. We recently announced our intention to increase the basic state pension by more than prices, and indeed by more than earnings.
    Mr. Heath: Will the Minister confirm that in two years the basic pension will be uprated on the basis of the same index as that which gave us the miserable 75p this year? Is it not odd that it contains elements that are not relevant to pensioners, and does not include items that are highly relevant, particularly to the poorer pensioner? Is it not time to stop messing about with indices, and to move instead to an independent review body? That is good enough for judges, generals and even for Members of Parliament. Should it not be good enough for pensioners?
    Mr. Rooker:I did not hear a thank you in that, or any reference to the fact that the pension is to increase by 7.4 per cent. next April. I heard a reference to poorer pensioners, many of whom will get a £14 a week increase next April. That is the reality. I am more interested in making sure that we deliver what we promised next April than in discussing the hypothetical issues relating to two years hence.
    Mr. Denis MacShane: On patterns of expenditure, does my right hon. Friend agree that the old motto, "From each according to his means, to each according to his needs," is still a good one and might apply to pensions? Pensioners with means should accept some responsibility. Is my right hon. Friend aware that in my constituency there is concern about the application of the difference between personal and nursing care for the old in long-term care? Will he continue to keep this sensitive matter under review, as it causes deep concern to pensioners in Rotherham?
    Mr. Rooker: I cannot give my hon. Friend a substantive answer, but I understand that the matter will be sorted out in forthcoming legislation, subject to the contents of the Queen's Speech.
    Mr. Peter Lilley: Does the right hon. Gentleman recall using the lowest possible index to increase state pensions last year and the highest possible index to raise duty on petrol last year? Does he further recall saying that any concessions on fuel tax would mean no more money for pensioners? Can he now explain to us at what point the Chancellor of the Exchequer decided to do a double U-turn?
    Mr. Rooker: We considered many issues in relation to the uprating that we announced. We did not use an index.

    State Pension
    Mr. David Amess: What recent representations he has received on the level of the state pension. [136109]
    The Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Alistair Darling): Many pensioners have welcomed the increase in pensions and the winter fuel payment of £200, which is being paid from today.
    Mr. Amess: Although, according to my mother, any increase in the basic state pension is welcome, will the right hon. Gentleman explain why, under this rotten Government, the number of pensioners living in poverty has increased by 400,000? Does he regard the basic state pension as adequate at the moment? If it is only adequate now, will he explain why the Government, supported by the Liberals, have sustained the basic state pension at an inadequate level when the Chancellor of the Exchequer does nothing but boast about all the money he has?
    Mr. Darling: Somebody kindly gave me a copy of the Conservative party briefing for this Question Time. I see that the hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess) has opted for suggested question No. 4. To be fair to him, I must say that he added one original observation, about his mother.
    First, he is right that a growing number of pensioners were living in poverty. The 400,000 figure to which he referred relates to the period immediately prior to the introduction of the minimum income guarantee, which he and his party oppose. As a result of the policies that we are implementing, Britain's poorest pensioners will be getting nearly £20 more a week from next April, through the increased minimum income guarantee. That demonstrates that we now have a Government who are
    630
    helping not only all pensioners, including the hon. Gentleman's mother, but the poorest pensioners in the country, who, thanks to the Government, are some £20 a week better off. We have done more for pensioners in five years than the Tory Government did during 18 years in office. At the previous election, the hon. Gentleman ran away from Basildon; I think that he will run away again at the next election.
    Mr. Gerald Kaufman: Has my right hon. Friend received representations from the mother of the hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess) or anybody else about the fact that the Conservative party's fraudulent one-year pensions increase offer will be paid for by stealing £2 billion from pensioners every year and by abolishing the winter fuel payment, the free television licence and the Christmas bonus? Were there any representations about the fact that, although the Liberal Democrats called the 75p increase an insult, it was precisely their policy for this year?
    Mr. Darling: My right hon. Friend is right. The Conservatives' commitment to pay pensioners £10 more a week, about which we can read in today's edition of The Daily Telegraph, is a complete fraud. What the report does not say is that they are proposing to remove the £200 winter fuel payment, free television licences for over-75s and, indeed, the Christmas bonus—a payment that the shadow Chancellor previously called a much-appreciated addition for older people.
    On top of that, the Conservatives ignore the fact that about 500,000 pensioners have no entitlement to the basic state pension and would lose all their £200 winter fuel payment. One million people have only a reduced entitlement to pensions and would also be worse off. Of course, 1 million men aged between 60 and 64 would get absolutely nothing.
    We can see clearly that if people vote for the Conservatives at the next election, it will cost them £200 a household. I think that they will see that the Tories are once again trying to con them into believing that they can do more for pensioners, when the truth is that they could not, as they would not have the additional money to spend. People will remember that, in this Parliament, the Government are doing more for pensioners than the Tories ever did during the 18 years that they were in office.
    Mr. Steve Webb: The Secretary of State likes to be known as the pensioners' champion. Last winter, he oversaw the highest level of excess winter deaths among pensioners for nearly a quarter of a century. Is he content that he has taken sufficient steps between last winter and the one that we are about to enter to prevent tens of thousands more unnecessary winter deaths among pensioners?
    Mr. Darling: As I told the hon. Gentleman last week when he asked the same question, we introduced the winter fuel payment because we recognised that too many pensioners were dying, in many instances because they could not afford to heat and eat adequately. That is why we have increased pensioners' incomes through the minimum income guarantee, which I think the hon. Gentleman is against. He was when I last asked him about it. Perhaps this week Liberal policy is slightly different. The MIG will mean that incomes will increase for the

    631
    poorest pensioners by nearly £20 a week. In addition, from today every pensioner household will receive a payment of £200 to be used towards winter fuel payments. That is much more than the Liberals ever promised to deliver.
    I think that the hon. Gentleman will accept that we are taking action to deal with a serious problem and one that should have no place in a civilised society. However, that is the legacy of 18 years of Tory Government.

    Pensioners
    Dr. Brian Iddon: What plans he has to help pensioners who do not qualify for the minimum income guarantee and who are in receipt of modest occupational pensions.[136110]
    The Secretary of State for Social Security(Mr. Alistair Darling): Madam Speaker—[Interruption.] I beg your pardon, Mr. Speaker. The pension credit will guarantee a minimum income of £100 a week plus an added payment to reward those with savings.
    The clear message is: whatever people can afford to save or to put by, it will always pay to save.
    Dr. Iddon: In general, will the single pensioner with minimal capital with a small occupational pension who qualifies for the pension credit be better or worse off than a single pensioner on the basic pension who receives all the passported benefits including housing benefit, council tax benefit and the minimum income guarantee? Does my right hon. Friend agree that to encourage people to take up occupational pension schemes, they must be seen to be better off as a result?
    Mr. Darling: I agree with my hon. Friend. Pensioners will be better off. First, the pension credit, which we are introducing from 2003, will mean for the first time that if people do what successive Governments have asked them to do and save for their retirement, they will receive a cash top-up to reward them for their effort. That is crucial if we are to get more people to save. We must be clear that there is a real incentive to save. I am glad that last week so many insurance companies and the Association of British Insurers welcomed the pension credit. They recognised that it will help people to save.
    Secondly, where someone has an occupational pension or a small sum at the bank, he or she should receive some help from the state. Under the system that we inherited, one which the Tories want to perpetuate, someone could obtain help only if he or she was very poor. There are about 5 million pensioners who have modest occupational pensions or a small amount of money at the bank. For the first time, the pension credit will help them to ensure that it pays to save.
    Miss Anne McIntosh: Does the right hon. Gentleman now regret introducing the element of means-testing into pensions? What will he do about pensioners who are approaching 75 years of age who have been told that they must buy an annuity, possibly costing about £250,000? If they were to die, they would lose that capital sum.
    Mr. Darling: The annuity rules have been in force for some time. As the hon. Lady knows, people can defer
    632
    taking out an annuity until the age of 75. I believe
    that the present arrangements are beneficial to the majority of pensioners.
    The hon. Lady raises the question of means-testing, in common with the rest of her colleagues. The only way in which we can do much more for poorer pensioners is, first, to ascertain who they are. That means that an assessment of their income is necessary. Secondly, we must then pay them more.
    Under the policies that the hon. Lady and Conservatives generally are advocating—I am assuming for this purpose, although it is not a universal assumption, that she finds herself in support of the Conservative Front Bench—the poorest pensioners would lose out. The Conservatives want to return to the system where miserly increases are given to all pensioners, which does nothing for the poorest pensioners. Pensioner poverty has no place in the fourth largest economy in the world. That is why we are increasing the amount of money that goes to the poorest pensioners by £20 from next April.
    Mr.Frank Field: Does my right hon. Friend accept that, according to his pensioner credit document and assuming that every pensioner who is eligible claims the pension credit, in 2003 half of all pensioners will still have an income of £136 a week or less? Does he also accept that his document assumes a national insurance pension increase of £1.50 a week in 2003? Does he agree with me that a re-elected Labour Government will find such an increase unacceptable and will substantially increase it?
    Mr. Darling: As my right hon. Friend knows, the pension credit is to be introduced from 2003, and its effect will build up over the years. We shall have to wait and see what we do about pension increases in 2003. We have announced increases for next year and the year after as we move towards the credit. The principle established by the credit, which was welcomed by one of my Conservative predecessors, the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler), as a reform that should have been introduced some time ago, will make a change, because for the first time ever people who save and make sacrifices during their working lives will be rewarded for doing so.
    Mr. David Willetts: The Secretary of State claimed on the television yesterday that 2.5 million letters have been sent to pensioners asking them to take up their entitlement to the minimum income guarantee. How many successful new claims for the minimum income guarantee have resulted from his take-up campaign?
    Mr. Darling: I am glad that someone was watching the television programme yesterday, because half way through it occurred to me that there would not be that many viewers on a sunny Sunday afternoon. Clearly, there was at least one. For the sake of completeness, I can tell the House that my mother was also watching.
    As the hon. Gentleman knows, the Government have been running a television advertising campaign, and we have just finished writing to 2.5 million pensioners. We have received about 600,000 responses so far, and of those we have processed 60,000 applicants, almost half of whom have been successful. It may also interest the

    633
    hon. Gentleman to know that from the figures so far we can tell that the other half were not successful because just over half of them have too much income and just under half have too much capital. Both those problems will be addressed by the pension credit, which the hon. Gentleman opposes.
    Mr. Willetts: May I give the Secretary of State the exact figure from a parliamentary answer? Of the more than 500,000 people who Ministers say are eligible but not claiming, 24,746 extra pensioners have received the benefit, which is a 5 per cent. success rate. Does that not show that pensioners do not want to claim the minimum income guarantee? If they do not want to claim that complicated, new, means-tested payment, why on earth should they go cap in hand to claim the pension credit—the new means-tested handout that the Secretary of State has invented? I would be interested to hear from him his estimate not of how many people will theoretically be entitled to the pension credit, but of how many pensioners will claim the new pension credit.
    Mr. Darling: If the hon. Gentleman is right that people do not want to claim the minimum income guarantee, it is curious that 600,000 people have so far responded as a result of the campaign, which is about the number that we have always thought may be eligible. That implies that there is not a reluctance to get in touch to find out. All those people have made the effort—most of them by telephone, and the others have written in. Up till now, the problem with the minimum income guarantee has been the problem that we inherited from the previous Government.
    If people have too much money in the bank or if they have a modest income, they get no help whatever. The hon. Gentleman has made it abundantly clear that if the Tories were returned to power they would scrap the pension credit. The result of that would be that for ever and a day pensioners who had saved or had earned an occupational pension would not be helped: they would be kicked in the teeth by an incoming Tory Government.
    Mr. Willetts: May I explain to the Secretary of State what the figures really show? Of the 600,000 pensioners who phoned the helpline or tore off the slip in the newspaper, only 60,000 made a claim, fewer than half of whom were successful. That means that there have been only 24,000 successful claims.
    Why is the Secretary of State trying to repeat the same mistake all over again with his new means-tested benefit? After years of progress on reducing the number of pensioners on means-tested benefits, he will take us back to a world in which more than 50 per cent. of pensioners are entitled to means-tested benefits. That is not the world in which pensioners want to live.
    Mr. Darling: The Conservatives doubled means-testing during their 18 years in power. I want to return to the minimum income guarantee before dealing with the pension credit. The fact that 600,000 people responded implies that they are sufficiently interested to contact the Benefits Agency to establish whether they have an entitlement. Of those claims, only 60,000 have been processed so far, of which just under half were successful. I repeat: the two main obstacles to success are having too
    634
    much money in the bank or too much income from an
    occupational pension. The pension credit will deal with both.
    The main point about the pension credit is that the fundamental problem with the social security system is that it penalises people who save. If they save too much and do what successive Governments told them to do, and we should remember that the hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) wants people under 30 to opt out of the basic state pension and to save for their retirement—
    Mr. Willetts: If they want to.
    Mr. Darling: Well, the hon. Gentleman knows full well that if those people saved only a modest amount, he would not help them at all because he does not accept the need for a credit to reward saving. Interestingly, independent observers—of course, the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield is not entirely independent, but he has some experience in this context, unlike the hon. Gentleman—have welcomed the pension credit almost universally as a way to help people to save. That reform, which is the most radical change to the social security system made during the past 50 years, is long overdue. Far from being complicated, it is quite simple. At the moment, people are penalised for their thrift, but in future it will always pay to save. That is something that the Tories can never say.
    Mr. Bob Blizzard: It is a good job that the hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) is not counting the votes in Florida—otherwise, we might not have a result before the next presidential election.
    I welcome the pension credit, the increase in the minimum income guarantee and the basic state pension, and the £200 winter payment, which was announced last week. My right hon. Friend knows that in calculating the income that pensioners receive in interest from their savings, the formula used assumes—if I may put it this way—a rather high rate of return. Has he any plans to tackle that anomaly?
    Mr. Darling: Yes, we do. I announced last week that we shall get rid of that ridiculous tariff income, although the hon. Member for Havant apparently wants to keep it. It is ridiculous to assume that pensioners or anyone else can get a 20 per cent. return on their savings. That is not possible anywhere, so far as I am aware. That is why we will scrap the arrangement.
    I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his welcome. There is a clear difference between us and the Conservatives. We are increasing the amount of money going to pensioners through the basic pension and the pension credit and by helping poorer pensioners. The Conservatives, on the other hand, want to penalise saving by taking £200 from every pensioner household and to begin the process of privatising the basic state pension by encouraging people under 30 to opt out.

    Winter Fuel Payments
    Mr. Nick St. Aubyn:If he will make a statement on winter fuel payments. [136111]
    The Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Alistair Darling): Winter fuel payments have been increased to £200 this week. Payments will be issued from today.
    Mr. St. Aubyn: Is not the real fraud that is being perpetrated on pensioners today the fact that a Social Security Minister promised in July that all payments for past winters would be cleared by the end of September? However, nearly 1 million pensioners are still waiting for their winter fuel payments from previous winters. Would not it be far better to consolidate winter fuel payments in the basic pension and to give a benefit, no questions asked, to all pensioners, which they would receive when they needed it, not when the Government decide that they should get it?
    Mr. Darling: I note that the hon. Gentleman has the brass neck to refer to the subject of Question 5. He sheds crocodile tears about the winter fuel payment and his comments are unconvincing because the Tories are committed to getting rid of it. He is concerned about men between the ages of 60 and 65 who have not yet received their winter fuel payment, but the total is only 3 per cent. and claims are still being processed. He must tell those men that under the Tories they would not get any help whatever because they would lose £200 per household. His concern has no credibility.
    Mr. David Winnick: Two days after Christmas 1996, I took a group of Labour Members to No. 10 Downing street to urge—to plead—for some help to be given with heating costs because of the freezing weather. No action was taken.
    Am I not right in thinking that before we came to office there were no heating additions at all unless the weather was freezing for seven consecutive days—and it had to be seven consecutive days—in which case some £8 was given only to those on income support? Is that not the difference between what we did the moment we came to office, and what the Tories did? They should hang their heads in shame.
    Mr. Darling: My hon. Friend is right. The cold weather payments scheme meant that it had to be cold for a long period, and that happens less than people might think, even in parts of the country where it appears to be cold all the time. The difference is that under our scheme every pensioner household receives a £200 winter fuel payment. The payments are being made between today and Christmas, which means that pensioners will have the money when the weather is starting to get cold, and will not have to worry about turning up the heating this winter.
    What pensioners must realise is that, were the Tories to return to office, that £200 would be taken away. It is benefit-free and tax-free. However, 2.5 million people who either do not receive the pension or do not receive the full pension will lose out as a result of the Tories' policy.
    Mr. David Willetts: We will put it on the basic pension.
    Mr. Darling: The House of Commons Library looked at the hon. Gentleman's figures, and said that the best he could claim was that pensioners would be 42p a week
    636
    better off. I am more than happy to stand by what we are doing, in contrast to what the Tories are promising to take away from pensioners.
    Sir David Madel: Why are women who reached the age of 60 last month unable to receive the winter fuel allowance this winter?
    Mr. Darling: Because, as with many other provisions, there has to be a qualifying date. Otherwise, it would not be possible to ensure that all the payments were made. There has always been a qualifying date; nothing has changed this year.
    Gillian Merron: Can the Secretary of State confirm that the new £200 winter fuel payment will be payable to men aged 60 to 64? Is he aware of the importance of his assurance to constituents of mine such as Mr. Hutchings, who has rightly campaigned for prompt payment of the benefit to those in his age group? There is no doubt that men aged 60 to 64 would lose out following the implementation of Tory plans to axe the benefit and replace it with absolutely nothing.
    Mr. Darling:: My hon. Friend is right. We have received more than 1 million claims from men aged between 60 and 65; 990,000 have been met, while about 3 per cent. have yet to be processed but will be met shortly.
    The hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) shouted that men aged between 60 and 65 would receive the money in their pensions. They will not, because they are not retired. They will lose £200 as a result of the Tory policy.

    Ageism
    Mr. Paul Burstow: What contribution he made concerning age discrimination in his capacity as Minister with responsibility for older people to the framing of the European Union directive on discrimination in employment. [136112]
    The Minister of State, Department of Social Security (Mr. Jeff Rooker): We have worked closely with colleagues in the Department for Education and Employment throughout negotiations on the EU directive to ensure that the final text provides a clear and workable foundation on which all member states can base their legislation.
    Mr. Burstow: Can the Minister confirm that the Government backed a six-year delay in implementation of the age discrimination aspects of the directive? Does he agree that it is very much a case of cold comfort for 50-year-olds who face discrimination now to be told that they must wait until they are 56? Will the Minister and his colleagues take steps towards legislating to implement the measures that are necessary to protect people from age discrimination now, rather than waiting for another six years?
    Mr. Rooker: I understand why the hon. Gentleman has raised the issue, but I remind him that the European directive is not just about age discrimination. In any event, measures could not be introduced overnight.

    637
    The directive affects discrimination on the grounds of disability, age, religion or belief, and sexual orientation, so implementation will have a significant impact on the UK and other member states. We have allowed six years to consult on the implications of the directive and introduce it. Before the hon. Gentleman does down this country, I might add that the only countries in Europe that are ahead of the UK in employing over-50s are Sweden, Denmark and Portugal. We are therefore the fourth biggest employer of over-50s in the European Union.
    Mr. Dafydd Wigley: Does the Minister accept that one group suffers a triple discrimination—namely, older people who are disabled and on social security? In the context of the new European initiatives, will he look at speeding things up to try and ensure that there is no inbuilt discrimination within the system, as referred to in last week's statement? That would enable any changes in policy to be introduced quickly instead of waiting for the European directive.
    Mr. Rooker: I entirely agree with the right hon. Gentleman. First, six years is allowed to do everything in the directive, but much can be done in less than six years. Secondly, regarding age discrimination in employment, as opposed to other aspects that I have talked about, we have introduced a voluntary code of practice. We want that to work and will meet employers tomorrow and listen to the issues that they want to raise. We have already said that if the code does not work, we shall take other measures, as we are not going to let the idea wither. We are attempting a voluntary approach to start with, but if that fails, we shall look at other approaches.
    Mr. John Bercow: In anticipation of the possible—indeed, likely—passage of the directive, what review has the Department undertaken of its own employment practices?
    Mr. Rooker: Tied in with the directive is the publication of "Winning the Generation Game" by the performance and innovation unit, which relates to older people right across the board. Departments must certainly look at ensuring that they set an example. It is no good Ministers telling industry to do certain things if we do not take action in our own Departments. My Department is taking a lead in allowing people to work beyond 60, and I want that to be extended across Government. Some Departments have yet to resolve certain issues—such as the Home Office, which must deal with a cut-off point that applies to some members of the prison service but not others.
    We must justify our actions before forcing people to retire early. There must be good grounds for that, and we must not simply say, "This is how it has always been". That is not sufficient.

    Fraud
    Mr. Andrew Robathan: What recent assessment he has made of the amount of money fraudulently obtained from the benefits system since 1997; and if he will make a statement. [136113]
    Mr. John Randall: If he will make a statement on the amount of benefit fraud since May 1997. [136122]
    The Minister of State, Department of Social Security (Mr. Jeff Rooker): The estimated loss due to fraud is £2 billion per year. That figure refers to the fraud we know about. We have now increased the targets for reducing the amount of fraud and error in the system. We are aiming to reduce the losses from fraud and error in income support and jobseeker's allowance—the two most vulnerable benefits—by 25 per cent. by March 2004, and by 50 per cent. by March 2006.
    Mr. Robathan: Despite all the rhetoric, according to a study by the Department, which was revealed in The Sunday Times in May, the cost of fraud in benefit may be as high as £7 billion—although, according to the Public Accounts Committee, it is £4 billion. Will the Minister confirm that, under the Labour Government, successful prosecutions for housing benefit fraud have halved since May 1997? Will he also confirm that, according to figures that he released to the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field), there are about 20 million more insurance numbers than there are people in this country?
    Mr. Rooker: May I deal with the last point first, as it is part of a myth? There are indeed more national insurance numbers on the system than people in this country, and a good example will suffice for hon. Members to understand why that is so. To pay a widow's pension based on her husband's contributions, we need to maintain the national insurance number for the deceased. We must also maintain numbers for people who leave the country, because we do not know whether they will come back. There is an extensive programme for managing the national insurance number system because, clearly, there can be problems with it. However, the system is not operated willy-nilly and it is not right to say that, because there are more numbers than people in the country, 20 million of them are open to fraud.
    I dispute the point. What I said was: "fraud we know about". By definition, we cannot count the exact amount. There are estimates given—the hon. Gentleman has given the PAC's estimate, and the higher figure that appeared in a newspaper report this year—but may I explain? Changes that we have made in income support alone since 1997 will save £1 billion in this Parliament. One in three payments of income support was made in error when we came in, so we can save £1 billion.
    There is now much more cross-checking than ever before of Department of Social Security records with other Government records—I have said it before at the Dispatch Box—for data-matching purposes, to find out where people are on the fiddle. So far, we have saved £150 million. We will soon cross-check benefit and tax records to flush out benefit cheats in the building industry.
    We have continued the prosecution policy. There are some 200 prosecutions a week in respect of the Benefits Agency. I make a final point as an example. By March 2001, specialist identity checks will be introduced

    639
    nationally. Those have been piloted in the Balham area of London since June 1997. The pilot projects alone have led to more than 200 arrests.
    Mr. Randall: How many initiatives does the Minister think his Department has launched to cut fraud since the Government came to power in 1997?
    Mr. Rooker: I would not dream of counting them. The main one is to get a strategy for dealing with fraud—that is, to get the benefit right, paid to the right person and maintained properly in the system. If we do not do that, it gets out of control. Therefore, we have taken that strategic step.
    All the other measures relate to a myriad different benefits, some means-tested, some contributory—we must still watch fraud on those—and others are neither; those include disability benefits. We must have action on that. We have strengthened the fraud investigator's powers. As time permits in the House, we will take steps at an early opportunity, for example, to introduce measures relating to those who have defrauded the Benefits Agency twice—two strikes and they are out of benefit.
    Mr. Tam Dalyell: Is it not a generalised truth that rumour, hearsay and sometimes malice exaggerate the amount of fraud?
    Mr. Rooker: The answer is yes, but we must accept that we pay in benefits a total of £2 billion a week—dozens of benefits to millions of people. For example, we issue 1 million order books a week. Our system is under attack by organised crime—organised criminals. I am not on about someone who is working and claiming, although I am not condoning that. I am on about organised crime.
    We have measures to deal with that. There are attempts at multi-million pound scams on our benefit system, so we have to take steps. One of them, which has been suggested many times in the House as a step towards stopping that, will be the payment of benefits via credit transfer to stop fraud on instruments of payment: the benefit books, which are thieved, manipulated and changed so that the public are defrauded. So we must take the matter seriously; but we must also accept that there is rumour, and malice on the part of people who want to undermine the system.
    Mr. Jim Cousins: Protection against fraud is extremely important—the Minister is right to point that out—but so too is common humanity. I have in my hand a letter to one of my constituents who was declared dead while living in a homeless persons hostel. His income support was stopped, his housing benefit was stopped and his community care resettlement grant was stopped. He was not dead, however. As a result of an anti-fraud protection measure, he now finds himself living in a council flat in my constituency without the benefit of his community care resettlement grant of only £285; and it cannot be reissued to him for a further six weeks.
    640
    Later this afternoon, I will contact the Department of Social Security in Newcastle upon Tyne about the matter. I hope that I have the Minister's support in saying that such an anti-fraud measure does not display common humanity and must be corrected.
    Mr. Rooker: Clearly, a gross error has occurred. I hope that my hon. Friend is not going to wait to contact Newcastle, but will give me the information immediately after Question Time.
    Mr. Eric Pickles: The Minister of State has just said, to use his exact words, that he is concerned about stopping people "on the fiddle" in relation to benefits. He has also talked about the need to tackle organised crime, and for co-operation between various Departments and agencies. Can he therefore explain the extraordinary guidelines given to the Department's staff telling them not to supply information to police in cases involving car theft, muggings or burglary? Does he realise that the Department's guidelines suggest that those are minor crimes and that it is more important to protect customer records? Is he surprised, therefore, that Mr. Glen Smyth of the Police Federation has described the new guidelines as a "criminals' charter"?
    The guidelines are not the best way to start an anti-fraud strategy—which, as we have already had 42 initiatives, must be the 43rd. Will the Minister take this opportunity to repudiate the new guidelines and to issue instructions for them to be torn up?
    Mr. Rooker: They are not new guidelines—they are exactly the same as those issued by the previous Government. Nothing has changed whatsoever, except that the Police Federation has an axe to grind. I do not know what number initiative we are on now—
    Mr. Pickles: It is 43.
    Mr. Rooker: Then let us have 44 initiatives. We are taking the issue so seriously that senior staff in my Department are being joined by the former head of investigations at Customs and Excise and by the former deputy director of MI5.
    Ms Rosie Winterton: Are not some of the worst examples of benefit fraud committed by predatory private landlords who exploit some of the most vulnerable and poorest members of our society and milk the benefits system for all it is worth? What action is my right hon. Friend taking to improve the benefit system, so that not only is better housing provided, but fraud by those latter-day Rachman landlords is cut?
    Mr. Rooker: We have—at the risk of adding to the number of initiatives—a verification framework to ensure that those who are claiming housing benefit are who they claim to be; that they have legitimate reasons for giving the address that they give; and that there is no collusion with landlords to fiddle the rent amount. We have also provided local authorities with remote access terminals so that they can cross-check with the Benefits Agency on the matters that have to be checked. We have also set up the Royal Mail "do not redirect" service, as a way of stopping giro drops. Although I know even from my own

    641
    constituency that there have been complaints about how those measures have slowed down claims, they are a way of cutting fraud.
    Some landlords and other people are willing to exploit the system. Sometimes landlords collude with tenants. We have to take the action we can to get those people out of the system and to prosecute when possible.

    Pension Funds
    Mr. Graham Brady: If he will estimate the amount which a person retiring would need to have invested in a pension fund in order to be better off than a person retiring on the basic state pension. [136114]
    The Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Alistair Darling): Building on the basic state pension, people can contribute to the state second pension, or to an occupational, stakeholder or personal pension. Under the pension credit, no matter how much people save, they will be better off.
    Mr. Brady: I note that the Secretary of State avoided answering the question and was not prepared to say how much someone needs to have in a pension fund to be better off. The accurate answer—as he will know if he has read the excellent briefing note prepared by the Conservative research department—is about £100,000. If he doubts that figure, he could provide his own.
    People now know that they have to have a very significant sum in a pension fund to be better off than if they had saved nothing. That is why the savings ratio has declined by 70 per cent. since the Government have been in office. Cannot the Secretary of State understand the long-term damage that he is doing to people's long-term behaviour by discouraging savings and deterring people from making proper provision for their future?
    Mr. Darling: I had of course looked at the Conservative party briefing, and the hon. Gentleman's question was all too predictable.
    Mr. Brady: What is the right hon. Gentleman's figure?
    Mr. Darling: I remind the hon. Gentleman what he asked: how much someone would have to save to be better off than someone retiring on the basic state pension. Everyone in this country who contributes gets the basic state pension. The point that I was making is that, under the system we have introduced, if someone saves a pound more than that, they will receive a credit for having done so.
    On the savings ratio, the amount of money going into funded, personal and occupational pensions last year was £25 billion—the highest ever, and much higher than when the Conservatives were in office. The only reason for anyone to be concerned about the basic state pension is the prospect of the Tories getting in. The Tories are beginning the process of scrapping the basic state pension and want everyone under 30 to opt out of it. The hon. Gentleman is right; under the Tories, people would have to save because they would not have even the basic state
    642
    pension. I believe that a mix of basic state pension and second pension is the best way of making sure that people can retire on a secure and decent pension.
    Ms Oona King: Does my right hon. Friend share my amazement that the only thing the Tory Front-Bench spokesmen could say last week about the proposals to reward pensioners who save—whether in a pension fund or otherwise—was that the proposals would put strain on the tax system? What about the strain on pensioners for all these years? Will he confirm that when the pension credit is introduced, a pensioner on the basic state pension who has saved and has an income of about £20 a week from those savings is likely to receive an extra credit of £12 a week as a reward for saving?
    Mr. Darling: I do not know whether we should be amazed or not, but as far as I am aware, the Conservative party is the only organisation that is against the principle that someone who saves ought to be rewarded and not punished for it. The Conservatives have made that abundantly clear—not just today, but in their helpful briefing, which I am more than happy to circulate among my hon. Friends so that they can better see exactly what they are up against. The briefing makes it abundantly clear that the Conservatives are opposed to a credit which will mean that people with an income of under £135 will be better off if they save. Surely it must be right that the social security system rewards thrift and does not punish it.
    Mrs. Jacqui Lait: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider future pensioners? Is he aware that last week's pre-Budget statement will lead to a shortage of gilts in the market and hence a bad deal for people with defined contribution pension schemes? Is he aware that the delay on the Myners report until after the election, because it is too difficult, is a bad deal for people with occupational pension schemes? Is he further aware that the increase in the minimum income guarantee means that a man aged 45 will now have to save £50 to £55 a month in a stakeholder pension to do better than the minimum income guarantee? Does he agree that the Government have created a hat-trick of disincentives for future pensioners to save?
    Mr. Darling: I am beginning to wonder whether Conservative party spokesmen have actually read the consultation paper on the credit, because the principle is clear—for every pound someone saves, they will get a cash reward. Under the system that the Tories want, people will be punished for saving. Under the present system, people who have too much money in the bank or who get a small occupational pension lose out. Under our proposals, 5.5 million pensioners will gain as a result of the credit. If those people vote Conservative, they will lose out.
    On the Myners report, the hon. Lady must be aware that opinion as to what should be done in terms of the minimum funding requirement is divided. No clear view is emerging, other than the fact that the present system is not working. We are consulting at the moment, with a view to putting in place another reform: a review which is long overdue and to which the Conservative party has contributed not very much at all.

    Pensioners
    Mr. Ben Chapman: What measures he is taking to help pensioners on low incomes. [136115]
    The Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Alistair Darling): We plan significantly to increase the minimum income guarantee to £92.15 next year, rising to £100 the year after. In addition, the new pension credit will benefit 5.5 million pensioners on low and moderate earnings.
    Mr. Chapman: Is my right hon. Friend aware that 3,000 pensioners in my constituency will enjoy a substantial boost to their incomes when the minimum income guarantee is increased in April next year? Does he agree that it is right and proper that we focus our attention first on those pensioners who need help most? Does he further agree that if we are not to return to the pensioner poverty that we inherited from the previous Government, we need to review the minimum income guarantee in future years?
    Mr. Darling: My hon. Friend is right. Two structural reforms were necessary to the present pension system. One was to make sure that we got rid of pensioner poverty once and for all. The only way the pensioner poverty that grew up over the past 20 years can be eradicated—is to give far more than a prices—or indeed an earnings—link to the poorest pensioners, and we are doing that by some £20 a week
    In addition, it was necessary to remove the fundamental flaw in the social security system that we inherited. Under the present system, if people save they are punished for it. Under the pension credit, some 5.5 million households will gain because of their thrift and foresight, and I think that most people will bear that in mind when they go to the polls, whenever the election is held.
    Mr. David Crausby: Is my right hon. Friend aware that over the three years since 1997 the poorest pensioners have received an additional £24.35 a week—or will do eventually—compared with a starting point of £67.80, a sum accumulated over the entire history of pensions provision, including the 18 miserable years of the previous Government?
    Mr. Darling: As I said earlier, during the course of this Parliament we will have done more for Britain's pensioners in five years than the Conservatives did in the 18 years they were in power. That is why I suspect that, when it comes to the election, the British people will look at what the Tories are planning. They want to take away the winter fuel payment of £200, the free television licences and the Christmas bonus, which are benefit-free and tax-free, and then try and con people into believing that they will be better off if those payments are given back to them. The fact is that some 2.5 million people will lose out from those measures; and when they look at the longer-term plans they will find it odd that the Conservative party is the only organisation in the country that wants to keep a rotten system under which people
    644
    who saved were punished for it. We want to ensure that 5.5 million people who have saved for their retirement are rewarded for their thrift.
    Mr. Christopher Fraser: Does the Secretary of State agree with Baroness Castle that Conservative pension plans which consolidate Labour's pension gimmicks and give the money back as a decent rise on the basic state pension are "an absolute vote winner"?
    Mr. Darling: As I have told the hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts), when Conservatives pray in aid Lady Castle they are desperate indeed. The British people know that the Government have done more for pensioners in the past four years than the Conservative party did in the 18 years before that. I do not think that Lady Castle or anyone else is likely to support a party that is pledged to taking £200 off every pensioner household as well as taking away the free television licence for the over-75s and the Christmas bonus. People are in no doubt that if they vote for the Conservative party, in the long term they will lose out and be worse off.

    Social Fund
    Mr. Hilary Benn: If he will make a statement on the resources available to the social fund.[136116].
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Angela Eagle): This year the discretionary social fund budget is based on £138 million of new money being paid into the fund. This, together with expected loan repayments of £458 million, provides a gross discretionary budget of £596 million.
    Mr. Benn: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that reply. As she will be aware, it is the discretionary social fund to which poor people in desperate circumstances turn to buy a bed, some furniture, a cooker or other household essentials. What would be the effect on those people of a £90 million reduction in the funds available to the social fund, which I understand to be Conservative party policy?
    Angela Eagle: My hon. Friend is right to point out that this £90 million raid would decimate the fund. It would wipe out the entire grants budget, if that is where it was taken from, and hit the most vulnerable the hardest. In other words, it is a typical Tory policy.

    Carers
    Helen Jones: What steps he is taking to improve provision for carers. [136118]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Hugh Bayley): We recently announced a broad package of measures to improve financial support for carers. We intend to increase the carer premium in the income-related benefits by £10 on top of inflation, to increase the earnings limit in invalid care allowance from the current £50 to the lower earnings limit—currently £67—to allow ICA to continue for up to eight weeks after the death of the person being cared for,

    645
    and to allow claims for ICA to be made by people aged 65 and over. We will be seeking to introduce these changes as soon as the legislative timetable permits.
    Helen Jones: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that reply. Carers in my constituency will certainly be pleased that their valuable work is being recognised at last, but will he assure me and the House that carers will benefit from the increase in the carer premium and that it will not be clawed back in reduced housing benefit or council tax benefit?
    Mr. Bayley: I can give my hon. Friend that assurance. I, too, have heard carers welcome the changes. They were warmly welcomed at the annual general meeting of the Carers National Association. The chief executive of the association assured me that it gave him "great pleasure" to welcome the announcement last week, which would boost carers benefits. The measures provide a sensible balance between targeting support on those most in need and giving those who are able to work the opportunity to continue to do so. The changes will benefit 300,000 carers at a cost of about £500 million over three years.

Opposition Day
[20TH ALLOTTED DAY]
Opposition Day

  London Underground (Public-Private Partnership)
  [Relevant Documents: the Seventh Report from the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs Committee, Session 1997–98 on London Underground, HC715-I, and the Government's response thereto, Cm4093; and the Fourteenth Report from the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs Committee, Session 1999–2000, on the Funding of London Underground, HC411, and the Government's Response thereto, Cm4877.]
  Mr. Speaker: We now come to the first debate on the Opposition motions. I have selected the Government amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.
  Mr. Eric Forth: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I do not know whether you can delay the debate until the Secretary of State arrives, or if you have been made aware that yet again, the Secretary of State will not attend the debate. Can you advise us on what we have to do to get him to come to the House, participate in such debates and account for the actions of his Department? So far we have completely failed to do that.
  Mr. Speaker: The important thing is that the right hon. Gentleman and I are here, so we can carry on.
  Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker.
  Mr. Speaker: Order. It was not a point of order. Does the hon. Gentleman have a point of order to make?
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: Mr. Speaker, I think that it should be drawn to your attention that, following the privatisation of British Rail in the 1990s and the disasters on today's rail network, many Members have great difficulty getting to the House of Commons. People are making all sorts of arrangements throughout the country to get to Parliament. Some of us have to get up at 4 or 5 o'clock in the morning simply to get here. That is why some Members are not here.
  Mr. Speaker: That is not a point of order.
  Mr. John Bercow: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the acute embarrassment caused to the Government during the weekend by the leaking of the detailed note of the Cabinet meeting in June 1997 regarding the millennium dome, have you received any request from the Prime Minister to come to the House and share his embarrassment with us?
  Mr. Speaker: That is not a point of order. I call Mr. Jenkin to move the motion.
  3.33 pm
  Mr. Bernard Jenkin: I beg to move,
  That this House notes the widespread concern about the viability of the Government's public private partnership proposed for London Underground; further notes that the Government has established Transport for London, which is answerable to Londoners, and whose Director, Mr. Robert Kiley, has a proven track record of modernising the New York subway system and who will take on responsibility for London Underground in due course; deplores the failure of Ministers to include Mr. Kiley and Transport for London in any meaningful consultations about the contracts under negotiation; condemns the Government's lack of openness with Londoners and their representatives about the bidding process; and urges the Government to work with Mr. Kiley and Transport for London with an open mind about what is best for London Underground and for Londoners.
  Perhaps it is unusual that an Opposition motion does not blame the Government for a crisis but seeks to forestall one. The motion is not about Labour's poor track record on tube investment so far. We have debated that before, and I invite the Minister to leave aside that part of his speech and, as a courtesy to the House, to deal with the motion that we have tabled. The debate is not about the merits of one proposal for the tube over another. Nor is it even about whether the public-private partnership is a good or a bad thing.
  Mr. Geraint Davies: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Jenkin: The motion is about how the Government are conducting themselves in relation to the elected representatives of Londoners and Transport for London—a body that the Government established. The motion is not about which scheme for the tube may be the best or worst option. It is about whether the Government are so blinded by their political prejudices against the Mayor of London—I am glad to see the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) in his place—who so humiliated them in the London elections that they are making themselves incapable of rational judgment.
  Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: The hon. Gentleman says that the motion is not about privatisation. Given that decisions on that matter will affect the future of the underground, why is it not about privatisation?
  Mr. Jenkin: I am inviting the House to give its opinion on a motion about how the Government should conduct themselves in relation to Transport for London as regards the PPP, or whatever other scheme eventually goes ahead. The Transport Sub-Committee of the Select Committee on the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs, which the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) chairs, has already passed judgment on these matters, describing the PPP as a "convoluted compromise", and I hope that she would welcome input from someone such as Mr. Kiley—input that we invite the Government to accept.
  Mr. Davies rose—
  Mr.Jenkin: The Government are pursuing the London Underground PPP without proper consideration of the full range of alternatives and without proper consultation with Londoners and their representatives. They are acting

  649
  without any semblance of objectivity or accountability. To cap it all, the driving force behind the scheme, and the man more closely identified with the PPP than any other Minister, will not come to the House of Commons to discuss it.
  I have great affection for the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, the hon. Member for Streatham (Mr. Hill), and it is always a pleasure to tangle with him on the Floor of the House or in Committee. I must say, however, with the greatest of respect for him, that he is not the driving force behind the policy. He is not the dominant influence at the Department. He is not the organ grinder—although my respect and affection for him prevent me from continuing with that metaphor.
  The failure of the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions to appear at the Dispatch Box is not just a snub to the House of Commons; it is a snub to the British people, to Londoners and to their elected representatives. Why is he not here? Where is he? Despite the point of order raised a few moments ago by the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours), I do not think that the Secretary of State has had any difficulty reaching his office today, and it is a few hundred yards from this place. He could easily be here.
  The botched privatisation of the tube is the Secretary of State's baby. He is the Minister forcing the scheme on Londoners. He keeps insisting that the PPP is right. He wrote to the Evening Standard last week to say:
  The PPP is the only realistic way in which the long-term investment that the Tube requires can be levered in quickly and efficiently.
  As I shall demonstrate later, that is absolute rubbish. If, however, the Secretary of State has the time to write letters defending his policy to the Evening Standard, and to tangle with its editor and with Mr. Simon Jenkins, who writes for it, why does he not have the courage to explain himself to the people's representatives in Parliament?
  I telephoned the right hon. Gentleman's office before the debate, and was informed that he had chosen to delegate this debate to his junior Minister. What a ludicrous situation.
  If I raised my eyes towards the camera, I should probably be looking at the Secretary of State from the television screen in his office—but he cannot be bothered to come to the House to explain his policies. The man responsible for the policy will not debate it in the proper place and in the proper way.
  This is not the first time that the Deputy Prime Minister has ducked the challenge of the House. Ten days ago he declined to show up for a debate on the September fuel crisis, when my hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mr. Norman) challenged him about a major plank of Government policy. The right hon. Gentleman ducked that challenge as he does this one. He will duck the challenge again on Wednesday when we debate the privatisation of National Air Traffic Services.
  That is odd, because only a fortnight ago, he told the House that
  I am constantly available to discuss such matters either in statements or other debates … There are many matters that I am prepared to debate, and I commonly come to the House.[Official Report,24 October 2000; Vol. 355. c. 150.]
  650
  Where is the right hon. Gentleman commonly now? That simpering protestation says it all. The Deputy Prime Minister has lost his grip on the policy issues; he has lost his nerve, and it will only be a matter of time before he loses his office, his salary, his grace-and-favour houses, his red boxes and his chauffeur-driven Jaguar.
  Dr. Stephen Ladyman: May I turn the question back to the hon. Gentleman? Is the reason why the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mr. Norman) does not lead debates for the Opposition on railway-related matters that, as a non-executive director of Railtrack from the day that it was privatised until the past 12 months, he is culpable for most of the disasters on the railways?
  Mr. Jenkin: That type of desperate intervention does more to discredit the Government's position than anything else.
  Mr. John Wilkinson: The Deputy Prime Minister's failure to turn up shows a wider failure of the Government, in that at business questions, I asked the Leader of the House to tell the right hon. Gentleman how imperative it was that he should exercise his responsibility as Secretary of State by attending the House for this debate. The right hon. Lady is in dereliction of her duty by not ensuring that the House is addressed by the appropriate Minister.
  Mr. Jenkin: My hon. Friend is right. That point shows that the Government—and especially the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions—are constantly running for cover.
  I shall deal with the key elements of our motion, as I hope that the Under-Secretary of State will address the motion rather than the Prime Minister's amendment, which is a distraction from the issues that we want to raise.
  There are widespread concerns about the public-private partnership—first, over value for money. The Industrial Society has produced a report, under the executive chairmanship of Will Hutton. He is no great friend of the Conservative party—rather, he is a new Labour guru—nor does he appear to be a friend of the PPP. Yet on value for money, the report states:
  It became clearer to us while gathering and assessing evidence that much of the anticipated efficiency gains are just that: probable rather than certain expectations … The issue is whether this initial step-change in improvement is value for money … We think there are good reasons to believe that the PPP, as currently structured, overly favours the Infracos—
  that is, the infrastructure companies—
  in terms of the distribution of risk and reward … The Infracos have an incentive to "hold up" important investment until they get paid more … The PPP proponents claim that they have designed contracts to take into account all these problems, which can be surmounted if there is genuine partnership. But that is to ignore the lessons of both theory and practice.
  What about the value-for-money aspects raised by Chantrey Vellacot DFK? Maurice Fitzpatrick, its head of economics, concludes:
  The Government needs to rethink its strategy. If it does not, it will never be able to persuade taxpayers that PPP represents best value for money … we have published figures suggesting that the additional cost of PPP (as compared to purchasing the assets directly) is equivalent to a 30 per cent. hike in fares.

  651
  Why is the Secretary of State not here to debate that point?
  There has also been a failure to assess alternatives to the PPP. We are constantly given the refrain from a previous era that there is no alternative—an unlikely phrase from a member of the present Government. However, the Hutton report points out:
  The range of possibilities in theory extends from wholesale privatisation of LUL under a regulator to retention of the Underground in public ownership as an integrated system but offering it an autonomous capacity to finance itself by issuing its own bonds.
  There are many options and the report adds that the only constraint on them is the
  Government's manifesto commitment to retain a publicly owned and publicly accountable Underground system.
  Professor Stephen Glaister points out that alternatives exist even given that constraint, which we reject. He has written:
  There are two alternatives to PPP. One is to simply keep the tube under the direct control of central government. This could have been accepted without more ado from the beginning. A much more sensible alternative would be to pass it to the mayor and leave him to decide how to pay for investment.
  There are plenty of alternatives that the Government have failed to assess.
  Complexity and fragmentation have already caused concern.
  Mr. Geraint Davies rose—
  Mr. Jenkin: I shall finally give way to the hon. Gentleman. I do not think that he has much original to say, but it will be fun to listen to it.
  Mr. Davies: In running through the apparently logical options for management and corporate governance that are available to the Government, the hon. Gentleman has not once mentioned privatisation as a conceivable option. Is that the level of conviction that Conservative Members now have about privatisation? Because of the failure of privatisation, he does not even mention it.
  Mr. Jenkin: The Government whom the hon. Gentleman supports have gone in for a fair amount of privatisation, and the PPP is a form of botched privatisation. We have assessed every case for privatisation on its merits and against all the alternatives, and we have not rejected it in this instance. We keep an open mind. It is the Government's failure to keep an open mind on their PPP that is forcing them into terrible mistakes.
  Mr. Eric Martlew: Does the hon. Gentleman think that the privatisation of Railtrack has been a success?
  Mr. Jenkin: I am sorely tempted to embark on a debate about the privatisation of Railtrack—but you, Mr. Speaker, might suggest that that is not a subject for today's debate. However, if the hon. Gentleman can persuade the Government's business managers to hold a debate about the railways, we shall be delighted, because we think that this Government have a rotten record.
  652
  Complexity and fragmentation have caused concern, and the Select Committee on the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs has already called the PPP a convoluted compromise. Mr. Bob Kiley also has doubts whether the PPP will work. He says:
  It could prove a physical or human impossibility on a system that is a much more intensive operation than a national railway, with trains every 90 seconds.
  Perhaps Ministers should listen to his argument.
  Ms Diane Abbott: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that whatever the merits of his case, Members will do well to take the debate on the PPP seriously? If the Government call it wrong on the PPP, they will pay the price in the forthcoming general election in a swathe of marginals across London.
  Mr. Jenkin: The hon. Lady is absolutely right. As I run through the issues, the only case that I seek to make is that there is widespread concern about the PPP. I make no more claim than that. The Government have their head in the sand if they think that they have all the answers.
  On safety, I refer the Minister to the letter that was leaked from the Health and Safety Executive and reported in The Guardian earlier this year. The headline was "'Safety at risk' in tube sell-off: Leaked memo reveals rail watchdog's concern". The report gave details of safety hazards with potentially serious consequences which had been uncovered in the Deputy Prime Minister's plans partially to privatise the London underground.
  Dr. Ladyman: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Jenkin: I have already given way to the hon. Gentleman.
  The leaked letter in The Guardian was from the principal rail safety inspector, Stanley Hart, who warned of
  a "growing concern" about safety in the partly sold-off tube system that the Deputy Prime Minister wants to bring in next spring.
  It is incumbent on the Government to share their views about the safety issues that have been raised, not least with Transport for London and Mr. Bob Kiley.
  Safety was also raised in the Hutton report. It referred to the leaked letter and
  particular problems thrown up during the shadow running of the PPP.
  It recommended that the HSE should
  invite all interested parties to submit their specific concerns about the PPP's safety regimes. These concerns should form part of the HSE's assessment criteria of the safety regime.
  Has that been done? If so, has it been done in consultation with Transport for London, which will ultimately have responsibility for supervising safety on the privatised London underground? I should add that the Government do, of course, take the advice of the HSE on such matters, as did the previous Government during privatisation of the railways.
  The Government have established the London Mayor, the Greater London Assembly and Transport for London to take responsibility for such issues. The real consideration is that whatever the Government choose

  653
  to do, they will pass responsibility for the consequences of their decisions on to Transport for London. As the Hutton report said:
  It will be the London government which will be ultimately responsible for any system failures, accidents and financial shortfalls—even though it did not negotiate the contracts or initiate the new structure.
  How can the Government proceed without consulting London's government in any way?
  Then there is Mr. Robert Kiley himself. He has exactly the track record and experience that any Minister should be gasping for. I am reminded of when we brought a controversial gentleman over from an American firm to run British Steel on a high salary. He went on to run British Coal. That is the influx of fresh thinking and expertise—at considerable cost—that the London Mayor is entirely right to entice to this country.
  Mr. Kiley is credited with having revived the New York underground system. As chairman of the New York Metropolitan Transportation Authority, he rebuilt the infrastructure of the New York subway and reorganised its management. Mr. Kiley will principally take on responsibility for the operation of the PPP. As Simon Jenkins pointed out in the Evening Standard,
  no sooner does Mr. Kiley arrive in his office than he is stripped of responsibility for stations, track, signals, carriages, tunnels and escalators. All he can do is sell tickets and drive trains … This is quite unlike Mr. Kiley's experience in Boston or New York.
  Mr. Kiley himself is mystified by the PPP. He told the Evening Standard on 6 November:
  I have been trying to figure it out for about five weeks now and still haven't managed it. I have a rule that anything that takes that long to understand is not going to work.
  Perhaps that is why Ministers are reluctant to share their secrets with Mr. Kiley: they fear an alternative point of view.
  The negotiations are being conducted in an atmosphere of cloak-and-dagger secrecy, for no reason other than the Government's political convenience. The Government are on the defensive. The Deputy Prime Minister is deeply insecure about the strength of his arguments, and his judgment has become severely clouded by political considerations. We know that he has fallen out with the hon. Member for Brent, East. Personal animosities appear to be taking precedence over the interests of Londoners.
  Then there is the question of how the Government will go forward. A future Conservative Government would certainly seek to work constructively with Mr. Kiley. We have our own proposals for the London underground—[Interruption.] If the Minister wants to spend this debate discussing our proposals, he would be missing the point that many of his hon. Friends will be seeking to raise with him. The Government have varying proposals; there are plenty of others out there. We will seek a constructive dialogue with Transport for London about the future of the tube because that is the only common-sense option open to any Government now that that body has been established.
  This should not be about personalities, playing politics or settling old scores. It should be about what is best for London and Londoners. The motion urges the Government to put London first. I therefore commend it to the House.
  3.55 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions(Mr. Keith Hill): I beg to move, To leave out from "House" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
  "welcomes the Government's implementation of its manifesto commitment to create a Public Private Partnership for London Underground which will bring in £8 billion of new investment and up to £5 billion worth of maintenance over the next fifteen years—leading to faster, more reliable journeys and a safer, more attractive Underground of the kind Londoners deserve; supports the doubling of the resources available to the Mayor for transport in London over the next three years; condemns the previous Government's record of under-investment in transport and in particular their erratic investment in London Underground, which left it with a £1.2 billion backlog; and deplores the Official Opposition's plans to privatise London Underground, which will fundamentally undermine public accountability."
  Before I turn to the substance of my speech, I should say that I listened patiently, as is my nature, to the fulminations of the hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) on the absence of the Deputy Prime Minister from the debate. May I modestly—as is also my nature—remind the hon. Gentleman that I am the Minister for London. Indeed, I am the Minister for transport in London. In the many bouts in which the hon. Gentleman and I have engaged in this Chamber, he has so far failed to land even a glancing blow. I suggest that he needs to prove himself at bantamweight before he risks moving up the boxing league table.
  Mr. Jenkin: I certainly grant the hon. Gentleman that he is a harder target than the Deputy Prime Minister, which might be why the right hon. Gentleman is not present today.
  Mr. Hill: The hon. Gentleman may say that; I couldn't possibly comment.
  I am delighted that this debate is taking place. I especially welcome the opportunity to contrast the Government's plans to bring in investment to modernise the tube with the flawed proposals for the railways that were implemented by the Opposition, which we are doing so much to put right, and with their equally flawed privatisation plans for the underground.
  The Opposition's motion calls on the Government to have an "open mind" on the tube. That is a little rich coming from an Opposition whose mind is so closed that they still intend to repeat the mistakes of railway privatisation—not, I am bound to say, that they ever seem eager to let out that information. In September, the Conservative party published its policy statement "Believing in Britain". It was eight pages long but there was not a mention of the Conservatives' plans to sell off the tube, lock, stock and barrel. They may believe in Britain, but they obviously have no faith in their policy for the London underground.
  Extraordinarily, the motion focuses on Robert Kiley, whom I understand the Mayor of London has appointed commissioner of transport for London. The motion begins by expressing concern about the viability of the public-private partnership, so I shall start by explaining not only why the PPP is needed and how we shall ensure that it is viable but why it is essential to bringing about the improvements to the tube that London so desperately needs.

  655
  When this Government came to power in 1997, the tube had suffered from year on year of Tory under-investment—including under the Greater London council—which had left it in a dilapidated state, with a massive backlog of investment. The Opposition's spending plans, which would have seen investment falling to £161 million last year and to zero this year, would have ensured that that backlog grew still further, resulting in an even greater decline in the service for long-suffering Londoners.
  In March 1998, we announced an additional £365 million of funding for London Transport over and above existing plans. In July 1999, we announced that we were allocating £517 million of additional resources to London Transport over two years to help it deliver real improvements to passengers in the run-up to the PPP. In the Budget this year, we announced that a further £65 million would be allocated to London Underground in 2000–01, plus an additional £40 million to deal with claims on the Jubilee line extension.
  Mr. John Bercow: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Hill: Let me make a little progress on the substance of my argument before I give way to the hon. Gentleman.
  It is clearly impossible to turn around decades of neglect overnight, but London Underground has been able to make some valuable improvements with the extra money. There have been track and tunnel upgrades on the Northern line and a 30 trains per hour service will begin on that line in January; station improvements have been carried out at Waterloo, Paddington, West Ham, Tottenham Hale and elsewhere; the gating of almost the whole network has been completed; new multi-fare ticket machines are being introduced; customer care staff have been introduced at key stations; and 24 kilometres of track have been replaced across the network, including the difficult crossover at Brixton, which was completed on time and to a very tight schedule.
  Even before we took office, however, we knew that the extra money would not be enough to sort out the long-term structural financing problems of the tube. Even with the improvements, London Underground's entire investment was left at the mercy of the annual competition with other worthy causes for funds. We realised that that could not go on, which is why we said in our general election manifesto:
  Labour plans a new public/private partnership to improve the Underground, safeguard its commitment to the public interest and guarantee value for money to taxpayers and passengers.
  That is the commitment that we are honouring.
  Mr. Bercow: Given his enthusiastic trumpet-blowing, how does the Minister explain the fact that the number of regular tube users who regard the tube as poor value for money has more than doubled, from 32 per cent. last year to 65 per cent. this year?
  Mr. Hill: It is because they are suffering from an inadequately invested system. The whole point of my argument is that we need sustained high levels of long-term investment in the tube system to make up for
  656
  decades of neglect and under-investment. Of course the system is creaking at the limits; that is the problem we seek to remedy through the public-private partnership.
  Let me emphasise the differences between the PPP and the privatisation proposed by the Opposition. For a start, the PPP is based on fixed-term contracts, rather than permanent transfers to the private sector, so assets will return to the public sector after they have been upgraded. The PPP retains clear public sector accountability from the outset: it puts Transport for London in charge of the overall planning of the service and ensures that public sector London Underground retains the crucial statutory safety responsibility for the whole network. The Opposition are contemplating breaking up the tube into five groups of lines, then selling them off for ever. Under our proposal, private companies will maintain and upgrade the network for the period of the contract, but public sector London Underground will run the network—the whole network.
  In stark contrast to railway privatisation, there will be no separation between train and track infrastructure maintenance. There will be no equivalent of Railtrack being responsible for track and signalling on the one hand and separate companies being responsible for trains on the other. For each tube line, there will be one company responsible for the maintenance of both trains and infrastructure. In other words, the PPP provides for precisely the sort of integration in maintenance that was so obviously absent in railway privatisation.
  Mr. Jenkin: Will the same companies be responsible for employing drivers, setting timetables and ensuring the flow of income through ticket sales, or will those be the responsibility of a separate company? Would it not be sensible to opt for a totally vertically integrated system on the London underground, rather than a split between operations and infrastructure, as proposed under the PPP?
  Mr. Hill: The companies will, in essence, be responsible for fulfilling contracts for the maintenance and modernisation of infrastructure and rolling stock. The travelling public will be comforted to know that every aspect of the London underground system with which they, as travellers, come into contact is in the hands of public sector London Underground Ltd. There will be no separation in responsibility for operating the system. There will be no equivalent of Railtrack operating the signals and a totally different company running the trains. London Underground will retain responsibility for all operational matters—from changing signals to driving trains to staffing stations—so it will be a much more unified system.
  Of course, we will go ahead with the PPP only if it is demonstrably the best option. Specifically, that means that the PPP must pass two crucial tests.
  Mr. Jenkin: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Hill: No, I have given way to the hon. Gentleman already and I must make progress. If he behaves himself, I will look upon him favourably in the future.
  The first of the two crucial tests that the PPP must pass is on safety. As I said, the safety regime for the PPP retains a structure where primary statutory responsibility for the safety of the whole network remains with public sector London Underground.

  657
  While I am on the subject of safety, I take this opportunity to scotch the claim made by some hon. Members—we heard it in last week's debate—that the Industrial Society's report on the PPP claimed that our proposals might harm safety. Quite the reverse is the case. The report states:
  The Review does not subscribe to the argument that the PPP structure is inherently unsafe and it recognises the special effort made by Government in ensuring that safety is managed centrally and rests ultimately in public sector hands.
  On the specific point —
  Mr. Tom Brake rose—
  Ms Abbott rose—
  Mr. Hill: I shall give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) in a moment.
  On the specific point raised by the hon. Member for North Essex about the response to the Industrial Society's recommendation that the Health and Safety Executive invite all parties to submit concerns about PPP safety, let me reassure him that the HSE is in discussion with London Underground about the best manner in which third parties' views can be sought.
  Mr. Brake: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Hill: No. I said that I would give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington.
  Ms Abbott: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. He said, quite correctly, that the statutory duty in relation to safety would remain with London Underground, but is he confident that London Underground will in practice have sufficient means to enforce sanctions in relation to safety? The ultimate sanction would be the removal of a contract. Does he think that it would ever be realistic for London Underground to do that?
  Mr. Hill: Of course, my hon. Friend is right that that constitutes the ultimate sanction. However, the guiding hand on safety on the system at all times will remain that of London Underground, which will monitor safety and maintain close scrutiny of the activities of the infrastructure companies, or infracos. It will be perfectly possible for London Underground to step in and ensure that any necessary action to improve safety is carried out on the spot. As I shall go on to explain, there are clear incentives in the PPP contracts that we are establishing which will encourage not only active moves to improve safety on the part of the infracos, but proactive action on safety issues as part and parcel of the PPP structure.
  I give way to the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Brake).
  Mr. Brake: I thank the Minister for giving way. It may be useful for him to know that on Friday I had a telephone conversation with Will Hutton of the Industrial Society, who confirmed that the PPP could jeopardise safety.
  658
  He said that if the Government implemented the safety measures that were needed to make PPP safe, it would not be value for money.
  Mr. Hill: That is an interesting observation, which I take seriously, but it is not what appears in Mr. Will Hutton's Industrial Society report. Obviously, we must go with the expert judgment of the specialists whom he brought in to write the report. Although they demonstrated no complacency, they were certainly not as alarmist as the reported exchange that the hon. Gentleman presents to the House.
  Mr. Ken Livingstone: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Hill: Of course I shall give way to the Mayor.
  Mr. Livingstone: As the Minister seems so enamoured of Will Hutton's report, will he give the House an undertaking to make in their entirety the changes to the PPP that Will Hutton recommended?
  Mr. Hill: We are looking carefully at the contents of the Industrial Society report, as I shall go on to explain, and we co-operated fully with the society in its preparation. Officials in the Department have subsequently held discussions with the specialists who produced it, and we are responsive to all the many positive suggestions that it contains. It is a good report and I recommend that hon. Members read it—especially the hon. Member for North Essex, who palpably has not done so.
  Mr. Jenkin: The Hutton report refers to particular safety problems thrown up during the shadow running of the PPP. It states:
  These are important concerns, and arise directly from the new structure and the multiplicity of companies who will be working on the Underground.
  I beg the Minister, lest hon. Members misunderstand him, to explain that the people who will manage the tracks and signals will be employed by different companies from those that employ the people driving the trains and operating the timetables. In that respect, the plans for the London underground involve the same horizontal fragmentation as those for the privatised railway. I was led to understand that the Government were unhappy about that.
  Mr. Hill: Let me set out the views of the Health and Safety Executive on safety; after all, it is the authoritative and independent body for such matters. The hon. Member for North Essex spoke about management. Essentially, the infrastructure companies are responsible for carrying out long-term contracts for the maintenance and modernisation of the underground. To that extent, they are not responsible in any direct sense for the operation of the system, all of whose moving aspects lie in the hands of the public-sector London Underground under the PPP system. I do not know how often or in how many different ways I must explain that to the hon. Gentleman before it sinks in.
  In order to ensure that safety is maintained and improved, both in the run-up to the PPP and also when it is under way, three sets of changes to London

  659
  Underground's safety case are required. Two of these revised safety cases have already been approved by the Health and Safety Executive and the third is in preparation.
  The transition to the PPP requires the submission and acceptance of that third set of changes to the safety case. The Health and Safety Executive has been closely involved throughout the process. It stated:
  HSE is content with the details of the proposed new structure. In particular, HSE believes that Opsco
  —that is to say, the public sector operating company, London Underground—
  and the Infracos will be incentivised to seek improvements in health and safety as well as maintaining current standards.
  So the theory is sound, the principle is robust and it is already being put into practice.
  Mrs. Dunwoody: As the Government have been considering the effect of an independent safety authority for overland railways, why are not they prepared to provide exactly such a division for underground railways? My hon. Friend will be aware that the whole population has genuine worries about the way in which the overground railways are run, precisely because their safety is not in the hands of an independent authority.
  Mr. Hill: My hon. Friend makes an important and interesting point and I dare say that it will be taken into account as we examine the matter in more detail. She is aware that we are considering these matters all the time, for the future structure. I think that the public are looking for the reassurance that the guiding hand—the overwhelming responsibility for safety in the proposed PPP structure—lies in the public sector with the public sector London Underground.
  London Underground is preparing to satisfy the Health and Safety Executive that its practical arrangements meet the necessary standards before the PPP can go ahead. We have said several times that the PPP will not proceed unless and until the HSE has taken an independent view and has stated that it is satisfied with the revised safety case. We insist that the PPP must make a substantial contribution to improved safety. I see no harm in saying that again.
  The second key test for the PPP is value for money. As the House will be aware, London Transport and its advisers have developed a public sector comparator against which the value for money of the PPP will be judged.
  Usually, such comparators measure the value of bids against traditional, annualised public sector funding. In the case of the PPP, however, we are aware that some people think that there is a better way. They want to issue bonds. They conveniently forget that bonds are just another way of raising debt, and that he who raises the debt carries the risk. In other words, it will be the taxpayer who shoulders the financial risk of cost overruns.
  Those who support the issuing of bonds ignore the fact that bonds would do nothing to bring management efficiencies to the system; that they would introduce a further delay in getting a financing regime in place—perhaps as much as two years—and, as the Industrial Society points out in its report, bonds would not be a realistic prospect without new powers to raise local taxes.
  660
  We do not believe that Londoners want more delay, and we do not think that they want to have new taxes levied on them to pay the bill if there is a major cost overrun. They may be fond of Ken, but they are not that fond.
  Mr. Wilkinson: I am perplexed. Were the electors of London naive to believe that the Labour party was putting a costed and fully evaluated proposal to the electorate of London in its manifesto—that proposal being that "we would move very soon to a public-private partnership?" It now seems clear that the Government have doubts about the safety of the system and that they are also doubtful about cost-effectiveness.
  Mr. Hill: I am used to bizarre interpretations and utterances from the hon. Gentleman as I stand at the Government Dispatch Box, but on this occasion I am bewildered. He has it absolutely wrong. I am attempting—obviously with no success when it comes to the hon. Gentleman—to demonstrate that we are proposing to submit both the proposed safety regime and the proposed best-value aspects of the PPP to independent arbiters. That is exactly what we are doing, and it is exactly what a responsible Government should be doing in all the circumstances.
  We are not dogmatically opposed to bonds, and we would not want to ignore the views of advocates of bonds. So, in addition to testing for value against the usual public sector comparator, we shall also check the bids against raising debt through public sector bonds. We have published the methodology for this comparator, which is being independently audited.
  Most importantly, in August, the National Audit Office—Parliament's own financial watchdog—announced that it would bring forward its scrutiny of the comparator so that it could report on it before contracts are signed. We welcome this step because it will help to ensure that the comparator represents a fair and rigorous test of the value for money of the PPP bids.
  The hurdles that the PPP will have to cross—safety and value for money—are high ones, but ones which we are confident the PPP will overcome. It is those tests, and not political considerations, that will determine whether the PPP goes ahead. Make no mistake—the Government are committed to proceeding with the PPP, as long as the bidders come up with the goods. There is a safety test for the PPP, just as there is a value-for-money test, but there is no Mayor test.
  As I have said, the PPP is a manifesto commitment. The legislation stated that central Government would remain in charge of the tube until the PPP was completed. The best thing that we can do for Londoners is to pass the tube on to the Mayor with a robust financing package already in place. In that legislation, we also included duties of consultation and co-operation so that the transition would be as smooth as possible. London Transport has followed those duties. It has provided the Mayor with copies of the contract, and has consulted him on changes to them. Above and beyond those duties, we and London Transport have supplied information to the Industrial Society for its review of the PPP.
  Contrary to press reports, Mr. Kiley has been provided with material on the PPP, subject to a confidentiality agreement. He has copies of the invitations to tender, the up-to-date contracts and the share purchase agreements,

  661
  and he has also received the highly sensitive public sector comparator for the PPP. We are more than happy to co-operate with Mr. Kiley, and to supply him with further information, subject to our legal obligations on this point.
  We have always made it clear that we must be careful about making available commercially confidential information relating to the bids themselves, which could risk damaging the public sector's position and prevent us from us achieving best value. Anyone who has ever taken part in commercial negotiations knows that one never shows one's hand to the other players while the game is in progress.
  Mr. Jenkin: Do I take it that Mr. Kiley has been given the commercially sensitive information, and that he has been fully apprised of the state of the negotiations? After all, he will be responsible for managing these contracts when they are in place. That is the burden of our complaint. Has the Minister handed over that information?
  Mr. Hill: I shall reiterate what I said a moment ago, as it obviously came as a bit of a shock to the hon. Gentleman. Mr. Kiley has received copies of the up-to-date contracts.
  This may be a unique occasion in parliamentary history. The Opposition have devoted their own precious parliamentary time to a motion whose essence is to demand that Ministers meet a named individual. The Opposition need only have asked to discover that I, and other Ministers, have already met Mr. Kiley and discussed with him the plans for the PPP. We did so with the full blessing and endorsement of my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister. Perhaps the Opposition will now withdraw their motion. One can only assume that they have taken bandwagonitis to a new height. Let us be entirely clear: the Government have no problem with Robert Kiley or with anyone appointed as an employee of Transport for London by the Mayor. We welcome the appointment of a man with his track record.
  The tube has been underfunded for far too long, and Londoners have suffered enough. Passengers do not want to wait longer for improvements to the tube, and I do not see why they should. I want rapid and sustained investment in the tube. The PPP will deliver that, and will give Londoners the improvements they deserve—a safer, cleaner and more efficient service.
  In particular, over time, the PPP will upgrade trains, track and signalling across the network, starting with major overhauls of the Victoria, District and Piccadilly lines. It will make the tube much more reliable by incentivising the infrastructure companies to repair faults that cause delays and speed restrictions. Routine maintenance will not be neglected. The PPP contracts contain a robust asset management regime, which requires the private sector to improve any substandard assets, even if they do not have an immediate impact on safety or performance. That is very different from the national railway regime that we inherited from the Opposition.
  Stations will also get marked improvements. The private sector will be required to modernise almost all tube stations in the first 10 years, and there will be a programme of improvements to reduce congestion and improve accessibility at stations. Already about 20 per cent. of the network is equipped with lifts and ramps for wheelchair access, and the PPP will increase that to almost 50 per cent.
  662
  The Mayor has made it clear that he agrees with those investment priorities. Indeed, his draft transport strategy, which is currently out for consultation, includes the improvements that we expect the PPP to deliver. We can see from his transport strategy that, while the Mayor may say that he does not like the PPP, he certainly likes the improvements that it will bring and the money that goes with it.
  The London Underground PPP is well on course and set to deliver substantial improvements to the system soon. That contrasts with the official Opposition's plans to break the system up and sell it off, and with other proposals based on bond financing.
  We have learned from the mistakes of the dogma-driven programme of the previous Administration. It is a pity that the Opposition have not. We are working hard to put right the mistakes made on the railways, and we have developed this innovative, custom-built solution for the tube. That is the right way forward, and that is why the House should reject the Opposition motion and support the Government's amendment.
  I commend the amendment to the House.
  4.26 pm
  Mr. Tom Brake: I welcome this opportunity for another Opposition debate so soon after the Liberal Democrat debate on privatisation and public-private partnerships.
  The Conservative Opposition are obsessed with this admittedly very important issue. Some boxing analogies have already been drawn today, and I shall give another. The Conservatives resemble a punch-drunk boxer: they have received so many blows to the head in their attempt to defend their privatisation policies that all they can do is to get back into the ring for another pounding.
  Londoners do not trust Tory policies on the tube. They remember the Tories' lethal legacy—outstanding repairs costing £1.2 billion—and the statement that the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young), then Secretary of State for Transport, made to the House that
  we were considering whether we could apply the success of railway privatisation to London Underground.—[Official Report, 13 January 1997; Vol. 288, c. 10.]
  They also remember the understatement of the year, which was made by the hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin), who said:
  We did not do enough for the tube—I would be the first to acknowledge that.—[Official Report, 27 January 1999; Vol. 324, c. 436.]
  I am afraid that that statement does nothing to convince Londoners that the Conservatives have accepted responsibility for the state of the tube.
  The Deputy Prime Minister may have snubbed Londoners today by not attending the debate, but the Tories' privatisation plans for London Underground would inflict the greatest outrage on Londoners. On the other hand, Londoners are not exactly queuing up for the solution offered by the Under-Secretary. They voted decisively against public-private partnership in the Greater London Authority elections. I want to focus almost exclusively on the safety implications of the PPP.
  The Under-Secretary is a nice, jovial chap. In fact, my hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) asked me to be gentle with him today. I can picture myself buying

  663
  him a consolatory drink when his PPP plans go belly up. However, I am afraid to say that joviality is no substitute for straight answers to tough questions. Each debate on the PPP raises a host of questions, all of which, I am afraid to say, remain unanswered by the Under-Secretary.
  Many questions were raised in the most recent debate, on 6 November, to which I hope another Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin), will respond when he sums up. That would finally give us some answers. The first question involved the statement made by the Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for Streatham (Mr. Hill), who said:
  I say that the PPP will not proceed unless and until the HSE has taken an independent view and has stated that it is satisfied with the revised safety case.
  That is all well and good, but when will that happen? When will we be told that the safety case is complete? A second question was raised by the Under-Secretary's statement that
  London Transport and its advisers have been devising a public sector comparator against which the bids for the PPP will be judged.
  Perhaps the other Under-Secretary—the hon. Member for Sunderland, South—or the Mayor, the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone), who is in the Chamber, will say when that will happen. Finally, the hon. Member for Streatham, said that the National Audit Office
  would bring its scrutiny of the comparator forward.
  Much is happening, but there are no precise details about when the process will be completed.
  Last week, the amendment that the hon. Gentleman moved to the Liberal Democrat motion stated that the Government "deplores" the previous Conservative Government's
  incompetent privatisation of the railways which left the network fragmented.
  I could not agree more. Will he therefore answer the question that he did not answer last week: how the Government can guarantee that a similar break-up of London Underground will not lead to an identical breakdown in communications? We did not hear an answer from the Minister last week; perhaps we shall hear one from him this week.
  The biggest question of all is this: if the PPP fails the safety test, or the public sector comparator finds that it does not represent best value for money, what exactly is the Government's fallback position? The cash will run out in the next financial year, and we need an answer from the Minister.
  Mr. Jenkin: The hon. Gentleman has touched on the crux of the issue. The Government are now so politically committed to the PPP, and would suffer such loss of face if it did not proceed, that they cannot afford to allow it to fail against the public sector comparator, for political reasons. Nor can they afford to allow the Mayor to interfere with it. That is the danger of proceeding in the way in which the Government are proceeding.
  Mr. Brake: I entirely agree, but I hope the hon. Gentleman agrees with me that the Government would receive the support of the House if the public sector comparator revealed that the PPP was not the best option, and that there was a better option behind which Members and Londoners would unite.
  664
  I seek an apology from the Minister on the issue of safety. It need not be in writing; he could give it now. He has already raised the matter in relation to the Industrial Society report. In last week's debate I quoted from that report—or, more precisely, from the BBC's report on it—saying that the Government's plans for London Underground
  represent "poor value for money" and could put … safety at risk.—[Official Report, 6 November 2000; Vol. 356, c. 112.]
  The Minister said that I should have read the whole report, and the other Minister, the hon Member for Sunderland, South, also challenged my interpretation.
  As the Minister now knows, on Friday I took the trouble to contact Will Hutton, the chief executive of the Industrial Society, for whom the report was written. He confirmed my understanding: he said that the PPP could—I used the word "could" in last week's debate, and I am using it again now—jeopardise safety, unless the necessary safeguards were provided. He went on to say that providing them would be so expensive, with the PPP structure, that the PPP could no longer represent good value for money.
  If the Minister would like to stand up and apologise for, perhaps, misunderstanding the point that I made last week, I would welcome it. He chooses not to; perhaps he will do it later, in writing.
  Mr. Geraint Davies: The hon. Gentleman mentioned the National Audit Office. I am a member of the Public Accounts Committee. Will the hon. Gentleman accept the verdict of the NAO and the PAC when they have reached their conclusions—which may be in favour of bonds, or may be in favour of the PPP or, indeed, another option—or is he simply driven by ideology and dogma?
  Mr. Brake: I do not think that I am driven by dogma. I shall be happy to look at the NAO report, and to take on board its findings; I only hope that the Minister will be in a position to do the same, and is not being driven by dogma to such an extent that the PPP is the only option that the Government are willing to adopt.
  Concerns about the impact of the PPP on safety should not divert our attention from serious safety worries about the way in which the tube is operating now. Is the Minister aware, for instance, of what appears to be an increasing number of dangerous incidents involving overcrowding on London Underground platforms? I understand that both Lynne Featherstone, a Liberal Democrat member of the Greater London Assembly, and Lady Williams, who speaks for our party in another place, have been personally involved in some scary overcrowding incidents. Some 1,200 passengers have apparently been emptied on to an already nearly full platform when a train has stopped short of its destination. In addition, there are cancellations, station and escalator closures, signalling and equipment failures and poor staff morale. That feeling prevails in London Underground as a result, I am afraid, of the Mayor's indication that he would possibly sack, or threaten to sack, managers in the system. The term "managers" is general and several levels of management in London Underground are concerned about to whom the ruling applies. Does the Minister think that we have reached a point at which we should have an inquiry into the safety of the existing system, let alone into what will happen as a result of the PPP? The Minister

  665
  may be reluctant to answer safety questions—although I hope not—but perhaps he will answer other questions relating to the running of the PPP, if it is ever established.
  Mrs. Dunwoody: There are real problems with London Underground concerning the number of people that it carries and the age of the rolling stock. However, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will emphasise the fact that London Underground maintains a high level of safety. Indeed, the level of safety on the underground is higher than that on the overground railway. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not suggest that people using that overcrowded underground system are put at risk, because that is not in their interest.
  Mr. Brake: I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention and am happy to reassure her that I believe that London Underground runs a safe service compared with alternatives such as overland rail—which she mentioned—or travel by car. However, that does not mean that we should not consider whether there are now sufficient problems for an inquiry to look further into the safety of the system.
  Mr. Bercow: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Brake: No, I should like to make progress, as many other Members wish to speak in our debate. We have already asked the Minister what the fallback position is if the PPP failed. However, what is the fallback position if a contractor fails? Will the Minister confirm that the Mayor will be required to pay significant sums of compensation to contractors whose contracts are withdrawn because they have failed to deliver on their contracts? What impact will that have on his ability to pull the plug on contractors if they are not doing their job? If one of the three companies taking over the two sub-surface lines fails, who will be waiting in the wings? Is the Minister confident that those companies will have the financial clout to survive closures—for example, of the District or Circle lines—if major tunnelling works are required?
  Mr. Livingstone: May I answer the hon. Gentleman's question about what would be done if it became obvious to Transport for London and the Mayor that one of the companies was failing to provide the required level of safety. Technically, in law, one could sack it or kick it off the contract. However, under the form of the contracts, TFL and the Mayor would have to pay the banks that funded the company the entire amount that was lent. The Mayor would have to raise between £1 billion and £3 billion to do that, so that option is not feasible, and we would be stuck with those firms for 30 years.
  Mr. Brake: I thank the hon. Gentleman very much, and I hope that the Minister will respond to that point shortly.
  Finally, I am not about to make a link between the Government's PPP plans and the disaster in Austria. However, as there as not been any other opportunity, this is an appropriate point at which to ask the Minister whether he has had any discussions about tube safety since that tragedy. My researcher spoke to Colin Paton, a train guard present at the Ladbroke Grove train crash, who
  666
  has talked to London Underground about the lack of fire extinguishers on its trains. He was told that they were removed because of vandalism and were not considered necessary because tube trains are not flammable. I believe that the Austrian train was also considered to be non-flammable, so has the Minister thought that it might be appropriate to review very soon the existing arrangements on London Underground to be absolutely certain that the accident in Austria has no implications for the safety of the tube?
  The Minister has been asked many questions both today and in previous debates about the PPP and safety. I hope that, this time, we will extract some answers from him. The Government can no longer hide behind studies, reviews and commercial confidentiality. Londoners need straight answers to difficult questions about the future of the tube. I have heard a Labour Member describe the Government's policy of building more than 100 incinerators as the poll tax with flames. The PPP for London Underground may be the Government's poll tax with wheels.
  4.40 pm
  Mr. Ken Livingstone: I suspect that I had better declare an interest, just to be on the safe side. As Mayor of London, I will inherit the contracts in the next year or so, if they go ahead, and the underground. I also have an interest as a Londoner who uses the underground every day.
  Before people assume that my opposition to the proposal is on an ideological basis, look at the way in which I have conducted myself in my office in the past six months. At every stage, I have tried to do what is best for London, rather than take any particular ideological approach. As I have looked at the issue, the question has been: what is going to work? I have been guided by the thoughts of Chairman Deng Xiaoping, the revered former leader of Communist China, who had a wonderful little saying: "It does not matter whether the cat is black or white as long as it catches the mice."
  When the PPP was first announced, I did not rush to condemn it, as anyone who reads the Hansard for that day will see. I looked to see whether it could be made to work. Clearly, no Mayor is in the position of being able to reject an £8 billion or £15 billion deal when that office's total budget through all the organisations under the Greater London Authority is just over £3 billion a year. However, since then, there have been four major independent academic studies: by the London school of economics, University College London, the Institute for Public Policy Research, which is close to the Government, and Will Hutton's Industrial Society. All have found serious flaws in the PPP proposals.
  London Transport itself conducted an investigation of 15 possible ways of dealing with London Underground over the coming years. PPP was ranked as the 14th most desirable out of the 15. I hear talk about Mr. Kiley being given all that he has asked for, but that report, now several years old, containing no contractual or commercially sensitive information, is still being withheld from me, the elected members of the London Assembly and Mr. Robert Kiley. What on earth can be the reason for withholding that? I hope that, when the Minister replies, he will indicate that he will direct London Underground's existing management to make that available. I see no reason why it should not be available to hon. Members, who have an interest in the issue.

  667
  The problem with the PPP is splitting operational and infrastructural control. We are having the debate because Hatfield has brought home to us the tragic problems that arise when that happens. Gerald Corbett's comments do not need repeating.
  The PPP will inflict a similar fragmentation on the tube. Control over operations and infrastructure will be split. That is accepted by the Government. When we talk about three consortiums and Transport for London—so four players—it does not sound as bad as the way in which British Rail was broken up into 150 units, but each of the consortiums will have to have a contract with Transport for London and the Mayor. Each will have to have contracts with its four or five component firms. Each of the four or five component firms will have contracts with each other.
  Each of the consortiums and the firms within consortiums will have contracts across those consortiums because, in many areas, the track crosses; lines are not completely separate. Additionally, each of the consortiums' component firms will have contracts with their own subcontractors.
  I estimate that, eventually, the number of different players involved in the contracts will be more than the 150 or 160 players who were involved in the break-up of British Rail. I foresee problems with that. If a cracked rail is found, for example, how will responsibility be pinned down between subcontractors, contractors and consortiums? When public safety is at stake, there has to be a clear and immediate line of responsibility. The loss of such responsibility will rumble on as a potential disaster.
  The hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) mentioned the leaked letter from the Health and Safety Executive which stated that, since the start of shadow running, it had lost confidence in London Underground's systems. Let us be clear that the structural break-up of the underground has already happened. Although the underground remains within the public sector, shadow running started in September 1999, and it was completed in April 2000. The underground has now been divided into the bite-size chunks that are necessary for the PPP to proceed.
  Does anyone in London think that the underground is better now than it was one or two years ago? Everyone whom I speak to in London complains that the underground seems daily to be getting worse. Every 16 minutes, there is a breakdown on the system. Sometimes, almost one in six escalators is out of order. No one seriously believes that since the start of shadow running, which is the only test that ordinary members of the public will be able to apply, things have not deteriorated further. We have already broken up the management chain.
  What did the Health and Safety Executive's letter say? It said that London Underground's senior management seemed to have lost control of the lines of communication on safety.
  Mr. Geraint Davies: Does my hon. Friend accept that the primary reason why the service is deteriorating is that ever more people are using the service and that necessary
  668
  investment levels are not being delivered? Is it not a matter more of need for greater investment, with more people using the system, than of structure?
  Mr. Livingstone: I completely reject my hon. Friend's suggestion. I think that the management changes prefiguring PPP are exacerbating the problems of under-investment.
  A quite sinister—although, I am sure, purely innocent—coincidence is that, on 1 November, Stanley Hart, the chief railway safety inspector and author of the leaked letter, was moved from his post, so that he will not be making the final recommendations. I regret that. I hope that, even at this stage, the Government will bring him back. Confidence will be retained only if Stanley Hart signs off on the issue.
  Mr. Kiley is no member of the Militant Tendency, but has a very interesting career path which started in the Central Intelligence Agency. He moved on successfully to the private sector and to running New York's and Boston's transport systems. More recently, he was effectively the managing director of New York's equivalent to London First and the London chamber of commerce.
  On 20 October, we wrote to the Deputy Prime Minister, asking that Mr. Kiley be given all the information on PPP. Mr. Kiley gave a clear undertaking, which I accept, that what he was given would remain confidential. I have not asked that anything that is passed to Mr. Kiley be passed to me.
  Mr. Kiley had meetings with the Under-Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Mr. Hill), and with the Minister for Transport, who indicated that information would be supplied. As of today, however, Mr. Kiley has not received all the information that he has requested, notably the bids from the PPP companies. He has also received no explanation of why those documents have been withheld. It is a ridiculous situation. The advice of a proven transport manager with a record of success is being offered free to the Government, but the Government are not seizing that advice.
  I am specifically reiterating that Mr. Kiley wishes to see, at the earliest possible opportunity, the best and final offers from the consortiums that are due on 20 November. He would also like to see the current public sector comparator, because the copy that he has been given, which is confidential and not available to me, is dated March. By now, I suspect, it has been seriously amended. If that information is given to Mr. Kiley, I shall give a commitment to the House. If Mr. Kiley, having undertaken a full study of those documents, comes back to me and says, "This system will work", I will drop my opposition to PPP.
  However, if Mr. Kiley—acknowledged to be the best mass-transit manager of modern times—says to the Government, "I do not think that this will work. There are safety implications, and financial problems for Londoners", will they accept his advice without reservation? He is a genuinely independent person, and I hope that the Government will make a clear commitment that the information that I have specified will rapidly be made available to him, and that they will be prepared to listen to the advice that he gives them.
  Mr. Richard Ottaway: What is Mr. Kiley's status? Has he been hired to run

  669
  London Underground? Is that a short-term measure? Is he a consultant? What will happen if the Government do not accept his advice and go ahead with the PPP?
  Mr. Livingstone: Mr. Kiley has been appointed commissioner for transport, the senior officer in the whole Transport for London mini-empire. He will be responsible for buses, the Public Carriage Office and the docklands light railway. As soon as the underground is transferred, he will become directly responsible for that as well. His contract has been agreed, and we expect him to sign it on his next visit, this Thursday. I have no doubt that he will sign it: he is desperately keen to be able to turn round transport in this city. Although we have had to pay him a considerable sum, it will be money well spent if he is able to achieve that.
  Mr. Kiley is not a man who flounces away. He is a man who, having had the experience of managing vast projects, may well concentrate the minds of some of the infracos. They may have assumed that they would have to manage with some rather dull and unimaginative public transport official—like the sort of dullards who are currently negotiating the contracts. Given that those people have manifestly failed to run the underground, the idea that we should give them the power to negotiate those contracts with some of the sharpest lawyers on the face of the planet does not fill me with enthusiasm. I do not think that the consortiums are happy, having come up against someone who knows as much about these matters as they do. Perhaps they will not find such easy pickings as they had imagined.
  We should also consider what the public think. I commissioned an opinion poll, the results of which I received this morning, to assist the Government in moving forward. It is interesting because it is no good simply asking questions about the tube. We asked for comparisons between the tube and the overland rail services. At the moment, 46 per cent. of Londoners are satisfied with the service on the underground, and 32 per cent. are dissatisfied, which, given all the problems, is a remarkable figure. On the overground, only 30 per cent. are satisfied, while 36 per cent. are dissatisfied. Anything that moves the management of the underground towards the management of the overground system is not something about which Londoners should be optimistic.
  I asked the polling organisation to ask what Londoners would expect if the PPP went ahead. Nineteen per cent. expected safety to improve, while 42 per cent. expected it to worsen. Sixteen per cent. expected to get value for money, but 47 per cent. did not and expected the system to get worse.
  The Government have not managed to persuade Londoners—whose underground it is, and who have paid for it over the best part of a century—of their case; nor have they persuaded their own supporters. The Greater London Labour party bi-annual conference met last weekend. It was not a conference dominated by my old friends. As the Evening Standard defined it, the Blairite candidate for chair won by 60 per cent. over the pro-Livingstone candidate, who got 40 per cent. So this was a conference under control, except when it discussed the public-private partnership. A motion that in the light of Hatfield, the Government should withdraw the PPP was
  670
  carried so overwhelmingly that a card vote was not required. So not only have the Government not persuaded Londoners, they have not persuaded their own supporters.
  The Prime Minister has often said that we should not fight the battles of the past. Why are we now facing PPP? The Government came to office with two immediate problems. The management of the underground was pretty dire—which is why we are looking forward to a clean-out as soon as I get my hands on it—and the problem of under-investment, for which the Conservative party must take responsibility, had become acute. Yet the Government had bound themselves by a promise to observe the outgoing Government's public spending limits.
  The Government set out to find a revenue stream and to bring in good management. The problem now is not a failure to find a revenue stream—it is that the Treasury cannot spend the money quickly enough before the general election. Equally, the problem of management is resolved. I have resolved it by bringing in Bob Kiley, who I think will cut through the dead wood of London Underground's senior management like a scythe going through butter.
  Mr. Brake: Could the hon. Gentleman be a little more precise about how much dead wood in the organisation he means? It is causing concern among London Underground staff.
  Mr. Livingstone: I consider that there will be substantial and extensive change. We will look to promote those people who have some enthusiasm, but an awful lot of people have been ground down by years of failure. I am talking about changing not one or two people in senior management but dozens, and I regret that it has not been done before.
  As I said, I did not automatically reject PPP at first. I focused on it massively in virtually everything that I did in the election campaign. Since I have been elected Mayor, it is the single biggest problem on my desk. I am honestly not persuaded that the system is safer. I genuinely fear that right hon. and hon. Members may be hearing a statement in two, three or four years' time about a major loss of life on the underground because of this system. Labour Members will not be able to blame such a disaster on the previous Government or on anyone else. This proposal is this Government's creation. Nobody else will be at fault. I beg my colleagues: is this a risk they want to take?
  We already know that the Liberal Democrats will be standing at the election next May—if it is May—saying, "Liberal Democrats against tube privatisation." The contracts have slipped so that the earliest they can be signed is April. This will be a live election issue. We have not persuaded Londoners; we have not persuaded our own activists. I beg the Government to step back. Here is the face-saving way out—to offer Bob Kiley all the information that he has asked for and then accept his advice, as I have undertaken to do here today.
  4.58 pm
  Mr. Peter Brooke: In the nature of things, the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) and I have followed each other in London debates in the Chamber on a number

  671
  of occasions over the past six years. This is one of those occasions when I wish that I had spoken first and he had spoken second, because he is a hard act to follow. However, it is a privilege to speak in the debate immediately after him. I was not expecting to speak in the debate, and I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for calling me. Like all Tories, I know that we live in an imperfect world, and therefore the unexpected happens periodically.
  I shall vote at 7 o'clock on the motion so ably moved by my hon. Friend the Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin), but I hope that those winding up the debate will excuse me if, like Mr. Speaker, I am at that stage hauling myself into fancy dress to attend the Lord Mayor's banquet.
  Mr. Livingstone: I too apologise to the House. I do not wish to snub the new Lord Mayor, and will also miss the winding-up speeches for the same reason.
  Mr. Brooke: As ever, the Mayor and I march in unison.
  I was entertained to hear the Minister open his speech by saying that he was raring to go and was extremely glad that we had tabled this motion. This is the fourth debate on the London underground that has taken place in Opposition time in this Parliament, but we have yet to debate it in Government time. That does not suggest a Government marching towards the sound of guns.
  The Minister will excuse me for reminding him that I wrote to him last week about the correspondence between us on the London underground in which I drew attention to the fact that I had been waiting for a reply for four months and had already reminded him after two. He need not be upset; I have not delivered the Exocet of putting that matter on to the Order Paper, but I look forward to receiving his reply in due course.
  Labour Members in London outnumber Tory Members by five to one, but Back-Bench attendance was five to four a moment ago; it has now gone back to being even steven. Earlier in the debate, Labour Members were in the minority—that looks like London Labour Back Benchers distancing themselves from a rocky policy.
  I enjoyed inferring from the Minister's speech the notion that the Deputy Prime Minister can understand the Government's plan for the underground—he is not here to enable us to test that—whereas Mr. Kiley, who has experience of running large-scale municipal railroads, has, given the testimony of my hon. Friend the Member for North Essex, acknowledged that he cannot understand it.
  I was much struck by the information, cited by my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) and reinforced by the Mayor, that the number of passengers not satisfied by the tube's value for money has doubled in the past year from 32 to 65 per cent. That 33 percentage point increase represents one passenger in three. I am such a passenger, and there are more underground stations in my constituency than in the rest of Greater London.
  Before I explain the reason why I take that view, let me pay tribute to the Jubilee line extension—not only north-south, but east-west. Travelling to the west end, especially to Piccadilly, from Westminster has been transformed by the Jubilee line, but those who travel east-west, even those dwelling north of the river,
  672
  have gained from the link on the East London line between Canada Water and Wapping. It is now much easier to go east than it used to be.
  Mr. Geraint Davies: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that, if the Jubilee line had been a PPP, the £1 billion or so extra cost of building it and the extra cost of more than a year's delay would have been borne by the private sector through risk transfer? With hindsight, does he not think that the Jubilee line would be better off as a PPP, rather than under the traditional method adopted by the Tories?
  Mr. Brooke: The hon. Gentleman should acknowledge that that would always depend on the contract. However, the fact that we have waited so long for the Government to come round does not comfort me that everything will move smoothly thereafter.
  The changes involving the Jubilee line are to London Underground's credit, and I am delighted that the Jubilee line's east London stations have won so many architectural prizes.
  I do not know how often the Minister travels by underground, but I travel at all times of the day and night. The phrase "rush hour" was first used in London in the 1890s, and, for 100 years, it was what it started out as—namely, a single hour, morning and night—but it now goes on all day, as I am sure all my hon. Friends who travel during the day will testify. What are the symptoms? The first symptom is the number of times people arrive on a platform in mid-afternoon or mid-morning—or last Friday at Victoria at 6 o'clock in the evening—and no trains at all are signalled for the next 10 minutes.
  The second symptom is the ominous public announcement on the loudhailer that, on lines that bifurcate, passengers are advised to take the next train wherever it is going and then change trains later. The third symptom follows, as night follows day: the platform is full to overflowing and everyone on the platform seeks to get on the train when it arrives, instead of only half the passengers who are waiting.
  There used to be a sad sign on continental trains saying that goods vans would take 40 people or eight horses. Perforce, and again at all times of the day, the management of London Underground, under the auspices of the Government, give the impression that they are trying to squeeze not eight, not 10, but 12 horses into an underground carriage.
  By chance, two and a half weeks ago, the hon. Member for Poplar and Canning Town (Mr. Fitzpatrick)—who has just left the Chamber—and I coincided at Tower Hill station at three o'clock in the afternoon. Everything that I have just described applied. No trains were foreshadowed. A sizeable crowd was already on the platform. As we waited, the hon. Gentleman and I grinned at each other, with the dyed-in-the-wool irony of dyed-in-the-wool Londoners. The black hole of Calcutta is not a racist analogy; those imprisoned there during the mutiny were largely, if not entirely, white. By the time a train eventually left Tower Hill that afternoon, with the hon. Gentleman and me on board, conditions resembled those of the Calcuttan analogy. We were absolutely packed in.

  673
  The hon. Gentleman and I went on grinning at each other, but I shall derive no satisfaction at the general election if we win London seats from Labour simply because of what the Government have put Londoners through on the underground.
  Mr. Brake: Given what the right hon. Gentleman has just described, does he share my concerns about safety?
  Mr. Brooke: I am happy to endorse what the hon. Gentleman said earlier, although I must admit that when the hon. Member for Poplar and Canning Town and I stood in the black hole of Calcutta at Tower Hill at 3 pm the other day, both he and I were, I suspect, more preoccupied with our immediate personal discomfort than with larger issues of safety.
  The Minister puts down my dissatisfaction to historic under-investment. I acknowledge that, and we have debated the issue previously. Under-investment is not wholly the responsibility of a single party. Londoners, however, put their dissatisfaction down to the absurd theological debate that has gone on within the governing party while the service has steadily gone on deteriorating.
  5.6 pm
  Ms Diane Abbott: My hon. Friend the Minister said that he believed that the Government had learned from the mistakes of previous Administrations. Sadly, I do not believe that that is the case. In going forward blindly on the public-private partnership, my own Government appear to be making the same mistake as the previous Administration by sacrificing the interests of the travelling public to doctrinaire ideas.
  Of all issues facing Londoners, public transport is the most important, pressing and vital. Public transport is not just of concern to those, like me, who use it every day. It is of equal concern to professional drivers, including taxi and van drivers. Some of the most passionate supporters of my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) in his quest to become Mayor of London were cab drivers who remembered the old Greater London council. Contrary to what the Minister implied, those drivers remember that public transport was better under the GLC and that there was less congestion on the roads, which made it easier for professional drivers to make a living. Public transport not only concerns unfortunate commuters, but is of interest to professional drivers, drivers in general, businesses and the City.
  No one doubts that the opposition of my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, East to the PPP enabled him to amass so much support in London in the contest to be Mayor.
  Mr. Jenkin: I do not wish to intrude too far, but I recall that the official Labour candidate began to put caveats on his own support for the PPP as he tried to recover his position in the run-up to that election.
  Ms Abbott: I do not want to go there. Frank Dobson was a nice man who did not deserve what happened to him in that campaign.
  Mr. Wilkinson: He is still a right hon. Member.
  Ms Abbott: My right hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) is a nice man who did not deserve what happened to him in the course of that campaign. I do not want to dwell on that.
  674
  Transport is the key issue for Londoners and lay at the heart of the mayoral campaign. If Ministers who lived through that campaign and saw that the people's votes went overwhelmingly to candidates and parties opposed to the PPP are prepared to dismiss the opinions of Londoners, they should not be surprised if Londoners are sceptical when the Labour party wants them to return to the polls in the forthcoming general election.
  Colleagues have talked about past Conservative Governments and what they did to British Rail. It is tempting to dwell on the past, but I want to talk about the future of London Transport.
  The Minister referred to the need for investment; we can all agree about that. He talked of the need to introduce greater management efficiency; we can all agree on that. That is why my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, East headhunted the world's best public transit manager to run Transport for London. That is why my hon. Friend proposed sacking not one or two but dozens of London Underground managers. I point out to the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Brake) that nothing would be more likely to make my hon. Friend even more popular with Londoners than success in clearing out the dead wood in the management of the underground.
  This morning, I travelled to Westminster on the Victoria line and hit one of the 15-minute breakdowns to which reference has been made. The fact that my hon. Friend is willing to take effective action against a management that has repeatedly failed is much to his credit. The hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington will get nowhere trying to make points about that.
  Mr. Brake: The only point I was making is that it is perhaps not best management practice to announce the sacking of an unspecified number of managers.
  Ms Abbott: Everybody knows that the management of London Transport has failed and is failing. Everybody wants something to be done about that. If the Mayor says that he intends to act, that offers the clearest possible signal to the travelling public. My hon. Friend's statement was welcomed by the majority of Londoners.
  There is agreement on both sides of the House on the need for investment. The Government and the Mayor are certainly agreed on the need for management efficiencies. However, we have not received a satisfactory response from Ministers to the questions on safety put by Members on both sides of the House. As I pointed out earlier, it is all very well to state that responsibility for safety will lie with London Underground, but the Minister has not explained how, in practice, LU will have the sanctions to enforce its safety objectives. Although the ultimate weapon available to the company would be to pull out of a contract, in practice—because of its responsibility for financial matters—such a course would be unrealistic. Of course, the contractors will be aware of that.
  My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary, who opened the debate, has responsibility for London, so he will know how many London boroughs are entangled with the contractors that have taken on privatised services, such as housing benefit. The boroughs would like to take back the contracts, but in practice they cannot do so. Although the sanctions of the market are supposed to operate, they do not; for example, ITnet is messing up housing benefit all over London. Councillors in Islington, Hackney and Hounslow say that, in practice, they cannot pull out of the contracts. What sort of sanction does that provide?

  675
  London Underground will find itself in the same position as Railtrack in relation to private contractors. The responsibility for safety will lie with London Underground and although the ability to withdraw the contract may exist in theory, it will not be possible to put it into practice. The Mayor and London Underground will thus find themselves locked into contracts for 30 years.
  The PPP proposal was fought to a standstill during the mayoral campaign. Londoners made their views clear on the matter. Every opinion poll commissioned on the subject reveals that Londoners are against the PPP. According to the most recent poll, cited in the House this afternoon, Londoners think that safety will be worse under the PPP. Londoners do not want the PPP. The London Labour party does not want it.
  In an internal report produced in 1997, London Underground examined all the available options for obtaining adequate funding. The first was to retain LU as a unified system within the public sector—my preference. The second was to keep it as a unified system in the private sector—the preference of the Opposition. However, the 14th option was the one adopted by the Government. In the face of consistent public opposition and opposition from within the Labour party and in the face of the serious questions about safety that have been raised by Members on both sides of the House, it is extraordinary that Ministers insist on continuing blindly along their chosen path.
  Unless a way can be found to allow Ministers to step back without losing face, the Labour party—my party—will pay a price in the forthcoming general election. Commuters have a view on the PPP and they will express it in the ballot box. If the PPP goes forward without the changes suggested by Mr. Hutton and the Industrial Society, I only hope that Londoners do not pay a price for it in the form of drastically reduced safety.
  Even at this late stage, I urge my hon. Friends on the Treasury Bench to put dogma, their personal feelings towards my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, East and the question of loss of face to one side and to concentrate on the interests of the travelling public. Every survey available has proved that the proposed PPP will not meet the interests of the travelling public. It is not too late for Ministers to acknowledge that and to take up my hon. Friend's suggestion and let the transport commissioner for London give his considered opinion on the proposals.
  5.16 pm
  Mrs. Jacqui Lait: It is always interesting to follow the hon. Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott). I used to chair a health authority that covered her constituency and we regularly turned up at events together. However, I shall not intrude on the grief that is obvious between her and those on the Government Front Bench.
  My constituency is in a London borough that does not contain any underground stations. However, my constituency has more railway stations than any other in the country. There are 14 and, if anyone wants to challenge me, I can recite them. However, Members would probably prefer me not to do that.
  My constituents are primarily concerned with ensuring that their railways operate well. The railways are under considerable pressure at the moment, so my constituents do not want to be faced with congestion charging,
  676
  which will lead to more people using the railways. However, my constituents also want the underground, which they use when they come into the centre of town, to run efficiently.
  I was grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke) for his comments about the Jubilee line. The firm of consulting engineers that was key to the line's engineering is based in Beckenham. It did an expert job in very difficult circumstances.
  Many of my constituents use the underground, as do I. However, we should not ignore the fact that some of the underground's current problems are the result of the increased prosperity of the past 20 to 25 years. More and more people have more disposable income, so they are more likely to travel. That follows as night follows day. There are more cars on the road and more people use trains and the underground. The problems of London Underground cannot just be put down to a lack of investment and poor management.
  The hon. Members for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) and for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington probably do not help London Underground by castigating its managers. If the good managers in any organisation feel under pressure, they will leave and the organisation will be left with poorer managers. Of course, if those in the management structure are already demoralised, the last thing that they want is more unhelpful criticism. The poorer managers will also leave and that will leave the organisation badly under-managed. London Underground has a real difficulty with that, and I hope that a more constructive approach will be taken to its managers to bolster them in very difficult circumstances.
  It was an inspired decision to appoint Mr. Kiley and bring him over from New York. I congratulate the hon. Member for Brent, East on that. The most interesting fact I read was that Mr. Kiley had increased New York subway fares by 30 per cent. to create the money for investment. My first thought on learning that was how the Mayor would explain such an increase to my constituents and everyone else in London. Those of us who remember "fares fair" would find that increase difficult to understand. Mr. Kiley—poor man—is clearly completely constrained by the terms of the PPP.
  It is, however, worth exploring and comparing the confidentiality agreement that the Government negotiated with Mr. Kiley with the confidentiality agreements that are signed by companies in the midst of takeovers or any other commercial transaction. As I understand it, a company that is involved in a bid for another company signs a confidentiality agreement that is sufficiently robust to allow the bidding company to look at all the books and ask all the questions necessary to get all the details. It is on the bidding company's own head if it leaves anything out. The legal agreement is so robust that there is no information that the company that is the subject of the bid cannot hand over, and it must not deliberately withhold information from the bidder.
  If Mr. Kiley has signed that form of confidentiality agreement with the Government, there is no reason why all the information about the PPP cannot be made available to him. If, however, he has not been asked to sign such an agreement, the Department is at fault for not having a sufficiently robust confidentiality agreement. One way or another, the Minister has to reassure the

  677
  House about the quality of that agreement and say why, if it is sufficiently robust, Mr. Kiley cannot see the information. If it is not sufficiently robust, I suggest that the Department gets some better lawyers.
  We do not know whether Mr. Kiley has accepted the appointment, but we have been assured that he is likely to sign up to it this Thursday. I feel for the man. He has to come into the snake-pit of London politics and, in addition, has to deal with the hugely complex problem that is London Underground without having all the facts—and I mean all the facts—at his disposal. He will have to be an extraordinarily robust character to survive much longer than six months. It would not be right for this very experienced person to be switched off and unable to operate within six months because of Government obduracy and the snake-pit of London politics.
  We have directly elected Conservative members of the Greater London Assembly in my part of the world. I have been talking to some of them about their experience of Mr. Kiley, who went to a meeting of Assembly members just after he had been to the Department. His state of mind when he returned from visiting the Department was described as "disconsolate and dismayed." If he is already giving that impression to Assembly members of his relationship with the Department and how he expects it to develop, he will not be in the right frame of mind to take on and manage the extraordinarily complex structure that the Government have imposed on the PPP.
  One other clear point—it relates to the questions that have arisen about safety and financing, and to the various reports that have been required—is that there seems to be a build-up of yet more delay in the delivery of the PPP. Although many of us do not represent London constituencies, most of us use the underground at some point, so I am sure that I do not need to repeat to everybody present the fact that the amount of cash going into the capital expenditure that London Underground requires is falling significantly. If there is further delay in the delivery of the PPP, London Underground will stagger to an investment halt. The problems that have already been identified will of course multiply, as progression in such matters is never arithmetic but geometric.
  I would hate to hear from the Minister in his reply that there will be further delays in delivery and execution of the PPP. For whatever good reason—safety records, or whatever—we cannot afford any further delay in the fruition of, admittedly, probably the most worst option for the London underground. We cannot afford any more delay in finding a solution in one form or another, so that at least we know there is investment, and genuine plans for it, and people will see much greater improvement very quickly.
  I would not want any further delays, and I seek a guarantee that no further delays are envisaged in the creation and operation of the PPP. I hope that the Government will not use the way they have so far treated Mr. Kiley as an excuse for yet further delay. We must have improvements in the London underground, and it is now down to the Government to get on and ensure that they are made as swiftly as possible.
  5.27 pm
  Mr. Geraint Davies: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for calling me from these crowded Benches to contribute, along with the hon. Member for
  678
  Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone), the London Mayor, to the debate on the Opposition's unfortunate motion. They claim now to have an open mind on options for the London underground. Formerly, their ragbag of ideas comprised universal privatisation, which in Railtrack has proved most unsuccessful. So, I am glad that they made no attempt to present such a policy. Instead, they chose to dwell on a new policy of open-mindedness, which in the new Tory party is a contradiction in terms. The issue before us is not one of privatisation; that has not been debated. It is really that of credible options, such as issuing bonds and public-private partnership. I shall focus largely on those matters rather than following the Tory policy of kicking a person when he is down.
  Hon. Members will know that I serve on the Public Accounts Committee. I am glad that it was made clear in August that the National Audit Office will be looking objectively at the different options before us and forming its verdict. I hope that everyone will take that particularly seriously. I welcome the appointment of Bob Kiley by the London Mayor. It is important to import new excellence to our public services, and I look forward to hearing his comments.
  It is worth noting that the hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) pointed out that some of the major problems of the PPP resulted from the multiplicity of responsibility due to the break-up of the system, which leads to confusion and could therefore undermine safety. That completely contradicts the Tories' strategy for privatisation, which in itself gives rise to a multiplicity of functions and to confusion. The hon. Gentleman's comments are tantamount to an admission of guilt for the failures of privatisation and an explanation of why it has gone so badly wrong.
  Ms Abbott: My hon. Friend has said that he welcomes the appointment of Bob Kiley. Would he therefore welcome the Government releasing to Mr. Kiley all the information that he has asked for?
  Mr. Davies: I think that it is important that the Government share information with Mr. Kiley and work closely with him to get the best transport system for London. There might be marginal issues relating to timing the release of confidential commercial information during a competitive tender process, but Mr. Kiley and the National Audit Office need at their disposal a complete account of the options available for the London system.
  Mr. Brake: The hon. Gentleman, rightly, criticises the Conservatives for highlighting the problems of fragmentation caused by the PPP, and points out that that is exactly what happened under railway privatisation. Does that mean that he accepts that there is a problem of fragmentation associated with PPP?
  Mr. Davies: No, that was not my point: I focused on the contradiction in the Conservative argument. However, I accept that if an organisation comprises too many pieces, there will be problems of co-ordination, which might lead to confusion, higher costs and, in extreme cases, problems with safety.
  The hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Brake) focused, not on the Industrial Society's report, but on a half remembered telephone conversation

  679
  with Will Hutton. Having met Will Hutton, I do not believe that he will thank the hon. Gentleman for repeating apparently confidential remarks in the House of Commons, especially as he has already issued a statement for public consultation in the Industrial Society's report. I doubt that the hon. Gentleman will receive much more co-operation from Mr. Hutton.
  Mr. Brake: I am pleased to be able to assure the hon. Gentleman that I clarified with Mr. Hutton whether he thought it appropriate for me to relate his views on the subject. I also confirmed whether he was quite happy with my interpretation—he was.
  Mr. Davies: That is good to hear.
  It was also interesting to hear the rendition of Mr. Hutton's views given by the hon. Member for North Essex. He claimed that in the Industrial Society report, Will Hutton said that the problems of the PPP were, first, its uncertainty—well, we all know that the future is uncertain, and we understand the complexity of the options, so that is only stating the obvious—and secondly, that the extra cost of capital could, by some arithmetic, be translated into a 30 per cent. hike in fares.
  In fact, London's tube system is one of the few in the world that makes positive gross margins—about £300 million a year—but it does not generate enough to pay back the cost of capital. Therefore, one can look at the figures and say that, at the margin, the cost of capital is greater under PPP than with bonds, for example, and then translate that into fares—but the issue to be considered when comparing the options is not the cost of capital, but overall value for money in terms of risk transfer, cost of delays and so on. It is easy to make quick comments, but careful consideration is required.
  Mr. Howard Flight: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Davies: I intend to expand on those points, so it might be better to take the hon. Gentleman's intervention then.
  I consider it unfortunate that the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington gratuitously linked our serious debate on the different financial options for investment in the tube with the recent Austrian disaster. There is enough scaremongering going on. Many speakers have said that the tube is safe, even though it needs more investment. The tube is a good system and we need to renew it; the question is, how do we do that for Londoners?
  Mr. Flight: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Bercow: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Davies: I shall give way to the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Mr. Flight), who tried to intervene earlier.
  Mr. Flight: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. It was on an earlier point that I wanted to ask him a question. Does not money raised by bond issue have to be repaid? The history of bond issues to finance similar investments in the United States, or other public sector undertakings, shows that when one lot of bonds matures,
  680
  it can be refunded with another lot of bonds. The model for financing by bond issue does not necessarily entail fare charges to repay the capital.
  Mr. Davies: The hon. Gentleman knows that that is not always the case. In some bond issues, additional money has had to be obtained from taxpayers, because of the value of the bonds. Bonds entail an element of uncertainty and risk, which would be set against the London taxpayer—but the Mayor is currently not empowered to raise tax to cover that risk. That is one of the problems. I am glad that the hon. Gentleman made that point, so that I could demonstrate that it was wrong.
  Mr. Bercow: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Davies: I will certainly take an intervention from the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow). It will give me great joy to respond to this one.
  Mr. Bercow: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. He should not speak too soon, because he knows not upon what subject the intervention comes. In the light of his remarks about the need to minimise fragmentation—[Interruption.] Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will cease chuntering. In the light of what he said about the need to minimise fragmentation, what is his assessment of Pricewaterhouse's conclusion on the structure, upon which the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs Committee deliberated in July 1998?
  Mr. Davies: What a fine point! That was worth waiting for. The Pricewaterhouse analysis indeed shows a certain amount of fragmentation of the various components, the purpose of which was to generate competition and value for money. If the hon. Gentleman were not relying on a one-liner from the Library, he would know that the matter was more complex than that rather silly intervention—[Interruption.] That was characteristic of the guffawing to which I have become accustomed from that small character on the Opposition Benches.
  I shall move to a point more serious than such one-liners, which we have come to expect instead of reasoned dialogue. I invite the hon. Gentleman to make a proper speech, rather than resort to the one-liners that he looks up late at night, a sad man in the Library.
  Moving on from that momentary, derisory distraction, the issue between PPP and bonds is not simply ideological. It is an empirical question of which is the best value for money. There will obviously be a debate about who is best equipped to analyse that. The Mayor—the hon. Member for Brent, East—mentioned a number of experts who have come forward. There are other experts with different views, and we await the verdict of the National Audit Office and the Public Accounts Committee.
  I see this as an empirical issue. Hon. Members may know that I was the leader of London's largest council, Croydon council—
  Mr. Bercow: Has Croydon recovered?
  Mr. Davies: Was that an intervention?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker(Mr. Michael Lord): Order. We have had enough interventions from a sedentary position and banter of one kind or another. I should be grateful if we could get on with the debate.
  Mr. Davies: I value the dull humour of the hon. Member for Buckingham. That is a character failure of my own, I suppose.

  681
  When I was leader of Croydon council, we introduced Tramlink, which was a public-private partnership. The private sector invested some £100 million and the public sector some £125 million. As has been pointed out, there was a delay. The system was supposed to begin operating last November, but in fact it started in May. Already it is the most successful tram system in the country, moving 45,000 people a day.
  The cost of the delay from November to May is being borne by the private sector. Risk transfer was built into the contract. Under PPP, a contract is drawn up, and if the private sector fails, the cost of failure in terms of delay or exceeding the budget will be transferred. That is precisely the point that I made earlier in an intervention on the right hon. Member for Chelsea and Kensington—
  Mr. Bercow: Who? You are all over the shop.
  Mr. Davies: I should have said the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke). I intervened on him earlier, when he hailed the Jubilee line as a great Tory success. I pointed out that it was about £l billion over budget and a year late. That was no success. If it had been a PPP, the transfer of risk would have gone to the private sector. That is the point. The issue is about value for money.
  Mr. Livingstone: Is my hon. Friend aware that under their contracts, contractors will be fully compensated if they run only 95 per cent. of the existing service? Services can be cut by a further 5 per cent., but they will still be fully compensated. That does not build in an improvement, but allows a further margin for failure.
  Mr. Davies: That is not an a priori point, but a contingent point. The issue is the terms of the contract. Unacceptable contracts may be drawn up, and Mr. Robert Kiley, the hon. Member for Brent, East and others may produce good ideas on how they can be tightened up. I agree that there could be good arguments for doing that, and various issues have been raised in that respect. People have asked, "Why can't we untie these? Will they last the 30 years? Can't we have different options?" Those are legitimate value-for-money questions that should be considered by the Public Accounts Committee and the National Audit Office in reaching a verdict, just as we should consider such matters in reaching our verdict. There is a proper debate in which those points should properly be included. There is nothing inherently good or bad about the proposed system. We should be discussing the contingent issue of what the contract says, and what is best for the public in terms of value for money.
  Tramlink is a project in which we were able to transfer risk. As a result, we have already established the most effective tram system in the country. That shows that the proposal can work. It has been suggested that it would not work in particular scenarios, but that is obvious.
  Mr. Stephen Pound: Before we move away from the superficial attractions of bond issues, I have a brief question. I am sure that other hon. Members are more than aware of the answer, but sadly, I am not. I do not know any philanthropic capitalist who is anxious
  682
  to invest in bonds without receiving a return. Who would service the bonds? Would it be the people of the whole country or the people of London, or would the proposal be a further drain on London Transport's small margin of operating profit?
  Mr. Davies: As has been pointed out, it is hoped that bonds will be self-financing. The risk, however, is that they will not be. If that happens, we must then decide who pays. One would usually assume that London taxpayers would pay, but the Mayor is not empowered by current legislation to increase taxes. If it is proposed that the Mayor should be empowered to raise taxes, Londoners will have to be consulted again. Obviously, there was massive popular support for the hon. Member for Brent, East when he became Mayor, but it was not given on the understanding that he would be able to raise taxes. We are considering a different political question, to which people might respond differently.
  Ms Abbott: They would not.
  Mr. Davies: I do not know. My hon. Friend might be right, but the point is that we do not know. There may be a downside liability, but there is currently no cover for such liability. Again, value for money is at stake, not the cost of capital. In debates such as this, it is often said that the cost of capital for PPP is greater than the cost of bonds and public sector borrowing. I agree, but the Jubilee line is an obvious example of how other factors must be taken into account. The cost of capital would have been completely overwhelmed by the extra cost of taking the traditional route, because of the cost in terms of delay and running over budget.
  Various issues, including delays, must be considered in relation to the argument of PPP versus bonds and tax raising with bonds. Those issues must be considered carefully, although it is understandable that hon. Members are saying, "Okay, we've been hanging around here for ages. When will we get something done?" One of the costs of bonds is simple to explain. If we all decided to take the bonds option, a couple of years would be added to the timetable for the tube's overall progress. That is a genuine cost. It is not merely a delayed letter or a similar hitch, but a measurable cost in terms of economic activity and disruption for the people of London. That must be factored into the analysis.
  Mr. Brake: I agree entirely that if a bond issue were launched now, a two-year process might be initiated. However, will the hon. Gentleman contrast the two years that might be involved with such a project with the four years involved with the PPP? Had the Government embarked on bonds four years ago, the system would now be up and running.
  Mr. Davies: With respect, that is rather a silly question. As with all political choices, we have arrived where we are. That being so, what is the best thing to do? The hon. Gentleman might be able to argue that we should have done something earlier—an argument that could be taken back in time. Given where we are, should we keep going and finish PPP, or opt for bonds to see whether that approach works after another couple of years? These are the real options.
  Mr. Livingstone: The current best estimate is that work under PPP—that is, work on the lines—might start

  683
  as early as next September. There is not the slightest doubt that if there were the backing of the Government through the Treasury, bonds could be around in a matter of weeks. Bonds could advance the start of the work, not delay it.
  Mr. Davies: That was an important intervention. We must be crystal clear about different options and costs. One of the variables is obviously delay. I believe that work should be brought forward by public sector direct investment if there is an acceptable gap in PPP investment when set against what the new levels of investment should be.
  The hon. Member for Brent, East suggests that bonds could bring forward funding within weeks. I understood that there would be delay for years. However, it is a matter of fact rather than judgment, and I stand to be corrected. One of the issues must be the cost of time, and I am sure that that will be factored into how the National Audit Office and the Public Accounts Committee approach the matter.
  We have not talked about the third option, which is privatisation. We all know that the history of Railtrack privatisation involved the sale of about £2 billion worth of assets, which were valued at £8 billion a couple of years later. With the Tories' suggestions, we would look forward to the same thing—a rip-off sell-off, a takeover by a profit-maximising operator, who would reduce capacity, increase price and provide a worse service for Londoners. I have not dwelt on privatisation because it is such a ridiculous suggestion from the Tories.
  We need sure investment now. The investment should not go up and down, as Government funding does. In reality, Governments sometimes turn down investment as they approach elections. That is precisely what the Tories did. That is why we ended up with a £1.2 billion backlog of essential investment. For self-interest rather than public interest, the Tories decided, "We'll cut that back, introduce a few pre-election tax cuts, mess around with interest rates and tamper with the political process." PPP gives a guaranteed cashflow investment into public services. That is one of the key benefits. With bonds, issues arise about different values and risks that may affect investment flows over time. That is something to be factored into the various considerations.
  Different people make different assessments. Professor David Currie of the London business school thinks that PPP would be £2.3 billion cheaper, and that overall it would bring about savings of £3.3 billion. Such analyses are professional, but they are contentious. I make that point because the hon. Member for Brent, East listed people who had adopted a different argument.
  Members have dwelt on safety, an issue that is important to us all. The first condition of safety is investment now. The second condition is value for money. As my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State has said, in terms of ownership, safety will still be the responsibility of London Underground. The Government are attempting to put into place an investment stream that will be a pre-condition for safety.
  I have already talked about sanctions on contractors. It is important that there are proper controls and sanctions over inadequate investment or management performance. The Mayor should have the power to act in the interests
  684
  of the public. Overall, the issue is not black and white. We are having an honest debate and I welcome the opportunity to contribute to it.
  5.49 pm
  Mr. John Wilkinson: It is always a pleasure when authentic Members such as the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) and the hon. Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) participate in our debates. It is not such a pleasure to hear people who are not real, such as the Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for Streatham (Mr. Hill). My hon. Friend the Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) may consider the hon. Gentleman a cheeky chappie, but I think he is a poor imitation of Frankie Howerd, and his speech was not in any sense funny. It would have been a significant speech had it been delivered by the Deputy Prime Minister, but the right hon. Gentleman seems to have the Falconer contagion and is running away from his responsibilities to this House. Clearly, the right hon. Gentleman's policy is failing. Were that not the case, why would the hon. Member for Croydon, Central (Mr. Davies) weary the House with a speech of Front-Bench proportions? As Members representing London constituencies, we demand better from the Deputy Prime Minister.
  In my constituency, there are no fewer than eight tube stations serving three lines. The underground system is essential for my constituents to get to work. There is often a glitch—sometimes a major problem that delays their arrival at work by hours—or other difficulties, such as discomfort, irregular running or rudeness by staff. It is not surprising that one of the tabloids today reported that the experience of commuting is even more stressful than the worst workplace—and so it is for many of my constituents. This should not and need not be so.
  In its manifesto, the Labour party led us to believe that things could only get better, and that they would, indeed, get better for London Underground, thanks to the public-private partnership. No doubt was expressed: the public-private partnership was part of Labour's fundamental commitment to the electorate not just in London but nationwide. People were led to believe that it would come into operation very shortly after Labour came to office, and furthermore that the Mayor of London, when returned to power, would have under his control Transport for London, which would include a key element of London's overall transport system, namely the underground.
  When I said to the Under-Secretary that it was preposterous that the Labour party had perpetrated such a fraud on the electorate of London, and that no one in London would gain any confidence from his admission that we are going to have to wait still longer for the public-private partnership to become operational, the hon. Gentleman shrugged his shoulders and said that it was of no importance. It is of importance. Two fundamental issues seem to be causing the delay—a safety audit by the Health and Safety Executive and the basic financial question of whether the PPP will be cost-effective, which will be assessed in the National Audit Office report.
  A policy as central to a party aspiring to office as the public-private partnership should have been worked out in advance while that party was in opposition. No responsible political party should put in its programme a

  685
  policy that falls apart when it gets into office and does not work. We warned the Labour party throughout the sittings of the Committee which considered the Greater London Authority Bill that it would happen, and it has. That explains why so few Labour Members are present.
  How wise my hon. Friends on the Front Bench are to be open-minded. We do not know the circumstances under which we will take office. We will take office either in national Government in the spring or autumn next year—it is clear, and the Mayor has made it plain, that the public-private partnership will not be up and running by then—or at a London level at the next mayoral elections. It will happen, because we have a majority of the directly elected seats on the Greater London Authority, and I do not think that the people of London will be impressed by the coalition between Labour and the Liberal Democrats, which is frustrating the Assembly's function of keeping a check on the mayoralty, not least on transport policy for London.
  Mr. Geraint Davies: Given that the hon. Gentleman is promoting a policy of open-mindedness on the ground that there is uncertainty about the future, does he think that it should be Tory policy to be open-minded on everything? Would that not be common sense? Is it not the case that we do not know what will happen? The Tories have made U-turns on the tax guarantee. Are we entering a new era of open-mindedness from the Tories?
  Mr. Wilkinson: The Conservative party is certainly in favour of common sense: that is a central theme of all our policies. As for open-mindedness, it is an engaging and rare political characteristic, which I find in my hon. Friends.
  My central point is that we do not know in what circumstances we will take power. Perhaps it will be nationally at first and then in London, in which case we will be in control of the GLA and central Government. We must take things as they come. I accept the point made by the hon. Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington, who was honest in saying that the logical position is either to have the tube run wholly in the public sector or to privatise it as an entity so that at least there is a clear chain of command: people know where they stand, there is less opportunity for conflict and confusion and safety issues and risks are minimised. That was the view of London Underground when it did its study. How wrong it is of the Government not to permit that study to be in the public domain, in the Library and available to the Greater London Authority.
  Secrecy in the negotiations between the mayoralty and central Government over the appointment of Mr. Kiley and the information available to him will have a profound effect on the confidence of the people of London in the Government. They expected the Government to be open and to share these basic facts with those responsible for taking important decisions on behalf of Londoners. The Government clearly do not intend to do so. They are ideologically driven, and are frightened that if the truth comes out, the can of worms will be opened in its entirety.
  There is a necessity to get on with producing an effective system. This state of limbo should not endure any longer. It is an intolerable state of affairs. In my part
  686
  of north-west London, we want the Croxley link to be established to connect the Metropolitan line with Watford Junction station. Other people advocate as a priority the extension of the Central line through south and west Ruislip to Uxbridge. and perhaps even down to Heathrow. Some suggest that the Piccadilly line which runs from Rayners Lane through my constituency to that of my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall) should be continued in a loop to join up with the Piccadilly line at Heathrow.
  Important projects should be completed but are being stymied thanks to the confusion caused by the Labour Government. This state of affairs should not be allowed to endure. That is why the critical motion tabled by my right hon. and hon. Friends is timely, and why it deserves the House's wholehearted approbation.
  5.59 pm
  Mr. Keith Darvill: It is a pleasure to participate in the debate, and especially to listen to contributions from the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) and the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke), who always speak in such debates.
  My constituency is at the beginning of the District line—its eastern terminus is Upminster. It is the only underground station, but it is important because my constituents benefit from the link with the underground system. They also have the alternative of using the overland system from the C2C operator—the former London to Tilbury line. My constituents have that advantage: if there is a problem with the underground, they can use alternative rail services.
  I was interested in the statistics that the hon. Member for Brent, East gave about satisfaction rates among London Transport users. In current circumstances, and bearing in mind the troubles of recent weeks, 46 per cent. is an incredible statistic. However, it does not surprise me because the most common comment is that the underground system is basically a good one on which people rely. Hon. Members and the travelling public rely on it to get to work each day, and their experience is usually good. However, there has been a deterioration in the service, which was caused by increased usage and people's different life styles and different working hours. My experience—I use the tube most days—is that it is operating over capacity. I frequently leave the House after 10 pm, and find that the trains are full. Capacity is important.
  Mr. Bercow: Given that the hon. Member for Croydon, Central (Mr. Davies) slavishly read out a brief for 22 minutes but failed to say anything coherent about value for money on the tube network, will the hon. Gentleman who has the Floor be kind enough to tell the House what he thinks explains the increase from 32 per cent. to 65 per cent., revealed in the MSB survey, in the proportion of regular tube users who believe that the tube does not provide good value for money? The change occurred between one year of the Labour Government, 1999, and another, 2000.
  Mr. Darvill: There are several reasons for that. Last year and the year before, there was a significant deterioration in several services, involving escalators,

  687
  which caused significant difficulties. The delay in the completion of the Jubilee line extension was another factor. However, the main factor is the lack of sustained investment over several years. This is not a party political point, but investment in the underground system pre-war—
  Mr. Bercow: Which war?
  Mr. Darvill: The second world war. There was significant investment in the underground system before the war. Had that rate of investment been maintained during the latter part of the century, we would not be facing today's difficulties. The major part of the blame for the failure to maintain investment must rest with the party that was in power for most of that period. I do not deny that the Labour party was in power for some of that time, and bears part of the responsibility, but the Conservative party was in power for most of the period during which such investment could have been maintained. That failure has to be reversed.
  Whatever the organisational or ownership system for the underground—whether it is privatised, whether a PPP is involved or whether the situation is left as it is—investment is crucial. My constituents are concerned about the tube's future, but the Opposition motion only expresses concern about the PPP.
  Mr. Geraint Davies: Does my hon. Friend agree that one reason for the deterioration, and for the increase in the number of people expressing concern about value for money, is that more people are using the tube because the Government are putting more people into work, and those people have to travel?
  Mr. Darvill: My hon. Friend makes a good point about a contributory factor. Other factors include the effect of congestion on our roads and pricing on the underground. Travelcards, which I know are not available to rush-hour travellers, represent good value for money and are used by many of my constituents, who can travel after 9.30 am from Upminster to the other side of London for a good price. That has led to an increase in the use of the underground system. Although it is possible further to expand that use, expansion is limited by capacity problems. We therefore need increased investment, which will help to develop integrated transport policies. Important environmental issues are also involved. We should not consider any of those problems in isolation, and we need to deal with them quickly.
  My constituents tell me that, however we decide to attract investment, we must get on with the job. They want investment sooner rather than later and I am happy to examine the PPP, which is a way forward. Although I appreciate that there are concerns about it, some of them are the result of scaremongering. The underground system should be comfortable, clean, reliable and safe—that is what constituents want and, when the investment goes in, that is what will be delivered.
  The Opposition motion refers to the appointment, which I welcome, of a senior management official. I urge the Government to provide any information necessary for him to do his work properly—subject, of course, to the consideration that commercial confidentiality should be protected. If we are going through a bidding process and
  688
  trying to get best value for the public purse, commercial confidentiality is important. Subject to that consideration, all the information should be made available.
  Ms Abbott: My hon. Friend cites the importance of commercial confidentiality. Is he aware that Mr. Kiley gave an undertaking about the confidentiality of the material? Does my hon. Friend not believe Mr. Kiley, given that Mr. Kiley spent 10 years in the CIA?
  Mr. Darvill: I am afraid that I cannot answer my hon. Friend's question. If I were responsible for commercial contracts and I wanted to get the best bid, I would want to secure commercial confidentiality. Subject to that consideration—it may be possible to extract the information from the relevant documents—my view is that information should be passed on as quickly and as efficiently as possible.
  The Opposition motion is ill timed because the Government have already said that they are having meetings with Mr. Kiley. Legislation involving the PPP is on the statute book, and the problem, as I see it, lies with its implementation. The sooner we introduce the arrangements, the better. I urge the House to reject the Opposition motion and to support the Government amendment.
  6.8 pm
  Mr. John Randall: I am delighted to take part in the debate not only because I see many veterans on both sides of the House from the Standing Committee that considered the Greater London Authority Act 1999, but because, although I often describe myself as an inhabitant of Middlesex, I am also a Londoner. In this instance, I feel that I am an inhabitant of Metroland: Uxbridge is the sort of area that was described by Sir John Betjeman.
  The fact that no main line runs through Uxbridge is, apparently, as a result of the love of non-conformism among inhabitants of Uxbridge, who were not keen for trains to travel through the area on a main line on Sundays. I like to think that such non-conformism is still present in Uxbridge and surrounding areas.
  No doubt hon. Members on both sides of the House will be well acquainted with the journey to Uxbridge. They will know that my constituency contains three underground stations: Uxbridge, Hillingdon and Ickenham. I used to travel to school on the underground—
  Mr. Pound: Tell us about it, John.
  Mr. Randall: And I used to travel on the underground when I was at university. So I have a certain affection for the experience of being bumped around on the Metropolitan and Piccadilly lines at various times of the day and night.
  Mr. Bercow: Will my hon. Friend allow me?
  Mr. Randall: Yes.
  Mr. Bercow: I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way.

  689
  Will my hon. Friend accept from me that the most pleasurable journeys on the London underground to the Uxbridge station that I have ever in my life undertaken took place during the July 1997 by-election campaign, in which he was so triumphant?
  Mr. Randall: I thank my hon. Friend. I am sure that he enjoyed that time as much as every other Member.
  Many of my constituents use the underground to get to work, and many aged over 60 or 65 are very grateful for the free pass that enables them to travel to London: it is often used.
  We are very interested in the future of the underground. I agree with the hon. Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) that many people will think about it carefully when casting their votes at the forthcoming general election. It might therefore be in my interest to encourage the Government to continue their present line on the PPP, which is deeply unpopular throughout the area, but I think that if I did so I would do a disservice to my constituents, and to fellow Londoners.
  As I said earlier, many Members who are present today were involved in the Committee stage of the Greater London Authority Bill. We had hardly any time for discussion, and what we discussed was not what happened in the end.
  Mr. Pound: It was because of the Liberals.
  Mr. Randall: Most things are.
  I am glad that our motion allows such open-mindedness to operate in today's discussion. The hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) offered the Government a very fair option: to let Mr. Kiley himself decide what was preferable. It was refreshing to hear the hon. Gentleman propose a solution in which dogma would not decide the issues that matter to London.
  As we have elected a Mayor, I think it fair to say this: most people voted for him thinking that he would sort out London's transport problems, and most of them would like the Mayor and his office to get on with the job with which they believe they entrusted him. Many of my constituents will be sad to learn that he has been constrained by the Government. If the Government really are frightened of an independent assessment, as they seem to be, that is a sad indictment.
  As I think is recognised, what we need is real investment. The infrastructure is not in a good state. I want to look to the future: I want to see imagination being used. My hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) mentioned projects to extend the tube in his constituency, and I ask the Minister again to consider the possibility of extending the Central line to Uxbridge.
  On one occasion, during Question Time, I asked the Deputy Prime Minister whether he had considered that option. He told me that it had been looked at and rejected when the Government came to power. Subsequently, correspondence—delegated to the Minister, I believe—revealed the interesting fact that the Government had neither examined nor discussed the possibility, but had they done so they would no doubt have rejected it.
  690
  Another subject that crops up frequently during discussions about the underground is further access for disabled passengers. That too will require investment. In the case of some stations there is access to platforms, but getting on to trains is less easy, and there is always the problem at the other end: disabled people will probably want to get out of trains at a point where they cannot possibly do so.
  The problem with Uxbridge is that it is a terminus, and for many years there has been no planning for car parking. There is no incentive for drivers to go to Uxbridge or, indeed, other stations in my constituency, and then to continue their journeys to the centre of London.
  We have a problem. The service has been deteriorating. It is slow, and somewhat dirty; it is certainly not particularly attractive in the evenings, and we are subject to increasing delays. I hope that the Government will listen to Londoners of all political persuasions—and probably, the way things are now, of none—give the Mayor and his director of transport a level playing field, and give us the underground in London that we all want.
  6.16 pm
  Mr. Stephen Pound: It is always difficult to follow the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall). He oozes decency to such a degree that it is almost impossible to disagree with him—but we must struggle to do so, in the name of the people.
  I have to say that there are occasions on which I do disagree with the hon. Gentleman. Given that he has issued a wish list for tube and infrastructure improvements in London Transport, however, I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will recall that I may have written to him about the absence of a down escalator at Greenford station.
  The hon. Member for Uxbridge made an important point about access for people with disabilities. The footings for the Greenford station escalator were installed in 1943, but because—sadly—the steel was needed elsewhere at the time, we now have footings but no escalator. Since then the people of Greenford—men and women carrying babies, shopping, luggage and now, under the present Government, enormous pay packets—have struggled personfully down the stairs, without an escalator, but knowing each time that the footings exist beneath their very feet.
  The point made by the hon. Member for Uxbridge should not, however, distract us from some of the more unpleasant and, I have to say, overly politically partisan points made by other speakers who have not considered the issue of transport provision for London except in the narrowest of party political terms. The hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) made an extraordinary speech, in which he was unkind—indeed, beastly—to my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, Central (Mr. Davies). He simply did not behave like a gentleman. I would expect better from one with his record.
  I wish I could have asked the hon. Gentleman of what towering achievements during the 18 years of Conservative Government he was most proud. What were the enormous infrastructure improvements? What were the new track, signalling and equipment financing arrangements? What new tube stations were built? What,

  691
  apart from the Heathrow loop, was done to improve London's transport during those 18 dark, dank, dismal years?
  Mr. Jenkin rose—
  Mr. Pound: I recall them not, but I am sure I will be given a list now by the hon. Member for somewhere miles from London.
  Mr. Jenkin: We completed the Victoria line, we ordered the Jubilee line extension, we built the docklands light railway, we ordered the Croydon Tramlink—would the hon. Gentleman like me to go on?
  Mr. Pound: The hon. Gentleman is good at saying what he "ordered"; he is less good at saying what was actually delivered during that period. [Interruption.]
  The hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) leads me to sympathise with the point made by the Leader of the Opposition in the popular press today that Scottish Members of Parliament should never be allowed to comment on matters relating to England. Perhaps bumptious bumpkins from Buckinghamshire should not be able to comment on issues relating to London. A prerequisite for participating in our debate tonight should be the possession of one, two or, in my case, three and a half tube stations.
  Mr. Bercow: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Pound: Yes, let us trade insults.
  Mr. Bercow: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, I really am. I represent Buckingham, which is close to my heart. I have an agreeable residence there, to which I do not intend to invite the hon. Gentleman. However, he is woefully ignorant of the fact that I have had a home in London for 37 years. I probably know more tube stations than he has forgotten, and have forgotten more tube stations than he knows.
  Mr. Pound: It is well known that the hon. Member for Buckingham arrived at his selection meeting in a borrowed helicopter. I would suggest that the sort of a chap who borrows a helicopter to go to a selection meeting is not overly familiar with London Transport.
  Mr. Bercow: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I do not wish to delay proceedings unduly, and am greatly enjoying the hon. Gentleman's speech. However, is it in order for one hon. Member to accuse another of borrowing something for which he paid and which left a large hole in his pocket?
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Sylvia Heal): I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is aware that that is not a matter for the Chair.
  Mr. Pound: I did not imply that the hon. Member for Buckingham managed to nick a helicopter from helicopter parking in Buckinghamshire. I was merely saying that the helicopter was not the hon. Gentleman's own.
  692
  Moving on to the substantive issue, I have a great deal of sympathy for the plea made by my hon. Friend the Member for Upminster (Mr. Darvill) for an end to the arcane nonsense of angels dancing on the head of a pin, and an improvement in the service. I represent the western end of the District line where the position is intolerable—if it is not, I do not know the meaning of the word. We are pressure-cooked and steamed in the morning—if we are lucky enough to get on the damned train. When we get out of the train at the other end—assuming that we do, as I believe that many of my constituents do not emerge from that black hole—we are reamed, steamed and dry-cleaned.
  That appalling and outrageous situation is matched in horror only by the sheer brass neck and utter effrontery of the Conservative party which, for 18 years, did virtually nothing to improve the situation, left us with a black hole of £1.2 million underfunding, cut all funding in the year before the election and required London Underground to break even at the end of every financial year, in one of the most ludicrous pieces of accounting practice ever seen in the world. Now, the Conservative party suddenly appears to be the champion of the tube passenger, which is amazing, considering that its former leader, Baroness Thatcher, memorably said that anyone over the age of 30 who travels on public transport is a failure. The Opposition motion on the Order Paper has, as we say round my way, more front than the Hoover building. It is outrageous for the Opposition to suggest that they are seeking to do anything other than score party political points and drive a wedge between the Labour party and our good friend the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone).
  The hon. Member for Brent, East made a well-informed, cogent and important contribution in addressing the issue of safety. To be perfectly honest, I am agnoistic about funding, and do not care where the money comes from, as long as it comes. I would be quite happy if an Opposition Member chipped in and gave us a capital injection. The important things are the ownership of the underground system and its safety record.
  I see no causative link between these two factors, but within six months of my being elected, there was an enormous train crash at Southall, which adjoins my constituency. When I went down there, I found that people were dealing with 21 different companies. Because of the fragmentation, it was impossible to try and identify any lines of control, command and communication. If the majority of Government Members wanted to privatise London Underground, fragment it and carve it up into a British Rail-type disaster, I could not bring myself to vote for that. Thankfully, that is not the case, and there is no suggestion that London Underground will be anything other than a single entity that is a publicly controlled and owned company.
  The hon. Member for Brent, East made an important point, which must be addressed. He agreed that there will be one publicly owned, accountable, strategic company for the whole city. However, what about contractors and subcontractors? How can there be accountability, when contractors are subcontracting, as are the subcontractors themselves? Even the most monopolistic public body has contractors and subcontractors. To try to make the point that a public company is not a public company because it

  693
  may occasionally employ a subcontracted sparks on the signalling system is, if not mendacious, certainly whipping up scares without any valid ground.
  Ms Abbott: With the greatest respect, my hon. Friend does not seem to understand the Government's proposals. The Government are putting in place proposals whereby three infracos are bidding for three separate contracts. There will not be a unified company in the way that my hon. Friend described.
  My hon. Friend was flippant about the use of subcontractors. However, all the comments on the Hatfield disaster that I have seen have suggested that it was precisely because Railtrack hollowed itself out and contracted and subcontracted responsibilities for maintenance, that repairs were not done as quickly as they should have been.
  Mr. Pound: I thank my hon. Friend for that. One of the hardest things is to try to have a sensible, logical debate in the long shadow of British Rail privatisation, which is an example of how not to privatise. It is unfortunate when people try to extrapolate from the splintered privatisation involving British Rail and Railtrack and compare that to London Transport. However, the proposals for London Transport are not comparable to those for British Rail, as we are not talking about several companies running tubes on a system owned by a different company. With respect, there is no comparison.
  We have a transport system for our capital that is creaking at the seams because of under-investment over many years. My hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, Central made the point that more people may be using the tube, and I agree that capacity is an issue. However, London Transport was privately funded in the middle of the 19th century, mostly by American money. It was built privately, was used and cherished by Londoners, and did not even come into the public domain until after the first world war. The system was one in which ownership was not as important as reliability, punctuality, efficiency and safety, and we must concentrate on those factors now.
  Under the Government's proposals, the idea is that assets will return to the public sector after they have been upgraded. I appreciate that, in politics, one should always look a gift horse in the mouth. However, in this case, we have as good a financial deal as we are going to get, and the only realistic alternative is for the entire country to pay to upgrade London Transport through taxation. I do not think that hon. Members could reasonably propose to do that. Bonds are an attractive option, at which we should look. However, that is not a free option, and the idea that a bond issue could be wholly self-financing is theoretical rather than practical. No one will fund a bond issue with nil return, as risk and exposure are involved and interest payments have to be met. The idea that such an issue could be completely ring-fenced and self-financing is more hopeful than practical.
  The key issue is the need to take action now in the names of Londoners and to make safety paramount. The scares about fragmentation leading to Hatfield-type disasters are not appropriate, as that is not what is being proposed.
  The motion deserves to be voted down. Any Opposition Member who supports it in the Lobby should hang their head in shame and ask themselves: what did we do during
  694
  our 18 years that made the situation better? From where I stand—not the man on the Clapham omnibus, but the man on the District line in the morning—I see an underfunded tube system that is just about on the edge of disaster. We must rescue it. Let us do it in the name not of ideology, but of practicality and, above all, urgency.
  6.30 pm
  Mr. Howard Flight: Surely what is right is what will be the right structure to secure quality of service, value for money and safety, not fatuous debates about who did what.
  In the United States, bonds have been a successful way for municipalities, particularly the New York subway, to fund themselves. An interesting irony has not been drawn out. When politicians use bond funding, in essence it makes them and the organisation capitalist because their success rests on the efficiency and success of the operation. If a mayor of a major city faces the prospect of that city financing a collapse and refunding bond lenders, he and his party will not get elected again for a long time, so bond funding puts into politics and civil transport a strong capitalist motive.
  I have no doubt about the ability of London, if politically endowed, to raise the money. Do not forget that it is as large as Switzerland. London's credit-worthiness would be undoubted. We are in an age where there is a great shortage of bonds. The problem with pension funds and annuities is that there are not enough bonds to invest in, so there would be ready demand for issued bonds.
  The operation must service the interest—that goes without saying—but, stepping back, that option is likely to be cheaper than the public-private partnership investment option because there is no profit element involved. The crucial thing is: if it stayed wholly within the public sector, could the service be run as efficiently and as safely, and better, than under the PPPI structure that is proposed? I share the doubts of many. What has happened is that the Government have funked the full option of privatisation for a halfway house, which may not be the right way to run a major subway system.
  I close by saying what others have said. The public want to know what the recommendations are. The United States has one of the best records in turning around past failures and making a success of them. No one can go to New York without feeling that it has a thoroughly efficient subway system, which, unlike many of those in continental Europe, is not a huge drag on the taxpayer, but there is one caveat: such bond issues must not have any central Government guarantee. That would undermine the whole discipline and process. To look at it the other way round, a risk of PPPI is that the Government are potentially more exposed to picking up the tab than they are by a municipal bond issue that is ring-fenced. As has tended to happen in rail and other sectors, it becomes irresistible for the Government to get involved in providing public sector money when things start to go wrong.
  We have a new political situation. For better or worse, the new Mayor was elected on a particular mandate. We have staggered to where we are in terms of the proposals. It is so important for the long term that the position should be looked at anew, particularly in the light of the recommendations of Mr. Kiley, perhaps the world expert, on how it will be most practical to run London's subway for the future.
  6.34 pm
  Mr. Tony Colman: I declare an interest as a current director and founder chair of Public Private Partnerships Programme, which is the local government private finance initiative company and which began to operate in 1996, under the previous Government. It is all party. We have Conservative Members, including a Member of the other place, Liberal Democrat Members and Labour Members. It has been uncontentious and an avenue for the investment of some £20 billion of funding, which is flowing into local government in a wide range of sectors, including education and social services.
  We have public-private partnerships for hospitals. I was pleased that, today, the Secretary of State for Health has announced the PPP for my local hospital, Queen Mary's. I mention those to show that we are talking about something that, other than in respect of the underground, appears to have broad support. My hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, Central (Mr. Davies) has mentioned Tramlink. One end of it was in Croydon. The other end was in Merton, where I had the great honour to serve as the leader of the council. I was pleased to see that PPP go forward.
  I was not able to be in the House to listen to the contribution from the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone), but it surprises me that the number of PPPs that Brent council has had over the past three years has not been commented on by him, as far as I know, in the House at any time, so the problem does not seem to be the concept of PPPs.
  Ms Abbott: My hon. Friend will be aware that people who object to the PPP do not object to PPPs in principle. They object to this misbegotten PPP.
  Mr. Colman: I am glad that my hon. Friend believes that with all other PPPs, which run into many billions of pounds, there is no problem, but that there is a problem with this one. All of us—well, perhaps all of us; all sane Members— [Interruption.] I withdraw that. All Members who can see the clarity of the situation would oppose the view that has again been expressed by the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Mr. Flight), who I think I am still able to claim as a constituent—but perhaps he has moved on. The Conservatives' view appears to be based on privatising the underground. It is unvarnished—they see it disappearing into the private sector. We all know—it has been mentioned by other Members—what has happened in the past three years and the huge number of additional accidents that have occurred through privatisation of British Rail.
  The second alternative, which seems to be espoused by Liberal Democrat Members, is bonds. What we opt for must provide best value, but the key point about bonds is that the risk is retained within the public sector; the risk is retained by the council tax payer and taxpayer. I am not keen that the risk be held by those taxpayers. That is not the way forward, especially given that such experience and expertise has built up over the past three years of the Labour Government.
  Incidentally, I was pleased that the first legislation that we passed in the House in the current Parliament was the Local Government (Contracts) Act 1997, which sorted out the mess that the Tories had made of PPP. It sorted out who was going to do what and on what basis we could
  696
  go forward to ensure that subsequent decisions were not deemed ultra vires. Our proposal went forward based on the utmost clarity.
  My involvement with PPP came when I was elected as leader of Merton council. I had to travel from Morden to the City on the Northern line, which at that time was in a deplorable state. I am therefore pleased that, with colleagues, I have been able to persuade my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions to go forward with a PFI PPP for the Northern line trains. That took some eight years to get through but the trains started to run under that arrangement last year. That success shows the incompetence of the Tories in trying to sort that out. I hope that, after the three to four years that we have had in government, the PPP that will emerge shortly for the underground will be something with which we are all happy on the basis of best value for taxpayers and the safety of London.
  Mr. Brake: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman can explain why Londoners voted overwhelmingly against PPP in the Greater London Assembly elections.
  Mr. Colman: There were a number of issues in those elections: PPP, privatisation or bonds. We are now studying that range of options.
  Other hon. Members have mentioned their constituencies. I give two vignettes about the District line, Wimbledon branch. East Putney station had to be restored after decades of dereliction under the previous Government. The work overran by nearly a year. I tried to obtain compensation for my constituents who live next to the station, but was informed by London Underground that, as it was itself performing the contract, it was unable to offer compensation.
  In the other case, about two weeks ago, there were great delays, which were attributed to flooding, on the track between Wimbledon Park and Southfields. Although the reason given for the delays would seem to make sense, the track is on a 30 ft high embankment.
  Clearly, in both cases, the contractor organised by London Underground failed to deliver that which it should have delivered. I want a public-private partnership that keeps accountability in the public sector, but enables private finance and management to be used on the infrastructure. I believe that such an arrangement would be the right one for the people of London.
  6.40 pm
  Mr. Robert Syms: This has been an important debate, and we have had some good speeches from hon. Members on both sides of the House. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke) said, not only is this the fourth time that we have debated the tube, but all those debates have been held in Opposition time. It is a pity that the Government, who control so much of the House's timetable, have not initiated a debate on this topic and allowed hon. Members to have their say. One half-day Opposition debate is probably not sufficient to allow all hon. Members who wish to speak on the subject to do so.
  We are all disappointed that the Deputy Prime Minister has not attended the debate, to speak and to listen. However, perhaps his absence is understandable, as the Government seem to have some "good news" Ministers

  697
  and some "bad news" ones. The Deputy Prime Minister, when he is not in Tokyo or Delhi, seems to be one of those who attends when he has good news or there is money to give out, whereas the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, the hon. Member for Streatham (Mr. Hill), and his sidekick the other Under-Secretary the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin), are wheeled out when there is a difficult debate or an Opposition day to deal with. Those two Ministers do their best, but perhaps their best is not good enough.
  Today, the more the hon. Member for Streatham tried to describe the PPP, the glummer Labour Members became. They all seemed to realise that, at the next general election, they will have to explain the proposals on the doorstep, and that there is no way the proposals can be explained simply. Recently, while electing a new Blairite leader, even the modernised London Labour party could not stomach this PPP. I therefore tell Ministers to look not at those who are in front of them, but at those who are behind them. It is from behind them that their difficulties will come.
  The London underground caters for 3 million trips per weekday, including journey-to-work trips made by 35 per cent. of people in central London. Additionally, about 90 per cent. of tourists use the tube during their stay. The tube annually generates more than £1.1 billion in fare revenue. It is a very important part of our capital's transport infrastructure, and it truly is the only real method of rapidly transporting large numbers of people around London.
  We all want London to have good public transport. London is a world-class city and it deserves world-class transport. However, what is the Government's record? Although Ministers have been slow in dealing with the tube, that should not surprise us, as the hallmark of the Government's transport policy has been to think about things rather a lot, but to do very little. We are now three and a half years into this Government, but we are still discussing what Ministers will do to try to improve the situation.
  As we learned on the previous Opposition day, this year the tube will receive £753 million—which is a substantial reduction on the £1,035 million that the previous, Conservative Government were investing in 1996–97. The tube needs more investment, but successive Governments have not invested enough in it. The fact, however, is that state-owned enterprises have to compete with hospitals, schools, social services, pensions and many other priorities. Therefore, as we have heard in previous debates, it is no wonder that the tube has occasionally been starved of investment.
  A recent MSB survey stated:
  the number of regular users who see the Tube as poor value for money has doubled in a year, from 32 per cent. in 1999 to 65 per cent.
  As the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) said in his speech, there are significant problems with the tube. He cited the examples of one in six escalators not working, and a breakdown in the system every 16 minutes.
  698
  In a very thoughtful speech, my right hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster likened being caught in the tube to being in the black hole of Calcutta. I think that we can all appreciate the difficulties that tube travel sometimes entails.
  There have been criticisms that the PPP is over-complicated, and I think that hon. Members, after hearing the Minister try to explain the PPP, will agree with those criticisms. There is a question mark over whether the PPP structure will generate sufficient cost savings, and whether the proposals will provide value for money. The Library brief points out that fees for consultants working on the proposals already amount to £60.3 million. Originally, and optimistically, London Transport estimated that the total cost to establish the PPP would be £65 million.
  There will also be significant costs involved in monitoring the PPP and negotiating and administering contracts. The hon. Member for Brent, East estimates that the PPP will entail more than 150 various contracts, all of which will provide very substantial work for the lawyers. Additionally, an endemic problem in such proposals is the difficulty of dividing risk between the private sector and the public sector. We also do not know how the proposed penalties and incentives will work.
  The length of the contracts—30 years—has also come in for substantial criticism. As it is unrealistic to specify service levels for the next 30 years, there will have to be formal reviews. As Professor Stephen Glaister has argued, there are fundamental difficulties with 30-year contracts.
  The hon. Member for Brent, East also made the very good point that some contracts will allow only 95 per cent. of performance targets to be met. There could, therefore, be reductions, in addition to the hoped-for improvements, in performance levels. It is a potential difficulty.
  What assumptions have been made about the PPP? London Transport expects that, in the next 20 years, peak-time traffic will grow at 1 per cent. per annum, and that off-peak travel will grow quite significantly. It also assumes that fare income will increase by 40 per cent., mainly because of a greater volume of passengers. The assumptions are key ones. If the increase in passenger numbers occurs at peak time, there will be gridlock. Moreover, I am not quite sure how anyone can argue that there will be a very small increase at peak time and a substantial one at off-peak times.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) said, the Jubilee line, which the previous, Conservative Government promoted, is an excellent line which has air conditioning and which demonstrates the tube's potential. The PPP does not seem to provide for new lines—new link lines such as the Croxley link line which my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) mentioned. We all have a shopping list for how best to increase the tube's capacity. I think, however, that the Government's PPP proposals will not deliver the substantial tube improvements that we all want.
  Mr. Bob Kiley has been central to today's debate. On the PPP, he said:
  I have been trying to figure it out for about five weeks now and still haven't managed it. I have a rule that anything that takes that long to understand is not going to work.

  699
  The Minister said earlier that the Government had given information to Mr. Kiley. However, the hon. Member for Brent, East questioned that and said that Mr. Kiley had not been given the most up-to-date contract information. I hope that the Minister will be able to clarify what information has been given to Mr. Kiley. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster said, it is interesting that the person who knows how to run such networks is being shut out by the Deputy Prime Minister, who has not had any experience of running such networks.
  The Economist has described the PPP as
  half baked and either naive or dishonest,
  and the Select Committee on the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs called it a "convoluted compromise". It is not a proposal that finds great favour with many of the bodies that have examined it.
  There is a genuine lack of accountability. The Government do not seem to have obeyed the logic of their own arguments on devolution and the restructuring of government. We have a Mayor and an Assembly, and the responsibility for running most services will rest with them. It makes sense that the professional individual employed to run the services should have some input into the setting up of the organisation. I understand Ministers' worries that information may have to be provided. It is strange that we have a former employee of the CIA to whom the Government do not wish to give information.
  This ill thought out proposal does not find favour with many people and I would be surprised if it became a reality. The electors of London will have ample opportunity to give their views on it at the next general election.
  6.50 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. Chris Mullin): It is a pleasure to serve before you today, Madam Deputy Speaker.
  I am sorry that my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister is unable to be here today, but he has sent his A-team along in the shape of the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Streatham (Mr. Hill), and me.
  We have had an interesting tour of the underground from Upminster to Uxbridge by way of Ruislip, Ealing and Putney. The hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) wisely chose not to discuss his party's own plans, but chose instead to place his talents at the disposal of the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone). The hon. Gentleman was, I am sure, grateful, but as he has so often demonstrated, he is perfectly capable of looking after himself.
  Let me reiterate the point made by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary: public-private partnerships are very different from the wholesale privatisations on which the Conservative party is still hooked. In the London Underground PPP, strategic control will be maintained by the public sector, which reports to the Mayor. Private companies will maintain and upgrade the hardware. London Underground will run the network, signals, stations, trains and safety. The Government believe that is the right way to lever in private sector investment and project management expertise while preserving the necessary safeguards that the travelling public need and deserve.
  700
  As in so many areas of the public sector, the Conservatives left behind a massive backlog of investment on the tube. They planned to cut tube spending still further, down to £161 million last year and to nought for the current financial year. They were also committed to repeating many of the mistakes that they made with the national railway system. They are so keen on selling off the tube that they have relaunched the policy twice in opposition, making it clear that they intend to break the tube into as many as five pieces.
  As my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary said, we have already provided considerable extra funding to London Transport over the past three years.
  Mr. Jenkin: Less than us.
  Mr. Mullin: I shall come to that point in a moment. We have prevented any further increase in the investment backlog. We have invested on average more than £500 million in the core of the underground network in each of the past three years, compared to an average of £370 million a year over the lifetime of the previous, Conservative Government. With the additional funding that we have provided, London Transport will be able to invest £3.4 billion in the underground between 1997–98 and 2000–01.
  Most important, we have rejected outright privatisation in order to put in place a funding regime that will genuinely deal with the long-term needs of the underground. The London Underground PPP will enable us finally to reverse the historic decline of the tube. In contrast to the fragmented scheme proposed by the official Opposition, our scheme will preserve public accountability and a unified safety structure. Again in contrast to their "flog it and forget it" proposal, the assets will return to the public sector at the end of the contract in a much improved condition.
  I shall try to address, in the short time available, some of the points raised during the debate. The hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Brake) asked what would happen in the event of a contract failure. Should an infrastructure company fail, there would be a mandatory sale procedure under which the contract would be offered in the market. Ultimately, London Underground could take it back. The hon. Member for Brent, East is right to say that the banks would be recompensed, but he omitted to say that the entire shareholders' equity would be forgone. There would be no question, therefore, of anyone making a profit out of a failure.
  On the timing of the safety case, London Underground expects to submit the case in December. It will be up to the Health and Safety Executive to improve it, and we expect that to be done by March 2001. Regarding the timing of the National Audit Office's audit of the public sector comparator, the NAO work will be completed before the selection of a preferred bidder, and it will be published. [Interruption.] Hon. Members have asked some questions, and I am doing my best to reply to them. That is a fairly unusual feature in some winding-up speeches.

  701
  The hon. Member for Brent, East mentioned that Mr. Kiley had not yet seen the bids. I hope that the hon. Gentleman—who is not in his place, for reasons that he explained earlier—will understand that this is an evolving relationship involving powerful market sensitivities, and we shall assess our approach in the light of those considerations. As was made clear at the outset, we are anxious to work closely with Mr. Kiley, and we shall do so.
  The hon. Members for Brent, East and for Poole (Mr. Syms) suggested that the public sector comparator was out of date. The comparator was produced in March, and it was proper that that should have been done before the receipt of the bids. Obviously, work needs to be done to update the comparator and to reflect changes to the contract documentation. London Underground has offered to take Mr. Kiley through those issues.
  The hon. Member for Brent, East said that companies had to meet only 95 per cent. of their performance targets. That is not strictly the case. The 5 per cent. starting benchmark is not a target indicating the level of performance that we expect from the PPP; it is merely a point of reference for determining rates of payment or abatement. To obtain the levels of return that they expect, bidders will need to achieve a substantially higher performance, and to have committed to doing so. The 5 per cent. benchmark applies not to performance across the board but to delays caused by asset failures such as train breakdowns or signal failures. Those vary enormously from year to year. In other words, the benchmark applies not to all the criteria, but only to one.
  The hon. Member for Beckenham (Mrs. Lait) said that she did not expect any delays, while suggesting a number of ways in which the proposals could be delayed. We do not expect any delays in the PPP programme, but we are not going to be held to a timetable that would allow bidders to hold us to ransom. I am sure that when Opposition Members reflect on that, they will realise that it is sensible.
  The hon. Member for Brent, East said, surprisingly, that bonds could be organised in a matter of weeks. I am advised that that is doubtful. Even the Industrial Society's report suggested that it could take up to two years. As the hon. Member for Beckenham said, we cannot afford delays of such length.
  The hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) was a little cheeky, I thought, in coming forward with a shopping list of projects, given that the previous Government contributed so little to investment in the underground.
  The London Underground PPP is well on course to deliver around £13 billion worth of new investment and maintenance during the first 15 years of the contract, with more to follow after that. It will lead to reduced journey times, greater reliability, brighter stations, better trains, more capacity and, above all, greater safety and security. It means that the tube will be publicly owned, publicly run and publicly accountable. The difference is that now it will be properly funded as well.
  Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:—
  The House divided: Ayes 180, Noes 287.

  Division No. 326]

  [7 pm

  AYES

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  Gray, James

  Allan, Richard

  Green, Damian

  Amess, David

  Greenway, John

  Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

  Grieve, Dominic

  Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

  Gummer, Rt Hon John

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

  Baker, Norman

  Hammond, Philip

  Ballard, Jackie

  Hancock, Mike

  Beith, Rt Hon A J

  Harvey, Nick

  Bercow, John

  Hawkins, Nick

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Hayes, John

  Blunt, Crispin

  Heald, Oliver

  Boswell, Tim

  Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

  Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

  Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Brady, Graham

  Horam, John

  Brake, Tom

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Brand, Dr Peter

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

  Brazier, Julian

  Hunter, Andrew

  Breed, Colin

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  Burns, Simon

  Keetch, Paul

  Burstow, Paul

  Kennedy, Rt Hon Charles (Ross Skye & Inverness W)

  Butterfill, John

  Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)

  Key, Robert

  King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

  Cash, William

  Kirkbride,Miss Julie

  Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

  Kirtwood, Archy

  Laing, Mrs Eleanor

  Chidgey, David

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Chope, Christopher

  Lansley, Andrew

  Clappison, James

  Letwin, Oliver

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)

  Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Lidington,David

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Collins, Tim

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Cotter, Brian

  Loughton, Tim

  Cran, James

  Luff, Peter

  Curry, Rt Hon David

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

  McIntosh, Miss Anne

  Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

  MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

  Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  Duncan, Alan

  Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert

  Duncan Smith, Iain

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Madel, Sir David

  Evans, Nigel

  Malins, Humfrey

  Faber, David

  Maples, John

  Fabricant, Michael

  Mates, Michael

  Fallon, Michael

  May, Mrs Theresa

  Fearn, Ronnie

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

  Flight, Howard

  Moss, Malcolm

  Forth, Rt Hon Eric

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Norman, Archie

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Oaten, Mark

  Fox, Dr Liam

  O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

  Fraser, Christopher

  Öpik, Lembit

  Gale, Roger

  Ottaway, Richard

  Garnier, Edward

  Page, Richard

  George, Andrew (St Ives)

  Paice, James

  Gibb, Nick

  Pickles, Eric

  Gidley, Sandra

  Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

  Gill, Christopher

  Prior, David

  Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

  Randall, John

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  703

  Rendel, David

  Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

  Robathan, Andrew

  Tonge, Dr Jenny

  Robertson, Laurence

  Tredinnick, David

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Trend, Michael

  Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)

  Tyler, Paul

  Ruffley, David

  Tyrie, Andrew

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Viggers, Peter

  Sanders, Adrian

  Wardle, Charles

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Waterson, Nigel

  Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

  Webb, Steve

  Shepherd, Richard

  Wells, Bowen

  Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

  Whitney, Sir Raymond

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

  Whittingdale, John

  Soames, Nicholas

  Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

  Spicer, Sir Michael

  Wigley, Rt Hon Dafydd

  Spring, Richard

  Wilkinson, John

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Willetts, David

  Steen, Anthony

  Willis, Phil

  Streeter, Gary

  Wilshire, David

  Swayne, Desmond

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Syms, Robert

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Yeo, Tim

  Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Mr. Stephen Day and

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown.

  NOES

  Ainger, Nick

  Coleman, Iain

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Colman, Tony

  Allen, Graham

  Connarty, Michael

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

  Corbett, Robin

  Atherton, Ms Candy

  Corston, Jean

  Banks, Tony

  Cousins, Jim

  Barnes, Harry

  Cox, Tom

  Barron, Kevin

  Crausby, David

  Battle, John

  Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

  Bayley, Hugh

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Beard, Nigel

  Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack (Copeland)

  Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

  Bennett, Andrew F

  Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

  Benton, Joe

  Dalyell, Tam

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

  Berry, Roger

  Darvill, Keith

  Betts, Clive

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Blackman, Liz

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

  Blizzard, Bob

  Davis, Rt Hon Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

  Blunkett, Rt Hon David

  Bradley, Keith (Withington)

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Denham, John

  Brinton, Mrs Helen

  Dismore, Andrew

  Brown, Rt Hon Gordon (Dunfermline E)

  Dobbin, Jim

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Burgon, Colin

  Doran, Frank

  Butler, Mrs Christine

  Dowd, Jim

  Caborn, Rt Hon Richard

  Drew, David

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Campbell-Savours, Dale

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Caplin, Ivor

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Casale, Roger

  Efford, Clive

  Caton, Martin

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Cawsey, Ian

  Ennis, Jeff

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Field, Rt Hon Frank

  Chaytor, David

  Fisher, Mark

  Clapham, Michael

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

  Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Flint, Caroline

  Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

  Flynn, Paul

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Follett, Barbara

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Clwyd, Ann

  Gapes, Mike

  Coaker, Vernon

  Gardiner, Barry

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  George, Bruce (Walsall S)

  704

  Gerrard, Neil

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Gibson, Dr Ian

  McWalter, Tony

  Gilroy, Mrs Linda

  McWilliam, John

  Godman, Dr Norman A

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Godsiff, Roger

  Mallaber, Judy

  Goggins, Paul

  Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Marshall-Andrews, Robert

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Martlew, Eric

  Grocott, Bruce

  Maxton, John

  Grogan, John

  Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

  Hain, Peter

  Merron, Gillian

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

  Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

  Mitchell, Austin

  Healey, John

  Moffatt, Laura

  Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

  Moran, Ms Margaret

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

  Heppell, John

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

  Hesford, Stephen

  Hewitt, Ms Patricia

  Morris, Rt Hon Sir John (Aberavon)

  Hill, Keith

  Hinchliffe, David

  Mountford, Kali

  Hodge, Ms Margaret

  Mudie, George

  Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

  Mullin, Chris

  Hope, Phil

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

  Howarth, Alan (Newport E)

  Naysmith, Dr Doug

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Norris, Dan

  Howells, Dr Kim

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  O'Hara, Eddie

  Hurst, Alan

  Olner, Bill

  Hutton, John

  O'Neill, Martin

  Iddon, Dr Brian

  Organ, Mrs Diana

  Illsley, Eric

  Palmer, Dr Nick

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Pearson, Ian

  Jamieson, David

  Pendry, Tom

  Jenkins, Brian

  Perham, Ms Linda

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

  Pickthall, Colin

  Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Pike, Peter L

  Plaskitt, James

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Pollard, Kerry

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  Pond, Chris

  Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa

  Pope, Greg

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Pound, Stephen

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

  Prescott, Rt Hon John

  Kemp, Fraser

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Khabra, Piara S

  Purchase, Ken

  Kidney, David

  Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Quinn, Lawrie

  King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

  Radice, Rt Hon Giles

  Kumar, Dr Ashok

  Raynsford, Nick

  Ladyman, Dr Stephen

  Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

  Lammy, David

  Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)

  Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

  Laxton, Bob

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Lepper, David

  Rogers, Allan

  Leslie, Christopher

  Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff

  Levitt, Tom

  Rooney, Terry

  Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Linton, Martin

  Rowlands, Ted

  Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

  Roy, Frank

  Lock, David

  Ruane, Chris

  Love, Andrew

  Ruddock, Joan

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Ryan, Ms Joan

  McCabe, Steve

  Salter, Martin

  McCafferty, Ms Chris

  Savidge, Malcolm

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Sawford, Phil

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Sedgemore, Brian

  McIsaac, Shona

  Shaw, Jonathan

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  McNamara, Kevin

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  MacShane, Denis

  Singh, Marsha

  705

  Skinner, Dennis

  Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

  Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

  Turner, Neil (Wigan)

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Soley, Clive

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Spellar, John

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Starkey, Dr Phyllis

  Ward, Ms Claire

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Wareing, Robert N

  Stevenson, George

  White, Brian

  Stewart, David (Inverness E)

  Whitehead, Dr Alan

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Stoate, Dr Howard

  Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

  Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

  Wills, Michael

  Straw, Rt Hon Jack

  Winnick, David

  Stringer, Graham

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  Wood, Mike

  Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Woodward, Shaun

  Woolas, Phil

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Worthington, Tony

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

  Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

  Wright, Tony (Cannock)

  Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

  Wyatt, Derek

  Tipping, Paddy

  Touhig, Don

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Trickett, Jon

  Mr. David Clelland and

  Truswell, Paul

  Mr. Mike Hall.

  Questions accordingly nagatived.
  Questions, that proposed words be there added, put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 31 (Questions on Amendments):—
  The House divided: Ayes 283, Noes. 177.

  Division No. 327]

  [7.15 pm

  AYES

  Ainger, Nick

  Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Allen, Graham

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  Clwyd, Ann

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

  Coaker, Vernon

  Atherton, Ms Candy

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Banks, Tony

  Coleman, Iain

  Barnes, Harry

  Colman, Tony

  Barron, Kevin

  Connarty, Michael

  Battle, John

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Bayley, Hugh

  Corbett, Robin

  Beard, Nigel

  Corston, Jean

  Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

  Cousins, Jim

  Bennett, Andrew F

  Cox, Tom

  Benton, Joe

  Crausby, David

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

  Berry, Roger

  Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack (Copeland)

  Betts, Clive

  Blackman, Liz

  Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Dalyell, Tam

  Blizzard, Bob

  Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

  Bradley, Keith (Withington)

  Darvill, Keith

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Brinton, Mrs Helen

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

  Burgon, Colin

  Davis, Rt Hon Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

  Butler, Mrs Christine

  Caborn, Rt Hon Richard

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Denham, John

  Campbell-Savours, Dale

  Dismore, Andrew

  Caplin, Ivor

  Dobbin, Jim

  Casale, Roger

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Caton, Martin

  Doran, Frank

  Cawsey, Ian

  Dowd, Jim

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Drew, David

  Chaytor, David

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Clapham, Michael

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

  Edwards, Huw

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Efford, Clive

  706

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen

  Ennis, Jeff

  Linton, Martin

  Field, Rt Hon Frank

  Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

  Fisher, Mark

  Lock, David

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  Love, Andrew

  Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Flint, Caroline

  McCabe, Steve

  Flynn, Paul

  McCafferty, Ms Chris

  Follett, Barbara

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Gapes, Mike

  McIsaac, Shona

  Gardiner, Barry

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  George, Bruce (Walsall S)

  McNamara, Kevin

  Gerrard, Neil

  MacShane, Denis

  Gibson, Dr Ian

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Gilroy, Mrs Linda

  McWalter, Tony

  Godman, Dr Norman A

  McWilliam, John

  Godsiff, Roger

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Goggins, Paul

  Mallaber, Judy

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Martlew, Eric

  Grocott, Bruce

  Maxton, John

  Grogan, John

  Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

  Hain, Peter

  Merron, Gillian

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

  Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

  Mitchell, Austin

  Healey, John

  Moffatt, Laura

  Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

  Moran, Ms Margaret

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

  Heppell, John

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

  Hesford, Stephen

  Hewitt, Ms Patricia

  Morris, Rt Hon Sir John (Aberavon)

  Hill, Keith

  Hinchliffe, David

  Mountford, Kali

  Hodge, Ms Margaret

  Mudie, George

  Hood, Jimmy

  Mullin, Chris

  Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Hope, Phil

  Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Naysmith, Dr Doug

  Howarth, Alan (Newport E)

  Norris, Dan

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Howells, Dr Kim

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

  O'Hara, Eddie

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Olner, Bill

  Hurst, Alan

  O'Neill, Martin

  Hutton, John

  Organ, Mrs Diana

  Iddon, Dr Brian

  Palmer, Dr Nick

  Illsley, Eric

  Pearson, Ian

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Pendry, Tom

  Jamieson, David

  Perham, Ms Linda

  Jenkins, Brian

  Pickthall, Colin

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

  Pike, Peter L

  Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Plaskitt, James

  Pollard, Kerry

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Pond, Chris

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  Pope, Greg

  Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa

  Pound, Stephen

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

  Prescott, Rt Hon John

  Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Kemp, Fraser

  Purchase, Ken

  Khabra, Piara S

  Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce

  Kidney, David

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Radice, Rt Hon Giles

  King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

  Raynsford, Nick

  Kumar, Dr Ashok

  Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

  Ladyman, Dr Stephen

  Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)

  Lammy, David

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

  Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Laxton, Bob

  Rogers, Allan

  Lepper, David

  Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff

  Leslie, Christopher

  Rooney, Terry

  Levitt, Tom

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  707

  Rowlands, Ted

  Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

  Roy, Frank

  Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

  Ruane, Chris

  Tipping, Paddy

  Ruddock, Joan

  Touhig, Don

  Ryan, Ms Joan

  Trickett, Jon

  Salter, Martin

  Truswell, Paul

  Savidge, Malcolm

  Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

  Sawford, Phil

  Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Turner, Neil (Wigan)

  Shaw, Jonathan

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Singh, Marsha

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Skinner, Dennis

  Ward, Ms Claire

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  Wareing, Robert N

  Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

  White, Brian

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Whitehead, Dr Alan

  Soley, Clive

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Spellar, John

  Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

  Starkey, Dr Phyllis

  Wills, Michael

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Winnick, David

  Stevenson, George

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  Stewart, David (Inverness E)

  Wood, Mike

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Woodward, Shaun

  Stoate, Dr Howard

  Woolas, Phil

  Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

  Worthington, Tony

  Straw, Rt Hon Jack

  Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

  Stringer, Graham

  Wright, Tony (Cannock)

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  Wyatt, Derek

  Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Mr. David Clelland and

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Mr. Mike Hall.

  NOES

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

  Allan, Richard

  Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

  Amess, David

  Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

  Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

  Duncan, Alan

  Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

  Duncan Smith, Iain

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Baker, Norman

  Evans, Nigel

  Ballard, Jackie

  Faber, David

  Beith, Rt Hon A J

  Fabricant, Michael

  Bercow, John

  Fallon, Michael

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Fearn, Ronnie

  Blunt, Crispin

  Flight, Howard

  Boswell, Tim

  Forth, Rt Hon Eric

  Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Brady, Graham

  Fox, Dr Liam

  Brake, Tom

  Fraser, Christopher

  Brand, Dr Peter

  Gale, Roger

  Brazier, Julian

  Garnier, Edward

  Breed, Colin

  George, Andrew (St Ives)

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Gibb, Nick

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  Gidley, Sandra

  Burns, Simon

  Gill, Christopher

  Burstow, Paul

  Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

  Butterfill, John

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)

  Gray, James

  Green, Damian

  Cash, William

  Greenway, John

  Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

  Grieve, Dominic

  Gummer, Rt Hon John

  Chidgey, David

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

  Chope, Christopher

  Hammond, Philip

  Clappison, James

  Hancock, Mike

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)

  Harvey, Nick

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Hawkins, Nick

  Hayes, John

  Collins, Tim

  Heald, Oliver

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

  Cotter, Brian

  Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

  Cran, James

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Curry, Rt Hon David

  Horam, John

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  708

  Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

  Rendel, David

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

  Robathan, Andrew

  Hunter, Andrew

  Robertson, Laurence

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Ruffley, David

  Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Sanders, Adrian

  Keetch, Paul

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Kennedy, Rt Hon Charles (Ross Skye & Inverness W)

  Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

  Shepherd, Richard

  Key, Robert

  Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

  King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

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

  Kirkbride, Miss Julie

  Spicer, Sir Michael

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Spring, Richard

  Laing, Mrs Eleanor

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Steen, Anthony

  Lansley, Andrew

  Streeter, Gary

  Letwin, Oliver

  Swayne, Desmond

  Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

  Syms, Robert

  Lidington, David

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Loughton, Tim

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Luff, Peter

  Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Tonge, Dr Jenny

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Tredinnick, David

  McIntosh, Miss Anne

  Trend, Michael

  MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

  Tyler, Paul

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  Tyrie, Andrew

  Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert

  Viggers, Peter

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Walter, Robert

  Madel, Sir David

  Wardle, Charles

  Malins, Humfrey

  Waterson, Nigel

  Maples, John

  Webb, Steve

  Mates, Michael

  Wells, Bowen

  May, Mrs Theresa

  Whitney, Sir Raymond

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

  Whittingdale, John

  Moss, Malcolm

  Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

  Norman, Archie

  Wilkinson, John

  Oaten, Mark

  Willetts, David

  O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

  Willis, Phil

  Öpik, Lembit

  Wilshire, David

  Ottaway, Richard

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Page, Richard

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

  Paice, James

  Yeo, Tim

  Pickles, Eric

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

  Prior, David

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Randall, John

  Mr. Stephen Day and

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown.

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That this House welcomes the Government's implementation of its manifesto commitment to create a Public Private Partnership for London Underground which will bring in £8 billion of new investment and up to £5 billion worth of maintenance over the next fifteen years-leading to faster, more reliable journeys and a safer, more attractive Underground of the kind Londoners deserve; supports the doubling of the resources available to the Mayor for transport in London over the next three years; condemns the previous Government's record of under-investment in transport and in particular their erratic investment in London Underground, which left it with a £1.2 billion backlog; and deplores the Official Opposition's plans to privatise London Underground, which will fundamentally undermine public accountability.

  Millennium Dome
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Sylvia Heal): Before I call the hon. Member for East Surrey (Mr. Ainsworth) to move the Opposition motion, I should inform the House that Mr. Speaker has selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.
  7.26 pm
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth: I beg to move,
  That this House deplores the financial mismanagement of the New Millennium Experience Company; notes with concern that the cost to Lottery funds has exceeded the budget by £229 million; believes that this represents a serious waste of public funds; and regrets that Ministers have neither apologised nor accepted responsibility for the failure of this national project
  The House last had an opportunity to debate the dome on 21 February. On that occasion, the House approved a Government amendment that expressed the view that the millennium experience represented
  an excellent celebration for the people of this country and a tangible and enduring legacy for future generations
  The Government majority also welcomed
  the announcement that the New Millennium Experience Company team will be introducing improvements which deliver even greater value for money both to the paying visitor and to the Millennium Commission.—[Official Report, 21 February 2000; Vol. 344, c. 1348.]
  That is what the Government required Labour Members to support, and they duly did so, making themselves look absurd.
  Tonight, we are offering those Members the chance to redeem themselves by supporting our motion, which reflects both the facts and the vast body of public opinion.
  Mr. Denis MacShane: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Ainsworth: I suppose so.
  Mr. MacShane: The hon. Gentleman—so gracious and courteous—was Parliamentary Private Secretary to the former dome Minister, Virginia Bottomley—[Interruption.]
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is aware that he should refrain from using the name of any Member to whom he refers.
  Mr. MacShane: When pulchritude and the name go together, I dare make a mistake, Madam Deputy Speaker. The right hon. Member for South-West Surrey (Mrs. Bottomley) is a former Secretary of State for National Heritage. The hon. Member for East Surrey (Mr. Ainsworth) was her PPS at the time when she promoted the dome and when the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague)—now Leader of the Opposition—crawled on his knees to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister—then Leader of the Opposition—to ask for our support. If the hon. Member for East Surrey has problems with the dome, will he confess his own involvement in it and apologise for it?
  Mr. Ainsworth: That was hardly worth giving way for, but I am delighted to have the pivotal role that I played in the past Conservative Administration recognised at last.
  710
  One of my proudest memories is that I had the honour to serve as Parliamentary Private Secretary to my right hon. Friend the Member for South-West Surrey (Mrs. Bottomley). If the hon. Gentleman has followed matters at all, he will know that I was indeed—I confess it freely—an enthusiast for the dome project at that time. Unlike Labour Members, however, I am quite prepared to admit that the whole thing has been an unmitigated failure and to express my regrets about that.
  Some £628 million of lottery money has been wasted. The Ministers responsible have, at least in the eyes of the public, been disgraced. A lot of water has flowed under the closed millennium bridge since we last debated the dome, and hundreds of millions of pounds worth of lottery money with it.
  The original lottery funding was £399 million; about a year ago, the project received an extra draw-down facility—repayable—of £50 million; it received £60 million in February; £29 million in May; £43 million in August; and an extra £47 million in September. That is the shameful record of the dome's miserable year.
  Getting to the truth about what went wrong with the project has been a slow and painful process.
  Mr. Steve McCabe rose—
  Mr. Ainsworth: The hon. Gentleman rises on cue.
  Mr. McCabe: The hon. Gentleman tells us that he is convinced that the dome has been an unmitigated disaster. Did he support his former boss, the right hon. Member for South-West Surrey (Mrs. Bottomley), when she extended the life of the Millennium Commission in order to cover the funding because the Conservatives knew that their financial projections would not hold up?
  Hon. Members: That is a good question.
  Mr. Ainsworth: It is a very silly question, because no one in their right mind could have imagined that, under Labour, the project would have cost an extra £239 million.
  Getting to the truth about the project has been slow and painful, but one by one, like rotten teeth, the facts are beginning to be extracted. It was not the fault of the Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport but an indictment of Ministers that, after numerous inquiries, last summer the Committee was forced to admit that
  it has been virtually impossible to ascertain the precise budgetary position of the New Millennium Experience Company.
  We have pointed out previously that the whole scheme was characterised by a lack of candour that ill befits a major public project. The problem began with the appointment of the man who is now Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, the right hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson), as sole shareholder—[HON. MEMBERS: "Where is he?"] We should have realised that trouble was coming because, when the right hon. Gentleman was appointed, he complained to the Select Committee about the "excessive accountability" of the dome. The Government do not like accountability. But the public will hold them accountable.
  The report of the National Audit Office, which was published last week and which is to be the subject of detailed consideration by the Public Accounts Committee

  711
  on Wednesday, at last revealed something of the truth. In clinical prose, it charted the decline and fall of new Labour's flagship project and shed light on a sordid tale of expediency, vanity, half-truths and evasions.
  The Minister who has been responsible for the dome for the past 23 months is not in this House—indeed, Lord Falconer is not accountable to this House. When the right hon. Member for Hartlepool was forced to resign his former ministerial position—in short-lived disgrace—we urged the Government to appoint a non-controversial figure in his place: someone with relevant operational skills, who knew something about running a visitor attraction. Instead, we got a man whose only previous claim to fame was that he once shared a flat with the Prime Minister and had apparently had something to do with a May ball at Cambridge.
  Ms Sally Keeble: Does the hon. Gentleman recall the comments of his right hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude), who, in the most offensive terms, castigated Labour Front-Bench spokesmen in opposition for rubbishing the dome for cynical political gain? Is that not exactly what the hon. Gentleman is trying to do?
  Mr. Ainsworth: Absolutely not; I am trying to give the House an opportunity to express a verdict on the dome. No doubt it will do so later.
  Lord Falconer's responsibilities for the dome are helpfully set out in the NAO report. Those responsibilities include
  setting the strategic direction of the company and monitoring it in terms of cost.
  That failed. Lord Falconer had responsibility for content—failed; for national impact—failed; for legacy—failing; and for effective management—pull the other one.
  The report makes it clear that, since August last year, Lord Falconer attended 16 of the 22 board meetings and was represented at two. He must have known what was going on, but when PricewaterhouseCoopers produced its report on the dome in September, with damning evidence of the sorry state of the project's finances, he wrote—on 21 September—that he was "shocked" by its findings. Despite his assiduous attendance record as a shadow director, was he the only person who did not know how bad things had become?
  On 20 February, the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport wrote to Lord Falconer stating that
  It seems possible that the board failed to take decisive action until after a date when the company became technically insolvent.
  What did Lord Falconer think about that? On 25 May this year, after the dome had been granted a further £29 million of lottery money, why did he think that the directors had lined up to ask for indemnities for any wrongful trading actions brought against them by creditors? Did he think they were making that application for fun?
  How did Lord Falconer respond to the letter from the chairman of NMEC of 14 July informing him that the finances had further deteriorated, or to the information that the commission's view was that the company might run out of money within two weeks and might require an additional £45 million? Did he think that it was all a storm in a Chianti bottle?
  712
  In the light of what Lord Falconer must have known, how truthful was it of him to tell the House of Lords on 17 July that the company was trading solvently? Six days after the warnings about the need for additional funds, he told Parliament:
  I repeat: the National Millennium Experience Company is confident that it will deliver the project within its lifetime budget of £758 million.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 20 July 2000; Vol. 615, c. 1162.]
  How truthful was that?
  How did the Secretary of State feel about those bland reassurances? What action did he take to the set the record straight? As chairman of the Millennium Commission, he has acted as banker to the project for the past three and a half years. Twice, his accounting officers advised that granting the dome extra money would not represent a proper or prudent use of public funds. Twice, the Secretary of State has been party to overruling that advice.
  The Government claimed that it was in the national interest to bail out the dome. It was not. It was in the interest of the Labour party and, in particular, of the Prime Minister in whose image the whole project was fashioned by his cronies the present Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and Lord Falconer.
  What use are reassurances from the Secretary of State in any case? When he replied to my hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Fallon), who had rightly inquired about the additional grant of £60 million that had just been made, the Secretary of State said:
  I strongly point out to the hon. Gentleman that such funding will and must be repaid.—[Official Report, 31 January 2000; Vol. 343, c. 764.]
  Will the right hon. Gentleman repeat that clear assurance? Will the money be repaid? The right hon. Gentleman will not answer because—like the remainder of the £230 million overspend—the money will not be repaid.
  Mr. John Maples: My hon. Friend sets out a damning indictment of the stewardship of Lord Falconer and of the Secretary of State. However, might not Lord Falconer say that what was really wrong with the dome was the rubbish that was put inside it—the trite content? Is that not entirely the fault of the current Secretary of State for Northern Ireland?
  Mr. Ainsworth: My hon. Friend is entirely correct. The content of the dome is a serious disappointment; it is a bossy mish-mash of reproving statements, improving statements and childish gimmicks. If the content had been half way decent, there would not have been such a problem with visitor numbers.
  Mr. John Redwood: Does my hon. Friend recollect that the taxpayer had to pay for the visit to the United States of the right hon. Member for Hartlepool so that he could see how the Disneyland attractions were run because he had sole charge of the design of the dome's contents? Did we receive any value for that money? Clearly, the right hon. Gentleman could not run an attraction as well as Mickey Mouse.
  Mr. Ainsworth: My right hon. Friend is right. The visit to Disneyland showed clearly the right hon. Gentleman's involvement in the content and his responsibility for its failure.
  Mr. Clive Efford:If the content of the dome is so bad, will the hon. Gentleman comment on the fact that 88 per cent. of visitors said that they were very satisfied with their visit and with the content?
  Mr. Ainsworth: The hon. Gentleman raises a sensitive point. Clearly, if the number of people attending the dome had gone half way towards expectations, the Government would not have this problem now. [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."] If Labour Members will give me a chance, I will answer. It is not that difficult to have a good day out with the children. One can have a good day out with the children in Hyde park, but it did not cost £400 million or £600 million to develop Hyde park so that people could have a decent time there.
  Mr. Paul Clark rose—
  Mr. Ainsworth: I shall not give way just yet.
  The Secretary of State's failure to answer my question about whether any of the money will be repaid has been noted by the House. In answer to a question asked by the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn), the right hon. Gentleman said that he had
  made it clear to the New Millennium Experience Company that it must operate within the budget now set for it. I was delighted that Mr. Gerbeau has confirmed on a number of occasions that he will not be returning to the Millennium Commission for extra funds.—[Official Report, 10 July 2000; Vol. 353, c. 612.]
  Well, £90 million pounds later, we know the value of that assurance.
  Mr. David Heath: I have listened to the hon. Gentleman, and I must say that the words "pot" and "kettle" come to mind. Will he consider the comment of the National Audit Office:
  By June 1996 it had become clear that the private sector would not accept the risk associated with mounting the exhibition …?
  On mature reflection, does the hon. Gentleman not think that that might have been the right time at which to pull the plug on this deplorable effort so that we would not incur further enormous liabilities?
  Mr. Ainsworth: No. The hon. Gentleman—who, as far as I am aware, has never been responsible for running anything—is talking nonsense. If he is patient, I shall come to the point about who is responsible for the failure of the project.
  A little space should be found in the hall of shame for the Minister for Tourism, Film and Broadcasting, who is sitting on the Front Bench smiling. In May, she told the House:
  The investment in the millennium dome has a huge halo effect round the country.—[Official Report, 8 May 2000; Vol. 349, c. 486.]
  In July, when I asked her whether anyone in the Government would apologise, she said:
  There is no need to apologise.—[Official Report, 10 July 2000; Vol. 353, c. 608.]
  Her tone was a little different last week when she said:
  The Government are the first to acknowledge that the dome has not been the success for which everyone hoped—[Official Report, 6 November 2000; Vol. 356, c. 9.]
  714
  Despite that, we have yet to hear an apology from any member of the Government for the deplorable waste of public funds that have been sunk into the dome. It has been obvious to everyone that the project has been a disaster from the opening night, if not before.
  Mr. Paul Clark: The hon. Gentleman asks for an apology, but I have yet to hear him refer to the Opposition's record. I want to give him the opportunity to confirm something for the record. Will he confirm that his right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague), the Leader of the Opposition, was a member of the GEN 36 Committee, the Cabinet Sub-Committee that was involved in the planning, financing and co-ordination of the millennium dome?
  Mr. Ainsworth: That was another rather silly point. There is no secret about the fact that the dome project was conceived under the Conservative Government. [HON. MEMBERS: "Ah !"] Labour Members think that they have discovered something new, but it is utterly risible to suggest that we are trying to pretend that we had nothing to do with the conception of the project, which none the less suffered a hideous trauma between its conception and its birth under this Government.
  Mr. Andrew Reed: On that point, can the hon. Gentleman name the date by which Conservative Members suddenly thought that the project had become a disaster? Will he also tell the House exactly how much private sector money the previous Government had managed to raise by 1 May 1997?
  Mr. Ainsworth:: The hon. Gentleman is clearly unaware that, after the general election in 1997, and throughout 1998, my right hon. Friend the Member for Horsham and I were constantly approached by Ministers, including Lord Falconer, begging for our support for the project. The one thing that I seriously regret is that we did not urge the Government to cancel the project while there was still time to do so—although I doubt very much whether they would have taken our advice.
  Everyone knows that the project has been a disaster for at least the past two and a half years. We warned Ministers that it was going wrong, but they did not heed our advice. The Deputy Prime Minister once famously said:
  If we can't make this work we're not much of a Government.
  He was unaware that things were going wrong. In answer to my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young), the right hon. Gentleman said in his inimitable prose:
  On the right hon. Gentleman's point about my comments on whether the dome would be a success and that that should be a measure of the Government's competence, I happen to believe that it has been a success.—[Official Report, 24 May 2000; Vol. 350, c. 965.]
  The Deputy Prime Minister said that midway through the year, when the dome had already received two injections of extra lottery funds. By then it had consumed an additional £139 million.
  The Government's attempts to portray the dome as a success have been farcical, but not as farcical as their latest attempts to pin all the blame for everything that

  715
  has gone wrong on the previous Government. Their first reaction to the project's failure was to go into denial. After all, in the words of the Prime Minister, it was to be
  the first paragraph of my next election manifesto.
  After the Prime Minister had said that, the Government knew that they could not allow the dome to fail. But they did allow it to fail and, when all the spin and the hype were overwhelmed by the cold sad truth of squandered money and wasted opportunity, they turned like cornered rats and said that it was all our fault.
  Nigel Evans: Does my hon. Friend agree that it would have had to be a pretty good project to attract people to London from the north-west of England? It would cost families quite a sum of money to make such a visit. I have only spoken to five people from my constituency who have been to the dome. Is it not natural that they should compare the money that has been wasted on the dome with what could have been achieved for schools, education and law and order in the north-west?
  Mr. Ainsworth: My hon. Friend makes a good point. If the content of the dome had been up to scratch, people would have travelled from far and wide to see it.
  Mr. McCabe: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Ainsworth: No, I will not. The hon. Gentleman has already had his chance.
  The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Mr. Chris Smith): Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will answer the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) and tell us whether he will scrap the new opportunities fund, which puts money precisely into health, education and the environment?
  Mr. Ainsworth: The Secretary of State goes on and on about that point. He will have to be patient: we will announce our policies at the appropriate time.
  Nobody believes the Government on the subject of the dome: nobody believes them when they say that it is a success and nobody believes them when they try to blame us. What people see is a Government who are prepared to take the credit for everything and responsibility for nothing.
  We know from the National Audit Office report that, after the election, the Government reviewed the entire project. We know that they reviewed the visitor number forecasts and that they ignored the advice of Deloitte Touche and of Millennium Commission officials. The Government decided on a forecast of 12 million visitors. The Government are responsible for the visitor forecast and they are responsible for the content, for the budget and for the decision by Lord Falconer to insist on 1 million free school visits against the advice of the board. That blew a huge hole in the dome's finances. The Government have also been responsible for the appalling media relations: both before and during this year, the dome has been a public relations nightmare.
  Mr. Efford: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Ainsworth: If I thought that the hon. Gentleman was going to put his hand up and admit responsibility for
  716
  the gross financial mismanagement of the dome, I would be willing to give way, but I suspect that he is not going to do that.
  We also know why the Government decided to go ahead with the project. The Prime Minister himself ordained that they should go ahead at the fateful Cabinet meeting on 19 June 1997. Despite the misgivings of a majority of the Cabinet, the Government went ahead with the project. Despite the Chancellor's rather ludicrous suggestion that the project should meet five key tests—we have heard that somewhere before—the Prime Minister announced the same day that the project would proceed. He said:
  In the year 2000 all the eyes of the world will be on Britain—
  Would that they might avert them now! He continued:
  This is our chance to make a statement of faith in our capacity to do things bigger and better than anyone else.
  The Government's attempts to blame the Conservatives for their own failings are undignified and would be laughable were they not so contemptible and cowardly. Indeed, the Prime Minister's antics have become frankly comic, although his behaviour is more akin to that of Alan B'stard than to that of Jim Hacker. We now know that Lord Falconer has not resigned because he is acting as a human shield for the Prime Minister.
  The Foreign Secretary summed up the position when he said on 19 June 1997:
  We can always blame the Tories if we stop now. If we go ahead we'll have to take the blame if the whole lot goes wrong.
  Mr. John Greenway: Exactly right.
  Mr. Ainsworth: Indeed, but that does not say much for the Foreign Secretary's political morality.
  The future of the dome is yet again uncertain. Doubts have persisted over whether the proposed deal with Legacy will go ahead. The task facing the Government is to ensure that, by selling the dome, they achieve a maximum return to lottery players and a maximum national gain in terms of long-term jobs and regeneration on the site. It is not possible to understand how that will be achieved by engaging in a hole-in-the-corner discussion with a single bidder which happens to have donated large sums to the Labour party and the Secretary of State's constituency association.
  The site's future should be thrown open to fresh competition. Retaining the dome itself should not be a condition of the sale. Most people would rather have some of their money back after this dreadful year than see the dome retained as a symbol of a Prime Minister's vanity. As it is, there is a real risk that in the coming months the dome will stand idle and empty, a mute but powerful reminder of the cynicism, cronyism, arrogance and wastefulness of an incompetent and discredited Government. The right hon. Member for Hartlepool said that the closing ceremony would
  reflect the full breadth and success of the celebrations that we have planned.—[Official Report, 20 April 1998; Vol. 310, c. 473]
  How right he was for once. On 31 December, someone will quietly switch off the lights for the last time—but the memory of the dome's one appalling year will stay fresh in the public's mind and they will not forgive this Government.
  7.53 pm
  The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Mr. Chris Smith): I beg to move, To leave out from "House" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof
  welcomes the publication of the National Audit Office report, which gives a detailed account of events at the Dome; agrees that politicians of all parties involved in the project share responsibility both for the successes in regenerating this depressed part of South East London and its failings to reach its original visitor estimates; and deplores the decision by Her Majesty's Opposition not to support the original bi-partisan nature of this national project.
  I begin by offering you, Madam Deputy Speaker, my warm congratulations on the assumption of your august office. I am sure that every hon. Member would join me in that. May I also say that, as ever, I am pleased to have the opportunity to debate the dome on the Floor of the House.
  I was somewhat surprised that the Opposition decided to pre-empt the Public Accounts Committee hearing scheduled for Wednesday. I very much regret that they are effectively undermining the PAC deliberations by tabling a motion that asks the House to anticipate the PAC.
  Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: The Secretary of State makes a fair point. Will he guarantee us another Opposition day before Christmas?
  Mr. Smith: The allocation of Opposition days is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House. Their precise content is entirely a matter for the Opposition
  The Government have already welcomed the National Audit Office report, which gives a detailed and accurate account of the origins of the dome and of the events during its year of operation. We welcome the PAC's inquiry and we will work fully with it.
  We recognise the problems that the dome has faced. In particular, it is a matter of great regret to all of us who had high hopes for the project that the original visitor target will not be met. That has been at the root of all the dome's problems this year. It has led to a 65 per cent. drop in visitor revenue and the consequent need for additional lottery funding. It has placed enormous strain on NMEC as it sought to attract visitors by introducing better marketing and developing the product on offer.
  Mr. Redwood: When Ministers said at various times throughout the year that no more money would be available, were they misleading the House or was the company trading when it was insolvent? Which is it?
  Mr. Smith: It is neither. When I informed the House of the comments made by Mr. P-Y Gerbeau in July—the hon. Member for East Surrey (Mr. Ainsworth) referred to this—I was reporting exactly what Mr. Gerbeau had said about his intentions and hopes for future visitor numbers.
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth: In that case, was Mr. P-Y Gerbeau misleading the Secretary of State?
  Mr. Smith: We now know with hindsight that Mr. Gerbeau was wrong. That is public knowledge.
  718
  In the conclusions to the NAO report, the Comptroller and Auditor General said:
  it is clear that the main cause of the financial difficulties is the failure to achieve the visitor numbers and income required
  Mr. Christopher Fraser: Mr. Keith Bales, a former senior Disney executive, told the Culture, Media and Sport Committee in 1997 that no one on the board of NMEC
  has ever run, managed, designed or promoted in any way whatsoever a major international leisure attraction.
  He went on to say that he did not believe in the visitor numbers. Why, therefore, has it taken the Government three years to go cap in hand back to Disney to get professional help to sort out the problems? Was it because the Government were so arrogant that they knew best? Does the Secretary of State think that he should have gone to Disney sooner?
  Mr. Smith: No, but that is the first sensible point that the Opposition have made this evening. There is a genuine issue about whether it is right for the Government to seek to run, or to be involved in the running of, a visitor attraction. We have recognised for some time that we got that wrong. We have accepted that. Bringing in Mr. Gerbeau in February this year was almost certainly bringing him in too late. We now know that. One lesson that we have to learn from the story of the dome is that, with a project of this size and scale, we need to ensure that the experts are brought in to run it from an early date.
  Mr. Ainsworth: May I take the Secretary of State back to the inaccurate information that he says P-Y Gerbeau gave to him. If P-Y's information was wrong, are we to take it that the company was trading insolvently, albeit without P-Y Gerbeau's knowledge? If that is the case, what does it say about the competence of Lord Falconer, who is the shareholder and Minister responsible?
  Mr. Smith: The issue of trading insolvently is appropriate only if a company has no reasonable expectation of being able to trade itself out of insolvency. Each time Lord Falconer and others came to Parliament on this matter, there was every expectation either that the issue of inadequate funds was about to be resolved or that it had just been resolved. That is the point that the hon. Gentleman needs to take into account.
  Mr. Redwood: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Smith: No, I must make some progress
  I agree with the Comptroller and Auditor General's conclusions. He is right to identify the reduction in visitor numbers as the main source of the dome's difficulties, although there were other issues, to which I shall come in a moment or two.
  It is of course very disappointing that the dome will not meet its original visitor target of 12 million. Since the Millennium Commission set out its guidelines for a national exhibition in 1995, many Members on both sides of the House have shared its aspirations for an exhibition to rival those of 1851 and 1951. Those guidelines suggested that the millennium exhibition should attract between 15 million and 30 million people. That was a

  719
  laudable ambition, but one which, with the benefit of hindsight, we know to have been seriously over-optimistic. We must all—on both sides of the House—put up our hands and admit that we got it wrong. I am happy to do so. Indeed, all of us on both sides of the House need to accept that there were things about the project, especially the visitor number projections, that we simply got wrong.
  Mr. Roger Gale: Will the Secretary of State give way?
  Mr. Smith: Before I give way to the hon. Gentleman, I remind him that, in 1995, the Millennium Commission, chaired by the then Secretary of State for National Heritage, the right hon. Member for South-West Surrey (Mrs. Bottomley), set an aim of 15 million visitors; that in July 1995, the aim had become between 15 million and 30 million visitors; that on 18 January 1996, the target was 10 million visitors; that in February of that year, the target was between 10.9 million and 16 million visitors; and that, by 11 December 1996, the target had become 13.5 million visitors. That is the story of expectations throughout that period, so we shall take no lessons from the Conservative party about the mistakes that were undoubtedly made. Members on both sides of the House were responsible for getting it wrong.
  Mr. Gale: Having come from "We'll take the credit" to "Let's please share the blame", the Secretary of State should be referred to page 4 of the National Audit Office report, which we are in effect debating. Referring to May 1997, paragraph 16 states:
  At that stage, however, final decisions had not been made on the Dome's contents, on ticket prices, on marketing strategies, and on whether there would be access to the area by car for the purposes of dropping off and picking up.
  In other words, every major decision, other than the decision to have the spiked hut, was taken by this Government. if there were a shred of honour left in the Secretaries of State for Northern Ireland and for Culture, Media and Sport, or in Lord Falconer, all three would resign.
  Mr. Smith: I hesitate to point out to the hon. Gentleman that the decision to build the dome was taken under the previous Government; that the decision to build it at Greenwich was taken under the previous Conservative Government; that the original chairman and chief executive of the dome company were appointed by the previous Government; that the corporate structure was decided by the previous Government; that the use of lottery money to support the project was decided under the previous Government; and that the role of the shareholder was created under the previous Government. The hon. Gentleman's intervention is simply unworthy of his usual high standards.
  Mr. Maples: The long list of things that the Secretary of State said were decided by the previous Government omitted the content of the dome. I took my family, along with another family, to the dome very early in January. We all thought that we would have had a lot more fun at the local fair and learned a lot more at the science museum. The problem with the project is not the concept, the space or the wonderful tube ride to get there but the
  720
  trite content. Nobody blames the Secretary of State for that; he is much too civilised to have passed off such rubbish as appropriate content. It is surely the fault of the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, and he ought to be answering this debate.
  Mr. Smith: I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman is a fan of the science museum and that he can now take his children to it for free following our decision. His experience differs markedly from 88 per cent. of visitors to the dome, who come away saying that they have had a really enjoyable time and would recommend it to their friends.
  In the context of the history of the project, I find the attitude of the hon. Member for East Surrey and his party leader pretty unedifying. One—the hon. Member for East Surrey—was the Parliamentary Private Secretary to the Secretary of State for National Heritage, and the other sat on the Cabinet Committee that decided to take forward the exhibition under the previous Government. When the previous Government set up that Committee, the then Secretary of State announced on 28 February 1996 that, in order to ensure that the Government's participation in that significant national event was well planned and co-ordinated, she had asked the First Secretary of State and Deputy Prime Minister to convene a ministerial group. The Leader of the Opposition was a member of that ministerial group from the outset; the public record confirms it. I do not think it unreasonable, in the light of the Opposition's comments in this debate, to point out that they were in it from the start.
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth: Will the Secretary of State give way?
  Mr. Smith: No, I want to make some progress.
  Now we have an Opposition, including the hon. Gentleman, who engage in what I would call not so much shuttle diplomacy as shuttle expediency: when something is going well, one goes ahead with it, giving it all one's support and praising it to the skies; but when it turns out three months later to be unpopular with the media, here are the Opposition going in the opposite direction, saying that the project is a complete disaster and was nothing whatever to do with them in the first place.
  I remind the hon. Gentleman of what he said, not in 1995 or 1996 but in the middle of 1999:
  I enjoy visiting the dome, and I have seen a major transformation on that site since it was a barren wasteland.—[Official Report, 18 June 1999; Vol. 335, c. 674-75.]
  Not to be outdone, the Leader of the Opposition said of the dome on 23 December 1999:
  I think it's now the job of all politicians to make a success of it. So we shall go there and join in the party.
  Perhaps most significant of all, the then Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for South-West Surrey, said when presenting to the House in December 1996 the decision to go ahead with the dome:
  we believe that the potential for tourism is important, not only nationally—15 million visitors are expected—but internationally.—[Official Report, 28 February 1996; Vol. 272, c. 888-90.]
  Mr. Ainsworth: The Secretary of State is merely reiterating the point that the Conservatives had the original vision for the dome. He knows perfectly well that we did

  721
  not want this thing to be the failure that it has become. We warned the Government that, if they went ahead as they were going, it might be such a failure. It is their fault that the project has become a failure. At least we can recognise that, now that it has.
  Has the Secretary of State read the National Audit Office report? If he looks at paragraph 1.27, he will see that all his points fall away. It states clearly:
  The then Official Opposition agreed to these arrangements, but reserved the right to review every aspect of the delivery of the project if elected to Government. The new Government undertook such a review
  The figures were the Secretary of State's; it was the Government's decision.
  Mr. Smith: Not only the original concept but the structure of the company, the decision to go ahead with it and the original visitor number expectations, which are at the heart of the NAO report, were put in place by the previous Government.
  The hon. Member for East Surrey has spoken about my noble Friend Lord Falconer of Thoroton. The previous Government recognised the national significance of the project by appointing a Minister the sole shareholder in the operating company. We retained those arrangements because we believe that it was right that a national project of such scale should be subject to ministerial accountability. As an NMEC shareholder, Lord Falconer is accountable to Parliament through the other place for the Millennium Experience. That means that he needs to take an active interest in the project's development and progress along the critical path. However, that is very different from interfering in day-to-day management, which is the responsibility of NMEC's board.
  I especially deplore the cheap political point scoring to which the Opposition have sunk—
  Mr. Redwood rose—
  Mr. Smith: Right on cue, here is the right hon. Gentleman to make more cheap political points.
  Mr. Redwood: The Secretary of State gave an interesting answer earlier: he said that the company was not trading when insolvent because it had a reasonable expectation of getting more money—and, as we know, the money came from the Millennium Commission, the taxpayer and the millennium fund contributor. Is he not telling us, therefore, that the Minister was saying one thing to the company to reassure it that money would be made available, and another to Parliament, which was told that no money would be made available?
  Mr. Smith: No, I do not agree with that analysis.
  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Smith: Yes, because it is the right hon. Lady, but this must be the last time.
  Mrs. Bottomley: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that all the public servants who have worked on the
  722
  project bitterly resent the degree to which the Labour party has tried to party politicise the dome events? It tried to make it a glorious Sheffield rally by imposing Labour party imagery and ideology on the project—even launching it at the People's Palace, where Labour celebrated its campaign victory. A million free tickets for schoolchildren were given away in the face of advice from those within the organisation. The Labour party lost public support for the project by trying to turn it into a Labour party legacy.
  Mr. Smith: No, if any party is trying to make party political capital out of the dome, it is the Conservative party.
  Lord Falconer sets the strategic direction of the dome and monitors NMEC's progress against the criteria that we set it. He has been tireless in his defence of the dome and in his work to raise awareness of its achievements. He has shown leadership in standing by the dome's loyal staff, in visiting it regularly and in monitoring its progress through turbulent times. His job is an important one and he is doing it well in the teeth of enormous difficulty and flak. It is certainly not in the interests of the British people that he should resign.
  Lord Falconer has never lost sight of the good things about the dome, and nor should we. Despite the undeniable problems identified by the Comptroller and Auditor General, the dome is a remarkable achievement. For a start, it is a stunning building, recognised as a great construction achievement and a triumph of British engineering for which the engineers, Buro Happold, won the prestigious Royal Academy of Engineering MacRobert award, which is Britain's premier prize for engineering.
  Greenwich council, which has supported the project from the outset, is proud of what it has meant to one of London's poorest boroughs—and so it should be. In less than four years, the largest track of derelict urban wasteland in Europe has been transformed into a busy, attractive place—one where people want to live, in one of the new homes in the millennium village; a place where they want to shop, in Sainsbury's new store, which has just won a national award for environmental sustainability; a place where they want to stay in the new hotel and come to enjoy themselves at the millennium dome.
  Mr. Norman Baker: Given his enthusiasm for the structure, which I share, will the Secretary of State guarantee that the millennium dome will not be bulldozed?
  Mr. Smith: I very much hope that the dome will not be pulled down, but the ministerial team—which, of course, does not include me—that will determine the future legacy of the dome will have to take into account the iconic nature of the structure, the regeneration effect that it can have and the best possible return to the lottery player and taxpayer. Those considerations must be carefully balanced by the team.
  The construction phase of the dome and other developments on the peninsula have created employment for 8,700 people, and 5,500 are employed in the operation. Greenwich council predicts that 30,000 permanent jobs will be created in the borough within seven years as a result of the investment on the peninsula. The council is right to be proud of all that has been achieved.

  723
  The people who work at the dome are also proud of what they have achieved. They know that they are doing a good job because people tell them so: as I said, in a recent poll, 88 per cent. of visitors said that they had enjoyed their day at the dome and 94 per cent. that they had enjoyed the millennium show. Those satisfaction ratings are something of which to be proud, as is the fact that the dome has attracted more visitors this year than any other paying attraction in the UK: the dome's 4.5 million paying visitors to date mean that, after only 10 months, it has attracted almost twice the yearly total of visitors to the next most popular attraction, Alton Towers.
  I am also proud of the dome work force—not only because of the way in which they have stood up to the trials and tribulations of the operating year, but because of the unfailing courtesy, good humour and professionalism that they have displayed throughout. Other people are also proud of the dome. Let me give just one example. Pat Nunn of Ossett in Yorkshire wrote to The Guardian on 28 October to say:
  I went to the Millennium Dome expecting rubbish—
  she had been listening to the hon. Member for East Surrey too much—
  but what I found was impressive. If there was a gold medal for knocking things, we British would win every time. I'm no flag-waver, but I felt proud of what I saw and experienced
  We must remember that the millennium celebrations are not only about the dome. The vision for celebrating the millennium includes not only capital projects, but more than 1,000 large-scale community projects throughout the UK under the umbrella of the millennium festival, and more than 12,000 awards for all so far distributed to community arts, sports, heritage and charity projects in every part of the UK. Of the 180 capital projects funded by the Millennium Commission, 90 are now complete, and two thirds of the 3,118 umbrella projects have now opened. Recent openings include "Turning the Tide", which is a wonderful project restoring England's only stretch of magnesium limestone coastline in Durham—restoring the beaches, removing coal waste and derelict structures and creating new cycle paths and walkways to enhance the area's accessibility. ECOS at Ballymena is a new 57 hectare town park and environmental visitor and education centre, which will house the Northern Ireland environmental information centre. The national wildlife centre in Liverpool is a centre for creative conservation, promoting the use of wild flowers in the wider process of regeneration.
  None the less, we all need to learn the valuable lessons about the assessment and management of capital projects that the dome project has taught us, some of which are set out in the National Audit Office report. I identify four key lessons. First, adopt a clear management structure. An alternative structure to deliver the exhibition from the outset might well have achieved a different outcome. The tight time frame meant that no acceptable alternative was available for the dome, but, for the future, we know that a less complex, more directly accountable structure is probably better.
  Mr. Gerald Kaufman: My right hon. Friend mentions the tight time frame. Is it not absolutely remarkable that the dome building was ready on time and open when it needed to be open, on a fixed timetable? By contrast, we have the disaster of the British
  724
  Library project, whose cost doubled and exploded and the building was not nearly ready on time—and that happened under the Conservatives.
  Mr. Smith: My right hon. Friend is absolutely right to highlight the remarkable achievement whereby the millennium dome was completed and made ready for opening. Everyone knew the time frame that had to be adhered to.
  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Smith: The second lesson is to bring in the experts. Managers with experience of running large-scale visitor attractions should have been engaged by NMEC for the operational year. All parties acknowledged that when the project was reviewed in February this year, and undoubtedly we should have recognised it.
  Mrs. Bottomley: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Smith: I said to the right hon. Lady that I was giving way for the last time, but because she is so persistent, I will allow her to make another intervention.
  Mrs. Bottomley: I thank the right hon. Gentleman. Does he feel able to pay credit to Jennie Page?
  Mr. Smith: Yes, I am delighted to pay credit to Jennie Page for having achieved the construction of the dome by 31 December 1999 in the very efficient way in which that was done.
  The third lesson is to make prudent estimates at the outset. We have already acknowledged that the initial visitor number estimates of 12 million were too high, although experts said at the time that the figure was not unrealistic. We have learned from that, and I am pleased to say that now, for every major capital project, the Millennium Commission examines the business plan and the operational expectations in detail and tests carefully whether they are correct.
  The result, I am pleased to say, has been enormously successful. The Eden project is now 70 per cent. over its visitor number target. The Lowry in Salford is 54 per cent. over its target. Dynamic Earth in Edinburgh is 32 per cent. over its target. The national botanic garden of Wales is 26 per cent. over its target. The Big Idea in Irvine is 17 per cent. over its target, and @, Bristol is 11 per cent. over its target.
  The fourth lesson that we need to learn concerns risk assessment and risk management. We have always recognised that the dome project was risky. My Department is now working hard to improve our performance—everyone's performance—on risk analysis, to ensure that everything possible is done to minimise risks similar to those that have arisen during the Millennium Experience project.
  What I have said will, I hope, help to redress the balance of what the hon. Member for East Surrey laid before the House. I also hope that it gives him some pause

  725
  for thought. It is easy and cheap politics to knock a project which his previous boss described in 1996 as
  Britain's shopfront as we go into a new century.—[Official Report, 16 December 1996; Vol. 287, c. 607.]
  We shared that vision. We are, of course, sad that the visitor numbers have been lower than hoped for, but pleased that those who came have enjoyed themselves. The regeneration benefits will be felt in the area for years to come.
  What we do not want to do is engage in the tawdry hypocrisy of praising something one year, damning it the next, pretending that it is nothing whatever to do with us, and failing to address the serious wider issues of governance and risk management that are genuinely thrown into the public domain by this project and by what has happened. That serious task is one that we are taking forward and will continue to take forward.
  8.23 pm
  Mr. Michael Heseltine: I can claim to be the only Member who has been involved in every stage of the Millennium Commission and the saga of the dome. Indeed, in a rather unusual circumstance, I was the Deputy Prime Minister who negotiated many of the arrangements of government that have been discussed today.
  As a millennium commissioner, on the change of Government I was consulted by the right hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson), and as a result of that was asked whether I would remain in something of the same position as I had held in government, in order to preserve the continuity of the decision-making processes that had been established and were under way.
  Consequently, I have seen the inside story. With hindsight, all of us would do things differently. One thing that I would not do differently in any way was the decision to attempt to replicate the great historic successes of 1851 and 1951. Nor would I change the decision to use the opportunity for the dome investment to regenerate one of the poorest parts of the London borough of Greenwich.
  I feel particularly strongly about that because in 1979, I made one of the more regrettable decisions of my career: I left out the sites at Greenwich and Lewisham from the decision that we took to take over land in the five London boroughs to the north of the river. Fifteen years later, the Greenwich site was as derelict as on the day I left it out
  I have thus seen matters from the inside. It would, I suppose, be possible for me not to participate in this debate, which is inspired by my political party, but it would, I think, be less than frank and honourable to the House, which is entitled to hear the views that I have developed.
  I shall keep the House for only a moment or two, and explain, as the Secretary of State said, that if the accounting officer of the Millennium Commission is to appear before the Public Accounts Committee in the next few days, and if the accounting officer for the Department for Culture, Media and Sport is to report on events for which I had responsibility, it is incumbent on me not to make their task more complicated than it is bound to be.
  There are three issues on which I shall speak: first, the all-party, non-party atmosphere in which the project was conceived and delivered; secondly, the decision about the 12 million attendance; and thirdly, the after-use of the Greenwich peninsula.
  726
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon(Mr. Major), when he was Prime Minister, asked me to become a millennium commissioner. He named a number of colleagues with whom I have worked over the years. Some of them have gone and been replaced, but the one certainty about the decision that he took is that the commission would be non-party, all-party. To this day, I could not tell the House in all honesty which way members of the Millennium Commission would vote in a general election.
  I know that the late Lord Montague—Michael Montague as he was then—was appointed to the Millennium Commission as a nominee of the Labour party, so from the earliest days, clearly, one of our members was appointed in order to ensure that the Labour party believed in and was on side with all the decisions of the commission. He became a Labour life peer before his premature death after the election.
  I now know, of course, that Patricia Scotland QC has become a Labour working peer, but when she initially became a member of the Millennium Commission, I did not know that she was a member or supporter of the Labour party.
  Listening to the comments in the commission, I could guess at the political affiliation of one or two of my colleagues, but certainly not all of them. I can never remember any stage, in any of our discussions from that moment to this, when party politics or party allegiances played any part whatever in the decision-making processes in which we engaged.
  When we faced a significant hurdle in the life of the dome—that is, the general election campaign—I became preoccupied with the uncertainty inevitably created in the circumstances. There was a moment—I have been critical of this matter in public—when I thought that the Labour party would stand back from decisions of which it had clearly been aware and which it had supported—decisions made after consultations with those on the Labour Front Bench.
  So preoccupied did I become by the damage that this was doing to the dome project that I asked to see the then leader of the Labour party, the present Prime Minister, and put to him as strongly as I could the fact that his party had been committed to the project from the first stage. Labour knew all about it, and had complete access to all the information and figures. In those circumstances, a sudden decision by the Labour party to abandon the project would have been—at least—a major breach of integrity.
  Hon. Members have referred to the reappraisal that took place. The new Government decided to proceed with the project, and I remained part of a working team that met almost every Tuesday afternoon. The plans were unfolded at those meetings. My colleague from the Millennium Commission, Simon Jenkins—again, of no known political affiliation—took an equal part in those decisions.
  My second point is about the projected 12 million attendance. I have spent much of my commercial life launching projects. I have never known one yet that was certain, did not carry an element of risk and did not involve consultants who said, "It can't be done."However, the Millennium Commission took the best evidence that it could about possible numbers. It was ultimately down to the commissioners, not the Government, to decide whether to proceed on the basis

  727
  of figures that were high but not unreasonable. I vividly remember the meeting when we made that decision. I shall not say that my views were uninfluenced by my judgment of consultants—I have used many consultants. The late, great Charles Clore said:
  My accountant is right 99 times out of a hundred. The other time, I make a fortune
  An element of that applies to consultants.
  The other profound influence on my views was my experience with the Liverpool garden festival. When the plans were put to us, I was told, "Secretary of State, we are forecasting 3 million visitors. We'd like you to endorse that figure." I said that I would state that I was advised that we were expecting 3 million visitors; I was not prepared to endorse the figure. I felt ashamed of that later because 3.6 million visitors went to the garden festival on Merseyside in six months.
  When I took part in the decision-making process on the dome, I remembered that 3.6 million visitors had come to Merseyside in six months. I knew that the dome would be a national endeavour, sited in London, that it would embrace a huge number of tourists, and that it would carry all-party support and massive private sector financial support and all that went with that. It therefore seemed reasonable to back expert advice that around 10 to 12 million visitors were possible.
  The precise moment at which everything appeared to go wrong does not accord with my memory of the reporting of the dome endeavours from the mid-1990s onwards. I have been engaged in the development of many controversial public projects, but I have never known one so undermined and vilified by the national press from the moment that it was announced. Of the many reasons for not achieving this, that or the other target, one reason for not gaining the private sector financial support that we might have expected, was that every time we endeavoured to raise money from the private sector, our attempts were met with massive contemptuous dismissal from the national press.
  Sir Norman Fowler: Did I misunderstand my right hon. Friend, or did he imply that it was his intention from the start that the project should go to London?
  Mr. Heseltine: I personally was inclined that way. I appreciate the persuasive battle that my right hon. Friend fought for Birmingham. I was open-minded, but I had an instinct that we were considering a national project for the capital city. I shall outline the factors that determined that the project went to Greenwich, and influenced my other colleagues on the commission, who spoke for themselves.
  My right hon. Friend can at least give me credit for being one of the national exhibition centre's most frequent visitors. However, we did not believe that it offered the opportunity for a spectacular architectural innovation; we believed that the Greenwich site did that. Secondly, we did not believe that the national exhibition centre offered the same incredible regeneration opportunities—opportunities that were not so desperately needed on the NEC site as they were in Greenwich.
  Mr. McCabe: If regeneration was such a central criterion for the right hon. Gentleman, why was it not
  728
  mentioned in the original competition that the Millennium Commission announced? Why were the Birmingham NEC group and the city council told that they could not use regeneration arguments to support to their bid?
  Mr. Heseltine: I would have to look back at the relevant documents to ascertain whether I agree with the simplicity of the hon. Gentleman's case. Let me put a counter-argument as it occurs to me. We divided the competition into two parts: proposals for building the dome and proposals for a site. With hindsight, the Millennium Commission had no power to organise the dome. We could only ask others to present proposals. We were preoccupied by the risk that we might have got a fantastic site in, for example, Birmingham and a wonderful proposal for, for example, Derby. We had to decide how we would cope with that. We therefore decided to split the competition between the organisation and the site. Birmingham had incomparably the best proposal, which was presented by Gary Withers of Imagination. However, the problem of the site remained.
  There was also a powerful additional argument for Greenwich that I had not deployed before the hon. Gentleman questioned me. In Birmingham the motorways were a problem. The NEC would have been a car-served site.
  Sir Norman Fowler: There is a railway.
  Mr. Heseltine: Yes, but an enormous number of people would have travelled by motorway. They could not have been stopped. The NEC is served by cars. For many of us who travel along the motorways of the west midlands on a Thursday or Friday, the idea of injecting an enormous extra flow of private transport into that area was perceived as a disadvantage at the time. Those are broadly the arguments that led us to Greenwich. Again, with hindsight, I would not rely on public transport. There is a psyche attached to the use of the car and the way in which families entertain themselves that imposed a serious liability on us as we tried to achieve our targets.
  My third point is about the after-use of the site. We are all agonising about the regrettable way in which the project has worked out. No one feels that more strongly than me. From the experiences of the London Docklands development corporation, I am aware that none of us really knows how regeneration projects will work out. Nobody would have believed me if I had stood at the Dispatch Box in 1979 and proclaimed the success of Canary wharf, City airport and Excel. I would have been laughed to scorn. Yet that was the beginning of an extraordinary phenomenon.
  do not know what will happen in Greenwich, but I know that there is a remarkable building there. It would be a tragedy if, in the short-term aftermath of the collapse of public confidence in the project, we tore down the building as an act of contrition. I hope that the Government and the Millennium Commission, which will be consulted and of which I am a member, will keep its nerve. I hope that when considering the £10 billion of lottery money that was raised through the foresight of my right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon, hon. Members will bear in mind that the expenditure—far more than we ever wanted—is still to be seen in the context of the most remarkable creation in a generation of expenditure on culture, heritage and the arts that this country has ever seen.
  8.40 pm
  Mr. Gerald Kaufman: The right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) and I have known each other for a long time, going back to our undergraduate days. It is 20 years since we faced each other regularly across the Dispatch Box. We argued about a great many things. As he is not standing again at the next general election, perhaps we shall not speak again in the same debate in the House. That being so, I pay tribute to him for the regenerative work that he did when Secretary of State for the Environment. I differed with him a good deal about some of it but he did a great deal. I thank him for the money that he put into Moon Grove in my constituency. We had a bitter argument in the Chamber, and behind the Chair he agreed to put money into my constituency, with no conceivable political gain for himself. I pay tribute to him for that and for his honest and honourable speech this evening.
  The right hon. Gentleman has cause to be proud of the dome as an icon of the United Kingdom. Coming into the country from the air, it is a great landmark. Like the right hon. Gentleman, I hope that we shall be able to keep it for a long time, as it fulfils an honourable function.
  If the official Opposition had conducted the debate in the manner adopted by the right hon. Gentleman, it would be a different occasion. I know that too many Conservative Members are beyond shame, but I hope that when they listened to the right hon. Gentleman they felt some shame about the way in which they are seeking to make cheap party capital, which they will fail to do, over what was intended to be a national project. It was intended to be a non-party project, and it should have remained so. Had that happened, it might well have achieved more of the visitor numbers which the right hon. Gentleman and Labour Members wanted.
  The right hon. Member for South-West Surrey (Mrs. Bottomley), the former Secretary of State for National Heritage, paid tribute to Jennie Page, who is one of the most remarkable people I have ever met, for the way in which she delivered the dome on time. It is extremely difficult to deliver a huge building project on a specific day, one day beyond which would have been regarded as a catastrophe. She is a remarkable woman. I said to her face that her determination and single-mindedness made Margaret Thatcher seem humble. She took that in good spirit. As we said in a recent Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee report, I hope that she will be able to do further valuable work in the public sector.
  We now know, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said and as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said at the Labour party conference last month, that a serious error was made, which was to believe that Governments or public bodies know how to run visitor attractions. The Select Committee, of which I am Chairman, had a relevant witness at its first hearing and first inquiry three years ago. If it was an error, and it was, that is because Jennie Page, with all her extraordinary virtues, did not know how to run such an attraction. That is no discredit to her. However, if we had known that, things might have been very different.
  It is all very well for Conservative Members to sneer and talk about Mickey Mouse. The Disney organisation knows how to run visitor attractions, but Disneyland Paris was a catastrophe when it first opened. It is now the only visitor attraction in democratic Europe that has more
  730
  paying visitors than the millennium dome. However, it got it all wrong to begin with. With its incredible wealth, it had to bail everything out and start again. A huge commercial organisation that knows how to do things, has huge experience and has a brand name unrivalled in the world could not get things right. It is regrettable that the Conservative party started to make cheap political capital out of the dome, and discreditable even to it.
  Mr. Gale: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Kaufman: No. I shall proceed.
  We have only to look at the history. I am making no excuses for my right hon. Friends. They are the Government, and they should take responsibility. Let us remember, however, that the Government had been in office for only six weeks when they decided to continue with the dome. Most of my right hon. Friends in the Cabinet had no experience of government and had never sat on the Government Benches. I thank the right hon. Member for Henley for saying that they decided bravely to continue it. It had started under a party which had been in government for 18 years. We were told that it was the party of business.
  I do not think that we can blame a fledgling Labour Government, after 18 years in opposition, for believing that the Government who had been in office before them knew what they were doing. The timetable can be traced in the report which the Select Committee published in August. In June 1994, the then Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke), as the first chairman of the Millennium Commission, talked about
  the idea of a Millennium Festival with an Exhibition as its centrepiece
  In February 1996, the Millennium Commission selected the Greenwich site. With great respect, I believe that it was right to do so. There was the road transport factor along with regeneration and the symbolism of the meridian line, which I believe was extremely important. The commission did that long before the general election. At the beginning of 1997, it set up the New Millennium Experience Company and appointed Jennie Page as the chief executive. It decided, a policy which the Labour Government continued, to appoint a Minister as sole shareholder, rightly believing, as did the previous Government, that in the end the matter came back to the House, or in the case of Lord Falconer, the other place. [Interruption.] There is no point the hon. Member for East Surrey (Mr. Ainsworth) giggling about the House of Lords being a House of Parliament. When Harold Macmillan became Prime Minister, for a time he had a Member of the House of Lords as his Foreign Secretary. It is a House of Parliament, and the Conservatives dominate it, so they had better not sneer at it quite so much as they do.
  I do not criticise the Conservatives for doing all that. It is easy with hindsight to say that the big error was the estimate of visitor numbers. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, in a non-contentious manner, gave the history of the estimate of visitor numbers. The Select Committee has conducted a series of inquiries into this matter. Its eighth report published in August contains a

  731
  memorandum submitted by the Millennium Commission on 24 May 1995, which is nearly two years before the Labour Government came to office. It said:
  The Commission agrees site selection guidelines which set the "brave but defensible" aim of a minimum 15 million visitors … For site selection purposes, in particular regarding maximum site capacity, guidelines remark that a figure in excess of 30 million visitors unlikely
  But 15 million was considered likely.
  A memorandum in July said:
  The first set of guidelines to potential operators issued by the Commission included in the site criteria the indicative target of achieving between 15 and 30 million visits over the year
  In February-May 1996, a year before the general election, a memorandum said that the commission
  explored the feasibility of an Exhibition with an attendance target of 10 million or more, an arena for 12,000, and a three-year national programme
  On 16 May, it said:
  Commission adopt a more modest plan involving temporary buildings, with no arena or national programme and a visitor target of 10 million
  In January 1997, it said:
  MCL business plan revised by MC staff. Visitor assumption reduced to 10 million. Indicative budget approved by Commission 13 January
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and the right hon. Member for Henley are absolutely right to pinpoint the fact that those, as it turned out, highly over-optimistic projections are at the root of the financial problem. All the overhead factors were built in on the basis of that visitor number. Once they were built in, they could not be built out again. We could not change the building. We could not suddenly reduce the number of staff. As my right hon. Friend said, the staff are wonderful. Their sheer courtesy and kindness help to make this visitor attraction a great experience for those who go to see it.
  Let us be clear about this. The hon. Member for East Surrey said that we should have realised long ago that the dome would be a failure. It is a failure in relative terms: it is not a failure as a paying visitor attraction—it is an amazing visitor attraction.
  Members on the Conservative Front Bench—not the few grown-ups left in the party, such as the right hon. Member for Henley—have dissociated themselves from this project. I was on the underground train on the night of 31 December last year with my niece and her husband. They had come down from Leeds to join me in the celebrations. She has a proud picture taken with the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition on the underground station. He was there that night. He did not dissociate himself from the dome that night. He was part of it. It would be greatly to his credit if he remained part of it. He is doing his party no good, because the electorate are not fools. A Gallup poll in The Daily Telegraph today shows that 42 per cent. of the electorate blame the last Conservative Government for the present rail chaos, and 15 per cent. blame the present Labour Government.
  One of the reasons why the Conservatives will be trounced at the next election and why their chances of returning to office at any time in the foreseeable future are small is that they have contempt for the electorate.
  732
  Eighteen years in opposition at least taught me not to have any contempt for the electorate. I learned that the voters know what they are doing.
  Mr. Gale rose—
  Mr. Kaufman: I shall give way to the hon. Member for North Thanet (Mr. Gale).
  Mr. Gale: The right hon. Gentleman is courteous as always. He chided us for making party political points, and since then has done nothing but make party political points. Does he realise that some Conservative Members believed passionately that the regeneration of Greenwich was a good idea? They believed that to put the dome, as a fine building, as close as possible to the meridian line was the right idea, and that the concept of my right hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) and the then Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for South-West Surrey (Mrs. Bottomley), and others was right. It is because of that and because we had a sense of national pride that we now feel a burning sense of national shame and anger at having been let down by what went into the dome, by its mismanagement and by the fact that people have been unable to get to it.
  Mr. Kaufman: I do not know of any national sense of burning shame and anger. As the right hon. Member for Henley said, people criticise the large sums of lottery money that are spent on the dome, but the Conservative party decided to do that. People say, "That money should have gone to the national health service and schools," but that was not the view of the right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major) nor is it the view of the Conservative party today. It does not advocate spending money on the national health service or education, but simply wants more of the same—spending on the five sectors that were decided on by the Conservative Government and championed by the right hon. Member for South-West Surrey.
  I hope that the Government will revise the categories, and I believe that there is a good argument for spending large sums of lottery money on the NHS, education and other core services. However, the Conservative party, not the Labour party, decided on the additionality principle, although it will get angry with us if we do not continue that approach.
  Mr. Fraser: I, too, sit on the Select Committee. During the production of our report, which was referred to by the right hon. Gentleman, there were several departures, in particular by Sir Cameron Mackintosh, Stephen Bayley and Eric Sorensen. What is the right hon. Gentleman's opinion of that? At that time, the general public felt no confidence in the project. That should be coupled with the opinions that my right hon. Friend the Member for Henley put to the Select Committee. He said:
  If you cannot answer the question about the contents, you cannot get somebody to sign up for the money.
  There was prevarication during that period, and resignations, and a consequent lack of confidence. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman agrees.
  Mr. Kaufman: The hon. Gentleman knows that I hold him in high regard. He also Knows my view on

  733
  that matter. Cameron Mackintosh is a highly successful theatrical producer, but he has made terrible mistakes, too. The successor to "Miss Saigon" flopped and had to be closed and re-opened, and "Moby Dick", which he absolutely adored, was a catastrophe. As for Stephen Bayley—a more trivial person it would be difficult to find, even on the Conservative Benches. The hon. Gentleman knows how fond I am of him, but on this occasion we have to differ.
  Interestingly, despite all the electorate's feelings of burning anger and all the rest of it, building the dome was right, even though, given the chance, I believe that they would have said, "No, let's build some hospitals and new schools." The regeneration of Greenwich is an extraordinary achievement, and would not otherwise have occurred. As the right hon. Member for Henley said, it was one of the most polluted areas in Europe, but it is now proud and regenerated, and thousands of new jobs have been created.
  It is a pity that even the Conservative party should conduct itself in this way, but, on the whole, I do not particularly mind. When the Labour party suffered a blip in the polls a couple of months ago, there appeared to be a possibility of the Conservative party winning the next election. However, the electorate's sheer revulsion at the prospect led to the Labour Government's return to popularity. I say to the Conservative party, "Go on like this, please, I beg of you." I have increased my majority at every general election since 1970 and, with the help of the Conservatives, I shall do so again.
  9 pm
  Mr. Norman Baker: It is odd, given that the Conservative party called this Opposition day debate, that more Liberal Democrats than Conservatives have been present throughout. It seems that the enthusiasm of the hon. Member for East Surrey (Mr. Ainsworth) is not shared by colleagues who are not giving him the proper support from behind.
  Before the typically interesting speech of the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine), we heard a rather predictable exchange between those on the two Front Benches. We heard from the Conservative side that everything was the fault of the present Government—that the Dome had been left in pristine condition in 1997, and that everything had gone terribly wrong since then. We then heard from the Labour side that it had been a disaster from the start—that in 1997 it had been impossible to save it from its present fate, and that it was all the fault of the Conservatives. Finally, there was the "let's hug each other" arrangement, whereby the parties agree to blame one another and say that that is a bipartisan approach. This is a very interesting lesson in politics.
  I think I can safely say with hand on heart that we have not been part of the "bipartisan approach". We are not represented by any MPs on the Millennium Commission, although it contains two Ministers and an Opposition Member, and we have not been involved in discussions in that context across the Chamber. It is, in a way, interesting to sit here on the sidelines listening to Conservative and Labour Members blaming each other for the Dome. Our amendment points out that it is not all the fault of either Labour or the Conservatives—that there are faults on both
  734
  sides. To be frank, I suspect that had we been in government a bit of blame would have attached to us—although perhaps not as much as has attached to the Government or the Conservative party.
  It is true—it is clear from the National Audit Office report—that there were serious faults in the way that the whole dome project was established. There were faults in terms of assessment of visitor numbers, for instance. I heard the comments of the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman); but, according to the NAO report, visitor numbers were assessed without reference to the contents, without reference to the prices, and without reference to the marketing strategy. That does not strike me as a very sensible way of proceeding. There is also the highly complex management structure referred to in the NAO report. That was set up by the Conservatives, but inherited and continued by the present Government.
  There was also what could be described as a culture of secrecy, which has not been mentioned so far. Members of Parliament were unable to obtain information, especially when the then Minister without Portfolio was in charge of the project. I am sorry that he has not seen fit to grace the House with his presence, unlike the right hon. Member for Henley, the right hon. Member for South-West Surrey (Mrs. Bottomley)—a previous Secretary of State—and others on both sides of the House. The right hon. Gentleman has been the one absentee. It is a pity that he has not turned up to give his views—but then he was never very keen on coming to the House for that purpose. He had to be dragged here kicking and screaming for a five-minute session, after the House had been sitting in the present Parliament for six or nine months. He does not treat the House with much respect in regard to these matters.
  Let me concentrate on the good points—for there are good points, which have been mentioned by Members on both sides of the House. First, we should admit that many people have enjoyed themselves. Secondly, there has been a much-needed regeneration of Greenwich. It must be said, however, that that objective did not seem to rate particularly highly until recently. It has now been dragged out as something that was always there in the beginning, but has somehow moved to centre stage as other, unsuccessful objectives have fallen.
  The millennium dome has good staff, and I feel sorry for them. They have been let down by the dome's management, and by Ministers in both this and the previous Government. The structure of the dome is a wonderful architectural achievement, and I hope very much that it is saved. I agree with the right hon. Member for Henley about that. It would be a pity if it were not saved, because I do not think the structure is at fault. No one seems to have criticised the structure, although there has been criticism of the contents, the management and everything else. Although many people want to erase the dome from their memories as a bad dream, the structure should not be erased.
  Last week or the week before, I asked the Secretary of State whether he would list the dome, because I thought that that was a way of securing its future as a building. He declined to do so, which gives the nod to the possibility, at least, that it will be demolished, which would be a pity.
  Mr. Chris Smith: It does no such thing, but follows existing practice that buildings less than 10 years old are simply not listed.
  Mr. Baker: I appreciate that that is normally the position, but the Culture Secretary could, if he wished, list the millennium dome, although he chose not to do so. Given the fact that the land is worth more without the dome than it is with it, it is possible that the dome will disappear, especially if the discussions with Legacy do not reach a satisfactory conclusion later this week. However, the tube station is a fantastic achievement, which no one has mentioned tonight. The Culture Secretary referred to the lessons that had been learned, which will be helpful in future. I agree that we can lay blame in different quarters, which I do as much as anyone else. However, we all need to learn lessons, and there are lessons to be learned, as the NAO report clearly set out.
  It is a little hypocritical of Conservative Members to say that it is all the Labour Government's fault and that everything is terribly wrong. Presumably, had Conservative Members still been in power, everything would have been all right—at least that is the implication of what they have been saying in the press. The hon. Member for Watford (Ms Ward) told the Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport:
  It is a little like Cadbury's developing a wrapper without actually deciding what the chocolate bar is going to be.
  I think that Conservative Members are guilty of that and are responsible for the culture of secrecy that enveloped the dome.
  For goodness' sake, when the Labour Government came in, several Cabinet Ministers were sceptical about the scheme. They had a review, and, given the poor management structure, the ambitious visitor targets and the culture of secrecy, I fail to understand why they did not conclude, calmly and logically, that it was not sensible to proceed.
  Mr. Efford: Visitor numbers were revised on several occasions before 1997, but not once did visitor projections go down below 10 million. The scheme proceeded on that basis, and, in that respect, everyone has been consistent in their approach to the dome.
  Mr. Baker: I am happy to accept that visitor numbers were adjusted before the election, as others have said. However, the adjustment of visitor numbers appeared to take place in a vacuum, without the benefit of knowing what was in the dome, without a proper marketing strategy and without a clear indication of what the prices would be. One cannot set visitor numbers without a decision on such matters.
  According to The Mail on Sunday, a thoroughly reliable paper that I always read, the Chancellor said in June 1997:
  I have a series of worries. It's public money—if anything goes wrong it will all come back to us.
  The Secretary of State for Education and Employment allegedly said:
  I am deeply against it, frankly. We ought to be honest and say it would cost £450 million.
  Of course, that was an underestimate, as the dome cost considerably more than that. The Secretary of State for International Development said:
  I'm vehemently opposed. This will be a political disaster.
  736
  The then Secretary of State for Health, the right hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson), said:
  I'm against. Public money and lottery money are indistinguishable in the public mind
  The then Leader of the House, the present Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury, the right hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor), said:
  We could be spending more on schools and hospitals instead.
  Senior Cabinet Ministers clearly held the view that the project should not go ahead. With all those views against it, how on earth did it go ahead? Will the Culture Secretary or the Minister for Tourism, Film and Broadcasting in her winding-up speech tell us whether there was a vote in Cabinet to proceed with the project? Or did the Prime Minister simply decide that it should go ahead, and the rest of his Cabinet Ministers were wheeled in behind? I accept that in those early days the Labour Government were new and did not have the previous Government's experience in office, as the right hon. Member for Gorton said. However, they should have been even more careful, given the scale of the project, and the possible use of public funds, including lottery funds.
  Lord Falconer has been mentioned briefly. There have been persistent calls from a number of sources for his resignation. I do not believe that he is the only person who has made mistakes on the project, but he certainly has made mistakes. Even from the point that he took over, serious mistakes have been made with the dome. For example, a bewildering succession of people have been in charge of the dome, even in the past 12 months. They seem to come and go; we cannot keep up with it.
  There has been a bewildering succession of pleas for more money for the dome, most of them in the parliamentary recess, when it was impossible for Members of Parliament to hold the Government to account. One of the pleas was made in August, immediately after the House went into recess, when I am sure that information was known.
  There are questions about the financial management of the dome, which clearly involve Lord Falconer. Paragraph 2.44 of the NAO report says:
  In the light of the advice received from the Company's solicitors, the Company's Chairman notified the Shareholder on 25 May that the Board members would have to "consider their personal positions" if the Government did not provide indemnity against any wrongful trading actions brought against them by creditors
  It goes on to talk about insolvency, but paragraph 2.45 shows that, about a month and a half later, Lord Falconer gave evidence to the Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport and said:
  the position would not be reached where the Dome was insolvent. It has always been monitored extremely closely and we have only proceeded on the basis that the Dome can continue successfully to the end of the year 2000
  Those two facts offer something of a contrast. Lord Falconer should explain that contradiction. He has not done so, so he is implicated in the events of this year. He has not yet answered his critics.
  It is equally the case that, going back to the history of the current Parliament—I can speak from personal experience only about this Parliament; obviously, I was not in the previous Parliament—we were sceptical as a

  737
  party from the beginning: from early 1997, when I took over as spokesman on the issue. I remember in 1998 warning the Minister without Portfolio, as he was then:
  Many people think that it —
  the dome —
  is a total waste of money, and that …it has been badly handled, and has failed to capture the public's imagination.
  I set out steps that I believed needed to be taken at that point—two years ahead of opening—which would have turned the dome into less of a failure, if you like, or more of a success than it has turned out to be. I was shot down for that. I was told that I was being disloyal, I was talking Britain and the dome down, and it was going to be a fantastic success, yet it has not turned out that way.
  Instead, what did we hear? We heard from the Minister without Portfolio:
  Spending is within budget, costs are firmly under control … The millennium company is performing highly competently.—[Official Report, 28 January 1998; Vol. 305, c. 276-81.]
  We also heard something about surf ball. I am not sure what that was, but it seems to have disappeared from the agenda, too.
  Diane Abbott: Critics of the dome are sometimes accused of exercising hindsight, but in June 1997 the Millennium Commission staff produced a written appraisal of the company's business plan. They expressed concern then that
  the plan lacked detail on commercial, operational and pricing strategies and that there was no substantive information in the plan on …the content of the Dome.
  It is a question not of hindsight, but of people not listening at the time.
  Mr. Baker: I entirely agree with that intervention. The hon. Lady has been clear about her views from the beginning. It is a pity that members of the Government did not listen to her, too, rather than just shrugging off any criticism of the dome from Members on both sides of the House, saying that they were being disloyal to the dome. Lord Falconer therefore has some responsibility for this year's events. He has criticisms to answer about financial management.
  There is another matter to be addressed. There is a tradition in British politics that people take responsibility for something that goes horribly wrong. With the best will in the world—I am sure people have the best intentions—this has gone horribly wrong. There is no point denying that.
  Of course, the visitor numbers are there, but let us look at the cost: £628 million of lottery money—what a cost. The public in my constituency and elsewhere are appalled at the amount of money that has been spent on the dome. Irrespective of whether they think its contents are good, they are appalled at the amount of money that has been spent. They feel that it has been mismanaged.
  There have been continual claims for more and more money. The management has changed constantly. It is inconceivable that there can be mismanagement on such a scale and that no Minister is prepared to take responsibility for it.
  Mr. Paul Tyler: Does my hon. Friend recall that the last senior Minister to resign on a
  738
  point of principle, although it was no fault of his own, was Lord Carrington over the invasion of the Falklands? Since then, not even after the BSE bombshells that were presented to the House has any Minister taken personal responsibility for a disaster on this scale.
  Mr. Baker: My hon. Friend is right, and it is a pity that that tradition seems to be ending.
  I do not often make such statements, but I think that Lord Falconer should go—not because he is responsible for everything that has gone wrong at the dome, which he is not, but because someone has to be seen by the public to be taking responsibility for the situation and to accept that both the previous Government and the current Government got it wrong. Lord Falconer happens to be in post at the moment.
  Mr. McCabe: Does the hon. Gentleman think that it is appropriate that the person who has what may be called the misfortune to be the incumbent should take all the responsibility, whereas, as the hon. Gentleman's own speech makes clear, the origins of the problem go back much further?
  Mr. Baker: As the Liberal Democrats' amendment to the motion states, responsibility lies with both the previous Government and the current one. People should be prepared to acknowledge that.
  The public feel cheated and believe that huge sums have been wasted. In those circumstances, the Government have to take responsibility, as does the Minister who is currently responsible for the dome. He is in post. When the music stops, the person left standing has to go. In this case, that is Lord Falconer.
  My dictionary defines a dome as a "self-supporting structure", but that is far from true in this case. Indeed, the "millennium tent" in Private Eye is probably a more appropriate description of the dome. Nevertheless, I admire the building, although its content requires huge sums.
  What about the future? Legacy is in negotiations with the Government, although it is not the Government's first choice. Dome Europa is long gone, and we are now dealing with the Government's second choice and plan B, which puts Legacy in a very strong position to lay down the terms that it wants and to threaten to walk away if it does not get them. One Sunday newspaper described that as the "dark dome" scenario in which the dome sits empty because no one can take it over and it is too embarrassing to demolish it—although that has not been ruled out in this debate. It would be an unfortunate end to that building and to this episode of British politics.
  Today, we need a statement from the Minister telling us where we are with the Legacy negotiations. Is it true that Legacy has laid down terms to which the Government have to agree by Friday? Will the Minister undertake to come to the House to make that statement, so that hon. Members do not have to hear about it on the "Today" programme? Are not the Government over a barrel in negotiations with Legacy?

  739
  It is a sorry end. I hope very much that the dome's structure will survive and that lessons will be learned, as the Secretary of State says must happen. He has outlined some of those lessons.
  Mr. Barry Sheerman: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Baker: I shall not; I am almost finished.
  A lesson in modesty might also be in order for politicians who are in charge of Governments and of the Departments with responsibility for the dome.
  9.18 pm
  Mr. Jim Fitzpatrick: I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in this debate. The dome has been a target since its inception and that criticism has intensified. It is always easy to denigrate and to write knocking copy, and there has been something of a bandwagon in dome criticism—which must surely be the most ironic and hypocritical attack coming from Conservative Members, who initially established the project. These days, Conservative Members are taking a swipe at the dome although they were the ones who laid its foundations. That is no more than blind opportunism of the kind that might have been expected. If the dome's future is a great one, the Conservatives will undoubtedly rediscover its Tory roots and reclaim it as their own. It is true that we said that the dome would be the first paragraph of our general election manifesto, but one thing is for sure: it is the last word in Tory hypocrisy.
  Let us be quite clear about it at the outset: as we have already heard, the dome is the most popular paying attraction in the United Kingdom. Although one would never know it from the opprobrium that has been heaped on it, particularly by the media, the dome is not the least popular attraction in the United Kingdom.
  It says something about the remaining vestiges of snobbery and elitism in the United Kingdom that the Royal Opera house in Covent Garden can receive large cash injections to be renovated and promoted, whereas the dome, in east London, is regarded as the embarrassing lowly cousin. As I have said on many occasions, over the past few years, businesses, institutions and companies have been moving eastwards in London. The centre of metropolitan gravity has been pulling in the direction of that part of London—an area which has, historically, suffered deprivation and poverty, of which it still has more than its share. New opportunities have opened up with the regeneration of east London, and we are now beginning to see how local communities can benefit from positive changes in the area's economic and social environment. No longer is it the case that people are excluded; they are getting the jobs now. I pay tribute to the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) in respect of the Thames gateway.
  The dome has been part of that change. Far from being a folly, it has regenerated an area that was previously derelict and a rather sad spectacle—and thousands of jobs have been created. These days, when I look across the strip of the Thames between my constituency and the dome across the water, the view is spectacular—a real credit to the area and no longer the wasteland of pre-dome days.
  740
  Once the decision had been made to create the dome, the local environment began to improve dramatically. The site was decontaminated, and plans for vastly improved transport connections were drawn up. The idea that the Greenwich peninsula could have a new, vibrant life had its doubters. Given its location and the condition of the site, its regeneration was always going to be a massive undertaking—especially given the relatively short time in which the work had to be completed for the millennium eve celebrations.
  Mr. Sheerman: Will my hon. Friend confirm that the site was the greatest area of contaminated land in the south of England and that it was a massive—and massively expensive—job to clear up the contamination?
  Mr. Fitzpatrick: The right hon. Member for Henley said that he recognised the mistake that he had made by not including the area in the London docklands development area when he designated it 15 years earlier.
  The efforts of all those committed to the project deserve a congratulatory mention. The dome remains an amazing achievement in terms both of size and of quality of construction. We often hear talk of how much this country needs to promote the value of engineering. Here we have a triumph of engineering that some people do nothing to salute. It is time that those people recognised the significance of the achievement, instead of diminishing it. Thousands worked on its construction; thousands more, of course, have been employed to service this huge visitor attraction.
  Forgetting the critics for a moment—if only we could—local people and local businesses were generally quite positive about the project and its ability to revolutionise the profile of the area. Once again, that is something that is not often trumpeted. The dome symbolised the way in which so much potential could burgeon into something impressive and of benefit to the whole region and to the United Kingdom. Why should it not symbolise that potential in the future? It is a stunning building. It is hard not to be impressed with it when you see it. It is a feat of architectural splendour to be proud of.
  The dome is unique, and has won the MacRobert award, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport said. Visitors like it; 88 per cent. of the 4.8 million interviewed said that they enjoyed the experience, and 94 per cent. that they enjoyed the spectacular show. But the dome is more than a day out enjoyed by its visitors—pleasing though that may be. It is also about participation, and I would like to say a few words about that important part of the dome's work.
  McDonald's has been involved with the dome from the early days, and one way in which it has interacted with the dome is in the McDonald's "our town story" programme. "Our town story" involves the whole of the UK in the year 2000. Local education authorities across the UK are participating in the programme, and each produces a show at the dome involving up to 100 young people from local schools. These shows dip into the history and present-day life of their region, town or village. They also take a look at what the future may hold for their home town. The shows are inclusive, and children of varying abilities and experiences get involved. My latest experience, Newham's "our town story" day at

  741
  the dome, was last Friday. I spoke to Stephen Hall, the McDonald's community affairs manager, and his colleague Victoria Hague. They advised me that they had invited 210 local education authorities to participate, expecting a reasonable response. All 210 local education authorities had said yes, and Jersey had applied to be included, making 211. The programme has involved around 20,000 students across the country in one small aspect of dome activity that cannot be costed and quantified.
  In Canning Town, the regeneration partnership ran a painting competition not long ago for school students with the theme "What's good about Canning Town?" Of the 50 shortlisted finalists, every one showed Canary wharf, the dome and London City airport. None of them are actually in Canning Town, but all of them can be seen from Canning Town. If the new exhibition and conference centre, Excel, had been built then, I know that it would have been featured. Those visual images of the dome showed that the structure was and is part of our landscape in east London. These young people, aged from five to 18. were saying, "This is our town. These are our buildings. This is our future."
  The dome is an important marketing tool for London abroad. It is one of our best known modern features, ranking with Canary wharfs 1 Canada square and the London Eye, as well as historic buildings such as this place. Tourism is a key part of our future and the dome must play an important part in that. Once this year is over and the errors of judgment fade, we will still have the Jubilee line extension. The Greenwich peninsula will remain decontaminated and I hope that the dome's structure will be there to play its part.
  Finally, I commend the dome's staff. They have had to put up with the most outrageous attacks over the past 11 months, but on each occasion that I have visited, they have been first class—positive, motivated and professional. I hope that they see out their contracts; it is disappointing that they will not have the collective end-of-season party they deserve, but I am sure that they will make their own arrangements to celebrate their efforts.
  Despite the errors, the dome should stay and be used to help promote east London, this great capital city and the United Kingdom throughout the world. It would be an act of vandalism for it not to remain.
  9,26 pm
  Mr. Christopher Fraser: I shall keep my comments brief because I know that other hon. Members would like to speak.
  We have heard it said several times this evening that the millennium dome was conceived by the previous Government. My right hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) described the purpose of the project in the evidence that he gave the Select Committee in 1997. He described the legacy that the previous Government had hoped the dome would leave as an image of the country at the forefront of cultural, artistic, engineering and scientific activity and attainment. It was to have a sense of unity, bringing the nation together and, of course, regenerating a derelict and contaminated area of London. That was his vision and it was ours. However, it was destroyed when the Millbank machine took control. When the Labour party decided to make the millennium dome a symbol of new Labour, it took that vision away.
  742
  It is easy to point to the Conservative party and say that it was our idea, but the tragedy of the dome is not its design but the Government's shameful hijacking of the nation's project for its own ends. Quite simply, people do not want to see what the Government have presided over. As my hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey (Mr. Ainsworth) said:
  those looking for fun might prefer a theme park, and those hoping to learn something might do better to visit the Science museum.
  However, it is not surprising that it is so unappealing; the man in charge of overseeing its contents in 1997 said:
  it must be a mixture of exciting and serious stuff.
  That is not particularly appealing when the Government are trying to attract sponsorship and want people to go to the dome in the first place.
  Mr. Gale: Does my hon. Friend also accept that when this vision was dreamt of, there were people in the House—on both sides, to be fair—who believed that the millennium dome might just have something to do with the millennium, as a celebration of the birth of Christ, which has not been mentioned tonight?
  Mr. FraserI am grateful to my hon. Friend for that comment. In evidence to the Select Committee, Ministers could not even decide whether the dome should have a faith zone. I refer back to that evidence, which makes interesting reading.
  The failure of the dome comes down to visitor numbers. The business plan was based on the assumption that it would attract 12 million visitors. However, the figure was arrived at before the contents of the dome were decided. The ticket prices had not been decided and the decision not to allow cars near the dome had not been made. Those are contributory factors to the lower than expected visitor numbers. I go back to what I said earlier to the Secretary of State about what Mr. Keith Bales, the senior Disney executive, said to the Select Committee about the visitor numbers and the people in charge of the dome. The Secretary of State did not answer that point and I hope that the Minister will do so in her reply.
  There was great scepticism about people on the board and great scepticism about the numbers. The Government had three years in which to talk further to Disney, but they did not. They went cap in hand only at the last moment. We can look back at the figures I have jotted down. By November 1998, it was estimated that 8.74 million people were "likely" to visit the dome and that a further 3.65 million "could he persuaded" to do so. However, as the report states, those surveys excluded education groups and potential overseas visitors. The company considered that that provided comfort for the overall projection of 12 million visitors.
  Such figures may have provided comfort until the Prime Minister announced that a million schoolchildren would be allowed to visit the dome for free. I do not object to that in principle, but the business plan should have revised given the direct revenue cost of about £7 million. That did not happen, and decisions were taken in the light of the knowledge that the company saw risks that the dome would
  not be a priority for many overseas visitors, who would be more likely to visit the Tower of London or Buckingham Palace …

  743
  However, despite that knowledge, the dome was still allowed to open with little idea of what would happen if the number of visitors fell below 12 million.
  The NAO report states:
  in essence … the strategy had been to draw on the cost contingency and to plan on the expectation of receiving proceeds from the sale of the Dome.
  We know that even that issue is unresolved. We are reaching the end of the year, but we do not have answers to those important questions.
  The Government cannot claim that no one foresaw the problem of visitor numbers. The NAO report states:
  the Commission's staff had recommended that the Company's business plan be based, for the sake of prudence, on the figure of eight million visitors which was the "worst case" of the estimates provided to the Commission by its consultants, Deloitte & Touche Consulting Group.
  On 28 January 2000, the New Millennium Experience Company revised its forecast down, as we heard from my right hon. and hon. Friends. It is important that those figures decreased week after week, month after month, while the number of cash handouts was increasing. The Millennium Commission awarded £60 million in February; £29 million in May; £43 million in August; and £47 in September, bringing the total grant funding to £628 million, as my hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey has said.
  Mr. Sheerman: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Fraser: No. The hon. Gentleman wasted my time and that of the House when he tried to intervene on me during a previous debate, and I shall not give him that privilege this evening.
  When leaving the sinking ship, the Minister then responsible, who is now the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, told the Millennium Commission:
  It is not public money, no. It is lottery money
  The people of this country will not be pleased to read what was written down by the Committee on which I am proud to serve on occasions when we reach decisions that are worthy of the House. In the 1997 report, the Committee said:
  in the context of accountability, this is a distinction without a difference. It is not money raised by taxation and it may be excluded from certain public expenditure definitions, but it is still taxpayers' money. and expenditure which must be held to account in the same way as money paid in taxation, whether directly or indirectly.
  Unfortunately, the Government ignored that.
  The project has been mismanaged by the Government, who tried to take it on and use it for their own political advantage. What the Prime Minister has said beggars belief. He said:
  we will say to ourselves with pride: this is our Dome, Britain's Dome. And believe me, it will be the envy of the world.
  I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman regrets saying that now.
  The Government have made a mess of the dome, with the politicisation, the over-hype, the interference and the insistence on filling it with politically correct nonsense that no one wants to see—but there is a vital component missing: accountability. As my hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey has said, Lord Falconer has talked about what has gone on at the dome but has not apologised.
  744
  The Government have not apologised, and tonight they should come forward and say that they have made mistakes. To help them on their way, I remind the Secretary of State that the then Minister told the Select Committee:
  I will come on any occasion to meet any of my colleagues in Parliament and provide them with any information on a public or confidential basis…in order to make sure that people like you are satisfied that we are acting in a proper and transparent way. You have that undertaking from me today.
  I look forward to the Minister's winding-up speech, but I doubt very much that we shall get much from the Government.
  9.35 pm
  Mr. Clive Efford: I congratulate you, Madam Deputy Speaker, on your elevation to the Chair.
  A comparison of the contributions made by the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) and his Front-Bench colleague the hon. Member for East Surrey (Mr. Ainsworth) makes it clear why the Conservatives will not be trusted by the people and will not win the general election. Their shabby opportunism and the shallowness of their debate on the dome have shown the shifting sands beneath them as they try to duck responsibility for the decisions that they took in the past. They do the House no credit.
  The overriding matter affecting and undermining the dome has been its visitor numbers. We all accept that the estimates were not realistic. Although revisions were made several times by both the previous and present Governments, at no stage did estimated figures fall below 10 million visitors. We shall never know the full effect of what the right hon. Member for Henley called the vilification and undermining of the dome project. How many visitors were prevented from going to the dome because of negative publicity and the sniping that it has consistently endured?
  The dome represents a major regeneration achievement. The Royal Arsenal used to employ 80,000 workers not far from the Greenwich peninsula, but that figure had fallen to 6,000 by the beginning of the 1990s. As a former Greenwich councillor, I pay tribute to the right hon. Member for Henley and his colleagues who heard our pleas for redevelopment of the site. It is not true that it was not included in docklands development because the previous Government made a mistake. In fact, the private sector was not prepared to take on the huge cost of decontaminating the site. The commercial return on investment would have taken too long to be realised. Only a scheme on the scale of the millennium experience, underwritten by the Government, could ever have resulted in regeneration that would bring the site back into use. No private investor was prepared to carry out that regeneration. I hope that the dome remains, because, now that decontamination has happened, I am sure that people will be lining up who would like to get their hands on that prime piece of real estate on the river front.
  We should consider the benefits of the dome. The halo effect for job creation was projected to be 25,000. There are 5,700 operational jobs at the dome, and 2,300 employ people who live in Greenwich, a borough that was the 14th most deprived in the country when the scheme was conceived. Some 300 acres of derelict land have been decontaminated, and there are 50 acres of new park,

  745
  including ecological park and terraces. There are 1,004 new homes in the millennium village, of which 266 will be for rent. There are two miles of river walk and cycleway. There is a new, 160-room hotel, and a 14-screen multiplex. All that, plus new schools and health centres, is happening on the millennium peninsula because of the investment that came in around the millennium project.
  Is the Conservative party seriously saying that it would have turned its back on all that regeneration in south-east London?
  Mr. Greenway: indicated dissent.
  Mr. Efford: Without the millennium dome, none of it would have been possible, which is the fact that the hon. Gentleman must recognise and cannot get away from. Without the investment generated by the project, none of that would have been possible.
  Mr. Greenway: indicated dissent.
  Mr. Efford: I have just explained all that, and I am sorry that I do not have the time to repeat it all so that the hon. Gentleman may understand it.
  I am not surprised that the Conservatives do not care one jot about the jobs that have been created, nor that the people who work at the dome might have profited from some continuity of employment had it not been for the fact that the scheme has been so undermined that the future of the dome is in doubt. However, that is the reality that we face.
  There have been 5.4 million visitors to the dome; it is the second most popular paying attraction in Europe. We should not decry the scheme; we should celebrate it. Disney did not achieve that when EuroDisney opened—that theme park was a disaster and had to be relaunched. The dome is a remarkable achievement; that should be acknowledged on both sides of the House and we should all celebrate it.
  9.40 pm
  Mr. John Greenway: Once again, the Opposition have given the House the opportunity to debate the dome. It is clear that Members on both sides of the House hold strong views on the subject. Those Members with a constituency interest have rightly voiced their concern on behalf of their constituents.
  Our motion reflects the fact that the debate on the dome needs to move on from the sterile arguments about whether it should have been built. We believe that it was right to build the dome. The hon. Member for Poplar and Canning Town (Mr. Fitzpatrick) rightly pointed out that it is a fine engineering achievement. We agree.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine)explained why the dome was built at Greenwich. The hon. Member for Eltham (Mr. Efford) has rightly put a constituency point of view as to what was achieved there; we, too, support regeneration in Greenwich.
  However, Parliament's concern should be the issues raised by the National Audit Office report, which we outline in our motion. It is clear that some right hon. and hon. Members have not read the motion, which cites the
  746
  financial mismanagement of the New Millennium Experience Company. The dome has not been a financial success. Why has an additional £229 million of public money been wasted? Above all, why is no Minister willing to accept responsibility and take the honourable course and apologise—or, better still, resign?
  Of course, it suits the Government to blame someone else, but the facts show clearly that the blame for mismanagement rests fairly and squarely with them. Before the election, the Millennium Commission—not the GEN 36 Committee, as some right hon. and hon. Members suggested—had agreed to build a dome at Greenwich with lottery funding. The Labour shadow Cabinet supported that view, conditional on a review of the decision if they won the general election.
  Everyone knows that the review took place in June 1997 and that the Prime Minister not only backed the dome—overruling most of his Cabinet, we gather—but took credit for re-launching the project. The press release makes it clear: "Blair rescues millennium dome". The way in which the Prime Minister responded to concerns about the future of the dome and dealt with most of his Cabinet does not leave much doubt as to his claim to ownership of the project.
  The right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) says that the project should have been non-partisan. However, he must answer the question: why did the Prime Minister try to claim the project for himself and new Labour? The right hon. Member for Gorton referred to Disneyland in Paris. Yes, that project was a flop initially, but it did not receive £600 million of public money.
  Those who try to blame the Conservatives—as the Liberal Democrats appear to do—are saying, in effect, that the dome was bound to fail from the start. That is the politics of despair. Clearly, the Prime Minister did not agree; on the contrary, he wanted to claim the credit for a successful dome. Nor did the current Secretary of State for Northern Ireland; when he appeared before the Select Committee, he would not even countenance the idea that there could be fewer than 12 million visitors. Furthermore, the sponsors did not think that the project would fail. More important, paragraph 16 on page 4 of the National Audit Office report points out:
  Final decisions had not been made on the Dome's contents, on ticket prices, on marketing strategies.
  All those crucial matters were decided by this Government.
  More crucially, the original vision for the exhibition was drastically altered. Indeed, the Prime Minister's press statement said:
  Mr. Blair demanded a number of changes.
  It added:
  The current concept being worked upon until now is not good enough and has to be changed.
  There we have it—the Prime Minister wanted the concept of the dome to be changed. When Labour Members seek to discover why there was mismanagement, they must face the fact that it was their Government who changed matters considerably. The scale and detail of the mismanagement is there for all to see in the NAO report.
  On the key issue of visitor numbers, Ministers must explain why a 12-million visitor target was adopted when they inherited a target of only 10 million from

  747
  the Millennium Commission. Indeed, the commission subsequently recommended that only 8 million was a feasible target.
  Visitor numbers were inextricably linked with the exhibition's likely content and how that could be marketed. Ministers constantly interfered in the content, so they must shoulder responsibility.
  Mr. McCabe: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Greenway: I will not give way, because there is no time.
  Ministers must shoulder responsibility for the NAO's finding that the dome's content had not been sufficiently explained or promoted. The hon. Member for Lewes(Mr. Baker)said that the public had not been inspired. There was no marketable coherent vision beyond the Prime Minister's constant rhetoric about cool Britannia. The public simply did not know what the dome was for, and £20 a time, plus all the travelling costs, was perceived to be too high a price for such an uncertain experience. The travel arrangements also acted as a disincentive. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Henley acknowledged, it was a mistake not to provide a car park or even a drop-off and pick-up facility.
  All the problems arose as the direct consequence of decisions taken by Ministers and NMEC. They led directly to the financial crisis that overcame the dome in the first few weeks after it opened for visitors. The scale of the mismanagement was quickly picked up by the Secretary of State in his now famous letter to Lord Falconer in February, when he complained about a lack of leadership and serious failures of financial management, and concluded that the company was already technically insolvent.
  Earlier in the debate, the Secretary of State said that P-Y Gerbeau was wrong. We take that to mean that the dome was insolvent, so ministerial statements were inaccurate and Parliament was misled, however inadvertently. The record needs to be corrected. The dome has never recovered from the financial crisis caused by the clear failures of management. As a result, and to save face, more and more public money has been poured into the project. Ministers have still not explained why more than £200 million was wasted in that way.
  The board clearly knew that the game was up because, as early as May, it sought and was granted financial indemnities. The Millennium Commission's accounting office twice sought a ministerial direction to pay grants that he could not justify on value—for—money grounds. When, on 22 August, PricewaterhouseCoopers declared the company insolvent—a fact that must have been obvious to NMEC directors—the Secretary of State and the shareholder, Lord Falconer, must have known months before that that was the case. Yet no apology has been made and no one sees fit to resign. The indictment stands not on speculative guesswork by the dome's critics but on information that was well known to those responsible and which the NAO report now confirms. Some £229 million has been wasted and, even by the Chancellor's definition, that was public money.
  It is no wonder that people throughout Britain were so incensed every time another bundle of money was found to bail out this failing project. Can the Minister tell us that not a penny more will be granted? The Secretary of
  748
  State could not say whether the money will be repaid. Labour Members know full well that their electors agree with every word of our motion, and it is up to those Members to explain themselves if they choose riot to support it.
  9.50 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Janet Anderson): As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said at the beginning of the debate, we welcome the National Audit Office report. It is factual and accurate, and it will provide useful material that will enable the Government and, I hope, politicians of all parties to learn the lessons of the millennium experience. We shall be happy to work with the Public Accounts Committee in its inquiry into the dome's operations. We have done all that we can to co-operate with the NAO on this complex inquiry, and we will co-operate equally with the PAC.
  There used to be a similar spirit of co—operation between the political parties on this issue. The right hon. Member for South-West Surrey (Mrs. Bottomley), who is not in her place, said
  I welcome the Labour party's constructive approach …I have no wish for the exhibition to become the subject of party political disagreement.—[Official Report, 18 November 1996; Vol. 285, c. 680.]
  I very much regret the Opposition's breach of convention in insisting on holding a debate about an NAO report—they made it plain that the report would be the subject of the debate—immediately after its publication and before the PAC has held its hearings. Their action is highly irresponsible. It is a long-established convention that the Government do not respond in detail to recommendations in NAO reports until the PAC has completed an inquiry and a formal response has been made
  I will not be in danger of breaching convention if I point out some of the report's important findings. We have tonight heard a lot of bluster about the dome, and as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said earlier, there has been a deplorable unwillingness on the part of Opposition Members to acknowledge their role in many of the key decisions at the outset. We have heard serious points and not so serious points.
  The right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) is well known for his commitment to regeneration, and I thank him for his contribution. I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman), who pointed out that the right hon. Member for Henley is one of the few grown-ups on the Opposition Benches. The hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Baker) asked about negotiations with Legacy. He will know that those negotiations continue and that they are commercially confidential, but I assure him that any decision will be communicated to the House.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Canning Town (Mr. Fitzpatrick) and my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Mr. Efford), in whose constituency the dome lies, made important points about regeneration. The Minister for Housing and Planning has attended the whole debate and has always been a keen supporter of the dome.
  I shall try to answer some of the points made by the hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway), but some of them did not make much sense. The detailed points about

  749
  the management of the dome during its year of operation will of course be considered by the PAC. The NAO report's finding—with which the Government entirely agree—is that the bulk of the difficulties associated with the dome are the result of the lower than expected number of visitors. We have heard much this evening about forecasts. Opposition Members have lined up to demonstrate their hindsight and show off their wisdom after the event. Yes, it is disappointing that the dome will not receive 12 million visitors; yes, the Government recognise that that means that the dome has been less of a success than everyone hoped. However, I remind Conservative Members, who are always keen to jeer when it suits them, that under the previous Government, the estimates of visitor numbers varied widely. Indeed, those various different estimates have been referred to in the debate. I remind the hon. Member for East Surrey (Mr. Ainsworth) that he admitted on 9 November 1996 that the numbers were all over the place.
  Mr. MacShane: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Janet Anderson: No, I will not give way, if my hon. Friend will forgive me. I do not have much time, and the Secretary of State gave way a great deal.
  Yes, it is true that the Government looked at the estimates and agreed a business plan that was intended for 12 million visitors, but we will not take lectures from Conservative Members about forecasts for visitor numbers. The target of 12 million was always ambitious, but we believed that it was achievable, the Millennium Commission believed that it was achievable, and when they were in government, the Opposition believed that it was achievable.
  Such a figure was not unprecedented. We must remember that the dome is a national celebration, for one year only, of a once-in-a-thousand-years event. Moreover, it is a national celebration of international importance: celebrating the millennium in the home of time, on the Greenwich meridian. Yes, with the benefit of hindsight, perhaps the figure was too challenging, but the Conservative party agreed and endorsed it. As the NAO report shows, the figure was the key issue. Many of the problems that the dome subsequently faced stemmed from the fact that it received fewer visitors than forecast. So, of course, it received income less than forecast.
  I want to dispel another myth about the dome. A number of Conservative Members have accused the Government of doing nothing to help the dome as difficulties emerged. That is simply not true. When it became apparent soon after the dome had opened that changes needed to be made to its day-to-day operations, changes were made. The board took decisive action in February to bring in new management with enhanced skills in the operation of visitor attractions. The dome was made more welcoming, queues were managed better and a greater variety of ticketing options was introduced, including the ability to buy tickets on the door.
  Later in the year, when the dome needed a marketing push, the company produced a new marketing plan and the Millennium Commission provided additional funds specifically to support it, which helped to attract more visitors to the dome. In the summer, when NMEC's board
  750
  was able to gain a fuller picture of the company's financial position, it took firm action again, bringing in an experienced specialist in company rescue, David James—the ideal man to give the company firmer management for the remainder of the year.
  No one would pretend that this has been an easy year or that the dome has been as great a success as we all hoped it would be, but we have been constantly active in monitoring its progress and in encouraging it to take action to improve. It would be tragic if this debate ignored the benefits. Many of the regenerative benefits for the peninsula have been referred to. Let us not forget all the good things about the dome.
  The dome is the most successful paying visitor attraction in Britain. By the end of the year, getting on for 6 million people will have been there and enjoyed it; 87 per cent. say that they enjoyed their visit to the dome. Of course we must learn the lessons that the National Audit Office and the Public Accounts Committee have to teach us, but for those millions of visitors, and especially the millions of children who have visited the dome, it provides an amazing and unforgettable day out. I am confident that they and many others will deplore the Conservative party's attempt to exploit the matter in a partisan way. We know that the Tories are so desperate that they cannot see a bandwagon without jumping on it. They should be ashamed of themselves.
  Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:—
  The House divided: Ayes 182, Noes 304.

  Division No. 328]

  [10 pm

  AYES

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Allan, Richard

  Amess, David

  Collins, Tim

  Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

  Cotter, Brian

  Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

  Cran, James

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Curry, Rt Hon David

  Baker, Norman

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  Baldry, Tony

  Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

  Ballard, Jackie

  Day, Stephen

  Beith, Rt Hon A J

  Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

  Bercow, John

  Duncan, Alan

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Duncan Smith, Iain

  Blunt, Crispin

  Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Boswell, Tim

  Evans, Nigel

  Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

  Faber, David

  Brady, Graham

  Fabricant, Michael

  Brand, Dr Peter

  Fallon, Michael

  Brazier, Julian

  Fearn, Ronnie

  Breed, Colin

  Flight, Howard

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Forth, Rt Hon Eric

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Burns, Simon

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Burstow, Paul

  Fox, Dr Liam

  Butterfill, John

  Fraser, Christopher

  Cable, Dr Vincent

  Gale, Roger

  Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)

  Garnier, Edward

  George, Andrew (St Ives)

  Cash, William

  Gibb, Nick

  Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Bamet)

  Gidley, Sandra

  Gill, Christopher

  Chidgey, David

  Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

  Chope, Christopher

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Clappison, James

  Gray, James

  Clark, Dr. Michael (Rayleigh)

  Green, Damian

  751

  Greenway, John

  Paice, James

  Grieve, Dominic

  Pickles, Eric

  Gummer, Rt Hon. John

  Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

  Prior, David

  Hammond, Philip

  Randall, John

  Hancock, Mike

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Harvey, Nick

  Rendel, David

  Hawkins, Nick

  Robathan, Andrew

  Hayes, John

  Robertson, Laurence

  Heald, Oliver

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

  Rowe, Andrew

  Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

  Ruffley, David

  Horam, John

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Sanders, Adrian

  Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

  Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

  Hunter, Andrew

  Shepherd, Richard

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

  Jenkin, Bernard

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

  Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Soames, Nicholas

  Spicer, Sir Michael

  Keetch, Paul

  Spring, Richard

  Key, Robert

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

  Steen, Anthony

  Kirkbride, Miss Julie

  Streeter, Gary

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Stunell, Andrew

  Laing, Mrs Eleanor

  Swayne, Desmond

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Syms, Robert

  Lansley, Andrew

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Letwin, Oliver

  Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

  Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Lidington, David

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Livsey, Richard

  Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

  Tonge, Dr Jenny

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Tredinnick, David

  Loughton, Tim

  Trend, Michael

  Luff, Peter

  Tyler, Paul

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Tyrie, Andrew

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Viggers, Peter

  McIntosh, Miss Anne

  Walter, Robert

  MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

  Wardle, Charles

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  Waterson, Nigel

  Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert

  Webb, Steve

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Wells, Bowen

  Madel, Sir David

  Whitney, Sir Raymond

  Malins, Humfrey

  Whittingdale, John

  Maples, John

  Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

  Mates, Michael

  Wilkinson, John

  Maude, Rt Hon Francis

  Willetts, David

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

  Willis, Phil

  Moss, Malcolm

  Wilshire, David

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Norman, Archie

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

  Oaten, Mark

  Yeo, Tim

  O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Öpik, Lembit

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Ottaway, Richard

  Mr. Stephen Day and

  Page, Richard

  Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown.

  NOES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Beard, Nigel

  Ainger, Nick

  Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

  Allen, Graham

  Bennett, Andrew F

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  Benton, Joe

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Ashton, Joe

  Berry, Roger

  Atherton, Ms Candy

  Betts, Clive

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Blackman, Liz

  Austin, John

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Banks, Tony

  Blizzard, Bob

  Barnes, Harry

  Blunkett, Rt Hon David

  Barron, Kevin

  Bradley, Keith (Withington)

  Battle, John

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Bayley, Hugh

  Brinton, Mrs Helen

  752

  Brown, Rt Hon Gordon (Dunfermline E)

  Gilroy, Mrs Linda

  Godman, Dr Norman A

  Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

  Godsiff, Roger

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Goggins, Paul

  Burden, Richard

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Burgon, Colin

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  Butler, Mrs Christine

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Caborn, Rt Hon Richard

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Grocott, Bruce

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Grogan, John

  Campbell-Savours, Dale

  Hain, Peter

  Caplin, Ivor

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  Casale, Roger

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  Caton, Martin

  Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

  Cawsey, Ian

  Healey, John

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

  Chaytor, David

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Clapham, Michael

  Heppell, John

  Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

  Hesford, Stephen

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Hewitt, Ms Patricia

  Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

  Hill, Keith

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Hinchliffe, David

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Hodge, Ms Margaret

  Clelland, David

  Hoey, Kate

  Clwyd, Ann

  Hood, Jimmy

  Coaker, Vernon

  Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Hope, Phil

  Cohen, Harry

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Coleman, Iain

  Howarth, Alan (Newport E)

  Colman, Tony

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Connarty, Michael

  Howells, Dr Kim

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

  Corbett, Robin

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Cousins, Jim

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Corston, Jean

  Hurst, Alan

  Cox, Tom

  Hutton, John

  Crausby, David

  Iddon, Dr Brian

  Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

  Illsley, Eric

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack (Copeland)

  Jamieson, David

  Jenkins, Brian

  Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

  Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

  Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Dalyell, Tam

  Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Darvill, Keith

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Davis, Rt Hon Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

  Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

  Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Kemp, Fraser

  Denham, John

  Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

  Dobbin, Jim

  Khabra, Piara S

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Kidney, David

  Doran, Frank

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Dowd, Jim

  King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

  Drew, David

  Kumar, Dr Ashok

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Ladyman, Dr Stephen

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Lammy, David

  Edwards, Huw

  Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

  Efford, Clive

  Laxton, Bob

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Lepper, David

  Ennis, Jeff

  Leslie, Christopher

  Field, Rt Hon Frank Fisher, Mark

  Levitt, Tom

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen

  Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

  Linton, Martin

  Flint, Caroline

  Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

  Flynn, Paul

  Lock, David

  Follett, Barbara

  Love, Andrew

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Gapes, Mike

  McCabe, Steve

  Gardiner, Barry

  McCafferty, Ms Chris

  George, Bruce (Walsall S)

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Gerrard, Neil

  McDonnell, John

  Gibson, Dr Ian

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  753

  McIsaac, Shona

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Rowlands, Ted

  McNamara, Kevin

  Roy, Frank

  MacShane, Denis

  Ruane, Chris

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Ruddock, Joan

  McWalter, Tony

  Ryan, Ms Joan

  McWilliam, John

  Salter, Martin

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Sarwar, Mohammad

  Mallaber, Judy

  Savidge, Malcolm

  Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

  Sawford, Phil

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Shaw, Jonathan

  Martlew, Eric

  Sheerman, Barry

  Maxton, John

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  Merron, Gillian

  Singh, Marsha

  Michael, Rt Hon Alun

  Skinner, Dennis

  Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  Mitchell, Austin

  Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

  Moffatt, Laura

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Soley, Clive

  Moran, Ms Margaret

  Spellar, John

  Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

  Squire, Ms Rachel

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

  Starkey, Dr Phyllis

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Morris, Rt Hon Sir John (Aberavon)

  Stevenson, George

  Stewart, David (Inverness E)

  Mountford, Kali

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Mudie, George

  Stoate, Dr Howard

  Mullin, Chris

  Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Stringer, Graham

  Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

  Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Naysmith, Dr Doug

  Norris, Dan

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  O'Hara, Eddie

  Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

  Olner, Bill

  Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

  O'Neill, Martin

  Tipping, Paddy

  Organ, Mrs Diana

  Trickett, Jon

  Palmer, Dr Nick

  Truswell, Paul

  Pearson, Ian

  Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

  Pendry, Tom

  Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

  Perham, Ms Linda

  Turner, Neil (Wigan)

  Pickthall, Colin

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Pike, Peter L

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Plaskitt, James

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Pollard, Kerry

  Ward, Ms Claire

  Pond, Chris

  Wareing, Robert N

  Pope, Greg

  White, Brian

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Whitehead, Dr Alan

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Prescott, Rt Hon John

  Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Wills, Michael

  Purchase, Ken

  Winnick, David

  Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Wood, Mike

  Radice, Rt Hon Giles

  Woodward, Shaun

  Raynsford, Nick

  Woolas, Phil

  Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

  Worthington, Tony

  Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)

  Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

  Wright, Tony (Cannock)

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Wyatt, Derek

  Rogers, Allan

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff

  Mr. Don Touhig and

  Rooney, Terry

  Mr. Robert Ainsworth.

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 31 (Questions on amendments):—
  The House divided: Ayes 300, Noes 174.

  Division No. 329]

  [10 pm

  AYES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

  Ainger, Nick

  Darvill, Keith

  Allen, Graham

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

  Davis, Rt Hon Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

  Ashton, Joe

  Atherton, Ms Candy

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Denham, John

  Austin, John

  Dobbin, Jim

  Banks, Tony

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Barnes, Harry

  Doran, Frank

  Barron, Kevin

  Dowd, Jim

  Battle, John

  Drew, David

  Bayley, Hugh

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Beard, Nigel

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

  Edwards, Huw

  Bennett, Andrew F

  Efford, Clive

  Benton, Joe

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Ennis, Jeff

  Berry, Roger

  Fisher, Mark

  Betts, Clive

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  Blackman, Liz

  Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Flint, Caroline

  Blizzard, Bob

  Flynn, Paul

  Blunkett, Rt Hon David

  Follett, Barbara

  Bradley, Keith (Withington)

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Gapes, Mike

  Brinton, Mrs Helen

  Gardiner, Barry

  Brown, Rt Hon Gordon (Dunfermline E)

  George, Bruce (Walsall S)

  Gerrard, Neil

  Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

  Gibson, Dr Ian

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Gilroy, Mrs Linda

  Burden, Richard

  Godman, Dr Norman A

  Burgon, Colin

  Godsiff, Roger

  Butler, Mrs Christine

  Goggins, Paul

  Caborn, Rt Hon Richard

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Campbell-Savours, Dale

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Caplin, Ivor

  Grocott, Bruce

  Casale, Roger

  Grogan, John

  Caton, Martin

  Hain, Peter

  Cawsey, Ian

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  Chaytor, David

  Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

  Clapham, Michael

  Healey, John

  Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

  Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

  Heppell, John

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Hesford, Stephen

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Hewitt, Ms Patricia

  Clelland, David

  Hill, Keith

  Clwyd, Ann

  Hinchliffe, David

  Coaker, Vernon

  Hodge, Ms Margaret

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Hoey, Kate

  Cohen, Harry

  Hood, Jimmy

  Coleman, Iain

  Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

  Colman, Tony

  Hope, Phil

  Connarty, Michael

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Howarth, Alan (Newport E)

  Corbett, Robin

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Corston, Jean

  Howells, Dr Kim

  Cox, Tom

  Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

  Crausby, David

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Hurst, Alan

  Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack (Copeland)

  Hutton, John

  Iddon, Dr Brian

  Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

  Illsley, Eric

  Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Dalyell, Tam

  Jamieson, David

  755

  Jenkins, Brian

  Palmer, Dr Nick

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

  Pearson, Ian

  Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Pendry, Tom

  Perham, Ms Linda

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Pickthall, Colin

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  Pike, Peter L

  Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa

  Plaskitt, James

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Pollard, Kerry

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Pond, Chris

  Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

  Pope, Greg

  Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Kemp, Fraser

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

  Prescott, Rt Hon John

  Khabra, Piara S

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Kidney, David

  Purchase, Ken

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce

  King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Kumar, Dr Ashok

  Radice, Rt Hon Giles

  Ladyman, Dr Stephen

  Raynsford, Nick

  Lammy, David

  Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

  Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

  Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)

  Laxton, Bob

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

  Lepper, David

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Leslie, Christopher

  Rogers, Allan

  Levitt, Tom

  Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff

  Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen

  Rooney, Terry

  Linton, Martin

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

  Rowlands, Ted

  Lock, David

  Roy, Frank

  Love, Andrew

  Ruane, Chris

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Ruddock, Joan

  McCabe, Steve

  Ryan, Ms Joan

  McCafferty, Ms Chris

  Salter, Martin

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Sarwar, Mohammad

  McDonnell, John

  Savidge, Malcolm

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Sawford, Phil

  McIsaac, Shona

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Shaw, Jonathan

  McNamara, Kevin

  Sheerman, Barry

  MacShane, Denis

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  McWalter, Tony

  Singh, Marsha

  McWilliam, John

  Skinner, Dennis

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  Mallaber, Judy

  Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

  Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Soley, Clive

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Spellar, John

  Martlew, Eric

  Squire, Ms Rachel

  Maxton, John

  Starkey, Dr Phyllis

  Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Merron, Gillian

  Stevenson, George

  Michael, Rt Hon Alun

  Stewart, David (Inverness E)

  Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Mitchell, Austin

  Stoate, Dr Howard

  Moffatt, Laura

  Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Stringer, Graham

  Moran, Ms Margaret

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

  Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

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

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Morris, Rt Hon Sir John (Aberavon)

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

  Mountford, Kali

  Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

  Mudie, George

  Tipping, Paddy

  Mullin, Chris

  Trickett, Jon

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Truswell, Paul

  Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

  Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

  Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

  Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

  Naysmith, Dr Doug

  Turner, Neil (Wigan)

  Norris, Dan

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  O'Hara, Eddie

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Olner, Bill

  Ward, Ms Claire

  O'Neill, Martin

  Wareing, Robert N

  Organ, Mrs Diana

  White, Brian

  756

  Whitehead, Dr Alan

  Woolas, Phil

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Worthington, Tony

  Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

  Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

  Wills, Michael

  Wright, Tony (Cannock)

  Winnick, David

  Wyatt, Derek

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Wood, Mike

  Mr. Robert Ainsworth and

  Woodward, Shaun

  Mr. Don Touhig.

  NOES

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Allan, Richard

  Gray, James

  Amess, David

  Green, Damian

  Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

  Greenway, John

  Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

  Grieve, Dominic

  Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

  Baker, Norman

  Hammond, Philip

  Baldry, Tony

  Hancock, Mike

  Ballard, Jackie

  Harvey, Nick

  Beith, Rt Hon A J

  Hawkins, Nick

  Bercow, John

  Hayes, John

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Heald, Oliver

  Blunt, Crispin

  Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

  Boswell, Tim

  Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

  Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

  Horam, John

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Brady, Graham

  Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

  Brand, Dr Peter

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

  Brazier, Julian

  Hunter, Andrew

  Breed, Colin

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Burns, Simon

  Burstow, Paul

  Keetch, Paul

  Butterfill, John

  Key, Robert

  Cable, Dr Vincent

  King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

  Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)

  Kirkbride, Miss Julie

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Cash, William

  Laing, Mrs Eleanor

  Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Lansley, Andrew

  Chidgey, David

  Letwin, Oliver

  Chope, Christopher

  Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

  Clappison, James

  Lidington, David

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Livsey, Richard

  Collins, Tim

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

  Cotter, Brian

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Cran, James

  Loughton, Tim

  Curry, Rt Hon David

  Luff, Peter

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Day, Stephen

  McIntosh, Miss Anne

  Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

  MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

  Duncan Smith, Iain

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert

  Evans, Nigel

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret

  Madel, Sir David

  Faber, David

  Malins, Humfrey

  Fabricant, Michael

  Maples, John

  Fallon, Michael

  Mates, Michael

  Fearn, Ronnie

  Maude, Rt Hon Francis

  Flight, Howard

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

  Forth, Rt Hon Eric

  Moss, Malcolm

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Norman, Archie

  Fox, Dr Liam

  Oaten, Mark

  Fraser, Christopher

  O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

  Gale, Roger

  Öpik, Lembit

  Garnier, Edward

  Ottaway, Richard

  George, Andrew (St Ives)

  Page, Richard

  Gibb, Nick

  Paice, James

  Gidley, Sandra

  Pickles, Eric

  Gill, Christopher

  Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

  Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

  Prior, David

  757

  Randall, John

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

  Rendel, David

  Tonge, Dr Jenny

  Robathan, Andrew

  Tredinnick, David

  Robertson, Laurence

  Trend, Michael

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Tyler, Paul

  Ruffley, David

  Tyrie, Andrew

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Viggers, Peter

  Sanders, Adrian

  Walter, Robert

  Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

  Waterson, Nigel

  Shepherd, Richard

  Webb, Steve

  Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

  Wells, Bowen

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

  Whitney, Sir Raymond

  Soames, Nicholas

  Whittingdale, John

  Spicer, Sir Michael

  Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

  Spring, Richard

  Wilkinson, John

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Willetts, David

  Steen, Anthony

  Willis, Phil

  Streeter, Gary

  Wnterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Stunell, Andrew

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

  Swayne, Desmond

  Yeo, Tim

  Syms, Robert

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Mr. Peter Atkinson and

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown.

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That this House welcomes the publication of the National Audit Office report, which gives a detailed account of events at the Dome; agrees that politicians of all parties involved in the project share responsibility both for the successes in regenerating this depressed part of South East London and its failings to reach its original visitor estimates; and deplores the decision by Her Majesty's Opposition not to support the original bi-partisan nature of this national project.

  Control of Fuel and Electricity
  10.25 pm
  The Minister for Energy and Competitiveness in Europe (Mrs. Helen Liddell): I beg to move,
  That the Energy Act 1976 (Reserve Powers) Order 2000 (S.I., 2000, No. 2449) dated llth September 2000, a copy of which was laid before this House on 12th September, be approved.
  On 7 September, following similar events in France, protesters blockaded the Shell refinery at Stanlow in Cheshire. The oil companies told my Department that such action, if repeated at other refineries, could quickly and seriously disrupt national fuel supplies. As a consequence, the Government sought an Order in Council under section 3 of the Energy Act 1976. The Energy Act 1976 (Reserve Powers) Order 2000 was made by Her Majesty on Monday 11 September and laid on 12 September. The order came into force on 11 September, it being considered that the exceptional urgency of the situation justified the order coming into force before it had been laid. Were the House and another place to approve the order, it would expire on 10 September 2001—that is, 12 months after it was made. Failing such approval, it would expire at midnight on Sunday 19 November. The order was approved in another place on 7 November.
  Paragraph 2 of the order declares that
  because there is imminent in the United Kingdom a threatened emergency affecting fuel supplies which makes it necessary in Her Majesty's opinion that the Government should temporarily have at its disposal exceptional powers for controlling the sources and availability of energy, the powers of sections 1 … and 2 … of the Energy Act 1976 shall be exercisable to their fullest extent.
  Those sections enable the Secretary of State to make orders and to give directions to regulate the production, supply and use of certain fuels, including petrol and diesel.
  It was considered in September that it was necessary for the Government to have those powers at their disposal, given the serious threat to fuel supplies, and hence to emergency and other essential services, to the health service and to food distribution. Using those powers, the Secretary of State subsequently made orders designating priority retail fuel sites and priority purposes to facilitate the orderly return to normal when protests ended. Those arrangements would have ensured continuity of essential services for a longer period had the blockades continued.
  While the order is in force, the Secretary of State can, under sections 1 and 2, regulate the production and supply of fuel and direct companies and others as to the use of petroleum products or the price at which they are sold. Examples of orders and directions that the Government might want to issue would be directing petrol suppliers to supply only to specified locations and for priority purposes or restricting private, commercial or public transport activity, for the purpose of conserving supplies.
  I remind the House of the Government's approach in responding to the fuel disruption in September. The Government made clear from the first our determination to ensure that supplies were returned to normal, in view of the risk that the disruption threatened to national prosperity and, potentially, to lives. As soon as it became apparent that supplies were being affected, we took action to ensure that the necessary procedures were put in place to allow for supplies to return to normal as quickly as possible.

  759
  The oil industry's standing emergency committee met daily to report the position in the refineries and the effect that that was having on distribution, and to review its list of priority petrol stations and depots. The ministerial civil contingencies committee met regularly to receive reports and co-ordinate action being taken around the country.
  As I have said, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, using the exceptional powers available under the Order in Council, made further orders designating petrol stations and depots around the country priority suppliers, and requesting oil companies to ensure that available supplies were, in the first instance, used to keep those stations open. We received representations from priority users, businesses and the public about the lists, and in response made further orders adding other petrol stations and depots. On the list of petrol stations, we also specified about 300 outlets that were primarily to serve essential users. We issued a list of essential users, including important business sectors such as food distribution as well as the emergency services themselves.
  Miss Anne McIntosh: Can the Minister explain why animal feed companies on the list were not granted exemption under the derogation orders?
  Mrs. Liddell: A number of issues were brought to the Department's attention when the emergency orders were put in place. Since then we have had an opportunity to review those matters. The list of exemptions is now much wider, and the number of designated filling stations is much greater. At the time, the main priority was to ensure that fuel supplies reached essential services—food distribution, in the first instance. The opportunity also existed to extend the orders if the disruption continued.
  Mr. Simon Hughes: This is a factual question. Can the Minister tell us whether in her view, and according to the advice she has been given, the list of filling stations is now accurate? There were problems with the first list.
  Is there now a publicly available list of those who are to be supplied as a matter of priority? And is there is a common place in government where anyone who wants any such information can have access to it on an up-to-date basis, either in the Minister's Department or in any other Department of State?
  Mrs. Liddell: Let me explain how the list of priority filling stations and depots was compiled. It happened in consultation with the police and local authorities, following representation from essential users. As I have said, there is now a list of some 600.
  The DTI is operating a telephone call centre. Anyone can telephone and find out whether their station or depot, or one that they would wish to use, is on the list. We shall certainly take steps to ensure that Members are aware of the full scope. Some have mentioned problems that arose in their constituencies last time. Many of those problems arose because of the speed with which the issues had to be addressed.
  In addition to the September list of petrol stations, we specified about 300 outlets that were primarily to serve essential users. We issued a list of such users, including business sectors such as food distribution as well as the emergency services.
  760
  Although the powers under the Order in Council would have enabled us to issue legally binding directions, we decided that the arrangements should be non-statutory. They were handled by local authorities and the police, and co-ordinated by the Government office in each region. The emphasis was on common-sense decisions on the ground in the light of local circumstances.
  Mr. Graham Brady: My constituency contains a company called Clos-o-mat, which provides toilet facilities for disabled people. Although it is based in my constituency, it provides a service across the country. When I approached the Department asking for the company to be designated an essential user, I was told to advise the company to approach the local authority. Surely in the case of a company that provides a national service there is a need for a national designation, which should not depend on a single local authority.
  Mrs. Liddell: I will take up the hon. Gentleman's point. I was not aware of the difficulty that was experienced in his constituency. We have learned a lot from the events in September. I hope that we have managed to overcome the problems, as he will find as I make progress, but I will look into the circumstances surrounding the difficulties in his constituency. I understand his anxiety about it.
  Guidance on the measures taken in September was placed on Government websites and distributed through police stations, local authorities and health authorities. We set up two telephone hotlines for priority users and members of the public who wanted information. The situation returned to normal. I am sure that every hon. Member hopes that the disruption is not repeated, but the speed and scale of the disruption took everyone by surprise. It remains essential to ensure that disruption on that scale cannot be repeated.
  For that reason, the Prime Minister set up a task force, which, on 29 September, published a memorandum of understanding between Government, the oil companies, trade unions, hauliers and the police. Its purpose is to ensure that fuel supply is maintained in the event of any future disruption by committing all signatories to take the necessary contingency action.
  On 2 November, the Home Secretary further told the House that the task force was putting in place measures aimed at ensuring, in the event of future disruption, the delivery of fuel to petrol stations, with priority for essential users; better preparation for disruption by local authorities and other essential users; the availability of Ministry of Defence drivers to drive tankers as a last resort; the protection of food depots and other potential targets; and the keeping open of major roads. Last week, we reopened the Cabinet Office's national information and co-ordination centre, which will gather information to enable us to build an accurate picture of what happens throughout the country, so that extra support can be given to forces that need it.
  I regret that we appear to be faced with threats of further disruption. We have no alternative but to seek extension of the exceptional powers, so that we can take responsible action to safeguard essential services. The Government are in no doubt that it is necessary to have those powers available for some time to come, in order to

  761
  take the action necessary to preserve essential supplies and services. The Government are firmly of the view that a situation continues to exist in which there is a real threat of disruption to fuel supplies and that it is our responsibility to be prepared to act quickly to maintain essential services, particularly at this season of the year.
  The section of the Energy Act 1976 in question—section 3—had not previously been activated, so that was not something that we would do lightly. Careful thought was given before an order was sought in early September, and very careful thought has been given again to the issue, but it is our considered view that it is right and necessary to extend those powers.
  10.38 pm
  Mr. Nick Gibb: For the record, I should like to declare an interest, which I have put in the Register of Members' Interests, concerning my overseas visit in September to meet representatives of oil companies, oil regulators and the Department of Energy in Washington at the invitation of the United States oil industry.
  I listened carefully to the Minister's comments in introducing the order. I also listened carefully last week to the Chancellor's pre-Budget statement. The whole country watched hour by hour as the fuel protest in September brought the country to a complete standstill.
  In addition to the order that the right hon. Lady proposes, another key document in the saga, as she mentioned, is the memorandum of understanding between the Government and the oil companies, police and road hauliers. All those documents—the memorandum, the order and the pre-Budget statement—deal with the symptoms of a problem, rather than the problem itself. The root of the issue is the Chancellor's decision from his first Budget onwards inexorably to continue to raise taxation on fuel, mortgages, marriage, pension funds, waste, insurance and property—extra taxation even on people over the age of 60. The total tax burden has added £670 a year to the tax bill of a typical family—over the lifetime of the Parliament £1,500 has been added to the bill of every taxpayer in Britain.
  In four Budgets, the Government have increased fuel duty by 15p per litre, from 46p to 61p per litre. That is the principal reason for the increase in the petrol price at the pumps, from 59p when Labour came to power, to 82p now. There has been a 23p increase, of which 15p has been caused by taxation.
  I shall put Labour's fuel duty increases in the order that they were made, starting with the earliest first. In July 1997, there was a 4p increase. That was followed, eight months later, in March 1998, with a 4.4p increase. In March 1999, there was a 3.8p increase. Finally, in March 2000, there was a 1.9p increase. That is the correct order of the increases. Now, let us see who in the Government got it right, and who got it right in the fastest time. In fact, no one in the Government got it right at all. There is a tedious dishonesty in the way in which Ministers seek to hide the 15p fuel duty increase.
  Mr. Nigel Beard: Does the hon. Gentleman recognise that, in the past two years, the oil price per litre has increased by 19p, of which tax
  762
  accounts for only 2p, whereas the international oil market accounts for 17p of that increase? The "information" that the hon. Gentleman is giving us is, therefore, no more than fatuous propaganda.
  Mr. Gibb: No. The point that I am making is that the Government are deliberately issuing false and fatuous propaganda on the issue. The hon. Gentleman is making the very point—almost verbatim—that the Minister for the Environment made in the House a few weeks ago. The Minister said:
  Since the March 1999 Budget, petrol prices in the UK have risen from 66p per litre to about 80p per litre today, an increase of 14p, but only a very small percentage—[Official Report, 25 October 2000: Vol. 355, c. 235.]
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Order. I tell the hon. Gentleman and the House that this debate is on a quite narrow subject and hon. Members must not stray into the issue of general taxation, or even too far into the issue of petrol itself.
  Mr. Gibb: I accept your point, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am just making some key preparatory remarks before dealing with the order itself.
  Mr. Derek Twigg: When will we get to the order?
  Mr. Gibb: We shall get to it in due course.
  An example of the Government's false propaganda is that, although they accept that there has been a 14p increase since the March 1999 Budget, they say that, of that 14p, only 1.9p was caused by the 2000 Budget. Although that is correct, in the three previous Budgets, regardless of the world oil price, there were duty increases amounting to 13p. If those extra duties had not been imposed, petrol at the pump would be 15p per litre less than it is today. The dishonest use of statistics is one of the things that people find so distasteful about politicians and why there is such cynicism about United Kingdom politics and politicians.
  Mr. John Bercow: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Gibb: No; I should like to make some progress before Mr. Deputy Speaker reprimands me again.
  People also find the yah-boo arguments irritating. Of course the fuel duty escalator started under the previous Government. However, it started as an honest attempt to reduce fuel use and CO2 emissions.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman guessed aright. I would be grateful if he would now confine his remarks to the order that we are debating.
  Mr. Gibb: I shall obey your strictures, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  The point is that this is a self-made, self-inflicted crisis, and the Government are using the order to try to deal with its symptoms.

  763
  The order contains far-reaching powers for the Government. Under the order, as the Minister said, the Secretary of State may provide
  for regulating or prohibiting the production, supply, acquisition or use of —
  (a) any of the following substances
  including petrol, diesel and gas.
  The order was made by Her Majesty on 11 September, as requested by the Minister, and laid before Parliament on 12 September. The House returned from the summer recess on 23 October. It has taken the Government until today, 13 November, before arranging for the order to be debated. Nevertheless, in her speech, the right hon. Lady said that the Government took the order very seriously indeed.
  The order contains extensive powers which, frankly, should have been debated at the earliest possible time—24 October, or at least in our first week back. In fact, they should have been debated on the recall of Parliament, which my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition called for in September. If the right hon. Lady is serious in her expressed concern that this is the first time that those powers have been used since the 1976 Act came into force, the Government should have recalled Parliament. The fuel protest was a crisis and these are serious powers. Why were the powers not debated earlier? Are they being debated today simply because if they were not, in six days' time they would lapse, under section 3 of the Energy Act 1976, which requires them to be debated within 28 days of the Order in Council when the House is sitting?
  If passed, the order lasts for a full 12 months. Could the Minister tell the House about the Government's intentions regarding those powers? If it becomes clear over the next few weeks that they are no longer needed, will she move an order to revoke them? If not, why not? The Opposition would have had no objection to the powers being sought during what was clearly an emergency in September, and we shall not oppose the order tonight, but would it not make more sense simply to exercise those powers when they are needed, rather than now, when it is unclear whether they are required?
  The exercise of the powers under the order appears to be something of a shambles. The main order was laid on 12 September. At 4 pm that same day, the Motor Fuel (Designated Filling Stations and Fuel Depots) Order was laid. That was revoked at 2 pm the next day and replaced by the Liquid and Gaseous Fuel (Designated Filling Stations and Fuel Depots) Order which, in turn, was amended some two hours later by the Liquid and Gaseous Fuel (Designated Filling Stations and Fuel Depots) (No. 2) Order.
  Some 23 and a half hours after that, both orders were replaced by the Liquid and Gaseous Fuel (Designated Filling Stations and Fuel Depots) (No. 3) Order, which itself lasted three and a half hours until 7 pm on 14 September when the No. 4 order replaced the No. 3 order. The No. 4 order was, in turn, replaced by the No. 5 order at 6 pm the following day.
  I am pleased to tell the House that that order lasted a full two weeks until 4 pm on 29 September when the Liquid and Gaseous Fuel (Designated Filling Stations and Fuel Depots) (No. 5) (Revocation) Order was made, revoking the whole lot. Could the Minister explain what
  764
  was going on with all the orders and revocations? Was it just a case of "Don't panic, Captain Mainwaring. Issue something—anything"? Were the original lists of designated filling stations and fuel depots contained in the earlier orders simply out of date and therefore wrong? Was that the reason for the numerous reissues?
  What do those statutory instruments achieve? From reading them, it is not clear precisely what powers are being exercised. Issuing a list of so-called designated stations does not actually achieve anything unless it is accompanied by powers specifying who can use such filling stations, who is entitled to take fuel and who is not. I can see no such powers being exercised under any of the six statutory instruments. Could the Minister explain?
  Is not the truth that the orders, as drafted, have no legal effect? The noble Lord Sainsbury said in the other place that the Secretary of State
  subsequently made orders designating priority retail fuel sites and priority purposes to facilitate the orderly return to normal when protests ended.
  Could the Minister confirm that that is an accurate statement? If it is, could she tell the House where in the orders it specifies the priority purposes referred to?
  Mr. Bercow: My hon. Friend is patiently taking the House through what passes for the logic of the Government in proposing the orders. We understand ministerial fetishes so far as orders are concerned, but would my hon. Friend be good enough, at this relatively early hour, to advise me what he regards as the improvement in the last order by comparison with the first?
  Mr. Gibb: My hon. Friend raises a good point. The difference between the later and earlier orders is that the documents attached to them got thicker.
  Lord Sainsbury went on to say:
  we took the view that the arrangements should be non-statutory and handled on the ground by local authorities and the police…Guidance was placed on government websites…—[Official Report, House of Lords, 7 November 2000; Vol. 618, c. 1436.]
  That reflects what the right hon. Lady said earlier this evening. However, is it not rather a lax approach to place on local authorities and the police the duty to determine who could and could not obtain fuel from those filling stations, without having any legal authority? The basis for determining who qualified was made simply on the basis of a text of Department of Trade and Industry guidance issued on a Government website.
  This issue is about the rule of law. To exercise powers—or, rather, not to exercise powers—through so-called guidance is surely an abrogation of that duty by the Government. My hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady) gave an example of the difficulties that that causes at a constituency level. Would it not have been right to have issued such guidance through the proper exercise of a statutory instrument rather than through this curious vehicle?
  From my experience as a constituency Member of Parliament during the crisis, the emergency planning officers in my area were rather perplexed by the absence of any explicit powers. They were given the duty to decide who should be allowed fuel and, with the police, were expected to enforce that on the ground. Had the crisis continued, the situation on the forecourts could have

  765
  become ugly, yet the enforcement officers had no legal powers to deal with matters and allocate fuel. What was the Minister's reasoning for that approach?
  Another curious non-parliamentary document is the memorandum of understanding drawn up between the oil industry, road hauliers, the police, the Government and trade unions. Paragraph 6 says
  the UK Government, the Scottish Executive and the Cabinet of the National Assembly for Wales are willing to consider exercising their powers to permit certain flexibilities and temporary changes in the application of regulations …
  Could the right hon. Lady explain the concept of permitting certain flexibilities? I understand the concept of exercising powers under statute to change regulations. However, I do not understand how permitting certain flexibilities works. Does it involve an order coming before the House, or is it simply Executive action not to enforce certain laws, without any recourse or accountability to Parliament?
  Finally, will the right hon. Lady explain the Government's intentions on training the military and requisitioning private sector articulated fuel tankers? Do the Government intend to take powers under section 2 of the Emergency Powers Act 1920, as she said might be the case in her written answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith), if the fuel protests that we see today escalate?
  New Labour in office is an interesting, if depressing, phenomenon. The Labour party was swept to office because people believed that new Labour had learned the key economic lessons espoused by the Conservatives over the previous 18 years. The truth is that they learned the key economic lessons of the problems that we faced in the past, but they have not understood those lessons, or how to apply the principles inherent in those lessons to future problems and to new circumstances.
  Britain's main economic problem today—and it is a serious one—is our failure as a nation to benefit from productivity gains arising out of the new economy.
  Mr. Beard: What has productivity to do with the order?
  Mr. Gibb: I shall come to that in a moment. The United States has had five years of such gains. Britain, by contrast, has seen its productivity improvement rates fall from 2.4 per cent. on average to just 1.4 per cent. over the past three years, compared with the United States figure of 2.7 per cent.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is again straying well wide of the mark. Can he please come back to the order?
  Mr. Gibb: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  Productivity is one of Britain's key problems. We can see from the order that the Government are dealing with the symptoms of the problem, not the real problem. We need the Government to deal less with the symptoms of the problem, as epitomised by the order, and to deal instead with the deep-rooted economic problems facing the country.
  10.54 pm
  Dr. Vincent Cable: My colleagues and I, and particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) in his response to the Home Secretary last week, have made it clear from the outset that we fully supported the Government's efforts to assume whatever powers were necessary to prevent massive disruption of emergency supplies and the economy. If it was right in principle to have powers to prevent Arthur Scargill's flying pickets from disrupting emergency supplies and the national economy, it is surely right that right-wing Arthur Scargills who are not bound by trade union legislation should be constrained in a comparable way. There must, of course, be a right to protest, and we defend it, but what has happened has been well in excess of what is acceptable.
  In many ways, the order is probably academic. Its purpose has already been achieved. The combination of the threat of these powers and the ability and willingness of the police to act professionally to enforce the law over the past few days has effectively meant the crumbling of the protest movement to the point at which it is no longer a serious threat. Introducing the order is probably largely superfluous, although there may be contingencies under which problems could recur.
  I shall devote most of my speech to the Minister's remark that we have learned a lot over the past two months. As we look back over the initial crisis, we can ask why the distribution system unravelled so rapidly and disastrously. If the emergency powers are designed to counter the problems that caused that, we should ask how they arose in the first place.
  I used to work in the oil industry, although I have rather lost contact with it now. The origins of the problem lie in the fact that the mental picture that most of us have long had of the industry no longer applies. The old picture is of a command and control system and of oil that flowed from pumps in the ground to petrol pumps through integrated companies in an orderly fashion that ensured security of supply. That model has completely broken down. The distribution sector is now extremely competitive, comprising three quite different types of company. The first type is the big oil companies and some small and medium-sized companies, which still operate in the traditional way. Secondly, Tesco and Sainsbury's in many ways dominate oil distribution. Thirdly, independent companies compete with each other. It is a cut-throat and competitive industry in which margins are small.
  There has, consequently, been tremendous pressure within the industry to cut costs and, arguably, corners. That has happened in two main ways. First, the industry runs on low stock levels. As in most industries, there is tremendous pressure to have minimum stock because stocks are costly. Inventories are run down to the lowest level possible, and that meant that the industry was exposed to disruption when, for the first time in its existence, it was seriously threatened. Secondly, to cut costs, the industry sub-contracted its tankerage operations, which meant that it did not have the power to instruct drivers to carry loads. Drivers were bound by contracts and penalty clauses, but they were not employees and no one could control them.
  A further important factor, which has not been publicly discussed, is the health and safety culture of the industry. Since the Piper Alpha disaster and a series of others,

  767
  such as the Exxon Valdez, there has been a proper preoccupation with health and safety. Everyone in the oil industry is aware that every tanker, on road or on sea, is a mobile incendiary bomb. Enormous care must be taken. I do not know whether the arguments advanced in the emergency about health and safety were excuses or were reasonable, but that was one factor advanced by the industry to explain why so little could be done to get tankers on the road.
  Having offered an analysis of the problem, I must turn to the action that the Government have taken. I shall only ask questions about that; I do not know the answers. If a memorandum of understanding exists with the industry, how far is it binding on all parts of the industry? I can understand how it is possible to have a memorandum of understanding with, say, BP, but it is less clear how a meaningful memorandum that is binding on large numbers of independent companies or supermarket chains can exist.
  If there is a health and safety concern, how will that be met in emergency conditions? If an Army driver is driving a commandeered truck in an emergency and an explosion occurs, who has liability for such a disaster? Is it the company or the Government? Who is responsible for maintaining the health and safety standards that the industry believed to be a major constraint on its operations?
  If the crisis has revealed a chronic stock shortage, have the Government decided what the proper level of stock should be? Presumably, there is a figure for the stocks of petrol or crude oil that we need to hold within our national boundaries for a week, a month or three months. An analysis must have been made, and it would be useful to be given some information about that. How far does the industry fall short in the provision of adequate security of supply through stocks? Who will pay for that? Under whose instructions will such stocks be provided? All those questions arise from our experience of the crisis. Can we learn from that for the long term?
  In effect, the order updates a previous order made in 1976, when conditions were different. That measure incorporated substantial elements of price control. Is it intended that if the emergency powers were to be activated price control would apply, or is that a historic legacy from the previous measure? Is it an active provision under the emergency powers? How would price control powers be utilised?
  We are all aware of the obvious problems of price control; for example, there would be a practical problem if the Government decided that in order to prevent profiteering in an emergency, the price of an oil product should be fixed, but as the operating company would be buying and selling crude oil in a volatile market, who would carry the risk associated with such price-controlled transactions? Is price control part of the package? Is it intended to be used actively?
  Under the order, price control applies to natural gas. However, the price of natural gas is already controlled by a regulator. Do the powers supersede those of the regulator? To what extent are those powers over price control relevant to the action that the Government propose?
  I was forcibly struck by the fact that suppliers anywhere in the world would be subject to the order. I do not understand what that means currently, although I can
  768
  understand what it might have meant in 1976. At that time, BP was still a mainly nationalised British company. Under emergency powers, for example, BP's activities in Alaska would have been governed according to British priorities. However, as that is no longer the case, it is difficult to understand how such powers could be applied extraterritorially, as would seem to be the intention. What is the meaning of the statement that supplies anywhere in the world should be subject to the order? What is its contemporary relevance?
  We fully support the general principle that the emergency powers should be used to prevent the disruption of emergency supplies and of the national economy.
  11.3 pm
  Mr. Keith Darvill: I fully support the order. There are law and order issues to be addressed. The people who took it upon themselves to restrict the flow of fuel to the nation were clearly putting lives at risk. They did so with no electoral mandate. They took to themselves rights that are denied to people involved in an industrial dispute. The reserve powers were thus needed for the protection of the public.
  My second point is on the use of the powers. I had some experience of the crisis in the London borough of Havering, where the community management team worked to keep essential services going. The community management team is made up of the police, the local authority and representatives of the health and emergency services. It met immediately the fuel crisis arose, and put into effect policies to assist wherever possible.
  After the crisis ended, the team reported to the community planning forum to which Members of Parliament in my area are invited. We discussed the powers and how efficient the team's planning had been. The only criticism was that there had been a lack of co-ordination at a central level in terms of the guidance that was given by Government Departments. At a local level, plans were made to meet the problems of keeping fuel flowing and providing special services, but the implementation of those plans was not helped by the different advice received from different Departments.
  Different parts of the country had different experiences, so it would be useful to analyse those experiences to see whether the reserve powers will be able to deal with circumstances such as that arose during the crisis. An inquiry or report into those experiences should be debated on the Floor of the House, because it may be necessary to have different reserve powers on the statute book in future so that much more efficient arrangements can be put in place. I do not want to be critical, because the crisis was a unique experience that arose suddenly; none the less, I would like to hear my right hon. Friend the Minister's response to those points.
  11.7 pm
  Mr. Christopher Chope: I want to ask a few brief questions. I have the privilege of having the headquarters of the defence fuel group in my constituency and the crisis has shown the importance of that tri-service organisation. Its reorganisation has proved to be effective and the group has worked hard to make contingency plans. I would like to show my appreciation of the work that it has done.

  769
  Is it correct to suggest that, as a result of the introduction of ultra-low sulphur petrol and ultra-low sulphur diesel, this country will depend increasingly on imported refined products? Traditionally, we have refined the product in this country, having imported it in an unrefined state. However, is the ability of United Kingdom refineries to deliver the Chancellor of the Exchequer's commitment that everyone would have access to ultra-low sulphur petrol by next March achievable only—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is straying outside the terms of this debate. I would be grateful if he would confine his remarks to the order and its effects.
  Mr. Chope: I shall certainly do that, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  It is my understanding that, under the powers in the order, the Secretary of State can intervene to direct the distribution and production of particular types of fuel. Because the order will extend over the next 12 months, will the Minister tell us whether it can be used in any circumstances to ensure that ultra-low sulphur petrol is distributed to 100 per cent. of petrol stations by March, as the Chancellor has said it would be?
  Under the price control mechanisms in the order, did the Department—and particularly the Prime Minister—intervene in September to ensure that the price of petrol at filling stations did not rise above 79.9p immediately after the ending of the fuel protest and at the start of the 60-day period? It has been said that the Prime Minister used influence—backed, perhaps, by the powers in this order—to put pressure on the oil companies to keep down the price of fuel at the filling station. Consequently the wholesale price of diesel increased by about 8p a litre, and within a fortnight no fewer than 164 of the country's small filling stations went out of business. They will not reopen, and that will exacerbate the distribution problem to which the Minister referred in her opening remarks. I would be grateful if she could tell us who took responsibility for that price control exercise, and under which powers.
  Will the Minister also deal with the point made by the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable), among others, about the impact of tax on the availability of stocks? As I understand it, filling stations large and small have to pay the 75 per cent. tax on fuel as soon as it is brought out of the refinery and delivered to them. Not surprisingly, they do not want to hold large stocks that they cannot sell within two or three days if they have to pay that much tax in advance. However, the refineries do not have to account to the Exchequer for the tax that they receive from the filling stations for 60 days. Does the Minister accept that the need for the order would have been significantly reduced if the Government had changed the tax regime as it impacts on individual filling stations?
  Finally, the Minister said that many lessons had been learned in the past few weeks. Do the Government now believe that it would be more sensible to make greater use of pipeline distribution of fuel than has been the case hitherto?
  11.12 pm
  Mr. Simon Hughes: I return to my earlier point about the definition of priority users which was picked up by the hon. Members for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady) and for Upminster (Mr. Darvill). I understand that under the current arrangements, which were introduced in September in the order approved by the Privy Council, priority users are defined by local authorities even though they may service the whole of the United Kingdom. In my area and elsewhere, that led to confusion. The arrangement also makes it difficult for people to access information about priority users centrally because central Government Departments will tell them to ask their local authority, as the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West said.
  Would it not be better if priority user categories were decided centrally? Otherwise, as my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) has pointed out, and as the events of the past few months have demonstrated, there will be confusion locally and nationally. There may also be a sense of injustice because someone who may be regarded as a priority user by one local authority is not regarded as such elsewhere. Such an arrangement does not work well for industry advisers or for those who are trying to go about their business.
  11.13 pm
  Mrs. Liddell: I have taken careful note of several points that have been made. The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) made a common-sense point, and I undertake to ensure that my officials consider it carefully.
  I regret to say that the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr. Gibb) has misjudged the seriousness of the situation that we are discussing. He sought an opportunity to engage in party political tit for tat, and the importance of these issues transcends that. I urge him to take a leaf out of the book of his colleague Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, who spoke on these matters in another place. We are discussing steps to ensure the protection of the vulnerable in our society and of the prosperity of the nation.
  Mr. Gibb: I accept that these points are very serious, but I do not believe that the right hon. Lady believes that they are very serious. If she did, she would have agreed to the recall of Parliament as proposed by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition a few days after the order was laid. If such matters are so important, why did not she, her party and the Prime Minister recall Parliament?
  Mrs. Liddell: The greater responsibility at the time was to ensure that the country was no longer disrupted. Indeed, that view has been broadly shared among many hon. Members. I deplore the way in which the hon. Gentleman is trying to engage in a post mortem of a situation in September. He asked why the order is before the House this evening. It is because the order runs out on 19 November and it is important to ensure that the Government can take action if necessary.
  The hon. Gentleman asked why there was not an earlier debate. I suspect that he has not been paying attention. There was a debate on the fuel crisis during the first week

  771
  following the summer recess—the week beginning 23 October. The Home Secretary made a statement on 2 November. In another place, there was an oral question on the matter on 5 October, and a debate on the order on 7 November. There have been many opportunities to debate the fuel crisis. Tonight, we are about trying to ensure that we have the measures in place to protect essential services and the prosperity of the nation should there be future disruption in the event of action taken at filling stations or elsewhere.
  The Energy Act 1976 provides the Government with temporary and exceptional powers to regulate or prohibit the production, supply, acquisition or use of fuel and electricity, either where there is imminent and actual threat of emergency in the UK affecting fuel or electricity supplies, or to meet international obligations. The hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) referred to that. We must meet certain international obligations. I bow to the hon. Gentleman's knowledge of the oil industry. Some of his points on changes in the way in which the oil industry does its business were very important. The introduction of the just-in-time system, not just in the oil industry but in manufacturing, was very much underlined by the situation that we faced in September.
  While I am on health and safety issues, I should point out that, following Piper Alpha, any one employee in the oil industry who has an anxiety about safety may, without reference to a superior, cause a stoppage or conclude the process in which he or she is involved. That is understandable in the wake of Piper Alpha.
  I know from discussions with tanker drivers—I visited the refineries—that many were very much aware of what they were driving. In effect, as the hon. Member for Twickenham explained, they were driving a highly explosive device—a mobile bomb. Because of the 180 cases of intimidation, details of which are available in the Library, drivers were anxious about what might happen to them. There were instances of bricks, plumb lines and so on being thrown from bridges, and of tankers being forced on to the hard shoulder. That is very frightening not just for the tanker driver but for society in general. The worry about what might happen was considerable. The issue of health and safety must predominate in the oil industry, and I, as the Minister with responsibility for Energy, would not want it to be otherwise.
  The hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton asked about the use of Ministry of Defence drivers. Such drivers have been trained, but in the hope that it will not be necessary to use them. I should point out, however, that, in directing those controlling the tankers to co-operate with the police or the military in securing supplies, we are not taking powers directly to requisition tankers. That is an important point, which must be borne in mind.
  The Emergency Powers Act 1920 provides wide powers to make regulations which could be used to control goods or instruct members of the public or companies where the community's essentials of life or transport system are threatened by disruption of the supply and distribution of goods, including fuels. In such circumstances, the Act could be used to requisition tankers or create exclusion zones around specific sites. However, I am sure that the House, like me, hopes that the likelihood of that is extremely remote.
  772
  The hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton tried to make political capital out of the previous orders that were laid. The speed, scale and effect of the disruption last time took everyone by surprise, and measures had to be implemented quickly. I accept that there was a degree of confusion, and we have reviewed the arrangements so that we are better prepared for any repetition of the disruption. The changes in the regulations reflect consultation with business, local authorities and the police. Rather than criticise, Conservative Members should congratulate local authorities, the police and business throughout the country on the hard work that they put in to ensure that fuel supplies were maintained as far as possible and normality returned as quickly as possible.
  The orders demonstrate flexibility in a fast-moving situation. We are trying to ensure that we have in place orders that allow us to act flexibly and to take into account the nature of future disruption, which I hope will not occur.
  Mr. Gibb: Will the right hon. Lady explain the purpose of the five orders issued under the previous Order in Council? What do they achieve legally?
  Mrs. Liddell: The purpose is to give the Secretary of State powers, for example, to designate priority filling stations and depots. I am sure the House recognises that that is critical, especially as, although many public service and local authority users get their fuel from depots, a significant number, especially those in rural areas, get their fuel from ordinary filling stations. That is why it is necessary to designate such filling stations.
  Mr. Gordon Prentice: I have gone through the 25 pages of the documents, and I can find only two designated filling stations in my constituency, which is a big one with a large rural collar. There are 600 outlets nationwide. Is there a cap on the total number of filling stations that can be designated, or can local authorities, in conjunction with police, propose additional garages?
  Mrs. Liddell: Local authorities, in conjunction with police, constructed the list. There is no artificial cap. I undertake to examine the position in my hon. Friend's constituency.
  Mr. Gibb: Will the right hon. Lady explain the effect of designation? As far as I can tell, all that the lesser statutory instruments issued under the order do is provide a list of filling stations—that is it. They provide no powers other than the power to create a list. What is the legal effect of creating the list?
  Mrs. Liddell: The filling stations will be given fuel on a priority basis—that is the purpose of the list of designated filling stations.
  I must now try to address the substantial number of points made during the debate. The hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) appears to have misunderstood the purpose of the order, in that he talked about ultra-low sulphur petrol and dependence. I am sure that his intention was not mischievous and that he of all people recognises the importance of these matters. It is the responsibility of the Secretary of State to ensure that fuel of whatever sort is needed is available. In September, some areas

  773
  experienced a shortage of unleaded petrol; in such cases, the Secretary of State would be anxious to ensure that unleaded petrol was supplied to filling stations, even if leaded petrol was available at those stations. The same applies to supplies of diesel and ultra-low sulphur petrol. I hope that the hon. Gentleman was not trying to score some petty political point. The key requirement is to make sure that fuel is available in filling stations for essential services.
  Mr. Chope: Will the right hon. Lady give way?
  Mrs. Liddell: I would prefer to make progress.
  The hon. Gentleman asked whether the price control powers were used in September. They were not. He also mentioned the use of pipelines. Pipelines are used to supply operations such as major airports, but they are expensive to install. It is unlikely that additional pipelines will be constructed in the year in which the order will apply.
  The hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton asked about the explanatory note. As set out in the explanatory note to each order, the depots and filling stations were designated to allow the Secretary of State to make further orders or to give directions under the Energy Act 1976 by reference to those premises. In the event, in September the oil companies agreed on a voluntary basis to direct fuel to the designated sites and to supply at those sites only the categories of persons that the Secretary of State had instructed should be supplied.
  A great deal of publicity was given to those arrangements at that time. Many of the 24-hour news channels on television had text at the bottom of the screen giving details of the filling stations available in particular areas.
  I am grateful to the hon. Member for Twickenham for the support that he has shown to the Government on this matter. We hope that the need for the orders is academic. The hon. Gentleman suggested that the need for them may have passed, but I believe that it is prudent for the Government to ensure that we can protect the most vulnerable and the nation's prosperity. That is the reason why the orders will lie, whether or not we need them during the next year.
  On the points that the hon. Gentleman made arising from his own experience, the oil industry has learned a lot from the past couple of months. It has learned how its procedures can lead to disruption. With his background, the hon. Gentleman will be aware that a certain level of stocks are held—not in the same way as the strategic supplies in the United States, but there is a minimum level of 63 days, I think, in case of a major disruption of supply in the UK. We believe that those stocks should be used for emergency purposes, not as a means of manipulating the market. They should be available, should some extraneous event cause a disruption to UK supplies.
  The hon. Gentleman asked an important question about liability for tanker accidents. An indemnity has been negotiated with the oil companies and hauliers to cover losses arising from tankers being driven by service drivers. Where a service driver was at fault, the Secretary of State for Defence would be vicariously liable in any event.
  774
  The hon. Gentleman asked about price controls. Those were not necessary during the September disruption, and we hope that they will never be necessary, but the Government are determined to do whatever is necessary to maintain supplies. As this point, it is important for us not to second-guess what attempts might be made to disrupt supplies.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Upminster (Mr. Darvill) made an important point about the need for co-ordination and communication. I hear what he says. The Government have been examining closely the requirements for co-ordination and communication and have been taking advice from many of those with whom we had dealings during the September situation.
  As regards behaviour in the marketplace, the hon. Member for Christchurch asked about the difficulties of some small filling stations. The Director General of Fair Trading is responsible for monitoring markets and considering complaints about anything that may be construed as anti-competitive behaviour. The Office of Fair Trading has received complaints about differential pricing policies and is examining the matter. The OFT has written to oil companies to ask for information on their wholesale pricing policies. I am sure that the hon. Member for Christchurch acknowledges that it is up to the Director General of Fair Trading to consider whether action under competition legislation is required.
  Mr. Chope: Will the Minister give way?
  Mrs. Liddell: I must try to draw my remarks to an end.
  Mr. Gibb: Will the Minister give way?
  Mrs. Liddell: I shall take one final question, and then I wish to make progress.
  Mr. Gibb: This is an important question, which I asked earlier. If it becomes clear in the next few weeks or months that the powers are no longer required, will the Minister return to the House with a revocation order, or will she leave them in existence for a full 12 months?
  Mrs. Liddell: In considering that question, we get into interesting debates about what would make it clear that no further disruption will occur. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would expect a responsible Government to take responsibility for decisions. That means that we have to consider access to powers, in case we need them. I cannot discuss what would make it clear that no further disruption was likely. We are taking action to maintain supplies to essential users and essential industries. One of the regrettable aspects of events in September was that people at refinery gates tried to define essential and non-essential users.
  The hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton tried to score political points at the beginning of his remarks. I stress to him that responsible government means making decisions that mean that some people are sometimes disappointed. The Government are working to provide a long-term future for the whole economy, based on low, stable interest and mortgage rates and sound public finances on the basis of which people and businesses can plan ahead. We will not sacrifice the

  775
  economic stability that we have built up by reacting to short-term pressures in the way the hon. Gentleman suggests.
  The reserve powers to which the Order in Council provides access enable us to make special arrangements to safeguard supplies of fuel to essential services. I emphasise that we hope that it will not be necessary to use them in the foreseeable future. However, we make it clear that we have a duty to take appropriate precautionary measures. Given the clear potential of the disruption of fuel supply seriously to damage society, business and the most vulnerable, I see no scope for disagreement, and I commend the order to the House.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That the Energy Act 1976 (Reserve Powers) Order 2000 (S.I., 2000, No. 2449) dated llth September 2000, a copy of which was laid before this House on 12th September, be approved.

DELEGATED LEGISLATION
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),
DELEGATED LEGISLATION

  FEES AND CHARGES
  That the draft Consular Fees Act 1980 (Fees) Order 2000, which was laid before this House on 19th June, be approved.—[Mrs. McGuire.]
  Question agreed to.

COMMITTEES
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): With permission, I shall put together the motions relating to Committees.
Ordered,

COMMITTEES
  EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT
  That Mr. Phil Willis be discharged from the Education and Employment Committee and Mr. Richard Allan be added to the Committee.
  That Mr. David Wilshire be discharged from the Foreign Affairs Committee and Mr. John Maples be added to the Committee.
  HEALTH
  That Mr. Robert Syms be discharged from the Health Committee and Mrs. Marion Roe be added to the Committee.[Mr. John McWilliam, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]
PETITION

  Cleft Lip and Palate Patients
  11.34 pm
  Mr. John Wilkinson: I wish to present a petition in the name of Mrs. Sue Baillie of Mount Vernon hospital, Northwood Cleft Lip and Palate Association and 1,242 fellow signatories.
  The petition states:
  To the Honourable the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament assembled
  The Humble Petition of Cleft Lip and/or Palate NHS Patients and their Parents, Guardians, Carers, Grandparents, Relatives and Supporters sheweth
  That having not received clear openness and transparency during the implementation of the Clinical Standards Advisory Group recommendations on Cleft Lip and Palate Services, and being denied fair and reasonable representation in the decision making process,
  Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your Honourable House will request the Secretary of State for Health to initiate a full and independent quality audit of all current Cleft Lip and Palate Units before the designation of new centres. Your Petitioners also pray that your Honourable House will urge the Secretary of State for Health to reconsider the number of unit closures necessary in order to provide the new service without further unnecessary hardship for patients and their families.
  And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray, etc.
  To lie upon the Table.

  Hospitals (West London)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mrs. McGuire.]
  11.35 pm
  Mr. John Wilkinson: Today, the public consultation period for the proposals on modernising specialist acute hospital services in west London put forward by Kensington, Chelsea and Westminster health authority on behalf of the West London Partnership Forum of four health authorities in west London comes to an end.
  This speech is my submission not only to Kensington, Chelsea and Westminster health authority but to Parliament and the country on behalf of my constituents, and on behalf of the thousands throughout the United Kingdom and overseas who are appalled by the planned closure of Harefield hospital. They have expressed by letter, phone, fax, e-mail, petition and their presence at the five public consultation meetings in the Hillingdon borough their rightful indignation about what is proposed.
  I have consistently sought to put the truth before the public, not only in my Adjournment debate of 2 December 1998 but in the summer Adjournment debate of 28 July 2000, in numerous parliamentary questions, in meetings with Ministers, letters to Ministers and in contributions at every consultation meeting held in the Hillingdon borough.
  There has been little controversy over the proposals for specialist paediatric and renal hospital services in west London, but that a supposedly responsible national health service forum should propose the closure of Harefield hospital, the most famous cardiothoracic hospital in Britain, without even putting forward its modernisation and development as an option for consultation, has caused outrage.
  Harefield has undertaken more transplants—more than 2,000—than any other cardiothoracic hospital in the world. Under the leadership of Professor Sir Magdi Yacoub, voted by the nation's television viewers as man of the year only a few weeks ago, its reputation for excellence and total devotion to patient care is unsurpassed anywhere. This is something that the general public understand. They accord the highest esteem to the human and even spiritual values represented by the dedication of Harefield's staff to the healing of broken hearts and lungs.
  By contrast, what the West London Partnership Forum seems to hold in the highest esteem are the asset values of Harefield and the Royal Brompton hospitals. That is an unworthy and narrow perspective, as the future of Britain's most famous heart and lung hospital transcends west London or even the capital as a whole. Its patients come from far and wide, and only just over 10 per cent. come from the Hillingdon borough where it is situated.
  The motives of those who would transplant idyllically tranquil rural Harefield to one of the most congested, polluted, noisy, crime-ridden, overcrowded, concrete jungles of inner London are bound to be criticised and scrutinised. They merit further deep investigation.
  The conduct of the consultation process was unseemly from its inception in late July at the height of the holiday season. There was overwhelming public opposition to the
  778
  destruction of Harefield, which the West London Partnership Forum had proposed, but the NHS representatives in their total intransigence showed a disturbing contempt for democracy, and utter lack of interest in any proposals other than their own. I hope they now give the impressive written responses from the Heart of Harefield campaign, residents associations, the borough council, Community Voice, the community health council, patients groups and individuals the genuine consideration that they deserve.
  The Secretary of State too, if he is a democrat, should demand to study those responses. He knows the strength of public feeling, and has had letters of public protest enough. On 26 April, a petition with more than 80,000 signatures was delivered to the Prime Minister at 10 Downing street—an event which can hardly have passed him by, especially as it was well televised and led by an eight-year-old double heart transplant former patient, Sophie Park, and by the then leader of Hillingdon borough council, councillor Richard Barnes, now the Greater London Assembly councillor for Ealing and Hillingdon.
  If care of patients were poor at Harefield, the fiercest critics would be its patients past and present. However, the Hamsters—the Harefield transplant club, which represents those who have had transplants there—are its staunchest supporters, as are members of the Rebeat club, which is affiliated to the British Heart Foundation and has some 400 members nationwide—people who are, or have been, patients at Harefield hospital, and their close relatives.
  Were there a cogent case for Harefield hospital's closure, I as the local Member of Parliament would have had it represented to me by my electors, but I have not. Moreover, all parties on Hillingdon borough council would not have voted together to save and develop the hospital unless that were the wish of local residents.
  There is much rhetoric about the NHS's response to the views of patients and the public. Indeed, the heading of the first chapter of the NHS national plan describes its vision as
  a health service designed around the patient.
  To modernise Harefield would cost a tiny proportion of the £180 million net capital cost of building and equipping the new hospital at Paddington basin, whose gross cost would be about twice as high were it not for the proceeds from selling the Royal Brompton and Harefield sites.
  What is more, the outline business case projects that the closure of the Royal Brompton and Harefield hospitals will be set against a requirement for only an extra nine cardiothoracic beds by 2006, which is when the new hospital is due to be completed, and an extra 27 by 2011. In relation to the overall number of beds in west London in the hospitals affected by the proposed changes, only an extra 24 beds are projected by 2011—an extra hundredth of a bed per 1,000 population.
  Clearly, more than health economics is involved. I suggest the answer lies in the strategic objective to regenerate the Paddington basin in central London, to which aim Harefield hospital and its staff are intended to be sacrificed. I do not think that the prognosis for the Paddington basin site is good, because it was flooded on 2 November.
  Kensington, Chelsea and Westminster is the health authority in the West London Partnership Forum, which is leading on the forum's proposal to sell Harefield

  779
  hospital and put the proceeds together with those from the sale of its hospital trust partner, the Royal Brompton, into the development of a new cardiothoracic hospital in Paddington as part of what the forum, in its outline business case, describes as
  the most significant land development programme in London since Docklands.
  The House should note that the arbiter as well as the conductor of the public consultation process is the Kensington, Chelsea and Westminster health authority. In an ethical world, the arbiter would be independent and objective, such as a health authority outside the area concerned. However, in this case the vested interest of Kensington, Chelsea and Westminster is clear, as it is progenitor, proposer, arbiter, prospective executor and beneficiary of the proposals.
  Were there natural justice, such a flagrant business and pecuniary interest on the part of the Kensington, Chelsea and Westminster health authority would invalidate the whole consultation process because, to quote the West London Partnership Forum again:
  St. Mary's NHS Trust and Kensington, Chelsea and Westminster Health Authority are both members of the Paddington regeneration partnership. This group of landowners, business and local stakeholders has the objective of establishing Paddington as a premier residential and business district of London and to provide sustainable economic vitality for the area ensuring that the products of regeneration benefit the surrounding communities.
  Over the 10 to 15—year development period, the combined schemes are due to create more than 30,000 jobs. Little thought is given to the jobs to be lost at Harefield, which has little employment other than the hospital, and hardly any of the hospital's staff are willing to move to Paddington.
  The problems of access, parking, accommodation for visitors and staff, road user charges and physical safety for rehabilitating patients and their relatives are plain to all—except the West London Partnership Forum. The problems of travelling to Paddington should alone invalidate the Paddington basin site. However, Harefield is the optimum location: set in green belt in rural Middlesex with ample gardens and lawns, it has a helipad, cheap and friendly accommodation and easy access to the M4, M40, M1, M25, Heathrow, Luton, Northolt and Denham airfields, the tubes at Uxbridge and Northwood and rail services at Watford and at Denham.
  History repeats itself, but each generation is reluctant to accept the lessons of the past. In her history of the hospital, "Heart of Harefield", the former consultant surgeon at Harefield, Mary Shepherd, points out that, in response to a report by the London Health Planning Consortium, which had similar centralising plans in 1979, Harefield commented on that report's lack of evidence for cardiac centres located in general or in teaching hospitals performing better than those that were not. She said that
  on the contrary the available evidence suggests otherwise the proposals … for relocation … are not based on the preservation and development of existing standards of excellence for the benefit of the public but on the sterile logic of planning and perhaps the personal predilection of the authors…For service to patients teaching should be a subordinate consideration.
  It is noteworthy that Harefield's finest work has been done in the past 20 years—since it beat off the threat to its survival from the London Health Planning Consortium.
  780
  I again quote from its historic and mercifully triumphant response of 20 years ago:
  We must point to a simple truth … nowhere acknowledged in the report —
  nor in this one, for that matter —
  the peculiar genius which inspires a team in our demanding speciality cannot be uprooted and expected to flourish elsewhere … talk of transplanting this excellence is simply a euphemism for its destruction.
  Industrial relations and service to the public are excellent. It has the space and ability to expand. Its location is more convenient for patients who come from all over the country and the world than any of the hospitals amongst whom it is proposed to divide its work. The quality of its treatment and the quiet peace of the surroundings outweigh all other considerations. The public is entitled to hear better reasons for its destruction.
  Founded in 1915 as a hospital for Australian soldiers wounded in the great war—No. 1 auxiliary hospital of the Australian Imperial Forces—Harefield hospital has performed devoted service to the sick in peace and in war. As was written of the ANZAC casualties, who are still commemorated by the schoolchildren of the village every ANZAC day when they lay flowers on the 107 graves in St Mary's churchyard,
  For here in Harefield for them some corner of a foreign field, brave hearts find peace under an English heaven
  Long may it remain.
  11.50 pm
  The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr. John Denham): I congratulate the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) on securing the debate. It gives the House an opportunity to discuss the existing disposition of some of the specialist services in west London, and the case for change that underpins the proposals for reorganisation that are currently the subject of public consultation. As the hon. Gentleman said, public consultation is about to close.
  Although I shall inevitably need to rehearse some of the arguments lying behind the proposals that are currently out to consultation, it is important that I do not prejudge, or give any sense that I am prejudging, the consultation. Ministers will clearly need to approach the consultation, if and when it finally comes to us, with a fresh and open mind in regard to the issues that are raised. I hope the hon. Gentleman will forgive me if, for that reason, I do not engage in a detailed debate with him about some of his points. I think that would be wrong, given the present stage of the public consultation.
  Mr. Gareth R. Thomas: Does the Minister recognise that concern about the future of Harefield extends beyond the boundaries of the constituency of the hon. Member for Ruislip—Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson)? In particular, does he recognise that my constituents' concern relates particularly to access to cardiothoracic services, and will he ensure that that is taken into consideration in the final decision about the future of Harefield?
  Mr. Denham: I recognise the broad spectrum represented by those who are concerned about the issue. I have received letters from my own constituents about the future of Harefield hospital, and there is a wide range of issues—including those relating to access and transport—that will have been reflected in the public

  781
  consultation. If it is referred to Ministers, they will have to take careful account of those issues in the future. I acknowledge my hon. Friend's points, and his local concerns in particular.
  The hon. Member for Ruislip—Northwood concentrated—as I think we all anticipated—on the future of Harefield hospital. It is one of the best—known heart and lung hospitals in the NHS, and I want to place on record the high regard in which we hold those services and the staff who provide them.
  The hon. Gentleman has raised the future of Harefield hospital on many occasions on behalf of his constituents. I think we all know that, under the inspirational clinical leadership of Professor Sir Magdi Yacoub, Harefield hospital has been remarkably successful in its development of heart and lung services. It has also become a centre where research and development is an integral part of its work to improve life expectancy and the quality of life for those with serious cardiothoracic conditions.
  Specialist care of the type that has been pioneered at Harefield is a crucial part of services that are provided for people with coronary heart disease. Services that begin with health promotion continue through primary care settings, with general practitioners and their staff assessing and diagnosing patients, referring them to cardiologists in the local acute hospital, As part of that pattern of service, emergency services are involved, including the highly trained paramedic ambulance crews who respond to the sudden and devastating coronary accident.
  Many coronary heart disease patients are treated successfully without the need for referral to a specialist centre such as Harefield. Nevertheless, for those with particularly complex medical or surgical needs, the expertise available at Harefield and other centres of excellence can be the difference between life and death, and can give much improved quality of life and life expectancy.
  No hospital is immune to pressures. Hospitals must modernise if they are to remain a vital and effective part of the larger entity that is the NHS. The willingness to embrace necessary change is key if we are to begin to build a modern NHS to meet the needs of patients both nationally and locally in west London. Harefield, along with the Royal Brompton, Hammersmith and St Mary's, is one of several centres in west London that provides specialist heart and lung services.
  The hon. Gentleman is familiar with the background to the service reviews that have led to the public consultation by Kensington, Chelsea and Westminster health authority. The consultation has been on proposals for modernising specialist acute hospital services in west London. It has run for some four months from July until today. The fragmentation of specialist heart and lung, renal and specialist children's services has long been of concern to all those who wish to see continued improvement in clinical care and outcomes and in education, training and research.
  The hon. Gentleman will know that, as part of the independent review of London's health services, the Government asked Sir Leslie Turnberg to assess the need
  782
  for change in west London. He was also asked to look at the process that had been developed involving both the NHS and its academic partners in shaping the change.
  Sir Leslie was encouraged by the progress that he saw. His report registered a particular concern that the way in which the service is currently organised in west London might not be maximising its long—term contribution to national and international research. He advised the Government to ensure that plans for a more rational distribution of specialist services throughout west London were achieved. The hon. Gentleman may recall that, unlike the previous Administration with regard to many of the reviews that they commissioned, this Government did not cherry—pick the expert independent advice that they received.
  In the Government's response to Sir Leslie's report, we accepted all the recommendations that it made. In taking forward recommendations, the NHS Executive asked hospitals and health authorities in that area of west London, along with Imperial College, to take part in a review of specialist cardiac and thoracic services. That review commissioned expert clinical input from a panel chaired by Sir Terence English, an internationally respected figure in heart transplantation who completed the first successful heart transplant in the UK, and a past president of the Royal College of Surgeons. The review was completed in July 1998. It broadly confirmed Sir Leslie Turnberg's impression that cardiac and thoracic services in west London were not organised in a way that would continue to support the highest quality service and academic endeavour.
  Sir Terence English advised that three out of the four cardiac centres in west London were not seeing a sufficient number of patients to support the highest quality of patient care or research and teaching. He recommended that existing services should be focused on fewer, larger centres. He also advised that co—location of specialist cardiac services with other related specialties would bring benefits not available to single specialty hospitals such as Harefield.
  We have a number of specialist hospitals in the NHS that, through the immense talent and vision of a small number of specialists, have developed services of the highest quality and innovation. In certain instances, those hospitals find themselves with a relatively small number of patients. They can be geographically isolated from other hospitals and from other related specialties. There is growing evidence that suggests that clinical risk is best managed by ensuring that highly specialised services are undertaken in large, multi—disciplinary centres, where all appropriate support specialties are close at hand.
  The hon. Gentleman is concerned about the possible future location of those services. I can assure him that the aim of the proposals—certainly, my aim in considering any proposals—will be to ensure that patients are winners in terms of being able to access services that are uniformly of the highest standard; and that staff are winners in terms of working in multi—disciplinary teams enjoying state of the art facilities and the best education and training opportunities. We aim to ensure that researchers are winners in terms of having the best opportunity to undertake programmes of excellence and innovation worthy of the 21st century.
  The West London Partnership Forum, chaired by Lord Newton of Braintree, a Minister for Health under the previous Administration, was established to enable senior

  783
  clinicians and managers in the NHS to discuss with colleagues in Imperial College how they should respond to the call within Sir Leslie Turnberg's review of London's health services for a more rational distribution of specialist care in London.
  On 14 February 2000, the forum announced that its preferred option was for a new specialist heart and lung hospital alongside specialist children's services next to a rebuilt St Mary's hospital, as part of the Paddington basin scheme, which is London's biggest redevelopment. The forum's preferred option would also see the Hammersmith Hospitals NHS trust become the west London centre for specialist renal services.
  As soon as the forum had a set of proposals, it laid them before the public in a consultation exercise. During the consultation period, the NHS has made available to the public large amounts of information to support the arguments in favour of the forum's preferred option and the other options considered. It has certainly been one of the biggest ever consultation exercises on proposals for change in the NHS, with 12 public meetings and large numbers of people attending each of them. There is an internet site with the consultation document available upon it. There will also be a further special public meeting, on 29 November, before the health authority considers the outcome of public consultation at its meeting on 13 December.
  My understanding is that every effort has been made to ensure that those with an interest in the future of those services have had the opportunity to make their views heard. As I said at the beginning, I am unable to comment on the possible outcome of public consultation, as my position as Minister prevents me from doing so. However, our aim is to ensure that any change that flows from the process will be to the benefit of patients.
  I do, however, understand that some people in the hon. Gentleman's constituency have strong feelings about the proposed changes. Harefield village quite clearly identifies with the hospital as an institution and sees it as part of the local community. The letters that I have received about Harefield express concerns about the proposed changes.
  I should like to take this opportunity to mention various decisions that demonstrate our commitment to Harefield, both the hospital and the wider community. I should also like to remind the House that, regardless of the outcome of public consultation, capital investment is both justified and continues to be made in the fabric and services at Harefield hospital. A new patient services centre, for example, is being built at a capital cost of £4.2 million.
  784
  We are also contributing £2.5 million towards phase 2 of the heart sciences centre, which is a research facility that was opened in 1992. The case has been made for further development of the facility, to provide new laboratories to facilitate research in the areas of gene therapy, chronic rejection, homograft valve research and tissue engineering. When he was Secretary of State for Health, my right hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson), made a commitment to provide £2 million towards the project.
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health recently met Professor Sir Magdi Yacoub and, at that meeting, agreed to provide a further £500,000 towards phase 2 of the heart sciences centre. I think that that can be seen as reaffirming our commitment to support that centre.
  The Secretary of State also heard more of current developments at Harefield and of the uncertainty that is inevitably felt at this time. Although there is no question of pre—empting the outcome of public consultation, he agreed to fund a feasibility study to explore the possible use of the Harefield site as a science park in the event that a decision is made to centralise clinical services elsewhere. I must emphasise that the feasibility study is being undertaken as a precautionary measure and in no way prejudges the outcome of the public consultation. I add that that study has been welcomed by health organisations in north-west London.
  The common objective of all the Government's plans for the modernisation of the national health service is to ensure that the patient has equitable access to high—quality care and treatment. That is the objective of the NHS plan and of the national service framework for coronary heart disease. I believe that that is an objective shared by those who have been developing proposals for the re—organisation of specialist NHS cardiothoracic, renal and children's services in west London.
  Whatever the outcome that follows from those proposals, the legacy of Harefield and its staff under the clinical leadership of Sir Magdi will be safeguarded for the benefit of tomorrow's patients. Harefield's contribution to the NHS is one that should be celebrated. I want to express my recognition and appreciation of that contribution—a contribution that will remain central to the success of clinical services, education and research for heart and lung disease and be recognised not only nationally, but all the way around the globe.
  Question put and agreed to
  Adjourned accordingly at four minutes past Twelve midnight.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  UK Sports Institute
  Mr. Reed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what progress has been made on the establishment of the UK Sports Institute. [135647]

  Kate Hoey
  The UK Sports Institute's aim is to provide our best sportsmen and women with the facilities and support services that they need to compete and win at the highest level. It will provide much needed world class facilities and a higher standard of co-ordinated support services than the UK has ever had before.

  Recruitment of the key staff of the UKSI Central Services team has been completed. From November 2000, sports will have access to the technical, operational and programme support provided through the UKSI Central Services Team.

  The UKSI is also made up of a network of Institutes operated by the home country sports councils. The establishment of the English Institute of Sport of the UKSI is on-going. The Badminton Centre in Milton Keynes, the Aquatics Centre and the Velodrome in Manchester and the Ice-Centre in Nottingham are already available to athletes. In May-June 2000, the water-based hockey pitches in Birmingham and Cannock were among the first completed new projects. At Loughborough, Lottery funding of up to £2.1 million has been agreed for the development of swimming facilities, an indoor athletics centre, international hockey pitches, a gymnastic centre, facilities for badminton and netball together with athlete support services. Over £50 million of new Lottery funding has been committed by Sport England to date for additional facilities for the English network. It is expected that the majority of the remaining Lottery applications, representing over £60 million of further investment in network facilities in England, will be made in the next six months. Once the full building programme has been completed, there will be over 80 facilities that go to make up the English Institute of Sport network.

  In addition, the UKSI Scottish Institute of Sport, funded by Sport Scotland, has been established and operating for 18 months and The Sports Council for Wales has been operating and developing UKSI Cymru for sometime. Both have been providing a range of services direct to athletes including technical training and support, conditioning guidance and supervision, preventive and reactive sports medical support and sports science. The Sports Council for Northern Ireland has identified the University of Ulster as their preferred partner to develop in partnership the UKSI network centre for Northern Ireland. Initial principles of agreement have been signed by both parties and work is under way to identify the most appropriate format to operate the network centre.
  448W
  Copies of the UKSI Quarterly Update report for August 2000—produced by UK Sport—have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses to provide further information on progress of the UK Sports Institute.

  National Lottery
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport for what reason he has not dismissed the National Lottery Commissioners who were in post at the time of the decision which resulted in the resignation of the Chairman of the Commission. [136243]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  I have no grounds for dismissing the National Lottery Commissioners. The former Chairman of the National Lottery Commission, Dame Helena Shovelton, resigned from the Commission for personal reasons. I appointed Lord Burns to take her place on the Commission, and gave him a clear remit, alongside the other Commissioners, to conduct the selection process with absolute fairness and impartiality between the applicants. The Government have every confidence in their ability to do so.

  Millennium Commission
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, pursuant to his answer of 1 November 2000,Official Report, column 476W, what undertaking was sought by the Millennium Commission from (a) the Minister of State at the Cabinet Office, Lord Falconer or (b) the New Millennium Experience Company in return for its most recent award of grant. [137222]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  [holding answer 7 November 2000]This is a matter for the Millennium Commission. I will write to the hon. Member in my capacity as Chairman of the Commission, and place copies of my reply in the Libraries of the House.

  Looted Cultural Assets
  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what response he plans to make to the proposal of the Vilnius International Forum on Holocaust Era Looted Cultural Assets that Governments establish a central reference point to provide information and help on queries regarding looted cultural assets and claims. [137409]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  My officials are in contact with Resource (the Council for Museums Libraries and Archives) to discuss the outcome of the study they have commissioned into the feasibility of an advisory unit to offer expertise and advice to help museums, galleries, libraries and archives in handling this issue.

  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what the timetable is for consultation on the case for legislation to permit national museums and galleries to return human remains and objects which were wrongfully taken during the period 1933 to 1945; and if he will list the organisations which are being consulted. [137410]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  I am currently consulting the Chairman of the National Museum Directors' Conference (NMDC), the Chairman of the NMDC's standing Repatriation Committee and the Chairman of the
  449W
  NMDC's Working Group on Spoliation, together with the Director of Resource and the Director of the Museums Association.

  Millennium Dome
  Mr. Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will make a statement on his plans for the use of the Millennium Dome. [136989]

  Janet Anderson
  [holding answer 8 November 2000]: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave the hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) on 6 November 2000, Official Report, columns 55-56W.

  Chess
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what plans he has to designate chess a sport. [137992]

  Kate Hoey
  I have currently no plans. Any decision to recognise chess as a sport would have to be agreed by all four home country sports councils and departments.

  Regional Theatre
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what plans he has for funding regional theatre in the areas covered by(a) the South East Arts Board, (b) Waverley district council and (c) Mole Valley district council, with particular reference to (i) the Redgrave Theatre, Farnham and (ii) the Thorndike Theatre, Leatherhead. [137687]

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  This is a matter for the Arts Council of England, as the main funding body for the arts in England, in collaboration with South East Arts, as the regional arts board, to decide within the context of their current review of theatre. The Arts Council have already announced additional funding for theatre from 2002–03, and decisions on how this will be distributed will be made in the near future.

  Television Subtitling
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, pursuant to his answer of 30 October 2000,Official Report, column 330W, on subtitling for the deaf and hard of hearing on digital, cable and satellite television, for what reason the scope of his Department's review has been extended to include satellite and cable TV; and what other aspects of provision and reception of subtitling, signing and audio description services are also being reviewed. [137919]

  Janet Anderson
  The review was widened to include other aspects of the provision and reception of subtitling, signing and audio description services in order to inform Government in the development of future broadcasting policy and legislation in this area. Other aspects being considered are the possibilities of different targets for different broadcasters, the prioritisation of certain programmes/channels, the costs of providing and receiving these services and the availability of skilled subtitlers, signers and audio describers.

  European Union Baroque Orchestra
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what the level of(a) Government and (b) European Communities support for the European Union Baroque Orchestra is. [138084]

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  The European Union Baroque Orchestra is an official cultural training initiative of the European Parliament and the European Commission, and receives funding from the European Commission's Directorate General for Education and Culture. The orchestra also receives major sponsorship from industry and other organisations and individuals. The level of that funding is for those organisations to determine; no additional support comes from Government.

  Government Sports Strategy
  Mr. Alan Keen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what targets he has for getting more people regularly to take exercise; and if he will make a statement. [134150]

  Yvette Cooper
  I have been asked to reply.

  Experts recommend that all adults should participate in at least 30 minutes of moderate intensity physical activity five times a week and children should be active for at least an hour every day. In each case, physical activity can include activities like brisk walking, cycling and swimming.

  The National Service Framework for Coronary Heart Disease set out key milestones for the implementation of a range of prevention programmes at a local level. These milestones state that, by April 2001, all NHS bodies, working closely with local authorities, will have agreed and be contributing to the delivery of local programmes on physical activity. By April 2002, all local health communities will have quantitative data on implementation of these policies. The Health Development Agency has compiled a guide for implementing the preventive aspects of the NSF. This will be sent to Health Authorities in November and will provide examples of the projects they can set up in order to reach NSF milestones.

  Several Government initiatives are promoting opportunities for people to be more physically active. The Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions has made safer roads a priority in their White Paper 'A New Deal for Transport'. The Department for Culture, Media and Sport have outlined their commitment to improve access to services in their 'Sports Strategy'. There is also a joint DH/DfEE programme to implement the objectives of the 'National Healthy School Standard', which includes physical activity as a component.

  Initiatives are in place to promote physical activity among children. The Safe and Sound Challenge, which encourages children to walk or cycle to school along safe routes, has run successfully for two years. In 2000–01, the aim of the scheme will be to offer schools in socially deprived areas the opportunity to develop healthy active modes of travel to school.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Office Furniture
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Chairman of the Accommodation and Works Committee what the cost is of each item of portable office furniture(a) in offices in Portcullis House and (b) in other offices in the Parliamentary Estate. [136816]

  Sir Sydney Chapman
  This is a matter for the Serjeant at Arms; I have asked him to write to the hon. Member.

PRIME MINISTER

  Biodiversity
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list those aspects of biodiversity which are potentially under threat as a result of the use of GM crops, to which he made reference in his speech on environmental policy at the Joint Green Alliance/CBI Forum on 24 October. [135436]

  The Prime Minister
  The Government take a precautionary, evidence-based approach to the possible impact on biodiversity of growing GM crops, whether through the herbicide regime, as a result of gene flow, or some other effect.

  Core Environmental Principles
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list the set of common values as part of core environmental principles to which he made reference in his speech on environmental policy at the Joint Green Alliance/CBI Partnership meeting on 24 October. [135435]

  The Prime Minister
  As is set out in the Sustainable Development Strategy, 'A Better Quality of Life', published in May 1999, the Government's core aim is:to ensure a better quality of life for everyone, now and for generations to come.

  Key values are best expressed by four objectives: social progress which recognises the needs of everyone; effective protection of the environment; prudent use of natural resources; and maintenance of high and stable levels of economic growth and employment.

  Chapter 4 of the strategy also sets out 10 guiding principles and approaches which provide additional background on our common values with regard to achieving sustainable development.

  More specifically, we need to build a new coalition for the environment that works with the grain of consumers, business and science, not against them, so that we can continue to grow and share the benefits of that growth. However, the negative impact of growth on the environment has to be reduced and a more productive use of environmental resources developed. To do this we need to: address problems at the right level—international, national, regional and local; harness consumer demand, not stifle it; stimulate science and innovation to provide solutions to environmental problems; use environmental resources more efficiently and become a low-carbon, recycling economy; and see protecting the environment as a business opportunity.
  452W
  Our goal is therefore to combine the benefits of continued economic growth with the creation of a fairer society and a cleaner environment.

  Hon. Members' Pay
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Pound) of 23 October 2000,Official Report, column 68-69W, what plans he has to include in the forthcoming review a review of pension arrangements for hon. Members and Ministers and the additional costs allowances. [136420]

  The Prime Minister
  The review of parliamentary pay and allowances to which I referred in my previous answer will not cover pensions. That is the subject of a separate review which my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House has asked the Senior Salaries Review Body (SSRB) to conduct and which we expect to receive early in the New Year.

  In addition to its commitment to review Members' pay this year, I have specifically asked the Review Body to look at the Office Cost Allowance because of representations I have received asking that this be done. I have not specifically requested the SSRB to look at other allowances.

  European Federation
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to the answer from the Minister for Europe of 2 November 2000,Official Report, column 557W, on European federation, if he will define the difference between the two types of Government mentioned; and if he will make a statement. [137683]

  The Prime Minister
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer 1 gave his hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis) on 1 November 2000,Official Report, column 509W.

  EU Council, Biarritz
  Mr. Cash
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the information EU Council held in Biarritz. [138248]

  The Prime Minister
  A Statement on the Information European Council in Biarritz was made at the earliest opportunity in the other place by my right hon. and noble Friend, the Lord Privy Seal, in a written reply to the noble Lord Faulkner of Worcester, 16 October 2000,Official Report, House of Lords, columns WA63-65.

  I repeated this statement when the House of Commons returned from the Summer Recess in a written answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Pound), Official Report, columns 69-70W.

  Charter of Fundamental Rights
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on his policy towards COM(2000)644. [135578]

  Mr. Vaz
  I have been asked to reply.

  COM(2000)644 is a Commission Communication, published on 11 October, "on the legal nature of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union".
  453W
  The Commission advocates that the Charter should be incorporated in the Treaties of the European Union. The Government reject this view, and incorporation will not happen unless all member states agree.

  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) on 2 November 2000, Official Report, columns 555-56W.

DEFENCE

  Baltic States
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what(a) ministerial contacts and (b) military exchange contacts there have been in the past 12 months with (i) Lithuania, (ii) Latvia and (iii) Estonia; and if he will make a statement. [138094]

  Mr. Spellar
  We have well-developed defence relations with all three countries. These include extensive contacts at both ministerial and military levels. During the last 12 months contacts at ministerial level have included meetings between the Secretary of State for Defence and the Latvian and Estonian Presidents, a meeting between my colleague the Minister for Defence Procurement and the Latvian Defence Minister, Mr. Girts-Valdis Kristovkis, and my own meetings with Mr. Kristovkis, the former Lithuanian Defence Minister, Mr. Ceslovas Stankevicius, and the Estonian Foreign Minister, Mr. Toomas lives. In addition, following a very successful visit to the Baltic States in July 1999, the Chief of the Defence Staff has received senior visitors from Estonia and Latvia. The Chief of the Naval Staff visited all three Baltic States in June this year.

  Central to our relationships with all three countries are bilateral programmes of defence co-operation, which form part of our Defence Diplomacy mission. These programmes cover the provision of a wide range of assistance, including advice on defence management, English language training and military training. In addition, my Department supports a number of joint Baltic defence projects, including the Baltic Defence College, located at Tartu in Estonia, the Baltic peace-keeping battalion and the Baltic naval squadron. Our aim is to support the establishment of democratically accountable, cost-effective armed forces capable of contributing to national and regional security and, increasingly, international security through peace support operations.

  DERA Porton Down NBC Training Facility
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) if he will list for each of the past three years the military units which have used the DERA Porton Down NBC training facility, indicating how much each unit was charged; [136073]

  (2) what the cost is to a customer of using the DERA Porton Down NBC training facility; and on what basis it is calculated. [136075]
  454W
  Mr. Spellar
  During the past three financial years, the following military units have used the NBC Training facility known as the Battle Run at DERA, Porton Down.

  Financial year

  Military units

  1997

  7 Battalion Royal Electrical Mechanical Engineers (71 Aircraft Workshop) 1 Royal Anglian Regiment Joint Helicopter Support Unit 47 Regiment Royal Artillery 16 Regiment Royal Artillery

  1998

  Royal Wessex Yeomanry (Territorial Army) 243 Field Hospital Unit 10 Parachute Regiment

  1999

  Royal Wessex Yeomanry (Territorial Army) 16 Regiment Royal Artillery Royal Household Cavalry

  The charge to customers for the use of the NBC Training Facility at DERA Porton Down, known as the Battle Run, comprises range maintenance and manpower operational costs as well as an element of profit as agreed between DERA and MOD in their Terms of Business Agreement (TOBA). The actual amount of usage and the associated cost are agreed on a yearly basis within an agreed limit of liability which is specified in the contract for use. The basis for the calculation of charges for each of the three years and the current year is the same apart from adjustments for inflation, the amounts of which are also agreed between MOD and DERA. The charges to HQ Land Command, the Ministry of Defence budget holder for these units, for each of the three years were £48,928, £42,118 and £51,715 respectively. Costs are not attributed to individual units. Costs include elements for facility maintenance and improvements to overall capability as well as the actual operational cost for the conduct of the Battle Run training.

  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence in each of the past three years on how many days the DERA Porton Down NBC training facility has been(a) available for use and (b) used for training. [136074]

  Mr. Spellar
  In each of the last three financial years the NBC training facility known as the Battle Run at DERA Porton Down was contracted by HQ Land Command to provide 20 days of training in blocks of two days. The take-up of the sessions was as follows:

  Financial year

  Sessions

  1997

  Six two-day

  1998

  Four two-day

  1999

  One two-day and two four-day

  Ministerial Directions
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to the answer from the Chief Secretary to the Treasury of 23 October 2000,Official Report, columns 73-76W, on ministerial directions, if he will place in the Library the text and supporting documentation of the directions made by Ministers in his Department in 1998 and 2000; and if he will make a statement. [137298]
  455W
  Mr. Spellar
  I have considered this request under the terms of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information and concluded that providing this information would harm the frankness and candour of internal discussion within government. The request therefore falls within the terms of exemption 2 of the Code of Practice.

  Tomahawk Missile
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which variants of the Tomahawk land attack missile have been purchased by his Department; and if his Department has taken steps to purchase further variants. [137689]

  Mr. Hoon
  The Ministry of Defence has purchased only one variant of the Tomahawk Land Attack Missile, the Block IIIC, which has a conventionally armed blast warhead. It is currently deployed in RN submarines. Although we are studying future Tomahawk developments, and joint work with the United States Navy has shown that a Torpedo Tube Launch version is possible, we have made no commitment to buying the next generation Tactom Block IV variant.

  RAF Coltishall
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has for the future of RAF Coltishall. [137930]

  Mr. Spellar
  Over the next few years, my Department will be carefully considering possible roles for RAF Coltishall once its current task as base for the Jaguar Force comes to an end.

  Islamic Terrorists
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement about the islamic terrorist threat to(a) Royal Naval ships and (b) British service personnel in foreign ports. [137911]

  Mr. Spellar
  The recent attacks in Yemen highlight the continuing terrorist threat to UK and allied forces and interests. The threat is under constant assessment and prudent measures are in place to ensure the safety of our ships and personnel, wherever they may be.

  Kursk
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on what date military assistance was first(a) offered to, (b) accepted and (c) provided to Russia in respect of the Kursk disaster; and what the nature has been of the assistance provided since that date. [137925]

  Mr. Hoon
  The Ministry of Defence offered the assistance of the UK Submarine Search and Rescue Service (UKSSRS) to the Russian rescue effort in a letter to the Russian Defence Minister, which was delivered by the British Embassy Moscow on 14 August. With time being of the essence, we approved the forward deployment of the UKSSRS to Norway on 15 August. The Russian Ministry of Defence accepted our offer, through our Naval Attaché in Moscow, on 16 August. On 21 August, Russian authorities confirmed that all on board 456W
  the Kursk had died. Our further assistance was not therefore required and the UKSSRS was withdrawn. The Russians have made no further official requests to the UK for assistance in connection with the Kursk.

  HMS Fearless
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what his assessment is of(a) the damage to and (b) the period needed for repairs to HMS Fearless. [137910]

  Mr. Spellar
  HMS Fearless sustained fire damage to her After Machinery Space. The full extent of the damage will not be known until detailed surveys, which are currently under way, have been completed.

  It is planned that repairs will be undertaken during a programmed maintenance period at Fleet Support Ltd., Portsmouth, commencing in December. However, until the full extent of the damage is assessed, the period needed to complete the repairs cannot be given.

  Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (Balkans)
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement about British unmanned aerial vehicles lost in the Balkans theatre since March 1998. [137906]

  Mr. Spellar
  The Phoenix Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) was first deployed to the Balkans theatre between June-August 1999. No UK UAVs were deployed before this date. At the request of KFOR Headquarters, the system was deployed again in May 2000 and remained in-theatre until 1 November 2000. Since June 1999, some 270 missions have been flown in-theatre. In total there have been 29 occasions where either the airframe and/or the sensor payload has been lost or written off due to damage incurred. Reasons for losses include hostile action, landing damage and equipment failure. The attrition rate, including losses to hostile action, is not inconsistent with that expected during peacetime usage. The costs associated with the losses need to be set against the risks of using alternative means of surveillance and reconnaissance such as manned aircraft or personnel on the ground. Operational reports continue to indicate that Phoenix is both reliable and highly effective as a general reconnaissance and surveillance system with the capability to conduct safe surveillance over areas which might otherwise be inaccessible.

  European Security and Defence Identity
  Mr. Robathan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what his policy is on the proposal under the European Security and Defence Identity on the mechanism for consultation before deployment of British troops. [137837]

  Mr. Hoon
  [holding answer 10 November 2000]: The European Council at Helsinki decided that all member states would be entitled to participate fully, and on an equal footing, in all decisions and deliberations of the Council and Council bodies on EU-led crisis management operations. The Council also decided that commitment of national assets by member states to such operations will be based on their sovereign decision.

  Chemical Weapons
  Mr. Ruane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the sites of former(a) chemical weapons factories and (b) chemical weapons stores in the United Kingdom. [137832]

  Mr. Spellar
  [holding answer 10 November 2000]I will write to my hon. Friend and a copy of my letter will be placed in the Library of the House.

  Pensions (Armed Forces)
  Mr. Blunt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the level of pensions payable to former members of the armed services who retired in the 1970s. [136117]

  Mr. Spellar
  Former members of the armed services who retired during the mid 1970s were affected by policies under which increases in pay were limited, but pensions in payment continued to be fully protected against price inflation. People who retired when price inflation was running at a higher rate than pay increases could therefore receive lower pensions than those retiring before or after them.

  These policies affected all those employed in the public service. The Government have no plans retrospectively to change the pensions of those who retired during this period. The pensions of all such individuals have, like those of other public servants, been fully protected against inflation since their retirement.

  Royal Navy
  Mr. Duncan Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what(a) reviews and (b) studies his Department is conducting on the operational capability of the Royal Navy; and if he will make a statement. [138241]

  Mr. Spellar
  The operational capability of the Royal Navy is kept under continual review. This allows the RN to take into consideration changing circumstances. In addition, at any one time, it is likely that a number of more formal reviews or studies with a wider remit will be taking place, any one of which may impact on the area of operational capability. It is the nature of operational issues that much of this work is classified.

  Missile Barge (Brixham)
  Mr. Duncan Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the status is of the missile test firing barge at Brixham; and how much has been spent in berthing fees in each of the past three years. [138242]

  Mr. Spellar
  The missile test barge Longbow, previously used for Sea Wolf trials, has been moored at Brixham pending its conversion for use in missile firing trials for the Principal Anti Air Missile System (PAAMS) Programme. Berthing fees paid during 1997–98, 1998–99 and 1999–2000 were £23,824, £24,734 and £25,834 respectively. It has been more cost-effective to retain Longbow than arrange for its disposal and then 458W
  have to purchase anew for the PAAMS Programme. The barge is now expected to be handed over to the PAAMS contractor in 2002.

  Sea Harriers
  Mr. Duncan Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many Sea Harrier aircraft are operationally available. [138225]

  Mr. Spellar
  The requirement for Sea Harrier operational aircraft is 24, of which 14 are in front-line squadrons. As of 9 November 2000, all 24 aircraft were available at the required readiness.

  Foreign Military Equipment
  Mr. Duncan Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much he has spent in the last year on the hire and use of foreign military equipment. [138239]

  Mr. Spellar
  I will write to the hon. Member and a copy of my letter will be placed in the Library of the House.

  RAF Pilots
  Mr. Duncan Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many RAF pilots have indicated that they wish to leave the service in each of the past 12 months. [138226]

  Mr. Spellar
  The number of RAF pilots who have indicated that they wish to leave the Service in each month during the 12 month period from October 1999 are shown in the table.

  Year

  Number of RAF pilots

  October 1999

  8

  November 1999

  3

  December 1999

  3

  January 2000

  6

  February 2000

  8

  March 2000

  8

  April 2000

  4

  May 2000

  9

  June 2000

  8

  July 2000

  3

  August 2000

  3

  September 2000

  4

  Falklands Patrols
  Mr. Duncan Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which Royal Navy ships are on patrol in Falkland Islands waters. [138238]

  Mr. Spellar
  HMS Dumbarton Castle and Grey Rover are currently on patrol in Falkland Islands waters. The Type 23 Frigate HMS Iron Duke will arrive in the area later this month.

  Harrier Pilots
  Mr. Duncan Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many Fleet Air Arm Harrier pilots are combat ready. [138224]

  Mr. Spellar
  As of 9 November 2000, there were 18 combat ready Fleet Air Arm Harrier pilots in front-line squadrons. A further 15 pilots were at their planned lower states of readiness.

  UK Regular Forces

  Region

  Naval Service

  Army

  Royal Air Force

  Gurkhas

  Total

  Continental Europe

  826

  24,798

  3,595

  0

  29,219

  of which Germany

  3

  17,135

  2,031

  0

  19,169

  Gibraltar

  365

  87

  115

  0

  567

  Cyprus

  7

  2,543

  1,137

  0

  3,687

  Gulf

  49

  220

  703

  0

  972

  Far East

  681

  213

  24

  1,197

  2,115

  Canada

  3

  3,401

  143

  0

  3,547

  United States of America

  76

  291

  136

  0

  503

  Elsewhere1

  2,958

  1,779

  780

  1

  5,518

  All overseas

  4,965

  33,332

  6,633

  1,198

  46,128

  1 All defence attachés and their staffs are included under "Elsewhere" and not identified within specific areas

  These figures exclude Full Time Reserve Service personnel and reservists mobilised for service in the former Yugoslavia.

  Japanese POWs
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will (1) make it his policy to pay a gratuity to British ex-service survivors of former Japanese prisoner of war camps; [136188]

  (2) estimate the cost of paying a one-off £10,000 gratuity to all surviving former Japanese prisoners of war and their widows. [136189]

  Dr. Moonie
  I refer the hon. Member to my statement in the House on 7 November 2000,Official Report, columns 159-70.

  Anti-tank Landmines
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the stocks of anti-tank landmines which are being refurbished. [137746]

  Mr. Spellar
  Part of the anti-tank stockpile is being refurbished to rectify an identified fault. The refurbishment programme began in March 2000 and is scheduled to be completed by October 2001.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Beef Imports
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what has been the(a) quantity, (b) category and (c) age of beef imported into the UK from France in the last 12 month period for which figures are available. [134513]

  Ms Quin
  The table shows(a) the quantity and (b) the category of beef imported from France for the 12 month period from August 1999 to July 2000, as recorded by the

  HM Forces Overseas
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the number and location of HM forces overseas; and if he will make a statement. [138095]

  Mr. Spellar
  The following table shows the number of UK Regular Forces and Gurkhas overseas at 1 October 2000.

  Overseas Trade Statistics. These statistics do not identify the age of the animal from which the beef was derived, but the sale for human consumption of any meat from animals aged over 30 months at slaughter is prohibited by the Fresh Meat (Beef Controls) (No. 2) Regulations 1996. The country from which these imports originated is not recorded in the Overseas Trade Statistics; therefore not necessarily all beef shown as being imported from France will be of French origin.

  Imports of beef from France August 1999-July 2000

  Description of beef

  Tonnes

  Bone-in, fresh or chilled

  146

  Boneless, fresh or chilled

  504

  Bone-in, frozen

  543

  Boneless, frozen

  1,497

  Offal, fresh, chilled or frozen

  377

  Corned beef

  2,491

  Other meat and offal preparations

  90

  Total

  5,647

  Note:

  The data are provisional and subject to amendment

  School Milk
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has to raise the level of take-up of milk in schools. [134400]

  Ms Quin
  While the decision whether to offer subsidised school milk is essentially for the schools themselves or for the LEA, we have had and continue to have contact with local authorities and others interested in the use of the scheme. One barrier to take-up has been the perception that the scheme administration is particularly complicated. We are working with the Commission in its current review of administration to see whether there are ways this can be simplified for schools.

  Farm Bankruptcies
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many bankruptcies of farmers there were in each year from 1990 to 1999; and what percentage this represented of the total number of farmers in England. [136592]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 6 November 2000]: Data on bankruptcies are available only for England and Wales combined, and are given in the table. Estimates of the number of farmers in England and Wales are not directly available. Instead, bankruptcies have been expressed as a proportion of the number of registered agricultural holdings.

  Number of bankruptcies1 in the agricultural and horticultural sector:

  England and Wales 1990–99

  Year

  Bankruptcies of self-employed individuals

  Company2 insolvencies

  Total

  Bankruptcies as a percentage of number of holdings3

  1990

  198

  111

  309

  0.2

  1991

  266

  135

  401

  0.2

  1992

  313

  191

  504

  0.3

  1993

  277

  157

  434

  0.2

  1994

  231

  166

  397

  0.2

  1995

  218

  99

  317

  0.2

  1996

  168

  89

  257

  0.1

  1997

  155

  51

  206

  0.1

  1998

  157

  65

  222

  0.1

  1999

  149

  75

  224

  0.1

  1 Source: Department of Trade and Industry

  2 Including partnerships

  3 Source: June Agricultural and Horticultural Census

  Fertilisers
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what recent representations he has received about the effect of import tariffs on ammonium nitrate upon the price of fertilisers for agriculture; and if he will make a statement. [136963]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 6 November 2000]I have received representations from the Fertiliser Manufacturers Association and the National Farmers' Union on this matter. We have registered concern with the Commission at the possibility that it may seek to impose anti-dumping measures on a range of fertiliser products and have called for an assessment of the wider state of competition in the fertilisers market.

  Cattle Passports
  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what the unit cost is of each passport issued by the British Cattle Movement Service. [136844]

  Ms Quin
  The unit cost of each passport issued by the British Cattle Movement Service is £7.73.

  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many replacement passports have been issued by the British Cattle Movement Service; and what income has been received from charges for these replacements, since the establishment of the service. [136843]
  462W
  Ms Quin
  The British Cattle Movement Service has re-issued 380,779 passports since it was established on 28 September 1998. 4,133 have been charged for, generating an income of £206,650. BCMS does not charge for replacement passports that are reported as lost in the post within one calendar month of being issued.

  Eggs
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the extent of the United Kingdom's self-sufficiency in egg production. [137581]

  Ms Quin
  In 1999 the United Kingdom produced 94 per cent. of its egg market requirements.

  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many registered egg producers have traded in each of the past 10 years. [137579]

  Ms Quin
  Under EC egg marketing legislation egg producers are required to register their premises only if they intend to use any of the Special Marketing Terms such as Free Range or Barn. Producers of eggs from cage systems are not included in the table.

  Financial year

  Number of premises

  1992

  1,168

  1993

  1,162

  1994

  1,046

  1995

  1,057

  1996

  1,027

  1997

  1,055

  1998

  1,081

  1999

  1,161

  2000

  1,252

  In 1998, MAFF data show over 25,000 holdings with laying hens.

  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what volume of eggs was imported into the United Kingdom in each of the last 10 years. [137582]

  Ms Quin
  The quantity of eggs imported into the United Kingdom in each of the last 10 years is as follows:

  Million dozen

  Year

  Number of eggs imported

  1990

  73

  1991

  50

  1992

  41

  1993

  49

  1994

  67

  1995

  66

  1996

  72

  1997

  70

  1998

  64

  1999

  69

  Data include shell egg equivalent of whole (dried, frozen and liquid) egg, egg yolk, and albumen.

  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the trend in ex-farm prices for fresh eggs over the past 10 years. [137580]
  463W
  Ms Quin
  The average ex-farm price for all egg types for each of the last 10 years is as follows:

  Pence per dozen

  Year

  All egg type average

  1990

  42.6

  1991

  36.3

  1992

  36.8

  1993

  41.9

  1994

  42.4

  1995

  38.3

  1996

  45.8

  1997

  39.6

  1998

  36.3

  1999

  34.2

  Wheat
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the average(a) market price and (b) cost of production, per tonne of wheat in the last 12 months. [136965]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 6 November 2000]The average farm-gate price of bread-making wheat in the UK during the last 12 months was £82.39 per tonne. The average price of feed wheat was £68.86 per tonne. Current prices are, however, lower than this. In addition to receipts from the sale of the crop, most producers received revenues from area payments and straw sales.

  Estimates of production costs are published in "Farm Incomes in the United Kingdom". The latest published information relates to the 1998–99 marketing year. Estimates for the 1999–2000 marketing year will be published in the next edition in March 2001. The publication does not include information on fixed costs, because of the difficulty of allocating these items between commodities.

  BSE
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he will publish the results of research involving embryos from BSE-affected cows fertilised by BSE bulls, implanted into heifers imported from New Zealand. [137575]

  Ms Quin
  Preliminary results from this research project have already been published1. All of the post mortem results obtained to date for implanted heifers and their offspring have been negative for BSE. The experiment is still on-going and will continue until June 2001 when the offspring will have reached seven years of age. Full results will be published once the analysis of the data is complete.
  1 Wrathall, AE(2000): Livestock Production Science 62,287-316

  Swine Fever
  Mrs. Shephard
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will introduce legislation to provide for a levy from pig farmers as part of a package of compensation for swine fever. [138098]

  Ms Quin
  The industry is about to begin consultations on a levy-based Development Scheme that will be used to top up Government payments under the Pig Welfare 464W
  (Disposal) Scheme. On completion of that consultation exercise, including addressing any objections, Ministers will be asked to decide whether to put a scheme before Parliament for approval. I cannot anticipate the outcome of these procedures, but in general terms we support efforts by the livestock industry to protect itself from the consequences of outbreaks of exotic animal diseases.

  Closed Circuit Television
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many rural communities have been provided with Government funds for CCTV since 1997; and how many of such communities have populations of(a) less than 5,000 and (b) less than 2,000. [136757]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  [holding answer 6 November 2000]I have been asked to reply.

  Since 1997, under the Crime Reduction Programme, the Closed Circuit Television (CCTV) Initiative and the final round of the CCTV Challenge Competition, this Government have awarded nearly £1.7 million to 23 CCTV schemes serving rural communities. These include coverage in small towns and villages and mobile units that can be deployed across wider rural areas. Information is not available as to the sizes of the populations covered.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Volunteers
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will mark next year's International Year of Volunteers by spending a day working as a volunteer. [137434]

  Mr. Mandelson
  The Government fully support the aims of the International Year of Volunteers and in April of this year I volunteered for a day at Hartlepool hospice.

  Mr. Sam Marshall
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what representations he has received concerning the death of Mr. Sam Marshall in Lurgan; and when he expects an inquest to be held into his death. [134882]

  Mr. Ingram
  This matter was raised by the Irish Government through the British Irish Secretariat. The listing of any inquest is a matter for the Coroner. In respect of the death of Mr. Marshall I understand that consideration is presently being given to the arrangements for a pre-inquest hearing.

  Prisoner Releases
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many prisoners released following the Good Friday Agreement are no longer resident at a permanent address which is known to the authorities. [138189]

  Mr. Ingram
  The only licence conditions imposed on a prisoner given early release is that they do not become a supporter of a specified organisation, do not become concerned in the commission, preparation, or instigation of acts of terrorism connected with the affairs of Northern Ireland; and, in the case of a life sentence prisoner, do not
  465W
  become a danger to the public. There is no requirement to provide the authorities with a permanent address. Irrespective of residence, arrangements are in place to ensure that the Secretary of State is notified when an individual breaches the terms of his licence.

  Sentence Review Applications
  Mr. Donaldson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many fugitives from justice who have previously been convicted of terrorist-related offences have made an application to the Sentences Review Commission; and if he will list their names. [138101]

  Mr. Ingram
  To date, no fugitives from justice who have previously been convicted of terrorist-related offences have made an application to the Sentence Review Commissioners.

  Dalai Lama (Belfast Visit)
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many(a) uniformed and (b) plain clothes RUC officers were present during the visit of the Dalai Lama to the Springfield road, Belfast. [136036]

  Mr. Ingram
  During the visit of the Dalai Lama to the Springfield road, Belfast, on Thursday 19 October 2000, 119 uniformed police officers and 12 plain clothes officers were present.

  Bomb Scares
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many bomb scares have there been in town centres in each police division in Northern Ireland in each week since 1 April; and, of these, how many were(a) Republican-inspired and (b) Loyalist-inspired. [136040]

  Mr. Ingram
  The table shows the number of hoax bombing incidents recorded in Northern Ireland during the period 1 April to 27 October 2000. These are incidents where an Army Technical Officer (ATO) was in attendance. It is not possible to define a town centre and so the table gives the location of each recorded incident. It is also not possible to give attributions for hoax bombings.

  Week

  Address

  1-7 April

  Nil

  8-14 April

  Dromore Road, Hillsborough

  15-21 April

  20 Abbeyhill Drive, Bangor University Avenue, Belfast Adelaide Street, Belfast Belleek

  22-28 April

  Serpentine Road, Greencastle 43 Ballyhampton Road, Larne

  29 April-5 May

  Drumsurn Road, Limavady Paradise Walk, Templepatrick

  6-12 May

  Fortwilliam, Group Lane, Belfast

  13-19 May

  Junction Workman Avenue/Forth Parade, Woodvale, Belfast Junction Linen Hall/Clarence Street, Belfast

  20-26 May

  Devon Square, Rathenraw, Antrim

  27 May-2 June

  1A Fanad Walk, Larne

  3-9 June

  Balmoral, Black's Road, Belfast

  10-16 June

  Nil

  17-23 June

  Nil

  24-30 June

  Nil

  1-7 July

  Gortnasore Road, Dungannon Edenmore Park, Limavady McClure Street, Sandy Row, Belfast

  466W

  Week

  Address

  8-14 July

  103 Whitehorn Brae, Dromara, BanbridgeGarrison Place, Charlemount, Moy 105 Whitehorn Drive, Dromara M1, Derryadd Bridge, County Armagh 19 Spring Lane, Greyabbey Fortwilliam Roundabout, Newtownabbey Kilmore Orange Hall, Moira Orange Hall, Moira Road, Magheralin Milltown Road, Dungannon St. Comgall's Church of Ireland, Church Lane, Newtownbutler Broadway Tower, Belfast Orange Hall, Whitewell Road, Greencastle Flax Street, Belfast Mayogall Road, Bellaghy

  15-21 July

  Sorting Office, Stormont Castle 4A Mill Road, Clady

  22-28 July

  184 Ballyutoag Road, Clady Mountainview Place, Belfast

  29 July-4 August

  13 Elizabeth Avenue, Larne

  5-11 August

  Nil

  12-18 August

  Nil

  19-25 August

  12 Barra Drive, Ballymena

  26 August-1 September

  Willow Bank Terrace, Stranocum, Ballymoney

  Levan Road, Lurgan

  2-8 September

  Nil

  9-15 September

  Nil

  16-22 September

  Nil

  23-29 September

  New Street, Newry

  30 September-6 October

  Public House, Perry Street, Dungannon

  7-13 October

  Nil

  14-20 October

  Nil

  21-27 October

  57A Kilkeel Road, Annalong

  Police Force
  Mr. Öpik
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) what assessment he has made of trends in Catholic applications to the police force in Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement; [137328]

  (2) what (a) proportion and (b) number of applicants to the RUC/Northern Ireland police force were (i) Catholic, (ii) Protestant and (iii) from other communities from 1995 to date; and if he will make a statement. [137503]

  Mr. Ingram
  The following table provides the information requested, by recruitment competition from 1995. Under the terms of section 31 of the Fair Employment (Northern Ireland) Act 1989 (now Article 55 of the Fair Employment and Treatment (Northern Ireland) Order 1998) this matter is continuously under review and requires the Royal Ulster Constabulary to identify under-representation and establish appropriate affirmative action to address any imbalances. The Royal Ulster Constabulary fully recognises the benefits and the need to be more representative of the communities it serves and its goal is to reflect the composition of those communities. The Government are committed to taking all appropriate steps as are necessary, in line with the recommendations contained in the Report of the Independent Commission on Policing for Northern Ireland, to bring about an increase in full cross-community representation within the police service.
  467W

  Applications to RUC by community background since 1995

  Percentage

  Year

  CB1

  CB2

  CB3

  Total

  CBI

  CB2

  CB3

  RUC

  CompC 1995

  1,449

  467

  142

  2,058

  70.41

  22.69

  6.90

  CompD 1995

  1,774

  438

  188

  2,400

  73.92

  18.25

  7.83

  CompE 1996

  1,571

  369

  155

  2,095

  74.99

  17.61

  7.40

  CompF 1996

  2,054

  406

  269

  2,729

  75.27

  14.88

  9.86

  CompG 1997

  2,173

  412

  212

  2,797

  77.69

  14.73

  7.58

  CompH 1998

  2,134

  431

  260

  2,825

  75.54

  15.26

  9.20

  CompI 1998

  2,312

  750

  297

  3,359

  68.83

  22.33

  8.84

  Full-time RUC Reserve

  CompB 1995

  1,042

  282

  130

  1,454

  71.66

  19.39

  8.94

  CompC 1996

  1,075

  255

  101

  1,431

  75.12

  17.82

  7.06

  CompD 1997

  1,155

  184

  135

  1,474

  78.36

  12.48

  9.16

  CompE 1997

  612

  106

  55

  773

  79.17

  13.71

  7.12

  CompF 1997

  1,132

  197

  128

  1,457

  77.69

  13.52

  8.79

  Note:

  CB1—Perceived to be Protestant

  CB2—Perceived to be Roman Catholic

  CB3—Non-determined

ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS

  Payroll Administration
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what estimate he has made of the costs of payroll administration in his Department and associated agencies and non-departmental bodies in the last 12 months for which figures are available. [135993]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 1 November 2000]The estimated payroll administration costs for DETR and its agencies for 2000–01 is £2.2 million.

  Payroll administration of non-departmental public bodies is decentralised so the above information could only be provided at disproportionate cost.

  London Underground
  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when contracts for the Public-Private Partnership for London Underground will be signed; and if he will make a statement. [137038]

  Mr. Hill
  As we have made clear in the past, we have not given specific deadlines. We have learned the lessons of the rail privatisation debacle when best value was compromised by working to a politically driven timetable. The position on the PPP is that bids have been received for the sub-surface lines contract, and best and final offers have been invited for the two deep tube contracts. Contracts will be signed when the bids have been evaluated and negotiations are complete, subject to the bids representing best value.

  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what has been the cost to date of(a) legal and (b) financial consultancy fees incurred in relation to the Public-Private Partnership for London Underground. [137037]
  468W
  Mr. Hill
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given on 18 May 2000,Official Report, column 252W. I shall shortly be reporting London Transport's expenditure on external consultants for work on the PPP and restructuring London Underground up to the end of the first half of the current financial year, and a forecast of the expected final outturn.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment he has made of the findings of the Independent Review of the Public-Private Partnership carried out on behalf of the Mayor of London and the Greater London Authority by Mr. Will Hutton; and if he will make a statement. [137009]

  Mr. Hill
  The review contains a wide-ranging discussion of issues relating to London Underground funding, and has a great deal that is positive to say about the PPP. It says,"The PPP will provide a framework in which higher investment can be insulated from Treasury cuts and planned over a 30-year period."
  It goes on to say that,
  "The contract outlines we have inspected offer a workable framework for improved performance for most aspects of the Underground,"
  and that the
  "rewards and penalties together should incentivise investment, cost control and good management."
  I particularly noted its statement that
  "The Review does not subscribe to the argument that the PPP structure is inherently unsafe and it recognises the special effort made by Government in ensuring that safety is managed centrally and rests ultimately in public sector hands."

  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what reports he has received on the quality of service on the Circle Line in the past 12 months; and if he will make a statement. [137046]

  Mr. Hill
  The Secretary of State has received no specific reports in the past 12 months on the quality of service of the Circle Line. However we do monitor the service across the whole network and I meet regularly with London Underground senior management.

  Crematoriums (Emissions)
  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what research he has(a) undertaken and (b) commissioned into emissions from crematoriums; and what plans he has to conduct further research. [137039]

  Mr. Meacher
  Emissions from crematoriums are regulated under the air pollution control system established by Part I of the Environmental Protection Act 1990. As such, emissions must be controlled in accordance with the Best Available Techniques Not Entailing Excessive Cost. Guidance on BATNEEC for crematoriums was published in 1991 and revised in 1995. A second review of the guidance by the Environment Agency's Local Authority Unit is currently in progress and the revised guidance will also be applicable when crematoriums become regulated under the Pollution Prevention and Control Act 1999.

  My Department, on behalf of Government and the devolved Administrations, has established a programme of monitoring levels of airborne lead and heavy metals (cadmium, arsenic, nickel and mercury) in the UK. This includes measurement in the vicinity of the Sutton Coldfield crematorium. Weekly measurements started in October 1999, and interim results will be posted on the internet shortly (www.aeat.co.uk/netcen/airqual/). A fuller report of the work will be published on the internet, at the same internet address, early next year.

  In 1997 my Department commissioned Entec UK Ltd. to carry out tests to investigate the effectiveness of selenium ampoules as a means of abating mercury emissions from crematoria.

  My Department has commissioned a report on sources, sinks and levels of atmospheric mercury from DERA. The report will include a review of knowledge of UK emissions of mercury into the atmosphere, details of all the available sources of data on concentrations of mercury in the atmosphere, and a review of the current state of knowledge on the behaviour of mercury in the environment.

  The DERA report is expected shortly from the research report pages of the National Air Quality Information Archive on http://www.aeat.co.uk/netcen/airqual/. In the light of that and the advice of the Environment Agency's Local Authority Unit, we will consider commissioning further work on whether any action needs to be taken to reduce mercury emissions from crematoriums and what options are available and in line with BATNEEC.

  The most recent air emissions inventory for mercury can be found in the National Air Quality Information Archive at the web address given above.

  You may also like to be aware that the Health and Safety Laboratory has carried out mercury analysis on a small number of urine and dust samples collected in crematoriums, and levels have been found to be low.

  Climate Change
  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what strategic measures he is taking to allow for environmental changes induced by climate change. [137180]
  470W
  Mr. Meacher
  We published our first assessment of the impacts of climate change in 1990, and our second in 1995. In 1997, my Department established the UK Climate Impacts Programme to help organisations assess their vulnerability to climate change and assist them in planning responses to adapt to it. In addition actions have already been taken by Government to build adaptation into its own policies, in sectors such as flood defence, land use planning and water resources.

  The Government's forthcoming Climate Change Programme, which presents a strategy for delivering our commitments to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases, also considers how the UK might adapt to what is now unavoidable and continues the debate on priorities for adaptation.

  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what discussions he has had with other Governments concerning action to reduce the harmful effects of climatic change and global warming, in advance of the Hague summit in November; and if he will make a statement. [138069]

  Mr. Meacher
  The Government have continued to play a leading role in the international response to climate change. The Conference of the Parties in The Hague later this month will be a crucial step towards our goal of effective international action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. In recent months, the Deputy Prime Minister has discussed climate change with Governments from 14 countries, including China, India, Nigeria, Saudi Arabia, Mexico, Algeria, Malaysia and Jamaica, as well as with the Prime Minister of Japan and Vice-President Al Gore. On 7 November, the Deputy Prime Minister and I attended the Special EU Environment Council on climate change. I discuss climate change regularly with my EU colleagues, and take the opportunity of raising it whenever I meet Environment Ministers from around the world. In June and October I also attended preparatory meetings organised by the President of the forthcoming negotiations, Minister Jan Pronk of the Netherlands, in Warsaw and Muiden. These informal consultations were attended by around 30-40 Ministers from key countries in the climate negotiations. Discussions focused on the central issues in the negotiations and a range of possible options for resolving them, in advance of the key political choices which will have to be taken at The Hague summit.

  GM Crops
  Mr. Reed
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what representations he has received from Leicestershire local authorities about farm scale evaluations of GM crops; and if he will make a statement. [137070]

  Mr. Meacher
  Officials from my Department attended a meeting in October, at the invitation of Woodhouse parish council, to explain the nature of the farm scale evaluation of GM oil seed rape being conducted in their parish. The borough of Charnwood, which includes Woodhouse, has also invited an official to attend a future meeting on GM crops.

  Oil Industry
  Mr. Simon Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what action
  471W
  his Department (a) has taken and (b) intends to take to address the environmental impact of using oil as an energy source. [137220]

  Mr. Meacher
  The Government are taking action to tackle climate change by reducing emissions of greenhouse gases, including those from the use of oil and other fossil fuels as an energy source. The climate change programme, which will be published shortly, will outline the scale of the challenge facing the UK and make clear that emission reductions of 60-70 per cent. or more are likely to be needed globally in order to avoid dangerous climate change. The programme will set out the policies and measures that will begin to move the UK towards a low carbon economy. And it will detail how the Government intend to help and assist the development of new, sustainable and renewable technologies.

  One area where oil is still used as a primary energy source is in the transport sector. The Government are taking forward a range of policies that will improve the fuel efficiency and emissions performance of vehicles, encourage people to buy smaller, cleaner and more fuel-efficient cars, and stimulate the development and use of alternative fuels and technologies. The Government are also addressing the environmental impact of traffic growth through the Ten Year Plan for transport and planning policies.

  The use of oil as an energy source can also have serious air quality impacts. The Government and the devolved Administrations published the Air Quality Strategy for England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland in January 2000. This sets out a programme of action that will be taken at international, national and local levels to tackle air pollution from all sources. In the transport sector, the fuels that are used today are significantly cleaner than those used only a few years ago. This is largely the result of progressively tighter European fuel quality standards, but is also due in part to our incentivisation of the use of cleaner fuels (such as ultra-low-sulphur petrol and diesel) across the UK through favourable duty rates. This has led to significant reductions in emissions of the most harmful air pollutants. We will continue to play an active role in discussions at a European Union level on the possible further tightening of vehicle and fuel standards.

  Health and Safety Executive
  Mr. Hilary Benn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the adequacy of the supply of appropriately trained and qualified technical and inspection staff at the Health and Safety Executive; and if he will make a statement. [137370]

  Mr. Meacher
  The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) regularly and systematically recruits a range of inspection and technical staff. HSE is satisfied with the adequacy of supply for the majority of the posts it seeks to fill. There have been problems filling some very specialist posts where the pool of likely candidates is small, eg Medical Inspectors (Doctors). HSE reviews the outcome of each recruitment exercise and takes whatever steps are necessary to meet its overall professional requirements.

  Construction Directorate (Standards)
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list 472W
  the standards laid down by the Construction Directorate, attainment of which is necessary for registration on the Constructionline UK Register of Qualified Construction Services. [137318]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 8 November 2000]Applicants to Constructionline must have three satisfactory technical references for each work category that they are applying to be registered under. They are also assessed for their financial strength, by means of their accounts or other financial documentation. This information is also used to calculate a recommended maximum contract size, or notation value. All applicants must have a valid tax certificate.

  Constructionline has also been piloting in certain sectors a system of devolved technical assessment which is intended to raise the system's technical standards. This procedure is due to be opened up to the whole of Constructionline shortly.

  Neighbourhood Revenue Fund
  Mr. Coleman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what the financial settlement for each London local authority would have been if the 1998 Index of Local Deprivation had been used as the key determinator of the allocation of resources under the Neighbourhood Revenue Fund. [137513]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  The proposed allocations for the Neighbourhood Renewal Fund cannot be calculated using the old 1998 Index of Local Deprivation in exactly the same way that they have been determined using the new Indices. The new Indices of Deprivation are very different from the old Index. The new Indices are based on ward level information whereas the old Index relied heavily on district level information and did not adequately capture pockets of deprivation. It would not therefore be appropriate to use the same method to calculate the NRF allocations if only the old Index was available.

  Council Tax Regulations
  Mr. Coleman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) what mechanisms his Department is using to monitor the changes to council tax regulations; and when he will publish the results of his review of the changes; [137496]

  (2) when he expects to publish the findings of his Department's review of changes to council tax regulations. [137512]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  We carried out a review of the council tax in preparation for our 1998 White Paper "Modern Local Government: In Touch with the People". In this we said that the council tax is working well as a local tax and that we have no plans to make major changes to the council tax during the course of this Parliament.

  We also said that we would keep the operation of the council tax under review and have done this through liaison with key players such as local authorities, the Local Government Association and other interested parties. As a result we have made a number of minor changes to the council tax since the White Paper. The main ones extended relief under the reduction for disabilities scheme to occupiers of band A dwellings;

  473W
  exempted households comprising students and people with a severe mental impairment; restricted the exemption for empty dwellings in need of major repair works to 12 months; and introduced owner liability in respect of certain dwellings occupied by asylum seekers.

  We also invited views on certain aspects of the council tax in the Green Paper "Modernising Local Government Finance", which we published in September. The deadline for responses is 8 December.

  Byker Heat Station
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if the Environment Agency has completed its investigations into the spreading of toxic ash from the Byker Heat station. [137603]

  Mr. Meacher
  The Environment Agency has completed its investigation into the production and disposal of ash from Byker Combined Heat and Power Plant in Newcastle. A case file has been prepared for submission to the Agency's legal department. The file will be considered in accordance with the Agency's Scheme of Delegation and a decision on enforcement action is expected at the beginning of December.

  Merseyside Objective 1 Programme
  Mrs. Ellman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what steps he is taking to minimise delays in the Merseyside Objective 1 programme as a result of rulings made by the Competition Directorate in the European Commission. [137523]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  There is no delay in implementing the Merseyside Objective One programme. It is proceeding well in line with the timetable agreed with the European Commission and the first projects to receive funding will be announced in the next couple of weeks.

  Some of the projects intended to deliver part of the programme include substantial physical works involving identified private sector developers. Such projects must adhere to the EC's rules on state aid.

  Proposals for securing approval of projects of this kind have been put to the European Commission. We are in constructive dialogue with the EC on this issue and we expect a positive response to our proposals shortly.

  Ultrasonic Technology
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment he has made of the efficacy of ultrasonic technology in detecting gauge corner cracking defects; and if he will make a statement. [137486]

  Mr. Hill
  The Health and Safety Executive's (HSE's) Railway Inspectorate has reviewed the relevant ultrasonic rail testing procedures, as described in Railtrack Line Specification RT/CE/S/055 Issue 1A, February 1998. These procedures are highly detailed and appear to be robust. Nevertheless, HSE intends to commission an independent third party review of these procedures as a matter of urgency.
  474W
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what percentage of the funding provided to Railtrack by the Government, over what timescale, will be allocated to the further development and introduction of alternatives to ultrasound; and if he will make a statement. [137411]

  Mr. Hill
  Since privatisation, no public money has been paid direct to Railtrack. I understand that Railtrack is considering the procurement of a scoping study to evaluate the suitability for rail inspection of all known forms of non-destructive testing (NDT). The study is to be undertaken by the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency. Railtrack will fund development of any NDT technique with the potential to improve current techniques for testing rails.

  Mineral Extraction (Bristol Channel)
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he will publish the report, commissioned by his Department and the Welsh Office, concerning extraction of mineral aggregates from the Bristol Channel. [137510]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  The research report entitled "Bristol Channel Marine Aggregates: Resources and Constraints", commissioned by my Department and the National Assembly for Wales, was published by Posford Duvivier and ABP Research and Consultancy in October 2000. A copy has been placed in the Library of the House.

  Biggin Hill Airport
  Mr. Horam
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will take(a) environmental, (b) Green Belt and (c) conservation considerations into account in reaching his decision over Bromley council's request to him to bring into the normal planning regulations the application by Biggin Hill Airport to build a hangar under the permitted use rules. [137337]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  All relevant considerations will be taken fully into account in considering whether to approve the proposed direction.

  Overhead Transmission Lines
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, pursuant to his oral statement of 31 October 2000,Official Report, columns 607-25, on severe weather disruption, when he will write to the hon. Member for the Vale of York on the impact of overhead transmission lines on global warming; and if he will make a statement. [137366]

  Mr. Prescott
  There is no significant connection between global warming and electricity power lines. Some very minor effects on atmospheric particles have however been noted and I am writing to the hon. Member with further information.

  NDPBs (Scotland)
  Mr. Alasdair Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the non-departmental public bodies responsible to him
  475W
  which have duties relating to Scotland, indicating their budget and staffing in Scotland, the number of Scottish board members and their emoluments. [137487]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  The following executive NDPBs sponsored by my Department have duties relating to Scotland: the Joint Nature Conservation Committee and the Northern Lighthouse Board.

  The remaining information is not all held centrally in the form requested, but information on expenditure, staffing, board members and levels of remuneration is published annually in the Cabinet Office publication, "Public Bodies". Copies of "Public Bodies 1999" have been placed in the library of the House and "Public Bodies 2000" is due to be published next month. Information on board membership and remuneration can also be downloaded from the Cabinet Office's Public Appointments Directory website, "www.cabinet-office.gov.uk".

  Trichloroethylene
  Mr. Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what his policy is on listing Trichloroethylene as a Category II carcinogen under the Chemicals (Hazard Information and Packaging for Supply) Regulations 1994. [137392]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 9 November 2000]Trichloroethylene is listed as a Category 3 carcinogen in the Chemicals (Hazard Information and Packaging for Supply) Regulations 1994. These regulations implement an EC single market directive, and negotiations are in progress which could result in a change to the classification from 3 to 2. The United Kingdom's final position on the full set of proposals is not yet settled.

  Number Plates
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he plans to lay regulations bringing in the new style of number plate for motor vehicles; and what the reason is for the delay in laying the regulations. [137532]

  Mr. Hill
  [holding answer 9 November 2000]It is anticipated that new number plate regulations will be laid before Parliament early in the new year. The delay in laying these regulations has arisen as a result of the need to revise the draft regulations following public consultation in August 1999 and January this year. In accordance with EC Directive 98/34/EC, as amended by Directive 98/48/EC, we have submitted the revised regulations to the European Commission. The regulations may be made after the end of the three-month consultation period with the Commission, which expires on 22 January 2001.

  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions for what reason details of the font to be used on the new style of number plates for motor vehicles announced in March have not been released to manufacturers of number plates. [137533]

  Mr. Hill
  [holding answer 9 November 2000]Details of the font to be used on the new style number plates, to be introduced from the revised date of 1 September 2001, were included in the Department's original consultation letter issued on 5 August 1999. This was sent to over 476W
  180 organisations and was placed on the Department's website. Copies have also been available from the Department on request.

  Mobile Phone Masts
  Mrs. Lait
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to amend the planning law relating to mobile phone masts. [138024]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  A consultation exercise seeking views on possible changes to the planning laws relating to mobile phone masts and associated guidance ended on 31 October 2000. The Department is currently analysing the responses. We shall announce any changes as soon as practicable.

  Drainage
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what steps he is taking to encourage the use of sustainable urban drainage systems in new housing developments. [138002]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  Sustainable drainage systems (SUDS), which deal with rainwater as near its source as possible, are recognised as assisting in the control of both the quantity and quality of run-off from developed areas, as well as contributing to amenity, biodiversity and good design. My Department is actively encouraging the development of sustainable drainage systems for housing and other developments in a number of ways. Indeed, the Under-Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin), gave the keynote message at a conference on SUDs earlier this month.

  We consulted earlier this year on new Planning Policy Guidance Note (PPG) 25 "Development and flood risk", which refers to the need for local planning authorities to consider the run-off implications of proposed development and encourage more sustainable drainage systems. This guidance is likely to be confirmed and strengthened when the final version of PPG 25 is issued shortly.

  We are currently also revising PPG 23 "Planning and pollution control". The new version will recognise the potential contribution of SUDS and we hope to consult on a draft next year.

  We are currently consulting on the Review of Part H of the Building Regulations. This includes a recommendation that infiltration drainage be provided, in most situations, to absorb rainwater from buildings within the site.

  The Highways Agency, in consultation with the devolved Administrations is developing advice for inclusion in the "Design Manual for Roads and Bridges" on "Vegetative Treatment Systems for Highway Runoff'. This is expected to be published next year.

  We and other interested parties, including the water industry and house-builders, have also supported research projects in this area, leading to the production of design manuals and a forthcoming best practice manual. We will continue to support research necessary to assist in overcoming any perceived barriers to the implementation of SUDS on a more widespread basis.

  Area Cost Adjustment
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what changes he plans to make to the calculation of the area cost adjustment for local authorities in the south-east; and if he will make a statement. [138005]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  Ministers have not yet taken a decision on whether to update the area cost adjustment to reflect the data from the 1999 New Earnings Survey. An announcement will be made in due course.

  Farnborough Airfield
  Mr. Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what representations he has received about the removal of trees on hills near Farnborough Airfield. [137970]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 10 November 2000]My right hon. Friend received some 125 representations that he should call in for his own determination the planning application for the development of Farnborough Airfield for civil aviation. Of these 25 specifically mentioned the removal of trees and/or the re-profiling of Miles Hill and Eelmoor Hill West, while the other 80 referred more generally to the environmental impact of the planning application. We gave careful consideration to the issues raised by the application but concluded that it did not raise issues which would justify my right hon. Friend's intervention.

  Flood Plains
  Mr. Pickles
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what advice he gives to local authorities on the desirability of building new houses on flood plains. [138058]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  In addition to the general guidance at present in Circular 30/92, which is to be updated in PPG25, guidance on housing is given in PPG3 "Housing", published in March 2000. This requires local authorities to assess the suitability of land for housing against a range of physical and environmental constraints, including flood risk, and the fact that such risks may increase as a result of climate change.

  Mr. Pickles
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what guidance he gives to local authorities considering a planning application to build on flood plains. [138057]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  Guidance is at present given in DOE Circular 30/92, "Development and Flood Risk". This requires local planning authorities to take flood risk considerations into account in determining planning applications. They should also take into account the results of surveys of flood defence issues prepared by the Environment Agency under section 105 of the Water Resources Act 1991, and the views of the Environment Agency on individual applications. This guidance is currently being revised and strengthened in Planning Policy Guidance Note 25. A consultation draft was published in April 2000 and the final text is expected to be published in December.
  478W
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will place in the Library a map showing the flood plain of the Ouseburn/Jesmond Dene, Newcastle upon Tyne, and the location and date of(a) flooding of property and (b) storm sewer overflows in the last 10 years. [138022]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  Indicative flood plain maps prepared by the Environment Agency were distributed to all local authorities in 1999. These are currently being revised and the Agency intend to place them on their website in December in a form that will enable searches by postcode. While the Environment Agency could supply the current flood plain map, my hon. Friend may wish to await publication of the revised maps in December.

  My Department does not hold records of flooding of property and storm sewer overflows. Operational flood matters are for the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, the Environment Agency and other drainage authorities. I would expect the information to be available from one or more of the local authorities, the Environment Agency and the sewerage undertaker for the area.

  Workplace Accidents (Children)
  Mr. Ruane
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many children were(a) involved and (b) killed in workplace accidents in each of the past 20 years. [137830]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 10 November 2000]The table shows the number of fatal and non-fatal injuries to children in workplace accidents reported to HSE and local authorities for the period 1986–87 to 1999–2000. The figures include both children at work and those not at work, but whose injuries arise out of or in connection with work activities. Data prior to 1986–87 are not available from HSE's databases.

  Injuries to children1 reported to HSE2 and local authorities 1986–87 to 1999–2000

  Year

  Fatal injuries

  Non-fatal injuries

  1986–87

  36

  10,510

  1987–88

  34

  8,651

  1988–89

  39

  8,271

  1989–90

  42

  6,547

  1990–91

  29

  5,716

  1991–92

  24

  6,420

  1992–93

  62

  5,272

  1993–94

  44

  5,626

  1994–95

  45

  6,132

  1995–96

  22

  6,255

  1996–97

  35

  17,200

  1997–98

  30

  13,941

  1998–99

  19

  11,210

  1999–20003

  23

  10,298

  1 Children are defined as individuals aged one year and up to and including 15 years of age. A search criterion of 0 years produces records where age is not known, as well as children under the age of one. These data cannot be dissagregated.

  2 Injuries reported under the Reporting of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations (RIDDOR) 1985 (for the years 1986–87 to 1995–96) and RIDDOR 1995 (for the years 1996–97 to 1999–2000). Data reported to HSE's Field Operations Directorate, Nuclear Safety Division, Hazardous Installations Directorate from 1999–2000 (Chemical and Hazardous Installations Division 1996–97 to 1998–99) and local authorities. Data reported to HSE's Railway Inspectorate can be searched only by passenger or employee and therefore have not been included.

  3 Provisional.

  479W
  Notes:

  1. Non-fatal includes major and over three day injuries as defined by RIDDOR 1995.

  2. Data from 1 April to 31 March.

  3. Injury figures from 1996–97 cannot be directly compared to previous years' figures due to the introduction of RIDDOR 1995.

  Mr. Ruane
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many prosecutions there were involving(a) workplace accidents and (b) workplace deaths involving children in each of the past 20 years. [137831]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 10 November 2000]The table shows the number of prosecutions involving(a) workplace accidents to children and (b) workplace deaths involving children for the period 1996–97 to 1999–2000. Data prior to 1996–97 are not readily available.

  Informations laid by HSE following reportable1 injuries to children 1996–97 to 1999–2000

  Informations laid

  Year

  Following a fatality

  Following a non-fatal injury

  1996–97

  —

  9

  1997–98

  12

  16

  1998–99

  8

  7

  1999–20001

  1

  36

  1Provisional

  Notes:

  1. Reportable means as reported under the Reporting of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations 1995 (RIDDOR 1995).

  2. For 1996–97 to 1999–2000 proceedings instituted by HSE's Field Operations Directorate (excluding Railways Inspectorate), Nuclear Safety Division, Hazardous Installations Directorate (Chemical and Hazardous Installations Division before 1999–2000). In the time available, data reported to HSE's Railway Inspectorate have not been included.

  3. Children are defined as individuals aged one year and up to and including 15 years of age. A search criterion of 0 years produces records where age is not known, as well as children under the age of 1. These data cannot be disaggregated.

  4. These data include prosecution action taken between 1996–97 and 1999–2000 following fatalities and injuries occurring between 1996–97 and 1999–2000. All data relating to 1999–2000 are provisional.

  5. Data from 1 April to 31 March.

  Carbon Monoxide Poisoning
  Mr. Ruane
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many deaths from carbon monoxide poisoning there were in each of the last 20 years. [137825]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 10 November 2000]From the information readily available, the following are the numbers of fatalities from carbon monoxide poisoning from all fossil-fuelled appliances in the UK, from 1985–98:

  Year

  Fatalities

  1985

  46

  1986

  46

  1987

  52

  1988

  39

  1989

  42

  1990

  46

  480W

  Year

  Fatalities

  1991

  51

  1992

  50

  1993

  57

  1994

  55

  1995

  51

  1996

  69

  1997

  42

  1998

  47

  Source:

  Department of Trade and Industry

  Fatalities from carbon monoxide poisoning relating to the supply and use of flammable gas in GB are as follows:

  Year

  Number

  1981–82

  98

  1982–83

  42

  1983–84

  57

  1984–85

  60

  1985–86

  65

  1986–87

  35

  1987–88

  48

  1988–89

  41

  1989–90

  34

  1990–91

  30

  1991–92

  33

  1992–93

  41

  1993–94

  29

  1994–95

  30

  1995–96

  29

  1996–97

  31

  1997–98

  28

  1998–99

  37

  1999–2000

  126

  1Provisional

  Notes:

  1. Mainly piped gas but also includes bottled LPG

  2. Data for fatal injuries involving carbon monoxide under the Gas Act 1972 (for the years 1981/82–1985/86), the Reporting of Injuries and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations (RIDDOR) 1985 (for the years 1986/87–1995/96). RIDDOR 1995 (for the years 1996/97–1990/2000). They do not include carbon monoxide fatalities from other sources.

  Source:

  Health and Safety Executive

  Energy Efficiency
  Mrs. Brinton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what progress has been made by Government Departments towards the target of improving energy efficiency by 20 per cent. in the nine years to 31 March. [138406]

  Mr. Meacher
  By 31 March 1999, energy efficiency in Government Departments had improved by just under 19 per cent. since 1990–91, as measured by the Total Cost Indicator.

  Full details for each department are given in the tables. The tables give a summary. All tables include some revisions to figures for earlier years revealing slightly lower performance than previously reported. The last figure announced was 18.1 per cent. to March 1998, but clarification of a misunderstanding with the Navy and data revisions by some other departments have reduced that figure to 17.5 per cent. I expect the figures for 1999–2000, which should be available in the new year, to show that the 20 per cent. has been achieved.
  481W
  Energy management in individual Departments is a matter for those departments and their Green Minister. However, the Government aim to be at the forefront of good practice to improve energy efficiency, and progress is reviewed regularly by Green Ministers under my chairmanship. We have developed new performance indicators which will, for the first time, enable comparisons with independent standards of good practice across the economy, and are now beginning to use these for the larger office buildings on the central Government estate. Once the first year's data have been

  Summary Table 1 Civil Departments:

  Recent performance measured by a range of efficiency indicators (ie per m2); also by total CO21.16

  Performance against energy and cost indicators, relative to 1990–91 (positive figures represent % progress)

  Adjusted for estate and weather changes

  Adjusted for weather changes only

  Fossil fuel

  Electricity

  Total kWh

  Total cost

  CO2

  Total CO2

  Civil Departments, including Agencies

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1997–98

  1998–99

  MAFF—Main Estate4

  48

  52

  -11

  -11

  35

  38

  14

  16

  21

  23

  25

  22

  MAFF—Laboratories4

  25

  31

  8

  12

  20

  26

  14

  18

  24

  29

  -36

  -31

  Cabinet Office

  15

  50

  -31

  -46

  4

  26

  -13

  -8

  4

  13

  -63

  -47

  Culture, Media & Sport10

  -33

  -32

  -11

  3

  -20

  -12

  -14

  -1

  -14

  -2

  -14

  -2

  Customs and Excise

  32

  28

  -17

  -15

  14

  12

  -5

  -3

  0

  2

  21

  23

  Educ. and Employment

  28

  38

  -22

  -22

  4

  9

  -13

  -11

  -9

  -7

  7

  13

  Employment Service

  23

  21

  -16

  -18

  12

  10

  -2

  -4

  1

  -2

  -5

  -9

  Environment, Transport and Regions5

  31

  43

  3

  4

  22

  31

  12

  16

  17

  21

  37

  37

  DETR-HSE6

  39

  45

  11

  13

  29

  34

  19

  22

  25

  27

  29

  31

  DETR-QEII CC2,6

  -7

  -14

  9

  -17

  3

  -16

  7

  -17

  7

  -17

  7

  -17

  FCO

  -3

  13

  -17

  -10

  -8

  4

  -13

  -4

  -4

  5

  -34

  -22

  Health7

  35

  17

  -83

  -105

  -10

  -30

  -53

  -75

  -39

  -59

  -21

  -38

  Home Office17

  17

  23

  3

  -4

  13

  15

  7

  5

  11

  10

  9

  5

  Home Office—Prisons2

  10

  28

  -19

  -28

  6

  22

  -2

  6

  9

  20

  -7

  15

  Inland Revenue

  -7

  17

  19

  17

  3

  17

  13

  17

  14

  19

  31

  19

  Internat. Development9

  54

  56

  36

  35

  48

  48

  41

  40

  42

  41

  71

  71

  Lord Chancellor's Department

  28

  30

  1

  0

  20

  21

  10

  10

  13

  14

  -9

  -9

  National Savings

  16

  20

  32

  32

  24

  26

  29

  30

  30

  31

  37

  38

  Northern Ireland

  18

  16

  12

  4

  16

  12

  14

  8

  15

  7

  -2

  -10

  Scottish Office8

  30

  40

  -26

  -23

  16

  24

  -5

  1

  7

  13

  24

  29

  Scottish Court Service8

  35

  44

  30

  23

  34

  38

  32

  31

  34

  33

  -2

  -6

  Scottish Prison Service

  15

  16

  -12

  -18

  12

  12

  5

  3

  9

  9

  -2

  -5

  Social Security11

  17

  25

  0

  -1

  12

  18

  6

  9

  9

  13

  -12

  2

  Trade & Industry

  74

  74

  40

  39

  62

  62

  49

  49

  52

  53

  69

  70

  Treasury

  -19

  -15

  -8

  -1

  -16

  -11

  -11

  -6

  4

  8

  -9

  -1

  Welsh Office

  48

  38

  -18

  -17

  19

  13

  -4

  -6

  1

  -1

  21

  20

  Total

  18.0

  28.8

  1.6

  -1.5

  14.0

  21.3

  8.0

  10.3

  13.1

  16.8

  6.2

  12.2

  Summary Table 2 MOD11,12 and Total Government Estate

  Recent performance measured by a range of efficiency indicators; also by total CO21.16

  Percentage reduction relative to 1990–91 (positive figures represent per cent. improvement)

  Adjusted for estate changes and weather correction

  Adjusted for weather change only

  Fossil fuel

  Electricity

  Total kWh

  Total costs

  CO2

  Total CO2

  Ministry of Defence

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1997–98

  1998–99

  Common User Estate13

  50

  50

  -2

  -2

  33

  33

  13

  13

  27

  21

  11

  2

  Navy

  29

  33

  37

  40

  31

  35

  34

  37

  37

  40

  30

  38

  Army

  17

  24

  26

  23

  19

  24

  22

  24

  24

  26

  20

  21

  RAF

  26

  28

  14

  11

  23

  24

  19

  18

  20

  20

  30

  29

  Procurement Executive14

  0

  4

  0

  1

  0

  2

  0

  1

  0

  2

  0

  2

  DERA

  -27

  -29

  8

  8

  -11

  -12

  1

  1

  -4

  0

  -19

  -20

  MOD Total

  21.3

  25.7

  22.3

  21.0

  21.6

  24.6

  21.9

  23.0

  24.1

  24.3

  23.3

  23.2

  Civil Departments Total

  18.0

  28.8

  1.6

  -1.5

  14.0

  21.3

  8.0

  10.3

  13.1

  16.8

  6.2

  12.2

  Grand Total

  20.3

  26.6

  15.5

  13.6

  19.2

  23.6

  17.5

  18.9

  20.6

  21.9

  17.8

  19.7

  1 Progress is expressed as a percentage relative to the 1990–91 base year value of the performance indicator in question. Positive figures represent improvement. The standard indicator, against which the target to improve energy efficiency by 20 per cent. by 31 March 2000 is measured, is obtained by weather-correcting energy consumption and converting to costs using "standard prices" for fuel (6p/kWh for electricity and 1.25p/kWh for all fossil fuels) then dividing by floor area. Conversion to money both reflects the relative costs of electricity and fossil fuel and their environmental impact, and the use of fixed prices eliminates the effects of tariff changes which distort the comparison of fuel bills.

  482W
  collected and analysed, we will consider how best to use them in the new campaign which began in April this year.

  Results for the former Department of the Environment and Department of Transport have been consolidated for earlier years to allow a continuous series for the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions. DETR's overall performance in 1998–99 has improved relative to the previous year, which was adversely affected by parallel operation of buildings during merger of the former departments.
  483W
  2 Although figures have been prepared on a consistent basis, caution should be exercised in comparing the energy use of different departments and agencies because of differences in their estate and the nature of their work. For example, the operational needs of prisons and the QEII Conference Centre mean that they have a pattern of energy use which is different from that of a department which has predominantly office accommodation. Expenditure on energy and investment figures are included for information only. Investment figures relate to clearly identifiable energy efficiency measures undertaken by departments. Energy efficiency is an integral part of all major construction projects, including building refurbishment and plant replacement and the figure "0" for some departments does not necessarily mean there has been no investment, just that the investment was not clearly identifiable.

  3 The average performance figure for the civil estate cannot be derived by simply adding together the individual departmental progress and dividing by the number of departments because this does not allow for the large variations in consumption. The correct figure is obtained by calculating the value of the performance indicator for the year in question and the base year, for the civil estate as a whole, and calculating the reduction relative to the base year.

  4 The energy performance for MAFF's "Main estate" and its "Laboratories" continues to improve through on-going investment in energy schemes, monitoring of energy at local level and taking appropriate action as well as central initiatives including continued staff awareness programmes.

  5 The DETR's figures have been compiled from the former Environment and Transport Departments. The Department now has a greater proportion of air-conditioned buildings than in the base year, because of estate rationalisation, relocation to new HQ buildings and inclusion of some Government Offices for the Regions. Performance in 1997–98 was adversely affected by parallel operation of both old and new buildings while staff moved from one to the other.

  6 HSE was removed from the DfEE estate on the formation of that Department. QEII Conference Centre is reported separately because of its business-led demands. The initial sharp rise in consumption following the 1990–91 base year was directly attributable to increased revenue earning activity, which has continued throughout the reporting period, ["and the more recent decline in consumption reflects the effect of energy conservation measures undertaken at the site".]

  7 Rationalisation of the estate since the base year has led to staff moving from several naturally ventilated buildings to more densely occupied air-conditioned buildings, all equipped extensively with information technology equipment. Staff numbers have increased by over 25 per cent. since 1997–98 which has led to a commensurate increase in energy consumption.

  8 Base year is 1991–92.

  9 Base year in 1991–92. Data for Natural Resources Institute no longer included following its transfer to the University of Greenwich in 1996.

  10 Base year is 1994–95 by which time energy efficient lighting and other improvements already installed in buildings which are already fully air-conditioned with intensive IT usage.

  11 The Ministry of Defence (MOD) estate is different from the rest of the Government estate, and has been undergoing more radical changes. It is therefore treated in a slightly different way. In common with the civil estate, it has greatly increased its use of information technology.

  12 In civil departments, the effect of estate changes is allowed for by dividing consumption by floor area. In MOD, floor area is sometimes not meaningful (eg in relation to security or runway lighting) and also not often available. Estate changes are allowed for by being explicitly excluded from the calculations, ie the energy consumption of new facilities is removed, and for facilities no longer part of the estate, the consumption for the last full year of operation is added back. In most cases, such changes are small compared to the total and can often approximately cancel each other out.

  13 No 1998–99 data were available for the Common User Estate part of MOD. 1997–98 results are quoted.

  14 It is almost impossible to produce any meaningful results to date for MOD's Procurement Executive (PE) since it has suffered major estate gains and losses over the past 10 years and now consists largely of one recently built large office. The standard MOD methodology produces a meaningless "no change" result (since the present estate is almost entirely different from the original). Consequently, we have taken 1997–98 as the base year and applied the civil departments' methodology to this office.

  15 This shows the combined results for the whole of the Government estate based on the data in tables 1,2 and 3. It is not a simple average of the data, but reflects the proportion of total consumption represented by each part of the estate (see also note 3). Some departments have a different base year, and the individually agreed base year has been used for the purposes of this table, where appropriate.

  16 In some instances the base year is not 1990–91, but for the purpose of this table the agreed base year has been used in the calculation.

  Fuel Poverty (Pensioners)
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will estimate the proportion of pensioners living in fuel poverty aged(a) 65 to 69, (b) 70 to 79 and (c) 80 years and above, broken down by (i) Government offices of the regions, (ii) groups of authorities with similar characteristics and (iii) area types based on the English House Conditions Survey Data for (A) 1991 and (B) 1996. [136221]

  Mr. Meacher
  There are two main definitions of a fuel poor household:

  (a) If, in order to maintain a satisfactory heating regime, it would be required to spend more than 10 per cent. of all income (including Housing Benefit and Income Support for Mortgage Interest) on all household fuel use.

  (b) If, in order to maintain a satisfactory heating regime, it would be required to spend more than 10 per cent. of its income (excluding Housing Benefit and Income Support for Mortgage Interest) on all household fuel use.

  The 1991 English House Conditions Survey (EHCS) was based on a smaller sample of homes, and collected
  484W
  less information on each, compared to the 1996 survey. As a result it is not possible to provide the information requested without undue expenditure, and indeed if at all. The information that is available is shown in the table and is based on the definition at (b) above.

  Number of fuel poor households aged 60 years or more based on data from the 1991 English House Condition Survey

  Household type

  Percentage of households in fuel poverty

  Total number of households (thousands)

  Couple aged 60 or more

  44

  3,096

  One person aged 60 or more

  80

  2,840

  1Based on the definition at (b) above.

  Using data from the 1996 EHCS, the tables set out the breakdown of older fuel poor households by Government office region and also by type of location. In order to be statistically valid, some of the categories requested have been grouped together. A breakdown is not available on the basis of groups of local authorities which have similar characteristics.
  485W

  Number of fuel poor households aged 60 years in each Government office region based on data from the 1996 English House Condition Survey

  Government office region

  Age category (years)

  Percentage of fuel poor using definition (a)

  Percentage of fuel poor using definition (b)

  Total number of households (thousands)

  North East

  60 to 74

  46

  51

  245

  75 or above

  47

  54

  108

  Yorkshire and Humber

  60 to 74

  36

  38

  400

  75 or above

  55

  67

  269

  North West

  60 to 74

  38

  43

  613

  75 or above

  38

  49

  332

  East Midlands

  60 to 74

  32

  36

  381

  75 or above

  45

  51

  189

  West Midlands

  60 to 74

  36

  40

  497

  75 or above

  54

  61

  222

  South West

  60 to 74

  34

  36

  451

  75 or above

  43

  49

  300

  Eastern

  60 to 74

  26

  30

  555

  75 or above

  43

  50

  246

  South East

  60 to 74

  22

  26

  629

  75 or above

  35

  37

  384

  Greater London

  60 to 74

  24

  30

  508

  75 or above

  41

  49

  234

  Number of fuel poor households aged 60 years or more in urban/rural area based on data from the 1996 English House Condition Survey

  Area type1

  Age category (years)

  Percentage of fuel poor using definition (a)

  Percentage of fuel poor using definition (b)

  Total number of households (thousands)

  Urban

  60 to 74

  31

  35

  3,289

  75 to 84

  38

  45

  1,422

  85 or above

  46

  57

  338

  Rural

  60 to 74

  33

  36

  990

  75 to 84

  55

  57

  401

  85 or above

  62

  71

  124

  1Urban includes city centre and suburban residential homes. Rural includes rural residential and village centre homes.

  Green Ministers
  Mr. Geraint Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he will publish the Second Annual Green Ministers' report. [138407]

  Mr. Meacher
  I am delighted to announce that "Greening Government: the 2nd Annual Report of the Green Ministers Committee" will be published tomorrow. It provides a comprehensive account of the work of Green Ministers over the past year, and sets out our future work programme. The report reflects Green Ministers' increasing focus on integrating sustainable development into Government policies, as well as our continuing efforts to improve the environmental performance of Government operations. There is a considerable amount of information at Department level to enable the reader to understand the progress each Department has made in all areas of our work.

  Copies will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Cross-loaded Timber (HGVs)
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) if he will instruct the Road Transport Laboratory to undertake research into the safety of cross-loaded timber on commercial heavy goods vehicles; [136184]
  486W
  (2) when he next expects to issue revised guidelines to road haulage contactors and their trade organisations about the safety requirements of cross-loaded timber on heavy goods vehicles; [136185]

  (3) how many accidents have been reported in the last five years involving heavy goods vehicles carrying cross-loaded timber; [136186]

  (4) what estimate he has made of the potential increase in the volume of timber to be transported from forests in the United Kingdom over the next five years; and how much of such timber he estimates will be carried on lorries using cross-loaded decks. [136187]

  Mr. Hill
  It is estimated that there will be a 13 per cent. increase in timber production over the next five years. It is not clear how much of that increase will be transported as cross-loaded timber.

  There is no detailed statistical information available about accidents caused by insecure loading of cross-loaded timber.

  My Department, in conjunction with those from the Health and Safety Executive, the Forestry Commission and the timber industry, are investigating whether it is safe to carry cross-loaded timber on goods vehicles. The findings of these investigations may result in specific research being commissioned.
  487W
  The conclusions drawn from investigations and any resultant research will be added to the revision of my Department's Code of Practice on the Safety of Loads on Goods Vehicles. The industry has also agreed to amend its own code of practice in line with any conclusions. The review of my Department's code will be widely consulted on and, when complete, will be publicised within the haulage industry generally, including the trade organisations. The timescale will depend on what research, if any, is carried out and is unlikely to run beyond the end of 2001.

  Town Improvement Schemes
  Mr. Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, (1) pursuant to Cm 4917, if he will list the criteria for qualifying as a town improvement scheme; [138199]

  (2) what businesses are to be included under his proposals for a supplementary business rate for funding town improvement schemes; and what the rates will
  be; [138198]

  (3) pursuant to Cm 4917, if he will list the criteria for a local tax reinvestment programme; and how he will evaluate successful regeneration. [138200]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  Details of our proposals for a supplementary business rate and for a local tax reinvestment programme are contained in the Green Paper "Modernising Local Government Finance" (19 September 2000). The consultation period ends on 8 December.

  Under our proposals, the supplementary rate would be limited to a maximum of 1 per cent. of the national rate per year, up to a ceiling of 5 per cent. The supplement could be raised from all non-domestic ratepayers in a smaller area such as a town centre, subject to agreement by a majority of the ratepayers affected, for use in ways agreed between the ratepayers and the council. The Green Paper suggests that this could be one way of funding town improvement schemes. The only criterion would be that use of the supplementary rate in this way would need to be agreed between a local council and its ratepayers.

  Possible criteria for establishing and evaluating a local tax re-investment programme (LTRP) are included for consultation in Appendix 2 to Annex F of the Green Paper. A copy of this Appendix will be placed in the House of Commons Library.

  City Growth Strategies
  Mr. Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what funding is to be available to RDAs to develop city growth strategies; and what the scope of these strategies will be. [138244]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  Funding has been made available as part of the 2000 Spending Review. Regional Development Agencies and the Small Business Service will have a key role to play in developing City Growth Strategies, as part of their shared purpose to promote enterprise in the regions and across society.

  These strategies will map the economic asset base and develop detailed action plans for business growth in a number of key cities over three years.

  Emergency Tug (Pentland Firth)
  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what representations he has received from the Chairman of the Scottish Environment Protection Agency about the all year round siting of an emergency tug in the Pentland Firth; and if he will make a statement. [138019]

  Mr. Hill
  The Chairman of the Scottish Environment Protection Agency wrote to my noble Friend the Minister for Transport about emergency towing vessel provision in the Minches and Pentland Firth on 10 July 2000. I replied to him on 10 November 2000.

  Wetlands
  Fiona Mactaggart
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will publish further guidance on the protection of sites listed as wetlands of international importance under the Ramsar Convention. [138408]

  Mr. Meacher
  The Government are fully committed to meeting their obligations under the Ramsar Convention. We believe that wetland sites listed under the Convention should be accorded the highest level of protection available. The comprehensive policy statement I have published today on the protection and management of Ramsar sites in England places Ramsar sites on the same footing as sites designated as part of the European Union's Natura 2000 network and gives clear guidance to local planning authorities and other public bodies on how that protection should be delivered

  Ramsar sites in England—A policy statement

  Introduction

  1. The Convention on Wetlands of International Importance especially as Waterfowl Habitat (the 'Ramsar Convention'), signed in Ramsar, Iran, in 1971, is an intergovernmental treaty which provides the framework for the conservation and wise use of wetlands and their resources by national action and international co-operation as a contribution to achieving sustainable development throughout the world. In May 2000 there were 121 Contracting Parties to the Convention. The UK ratified the Convention in 1976. The UK Government is fully committed to effective implementation of the Convention.

  2. One of the main means by which the Ramsar Convention seeks to conserve wetlands and wetland interests is through the listing of sites on the Ramsar List of Wetlands of International Importance. In May 2000 there were 1,027 wetland sites covering over 78 million hectares on the Ramsar List. At that time the UK had listed 157 sites covering almost 738,000 hectares.

  3. The Joint Nature Conservation Committee, the Government's statutory adviser on international conservation matters, is currently carrying out a review of the UK Ramsar site list, taking account of the Convention's Resolution VII.11 (Strategic Framework and Guidelines for the Future Development of the List of Wetlands of International Importance of the Convention on Wetlands). It is the Government's intention to publish a revised site list before the 8th Conference of Contracting Parties (COP) in 2002 and to designate any new sites which meet the selection criteria by COP9 in 2005. This will contribute towards the Ramsar Convention's own target of 2000 listed sites globally by 2005.

  4. This statement sets out the Government's policies for the protection and management of Ramsar sites in England, of which there were 75 covering over 361,000 hectares at the end of May 2000. Matters relating to the management and protection of Ramsar sites in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland fall to the devolved administrations of those countries.

  489W
  Ramsar sites in England—the current position

  5. All terrestrial areas included within listed Ramsar sites in England are currently Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) and it is the Government's firm intention that this will continue to be the case. As such they are subject to the same arrangements as for other SSSIs notified by English Nature. The Countryside and Rights of Way Bill currently before Parliament will substantially enhance the protection available to SSSIs and to make it easier for English Nature to create the conditions for their conservation interests to be managed positively. As such the Countryside and Rights of Way Bill changes will make a very substantial contribution to meeting the Government's obligations under the Convention.

  6. Paragraph C7 of the current Planning Policy Guidance on Nature Conservation (PPG9) published in 1994 extends the same protection at a policy level to listed Ramsar sites in respect of new development as that afforded to sites which have been designated under the Birds and Habitats Directives as part of the EU Natura 2000 network.

  7. Article 6 of the Habitats Directive (as transposed into UK law through the Conservation (Natural Habitats, &c.) Regulations 1994 as amended otherwise referred to as 'the Habitats Regulations') requires that any new development proposal likely to have a significant impact on a Natura 2000 site is assessed for its implications on that site in view of the site's conservation objectives. If that assessment concludes that the project would have an adverse effect on the integrity of the site it can only proceed, in the absence of alternatives, in the overriding public interest. In addition, compensatory measures must be taken to maintain the coherence of the Natura 2000 network. The Government's Outline Position Statement on the Birds and Habitats Directive published in May 1998 (otherwise referred to as the Government Statement) gave further guidance on the application of Article 6.

  8. It is the Government's intention to bring forward revised Planning Policy Guidance on Nature Conservation once the Countryside and Rights of Way Bill has completed its passage through Parliament. It will continue to apply as a matter of policy substantially the same framework to listed Ramsar sites as to Natura 2000 sites. Paragraphs 15-27 of this policy statement draw attention to, and provide further guidance on, how that framework will be applied to Ramsar sites.

  Relationship to Natura 2000

  9. In May 2000 there were 79 Special Protection Areas (SPAs) classified under the Birds Directive and 148 candidate Special Areas of Conservation (SACs) under the Habitats Directive covering almost 990,000 hectares in England. The Government has recently initiated consultation on substantial additions to its list of candidate SACs which will increase the proportion of SSSIs in the Natura 2000 network to around 75 per cent. by area.

  10. Of the 75 English Ramsar sites at the end of May 2000, only 6 were completely outside the Natura 2000 network of sites. The remaining 69 were either coincident with or substantially overlapping SPAs or candidate SACs. The Government does not envisage that the proportion of Ramsar sites outside the Natura 2000 network is likely to change substantially in the light of planned revisions to both site networks.

  Management issues

  11. English Nature, the Government's statutory adviser on nature conservation matters in England, is charged with ensuring promotion of the conservation and wise use of all Ramsar sites through management and various other measures. In May 2000, 70 per cent. of Ramsar sites were in favourable or improving condition. English Nature's objective is to increase this to 75 per cent. by 2002, to 80 per cent. by 2004, and to exceed 95 per cent. by 2010.

  490W

  12. Resolution V.7 adopted by the Ramsar Convention in 1993 requires that all Ramsar sites should have a management plan. All areas included within English Ramsar sites have some type of management plan incorporating conservation objectives for the Ramsar interests. Where the management plan for a site covers more than one designation, English Nature has been asked to ensure that plans adequately cover the Ramsar interests especially where these may be broader than Natura 2000 interests. They have also been asked to ensure that plans are consistent with the international best practice guidance contained in the Ramsar Toolkit (see paragraph 29).

  13. All statutory bodies involved in funding conservation, both on designated sites and in the wider countryside, are encouraged to develop and use schemes to support the positive management of Ramsar sites and their interests.

  Countryside and Rights of Way Bill

  14. The Bill places a new duty on the Secretary of State to notify the statutory nature conservation agencies of Ramsar designations in England and Wales and, in turn, on the agencies to inform owners and occupiers and other specified bodies. This duty will bring the notification procedures for Ramsar sites in line with those for sites designated as SSSI, SAC and SPA.

  Planning policies

  15. Most new development proposals likely to affect a Ramsar site will require an Environmental Impact Assessment under the Town and Country Planning (Assessment of Environmental Effects) Regulations 1988 as amended. In applying the provisions of the Habitats Regulations to Ramsar sites, PPG9 requires that all development proposals likely to have a significant effect on such a site shall be subject to an 'appropriate assessment' of the implications for the site in view of that site's conservation objectives. This includes any proposal which a statutory body or 'competent authority' proposes to undertake itself. In carrying out an assessment the competent authority is required to consult English Nature and have regard to any representations made. In order fully to meet that policy obligation, the authority will need to ensure that its assessment takes into account the full range of Ramsar interests for which the site has been designated and their vulnerabilities to any effects of the proposed development.

  16. Competent authorities are required by the Habitats Regulations to undertake an appropriate assessment of any plan or project likely to have a significant effect on a Natura 2000 site. Where Ramsar sites are coincident with or overlap Natura 2000 sites, authorities also need to ensure that their assessment takes fully into account the Ramsar interests on the site and any additional vulnerabilities that they may have to the effects of the proposal in order to fulfil their policy obligations under PPG9.

  17. Wetland sites are some of the most fragile and vulnerable sites in the SSSI series, often subject to hydrological or other changes which occur both on and off site. Assessments need to take particular care to consider indirect effects as well as direct effects of proposals and the cumulative effects of piecemeal development.

  Special considerations

  18. The Government Statement of May 1998 on the Birds and Habitats Directives gave extensive guidance on the application of Article 6 of the Habitats Directive and relevant factors to be weighed when making judgments about overriding public interest. In reaching decisions on Ramsar sites, it will be necessary to take into account the wording of Article 4 of the Ramsar Convention, which allows a Contracting Party to delete or restrict the boundaries of sites 'in its urgent national interest'.

  19. The general principles expounded in paragraphs 8 to 11 of the Statement on the Birds and Habitats Directives should be followed when applying the provisions of PPG9 to listed Ramsar sites. The Government's view is that a development proposal does not necessarily have to be of national significance in its own right to meet the requirements set out in Article 4 of the Convention. Any benefits arising from

  491W
  the proposal must, however, demonstrably outweigh the acknowledged international conservation value of the site. Projects of limited regional or local significance are thus unlikely to meet this test.

  20. Article 4 of the Ramsar Convention requires Contracting Parties which delete sites or restrict site boundaries to provide compensatory measures for the loss of conservation interests. It is the Government's view that compensatory measures should provide, as a minimum, no net loss to the overall value of the national Ramsar site series either by way of quality or area. It is the Government's view that the principles expounded in paragraph 11 of the Government Statement on the Birds and Habitats Directives should also apply when it comes to compensatory measures for lost Ramsar interests, namely there must be a reasonable expectation that any such measures involving habitat recreation or restoration will be successful and that any such measures will be delivered within a timescale which secures the continuing nature conservation interests of any species present. The Government expects that a suitable package of compensatory measures will normally be a condition of any consent given and that wherever possible the developer will bear the cost of any such measures under the polluter pays principle.

  Other development and consent regimes

  21. Ramsar sites are potentially vulnerable to developments regulated by regimes other than the development control framework. For example, the Environment Agency regulates a wide range of waste management, discharge and water abstraction activities. Ministers expect that those, including the Government themselves, who have responsibility for such regimes should follow the policy approach advocated in PPG9 in respect of developments likely to have significant impacts on listed Ramsar sites.

  Reviews of consents

  22. Regulation 50 of the Habitats Regulations as amended requires the review of extant (i.e. unimplemented or partially implemented) consents on Natura 2000 sites. There are no such provisions for Ramsar sites and it has, to date, been the major difference between the two.

  23. For the overwhelming majority of Ramsar sites, reviews of consents on Natura 2000 sites under the Regulation 50 provisions will normally be sufficient to ensure the Ramsar interests are adequately protected.

  24. Local planning authorities are expected to extend the scope of their appropriate assessments when carrying out Regulation 50 reviews on Natura 2000 sites to consider the effects on coincident or overlapping Ramsar sites. Where the planning authority reaches the conclusion that there would be no adverse effect on the integrity of the Natura 2000 site from allowing the consent to proceed, but there would be an adverse effect on integrity on the Ramsar site, it should consider whether to issue a modification or revocation order using powers available under Section 97 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. In cases where the authority considers modification or revocation is warranted, the Government will consider reimbursing local authorities where the costs were high, where the action taken was no more than necessary to remove the risk to the site, and less costly alternatives have been fully explored.

  25. Local planning authorities are expected to adopt a similar approach where listed Ramsar sites are not within the Natura 2000 network, by carrying out an appropriate assessment analogous to that required by Regulation 50 and by issuing modification or revocation orders under Section 97 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, at the earliest opportunity following the listing of a Ramsar site. Where the integrity of a Ramsar site would be adversely affected by the full implementation of an extant consent and modification or revocation of the consent is warranted, the Government will again consider reimbursing local authorities where the costs were high, where the action taken was no more than necessary to remove the risk to the site, and less costly alternatives have been fully explored.

  492W

  26. The Government expect competent authorities, other than planning authorities, to use whatever review powers are available within the regimes they administer to address any potential adverse effects on the integrity of listed Ramsar sites from extant consents by adopting a general approach analogous to that advocated for planning authorities in paragraphs 24 & 25 above.

  27. It is the Government's view that the additional call on public funds arising from the application of paragraphs 24 to 26 is not likely to be significant given the very high proportion of the Ramsar site series which is already covered by the Natura 2000 network and the review provisions of Regulation 50 of the Habitats Regulations. These existing measures are expected to protect the Ramsar interests in the vast majority of cases.

  Wider issues

  28. Designated sites are to a greater or lesser degree affected by activities which occur away from or adjacent to those sites, as well as those on site. Wetland sites are especially vulnerable to factors such as hydrological change within or adjacent to the site. The Countryside and Rights of Way Bill places a duty on public bodies to 'further the conservation and enhancement' of Sites of Special Scientific Interest. The Government expect that public bodies, in meeting that new obligation, will pay particular attention to the needs of listed Ramsar sites. Where they have not done so already, public bodies will need to incorporate these considerations into their strategic thinking and planning mechanisms.

  29. Article 3.1 of the Ramsar Convention requires Contracting Parties to 'formulate and implement their planning so as to promote the conservation of the wetlands included in the List, and, as far as possible the wise use of wetlands in their territory'. The Ramsar Convention has developed and adopted 'Guidelines for the Implementation of the Wise Use Concept'1. It has also recently published The Ramsar Handbooks on Wise Use1, nine handbooks (referred to ask the "Ramsar Toolkit"), embodying the major 'best practice' guidelines developed and approved by the Conference of the Contracting Parties, complete with case studies, illustrations, and other helpful materials. The Government commend these documents to statutory bodies as valuable sources of further guidance and technical assistance on how issues of wise use should be addressed.

  DETR—November 2000
  1Copies of the Ramsar Convention's publications are available on the Convention's website at www.ramsar.org.
  Further information on Natura 2000 is available on the European Commission's website at http://europa.eu.int/comm/environment/nature/natura.htm
  The DETR's website can be found at http://www.detr.gov.uk.

  Highway Maintenance
  Mr. Miller
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what resources he proposes to provide to allow local highway authorities to deal with the backlog in local highway maintenance; and if he will make a statement. [138259]

  Mr. Hill
  As set out in "Transport 2010: The 10 Year Plan" we are committed to providing sufficient funds to tackle the backlog of expenditure on carriageway, footway, bridge, and street lighting maintenance, estimated to be £7 billion in the next 10 years. In the forthcoming Local Transport Plan settlement we will provide £535 million to fund capital maintenance works on local highways in 2001–02 and £555 million in 2002–03. These are increases of 103 per cent. and 110 per cent. respectively compared with 2000–01. We have extended the settlement to cover non-principal roads as well as principal roads and bridges.
  493W
  The allocations for local highway authorities in 2001–02 and 2002–03 are shown in the table, with the allocations for the current year for comparison. For the remaining three years of the five years of the Local Transport Plan settlement, authorities will receive at least 75 per cent. of their allocation for maintenance in 2002–03.

  In addition, earmarked resources will be provided for new major maintenance schemes for the Central Motorway East in Newcastle and for the Silver Jubilee Bridge in Halton.

  These capital resources provided through the Local Transport Plan settlement are in addition to the support for local highway maintenance provided through Revenue Support Grant.

  The Local Transport Plan settlement does not cover London. Funding for local highway maintenance in London is a matter for the Mayor and Greater London Authority.

  Local Transport Plan Settlement Capital Allocations for Local Road Maintenance

  £000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2002–03

  Darlington

  933

  1,329

  1,398

  Durham

  5,240

  8,555

  9,103

  Gateshead

  1,533

  1,533

  1,533

  Hartlepool

  521

  520

  544

  Middlesborough

  492

  877

  734

  Newcastle

  3,657

  3,657

  3,657

  North Tyneside

  600

  1,451

  1,226

  Northumberland

  3,990

  9,312

  9,919

  Redcar and Cleveland

  660

  1,568

  1,621

  South Tyneside

  739

  1,560

  2,332

  Stockton on Tees

  566

  1,194

  1,283

  Sunderland

  2,117

  2,638

  2,770

  Total for North East Region

  21,048

  34,194

  36,120

  Barnsley

  2,453

  2,670

  2,829

  Bradford

  3,699

  5,031

  5,568

  Calderdale

  2,803

  4,592

  4,815

  Doncaster

  1,184

  1,970

  2,078

  East Riding

  2,254

  5,898

  4,861

  Hull

  1,461

  1,501

  1,461

  Kirklees

  4,870

  6,163

  6,405

  Leeds

  4,090

  9,254

  9,896

  North East Lincolnshire

  740

  965

  970

  North Lincolnshire

  1,556

  2,468

  2,598

  North Yorkshire

  5,740

  13,449

  14,361

  Rotherham

  1,809

  3,124

  3,297

  Sheffield

  3,518

  3,518

  3,582

  Wakefield

  2,772

  3,568

  3,762

  York

  712

  1,095

  1,155

  Total for Yorkshire and Humberside Region

  39,661

  65,266

  67,638

  Birmingham

  4,330

  6,245

  6,620

  Coventry

  1,173

  1,232

  1,317

  Dudley

  1,416

  3,158

  3,376

  Herefordshire

  2,372

  4,348

  4,539

  Sandwell

  2,453

  3,558

  2,453

  Shropshire

  3,885

  7,982

  8,548

  Solihull

  674

  1,737

  1,832

  Staffordshire

  4,554

  8,675

  9,315

  Stoke on Trent

  1,161

  1,273

  1,160

  Telford/Wrekin

  1,220

  2,312

  2,464

  Walsall

  2,242

  2,964

  3,072

  Warwickshire

  2,410

  6,774

  5,414

  Wolverhampton

  1,043

  3,466

  2,744

  Worcestershire

  3,161

  7,184

  7,366

  Total for West Midlands Region

  32,094

  60,908

  60,220

  494W

  Local Transport Plan Settlement Capital Allocations for Local Road Maintenance

  £000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2002–03

  City of Derby

  955

  1,423

  1,549

  City of Leicester

  1,948

  2,764

  4,316

  Greater Nottingham

  1,650

  8,009

  8,604

  Derbyshire

  2,880

  11,034

  11,711

  Leicestershire

  2,185

  6,494

  6,788

  Lincolnshire

  3,385

  10,278

  10,890

  Northamptonshire

  2,291

  5,342

  5,463

  North Nottinghamshire

  6,541

  10,880

  11,323

  Rutland

  407

  751

  783

  Total for East Midlands Region

  22,242

  56,975

  61,427

  Bedfordshire

  1,743

  3,247

  3,491

  Cambridgeshire

  2,817

  6,967

  7,437

  Essex

  5,170

  13,925

  15,001

  Hertfordshire

  4,467

  10,083

  10,586

  Luton and Dunstable

  461

  819

  862

  Norfolk

  5,203

  19,247

  18,973

  Peterborough

  1,082

  1,765

  1.843

  Southend on Sea

  696

  1,608

  1,742

  Suffolk

  4,472

  13,467

  11,808

  Thurrock

  597

  1,146

  1,201

  Total for Eastern Region

  26,708

  72,274

  72,944

  Bath and North East Somerset

  1,868

  2,552

  2,740

  Bournemouth/Poole

  841

  1,662

  1,744

  Bristol

  1,907

  3,847

  4,054

  Cornwall

  3,874

  9,424

  10,210

  Devon

  5,877

  12,139

  12,822

  Dorset

  1,645

  5,807

  6,218

  Gloucestershire

  4.551

  10,076

  10,812

  North Somerset

  895

  3,173

  2,437

  Plymouth

  1,815

  2,324

  2,481

  Somerset

  4,262

  11,496

  12,306

  South Gloucestershire

  1,276

  3,343

  3.505

  Swindon

  958

  1,307

  1,382

  Torbay

  379

  1,161

  1,208

  Wiltshire

  2,255

  9,570

  10,024

  Total for South West Region

  32,403

  77,881

  81.943

  Bracknell

  366

  580

  568

  Brighton and Hove

  1,113

  1,126

  1,199

  Buckinghamshire

  3,821

  8,227

  7,087

  East Sussex

  3,013

  5,661

  6,670

  Hampshire

  4,388

  9,870

  10,524

  Isle of Wight

  1,540

  2,900

  3,018

  Kent

  6,466

  11,513

  12,149

  Medway Towns

  757

  934

  990

  Milton Keynes

  1,279

  2,069

  2,194

  Oxfordshire

  5,793

  8,045

  8,013

  Portsmouth

  579

  803

  835

  Reading

  534

  1,650

  697

  Slough

  312

  312

  312

  Southampton

  581

  1,085

  1,152

  Surrey

  6,972

  11,763

  12,475

  West Berkshire

  900

  1,285

  1,379

  West Sussex

  2,320

  6,389

  6,813

  Windsor

  750

  1,025

  1,096

  Wokingham

  562

  819

  865

  Total for South East Region

  42,046

  76,056

  78,036

  Blackburn

  1,932

  2,274

  2,335

  Blackpool

  468

  952

  991

  Bolton

  2,089

  5,102

  5,236

  Bury

  1,245

  1,929

  2,002

  Cheshire

  8,956

  11,535

  12,204

  Cumbria

  5,544

  9,173

  9,884

  Halton

  2,893

  2,893

  2,893

  Knowsley

  710

  1,038

  1,090

  Lancashire

  6,096

  16,630

  17,782

  Liverpool

  2,152

  4,184

  3,991

  Manchester

  2,442

  5,569

  5,679

  Oldham

  1,448

  1,784

  1,887

  Rochdale

  1,496

  2,677

  1,751

  495W

  Local Transport Plan Settlement Capital Allocations for Local Road Maintenance

  £000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2002–03

  Salford

  1,008

  1,871

  1,746

  Sefton

  1,217

  2,073

  2,185

  St. Helens

  1,317

  1,790

  1,861

  Stockport

  1,108

  1,815

  1,905

  Tameside

  1,069

  2,178

  1,501

  Trafford

  884

  1,127

  1,213

  Warrington

  1,755

  2,357

  2,474

  Wigan

  1,394

  3,420

  3,559

  Wirral

  971

  2,079

  2,502

  Total for North West Region

  48,194

  84,450

  86,671

  Total for England, excluding London

  264,396

  528,004

  544,999

  Notes:

  1. The allocations for 2000–01 covered only principal roads and bridges. The allocations for 2001–02 and 2002–03 cover principal roads, non-principal roads, and bridges.

  2. There is an element within the Standard Spending Assessment used to distribute Revenue Support Grant which covers revenue expenditure on local road maintenance, e.g. clearing snow, cleaning drains, grass cutting, etc.

  3. These allocations are part of the overall Local Transport Plan settlement to be announced in December.

  4. These figures do not include earmarked resources for ongoing major maintenance schemes in Bedfordshire, Devon, and Portsmouth or for new major maintenance schemes in Newcastle and Halton.

  Funding for these schemes will amount to £7 million in 2001–02 and £10 million in 2002–03.

  Global Warming
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment he has made of the contribution of the aviation industry to global warming. [137748]

  Mr. Mullin
  We have not produced a UK assessment. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change published their report, "Aviation and the Global Atmosphere", in December 1999. UK experts made significant contributions to the report on both science and technology. It considered all potential effects on the atmosphere and climate, up to 2050, from aviation emissions and identified the present and future impacts, on the basis of a range of scenarios, as well as remaining areas of uncertainty. The Government continue to support research to reduce these scientific uncertainties, and to improve technology.

  Aircraft Detritus
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what recent discussions he has had with the CAA concerning frozen effluent falling from aeroplanes over residential areas. [137747]

  Mr. Mullin
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply of Thursday 25 November 1999,Official Report, column 171W.

  The Secretary of State has not had any recent discussions with the CAA over such incidents. However the CAA is continuing to investigate icefall incidents whenever possible.
  496W
  I understand the hon. Member met CAA staff on 18 May specifically to discuss icefalls, following which the CAA wrote to her on 26 May 2000 providing comprehensive details of icefall incidents. In the period 1 January 2000 to 1 November 2000, 36 incidents of icefall and 21 incidents of other falling objects were recorded. The average number of incidents recorded over the five-year period 1995–99 was 31.

  The CAA places the primary emphasis on prevention, and both the Authority and airlines are putting a great deal of effort into eliminating icefalls by checking water systems for leaks. The CAA has also issued reminders to UK operators, by way of Airworthiness Directives, emphasising the importance of regular checks.

  Trunk Roads
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when the proposal of a link road between a new junction 18a on the M4 and the Avon Ring Road was(a) first included and (b) removed from the Government's trunk road programme. [138229]

  Mr. Hill
  The proposal for a new link road and a new junction on the M4 was first put forward by the former Avon County Council in 1985. This was accepted in principle by the then Department of Transport, but was never included in the Government's trunk road programme.

  Responsibility for the scheme passed to South Gloucestershire Council, following local government reorganisation. The Council subsequently carried out a review of a number of major road schemes in their area in the context of current Government transport policy and emerging development plan policies. As a result, they decided in 1999 not to pursue this particular scheme.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Recreational Craft Engines
  Mrs. Brinton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment he has made of the implications of EC Directive 94/25/EC on small businesses engaged in the modification, upgrading and conversion to LPG of recreational craft engines. [137294]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  No specific assessment has been made at present. EC Directive 94/25/EC on recreational craft (RCD) is principally concerned with the design and construction (in terms of safety) of such craft, as well as certain specified components for incorporation into craft (including fuel tanks and fuel hoses), when they are placed on the market or put into service for the first time in the European Economic Area (EEA). The RCD became mandatory on 16 June 1998. The object of the RCD is to allow the free trade in recreational craft and the specified components, while maintaining a high level of product safety. Any person placing those products on the EEA market, or putting them into use, since that date is obliged to meet the essential safety requirements covering for example hull strength, stability and buoyancy, as well as safety requirements concerned with the installation of the engine, fuel systems and fuel tanks. Meeting the requirements of the RCD and properly applying the CE
  497W
  marking confers the right to sell the craft anywhere in the EEA. Any subsequent modification, upgrading and conversion of a craft, concerned with the engine installation, is not currently within the scope of the RCD unless that modification, upgrading or conversion of the craft was so extensive that it amounted (in effect) to a "new" craft being produced for the purposes of the RCD. However it may be the case that, depending on where the craft is used, local "in use" safety regulations would need to be met as part of or following an engine modification.

  The Commission has recently issued a proposal for the modification of the RCD which would (if adopted) include, in particular, requirements related to engine exhaust and noise emissions: the former would include propulsion engines subject to a "major engine modification" and the latter to recreational craft with engines that are subject to a "major craft conversion". Businesses are aware of this proposal but will be consulted as negotiations progress: A regulatory impact assessment is being commissioned. A public meeting has been arranged at the DTI on 15 January 2001, to which interested parties will be invited.

  Mobile Telephones
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what independent research the Government have commissioned on the health aspects of using mobile telephones and the level of radiation from hands-free kits. [137773]

  Ms Hewitt
  The DTI commissioned independent tests, published in August, on the use of personal hands-free kits with mobile phones. The tests showed that use of hands-free kit reduced exposure when compared to normal use of the phone.

  Generator

  Site name/location

  NFFO-3

  Associated Energy Projects plc

  Portsmouth Incinerator, Quartremaine Road, Portsmouth, Hampshire

  European Development Corporation plc

  Copyhold Works Incinerator, Nutfield Road, Redhill, Surrey

  Enterprise Energy Ltd.

  Brentwood Steel, Beacon Hill Industrial Estate, London Road, Purfleet, Essex

  Pyrogen (Durham) Ltd.

  Easington Colliery Incinerator, Easington, County Durham

  Yorkshire Generation Company Ltd.

  Hampole Quarry Incinerator, Wakefield Road, Hampole, Nr Doncaster, South Yorkshire

  Energylinc Ltd.

  Boston Waste to Energy Plant, Slippery Gowt Lane, Wyberton, Boston, Lincolnshire

  Sheffield Heat and Power Ltd.

  Bernard Road Incinerator, Bernard Road, Sheffield South Yorkshire

  Pyrogen (Notts) Ltd.

  Silverhill Colliery Incinerator, Silverhill Lane, Teversal, Ashfield, Nottinghamshire

  Associated Energy Projects plc

  Lamby Way Incinerator, Lamby Way, Cardiff, South Glamorgan

  Pyrogen (Merthyr) Ltd.

  Taff Merthyr Colliery Incinerator, Trelewis, Mid Glamorgan

  Cleveland Waste Management Ltd.

  Haverton Hill Incinerator, Site B, Process Plant Park, Billingham, Cleveland

  Wolverhampton Waste Services Ltd.

  Wolverhampton Waste Incinerator, Corporation Yard, Crown Street, Wolverhampton, West Midlands

  Dudley Waste Services Ltd.

  Dudley Incinerator, Lister Road, Dudley, West Midlands

  Associated Energy Projects plc

  Ardwick Railway Goods Yard Incinerator, Ardwick, Greater Manchester

  Associated Energy Projects plc

  Marchwood Incinerator, Bury Road, Marchwood, Hampshire

  Pyrogen (Kent) Ltd.

  Betteshanger Colliery, Northbourne. Betteshanger, Nr Deal, Kent

  Tyseley Waste Disposal Ltd.

  Tyseley Incinerator, Tyseley Waste Disposal Site, James Road, Tyseley, Birmingham, West Midlands

  Associated Energy Projects plc

  Marchwood Power Station, Normandy Way, Marchwood, Hampshire

  Hanford Waste Services Ltd.

  Stoke-on-Trent Incinerator, Stoke-on-Trent Waste Incinerator Plant, Campbell Road, Sideway, Stoke-on-Trent

  Associated Energy Projects plc

  Chineham Incinerator, Reading Road, Basingstoke, Hampshire

  NFFO-4

  London Waste Ltd.

  Edmonton B CHP Plant, Angel Road, London

  City Energy Ltd.

  City Energy Manchester CHP, Ardwick Goods Yard West, Manchester

  City Energy Ltd.

  City Energy Portsmouth CHP, Fratton Park Goods Yard, Portsmouth, Hampshire

  Heron Trust Ltd.

  Start Regen, Start, St. Erth, Hayle, Cornwall

  City Energy Ltd.

  City Energy Sheffield CHP, Warren Street, Sheffield, South Yorkshire

  498W
  These tests were consistent with other tests that have been carried out internationally, but have been contradicted by studies commissioned by the Consumers' Association.

  Both the Department and independent scientists have expressed reservations about the methodology employed in the Consumers' Association tests.

  We are working with the Consumers' Association and urgently seeking to reconcile these conflicting test results.

  Small Business Programme
  Mr. Gale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will ensure that assets of the Learning and Business Link Company, Kent, including computers and servers, formerly the property of Business Link Kent and currently used by the chambers of commerce and enterprise, will be retained by the latter for use in the Small Business Programme. [137738]

  Ms Hewitt
  It is our objective that the transition from the existing BL network to the new SBS local network should be conducted in such a way as to ensure publicly funded assets continue to be used for the purposes for which they were intended. My officials are working with the organisations concerned in each area to ensure that this outcome is achieved to the greatest possible extent. I do not feel it would be appropriate to comment on the individual commercial negotiations concerned.

  Renewable Energy
  Mr. Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list the waste incineration projects which have been approved under the terms of Non-Fossil Fuel Obligation, but which have yet to be built. [137394]

  Mrs. Liddell
  [holding answer 9 November 2000]: A list of these projects is shown in the table.
  499W

  Generator

  Site name/location

  Greater Manchester Waste Ltd.

  Stockport FBP, Bredbury Park Way, Stockport, Cheshire

  Greater Manchester Waste Ltd.

  North Manchester FBP, Reliance Street, Newton Heath, Greater Manchester

  Greater Manchester Waste Ltd.

  Salford FB Plant, Cobden Street, Salford, Greater Manchester

  Kent Enviropower Ltd.

  Hailing Energy from Waste, Rugby Cement Works, Hailing, Kent

  Kent Energy Ltd.

  Newhaven Energy from Waste Plant, North Quay Road, Newhaven, East Sussex

  Kent Energy Ltd.

  Matford Park Energy from Waste Plant, Bad Homburg Way, Exeter, Devon

  NFFO-5

  Gent Fairhead Environmental Services Ltd.

  Rivenhall Airfield, Woodhouse Farm, Near Braintree, Essex

  Cleanaway Ltd.

  Cleanaway Project 3, Pitsea Hall Lane, Pitsea, Basildon, Essex

  Cleanaway Ltd.

  Cleanaway Project 2, Rugby Cement, Hindmans Way, Dagenham, Essex

  Energy Developments (UK) Ltd.

  Rainham, Ferry Lane, Rainham, Essex

  Energy Developments (UK) Ltd.

  Pitsea, Pitsea Hall Lane, Basildon, Essex

  Northumbrian Environmental Management Ltd.

  Vange, High Road, Fobbing, Essex

  Energy From Waste Kesteven Ltd.

  Energy From Waste Kesteven Ltd., Honeypot Lane, Colsterworth, Grantham, Lincolnshire

  British Sugar plc

  Allscott Energy Recovery Centre, Allscott Sugar Factory, Telford, Shropshire

  Energy Developments (UK) Ltd.

  Foxyards Waste to Energy Plant, Foxyards Site, Bean Road, Coseley, West Midlands

  N.E.M. Ltd.

  Sleekburn Energy From Waste Plant, East Sleekburn, Bedlington, Northumberland

  N.E.M. Ltd.

  Teesside 3 EFW Plant, Haverton Hill Road, Billingham, Teesside, Cleveland

  N.E.M. Ltd.

  Blyth EFW Plant, Cambois, Blyth, Northumberland

  S.I.T.A. (GB) Ltd.

  Ridham Dock, Iwade, Sittingbourne, Kent

  Energy Developments (UK) Ltd.

  Shelford WTE Plant, Broad Oak Road, Canterbury, Kent

  Energy Developments (UK) Ltd.

  Dimmer MRF & Electricity Generation, Castle Cary, Somerset

  Energy Developments (UK) Ltd.

  Portfield MRF & Electricity Generation, A27, Chichester Bypass, Chichester, Sussex

  Energy Developments (UK) Ltd.

  Silent Valley WTE, Waun Llwyd, Ebbw Vale, Gwent

  Energy Developments (UK) Ltd.

  Withyhedge WTE, Bowling Farm, Rudbaxton, Haverfordwest, Pembroke, Dyfed

  Energy Developments (UK) Ltd.

  Poole MRF, Poole Landfill Site, Wellington, Somerset

  N.E.M. Ltd.

  Avonmouth EFW, Off King's Weston Lane, Avonmouth, Bristol

  British Sugar plc

  Brigg Energy Resource Centre, Scawby Brook, Brigg, South Humberside

  N.E.M. Ltd.

  Hessle EFW Plant, Tranby Lane, Hessle, Kingston Upon Hull, Humberside

  Global Environmental Ltd.

  Eastcroft Third Line CHP, Cattle Market Road, Nottingham, Nottinghamshire

  Gent Fairhead Environmental Services Ltd.

  Nine Elms CHP, Stewart Lane Rail Depot, Nine Elms, Battersea, London

  Acorn Energy Supplies Ltd.

  Acorn Energy Supplies, Heighton Lane, Newton Aycliffe, County Durham

  Compact Power Ltd.

  Philadelphia Power Project, Philadelphia Complex, Houghton Le Spring, Tyne and Wear

  Onyx Aurora Ltd.

  Chapel Renewable Energy Centre, Endle Street, Southampton, Hampshire

  Atlantic Energy Ltd.

  Windwhistle Energy Project, Cooksland Road, Bodmin, Cornwall

  Atlantic Energy Ltd.

  Dolcoath Energy, South Crofy, Dudnance Lane, Pool, Redruth, Cornwall

  Two further NFFO-4 projects are under construction:

  Slough Heat and Power Ltd.

  Fibrepower (Slough) Greenock Road, Slough Trading Estate, Slough, Berkshire

  United Waste Ltd.

  Huddersfield Incinerator, Vine Street, Huddersfield West Yorkshire

  Conoco Humber Refinery
  Shona McIsaac
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he will announce his decision on Conoco Global Development UK Ltd.'s proposal to build a combined heat and power station at the Conoco Humber Refinery at South Killingholme. [138420]

  Mrs. Liddell
  I have today granted consent under section 36 of the Electricity Act 1989 to Conoco Global Power Developments UK Ltd. for the construction of a 475 megawatt gas-fired combined heat and power station at the Conoco Humber Refinery at South Killingholme in North Lincolnshire. The station has also today been given clearance as a gas-fired station under section 14 of the Energy Act 1976 and planning permission for the station has been deemed to be granted subject to 47 planning conditions agreed with the North Lincolnshire Borough Council.

  The station will supply the energy requirements of the Conoco Humber Refinery and the Lindsay Oil Refinery and is the largest combined heat and power station given approval by the Government. This demonstrates our continued support to promote CHP stations, wherever practicable, and our commitment to reducing emissions of carbon to fulfil the promises we gave at Kyoto.

  Copies of the Press Notice and decision letters are being placed in the Library of the House.

  Green Technologies
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on progress made by his Department's Joint Environmental Markets Unit in securing sales of British green technologies and services abroad. [137873]

  Ms Hewitt
  The Joint Environmental Market Unit's (JEMU's) role—working with others such as Trade Partners UK—is to promote the UK's environmental industry's capabilities and to help provide market access to relevant suppliers. JEMU has made good progress in implementing specific initiatives identified in its three year Business Plan, published in 1998. A key achievement has been the development of the first online database of UK environmental capabilities, providing a world wide shop window which enables companies to be contacted directly from one site. Representatives of the UK environmental industry have recently acknowledged JEMU's contribution to trade promotion as being relevant and effective.

  MOX Fuel
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representation his Department received at the Plutonium 2000 Conference held in
  501W
  Brussels in October; and what assessment he has made of the presentation made on the business viability of BNFL's plutonium MOX fuel plans. [137870]

  Mrs. Liddell
  Officials from my Department attended the Plutonium 2000 Conference but received no formal representations.

  Presentations made at the Conference will be considered in the context of the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions' forthcoming consultation document on Radioactive Waste Management as appropriate.

  £ million

  1995–96

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  (a) On-shore wind

  3.4

  2.5

  1.2

  1.0

  0.9

  (e) Off-shore wind1

  (b) Biomass energy

  3.4

  2.7

  1.4

  1.2

  1.6

  (c) Wave power

  0.08

  0.14

  0.06

  0.17

  0.15

  (d) Solar energy2

  1.9

  2.0

  1.7

  1.0

  1.3

  1 Historically data are not broken down between on-shore and off-shore wind technologies.

  2 Up to 1998 the solar programme was focused on passive solar design of buildings. Since then work has primarily focused on photovoltaics.

  Oil
  Mr. Simon Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations he has received on the environmental impact of using oil as an energy source. [137218]

  Mrs. Liddell
  A number of representations have been received, including from business organisations.

  Mr. Simon Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what action his Department(a) has taken and (b) intends to take to address the environmental impact of using oil as an energy source. [137219]

  Mrs. Liddell
  Environmental issues related to the extraction of oil are regulated in the main according to the Offshore Petroleum Production and Pipe-lines (Assessment of Environmental Effects) Regulations 1999. Other environmental legislation such as the Prevention of Oil Pollution Act 1971 also applies. The environmental aspects of oil production are kept under review and it is planned to introduce further legislation to deal with specific aspects.

  UK refineries have invested heavily in recent years to meet rising environmental standards, influenced—among other requirements—by the EU's Auto-Oil programme. They are regulated under the Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control regime. All oil-fired Large Combustion Plant will be controlled through the revised EU Large Combustion Plant Directive. In addition, the UNECE Gothenburg Protocol and the proposed EU National Emissions Ceiling Directive will set annual emission ceilings for sulphur dioxide, nitrogen oxides and volatile organic compounds from 2010.

  Emissions attached to the final use of oils in transport are the responsibility of the Department of Environment, Transport and the Regions.

  Much of the industrial use of oil will come under the requirements of the Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control regime.
  502W
  Mr. Simon Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how much he has spent on the development of(a) on-shore wind generated power, (b) biomass energy, (c) wave generated power, (d) Solar energy and (e) off-shore wind power in each year since 1995. [137213]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The DTI's new and renewable energy programme supports research, development and demonstration, as well as technology transfer and export promotion activities. The breakdown of net expenditure on specific technologies is as shown.

  Compensation Claims
  Mr. Watts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what action he is taking to speed up the process of settling outstanding compensation claims. [136961]

  Mrs. Liddell
  In relation to claims for respiratory disease, progress has been too slow. However, in September I announced a twin track approach.

  Firstly, we are making offers of increased amounts as expedited payments to thousands of miners and are extending expedited offers to some claimants not previously eligible, without them undergoing further tests. To date we have already made some 9,720 additional and new offers totalling £32.4 million. Altogether we hope to make over 19,000 offers totalling around £100 million before Christmas.

  In addition, I announced an increase in the numbers of medical testing centres and record scanning teams. We are also seeking to streamline the Medical Assessment Process and records collection, and these proposals are being taken forward with the claimants' solicitors.

  On Vibration White Finger, we aim to have carried out initial assessments on all the existing claimants by the end of next year. A further assessment may be required for those claimants seeking compensation for loss of services but this is still under consideration.

  In total, this Government have now paid out some £250 million in respect of the liabilities we inherited from British Coal.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  Physical Education
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what the average time is spent by each pupil per week on physical education in(a) primary and (b) secondary schools. [134709]
  503W
  Jacqui Smith
  The total number of hours spent on Physical Education is not available as the length of the school week varies from school to school. However, recent research by MORI confirms that the most popular out-of-school hours learning activity was participating in sport. It shows that the vast majority of schools have increased their extracurricular activities over the last two years. We have set an aspiration that all schools should provide two hours of curricular or extracurricular activities a week, and we are working to encourage schools and partners in the sports sector to deliver this through the Sports Strategy, an important part of which is promoting team games.

  Individual Learning Accounts
  Mr. Hilary Benn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement on progress in developing Individual Learning Accounts. [137369]

  Mr. Wicks
  According to the latest figures, people in England had opened around 400,000 Individual Learning Accounts. This represents good progress towards meeting the UK target of 500,000 accounts opened by March 2001 and of one million accounts by April 2002.

  Higher Education
  Mr. Ruane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many higher education places were available in each of the past 20 years; and how many will be available in the next three years. [137829]

  Mr. Wicks
  [holding answer 10 November 2000]: Available data are provided in the table. The Department has funded additional planned higher education places: 36,000 in 1999–2000; 35,000 in 2000–01 and 45,000 in 2001–02. Of these additional places, 7 per cent. were for full-time undergraduates doing first degrees and the rest were for part-time students, post-graduates and students studying for courses below first degree level. Part-time undergraduates, who are mostly mature students, accounted for 57 per cent. of the additional places. Places beyond 2001–02 have not yet been decided. A complete time series is not available, but the table shows the recent trend and the projected impact of additional funded and non-funded places.

  Home and EU domiciled higher education students in England

  Thousand

  Year

  1994–951

  1,342

  1995–961

  1,409

  1996–971

  1,449

  1997–981

  1,487

  1998–9922

  1,514

  1999–20033

  1,556

  2000–014

  1,599

  2001–024

  1,654

  1 Actual

  2 Estimated outturn

  3 Provisional

  4 Projected

  School Standards
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what his assessment is of the 504W
  recent research commissioned from the London School of Economics and Exeter University about the effect of (a) class sizes and (b) good teaching on school standards. [137913]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The report commissioned from the London School of Economics and Exeter University into the relationship between resource allocation and educational attainment confirmed our view that a number of factors have an effect on pupil attainment. These include smaller infant classes and better quality teaching, both of which we were elected to deliver. The review also concluded that the quality of existing UK research is poor. This is why the Value for Money Unit is pursuing further research into the relationship between resource allocation and educational attainment.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Rolls-Royces
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to the answer of 17 July,Official Report, column 23W, what criteria are used when deciding whether to acquire a Rolls-Royce for HM missions overseas. [134980]

  Mr. Hain
  [holding answer 26 October 2000]: At present the FCO has purchased Rolls-Royces for official use by Heads of Mission at three of our key Posts, Washington, Tokyo and New Delhi. We also lease Rolls-Royces at eight other Posts where this provides value for money.

  Employment Directive
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many letters he has received alleging that there was a threat to religious freedom posed by the EU directive on employment agreed between the Governments of the EU on 17 October. [135067]

  Mr. Vaz
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Minister for Employment, Welfare to Work and Equal Opportunities on 6 November 2000,Official Report, column 39W.

  China
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if human rights concerns were raised during the recent United Kingdom/China Forum held in Beijing. [135770]

  Mr. Battle
  The UK/China Forum is a nongovernmental group. It provides a framework for building a network of influential high-level personal contacts between Britain and China, and aims to develop initiatives to build stronger UK/China links in the specific areas covered by its seven sub-committees: Environment, Media, Culture, Education, Industry, Finance and Law.

  The second meeting of the Forum took place in Beijing from 16-17 October. Human rights were not on the agenda for this meeting.
  505W
  The meeting of the Forum coincided with the fifth round of the UK/China Human Rights Dialogue which was held in London from 16-18 October. HMG's concerns on China's human rights record were raised extensively during the Dialogue.

  Departmental Policies
  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will set out, including statistical information relating as directly as possible to the constituency, the effect on the Manchester, Gorton constituency, of his Department's policies and actions since 2 May 1997. [136168]

  Mr. Vaz
  We hold no information of the kind sought by my right hon. Friend. The Mission of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office is to promote the national interests of the United Kingdom and to contribute to a strong world community. For details of the Government's achievements in meeting its foreign policy targets, the following page of the FCO website may be helpful: http://www.fco.gov.uk/directory/dynpage.asp?Page=108

  Federal Republic of Yugoslavia
  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if it is his policy that the outer wall of sanctions against Yugoslavia should be lifted. [136969]

  Mr. Vaz
  No "outer wall" of sanctions is operated by the United Kingdom or by the European Union. In common with all countries, the FRY will need to show its commitment to the obligations which flow from the membership of international organisations, including major financial institutions, and to those organisations' values.

  Mr. Alan Keen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent changes have been made to EU sanctions in relation to the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. [138419]

  Mr. Vaz
  Following the election of Vojislav Kostunica as President of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (FRY), European Union Foreign Ministers agreed at the General Affairs Council on 9 October to revise EU sanctions against the FRY and to retain specific targeted measures.

  The EU oil embargo and flight ban were lifted with effect from 9 October.

  On 10 November the Council of the EU adopted a Common Position to restrict financial sanctions and the visa ban to Milosevic and persons associated with him.

  The provisions on financial sanctions were implemented by an EC Regulation adopted on 10 November. This Regulation repeals EC Regulations 1294/99 and 607/2000 as well as Article 2 of EC Regulation 926/98. The Regulation will come into force this week with its publication of the Official Journal of the European Communities

  The new Regulation provides that all funds held in the EU belonging to individuals listed in the annex to the Regulation shall be frozen and that no funds shall be made available, directly or indirectly, to or for the benefit of any person listed in the annex.
  506W
  Under the new Regulation all EU financial sanctions in relation to FRY companies will be lifted. All EU restrictions on the provision of export credit support finance and on investment in the FRY will also be lifted.

  UK legislation providing penalties for breaches of the financial sanctions will be amended to take account of the new Regulation.

  The individuals subject to financial sanctions are identical to those subject to the EU visa ban, which is the subject of a Council Decision of 10 November.

  The EU arms embargo and embargo on the supply to the FRY of equipment which might be used for internal repression or terrorism are unaffected. The UN arms embargo against the FRY and prohibition on the arming and training for terrorist activities there remain in force.

  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assistance he is giving to Yugoslavia to help the refugee population in Serbia. [136970]

  Mr. Foulkes
  I have been asked to reply.

  We are providing £10 million for Serbia in immediate bilateral assistance to including medicines, food and essential items for both the general and refugee populations. This includes £2 million for UNHCR to provide fuel, clothing, blankets and winterisation of collective accommodation housing 50,000 refugees.

  Our main contribution to refugees in Serbia is through our share of European Community programmes. The European Community Humanitarian Office (ECHO) programme in Serbia focuses on refugees and on the sick and elderly in the host population. ECHO provided 84 million euros in such assistance in 1999 of which we contributed £9.2 million. Its programme of 73 million euros in 2000 includes 18 million euros, of which we contribute £1.95 million, to assist with winterisation needs of refugees and vulnerable groups. This has been provided from the EC's special programme of 200 million euros immediate humanitarian assistance, which is providing food, medicines, energy and support to schools and municipalities. This aid will provide support to both the refugee and general populations.

  Sudan
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will call for a formal investigation by the appropriate UN authorities into allegations of chemical weapons used by the Government of Sudan against civilians. [137106]

  Mr. Hain
  These allegations relate to alleged attacks in Southern Sudan in late July 1999 by the Government of Sudan against rebel forces during the civil conflict in progress at the time. Samples from the sites of the alleged attacks have been analysed at the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency, Porton Down for the most likely CW agents. The tests found no evidence that these agents had been used. We duly informed the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) of our results as the OPCW is recognised by the UN as the competent body for handling CW issues.
  507W

  Kadiatou Balde
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if the British Embassy in Dakar has been informed of the decision of the Appeals Tribunal in the case of Kadiatou Balde from Guinea; and if she will be permitted to enter the UK. [137112]

  Mr. Vaz
  [holding answer 7 November 2000]: The British Embassy in Dakar has been informed of the decision. Kadiatou Balde will be able to obtain her visa from the Embassy today, provided that her circumstances have not changed.

  Intergovernmental Conference
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) if it is in the United Kingdom's national interest to relinquish the United Kingdom's veto on incentive measures in the cultural field at the forthcoming IGC; [137584]

  (2) if it is in the national interest to relinquish the United Kingdom's veto on proposals relating to social security for migrant workers at the forthcoming IGC; [137586]

  (3) if it is in the United Kingdom's national interest to relinquish the veto on the establishment of European Union agencies at the forthcoming IGC. [137589]

  Mr. Vaz
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) on 30 October 2000,Official Report, column 238W.

  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if it is in the United Kingdom's national interest to relinquish the veto on proposals relating to social security at the forthcoming IGC. [137585]

  Mr. Vaz
  The Government have made it clear on numerous occasions that they will not relinquish the veto on social security.

  Schools (Palestine)
  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what reports he has received about when the Palestinian Authority plans to reopen schools in the areas under its jurisdiction. [R] [137498]

  Mr. Hain
  The Palestinian Authority reopened the majority of its schools, colleges and universities on 7 October. They had been closed from 29 September until 7 October for security reasons. Some establishments have remained closed because of continuing operational difficulties.

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent representations he has made to the Palestinian Authority regarding the reopening of schools. [R] [137499]

  Mr. Hain
  Most schools were reopened on 7 October.

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what reports he has received regarding the closure of Palestinian schools in recent weeks. [R] [137497]
  508W
  Mr. Hain
  The Palestinian Authority closed all its schools, colleges and universities from 29 September until 7 October, when the majority reopened. Schools operated by the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) were closed for the same period. Some establishments remain closed because of the continuing operational difficulties.

  Qualified Majority Voting
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) if he will list the issues that have been tabled by EU member states and the Commission for discussion at the IGC relating to qualified majority voting; [137897]

  (2) if he will list those areas of extension of qualified majority voting that are proposed by (a) EU member states and (b) EU bodies; [137966]

  (3) further to his reply of 1 November 2000, Official Report, column 534-35W, on the Intergovernmental Conference, if he will list those minor issues not listed, but which are also on the agenda for the IGC. [137685]

  Mr. Vaz
  I refer the hon. Member to the website www.europa.eu.int, where he will find the official documents relating to the Intergovernmental Conference.

  Lomé Peacé Accords
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 25 October 2000,Official Report, columns 145-46W, on the Lomé Peace Accords, what the nature was of the close touch maintained. [137995]

  Mr. Hain
  Representatives of HMG were present throughout the Lomé Peace negotiations as observers. British observers, along with other international representatives facilitating the negotiations, helped to maintain contact and dialogue between the parties, and between the parties and the Togolese Chair.

  European Federation
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 1 November 2000,Official Report, column 557W, on European federation, which further powers (a) need to be transferred from the United Kingdom Parliament and (b) require QMV decision-making procedures to be applied, to fulfil his Department's policy objectives. [137684]

  Mr. Vaz
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) on 30 October 2000,Official Report, column 238W.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 2 November 2000,Official Report, column 557W, on European federation, if he will list those EU countries which share his policy objective. [137762]

  Mr. Vaz
  All EU Governments support a European Union which respects the national identities of its member states.

  Iraq
  Sir Sydney Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a
  509W
  statement on the Government's policy on the UN arrangements to ensure that goods imported into Iraq under the oil-for-food scheme are for the agreed purposes. [137680]

  Mr. Hain
  The UK Government does all it can to ensure that goods imported into Iraq under UNSCR 986 are used for agreed purposes. Our experts scrutinise all contracts carefully to ensure that they fall within the terms of the relevant UN resolutions. We frequently discuss monitoring of oil-for-food goods in Iraq with the office of Iraq programme and, where goods are of concern, ask for specific in-country monitoring. Of particular concern are goods identified by UNMOVIC as of potential use in weapons of mass destruction programmes. We continually call for the Iraqi regime to allow UNMOVIC into Iraq to verify Iraq's compliance with its obligation to halt its weapons of mass destruction programme.

  Sir Sydney Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what estimate he has made of the number of children in Iraq who are chronically malnourished and the proportion of the total number of children this represents. [137682]

  Mr. Hain
  There are no reliable figures on child malnutrition in the centre and south of Iraq. Despite UN efforts, the Iraqi regime has refused to cooperate with a group of independent experts appointed by the UN to prepare a comprehensive report and analysis of the humanitarian situation in Iraq. In the meantime the UK continues to advocate and support initiatives through the oil-for-food programme to better target the UN's humanitarian effort to help the most vulnerable in Iraq. This has already improved the situation on the ground. In northern Iraq, for example, where the UN rather than Iraqi authorities run the humanitarian programme, infant mortality is now lower than before sanctions were imposed.

  Zanzibar
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the(a) first and (b) second elections in Zanzibar. [137940]

  Mr. Hain
  We have been following the situation in Zanzibar with concern. Commonwealth and other international observers were unanimous in their condemnation of the organisation of the elections on 29 October. We, with EU colleagues, criticised the decision to rerun the elections in only 16 constituencies and under the supervision of the current electoral commission in a statement issued on 3 November.

  We will continue to press the Tanzanian authorities to find a solution to the political crisis that respects the democratic and human rights of all Zanzibaris.

  Rogue States
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the potential threat to(a) the United Kingdom and (b) the NATO area from rogue states. [138009]
  510W
  Mr. Vaz
  The Government continually reviews, in close consultation with our Allies, potential threats to the United Kingdom and to our NATO Allies from all sources.

  Single European Foreign Policy
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 1 November 2000,Official Report, column 536W, on the single European Foreign Policy, if he will list the principal UK national foreign policy objectives which the EU' s Common Foreign and Security Policy is a means of achieving. [137928]

  Mr. Vaz
  The Foreign and Commonwealth Office's nine objectives are stated in the department's Public Service Agreement. The EU's Common Foreign and Security Policy has contributed most notably to objectives one and four. Objective one is "A secure United Kingdom within a more peaceful and stable world" and objective four is "A strong international community; leading to an improved quality of life worldwide".

  International Criminal Court
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 1 November 2000,Official Report, column 539W, for what reason the United Kingdom has not ratified the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. [137921]

  Mr. Hain
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Hancock) on 2 November 2000,Official Report, column 565W.

  Chagos Islands and Diego Garcia
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about the return of displaced islanders to Diego Garcia. [137915]

  Mr. Battle
  We have decided to accept the ruling of the Court. The Ilois are now able to return to the outer islands of the British Indian Ocean Territory.

  Our first priority is to press ahead with the technical work we have in hand to assess the feasibility of settlement on those islands. In the meantime we will be open to discussion with the Ilois community about the practicalities of any return. We will also be consulting the Governments of the United States and Mauritius about the implications of the judgment.

  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what his assessment is of the security implications of the return of displaced islanders to Diego Garcia. [137907]

  Mr. Battle
  The Ilois are now free to return to the outer islands of the British Indian Ocean Territory but access to Diego Garcia will continue to be controlled strictly and will be by permit only.

  We will be discussing the security implications of the court case on the US Naval Support Facility on Diego Garcia with the US authorities.
  511W
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the assistance his Department intends to give to the displaced peoples of the Chagos Islands in British Indian Ocean Territory to return home. [137874]

  Mr. Battle
  Our first priority is to continue the work we have begun to assess the physical, financial, social, environmental and economic feasibility of settlement on the outer islands of the territory. Once we have the results of this feasibility study, we will be in a position to consider what further assistance might be appropriate.

  Single European Currency
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had since 29 September with the foreign ministers of(a) France, (b) Germany and (c) Denmark about the single European currency. [137918]

  Mr. Vaz
  The Secretary of State meets other European Union foreign ministers on a regular basis and discusses a wide range of issues.

  Middle East (Terrorist Threat)
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent assessment his Department has made of the terrorist threat to British visitors to Middle Eastern countries. [137916]

  Mr. Hain
  We have revised our travel advice notices to reflect the increased risk to British travellers to the Middle East as a result of heightened tensions in the region. Successive up-dates of travel advice for the countries affected have been available from the Travel Advice Unit and via the FCO website, www.fco.gov.uk.

  International Relations
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the United Kingdom's relations with(a) Libya, (b) Iran, (c) Syria and (d) Yemen. [137917]

  Mr. Hain
  The United Kingdom enjoys full diplomatic relations with Libya, Iran, Syria and Yemen. We are constructively engaged with each country, and we continue to encourage them to play a positive role in the international community.

  EU (Co-sovereignty)
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 1 November 2000,Official Report, column 539W, what representations he has made to Germany in respect of the German Foreign Minister's proposal for co-sovereignty between states within the EU. [137904]

  Mr. Vaz
  Ministers regularly discuss EU issues with all EU partners. The Prime Minister made clear our position in his speech in Warsaw on 6 October.

  Israel
  Dr. Starkey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what contacts he has had with the Israeli Government and when, to ascertain that 512W
  equipment and components licensed for export to the Israeli armed forces by Her Majesty's Government since 1990 have not been used (a) against civilians in the Occupied Territories and (b) in southern Lebanon. [138071]

  Mr. Hain
  We are, and have been, in regular direct contact with the Israeli Government, including at senior Israeli military official level, as part of our inquiries to confirm that equipment and components licensed for export from the UK have not been used against civilians in the Occupied Territories or southern Lebanon.

  Kosovo
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many United Kingdom police officers are serving with the United Nations International Police Force in Kosovo; how many of these officers are undertaking(a) a six-month and (b) a 12-month tour of duty; and if he will make a statement. [137123]

  Mr. Hain
  There are currently 136 UK police officers serving with the United Nations International Police in Kosovo. Of these, 107 are undertaking a 12-month tour of duty. The remaining 29 have completed a 12-month tour of duty which has, at their request, been extended by a further six months. None of the officers currently deployed is serving a six-month tour of duty.

  Institutional Reform (EU)
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) what representations the Government have made in the Council of Ministers on the proposals in the paper CONFER 4790/00, 'Progress report on the intergovernmental conference on Institutional Reform', relating to the extension of qualified majority voting to Article 191; [138020]

  (2) what representations the Government have made in the Council of Ministers on the proposals in the paper CONFER 4790/00, 'Progress report on the intergovernmental conference on Institutional Reform', relating to procedures for making regulations governing political parties at European level, with particular reference to their funding. [137977]

  Mr. Vaz
  Political parties at European level were first recognised in the Maastricht Treaty. The proposal for a legal base to allow the establishment of a Statute to regulate these parties is intended to ensure the transparency of their funding. We strongly support this aim.

  The details of such a legal base are still under discussion.

  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations the Government have made in the Council of Ministers on the proposals in the paper CONFER 4790/00, 'Progress report on the intergovernmental conference on Institutional Reform', relating to (1) enhanced co-operation measures; 137982]

  (2) the new conditions for enhanced co-operation measures; [137981]

  (3) the abolition of the national veto on enhanced co-operation measures; [137978]
  513W
  (4) the application of enhanced co-operation procedure to Title V. [137983]

  Mr. Vaz
  The Prime Minister set out the Government's position on enhanced co-operation in his Warsaw speech on 6 October.

  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) if it remains the Government's policy that immigration and asylum issues fall within the definition of border controls for the purpose of qualified majority voting; [137980]

  (2) what representations the Government have made in the Council of Ministers on the proposals in the paper CONFER 4790/00, "Progress report on the intergovernmental conference on Institutional Reform", relating to the extension of qualified majority voting to aspects of asylum and immigration policy; [138021]

  (3) what representations the Government have made in the Council of Ministers on the proposals in the paper CONFER 4790/00, "Progress report on the intergovernmental conference on Institutional Reform", relating to items for possible extensions of qualified majority voting. [137976]

  Mr. Vaz
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer 1 gave to the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) on 30 October 2000,Official Report, column 238W.

  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations the Government have made in the Council of Ministers on the proposals in the paper CONFER 4790/00, 'Progress report on the intergovernmental conference on Institutional Reform', relating to the draft amendments to Article 7. [137979]

  Mr. Vaz
  The Government have made it clear that they are happy to discuss the proposal for a new early warning mechanism to be applied before any decision to take measures against a member state under Article 7 TEU. The details remain under negotiation.

  Charter of Fundamental Rights
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations the Government have made in the European Commission on the Commission's paper, 'On the Legal Nature of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union', with particular reference to the European Court of Justice's interpretation of the Charter. [137984]

  Mr. Vaz
  I refer the hon. Member to the answers I gave to the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) on 2 November 2000,Official Report, columns 555-56W and today, Official Report, col. 452-53W.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs which rights contained in the draft EU Charter of Fundamental Rights are not identical to rights already incorporated in the European Convention on Human Rights. [137898]

  Mr. Vaz
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave him and the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) on 2 November 2000,Official Report, column 555W.

  Child Soldiers
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on progress towards the ratification of the Optional Protocol on child soldiers to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. [137745]

  Mr. Hain
  The Government are working toward ratification of the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the involvement of children in armed conflict. The Ministry of Defence is currently drawing up administrative guidelines for the armed forces to implement this protocol, once they are in place, we hope to ratify the protocol. An initial target t of January 2001 has been set.

  North American Free Trade Agreement
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the economic impact of NAFTA on the UK economy in the last five years. [136401]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Treasury has carried out no assessment of the economic impact of NAFTA on the UK economy over the last five years.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Burundi
  Mr. Browne
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what plans she has to provide support for the promotion of civil society in Burundi. [136457]

  Clare Short
  The first priority in Burundi is peace. We continue to provide financial assistance to the Arusha Peace Process and also humanitarian assistance through well established non-governmental organisations focusing on emergency healthcare and nutrition. As soon as peace is established we will consider providing further assistance for Burundi.

  Sudan
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what recent reports she has received concerning the use of oil revenue from Sudanese oil fields for development projects. [135109]

  Mr. Foulkes
  We have seen some evidence that revenue is being directed to investment, especially roads and power generation. The Government of Sudan have also announced Sudanese Dinar 800m (US$ 3.118m) for development in the south through the Southern Sudan Co-ordinating Council. We are pressing for further clarification and will keep the situation under close review.

  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what plans she has to review the provision of development aid to southern Sudan. [135108]
  515W
  Mr. Foulkes
  The first priority for the Sudan is a lasting political solution to the conflict. We believe development assistance will not be effective without peace. We need to strengthen the voices for peace among the ordinary Sudanese and are currently stepping up efforts to work more through church and other religious groups in the south and elsewhere. In the meantime, we will continue to give urgent humanitarian need top priority. We will also support and encourage good proposals from non-governmental organisations who can effectively reach the poorest groups in the country.

  St. Helena
  Dr. Marek:
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on progress in developing the new wharf at Jamestown, St. Helena. [138227]

  Clare Short
  A revised Wharf Improvement Project proposal was discussed with officials from my Department when they visited St Helena in July. The project is to be financed by the European Development Fund (EDF) but UK views will be taken into account when the project is considered by the EDF Committee. My officials were satisfied with the technical merits of the revised proposal. However, the St. Helena Government (SHG) have been asked to produce additional information on the health and safety benefits which underpin the economic case for this investment. This information has still to be provided. Subject to agreement on the economic case, we have advised SHG that we will support the project when it is submitted to the Committee for approval.

  Health and Welfare Programmes
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what discussions she has had in the last 12 months with leaders of Third World countries to develop health and welfare programmes. [137384]

  Clare Short
  Health issues have been included in most of my discussions during the past 12 months with leaders of poorer countries, with a focus on how we can assist them achieve the international development targets for health.

  Kosovo
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how much her Department has spent to date on clearing unexploded cluster munitions in Kosovo. [137987]

  Clare Short
  We have funded five organisations to carry out emergency clearance of anti-personnel landmines and unexploded ordnance, including cluster bomb units. Two of these organisations have been exclusively tasked with cluster munition clearance, while the other three have undertaken this task as part of a broader programme of unexploded ordnance clearance. We provided over £6 million during the 1999–2000 financial year for the clearance of mines and unexploded ordnance in Kosovo. So far this year we have committed a further £6.6 million.

  NDPBs (Scotland)
  Mr. Alasdair Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will list the non-departmental public bodies responsible to her which have duties relating to Scotland, indicating their budget and staffing in Scotland, the number of Scottish board members and their emoluments. [137702]

  Clare Short
  There are no non-departmental bodies responsible to me that have duties relating to Scotland.

  Malawi
  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how many staff her Department directly employs in Malawi. [136665]

  Mr. Foulkes
  The Department directly employs 34 members of staff in Malawi.

  Mine Clearance (Africa)
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assistance her Department makes available to African countries which are not in conflict for mine clearance. [137944]

  Clare Short
  We continue to provide assistance for mine clearance to a number of African countries from our humanitarian mine action programme, which totalled some £15 million in 1999–2000. Currently, this includes Chad, Mozambique and Guinea Bissau. This assistance is channelled through the UN (including the United Nations Mine Action Service, the United Nations Children's Fund and the United Nations Office for Project Services) and other international organisations, national Mine Action Centres and NGOs, and includes strengthening indigenous capacity where possible. We also provide support to help countries ratify the Ottawa Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti-Personnel Mines and their Destruction.

  Vietnam
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assistance her Department has provided for the floods in Vietnam; and what environmental management projects her Department supports in Vietnam. [135061]

  Clare Short
  We have provided a total of £1.15 million in response to the International Federation of the Red Cross and Crescent Societies (IFRC) Emergency Appeal to alleviate the suffering of flood victims in the Mekong watershed of Vietnam. This has contributed to meeting immediate needs (food, plastic sheeting and clothing) and to longer term livelihood support for families that will remain food insecure for some considerable time. Relief organisations placed a high priority on locally constructed boats to provide families with transport and the opportunity to catch and sell fish. This in turn assists families to buy rice and other staples and should reduce immediate dependence and bring medium-term benefits
  517W
  by re-establishing sustainable livelihoods. We have contributed a further £80,000 as our share of the European Commission Humanitarian Assistance to flood relief.

  We have mainstreamed support for the environment rather than supporting specific environmental projects in Vietnam. We recognise that most environmental trends are adverse and have significant detrimental impacts on the health and livelihoods of poor people. Our rural poverty reduction programmes in Vietnam incorporate environmental and sustainability considerations. The Ha Tinh Poverty Alleviation Programme supports the construction of sea dykes, mangrove replanting and integrated pest management (IPM) all of which reduce vulnerability and improve people's livelihoods. Broader rural poverty reduction programmes currently being designed will incorporate environmental and sustainability perspectives, ensuring that rural infrastructure is assessed for environmental impact and seeking better ways of using natural resources in supporting the livelihoods of poor people.

  We are also considering ways of mainstreaming sustainability issues within broader national policy formulation, through, for example, the Poverty Reduction Strategy process.

SCOTLAND

  Volunteers
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will mark next year's International Year of Volunteers by spending a day working as a volunteer. [137436]

  Dr. Reid
  I fully support the aims of the International Year of Volunteers. Everyone benefits from volunteering and the Prime Minister has issued a challenge to employers to give their employees paid time off to work in the community.

WALES

  Prison/Police Services
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will introduce legislation to devolve responsibility for the police service and for the prison service in Wales from the Home Office to the National Assembly for Wales. [138026]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  No. The Government have no plans to transfer additional functions to the National Assembly.

  Volunteers
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will mark next year's International Year of Volunteers by spending a day working as a volunteer. [137439]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  I fully support the aims of the International Year of Volunteers. Everyone benefits from volunteering and the Prime Minister has issued a challenge to employers to give their employees paid time off to work in the community. I intend to spend some time volunteering during 2001.
  518W

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Carers
  Barbara Follett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what steps he is taking to help young carers. [136120]

  Mr. Bayley
  Social Security benefits are available for carers aged 16 and over. This means that measures recently announced, such as the increase in the Invalid Care Allowance earnings limit, the increase in carer premium and the extension of entitlement to Invalid Care Allowance for up to eight weeks after the disabled person dies, will help young carers, as well as others.

  Mr. Gareth R. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what further action he is taking to support carers. [136144]

  Mr. Bayley
  We recently announced steps to improve financial support for carers. We intend to:

  Increase the carer premium in the Income Related benefits by £10 a week on top of next year's inflation uprating;

  increase the earnings limit in Invalid Care Allowance from £50 a week to the National Insurance Lower Earnings Limit, currently £67 per week;

  allow ICA to continue for up to eight weeks after the death of the person being cared for;

  allow claims to ICA to be made from people aged 65 and over which will assist carers whose State pension is less than the rate of ICA and those who receive the Minimum Income Guarantee.

  We will be seeking to introduce these changes as soon as the legislative timetable permits. The changes will help an estimated 300,000 carers at a cost of over £500 million over three years.

  Tribunals
  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what measures he has taken to ensure that tribunals which lie within his Department's responsibility meet the requirements of the Human Rights Act 1998 for independence. [136121]

  Angela Eagle
  My right hon. and noble Friend the Lord Chancellor appoints the panel members who sit on unified appeal tribunals within the Appeals Service. He introduced new administrative arrangements for judicial appointments, including part-time panel members, from 12 April 2000.

  My right hon. and noble Friend the Lord Chancellor and my noble Friend the Lord Chief Justice consider that these arrangements put beyond reasonable doubt the safeguards guaranteeing the independence of judicial appointments.

  Disability Benefits
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many persons have had their disability benefits cancelled over the most recent 12 month period for which figures are available; and if he will make a statement. [136124]

  Mr. Bayley
  About 170,000 awards of Disability Living Allowance and 285,000 awards of Attendance Allowance were terminated in the 12 months ending 30 September 2000. Awards are terminated in a range
  519W
  of circumstances, including when people's condition improves, or they go to live abroad, die, or enter long-term residential care.

  Minimum Income Guarantee
  Mrs. Gilroy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people have applied for the minimum income guarantee this year. [136125]

  Mr. Darling
  220,000 pensioners have applied for the Minimum Income Guarantee between January and September this year.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what estimate he has made of the number of pensioners who are entitled to the minimum income guarantee who do not claim it. [136128]

  Mr. Rooker
  From statistical surveys based on a 1 per cent. sample it has been estimated that around 500,000 pensioners could be entitled to Minimum Income Guarantee but do not claim it. We shall have a better idea of a figure when the present take-up campaign is concluded, during which we are making direct contact with 2.3 million pensioners.

  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will estimate how many senior citizens are eligible for the minimum income guarantee. [136130]

  Mr. Rooker
  Some 2 million pensioners either as single people or couples receive the Minimum Income Guarantee. Figures for those who might be entitled but are not claiming were based on a 1 per cent. sample. We shall have a better idea when the present take-up campaign is concluded, during which we are making direct contact with 2.3 million pensioners.

  Mr. Crausby
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to help those pensioners whose small occupational pension schemes prevent them from receiving the minimum income guarantee. [136131]

  Mr. Rooker
  The new Pension Credit will help those on modest incomes with small occupational pensions firstly by introducing a new higher guaranteed income and secondly by rewarding savings income.

  Social Fund
  Mr. Tynan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on the operation of the social fund's budgeting loan scheme. [136126]

  Angela Eagle
  The changes we made to simplify the social fund budgeting loan scheme in April 1999 are working well. In its first year the new scheme helped more people on the lowest incomes by way of interest-free loans than ever before.

  Pensioner Tax Credit
  Mr. Lammy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what representations he has received concerning the proposed pensioner tax credit. [136127]

  Mr. Gordon Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what representations he has received regarding the proposals for a pensioner tax credit. [136123]
  520W
  Mr. Rooker
  A number of representations have been received on this matter. A consultation paper on our proposals for the Pension Credit was published on 9 November. A copy has been placed in the Library.

  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on the forthcoming Pensioner Tax Credit. [136134]

  Mr. Rooker
  We published our proposals for the Pension Credit last week. The plans are subject to public consultation.

  Fraud
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on the amount of benefit fraud detected since May 1997. [136129]

  Mr. Rooker
  The estimated loss due to fraud is £2 billion per year. We have now increased the targets for reducing the amount of fraud and error in the system. We are now aiming to reduce the losses from fraud and error in Income Support and Jobseeker's Allowance, the two most vulnerable benefits, by 25 per cent. by March 2004, rising to 50 per cent. by March 2006.

  Sir Sydney Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on the progress of his initiatives to tackle Housing Benefit fraud. [136137]

  Angela Eagle
  We continue to give tackling Housing Benefit fraud a very high priority. One of our key objectives is to prevent fraud and error from entering the system. To this end, we are taking initiatives to ensure that information flows freely between local authorities and the Department:We allocated £4 million funding to local authorities to install Remote Access Terminals (RATs), which give staff access to the Department's benefit systems. 404 local authorities have at least one RAT.
  We have funded Electronic Transfer of Data (ETD). This means that many millions of paper forms, previously sent by the Benefits Agency to local authorities through the post, are now sent electronically.

  Links between the Department's benefit systems and local authorities are complemented by other initiatives to prevent and detect fraud and error:
  £100 million has been made available to local authorities to implement the Verification Framework by 2001. We have specified minimum standards for the verification of the identity of claimants, so preventing fraud from entering the system. To date, 253 local authorities have received set-up costs and 185 have been certified as compliant.
  352 local authorities have signed up for the Royal Mail "Do not redirect" service funded by the Department. This prevents fraudsters having benefit mail redirected to a different address.
  Reform of the anti-fraud financial incentive scheme is in progress, to ensure that local authorities can be rewarded for securing the end-to-end claims process.

  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his answer of 9 June 2000,Official Report, column 408W, on housing benefit fraud, if he will provide corresponding data for 1999–2000. [138048]

  Mr. Rooker
  The information requested is not yet available for 1999–2000.
  521W

  Winter Fuel Allowance
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what action he is taking to ensure all pensioners receive their Winter Fuel Allowance before the end of this winter. [136132]

  Angela Eagle
  In order to make appropriate Winter Fuel Payments to those newly eligible as a result of the changes made to the scheme following the Taylor ruling, we asked that a claims process be developed as a matter of urgency. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced details of the claims process on 11 April. In parallel an information campaign—which includes national and regional press advertisements, a telephone helpline, leaflets, posters and the internet—aims to make existing and potential customers aware of the changes and what action, if any, is required.

  In May this year we also wrote to around 1.2 million people, identified by the Department as being newly eligible for the payments, inviting them to claim.

  The information campaign will continue to ensure that customers are kept fully informed.

  On current plans, all payments should be made before the end of this winter—the end of March 2001. However, the timing of payments made to those who have to claim will depend upon when the claims are received.

  For this winter—all automatic payments will be made before Christmas as will those in respect of claims that were returned before 22 September. Claims will still be processed if they are received after 22 September but payment before Christmas cannot be guaranteed. Claims for this winter's payments must be made—where necessary—before 31 March 2001.

  For past winters, people must make a claim for each winter for which they think they may now be eligible. As at 6 November, over one million people had chosen to make a claim for payments in respect of previous winters and nearly one million payments have already been issued to people whose claim was successful. Because claims in respect of past winters are not subject to a time limit, and we continue to receive them daily, it is not possible to state categorically that all will be made by the end of March 2001. It all depends on when people choose to make their claim.

  Mr. Forth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what percentage of men aged over 60 years will receive their winter fuel payments by March 2001. [136142]

  Angela Eagle
  For this winter, all automatic payments will be made before Christmas, as will those in respect of claims returned before 22 September 2000. Claims will still be processed if they are received after this date but payment before Christmas cannot be guaranteed. Claims for this winter's payments should be made before 31 March 2001. Because people who need to claim their payment this winter can do so up to the end of March 2001, it is not possible to estimate the percentage as requested.

  For past winters, people must claim Winter Fuel Payments for each winter for which they think they may now be eligible. As at 6 November, the number of newly eligible men who have chosen to make a claim stands at around 950,000 and around 930,000 payments have
  522W
  already been issued in respect of successful claims. Because claims for past winters are not subject to any time limit, and we continue to receive them daily, it is not possible to estimate the percentage as requested.

  Pensioners
  Mr. Blizzard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to increase the income of pensioners who have modest second pensions. [136133]

  Mr. Rooker
  The Pension Credit will increase the incomes of those with modest second pensions, by ensuring that these savings are rewarded.

  We published our proposals for the Pension Credit last week.

  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on poverty among pensioners living in rural areas. [136136]

  Mr. Rooker
  We know that many pensioners, including those living in rural areas, experience poverty. That is why we have a broad strategy, which includes raising the minimum income guarantee to £92.15 from next April, and an above earnings increase in the basic State pension.

  Mr. Baldry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what percentage of those of pensionable age receive no pension other than their State Retirement Pension. [136141]

  Mr. Rooker
  Just over 60 per cent. of pensioner families receive an occupational or other private pension on top of their State Pension. The remaining 40 per cent. do not, but many of them receive other income instead. in 1998–99, single pensioners in this group had an average net income of £117 a week although the basic State Pension was only £64.70; the figures for couples are £206 and £103.40 respectively. The State Earnings Related Pension Scheme (SERPS) plays a role in increasing State Retirement Pension above the basic State Pension.

  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what assessment he has made of the impact on the standard of living of pensioners having awarded them an additional 75 pence per week. [136258]

  Mr. Rooker
  The increase in the basic State Retirement Pension in April 2000 was based on price inflation during the relevant period. The hon. Member will be aware that the living standard of the poorest pensioners was increased by raising the Minimum Income Guarantee by £3.45 for pensioners aged 60-75. However, pensioners will also receive a Winter Fuel Payment of £200 this year, which equates to just under £2 a week more than the previous year (when it was £100), and pensioners over age 75 will receive a free TV licence, which is worth a further £2 a week.

  In addition, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has just announced a further package of measures for pensioners which, when taken together with changes already in place, will mean that next year, pensioner households will, on average, be £11 a week better off compared with 1997, with the poorest being at least £15 better off in real terms.
  523W
  Mr. Viggers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what proportion of the amounts paid in benefits to pensioners are means tested. [136107]

  Mr. Rooker
  In 2000–01 an estimated 19 per cent. of benefits paid to pensioners were means tested. This compares with over 21 per cent. of benefits in 1996–97.

  Mr. Wilkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what recent representations he has received on pensioners' reactions to the Government's 75p per week pension increase. [136138]

  Mr. Rooker
  We have received numerous representations regarding pensions since the uprating statement in November 1999. These have come from pensioners, pensioner organisations, voluntary organisations and right hon. and hon. Members.

  The Government have listened to these representations.

  Savings
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on the extent to which the benefit system provides an incentive to those on low incomes to save. [136135]

  Mr. Bayley
  We have introduced a number of measures that demonstrate our commitment to rewarding those people who have worked hard and saved hard.

  These include the new State Second Pension, and stakeholder pensions will give many more people the opportunity to build a good second pension; increases in the capital limits for the Minimum Income Guarantee from next April—benefiting half a million pensioners by
  £5 a week, on average; and our proposals for the new Pension Credit, from 2003, will specifically reward saving with a cash addition—benefiting 51/2 million pensioners.

  Benefits Administration
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what changes he proposes to make to the administration method in housing and council tax benefit cases. [136139]

  Angela Eagle
  We have already introduced measures to bring about improvements in housing benefit administration. Since April, all local authorities have had to set challenging targets to secure year on year improvements in performance standards for housing benefit delivery. Our Housing Green Paper, published in April 2000, set out a range of further proposals for modernising the system. We are currently studying the responses and will announce our decisions shortly.

  Pensions (Self-employed)
  Ms Keeble
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to provide pension schemes for self-employed people. [136143]

  Mr. Rooker
  Self-employed people can currently contribute to a personal pension. From April 2001 they will be able to contribute to a stakeholder pension scheme, which will provide a flexible and low cost pension option for them.

  Pensioners (Rotherham)
  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many pensioners in Rotherham are eligible for(a) the winter fuel allowance, (b) a free television licence for over-75-year-olds and (c) the minimum income guarantee; and if he will make a statement. [136145]

  Mr. Rooker
  The information is not available in the format requested. Such information as is available is in the table.

  Statistics on pensioners in Rotherham at May 2000

  Thousand

  Number

  Minimum Income Guarantee recipients1

  2.8

  Pensioners over 752,3

  5.2

  Winter Fuel Payments recipients in

  winter 1999–20004

  13.4

  1 Source: Income Support Statistics Quarterly Enquiry, May 2000

  2 Source: Statistical samples held by ASD Information Centre —May 2000

  3 Number of pensioner households who will receive free TV licences is not directly known, but from the Statistical Samples it is possible to produce data on the number of pensioners receiving one or a combination of RP, IS, AA, DLA, IB or SDA by parliamentary constituency and are aged 75 or over.

  4 Source: Matching Intelligence Data Analysis Service Winter Fuels Payment 1999–2000 exercise.

  Notes:

  1. All except Winter Fuels Payment data are based on 5 per cent. samples, therefore subject to sampling error.

  2. Figures have been rounded to the nearest 100.

  3. Cases are allocated to each parliamentary constituency by matching the postcode against the 2000 version 1 of the Postcode Directory supplied by ONS.

  Volunteers
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will mark next year's International Year of Volunteers by spending a day working as a volunteer. [137437]

  Mr. Darling
  The Department supports the aims of the International Year of Volunteers and is currently working jointly with other Government Departments on ways in which employee volunteering can be implemented.

  I can confirm that it is my intention to volunteer during 2001.

  Pensions Expenditure
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will estimate the percentage of national income accounted for by expenditure on National Insurance retirement pensions in each year from 1996–97 to 2001–02, taking account of the measures contained in Cm 4917; and if he will provide those estimates to two decimal places. [138231]

  Mr. Rooker
  The information is in the table which, for completeness, also shows expenditure on other benefits paid to pensioners. All figures are rounded to two decimal places; for this reason they may not appear to sum to the total, which is also correct to two decimal places.
  525W

  Expenditure as a percentage of GDP1

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  (a) Retirement Pensions2

  4.17

  4.11

  4.14

  4.17

  4.10

  4.24

  (b) Winter Fuel Payments

  0.00

  0.02

  0.02

  0.10

  0.18

  0.13

  (c) Means-tested benefits for pensioners3

  1.13

  1.06

  1.00

  1.00

  1.00

  1.05

  (d) Other benefits paid to pensioners4

  0.02

  0.02

  0.02

  0.02

  0.02

  0.02

  (e) Concessionary TV Licences

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  0.04

  0.04

  Total

  5.32

  5.21

  5.18

  5.28

  5.33

  5.47

  1 The information is based on expenditure figures consistent with the Pre-Budget Report, and is compared with the latest GDP figures published by National Statistics on 27 September 2000

  2 Includes Retirement Pension basic and earnings-related components

  3 Includes Income Support/Minimum Income Guarantee, Social Fund payments, Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit paid to people aged 60 and over

  4 Includes non-contributory Retirement Pension and Christmas Bonus (contributory and non-contributory)

  Income-related Benefits
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he expects to publish his Department' s next estimate of the take-up of income-related benefits. [136549]

  Mr. Bayley
  The next annual statistics on the take-up of income related benefits will be published on 8 December 2000. These will cover the financial year 1998–99, the latest period for which data are available. They will therefore predate the introduction of the Minimum Income Guarantee and Working Families Tax Credit.

  Benefit Payment Methods
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will estimate the total savings from paying benefits and pensions directly into bank accounts instead of by cash payments at post offices. [136709]

  Mr. Rooker
  The move to automated credit transfer as the normal method of payment will provide a more modern, secure and efficient payment method and will bring significant savings anticipated to be in the region of £600 million per year. The move will begin in 2003, but full savings will not be realised until the system is phased in, when the transition from current paper-based methods of payment is complete.

  Disability Living Allowance
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many recipients there are of the(a) mobility component and (b) care component of Disability Living Allowance, broken down by levels of benefit, at the most recent date for which figures are available, and in each of the three preceding years. [138220]

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

  Recipients of Disability Living Allowance by component

  Component

  19971

  19981

  19991

  20001

  Care component

  Higher rate

  359,400

  381,900

  391,900

  414,500

  Middle rate

  530,100

  564,500

  590,200

  621,600

  Lower rate

  390,600

  439,500

  477,200

  506,600

  526W

  Recipients of Disability Living Allowance by component

  Component

  19971

  19981

  19991

  20001

  Mobility component

  Higher rate

  1,293,300

  1,336,400

  1,352,300

  1,375,100

  Lower rate

  365,000

  407,200

  437,700

  468,400

  1 Figures relate to the number of recipients at 31 May each year

  Source:

  DSS Information Centre: 5 per cent. data

  Benefit Fraud Inspectorate
  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans his Department has to change the number of staff working at the Benefit Fraud Inspectorate. [135259]

  Angela Eagle
  The Benefit Fraud Inspectorate (BFI) has streamlined corporate support activities in line with the Department's drive to centralise support functions and focus resources on achieving results. Following these changes, there will be 112 staff working at the BFI, who will complete the programme of inspection activity as planned.

  Mileage Allowance (Medical Examinations)
  Mr. Donald Anderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he expects to complete the review of the decision to reduce the mileage allowance for attending medical examinations. [135939]

  Mr. Bayley
  The review of mileage allowances is not yet complete. Recommendations to Ministers on this subject will need to take account of the implications of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister's announcement of the intention to create a new Working Age Agency, combining the Benefits Agency's responsibilities for working age people with the Employment Service.

  National Insurance
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will estimate the impact on the level of the National Insurance Fund and on the rates of contributions in each year from 2001–02 to 2005–06 inclusive, of increasing the Basic Pension in each year by the percentage increase in the general level of earnings. [136051]

  Mr. Rooker
  This information is contained in the "Report by the Government Actuary on the Cost of Uprating the Basic Retirement Pension in line with the General Level of Earnings" Cm4920, which was laid
  527W
  before Parliament on 9 November 2000. Copies of the Report have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses and the Report is available on the Internet at WWW.gad.vov.uk/publication.html.

  Respite Care (Allowances)
  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the basis for payment of allowances by his Department to a person receiving respite in(a) a private and (b) a local authority residential home. [136793]

  Mr. Bayley
  Entitlement to the income-related benefits for people in care homes depends on whether the person is admitted to a private or local authority home. The difference reflects the funding responsibilities between central and local government for the different types of home. Entitlement may also reflect any need for continuing payment of housing costs in respect of the person's own home during the period of respite care.

  Where respite care is publicly funded, Attendance Allowance and the care component of Disability Living Allowance are not payable, to avoid duplication of provision, but no adjustment is generally made for the first 28 days. Where people pay for their own care these benefits are paid as normal.

  Most other benefits are not affected by admission to care homes; though a person may have to pay the home for their respite care if privately arranged, or the local authority if that authority has arranged and funded the care.

  Housing Benefit
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what action he is taking to equalise the arrangements for paying Housing Benefit to council tenants with those for other tenants. [136812]

  Angela Eagle
  Council tenants are paid by rent rebate. This means their Housing Benefit is credited against their rent account held by the council. Those in the private sector are paid by rent allowance. Payment is made by various means, either to the tenant or, in prescribed circumstances, direct to the landlord. The question of how Housing Benefit is paid was visited in the Housing Green Paper. We are currently studying the consultation responses carefully and will take decisions on how to proceed in the light of them. We expect to announce our decisions in due course.

  Jobseeker's Allowance
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people aged 25 years and over had been receiving the Jobseeker's Allowance for more than two years in September 1997; and how many people aged 25 years and over have been receiving the jobseeker's allowance for more than two years currently. [137092]

  Angela Eagle
  The information is not available in the format requested. Such information as is available is in the table.
  528W

  Jobseeker's allowance claimants aged 25 and over where claim is two years or more, August 1997 and May 2000

  Year

  Number of claimants (thousand)

  August 1997

  265.0

  May 2000

  145.7

  Notes:

  1. It is not possible to provide figures for September 1997, I have therefore provided for the nearest point in time which is August 1997.

  2. Figures have been rounded to the nearest hundred and quoted in thousands.

  3. Figures based on claimants aged 25 years and over.

  4. Figures based on duration of two years and over.

  5. Based on 5 per cent. sample, therefore subject to sampling error.

  6. Figures include all JSA cases who receive contribution-based and income-based benefit.

  7. Claimants signing for National Insurance credits only are not included.

  Source:

  Jobseeker's Allowance Statistics Quarterly Enquiry, August 1997 and May 2000

  Government Actuary Report
  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his answer of 30 October 2000,Official Report, column 254W, when he asked the Government Actuary to undertake a report into the basic state pension and different methods of uprating. [137301]

  Mr. Rooker
  Section 36 of the Child Support, Pensions and Social Security Act 2000 requires the Government Actuary, or the Deputy Government Actuary, to report to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on the cost of uprating the basic Retirement Pension in line with the general level of earnings. The Act received Royal Assent on 28 July 2000.

  Anglo-Australian Social Security Agreement
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) how the Government intends to respond to the termination of the Anglo-Australian Social Security Agreement; [137611]

  (2) what estimate he has made of the effect on social security expenditure of the termination of the Anglo-Australian Social Security Agreement; [137612]

  (3) how many people living in (a) Australia, (b) Britain and (c) elsewhere will be affected by the termination of the Anglo-Australian Social Security Agreement. [137614]

  Mr. Rooker
  People who are already receiving benefit with the help of the agreement when it terminates will not be affected. We are actively considering the full implications of Australia's decision and in particular what we can do to protect the position of those residing in the UK who have previously lived in Australia but not yet retired.

  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) how many people living in Australia are earning credits towards British contributory benefits; [137613]

  (2) how many people retired in each of the past five years with part of their pension coming from credits earned while in Australia; and what was the average amount of pension earned by these credits. [137610]
  529W
  Mr. Rooker
  People cannot earn credits while they are resident in Australia. Under the terms of the Social Security Agreement with Australia, when someone who is permanently resident in the United Kingdom claims Retirement Pension, previous residence in Australia can be treated as periods during which Class 3 contributions have been paid.

  We estimate that an average of about 1,000 pensioners have benefited from these provisions each year during the last five years. The estimated average basic pension enhancement under the Agreement was around £15 a week over this period.

  Source:

  Pensions Strategy Computer System

  Earnings Link
  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) of 2 November 2000,Official Report, column 575W, for how many years the National Insurance Fund will remain in surplus over and above the recommended surplus if the basic state pension was uprated in line with average earnings, contribution rates remained unchanged and contribution thresholds were uprated in line with the average earnings. [138046]

  Mr. Rooker
  The information is contained in Tables 4.2 and 5.2 of the "Report by the Government Actuary on the Cost of Uprating the Basic Retirement Pension in line with the General Level of Earnings" Cm 4920, which was laid before Parliament on 9 November 2000. Copies of the Report have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses and the Report is available on the internet at www.gad.gov.uk/publication/publication.html.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Hi-tech Crime
  Mr. Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement about the resources available to the police in England and Wales to tackle hi-tech crime. [138264]

  Mr. Straw
  The Government are committed to action against hi-tech crime in line with our twin objectives of making the United Kingdom the best and the safest place in the world to conduct and engage in e-commerce.

  I am therefore making £25 million available to the police in England and Wales over the next three years to initiate the implementation of a National Hi-Tech Crime Strategy to enhance the capability of law enforcement more effectively to investigate crime where new technology is used.

  The funding being made available will give impetus to the process of developing the skills within the police to undertake computer network investigations and forensic examination of computer systems. These are skills that are becoming necessary as criminals identify opportunities to use and misuse information and communications
  530W
  technology. It is important to ensure that the police have the proper skills and equipment to support them in this new activity.

  With those skills the police will, at the local level, be able to deliver improved service to the public to investigate reports of computer-related crime and to recover and analyse computer based evidence. The crimes concerned cover a wide spectrum from hacking and financial fraud to obscenity and the unlawful activities of paedophiles. The work of local units will be complemented by a multi-agency National Hi-Tech Crime Unit that will begin operation in April 2001. The national unit will provide advice and support to local units, and to other law enforcement agencies across the United Kingdom, and deal with the most serious and organised hi-tech crime offences, including those which have a transnational impact.

  The Government's commitment to support the development of the capability of law enforcement was made by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, when he endorsed the Cabinet Office Performance and Innovation Unit report, "e-commerce@its.best.uk", last summer. That report recommended that the Government improve the technical capability of law enforcement to investigate internet crime and establish an Internet Crime Unit.

  On 11 September the Prime Minister published the UKOnline Annual Report. The establishment of a National Hi-Tech Crime Unit was identified as a specific action, part of the Government's commitment to work with industry to ensure a safe and secure environment for e-commerce and to help people trust the internet.

  I am pleased that with the support of the Association of Chief Police Officers, the National Criminal Intelligence Service and the National Crime Squad, we are able to make progress towards ensuring that the police both locally and nationally are better trained and equipped to deal with hi-tech crime.

  Volunteers
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will mark next year's International Year of Volunteers by spending a day working as a volunteer. [137430]

  Mr. Straw
  The Government fully support the aims of the International Year of Volunteers. The Home Office is contributing £300,000 towards the costs of the International Year of Volunteers English Consortium to cover salaries and other core costs. We would also like to see all employers give their employees a day's paid time off to work in the community. The Home Office has a policy of allowing staff special leave each year to do voluntary work. I intend to spend a day volunteering during 2001.

  Anti-social Behaviour Orders
  Mr. Edward Davey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what the average cost is of issuing anti-social behaviour orders; [137599]
  531W
  (2) how many anti-social behaviour orders have been issued since April 1999 in (a) England and Wales, (b) the Greater London area and (c) the Royal borough of Kingston. [137598]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Over 100 anti-social behaviour orders have been issued since the measure was implemented on 1 April 1999. At least 30 of these have been made in the Greater London area, but, as far as I am aware, none has been made in the Royal borough of Kingston.

  I cannot yet say what the average cost of issuing an order is. We will be undertaking a review into the operation and effectiveness of anti-social behaviour orders in the New Year. Once the results of the review have been published, we should have a clearer picture of the cost of seeking an order.

  Mr. Fallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department for what reasons registered social landlords do not have the power to apply direct to the courts for anti-social behaviour orders; and if he will assess the benefits of giving such a power to those registered social landlords who have acquired the housing stock of a local authority. [137059]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The Crime and Disorder Act 1998 recognised the key responsibility of the police and the local authority for tackling problems of crime and disorder on a local basis. The Act created the anti-social behaviour order as a powerful community-based measure to assist the police and local authorities in carrying out that responsibility and gave them the power to apply for such orders. The guidance we issued in June emphasises that registered social landlords should play a full and active part in any anti-social behaviour order case involving their tenants.

  We have given a commitment to review the operation of anti-social behaviour orders within two years of implementation. The review will start in the new year and its findings and recommendations will be published. The review will cover the current procedures and channels for making an application. The review will specifically consider giving registered social landlords the power to apply for anti-social behaviour orders.

  Stasi Agents
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will provide an occupational breakdown of the British Stasi agents investigated since 1989; [137495]

  (2) if the activities of the former Stasi spy controller in the United Kingdom, publicly identified in October, (a) have been, (b) are being or (c) will be investigated; [137494]

  (3) if he will investigate the circumstances of the payment by the Stasi of sums to British Stasi agents between 1985 and 1989 in relation to discoveries made in October on which information has been supplied to him; and if those agents' identities have been discovered; [137493]
  532W
  (4) what assessment he has made of the risks to the safety of defecting former FSB officers if they are returned to Russia. [137490]

  Mr. Straw
  I can add nothing to the reply that I gave the hon. Member about the East German Stasi on 2 November 2000,Official Report, column 610W, and 9 November 2000, Official Report, column 398W.

  Human Rights Act 1998
  Mrs. Ann Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the implementation of the Human Rights Act 1998. [137620]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The Human Rights Act 1998 received Royal Assent on 9 November 1998 and came into full effect on 2 October 2000. During that interval Whitehall Departments reviewed legislation, policy and procedures in the light of the Act's provisions and a range of training and awareness raising initiatives were undertaken for the judiciary and public authorities. The Human Rights Task Force played an important part in helping public authorities prepare for the Human Rights Act, issuing guidance and publicity materials and raising awareness of the Act among the general public. Financial provision has been made for dealing with challenges based on the Convention rights, especially in the initial period of operation.

  Private Prisons
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many certified prison custody officers are employed in each private prison in England and Wales. [137846]

  Mr. Boateng
  The number of prisoner custody officers at each privately managed prison is:

  Privately managed prison

  Number

  Wolds

  139

  Blakenhurst

  231

  Doncaster

  249

  Parc

  256

  Altcourse

  292

  Lowdham Grange

  117

  Ashfield

  134

  Forest Bank

  215

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the cost was of the contracts and competitions group within the Prison Service in each of the last three years. [137845]

  Mr. Boateng
  The costs requested are:

  Year

  £

  1997–98

  939,134

  1998–99

  1,122,844

  1999–2000

  1,379,395

  533W
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will publish the Wilson report on the comparative costs of state and private prisons; and if he will make a statement. [137848]

  Mr. Boateng
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary gave my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster, Central (Ms Winterton) on 25 June 1998,Official Report, column 587W. The Wilson report is one of the two reviews referred to in that reply.

  Jackie Ballard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the average cost is of a prison place in each contracted out prison. [137804]

  Mr. Boateng
  The cost of a prison place in each contracted out prison is:

  Prison

  £

  Wolds

  26,224

  Blakenhurst

  22,622

  Doncaster

  25,335

  Pare

  39,546

  Altcourse

  57,908

  Lowdham Grange

  30,160

  Ashfield

  39,120

  Forest Bank

  28,886

  The figures represent costs at the end of September 2000 annualised over 2000–01. The average cost per place for the eight prisons is £33,725. The costs for Private Finance Initiative prisons include an element for the repayment of the capital financing charge.

  Jackie Ballard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what sum Premier Prison Services has repaid to the Prison Service as a result of the refinancing of PFI schemes for HM Prisons(a) Lowdham Grange, (b) Ashfield, (c) Dovegate and (d) Hassockfield Secure Training Centre. [137798]

  Mr. Boateng
  Premier Prison Services Ltd. (PPS) has not refinanced its Private Finance Initiative (PFI) schemes. In late 1999 the holding companies of relevant PFI projects and their parent companies were restructured. This mechanical change did not alter the charges paid by the Prison Service or its lender liabilities in respect of Lowdham Grange, Ashfield or Dovegate prisons. The same applies to the Hassockfield Secure Training Centre which is a Home Office project.

  Jackie Ballard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much it has cost on average to build a prison place in each of the contracted out prisons. [137803]

  Mr. Boateng
  The capital cost for each Private Finance Initiative (PFI) prison place is:

  £

  Parc

  53,750

  Altcourse

  105,000

  Lowdham Grange

  56,000

  Ashfield

  75,000

  Forest Bank

  62,500

  Rye Hill

  66,667

  Dovegate

  86,250

  534W
  The average capital cost per place for the seven PH prisons is £72,167.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many accredited offender programmes are running in each private prison in England and Wales. [137847]

  Mr. Boateng
  Blakenhurst, Doncaster and Forest Bank prisons each run one accredited cognitive behavioural programme—the Enhanced Thinking Skills programme. Wolds prison runs two accredited programmes: the CALM (Controlling Anger and Learning to Manage It) programme and the Reasoning and Rehabilitation programme. Parc prison is due to introduce Reasoning and Rehabilitation later this financial year.

  Rye Hill prison is due to introduce Reasoning and Rehabilitation later this financial year, and the Sex Offender Treatment Programme within the next financial year. Dovegate prison is due to introduce the Sex Offender Treatment Programme within the next financial year. Altcourse and Ashfield prisons do not run any accredited programmes at present.

  Reoffenders
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the reoffending rates are within two years of completion of(a) one year probation orders without any conditions, (b) one year probation orders with conditions and (c) the pathfinder initiatives. [137849]

  Mr. Boateng
  Information on reoffending rates is not available.

  However, the percentage of offenders who were reconvicted within two years of completing a one year probation order with no additional requirements which was made during the first quarter of 1996 was 54 per cent. The analogous rate for those on a one year probation order with additional requirements was 58 per cent.

  There are no reconviction or reoffending rates available for the pathfinder initiatives, since they have not been running long enough to provide the necessary data. Arrangements are in place for the evaluation of the programmes, which will include the production of reconviction rates.

  Firearms
  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many offences involving firearms were recorded by(a) each police force in England and Wales and (b) in total in the year ending 31 March. [137739]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The requested data are not yet available.

  The Verne Prison
  Jackie Ballard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what funding his Department provides for the evaluation of the Kainos programme at Her Majesty's Prison The Verne. [137717]
  535W
  Mr. Boateng
  None. The independent evaluation of the work of the Kainos programme in prisons is funded by the Kainos Community, and is guided by a steering group which includes representation from the Home Office Research and Statistics Directorate, the Prison Service and the Kainos Community.

  Home Detention Curfew Scheme
  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list, for the period between the commencement of the Home Detention Curfew scheme on 28 January 1999 and 30 September 2000, inclusive, (a) the total number of prisoners released on the scheme, (b) the number of prisoners convicted of each specific offence who were released on the scheme, with as detailed a breakdown as possible of the offences committed, including the specific offences committed by prisoners normally classified under the categories (i) other homicide and attempted homicide, (ii) other violence against the person, (iii) drug offences, (iv) assaults, and (v) other offences, including a breakdown of the prisoners normally classified in the sub-category of other offences called other offences, (c) the average sentence (1) received and (2) served, and the average period spent on the scheme, in respect of each specific offence, (d) the number of prisoners released on the scheme, with as detailed a breakdown as possible of the offences committed, who (A) breached the conditions of the curfew, (B) disappeared and were recaptured, (C) disappeared and remain unlawfully at large, and (D) had their licences revoked, and for what reasons, (e) as detailed a breakdown as possible of the specific offences committed by prisoners released on the scheme while on the scheme including all offences committed by prisoners who committed more than one offence and (f) as detailed a breakdown as possible of the specific offences committed by prisoners released on the scheme who committed a further offence while on the scheme that was similar in character to that for which they were originally convicted, including all offences committed by prisoners who committed more than one offence; and if he will make a statement. [134862]

  Mr. Boateng
  [holding answer 26 October 2000]: The information provided in my reply is for the period up to 30 September 2000. As of that date, a total of 26,609 prisoners had been placed on Home Detention Curfew since the scheme commenced on 28 January 1999.

  The original offences committed by prisoners released under the scheme during the period, the number of prisoners convicted of each specific offence, the average sentence received and served for those offences, and the average period spent on the scheme in respect of prisoners convicted of each specific offence, are shown in Table 1. The data are taken from the Prison Service's inmate information system, based on the data recorded by each prison. The table provides as detailed a breakdown as is possible from central records.

  As at 30 September, a total of 854 prisoners placed on the scheme had breached the conditions of their curfew. A breakdown of this number showing the original offences committed by those curfewees is shown in Table 2.
  536W
  Information on curfewees whose licences are revoked and who disappear before being recaptured is not held centrally. However, information is held on the number of curfewees unlawfully at large at any one time. On 30 September there were 44 curfewees who remained unlawfully at large. This represents fewer than 4 per cent. of the total number of revocations.

  Details of the offences committed by those 44 curfewees who remained unlawfully at large on 30 September 2000 can be found in Table 3.

  As at 30 September 2000, 1,294 curfewees had their licences revoked, using the powers available to the Secretary of State under sections 38A(1) and 39 of the Criminal Justice Act 1991. The reasons for revocation were as follows:
  breach of the curfew (section 38A(1)(a) of the Criminal Justice Act 1991)
  the curfewee's whereabouts could no longer be electronically monitored (section 38A(1)(b) of the Criminal Justice Act 1991)
  it was necessary to protect the public from serious harm (section 38A(1)(c) of the Criminal Justice Act 1991)
  the curfewee had committed an offence or breached any other requirement of probation supervision (section 39 of the Criminal Justice Act 1991). Curfewees who are charged with a new offence may also be recalled on any of the preceding grounds depending upon the circumstances of the case.

  Prisoners whose current sentence is in respect of an offence committed before 1 January 1999 are not liable to be recalled under section 39 of the Act. In such cases, where the curfewee has breached the requirements of probation supervision or where they have committed a further offence and it has not been possible to revoke their licence under section 38A of the Act, the breach may be referred to the courts under section 38(1) of the Act. The total number of such cases referred to the courts is not held centrally.

  A breakdown of the original offences committed by the 1,294 recalled curfewees, together with a breakdown of the reasons for their recall, is at Table 4.

  Table 5 gives a breakdown of the cases where a prisoner placed on Home Detention Curfew is known to have been convicted, cautioned in respect of an offence committed while on Home Detention Curfew, or where a prisoner is known to be pending prosecution for such an offence. Where a curfewee has been charged with more than one offence, these have been shown separately.

  Table 6 gives a breakdown of cases involving prisoners placed on the scheme who are known to have been convicted, cautioned or have a prosecution pending in respect of an offence committed while on Home Detention Curfew which is similar in character to the index offence or offences for which they were originally convicted.

  The scheme is designed to ensure a better transition for short term offenders between custody and the community. Prisoners are placed on Home Detention Curfew only after a careful risk assessment, and the safety of the public is paramount at all times.
  537W
  Tables 1-6 have been placed in the Library.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many individuals convicted of offences of domestic violence have been released under the Home Detention Curfew Scheme. [137813]

  Mr. Boateng
  Domestic violence is not a separate category of index offence. It would not be possible to provide this number, except at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if individuals who have received custodial sentences for offences of domestic violence are eligible for release under the home detention curfew scheme. [137877]

  Mr. Boateng
  Domestic violence is not one of the statutory exclusions from eligibility from the Home Detention Curfew scheme. Providing a prisoner meets the general criteria for eligibility—that they have reached the age of 18 and are serving a sentence over three months but less than four years—they are eligible for consideration for the scheme.

  All prisoners considered for the scheme are assessed specifically in relation to the potential risk, to the victim or to other members of the public, posed by their release. Prisoners who present a clear and immediate threat to either the victim or the public will not be released on the scheme.

  Corporate Killing
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many responses to the consultation on involuntary manslaughter were received from(a) hon. Members, (b) trade unions, (c) employers organisations and (d) members of the public; in each case, how many (i) broadly supported and (ii) broadly opposed the creation of a new offence of corporate killing; and if he will make a statement. [136937]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  We received 166 responses to the consultation paper we published in May this year. Of these, 11 were from hon. Members, five from employers associations, three from trade unions and 27 from members of the public. The remainder were contributions from individual undertakings, pressure groups, other representative bodies, lawyers and other Government Departments.

  Of these, five hon. Members broadly supported the creation of an offence of corporate killing. The other six confined their comments to the reform of the individual offence. Four of the employers associations indicated their broad support; one was opposed to the creation of a new offence. All trade unions that responded were in support of an offence of corporate killing. Of the members of the public who contributed to the consultation, all who commented on corporate killing were in broad support of the proposals.

  We are now carefully considering all responses and will publish a digest of them in due course.

  Crime Statistics
  Mr. Levitt
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what his most recent estimate is of the level 538W
  of crime per 1,000 of population in (a) rural and (b) urban areas; and which category of crime is commonest in (i) rural and (ii) urban areas. [136832]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Estimates of the number of crimes per 1,000 population in rural and urban areas can be derived from the 2000 British Crime Survey (BCS). The 2000 BCS interviewed a core random sample of 19,411 adults (those aged 16 and over) living in private households in England and Wales about their experience of crime during 1999.

  There is no commonly agreed definition of rural areas. The definition of rural areas used in the BCS is based on those parts of England and Wales falling within A Classification of Residential Neighbourhoods (ACORN) categories 1 to 9, and 27. These categories were developed by CACI Ltd. and classify areas according to the demographic, employment and housing characteristics. They account for an estimated 24 per cent. of the adult population in 1999. Estimated crime rates per 1,000 population are given in table 1. BCS data have been used in this answer, rather than recorded crime data, owing to the better division of rural and urban areas in the BCS.

  Table 1: Estimated number of crimes per 1,000 population1 in England and Wales in 1999

  Number

  Non-rural

  390

  Rural

  235

  All

  350

  1Based on results from the 2000 British Crime Survey. Estimates of adults per household, based on figures supplied by CACI Ltd., have been used in forming these estimates. In both urban and rural areas the estimated average number of adults per household is two in rural areas and 1.9 in non-rural areas.

  Full details of the offences covered by the British Crime Survey are given in Home Office Statistical Bulletin 18/00, which has been deposited in the Library.

  Vandalism and vehicle-related thefts are the most common types of offences against households in both rural and urban areas, according to the BCS. The most common type of crime against the person is common assault, again in both areas. These are assaults in which there is either no injury or at most minimal injury.

  The incident rates for these crimes are shown in table 2. For household crimes, rates are quoted per 1,000 households.

  Table 2: Incident rates for most common crimes per 1.000 population or households1

  Non-rural

  Rural

  All

  Personal crimes

  Incident rates per 1,000 households

  Common assault

  58

  35

  53

  Household crimes

  Incident rates per 1,000 households

  All motor vehicle-related thefts2

  143

  109

  135

  Vandalism3

  145

  84

  130

  1 I Based on results from the 2000 British Crime Survey.

  2 Include theft of or from motor vehicles, including attempts.

  3 Vandalism of motor vehicles is included within vandalism.

  Huntingdon Life Sciences
  Mr. Wyatt
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will review the licence of Huntingdon Life Sciences. [137071]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  I have no plans to do so.

  Police Station Closures
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many police stations have closed down in(a) England and (b) Wales in each of the last 10 years in areas defined as rural and areas defined as urban. [136720]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  [holding answer 6 November 2000]: Estimates by police forces of the number of police stations opened or closed in England and Wales between 31 March 1990 and 31 March 2000 are set out in the table. Overall, it is estimated that 309 new stations have been opened and 939 closed.

  Year end

  Opened

  Closed

  Number change

  Total stations open

  March

  1990

  —

  —

  —

  2,729

  1991

  35

  -47

  -12

  2,717

  1992

  14

  -49

  -35

  2,682

  1993

  29

  -124

  -95

  2,587

  1994

  32

  -145

  -113

  2,474

  1995

  30

  -120

  -90

  2,384

  1996

  31

  -68

  -37

  2,347

  1997

  42

  -95

  -53

  2,294

  1998

  33

  -96

  -63

  2,231

  1999

  44

  -90

  -46

  2,185

  2000

  19

  -105

  -86

  2,099

  Total changes

  309

  -939

  -630

  —

  A table of figures by force area has been placed in the Library. (There is no formal definition of "rural" or "urban" forces).

  The force-by-force analysis suggests significant variations in force policy in relation to police stations. The figures reflect the changing pattern of policing as Chief Constables and Police Authorities have responded to changing patterns of demand for services and have sought improved efficiency and effectiveness in service delivery.

  Many police premises which have been closed or replaced will have deteriorated or have been inadequate for the demands of modern policing. Many will have become little used by the public. The Audit Commission report, "Action Stations—Improving the Management of the Police Estate" (1999) makes a strong case for further rationalisation of the police estate.

  I do, however, understand the concern of those who live in areas which have lost a permanent policing presence. Accordingly, I am discussing, with the Association of Chief Police Officers and the Association of Police Authorities, how each police authority might better inform the public about the steps it is taking to maintain and improve police visibility and effectiveness in all parts of England and Wales.

  CCTV
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what research the Government have undertaken into the effect of CCTV in towns on crime levels in neighbouring rural areas. [136679]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  [holding answer 6 November 2000]: Police operational experience and various research studies show that Closed Circuit Television (CCTV) has significant crime reduction and detection potential, particularly when used as part of a wider strategy. As with any crime reduction measure, there is a possibility of some displacement, but this is by no means inevitable. Schemes funded under the Crime Reduction Programme CCTV Initiative will be evaluated to build up the knowledge base of what works best in what context. The evaluations will address the issue of displacement.

  The deadline for receipt of outline applications for funding under the second round of the £153 million CCTV Initiative has been brought forward to 22 December 2000. The application prospectus for the second round was issued in march 2000. It was amended from the first round to give increased emphasis to bids aimed at reducing crime and the fear of crime in rural areas and small community shopping centres where absolute crime levels may be lower, but fear of crime is having a significant adverse effect on local communities.

  A copy of the application prospectus is available on our website: www.crimereduction.gov.uk.

  Metropolitan Police
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what data he has collated for the Ealing division of the Metropolitan police of the number of ethnic minority officers and civilian staff in each of the past five years and the number of complaints and employment claims of unfair treatment made by ethnic minority staff. [137206]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The information requested has been provided by the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis and is shown in the table:

  1996

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  Police officers from ethnic minority groups

  59

  69

  67

  80

  80

  Civilian staff from ethnic minority groups

  50

  54

  60

  64

  63

  Grievances instigated by ethnic minority staff

  0

  11

  0

  0

  2

  Employment tribunals instigated by ethnic minority staff

  0

  0

  1

  0

  3

  1This grievance relates to a member of the civilian staff at Ealing who raised the issue of an incident that occurred in another division in the Metropolitan police

  Mr. Nick Tucker
  Mr. Woolas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects the Criminal Cases Review Commission to report on the case of Mr. Nick Tucker. [137040]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  I understand that an application for review of Nicholas Tucker's case was submitted to the Criminal Cases Review Commission in January 1999. The
  541W
  Commission has determined that the case will require an extensive review. Mr. Tucker's representatives have recently asked that his application should be given priority. The Commission will consider this request and let Mr. Tucker's representatives know the outcome. If the Commission found that there were no special factors that would justify giving it priority, Mr. Tucker's application would continue to await allocation to a caseworker, on the basis of date order of receipt, and the Commission would expect to begin the review by May 2001.

  Mr. Woolas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received regarding the case of Mr. Nick Tucker; and if he will make a statement. [137043]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  I have received various representations from Mr. Tucker's parents, from hon. Members, and from members of the public.

  Entry Clearance
  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many EU nationals were refused entry to the UK on grounds of(a) public policy, (b) public security and (c) public health during 1999. [137278]

  Mrs. Roche
  The available information relates to the total number of European Union nationals who were refused leave to enter in 1999. A total of 290 such persons were recorded in that year. There are no separate statistics for the individual categories requested.

  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many non-EEA family members who arrived in possession of entry clearance holding an EEA family permit were refused entry by the immigration officer at a British port of entry during 1999. [137277]

  Mrs. Roche
  I regret the information requested is not available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Former FSB Officers
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the requests for political asylum made by former FSB officers. [137489]

  Mr. Straw
  All asylum applications are fully and carefully considered on their individual merits, by specially trained officers in the Integrated Casework Directorate of the Home Office. Details of individual cases are not disclosed to third parties for reasons of confidentiality.

  Lieutenant-Colonel Litvinenko
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if former Lieutenant-Colonel Litvinenko(a) has been, (b) is being or (c) will be debriefed on security issues; [137492]
  542W
  (2) what guidance his Department has given to journalists in respect of the defection of former Lieutenant-Colonel Litvinenko. [137491]

  Mr. Straw
  It has been the long-standing policy of successive Governments not to comment on issues of national security. It is also an important principle that we do not ordinarily discuss an individual's immigration status. This has been explained to journalists by my Department's Press Office.

  Immigration and Nationality Directorate
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many cases are held in the Work in Progress Store of the Immigration and Nationality Department; and how many of these have been outstanding for(a) between six months and one year, (b) between one and two years and (c) more than two years. [136923]

  Mrs. Roche
  As at 3 November, there were 67,018 cases held in the Work in Progress Store. Of these, 6,022 have been outstanding for between six months and one year and 27,483 have been outstanding for between one and two years. The Work in Progress Store was set up at the end of 1998 and no cases have therefore been outstanding in the store for more than two years.

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Gapes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many and what proportion of asylum applicants since April have chosen to refuse the offer of accommodation in dispersal areas. [136791]

  Mrs. Roche
  The information requested is not available.

  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many asylum cases have been dispersed under the terms of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999; and how many of these were(a) single adults and (b) couples without children. [136922]

  Mrs. Roche
  As at the end of October 2000, 5,6001 asylum cases (not including dependants) were confirmed as having arrived in the accommodation allocated to them under the dispersal scheme. Of these, 4,6001 were single adult asylum seekers, and 3001 were adult asylum seekers with one dependant. Cases where there is only one dependant are not necessarily couples without children.
  1 Figures rounded to the nearest 100.

  Private Psychiatric Hospitals (Prisoners)
  Dr. Brand
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many convicted prisoners were transferred to private psychiatric hospitals in each of the last five years. [137289]
  543W
  Mr. Boateng
  The latest available information on the number of convicted prisoners transferred to private psychiatric hospitals under section 47 of the Mental Health Act 1983 between 1995 to 1999 is as follows:

  Number of convicted prisoners transferred to the care of private psychiatric hospitals, 1995 to 1999

  Transfers1 to private psychiatric hospitals

  Total number of transfers1

  Proportion transferred to private psychiatric hospitals (%)

  1995

  12

  254

  4.7

  1996

  23

  268

  8.6

  1997

  22

  251

  8.8

  1998

  15

  258

  5.8

  1999

  22

  276

  8.0

  1 Transfers from Prison Service Establishments under section 47 of the Mental Health Act 1983 including those subject to restrictions under section 49.

  Residence Permits
  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) passports and (b) identity documents purported to be issued by an EU member state presented by passengers on arrival in the UK were the subject of inquiries with the authorities of the member state to determine the document's genuineness, and whether issue to the holder was correct, during 1999. [137290]

  Mrs. Roche
  Statistics are not currently compiled for the number of inquiries made with other European Union/European Economic Area (EU/EEA) member states regarding documents issued by them. The Immigration Service National Forgery Section is the nominated United Kingdom contact point for EU/EEA travel document inquiries. Other Immigration Service offices, however, also make certain unilateral inquiries directly with EU member states via established bilateral liaison contacts. Reference is normally made to these authorities only in a restricted number of cases; for instance, when it cannot be determined that the document is a forgery, or to clarify whether or not a document is a stolen blank whose details have not already been circulated via the nominated national contact point. A new system of recording details of the mutual exchange of such information is currently being put in place.

  Comprehensive figures are, however, available for the number of cases of fraudulent passports and identity cards detected by the Immigration Service at United Kingdom ports of arrival during the course of 1999. There were 5,516 such detections, 3,018 of which were non-British EEA documents.

PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL

  Volunteers
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the President of the Council if she will mark next year's International Year of Volunteers by spending a day working as a volunteer. [137435]
  544W
  Mrs. Beckett
  I fully support the aims of the International Year of Volunteers. I intend to take part in a voluntary activity during 2001.

  The Privy Council Office fully supports the role that employers can play in the voluntary sector. A statement was made to all staff in June of this year confirming the Department's commitment to Volunteer Day and encouraging staff to become involved.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Criminal Injuries Compensation
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what was the average period of time taken to settle claims dealt with by the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority in each of the last three years. [135334]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  I have been asked to reply.

  There are no meaningful average times applicable to claims for criminal injuries compensation. Applications range from the very straightforward ones in which a decision may be issued within a few weeks, through to exceptionally complicated cases in which it may take a number of years for the injury to be fully assessed.

  The Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority has, however, been able to provide some information about the percentage of cases settled within various time frames under both the current (tariff) scheme and the former (common law damages) scheme. This is summarised in the table.

  Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme1

  1996 (Tariff) Scheme time period

  Number

  Percentage

  Cumulative (Percentage)

  1997–98

  Up to 2 months

  4,523

  6

  6

  Over 2, under 4 months

  9,933

  14

  21

  Over 4, under 6 months

  13,709

  20

  40

  Over 6, under 8 months

  15,844

  23

  63

  Over 8, under 10 months

  10,925

  16

  78

  Over 10, under 12 months

  7,021

  10

  88

  Over 12 months

  8,154

  12

  100

  Total

  70,109

  100

  1998–99

  Up to 2 months

  4,835

  6

  6

  Over 2, under 4 months

  11,983

  15

  21

  Over 4, under 6 months

  15,236

  19

  40

  Over 6, under 8 months

  16,013

  20

  60

  Over 8, under 10 months

  12,112

  15

  75

  Over 10, under 12 months

  7,157

  9

  84

  Over 12 months

  12,378

  16

  100

  Total

  79,714

  100

  1999–2000

  Up to 2 months

  6,812

  9

  9

  Over 2, under 4 months

  14,151

  20

  29

  Over 4, under 6 months

  16,040

  22

  52

  Over 6, under 8 months

  11,988

  17

  68

  Over 8, under 10 months

  7,416

  10

  79

  Over 10, under 12 months

  5,161

  7

  86

  Over 12 months

  10,171

  14

  100

  Total

  71,739

  100

  1 Time taken to process applications (from receipt to issue of decision)

  545W

  1990 (Old) Scheme Time to resolve hearings (appeals)

  Percentage

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  Up to 12 months

  21

  6

  4

  Over 12 months

  79

  94

  96

  Queen's Counsel
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (1) in each of the last 10 years, how many Queen's Counsel there were, broken down by(a) regional circuit and (b) field of practice; [137332]

  (2) in each of the last 10 years, how many Queen's Counsel there were in England and Wales; and how many were appointed each year; [137333]

  (3) in each of the last 10 years, how many Queen's Counsel were appointed by (a) regional circuit and (b) field of practice. [137334]

  Mr. Lock
  The information requested on the number of Queen's Counsel appointed is set out in the table:

  Year

  Total in silk

  Number appointed each year

  2000

  1,072

  78

  1999

  1,043

  69

  1998

  1,006

  60

  1997

  974

  68

  1996

  925

  66

  1995

  891

  71

  1994

  845

  77

  1993

  797

  70

  1992

  760

  69

  1991

  736

  73

  Information relating to the number of Queen's Counsel in practice was provided by the General Council of the Bar. They are unable to provide details regarding the Circuit or the field of practice of Queen's Counsel.

  The information regarding Queen's Counsel appointed in the last five years by a) circuit and b) field of practice is listed below. Information before 1996 is not available.

  Queen's Counsel appointed by circuit and field of practice

  1996

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  Circuits

  Midland and Oxford

  5

  1

  5

  5

  4

  North Eastern

  4

  4

  3

  4

  5

  Northern

  4

  8

  3

  10

  3

  Wales and Chester

  2

  —

  1

  4

  4

  Western

  3

  1

  —

  4

  4

  Practice types

  Administrative and Public Law

  —

  —

  3

  2

  6

  Banking and Financial Services

  1

  1

  2

  1

  Chancery

  5

  4

  6

  2

  4

  Commercial and Admiralty

  6

  10

  6

  6

  5

  Common Law

  11

  11

  9

  7

  6

  Criminal

  10

  8

  15

  12

  14

  Defamation

  —

  —

  1

  1

  —

  Employment and Industrial Relations

  —

  3

  1

  1

  5

  European and International Law

  —

  4

  1

  5

  Family

  4

  2

  1

  1

  3

  Human Rights

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Insolvency

  —

  —

  —

  1

  2

  Intellectual Property

  3

  3

  3

  —

  1

  Landlord and Tenant

  —

  2

  —

  —

  2

  546W

  Queen's Counsel appointed by circuit and field of practice

  1996

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  Licensing

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  Parliament Planning and Local Government

  2

  1

  —

  1

  4

  Pensions

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  Revenue

  3

  1

  1

  —

  2

  Technology and Construction

  2

  4

  1

  2

  3

  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department which specialist Bar(a) groups and (b) associations he consults over the appointment of Queen's Counsel. [137342]

  Mr. Lock
  My noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor consults the following Bar and solicitors' associations during the consultation process for the appointment of Queen's Counsel:

  Bar Associations

  Administrative Law Bar Association

  Chancery Bar Association

  Commercial Bar Association

  London Common Law and Commercial Bar Association

  Criminal Bar Association

  Employment Law Bar Association

  Family Law Bar Association

  Intellectual Property Bar Association

  Local Government and Planning and Environmental Law Bar Association

  Technology and Construction Bar Association

  Parliamentary Bar Mess

  Personal Injury Bar Association

  Professional Negligence Bar Association

  Revenue Bar Association

  Bar Race Relations Committee

  Bar Sex Discrimination Committee

  Specialist Solicitors Associations

  Law Society Equal Opportunities Committee

  Admiralty Solicitors Group

  Association of Personal Injury Lawyers

  Association of Pension Lawyers

  Commerce and Industry Group

  Criminal Law Solicitors Association

  Educational Law Association

  Employment Lawyers Association

  Housing Law Practitioners Association

  Insolvency Lawyers Association

  Intellectual Property Lawyers Association

  Legal Aid Practitioners Group

  London Maritime Arbitrators Association

  Local Government Group

  London Criminal Courts Solicitors Association

  London Solicitors Litigation Association

  Technology and Construction Solicitors Association

  Solicitors Association of High Court Advocates

  Solicitors European Group

  Solicitors Family Law Association.

  Barristers and Solicitors
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department in each of the last 10 years, how many(a) banisters qualified to practise in court and (b) solicitors there were. [137341]

  Mr. Lock
  My Department does not record the information requested but has obtained it from the Bar Council and the Law Society. The number of(a) banisters, who may practise in all courts, and (b) solicitors, who may practise in the lower courts, and (c) the number of solicitors with rights of audience in the higher courts, in each of the last 10 years, is as follows:

  (a)

  (b)

  (c)

  Barristers in independent practice

  Solicitors holding practising certificates

  Solicitors granted rights of audience in the higher courts each of the years specified

  1990

  6,645

  54,734

  —

  1991

  6,901

  57,167

  —

  1992

  7,271

  59,566

  —

  1993

  7,735

  61,239

  —

  1994

  8,093

  63,628

  231

  1995

  8,498

  66,123

  119

  1996

  8,935

  68,037

  77

  1997

  9,369

  71.637

  101

  1998

  9,698

  75,072

  202

  1999

  9,932

  79,503

  200

  Note:

  The figures for solicitors with higher rights of audience (column c) relate to the number granted rights in each year. The figures are not cumulative as in the preceding columns.

  Magistrates Courts Committees
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what funding his Department provides for magistrates courts committees. [137571]

  Jane Kennedy
  The Lord Chancellor's Department provides separate grants for revenue and capital (buildings and IT) to local authorities for magistrates courts costs.

  Revenue grant is paid at 80 per cent. of expenditure, with the remaining 20 per cent. met by local authorities. In 1999–2000 £329.2 million of grant was provided.

  Capital grant is paid at 80 per cent. of the costs of the scheme or item, with the remainder met by local authorities. In 1999–2000, £26.4 million was paid (£16 million for buildings and £10.4 million for IT).

  Court Houses (Human Rights Act)
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what additional funding he proposes to make available to magistrates courts committees to enable them to make court houses compliant with the provision of the Human Rights Act 1998. [137570]
  548W
  Jane Kennedy
  The Department makes capital resources available for work on court houses and it is open to magistrates courts committees and their paying authorities to apply for such funding in order to make court houses compliant with the Human Rights Act 1998.

  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what representations he has received from magistrates courts committees regarding the impact of the Human Rights Act 1998 upon court houses. [137569]

  Jane Kennedy
  We have received representations from one magistrates courts committee on the impact of the Human Rights Act upon court houses. A further 13 letters have been received from hon. Members, local authorities and solicitors. The Department has also received a number of requests for funding assistance in 2001–02 to improve facilities in court houses.

  Volunteers
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if the Lord Chancellor will mark next year's International Year of Volunteers by spending a day working as a volunteer. [137432]

  Mr. Lock
  I refer my hon. Friend to the written answer given to him today by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary,Official Report, column 531W.

  The Lord Chancellor fully supports the aims of the International Year of Volunteers. Everyone benefits from volunteering and the Prime Minister has issued a challenge to employers to give their employees paid time off to work in the community. From 1 August 2000 staff of the Lord Chancellor's Department and its executive agency, the Court Service, may take an additional day's paid leave for unspecified general voluntary work. The Lord Chancellor is himself considering possible voluntary activities during 2001.

  Fine Revenues
  Mr. Green
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how much revenue was raised from fines following convictions for(a) littering and (b) abandoning a vehicle in (i) 1998 and (ii) 1999. [137376]

  Jane Kennedy
  The collection of fines is the responsibility of the magistrates courts. Figures at this level of detail are not held centrally and could be obtained from individual courts only at disproportionate cost.

  Mortgage Repossessions
  Mr. Ruane
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many mortgage repossessions there were in England and Wales in each of the past 15 years. [137729]

  Jane Kennedy
  Information on the number of mortgage possession actions entered and orders made in England and Wales in each of the past 10 years is available and is set out in the table. Information on numbers before 1990 is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.
  549W

  Year

  Number of actions issued

  Number of orders made

  1990

  145,350

  54,718

  1991

  186,649

  73,859

  1992

  142,162

  58,654

  1993

  116,181

  43,017

  1994

  87,958

  32,137

  1995

  84,170

  30,535

  1996

  79,791

  27,777

  1997

  67,073

  22,524

  1998

  79,637

  23,002

  1999

  82,623

  23,590

  Note:

  Not all orders made result in repossession. Parties are still at liberty to negotiate a settlement.

  Judicial Trustees
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many trusts are administered by judicial trustees under the Judicial Trustees Act 1896. [137843]
  550W
  Jane Kennedy
  The Official Solicitor is currently administering 81 cases and the Public Trustee is currently administering three cases under the Judicial Trustees Act 1896 (the Act). Solicitors, accountants, or any other competent person can be appointed as Trustee by the Chancery Division of the High Court and that office has record of an additional current 25 cases. This produces a total of 109 cases currently being administered under the Act.

  Civil Servants (Relocation)
  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department which relocation companies hold contracts with his Department for the relocation of civil servants; when the contracts were last renewed; where the contracts were advertised; and what the length and value of each contract is. [137197]

  Mr. Lock
  The Lord Chancellor's Department does not hold contracts with any companies for the relocation of civil servants, and has not done so in the past.

CABINET OFFICE

  Departmental Employees (New Deal)
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office how many staff her Department employs under the New Deal for Young People. [137958]

  Mr. Stringer
  As at 1 October 2000, the information on all Civil Service departments (including their agencies) participating as employers in the New Deal is as follows:

  New Deal starts as at 1 October 2000

  Main department (including agencies)

  Number

  Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food

  58

  Intervention Board

  3

  Cabinet Office

  13

  Privy Council Office

  1

  Charity Commission

  25

  Culture, Media and Sport

  6

  Ministry of Defence

  118

  Education and Employment

  2,182

  Office for Standards in Education

  1

  Environment, Transport and the Regions

  63

  Export Credits Guarantee Department

  4

  Foreign and Commonwealth Office

  8

  Government Communications Headquarters

  1

  Government Offices for the Regions

  8

  Health

  39

  Home Office

  89

  International Development

  7

  Law Officers' Departments

  15

  Lord Chancellor's Department

  38

  National Assembly for Wales

  36

  Northern Ireland Office

  11

  Scottish Executive

  54

  Department

  Number of ministerial cars

  Petrol costs (excluding VAT) from 1 April to 30 September 2000 (£)

  Cabinet Office, including No. 10 Downing street

  17

  6,231

  Department of Culture Media and Sport

  4

  4,027

  Department for the Environment, Transport and the Regions

  8

  5,551

  Department for Education and Employment

  8

  7,812

  Department for Trade and Industry

  5

  3,158

  Department of Health

  6

  5,904

  HM Treasury

  5

  5,441

  Home Office

  4

  4,520

  1 Including reserve cars for Prime Minister

  Figures for earlier years are not readily available and are in archived format. These can only be obtained at a disproportionate cost.

  Volunteers
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office if she will mark next year's International Year of Volunteers by spending a day working as a volunteer. [137422]

  Marjorie Mowlam
  I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer given today by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Office,Official Report, column 531W.

  Cabinet Office rules allow paid time off to undertake activities in all areas of volunteer work, for example as a magistrate or school governor, helping out at a local old people's home or assisting with an adult literacy scheme.
  552W

  New Deal starts as at 1 October 2000

  Main department (including agencies)

  Number

  Registers of Scotland

  1

  Social Security

  603

  Trade and Industry

  51

  HM Treasury

  3

  Office of Government Commerce

  1

  HM Customs and Excise

  73

  Inland Revenue

  317

  Office for National Statistics

  10

  Royal Mint

  3

  Total

  3,842

  Ministerial Fleet (Petrol Costs)
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what was the cost for each of the past three years of petrol for the Downing street fleet of cars; and how many vehicles are in that fleet. [135008]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  Responsibility for this matter has been delegated under the terms of the Framework Document to the Government Car and Despatch Agency. I have asked its Chief Executive, Mr. Nick Matheson, to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Nick Matheson to Dr. Julian Lewis, dated 13 October 2000:
  The Minister of State, Cabinet Office, has asked me in my capacity as the Chief Executive responsible for the Government Car and Despatch Agency to reply to your Parliamentary Questions about the number of ministerial vehicles provided to various government departments and the associated petrol costs.
  The figures are as follows:

  I attach a great deal of importance to the benefits which voluntary work brings to both the individual and the organisation. Along with a number of staff in my Department, I will be undertaking a day of voluntary activity next year to mark the International Year of Volunteers. I intend to do so by spending the day with disabled people.

TREASURY

  English Parishes
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what percentage of English parishes do not contain settlements of 2,000 or more. [136497]
  553W
  Miss Melanie Johnson
  [holding answer 6 November 2000]: The information requested falls within the responsibility of the National Statistician. I have asked him to reply.

  Letter from Len Cook to Mr. Tim Yeo, dated 13 November 2000:
  As National Statistician I have been asked to reply to your recent question on percentages of English parishes which do not contain settlements of 2,000 or more. (136497)
  There is no information on the populations of settlements within Civil Parishes in England. However, from the 1991 Census, some 8,378 parishes (82 per cent. of all parishes (10,269) in England) had total populations of under 2,000 residents.

  Climate Change Levy
  Mr. Fraser
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the annual cost of the climate change levy to the clothing and textile industry. [135564]

  Mr. Timms
  The impact of the levy will depend on a number of factors, including: the future energy consumption by firms; the level of employment in those firms; the number of firms that are eligible to receive a discount on the main rates of the levy by signing up to an energy efficiency agreement; what use they make of electricity generated from "new" renewable sources of energy and in "good quality" combined heat and power plants; and the extent to which they take advantage of the proposed introduction of a system of enhanced capital allowances for energy saving investments.

  Petrol
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the extent to which differential tax rates account for the different cost to the motorist of unleaded petrol and lead replacement petrol. [134965]

  Mr. Timms
  The current difference in the tax rates for unleaded and lead replacement petrol accounts for 2.43 pence per litre (excise duty plus associated VAT). However, as announced in the PBR, subject to consultation on the environmental implications, the duty premium will be removed in Budget 2000.

  Retail price of fuel reflects the influence of a number of variable commercial and economic factors apart from duty.

  Volunteers
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the contribution made to GDP by voluntary workers in the last financial year for which figures are available. [136068]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  [holding answer 6 November 2000]: The information requested falls within the responsibility of the National Statistician. I have asked him to reply.

  Letter from Len Cook to Mr. Paul Flynn, dated 13 November 2000:
  As National Statistician I have been asked to reply to your recent question on the contribution made to Gross Domestic Product (GDP) by voluntary workers. (136068)
  554W
  The contribution of voluntary workers to GDP is included in the National Accounts where the output of the organisations they work for is estimated as part of market activity. For example, the output of a charity shop, which may be staffed by unpaid volunteers, will be included in the output of retailers, and any profit the shop generates will appear in the income estimate of GDP. However, it is not possible to identify separately where this output that contributes to GDP has been produced by voluntary workers.
  The System of National Accounts (SNA) makes provision for information on unpaid work to be compiled in a satellite account. The Office for National Statistics (ONS) is currently developing a Household Satellite Account, which will include, amongst other things, an estimate of the volume and value of voluntary work. It is expected that this will be published at the end of 2001.

  Bank Lending
  Mr. Loughton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to Cm 4917, what powers he has to compel banks to disclose their individual lending activities to businesses in under-invested areas. [138243]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  None.

  ISAs
  Mr. Loughton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) how many investors have opened ISA accounts who did not previously hold a PEP or TESSA; [138245]

  (2) how much money has been invested in ISA accounts by investors who previously did not hold a PEP or TESSA. [138258]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  I regret that information based on analysis of administrative data held by the Inland Revenue is not yet available.

  Euratom Safeguards Agency
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was(a) the total annual budget and (b) Her Majesty's Government's annual contribution to the Euratom Safeguards Agency in each of the last five years; and what are the estimated figures for each of the next five years. [137693]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  This information is contained in the Adopted EC budget for 2000, copies of which have been deposited in the House of Commons Library.

  The UK makes its contributions to the EC Budget as a whole and not to specific sections.

  Single Currency
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to the answer of 1 November 2000,Official Report, column 537W, what constitutional factors were considered in relation to possible British membership of the single European currency, prior to the 27 October 1997 statement concerning British membership of EMU. [138008]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  As the October 1997 statement stated, if the economic benefits are clear and unambiguous, there is no constitutional bar to British membership of EMU.
  555W
  Mr. Bradshaw
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer which responsibilities for assessing if membership of the single European currency would be in Britain's economic interest lie with(a) his Department and (b) the Bank of England. [135859]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The Treasury will make another assessment of the five economic tests early in the next Parliament.

  Internet (Price Transparency)
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what studies his Department has undertaken on the competition effects of increased price transparency due to use of the internet; and if he will make a statement. [137330]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The Government believe that the internet and e-commerce are generally beneficial to competition. They increase the range of suppliers for many products and services. Price transparency is just one aspect. HM Treasury has not conducted studies on the competition effects of increased price transparency.

  Petrol Costs (Ministerial Cars)
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the cost was in each of the past three years for petrol for his Department's fleet of ministerial cars; and how many vehicles there are in that fleet. [134966]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  All Treasury ministerial cars are provided under a lease contract with the Government Car and Despatch Agency.

HEALTH

  Cancer Services
  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the impact of the Comprehensive Spending Review on(a) cancer research, (b) cancer screening and (c) palliative care of cancer patients. [133844]

  Yvette Cooper
  The National Health Service Plan announced that a substantial increase in funding has been secured for the NHS. As a result cancer services will receive an additional £280 million in 2001–02, £407 million in 2002–03 and £570 million by 2003–04. This will be used to support the implementation of the NHS Cancer Plan, published on 27 September 2000. The plan sets out action to improve the speed, quality and equity of cancer services, and builds on the far-reaching changes for health services set out in the NHS Plan. Specifically resources have been identified for:Cancer research—by 2003 we will be investing an additional £20 million each year in the infrastructure for cancer research and an extra £4 million on prostate cancer research. Basic and medical research, including cancer, will also benefit with
  556W
  £250 million being made available to the research councils for new research activity, particularly in genomics, e-science and basic technology.
  Cancer screening—by 2004 routine invitations for breast screening will be extended to women aged 65 to 70, and the current service will be upgraded by offering two-view mammography at all screening rounds.
  Palliative care of cancer patients—by 2004 the NHS will invest an extra £50 million to end inequalities in access to specialist palliative care and enable the NHS to make a realistic contribution to the cost hospices incur in providing agreed levels of service.

  Further details are available in the NHS Cancer Plan, copies of which have been placed in the Library.

  Breastfeeding
  Mr. Blizzard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to encourage breastfeeding of babies. [134563]

  Yvette Cooper
  We are fully committed to the promotion of breastfeeding, which is uniformly accepted as the best form of nutrition for infants. We also firmly believe that it is important that women and their partners are able to make a fully informed choice on how to feed their babies based on accurate and consistent information. This means that women should have access to information about all infant feeding practices through the relevant health care professional to be confident about the choices they make.

  The Infant Feeding Initiative was launched in May 1999 as part of our commitment to improve health inequalities. We have appointed two part-time National Infant Feeding Advisers to act as a focus for developing and implementing strategies for promoting breastfeeding. In particular, their expertise is being utilised to increase the incidence of breastfeeding among groups where breastfeeding rates are lowest, for example, those on low income, and to ensure that all mothers have the information and support they need to make informed infant feeding choices.

  We have established the National Network of Breastfeeding Co-ordinators to promote breastfeeding at a local level and to share ideas nationally with a view to increasing both the number of mothers breastfeeding and the length of time they continue to breastfeed. Each year the four United Kingdom Health Departments support National Breastfeeding Awareness Week to increase public awareness of the benefits of breastfeeding, which took place this year from 14-20 May.

  We also provide financial support to the four main voluntary organisations in this area, the National Childbirth Trust, La Leche League, Breastfeeding Network and the Association of Breastfeeding Mothers. Close links are also kept with UNICEF's Baby Friendly Initiative (UKBFI) which includes a departmental observer sitting on the Steering Committee of the UKBFI. We offer support for research into breastfeeding through the Quinquennial Surveys of Infant Feeding Practice; a new survey will be undertaken this year. Also, as part of the Department's research initiative on health inequalities, we are supporting a study aimed at identifying the barriers to breastfeeding in low income groups. The Department also receives and publishes expert advice on breastfeeding through its advisory committees.

  Air Pollution
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has made of the health costs of air pollution indicating the health problems of principal concern and the main source of the pollutants. [135392]

  Yvette Cooper
  The Department's Committee on the Medical Effect of Air Pollutants (COMEAP) published a report in 1998 on 'Quantification of the Health Effects of Air Pollution on Health in the United Kingdom'. The report was based on levels of pollutants in 1995. It estimated that the deaths of between 12,000 and 24,000 vulnerable people (mainly those with heart or lung disease) may be brought forward and between 14,000 and 24,000 respiratory hospital admissions and readmissions may be associated with short term exposure to air pollution each year. There was insufficient information to allow quantification of other health effects of air pollution.

  The main pollutants of concern were particles and ozone. Particle levels have decreased since 1995 but there is no clear downward trend for ozone. The main sources of particles are primary particles from combustion sources (mainly road traffic), secondary particles, mainly sulphate and nitrate formed by chemical reactions in the atmosphere and coarse particles such as dust and biological particles. Ozone arises from chemical reactions of pollutants in the atmosphere in the presence of sunlight. The precursor pollutants include nitrogen oxides and volatile organic compounds form traffic and industry.

  The Department's Ad-Hoc Group on the Economic Appraisal of the Health Effects of Air Pollution estimated that the average cost to the NHS of a respiratory hospital admission was about £1,3901.

  1 For 1994–95 at 1996–97 prices.

  Hepatitis C
  Dr. Iddon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if needle exchange facilities for injecting drug users are monitored with a view to prevention of hepatitis C infection. [135519]

  Yvette Cooper
  By discouraging sharing of syringes and promoting safer injecting practice, needle exchanges contribute to minimising the spread of blood-borne diseases including hepatitis C.

  Needle exchange facilities are generally provided directly through the National Health Service or through voluntary sector agencies under agreement with health authorities, or through community pharmacies. They are subject to the normal monitoring arrangements exercised by health authorities.

  Dr. Iddon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action he has taken to prevent hepatitis C infection in injecting drug users. [135520]

  Yvette Cooper
  We recognise the prevalence of hepatitis C among injecting drug misusers is high, and, in the industrialised world, most transmission of hepatitis C now occurs via injecting drug use.

  Measures to prevent the spread of hepatitis C among drug users include needle exchange facilities, the prescription of oral substitute medication, and health promotion literature.
  558W
  The Department published revised "Drug Misuse and Dependence—Guidelines on Clinical Management" last April and sent these to all doctors. The guidelines include advice on blood-borne diseases and on injecting drug use.

  During 2000–01 it is planned that guidance for professionals will be published, expanding on the information in the Department's clinical guidelines. Regional seminars are to be held for professionals to raise awareness of the guidance, and increase skills in delivering prevention messages.

  Dr. Iddon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action is being taken to combat hepatitis C within the prison population. [135884]

  Yvette Cooper
  The Prison Service has a strategy for preventing the spread of hepatitis C, and other communicable diseases, in prisons. This includes training for staff, education and information for prisoners and measures to reduce the risk of transmission. Where clinically indicated, a prisoner who has tested positive for hepatitis C would be referred to a National Health Service specialist for expert advice on the clinical management of the case.

  Dr. Iddon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action he is taking to combat the spread of hepatitis C; and if he will make a statement. [135517]

  Yvette Cooper
  The Department is continuing to raise awareness of hepatitis C by working with the voluntary sector and others to provide information and advice for the general public and for those groups most at risk, specifically injecting drug users.

  Hepatitis C is spread primarily by contact with the blood of an infected person, and injecting drug users are at increased risk of infection. In this country, there is a robust approach to harm minimisation that includes widespread needle exchange schemes and substitute prescribing, both of which encourage people not to inject and not to share injecting drug equipment. We are currently improving the effectiveness and efficiency of these programmes through shared care schemes. Guidance on hepatitis C and strategies to minimise transmission is being developed and will be backed up by regionally based workshops and seminars.

  The risk of transmission of hepatitis C via blood donations has been virtually eliminated by the screening of blood donors for antibodies to hepatitis C virus and the treatment of blood products. Organs and tissues for donation are also screened for hepatitis C. The risk of hepatitis C transmission in the clinical setting is minimised by adhering to universal infection control procedures. To emphasise this, guidance has been issued to the National Health Service on minimising the risk of occupationally acquired hepatitis C for health care workers. Guidance on the prevention and control of blood-borne virus infection in renal dialysis units, which includes advice on hepatitis C, is currently being finalised. The Advisory Group on Hepatitis C is currently reviewing its advice on hepatitis C infected health care workers.

  The Department is currently considering how to strengthen and develop prevention and surveillance.
  559W
  Dr. Iddon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the occurrence of hepatitis C in the UK population over the period 1995 to 2000. [135886]

  Yvette Cooper
  Current information suggests that the prevalence (current level) of chronic carriage of hepatitis C may be around 0.5 per cent. of the general population. The incidence (new infection) of hepatitis C is not known as the virus is usually acquired without symptoms. Data from surveillance of antibody positive hepatitis C laboratory reports in the United Kingdom during the period 1995–99 are set out in the table. These laboratory reports do not distinguish between new and chronic infections, and reflect current laboratory testing patterns. They do not take into account under-reporting and under-ascertainment of cases.

  Number of laboratory reports of hepatitis C infection

  Year

  England and Wales1

  Scotland2

  Northern Ireland3

  1995

  1,667

  1,125

  58

  1996

  2,544

  1,236

  29

  1997

  3,058

  1,494

  26

  1998

  4,488

  2,052

  38

  1999

  5,561

  2,009

  23

  2000

  3,2244

  Not available

  375

  1 Source: Public Health Laboratory Service

  2 Source: Scottish Centre for Infection and Environmental Health

  3 Source: Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety, Northern Ireland.

  4 Provisional figures to week 36

  5 To date

  Dr. Iddon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the availability of harm reduction facilities, with special reference to needle exchange, in the last five years; and what assessment he has made of the effects of needle exchange facilities on the prevalence of hepatitis C among injecting drug users. [135518]

  Yvette Cooper
  Our anti-drugs strategy is clear about the benefits of a policy that discourages drug use but also recognises that some people may still use illegal drugs. It is important to minimise the health risks and harm for those who do so.

  Data from the drug action team template returns for 1999–2000 show a combined total of 322 statutory and voluntary sector providers of needle exchange services. The directory "Drug Problems: where to get help", published by the voluntary sector organisation Drugscope, lists 124 voluntary and statutory agencies which provide needle exchange facilities for injecting drug misusers. These data are not comparable due to their different methods of collection.

  Other measures to minimise the spread of hepatitis C among drug misusers include the prescription of oral substitute medication, and health promotion literature. Guidance on harm reduction for injecting drug misusers, and current carriers of hepatitis C, are included in the Department's clinical guidelines "Drug Misuse and Dependence—Guidelines on Clinical Management", which were published last year and sent to all doctors.

  We recognise the very important role played by needle exchange facilities in helping to prevent the spread of blood-borne diseases, particularly among people who
  560W
  might not otherwise engage with services. It is generally acknowledged that the introduction of needle exchanges have been instrumental in averting an HIV epidemic among drug misusers. The latest report by the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction shows that the United Kingdom has the lowest rate of hepatitis C prevalence in the European Union.

  Dr. Iddon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to attempt to identify the hepatitis C population in the United Kingdom. [135888]

  Yvette Cooper
  The Department will continue to raise awareness of hepatitis C by working with the voluntary sector and others to provide information and advice for the general public and for those groups most at risk, specifically injecting drug users.

  Those who have been at risk of exposure to hepatitis C and who seek testing in the National Health Service should be offered well-informed advice and made aware of the implications of a positive test. Those who test positive will be referred to a specialist for confirmatory testing, further assessment and treatment, if appropriate.

  Dr. Iddon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will implement a plan for London similar to that established by the Greater Glasgow Health Board to combat hepatitis C infection. [135889]

  Yvette Cooper
  Our approach to hepatitis C is to develop a strategic national programme which involves co-ordination in areas such as public health work on prevention and surveillance; tackling drug misuse; prison healthcare; research; commissioning healthcare services and implementing the recommendations of the National Institute of Clinical Excellence.

  Health authorities in London are best placed to judge the need for specific action to prevent and control hepatitis C infection according to their local situation.

  Dr. Iddon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has for a national strategy on combating hepatitis C infection. [135521]

  Yvette Cooper
  Our approach to hepatitis C is to develop a strategic programme which involves co-ordination in areas such as public health work on prevention and surveillance; tackling drug misuse; prison healthcare; research; commissioning healthcare services and implementing the recommendations of the National Institute of Clinical Excellence.

  Dr. Iddon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when the National Institute for Clinical Excellence will report on the treatment of HIV and hepatitis C infections. [136163]

  Yvette Cooper
  There are no plans at present for the National Institute for Clinical Excellence to produce guidance on drugs for the treatment of HIV. NICE completed appraisals of ribavirin and alfa interferon for hepatitis C on 31 October 2000. This guidance and further information on the NICE work programme can be found on NICE's website at www.nice.org.uk.

  Dr. Iddon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if the National Director of Cancer Care's brief to reduce mortality from cancer includes liver cell cancer secondary to hepatitis C. [136160]
  561W
  Yvette Cooper
  Yes. We recently published the NHS Cancer Plan setting out a comprehensive strategy to tackle cancer and through a major programme of action linking prevention, diagnosis, treatment, care and research. The Plan pledges to cut the death rate from all cancers by one fifth by 2010, this includes the death rate from liver cell cancer secondary to hepatitis C.

  AIDS
  Dr. Iddon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much money the Government spent on AIDS research in the financial year 1999–2000; how many new AIDS cases became diagnosed in that year; and how many deaths arising from contraction of AIDS occurred in that year. [135516]

  Yvette Cooper
  In the financial year 1999–2000, we spent £20.2 million on HIV/AIDS research1. During the same period, 3,714 new HIV/AIDS cases were diagnosed in the UK and 418 deaths due to HIV/AIDS were reported to have occurred.

  1 Actual spend by the Department of Health, Scottish Office, Welsh Office, Medical Research Council and other research councils.

  Overhead Powerlines
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent representations he has received concerning overhead powerlines; and what recent research his Department has undertaken on this subject. [135794]

  Yvette Cooper
  A number of letters have been received from Members of Parliament, research organisations, pressure groups and individual members of the public, concerning the possibility of health effects associated with proximity to power lines.

  The National Radiological Protection Board (NRPB) provides advice to us on these matters. In 1992, and again in 1994, the NRPB's Advisory Group on Non-ionising Radiation examined the evidence for an association between the incidence of cancer and exposure to electromagnetic fields and concluded that there was no clear evidence of an adverse health effect at the levels of electromagnetic field to which the public is normally exposed. There have been continuing concerns about this issue and the Advisory Group keeps the relevant research under review. The Group will be publishing a comprehensive review of the more recent studies in the next few months.

  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research his Department has recently commissioned on the possibility of a connection between overhead powerlines and cancer. [136429]

  Yvette Cooper
  The Department is currently funding both epidemiological and laboratory studies on powerlines and cancer. The Department also contributes to the World Health Organization International Electromagnetic Fields Project and has supported the United Kingdom Childhood Cancer Study.

  In 1992, and again in 1994, the National Radiological Protection Board's Advisory Group on Non-ionising Radiation examined the evidence for an association between the incidence of cancer and exposure to electromagnetic fields and concluded that there was no clear evidence of an adverse health effect at the levels to
  562W
  which the public is normally exposed. The Advisory Group continues to monitor the issue and will be publishing a comprehensive review of recent research in the next few months.

  Tobacco Additives
  Ms Perham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will publish information about tobacco additives by brand in a format readily accessible and available to consumers. [135579]

  Yvette Cooper
  The information on additives by brand supplied by major United Kingdom tobacco companies is published in the Health Select Committee's recent report, "The tobacco industry and the health risks of smoking", Minutes of Evidence and Appendices (Appendix 32 to 36). The Report and evidence of the Committee are published by the Stationery Office of the House and can be accessed by internet at www.parliament.uk/commons/hsecom/htm

  Influenza Vaccine
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what measures he has taken to ensure sufficient influenza vaccine is available this winter; and if he will make a statement. [136154]

  Yvette Cooper
  This year, we have extended the recommended groups for influenza immunisation to include everyone aged 65 and over, irrespective of their underlying health, as well as younger people in established high risk groups. This increase has led to record numbers of vaccine being made available, nearly 11 million this year compared to 7.8 million last year, an increase of 40 per cent.

  The Chief Medical Officer (CMO) wrote to all general practitioners in May informing them of the change in policy and asked them as a matter of urgency to review their list of people eligible to receive the flu vaccine, and, order additional vaccine if required. A further letter was issued from the CMO on 1 August to all GP' s reminding them to order extra vaccine if they had not already done so.

  Latest figures as at 31 October, show that 9.5 million doses of vaccine have already been distributed. This, along with the amount of vaccine still to be delivered, is a sufficient amount to exceed our immunisation target of 60 per cent. for this year.

  GPs order their supply of flu vaccine direct from manufacturers. This year there are five suppliers of flu vaccine. Unfortunately one of the manufacturers, Solvay, has encountered problems in growing a strain of the vaccine which has led to delays in some deliveries. Solvay have been in touch with the affected GPs to tell them details of any delays, but have confirmed that all ordered vaccine will be delivered by the end of November, in time to protect people this winter.

  Beta Interferon
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what consideration the National Institute for Clinical Excellence has given to the social costs of the refusal to supply beta interferon to multiple sclerosis sufferers. [136400]
  563W
  Mr. Denham
  The National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) carries out appraisals in accordance with its framework document. This document states that"its task is to assess the evidence of all the clinical and other health-related benefits of an intervention—taking this in a wide sense, to include impact on quality of life, relief of pain or disability etc as well as any impact on likely length of life—to estimate the associated costs, and to reach a judgment on whether on balance this intervention can be recommended as a cost-effective use of NHS and PSS resources".

  Copies of NICE's Framework document are available in the Library.

  nvCJD
  Mr. John Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what proportion of the new variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease care package will be earmarked for assisting in the early identification of the symptoms of the disease; [136278]

  (2) what support he intends to give as part of the NVCJD care package to the families of victims who have been misdiagnosed. [136279]

  Yvette Cooper
  Patients will have access to the full range of services provided by the National Health Service and Social Services departments. The Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease (CJD) Care Package Fund is intended to ensure that people diagnosed as having CJD have rapid access to comprehensive, appropriate packages of care. The speed of diagnosis in cases of CJD is improving all the time and the CJD Surveillance Unit continues to work towards further improvement.

  Mr. John Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the incidence of misdiagnosis of new variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease. [136277]

  Yvette Cooper
  No patient diagnosed as "definite" or "probable" vCJD by the National CJD Surveillance Unit has ever been found to have been suffering from another disease. Since March 1996 the Unit has had a significant number of suspected cases referred to them that, on further investigation, have turned out not to be vCJD cases.

  Mr. John Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what plans he has to raise the awareness of health practitioners of the early symptoms of new variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease; [136282]

  (2) what recent research he has commissioned into methods of early identification of the symptoms of new variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease. [136281]

  Yvette Cooper
  The National Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease Surveillance Unit (CJDSU) continues to investigate all cases referred to it as possible variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease (vCJD) and keeps diagnostic criteria under constant review. Expanded criteria which allowed "probable vCJD" to be diagnosed for the first time in patients who are still alive were published in March 2000 in a Department of Health press release (2000/0153). All general practitioners were informed about these criteria in August 2000, through the Chief Medical Officer's Update. In addition, the CJDSU regularly sends reminders and updates on vCJD to neurologists throughout the United Kingdom.
  564W
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what further research into the incubation period of CJD will be undertaken, and by whom, following the contraction of the disease by a 74-year-old. [136654]

  Yvette Cooper
  The Government-funded National Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease Surveillance Unit (CJDSU) continues to investigate all cases of variant CJD (vCJD) referred to it and analyses data collected to try and identify any common factors which might shed light on the route of exposure and the possible incubation period.

  The Department has commissioned research to look for vCJD in the elderly population to see if cases may have been missed in this age group.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the(a) groups and (b) individuals who are involved in research into nvCJD. [136619]

  Yvette Cooper
  Details of Government funded research projects on Transmissible Spongiform Encephalopathies (TSEs) including variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease (vCJD) are available on the Medical Research Council's website (http://www.mrc.ac.uk/tse_2c.htm).

  Huntingdon's Disease
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health for what reason Huntingdon's disease was selected as a condition which could be the subject of inquiry by insurance companies in deciding whether or not to offer insurance cover; and if he will make a statement. [136553]

  Yvette Cooper
  The Genetics and Insurance committee was established in 1999 by the United Kingdom Government to develop a procedure for assessing the scientific and actuarial relevance of genetic tests currently being used in insurance risk assessment and to evaluate each test against the criteria agreed. The application from the Association of British Insurers for consideration of two genetic tests for Huntingdon's Disease in life insurance was the first application to be received by the Genetics and Insurance Committee. The Genetics and Insurance Committee concluded that the scientific and actuarial evidence was sufficient for the results of these two tests to continue to be taken into account in setting insurance premiums.

  The Human Genetics Commission has been asked to look at the wider social and ethical issues involved in the use of genetic data in insurance. The GAIC decision does not pre-empt that wider consideration.

  NHS Direct
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if individuals will be able to obtain information on(a) abortion, (b) family planning services and (c) access to local NHS services through NHS Direct and the new NHS walk-in centres; and if he will make a statement. [136948]

  Yvette Cooper
  NHS Direct aims to provide information, advice and referrals to appropriate services for most conditions, including abortion and family planning.
  565W
  NHS Direct and the walk-in centres play a central role in providing information and signposting people to appropriate services. They also have a valuable role to play in improving access to local sexual health services.

  The information needs of the population is one of the issues that is being addressed in the sexual health and HIV/AIDS strategy due for launch in the spring.

  Heart Disease
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the implementation of the National Service Framework for Coronary Heart Disease(a) nationally and (b) in the West Midlands. [136579]

  Yvette Cooper
  [holding answer 6 November 2000]: The National Service Framework (NSF) for coronary heart disease sets 12 national standards for improved prevention, diagnosis and treatment and goals to secure fair access to high quality services over the 10 year period. This will include building capacity, increasing specialised workforce, improved prevention and faster access to services.

  The National Health Service Plan of 27 July is providing significant new money for CHD services:
  investment in heart disease services will be increased by an extra £230 million a year by 2003–04. In addition, there will be an extra £120 million of capital funding from the Treasury Capital Modernisation Fund over the next two years to March 2002, to expand capacity and modernise services. Furthermore, an extra £10 million has been announced to increase cardiac operations by a further 3,000 by 2003, in addition to the £50 million announced in October 1999 for an extra 3,000 operations by April 2002.
  Emergency care for heart attack patients is being reformed in a three year programme to train and equip ambulance paramedics to provide thrombolysis safely for appropriate patients. On average, patients will get thrombolysis one hour sooner than if they were taken to hospital first, saving up to 3,000 lives a year once fully implemented.

  Additional investment announced this year includes £49 million new money for early CHD wins, £21 million to speed up ambulance response times, £15 million to support new rapid access chest pain clinics, £10 million for equipment to diagnose and treat CHD, and £3 million for the CHD Partnership programme.

  Actions are under way to implement the NSF in the West Midlands in line with the milestones set nationally. Local delivery plans for implementation of the NSF have been received from the thirteen West Midlands health authorities.

  Particular local initiatives include: 11 rapid access chest pain clinics across the region in the first roll out, including one at the Walsgrave Hospital, Coventry; New Cross Hospital, Wolverhampton, will be developed as the fourth cardiac surgical centre in the region; the Black Country CHD Collaborative are developing a network of cardiac care; Action Heart at Dudley and Shropshire health authority's Help to Quit are excellent initiatives in cardiac rehabilitation and smoking cessation respectively.

  Rochdale NHS Trust
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he has taken to broaden the shortlist of candidates for the position of Chairman of Rochdale NHS Trust, beyond the proposal of the Regional NHS Executive Chair in July. [137004]

  Mr. Denham
  The regional chair considered the names of a number of candidates on the regional register as well as those of serving non-executives from the Rochdale area who were seen to have the necessary qualities for a chair appointment. The candidates subsequently invited for interview included the current chair, Mr. Hermann Jungmayr, but he declined to be interviewed. Two candidates were eventually interviewed, and both their names were recently recommended to Ministers for possible appointment to the post. A decision on the appointment is likely to be made shortly.

  Treatment Withdrawal
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many representations he has received and from whom concerning the legality of the British Medical Association's guidelines for the withholding and withdrawal of treatment. [137041]

  Yvette Cooper
  The Department has received approximately 200 representations concerning the British Medical Association guidelines on Withholding and Withdrawing Life-prolonging Treatment. These include representations from a number of professional, lay and religious organisations, Members of Parliament, individuals and a petition to the Prime Minister from the organisation "Against Legalised Euthanasia—Research and Teaching". Of these representations approximately 25 per cent. raised the issue concerning the legality of the guidelines.

  Screening (Pregnant Women)
  Mr. Hilary Benn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the health authorities that currently offer pregnant women screening for(a) Down's syndrome and (b) cystic fibrosis; and if he will make a statement. [137375]

  Yvette Cooper
  This information is not collected centrally. A Lancet paper surveying the provision and method of antenatal Down's syndrome screening (page 1264, Vol. 154, 9 October, 1999) is available in the Library.

  The United Kingdom National Screening Committee will build on this work to inform its implementation plans for a universal antenatal Down's syndrome screening programme. At present the Committee does not recommend universal antenatal screening for cystic fibrosis.

  NHS Vacancies
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many vacancies there are for doctors at NHS hospitals in the Greater London area. [137385]

  Mr. Denham
  The available information is given in the table. Results from the Department of Health vacancies survey March 2000 were published in September 2000.
  567W

  Department of Health vacancies survey, March 2000. Vacancies in NHS trusts in London region; medical and dental consultants as at 31 March 2000

  London region

  3 month vacancies (whole time equivalents)

  120

  3 month vacancy rate

  3.0 per cent.

  Notes:

  1. Three month vacancies are those posts that had been vacant for three months or more at the date of the survey.

  2. The three month vacancy rate is calculated as three month vacancies (3 month vacancies + staff in post at 30 September 1999).

  3. Figures are rounded to the nearest 10.

  Sources:

  Department of Health vacancies survey March 2000

  Department of Health annual non-medical workforce census

  Human Genetics
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to the letter to the hon. Member for Linlithgow from the Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Education and Employment, (Ref. 2000/0064758 PODB) when he expects to receive from the Human Genetics Commission their wider study on the uses of genetic information. [137327]

  Yvette Cooper
  The Human Genetics Commission is currently considering the storage, protection and use of genetic information in various contexts and what may need to be done to ensure that concerns over the potential abuse of such information are addressed.

  The Commission aims to submit a report and recommendations to Ministers by late 2001. This will take account of the results of a period of extensive consultation which begins on 27 November 2000.

  Volunteers
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will mark next year's International Year of Volunteers by spending a day working as a volunteer. [137429]

  Ms Stuart
  We fully support the aims of the International Year of Volunteers. Everyone benefits from volunteering and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has issued a challenge to employers to give their employees paid time off to work in the community. This Department reacted positively to the challenge to support staff in undertaking voluntary activities. Department of Health staff are allowed a minimum of one day's paid leave per year to undertake voluntary activity. Furthermore, definitions of voluntary activity have been broadened, and managers are encouraged to exercise discretion and be flexible when considering requests for leave from work. We intend to undertake voluntary activity for a day during 2001.

  Winter Pressures
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps his Department has taken to ensure closer working practices to help reduce effects of winter pressures between social services and acute NHS hospitals; and if he will make a statement. [137124]

  Ms Stuart
  In May 2000, the Department issued guidance to all National Health Service organisations and Social Services Departments setting out whole system arrangements to ensure that they, together, respond well 568W
  to seasonal pressures, and provide high-quality services for local people throughout the year. In 2000–01, the Government have already invested an additional £63 million in intermediate care beds and staff to prevent avoidable hospital admissions, to facilitate prompt discharges from hospital, and to support independence and independent living, particularly for the elderly.

  Local Winter Planning Groups (LWPGs) are in place across England to ensure that effective service and contingency planning is in place for winter 2000–01. The Department has assessed all LWPG winter plans and has put in place monitoring arrangements to ensure seasonal pressures are identified and addressed immediately. Expert teams of health and social care professionals are also visiting health and social care communities across England to provide support and advice, and to promote and share good practice.

  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps his Department has taken to disseminate best practice in dealing with winter pressures at(a) regional level, (b) health authority level, (c) trust level and (d) primary care group/trust level; and if he will make a statement. [137125]

  Ms Stuart
  Local Winter Planning Groups (LWPGs) have been established across England to ensure effective service and contingency planning for winter 2000–01. LWPGs include representatives of all National Health Service organisations, local councils with social services responsibilities and other local partners including the voluntary and independent sectors.

  Best practice is disseminated through comprehensive guidance, national conferences, and visits by expert teams of health and social care professionals.

  Nurses and Midwives
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many registered (i) nurses and (ii) midwives are aged(a) below 30, (b) 30 to 39, (c) 40 to 49, (d) 50 to 54, (e) 55 to 59 and (f) 60 years and over. [138247]

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

  NHS hospital and community health services qualified nursing, midwifery and health visiting staff by age bands in England as at 30 September 1999

  Whole-time equivalents

  Headcount

  Under 30

  42,990

  45,440

  30 to 39

  85,840

  104,050

  40 to 49

  69,310

  82,160

  50 to 54

  26,380

  30,560

  55 to 59

  12,810

  15,310

  60 +

  3,490

  4,570

  Unknown

  9,830

  28,040

  Total

  250,650

  310,140

  Notes:

  1. Figures exclude learners and agency staff.

  2. Figures are rounded to the nearest 10.

  3. Totals may not equal the sum of component parts due to rounding.

  Source:

  Department of Health 1999 non-medical workforce census

  Spinal Surgery
  Mr. Gordon Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many consultant neurosurgeons who specialise in spinal surgery there are in England. [138044]

  Mr. Denham
  From the Department of Health Medical and Dental Workforce Census on 30 September 1999, there were around 140 Consultants in Neurosurgery in the National Health Service. Information about numbers of consultants specialising in spinal surgery is not collected centrally.

  Hospital Drug Dispensing
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what estimate he has made of the impact on the primary care costs were hospital pharmacies permitted to dispense 28 day supplies of drugs to patients; [137752]

  (2) if he will require hospitals to dispense drugs to in-patients from patient bed-side boxes; [137754]

  (3) what plans he has to introduce 28 day original pack dispensing from hospital pharmacies; [137753]

  (4) what plans he has to encourage patients to take with them all medicines they are taking when admitted to hospital. [137856]

  Ms Stuart
  "Pharmacy in the Future—Implementing the NHS Plan" (a copy of which is in the Library) makes clear that we expect National Health Service hospitals in England to review their pharmacy systems to make them efficient, timely and safe, and more patient focused.

  To see that changes are made, NHS Executive regional offices will be rolling out a medicines management performance management framework specifically for hospitals later this year and the Department will be establishing a collaborative programme in order to spread and share best practice. This is likely to include, in appropriate cases, the use of medicines which patients bring into hospital on admission and self-administration schemes on wards (including the use of patient bed-side boxes). Hospitals are also likely to dispense medicines on discharge and to out-patients more frequently in complete original packs. Many such packs are designed by their manufacturers to provide a course of treatment lasting 28 days, although this varies from product to product, and the quantity to be prescribed for any given patient must, of course, reflect their clinical needs.

  Re-engineering systems in this way will reduce waste and improve the cost effectiveness of the NHS's spending on medicines generally. It may well involve spending being incurred within hospitals which was previously incurred within primary care. The size of any such shift will vary from place to place depending on current practice and on the nature of new arrangements agreed locally. Work is under way, co-ordinated by NHS Executive regional offices, to ensure that local health commissioners and hospitals work together to ensure suitable funding arrangements are in place.

  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to ensure that hospital pharmacies conform with EU Directive 92/27/EEC on patient information; and what the estimated costs of such compliance are. [137751]
  570W
  Ms Stuart
  The Directive was incorporated into United Kingdom law by The Medicines (Marketing Authorisations etc.) Regulations 1994. These regulations apply to all people involved in the supply of medicines, including hospital pharmacies. It is the responsibility of the Medicines Control Agency to investigate suspected breaches of those regulations. We hold no information nationally on the cost to hospitals of meeting their obligations under these regulations.

  Hospital Hygiene
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of the Government's initiative to improve hospital cleanliness following the distribution of funds directly to hospital trusts for this purpose. [137740]

  Mr. Denham
  Over £30 million was allocated directly to National Health Service trusts at the end of July to start an immediate national clean-up campaign.

  Rapid assessments of all acute hospitals were carried out following initial visits in July. More detailed assessments have been made following further visits to the 400 hospitals by the patient environment action teams (PEAT). Some 300 experienced managers and professionals, drawn from the NHS, private sector and supported by patient organisations were involved in these visits.

  Every trust has prepared an action plan, which has been agreed by the Department. NHS Estates will validate and support the action plans. Each trust has a board member who will take personal responsibility for hospital cleanliness.

  There will be five clean hospital summits in November for senior trust managers to share experiences and good practice.

  Unannounced visits to hospitals will also be made in January, by the PEAT teams, to check that standards of cleanliness in our hospitals have improved, and that procedures are in place to ensure that these improved standards will be maintained. Once these visits have been completed we will be in a position to better assess how effective the initial stage of the programme has been.

  To ensure that cleanliness in hospitals is maintained in the future we are drawing up a standard for cleanliness for all hospitals; these will be incorporated into the National Performance Assessment Framework and will be introduced next year.

  Anticoagulant Clinics
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to set up anticoagulant clinics in community pharmacies. [137855]

  Ms Stuart
  In the "Pharmacy in the Future—Implementing the NHS Plan" (a copy of which is in the Library) we said that by 2004 all primary care groups and primary care trusts will have schemes in place so that people get more help from pharmacists in using their medicines. Monitoring patients' anticoagulant therapy, whether in community pharmacies or elsewhere, is one of many ways in which pharmacists may potentially help people get the most out of their medicines.

  Pharmacists
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to address the pay differentials between community pharmacists and hospital pharmacists. [137741]

  Mr. Denham
  For 1999–2000 lower graded hospital pharmacists were targeted for an enhanced pay award of up to 12 per cent. to help address recruitment and retention problems. Hospital pharmacists in common with other groups of non pay review body staff have been offered a pay increase of 3.25 per cent. for 2000–01, and for 2001–02 a minimum increase of RPIX at December 2000 plus 0.5 per cent. subject to progress on negotiations with the trade unions on proposals for modernising the National Health Service pay system.

  The NHS does not directly employ or determine the pay of pharmacists working in community pharmacies.
  572W
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to introduce postgraduate structured training and experience programmes for pharmacists(a) for newly qualified graduates and (b) for existing community and hospital pharmacists. [137854]

  Mr. Denham
  A range of postgraduate training opportunities is available to both community and hospital pharmacists.

  Hospital-acquired Infection
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on progress in combating hospital-acquired MRSA infections. [137985]

  Mr. Denham
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South (Mr. Cunningham) on 10 November 2000,Official Report, column 431W.

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

Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank: Assistance
Lord Judd Lord Judd asked Her Majesty's Government:
What are now their priorities for humanitarian and development assistance, both bilateral and multilateral, for Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank.
Baroness Amos: My Lords, the UK's priority is to continue support for building a Palestinian nation based on economic and social development that benefits the poor. We are providing humanitarian assistance through the International Committee of the Red Cross and the United Nations.
Lord Judd: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. In this extremely difficult situation we must be careful not to support terrorist action either directly or indirectly. Nevertheless, does my noble friend agree that any lasting strategic solution in the Middle East will be based upon justice? Justice has the dimension not only of human rights but also of economic and social opportunity. Therefore, if we are serious about a lasting solution we cannot give too much priority to economic and social support for the Palestinian people.
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I agree with my noble friend that we must look for a lasting peace in the region. The United Kingdom Government are committed to that. We are indeed committed to
2
ensuring that that peace is based on justice, human rights, and economic and social development. We believe that they go hand in hand.
Lord Redesdale: My Lords, I realise that no development initiatives will have success while there is no ceasefire, but will the Minister say what efforts are being made to bring forward the peace process? Did President Arafat's visit have any positive outcome?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, we are committed to working towards a lasting peace. In doing so, we are working with our EU partners and the US government, as well as having discussions with those in the region. As the noble Lord said, the Prime Minister recently met with Chairman Arafat. It was agreed that, if possible, the UK would give additional support to the process. It was a positive meeting. A meeting was also held recently in the United States. I do not yet have details of the outcome of that meeting.
Viscount Waverley: My Lords, the Minister has already touched on this point. Is not one of the best ways to ensure the resolution of the security concerns of the state of Israel to address the economic disparity between the Israelis and the Palestinians? What specific measures are the Government undertaking to resolve that?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, in our work for the Palestinian poor, we are focusing on a range of issues including health and education. The noble Viscount is right: there is an economic disparity between Palestine and Israel. Clearly, we want to address that through our development assistance programme. We shall continue to make that long-term commitment.
Lord Janner of Braunstone: My Lords, although I fully support the plea of my noble friend Lord Judd for maximum help to legitimate charities and causes of the Palestinian authority, can the Minister be sure that the money and resources provided are used properly? Is that supervised? In particular, are the allegations

3
correct that when schools funded at least partially by us were closed for security reasons, the children went from those schools to be trained in riot tactics—many of them to be in the front line of the riots?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, there was an allegation about these matters in the News of the World on, I think, 5th November. There is no substance in those allegations. There has been no misuse of funds provided by the British Government. The Palestinian authority closed all its schools, colleges and universities from 29th September until 7th October for security reasons. Schools operated by the United Nations Relief Works Agency were closed for the same period. I understand that some establishments remain closed but for operational reasons.
Lord Pilkington of Oxenford: My Lords, do Her Majesty's Government feel a certain concern about the history of these events, in that the Jewish state welcomed millions of immigrants from Morocco, Iraq and Egypt? One can see the synagogue in Alexandria which is now empty whereas the Arab states kept them as a running sore. Have the Government given thought to that matter?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, the noble Lord's question is somewhat wide of the Question that we are debating. However, it is important that we look forward. In seeking to bring about a long-term peace in the region, it is important that we do not speak in intemperate terms but try to work together as much as possible for a lasting peace.
Lord Haskel: My Lords, does the Minister believe that development assistance is feasible as long as the violence continues? Is my noble friend aware that the very industrial zones set up to provide economic growth and development have been attacked? Surely those acts will put off inward investment.
Baroness Amos: My Lords, we have continued to provide development assistance to Palestine and West Gaza principally for health and education projects. However, given some of the recent troubles, we have also had to provide humanitarian assistance to the region. The economic impact on the region of the recent crises reinforces the importance of supporting the current peace process.
Baroness Rawlings: My Lords, one problem in areas of conflict throughout the world is the tragic effect on the mental health of many of the inhabitants; USAID and other charities recognise the long-term seriousness and importance of that. How far has the Department for International Development progressed with the requested support for the Gaza community mental health programme?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, as I have said before, we have supported a number of health and education projects. I shall write to the noble Baroness about her specific question on mental health assistance and I shall put a copy of the letter in the Library of the House.

NHS Dental Strategy
2.44 p.m.
Lord Clement-Jones Lord Clement-Jones asked Her Majesty's Government:
What additional resources they are devoting to the implementation of their dental strategy
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Lord Hunt of Kings Heath): My Lords, the dental strategy commits up to £100 million to improving NHS dental services, as outlined in the strategy.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. The intention of providing access to NHS dentists for all by September 2001 is clearly laudable, but will not the bulk of that £100 million come from savings to be made in the existing system? Do we not need another 1,800 dentists before there is even a chance of achieving that objective?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, general dental services expenditure has risen in real terms since 199697. A lot of the £100 million will be used specifically to improve access for NHS patients. As the noble Lord has suggested, we are determined to ensure that we meet the access pledge by September next year. There are now 17,700 dentists working in the GDS, which is 2,200 up on the 1992 figure and 1,300 up on the 1997 figure.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, what provision is there for emergency dental treatment on a Sunday in the NHS? On Sunday a week ago, a friend of mine was sent by her doctor to the Acorn dental surgery in Slough for the extraction of one tooth. The surgery said that it would not do it unless she paid £267 in cash. Another friend of mine ended up paying with five cheques, because that was all that the surgery would accept. What does the new dental strategy do for emergency cases?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I hope that we shall do a lot better than that. We recognise that the current availability of emergency dental services is patchy throughout the country. Members of the public have sometimes found it difficult to obtain information about where to go for emergency treatment. One of our key aims is to ensure that health authorities enable the public to have access to effective emergency dental services. We shall ensure that NHS

5
Direct has the information for that by next year. We also want to ensure that any charges made are reasonable.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, are the Government satisfied that fluoridation is the most exhaustively tested public health measure that the world has ever known? What additional resources will be devoted to it as part of the strategy?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, fluoridation is one of the elements of an effective oral health strategy. We have made it clear in our strategy that we expect health authorities to be proactive in combating issues of access and dental disease. Your Lordships may be aware that a report from York University commissioned by the Government concluded in October that fluoridation helps to reduce tooth decay. It also found no evidence to support the concerns that had been expressed about the health effects. We have told health authorities, particularly those with a high incidence of dental disease, that we expect them to consider fluoridation as one way of tackling those problems.
Lord Astor of Hever: My Lords, following on from the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, about savings already made, how much of the £100 million is new money rather than resources that have already been announced?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, it is all new money in the sense that the bulk of it is going into dentists' pockets. The £100 million includes £35 million of new money to help modernise equipment and premises, £4 million of new money for a dental care development fund and £20 million of new money for PDS pilots, including dental access. We had already announced that we accepted in principle the recommendation of the Review Body on Doctors' and Dentists' Remuneration on dentists' commitments, but we did not give details until the strategy announcement. The £100 million includes £28 million for that. In the end, this money will go to dentists and will improve access. It is in addition to money that was announced previously as being available.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, in view of the fact that a large notice appears in today's newspapers stating that if a person fraudulently claims free treatment under the National Health Service he will be prosecuted, will the Minister tell me whether the forms have been simplified? It used to be possible simply to sign a form if one was claiming, for example, housing benefit. However, if one needed help for one-off dental treatment, one had to complete multiple pages covering prison visits and so on. Has the form been simplified, making it clearer to dentists and patients how claims are to be made?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, we are examining the forms. Examples of new forms that we should like to develop are to be found in the dental
6
strategy. In particular, they show when patients receive NHS and private treatment. In addition, where large-scale treatment is to take place, they encourage dentists to set out the estimated cost. We are very keen to ensure that patients receive as much information as possible. Equally, the launch of "Combating Fraud in Dentistry" is designed to ensure that only people who are eligible for discounts on their treatment receive it.

Wales: Japanese Investment
2.52 p.m.
Lord Taverne Lord Taverne asked Her Majesty's Government:
What are the prospects for Japanese-owned firms in Wales.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, since devolution, attracting and retaining inward investment in Wales has been the responsibility of the National Assembly for Wales. The Welsh Development Agency works in partnership with other members of Team Wales and with Invest UK. Through Invest UK, the UK Government are responsible for promoting the whole of the UK as a location for inward investment. We regret recent announcements of job losses at Sony and Panasonic. However, we recognise that, where companies operate on a global scale in such a competitive sector, they must reassess and restructure their operations. This Government will continue to maintain the long-term economic stability which Britain enjoys today and which, in turn, will allow businesses to invest and plan ahead with confidence.
Lord Taverne: My Lords, given the assurances from Japanese companies, it would be wrong to panic in the face of those job losses. However, will the Government recognise that they should take seriously the warnings by leaders of Japanese business, and, indeed, business leaders elsewhere, about the longer-term consequences of our staying outside the eurozone? Although such developments take time, will the Minister recognise that continuing to stay outside the zone is likely to have an adverse effect on foreign investment and, indeed, on jobs in Wales and in the rest of Britain?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Taverne, is of course right to say that we should not panic. There is no reason to panic. We continue to do well in attracting investment from Japan and from other countries. Indeed, of the total investment from Japan in the whole of Europe, 46 per cent comes to this country. I have read what some Japanese business leaders have said. However, JETRO, the Japanese External Trade Research Organisation, carried out a survey in April this year of the views of Japanese firms in Britain. Those firms did not have anything like the same fears about our present policies with regard to the euro as those expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Taverne.
Lord Islwyn: My Lords, does the Minister agree that there is always a tendency for firms to drift towards areas where labour is cheap? That is certainly the case at present in Czechoslovakia and Poland. However, is it not rather interesting that Toyota in Flint in North Wales is about to recruit another 300 workers for its engine plant?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Islwyn is right. In policy terms, it is important that we continue to encourage investment at a high level of skill and to encourage investment in research and development activities. We are particularly good at that and it will counteract any tendency for lower-cost activities to go to lower-cost countries.
Lord Marsh: My Lords, does the Minister agree that all multi-national companies have in common a total determination to obtain ever-increasing sums of money from host governments? Does he also agree that the threat to leave a country is taken seriously only by the naive?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, of course multi-national companies will try it on when they can. However, effective policies are in place across the United Kingdom to ensure that competitive bidding for more and more public subsidy does not occur within the United Kingdom. In the end, the European Commission has a part to play in that.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, is it not true that, measured by earnings, less than 1 per cent of our inward investment comes from Japan, whereas 66 per cent comes from the United States of America? Is it not also true that the pound is now standing at an eight-year low against the dollar and that 60 per cent of our foreign trade is dollar related? Does that not put a new perspective on the questions asked by the noble Lord, Lord Taverne?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, given that the noble Lord's Question is about Japanese investment in Wales rather than about the United States, I do not have the figures with which to challenge those put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Pearson. They sound implausible. However, if they are correct, I shall write to him about it.
Lord Brookman: My Lords, as we are talking about Wales, is not the recent news that the Government have obtained Objective 1 status for Wales of great importance to the valleys and, indeed, the people of Wales?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Brookman is not only right, he is too modest. Not only have we obtained Objective 1 status for west Wales and the valleys, but in the 2000 spending review the Government also announced that they will provide full funding for that purpose.
Lord Roberts of Conwy: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the low euro is not the only factor
8
taken into account by Japanese companies in deciding the future location of their production facilities? High fuel costs and higher taxes in the United Kingdom have been referred to by Sony as detracting from their competitiveness. Therefore, will the noble Lord urge the Chancellor to act in those areas to boost the competitiveness of British-based companies and to help to maintain the prosperity on which his strategy depends?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I made it clear in an earlier answer that I agree that the weakness of the euro is not the only reason for difficulties arising for inward investors in this country vis-à-vis Europe. However, when the noble Lord, Lord Roberts, talks about taxation levels, I hope that he will recognise that, as has become clear, our levels of corporate taxation are among the lowest in G7 countries.
Lord McNally: My Lords, I declare an interest as President of BREMA, the electronic manufacturers' association, of which both Panasonic and Sony are members. Is the Minister aware that those companies paid tribute to the high quality of both the Welsh workforce and the research and development (to which the Minister referred) in the television industry in particular in Wales? Therefore, does he agree that there is ample opportunity for joined-up government in a vigorous campaign for an early switch-over to digital technology, which would provide a market for high value-added electrical goods built in Wales?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am glad to have the support of the noble Lord, Lord McNally, in this matter. He will know that Sony and Panasonic are members of the Welsh Electronic Forum Task Force—rather a lot of trendy words in one title!—and that they agree with him and with the Government that the more advanced television technology, particularly plasma and projection technology, are enormously important and are best carried out by the highly skilled workforce which we have in Wales. I believe that it is doubtful that the changeover to digital technology could be made to contribute more to that because such a changeover might move the electronics industry to more low-cost manufacturing.

Millennium Dome: National Audit Office Report
3 p.m.
Lord Lamont of Lerwick Lord Lamont of Lerwick asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will make a report to the House today on the National Audit Office report on the Millennium Dome.
The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Lord Falconer of Thoroton): My Lords, I welcome the publication of the National Audit Office report which gives a detailed account of events at the Dome. The NAO's report will

9
be the subject of a hearing of the Public Accounts Committee on Wednesday, 15th November, where oral evidence will be taken from the accounting officers.
It is a convention, known as the Osmotherley Rules, that the Government should not pre-empt or prejudice their final and considered reply to the committee's recommendations, albeit the convention recognises the right of Ministers to respond robustly to media attacks.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, as I have said previously, I should welcome the opportunity for a full debate, which should include the background and inception of the Millennium Dome, in this House as soon as parliamentary time can be found for it.
Lord Lamont of Lerwick: My Lords, is the noble and learned Lord aware that his remark on the television last Thursday that the fact the Dome was a failure was in no way an indictment of the way it had been run will surely earn him immortality in the Oxford Dictionary of Political Quotations?
But does the NAO report not show, first, that accounting officers did not want to put more money in; that as early as February Chris Smith was asking for a shake-up of corporate governance; as early as February the Dome was trading insolvently; and yet after February a further £179 million was put into the project? If that is not an indictment of the way it was run, what is?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, it is not for me to draw conclusions from the NAO's report. However, I will say that the NAO report makes it clear that as the year went on, the options were either continuing to trade or closure. Continuing to trade was the cheaper of the two options so it was the sensible, albeit difficult, course to take.
The NAO report also identified specifically the number of visitors to the Dome, which is more than to any other pay-to-visit attraction in the country, the degrees of visitor satisfaction and the importance of regeneration.
Lord Barnett: My Lords, I suppose that I should declare an interest as a past chairman of the Public Accounts Committee. While the National Audit Office report is very good and well worth considering, does my noble and learned friend agree that it would be better for any debate to take place—and I see my noble friend the Chief Whip nodding—after we have the report from the Public Accounts Committee? We should then be better informed by a non party-political report rather than merely having the present personally offensive and party-political attacks on my noble and learned friend.
Many Ministers from past and present governments have been involved in the project. Indeed, many leading businessmen, with leisure industry interests,
10
have been involved as well as senior civil servants. So the Public Accounts Committee will have the opportunity of questioning officials. I hope and believe that the report will be unanimous and non-party-political, as it always has been in the past. It would be a good time to debate the matter after the publication of that report.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, my noble friend accurately sets out the principle which has informed the approach of this Government and previous governments to NAO reports. It is a matter to be dealt with on a non-partisan basis. It should be debated properly in this House after the Public Accounts Committee has expressed its view. That is the approach that this Government have taken to the NAO report, albeit that from time to time I have felt obliged to respond to attacks on me.
Lord Crickhowell: My Lords, first, I thank the noble and learned Lord for the fact that after the question which I raised last week, a breathless messenger arrived in the House a few moments ago with a belated reply to my letter of 14th September. I am grateful for that.
In view of the fact that the Government have been deeply involved in all the decisions on the Dome since its major review two-and-a-half years before the Dome opened and the fact that the shareholder has attended 16 of the 22 board meetings and had a representative at the others, is there not an overwhelming case for Parliament and this House discussing the deplorable state of affairs revealed in the NAO report before Prorogation?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, as I have indicated in my original Answer, I support the idea of a debate dealing with the issues. The usual channels will seek to fix a date as soon as possible. But the reason for the convention is that one should debate the NAO report only when the views of the PAC are available.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, perhaps I may revert to what happened on Thursday afternoon. Is the noble and learned Lord aware that some of us were very puzzled that the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, decided to raise an issue on the Floor of the House without giving any advance warning that he proposed to do so? Is he further aware that when the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, was Leader of this House, he would have objected very strongly to anybody doing exactly the same?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I do not know the position in relation to what would have been the view of the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne. I know that the Companion suggests that if such an issue is to be raised, notice should be given to the Leader of the House. I understand that no such notice was given. The Leader of the House was attending a longstanding engagement arranged previously with a

11
well-respected Member of the Opposition Front Bench. That was why she was not present. Had notice been given, then, of course, she would have been there.
Lord Lea of Crondall: My Lords, does my noble and learned friend agree with the following assessments from the NAO report that:
"Once the Dome had been constructed, and much of the project cost already incurred, the room for manoeuvre in the face of low visitor numbers was very restricted",
and secondly that,
"closing the Dome and liquidating the Company … would not have made financial sense during the year of operation"?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, those are accurate quotes from the NAO report. As I indicated, it is not for me at this stage to draw any conclusions from what the report said.

Procedure of the House: Select Committee Report
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Boston of Faversham): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the fourth report from the Select Committee (HL Paper 113) be agreed to.—(The Chairman of Committees.)
Following is the report referred to:
1. Hereditary Peers: by-elections
Standing Order 10 which was agreed to in July 1999 provides that after the end of an "initial period" by-elections will be held to fill any vacancies occurring by death among the 90 elected hereditary Peers excepted from the provisions of the House of Lords Act 1999. Standing Order 10(5) requires the Clerk of the Parliaments to maintain and publish a register of hereditary Peers (other than Peers of Ireland) who wish to stand in any by-election. The Committee recommends that a procedure should be devised to ensure that the register is accurate and that those who are included in it have the right to be registered. The Committee does not believe that hereditary Peers who were Members of the House before the enactment of the 1999 Act need take any steps to establish their right to be included in the register. But the successors of such hereditary Peers should be required to do so.
Accordingly, the Committee recommends that the House adopt the following new Standing Order:
Register of hereditary Peers
Any hereditary Peer, not previously in receipt of a writ of summons, who wishes to be included in the register maintained by the Clerk of the Parliaments pursuant to Standing Order 10(5) shall petition the House and any such petition shall be referred to the Lord Chancellor to consider and report upon whether such Peer has established his right to be included in the register.
2. Tax simplification Bills
Tax simplification Bills are a new form of legislation proposed by the Tax Law Rewrite Project. They are intended to make the language of tax law simpler, but they preserve the effect of the existing law, subject to any minor changes which may be desirable. Such Bills will normally be introduced into the House of Commons, and it is expected that the Speaker will certify them as money Bills. It is proposed that a Joint Committee of the two Houses should consider the Bills after Second Reading in the Commons and that the Joint Committee's report should be laid before both Houses.
12
Given the subject matter of tax simplification Bills, the Committee recommends that when the House deals with such Bills:

—procedure in the Joint Committee should follow the procedure of Select Committees of the Commons when such procedure differs from that of Select Committees in the Lords, and the chairman of the Joint Committee should have power to select amendments to the Bill;

—the Committee stage of a tax simplification Bill, being a money Bill, should normally be negatived.

It is intended that the first tax simplification Bill should he introduced early next Session. The Committee therefore recommends that the Joint Committee on Tax Simplification Bills should have the following orders of reference:
Joint Committee on Tax Simplification Bills

(1) That a Select Committee he appointed to join with a committee appointed by the Commons as the Joint Committee on Tax Simplification Bills to consider tax simplification Bills, and in particular to consider whether each Bill committed to it preserves the effect of the existing law, subject to any minor changes which may be desirable;

(2) That the quorum of the committee shall be two;

(3) That the committee have leave to report from time to time;

(4) That the committee have power to appoint specialist advisers;

(5) That the minutes of evidence taken before the committee shall, if the committee think fit, be printed and delivered out; and

(6) That the procedure of the Joint Committee shall follow the procedure of Select Committees of the House of Commons when such procedure differs from that of Select Committees of this House, and shall include the power of the chairman to select amendments.

3. Northern Ireland Assembly legislation
The Northern Ireland Assembly legislates on transferred or devolved matters, and the United Kingdom Parliament has no part to play in the enactment of such legislation. However, certain matters such as policing and criminal justice, taxation and international relations, are excepted or reserved for legislation by the United Kingdom Parliament. The Northern Ireland Assembly can legislate on excepted and reserved matters with the consent of the Secretary of State.
In such circumstances, which may be very rare, Section 15 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 provides that the Secretary of State may not submit for Royal Assent a Bill of the Northern Ireland Assembly touching on an excepted or reserved matter unless he has laid the Bill before the United Kingdom Parliament. In an urgent case, the Secretary of State may submit the Bill for immediate Royal Assent; but he must then lay the Act before both Houses at Westminster. Either way, when such a Bill or Act has been laid at Westminster, each House has 20 sitting days within which a Motion to oppose the Bill or Act may be tabled.
Under the Act, any such Motion must be signed by at least 20 Members of the House. This is contrary to the present rules of the House which provide that "Motions are tabled on the Order Paper in the name of one Member only. It is not the practice to add names of other Members in support of a Motion" (Companion, paragraph 4.115). In view of the statutory requirement for at least 20 names to appear on Motions opposing Northern Ireland Assembly Bills and Acts, the Committee recommends that the House's usual practice should not apply to such Motions. This departure from present practice would be strictly limited to Motions on Northern Ireland Assembly legislation touching on excepted or reserved matters.
The Committee recommends the following mechanism for handling these Motions:

—when a Northern Ireland Assembly Bill or Act is laid before the House, its arrival will be recorded in the Minutes, and in a new table analogous to Bills in Progress. This table will show the expiry date of the 20-day statutory period. If 20 sitting days pass and no Motion is put down the table will disappear and the House's involvement will be at an end.

13

—if within the 20 days a Member of the House tables a Motion to oppose the Bill or Act, the Motion will be printed in No Day Named, under the following rubric:

Procedure of the House: Select Committee Report

  NO DAY NAMED PART IV MOTIONS CONCERNING NORTHERN IRELAND ASSEMBLY LEGISLATION ON EXCEPTED/RESERVED MATTERS
  [Signatures may be added in the Minute Room or the Public Bill Office, Under the Northern Ireland Act 1998, a Motion requires 20 signatures within 20 sitting days of the laying of the Bill/Act.]
  —signatories to the Motion will, exceptionally, be listed in No Day Named. If further Members of the House add their names, they will be added to the list. Once 20 have signed, the list will be replaced with a total number.
  The following rules should apply:

  —A signature will be required, either on a copy of the Motion, or on a note clearly indicating the Lord's wish to be associated with the Motion. Fax, e-mail and phone will not be acceptable.

  —The master copy of the Motion, with a consolidated list of signatures, will be kept in the Minute Room, and will be open for inspection without restriction.

  —A Lord may withdraw his signature at any time, by giving written authority.

  If, on the 20th day, the number of signatories has not reached 20, the Motion will be ineffective. If it has reached 20, the Motion may he put down for a day and debated in the usual way. When the Motion is put down for a day, only the name of the person who originally tabled the Motion will appear on the Order Paper as the person who is to move the Motion. The total number of signatures which the Motion has attracted will be indicated.

  APPENDIX
  Extract from the Minutes of Proceedings of the Committee Thursday business
  The Committee deliberated on a memorandum by the Government Chief Whip proposing changes to the times of sitting on Thursday. After debate, it was moved by the Lord Carter that the Committee should recommend to the House that on Thursday business should start at 11.30 a.m. and conclude not later than 7.30 p.m; which being objected to, the Question was put thereupon and the Committee divided:
  CONTENT 9
  NOT-CONTENT 14
  align="center">CONTENTS
  L. Burlison
  L. Carter
  L. Clarke of Hampstead
  B. Gould of Potternewton
  L. Irvine of Lairg (L. Chancellor)
  B. Jay of Paddington (L. Privy Seal)
  B. Lockwood
  L. Shepherd
  L. Strabolgi
  align="center">NOT-CONTENTS
  V. Allenby of Megiddo
  B. Anelay of St Johns
  V. Bledisloe
  L. Craig of Radley
  L. Denham
  E. Ferrers
  L. Harris of Greenwich
  L. Henley
  L. Kimball
  L. Mackay of Ardbrecknish
  L. Mancroft
  L. Rodgers of Quarry Bank
  L. Skelmersdale
  L. Strathclyde
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  Fur Farming (Prohibition) Bill
  3.7 p.m.
  Read a third time.
  The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Baroness Hayman): My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill do now pass.
  Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Baroness Hayman.)
  Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I wonder whether I may crave the indulgence of your Lordships to speak on this Motion. The Bill had a fairly good run in Grand Committee and the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, was enormously kind and exceedingly helpful. Perhaps I may say that she conducted herself in a delightful fashion.
  However, I felt that I must say a few words on this Motion because not many people know about the Bill or what it is concerned with. The Bill puts 13 people out of business. It criminalises an activity which has previously been perfectly legal on the basis that mink farming is immoral.
  We all have ideas as to what we like and do not like. Some people do not like eating meat and they become vegetarians. Some people do not like the way that chickens or pigs are kept. Some people may not like the way that mink are kept. But that has nothing to do with morality. I am astonished that that should be the basis upon which the Government have brought forward this Bill.
  Apparently, it is morally acceptable to wear a sheepskin jacket but it is not morally acceptable to wear a mink jacket. It is morally acceptable to wear the hide of an animal on your feet but not on your back. With the greatest respect to the noble Baroness, the morality argument is deeply spurious.
  The simple matter is that if the Government had not produced an argument of that nature, they would have fallen foul of European Union legislation. The noble Baroness and other Members of the Government have said that the mink farmers welcome this measure because of the compensation. Of course they welcome the compensation. But as they are being put out of business, that is the least that could be expected. The compensation is the result of the Government's policy; it should not be the motivator of it.

  15
  When agriculture is going through an unprecedented time of disaster and depression, when one farmer a week is committing suicide, farmers are told to diversify. But curiously, when they diversify in this direction they are told, "You must not do it. What is more, if you have done it, henceforth keeping mink will be a criminal offence for which the fine is £20,000".
  I hesitate to muddy the waters, but I cannot help but recall the fact that the International Fund for Animal Welfare gave £1 million to the Labour Party and this is the pay-back.
  Fur farming is carried on all over the world—in Canada, Russia, Denmark, Holland, and the United States of America. Are all those people immoral? Of course not. I reckon that that is a farcical argument. The majority of the world's mink is farmed in Denmark, Holland and the United States. As a proportion of the total, few mink are farmed in the United Kingdom.
  The ban will have hardly any effect on the numbers produced, but the majority of all trade in fur takes place through London at a value of £400 million. Banning the farming of mink will have little effect on the fur trade but it will give huge encouragement to animal rights activists.
  The European Union Secretary-General said that the United Kingdom should wait for the proposed European Union legislation on fur farming before taking any unilateral action. That follows opposition to the Government's proposals from France, Denmark, Finland, Italy, Spain and Greece. However, the Government did not take any notice and they produced this Bill.
  I am bound to tell your Lordships that the Bill has a nasty provenance. Unilaterally it destroys people's businesses and it tries to pretend that it will all be done on the altar of morality. I do not believe that the Government should feel at all proud of this Bill. The Government should be in the business of protecting people's businesses, not destroying them and turning them into criminal activities.
  The noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, must regret the day she became involved with this Bill. Some noble Lords have not made it easy for her to get this Bill through the House. As I said earlier, she was enormously courteous in Grand Committee, as she has been throughout all the stages of this Bill. However, I did not feel it possible to let this Bill pass on to the statute book without noble Lords realising what an unpleasant Bill it is and what a nasty provenance it has.
  Lord Davies of Coity: My Lords, I rise to speak in support of the banning of mink farming in this country. I address my remarks to the arguments put forward by the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers. He argues that the morality argument does not exist. He draws the comparison between mink and meat and chickens and he talks about leather from the hides of cows on one's feet and sheepskin on one's back.
  Baroness David: My Lords, is it in order to have such speeches on Bill do now pass?
  Lord Carter: My Lords, the Companion clearly states that, if no amendments have been tabled for Third Reading,
  "The motion is usually moved formally. It may be opposed, and reasoned or delaying amendments may be moved to it, but … it is not normally debated".
  It is the practice of the House not to have Second Reading speeches on Bill do now pass.
  Lord Davies of Coity: My Lords, thank you. In that case I shall pose a question to the Minister. Is not the morality of the matter in the purpose of the breeding? Whereas cows and sheep are bred for the purpose of food, mink are not bred for the purpose of food but simply for cosmetic use. That is where the morality point arises.
  Lord Monson: My Lords, I do not want to make a Second Reading speech, having already made one in the summer. This is a sad occasion and a highly significant one. Any moment now this country will find itself totally out of step with the rest of the civilised world. No other country bans fur farming, although two or three Austrian provinces do so.
  The noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, has commended the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, on her courtesy and helpfulness, which I would wholeheartedly endorse. However, this is a highly illiberal Bill, shot through with double standards. The Government, in the person of the noble Baroness, have been honest enough to admit that it has nothing to do with animal welfare or preventing animal cruelty, but it is purely about the killing of animals however well they may be treated. Some will ask what all the fuss is about since the English and Welsh farmers have capitulated, battered as they have been by the hard-cop/soft-cop treatment: the soft-cop being the Government with an increased compensation offer made since Committee stage and the hard-cop being the sinister individuals in black Balaclavas who threaten fur farmers—
  Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, can the Government Chief Whip tell the House whether these speeches are being made on Bill do now pass?
  Lord Carter: My Lords, the motion that the Bill should receive a Third Reading is always taken formally. If there are speeches, the only time to make them is on Bill do now pass. It has been the custom of the House not to make such a speech on Bill do now pass.
  Lord Monson: My Lords, I do not intend to make a long speech, and certainly not as long as that of the noble Earl. An industry that pays substantial taxes will be ruined and taxpayers will have to pay £1.5 million, a factor that has not been raised in any debate so far. Perhaps the International Fund for Animal Welfare should pay that rather than taxpayers. I am reluctant to take up the time of the House by inviting your

  17
  Lordships to divide, but I invite noble Lords to express their disapproval of this thoroughly illiberal and dangerous Bill vocally when the Question is put.
  Lord Haskel: My Lords, I say categorically to the noble Lord, Lord Monson, and to the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, that there is no relationship whatever between the donation made by the International Fund for Animal Welfare to the Labour Party and this Bill.
  Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, we on these Benches feel strongly that this Bill should now pass. We feel pride that Britain has led the world in improving the standards in which animals are kept, whether pigs or calves kept for veal, and in outlawing fur farming. Surely we should not descend to the lowest common denominator.
  Lord Luke: My Lords, today fur is being worn by more people worldwide than ever before and yet we have a Bill to abolish 12 fur farmers' businesses in this country. That is quite extraordinary. My noble friend Earl Ferrers has made all the points that I wanted to make. I reiterate that the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, has been most courteous and helpful during the course of the Bill. Let it be gone and let us give these unfortunate farmers the adequate compensation that the noble Baroness has said that the Government will pay. On these Benches we shall keep a sharp eye on the progress of negotiations and ensure that those farmers receive their money as soon as possible.
  Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I shall not detain the House for long. The fault lines between the Government and those who oppose the principles of the Bill have been examined at some length at Second Reading, in Grand Committee, on Report and again at Third Reading.
  The legislative protection that human beings accord to animals reflects the values of a society at any given time in its development. This Bill reflects this Government's view that it is wrong to rear and to slaughter animals solely or primarily for the value of their fur. We shall not resile from that basic principle.
  As noble Lords who have spoken today have courteously pointed out, we have done everything that we can to accommodate issues of detail around compensation that have been raised during the passage of the Bill. However, the principle remains—it is absolutely correct that we are drawing a distinction between the rearing of animals for slaughter for food and for slaughter for fur. There are no absolute lines in the treatment of animals for most people. We need to look at each case individually and challenge whether the purpose of the activity is sufficient justification for the taking of animal life involved. This is an ethical judgment that goes beyond the welfare considerations and standards which apply to all farmed animals. It is in the nature of such ethical judgments that there will be different views as to where lines are appropriately drawn. I recognise that other Members of your Lordships' House do not agree with the Government or the public sentiment reflected in the many
  18
  thousands of letters of support received on this issue. That is the nature of democratic politics. I am sure that there were minority voices in the debates on legislation which went through Parliament in 1835 to ban bear-baiting and in 1849 to ban cock-fighting. And I suspect that we will devote many hours of debate to related issues when we discuss the future of fox hunting in your Lordships' House.
  But we are where we are. This Bill has been scrutinised at all stages. Sadly, the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, was unable to be with us for the debate at Second Reading. However, he managed to give his Second Reading speech both in Committee in the Moses Room and today on the Floor of the House. I do not underestimate the commitment of the noble Earl and other Members to the cause that he argues.
  Earl Ferrers: My Lords, perhaps the noble Baroness will allow me to intervene. She is being slightly unfair to say that I managed to get a Second Reading speech into the present debate. The noble Baroness knows perfectly well that in Bill do now pass debates speeches are often made saying how good the Bill is. That is all right. Occasionally, someone will make a speech saying that the Bill is not very good. That is what I was doing. I was not making a Second Reading speech.
  Baroness Hayman: My Lords, that was not a judgment. I am sure each of us will make an individual judgment on that issue. However, I say to the noble Earl, very gently because he was most: polite, that he may not be the most reliable barometer of the social and ethical attitudes of Britain in the year 2000.
  Noble Lords: Oh!
  Baroness Hayman: My Lords, he may be. I suggest that he may not be.
  Lord Luke: My Lords, the noble Baroness, on reflection, may care to rephrase that sentiment.
  Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I would if I could rephrase it in a way which was not offensive because it was not intended to give offence in any way. The noble Earl said that I was not a barometer of social attitudes. I did not consider that offensive; I considered that to be his view. We will have debates on social attitudes and the attitudes towards minorities later today. I am talking of ethical and social attitudes, the reflection of which in public opinion polls shows clearly that the majority of the public would like to see the banning of fur farming.
  On Question, Bill passed, and returned to the Commons with amendments.

  Sexual Offences (Amendment) Bill
  3.24 p.m.
  Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
  Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Falconer of Thornton.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.
  House in Committee accordingly.
  [THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (Lord Ampthill) in the Chair.]
  Clause 1 [Reduction in age at which certain sexual acts are lawful]:
  Baroness Young Baroness Young moved Amendment No. 1:
  Page 1, line 5, leave out subsections (1) to (4) and insert—

  ("(1) In the Sexual Offences Act 1956, in sub-paragraphs (a) and (b) of paragraph 16 (indecency between men etc.) of Schedule 2 (punishments etc.), for the word "eighteen" there shall be substituted the word "sixteen".

  (2) In the Sexual Offences Act 1967—

  (a) in subsection (1) of section 1 (amendment of law relating to homosexual acts in private), for the words "a homosexual act" there shall be substituted the words "an act of buggery in private with another man or commission of an act of buggery":

  (b) after subsection (1), there shall be inserted—

  "(1A) Notwithstanding any statutory or common law provision, an act of gross indecency in private with another man or commission of an act of gross indecency shall not be an offence provided that the parties consent thereto and have attained the age of sixteen years.";

  (c) in subsection (3), after the words "subsection (1)" insert "or (1A)";

  (d) in place of subsection (6), there shall be substituted—

  "(6) It is hereby declared that where in any proceedings it is charged that—

  (a) an act of buggery with another man or being party to the commission of such an act is an offence the prosecutor shall have the burden of proving that the act was done otherwise than in private or otherwise than with the consent of the parties or that any of the parties had not attained the age of eighteen years;

  (b) an act of gross indecency with another man or being party to the commission of such an act is an offence the prosecutor shall have the burden of proving that the act was done otherwise than in private or otherwise than with the consent of the parties or that any of the parties had not attained the age of sixteen years."; and

  (e) in section 8 (restriction on prosecutions), for the words "against any man" to the end of section there shall be substituted—

  "(a) for the offence of buggery with another man, for attempting to commit an act of buggery, or for aiding, abetting, counselling, procuring or commanding its commission where either of those men was at the time if its commission under the age of eighteen;

  (b) for the offence of gross indecency with another man, for attempting to commit an act of gross indecency, or for aiding, abetting, counselling, procuring or commanding its commission where either of those men was at the time if its commission under the age of sixteen.".

  20

  (3) In section 13 of the Criminal Law (Consolidation) (Scotland) Act 1995 (homosexual offences)—

  (a) in subsection (1) for the words "a homosexual act" there shall be substituted "an act of sodomy in private by one male person with another male person or commission of an act of sodomy";

  (b) after subsection (1), there shall be inserted—

  "(1A) Subject to the provisions of this section, an act of gross indecency in private or shameless indecency in private by one male person with another male person or commission of such an act shall not be an offence provided that the parties consent thereto and have attained the age of sixteen years.";

  (c) in subsection (3), after the words "subsection (1)" insert "or (1A)";

  (d) in subsections (5) and (8), for the words "a homosexual act" there shall be substituted "an act of sodomy by one male person with another male person";

  (e) after subsection (5), there shall be inserted—

  "(5A) Subject to subsection (3) above, it shall be an offence to commit or to be party to the commission of, or to procure or attempt to procure the commission of an act of gross indecency or shameless indecency by one male person with another male person—

  (a) otherwise than in private;

  (b) without the consent of both parties to the act; or

  (c) with a person under the age of sixteen years."; and

  (f) after subsection (8), there shall be inserted—

  "(8A) It shall be a defence to a charge of committing or to being party to the commission of, or to procuring or attempting to procure the commission of an act of gross indecency or shameless indecency by one male person with another male person under subsection (5A)(c) above that the person so charged being under the age of 24 who had not previously been charged with a like offence, had reasonable cause to believe that the other person was of or over the age of 16 years.".

  (4) In Article 3 of the Homosexual Offences (Northern Ireland) Order 1982 (homosexual acts in private)—

  (a) in paragraph (1), for the words "a homosexual act in private" there shall be substituted "an act of buggery in private by a man with another man or commission of an act of buggery in private by a man with another man";

  (b) after paragraph (1), there shall be inserted—

  "(1A) Subject to Article 123 of the Mental Health (Northern Ireland) Order 1986, and notwithstanding any other statutory provision or any rule of law, an act of gross indecency in private with another man or commission of an act of gross indecency with another man shall not be an offence provided that the parties consent thereto and have attained the age of 17 years.";

  (c) in paragraph (3), after the words "paragraph (1)" insert "or (1A)"; and

  (d) in paragraph (5), for the words "a homosexual act" to the end there shall be substituted—

  "(a) an act of buggery by a man with another man or being party to the commission of such an act is an offence the prosecutor shall have the burden of proving that the act was done otherwise than in private or otherwise

  21
  than with the consent of the parties or that any of the parties had not attained the age of 18 years;

  (b) an act of gross indecency with another man or being party to the commission of such an act is an offence the prosecutor shall have the burden of proving that the act was done otherwise than in private or otherwise than with the consent of the parties or that any of the parties had not attained the age of 17 years.".").

  The noble Baroness said: I begin by saying that we would all like to welcome the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, to our debates this afternoon in his position on the Front Bench. In saying that, I hope that he will recognise, as those of us who have taken part and will take part in the ensuing debates will recognise, that the issues involved today are infinitely more important, more serious and more long-lasting than those involved in the Dome.
  This is the third time round on this matter. It is a long time since Second Reading on 11th April. However, I begin by saying that my noble friend Lady Blatch, myself and the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, were grateful for the opportunity to discuss our amendments on this Bill with the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General last week. I only regret that the Government do not appear to have moved at all.
  Before turning to the detail of Amendments Nos. 1 and 2 and the consequential amendments, I should like to make two general points. The first is to my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway. I fully understand why he tabled his amendment; he wants to keep the status quo but add further amendments on abuse of trust. I sympathise with that view. But it brings me to my second general point. We would not be in the position in which we find ourselves this afternoon if the Government had not threatened to use the Parliament Acts on this Bill and only recently repeated that threat.
  Amendments Nos. 1 to 16 are a compromise. The reason why I and those who support me tabled them is that, on reading what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Williams, said at Second Reading, it is clear that the principal reason the Government want this measure is on grounds of equality. I point to col. 91 of Hansard, when the noble and learned Lord said,
  "[The Bill] will improve our law and ensure equality before the criminal law for young homosexuals".
  Again, at col. 93, he said that,
  "an unequal age of consent is the mark of an intolerant society".
  I am not sure that that follows, but I shall let it go now.
  The first group of amendments therefore is to show that those of us who oppose this Bill in principle are willing to move to meet the argument about equality. I should like to think that the Government were prepared to consider moving as well.
  Amendments Nos. 1 and 2 have the effect of keeping the age for buggery at 18 for both boys and girls. But they allow homosexual acts, other than anal intercourse, to be committed at 16. That therefore
  22
  gives an equal age both at 18 and at 16. Under the present law the age at which buggery, or anal intercourse, can be committed is 18. It does not matter whether the act involves two men or a man and a woman. It is unlawful when one or both parties is under the age of 18. My amendments retain that position.
  At the same time, the amendments equalise the age of consent for all other heterosexual and homosexual acts at the age of 16; again, an equal age. There are of course some important differences in Scotland and Northern Ireland to which I shall refer in a moment.
  I turn to the detail of my amendment. The 1967 Act uses the term, "homosexual acts", to cover offences of both buggery and gross indecency. Amendment No. 1 uses the two offences which were created under the 1956 Act. The amendment breaks down the term, "homosexual acts", into its two constituent parts. Under new subsections (1) and (2), which deal with England and Wales, buggery is kept at 18 for boys and girls, while other homosexual acts are permitted at 16. The relevant amendments are made to the 1956 and 1967 Acts; subsection (1) relates to penalties; both subsections (1) and (2) relate to other homosexual acts.
  Perhaps I might turn to the position in relation to girls. In 1994, only six years ago, buggery committed on a girl aged over 18 in England and Wales was made legal. My amendments make no change to that position. The law stays as it is. However, when the Government talk of lowering the age of homosexual consent to 16, in reality they are doing much more than that. The reason is that both homosexuals and heterosexuals can commit anal intercourse. But if 1 per cent of men are homosexuals, as a government study showed, clearly they want this Bill. But girls, half the population, are directly affected by it when the minimum age for buggery goes down to 16. One must accept that the Bill is a gay rights measure which will have a profound effect on girls.
  At present buggery and gross indecency are permitted at 18. Under the Bill both ages go down to 16. Under my amendment buggery stays at 18, while gross indecency goes down to 16.
  However, there are two special cases. The first is Northern Ireland. Subsection (4) of Amendment No. 1 makes the same exception as the Bill. In the Province, it is still illegal for a man to commit buggery on a woman. The Bill does not change that position and neither does my amendment. The Bill allows anal intercourse at 17 in Northern Ireland for boys, presumably because the current heterosexual age of consent in the Province is 17. Subsection (4) of my amendment keeps the age of anal intercourse for boys at 18 but permits other homosexual acts at 17.
  As regards Scotland, my amendment addresses the special position of girls. It extends to under-18 girls in Scotland the same protection currently available throughout the rest of the United Kingdom. My amendment raises the age at which anal intercourse can be committed on girls in Scotland from 16, as it effectively is now, to 18. In Scotland, the position for

  23
  boys is the same as in England and Wales. Subsection (3) of my amendment permits homosexual acts at 16, except for anal intercourse which is kept at 18.
  However, the position is quite different for girls. At present, girls in Scotland have much less protection than boys. In Scotland, it is a criminal offence for a man to commit anal intercourse on a boy aged under 18, but for girls the age is 16. There is no specific offence of sodomy with a girl in Scotland. The Scottish courts have held it to be a breach of the law of "shameless indecency" for a man to commit anal intercourse with a girl, but only where she is under the age of 16. There is therefore an inconsistency in the present law which is corrected by my Amendment No. 2. It creates a new offence for the protection of girls; it simply applies the protection for girls under 18 which already exists throughout the rest of the United Kingdom.
  To sum up, in tabling the amendment we are trying to keep the age of buggery for both boys and girls at 18 but to lower it to 16 for all other homosexual acts. That is the compromise. It goes some way to meet the case for equality because it is equal, and I hope that the Government will consider it seriously.
  I turn briefly to the arguments of principle which have been well rehearsed. Our concern in tabling this and the following amendment is to protect children. Sixteen year-olds are children in law. By keeping the age of buggery at 18, we protect young 16 year-olds from the most dangerous of sexual practices; namely, anal sex. Others far better qualified than I will speak on this, but I have received a number of letters from doctors pointing out the great dangers to teenagers of this practice.
  However, leaving aside what doctors may have said, two facts stand out. The first, stated by the blood transfusion service, is that no one—I repeat, no one—who has had anal sex is ever allowed to give blood. That should say something to us all about the dangers of this practice. Durex, the biggest manufacturer of condoms, states:
  "Anal intercourse is a high risk activity because of the potential for infection from STDs, including HIV transmission. Currently, there are no specific standards for the manufacture of condoms for anal sex. Current medical advice is therefore to avoid anal sex".
  If there is one thing which is certain about manufacturers, it is that they will be very careful what they say on their products. They could be sued. I believe that we should accept—and again from an outside organization—that this is a very dangerous practice which the Bill would allow to 16 year-olds.
  Finally, I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, is not in his place on the Front Bench, but I wonder whether he will consider the reply he gave to my noble friend Lady Blatch on 6th November about the whole issue. Will he tell us the medical evidence he has for his answers when it is evident that so many eminent doctors and outside organisations disagree?
  Not surprisingly, most people, particularly parents and, above all, parents with sons, do not want the age of consent for buggery lowered to 16. One of the
  24
  arguments put forward is that somehow young people under the age of 18 will not be able to get help unless the age is lowered to 16. Indeed, the BMA is one organisation arguing that; I believe the BMA to be wrong in law. If, following the Gillick case, a girl under the age of 16 can be given contraceptive advice without parental consent, clearly homosexual men can also be given advice on safer sex. If the BMA was right about the law inhibiting safer sex advice, HIV infections among men should have gone down when the age of homosexual consent was lowered from 21 to 18 in 1994. However, quite the opposite has happened. Those are serious points.
  Finally, I hope that the age of consent will not be lowered. We have seen the notorious video from Avon health authority and its accompanying booklet, which is full of illustrations, containing advice to young people to try out sex with boys or girls and see who they feel most comfortable with. That seems to me the most dreadful piece of advice to be giving to young people under any circumstances. Furthermore, I was astonished to read a report in last week's newspaper of a free trip, a weekend break, organised by the Healthy Gay Life Project and funded by the Birmingham health authority at £1,000. It was designed for people who are either homosexual or confused about their sexuality. It was for those aged between 10 and 18. It was called off, I may say, because of a public outcry!
  Those are not just idle remarks made by me or my colleagues. I would not have gone through what we have gone through on this issue if I were not deeply concerned to protect children. We in this Chamber have a duty to continue to do so and I hope very much that the Committee will support me and my colleagues in these amendments. I beg to move.
  The Earl of Longford: I have so much respect for the noble Baroness, who is a Christian champion, that I am inclined to follow her blindly in these matters. I am sorry that she has produced a compromise because I should have liked a straightforward rejection of the idea of reducing the age of consent for homosexualism from 18 to 16. However, one must accept her view that this is the best that can be obtained.
  My views on these matters have not changed and I shall put them briefly. I stated them more than 40 years ago when I was the first person to back the Wolfenden report in this House by introducing a debate. Last Saturday, two days ago, I visited a gentleman in prison who is serving many years for homosexual offences. He had become a Catholic and I was honoured to be his sponsor when he was received into the Church. But my views have not changed and they can be stated briefly in three propositions. First, I regard homosexualism, certainly lifelong homosexualism, as a sad disorder and handicap. It makes it very unlikely that a proper, healthy family life can be attained. Secondly, homosexual leanings are not to be condemned, any more than schizophrenia or a tendency to alcoholism. However, when they are put into practice they are sinful by Christian standards, and I believe by the standards of other Churches, from whom we shall no doubt hear later. I regard them as

  25
  sinful when carried into practice, but that does not mean to say that they are criminal. Thirdly, on the question of equality, it sounds good to put them on the same footing, but that argument can be over emphasised. One would not say that a woman should be included in the British rugby team every year to make sure that equality is satisfied. I believe that a lot of humbug is spoken about equality, but I am an old-time feminist.
  Why do I say that age should represent a difference for young men and young women? In passing, I do not believe that the age of 16 is good for women anyway, but, assuming an age of 16 for women, there is a great difference between a young girl of 16 and a young boy of 16. If a young girl of 16 is seduced, it may do her a great deal of harm. If a young man of 16 is seduced, he may be turned into a rent boy, possibly ruining him for life. That is why I draw the distinction. I shall vote for the noble Baroness, Lady Young, though I would much rather see something stronger.
  Lord Newby: I have not previously participated in debates on this Bill or its predecessor. I was spurred to do so by something that was said by the noble Baroness at Second Reading. She said:
  "It is the job of responsible adults in public life to support responsible parents".—[Official Report, 13/4/99; col. 653.]
  She went on to say that by voting against Second Reading, we shall be supporting good and responsible parents.
  The clear implication of her remarks is that only an irresponsible adult and an irresponsible parent could possibly support this Bill. I disagree with this sentiment and find it deeply offensive. I am in the fortunate position of having two teenage sons, the elder being within 16 months of his 16th birthday. I try my best to be a responsible parent.
  I strongly support the Bill. I do so primarily for reasons of equality, but also because of the signals that the Bill sends out. There remains in our society a considerable ongoing degree of ignorance, confusion and prejudice about homosexuality, not least among young people. In my view, responsible adults in public life should be doing all they can to reduce inequality and prejudice, wherever they occur. That is what this Bill seeks to achieve. The amendments tabled for discussion today may appear nominally to be based on the principle of equality. However, the noble Baroness made it clear at Second Reading that she opposes this Bill in essence because she does not believe that there is a moral equality in heterosexual and homosexual relationships. I reject that view. I therefore urge the Committee to reject all the amendments today.
  3.45 p.m.
  Baroness Seccombe: I added my name to this amendment because I have had a long-term concern about this subject in general and about one aspect in particular; namely, the consensual buggery of girls. I wish to support my noble friend Lady Young who has proposed this amendment with great clarity and in her characteristic measured manner.
  26
  I believe that this is a very important matter that could have disastrous effects on the lives of young girls aged between 16 and 18. It is not understood by the vast majority of people in this country that girls are involved in any way. In a letter dated 28th June 1999, Barnardos told me that when they signed up to the Government's policy they
  "were not aware that young women would be affected in the way you point out".
  During the passage of the 1994 Bill, Tony Blair said that the issue was not one of age but one of equality. The Prime Minister and the Government failed then, and still fail, to take into account the fact that the bodies of males and females are different. They can never be treated as equal.
  I was very interested to hear the noble Baroness the Lord Privy Seal eulogising over the Labour Party's publication, Voices. The noble Baroness said:
  "the magazine includes at the back detailed information…on a range of issues and lists addresses to which people may apply for practical advice".—[Official Report, 25/10/00, col. 323.]
  As a result, I thought that I would do as the noble Baroness had suggested. I turned to page 64 of Voices, headed "Allyouneedtoknow". The other side of the page was entitled, "Modernising Government". There I found a website, www.lovelife.org.uk. When. I saw the word "lovelife", I imagined that there would be comments on relationships, highlighting the traditional understanding of the word "love"—affection, respect, commitment. That was what I expected. However, when I eventually found my way to the website, I was surprised, and indeed a little shocked, to see what appeared on my screen as advice to 16 year-olds, who I believe deserve a more sensitive and sensible approach.
  I am hesitant to reveal what I saw, and I hope that your Lordships will forgive me if it is offensive, but I feel that I should share with your Lordships the type of advice recommended by this New Labour publication for young people of 16. It states:
  "Condoms are available in all sorts of colours, shapes, flavours, textures and sizes. The range and choice can make them fun to use. Condoms can take time and practice. It may seem a bit of a nuisance at first but once condoms have become part of your sex life, you should feel more comfortable with them. Knowing that you are playing safe can make sex more fun".
  Safe? There is not such a product as a safe condom for those who indulge in anal sex. The chance of developing sexually transmitted diseases is multiplied by a factor of nearly 3,000. The publication also states:
  "Whether or not you have sex can be a difficult decision to make. But in the end it is what is right for you that is important, and only you can answer it. Remember, it is your body, your choice and your right to say 'no'. If you decide to have sex, it is best to play it safe and practise safer sex with less worry about getting pregnant or getting sexually transmitted infections".
  Again, the reference to safe sex astounds me.
  Nowhere does the website entry differentiate between vaginal and anal intercourse, except to suggest the use of a stronger condom with plenty of water-based lubricant for anal intercourse. I cannot accept that they are in any way comparable. One is as nature intended, the other is unnatural and dangerous. The latter involves an increasing vulnerability to HIV

  27
  and other infections and, in addition, carries particular risks of physical damage to the receptive partner. For young girls, the dangers are further increased.
  It greatly saddens me that young people should be encouraged to treat sex in such a casual manner and without thought for the other person involved. It seems to me an extraordinarily selfish attitude; one could almost imagine it to be a one-person activity. Adults can give as much credence to such advice as they wish, but I believe that 16 year-olds should be encouraged to think carefully about natural sexual activity, never mind an unnatural and hazardous one, and not just dash for a condom. As my noble friend Lady Young has said, we should never forget that anyone who has indulged in such a practice is not permitted to give blood. That must surely make us all think carefully before encouraging young people into such a way of life. I know that there are those on other Benches who may think that I am bigoted and out of touch with the vast majority of people, but my only motivation is the protection of the young. I find the inclusion of this website in the Labour publication offensive.
  This is a bad Bill in every way. However, it would be improved by this amendment. Without it, girls could be in jeopardy of being physically and mentally traumatised, unable to make lasting and loving relationships in the future. I remind your Lordships of what the Criminal Law Revision Committee said in 1984:
  "The differing opinions as to whether the age should be 16 or 18 expressed on our Working Paper are taken by these members to demonstrate that this is a sensitive issue, on which the law would do well not to move too far in advance of public feeling".
  My research leads me to believe that it is the new Labour Government who are out of touch and have failed to carry public opinion. It would be an outrage if they chose to "Parliament Act" a Bill of conscience, and I believe that they should, and would, pay the price.
  Lord Davies of Coity: When in April of last year I spoke on this issue and opposed the—
  Noble Lords: Order!
  Lord Bach: There is sufficient time for all Members of the Committee to speak. A little decorum in this serious debate will be welcomed.
  Lord Alli: I do not believe that the noble Baroness is bigoted. All Members of the Committee respect the honesty and integrity with which the noble Baroness puts her case. I hope that the noble Baroness will treat my remarks in the same way. On 13th April 1999 I stood up in your Lordships' House for the second time. It was much the same as today: the Benches were fairly full, hundreds of eyes looked at me and I was a little nervous. For the first time I spoke publicly of my experience of being gay. I described what it was like to be 16 and to grow up in a country in which my very being was illegal. I also spoke about the fear which
  28
  built up inside which meant that you hid from those whom you loved and from who you were. I told noble Lords of my beliefs about equality which were not abstract but a reality.
  I am a little less nervous tonight. I want to tell the Committee why I believe that it should support the Bill and reject the amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Young. I believe that the argument for change has been won with the public, politicians of all parties in the other place, including the Leader of the Opposition, and charities and professional workers who work with young people. It is only in this House that change is resisted. The arguments against change which we hear again today are not new; they were fully rehearsed in our previous debate. There are Members of the Committee, whose honesty I respect, who are opposed to change in principle and practice.
  Some Members of the Committee may recall the speakers last year. The noble Earl, Lord Longford, spoke about homosexuality as a sin. He then likened it to a sickness from which he believed people could recover. He told us the story of a boy at Eton who indulged in homosexuality and subsequently recovered from it to become a pillar of society. The noble Lord, Lord Seldson, told us that it was a simple issue between good, clean, healthy sex and bad, unclean sex. He also went on to outline his distress at the use of the word "gay" in this particular context as he believed that it should remain a good old-fashioned English girl's name. My noble friend Lord Davies of Coity made an impassioned speech on why, in his view, homosexuality was unnatural. I shall listen with interest to his contribution. Finally, the noble Lord, Lord Quirk, made an interesting speech on anal sex. Those speeches were made by noble Lords who were utterly opposed to change. They were joined by the noble Baroness, Lady Young, who today has tabled detailed amendments, to which I turn next.
  I should welcome recognition by the noble Baroness of the principle of equality. If I understand the noble Baroness correctly, she proposes a common age of consent. Her amendments go on to categorise various sexual acts which require consent at various ages. I understand that she would permit all sexual acts, apart from buggery, at the age of 16 and make the common age of consent 18. The noble Baroness appears to take an inconsistent position. In her speech on 13th April 1999 she said:
  "If you consider, as I do, that it is wrong to lower the age for homosexual consent from 18 to 16, in effect this Bill is unamendable".—[Official Report, 13/4/99; col. 652.]
  Just over a year later, the noble Baroness seeks to amend a previously unamendable Bill.
  Baroness Young: I thank the noble Lord for giving way. He raises a very important matter of principle. I thought long and carefully about this matter. I made clear today that I would prefer not to have the Bill at all. However, I have been in public life a very long time—longer than the noble Lord, Lord Alli—and have also been a Minister. One is aware that there are occasions when it is right to test whether there is any measure of agreement, because one particularly wants

  29
  the amendments on trust. I do not want the noble Lord to believe that I or my colleagues have changed our minds on some kind of whim.
  Lord Alli: But if change in the age of consent was completely unacceptable a year ago, why is it now acceptable? My own explanation, which the noble Baroness may not like, is that this is a wrecking amendment, plain and simple, and a further attempt by the noble Baroness to win votes and to stop reform. Principle and morality are ditched to get a few extra votes on your Lordships' Benches so that the noble Baroness may carry the day when she has lost the argument. There are men and women on all sides of the Committee who have fought a principled battle.
  I was moved last year by the speeches of the right reverend Prelates, the Bishop of Bath and Wells and the Bishop of Oxford, the noble Lords, Lord Lester of Herne Hill and Lord Freyberg, my noble friend Lady Mallalieu, my noble and learned friend the Attorney-General and many others. Ours is a case of principle, equality, fairness and justice. We do not ask Members of the Committee to approve of homosexuality or homosexual acts, or even to understand why they happen, but to remove the weight and penalty of the criminal law from those young men aged 16 and 17 who consent to have sex with other men. Surely, except for those on the very extreme of this debate, no one believes that we should criminalise 16 and 17 year-olds for having consensual sex.
  Do not be fooled by the arguments of abuse; they are a red herring and are designed to scare. The noble Baroness does not have a monopoly on concern for children. Does she really believe that all those in another place and in this Chamber who support the Bill and the organisations which welcome this reform are of the view that it will lead to the abuse of children? That suggestion is both offensive—
  Lord Campbell of Alloway: The noble Lord casts an aspersion on my noble friend Lady Young. Does he not realise that we all speak according to our belief and honour?
  Lord Alli: That must work both ways. Sexual abuse of any kind to anybody, regardless of age, sex or sexuality, is wrong and offensive, and we have laws in place to prevent it. This Bill further strengthens the law and extends protection to vulnerable young men and women. I understand the concern of the noble Baroness but her generation is different from mine. The noble Baroness's values, experience and aspirations are different. I accept all of that and understand that her motives are well intentioned. I liken them to the concerns of a kindly grandparent. In that spirit, I ask the noble Baroness to let people of my generation live their lives in their own way. This legislation will proceed with or without the consent of the noble Baroness. The time has come to remove discrimination, oppression and fear from the statute book. I ask Members of the Committee to support the Bill and oppose the amendments tabled by the noble Baroness.
  4 p.m.
  Lord Selsdon: The noble Lord, Lord Alli, was kind enough to mention me, but he took some of my previous remarks out of context. As the noble Lord has only recently become a Member of the House, perhaps he will allow me to respond. One's experience based on 38 years in this Chamber is that one must gauge its mood and recognise that, whether elected or not, one has a duty to try to represent the nation as a whole without prejudice. When I spoke I did not say exactly what the noble Lord attributed to me. I said that one aspect of sex was natural and the other unnatural. What may be natural to some may be unnatural to others, but not usually the other way round.
  We have long departed from the kinds of remarks that people might have used, for example that God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve. The insults which were once thrown about have long since disappeared as we reach this particular stage of the Bill.
  I intended to table two amendments until I read the amendments of my noble friend Lady Young. One amendment would have concentrated on the protection of the young, accepting at the moment that someone under 18 is young. It does not mean that they are not intelligent, that they are not well trained or that they cannot fight in a war. But there is a need for protection from the older generation in one form or another.
  I found it extraordinarily difficult actually to use the word "buggery" for the first time in your Lordships' House. Then I thought back to my time in the navy and realised that sometimes it was a friendly phrase—"Well, I'm buggered"—whereas the use of religious words was a criminal offence.
  The decriminalisation of homosexuality has taken place over a long period of time. What consenting adults may do in private is their business. In general, we are a very tolerant society. But the moment we start to threaten the parent—the lioness with her cubs—a whole new mood begins to come out. That was manifest by the enormous number of letters I received. Knowing that the noble Lord, Lord Alli, might well say that I am one of those with a faded parchment name downstairs, wrinkled all over, I thought I would consult in the period of the past six months. I formed a number of private committees, with the youngest member being 10 years old. We discussed the noble grandmother. We talked about family values. We spoke about how out of date we were regarding people's attitudes—the young and one to the other. But everyone had one thing in mind that caused them fear—disease. That was the purpose behind the amendments that I intended to table.
  During my working life I have come across female circumcision and the problems of Africa. I have been to Gabon. I believe I have even eaten the private parts of a green monkey. But I am concerned about t he impact of various diseases, some known and some unknown, and the spread of those diseases which in certain cases—HIV—is through anal intercourse. The

  31
  two quickest ways, so I am advised, of getting things into the body are to sniff them up your nose or to shove them up your rear end.
  In a discussion on drugs I heard someone say, "When you smoke a spliff and you can afford only one, if you shove a plastic tube up your backside it gets into your bloodstream quicker". That made me think of this: in my younger days on the Continent I was given a pill and I tried to swallow it, with considerable difficulty, only to find that it should have gone up the other end because it went into the bloodstream quicker.
  What I am coming to is, in part, the spread of AIDS, but perhaps also other diseases that are not necessarily well known, and how we can protect the younger generation from such possibilities. In general, it will be the transmission of AIDS by older to younger generations that we may have to concern ourselves with.
  My noble friend's amendment gets over my need to introduce an amendment simply to point out that, if two persons were together and one was under 18, and either had AIDS and failed to disclose it, effectively consent would be deemed to be withheld. If the Government are determined to force the Bill through, will they give considerable thought to the impact that this might have on the spread of this devastating and frightening disease? At least one aspect of the disease has made itself manifest; namely, it is not just a homosexual disease but a disease that spreads widely through both sexes and through blood.
  This led to the second amendment that I was proposing to introduce: that it should be illegal to give blood if one has HIV. I was then told that this is not actually necessary because one's finger is pricked before one gives blood and that is thus determined. At the moment if one tries give blood one is asked to sign a form that one does not have HIV. I gather that in certain cases—this sounds an outrageous thing to say—those who suffer in this way are actively seeking to spread the disease. I am not sure whether that is true. But it is these two areas, the question of blood and the transmission of HIV through anal or even vaginal intercourse, that cause me concern. My noble friend's amendment makes those two amendments and my two fears about that no longer necessary.
  Therefore, I end by returning to the noble Lord, Lord Alli, whose speeches I have always enjoyed. When he spoke at Second Reading I think he pointed out in a friendly way that he was the only gay member of your Lordships' House. I questioned that at the time.
  Lord Alli: I think I said that I was the only openly gay member, not the only gay member of your Lordships' House.
  Lord Selsdon: What I wanted to point out was that in this House we welcome everyone. We welcome their contribution. I have learnt from the noble Lord, Lord Alli. But I support wholeheartedly the amendment of my noble friend Lady Young.
  Lord Davies of Coity: I respect the views expressed by my noble friend Lord Alli but I do not share them. When I spoke on this issue in April last year—in opposing the reduction in the age of consent for homosexual relationships—I made it plain that I had no difficulty in supporting the Government's proposals in respect of protecting young people from those in positions of trust. Indeed, they were government provisions which I felt reinforced my concerns and drove me further in my opposition to the reduction of the age of consent from 18 to 16 years.
  Today I still have confidence in the Government's approach to protecting young people exposed to the influences and pressures of those in positions of trust. Nevertheless, this has not made me change my view about reducing the age of consent in respect of anal intercourse.
  But I appreciate we have moved on. The terms of the amendment today are different from those previously debated. However, as time passes we learn more and more about the frightening health risks of anal intercourse and the widespread abuse to which young people are subjected. We would be neglecting our duty if we ignored these dangers.
  When we last debated the matter, the arguments the Government marshalled in support of their proposals were about equality, justice and the removal of discrimination. It was said that the different age levels were in contravention of the European Court of Human Rights. That was based on the ground that heterosexual intercourse is legally permissible at 16 years of age and yet homosexual intercourse is not legally permissible until 18 years of age. I said then, and I say now, that, because the two acts are different, the question of equality of age does not arise under the law, although I recognise that it would be a dangerous wrong if a girl above the age of 16 could be subjected to buggery when boys would be protected until the age of 18. But the amendment thoroughly deals with this danger. The amendment draws a clear distinction between what I shall call normal, usual intercourse and anal intercourse. It accepts that normal intercourse is legally permissible at 16 years of age for men and women, and it provides that anal intercourse in respect of both men and women will be legally permissible at 18 years of age.
  The amendment clearly addresses the question of equality under the law. It quite correctly and sensibly concentrates on the acts, which are different, and applies the law in respect of each of them to men and women equally. I know that this view will not be acceptable to those who are not prepared to acknowledge that the respective acts of intercourse are different. But there is a clear difference. As long as the amendment, as it does, applies the same standards equally to both men and women in respect of each act, no charge of discrimination can legitimately be made.
  By way of example, albeit perhaps not a very good one, I say this. In this country it is illegal to sell tobacco to any person, male or female, under the age of 16 years, whereas when it comes to alcohol the age is 18 years for both young men and young women. The

  33
  products are different; different ages apply; but they apply equally to both sexes; and, as far as I know, no one suggests that any discrimination is taking place. In what is before us, these acts of intercourse are different. The age proposals in each case apply equally to both sexes. Therefore, in my view, there is no discrimination.
  Now, as I have demonstrated, there is no question of discrimination in what is proposed in the amendment. But I also feel that it is important to justify why it is sensible and necessary to apply different age levels to the different acts of intercourse. I feel that there is a broad spread of views as to why this should be so and they will all have been canvassed in debates in this House. But my reasons for supporting the amendment are focused in two areas: first, health; and, secondly, avoiding as far as possible extending the risk of abuse to which young people are exposed.
  However, before I address those two areas, let me say that there is still widespread concern in this country about homosexuality which we should not ignore. We must not forget that the legalising of homosexuality was enacted only a relatively short time ago, with the age of consent being 21. It was reduced to 18 an even shorter time ago. Now it is proposed to reduce the age to 16. Many people think, "Where is it going to end?". There are many who oppose the reduction in the age of consent because they are either morally or religiously opposed totally to homosexuality; and much of our postbag confirms that. Many believe the act of homosexuality to be unnatural and say that it should not be permitted at all. On the other hand, there are those who see homosexuality as no different from heterosexuality as far as concerns the law. There are also those who believe there should be no age limit at all.
  For me, this amendment is not about these issues. It is argued on the question of health and abuse, and I stand four square with that approach. The amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Young, and others recognise that homosexual relationships will be legally permitted at the age of 16 for both boys and girls, short of buggery—short of permitting anal intercourse. No doubt many will be dissatisfied with that. Others will say that the amendment before the Committee reflects only a measure of damage limitation. Some will say that it is a shabby compromise. I do not accept any of those things. I believe that what is proposed in the amendment can be accepted by the Government.
  Yes, it is a compromise, but a compromise which recognises and addresses the reality of the age of consent for heterosexual intercourse at 16 years of age, which has been with us since the 19th century when it was raised from the age of 12 years. At the same time, it is a compromise which displays an awareness of the dangers of abuse to which young people are exposed and a consciousness of the health risks associated with anal intercourse. The health risk, we know, cannot be totally removed, but we should not take any step that places young people in greater danger, particularly at a time when the scourge of HIV and AIDS is sweeping this planet.
  34
  Others can no doubt point to numerous examples of the health risk associated with anal intercourse. Therefore, I shall draw to the attention of the Committee only two examples of the dangers. First, in a healthcare analysis published as far back as 1994 it was stated:
  "The risk of HIV infection from anal intercourse is extremely high: for men it is at least 2,700 times the risk from vaginal intercourse".
  Secondly, the UK blood transfusion service leaflet states categorically:
  "If you are a man who's had sex with another man, even 'safe sex' using a condom, you should never give blood".
  Those two examples certainly convince me that we should take no steps that could increase the health risk to young people.
  Finally, I should like to refer to the danger or abuse to which young people can be exposed. I need not spend a great deal of time on this matter as we are all aware of the alarming number of reports of abuse in children's homes and at the hands of priests and others—often involving children below the age of 16, where paedophiles are involved. I know that we cannot prevent every criminal act but I do believe that we should never do anything that can lead to further abuse by unnecessarily making it easier for such abuse to take place. We know that when someone is abused it does not always end there, as those abused sometimes become abusers themselves.
  So when we consider which Lobby each one of us goes through, I ask noble Lords to contemplate the following quotation from W.H. Auden which I came across recently:
  "I and the public know
  What all schoolchildren learn,
  Those to whom evil is done
  Do evil in return".
  I ask noble Lords to consider also this question. If it is right to protect those under the age of 18 from abuse by people in positions of trust, is it not equally right to protect all those below the age of 18?
  4.15 p.m.
  Viscount Bledisloe: I intervene to—
  Lord McColl of Dulwich: I should like to—
  Noble Lords: Cross Benches!
  Lord Bach: I think it is the turn of the Cross Benches.
  Viscount Bledisloe: I intervene only to raise one practical point which I hope the proposers of the amendment will explain. However, before doing so, I cannot forbear saying, rather like the noble Lord, Lord Alli, that it is odd to find high-minded grandparents suggesting that this somewhat elderly House knows best what people want and what parents want. If this measure is really so unpopular with those people, is it not surprising that those who are

  35
  dependent on their votes at next election should be universally advancing this measure whereas those who do not need votes are saying how unpopular it is?
  If one has a law which states that sexual activity at the age of 16 is lawful unless it is anal intercourse, how on earth can it be enforced? What we are concerned with are consensual acts between people who are entitled to be in bed together. One cannot know whether they have committed a criminal offence unless it turns out that they have had anal intercourse. The authorities will not know whether they had anal intercourse except in two circumstances; first, where the 16 to 18 year-old needs to seek advice—probably medical advice or perhaps counselling—and then finds that he dare not do so because he will be dropping his partner in serious trouble; and, secondly, where the 16 to 18 year-old becomes vicious and wants to indulge in blackmail. How on earth will this law be properly enforced? And if it cannot be properly enforced, we should certainly not put it on the statute book.
  Lord McColl of Dulwich: I should like to confine my remarks to the important medical facts about anal intercourse, which is practised by heterosexual and homosexual people. In fact, anal intercourse between male and female is commonly used as a form of contraception, which may account for the rapid transmission of AIDS in some areas.
  As the noble Lord, Lord Quirk, pointed out in a previous debate, the rectum is lined with a delicate gut epithelium, or lining, which is only one cell thick, measuring a very small fraction of a millimetre. That is in marked contrast to the lining of the vagina, which is a tough skin-like structure many cells thick. As the rectal lining is so delicate, it is frequently damaged by intercourse and therefore infected with a variety of hostile germs, the most severe being AIDS, hepatitis and a virus leading to anal cancer, together with the usual venereal diseases of syphilis, gonorrhoea and other infections. The vaginal lining, being much thicker and of tougher material, is more robust and resistant to infection, even to AIDS, unless there have been previous breaches in the lining due to venereal disease.
  In addition to the damage to the lining of the rectum, the tight and powerful muscles that surround the anal canal can also be damaged and those subjected to persistent damage can even become incontinent. In one series, the rate of incontinence has been one in three. Of course, when anal intercourse is practised on infants, the damage is even more severe and devastating. Cases have been recorded of infants as young as six months being subjected to this practice.
  The use of condoms is said to reduce the danger of anal intercourse, but in one series there was a breakage rate of 32 per cent, which was six times more common for the same group during vaginal intercourse. The slippage rate was 21 per cent, which was three times more common. Stronger, thicker condoms have passed laboratory tests, but they are not used consistently because of discomfort and decreased
  36
  sensation. (This was recorded in a paper published by Silverman et al, in the journal Sexually Transmitted Disease, 1997, vol. 24 at page 14.) The failure rate of condoms for vaginal sex in one series was 52 per cent. Some 52 per cent had experienced condoms bursting or slipping off in the previous three months. (This was recorded by Kirkman et al, British Journal of Family Planning, 1990, vol. 15 at page 107.) Condoms have a pregnancy failure rate among the most motivated couples of 5 to 15 per cent. According to Williams in the British Medical Journal, 1995, vol. 311 at page 807, the main factor in unplanned teenage conception is contraceptive failure, not the lack of contraceptive knowledge and availability. Condom failure has become the leading cause of unwanted pregnancy, according to the British Medical Journal, 1996, vol. 312 at page 1059.
  There are, of course, inherent flaws in latex condoms and those flaws are at least 50 times larger than the AIDS virus. Incidentally, the AIDS virus is 450 times smaller than human sperm, so it is no surprise that the effectiveness of condoms for AIDS prevention is much worse than for contraception. That was pointed out by C.M. Rowland, the editor of Rubber Chemistry and Technology.
  Having dealt with the dangers of anal intercourse in terms of infection and damage, the question of mortality should also be considered. Of 100 teenagers who continue to smoke 20 cigarettes a day, half of them will take, on average, 20 years off their life. Of 100 teenagers who practise anal sex, all of them, on average, will take 20 years off their life. As most males start anal sex at the age of 21, we would prefer them—from the medical point of view—not to begin this practice any earlier. I therefore see no point, medically, for lowering the age of consent.
  Lord Walton of Detchant: I defer to the medical advice and opinion given by the noble Lord, Lord McColl of Dulwich. Every word that he said about the constitution of the anal canal, the rectal mucosa and the risks of HIV infection is absolutely right. But those same risks apply to the condition of the anal canal and the rectum at the age of 18, 20, 21, 24 or, indeed, at any age.
  I have agonised before deciding to speak in the debate because I find this to be an agonisingly difficult issue. It is so easy to understand and appreciate the absolute sincerity of those who speak on both sides of the argument. I personally find the whole idea of anal intercourse distasteful and even abhorrent. That is a view that I have held throughout my professional life. However, homosexuality has been a fact of life through the centuries. We need only look back to see that many notables in history, such as Alexander the Great and, indeed, an enormous number of distinguished people in public life—actors, politicians, scientists and others—have openly confessed to their homosexuality. Furthermore, there is increasing evidence, which is, I believe, now incontrovertible, that homosexuality is not a perversion produced by events in early childhood or even in the teenage years, but that it is genetically determined. It is a characteristic inborn

  37
  in the individual as a result of their genes. That, I believe, is one of the most important facts to be considered.
  I should like to make one more point. When I was president of the General Medical Council, we agonised over the issue of whether advice should be given to underage girls and boys on matters related to contraception, abortion and so forth. We were then advised that, under the Family Law Act, valid consent, given by an individual of 16 years of age, is as valid as if given by an individual of full age. Then along came the Gillick judgment in the case of Gillick v. West Norfolk and Wisbech Area Health Authority. Mrs Gillick went to the courts to try to prevent doctors and other healthcare professionals from giving advice to her teenage children without her consent. Eventually, under that judgment, it was accepted that there were circumstances when, with total confidentiality, if a young person could not be persuaded to consult his or her parents, it might be valid in the interests of health to offer contraceptive or other appropriate advice, even under the age of 16.
  I have the greatest possible respect for the views held by the noble Baroness, Lady Young. Since I came to this House 11 years ago, I have admired her support for universities, medical research, her consistent support for family values and her spirited advocacy of many other important matters, often based on her long-held and sincere Christian beliefs. She has won the respect of Members on all sides of the Committee. However, on this occasion, I have to say that I find myself in disagreement with her—but only for a few reasons. Why is it that the British Youth Council, NCH Action for Children (established by the Methodist Church), the Family Welfare Association, the Save the Children Fund, the National Children's Bureau and the NSPCC all favour this Bill? Furthermore, why do the medical opinions—after the most careful and earnest consideration—of the British Medical Association, the Royal College of Psychiatrists, the Health Education Authority, the Royal College of Nursing and the All-Party Parliamentary Group on AIDS all favour this Bill? A number of good reasons may be put forward.
  No one in this House would ever condone the horrors of paedophilia or of child abuse. However, medical evidence states that, by the age of 16, people's sexuality is established and is unlikely to be influenced by any of their experiences beyond that age. A second, most important point—and one which arose as a result of the Gillick judgment—is that even though that legal judgment may be clear; namely, that in certain special circumstances a doctor could give advice on issues such as contraception and abortion to a young boy or girl under the age of 16, at the time there were many doctors who—although they had accepted that advice and had received consequential advice from the General Medical Council—felt unable and unwilling to give such advice because they believed that they were condoning an illegal act.
  The same issue arises in this situation. Of course anal intercourse presents a much greater risk of HIV transmission for homosexual and bisexual men than
  38
  most other types of sexual activity. As the BMA pointed out, in genital urinary medicine clinics the Department of Health figures showed that one in 17 men were found to be HIV positive. Many of them had clearly been infected for years, some having plainly acquired the infection before the age of 18.
  It may be argued that if a young man of 16 seeks advice about his sexuality and whether it is right or wrong, whatever way he is protected, to have anal intercourse—which, as I said, I abhor—if the amendment were to be agreed, many doctors would now feel that, in giving health promotion advice to such individuals under the age of 18, they were condoning an illegal act. The same would be true of teachers and youth workers. For that reason, continued criminalisation of this activity for those under 18 is likely to prevent a significant number of young gay men seeking professional advice. It is also likely to inhibit some professionals—
  4.30 p.m.
  Baroness Knight of Collingtree: I am grateful to the noble Lord. We have heard a great deal today about the advice that is necessary for young people of 16— and possibly even younger—on the subject of homosexuality. Can the noble Lord say whether it is general practice, when giving such advice, to give warnings about the dangers of this act, about which we have heard a great deal?
  Lord Walton of Detchant: Without question. It is entirely right that health professionals who are fully informed about the risks must say to an individual, "If you persist and if you go ahead, the risks are these". It is very important that the dangers should be made clear to individuals. But if they persist, the health professional would give advice about every possible means of protection, including the use of appropriate condoms.
  As a parent, a grandparent and now a great-grandparent twice over, I support the views of those who are concerned with the protection of young people and with the protection of the family. But, after agonising over this issue, for all the reasons I have given, I believe that the Bill should be supported.
  The Lord Bishop of Birmingham: We have to recognize—
  Lord Mishcon: Does the noble Lord—
  Lord Bach: My noble friend is not intending to speak. He wishes to ask a question of the previous speaker.
  Lord Mishcon: I am grateful. Does the noble Lord, for whose medical knowledge we all have such admiration and regard, really believe that the law would move against any doctor who gave the advice, "Please do not do it. But if you have to do it, and you

  39
  will not follow my advice, these are the consequences"? The law indeed would be an ass if it moved a prosecution on those grounds, would it not?
  Lord Walton of Detchant: I agree. I do not think for a moment that the law would do so. It is possible that professional organisations might condemn a doctor in those circumstances.
  The Lord Bishop of Birmingham: We have to recognise that this is an area in which people of good faith can properly and rightly take a different view. I do not subscribe to the view that the law has nothing to do with morals; the law can have the important function of stating common ground. Nevertheless, I do not believe that an attempt to enforce morals in this area is likely to be a proper or effective use of the criminal law.
  Quite rightly, in my judgment, the debate has focused on the issue of protection, of which there are two aspects. The first aspect is the issue of health, on which persons far more knowledgeable than I—notably the noble Lord, Lord Walton—have spoken. The issue of health applies as much to those over 18 as to those under 18. That is absolutely fundamental. If the kinds of activities being described are so terrible that they need to be made a criminal offences for those under 18, surely they should be made criminal offences for those over 18. But that is absurd because we are talking, in general, about consensual acts.
  The question that has to be asked—in fact it has been asked already—is this: if young people need serious and informed advice and help in this area, are they likely to be helped by the knowledge that this has been made a matter of the criminal law? I do not think that they are. I think that they are more likely to ask for and find help if it is not criminalised.
  The second issue concerns the proper protection of young people from an abuse of trust by people in more powerful positions. Here I welcome the amendments brought forward by the Government in the version of the Bill that now stands before the Committee. I hope that, on balance, we shall feel able to support the Government and to resist these amendments.
  Lord Monson: Before the right reverend Prelate sits down, does he not agree that while adults should be allowed to make terrible mistakes which endanger their health, minors are different? Minors should be protected from such mistakes in so far as they possibly can be.
  The Lord Bishop of Birmingham: It is a question of what is likely to be the more effective mode of protection. I do not believe that the criminal law is likely to be sensible or effective in this area.
  Lord Goldsmith: This is the first time that I have spoken in any of these debates, although I have sat through several and read carefully the Second Reading debate, which I was unable to attend, in full. I do not have the qualifications of the noble Lord, Lord
  40
  Walton, nor those of the right reverend Prelate, to speak about these matters. I have one qualification, to which I shall return.
  What has struck me most about the difference between today and the Second Reading debate, is that the principles of equality, tolerance and non-discrimination which figured so largely now appear to be, in large measure, common ground. In my view, what matters is the extent to which the amendments tabled by the noble Baroness achieve equality, and the extent to which they achieve the concerns which have rightly been addressed by the right reverend Prelate—that is, the protection of children and the health of children.
  When I looked at the evidence of those who know far more about this than I do, I was impressed by the medical reasons in favour of reduction of the age of consent for anal intercourse. Of course it is the fact that anal intercourse is a risky form of sexual activity, but HIV experts agree that safe sex practices can largely—I shall not enter into the debate as to how far—eradicate those risks. That is why it is so important that young people receive good health advice about both the dangers and the measures which may reduce risks.
  Criminalising this conduct is not likely to prevent young persons with homosexual tendencies from having sexual experiences. Even before the age of consent was reduced from 21—
  Lord Waddington: May it not dissuade men of mature years from having sex with children? One has to remember that when we talk of 16 year-olds, we are talking of children according to international law. I can understand the noble Lord's comments when he is addressing his remarks to two young men aged between 16 and 18 having sex relations with each other. But should we not bear in mind that the Bill does not merely legalise sex between two young people aged between 16 and 18, but legalises a man of mature years having anal sex with a boy of 16—a child? That is the point.
  Lord Goldsmith: I want to deal with that. First, criminalising conduct in which young people may engage in any event will discourage and inhibit them from obtaining the advice and counselling that they need. That is not my view; it is the view of people who know far better than I do—namely, the NSPCC and the BMA, both of which recently stated that discrimination in law discourages young gay men from accessing sexual health services and help in coming to terms with their sexuality. It inhibits health agencies from providing advice to young people engaging in consensual, but criminalised, sexual activities. It is not a question of what the law provides; it is a question of inhibition.
  The Bill already deals with the question of persons in a position of trust. That is the most important way of dealing with the concerns that we all have about abuse by certain people—I give way to the noble Baroness.
  Baroness Blatch: I am grateful to the noble Lord. Does he agree that a large number of categories are left outside the categories relating to those in a position of

  41
  trust? If the noble Lord is making a point of that argument, I hope that he will support the inclusion of some of the categories that are the subject of the amendments before the Committee.
  Lord Goldsmith: The noble Baroness deals with amendments that are yet to come. The Bill as it stands deals with the most important categories: educational institutions and residential care. But that is a matter to which the Committee will return.
  I do not believe, on the evidence, that young people are in need of special protection. As the noble Lord, Lord Walton, said, current expert medical opinion is that sexuality is fixed at an earlier age.
  I have also considered the experience of other countries where the age of consent is generally the same. I said at the outset that I have only one qualification to speak: I am the father of teenage children—two boys and a girl, who are around precisely the age bracket about which we are concerned. Their care and protection is dearest to my heart. I am old-fashioned and traditional enough to be sure that I should be saddened if one of my boys came to me and said that, rather than having found a young woman whom he wanted to marry, he was setting up with a young man. But I should be more saddened still if he were slinking in corners, if he were fearful and suffered guilt because of his particular activity.
  In another place, Mr John Bercow made a courageous speech indicating that he had changed his mind. He said that now was the time for progress and reform. I respect the opinions of all Members of the Committee. I hope that many will enter the Lobby in support of the Bill and in opposition to the amendments.
  4.45 p.m.
  Earl Ferrers: We are all concerned about the health of children and of young children. I agree with the noble Earl, Lord Longford: I should have preferred no reduction in the age at which these activities are permitted. But, as my noble friend Lady Young said, the amendment is an effort to meet the Government part way, by providing that homosexual acts should be permissible at 16, other than buggery, whether of men or of girls.
  My noble friend Lord McColl told us of the sensitivities of the lining of the rectum, the breaking and slippage of condoms and the possibility of infection. He, together with the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Coity, said that the possibility of infection was 2,700 times greater with anal intercourse than with vaginal intercourse. That is a telling figure. To lower the age from 18 to 16 is to place people at risk, particularly girls, who, apart from anything else, may be deeply traumatised by such activity. Parliament has the right, indeed the duty, to protect young people. Lowering the age to 16 puts girls and young men at risk.
  It is sometimes forgotten that anal intercourse has only been permitted at age 18 since 1994. Before that the permitted age was 21. I was in the Home Office
  42
  when the legislation came through. I was obliged to respond to an amendment to the Bill. I do not like to rub the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General's face in it—actually, I do rather like doing that, but I know that it is his noble friend who will reply. When I came to answer the amendment, I did not think it was right that the age should be lowered from 21 to 18. I said: "Can I say that, because I think it is wrong". The advice from my officials was perfectly clear. They said: "No, you can't. This has always been a matter for conscience and it should be decided by the free vote of those in the House of Lords or in another place". I said: "Can I say at the end which way I intend to vote?". They said: "Yes, you can say that. That is your view. But it is not the Government's view". That was good advice, because this has always been a matter of individual conscience.
  I want to know why the provision is being changed. Why have the Government suddenly decided to take up this matter and why do they believe it is right to change and to lower the age? There is no strong public opinion in favour of it. It was not in the Government's manifesto. Why have they decided to make this change on a matter which has never been a subject of government policy?
  It is a great mistake for the Government to interfere on this matter. In the previous debate about the morality of mink farming, the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, referred to the overwhelming number of people who had written in in favour of the proposal. She said that the postbags show that the Government are right. If that is to be the criterion on which government decisions are made, then I point out that the overwhelming number of people who have written to me and to other noble Lords have been wholly in favour of not lowering the age to 16.
  The Government are wrong, first, to lower the age; secondly, to consider it their responsibility to do so without any mandate or any evidence that it is the right thing to do. They are making a great mistake in introducing this provision so quickly after the age was lowered to 18—only six years ago. What has happened in the past six years to make the Government behave almost like the Gadarene swine and say that now the age must be changed from 18 to 16? There has been no demand for such a change. Indeed, there has been widespread anxiety. I hope that the Committee will agree with my noble friend Lady Young in her amendment.
  The Lord Bishop of Chelmsford: I speak as a new Member of this place and within the category of "kindly grandfather". I have five adult children and I have listened carefully to them over the past years and months in relation to the areas that we are continuing to debate. I have also listened carefully to the diocese that I serve, which covers Essex and five east London boroughs. I have met considerable concern from many different age groups and many different constituencies about the proposal to lower the age of consent to 16.
  In listening again to the arguments put forward this afternoon, which have been most cogently and powerfully put both in the areas of protection and

  43
  health—indeed, it so important to focus upon these aspects—I recognise how carefully they are balanced. Yet I would want to urge your Lordships to consider very carefully the amendment that has been put before us by the noble Baroness, Lady Young. I have greatly respected the noble Baroness's dogged and consistent working at bringing a reasoned and reasonable—I underline the words "reasoned and reasonable"—opposition to this particular Bill. I have remained opposed in my own mind to this Bill, but I believe that the amendment before us this afternoon offers a way forward.
  Earl Russell: We have had an excellent and fascinating debate. However, in terms of principles, language and reference, we must accept that we are living in two different worlds. The noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, invoked his postbag. When I think of my own postbag on this subject, which is quite a large one, I can say that I have only received a single letter that agreed with the view taken by the noble Earl. I am sorry. Indeed, if they agreed with the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, I do not think that they would write to me. Alternatively, if they agreed with me, I do not believe that they would write to the noble Earl.
  Earl Ferrers: In that case, the noble Earl will agree that one is perfectly justified in holding the view held by the majority of people who have written to me—and, as far as I know, to my noble friends—and who are against the Bill.
  Earl Russell: It is not clear which side has the majority. However, it is clear to me that there is strong opinion on both sides of the question. It also seems to me that there is a very clear division in terms of age.
  The noble Baroness, Lady Seccombe, felt offended by what is on the Government's website. I am sorry about that, but I cannot comment on it because I am incapable of reading websites. I belong to the older generation. But from what the noble Baroness quoted, I cannot believe that among my pupils, who are between the ages of 18 and 21, more than one in 100 would have taken any offence at those words. We really are in different worlds.
  Indeed, as recently as last Thursday, after a tutorial had concluded, I was trying to persuade one of my pupils who had taken great offence at the noble Baroness, Lady Young, that the noble Baroness was an entirely reasonable, friendly and good-natured person whom I rather liked. I put a lot of effort into that, and I have to do so quite often. So we must accept that we are in different worlds.
  However, if we are trying to apply these amendments to a particular age group, we should also take account of the fact that we need a measure of consent within that group. That seems to me to be very largely lacking. Among my pupils, there are one or two who agree with the view taken by the noble Baroness, Lady Young. But they are very few and far between. It
  44
  simply is not the language of the generation. Both my children tell me that they know of no one who takes that view; and they get around a bit.
  The noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, also raised the point—
  Lord Elton: Perhaps I may ask the noble Earl a question that has occurred to me frequently over the past year in this House. Is there not genuinely a form of wisdom that is the wisdom of hindsight; and does not age and experience count for something in the guidance of the young?
  Earl Russell: Yes, it does count for something. But consent to the criminal law also counts. My argument is that I do not believe that that consent will be forthcoming. Without it, the law tends to be brought into disrepute. In enforcing the criminal law on a group of people, there is such a thing as a "blocking third": if a third of the population affected by the law believes that there is no justifiable moral basis for the law, it becomes extremely difficult to enforce. One may welcome that or regret it, but either way I believe it to be fact.
  The noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, also raised the question of the two-stage process. He asked why this had come about so soon after 1994. He might consider the case in 1918 when the vote was given to women—again, with an unequal age of voting: 30 against 21. It took 10 years before the ages were equalised. Sir Charles Oman, the Member for Oxford University, speaking in another place at the time said that that was just about the end of civilisation. However, as I observe the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher, in her place in the Chamber today, I do not think that it has been. We should not be too surprised—six years instead of 10—things may have improved a little. But the situation still remains that, where you have a two-bites-of-the-cherry process, you do move on from one to the other.
  This Bill was a manifesto commitment for my party, but it is also a matter of a free vote. Therefore, although I speak for party policy, I speak for myself and, in so far as I do ask for support, I seek it from every quarter of the Chamber on an equal basis. I have not tabled any amendments to the Bill. It is a Parliament Act 1911 Bill. Section 2(3) of that Act says:
  "A Bill shall be deemed to be rejected by the House of Lords if it is not passed by the House of Lords either without amendment or with such amendments only as may be agreed to by both Houses".
  So while I listen to the debate with an open mind, as I must do, I am not at present minded to support amendments unless I see some chance of their receiving support in another place. Personally, I have been waiting 43 years for this Bill. I do not regard it as precipitate.

  45
  I am also concerned that the Bill should pass through this Chamber because I believe that the issue has done more damage to the reputation of this House, in those quarters within—
  Noble Lords: Oh!
  Earl Russell: Perhaps noble Lords will allow me to finish my sentence. I was about to say that this issue has done more damage to the reputation of this House in the quarters within which I move than anything else since Irish home rule. I cannot answer for what it has done in other quarters. Those concerned may perhaps answer for that better than I can. I began by saying that this was a matter of intense division of opinion, so all that I say is with that premise—
  Baroness Park of Monmouth: I simply want to ask the noble Earl a question because I am genuinely puzzled. As I understand it, the amendment recognises that there shall be freedom for homosexual acts to he committed between consenting adults from the age of 16 onwards and only makes an exception for one particular act, which we have been told by many speakers from all sides carries far greater implications, results and dangers than anything else. Therefore, I do not see what is wrong with accepting the principle of homosexuality and the right of people to make choices, while making it clear from the beginning to both parties to the act (including the older and more experienced person) that that act of buggery is too dangerous to contemplate until we are out of the stage of childhood with 16 year-olds. What is the problem with that compromise?
  Earl Russell: The noble Baroness just about anticipates my next few words. I apologise for what may have been a rather long introduction. However, as it appeared to be giving rise to some controversy, I elaborated on one or two points. I hope that the noble Baroness will forgive me.
  We all find that we occasionally experience a sense of distaste when hearing about other people's sexual practices—homosexual and heterosexual equally. Indeed, just as happened to me when I read in a newspaper entry on 14th February, "Tinky Winky loves Pig Face". I do not see why I need to know; it has nothing to do with me. I do not really want to know about other people's sexual practices in private because it is nothing to do with me. A great deal of the distaste that I feel is very often because I know that I really should not know anything about it. It is not my business. As for the danger, we are not dealing here only with homosexual practices. We are told that 13 per cent of heterosexuals of both sexes have had experience of anal intercourse. Most of them appear to be still here and in reasonably good health.
  The Terrence Higgins Trust which has some knowledge of these matters tells us,
  "The view on anal intercourse being 2,700 times more risky in terms of HIV … is wholly misleading".
  46
  I do not know the evidence for that but the opinion itself at least deserves a hearing. The trust also points out:
  "There are more newly diagnosed cases of HIV in the UK among heterosexuals than gay men. Indeed … globally over 90% of HIV infections occur as a result of heterosexual intercourse".
  The days when one could associate HIV with homosexuality constituted a brief phase before the disease spread into the heterosexual community. That is now over.
  I listened to the noble Lord, Lord Walton, and others. I am not certain that the danger is anything like as great as it is made out to be. But even if it is, I do not believe that danger has ever deterred people from sexual practice. If that had been so, and as the danger to women until recent times in bearing a child was so great, I believe that few of your Lordships would be here now.
  5 p.m.
  Lord Waddington: Does not the noble Earl agree that the possibility of punishment might deter an older man from having sexual intercourse with a boy of say, 16, particularly if the older man knew that if he infected the boy and gave him HIV the punishment would be heavy?
  Earl Russell: It might, but it might also, among those who are attracted by the idea of danger, turn the man on. I am not convinced that on balance it makes any great difference. When people are sufficiently determined in this area they are not often deterred by punishment, especially if they think that detection is unlikely. In the case of buggery, I do not see by what means it could be detected. One wonders whether it might be detected by means of CCTV, but I cannot believe that the framers of the amendment contemplate anything so drastic, particularly as there are considerable risks in what might happen to the film thereafter. If it is not to be detected that way, we are left with the point made with great power by the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, and by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Birmingham; namely, how can we know? If we cannot know, we cannot enforce the law. I am against making laws which cannot be enforced.
  I know how the noble Baroness, Lady Young, will reply to that. She will say, more or less, that the purpose of the law as she intends it is to send a signal. I do not approve of that method of legislating. I do not think that the law is a form of sermon. As soon as you pass a law for no other purpose than to send a signal, knowing you cannot enforce it, you are giving the signal that the law can be disobeyed with impunity. As one who respects the law, I do not like giving the signal that the law can be disobeyed with impunity.
  The noble Baroness, Lady Young, talks about the protection of children. That is a common objective. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Goldsmith I also

  47
  care about the protection of children, but I want to protect them from the fear and guilt of knowing that they risk punishment and disgrace for being what they are when they cannot be other than they are. That is not what I think the law should be for. I shall support the Bill and oppose the amendment.
  Lord Boardman: Before the noble Earl sits down, is there not the possibility of the criminal law being applied where an older man, say, 30 years old, seduces a 16 year-old and causes that 16 year-old damage of which he ultimately complains?
  Earl Russell: If the act was not consensual, there can be a complaint. Otherwise—I speak as one whose parents met when one of them was 65 and the other was 19—if the noble Lord's philosophy had been followed, I might not be here now and I should regret that!
  Lord Stoddart of Swindon: As I am a signatory to the—
  Lord Ackner: So am I.
  Lord Stoddart of Swindon: I give way to the noble and learned Lord.
  Lord Ackner: I have an abiding recollection of an observation made by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor during the debate on the then House of Lords Bill. It was in relation to what was known as the Weatherill amendment. He said,
  "I must be brutally frank".
  It never occurred to me why he should be brutally frank. With the majority he had in the House of Commons he could have been delicately frank with just the same degree of success.
  When the noble Lord, Lord Quirk, had the courage as a layman to speak in regard to the anal intercourse versus vaginal intercourse debate, there was almost a sense of embarrassment in the House on the basis, I think, that we were dealing with an issue of discrimination and therefore we did not need to go in to all the irrelevant, sordid details.
  I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Young, as she has produced an amendment which gets away entirely from the question of discrimination. Therefore the kind of attitude I mentioned cannot be adopted by the House. We are not haunted—as we were—by the spectre of the European courts, nor by the pleasure of hearing a tutorial on the subject from the noble Lord, Lord Lester. This is a situation where there is no question of discrimination. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord McColl, on doing what is essential where one is dealing with questions of health; namely, setting out the situation as a doctor so that the issue of embarrassment does not arise.
  48
  My next point has not been mentioned. Strangely enough, there is a letter in today's Daily Telegraph, signed by a number of doctors, and headed "dangers of unnatural sex". The letter states, among other things,
  "The Government's commitment to reducing the age of consent introduces vulnerable teenagers to a lifestyle strongly linked to premature death. It causes physical damage to the anus and spreads infections such as hepatitis and sexually transmitted diseases such as HIV. Men who practise anal sex and then have sex with women give them very severe pelvic infections with resulting infertility or chronic ill health".
  We have at last reached the position in this House where it is accepted that homosexuality in relation to this kind of activity—which some regard as a perverted activity—involves the young, and anyone else who takes part in it, in considerably greater risk. In those circumstances the Government are legislating in a manner which it is agreed may well increase the prospect of disease or ill health among those whom it is our principal duty to safeguard—the very young. In that situation, the onus on the Government must be particularly high. They must justify why it is necessary to reduce the age from 18 to 16 in regard to this activity. What is the principle involved to justify that? It is not discrimination; that has gone out of the window. What remains? Is it the difficulty in policing the activities between 18 or 16 year-olds and those older? But that applies to every situation where one has the age of consent. On that argument, one would abolish restrictions on age altogether.
  What other explanation or suggestion is made? Is it that safe sex is an answer to this particular risk. But it is not. That has been made clear by the medical experts. I quote from an article published about a year ago by Dr Jeffrey Satinover. He says that,
  "comparable tears in the vagina are not only less frequent because of the relative toughness of the vaginal lining, but the environment of the vagina is vastly cleaner than that of the rectum. Indeed, we are designed with a nearly impenetrable barrier between the bloodstream and the extraordinarily toxic and infectious contents of the bowel. Anal intercourse creates a breach in this barrier for the receptive partner, whether or not the insertive partner is wearing a condom".
  The suggestion is that the ultra tough condom will suit the bill. Everyone knows that the ultra tough condom will not be worn. No condom is often the case because, as has been said, some people delight in taking the risk.
  In all the circumstances, I cannot see how this heavy onus can be discharged. That seems to be the right test. The Government are about to embark upon something which can seriously and significantly prejudice the health of the young. In those circumstances, what is their justification? The answer is: none that we have heard here.
  5.15 p.m.
  Lord Stoddart of Swindon: As a signatory to the amendment, perhaps I should explain some of my reasons for signing it. I believe, as does the noble and learned Lord. Lord Ackner, that this measure

  49
  equalises the position. We have to bear that very much in mind. I also signed the amendment because I believed that it was a reasonable compromise between opposing points of view. I believe that it was a compromise which would be welcomed on all sides of the Committee; and from all sides of the argument. However, that does not appear to have been the case today. That is a matter for regret.
  My noble friend Lord Alli said that the amendments were designed to wreck the Bill. That is wholly untrue. The amendments do not wreck the Bill. I believe that the amendments do what amendments should do: they improve the Bill. In no sense do they wreck the Bill; and in no sense can they wreck the Bill. The Bill will stand as the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Bill with the amendments in the same way as it would without them. So they are not wrecking amendments.
  The noble Earl, Lord Russell, also said that the public view is not behind the amendments. Where on earth has the noble Earl taken his opinions from?
  Viscount Simon: Students.
  Lord Stoddart of Swindon: From students, yes. That is a very good intervention. All the letters I have received are in favour of the amendments and have urged me to support the amendments. I did not need to be urged because I was going to do so anyway. But the total number of letters and representations that I have received support the amendment.
  Like the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, the noble Earl asked how the amendments will be enforced and said that they are unenforceable; that there will have to be video cameras in the bedrooms. If that is true at 18 and 17 years, it is just as true at 16. So the noble Earl is saying that we should abolish all legislation for any age. Is that not the outcome of the argument? I shall give way in my time.
  Viscount Bledisloe: Does the noble Lord recognise that if a man of 20 is in a bedroom with a boy of 17, it raises a strong presumption (probably from the state of the bed) that they have been indulging in sexual activity. If all sexual activity is illegal, there you are. But if some form of sexual activity is legal, and one particular form is illegal, without prying cameras how on earth does anyone know what has gone on in that bedroom?
  Lord Stoddart of Swindon: I did not suggest that we should have video cameras; it was the noble Earl, Lord Russell. I do not follow the noble Viscount's argument. He appears to be arguing against me and yet the words he uses appear to be arguing for me.
  I repeat that if you cannot enforce the law in relation to buggery at 18, it will be just as difficult to do so at 16. The noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, shakes his head but I should have thought that that was obvious. I say this to the noble Viscount and to the noble Earl, Lord Russell. Generally speaking, people are law abiding. I do not believe that homosexuals are any less law abiding than anyone else. If we had such law, we would expect and hope that they would obey it.
  50
  We have also heard today about the generation gap. The noble Lord, Lord Alli, again referred to it. Of course, there is a generation gap. I can remember the Wolfenden report. Indeed, I knew Sir John Wolfenden because I was a member of the court and the council of Reading University at the time when he was preparing his great report. My noble friend Lord Mishcon helped to prepare the report. Those of us who defended that report had to argue very strongly indeed—more strongly than is being argued at present—to get that report set into law. So we do not want to be lectured about generation gaps, when some of us fought to get rid of the serious injustices that were practised against homosexuals. We were there. We fought for the Wolfenden report and got it administered.
  Are we now saying that older people may not give counsel and leadership to young people? Young people deserve our assistance and advice and should expect the benefit of our experience. There is no generation gap. I hope that there will be co-operation between the generations.
  We have heard from two members of the medical profession this afternoon, both of whom agreed on the medical aspects. The medical fact is that anal sex is dangerous. That has been established and we should not overlook it.
  We have an overriding duty to protect the young and the vulnerable. We should do that in all circumstances. I find it amazing that we all apparently want to protect children from everything else—tobacco, hard and soft drugs, alcohol, financial exploitation, contract signing and paedophiles— but not from buggery. Why do we not want to protect them from buggery, when we have heard distinguished medical opinion this afternoon that it is dangerous to their health and their longevity?
  We have had a good debate and I have listened carefully to everything that has been said, but I believe now, as I did when I signed the amendments, that we are being offered a reasonable compromise. For the sake of our children and young people, we should unite behind the amendments.
  The Duke of Montrose: Rather unusually, we are making legislation for Scotland as weal as for the rest of the United Kingdom. At Second Reading, the Attorney-General pointed out that there was a full debate on the procedure for the Bill in the Scottish Parliament on 19th January this year. It was argued that, as the Bill had been thought through in its first incarnation at Westminster before devolution, and as the Government wanted to be in a position to invoke the Parliament Act if they saw fit, this further stage of legislation should be carried through at Westminster on the basis of the Bill presently before us.
  Some of the Labour Members in that debate showed a marked antipathy to the idea of anyone having a further say on legislation proposed by the other place. They take great delight in single-chamber legislation in Scotland and they are probably not familiar with the number of government amendments and others that are routinely added in your Lordships' House. Also,

  51
  probably through a lack of familiarity with our procedures, one Member accused us of going against parliamentary procedure for previously turning down the Bill. Presumably that accusation derived from ignorance of the fact that the procedure applies only to policies contained in a Government's election manifesto. As my noble friend Lord Ferrers has pointed out, this was not part of the Labour Party's Westminster manifesto, though no doubt in Scotland they will have had to adopt it as part of their coalition settlement with the Liberal Democrats.
  If I may digress, that raises an interesting theoretical issue for voters under a proportional representation system, because they could end up getting all of both parties' manifesto proposals, even if the majority voted for only one set of them.
  I have tried to follow the arguments that have been put before the us and I have asked questions of a considerable number of people who work in areas that seem to be germane to the issue. The Government's contention, given in their Answer on 6th November to my noble friend Lady Blatch, that there are no differences between the risks involved in anal and normal sex, was presumably supposed to refer to promiscuous sex among both heterosexuals and homosexuals. There is a clear difference between the risks for the two groups in monogamous sexual relations.
  I make my living as a livestock farmer, so I may not be as squeamish about some of the issues as might be proper in the Chamber as we sail in great style through all the goings on. I have read the study published recently under the name of B. G. Silverman, which was referred to by the noble Lord, Lord McColl, on the effectiveness of condoms and their breakage and slippage rates. That is a considerable risk, even before we consider the preference of some, referred to a few minutes ago, for no form of protection.
  We have heard in some detail about the pathogens involved. We have great faith that whatever infectious disease comes upon us, medical science can be relied on for a cure. That faith was temporarily dented by the advent of AIDS, but we still like to think that science will win out in the end. However, another publication tells me that there is widespread increased resistance to penicillin in homosexual and bisexual men. That is presumably due to the number of times that they have to resort to such medication to maintain their preferred lifestyle.
  We allow those whose settled view is that that is the lifestyle that best suits them the freedom to continue with it. The amendment addresses the fact that some young men mature later. Their smooth young looks may even make them more attractive to those looking for a pretty boy. The noble Lord, Lord Walton, tells us that their sexuality is fixed. Can he also tell us whether they are still uncertain of their sexuality? The amendment would give them some protection from the undoubted dangers of anal sex until they reach the age of 18, when presumably they will be clear in their choice.
  52
  Given our reliance on the effectiveness of education to persuade girls that it is better to postpone sexual activity until they are 16, it should be equally possible to persuade boys that they should postpone anal sex for another two years. Those who give such teaching should also impart an understanding of sexuality and explain that differences do occur.
  I read somewhere a text that is probably familiar to some of your Lordships. It says:
  "Put not your faith in princes, nor in any child of man".
  We are almost getting to the stage of saying, "put not your faith in condoms or in antibiotics".
  5.30 p.m.
  Lord Plant of Highfield: I shall speak briefly in favour of the Bill, as I have done on previous occasions. My main point is equality between heterosexual and homosexual relationships. In a democratic society, there are certain core values, such as equality of concern for each individual, equality of respect for each individual and equality of interests, in the sense that each person's interests should be considered equally with everyone else's. There can be no greater interest to someone than their sexuality or sexual orientation.
  What might be the arguments for moving away from equality of treatment? We have heard three this afternoon. The first, put forward by the noble Baroness, Lady Seccombe, and my noble friend Lord Davies of Coity, is that homosexual acts are somehow unnatural. I believe that that is a dangerous argument in that what is natural and unnatural cannot determine a moral point of view. Most of human civilisation occurs in a fantastic struggle against nature. One cannot assume that what is natural is good and what is unnatural is bad. We must look at what is natural and unnatural from our own moral perspective. It is because each of us has a moral perspective that we believe that something that is natural is good or that something unnatural is bad. What is natural and unnatural does not determine that perspective.
  In a democratic society moral perspectives will differ markedly, as is obvious from the debate this afternoon. Therefore, in a democratic society I believe that those who have strong views about issues of morality should be prepared to stay their hand over those views if forcing them through a legislature would disadvantage particular groups in the community and infringe the basic democratic values that I have mentioned.
  The second reason for departing from equality would be if the actions were harmful to others—that is, others outside the relationship. However, as such relationships are private, it is difficult to see how others could be harmed by them. A great deal of play has been made of the third reason; namely, self harm, and the idea that such acts are likely to cause harm to the individuals who engage in them.
  I listened carefully to the noble Lord, Lord McColl. Everything that he said was most telling. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Walton of Detchant, agreed with everything that the noble Lord, Lord McColl, said.

  53
  However, he drew very different conclusions from exactly the same set of medical facts. My sympathies in this argument lie with the noble Lord, Lord Walton. I share many of his hesitations and concerns but, in the end, I go along with his views.
  Therefore, I believe that whether in terms of nature, in terms of harm to others or in terms of self harm, there are no good grounds for moving away from the idea of equality. On other occasions my noble and learned friend the Attorney-General has made equality of treatment central to this issue. I believe that there is the strongest possible case for doing so again.
  Perhaps I may—
  Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: Before the noble Lord leaves the question of equality, does he agree that one great inequality lies in the rate at which children mature? Does he agree that some children are very mature at the age of 16, but most are not mature until the age of 18?
  Lord Plant of Highfield: I spent most of my life in education. I have three sons who have had girlfriends and friends who are boys. To be honest, I have not noticed that type of rigid difference. Obviously—
  Baroness Blatch: I apologise profusely to the noble Lord for intervening from a sedentary position. My noble friend was making the opposite point. He was not saying that the difference is rigid; he was saying that young people develop at different stages. However, the general point is that at the age of 16 one is not mature enough to make that type of decision.
  Lord Plant of Highfield: I meant to say that my experience of being in a houseful of young children for most of my adult life does not lead me to take the view that the noble Lord took. I do not believe that there is a case for moving from equality.
  Although it is not an addition to the argument, perhaps I may say to my noble friend Lord Davies of Coity, who quoted some moving words from W H Auden, that it is worth remembering that Auden himself was a homosexual who for many years lived in a very faithful relationship with Chester Kallman.
  Lord Davies of Coity: Before my noble friend sits down, that may well be true. But I do not believe that he was 16 years old when that relationship developed.
  Lord Mishcon: We have had a most uninhibited debate. I have been termed a grandfather. However, on first hearing the word "buggery" in this Chamber my own grandfather would have dragged me out. As I said, we have had a most frank and useful debate.
  My only contribution arises out of the speech of my noble friend Lord Stoddart. He said that I had had some part, as had he, in the preparation of the Wolfendon report. Indeed, I was a member and, I am told, the last surviving member of the Wolfendon committee. I believe that it would interest the Committee if I were to read an excerpt from the section
  54
  of the report where the committee was considering the very question of age and the appropriateness of age. Then I promise your Lordships, and especially the Whips, that I shall sit down:
  "There must obviously he an element of arbitrariness in any decision on this point"—
  that is, the question of consent of age—
  "but, all things considered, the legal age of contractual responsibility seems to us to afford the best criterion for the definition of adulthood in this respect. While there are some grounds for fixing the age as low as 16, it is obvious that, however mature a boy of that age may be as regards physical development or psychosexual make-up, and whatever analogies may be drawn from the law relating to offences against young girls, a boy is incapable at the age of 16 of forming a mature judgment about actions of a kind which might have the effect of setting him apart from the rest of society. A young man between 18 and 21 may be expected to be rather more mature in this respect. We have, however, encountered several cases in which young men have been induced by means of gifts of money or hospitality to indulge in homosexual behaviour with older men and we have felt obliged to have regard to the large numbers of young men who leave their homes at or about the age of 18 and either for their employment or their education or to fulfil their National Service obligations are then for the first time launched into the world in circumstances which render them particularly vulnerable to advances of this sort".
  That portion of the Wolfendon report related to any homosexual act. Without taking the liberty of guessing at what members of the committee might have told your Lordships today—it would be wrong of me to do so—I can only give my personal view that that would be their opinion at this stage when relating acts of buggery to the age of 18 instead of 16.
  It seems to me to be absurd—I use the word advisedly—to know, as a lawyer, that if a young man of 16 were to sign a tenancy agreement of a bedsitting room, his act would be voidable because under the law it is considered that he is not capable of making a contractual obligation and does not have the experience to do so, but he would be responsible for what happened in that bedsitting room, and so would we if we reduced the age of consent to 16.
  Earl Russell: Before the noble Lord sits down, I honour him for his contribution to the Wolfendon committee. However, is he aware that he has made the same mistake as did my great-grandfather in relation to the first reform Bill? He is playing the part of Finality Jack. My great-grandfather ultimately thought better of it. I hope that the noble Lord will do the same.
  Lord Mishcon: I respect any ancestor of the noble Earl and will pay my respect to him. However, it may be that that ancestor was even more sensible than the noble Earl.
  Baroness Blatch: It is customary in this Chamber to offer congratulations when a maiden speech is made and it is my understanding that the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chelmsford made his maiden speech this afternoon in the course of this debate. If I am right about that, I wish to congratulate the right reverend Prelate.

  55
  He took at least one of the two main pieces of advice that one receives when making a maiden speech; namely, to be brief. The right reverend Prelate was indeed brief. I am not sure about the other piece of advice—to be non-controversial. But the right reverend Prelate will not be surprised to know that I welcomed his comments and we shall welcome his support this evening.
  I rise to support my noble friend Lady Young. The noble Earl, Lord Longford, who was the first to speak after my noble friend, said that he would have preferred a straight rejection of the Bill. I say "amen" to that. That is precisely what I should have preferred and I know that my noble friend would have preferred that too.
  The noble Lord, Lord Newby, said that he supports the Bill for reasons of equality. The noble Lord is not present in his place but I should wish to remind him that my noble friend has dealt with the whole issue of equality, which dominated our previous debates.
  The noble Lord, Lord Alli, accused my noble friend Lady Young of being unprincipled because her amendments before the Committee represent a compromise. My noble friend explained the amendments very well, in my opinion. The Government have stated their intention to use the Parliament Act on this matter of conscience, which removes our power to succeed in opposing the lowering of the age of consent. I agree with my noble friend Lady Seccombe who said that the use of the Parliament Act on a matter of conscience is an outrage.
  Lord Alli: If it is a matter of principle, as the noble Baroness has just said, why is she supporting the amendment? If it is a matter of principle, surely she should be seeking to vote out the Bill and not to support the amendment moved by the noble Baroness.
  Baroness Blatch: Has the noble Lord, Lord Alli, ever heard of politics being the art of the possible? We know that the Government intend to use the Parliament Act and we have no power to prevent that on this matter of conscience. Therefore, we are doing what we can to protect the most vulnerable young people in our communities.
  Earl Russell: On the point of the Parliament Act and a matter of conscience, does the noble Baroness remember the War Crimes Act 1991?
  Baroness Blatch: I am referring to this legislation. We are concerned about the protection of young people. The amendments are an attempt to offer greater protection to girls and the more vulnerable young people from that dangerous practice of buggery.
  To describe my noble friend as unprincipled is deeply offensive. My noble friend is a person of the highest integrity and principle.
  56
  Reference was made to the fact that the public have not been sounded out on this issue. But I remind the Committee that there was a referendum of all the people in Scotland. The overwhelming reply from the people of Scotland—and I have no reason whatever to believe that the answer would be different from the people of this country—was that they supported my noble friend in all her efforts and they certainly do not wish to see any lowering of the age of consent.
  As has been said, we make laws on drinking, smoking and dropping litter in the street. To say that we are not fit to address this issue, which is serious in terms of morality and health, is simply not true.
  The noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, referred to it as being high-minded to discuss these matters. But we discuss education, youth policies and all sorts of issues which affect young people. This is just another social issue which affects young people.
  But when we pass laws in Parliament, we send messages in relation to what the government of the day think about the laws of the land. This is an important message which should be modified. If we cannot reject the Bill, then, in my view, it should be modified.
  The most significant point that I want to make this evening is that, apart from the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, little has been said about the most vulnerable young people in our community. Later this evening, we shall be discussing what may be described as the Waterhouse amendments. We know, because of the evidence in the report of those dreadful happenings in Wales, that much of the sexual activity which took place in those cases would be made legal under this Bill. We know that vulnerable young people, especially those who live their lives in institutions, go to great lengths to seek affection. Very often, they are inveigled into situations in which, because they seek affection and want to be loved and wanted, they find themselves seriously compromised.
  We know from the conclusions of Professor Waterhouse's report that many of those young people between the ages of 16 and 18 are farmed out to third parties—not those named in the abuse of trust clauses in the Bill—for sex. That would be made legal under the Bill.
  The case for these amendments has been made powerfully by my noble friend Lady Young and others. Therefore, I shall not detain the Committee any longer. My noble friend has fought for the health and protection of children with great courage. She has often been subjected to much ridicule and offensive comment. I shall willingly join her in the Division Lobby this evening and I hope that the majority of Members of the Committee will also do so.
  5.45 p.m.
  Lord Falconer of Thoroton: First, I join with the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, in congratulating the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chelmsford on his maiden speech. I, too, noticed two things about it: first, it was commendably short; and, secondly, it was very clear and sincere. I hope that we shall hear more from the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of

  57
  Chelmsford in the months and years to come on a whole number of topics, because he plainly has a great deal to contribute to the proceedings of this House.
  I turn now to the issues. There has been an extremely powerful and strong debate today in which both sides of the argument have been strongly and clearly put. I should not assist the Committee by going through each of the contributions which have been made. I hope that the Committee will forgive me for not doing that.
  Perhaps I may identify what seem to me to be the main issues in relation to this matter. First, the Bill is advanced by the Government on the basis of equality. The point was made by my noble and learned friend the Attorney-General on Second Reading that homosexuals are entitled to equality before the law. That is the reason that the Bill was introduced.
  The equality issue requires that homosexuals should be entitled to the same rights before the law in relation to sexual activity as heterosexuals. That principle of equality before the law appears to be accepted by the noble Baroness, Lady Young, and those who support her in relation to putting forward the amendment.
  But in those circumstances, homosexual sexual activity, including anal intercourse, is to be regarded in a different way from heterosexual intercourse. So a distinction is to be drawn between the homosexual and the heterosexual. So there is not equality on that basis.
  Therefore, the Government do not accept the basic premise advanced by the noble Baroness—namely, that her amendment provides equality.
  Baroness Blatch: Does the noble and learned Lord accept that both boys and girls can indulge in heterosexual sex but that under the amendments, both boys and girls would not be allowed to indulge in homosexual activity? It is equal for both in both cases.
  Lord Falconer of Thoroton: I accept entirely the description which the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, has given of the amendments. It was just as clearly put by the noble Baroness, Lady Young. But homosexual intercourse involves anal intercourse; heterosexual intercourse will not. In those circumstances, it is being said that a different rule should apply to heterosexuals from that which should apply to homosexuals. That is the basic premise in relation to equality which we advance in rejecting the amendments.
  Lord Carlisle of Bucklow: Is the noble and learned Lord really saying as the logic of his argument that one should equate vaginal intercourse with anal intercourse? Many would not accept that.
  Lord Falconer of Thoroton: The proposition that underlines the rejection of the amendment advanced by the noble Baroness, Lady Young, is that homosexuals and heterosexuals, in relation to the expression of their sexual activity, should have equality before the law. That is exactly the proposition
  58
  that has been put—I notice that the noble Baroness, Lady Young, is nodding—and that is the logic of the Government's position.
  The noble Baroness and those who support her say that as long as the situation is the same in relation to anal intercourse there will be equality before the law. With respect, the Government do not accept that proposition. Homosexuals are entitled to an equal age of consent to that of heterosexuals. That is the basic position that we accept and put forward in relation to this Bill. That is the point of principle that divides those who support the noble Baroness, Lady Young, from those who support the Government in rejecting the amendment.
  Lord Campbell of Alloway: I am a little muddled about the definition. I am not an expert on this matter. Is the Minister saying—this may be a stupid question—that the only form of homosexual intercourse is anal intercourse? I understand that to be part of his argument in relation to equality.
  Lord Falconer of Thoroton: I say that homosexuals and heterosexuals are entitled to equality before the law, and that will include the homosexual being entitled to express his sexuality in the way that he wants.
  The second argument advanced in relation to this amendment was that to protect children and to avoid health risks that arise from anal intercourse the age of consent for anal intercourse, whether female or male, should be 18. So the medical risks and the interests of children were put at the forefront of the arguments of the noble Baroness.
  The noble Lord, Lord Walton of Detchant, in a well-measured speech, set out the position of the BMA in relation to that matter. That organisation rightly identified that anal intercourse presents a much greater risk for HIV transmission for homosexuals and bisexual men than most other types of sexual activity. Therefore, it is of the highest importance that young men who are at such risk have access to health promotion advice from professionals such as doctors, teachers or youth workers to help them to avoid infection.
  However, the BMA said:
  "Continued criminalisation of this activity for those under 18 is likely to prevent a significant number of young gay men from seeking professional advice. It is also likely to inhibit professionals from providing adequate information to those under 18 about how to make the riskiest practices safer including the use of condoms. The BMA Foundation for AIDS believes there is no convincing medical reason for retaining a higher age of consent for anal intercourse between men, but strong medical reasons why it should be reduced to 16 years".
  That is the view of the British Medical Association in relation to the health risks. Not for one moment do I want to become involved in the detail of the health issues, but I look at the views of an independent body of doctors in relation to that and that is their considered view in relation to the health risks.
  It was said that this amendment will put children at risk. Like the noble Lord, Lord Walton of Detchant, perhaps I may indicate some organisations that

  59
  support the Bill: the NSPCC, Barnardo's, the National Children's Homes, Action for Children, the National Youth Agency, the National Children's Bureau, the British Youth Council, Save the Children Fund, Family Welfare Association, Health Education Authority, British Medical Association, Family Planning Association, Children's Rights Development Unit, National Association of Probation Officers, British Association of Social Workers, Royal College of Nursing, Royal College of Psychiatrists and Amnesty International.
  Those bodies plainly have as their main concern the interests of young people and they support the reduction in the age of consent to 16. On a regular, day-to-day basis, they deal with the problems that people face. I respect their views and before the Committee decides what view it wants to take in relation to the amendment, it must carefully consider the views of those bodies. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Young, that this is a very important decision.
  Baroness Blatch: First, is the Minister aware that not one of the voluntary organisations that he has named consulted its members in relation to this Bill? My family are contributors to the NSPCC and when we got in touch with that organisation, apart from being treated rather shabbily on the telephone, it said that the decision was that of the board, exclusive of the membership.
  Secondly, is the Minister aware that Barnardo's, in writing to my noble friend Lady Seccombe, who had referred to the fact that the Bill not only lowered the age of consent for boys but also lowered it to allow buggery against girls at the age of 16, said:
  "What I can say is that Barnardo's has not been aware that young women would be affected in the way you point out, and I would be grateful if you could let me know which Clause of the Bill you are referring to".
  Not only has that organisation given an opinion without consulting its members or its contributors, but it has also misunderstood the Bill.
  Lord Falconer of Thoroton: I am not in a position to describe the process of consultation that those bodies went through, but I have little doubt that in expressing their views to Parliament in a matter of great significance, they gave their bona fide views as to what was in the best interests of children whom they are designed to protect. Maybe they could have had a better consultation process, but I am quite sure that that was their view according to their experience.
  Lord Northbourne: Can the Minister confirm that all those organisations have been consulted on the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Young, and not on the principle of reducing the age of consent on which we all agree?
  Lord Falconer of Thoroton: According to the piece of paper that I have seen from those organisations, they have commented on the amendment of the noble
  60
  Baroness; for example, the NSPCC have set out in detail why it is keen to reject the amendment. My belief is that the vast majority of them have been consulted on that, although no doubt the noble Baroness can tell the Committee whether she consulted any of them before putting forward her amendment.
  Lord Waddington: We must be clear about this. When I came into the House today I received the briefing from the organisation to which the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, has referred, and there is no specific reference to the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Young.
  Lord Falconer of Thoroton: Perhaps I can read from a communication from the NSPCC:
  "The amendments to Clause 1 of the Bill by Baroness Young and Baroness Seccombe would create two different ages of consent—an age of consent at 18 for anal intercourse, whether homosexual or heterosexual, and an age of consent at 16 for all other homosexual or heterosexual sexual relations".
  That is what they are considering. At the end it says:
  "The NSPCC therefore rejects these amendments. We ask Peers to support the new offence of abuse of trust as currently drafted in the Bill. The NSPCC supports the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Bill. We support the equalisation of the age of consent at 16".
  I am told by my noble and learned friend the Attorney-General that that is dated today. So I believe that the NSPCC considered it in detail and gave detailed arguments as to why it rejects the amendment.
  I put before the Committee the point that those organisations, all of whom are concerned with the welfare of children and all of whom would put their bona fide views to the Committee, take the view that this is not a sensible amendment. I ask noble Lords to take that into account when they make up their minds in relation to these amendments.
  Perhaps I can deal with the point about Scotland. Sodomy is a common law offence in Scotland and it is defined as buggery of one man by another. There is no heterosexual equivalent. In Scotland, having anal intercourse with a consenting adult woman—for example, over the age of 16—is not an offence. To change that situation would require a new definition of sodomy to be introduced into Scottish law. It is far from clear whether the amendment does that, but a further important issue that we have not touched on is that that would be a substantive change to the criminal law in Scotland which goes beyond the age change at present in the Bill. That is a devolved matter and, therefore, it is something on which the Scottish Parliament should properly decide and legislate.
  As Members of the Committee know, the Scottish Parliament supports the present proposals in the Bill. It endorses them by a large majority and asks Westminster to enact them for Scotland on its behalf. However, it did not give its agreement to the creation of a wholly new offence such as the one proposed, which criminalises practices which are currently lawful in Scotland.

  61
  I ask Members of the Committee to reject Amendment No. 1 and the consequential amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Young, first, on the principle of equality and, secondly, because far from providing the protection for children which the noble Baroness claims they will, many people involved in the process feel that they will have the reverse effect. I therefore invite the Committee to reject the amendment.
  6 p.m.
  Baroness Young: My Lords, first, I thank all those who supported me this afternoon. If I do not mention everybody by name, it is not that I do not greatly appreciate all that they said; it is that time will not allow. We have had a good and fair debate. Perhaps I can add my congratulations to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chelmsford and say how much I appreciated his comments.
  Basically, two main issues arose in this debate and I turn to those before addressing the points raised by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer. The first issue is obviously an important one. A dispute arose between my noble friend Lord McColl, who made an extremely important speech on the medical dangers of anal intercourse—the statistics he gave on smoking and anal sex and the shortening of young people's lives as a consequence of those activities should be remembered by us all—and the noble Lord, Lord Walton, whom I have known for years as a neighbour and friend in Oxford and who clearly does not support my amendment today.
  I suggest to the noble Lord, Lord Walton, that the BMA is mistaken in thinking that, by lowering the age of consent to 16, it will provide better advice and safer sex for young people. The evidence, which is what we are considering, indicated that when the age of consent was lowered from 18 the amount of infections increased. That suggests that lowering the age of consent will not help and I have not the slightest reason for thinking that if the age of consent is lowered to 16, fewer infections will occur. The BMA should recognise that.
  The BMA says that anal intercourse is such a risky activity from the medical point of view that the age of con sent should be lowered from 18 to 16 in order for young men to seek better safe sex advice. But the amount of advice already available is enormous. One only needs to look at commonly-accepted publications such as the one I hold in my hand, in which at least eight organisations are listed which can be contacted by telephone, to realise that it is a fallacy to think that young people cannot readily obtain advice.
  As one would expect from a lawyer, the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, asked an important question of the noble Lord, Lord Walton, when he asked what a court would decide. Following on from the Gillick case, it is apparent that a doctor would not be sued for giving professional advice to a young person under 18 who asked for it. So the noble Lord's argument in that regard does not hold up.
  62
  The second argument advanced came from the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, who asked me straight out: what is the point of introducing my amendments because they are unenforceable? I am sure that the noble Viscount has studied this matter as closely as myself. He will recognise that the law at the moment is that heterosexuals can commit sexual acts at 16 but must wait until they are 18 to commit buggery. What I am proposing is no different in principle. The question of enforceability therefore does not arise any more under my amendments than under the law as it stands at present.
  Perhaps I can comment once again on equality. My colleagues and myself thought hard and long about this point and made a genuine effort to meet some of the arguments. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, will know as well as I—it was mentioned by the noble Lords, Lord Stoddart and Lord Davies of Coity—that all sorts of age limits exist for different activities such as smoking, drinking, driving and probably for signing a contract for a bedsitting room, though I am not sure what age that is. They are all accepted. Why we should feel that we have to accept the narrowly defined terms of equality put forward by the Government I simply do not know.
  But there is a profound difference between heterosexual sex and anal sex which I must underline. One is an extremely dangerous activity; the other involves dangers, but not in the serious medical sense to which reference has been made. Once again, the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, in reading out the section from the Wolfenden report, accurately summed up the arguments on the age of consent being 18.
  Finally, I turn to the charities. I have not heard from the NSPCC. None of the charities write to me on these issues. I have offered to see them but they never wish to discuss it. I am not sure why. I sometimes think that they are a little uncertain about discussing the issue with someone who has strongly-held opinions. Charities do many good works. But they are not always right and this argument does contain a moral aspect.
  I have said it before and I repeat: I speak as a Christian. In all our debates there has been a great feeling among the Christians, among the Moslems in this Chamber, among the Sikhs, the Jews and the Hindus of what we believe is right and wrong. If charities thought about the views of their founders, they too would look at that aspect of this whore debate.
  So I come back to the amendments before us. We are fighting to protect children from dangerous activities which could damage their health. I hope that my amendment receives support and I wish to test the opinion of the Committee.
  6.8 p.m.
  On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 1) shall be agreed to?
  Their Lordships divided: Contents, 205; Not-Contents, 144.

  Division No. 1

  CONTENTS

  Ackner, L.

  Gardner of Parkes, B.

  Allenby of Megiddo, V.

  Geddes, L.

  Ampthill, L.

  Gibson, L.

  Arran, E.

  Glenarthur, L.

  Astor, V.

  Glentoran, L.

  Astor of Hever, L.

  Goschen, V.

  Attlee, E.

  Gray of Contin, L.

  Barber, L.

  Greenway, L.

  Beaumont of Whitley, L.

  Griffiths of Fforestfach, L.

  Bell, L.

  Hanham, B.

  Bellwin, L.

  Hanson, L.

  Belstead, L.

  Harris of High Cross, L.

  Blackwell, L.

  Harris of Peckham, L.

  Blaker, L.

  Haslam, L.

  Blatch, B.

  Hayhoe, L.

  Blease, L.

  Henley, L.

  Boardman, L.

  Higgins, L.

  Bowness, L.

  Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, L

  Brabazon of Tara, L.

  Home, E.

  Bridgeman, V.

  Howe of Aberavon, L.

  Bridges, L.

  Howell of Guildford, L.

  Brigstocke, B.

  Hunt of Wirral, L.

  Brookman, L.

  Hurd of Westwell, L.

  Brougham and Vaux, L.

  Hussey of North Bradley, L.

  Burnham, L.

  Inglewood, L.

  Buscombe, B.

  Islwyn, L.

  Butterworth, L.

  Jellicoe, E.

  Byford, B.

  Jopling, L.

  Caithness, E.

  Kimball, L.

  Campbell of Alloway, L.

  Kingsland, L.

  Campbell of Croy, L.

  Knight of Collingtree, B.

  Carlisle of Bucklow, L.

  Laird, L.

  Carnarvon, E.

  Lamont of Lerwick, L.

  Carnegy of Lour, B.

  Lane, L.

  Carr of Hadley, L.

  Lawson of Blaby, L.

  Chadlington, L.

  Lichfield, Bp.

  Chalfont, L.

  Liverpool, E.

  Chelmsford, Bp.

  Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

  Clark of Kempston, L.

  Longford, E.

  Clarke of Hampstead, L.

  Luke, L.

  Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

  Lyell, L.

  Cockfield, L.

  McColl of Dulwich, L.

  Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

  Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

  Colwyn, L.

  Mancroft, L.

  Cope of Berkeley, L.

  Mason of Barnsley, L.

  Courtown, E.

  Miller of Hendon, B.

  Cox, B.

  Mishcon, L.

  Craig of Radley, L.

  Monro of Langholm, L.

  Cranborne, V.

  Monson, L.

  Crickhowell, L.

  Montrose, D.

  Croham, L.

  Moore of Wolvercote, L.

  Cuckney, L.

  Mowbray and Stourton, L.

  Cumberlege, B.

  Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

  Davies of Coity, L.

  Naseby, L.

  Dean of Harptree, L.

  Neill of Bladen, L.

  Dearing, L.

  Nickson, L.

  Denham, L.

  Noakes, B.

  Dixon, L.

  Norfolk, D.

  Dixon-Smith, L.

  Northbourne, L.

  Donoughue, L.

  Northbrook, L.

  Eden of Winton, L.

  Northesk, E.

  Elles, B.

  O'Cathain, B.

  Elliott of Morpeth, L.

  Onslow, E.

  Elton, L.

  Oppenheim-Barnes, B.

  Feldman, L.

  Orme, L.

  Ferrers, E.

  Oxfuird, V.

  Fitt, L.

  Palmer, L.

  Fookes, B.

  Palumbo, L.

  Forsyth of Drumlean, L.

  Park of Monmouth, B.

  Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

  Parkinson, L.

  Freeman, L.

  Pearson of Rannoch, L.

  64

  Peel, E.

  Simon of Glaisdale, L.

  Peyton of Yeovil, L.

  Skelmersdale, L.

  Pilkington of Oxenford, L.

  Slim, V.

  Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

  Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.

  Porter of Luddenham, L.

  Sterling of Plaistow, L.

  Powell of Bayswater, L.

  Stevens of Ludgate, L.

  Prentice, L.

  Stewartby, L.

  Prior, L.

  Stoddart of Swindon, L.

  Pym, L.

  Strange, B.

  Quirk, L.

  Strathclyde, L.

  Rawlings, B.

  Swinfen, L.

  Rawlinson of Ewell, L.

  Taylor of Warwick, L.

  Reay, L.

  Tebbit, L.

  Rees, L.

  Tenby, V.

  Rees-Mogg, L.

  Thatcher, B.

  Renton, L.

  Thomas of Gwydir, L.

  Renton of Mount Harry, L.

  Tombs, L.

  Richardson of Duntisbourne, L.

  Trefgarne, L.

  Roberts of Conwy, L.

  Trumpington, B.

  Rotherwick, L.

  Vinson, L.

  Ryder of Wensum, L.

  Vivian, L.

  Saatchi, L.

  Waddington, L.

  Sainsbury of Preston Candover, L.

  Wakefield, Bp.

  Wakeham, L.

  Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

  Weatherill, L.

  Sanderson of Bowden, L.

  Wilberforce, L.

  Seccombe, B. [Teller]

  Wilcox, B.

  Selsdon, L.

  Willoughby de Broke, L.

  Shaw of Northstead, L.

  Winchester, Bp.

  Shore of Stepney, L.

  Wolfson, L.

  Shrewsbury, E.

  Wright of Richmond, L.

  Simon, V.

  Young, B. [Teller]

  NOT-CONTENTS

  Addington, L.

  Freyberg, L.

  Alli, L.

  Gale, B.

  Amos, B.

  Goldsmith, L.

  Andrews, B.

  Goodhart, L.

  Archer of Sandwell, L.

  Gordon of Strathblane, L.

  Ashton of Upholland, B.

  Gould of Potternewton, B.

  Bach, L.

  Graham of Edmonton, L.

  Barker, B.

  Grenfell, L.

  Barnett, L.

  Hamwee, B.

  Bassam of Brighton, L.

  Harris of Greenwich, L.

  Bath and Wells, Bp.

  Harrison, L.

  Birmingham, Bp.

  Haskel, L.

  Birt, L.

  Hayman, B.

  Blackstone, B.

  Hilton of Eggardon, B. [Teller]

  Bledisloe, V.

  Hogg of Cumbernauld, L.

  Borrie, L.

  Hollis of Heigham, B.

  Bragg, L.

  Howells of St. Davids, B.

  Brennan, L.

  Howie of Troon, L.

  Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

  Hughes of Woodside, L.

  Burlison, L.

  Hunt of Chesterton, L.

  Burns, L.

  Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

  Carter, L.

  Hutchinson of Lullington, L.

  Chandos, V.

  Irvine of Lairg, L. (Lord Chancellor)

  Christopher, L.

  Clement-Jones, L.

  Jacobs, L.

  Cohen of Pimlico, B.

  Janner of Braunstone, L.

  Craigavon, V.

  Jay of Paddington, B. (Lord Privy Seal)

  David, B.

  Davies of Oldham, L.

  Jeger, B.

  Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

  Jenkins of Putney, L.

  Desai, L.

  Judd, L.

  Dholakia, L.

  Kennedy of The Shaws, B.

  Dubs, L.

  Lea of Crondall, L.

  Eatwell, L.

  Lincoln, Bp.

  Elder, L.

  Lipsey, L.

  Evans of Temple Guiting, L.

  Listowel, E.

  Ezra, L.

  Lockwood, B.

  Falconer of Thoroton, L.

  Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

  Falkland, V.

  McIntosh of Haringey, L.

  Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

  McIntosh of Hudnall, B.

  Faulkner of Worcester, L.

  MacKenzie of Culkein, L.

  65

  Maddock, B.

  Skidelsky, L.

  Mallalieu, B.

  Smith of Gilmorehill, B.

  Marsh, L.

  Smith of Leigh, L.

  Merlyn-Rees, L.

  Strabolgi, L.

  Miller of Chilthorne Domer, B.

  Symons of Vernham Dean, B

  Molloy, L.

  Taverne, L.

  Morris of Manchester, L.

  Taylor of Blackburn, L.

  Newby, L.

  Taylor of Gryfe, L.

  Northover, B.

  Thomas of Walliswood, B.

  Norton of Louth, L.

  Thornton, B.

  Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay, L.

  Tomlinson, L.

  Oxford, Bp.

  Tope, L.

  Patel, L.

  Tordoff, L.

  Peston, L.

  Turnberg, L.

  Phillips of Sudbury, L.

  Turner of Camden, B.

  Plant of Highfield, L.

  Wallace of Saltaire, L.

  Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

  Walmsley, B.

  Puttnam, L.

  Walpole, L.

  Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

  Walton of Detchant, L.

  Razzall, L.

  Warner, L.

  Rendell of Babergh, B.

  Warnock, B.

  Rennard, L.

  Warwick of Undercliffe, B.

  Richard, L.

  Watson of Richmond, L.

  Richardson of Calow, B.

  Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

  Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

  Whitaker, B.

  Roll of Ipsden, L.

  Whitty, L.

  Roper, L.

  Wilkins, B.

  Russell, E. [Teller]

  Williams of Elvel, L.

  Scott of Needham Market, B.

  Williams of Mostyn, L.

  Serota, B.

  Winston, L.

  Shepherd, L.

  Woolmer of Leeds, L.

  Shutt of Greetland, L.

  Young of Old Scone, B.

  Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
  6.20 p.m.
  Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
  Baroness Young Baroness Young moved Amendment No. 2:
  After Clause 1, insert the following new clause—

  SODOMY: SCOTLAND
  (" . In the Criminal Law (Consolidation) (Scotland) Act 1995, after section 13 there shall be inserted—
  SODOMY: SCOTLAND

    Sodomy with a member of the opposite sex.
    13A—(1) Subject to subsection (3) below, it shall be an offence to commit or to be party to the commission of, or to procure or attempt to procure the commission of an act of sodomy with a member of the opposite sex—

    (a) otherwise than in private;

    (b) without the consent of both parties to the act; or

    (c) with a person under the age of eighteen years.

    (2) A person under the age of eighteen does not commit an offence under subsection (1) above if he or she commits, or is party to the commission of, an act of sodomy with a person who has attained that age.
    (3) A person who is suffering from mental deficiency which is of such a nature or degree that he or she is incapable of living an independent life or of guarding himself or herself against serious exploitation cannot in law give any consent which, by virtue of subsection (1) above, would prevent an act of sodomy from being an offence; but a person shall not be convicted on account of the incapacity of such a person to consent, of an offence consisting of such an act if he or she proves that he or she did not know and had no reason to suspect that person to be suffering from such mental deficiency.
    (4) A person who commits or is party to the commission of an offence under subsection (1) above shall be liable on conviction on indictment to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years or to a fine or to both and on summary conviction to imprisonment
    66
    for a term not exceeding 3 months, or to a fine not exceeding the prescribed sum (within the meaning of section 225(8) of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995).
    (5) It shall be a defence to a charge of committing or to being a party to the commission of, or to procuring or attempting to procure the commission of an act of sodomy under subsection (1) above that the person so charged being under the age of 24 years who had not previously been charged with a like offence, had reasonable cause to believe that the other person was of or over the age of 18 years."").
    On Question, amendment agreed to.
    Clause 2 [Defences available to persons who are under age]:
    Baroness Young Baroness Young moved Amendments Nos. 3 to 16:

    Page 2, line 11, leave out ("sixteen") and insert ("eighteen").

    Page 2, line 22, leave out (""a homosexual act"") and insert (""an act of buggery in private with another man"").

    Page 2, line 25, leave out ("a homosexual act") and insert ("an act of buggery with another man or commission of an act of buggery").

    Page 2, line 26, leave out ("sixteen") and insert ("eighteen"). Page 2, line 27, at end insert—

    ("(3A) In subsection (1A) of section 1 of the Sexual Offences Act 1967 (as inserted by section 1) —

    (a) the words from "an act of gross indecency" to the end shall become paragraph (a); and

    (b) after that paragraph there shall be inserted the words, "and

    (b) an act of gross indecency with another man or commission of an act of gross indecency by any person shall not be an offence if he is under the age of sixteen and the other party has attained that age.".").

    Page 2, line 29, leave out second ("subsection") and insert ("subsections").

    Page 2, line 30, leave out ("(8A)") and insert ("(8B)").

    Page 2, line 30, leave out ("sixteen") and insert ("eighteen").

    Page 2, line 32, leave out ("a homosexual act") and insert ("an act of sodomy").

    Page 2, line 33, at end insert—

    ("(8C) A person under the age of sixteen years does not commit an offence under subsection (5A)(a) or (c) above if he commits or is party to the commission of an act of gross indecency or shameless indecency with a person who has attained that age.").

    Page 2, line 36, leave out (""a homosexual act"") and insert (""an act of buggery in private by a man with another man"").

    Page 2, line 39, leave out ("a homosexual act by any person") and insert ("an act of buggery by a man with another man or commission of an act of buggery by a man with another man").

    Page 2, line 40, leave out ("seventeen") and insert ("eighteen").

    Page 2, line 41, at end insert—

    ("(6) In paragraph (1A) of Article 3 of the Homosexual Offences (Northern Ireland) Order 1982 (as inserted by section 1) —

    (a) the words from "an act of gross indecency" to the end shall become paragraph (a); and

    (b) after that paragraph there shall be inserted the words "and

    (b) an act of gross indecency or commission of an act of gross indecency by any person shall not be an offence if he is under the age of seventeen and the other party has attained that age.".").

    On Question, amendments agreed to.
    Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
    Clause 3 [Abuse of position of trust]:
    Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 17:
    Page 3, line 2, at end insert (", including preparing such a person to engage in sexual activity with him at a later stage,").
    The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 17, I shall also speak to Amendments Nos. 20, 21, 22, 30, 31, 34, 35, 36 and 44.
    These amendments deal with extending the measures in this Bill to others in a position of trust. They also include the preparation or, as I understand it is known in the trade, grooming of a young person for sexual purposes. It is worth remembering why the abuse of trust provision was put into this Bill in the first place. Certain Members on the Government Benches in another place were unhappy and uneasy about lowering the age of consent. They brokered with the Home Secretary the abuse of trust clause. They, like us, felt that if the age of consent was to be lowered, some young people would be in a particularly vulnerable position and some people who held positions of trust over children ought to be subject to the measures in this Bill.
    Amendment No. 17 deals with preparing a young person for later sexual activity. Amendments Nos. 20, 21, 22, 30, 31, 34, 35 and 36 are consequential. Amendment No. 44 defines social care workers, and there are many references to the different types of people who are involved and who are to be included in the additional categories.
    Those of us who support these amendments were heavily influenced by the findings of the Waterhouse report. For those who have read it, the report makes chilling reading. For anyone who cares about the protection of children, it makes particularly chilling reading. The abuse of trust offence will operate only where there is a continuing professional relationship between the child and the abuser. For example, when a child leaves a home, he is no longer protected from those who were his carers. An abuser may with impunity groom a child for abuse, so long as that person refrains from sexual activity until after the child leaves his care. Another example would be that of a school teacher who "romances" a pupil during the final term at school but says that they must wait until the pupil is 16 and has left the school before having sex. That would also apply when a child leaves a detention centre.
    Care workers understand the care system. They also understand how vulnerable young people can be manipulated. That is precisely what happened with the unscrupulous care workers named in the Waterhouse report. They groomed young people for abuse, including abuse after the young person had left care. The Waterhouse report concluded that Reginald "Gary" Cooke had ready access to children in residential care in the Wrexham area. This is significant, since Cooke was employed as a care worker for only a little more than a year. There was no ongoing professional relationship, yet he still had access. One of the buggery victims in respect of whom Cooke was convicted in 1987 was 18 years old and not in care at the time of the offence. The victim had earlier
    68
    been in care at Bersham Hall, when he first met Cooke. G, referred to in the report, was abused by Jacqueline Thomas, a care worker at the children's home at which he was resident, but it was not until G was 16, and had gone to live in another home, that she had full sexual intercourse with him.
    I refer to something that I said in the previous debate. We are talking about the most vulnerable young people who seek affection and go to great lengths to be wanted and loved by other people. The tragedy of the cases about which I am now speaking is that that precious trust was breached by the very people to whom these young people turned for advice. John Allen was a chief executive of the Bryn Alyn homes. Properties owned by him were used,
    "to house young men who had been discharged from care".
    The professional relationship no longer existed, but we all know that the abuse went on.
    C, referred to in the report, alleged that Allen abused him in Bryntirion Hall, when aged 16, and subsequently after he had left, right up to the age of 23 and 24. Allen also made many attempts to abuse D, who was aged 16 when he entered Bryn Alyn. Another attempt was made many years later after he had left the home. The report makes clear its misgivings about the way in which Allen was able to continue his abuse of young people who had left care. I quote again from the report:
    "It is a cause for great concern also that his influence extended for some beyond the period of their residence in care with the Community to later years when they should have been establishing themselves in normal patterns of life".
    Amendments Nos. 21 and 22 refer to absconders. The Waterhouse report found that absconding was very common. In the case of local authority care or other accommodation, it is arguable that a child who is absconding is not protected, since he is no longer "resident" at the home, as the wording of the Bill requires. This is a legal loophole, which abusers could exploit. I hope that the Government, who are genuinely concerned about this part of the Bill, will allow this loophole to be plugged by these amendments.
    An abuser may persuade a child to run away from the home at which he works to stay with a friend. He may then be able to take sexual advantage of him without committing this offence. If he was prosecuted, he could argue, in the case of residential care, that the child was no longer resident at the home when the sexual activity took place, which would then make it legal. Many of the abused children referred to in the Waterhouse report ran away from the children's homes. Sometimes they stayed with the very paedophiles who were abusing them. Often the abusers 'farmed out' the children, to be abused by other known paedophiles. One of the most heart-rending passages of the Waterhouse report that affected me concerned three young brothers who went to the person in charge of the home to plead for help, and they were abused by the very person from whom they sought help. I cannot think of a worse breach of trust by an adult in that situation.
    It is a well established fact—and I now refer to Amendment No. 36, which refers to youth groups—that paedophiles can seek to obtain positions of responsibility in youth organisations where they can come into contact with children. The notorious paedophile, Reginald "Gary" Cooke, was employed as a care worker for a relatively short time. He worked for only two weeks in Bersham Hall, probably in or about 1972. He was later employed for over a year by the Bryn Alyn Community in two children's homes. Later still, he was the warden of a probation hostel for six months. Most of the boys whom Cooke abused were not actually in care at the time. Those who were in care tended to have met Cooke outside the home. One boy was in care from April 1973, when he was aged 16, until the end of 1974. His evidence was that he was abused by Cooke after a friendship developed between them when he attended a youth club. Cooke was a team leader in the youth club. The abuse continued until the boy told Cooke that he did not want it any more. He argued that Cooke—and I quote from the report— "took advantage of him when he was in need of friendship". When Cooke was an instructor in the Army Cadets he met boy B who claimed that he had been abused "on about half a dozen occasions" before he went into care. The years of abuse during which Cooke manipulated B into giving consent all started because of the relationship which began in a youth club.
    Amendment No. 30 covers social workers who work with children outside children's homes. Jacqueline Thomas, to whom I have already referred, was convicted of abusing a 16 year-old boy called S. The police investigation followed allegations made by G following his return from Christmas leave. G alleged that on Christmas Eve he and S had stayed at Thomas's flat. David Gillison, a social worker with Clywd County Council, was also there and group sexual activity took place. Gillison was later convicted of two charges of gross indecency with G. If the abuse of trust provisions had been in force at that time Thomas could have been convicted under them but her accomplice Gillison could not since he was not the social worker directly responsible for G or S. A care worker from one home can abuse children from another without committing an abuse of trust offence. This is a straightforward loophole in the proposed legislation. I am aware that the Home Secretary is concerned about this matter, and I hope that he will accept this amendment. If Thomas had introduced the boys to Gillison and refrained from taking part in sexual activity she would not have been committing an abuse of trust offence. Young people were, therefore, farmed out by one paedophile to others who abused them.
    It is difficult to draft an offence which would cover that type abuse without it being ridiculed as too wide, and I have no doubt there will be an attempt to do that tonight. However, it is possible to extend the reach of the offence to cover any contact between a social worker and a young person in a professional setting. Those who leave care may still be in regular contact with social workers in a professional setting. We have
    70
    only just passed an amendment to the Criminal Justice and Court Services Bill. In that one is talking about the use of probation hostels for people whose convictions are spent. Therefore, one is aware that professionals have contact with young people in these situations.
    Amendments Nos. 30 and 44 cover social workers in all their dealings with young people, not just in children's homes. The amendments protect young people only from social workers who have direct professional dealings with them. They also give effect to recommendation 32 of the Home Office review of sexual offences in respect of care staff in paid posts. As to that, my noble friend Lady Young has gone to enormous lengths to ensure that the amendments tabled today are consistent with the recommendations of that review. I have no doubt that arguments will be found to counter these amendments. However, the most vulnerable children should look to Parliament for protection, and these amendments aim to do just that. I beg to move.
    6.30 p.m.
    Lord Elton: In view of the enormous increase in the number of, and support for, mentors, many of whom are provided by the voluntary sector—for example, the DIVERT Trust, in which I declare an interest as its president—does my noble friend believe that this amendment embraces that activity, which should be covered? I am not sure that the amendment extends to that field.
    Baroness Blatch: My noble friend's point is the subject of another amendment. There is a later group of amendments which refers to those in education. I wish to cover the position of mentors who a re a group of people who have particular one-to-one relationships with very vulnerable people in our schools.
    Lord Elton: I draw my noble friend's attention to the fact that mentors act not only in the field of education but in other areas. However, I am grateful for that information.
    Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: I, too, have noted the tragic reports about children in care and have been horrified by what I have seen and read. That was brought into sharper focus for me because 10 years ago I purchased a house which formerly had been a care home. Over the course of 18 months my family and I turned that building back into a family house. When one buys a house one also buys its history. In the years since we have had visits from people who have come back to see the place where they were in care. They have extraordinary stories to tell, most of which are happy ones. The stories are of teachers who have devoted their lives to mending, helping and encouraging damaged young people from brutalised backgrounds who have had no love and affection at any time. For many of them the time spent in that home was the happiest in their short and unhappy lives. We have also heard darker stories of very vulnerable young people who from time to time have

    71
    attracted the attentions of predatory staff at the home. I can think of nothing more terrifying and shattering for a young person than to be removed from a dysfunctional and brutalised home, perhaps where there has been alcohol abuse and a lack of money and opportunity, to what he or she hopes will be a sanctuary, only to be taken advantage of by the people with whom he or she has been placed in trust.
    Over the past 10 years I have heard enough of such cases to make me feel very concerned about it. Therefore, we owe it to these unfortunate young people to ensure, if possible, that it never happens again. We must offer them every possible protection. I hope, therefore, that the Government will be able to accept my noble friend's amendments, which are designed to strengthen the protection that is afforded to these young people.
    The Attorney-General (Lord Williams of Mostyn): I am most grateful for the Committee's contributions, particularly the last one. I declare an interest as a former trustee of the NSPCC and chairman of the national commission of inquiry into the prevention of abuse against children. I also declared earlier—I should repeat it—that I had a connection with the Waterhouse inquiry. That inquiry is a continuing reproach to us all. When reading it we need to bear in mind that the law was not without effective sanction, although not on every occasion and in all circumstances. For example, the most persistent offender in Bryn Alyn was sentenced to six years' imprisonment. Norris who was at Bryn Estyn was sentenced to a long period of imprisonment. A large number of successful prosecutions were brought against men and women—mainly men—for the abuse of children in care. One must carefully bear in mind that the criminal law is there to provide serious criminal justice sanctions against those who abuse children.
    On an earlier occasion I invited the Committee not to cast out the Bill because it would leave children in the continuing limbo of having no protection under the criminal law. I suggested to the Committee that the offence of abuse of trust was a gap in the law. Members took their own view and, therefore, there is still no mechanism in law, until this Bill is passed, to deal with the offences of abuse of trust. I simply recite history without reproaching anyone. We must all make our decisions, appropriate or not as they may be. Therefore, we are not talking about the sexual abuse of children which, rightly so, remains a criminal offence.
    It is helpful to have in mind the Home Office consultative document about setting boundaries, to which the noble Baroness referred. The noble Baroness referred to recommendation 32. There are recommendations that there should be criminal sanctions in respect of breaches of relationship of care. They go much wider than the matters about which we are speaking today. For example, they include sexual relations between doctors and their patients and therapists and their clients.
    72
    Perhaps I may make one plea—for the last time I hope in this context. We really must get the whole of the law of sexual offences right. The consultative period extends until March of next year. I know the noble Baroness has said that that is a long time. That is a price worth paying to get the matter right. The one thing that all of us who have anything to do with this area of child protection or criminal justice can agree on is that the law is incoherent and ineffective. It is ineffective precisely because of its incoherence.
    I have spent a moment or two on that because I know the seriousness with which the Committee views these matters. This is a matter that my right honourable friend Mr Alun Michael was working on for a long time when he was in charge of these matters at the Home Office. I was working with him and the Home Secretary at that time. This is not just a response to questions raised in another place in the context of the Bill.
    We tried to focus on four principles, which I hope commend themselves as principles of utility and protection. First, the younger individual should be particularly vulnerable, as a result of personal circumstance such as would be the case with a young person in care. Secondly, the younger individual should be particularly vulnerable as a result of the situation he or she is in, such as in detention or residential care. We do not need to overlook those who are in young offender institutions. We must not simply limit our minds to what Sir Ronald Waterhouse was examining. One young offender was killed recently. A young white racist cellmate killed his ethnic minority cellmate in the most appalling circumstances. We need to bear that in mind as well.
    Thirdly, the older individual should be in a position of particular influence; and the relationship of trust should be particularly strong. This is true of teachers of students in full-time education. Fourthly—this is important—the younger party should not have easy access to other adults for advice or countervailing influence. That is true of course for many situations of residential care.
    The fact is—this is what Sir Ronald demonstrated to our continuing shame—that many people leave residential care deeply wounded and bruised. They are fragile when they go in, and, I am sorry to say—I do not think I exaggerate—they are irremediably wounded when they come out. The noble Lord, Lord Carlisle, and I have shared the experience of visiting prisons. Neither of us is a qualified psychiatrist, but when we talk to prisoners—the noble Lord, Lord Elton, will have had the same experience—without being psychiatrists, we can tell, nine times out of 10, which one of those prisoners, now adult, was formerly a child in care.
    Lord Carlisle of Bucklow: I am sure the noble and learned Lord will agree that having seen and read many reports, and through the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board when we have been compensating the victims of those who have been abused in institutions, one is shaken by the effect that it has had on the whole of their lives. As the noble and learned Lord said, they come out badly scarred.
    6.45 p.m.
    Lord Williams of Mostyn: I entirely agree. That is why we need to focus with great care on what will be effective. There are many people in positions of authority who abuse younger people. I am not saying this in any contentious way, but we know—alas—that many in the Roman Catholic priesthood have recently been found guilty of quite serious abuse. I am not saying this intending to diminish any of the concerns of the noble Baroness. I was grateful for the opportunity I had to discuss these matters with the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Young and Lady Blatch. We are trying to focus on the areas where the law can be effective, bearing in mind that this is in the overall context of the Home Office review.
    I turn to the amendments. The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, spoke of the first amendment speaking about "grooming". Because of Clause 3(5)(b) of the Bill the amendment will provide that preparing a person to engage in sexual activity with him at a later stage will fall within the definition of sexual activity only if the preparatory acts are themselves,
    "sexual in all the circumstances".
    If the acts designed to prepare another for sexual intercourse are themselves,
    "sexual in all the circumstances",
    then they already fall within the definition of the Bill as it stands. If the preparatory acts are not,
    "sexual in all the circumstances",
    the drafting of the amendment will leave those offences still uncovered. Therefore, I hope I have expressed the general view that I have towards these matters. But I urge Members of the Committee, with the greatest of respect, to produce legislation that will actually work. I believe that the presently drafted Bill does that.
    We then come to a different category. That is amendments to add a fifth category.
    Baroness Young: I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for giving way. In that last remark is he saying that the Bill, as drafted, covers Amendment No. 17 moved by my noble friend Lady Blatch?
    Lord Williams of Mostyn: Clause 3(5)(b) provides that preparing a person to engage in sexual activity with him at a later stage will only fall within the definition of "sexual activity" if the preparatory acts are themselves sexual in all the circumstances. Therefore, what I am saying is that the Bill will catch some activity, but the amendment, as drafted, will not do the work that the noble Baroness wants it to do.
    Baroness Blatch: I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord. Perhaps I may return to the precise wording of my amendment. It is,
    "to engage in any other sexual activity"—
    which is the preamble—
    "with or directed towards such a person, including".
    74
    It is only another aspect. It is another facet. It does not exclude the other acts which might indeed be sexual. The amendment says,
    "including preparing such a person to engage in sexual activity".
    So I am not sure that I agree with the noble and learned Lord's interpretation of my amendment.
    Lord Williams of Mostyn: I could be right and I could be wrong. But I believe that the summary and conclusion by way of definition of the legal consequence, first, of the Bill and, secondly, of the amendment, is correct.
    I turn now to the fifth category. Our offence is to deal with the abuses of a position of trust where a young person is especially vulnerable. I recognise that this is a matter of judgment. When one looks at Sir Ronald's report, it is not unreasonable to describe that collection of childcare establishments as our equivalent of the gulag archipelago. But no one wanted to know about the archipelago and no one recognised that it was a gulag, in other words, young children away from effective remedy.
    I believe that qualitatively—I put this as a serious point which, I hope, may resonate with the Committee—the situation is different. I agree with what the noble Lord was saying. If one is abused but can go home at the end of the day that is different to that feeling of utter abandonment which we know perfectly well is what typifies those in residential care homes. What is done to people who can go home at the end of the day is wrong, but I believe that it is different in consequence and practical outcome to those people in full-time care.
    Our offences are particularly designed to try to deal with the mischief which I have tried to identify. In the situations that we set out, the older person will be treated as being in a position of trust if he or she "looks after" the young person; that is, regular involvement in caring for, training, supervising or being in charge of the young person. Under the proposed amendments, a member of staff at one of the institutions I have mentioned could be liable even if he or she were not regularly involved in caring for, training, supervising or being in charge of the young person. In other words, the liability in law would arise because that person worked at the institution and had engaged in sexual activity with the young person, and not because he or she had been in that caring relationship of trust.
    I recognise that this is a matter sometimes of quite fine judgment but I suggest that that is different. After all, a member of staff in one of these institutions could be 18 and the person with whom he had sexual activity could be 16 or 17. In that situation there would be no true relationship of coercive trust. That really is the point. What matters is the coercion of circumstance and power, not the coercion of simply being a member of staff. We need to bear in mind that many acts would in any event be caught by the criminal law. If there is no consent, the law protects. We have to bear that in mind. We believe that the liability should be based on the abuse of the relationship of trust.

    75
    As far as concerns social care workers, in order for the older person to be treated as in a "position of trust" a condition is that he or she "looks after" the young person. I think that we have that balance right. "Looks after" is defined in the way that I suggested a few moments ago. Many of those who could be classified as "social care workers" would already be caught by the provisions of the Bill; for example, those regularly caring for someone under 18 in a children's home or residential care home. But not all those who could be called "social care workers" should be caught. I repeat: this is a matter of judgment. We believe that one should focus on the real mischief that was identified by Sir Ronald. The real vice comes because there is an element of the young person being in the care of someone. That young person's consent becomes meaningless because the consent, notionally, is overborne by the fact, first, of the relationship and the breach of trust; and, secondly, because the young person has no one else to whom to turn.
    If a social worker simply visits a young person of 16 or 17 resident at their own home and a sexual relationship develops, we believe that that should be dealt with by the General Social Care Council in England or the Care Council for Wales under the Care Standards Act 2000.
    Social services inspectors are caught by the amendments. I know that that is done for good motive, but they should not be caught simply because they are inspectors. They should be caught if they abuse any position of trust with a young person. Not all social services inspectors would be in that category. I say as carefully as I may that we should not categorise all behaviour of which we disapprove with this kind of wickedness and the true desperation that is brought about by the illustrations in the Waterhouse report.
    The question of youth groups may conveniently tip over into the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Elton, about mentors. The noble Lord rightly pointed out that mentors may be of a very wide category indeed. I think again that one is trying to attack here the vice of abuse of trust. I hope the noble Lord will agree with me on the basis of our general experience that not all mentors will be in that situation.
    Perhaps I may reassure the Committee. I do not believe that the case is made out at the present time for the inclusion of youth groups in the scope of the new offence, but I am happy to say that we will keep the matter under review. I ask the Committee to cast its eye over Clause 4(1) of the Bill. It states that,
    "if any of the four conditions set out below, or"—
    these are the important words from the point of view of the concern and question of the noble Lord, Lord Elton—
    "any condition specified in an order made by the Secretary of State by statutory instrument is fulfilled".
    The door is held wide open so that if we are further informed by particular experience the Secretary of State has that power.
    76
    I was not quite able to understand—it is my fault—the thinking behind Amendments Nos. 21 and 22. If one adds "normally" as is proposed in Amendments Nos. 21 and 22, the noble Baroness will produce an outcome contrary to that for which she is looking. I find it difficult that the amendment seeks to restrict the protection of children to those who are normally resident in a home as opposed to those who may on some occasions reside in such a place. I know from my own experience in the Waterhouse context that some very difficult children could not be dealt with in one home and sometimes they resided in homes for quite a short period of time. If one adds "normally" one will produce the unintended consequence that the protection may well be removed. I do not believe that that is what the noble Baroness wants. It may be that I have misunderstood the thrust of the amendment. But that is how I construe it.
    I know that I have been a little while. I do not apologise because the questions are quite serious.
    Lord Carlisle of Bucklow: I apologise to the noble and learned Lord because I entered the Chamber in the middle of his remarks. Over the past 12 months and more, the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board has seen many of these cases. They are, as the noble and learned Lord stated, disturbing. I agree with him that the most serious point of all is that the young people are abused in a home where they have been required to go by the order of a court. We have put them there for their care and protection and those who are supposed to be protecting them have themselves abused them.
    The other serious issue—I know this from the cases that I have seen—is that when they complained their complaints were not listened to and were often totally ignored. They were then told to go back and carry on as before. I accept the strength of the noble and learned Lord's argument, but is he saying that because it is vital that there should be protection in that area one should not look at these other areas as well; or is he saying that it is the intention of the Government, through the power in the following clause, to widen it to other areas which may not have the same individual features as those who are in charge of a community home but who, nevertheless, are in a position of trust over the children at the time that they are in their care?
    Lord Williams of Mostyn: I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle of Bucklow. Perhaps I may make two points. Neither of them is intended to be a forensic or debating point. The first point reinforces the general case that I was making. When the noble Lord served with such distinction on the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board, as it formerly was, that meant that the criminal law had sanctions. The noble Lord's authority could not have compensated without a criminal offence having been committed. That is not a full answer but it is a distinct answer; and it is an important answer from the public's point of view—that our law is not without weapon and strength.
    As to the noble Lord's second question, I do not believe that we have come to a perfect solution and I do not believe that we ever can do. In private discussions I

    77
    have been asked whether we should have a schedule or a list. We all know the difficulties of schedules or lists. The devious who wish to abuse children are quite skilful in avoiding definitions in schedules or lists. What I can say on behalf of the Home Secretary is that he has a distinct power in Clause 4(1):
    "any condition specified in an order made by the Secretary of State".
    That is additional to the four conditions set out at the end of page 3. I am grateful for the intervention and I hope that I have dealt with it appropriately.
    7 p.m.
    The Lord Bishop of Winchester: I should like to take up two points from among those raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, and by the Minister. The first point may assist the Minister, while the second seeks to establish whether he needs to keep on making the distinction around the area of the fifth condition.
    I was attracted to Amendment No. 17, but I could see the point being made by the Minister in his response. However, his argument might have been strengthened if he had referred to Clause 3(5)(a) rather than only to 3(5)(b). Subsection (5)(a) makes exactly the distinction that the Minister intended, thus making the point that it would behard to bring in grooming"—such as sharing a box of chocolates or a new pair of trainers—within the meaning of the Act because that would covered by the words,
    "knowledge of the intentions, motives or feelings".
    The Minister has persuaded me, but only by reference to Clause 3(5)(a) rather than 3(5)(b), that, in the end, Amendment No. 17—which I regarded as worthwhile—would not stand.
    Perhaps I may go on to ask why the Minister and the Government, while they are very properly determined to work at the questions concerning young people in care—in the broadest sense—are apparently so unwilling to move on to the areas covered by these amendments? Those concern the "family" in the widest sense, voluntary organisations—including churches and religious organisations, which have quite properly been included in Amendment No. 26. The Minister referred to Clause 4(1) which makes provision for the Secretary of State to bring in by statutory instrument other conditions laid down in the Bill. However, why should he be determined to do that only later? He seems reluctant to take action at this point. I feel that there is only too wretchedly ample evidence that terrible things have happened to children and young people in care. Thus his distinction between those wholly in the care ofothers and those only partly in such care, with the chance to go home, does not seem to me to be a distinction of the power, clarity and necessity that the Minister obviously wishes the Committee to accept.
    Lord Williams of Mostyn: Perhaps I may deal with those points without discourtesy. Amendment No. 26 is not included in this grouping. For appropriate reasons, it has been tabled separately and we shall debate it in due course.
    78
    Although I am a confirmed and baptised member of the Church in Wales, I am always happy to accept guidance from a sister Church. The right reverend Prelate is quite right: one cannot found criminal law on the basis of intent. However, I believe that once upon a time, in ancient China, there was an offence called the "possession of dangerous thoughts".
    Baroness Blatch: I am grateful for this important debate. Certainly, given the tone of the noble and learned Lord's reply, mutual concerns have been expressed on this issue.
    Perhaps I may deal first with the word "normally". I am concerned that a young person is afforded protection only if they are accommodated and cared for in an institution. If they happen to be farmed out temporarily, then they will lose the protection. The intention behind the use of the word "normally" was to ensure that if a young person is normally resident in one home, but for the purposes of the offence happened to be sent off—as in the case of the incidents in Wales—to a paedophile ring operating in a bungalow, then they will still receive the protection of the law. If the noble and learned Lord can point out in what way this is the wrong word to use, then I shall be prepared not to press those two amendments, although I believe that that would leave in place a rather rigid interpretation of the protection; namely, that someone must at all times be accommodated and cared for within one institution.
    We shall not oppose the abuse of trust clause as it stands. Our wish and intention is to improve and to strengthen it. The noble and learned Lord referred to the Bryn Alyn cases. However, I should point out that many of the abusers mentioned in the Waterhouse report were convicted of an "age of consent" offence—buggery and/or gross indecency. The protection as regards gross indecency will be removed under the present Bill if the Government accept that buggery should remain at 18. However, the advantage of an age of consent offence is that the prosecutor has to prove only that the action took place; thus there is no need to consider whether consent was or was not withheld.
    The noble and learned Lord has argued that a review is currently being undertaken. It will consult until next spring and it may be that further legislation will be required. However, I do not think that anything in these amendments would preclude further strengthening of the Bill. Indeed, we would welcome that. We hope that a further Bill will be announced in the forthcoming gracious Speech.
    If consent is not an issue, then an offence will have been committed. I believe that these are young people who are in a very vulnerable position. We know that the kind of people who abuse children can be extremely manipulative and do manage to find their way into positions as mentors, advisers and care workers. Given the importance of these amendments, and the fact that they would not preclude any further legislation to strengthen the law in this area, I wish to test the opinion of the Committee.
    7.7 p.m.
    On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 17) shall be agreed to?
    Their Lordships divided: Contents, 139; Not-Contents, 124.

    Division No. 2

    CONTENTS

    Ackner, L.

    Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, L

    Allenby of Megiddo, V.

    Holderness, L.

    Ampthill, L.

    Home, E.

    Anelay of St Johns, B.

    Inglewood, L.

    Arran, E.

    Islwyn, L.

    Astor of Hever, L.

    Jellicoe, E.

    Attlee, E.

    Jopling, L.

    Barber, L.

    Kimball, L.

    Bell, L.

    Knight of Collingtree, B.

    Blackwell, L.

    Laird, L.

    Blaker, L.

    Liverpool, E.

    Blatch, B. [Teller]

    Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

    Boardman, L.

    Luke, L.

    Brabazon of Tara, L.

    Lyell, L.

    Bridgeman. V.

    McColl of Dulwich, L.

    Brightman, L.

    Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

    Brigstocke, B.

    Mancroft, L.

    Brougham and Vaux, L.

    Miller of Hendon, B.

    Burnham, L.

    Monro of Langholm, L.

    Byford, B.

    Montrose, D.

    Caithness, E.

    Mowbray and Stourton, L.

    Campbell of Alloway, L.

    Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

    Campbell of Croy, L.

    Naseby, L.

    Carlisle of Bucklow, L.

    Nickson, L.

    Carnegy of Lour, B.

    Noakes, B.

    Carr of Hadley, L.

    Norfolk, D.

    Chadlington, L.

    Northbrook, L.

    Chelmsford, Bp.

    Northesk, E.

    Clark of Kempston, L.

    O'Cathain, B.

    Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

    Onslow, E.

    Colwyn, L.

    Oppenheim-Barnes, B.

    Courtown, E.

    Orme, L.

    Cox, B.

    Palmer, L.

    Craig of Radley, L.

    Palumbo, L.

    Cranborne, V.

    Park of Monmouth, B.

    Crickhowell, L.

    Parkinson, L.

    Cumberlege, B.

    Pearson of Rannoch, L.

    Dean of Harptree, L.

    Peel, E.

    Denham, L.

    Pilkington of Oxenford, L.

    Dixon, L.

    Prentice, L.

    Dixon-Smith, L.

    Rawlings, B.

    Eden of Winton, L.

    Reay, L.

    Elliott of Morpeth, L.

    Renton, L.

    Elton, L.

    Roberts of Conwy, L.

    Feldman, L.

    Rotherwick, L.

    Ferrers, E.

    Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

    Fitt, L.

    Sanderson of Bowden, L.

    Fookes, B.

    Seccombe, B. [Teller]

    Forsyth of Drumlean, L.

    Selsdon, L.

    Freeman, L.

    Shaw of Northstead, L.

    Gardner of Parkes, B.

    Shrewsbury, E.

    Geddes, L.

    Simon, V.

    Glenarthur, L.

    Skelmersdale, L.

    Glentoran, L.

    Slim, V.

    Goschen, V.

    Sterling of Plaistow, L.

    Gray of Contin, L.

    Stevens of Ludgate, L.

    Greenway, L.

    Stewartby, L.

    Griffiths of Fforestfach, L.

    Stoddart of Swindon, L.

    Hanson, L.

    Strange, B.

    Harris of High Cross, L.

    Swinfen, L.

    Harris of Peckham, L.

    Taylor of Warwick, L.

    Haslam, L.

    Tebbit, L.

    Hayhoe, L.

    Thatcher, B.

    Henley, L.

    Thomas of Gwydir, L.

    80

    Tombs, L.

    Wakefield, Bp.

    Trefgarne, L.

    Wakeham, L.

    Trumpington, B.

    Weatherill, L. Wilcox, B.

    Vivian, L.

    Wolfson, L.

    Waddington, L.

    Young, B.

    NOT-CONTENTS

    Addington, L.

    Layard, L.

    Alli, L.

    Lea of Crondall, L.

    Amos, B.

    Lincoln, Bp.

    Andrews, B.

    Lipsey, L.

    Archer of Sandwell, L.

    Listowel, E.

    Bach, L.

    Lockwood, B.

    Barker, B.

    Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

    Barnett, L.

    McIntosh of Haringey, L.

    Bassam of Brighton, L.

    McIntosh of Hudnall, B.

    Bath and Wells, Bp.

    MacKenzie of Culkein, L.

    Birmingham, Bp.

    Maddock, B.

    Birt, L.

    Mallalieu, B.

    Blackstone, B.

    Manchester, Bp.

    Bragg, L.

    Miller of Chilthorne Domer, B

    Brennan, L.

    Northbourne, L.

    Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

    Northover, B.

    Burlison, L.

    Norton of Louth, L.

    Burns, L.

    Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay, L.

    Carter, L.

    Patel, L.

    Chandos, V.

    Peston, L.

    Clarke of Hampstead, L.

    Phillips of Sudbury, L.

    Clement-Jones, L.

    Plant of Highfield, L.

    Craigavon, V.

    Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

    Crawley, B.

    Portsmouth, Bp.

    David, B.

    Puttnam, L.

    Davies of Coity, L.

    Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

    Davies of Oldham, L.

    Randall of St. Budeaux, L.

    Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

    Razzall, L.

    Dholakia, L.

    Rennard, L.

    Dubs, L.

    Richardson of Calow, B.

    Eatwell, L.

    Roper, L.

    Elder, L.

    Russell, E. [Teller]

    Falconer of Thoroton, L.

    Scott of Needham Market, B.

    Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

    Serota, B.

    Faulkner of Worcester, L.

    Sharp of Guildford, B.

    Filkin, L.

    Shutt of Greetland, L.

    Skidelsky, L.

    Gale, B.

    Smith of Clifton, L.

    Geraint, L.

    Smith of Leigh, L.

    Goldsmith, L.

    Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

    goodhart, L

    Taylor of Blackburn, L.

    Gordon of Strathblane, L.

    Taylor of Gryfe, L.

    Gould of Potternewton, B.

    Thomas of Walliswood, B.

    Grabiner, L.

    Tomlinson, L.

    Hamwee, B.

    Tope, L.

    Harris of Greenwich, L.

    Tordoff, L.

    Harris of Haringey, L.

    Turner of Camden, B.

    Harrison, L.

    Wallace of Saltaire, L.

    Haskel, L.

    Walmsley, B.

    Hattersley, L.

    Walpole, L.

    Hilton of Eggardon, B. [Teller]

    Warner, L.

    Hogg of Cumbemauld, L.

    Warnock, B.

    Hollis of Heigham, B.

    Warwick of Undercliffe, B.

    Howells of St. Davids, B.

    Watson of Richmond, L.

    Howie of Troon, L.

    Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

    Hughes of Woodside, L.

    Whitaker, B.

    Hunt of Chesterton, L.

    Whitty, L.

    Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

    Wilkins, B.

    Jacobs, L.

    Williams of Mostyn, L.

    Jay of Paddington, B. (Lord Privy Seal)

    Winchester, Bp.

    Winston, L.

    Jeger, B.

    Woolmer of Leeds, L.

    Kennedy of The Shaws, B.

    Young of Old Scone, B.

    Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
    7.17 p.m.
    Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 18:
    Page 3, line 19, at end insert—
    ("(3A) Where an allegation has been made that a person has committed an offence under this section and the person is a teacher at an educational institution, it shall be unlawful to publish or broadcast that person's name or address or a still or moving picture of him before he is charged with the offence.").
    The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 18 I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 23, 29, 40, 42 and 43.
    Morale among teachers is not very high at the moment; they have a number of concerns. One particular black cloud hanging over the profession is the increasing number of vexatious complaints made against them. The NASUWT has carried out a great deal of work talking with teachers, holding conferences with teachers, collating statistics and speaking with government about the plight of teachers, whose careers and lives very often are completely shattered by a vexatious complaint, in particular one of a sexual nature.
    I shall not bore the Committee with too many statistics, but in the past decade 1,199 allegations have been made. A massive 887 of those allegations have not been proceeded with and no further action has been taken. Only 136 of the 1,199 cases appeared in court; in 73 cases there was no further action and some 52 cases of the 1,199 ended in a conviction.
    A number of points need to be made at the outset. Given the debate we have just had, it is important that anyone who abuses children is brought to justice and that the courts deal with them. But we know that there are particular problems in the teaching profession. "Streetwise" is a term that I have often heard used. Many young people are very streetwise. They are learning fast that to compromise a teacher by making such an allegation can blight the life of that teacher. I have spoken with members of the NASUWT and the National Association of Head Teachers. They concur that once an allegation has been made and publicity has been given to the suspension of the teacher concerned, which is automatic following an allegation, the life of that teacher is made impossible.
    The situation is made even more difficult when the allegation is dropped simply because someone has had his or her fun and does not want to take the matter further, especially when the police or social services become involved. That places the teacher in the most awful position. The situation gives rise to the response that "there is no smoke without fire" and to a feeling of unease among parents. But worst of all, the teacher has not been a position to prove his or her innocence, so there remains a very real cloud over his or her life.
    There is a further, practical problem. There is a time gap of many weeks, even months, between an allegation being made, automatic immediate suspension and the case being followed up by means of informal and later formal inquiries. Cases have been known to take even longer. There is a period when the teacher concerned, his or her family, the parents of the children concerned and everyone who is touched by
    82
    such an allegation live in a state of anxiety. Many of those involved are made ill; some even turn to suicide. So there is a real problem. I am referring only to statistics from one teachers' union. I have not included statistics from the Secondary Heads Association, the National Association of Head Teachers or the National Union of Teachers. The figures that I am using are only a part of the picture.
    Some Members of the Committee may have read of a case reported in Saturday's edition of the Daily Mail. It highlighted the vulnerability of teachers who are falsely accused of wrongdoing. It involved seven boys who were suspended from school following the discovery of drugs. Two of the boys sought revenge on the teacher and head teacher involved. One accused the teacher of supplying the drugs in the first place; the other boy accused the head teacher of sexually abusing him four years previously. The case has been a long time coming to fruition in court. The teacher and the head teacher were cleared, but not before experiencing a great deal of anxiety. Another point made by the NASUWT is that the career of teachers involved in such cases is so blighted by the effects of malicious or vexatious allegations that almost none of those involved return to teaching.
    I have no doubt that the noble and learned Lord will refer to the legal context, and 1 shall be interested to hear his response. One argument may be that the amendment will not be workable. I see no reason why it should not be. Under Section 39 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933, the identity of the young person is suppressed. This currently happens in cases where teachers are accused of physical or sexual abuse of pupils. The courts have a procedure to publicise that an order has been made under the 1933 Act to ensure that journalists are aware that they cannot publish the child's name. A similar mechanism is used in rape cases. If the amendment were to be accepted, such a procedure could also be applied to protect the identity of an accused.
    It is possible to make an application under the Human Rights Act to the effect that the publication of a person's name is a breach of privacy under Article 8 dealing with the right to privacy and family life. It could be argued that the article applies because a person's career and the health and safety of his or her partner and children would be jeopardised by publicity. However, in the absence of an amendment such as this, the courts are required to balance the provisions of Article 8 with those of Article 10, dealing with the right to freedom of expression—in this case, for the press. It could, therefore, he argued that the Human Rights Act has strengthened the case for the amendment.
    There is some concern that my amendment applies only to teachers. I hope that that will not be regarded as a criticism. If, in the mind of the Government and/or the noble and learned Lord, that is considered to be a flaw, other categories can be added. I am making cut the particular case for teachers.
    I cannot overstate the trauma for a teacher or head teacher who is subject to a malicious or vexatious allegation. We know that those types of allegations far

    83
    outweigh the genuine ones which end in a conviction. I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for discussing the amendment with me when it was first tabled. He will know that I took heed of some of the things that he said: the amendment would apply up to the point when a teacher was charged with an offence. That would catch most of the teachers in this situation—given that the rule in this country is that no one is charged unless there is a more than 50 per cent chance that the case would stand up in court. I beg to move.
    Lord Stoddart of Swindon: I have added my name to this amendment and am pleased to do so. If my noble and learned friend is unable to accept it, he and the Government really must do something about the unfairness to teachers—and in particular, but not exclusively, to male teachers. This problem continues to affect our education system.
    The noble Baroness mentioned an article in Saturday's edition of the Daily Mail referring to Mr Sudbury and Mr Easterbrook. Both were accused of sexually abusing children under their care. One was acquitted; the other case did not proceed because of lack of evidence. The point is that Mr Sudbury is so traumatised that he is not returning to teaching. Mr Easterbrook is returning to teaching. Both have been through absolute hell. We all know what hell it would be if we ourselves were accused of such an offence. It would affect us mentally, it would affect our family, it would affect our career and our relationships with our neighbours and friends. The matter is extremely serious. It is abominable and unacceptable that a person who is merely alleged to have committed what is a heinous crime should be put in this position and named.
    There are very serious consequences for the education system. Already we find that only 18 per cent of teachers in our primary schools are male. That is not good enough. Primary schools need at least a fair balance to ensure that children are taught in a satisfactory environment in which they can appreciate both "femaleness" and "maleness". We need male teachers.
    What is even worse is that this is now happening in secondary schools. The balance between male and female teachers is being upset. One reason—but not the only one—is that men are concerned, perhaps even frightened, that they may become involved in situations such as that in which Mr Sudbury and Mr Easterbrook became involved because of the viciousness of some pupils. The idea that young people are always innocent is quite absurd. Young people can be just as difficult as adults when it comes to getting out of trouble, or, indeed, taking revenge.
    If we are to retain male teachers in all our schools it is essential for the Government to do something about the situation. They can do so either by accepting this amendment or by bringing forward their own amendments. Alternatively, they could give us an assurance that government are concerned about this matter; that they believe that something needs to be
    84
    done about it for the protection of teachers and for the future of teaching; and that they will bring forward proposals, which will be acceptable to Parliament, to the teaching profession and to the public generally.
    7.30 p.m.
    Lord Northbourne: The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, has dealt at some length with most of what I intended to say. I shall not, therefore, repeat it, although I very much support everything that he said on the subject. However, I should like to make the point that this problem extends way beyond the teaching profession and includes not only the youth service but also all the mentoring initiatives that the Government are so laudably instituting. The chief social worker in the Stepney Children's Fund, of which I have the privilege to be chairman, said to me just the other day, "I'm really worried about this situation. This is the only crime for which you are assumed to be guilty unless you can prove yourself innocent". That is the kind of mood that exists in the youth service today in many places.
    Earl Russell: I must admit to some sympathy for the objectives of Amendment No. 18. As a serving university teacher, I suppose I ought to declare an interest in that view. I have not yet been the subject of a false accusation, but I have a year and a half to go before retirement and one cannot be too careful. The use of the false accusation as a weapon of malice has been known to the law since before the limits of legal memory, which means that historians may take an interest in that evidence and lawyers may not.
    It is extremely difficult at one and the same time to have the necessary severity for dealing with genuine offences and the necessary sensitivity for the fact that some people who are accused of those offences are not guilty. We try, but none of us, I believe, always succeeds. However, there is a further difficulty now; namely, that we face the danger of trial by newspaper where the principles of natural justice do not apply quite as strictly as they do in the proceedings of a court. This is a matter that clearly needs attention.
    However, were the noble and learned Lord to say that the problem goes rather wider than the provision in this amendment, as, indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, just observed, I should pay attention to that point. Similarly, were the noble and learned Lord also to say that this matter is related to the problem of the working out of a relationship between the press and the Human Rights Act—a problem that has given rise to a large amount of wallpaper—I should also pay attention to that view. I hope, therefore, that the Government will seriously consider the matter. I look forward to hearing the response of the noble and learned Lord as to whether or not they will do so in the form suggested in these amendments.
    I should like to say a few words about some of the other amendments in this group. I have in mind Amendments Nos. 23 and 42, which propose the deletion of the expression "full-time", and Amendment No. 40, which seeks to delete the word "regularly". I understand the object of these

    85
    amendments and it is a good one. But the question is: have we here arrived at a clear and workable situation? Normally when one has a provision to include the expression "part-time", one has a maximum number of hours that will qualify for inclusion as part-time. However, we have no such qualification here. I believe understand why that is so. But are we moving into a situation that may be rather more far reaching than we really intend—for example, one where a single meeting, in which a relationship of trust may subsist for about an hour, is covered if the people concerned meet perhaps several months later and a relationship then develops after the relationship of trust is over? We need some boundaries as to how far this will extend. I look forward with interest to hearing what the noble and learned Lord has to say about that question.
    Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: I am grateful to my noble friend for having raised this important point. However, I should like to add my voice to those who have suggested that the amendment, as presently drawn, is rather narrow referring as it does to,
    "teacher at an educational institution".
    I have already wearied Members of the Committee with my practical, first-hand experience of a former care home. However, I have experience of this particular kind of case. The people at the home in question were not angels; indeed, they were very angry young people who would try almost anything to get revenge on society, which they held responsible for their plight. Most of the staff who looked after them were carers, not teachers, and, therefore, would not have the protection that I believe is proposed in this amendment. The vast majority of those carers were men and women who had devoted their lives to what was often a very thankless and unproductive task; namely, trying to mend the lives of those young people. If the Minister accepts the thrust of what we are now proposing, I hope that he will find some way to bring in the wider group of people who devote their lives to the care of such young people.
    Lord Elton: My Lords, I support the view just expressed by my noble friend. I ask the Minister to be prepared to extend the parameters proposed in the amendment and not to reject it as having parameters that are too narrow. I hope that we can establish the principle tonight that this sort of protection should be given to people who are accused of heinous crimes, quite possibly unjustly, which, once publicised, will destroy their careers irrespective of whether or not they committed them. That principle needs to be accepted. If we can go on from that point to extend the protection to those in other professions, which I believe to be essential, we should do so. However, I do not want us to reject that principle at this point.
    Baroness Blatch: I hope that the Committee will forgive me because I spoke only to Amendment No. 18 in my opening remarks. In my enthusiasm and support for that amendment, I did not speak to the others in the group. I do not believe it to be necessary for me to go over all the reasons for extending the categories,
    86
    because we addressed that argument when discussing Amendment No. 17. However, I wish to add mentors, as established under the Learning and Skills Act 2000, and part-time teachers. If a category of teachers is to be included as being in a position of trust over children, it seems to me that part-time teachers are as important as full-time teachers; indeed, I would argue that they are probably even more so. From what we know about people who act in this way—especially paedophiles—they seem to move around a lot from post to post. Therefore, it seems to me that part-time teachers need to be included, as well as full-time and part-time trainers. It is a question of ensuring that there are no extensive loopholes, which would be the case if these amendments were not accepted.
    Lord Williams of Mostyn: In answer to the noble Earl, Lord Russell, I can tell him, first, that this does encompass matters that extend rather wider than those presently before the Committee. Secondly, this will involve the working out of relationships with the press under Article 8, and the right to privacy and family life under the Human Rights Act. Thirdly, in answer to his question as to whether this proposal is clear and workable, the answer is no. Fourthly, I can tell the noble Earl that I believe he is safe from any charge because this relates to an offence for a person aged 18 or over, which I believe him to be, whereby that person commits an offence with a person under the age of 18. Fortunately, as he told us earlier, the noble Earl's students are normally over the age of 18.
    Earl Russell: I referred to a general problem.
    Lord Williams of Mostyn: This is an example of an amendment which is not capable of working for many reasons. The noble Baroness altered her original amendment, which mentioned no publication before conviction, to no publication before charge. Incidentally, I accept that the court process which addresses these serious offences is extremely lengthy. However, I utter the happiest words in the English language when I say, "I told you so". When we tried to introduce some rational proportionality to reform of the jury system, none of your Lordships agreed although I said that important cases were delayed in favour of the less important.
    Why will the amendment not work? The offence to which it refers is to be found at the bottom of page two of the Bill:
    "it shall be an offence for a person aged 18 or over—

    (a) to have sexual intercourse … with a person under that age; or

    (b) to engage in any other sexual activity with or directed towards such a person,

    if … he is in a position of trust in relation to that person".
    Therefore, if an allegation of rape or indecent assault is made against a teacher—which could easily be made in the ways to which my noble friend Lord Stoddart referred—no protection for the teacher is offered by the amendment.
    I mention another point of which I know the noble Baroness is aware. Let us assume that I have a daughter at school aged 17. There is an allegation

    87
    against a teacher for having sexually interfered with another girl of 17 in the same class. Amendment No. 18 states:
    "Where an allegation has been made that a person has committed an offence under this section and the person is a teacher at an educational institution, it shall be unlawful to publish … that person's name".
    I should be enraged beyond description if I were not to know of those circumstances. It might even be the case that the teacher in question had admitted matters to the senior teacher or the headmaster. However, under the terms of the amendment, it is an offence for me to know. I believe that that interferes grossly and wrongly with my rights as a parent.
    Secondly, the amendment relates only to teachers. It does not mention, for example, a priest who may visit a school and who is as vulnerable, or perhaps more so, to a certain kind of malicious allegation, particularly a priest who may be celibate. It does not mention a school caretaker who has his life and his rights although he may not be regarded as a mainstream professional. It does not mention a visiting doctor or nurse. It does not mention people—of whom there are a number in this Chamber—who occasionally visit schools, perhaps once, twice or three times a year, to give lectures on politics to schoolchildren.
    I understand the problem that is being addressed but the amendment will not cure the mischief. What will cure the mischief in some cases, although I concede not in all cases, is for charges of malicious prosecution to be brought. The noble Baroness is wrong to suggest that anyone has to prove innocence. My noble friend Lord Stoddart made a point which resonates with me. Both my parents were school teachers and I was a school teacher for a time. What is the difference between a false allegation against a teacher and a false allegation of indecency or indecent exposure against a well regarded bank manager? The noble Baroness says there is none. I agree. I make my next point as carefully as I can. That is why it is extremely dangerous to try to legislate on a piecemeal basis solely on the basis of what I accept is legitimate sympathy. That is a certain recipe for bad legislation.
    A university lecturer may well be seriously damaged by a false allegation. Under the terms of the amendment he, or she—I am told by some that the latter is less likely—will have no protection at all. That is not workable, particularly as the other amendments in the group concern part-time teaching. Is someone who is giving part-time instruction to be protected in this way, but if the allegation is rape there is no protection?
    I readily concede that it is difficult to procure a rational, overall justification for the approach we have to anonymity in sex cases. I do not pretend that that is wholly rational or intellectually sustainable. However, I counsel the Committee against introducing further anomalies on a piecemeal basis which will only make the situation unacceptable and worse. I return to my initial question; namely, why should I as a parent not know about the matters I mentioned?
    7.45 p.m.
    Lord Elton: I intervene briefly to ask the Minister whether he can accept the principle I mentioned. I accept the point about legislation on a piecemeal basis. However, what interests me is the whole question of anonymity where an unjust charge can destroy someone as effectively as if that person were convicted of it. The Minister's answer is that other persons interested in a case have the right to know what is going on. Presumably, the relatives of the child making the allegation will know because in loco parentis they will have the right to know. I take it that when the Minister said that he, as a parent, had a right to know he meant as a parent of another child in the class. Is that the case?
    Lord Williams of Mostyn: That is precisely the illustration I gave. I said that my 17 year-old daughter is in a class and another 17 year-old is the complainant. I say that I have a moral right, if not a legally assertable right, to know. I would find if extremely surprising if any parent in this Committee took a different view.
    However, I did not fully deal with the noble Lord's point. As soon as the noble Lord identified his test, the answer offers itself; namely, there is no answer which can accommodate his question. I remember the Lord Chief Justice of the time mentioned my next example. I refer to the bank manager who is accused of indecent exposure in a small community; the priest who is accused of theft; and the person who sells poppies who has been in the Royal British Legion and attended the Cenotaph service for the past 40 years. They are also destroyed by such charges.
    Lord Elton: Surely then the answer suggests itself; namely, that there are certain charges which should be treated in this way regardless of whom they are made against.
    Lord Williams of Mostyn: No, because the charge of theft—the noble Lord referred to certain charges and I shall try to dissect that—against someone who has committed 25 previous thefts and has been imprisoned is in a completely different qualitative category from the allegation of theft against the poppy seller who has been a devoted servant of the Royal British Legion and has attended the Cenotaph service for 40 years. Those cases are utterly different. The charge in the latter case may well be destructive of that man's life. In the former case, the person concerned hardly cares tuppence because they have, as we say in the trade, "form as long as your leg". One cannot legislate in this way. This is an unpalatable response but if one wants to have a society in which justice is public, I do not think that a remedy will be forthcoming, and certainly not in this piecemeal way. I repeat my question; the allegation of rape would be publishable, but not the allegation under the measure we are discussing. That is not a trivial or drafting question as there are difficult questions involved here. If I knew the answer to them, I should be as happy as the noble Lord, Lord Elton, to hear my response.
    Lord Stoddart of Swindon: I appreciate the difficulties posed for my noble and learned friend which are as considerable as those for the rest of us. Those of us who have supported the amendment are perhaps in greater difficulty.
    However, the people we are discussing are in a special position and, indeed, they are in a special position in the Bill because of what they are and what they do. Therefore if they are being put in a special position, and if they are being put in a worse position than anyone else, they are entitled to greater protection than anyone else. Is that not so?
    My noble and learned friend talks about the family of the girl or boy who has been sexually assaulted being entitled to know and the general public—the parents of children who go to the school—being allowed to know. However, the boy or girl who makes the al legation is protected for all time. He or she will never be named. So there is no equity there. That is why I am concerned that we should try to find some balancing factor.
    My noble and learned friend raised the point that when a teacher is alleged to have committed an offence, it will be difficult not to name him perhaps because he admits the offence. But if he admits the offence it is no longer an allegation; so that argument will not wash. I know that the Minister will have difficulty in accepting the amendment but we are all apprised of the enormous problems that the situation is causing. I implore my noble and learned friend to consider the issue very seriously indeed. I urge him to take the matter away to his department and perhaps to the Law Commission, asking it to undertake an urgent job on trying to protect people who are in a position of responsibility in relation to children and young persons. The matter is urgent. The public are getting very worried about what is happening. They are concerned about unfairness. I know that my noble and learned friend feels the same as we do. I ask him, therefore, to try to do something as a Government even if he will not accept the amendment; and I appreciate his difficulties.
    Lord Williams of Mostyn: They are not difficulties that. I have. They are difficulties which arise from the unworkable nature of the amendment. That is quite different.
    First, in my illustration I did not say that the general public had a right to know. I repeat what I said. If I were the father of a 17 year-old child and another girl had complained about the teacher I would wish to know about the allegation; and I think that I would be entitled to know about that.
    Secondly, my noble friend Lord Stoddart said that those people have been put in a less favoured category in the Bill. That is not so because the provision refers only to teachers. It does not refer to supervisory people in children's homes. A lesson might be learned from the Waterhouse report: that when the allegations were made they should have been published. That is the other side of that particular penny. I understand what my noble friend says about the Law Commission
    90
    considering the matter. A number of us know that a lot of thought has been given to the issue of anonymity for complainants in sexual offences and different conclusions have been arrived at in relation to anonymity for defendants in sexual matters. If anyone present today, or who reads these debates, is able to produce a workable formula, which I doubt, no one would be happier than me.
    Baroness Blatch: I am interested that the noble and learned Lord hinges much of his opposition on the fact that the amendment covers only teachers and not care workers and others. If that is the argument, I should have a good deal of respect for it. My guess is that the noble and learned Lord is against our amendment on principle and that these reasons are being used for not accepting the amendment.
    The noble and learned Lord cannot get away from the fact that there is a specific issue for teachers in schools. One knows from the statistics that it is teachers who are maliciously or vexatiously accused of sexually or physically abusing a child. We are not referring to poppy sellers who are wrongly accused of having their hands in the till. The amendment empathises with the teachers in this plight and sympathises with them. I should be interested to know where the noble and learned Lord stands on the principle. If he says that there should be reference to all staff in schools, we shall attend to that point on Report. We shall even broaden the provision to care workers or make it a blanket provision until charges are preferred.
    As regards teachers admitting the allegation, I know of a personal example. My children were at a school where the head teacher was convicted of abusing children. The moment he was approached he admitted it. The charges were preferred within 24 hours and that was the end of it.
    Perhaps the noble and learned Lord will also remember that a teacher is automatically suspended. We do not interfere with that. The teacher would be suspended. There is no doubt that in the noble and learned Lord's example of being a parent of a 17 year-old girl, he would know. But what about the media? Is the noble and learned Lord sympathetic to the notion that the media do not have the information; that parents should be barred from going to the media—newspapers and local radio? It is that kind of publicity which does for the teacher who has been maliciously accused of sexual abuse of a child.
    Lord Williams of Mostyn: All these questions demonstrate the impossibility of making the amendment work. I gave the illustration of theft by the poppy seller because the noble Lord, Lord Elton, asked: should there not be some protection for those whose lives may be devastated by the mere bringing of the allegation? It seems to me that he was entitled to a response which I gave. I dealt with the question of the teacher because the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, said that teachers were disadvantaged by the Bill. I have pointed out accurately that they are not uniquely disadvantaged.

    91
    The noble Baroness says that a teacher would be suspended and that I as a parent would know. I would know of the suspension; I would not know the charge. The suggestion that if an allegation is admitted it becomes no longer an allegation is unknown to any system of jurisprudence which I recognise.
    Baroness Blatch: We have heard enough to know that there are difficulties with the amendment. I wish to reflect on what the noble and learned Lord said and to bring back the amendment on Report. I believe that there is a real issue here.
    My only regret —it is a serious one—is that there was not more empathy for the teachers and the plight they have. It is a very real issue for them. The Government have not responded with empathy to them in that plight. I regret that. However, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Lord Carter: I beg to move that the Committee stage be now adjourned and that we return at 8.45 p.m.
    Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
    [The Sitting was suspended from 7.58 to 8.45 p.m.]
    Lord Monson Lord Monson moved Amendment No. 19:
    Page 3, line 31, at end insert—
    ("(6) No proceedings shall be instituted except by or with the consent of—

    (a) in England and Wales, the Director of Public Prosecutions;

    (b) in Scotland, the Lord Advocate; or

    (c) in Northern Ireland, the Director of Public Prosecutions for Northern Ireland,

    against any person for an offence under this section if the person was at the time of the commission under the age of twenty-one.").
    The noble Lord said: The noble Earl, Lord Russell said at dinner that I had drawn the short straw in the timing of my amendment. How right he was.
    Most of the amendments to Clauses 3 and 4, with the exception of Amendment No. 18, which we debated before the dinner break, are designed to plug loopholes inadvertently left by the Government. This amendment is rather different, going slightly in the opposite direction. It is designed to provide a safeguard against the well known law of unintended consequences, which could otherwise lead to draconian action against the undeserving, or at least the not very deserving.
    Vulnerable young people must be protected from sexual exploitation by people in authority who are vastly senior to them in age and perhaps in other respects and who are accordingly difficult for the young people concerned to rebuff. On the other hand, throughout human history all over the world, young people of roughly similar age, intelligence and interests have fallen for one another in unexpected circumstances. The fact that the slightly older party
    92
    may be technically in a position of trust is almost irrelevant to the romance—or to the affair, if one wants to be slightly more cynical.
    Consider a 19 year-old nurse who is caught kissing a 16 or 17 year-old patient who may look 20 or more, or a 20 year-old carpentry teacher caught embracing a 17 year-old pupil. Surely none of us wants them to be sent to prison for two years, or even brought to court to face a fine. The Bill makes even the mildest sexual contact illegal.
    Different considerations apply should the younger party have a mental age of 10, for example. In that case, a prosecution might well be appropriate. Nothing in the amendment would prevent that after careful consideration at the highest level. The amendment is designed to protect young people of a similar age who happen to hit it off with one another.
    I hope that the Government and the Committee will accept this modest safeguard against unmerited, unnecessary and undesirable prosecutions. I beg to move.
    Lord Williams of Mostyn: The Law Commission has dealt with the issue and reported in 1998. The Solicitor General in another place welcomed its report in principle. It set out the following criteria for consent provisions for the prosecution of offences: where prosecution might violate a convention right; where it might involve national security or some other international element; and where there might otherwise be a high risk that the right of private prosecution would be abused and the institution of proceedings would cause irreparable harm.
    The amendment is not desirable, but I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Monson, is comforted that in the case of ill-founded, malicious or vexatious prosecutions, Section 6(2) of the Prosecution of Offenders Act 1985 gives the Director of Public Prosecutions the power to take over and discontinue a private prosecution. As the Crown Prosecution Service is directed by the DPP, he would be able to give guidelines about when charges should be brought, if he thought it appropriate. I hope that that is of assistance to the noble Lord.
    Lord Monson: I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. I was not thinking of private prosecutions or of malicious or vexatious ones. I was thinking of legitimate prosecutions in cases in which technically an offence had been committed but when in practice it would be unfair or unreasonable to prosecute. However, if the Minister assures me—I think that he probably has done, but I must read his comments in Hansard— that in practice the effect of the amendment will be carried, I am content to withdraw it. I shall have to study the Minister's comments, but for the moment I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.
    Clause 4 [Meaning of "position of trust"]:
    Baroness Young Baroness Young moved Amendment No. 20:
    Page 3, line 34, leave out ("four") and insert ("five").
    The noble Baroness said: This amendment was linked to Amendment No. 17. Clearly, now that Amendment No. 17 has been carried, I should have thought that "four" must include "five" because we have passed the other condition. I do not believe that there is a need for me to add anything further to the argument. I beg to move Amendment No. 20 and I hope that the Government will accept it.
    Baroness Blatch: During the dinner break I was promised a piece of paper which would tell me how the Government viewed this group of amendments. I have not received it. Therefore—
    Lord Bach: Before the Deputy Chairman entered the Chamber I spoke to the noble Baroness to explain which amendments the Government found acceptable and which they did not; that is, which amendments were consequential on Amendment No. 17 and which were not. I am very sorry that that was not put in writing. I believed that it would be more useful if I explained the situation orally, and that is what I did.
    Baroness Blatch: If the noble Lord will forgive me, we were preparing for the next amendment. The Deputy Chairman was about to walk through the door. The noble Lord was indicating across his paper and saying this, that and the other. I did not take it all in. I should like to know which amendments the noble Lord considers to be consequential and which he does not.
    Lord Bach: Perhaps I may help the noble Baroness. The Committee has passed Amendment No. 17. However, I am advised that Amendment No. 20 is not consequential on Amendment No. 17. It raises the number "four" to "five". So far as concerns the other amendments in the group, Amendments Nos. 21 and 22 stand on their own. Amendment No. 30 would be one possible fifth condition if Amendment No. 20 were passed. Amendment No. 31 would be another completely different fifth condition if Amendment No. 20 were passed. Amendment No. 34 would be yet another fifth condition if Amendment No. 20 were passed, and Amendments Nos. 35 and 36 would in themselves both be fifth conditions if Amendment No. 20 were passed. Therefore, we argue that the amendments are not consequential. In fact, the latter amendments are alternatives. It is right that Amendment No. 44 in the group is consequential on Amendment No. 20.
    Baroness Blatch: I am not sure that I follow that. I understood the noble Lord to say that Amendment No. l7 stands alone and that Amendment No. 20 is not consequential on Amendment No. 17. Nevertheless, Amendment No. 20 is the paver for the ones that follow. Amendments Nos. 21 and 22 stand alone.
    94
    However, Amendment No. 20 is linked and therefore must be a consequential amendment for Amendments Nos. 30, 31, 34, 35, 36 and 40.
    Lord Bach: Forgive me; I have not explained myself fully. Amendments Nos. 30, 31 and the other amendments that I mentioned are all quite separate from each other. They represent different alternative fifth conditions. They are not linked. They are all different conditions. In effect, they stand one against the other unless it is intended that they should be fifth, sixth, seventh and eighth conditions. Therefore, although they cannot even be voted on unless Amendment No. 20 is successful, if they are voted on, they will all be different, one from the other.
    Lord Renton: Perhaps I may ask the noble Lord how it is that they are grouped together. As I understand it, the matter of grouping is one on which the Government must make a decision and on which they must agree.
    Lord Bach: That is not right. In the end, the groupings are down to those who table the amendments. However, because amendments are grouped, it does not follow that one amendment in a group is consequential on or follows from another.
    Earl Russell: I understand that Amendment No. 20 can pave one, but only one, fifth condition. Therefore, were we to vote on Amendment No. 20 and to carry it, we would pave a fifth condition. However, we would need to know which of the possible amendments listed as the fifth condition was the one that we were paving. Were the amendment to have been worded "fifth'', "sixth", "seventh" or "eighth" condition, it could have paved the way for them all. However, only one condition can be fifth; at least, that is my understanding. I hope that I have interpreted the Minister and the Bill correctly.
    Lord Northbourne: That was not what we were assured by the Public Bill Office.
    Baroness Blatch: That was not what we were advised by the Public Bill Office; nor was it a courtesy offered to us by the Minister when we voted on Amendment No. 17. I believe that many noble Lords left this Chamber believing that they had voted for these amendments. They will learn to their horror that they had not.
    Before I decide what to do about Amendment No. 20, will the noble and learned Lord answer the question that I posed in relation to Amendments Nos. 21 and 22? I explained that I believed it to be important that protection should be offered to a young person who was normally resident at a home but who was farmed out to a bungalow, such as one referred to in the Bryn Alyn case, or somewhere else and who was not technically in that particular institution at a given time. It would be helpful to have from the noble and learned Lord an answer to my interpretation of what: I believed my amendment meant.
    Lord Williams of Mostyn: We are going back a long way in our debate, but I am happy to do it. The noble Baroness's concern is not well founded. A young person may be resident in an institution, even if he is temporarily elsewhere. Plenty of precedent exists for such a situation; for example, in immigration or benefit law.
    Baroness Blatch: The wording on the face of the Bill as it stands is that protection applies only if the person in question is resident. Is the noble and learned Lord saying that someone who is normally resident but at a particular time has either absconded or is in a place other than the institution would receive protection under this particular clause in this particular Bill?
    Lord Williams of Mostyn: If I am resident at my home, I remain resident at my home, even if at the weekend I stay in a hostel or a hotel elsewhere. I am resident at my home. Therefore, a person may well be resident in an institution even if temporarily he is somewhere else.
    Baroness Blatch: Perhaps I may use an analogy. In an insurance claim one can be compensated for the loss of a piece of equipment or jewellery if it is under lock and key in a residence. However, if the item is lost when one is travelling en route, some insurance companies will not meet a claim for compensation simply because at the time of the incident the item was not where it should have been. For the purposes of Pepper v. Hart it is important that I get this absolutely right. Is the noble and learned Lord saying that my concern is unfounded? Is he saying that if someone has absconded and an offence takes place or someone is somewhere else other than the place where he is normally resident, he is still protected under this particular provision which says "is resident in"? If the person has absconded, he could be resident, albeit temporarily, somewhere else.
    9 p.m.
    Lord Williams of Mostyn: I cannot make it plainer. The noble Baroness is confusing two concepts. She uses the description "in a home". That is not what the Bill says. "Resident in a home" is a legal concept and residence in a home continues even when the individual is not physically in the home.
    Baroness Blatch: It is Committee stage so I can press the noble and learned Lord to be helpful. It would be extremely helpful if he simply said "yes" to me but he is avoiding saying that on the record.
    Clause 4(4) states:
    "The third condition is that A looks after persons under 18 who are accommodated and cared for in an institution which is … a hospital … residential care home, nursing home, mental nursing home or private hospital; … a community home, voluntary home, children's home or residential establishment; … or a home provided under section 82(5) of the Children Act 1989, and B is accommodated or cared for in that institution".
    96
    My amendment includes the word "normally" because it is possible that at the time of the offence, a person may not be accommodated in that institution. It does not say "normally resident"; it says "in an institution". If the person is not accommodated in that institution but, nevertheless, is a person of that institution, would he be protected under this clause?
    Lord Williams of Mostyn: The noble Baroness is asking me a third question now. Her original question was focused, I assume, on Clause 4(3). The second condition is,
    "that A looks after a person under 18 who are resident in a home or other place".
    I have made it quite plain. That is a legal concept on which it is for the courts to adjudicate.
    It is no good asking me whether a person is in a home, and it has nothing to do with insurance claims. I cannot make it any plainer than I have.
    Baroness Blatch: My amendment does not relate to subsection (3) but to subsection (4)(d). The second line of that subsection states:
    "a home provided under Section 82(5) of the Children Act 1989, and B is accommodated and cared for in that institution".
    If the noble and learned Lord is right in what he is saying, he should be able to say "yes" to my question. Does the protection continue to apply if the offence takes place with a child who is normally resident or normally accommodated in the home but, for the purposes of the offence, is not in the home because he has absconded or is at another residence, accommodated in another place? The Bill does not say "normally resident"; it says "is accommodated in".
    If the noble and learned Lord says that the protection continues, then I do not have to worry about my amendment. But if he cannot give an affirmative answer in that regard, I shall continue to have that worry.
    Lord Williams of Mostyn: That is not the question that I was originally asked, which related to the word "resident". I shall put "resident" and "in a home" on one side because they no longer seem to be the phrases in question.
    A person is accommodated and cared for in an institution even if that person, on occasions, while being accommodated there, for example, goes out of the house, out of the institution and out of the care home. I have never myself understood it to be suggested that "accommodated" means that you have to be within that accommodation for every second of every day in order to have that protection. It is a question for the courts to adjudicate on. But I repeat that they are well-known legal concepts. That deals with "accommodation".
    Baroness Young: Perhaps I may pursue this further because it is an extremely serious matter. It is not just a kind of legal quibble. If you are not a lawyer, it is quite difficult to follow the argument.
    I can read what it says here about being "accommodated" or "resident" in. The noble and learned Lord seems to be saying that when the boy is not in the home, it would be for the courts to decide whether or not this provision applies. Is that security enough?
    We are saying that if the boy has absconded, for example, and is therefore living somewhere else, and certainly not accommodated in the home or resident in it, is he covered? If I understood him right, he seems to be saying, "It is perfectly all right. Do not worry about it all. It means he is really there and the courts will decide whether he was there or not". He clearly was not there. I do not understand the point.
    The Lord Bishop of Winchester: Perhaps I may offer some assistance. If I put it in non-legal language, it sounded to me as thought he noble and learned Lord was saying that the person remains, as it were, on the books of the home whether he is in it or out of it. That is what I understood the noble and learned Lord to be saying and it may be helpful to put it in that language to see whether that is indeed what he is saying.
    Lord Williams of Mostyn: I have been trying to say that, and I am most grateful. If a person is absent from the institution where he is either "resident" or "accommodated", he is still protected. I repeat that he does not have to be physically present for 24 hours of every day. I repeat that my residence remains what it is even if I am away from it.
    Baroness Blatch: The noble and learned Lord could have circumvented this discussion a lot earlier simply by saying that I am right. I make a distinction. I am not talking about going out shopping, going to a cinema or going to play somewhere with friends. I am talking about a young person who has absconded from an institution—and I am sorry if the noble and learned Lord is offended by the word "home"—or is on a long break in a holiday house somewhere. In the Bryn Alyn cases, young people were positively farmed out to a group of paedophiles living in a bungalow somewhere other than the home. So those young people were not accommodated in the home, although they were normally cared for and accommodated in that institution.
    The more the noble and learned Lord has spoken, the more I believe that the words "normally accommodated and cared for in the institution" are appropriate. I wish to test the opinion of the Committee.
    9.7 p.m.
    On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 20) shall be agreed to?
    Their Lordships divided: Contents, 56; Not-Contents, 69.

    Division No. 3

    CONTENTS

    Ampthill, L.

    Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

    Attlee, E.

    Miller of Hendon, B.

    Blatch, B. [Teller]

    Monro of Langholm, L.

    Boardman, L.

    Monson, L.

    Bridgeman, V.

    Montrose, D.

    Byford, B.

    Nickson, L.

    Carlisle of Bucklow, L.

    Northbourne, L.

    Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

    Northbrook, L.

    Crathorne, L.

    Northesk, E.

    Cumberlege, B.

    Palmer, L.

    Dean of Harptree, L.

    Park of Monmouth, B.

    Dixon, L.

    Parkinson, L.

    Dixon-Smith, L.

    Pearson of Rannoch, L.

    Elton, L.

    Renton, L.

    Ferrers, E.

    Roberts of Conwy, L.

    Fookes, B.

    Seccombe, B. [Teller]

    Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

    Shaw of Northstead, L.

    Geddes, L.

    Shrewsbury, E.

    Glenarthur, L.

    Skelmersdale, L.

    Greenway, L.

    Sterling of Plaistow, L.

    Haslam, L.

    Stoddart of Swindon, L.

    Henley, L.

    Strathclyde, L.

    Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, L.

    Trefgame, L

    Kimball, L.

    Vivian, L.

    Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

    Waddington, L.

    Luke, L.

    Weatherill, L.

    Lyell, L.

    Willoughby de Broke, L.

    McColl of Dulwich, L.

    Young, B.

    NOT-CONTENTS

    Addington, L.

    McIntosh of Hudnall, B.

    Allenby of Megiddo, V.

    Maddock, B.

    Alli, L. [Teller]

    Miller of Chilthorne Domer, B

    Amos, B.

    Norton of Louth, L.

    Andrews, B.

    Patel, L.

    Archer of Sandwell, L.

    Phillips of Sudbury, L.

    Bach, L.

    Portsmouth, Bp.

    Barker, B.

    Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

    Bath and Wells, Bp.

    Rennard, L.

    Birt, L.

    Richard, L.

    Blackstone, B.

    Russell, E.

    Burlison, L.

    Scott of Needham Market, B.

    Carter, L.

    Sharp of Guildford, B.

    Clarke of Hampstead, L.

    Shutt of Greenland, L.

    Crawley, B.

    Smith of Clifton, L.

    David, B.

    Smith of Leigh, L.

    Davies of Coity, L.

    Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

    Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

    Taylor of Blackburn, L.

    Dubs, L.

    Taylor of Gryfe, L.

    Eatwell, L.

    Thomas of Walliswood, B.

    Elder, L.

    Tomlinson, L.

    Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

    Tope, L.

    Gale, B.

    Tordoff, L.

    Goldsmith, L.

    Turner of Camden, B.

    Gordon of Strathblane, L.

    Wakefield, Bp.

    Gould of Potternewton, B.

    Wallace of Saltaire, L.

    Hamwee, B.

    Walpole, L.

    Harris of Haringey, L.

    Warwick of Undercliffe, B.

    Hilton of Eggardon, B. [Teller]

    Hollis of Heigham, B.

    Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

    Howells of St. Davids, B.

    Whitaker, B.

    Layard, L.

    Wilkins, B.

    Lea of Crondall, L.

    Williams of Mostyn, L.

    Lockwood, B.

    Winchester, Bp.

    McIntosh of Haringey, L.

    Young of Old Scone, B.

    Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
    9.18 p.m.
    [Amendments Nos. 21 to 23 not moved.]
    Baroness Young Baroness Young had given notice of her intention to move Amendment No. 24:
    Page 4, line 16, at end insert—
    ("(5A) The fifth condition is that A is the parent, adoptive parent, step-parent, former step-parent, grandparent, sibling, half-sibling or adoptive sibling of B.").
    The noble Baroness said: This is an important amendment in a completely different group to the amendment we have just been discussing. We were discussing amendments tabled as a result of the report by Sir Ronald Waterhouse into the North Wales case.
    Earl Russell: Perhaps I can have some clarification from the noble Baroness. Is she speaking to Amendment No. 24?
    Baroness Young: That is correct.
    Earl Russell: I thought Amendment No. 24 was consequential on Amendment No. 20, which has just been defeated.
    Baroness Young: Perhaps I can have some clarification. As I understand it, Amendment No. 20 was defeated, but Amendment No. 24 takes a completely new point.
    Lord Carter: As a result of the Division on Amendment No. 20, Amendment No. 24 is consequential.
    Lord Bach: When, after the Dinner break, we discussed which amendments were consequential and which were not, the noble Earl, Lord Russell, said that if Amendment No. 20 were passed one of the numbered "fifth" conditions could be moved. Amendment No. 20 would be a paving amendment to one of those. However, any mention of a fifth condition would be inappropriate because in defeating Amendment No. 20 the Committee has agreed that there shall be only four conditions.
    Baroness Blatch: Perhaps I may ask two questions. First, given that there is a rumour to the contrary, will the noble and learned Lord say whether it is intended that the Bill shall receive a Report stage? Secondly, the noble Lord, Lord Bach, will know that the fifth condition proposed in Amendment No. 20 is a technicality. One cannot say "sixth, seventh, eighth, ninth and tenth" because the technicality is that there shall be a fifth condition. Therefore, the amendments would have been grouped and it is not right to say that only one would have been acceptable.
    Perhaps I may also ask for advice from the Clerk. I understand that as regards a fifth condition it would not be appropriate tonight to press Amendment
    100
    No. 24, but if the parent, adoptive parent and so forth became part of the relevant category, would it be necessary for the Government to find the appropriate place for it in the Bill?
    Lord Williams of Mostyn: The future conduct of the Bill is entirely a matter for the business managers and not for me. I believe that the advice given by my noble friend Lord Bach is correct.
    Lord Carlisle of Bucklow: I rise with the intention of being helpful but I doubt whether I shall succeed. If the argument is that we cannot proceed with further amendments which add a fifth condition because the amendment which would allow that has been defeated, these matters could be aired on the Question whether the clause shall stand part of the Bill and the Government would have an opportunity to consider them before the Report stage.
    Lord Williams of Mostyn: The noble Lord has succeeded in being helpful. I believe that he is right.
    Baroness Young: Perhaps I may return to Amendment No. 24. It is a matter which we shall raise at the Report stage and I want to give notice of that. I am astonished that the Government Front Bench and those on the Benches behind them do not see the issue as being serious. Incidentally, it was raised in their White Paper, Setting the Boundaries, and it was recommended that it should become law.
    I shall not press the case because I take the point that the possibility of a fifth condition has been defeated but I want to make it clear that we shall return to the matter on Report.
    [Amendment No. 24 not moved.]
    Baroness Young Baroness Young had given notice of her intention to move Amendment No. 25:
    Page 4, line 16, at end insert—
    ("(5A) The fifth condition is that A is the uncle or aunt of B.").
    The noble Baroness said: The same applies to Amendment No. 25. We shall bring the matter back on Report.
    [Amendment No. 25 not moved.]
    Baroness Young Baroness Young had given notice of her intention to move Amendment No. 26:
    Page 4, line 16, at end insert—
    ("(5A) The fifth condition is that A looks after persons under 18 who are members of a church or religious organisation and B is a member of that church or religious organisation.").
    The noble Baroness said: This amendment covers Church or religious organisations and it, too, must be brought back on Report.
    [Amendment No. 26 not moved.]
    [Amendment No. 27 not moved.]
    Baroness Young Baroness Young had given notice of her intention to move Amendment No. 28:
    Page 4, line 16, at end insert—
    ("(5A) The fifth condition is that a parent or guardian has entrusted A with looking after their child B.").
    The noble Baroness said: Again, we shall return to this matter on Report.
    [Amendment No. 28 not moved]
    The Lord Bishop of Winchester: I wonder whether I an-t the only person who is now thoroughly puzzled. I heard the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle, make a helpful proposal, which I then heard the noble and learned Lord the Minister accept as helpful, namely that it is possible to work on a clause stand part basis. I then heard the noble Baroness, Lady Young, take no notice of that, and, it sounded to me, lose an opportunity to work on the material, as she was being given an opportunity to do by the noble and learned Lord the Minister. I am therefore thoroughly puzzled. I wonder whether I am the only person who is thoroughly puzzled or whether I, too, have misheard it all.
    Lord Carlisle of Buck low: My understanding—and I thought that the learned Attorney-General agreed with me—is that on the issue of clause stand part you are entitled to discuss not only what is in it but other matters relevant to it. I see the learned Clerk nodding. It seems to me, therefore, that although one cannot at this moment move any of the particular amendments that refer to a fifth condition, it is possible on a debate on clause stand part to raise the issues covered in those amendments and invite the Government to say what their general view is and what they are prepared to consider, so that amendments can then be put down on Report in the knowledge of the Government's overall reaction.
    Lord Williams of Mostyn: I can only repeat that I agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle, has said. But it is a matter for the noble Baroness to take what course she pleases on her amendments.
    Lord Carter: If it would help on the numbering, I think we have to get to Amendment No. 44 in its place in the Marshalled List before we reach the end of the amendments to Clause 4, and that would be the appropriate point at which to debate the Question That Clause 4 stand part.
    Lord Monson: Perhaps I may ask the noble Lord whether it is the case that there is no reason why Amendment No. 41 should not be moved, because it is not dependent on a fifth condition. Amendment No. 41 comes naturally before Amendment No. 44. No mention is made of a fifth condition so far as Amendment No. 41 is concerned. Therefore, the noble Baroness, Lady Young, is perfectly entitled to move Amendment No. 41 if she wishes.
    Earl Russell: I think we have confused two questions here. As I understand it, the noble Lord, Lord Carter, was responding to the question as to what point we
    102
    have to reach before we can have a general discussion on clause stand part. I agree with him. The noble Lord, Lord Monson, has picked up a different question: how far down the list of amendments do we have to go before we reach a point where we are not blocked by the existence of a fifth condition? It is a different question. The noble Lord, Lord Monson, is also right.
    [Amendments Nos. 29 to 40 not moved.]
    Baroness Young Baroness Young moved Amendment No. 41:
    Page 4, line 22, after ("or) insert (", or in loco parentis to,").
    The noble Baroness said: The wording of this amendment makes its meaning perfectly clear. It seeks to protect children from adults who are in loco parentis. Once again, we are talking about an abuse of trust by adults who are in a position of trust with children, defined in law as 16 year-olds and others. This amendment includes them in the list of those people who have been excluded by the Government's very narrow definition of "abuse of trust" in this Bill. The amendment is perfectly clear and I hope that the Government will accept it. These very serious points arise not only from the Waterhouse inquiry but the fact that currently another 32 inquiries are being conducted into local authority children's homes of one kind or another. When we have an opportunity to try to correct some of the matters that have been identified as being wrong we should do so. This important category stands with all the others. I beg to move.
    9.30 p.m.
    Lord Williams of Mostyn: If one looks at subsections (2) to (5) of Clause 4, a person who cares for, trains, supervises or is in sole charge of a young person is already covered by the proposed offence and will frequently be "in loco parentis to". We find it difficult to envisage circumstances in which a person would be in loco parentis and yet would not look after a child. After all, if one asks what it is that parents do—in other words, what "in loco parentis" means—they look after children. One possible example is the director of the social services department of a local authority. He may be in loco parentis, but it is very unlikely that he will ever come into contact with the child, let alone engage in a relationship. A person such as a head teacher or head of a care home will have more regular contact with a child, but that individual will have a caring and/or supervisory role and, therefore, is caught by the "looks after" requirement.
    My understanding is that this additional category is unnecessary. I take the points that the noble Baroness makes. Without giving any particular promise, I shall look at the matter again with officials to see whether there is truly a gap which needs to be filled. At the moment, my advice is that there is no such gap. Bearing in mind the concern of the noble Baroness, I am more than content to review the position with officials.
    Baroness Young: I attach considerable importance to these amendments. Having lost the previous Division, perhaps we shall return to many of these

    103
    matters on clause stand part, but that puts them in a very different position. I am grateful for the noble and learned Lord's offer to look at the matter. When we discussed these matters earlier the noble and learned Lord referred to Clause 4(1) and the possibility of including further groups of people by statutory instrument. For example, at Second Reading he referred to the possibility of including scouts. Another group is the present one. That would be a constructive way forward which would meet our concerns. We shall listen with great interest to what the noble and learned Lord says at Report stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Baroness Young Baroness Young moved Amendment No. 42:
    Page 4, line 23, leave out ("full-time").
    The noble Baroness said: This amendment is consequential on Amendment No. 18. My noble friend Lady Blatch and the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, carefully pressed the whole case relating to allegations about full-time teachers. This consequential amendment covers part-time teachers, who would be equally involved. As my noble friend has agreed to withdraw her amendment for further consideration I shall not press the matter at this time of night. Once again, the particular case of teachers is a real one. We believe that since 1991 there have been well over 1,000 allegations made against teachers. There have been few convictions. But for many people, their lives and those of their families have been ruined, together with their relationships with neighbours and friends. Not only is that issue damaging to them, but—if I may take up a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart—it actually makes recruitment to the teaching profession more difficult.
    From what I have read of his remarks, I believe that the right honourable Mr David Blunkett, the Secretary of State, is sympathetic to this case. I am at a loss to understand why the Government cannot draft their own amendment to meet the case of teachers, and in this case part-time teachers, who are affected by it. All the other cases referred to are of course serious. I am not in any way writing those down. The one professional group who could possibly be subject to these allegations—we know from the number of cases that have been brought forward—are teachers. Both for the sake of individual teachers and for the teaching profession as a whole, this matter needs to be looked at. I hope that the noble and learned Lord will be able to say that this is something that the Government can take away and redraft to meet what I genuinely believe is a real case. I beg to move.
    Lord Northbourne: In the context of what the noble Baroness, Lady Young, has just said, it occurred to me that those who accept the considerable responsibility of a post which puts them in a position of trust in relation to a child could reasonably expect to have some proper protection. It may be that it is in that context that some degree of confidentiality for
    104
    teachers and other people who are defined as being in a position of trust towards a child could be afforded so that they are protected from the risks to which the noble Baroness has drawn attention.
    Lord Williams of Mostyn: I set out the Government's position fairly plainly. I regret to say that I do not think this amendment will be workable. I have not gone at any great length into the question of Article 10—the function of a free press in a free society.
    The noble Baroness is quite right. It is undoubtedly true that my right honourable friend Mr Blunkett has had extensive consultations with the teaching unions. I repeat my own personal sympathy, although that does not take matters further forward. As I have said, both my parents were school teachers throughout the whole of their professional lives.
    I take the point made by the noble Baroness. The difficulty is that we begin with teachers, but the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne—who has also had discussions, from which we have all benefited—then extends it to others. I sympathise with the point that is made. I simply question whether one will ever be able to draft a law to cover this issue. One simply adds to the category of anomalies. I am always willing to think about things, but I would not want the noble Baroness to think that there is a likely happy outcome for her concerns.
    Baroness Young: We had this discussion privately last week. What I find disappointing is that the noble and learned Lord, together with his advisers, feels that he cannot bring forward an amendment to meet this difficulty. I would guess that there is no one in the Chamber who does not have sympathy for the situation in which these people find themselves. Many members of my family have taught. I have a daughter who teaches full-time in a maintained school so I am very conscious of the kinds of situation which arise. I believe profoundly in the importance of teachers and in getting high quality people to go into teaching. But I can assure the House that a great many able graduates would not consider going into teaching. They do not quite laugh at the prospect, but, apart from anything else, why should they take this kind of risk?
    It gives me no pleasure to say that, because it is such a serious situation. I shall, of course, withdraw the amendment but I very much hope that the noble and learned Lord, perhaps in conjunction with his colleagues in the DfEE, who must be very concerned about the effect on the teaching profession, will consider the matter carefully. I know that it is not easy—lots of the most difficult problems are not easy to solve—but that does not quite exonerate us from trying to do so. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    [Amendments Nos. 43 and 44 not moved.]
    On Question, Whether Clause 4 shall stand part of the Bill?
    Lord Carlisle of Bucklow: Despite the lateness of the hour, I wonder whether I might take up a little of the Committee's time to discuss Clause 4.
    My understanding of the position—I should be grateful for the agreement of the Attorney-General when he comes to reply—is that we have voted to retain 18 as the age below which buggery will be a criminal offence, but we have accepted those clauses of the Bill which provide that other sexual activity, if I may use a general phrase, is a crime only when committed against a person of 16. The Government have then gone on in Clause 3 to say that, despite that decision to lower the age of consent to 16, in certain circumstances, where there is a person in a position of trust, it shall still be an offence for that person to engage himself in any other sexual activity or to have intercourse with a person who is under his care at that time. Clause 4 then sets out the meanings of the phrase "position of trust" and proposes the four classes which the Government recommend should be covered by that new offence.
    In an earlier discussion I referred to the cases we faced on the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board. While I accept that almost by their very nature the offences we are considering are offences where the abuse is a criminal act and therefore would remain a criminal act because they are done without consent, I am sure the Attorney-General would agree that the issue of consent is not necessarily an easy one to decide. What happens in many of these cases is not a question of physical coercion to impose the will of an older man on a younger child. It is first of all befriending a vulnerable child, particularly in a home where he is perhaps lonely and isolated. The older man is the member of staff to whom the child goes. From there the child starts being invited into the member of staff's room in the evening. Then perhaps "small favours", to use a phrase used by the Attorney-General at Second Reading—I read with great care what he said about these cases—are offered to the child. Small presents are given. Slowly, the child is moved into a situation in which he becomes involved in sexual acts with that individual without ever clearly either consenting or refusing to give consent.
    In the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board it was easy to determine, on the balance of proof, that that consent had been suborned and was not real consent and therefore the act remained a crime of violence for which the victim could be compensated. But when it comes to prosecuting the individual in the courts and proving beyond reasonable doubt that the act he committed was carried out without the consent of the individual on whom it was imposed, it may be considerably more difficult to meet that burden of proof and achieve a result. I can understand why the Government have felt it necessary, in so far as any matter which is non-consensual is already a crime, to bring in provisions to cover where a person in a position of trust who acts in a sexual way towards an individual could himself, by that act, be committing an
    106
    offence. It meets the case where it is difficult to say whether or not the act on the part of an individual is consensual.
    9.45 p.m.
    The Attorney-General earlier explained very clearly why the Government felt it right to set out in Clause 4 the four classes of people who fall into such positions of trust. I do not disagree in any way with the arguments that he advanced. As he said, the gravamen was the fact that such children were being used or abused by those in whose care the courts had ordered them to be detained.
    The purpose of all the amendments to Clause 4 is to ask whether we have covered adequately those groups of people in positions of trust whose influence on the individual may be such that they should also be put at the same risk of infringing the criminal law, should they involve themselves in sexual activity with that individual. Perhaps I may take, for example, Amendment No. 24, to which I have added my name. Over my years serving on the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board, experience taught me that, sadly, a proportion of abuse was concerned with the family situation. The amendment seeks to examine the position of the step-parent or half-sibling of the individual being abused. They are in a position of trust as regards that individual and thus, certainly in my experience, from time to time they will abuse that trust in a situation where it can be difficult to say whether they were committing an offence because they were achieving something that was non-consensual, but who have persuaded their step-child or half-sibling to involve themselves in acts to which otherwise they would not have agreed, had they had been freely able to consent. I believe that a recent Home Office publication examines whether abuse in the family is an area which should also require protection under the position of trust provisions.
    Moving on quickly through the other amendments to the clause, I notice that Amendment No. 26 deals with members of a church or a religious organisation. Sadly, we all know that, over recent months, considerable publicity has been given to certain cases where a tiny minority of individuals have involved themselves with abuse of those in their care through a religious organisation. The amendment asks should they, too, be covered by the position of trust? Equally, should social care workers be covered by the position of trust? The final amendments ask whether a social services inspector of services should also be covered by the position of trust.
    The general point I wish to make—to which I invite the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General to reply—is this. Recognising the need for an offence of breaking a position of trust, is he sure that the Government have adequately covered the groups to which that offence should apply; or should they at least look again at the groups proposed by the Opposition? None of the groups can be voted on individually today because the paving amendment was defeated, but the Opposition may or may not wish to return to them at a later stage.
    Lord Waddington: Perhaps I may take this opportunity of mentioning a matter which has concerned me throughout the Bill. Very often government spokesmen speak of the Bill as one which, somehow or other, extends the rights of young people. Frankly, I do not imagine that very many young people aged 16 or 17 who, if they were involved in some kind of sexual relationship with another young person, would run the risk of prosecution. The truth of the matter is that if the Bill bestows rights on any particular class of person, it bestows rights on older people who may be minded to prey on young people. That is the problem with the Bill.
    I would not mind if the Bill dealt with thatsituation—I am sure that, with some ingenuity, it could have done—but it riles with me that time and time again people get up and say "This is all about the rights of people aged 16 and 17". It has nothing whatever to do with that. What makes me such a fervent opponent of the Bill is that it confers rights on those who may be minded to prey on young people, and prey on young people who, as I said earlier, are mere children in terms of international law and the international documents which control these matters.
    What is wrong with the clause is that it is not as wide as it could be. People like myself could be completely mollified. If the Government were to take the view that, in every case where there could be the opportunity of someone taking advantage of young people, the young people were protected, I would be a happy man. We do not get that attitude from the Government; instead, we get exactly the opposite and they say, "No, no. It is far too difficult. There is no real position of trust there. We cannot accept this amendment, we cannot accept that amendment".
    If they were prepared to face the concerns of the public, the Government would be willing to extend the abuse of trust provisions as wide as possible in order to prove to the public that they were giving new rights to young people while at the same time protecting them against those who might be minded to prey on them. That is what has worried me throughout the whole of the Bill and why I have taken this opportunity on clause stand part to say these few words.
    The Lord Bishop of Winchester: Perhaps I may put again in summary the point I made earlier, although at the wrong moment, to the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General by reference to something which the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle, said. If I heard aright, he summarised the Minister's insistence on four conditions only by saying that the gravamen of all four of them was that they had to do with young people who were committed to particular institutions by the action of a court or within the law. But it seems to me that only the first two of the conditions in the Bill fall under that head and that the third and fourth, set out in subsections (4) and (5) at the top of page 4, are more general.
    I hope it is reasonable to raise again the question that I put to the Minister at a less opportune moment earlier. Why should there be an absolute distinction between the Government's commitment on the one
    108
    hand to those elements that are in the Bill and their apparently acute reservations about including within the clause provisions relating to other elements of abuse of trust—including a reference to churches and religious organisations, which we on these Benches support, and the references to family in the broader sense?
    I hope that, before Report stage, the Government will take a clear look at how many of the proposals on which we have not been able to vote today can be written on to the face of the Bill. I have heard no clear reason why the distinction that the Minister drew should be drawn and why as many as possible of these proposals should not be included in the Bill.
    Earl Russell: I shall detain the Committee only briefly. I am glad that Clause 4 is in the Bill. The noble Baroness, Lady Young, will remember that right from the beginning I supported her suggestion that some such clause should be included.
    As the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle of Bucklow, explained with numinous clarity, we are dealing with a situation where there is an abuse of power. There is a situation of unequal power; therefore, there is an unequal relationship which gives rise to a serious possibility of oppression. It is right that we should deal with such situations.
    We are, however, attempting something of extraordinary difficulty in the drafting. We have here a grey area. We have relationships that we clearly wish to prohibit and relationships that are on the edge of what we wish to prohibit. I take the courtship of Othello and Desdemona as an example of what I have in mind—where there is clearly an inequality of power and estate. I think it is just outside the scope of what we want to cover in the clause.
    We have also a whole series of problems about the drafting of legislation. First, there is the problem to which the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General has constantly, and rightly, drawn our attention: the problem of single issue legislation, which needs to be interlocked with the greatest of care with other legislation in the field. Listening to the noble and learned Lord, I was again reminded of a work on criminal legislation in the 18th century when there was a proliferation of criminal offences because everyone got angry about one thing in turn and legislated about it in isolation. As the author of that book put it, a member who was robbed of his turnips introduced a statute for the death penalty for stealing turnips, never thinking that the catastrophe that happened this year to his turnips might happen next year to his potatoes. So we need to be sure that we interlock the legislation with other provisions.
    We need to be aware also of the dangers of single purpose legislation. Very often, in any Parliament, in any century, we get into a general state of strong feeling about one particular issue. We have usually identified a genuine mischief, but we never think that when the statute is used in court it will be applied to a case that is almost certainly oblique to our original

    109
    purpose in discussing the Bill. So there may be an overflow effect, with the clause touching matters that we had no intention of touching.
    In the case of abuse of trust, there are clearly relationships that we wish to prohibit. It is also clear that a relationship of trust and a sexual relationship cannot exist concurrently. However, there are cases where they have existed sequentially with, perhaps, a period of some length in between the two. I can think of many businessmen who have married their secretaries—in fact, that is a position of trust—where what has ultimately resulted has been a genuine loving relationship of a sort that we would not wish to see harried by the criminal law. Getting that boundary right is something of quite extraordinary difficulty.
    Therefore, when we deal with amendments that define a position of trust, we need to be certain of the following factors: how long the trust goes on; when it is terminated, which is not clear in the draft of the Bill now before us; and how long a relationship creates a position of trust, which is why the amendments here regarding the words "full-time" and "regularly" raise questions that go a good deal deeper than we realise. I am glad that this provision is in the Bill, but I am not yet sure that we have got it right. Although we are, rightly, concerned about one particular issue, we must avoid the risk of single purpose legislation blinding us to its possible consequences in other areas.
    10 p.m.
    Lord Northbourne: As I understand it, Clause 4 is about the question of who is in a position of trust. It seems to me that the definition of "a position of trust" will, inevitably, sooner or later become an issue that has to be thought about and settled. That is particularly so in the context of those categories of young people and of adults who do not fall neatly into the categories of one or other kind of employment, activity or status in the family.
    In my view, a position of trust comprises two elements, which the Bill perhaps does not make quite clear. There are two kinds of trust: first, there is the trust placed by the child in an adult. Such a person may be in a position to influence the child for one reason or another; for example, he may have the child's admiration through hero worship, he may have lived in the same household as the child for 10 or 15 years and, indeed, may be able to frighten or threaten the child or be able to flatter him with compliments, presents and treats. In that context, we must remember not only the bright, street-wise kid. We must also remember the kid with learning difficulties and the one who is on drugs and, therefore, desperate to get money. There are also other categories of vulnerable, young people.
    Secondly, there is the trust placed by the state in an adult who is put in a position to look after children. Indeed, parents, guardians or the state may put you, me or someone else in a position of responsibility for a child. That is a position of trust. My Amendment No. 37, which I hope to have the opportunity to speak to at a later stage of the Bill's proceedings, suggests
    110
    three categories of situation where a position of trust exists. The first relates to the trust that a child may have for certain adults. The second relates to the trust placed in an adult by parents, guardians and the state. The third emphasises the issue of undue influence, which is a key issue in defining a position of trust—as the noble Earl, Lord Russell, just observed, a position of unequal power.
    I turn for a moment to the matters discussed under Amendment No. 24; namely, sexual abuse within the family. The noble and learned Lord was kind enough to arrange for me to receive a chapter from the Home Office paper, Setting the Boundaries. Having studied the text, I think that all noble Lords who are interested in this debate should take the opportunity to study it carefully before the next stage. It seems to me to consider the issues most sensibly and to come forward with very sensible solutions. I hope that the noble and learned Lord will be able to give us an assurance at some stage that it is the Government's intention to put as many as possible of the paper's proposals on the statute book as soon as possible.
    Lord Goldsmith: I too am glad that Clause 4 forms part of the Bill. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle, for engineering a situation in which it is possible to say that. However, it is important to bear in mind that we are talking about criminalising particular conduct. If we are talking about criminalising it, we have to think of the prospects of matters coming to court and the circumstances in which they may do so, as the noble Earl, Lord Russell, reminded us.
    If the noble and learned Lord is able to show that some changes to these categories can be made in a way which leaves the position workable, I shall be happy with that. Indeed I should be pleased because it is important that young people—we are talking here about boys and girls—receive protection. However, I wish to draw attention to one concern that Amendment No. 17—which was passed earlier—gives rise to. Clauses 3 and 4, as they stood together, were concerned with a person who, while in a position of trust, engaged in sexual intercourse or engaged in any other sexual activity. It seems to me that the consequence of adding Amendment No. 17—which amends Clause 3—which includes a s a criminal offence,
    "preparing such a person to engage in sexual activity with him at a later stage",
    is the following. It adds a new dimension to the balance between criminalising conduct and the protection of the young.
    One of the points powerfully made earlier today concerned the position of teachers or others in important positions who may be subject to unfair and malicious allegations. It would be right to say that the amendment made will have that impact in relation to those who are in positions of trust; that is to say, they will be open and more vulnerable to an accusation that they have been preparing someone for the activity I mentioned.

    111
    I say that at this stage because in considering the balance with regard to those categories of trust where children are most vulnerable and most in need of protection, and therefore where it is most justifiable to create a criminal offence, one must bear in mind that if one pushes the line too far, one may well put people who are doing a proper and good job at risk of allegations. Why are the allegations different? I refer to an allegation that someone has engaged in sexual activity—that is a definite and clear statement of conduct—and an allegation that someone has prepared someone for that at a later stage which must be much more open to interpretation of events. I respectfully suggest to the Committee that that must be carefully considered when deciding whether it is right to extend the categories in the ways proposed. As to the details, given that this is a general discussion on the clause rather than on the detailed amendments, I say nothing.
    Baroness Young: I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Carlisle for giving us the opportunity to consider these issues on a clause stand part debate. The noble Earl, Lord Russell, referred to the dangers of single issue amendments. We would not be talking about abuse of trust if we did not have a Bill which lowers the age of consent to 16. This does not worry only myself. I believe that I am right in saying that the first person to raise the matter of abuse of trust was the Labour Member, Mr Joseph Ashton, who tabled an amendment on that issue. He was right to do so. I am glad that the Government have included provisions in the Bill on that matter. Our concern with regard to the amendments which we have not been able to debate tonight is that we do not feel that those provisions go far enough.
    I should be concerned if the Committee thought that in tabling the amendments we had sat in a small room thinking up things to do. In fact all the amendments, almost without exception, arise from people who have thought about the issue at great length and in great detail. The amendments which we have been unable to move—Amendments Nos. 21 and 22, 30, 31, 34 to 36 and 44—arise from the report of Sir Ronald Waterhouse, a highly respected judge who had studied the issue.
    Leaving aside the amendment regarding education, Amendment No. 24 was grouped with Amendments Nos. 25, 32 and 38. Those amendments arise from the Government's own report, Setting the Boundaries. If noble Lords look at Setting the Boundaries they will discover that the amendments to which I have referred pick up recommendation 32, which extends the provisions on the abuse of trust to ancillary staff in residential homes to cover all social care workers.
    Finally, Amendment No. 24 covers recommendations 35 to 39, 41 and 42 in the review. I have read most of the review. Clearly, having considered the matter in considerable detail and at considerable length, members made recommendations. If we fail to do anything about any of those recommendations, we can do as the noble and learned Lord suggested earlier.
    112
    I understand that all these matters will be considered. By next March they will be looked at. Two or three months later we may get something. And—who knows?—after the next election in the next Session of Parliament we might have legislation. In the meantime, those children who are affected by the Bill will not have the care that they should have. I believe that it is a matter of conscience that we do something about it. If the amendments are incorrectly drafted, or do not meet the case, I and my colleagues would gladly accept any provision that the Government may bring forward. But before we reach the next stage of the Bill, I hope that they will look seriously at these amendments because they meet points which have been raised.
    Earl Russell: Before the noble Baroness sits down, will she agree that the abuses described in the Waterhouse report took place when the age of consent was much higher? What did that fact do to help the people who were subject to them?
    Baroness Young: My Lords, I believe that Sir Ronald Waterhouse said that were the age of consent to be lower, then the abuse would have been worse still. I think that society has a tremendous responsibility for what emerges from Waterhouse. It is not a point—scoring issue. I think that I am right in saying that there were children who, if the age of consent, were lowered, would have suffered. We should look at his recommendations and those in the Government's own White Paper. That is the point I make. Outsiders have considered the issue. We have simply picked up their amendments.
    10.15 p.m.
    Baroness Blatch: I support all that my noble friends have said. The Government bear some responsibility for having voted against a fifth condition. They have set their face against any extension of the conditions in the clause. That is unfortunate.
    Apart from the example referred to by the right reverend Prelate regarding abuse of those people in the church, the 20,000 mentors established by the Learning and Skills Act will be in positions of trust, very directly, in one-to-one relationships with some of the more vulnerable people in our schools. Those vulnerable people will be befriended and advised, often in a physically isolated place where they can talk and discuss problems openly. My noble friend Lord Carlisle of Bucklow explained how manipulative people operate, befriending young people and generously buying their favour to the point at which consent is almost assumed rather than asked for. We are talking about young people who are hungry for someone to take notice of them and to give them attention, love and affection and who find themselves in a situation that makes them very vulnerable to such people.
    The Attorney-General and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, have referred a number of times to the Government having a view on the issues. I thought that we were having free votes on everything. I did not think that the Government had

    113
    a view. The Bill was not a manifesto pledge and every Member of this House and another place, including the Prime Minister, as I understand it, can take a view on the issues. It is deeply worrying that the Government appear to have decided that they do not want any extension to the conditions in the Bill. I have mentioned mentors and the Church and others have mentioned familial relationships. We know of instances of young people, particularly very small children, being abused in the home. Even children between 16 and 18 are not immune to that kind of relationship. However, they will be left outside the protection of Clause 4.
    If a young person is taken advantage of by a personal adviser, someone from social services, a guardian, a mentor, a member of a youth organisation or someone from within a church, there will be no offence of abuse of trust, unless the relationship is directly professional. Even in education, full-time teachers are included, but why not part-time teachers? How much less is the abuse if it is perpetrated by a part-time teacher rather than by a full-time one?
    It would be helpful if the Minister would give some defence of the Government's reasons for not being prepared to include such inoffensive amendments. The Government may have problems with some of the categories, but others are so glaringly missing from the four conditions set out in the clause that passing the Bill as it stands would mean knowingly leaving some young people without protection in a high-risk situation.
    The Minister will no doubt remind us again of the review committee's recommendations and the consultation that will be completed in the spring. However, unless a Bill is announced in the coming gracious Speech, we have to be pessimistic about the chances of there being one in the next Session. If there is not, we shall have to wait for the new Parliament after the general election. That will bring further unacceptable delays. Nothing in the amendments would have precluded further strengthening and additions that the Government might have thought up after the consultation. I am deeply depressed that the Government have unequivocally set their face against any extension of the categories of people in a position of trust who will be included in the Bill.
    Lord Williams of Mostyn: Perhaps I may disabuse the Committee of any false apprehension. It is utterly incorrect to say that very small children in a home lack the protection of the criminal law. Nothing could be further from the truth and I regard it as not responsible to make that suggestion.
    This is a free vote and we all vote according to our conscience. I am entitled to my view as much as any other Member of the Committee. My view has been made perfectly plain. On the previous occasion when we debated this matter, I said that Mr Hague and Mr Portillo, in an act of rare moral and political courage, supported that. I know that Mr Blair does, and I believe that Mr Charles Kennedy does also.
    114
    In the meantime, it was said that those young people are left without protection. I repeat what I said on Second Reading when the Bill was thrown out: if the whole Bill is thrown out, those young people will remain without protection. I said that; it is shown in Hansard. No one was sufficiently persuaded by my argument to vote accordingly.
    It is said that this protection was brought about and made necessary only by the introduction of this Bill. I disagree profoundly. I believe, and I hope that Members of the Committee will agree with me, that young girls also require protection. Without this protection of trust legislation which we have put before this Parliament, there would have been no protection for young girls over the age of 16 in care homes, in places of custodial detention or in any other circumstances which are set out. Those are the unfortunate facts to which I am afraid I must refer.
    Baroness Blatch: Perhaps I may also make it clear that we are not opposing Clause 4 as it stands. We are saying that we wish to add to, improve and strengthen it. We are certainly not arguing against anything that is in Clause 4. The protection for girls was brought in by the amendments which we moved earlier in the day and which were voted in by this Committee.
    Lord Williams of Mostyn: That is not the point that I am making. I am saying that the assertion that has been made that the protection of girls was made necessary by the introduction of this Bill with equalisation of consent is simply factually and historically wrong. The noble Baroness says that that is not true. I find that offensive. If she has a point to make, I shall sit down. However, it is true.
    Baroness Blatch: I do have a point to make. The effect of passing the Bill unamended was to lower the age of buggery against girls for the first time to the age of 16. That meant that they went unprotected and the amendments moved today have remedied that.
    Lord Williams of Mostyn: Was it not also the fact that girls of 16, whether in custodial institutions, in schools or in positions of trust, as described by the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, were wholly without the protection of the criminal law? I believe that that is true. I believe that what the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, said bears a good deal of thought.
    The fact is—I have mentioned this on earlier occasions; therefore, the noble Lord will forgive me if I am brief—that until this law is passed, young girls of 16 have very little protection. I agree that older people prey on them. I have mentioned previously custodial circumstances, positions of trust, and the wealthy man with lots of money, well able to gull a young girl of 16 in one week. I have not heard much about the protection of young girls in those circumstances except from the noble Lord. I believe that the logic of his position—
    Lord Waddington: I believe that the noble and learned Lord misunderstood what I said. I said that

    115
    this Bill was dressed up as one which gave new freedom to young boys when in fact it was a Bill which licensed older men to commit buggery on young boys. That is what I said.
    Lord Williams of Mostyn: Is there to be no protection for girls of 16, preyed upon by older men for heterosexual sexual intercourse?
    The Lord Bishop of Winchester: Are we not in danger of losing the focus on Clause 4 in the discussion which has just taken flight? Perhaps I may ask the Minister whether we can return to the particular points on Clause 4 on which, at this time of night, I believe we should be working.
    Lord Williams of Mostyn: Yes. However, when I do not deal with the various points, many of which I readily agree are not relevant to Clause 4, the Government are then accused of not taking them seriously. Therefore, I am trying to draw a middle path. However, I repeat that at present there is no protection whatever in our law for girls of 16 who are in positions of trust.
    The Lord Bishop of Winchester: Perhaps the Minister will agree that I was trying to assist him.
    Lord Williams of Mostyn: Of course, and that assistance is unalloyed and pure, not my universal experience of some assistance that is offered.
    The consequence of some of the amendments will be an infringement of the freedom of the press. Some Members of the Committee will say that that is justified. I am simply reminding the Committee that that is what it means. Article 10 does exist. We claim to live in a free society. Without a free press, we cannot have a free society. If Members of the Committee want to infringe the freedom of the press, all well and good. I am simply reminding the Committee that that is the consequence of some of these amendments.
    I turn now to the contributions made by the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle of Bucklow, and the right reverend Prelate, because they overlap in some ways. Amendment No. 24 deals with familial relationships. The noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, is quite right to say that if one looks at what the Home Office has said, there is a good deal there for us all to reflect on.
    Recommendation 35 states:
    "There should be an offence of familial sexual abuse to reflect the looser structure of modern families …. For the purposes of familial sexual abuse, the prohibition on sexual relations should apply until the child is 18. The offence of familial sexual abuse should apply to the sexual penetration of a child of all relations, including the existing offence of incest, with the addition of uncles and aunts related by blood. Adoptive parents should be treated on the same basis as natural parents. Sexual relations between adoptive siblings should be prohibited until the age of 18".
    Those are very wide and they go further but, as the right reverend Prelate said, it is late. I am simply drawing the attention of the Committee to that document.
    116
    It is not a case that this will be put off. It is a case that we need consultation on the matter. It is a very thoughtful document indeed, I suggest, and it is well worth looking at.
    There was then the question of religion. I believe that that was referred to by the right reverend Prelate and, certainly by the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle, in Amendment No. 26. One must bear in mind, of course, that some areas of religion, like church schools or children's homes, will be covered by the new offence.
    Amendment No. 26, to which the right reverend Prelate referred, and also the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle of Bucklow, states:
    "The fifth condition is that A looks after persons under 18 who are members of a church or religious organisation and B is a member of that church or religious organisation".
    There is opportunity there for two forms of sexual relationships: one is coercive and abuse of trust; and the other is perfectly acceptable and normal in society generally.
    At the moment, the amendment will not deal with the one mischief without encompassing the other activity. These amendments are not easy to draw up at all. I believe that the general cast of the Bill is right. There is no point in rehearsing the arguments, of course, on the first approach which the majority of the Committee supported.
    I believe that one must be extremely careful and look at some examples. I take the phrase "preying on younger people" or "using the opportunity of taking advantage of younger people". What about a 17 year-old girl who is an employee working for an employer who is 18½ or the 16 or 17 year-old girl who is working in a coffee bar and the manager happens to be 18½? One could say that that is abusive and he is in a position of authority. I rather doubt it in today's world, I really do, and perhaps even in the world of 30 years ago, for which I shall have to ask my noble friend Lord Bach for his comments.
    These are extremely difficult, subtle relationships. We can blunder in and achieve the wrong conclusion. I am grateful—he will know that I mean this sincerely—for the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle, that we should have our debate, about which everyone is deeply engaged, although people have different views. I shall not repeat what I said about social care workers and social services inspectors, if the noble Lord will forgive me, because I dealt with that a little earlier. I appreciate that he wanted to put the full spectrum.
    I believe that the suggestion was good and that it was helpful to the Committee. I have a feeling that in the end there will be a gulf between people's views. If possible, we must try to reconcile that gulf, but if people come to different conclusions the Committee must decide for itself or the House will decide on Report.
    10.30 p.m.
    Baroness Blatch: Can the Minister comment on part-time as well as full-time teachers and on the 20,000 mentors who will be working one-to-one with young people in schools?
    Lord Williams of Mostyn: I believe I have dealt with the point about the 20,000 mentors by pointing specifically to the powers of the Secretary of State and I have dealt with the argument about part-timers. We believe that this series of conditions ought to relate to those who are in a position in which they can coerce children.
    Clause 4 agreed to.
    Clauses 5 and 6 agreed to.
    Lord Brightman Lord Brightman moved Amendment No. 45:
    After Clause 6, insert the following new clause

  TEXT OF CERTAIN ENACTMENTS AMENDED BY THIS ACT
  (".Sections 12 and 13 of, and paragraph 16 of Schedule 2 to, the Sexual Offences Act 1956, sections 1 and 8 of the Sexual Offences Act 1967, section 13 of the Criminal Law (Consolidation) (Scotland) Act 1995 and Article 3 of the Homosexual Offences (Northern Ireland) Order 1982, as read by the application of the existing law and as amended by sections 1 and 2, and with the omission of repealed provisions, are set out in Schedule (Sexual Offences Acts 1956 and 1967, Criminal Law (Consolidation) (Scotland) Act 1995 and Homosexual Offences (Northern Ireland) Order 1982, as amended) to this Act.").
  The noble and learned Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 45 I shall speak also to Amendment No. 46. The Committee may be relieved to know that I do not intend to say a single word about sex and I shall he as brief as possible.
  I seek to introduce into this Bill a Keeling schedule covering Clauses 1 and 2 of the Bill. I shall say a few words about a Keeling schedule for the benefit of those Members of the Committee not familiar with the device. If a Bill intends to amend a section, including a subsection, of an existing Act of Parliament there are two ways to do so. The amendment can take the form of a patchwork amendment, adding a word here, substituting or deleting a word there, as in Clauses 1 and 2 of this Bill.
  Alternatively, the amendment can take the form of deleting the whole section and substituting a new clause. The principal advantage of the patchwork type of amendment is that it spotlights the precise changes intended and also will often avoid amendments to amendments, which are a bugbear.
  The advantage of the wholesale type of amendment is that the amended section can be read as a whole when the Bill is passed and becomes an Act of Parliament. That advantage becomes overwhelming if the section being amended has already been amended by previous Acts of Parliament so that one has to keep four or five fingers in past volumes of statutes in order to read the amended section in its new form.
  I accept that a patchwork amendment is more convenient to the House than a wholesale amendment. On the other hand, a wholesale amendment of an already heavily amended section is almost always
  118
  more convenient to judges, lawyers and other members of the public who are our customers. The customers can read the amended section in its current form without having to trudge through past legislation.
  We make Acts of Parliament for the public and not for ourselves. Fortunately, there is a halfway house. It is possible to have the best of both worlds—by amending a section in patchwork style and adding at the end of the Bill words to the effect, "Section 1 of the so-and-so Act, as previously amended and as further amended by this Act, is set out in the schedule to I his Act".
  To illustrate the need for a Keeling schedule, perhaps I may tell the Committee the contortions through which a reader must go in order to read Section 1 of the Sexual Offences Act 1967 if it is amended as proposed by this Bill. Section 1 of the 1967 Act has seven subsections. First, the reader must go to Schedule 11 of the Public Order Act 1994 to amend line 2 of subsection (1). Secondly, the reader must go to Section 145 of the same Act and also to Clause 2(3) of the Bill for the remainder of subsection (1).
  Thirdly, for subsection (3), the reader must go to paragraph 34(a) of Schedule 1 to the Mental Health (Amendment) Act 1982 to amend lines 1, 2 and 8 of subsection (3). Fourthly, the reader must go to paragraph 34(b) of the same schedule to insert a new subsection numbered (3A). Fifthly, his researches will reveal that subsection (4) is unchanged. Sixthly, the reader must go to Section 146 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 to discover that subsection (5) has been repealed.
  Seventhly, to ascertain subsection (6) the reader must go back to Section 145 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 and then return to Clause 1(2) of the Bill and the final words of subsection (6). Eighthly, the reader heaves a sigh of relief on discovering that the final subsection of Section 1 of the Sexual Offences Act 1967 is unchanged.
  To foist an Act of Parliament on the public in this form is simply not fair. It is not democratic. Of course, the answer may be given that the reader can spend £1,000 or so on Halsbury's Laws of England or a computer and that will, to a large extent, overcome his difficulties. But it is not an answer which appeals to me. The proper answer is to add to the Bill a Keeling schedule.
  A Keeling schedule, though not often now used, has a respectable ancestry. It first arose on 26th July 1938. Mr Keeling, the Member for Twickenham, asked the Prime Minister,
  "whether he has considered a memorandum on the evils of legislation by reference submitted to him by a number of Members; and whether he has any statement to make".—[Official Report, 26/7/38; col. 2919.]
  The Prime Minister, Mr Neville Chamberlain, said at col. 2920,
  "I have considered the memorandum with interest … The suggestion made is, in effect, that a Bill amending or applying an existing enactment by reference should contain a Schedule setting out the enactment as it will read when amended by the Bill … This method is not, I understand, put forward as a panacea to be used

  119
  in all cases … There are, however, undoubtedly some cases where the method suggested by the memorandum would be both practicable and advantageous; and I have instructed the Parliamentary Counsel to proceed experimentally on the lines suggested in suitable cases".
  Members of the Committee may be puzzled why the Prime Minister was considering the policy of drafting Acts of Parliament at a time when he was shuttling between London, Godesberg and Munich when his mind was mainly occupied with the rising power of Hitler's Germany. The answer is that under our quaint system of legislation the office of parliamentary counsel, who do the basic work, is responsible for policy to the Prime Minister and to no one else. Only the Prime Minister can give policy directions to the office of parliamentary counsel. The Committee may feel that it would be more appropriate if the office of parliamentary counsel were responsible to the Lord Chancellor, to the Attorney-General or perhaps to a joint committee of both Houses.
  How can matters of general drafting policy have been expected to engage the attention of Sir Winston Churchill in 1940 to 1945 or the attention of Mr Blair today? The effect of the Prime Minister's 1938 policy direction to the office of parliamentary counsel was substantial. Between 1939 and 1949, 23 public Bills had Keeling schedules. In more modern times, between 1966 and 1993, 24 public Bills had Keeling schedules. Since then, they have died out save for a single exception; the Criminal Evidence (Amendment) Act 1997.
  I ask myself whether parliamentary draftsmen are disenchanted with Keeling schedules and will no longer have anything to do with them. It would be quite inappropriate for me to seek to bring my amendment to a conclusion today. As a result of the amendments made to Clauses 1 and 2 it is already out of date. However, I would respectfully ask the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General to consider inserting a Keeling schedule into the Bill. He might even find time to grant me the favour of an interview.
  Before I sit down, perhaps I may say that I owe a deep sense of gratitude to Mr Edward 011ard, then of the Public Bill Office, for drafting the Keeling schedule, which I could never have done accurately myself. I ought to thank his successor for his research at short notice into past uses of Keeling schedules. I beg to move.
  Earl Russell: We should be grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, for an extremely helpful series of suggestions and an extremely interesting series of remarks. I have always been attracted to Keeling schedules, ever since I was introduced to them by the noble Lord, Lord Renton, whose remarks on drafting as always deserve a great deal of attention.
  I have experienced two Keeling memoranda, if that is not an improper phrase—kind of sub-Keeling documents—drawn up by the Minister for the assistance of the House on the Child Support Acts
  120
  1995 and 1999. Both of those were extraordinarily helpful. I wish only that they could have been used in the full Keeling sense in the Bill.
  When one approaches legislation, especially in social security, one feels that one is being asked to undertake a crossword puzzle. To those such as myself who lack skills in crosswords, that can be extremely difficult. So I hope that the noble and learned Lord's remarks will receive very careful attention. In this particular case it is possible that the Minister might reply that if it were done now, it would only have to be done again in the very near future in the review of sexual offences. Were he to make that reply, I would, of course, listen to it with great seriousness. But the principle of what the noble and learned Lord has said remains sound and remains in need of urgent attention from parliamentary counsel and all those to whom they may on occasion answer.
  Lord Stoddart of Swindon: I support the amendments tabled by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman. When I was elected to the House of Commons, after being a member of a local authority, I can remember how bemused I was by parliamentary procedure and parliamentary Bills and amendments. It seems to me that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, is absolutely right that legislation is for the people. If legislation is for the people, then the people ought to be able to read the legislation in one go, not in several goes, as he outlined. Therefore, I hope that my noble and learned friend will give very serious consideration to what has been said. I shall be interested to hear his reply.
  Baroness Blatch: I rise briefly to support the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman. Having spent a good deal of the past three years doing my own research, I would welcome this provision in many other Acts of Parliament. I find the cross-referencing of one piece of legislation with another an absolute minefield. As well as people outside, some of us here would benefit greatly from the suggestion of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, and I hope that the advice is followed.
  Lord Williams of Mostyn: I always believe everything that your Lordships tell me! I am thinking of having a T-shirt printed: "I have always been attracted to Keeling schedules—Earl Russell". I think some eyebrows shot up a little around the House when he said that.
  As always, of course, what the noble and learned Lord has said commands enormous attention in your Lordships' House. It may be—I hope he will not think that I am being presumptuous—that his suggestion would fall more usefully to be considered when the outcome of the comprehensive review of the sexual legislation ought to bring about a major rewriting of the whole law on sexual offences.
  He asked, with his usual charm and courtesy, whether or not we might have a meeting. I would certainly welcome that. Perhaps his suggestion, which seems to all of us to be of great value, may well be

  121
  deployed on a subsequent occasion because, of course, this Bill deals with only a limited number of sexual offences. However, I am most obliged not only for his suggestions but for the most helpful tone in which he deployed his submissions.
  Lord Brightman: I entirely agree with what the noble and learned Lord, the Attorney-General, said. It occurred to me that this could be dealt with by means of a consolidation Bill. However, that means that there would have to be a First Reading and a Second Reading here, followed by a joint consolidation committee of the two Houses, which would take quite
  122
  a long time. Your Lordships may feel that, if it can be done, it would be quicker to have a Keeling schedule in this Bill rather than wait for a consolidation. I am very grateful to those of your Lordships who have spoken but, in the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 7 agreed to.
  [Amendment No. 46 not moved.]
  House resumed: Bill reported with amendments.
  House adjourned at ten minutes before eleven o'clock.

  Department of Health and Food Standards Agency: Expenditure Limits
  Department of Health and Food Standards Agency: Expenditure Limits
  Princess Royal Hospital, Haywards Heath
  Princess Royal Hospital, Haywards Heath
  NATO and the European Security and Defence Program
  NATO and the European Security and Defence Program
  HMS Tireless
  HMS Tireless
  Members of the Armed Forces Killed in Service: Recognition
  Members of the Armed Forces Killed in Service: Recognition
  Clansman Vehicle-Mounted Radios
  Clansman Vehicle-Mounted Radios
  Clansman Portable Radios
  Clansman Portable Radios
  Departmental Cars
  Departmental Cars
  DTI Web Pages
  DTI Web Pages
  NMEC: Complaints
  NMEC: Complaints
  NMEC: Financial Operation
  NMEC: Financial Operation
  Prison Service: Courses Addressing Offending Behaviour
  Prison Service: Courses Addressing Offending Behaviour
  Asylum Seekers Voucher System
  Asylum Seekers Voucher System
  Asylum Seekers' Appeal Rights
  Asylum Seekers' Appeal Rights
  Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act
  Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act
  Data Protection: US "Safe Harbour" Arrangements
  Data Protection: US "Safe Harbour" Arrangements
  Merrywood School, Bristol
  Merrywood School, Bristol
  Religious Schools: Grant Aid
  Religious Schools: Grant Aid
  Autistic Spectrum Disorder: Educational Provision
  Autistic Spectrum Disorder: Educational Provision
  Standards Fund Allocation
  Standards Fund Allocation
  Chittagong Hill Tracts Land Commission
  Chittagong Hill Tracts Land Commission
  Israel: Defence Equipment Sales
  Israel: Defence Equipment Sales
  UN Disarmament and International Security Committee: Chairmanship
  UN Disarmament and International Security Committee: Chairmanship
  OHCHR: Communications and Complaints
  OHCHR: Communications and Complaints
  Zanzibar: Elections
  Zanzibar: Elections
  UNAMSIL: Illicit Diamond Mining
  UNAMSIL: Illicit Diamond Mining
  Sierra Leone: Elections
  Sierra Leone: Elections