Sitting of 30 November 2000

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

    Innovation
    1. Mr. Andrew Love: What steps he is taking to raise the level of innovation in the United Kingdom's industrial base. [139531]
    The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry(Mr. Stephen Byers): The Government believe that innovation is the key to industrial success. By providing economic stability, the Government are giving business the opportunity to raise its levels of innovation.
    Mr. Love: My right hon. Friend may be aware that, tomorrow, my local business innovation centre will be presenting the annual London innovation awards. On show will be 126 new technologies, many of which can be turned into commercial ventures. Last year's winner has already established a turnover of £600,000 and is poised for major expansion. Will my right hon. Friend give us some tangible examples of innovation making the difference to both jobs and investment in the British economy?
    Mr. Byers: I congratulate those who will be receiving awards at the London innovation awards ceremony tomorrow. There are several good examples of innovation that has been developed here in the United Kingdom, which have been beneficial to employment and have had wider benefits. One immediately thinks of Viagra, which has been useful to a number of people in the UK—[Interruption.] I have not had to use it myself. One thinks also of the Dyson vacuum cleaner, the Psion organiser and something that came directly from a Department of Trade and Industry grant—a smart award—to the production company responsible for "Walking with Dinosaurs", some of whom are on the Opposition Benches. That was a very good money-earner for the UK, and based on a grant that the right hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) would abolish.
    Mr. David Heath: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that many long-term technology programmes are dependent either directly or indirectly on Government contracts? That is particularly so in defence-related industries. Does the right hon.
    1120
    Gentleman also agree that one factor that should be taken into account when deciding on defence procurement contracts is the ability to sustain the technological research and development base in the UK rather than among American competitors?
    Mr. Byers: I have no doubt that public procurement can be a very effective way of developing innovation and supporting research and development in the UK. Over the years, the defence sector has played a valuable role in achieving that. I know that the Ministry of Defence continues to keep under review its procedures to ensure that the decisions that it takes on its procurement programme will not weaken but support the UK's industrial base, while at the same time providing our armed forces with the quality of equipment that they need to discharge their responsibilities.
    Gillian Merron: I welcome the commitment to promote innovation in British industry, but how will my right hon. Friend ensure that it will be relevant to the needs of engineering companies such as Alstom Power in Lincoln, which faces hefty competition on the world market?
    Mr. Byers: I compliment my hon. Friend on her very active work with Alstom, which I know is a major employer in her constituency and plays an important role in the UK's manufacturing and engineering base. Alstom is one of the forward-looking companies that has been prepared over the years to innovate. That is one reason why it has been successful in a highly competitive international market.
    The role of the Government in such circumstances is not to try to tell companies such as Alstom how it should innovate or develop products for the future. We should offer incentives and try to work alongside such companies. That is why I hope that the Chancellor will consider the extent to which R and D tax credits—he announced this in the pre-Budget report—can be extended beyond the small and medium sector, to support larger employers and companies such as Alstom in my hon. Friend's constituency.
    Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory: This week, the Confederation of British Industry estimated that the additional burden on British industry over this Parliament totals £32 billion. How does the Secretary of State think that helps competitiveness and innovation? Instead of inflating his Department—by 1,000 civil servants since the election—and fiddling around with a lot of gimmicky initiatives, will he at last start to stand up to the Treasury for the real interests of British business, begin to roll back the tide of red tape and regulation and do something about the £32 billion extra burden about which the CBI complained this week?
    Mr. Byers: The £32 billion of red tape to which the CBI referred includes the cost of providing people with four weeks' paid holiday a year, which the right hon. Gentleman would scrap. It also includes the cost of implementing the national minimum wage, which he would scrap. [Interruption.] The right hon. Gentleman, in his principal position as shadow Secretary of State, and his deputy, the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan), do not believe in the principle of a national

    1121
    minimum wage. They are clearly on the record as saying that, so there can be no doubt about it. The right hon. Gentleman attacks red tape, but in reality he is trying to attack basic decent standards in the workplace. That is a classic Tory agenda which the Government reject. We believe that decent standards in the workplace support improved economic performance.
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: The right hon. Gentleman is wrong about our policies on the minimum wage. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] He is factually incorrect, but we are right about his policies. He is more concerned with preserving all the extra jobs and expenditure in his own Department than with helping British industry to generate jobs in its sector. How can he be so complacent when the Institute of Chartered Accountants has produced another survey that shows that the cost to the average small business of implementing the additional regulations and legislation has risen from under £5,000 last year to over £8,000 this year? Will the Secretary of State leave his fantasy world of initiatives, advisers and extra civil servants and start to stand up for British industry? Will he take the lead from us and switch some of that expenditure over to make a cut in business rates for all small businesses?
    Mr. Byers: Let us get away from that fantasy world and address what Opposition Members have said on the record. The right hon. Gentleman's deputy, the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton, called the national minimum wage a "cretinous" idea—he should know. The right hon. Gentleman himself has said that the national minimum wage would undermine the country's economic performance, as the record shows—
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: Totally untrue.
    Mr. Byers: The shadow Chancellor did not consult the right hon. Gentleman when he suddenly announced that the Conservative party was going to endorse the national minimum wage.
    The right hon. Gentleman talked about the problems that the Government face. However, the facts show that over 1 million more people are in work since the Labour party took office. Today, we are announcing that we have delivered on one of our key manifesto pledges, as 250,000 young people are in jobs as the result of our measures. That is the reality of the situation. The right hon. Gentleman can live in his own fantasy world, but we are delivering for the people of our country.

    Manufacturing Industry (West Midlands)
    Dr. Lynne Jones: If he will assess the performance of manufacturing industry in the west midlands. [139532]
    The Minister for Trade (Mr. Richard Caborn): The Office for National Statistics figures for 1997, which are the latest figures available, show that the performance of manufacturing industry in the west midlands, on a gross value added per employee basis, is 91.5 per cent. of the UK average.
    Dr. Jones: My right hon. Friend will be aware that many manufacturing businesses in the west midlands face
    1122
    an uncertain future. At a meeting with the Engineering Employers Federation this week, there was considerable concern about the impact of the climate change levy on the competitiveness of companies with high energy costs that do not qualify for negotiated agreements under current arrangements. One business faces additional costs of £1,000 per employee. Will my right hon. Friend undertake to raise with the Chancellor the possibility of a rebate for companies that undertake to reach ISO 14001 environmental standards? In that way, CO2 emissions can be reduced
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady's question is far too long.
    Mr. Caborn: I fully appreciate my hon. Friend's concern and the representation made by the Engineering Employers Federation. She will accept that taxation is always a matter for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor, but I shall ensure that her concerns and those of the industry are passed on to my right hon. Friend at the earliest opportunity.
    Mr. Michael Fabricant: Is the Minister aware of the CBI's view that the climate change levy favours only organisations that are going to make a change, rather than those that have already invested in change, which include Sony in south Wales—[HON. MEMBERS: "West midlands"]—and many organisations in my constituency and in that of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Dr. Jones). I am a west midlands Member of Parliament, as you know, Mr. Speaker. Has not legislation introduced by the Government destroyed industry in my constituency, including Armitage Shanks, one of the largest manufacturers of toiletware in the United Kingdom? It is all very well for the Minister for Trade to laugh, but hundreds of people were employed by Armitage Shanks, which was a major exporter—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I think that the Minister has got the point.
    Mr. Caborn: I remind the hon. Gentleman that the director general of the CBI, Digby Jones, made clear in his speech that he was pleased that boom and bust had been removed for the first time in a long time. One of the most expensive commodities for business is uncertainty. This country now has the soundest macro-economic framework that it has had for many years. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said, we also have the best employment figures for many years. We have reduced by a quarter of a million the number of young people who were unemployed when we came to power. This country's biggest impediment to growth is lack of skills and the diabolical position in which the previous Administration left the economy, which we are now struggling to put right.

    Biotechnology Clusters
    Dr. Ian Gibson: If he will make a statement on the development of biotechnology clusters. [139533]
    The Minister for Small Business and E-Commerce (Ms Patricia Hewitt): My noble Friend Lord Sainsbury led a team to look at the development of biotechnology clusters. Its report was published in August last year and the Government have acted on all its recommendations.
    Dr. Gibson: In a recent high-profile debate, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said:
    Biotechnology is the next wave of the knowledge economy. This is an industry whose market in Europe alone is expected to be worth over £70 billion by 2005. The number of people employed in biotech, or who depend on its uses, could be as high as three million, as we catch up with the American industry—currently eight times the size of Europe's.
    My right hon. Friend said that we would catch up, but how is that possible when Americans measure the establishment of new companies by the hour, week or month, and we measure it by the year? Why are we not ensuring that biotechnology companies progress in areas such as the west midlands and Bolsover, where new and exciting talents and industry are desperately needed?
    Ms Hewitt: My hon. Friend is right about the importance and potential of the biotechnology industry. He will have welcomed my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State's announcement last week of a £725 million increase in the science budget. Of that increase, £110 million is earmarked for genomics. My hon. Friend will also welcome the fact that we are investing during the next three years a further £165 million through the regional development agencies, including those in the east of England and in the west midlands, to support cluster development, including biotechnology clusters.
    Mr. Graham Brady: Does the Minister understand that the reason why new companies form every week in the United States is that it has a low-tax, low-regulation economy? Will not the £32 billion of additional regulation introduced by the Government drive the clusters to other countries around the world?
    Ms Hewitt: It is typical of the hon. Gentleman to talk down the United Kingdom. The fact of the matter is that we have the second-largest and most mature biotechnology sector in the world. We remain the biotechnology leader within the European Union. Three quarters of the new drugs developed in the European Union are developed here in the UK, which has excellent companies. By investing in the science base, as we are doing, and by helping science institutions more effectively to commercialise their research, we will get many more new companies. The hon. Gentleman should reflect on the announcement made by Conservative Front Benchers yesterday, stating that the Tories would cut the funding that we are investing in those new companies.
    Mr. Andrew Miller: I welcome Lord Sainsbury's report, but what steps will the Government take specifically to assist industrial biotechnology? Bearing in mind the work that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has been doing along with others in the north-west, will my hon. Friend consider carefully the fantastic successes in industrial biotechnology in the north west and urge the Government
    1124
    to inject more support into the projects going to our academic institutions there, thus helping our industrial partners?
    Ms Hewitt: My hon. Friend makes an important point, and I am glad to say that, as a result of the north-west science review competition, we have already invested more than £26 million from the science budget in the north-west's science base. Earlier this year, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State set up the north-west science and Daresbury development group, which includes a wide range of local partners, to consider how further to build upon the north-west's considerable science strength, and that group will report shortly.

    Tobacco Manufacturing
    Mr. Christopher Chope: When he last met the Tobacco Workers Association to discuss job prospects in British tobacco manufacturing. [139534]
    The Minister for Small Business and E-Commerce (Ms Patricia Hewitt): My hon. Friend the Minister for Public Health and I met representatives of the Tobacco Workers Alliance on 26 October. My hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Sutcliffe) and the hon. Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis) were also present.
    Mr. Chope: That has not done much to satisfy the workers who will be affected by the Government's deliberate and wilful campaign to destroy 1,600 tobacco manufacturing jobs in Southampton. We know that the Labour party received £1 million from Bernie Ecclestone to save a few jobs in Formula 1, but what price is the Minister demanding to save 1,600 jobs in export manufacturing in Southampton?
    Ms Hewitt: I do not recall the hon. Gentleman expressing any concern about the fate of the hundreds of thousands of miners whose jobs were destroyed by the previous Administration. Crocodile tears from the hon. Gentleman will not impress anyone. I stress that the EU directive on labelling and tar levels, to which the hon. Gentleman refers, will not take effect before January 2004 at the earliest. There is a great deal of time for the tobacco industry and other sectors in the supply chain to adjust to those changes. I have every sympathy for the workers, who of course are anxious about their job prospects, but I have stressed to the Tobacco Workers Alliance not only that the companies have time to adjust to the prospect, but that direct help will be available to any workers who lose their jobs. We do not accept the estimates that have been made, but if any workers face the threat of redundancy, we shall ensure that we give them every help to find other jobs.
    Liz Blackman: I, too, have constituents who work in the tobacco industry who are equally concerned about job losses. Has my hon. Friend made any rough estimates of the job losses if the directive is implemented, and will she agree to meet representatives of the tobacco industry in my constituency to hear their concerns?
    Ms Hewitt: Of course I would be delighted to meet my hon. Friend and any colleagues whom she wishes to bring

    1125
    to discuss the matter with me. I stress that neither the European Commission nor my Department accept the estimates that have been offered by the Tobacco Workers Alliance and the industry of potential job losses. British American Tobacco has said that much of the overseas market for its cigarettes depends upon the premium "made in Britain" brand. There is every reason to think that the industry can continue to export successfully even if the tar levels are reduced. It is also worth saying that, when the earlier directive on tar levels was introduced, the industry predicted that there would be hundreds of thousands of direct and indirect job losses, but they did not materialise.
    Mr. William Ross: Do the Government recall that, in past years, tobacco workers sounded a clear warning about the consequences of increasing taxation on tobacco? That was ignored, and we have seen a constant rise in smuggling and the consequent loss of jobs in the United Kingdom industry. Why do the Government continue to ignore the warnings that are being sounded by tobacco workers on the EU ban?
    Ms Hewitt: It is worth remembering that tobacco kills and that high-tar cigarettes kill more people more quickly. Our estimate is that the new directive will strengthen the internal market and protect health. In particular, we estimate that between 400 and 750 lives a year could be saved by the implementation of the directive in the UK. We must take account—the president of the Tobacco Workers Alliance herself made this point to me—of the health impact of smoking. That is why we strongly support the directive.

    Citizens Advice Bureaux
    5. Mr. Alun Michael: What steps he is taking to ensure that the citizens advice bureau service is available at a consistent level throughout England and Wales. [139535]
    The Minister for Trade (Mr. Richard Caborn): The Government help to ensure that the citizens advice service is available at a consistent level throughout England and Wales through their support for and funding of the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux. This year, the Government provided £15.7 million to that organisation to maintain standards through support and training to the individual citizens advice bureaux in England and Wales.
    Mr. Michael: I welcome the Government's support for the national association, to which I pay tribute for its work throughout England and Wales. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the quality of consistently maintained support is of use only if it is accessible to people in all parts of England and Wales? Will he encourage local authorities in every area of the country, especially those providing services to deprived areas in towns and cities, or flexible services in more rural areas, to ensure that local services are adequately supported and funded?
    Mr. Caborn: First, I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend for his work in the voluntary sector—he has been a great supporter of citizens advice bureaux. Local authorities deal with the local distribution of the service.
    1126
    It is worth noting that the UK gets £30-worth of work for every £1 spent on voluntary support, which makes the service very cost effective. I concur with my right hon. Friend—any local authority that does not take cognisance of that should now do so, to ensure that that valuable service is available to its electorate. Secondly, the consumer support network, which was announced by my hon. Friend the Minister for Competition and Consumer Affairs in October, is giving a first-class service to many people who have problems with consumer affairs.
    Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: What would the Minister say to any county council that refused to help citizens advice bureaux?
    Mr. Caborn: I would say that such a council should review its position. Although the Government are very supportive of citizens advice bureaux, the decision rightly rests with local authorities. However, I would ask any such authority to revisit the electorate's need for the service.

    Post Office
    Miss Anne McIntosh (Vale of York): If he will make a statement on the future of the post office network. [139537]
    The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Stephen Byers): The Government are committed to maintaining a nationwide network of post offices. That commitment was clearly demonstrated when we accepted all 24 recommendations of the performance and innovation unit report, "Counter Revolution: Modernising the Post Office Network", which was published in June. A key recommendation was to develop the role of sub-postmasters and mistresses as government general practitioners. I am pleased to inform the House that, later today, the contract will be signed to begin the government general practitioner project.
    Miss McIntosh: Is the Secretary of State aware of the number of post offices and sub-post offices in the Vale of York that have closed under his stewardship? Is he also aware that utility companies such as Northern Electric and Gas have written to sub-post offices such as that run by Mrs. Holden in Huby to say that they are passing on the climate change levy to post offices and sub-post offices? I am not aware that they are heavy industrial users of electricity. Is that not another hammer blow against sub-post offices, which will put them out of business in rural areas such as the Vale of York?
    Mr. Byers: I shall certainly examine the hon. Lady's example with great interest and concern. On the wider issue of the post office network, we have recognised the important role that post offices play in rural and urban communities. That is why, for example, we have introduced measures to provide a subsidy to the network. That is the first time that that has been done and it clearly demonstrates our commitment to maintain a nationwide network.
    Mr. Martin O'Neill: Post offices in central Scotland are going through a period of renewed confidence as a consequence of the announcement that

    1127
    was made in the summer. They are already benefiting from being online, and there has been a reduction in the tedious work load that so troubled post offices in the past. Will my right hon. Friend take it from me that there is a genuine feeling in many areas of the country that the post office problem is on the way to being resolved?
    Mr. Byers: I am pleased to hear that the network in central Scotland is responding positively to the measures that the Government are introducing. There is no doubt that we need a modernised network to meet the new demands that are being made. I believe that the more than £500 million that we are investing in the computerisation of every post office will pay enormous dividends in the future, and will allow post offices to extend their facilities and the range of services that they offer the public. That would never have happened under a Conservative Government, who were prepared, through neglect, to see the network decline. We believe that we now have a clear process in place that will support the network and ensure that it can meet the challenges that lie ahead.
    Dr. Vincent Cable: Does the Minister recall his recent answer to my written parliamentary question, which confirmed that the annual rate of decline of post office branches has accelerated from 200 a year to 333 in the first six months of this financial year? Is not a major factor in the uncertainty of the branches the lack of confidence in the concept of the people's bank? Although it is welcome that the Hong Kong and Shanghai Banking Corporation has this week endorsed the people's bank, are not other leading clearers rubbishing it in the press? As Treasury Ministers have declined the opportunity to put the social obligations of the banks on a statutory footing, what confidence has the Secretary of State that the people's bank will take off and provide income for the banking system?
    Mr. Byers: It is worth reflecting on the fact that in the first half of this year closures in rural areas were 20 per cent. down on the corresponding period for last year. There are clear indications that people are responding positively to the programme that we have outlined.
    The hon. Gentleman is right to point out the important role that universal banking services can play in a modernised post office network. Like him, I welcome the announcement by HSBC earlier this week of its broad support for the concept of a universal bank—a post office-based solution. However, the hon. Gentleman should not believe all he reads in the press. The discussions and negotiations with the banks are proceeding well, and I hope that an agreement will be concluded in the not-too-distant future, so that we can provide banking services through the post office network.
    Mr. David Borrow: A couple of weeks ago, the Minister responsible for the Post Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Hull, West and Hessle (Mr. Johnson), met sub-postmasters and sub-postmistresses in my constituency, and he went a long way towards satisfying many of their concerns. However, he was unable completely to satisfy their concern about the perception that the Department of Social Security is still encouraging benefit recipients, including pensioners, to have payments made direct into their bank accounts.
    1128
    May I urge my right hon. Friend to have further discussions with his colleagues to ensure that all sections of the DSS understand Government policy in this area and realise the importance of maintaining the post office network?
    Mr. Byers: I am aware of those concerns. I ask my hon. Friend to provide any evidence of such action by the DSS. I had the pleasure of addressing the national council of the National Federation of Sub-Postmasters last Friday, when this issue was raised. I invited them also to provide evidence. The agreement in government is clear. Although from 2003 there will be a progressive move towards automated credit transfer, that will not be the case between now and then, so we have a period in which to ensure that new revenue streams are developed within the post office network.
    Mr. Richard Page: Is the Secretary of State aware that, with two sub-post offices closing every day, with the universal banking service looking increasingly flabby and unlikely to plug the gap, with the rural White Paper acting as a fig leaf of support for sub-post offices and with the savage introduction of ACTs, he is presiding over the meltdown of our sub-post offices?
    Bearing in mind the embarrassment of the dome, the confusion on the railways, the collapse of our textile industry and the climate levy which will destroy business after business, will the right hon. Gentleman tell us when we shall have a Minister who will take responsibility for his or her actions? When will he do the decent thing and resign?
    Mr. Byers: That was almost worth waiting for.
    There is a serious point here—I have been trying to find out what constitutes Conservative policy on the Post Office. One of the issues with which we have had to deal in government is the problem of years of neglect of the network, over which the Conservative party presided.
    Yesterday evening I consulted "Believing in Britain" to see whether there was a page about the Post Office, a paragraph about the Post Office, a sentence about the Post Office, or even a word about the Post Office. The Tories' programme for the future did not include a single word about the Post Office.
    That stands in stark contrast to what we have done in office. There is now a statutory requirement to protect the network, and we have the ability to give it a subsidy. More than £500 million is being spent on computerising post offices up and down the country, and £270 million is guaranteed in this year's spending review. We are a Government committed to the post office network and delivering it with a real vision of a network of the future.
    That, as I have said, is in stark contrast to the Conservative party, which says nothing about the Post Office. Ours is a party with a vision for the future, which we intend to deliver.

    Consumer Protection
    Tony Wright: What plans he has to provide stronger consumer protection by way of regulation of trade associations. [139538]
    The Minister for Trade (Mr. Richard Caborn): The Government consider self-regulation through codes of practice run by trade associations to be an effective way of strengthening protection for consumers. My Department has no plans to regulate trade associations.
    Tony Wright: When our constituents want the services of a tradesman—perhaps a plumber, a builder or an electrician—and turn to "Yellow Pages", they find lists of people who claim to be members of this association or that federation, all of whom seem to offer some kind of protection for those who buy into their services. The fact is that that protection is entirely bogus: no protection at all is built into the schemes involved. Why cannot the Office of Fair Trading provide a kite mark, so that those who use members of such schemes are given the reality of protection rather than just the appearance of it?
    Mr. Caborn: I appreciate my hon. Friend's concern. We hope to present a Bill when we have time to do so. In the meantime, let me say that my hon. Friend has made his point before, and that my Department is discussing with "Yellow Pages" how the arrangements can be tightened up. There are a number of pilot projects with various trade associations to ensure that there is policing of the trade marks that have been issued by the OFT. I hope that when the pilot projects have given us a little more experience, we shall be able to legislate.
    Mr. Nicholas Winterton: The hon. Member for Cannock Chase (Tony Wright) made a good point about misleading advertising in respect of services in particular, but does the Minister accept that trade associations are vital to business? They enable businesses to negotiate from a position of strength with Government and local authorities. Might not further regulation of such associations be counter-productive?
    Mr. Caborn: That is exactly the line that the Government are taking. We are not legislating in the sense that we are making regulation mandatory; we are saying that we will have a code of conduct. We believe that a code is the right approach, as it permits flexibility and does not require legislation to be changed. We think that that is the right way forward. Adopting that flexible approach, and working with the Government and the Office of Fair Trading, the trade associations can protect consumers and run out many of the rogues to whom my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase (Tony Wright) referred.
    Mr. Dennis Turner: Will the Minister bring a little Christmas cheer to millions of beer drinkers in Britain by introducing stronger consumer regulations, so that we can achieve a full and fair pint?
    Mr. Caborn: I know that that subject is a personal concern for my hon. Friend and one on which he has campaigned for many years. Unfortunately, the Government have not yet made a decision on the matter, but I hope that we will be able to make one in the not-too-distant future.
    Mr. David Chidgey: I listened very carefully to the Minister's comments on regulating trade
    1130
    associations. When will he find time to examine the problems in the funeral industry—in which, as he must know, different codes of practice are operating in different associations? When will the Government take action to ensure that the industry introduces a unified code of practice, to include standards and training, to set at rest the minds of millions of people who, in the past few years, have heard stories about the industry?
    Mr. Caborn: That is a valid point, and I hope that we will be able to discuss it with the Office of Fair Trading and trade associations. I recently spoke to the secretary general of the Confederation of British Industry, which has 168 affiliated trade associations. Nationally, there are more than 600 trade associations. A little rationalisation might be effective in helping consumers to receive a better service. There are a few problems on the business side, such as the need for rationalisation, and if we could solve that problem not only consumers but their members would receive a better service.

    Miners (Compensation)
    Mr. David Taylor: How many ex-miners and their families in the east midlands have received mining-related health compensation in the last 12 months. [139539]
    The Minister for Competitiveness (Mr. Alan Johnson): In the past 12 months, the Department has made more than 252 individual payments, totalling over £1 million, in full, final and interim settlement to claimants living in the east midlands. Progress in settling claims has been too slow everywhere. That is why my right hon. Friend the Minister for Energy and Competitiveness in Europe announced in September a programme of improvements to the process, and said that we would be making more than 19,000 higher and additional expedited payments by Christmas, totalling £100 million.
    Mr. Taylor: I commend the hard work of the Energy Minister. However, is it not the case that tens of thousands of sick, disabled elderly and dying colliers are trapped in a compensation maze populated by dilatory doctors, lethargic lawyers and middlemen on the make? Can the Minister reassure the House that claims handlers IRISC and medical assessors Healthcall are up to the job of clearing that sorry backlog? Do not the miners who sacrificed their health in winning the nation's coal deserve from the nation much, much better than this?
    Mr. Johnson: I agree completely with my hon. Friend's final comment, and I realise how deeply important it is to communities across the country that we get that money to the people who need it as quickly as possible. As I know he appreciates, it is a very complex scheme. We are getting in records and claim packs much more quickly, but there is a bottleneck in medical assessments. We are clearing 400 medical assessments a week, but my right hon. Friend intends to get that up to 1,000 a week.
    On the specific medical points that my hon. Friend mentioned, we are introducing nine new mobile scanning teams to collect medical records and, centrally, another four new teams. There is a major push to get more doctors

    1131
    involved, with considerable success so far, and 13 new recruits being added to the current 173. We are, therefore, very well aware of the points that my hon. Friend has made, and we shall be redoubling our efforts to ensure that that money reaches those who need it and deserve it as quickly as possible.
    Mr. John Bercow: Given that 6,314 claimants have died after submitting a claim but before receiving settlement of it, would the hon. Gentleman be good enough to tell the House what proportion of those 6,314 cases is in the east midlands? Will he guarantee that in each and every case, without fail, the next of kin will receive the sum due, and that in no case will the money be allowed to remain sloshing around in Treasury coffers?
    Mr. Johnson: That is a rather superficial question on an important topic. Of course the money will go to the next of kin of those claimants who have died. We have moved to get compensation to miners as quickly as we can—£1 million a day was being paid in compensation last week, and the total cost will be £2 billion. We will provide proper compensation for people who have suffered through all these years. People in the mining communities realise that if a Labour Government were not in power now, there would be no chance of receiving those moneys—that is a different matter from the delays that we face now.
    Mr. Vernon Coaker: I congratulate my hon. Friend and the Labour Government on their efforts to make sure that miners and their families get the compensation that they deserve. In the east midlands—including my constituency—there is continuing concern at the speed with which claims are being sorted. Will my hon. Friend make sure that any changes made to speed up the process will be monitored by the Government? Will the Government take speedy action if we do not process the claims from miners in my constituency, Nottinghamshire and beyond?
    Mr. Johnson: My hon. Friend makes an important point. My right hon. Friend the Energy Minister is looking at these points carefully. It is true that in a little short of 18 months in office she has done more for the mining communities than the previous Government did in 18 years.
    Mr. Mark Todd: What representations he has received on the progress of mineworkers compensation claims. [139540]
    The Minister for Competitiveness (Mr. Alan Johnson): As I have said, there is wide frustration that progress has been so slow. We have received many representations about this from Members of Parliament and claimants and through the media. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Energy and Competitiveness in Europe recently received three petitions, signed by 17,000 people, to which she has responded. The Department and all concerned are working urgently to improve throughput, but we should not forget that this is a part of a continuing legal process. Mr. Justice Turner, who is still handling these cases, noted at the hearing in Sheffield earlier this month that the scheme is of necessity complex
    1132
    in making sure claimants get all the compensation due to them. This inevitably means there have been delays in putting the process into effect.
    Mr. Todd: My visit to the IRISC headquarters in Sheffield prompted me to write to our right hon. Friend the Energy Minister suggesting a range of ways in which the process could be speeded up. For instance, we could remove the wasted time of checking non-existent employment and pension records, which currently delays the payment of claims, and the wasteful process that Healthcall has followed in pursuing claims with GPs, whereby someone arrives, takes just one record and goes away when there are 10 or 12 miners' records in the GP's practice. Will my hon. Friend insist on a review of the entire process to stop time being wasted? I have seen some progress, which I welcome.
    Will my hon. Friend work with Healthcall to secure a centre to examine ex-miners in the south Derbyshire coalfield? It could serve that area and the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Leicestershire (Mr. Taylor) I would suggest Swadlincote, Coalville or Burton as a location.
    Mr. Johnson: My hon. Friend makes good points and my right hon. Friend the Energy Minister will consider them. We must clear the bottleneck quickly, but there are legal complexities. It is not just a matter of visiting a GP as though one were making a normal visit for a health check; it often requires a second visit. All our attention is centred on clearing the bottleneck and we will take up my hon. Friend's suggestion. We will keep in touch with him and all other Members of Parliament concerned with the developments.
    Mr. Richard Allan: The Minister has referred to the issue of recruiting doctors who can perform the assessments required for the compensation claims. How would he respond to the case of a constituent of mine who is experienced in this area but is expressly banned from working on the scheme because she once worked for an agency which had some relationship with the Benefits Agency medical services? She was told that within the contractual arrangements from the DTI, any doctor who had ever worked for BAMS was prevented from working on the compensation processes now. Will the Minister consider looking again at this matter, given that many doctors who have expertise in compensation claims may have had some incidental relationship with the Benefits Agency in the past?
    Mr. Johnson: The hon. Member raises a matter of which I am unaware and about which I suggest he writes to me. Something about it sounds wrong to me, and we need to look at it. The handling agreement was reached in early 1998, but I am sure that there is enough flexibility to deal with the sort of points that he has raised.
    Mr. Michael Clapham: Will my hon. Friend confirm that the judge monitoring progress in this matter has recently expressed the view that ex gratia payments would not be the way to deal fairly with compensation? He said that they would overcompensate some, and undercompensate others. Will my hon. Friend also take this opportunity to condemn Plaid Cymru, which has distributed literature in south Wales calling for ex gratia

    1133
    payments? The party has misled miners' families into believing that ex gratia payments represent a simple solution to the problem.
    Mr. Johnson: My hon. Friend raises an important point. Mr. Justice Turner did indeed make those comments about ex gratia payments, and it is important to remember that there is a big difference between such payments and compensation payments. If we went down the route of ex gratia payments, we would not be benefiting the people whom we are seeking to assist.

    Sustainable Energy
    Miss Anne Begg: What action the Government have taken to encourage the development of sustainable energy. [139542]
    The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Stephen Byers): The Government have taken a wide range of actions, which are contained in the UK climate change programme, which was published on 17 November.
    Miss Begg: What steps are the Government taking with respect to the development of offshore wind energy? Aberdeen has a great deal of knowledge about the technologies involved in offshore development in the oil and gas industry. Have the Government looked to see whether some technologies in the oil and gas industries can be transferred for use in the development of offshore wind facilities, so that areas such as mine can stay ahead of the game?
    Mr. Byers: My hon. Friend makes an important point. Great skills and expertise have been developed, especially in cities such as Aberdeen, as a result of the exploitation of the North sea. There is an opportunity to diversify from the traditional work involved in that exploitation, and to examine ways to harness the power of wind as an alternative form of energy.
    The Government have been looking closely at the matter. I was pleased that we were able to announce just three weeks ago that we were now able to make available £89 million in capital grants to support energy crops and offshore wind developments. I have no doubt that that financial contribution will make a real difference in the development of offshore wind technology. That development will be good in terms of renewables, and good in terms of creating employment opportunities in cities such as Aberdeen.
    Mr. Andrew Robathan: As far as it goes, I welcome that money, especially if it leads to an increase in the generation of renewable energy from offshore wind. However, will the Secretary of State explain how he squares the provision of that capital grant with the recent lifting of the moratorium on gas-fired power stations? [Interruption.] In addition, may I draw the Secretary of State's attention to the application for a combined cycle gas turbine station in Enderby in my constituency? It is causing a great deal of concern there.
    Mr. Byers: I make no comment on what my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) said from a sedentary position, although I think that he may have been quite accurate. On the important issue of sustainable

    1134
    energy, we were able to support the lifting of the moratorium on gas-fired power stations because we want a diversity of provision in the United Kingdom energy sector. One way to achieve that balance is to ensure that gas-fired power stations have the opportunity to make a contribution.
    However, encouraging that contribution must run alongside the need to maintain the coal industry, and that explains why we will be providing a subsidy of £110 million to support the coal industry over the next two years. That goes along with having a sustainable energy policy for the United Kingdom.
    Mr. Bob Blizzard: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is important that we sustain our reserves of oil and gas in the North sea for as long as possible by ensuring that as many marginal fields as possible are fully exploited? There was a clear message in the pre-Budget report that the Chancellor was looking for new levels of investment from the oil companies, which was why he resisted the temptation to impose some kind of windfall tax. What assessment has my right hon. Friend made of new levels of capital investment by the oil companies?
    Mr. Byers: In the context of how we can develop further the reserves that are still held in the North sea—and certainly off the coast of my hon. Friend's constituency of Waveney—there are opportunities, but they will require additional investment from the oil and gas companies. It was wholly appropriate for the Chancellor to indicate that, in reviewing—as we always do—the fiscal and tax regimes affecting the sector and the industry, he will take into account the level of investment made by those companies. I hope that they will look carefully at the new opportunities in the North sea. Carrying out such investment will place them in a far stronger position, so we should encourage them to do so.
    Mr. Nick Gibb: How does it help the promotion of an environmentally friendly energy policy to have banned the building of new gas-fired power stations for the past three years and to have the implementation of the new electricity trading arrangements delayed yet again, adding £57 to the average electricity Bill? We have higher electricity prices and higher CO2 emissions. They seem to be the cornerstone of the right hon. Gentleman's energy policy—damaging business and damaging the environment.
    Who is responsible for the delays to the new trading arrangements? Is it the Department of Trade and Industry, is it Ofgem, or is it, again, the Secretary of State?
    Mr. Byers: I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman might have supported the decision to lift the moratorium on new gas-fired power stations. It is not true that there was a ban—I allowed one or two to go ahead because of their particular circumstances.
    The hon. Gentleman raises an important question about the price of electricity. We have changed the way in which electricity is to be traded, and he referred to the new trading arrangements. Of course, the right hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) was an architect of the system that we inherited—an inefficient system that inflated prices artificially.

    1135
    Because of the changes that are being introduced and the forward market, electricity prices are already down. The new trading arrangements will be in place, and prices are already down as a result of that. They are down on last year, the year before that and the year before that. Consumers are seeing a reduction in their electricity prices because of the action that the Government have taken. We have moved away from the failed privatisation of the previous Government. Our system is delivering to consumers, which theirs failed to do.

    E-commerce
    Mr. Paul Marsden: If he will make a statement on progress made in encouraging businesses to communicate electronically with (a) customers and (b) other businesses. [139543]
    The Minister for Small Business and E-Commerce (Ms Patricia Hewitt): There are now 1.7 small and medium-sized businesses online, and we are extending the UK online for business programme to help more businesses use the full potential of information and communication technologies to get real business benefits.
    Mr. Marsden: I welcome the Government's determination to lead the way in Europe in delivering e-commerce business opportunities. Will my hon. Friend join me in congratulating Shrewsbury's businesses? They are among the first in rural areas to invest in asymmetric digital subscriber line technology, which is being rolled out by BT and is delivering better services and better quality communications.
    Ms Hewitt: I am delighted that Shrewsbury and the rural communities have been included in BT's ADSL roll-out programme and I congratulate the businesses that are taking advantage of it. We are determined to ensure
    1136
    that broadband, high-speed internet access is delivered to businesses and consumers across the United Kingdom as quickly as possible.
    Mr. Alan Duncan: In the past fortnight, the prospects for electronic communications have not progressed; they have taken a complete and utter nose dive. The auction of broadband fixed wireless licences has been a complete flop. Of the 42 licences on offer, 26 remain unsold; the auction raised £38 million instead of the predicted £1 billion; and rural areas, in particular, will continue to be an internet black spot. Why does the Minister think that the auction was such a failure? Does she accept responsibility, or does she blame her civil servants? Will she now make a clear statement to the House on how she will retrieve this sorry state of affairs and reintroduce some sort of competence and momentum in developing this important part of the communications infrastructure?
    Ms Hewitt: It is a great pity that the hon. Gentleman has completely failed to acknowledge the fact that more than half of the United Kingdom population live in areas that will now be served by a new source of high-speed internet, which is broadband fixed wireless access. Those include Scotland, Northern Ireland and the north of England. That is good news for businesses and consumers in those areas. I am reviewing with the Radiocommunications Agency how we should make best use of the remaining spectrum in other parts of the country.
    Several hon. Members rose—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. We have not made good progress today. I hope that in the new Session I shall hear shorter questions and briefer answers. It would also help if Ministers resisted the temptation to discuss Opposition policies, which are not their responsibility—[Interruption.] Order. Let the Speaker chair the proceedings.

Speaker's Statement
12.31 pm
Mr. Speaker: It is now clear that the House of Lords will not pass the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Bill in the current Session. That will constitute rejection of the Bill for the purposes of the Parliament Acts. The House has not directed that the Bill should not be passed for Royal Assent. It is therefore my duty to follow the procedure laid down. Accordingly, the House of Lords was asked to return the Bill to this House. In strict compliance with the requirements of the Parliament Acts, I have certified the Bill and I will ensure that it is submitted for Royal Assent at the time of prorogation.

Points of Order
12.32 pm
Mr. Michael Fabricant: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. On Tuesday, I asked the Deputy Prime Minister whether he had assessed the number of extra road deaths that might occur as a result of the increase in road traffic as people leave the railways. He answered by saying:
Clearly, a lot more people are travelling by car, and congestion will obviously increase … I have made no estimate of the increase in death rates, but I shall examine our figures and send an estimate to the hon. Gentleman.—[Official Report, 28 November 2000; Vol. 357, c. 800.]
Does that promise still hold, given that we are ending the parliamentary term? Will it continue over prorogation?
Mr. Speaker: Letters written by Ministers in response to matters raised in the House are not part of the formal proceedings. I have no doubt that undertakings given by Ministers in the House will be honoured, regardless of prorogation.
Mr. Nicholas Soames: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Will you use your influence in the new Session to secure from the Government better manners from Ministers when answering correspondence from Members of Parliament? Are you aware that the delays in some Departments are wholly unacceptable and that that is a discourtesy to colleagues in the House and a grave discourtesy to our constituents? It is wholly unnecessary and should be stopped.
Mr. Speaker: It is important that Ministers answer Members' correspondence timeously. Members have a duty to their constituents. I am sure that, as the matter has been put on the record, Ministers will take note.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In the best possible mannered way, I do not know whether this is a point of order or a point of frustration, but it is certainly a point of substance. In the other place, the noble Lord Macdonald gave undertakings that he would make a statement there about the air traffic controllers and, in particular, the negotiations with the staff of the British Air Line Pilots Association and the Institution of Professionals, Managers and Specialists. Do we have any assurance that a similar statement will be made in this House at the same time?
Mr. Speaker: No.
Sir Peter Emery: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Should we not make it absolutely clear that, as a matter of order, you were left with no alternative but to sign the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Bill and that you were able to take into consideration no aspect of your personal view—[Interruption.]—nor the views of a vast number of clerics who have written to The Times today? You were obliged to take the action that you took, and people must realise that it has nothing to do with your personal view.
Mr. Speaker: I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman because he allows me to put on record the fact that clerics do not tell me what to do—the House tells me what to do.
Miss Anne McIntosh: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. One of the consequences of

1139
invoking the Parliament Acts in relation to the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Bill is an aspect that has never been considered by this Chamber—the reduction of the age for anal intercourse for girls from 18 to 16. That causes great consternation among the Christian community of this country. I urge you to rule on the matter, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: That is not a matter for the Chair.
Dr. Julian Lewis: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Have you been informed by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office of any intention that the Foreign Secretary will come to the House to make a statement about the proposed European Union rapid reaction force, which many Conservative Members with long experience of defence issues feel places the Anglo-American relationship and the security of Europe gravely at risk?
Mr. Speaker: No.
Mr. John Bercow: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I seek your guidance as to the need for an urgent statement. Given that it is now more than a week since the appointment of the patriotism Minister, the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment, the hon. Member for North Swindon (Mr. Wills), is it not imperative that, before the House prorogues, the hon. Gentleman—or someone on his behalf—explains his work load, what he is getting up to and what resources he is using? Surely he should give some account of himself to the House.
Mr. Speaker: Those matters are for the Under?Secretary, not for me.
Mr. Edward Leigh: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. On Monday, the Government laid on the Table the draft Human Fertilisation and Embryology (Research Purposes) Regulations 2000. During an Adjournment debate on 17 November, the Under-Secretary of State for Health, the hon. Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), said that it was the beginning, not the end, of a thorough, on-going debate. Have you received any information, Mr. Speaker,
1140
as to whether the order will be debated on the Floor and voted on and when that might be, or when a Standing Committee might be appointed if that is appropriate?
Mr. Speaker: That is not a matter for me.
Mr. Graham Brady: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. This morning, the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Education and Employment held a press conference during which they made wholly spurious claims about the new deal; they claimed that 250,000 young people had been found jobs through it. Has there been any communication with you, Mr. Speaker, to the effect that either of the right hon. Gentlemen wants to come to the House to make a statement, where we can demonstrate that their claims are wholly false and incorrect?
Mr. Speaker: Again, the answer is no.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Has it crossed your mind that there has been no business statement or questions today and that—as is obvious to Labour Members—what the Tories are up to is asking you questions that have nothing to do with points of order? [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] They are trying to substitute business questions with points of order; that is an abuse of the procedures of the House—[Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. I think the hon. Gentleman is asking me a question that has nothing to do with me.
Hon. Members: Aha!
Mr. Andrew Robathan: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
May I first clarify the fact that, had there been business questions, I had no intention of asking a question?
Further to my earlier point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Parliament Act is an important matter, but I realise that what has gone has gone. However, my understanding is that the purpose of the Act is that important constitutional measures should not be held up—the will of this House should not be defeated on important constitutional and manifesto issues. Are there not grounds for referring the Parliament Act to, for instance, the Law Lords, to interpret how it should work, especially in the present case where a majority of people in the country are opposed to the invoking of the Parliament Act notwithstanding the majority in this House?
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is a Back Bencher; he can perhaps pursue such matters better than me.

Orders of the Day
  Disqualifications Bill
  Lords amendments considered.
  Disqualifications Bill

    Clause 1
    12.40 pm
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. George Howarth): I beg to move, That this House disagrees with the Lords in the said amendment.
    The other place agreed in Committee that this clause should stand part of the Bill, but it then voted to remove the clause on Report. Hon. Members will not be surprised that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has tabled a motion to reject the Lords amendment. The original clause 1 is the central clause of the Bill to which all the other clauses relate. Without it, the Bill is meaningless. Indeed, its only effect would be to repeal section 36(5) of the Northern Ireland Act 1998, which enables members of the Irish Senate to take seats in the Northern Ireland Assembly. That was not the Government's intention and I do not believe it would have the support of hon Members. The intention of the Bill, quite simply, is to enable Members of the Irish Parliament to stand for, and to take up seats in, the United Kingdom legislatures. That is precisely what clause 1 in its original form would achieve.
    The Government's reasons for pursuing the provision are simple. We believe that the Bill, with the original clause 1 included, shows the Government's recognition of the close and welcome ties between Britain and Ireland—ties that have been considerably strengthened in recent years with the coming into force of the British-Irish agreement and the changes to articles 2 and 3 of the Irish constitution. I understand that we and the Opposition are in accord on that. We want the Good Friday agreement to be taken forward.
    Mr. John M. Taylor: It was not in the Good Friday agreement.
    Mr. Howarth: I will come to that point in a moment.
    Mr. William Ross: Where in the Good Friday agreement is there any indication that the Bill would be introduced?
    Mr. Howarth: I will come to that very point in a moment, but I shall answer the specific question about the agreement now. I do not claim that the Good Friday agreement made provision for the Bill. My claim is that it is consistent with the Belfast agreement, not an integral part of it.
    Britain's ties with Ireland set our relationship apart from those with other nations. Indeed, the relationship is stronger than that with most Commonwealth nations—a reality that is recognised by the fact that in all other
    1142
    substantial aspects of British electoral law, Ireland and the Commonwealth are treated the same. It is only in this one remaining area that that parity of treatment is absent, and the Bill is intended to rectify that.
    We do not believe that there is any intrinsic objection to the principle of enabling Members of foreign legislatures to stand for, or be elected to, legislatures in the United Kingdom, so long as they are prepared to stand by the obligations implied by membership of each of those Parliaments.
    Mr. John M. Taylor: Can the Minister give a single instance in the past 100 years of a Commonwealth parliamentarian being elected to the House?
    Mr. Howarth: No, and the hon. Gentleman knew the answer to the question before he asked it.
    12.45 pm
    Mr. Taylor: Yes, I did.
    Mr. Howarth: So the hon. Gentleman will not be any more enlightened than he was before. The provision in this Bill is there not because anyone will necessarily take advantage of it, but because it recognises the special relationship between Ireland and ourselves.
    Mr. William Thompson: Given the fact that for more than 100 years no one has taken advantage of the law that means that Commonwealth parliamentarians are able to sit in this House, does that not suggest that the law itself is an anomaly and should be done away with?
    Mr. Howarth: The point that I was making to the hon. Member for Solihull (Mr. Taylor) is that the law implies a set of relationships. It does not necessarily involve a right that will always be taken up. It recognises the warm relationships that exist between the Commonwealth and the United Kingdom. This Bill recognises the warm relationships that exist, particularly following the Good Friday agreement and the whole peace process, between ourselves and the Irish Government.
    We accept that, in some cases, the holding of certain offices simultaneously may lead to conflicts of interest. That is why the Government significantly amended the Bill during its passage through the other place. Those amendments are in the second group that, I hope, we shall debate later this afternoon. They were tabled in response to the well-reasoned and legitimate concerns that were expressed in the House on Second Reading. They have made the Bill better and stronger.
    Mr. William Cash: I took part in those proceedings at very short notice, so will the Minister be good enough to tell me what would happen if a Member of the Dail, who had been a member of a proscribed organisation, wished to take up a place in this House? If he were elected, would he not be obliged, and should he not be expected, to eschew terrorism in all its forms as well as taking the oath of allegiance?
    Mr. Howarth: The Good Friday agreement set in train arrangements between Ireland and ourselves and for the different legislatures in the United Kingdom. The principle

    1143
    behind them was to move beyond the phase in which terrorism sadly scarred relationships in Northern Ireland and, on many occasions, in England and elsewhere. We are concerned with moving beyond that phase into a set of relationships with which all people can feel comfortable. This provision is a logical development in that direction, but it does not necessarily mean that anyone will take up a place in this House. Although that possibility is provided for and people are entitled to stand for election, the measure is more a recognition of the special relationships that exist.
    Mr. Cash: I wish to take that point to a definite conclusion. The Minister is not telling me what I had hoped to hear. If a member of a proscribed organisation came to this House in the circumstances that I have described, would it not be essential that, before taking his seat, he publicly repudiated terrorism so that everyone would know the basis on which he sat in this House?
    Mr. Howarth: My point is that the purpose behind the Good Friday agreement with which, I think, we all agree, is that individuals in the parties that were associated in the past with terrorism should repudiate terrorism. We want to judge them by their actions. Quite honestly, as the hon. Gentleman knows only too well, if someone with a background in a terrorist organisation took up his seat, he would have to make certain assurances that would amount to what the hon. Gentleman is suggesting.
    Mr. Stephen Day: The Minister said that the Bill represented moving on from the terror that dominated Northern Ireland—and my word, we all welcome that—but surely terrorism still dominates society there. He appears to be refusing to acknowledge that such people are still armed to the teeth and still terrorise whole communities.
    Mr. Howarth: It was not my intention to give that impression. There is a ceasefire, but my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has repeatedly made it clear that it is imperfect, and unacceptable activities happen from time to time. We have to consider the ceasefire in the round and judge its current state at any particular moment in time on advice from the security services and other agencies. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that the situation is not perfect, but my right hon. Friend has to look at the situation in the round and judge whether the ceasefire is holding.
    The amendments in the second group were tabled in response to the well-reasoned and legitimate concerns expressed in this House and the other place. Although we accepted that the safeguards were reasonable, at no point did we accept that representing two separate constituencies in two separate jurisdictions must result in a conflict of interest. In addition, we believed that the principle was firmly established in the precedent set by our relationships with Commonwealth countries and by section 36(5) of the Northern Ireland Act 1998, which enabled Members of the Irish Senate to take up seats in the Northern Ireland Assembly.
    Mr. Roy Beggs: Can the Minister say whether, as part of the discussions that led up to the proposal, the Irish Government gave an undertaking to rejoin the Commonwealth?
    Mr. Howarth: No such undertaking was given and I do not know whether it was requested. I am not trying to
    1144
    make the case that the Irish Government are part of the Commonwealth. The similarity is in the warmth of the relationships that exist between us and the Irish Government in light of the Good Friday agreement.
    The Bill was produced in the spirit of greater co-operation that is enshrined in the Good Friday agreement, which the House will remember well. The agreement allowed for a referendum, and it was ratified by an overwhelming majority of the population who voted in the north and south of Ireland. There are arrangements for closer co-operation not only between north and south but between east and west, because that is also important.
    Nationalists in Northern Ireland and their political representatives strongly supported the Belfast agreement, which included the principle of consent. The agreement did much more than recognise Northern Ireland's position within the United Kingdom. It also recognised the legitimate political aspirations of Irish nationalists for a united Ireland and provided for new institutions to develop better co-operation between the Irish Government and the devolved Administration in Northern Ireland.
    Just as Unionists could not have accepted the new north-south arrangements without the principle of consent, nationalists could not have accepted the principle of consent without recognition of the very close and special relationship between the United Kingdom and Ireland and between Northern Ireland and the south. That relationship is not static; it is dynamic. The Belfast agreement provides for co-operation to be developed, and that is what we are doing in the Disqualifications Bill.
    The legislative basis for the arrangements was the Northern Ireland Act 1998, so the arrangements and institutions have been approved by Parliament. Consequently, the principle of closer co-operation with Ireland has already been debated and agreed. The Bill is welcomed by the Irish Government because they, too, recognise the great benefits that close co-operation can bring. The Irish have amended their constitution—a significant and permanent act that required a referendum—in order to renounce the long-standing territorial claim over the north. I know that that has been welcomed by some hon. Members who might not welcome the totality of the Good Friday agreement.
    With the enactment of the British-Irish agreement and the Irish Government's part in the Good Friday agreement, the Irish Government have displayed their commitment to working with this Government to build a better future for Northern Ireland. That future will be firmly based on the principle of consent. Those steps are not insignificant. The actions taken have been central to the peace process and to the dawn of a new period of peace and reconciliation, for the benefit not only of the people of Northern Ireland but of everybody in the United Kingdom.
    I am sure that most right hon. and hon. Members would agree that the contribution of the Irish Government deserves to be praised and recognised. For all those reasons, I ask the House to disagree with the Lords in their amendment.
    Mr. Andrew MacKay: Let me make it clear straight away that I agree with the Minister when he says that clause 1 is fundamental to the Bill. It is the Bill. As we are totally opposed to this very long Bill, we shall be dividing the House on the Lords amendment. We also

    1145
    share the Minister's view that the other amendments are consequential, and we have no objections to them. Today's debate should be entirely on the Bill.
    I welcome the Minister to the Dispatch Box. It is so long ago that it will almost certainly have slipped your mind, Mr. Deputy Speaker, as it will the minds of most Members, but when we last debated the Bill way back in January, the poor old Home Office took the brunt. Its Ministers were not very well briefed because it was not really their subject. The debate was decidedly embarrassing for everybody concerned. So, the House will be grateful that the Northern Ireland Office has at last come clean and made it clear that this is really a Northern Ireland Office Bill. I am pleased, in addition, that we have not a Home Office but a distinguished Northern Ireland Office Parliamentary Private Secretary on the Bench. We are pleased to see the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Mr. Browne) in his place.
    Originally, there was a charade that the Bill was a modest piece of tidying-up legislation dreamt up by the Home Office, which suddenly felt that it would be right and proper for the Irish to sit in our Parliament and for us to sit in the Irish Parliament. That seemed completely untrue at the time—nobody believed the charade. Mercifully, the Government are now at least coming clean and claiming that the Bill is important to the peace process. At least we shall have transparency and honesty this time round.
    1 pm
    I shall briefly re-examine the history of the Bill, which was not in the Queen's Speech. As the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross) has pointed out, it was not, in any shape or form, in the Belfast agreement, which we support. It suddenly appeared in January and was rushed through the House in one sitting. I suspect that all its stages were rushed through on the Floor of the House because the Government rightly identified it as a constitutional measure. We were told that the Bill was urgent, but the urgency diminished when it left the House in January, went to the other place and disappeared into a sort of Bermuda triangle, only to reappear many months later. The timetable for this debate on the penultimate day of the Session is the result of the Government losing interest in it and introducing it for proper debate and discussion in the other place extremely late in the day.
    We can therefore disregard the idea that the Bill is important and urgent, as it is neither important nor urgent in the peace process. If it were, the Government would have made sure that it progressed expeditiously to the other place and it would probably have returned to us nine months ago. Instead, the Bill has had one of the most leisurely passages through the House that any piece of legislation has ever had.
    The Minister has been helpful today, as he always is, and has given us a few more reasons for introducing the Bill. I think that I am paraphrasing correctly—I know that he will jump up at the Dispatch Box if I mislead the House in any way and traduce him—in saying that he stated that we want Members of the Irish Senate to sit in both legislatures because we get on well with the Irish. He said that we have a good relationship with the country of Ireland and the Irish Government—[Interruption.]
    1146
    I never make a speech without the hon. Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) intervening, and people appreciate our great double act. However, before he gets excited, let me say that I endorse our close, happy and good relationship with the Republic of Ireland, our immediate neighbour and a fellow partner in the European Union.
    We have much in common with the Republic, but we also have a special relationship—although the Minister did not use that phrase in response to an intervention by my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull (Mr. Taylor)—with the United States of America, which has come to the aid of Britain and Europe in two world wars. The USA also spearheads NATO which, despite proposals for a separate European army, is still our principal defence umbrella. Like our Irish friends, the Americans speak the same language as us, and we have a close relationship with them. There is no reason why American politicians should not sit in our Parliament or the Northern Irish Assembly or why we should not have reciprocal access to Congress. Equally, as someone who believes that it is in the country's interests to be in the EU, we generally have a good, robust relationship with all our EU partners.
    Mr. George Howarth indicated assent.
    Mr. MacKay: I am glad that the Minister agrees. There is no reason whatever why we should not have French, German, Spanish and even Danish people—with whom we have the closest relationship of all—in our Parliament. Therefore, there is no good reason for singling out the Republic of Ireland, which is only one of the many countries with which we have a good, happy relationship, and saying that its people can sit in our legislatures and vice versa. That is not a happy state of affairs.
    Let me move on to the Bill's constitutional aspects. The Bill is significant as it fundamentally changes rules on who can sit in this Parliament and who can sit in the Northern Ireland Assembly. We must consider carefully whether it is right and proper for people to sit in two Parliaments in two different countries, with two different allegiances. Any reasonable observer would say that such arrangements were anomalous and extremely unwise, and that there would have to be exceptional reasons for adopting them. Even the Minister would admit that no exceptional reasons whatever have been given.
    Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Before the right hon. Gentleman gets carried away with that argument, is he aware that it is possible under European electoral law for people to stand for election in a European constituency in countries other than their own? Thus a British national could represent an Italian constituency in the European Parliament.
    Mr. MacKay: I am sorry to hear that the hon. Gentleman thought that I was becoming carried away. I was only mildly warming up. I assure the hon. Gentleman that I am fully aware of the arrangements to which he refers. However, he will confirm that, in the European Parliament, one cannot represent two constituencies in two separate countries at the same time. The point that the Opposition are making is that it is

    1147
    anomalous for a politician to be elected to two separate Parliaments in two separate jurisdictions. There is no good reason for such a practice.
    Mr. John D. Taylor: The hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) was correct, but his argument is inconsistent. He wants to apply the measure not to all members of the European Union, but only to the Republic of Ireland.
    Mr. MacKay: It is up to the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) to address that point when he catches your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
    Mr. Lembit Öpik: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that at least one member of the Conservative party sits in this House and in the European Parliament? [HON. MEMBERS: "Not any more."] I apologise—she does not do so any more. However, does the right hon. Gentleman accept that it is possible to do that and that other hon. Members have a dual mandate? Does he accept that, despite the potential conflict of interest between legislatures, those hon. Members have managed to pursue their activities responsibly and do both jobs reasonably well?
    Mr. MacKay: I was fascinated by that intervention. As usual, the Liberal Democrats are out of date. First, my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh) no longer represents an Essex constituency in the European Parliament. Secondly, it is perfectly acceptable to sit in two Parliaments if one represents one country. It is entirely up to electors and to individual political parties to decide whether it is wise or popular to allow that, but the Opposition have no fundamental objection. The hon. Members for Foyle (Mr. Hume) and for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) sit in two Parliaments, but, both here and in the European Parliament, they represent parts of the United Kingdom. That is not equivalent to the matter under discussion.
    I hope that we now have the Liberals' support. This week, they have continuously made U-turns on the Floor of the House on all Northern Ireland matters. They started on the Government's side in January and are still on their side in the Lords. However, we now have every right to assume—I welcome and accept the olive branch—that the Liberals will now move to our side of the argument. Of course, that will be significant when a vote occurs later in the other place. I welcome that support, for which I thank the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik).
    Mr. Douglas Hogg: May I put to my right hon. Friend a small example of the incompatibility of being a Member of two Parliaments? I have just come from a meeting with the Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, at which we talked about sugar. It would be impossible if, for example, a person represented a constituency in one of the Commonwealth countries in the everything but arms regime which was demanding the inclusion of sugar in
    1148
    that regime, and also represented a constituency in Britain in which sugar was grown, because there is a direct contradiction between the interests of the two.
    Mr. MacKay: My right hon. and learned Friend makes a valid point. He might seek to expand on that interesting example later.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Mike O'Brien): The right hon. Gentleman spoke of U-turns. The House might like to be reminded that, on Second Reading, the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) said:
    As we recognise that the aim of the Bill is to build on what has already been achieved in Northern Ireland, we will not oppose its Second Reading.—[Official Report, 24 January 2000; Vol. 343, c. 34.]
    That was proved by the Division on clause 1 stand part, when 221 voted for the clause with only 24 against. The right hon. Gentleman jibes at the Liberal Democrats for their view on the detailed principles of the Bill, but he might seriously consider whether that is appropriate given that he is on not-too-secure ground.
    Mr. MacKay: The Minister has a short memory. Back in January, he sat on the Treasury Bench for a full 27 hours without any sleep, which has clearly affected his memory a little. That is understandable, so I do not unduly complain. However, he will recall that I said earlier today that the Government, for which he was an advocate on that day, were saying that the measure was urgent and vital if the peace process was to move forward. That was what my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) accepted. It has now been proved that that was a false premise; it was not urgent, as I said earlier, because it was not taken through the other place for another 10 months.
    Secondly, much has intervened. It was clear in January, and in yesterday's debate, in which the Minister took part, that he does not have a full grasp of what is going on in Northern Ireland. To be charitable, that is no doubt because of his other duties as a Home Office Minister. But the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland does have a full grasp of the situation. He is a distinguished Minister in the Northern Ireland Office and he will confirm that what I am about to say is correct.
    Life has moved on since January. This is a point that I wanted to make in my speech, so it is convenient to do so now on the back of the Minister's intervention. If there was to be a further concession to republicans, there had to be other things in return. Despite the promise of the legislation, it has been all take by the paramilitaries and no give. Has one gun or one ounce of Semtex been handed in since January? Has there been an end to violence, racketeering, beatings, kneecappings, or the so-called punishment attacks and exclusions? The answer, sadly and tragically for many people in Northern Ireland, is no.
    Let us forget about all that we have spoken of earlier. The Minister knows, and more or less admitted, that there is only one reason for introducing this bizarre constitutional Bill—this is my central and fundamental point—and that is as an additional confidence-building measure for Sinn Fein-IRA. Certain members of Sinn Fein might like to sit in this House, definitely want to or are sitting in the Northern Ireland Assembly and also wish to

    1149
    sit in the Dail. They wish to do so for a variety of reasons, one of which is to claim a united Ireland when they speak in both. The second is to sit in the Dail and say that they are speaking for people in Northern Ireland. That could, just possibly, be a price worth paying if there had been full and complete decommissioning of illegally held arms and explosives—they were obliged to do that by last May under the Belfast agreement—and if there had been a total end to violence. However, none of that has happened.
    1.15 pm
    The people concerned cannot even bring themselves, after the passing of the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000, to encourage Catholics to join the new force. It would be wrong to go down this dangerous constitutional route, which is hugely flawed, without getting anything in return. The process, which we all want to move forward, has been damaged by the fact that, although there has been concession after concession, precious little has been received in return. That fundamentally undermines the law-abiding majority in both communities in Northern Ireland and, equally important, those Members who represent them.
    We may allow the Bill to pass today, but I do not believe that we will. Although we will be defeated in the House in a few hours' time by the Government's majority, the other place will again reject this wretched Bill, which will not reach the statute book. It will be very good if it does not, as it is a further concession to, and appeasement of, the men of violence, from whom we have received nothing in return.
    Mr. Corbyn: Before the right hon. Gentleman concludes—he may still have some way to go—will he explain why he always talks down, minimises and denigrates the achievements of the peace process? We have had three years of ceasefire. I accept that it has been breached by some organisations—there has, for sure, been violence from loyalist and dissident republican groups. Does he accept that many in Northern Ireland are very disappointed by the way in which the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000 ended up? It is important to enact the Bill because it builds on an agreement that has already been made. If we are serious about achieving peace in Northern Ireland, we must go the whole way with it.
    Mr. MacKay: I translate that to mean the whole way to total appeasement, which, fortunately, is not what the majority of Members of the House want.
    I reiterate that we started the process under my right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major), when he was Prime Minister, and my predecessor Lord Mayhew of Twysden. We support the Belfast agreement. Our continuous complaint, which the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland regularly hears, is that the agreement has not been implemented in full. The fact that it has been implemented only in part makes it badly flawed with respect to the peace process. In my view, the peace process will work effectively only if the agreement is implemented in full.
    That part of the agreement that so worries us involves the fact that there has been no decommissioning whatever—not one gun nor one ounce of Semtex—by any
    1150
    of the people, so-called loyalist or republican, who signed up to the Belfast agreement. On the other hand, every single terrorist prisoner has been released back on to the streets. Republican paramilitaries have been elected to the Assembly, as have so-called loyalist paramilitaries. In the case of Sinn Fein, two of them have become Ministers. However, violence has not been fully renounced. Yes, there is a ceasefire, which I have welcomed; it is good news. There is goods news; of course there is.
    Mr. Corbyn: Then why does the right hon. Gentleman not say so?
    Mr. MacKay: I do, regularly. The hon. Gentleman, who I willingly grant takes considerable interest in the affairs of Northern Ireland, will have read regularly in the newspapers there, in Hansard and elsewhere that my right hon. and hon. Friends and I admit that there is some improvement, in that there is a ceasefire at the moment. However, no ceasefire looks permanent while, first, there is no decommissioning whatever—the Province is awash with illegally held arms and explosives—and, secondly, there is still racketeering, drug dealing and violence from the paramilitaries.
    I am being tempted into areas that are beyond the amendment, so it would probably be wise for me to return to the subject.
    Mr. Day: The hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) gave the impression that he has not spoken to any of the parents of the victims of terror during the so-called ceasefire. Does my right hon. Friend agree with me that those victims, and especially their parents, have a different view of the situation and may doubt that there is peace, given the terrible loss that they have suffered at the hands of the men of violence?
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. This is not a general debate about the situation in Northern Ireland. We have a Lords amendment before us relating to the Bill.
    Mr. MacKay: In that case, I had better not respond to my hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle (Mr. Day). Instead, I shall return to the point that I was about to make on the fundamental reason why we think this is a dangerous, bad, little Bill that should be rejected in total, which it will be if the motion to disagree is rejected in this House.
    The Bill is a constitutional outrage and wrong. We are told that it will go ahead only if there are exceptional circumstances. The exceptional circumstances are an appeasement and a sop to Sinn Fein, are not warranted and will be hugely damaging to the process. The Bill will undermine the law-abiding majority and those who represent them. They feel that it is another concession to the men of violence, whereas they have received precious few concessions themselves.
    Mr. William Ross: Given the savage but accurate complaints that the right hon. Gentleman is making about the Bill, can we safely assume that a future Conservative Government would repeal it?
    Mr. MacKay: Yes.

    1151
    Other hon. Members want to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and we are painfully aware that we are on a tight timetable, which is regrettable. As I said yesterday, that is due to the Government's incompetence in taking so long to get the Bill back to this place.
    I urge the House to reject the motion, because in doing so we shall kill off the Bill, which will be in the interests of the peace process, the peace-loving majority in both communities in Northern Ireland and constitutional justice.
    Mr. Lembit Öpik: The right hon. Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay) is a charming fellow, and I always enjoy listening to his contributions to the debate. He postulated whether, given that our position on various aspects of Northern Ireland policy has evolved, we would do a volte-face on the Bill. It may come as a surprise to him and others to learn that we have decided to maintain the position that we have held for most of this year. I shall explain our reasons for doing so in a moment.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) has spoken on the Bill—I think he was our spokesman in January. My noble Friend Lord Smith of Clifton spoke on the subject in the other place. I agree with the right hon. Member for Bracknell that the Government seem to have been rather schizophrenic about the Bill. In January, it was an urgent requirement that we get this legislation through, and no effort was too great to get it on to the statute book. However, it ended up gathering dust on the shelf for 10 months. Although I may have a difference of view on some aspects of the official Opposition's position, I agree with them that it has been difficult to ascertain why such pressure was placed on us to get the Bill through at the beginning of the year, but it has been left until now, 48 hours before the end of the Session, to be finished off.
    On the up side, I concur with the right hon. Member for Bracknell that the Minister did a better job of explaining the importance of the Bill than anyone who has previously spoken on the subject on behalf of the Government.
    We have been treated to an almost gasping effort to post-rationalise what has at times seemed a rather obscure Bill, but I give the Minister credit for at least presenting a plausible and, I think, fairly practical explanation of the Government's disagreement with the amendment. I must add, however, that had the Government acted a few months earlier, we might not be spending Commons time on the issue now. We might be doing something of more immediate importance, such as liberalising new year's eve licensing hours—but I shall not pursue that now.
    The justification for the proposal is, in part, unquestionably symbolic. The right hon. Member for Bracknell questioned whether that and, indeed, the confidence-building element constituted sufficient justification.
    Mr. Beggs: Is it not about time that Unionists in Northern Ireland had some confidence-building? Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, as this recommendation has absolutely nothing to do with the Belfast agreement, it merely heightens suspicion that only the Lord Himself knows what secret deals have been made between the Government—through the Prime Minister—and Sinn Fein?
    1152
    What lies before us next? If a proposal that is so unrelated to the Belfast agreement is being introduced at this stage, what can we expect in future?
    Mr. Öpik: Although I may vote differently from the hon. Gentleman on this, I think he makes a fair point. The Unionist community has had to put up with a lot during the peace process—as, indeed, have nationalists and republicans. One of the unintended consequences of the faltering fashion in which the Government have handled the Bill may be the creation of an unnecessary nervousness in that community. Nevertheless, I do not consider that to be sufficient justification for rejecting the tenets of the Bill. I realise that certain Conservative Members are concerned about the balance in my argument, but that is to be expected.
    Mr. John M. Taylor: The hon. Gentleman mentions balance. Can he identify any reciprocity? What is to be given in return for this largesse? Will the hon. Gentleman, for example, be entitled to sit in the Dail?
    Mr. Öpik: I am too busy to sit in the Dail. I am not even a councillor at this stage.
    The Minister may wish to correct me, but I understand that the Bill provides for no direct reciprocity—although the vision of the hon. Gentleman and his right hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell standing for seats in the Dail almost makes it worth lobbying Dublin to think again. Who knows? Perhaps one day, if the world evolves, the right hon. Member for Bracknell will be in a position to stand as a potential Taoiseach. If he achieves that high office, I shall certainly expect an invitation to tea.
    Let me return to the question asked by the hon. Member for Solihull (Mr. Taylor). There is, in fact, an element of reciprocity. We may not get seats in the Dail, but, having spoken directly to Irish embassy representatives, I have no doubt that this represents a helpful evolution in the relationship between the House of Commons and Dublin. We should recall the dark days not long ago, in terms of relations between Dublin and Westminster—relations that were so strained that the British-Irish Inter-Parliamentary Body was established with the specific intention of rebuilding a fractured relationship. When we remember those days, only 10 or 15 years ago, we see how far we have progressed.
    We should bear in mind that the present strong relationship with Dublin was not just discovered; it was earned. It was built up through various testing actions and legislative decisions—made, I must point out, by the Conservatives as well as the current Government.
    Therefore, considering the overall context, the measure is another opportunity for us to strengthen the relationship between ourselves and Dublin. However, Conservative Members are entirely entitled to make a judgment call and to ask whether the development itself is a sufficiently powerful element of the peace process and relationship-building process to be justified.
    1.30 pm
    Earlier, I intervened on the right hon. Member for Bracknell to ask whether he felt that it was unreasonable for hon. Members also to be Members of the European Parliament. I had forgotten that the hon. Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh) had ceased to be a Member of

    1153
    the European Parliament—which she undoubtedly did just in time to avoid the possibility of defecting to the Liberal Democrats, as other Conservative MEPs have seemed prone to doing lately.
    Mr. MacKay: MEP singular.
    Mr. Öpik: I make it clear that I am not talking about MPs—although no reasonable offer would be refused if the right hon. Gentleman is looking for a new home.
    One will unquestionably occasionally have conflicts of interest if one is both an hon. Member and a Member of the European Parliament. Unquestionably, there are two jobs to be done. Although I certainly would not choose to take on those two roles, I would judge that those who have attempted to do so have been reasonably effective. That situation fairly closely parallels the one that we are discussing.
    Mr. Kevin McNamara: Am I not right in recalling that the former leader of the Liberal Democrats, who is now the Presiding Officer of the Scottish Parliament, stood on an Italian Liberal ticket for the European Parliament? Although he was not elected, he might well have been.
    Mr. Öpik: Lord Steel did exactly that. He stood abroad, as the hon. Gentleman said, and he did so to make a point. Technically, he could have been an MEP—for Italy, I think—while being an hon. Member.
    Mr. John D. Taylor: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Öpik: I will do so only briefly, as I do not want to detain the House for too long.
    Mr. Taylor: I thank the hon. Gentleman. I must point out to him that the European Parliament is not a sovereign Parliament, and that we are talking about people who can sit in different sovereign Parliaments. The hon. Gentleman should not be dishonest with the House by trying to give the impression that the European Parliament is equivalent to a sovereign national Parliament.
    Mr. Öpik: The last thing that I would want to do is to mislead the House. I remind the House that what I actually said was that there are surprisingly close parallels between the matter that we are discussing and the situation of those who work simultaneously as an elected, professional MEP and a Member of Parliament. Hon. Members are perfectly entitled to take a different view on the matter. However, one of the facts persuading me that combining jobs is at least theoretically possible is that similar jobs have been combined before.
    The right hon. Member for Strangford (Mr. Taylor) alluded to the important issue of sovereignty. It is unusual that a non-Commonwealth country should be given the status that we are considering. However, for geographical and political reasons, we have a special relationship with the Republic of Ireland. If anything, Unionists should be pleased that, in some way, the link between Dublin and
    1154
    Westminster is getting closer. Much of the difficulty in Northern Ireland politics has been caused by the fact that that relationship has been strained.
    Mr. Gerald Howarth: The hon. Gentleman talks about close links between the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland. If I am not wholly mistaken in my understanding of history, did not the Republic of Ireland spend the best part of a century and a half trying to get rid of us?
    Mr. Öpik: Surely that would be a very good reason for a Unionist official Opposition Member to welcome current developments—which are a certain convergence of thinking between Dublin and Westminster and, more to the point, the normalisation of a relationship that has been strained for a very long time.
    Mr. MacKay: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Öpik: I shall give way one last time, but then I shall conclude my remarks.
    Mr. MacKay: The hon. Gentleman talks about wanting a close relationship between the British Parliament and the Dail, which I endorse. Is he not forgetting that we have the British-Irish Inter-Parliamentary Body, of whose steering committee I was a founder member? That body works well and effectively in improving relationships between the two Parliaments, but it is not a constitutional matter. That is where it should rest, and it is slightly insulting to that body to suggest that there is not already a good relationship.
    Mr. Öpik: That is not a very nice thing to say; intellectually, I am upset. There is no conflict in having the British-Irish Inter-Parliamentary Body, which has done tremendous work in building links between parliamentarians, and the constitutional modification that we are talking about today. This is a matter of evolution and of building links between Governments. Crucially, we must show the general public in Northern Ireland—particularly the nationalist and republican communities—that they are being thought about in this House and that actions are being taken to ensure not that Dublin overruns Northern Ireland or grabs control of the Mace in this Chamber, but that those communities have a legitimate aspiration that is recognised and that they can get representation.
    Let me get back to the point. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear.] I am virtually having a conversation with Conservative Front Benchers. Once again, it is an honour to be mentoring the right hon. Member for Bracknell, although this perhaps is not the right place to pursue that.
    The right hon. Member for Bracknell regards the measure as a form of appeasement towards the men of violence. He welcomed the ceasefire, but said that nothing had been given by the paramilitaries in exchange for the concessions that we see here. I disagree. The ceasefire, by and large, has been an effective and important step forward. Northern Ireland is closer to a normalised political and military environment now than for many decades and that is encouraging.
    Mr. Thompson: The hon. Gentleman speaks about the peace process. Does he recall that since the ceasefire started, the IRA has murdered three people?
    Mr. Öpik: The hon. Gentleman is right, but fewer people have been injured and killed in Northern Ireland

    1155
    than before. It is not acceptable for anyone to suffer as a result of paramilitary violence. However, we are dealing with real-world politics and real lives. I would like to think that the moderate majority in Northern Ireland would agree that the situation is far improved on five or 10 years ago. If hon. Members choose to disagree, they are perfectly entitled to do so, but that flies in the face of the facts.
    The Government have handled the matter in an unusual and slightly clumsy way this year. I hope that the official Opposition, Unionists and Liberal Democrats could agree on that. We hope that there will be a degree of contrite acceptance of that when the Minister replies to the debate. [Interruption.] It is a hope, at least. However, this is a confidence-building measure for the Northern Ireland community and for Dublin, and an overdue strengthening of links. It is always a risk to do something differently, but time will tell if it works.
    I hope that the Conservatives in the Chamber will feel edified and assisted by the insights that I have provided. I hope that, as a direct consequence of what we have said, we will get a positive response from the Dublin Government. Importantly, I hope that there is a positive response from the SDLP and Sinn Fein, on which there is now great pressure to support the creation of a truly cross-community police service. I hope that they will see that this is another reason why it is unreasonable for them to hold out against encouraging Catholics to apply in significant numbers to the police force in Northern Ireland.
    Mr. William Ross: We have listened to the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik) expressing yet again the pious hope that making further concessions to thugs and murderers will elicit a favourable response from them. The history of humanity's dealings with such people shows that making concessions to them does not bring a favourable response from the point of view of the civilised but, rather, encourages them in their evildoing. Given what has happened during the past few weeks in relation to the Police (Northern Ireland) Bill and to the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Bill, which we discussed yesterday, one can also see that such concessions do not work with the IRA. The IRA simply asks for more and more and gives nothing—and that is what it will keep on doing.
    As the Under-Secretary pointed out when he opened the debate, we are dealing with a Bill that was beheaded in the House of Lords. In its present form, it is nothing but a dead carcase. In my view, it would be best to leave it that way, but the House is trying to resurrect it and give it back the life that was removed in the other place.
    The Bill appeared nearly a year ago. It had its First Reading on 21 December last year, within a day or two of the House rising for the Christmas recess and when no one was paying much attention to what was being produced. I have not had time to check when the House rose for Christmas last year, but it could have been as late as 22 or 23 December—certainly no later. That recess, therefore, came only a day or two after the Bill was introduced. It was a time of year when people did not have time to assess the Bill. No one was paying much attention to such things, and First Readings do not matter all that much, as we all know—they are a purely formal procedure—so no one took much notice.
    1156
    Second Reading took place on 24 January. It was followed by the events that kept us up for a long and pleasant evening in the House—one of the longest sittings in the Chamber for some time. I look back on that night with pleasure, because it illustrated once more that if one talks and talks in this place, one will eventually start to get through to those who, up to that point, have taken no interest in an issue. Eventually, people will start to say, "Some people think this is serious. Some people believe this should be discussed and that it is worth a second look to see whether we have got it right." That is why the Chamber is so important to the legislative process of the United Kingdom.
    Mr. Day: The hon. Gentleman is quite right, but if he wants to exercise that right again, he had better do it tonight. From next week the Government will have successfully neutered this place with their so-called modernisation programme.
    Mr. Ross: I regret that the hon. Gentleman said that, because he may well have alerted Mr. Deputy Speaker to the fact that I was beginning to stray beyond the confines of the debate. However, the point that I was making was that the neutering of the House does grave damage to the legislative process and to democracy in the United Kingdom. That should be explained, because this Chamber is where each Minister has to justify every proposal put forward, and the decisions on modernisation will prevent them from doing so in future. I hope that that is another measure that the Conservatives will reverse whenever they get the chance. [Interruption.] That is the trouble—Governments pass legislation diminishing the power of this House which, when their turn comes to sit on the Opposition Benches, they regret doing. I hope that for the first time in a very long time the Conservative party will reverse the mistakes that have been made in this respect by the Government.
    1.45 pm
    The Bill subsequently disappeared, and reappeared on 28 July—again, just before the House went up for the summer recess. Why was the Bill away for so long? Had the Government all at once realised that something was seriously wrong, that no benefit was to be derived from the Bill and that they might as well bury it and forget about it? The fact that it came back gives rise yet again to two questions: who wants this Bill and why do they want it? There are many objections to the Bill, as we all know.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Order. The hon. Gentleman acknowledged earlier that he was straying rather wide of the amendment, and he is now going down another byway. I should be grateful if he would come back to the amendment before the House.
    Mr. Ross: It is clear that people in the other place had very serious objections to the clause, which is why they decided to remove it. They said to themselves that one cannot serve two masters. As the good book tells us, we either hate the one and love the other, or despise the one and cleave to the other. If the first of those two elements holds true, as I believe it does, we will tell people that they can sit in two separate sovereign legislatures with two totally different views of what should happen

    1157
    constitutionally to the Province of Northern Ireland. This is a constitutional Bill, which is why I, and others like me, object to it.
    Mr. John M. Taylor: The hon. Gentleman left a very interesting question up in the air a moment ago when he asked who wanted the Bill. With his experience and knowledge of Northern Ireland affairs, can he identify even one political party with any enthusiasm for the Bill?
    Mr. Ross: There is one political party with enthusiasm for it—Sinn Fein, which is inextricably linked to terrorism. I will come back to that central question. I was merely putting down a marker so that people could have time to consider it; I was going to come back to it later. We have some time yet—about another two hours. No one should be in any hurry in discussing these matters; we have the time and should examine them in detail.
    I do not think that the conflict of interests enters into Sinn Fein-IRA's view of the Bill. So far as they are concerned, there is no conflict of interests. They are united Irelanders pure and simple; they treat the Bill as a means to an end, particularly this element of it.
    Everyone knows that it is impossible to be in two places at the same time, but a person can, as we know from earlier exchanges, serve on a council, in Parliament and on a European body. As that person is always representing the same national interest and the people of a particular area—be it of this kingdom or of another—in national assemblies, local assemblies or the supranational assembly, however, there is no conflict of interest at that level. But the possibility of such a conflict is precisely why we have a rule regarding membership of this House which says that no person can represent two constituencies at the same time.
    Mr. Gerald Howarth: Will the hon. Gentleman consider that people who wish to sit in any of those institutions, whether local authorities or Parliament, have to swear an oath of allegiance to this country, making it plain that they are acting on behalf of and in the interests of this country and not on behalf of a foreign Government?
    Mr. Ross: The hon. Gentleman pre-empts me. I was coming to that matter. A person cannot represent two constituencies here because it would diminish the level of representation overall for the nation and the House and because there would be a conflict of interest. One can stand for election and be elected to two constituencies, but one must give one of them up immediately. One cannot represent both in this place and everyone knows that. I do not know when that happened last, but I assume that it has happened at some time in our long history.
    Mr. Corbyn: Gladstone.
    Mr. Ross: Well—
    Mr. John M. Taylor: I can answer that question. The last time that anyone was returned to two seats in this
    1158
    place—of course, he would have had to relinquish one—was in 1910, when a Mr. O'Brien was returned for Cork and West Cork.
    Mr. Ross: I hope that the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department is not intending to follow his namesake's attitude and seek two seats at the same time. That is beyond even his vaulting ambition.
    Mr. Corbyn: The hon. Gentleman is slightly over-egging the pudding. One can be elected to a devolved Parliament in Scotland or the Assembly in Northern Ireland or Wales and represent an entirely different constituency to the one that one represents in Westminster. Someone could represent an English constituency but also sit in the Scottish Parliament. Such a person would have two constituencies.
    Mr. Ross: Yes, but that does not relate to my argument.
    Dr. Norman A. Godman: In theory, yes; in practice, no.
    Mr. Ross: An objection is being raised. Even if the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) is correct, as I said, such a person would still be representing the same nation and national interest.
    I was turned off my course by the recent exchanges. I was pointing out that one cannot represent two constituencies because there may be a conflict of interest. The conflict becomes even stronger if one is representing two different constituencies in two sovereign nations' Parliaments. That is a totally different ball game. The plain truth is—
    Mr. Öpik: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman's flow again. Presumably, he will confirm that, following his logic, he would want the regulation that permits people from other member states of the Commonwealth to stand for election to this House to be repealed for the same reasons.
    Mr. Ross: The right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg), who is no longer in his place, mentioned that matter. He made a powerful case for following the course of action that the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik) puts before the House. I cannot see any good reason for permitting a citizen of a nation that does not share our interests—our needs—to sit in this House. There is bound to be a conflict of interests. The process that allows them to do so is based on an archaic law. That law should be swept away. It serves no useful purpose since no one has taken up that opportunity. In the past, it would have been physically impossible for a Member of the Canadian or the Australian Parliament also to serve in this place. Today, with Concorde, it is theoretically possible but still not practicable.
    Mr. Corbyn: Will the hon. Gentleman clarify his position and that of his party? If he opposes Commonwealth Members standing for election to the British Parliament, is he also opposed to Commonwealth citizens being elected to this Parliament or Commonwealth nationals voting in British elections?
    Mr. Ross: That is a totally different issue; it is a red herring. If a Commonwealth citizen lives in this nation,

    1159
    is a taxpayer here and is on the electoral register, I have no objection. I recall that Australian and New Zealand citizens—the most recent was Mr. Gould—sat in this place; there may be Canadian or Australian Members at present. If they live in this country and give it their allegiance—
    Mr. John M. Taylor: If they take the oath.
    Mr. Ross: Indeed. If they fulfil the normal obligations, that is all right with me; no one could seriously object to that.
    No reciprocal arrangement has been made with the Dail; it would need to amend its constitution. This type of cross-over sitting would be available only to Northern Ireland Members of Parliament, not to Members of Parliament from Great Britain—in that sense, it is strictly a one-way street.
    When I objected that the matter was not in the agreement, the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland gave an extremely weak answer; he said that it was consistent with the agreement. In other words, the agreement is a take-your-pick. There is a row of hooks on the wall, with the agreement hanging on one of them. We can hang anything on that hook, as long as we tell the House that it is consistent with the agreement—that it falls within the general theory of the agreement. That is no way to take decisions; something must be in or out. There is no good reason to accept this provision just because someone's strictly subjective view is that it is consistent with the agreement.
    Mr. Day: The hon. Gentleman is correct to point out that some parties have managed to hang whatever they want on the agreement. However, his experience will show him that parties such as his, which possess no weapons and condemn those who hold weapons, and which do not threaten the Government with weapons, do not benefit from any attachments to the agreement. Those who threaten receive all the benefits.
    Mr. Ross: I do not disagree with the hon. Gentleman; he correctly expresses my view of the matter.
    There is no consensus for this constitutional reform. No one in Britain asked for it. Apart from Sinn Fein, no one asked for it in Ireland. Indeed, in the other place, Lord Fitt said that none of the major parties in the Irish Republic were in favour of the reform. He had asked them; they were not in favour, because if there were reciprocal arrangements, a whole can of worms would be opened. They would have to change their constitution. They would have to hold a referendum and they were not prepared to go down that road.
    I return to my question. Who asked for the reform? Who wants it? Who is pushing the Government? Who is demanding this legislation? The only people who seem to want it are Sinn Fein-IRA—that inextricably linked terrorist organisation cum political party. This attempt to reinstate in the Bill a deleted provision is on all fours with what happened during yesterday's proceedings on the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Bill—only Sinn Fein-IRA benefited from an exemption clause on financial matters in that long and complex measure.
    Of course, the Under-Secretary will tell us that the matter is merely one of perception. However, as he is well aware, in politics, perception—if not all—plays a large
    1160
    part in people's understanding of the law. The perception in Northern Ireland, and of any sensible person who has examined this matter in detail, is that the Bill was produced at the behest of Sinn Fein-IRA and for no other reason.
    Why do Sinn Fein-IRA want this provision? Because they want to sit in the Dail and in the Assembly, and to be non-attending Members of this House. They can then claim that they represent their electorate on an all-Ireland basis in an all-Ireland body. That is fully in keeping with the changes to articles 2 and 3 of the Irish Republic's constitution, in which it shifted its claim from territory to people, saying that it hoped to draw together all the people of Ireland who can claim its citizenship. What the 44 million people in north America think of that is a matter of conjecture, but we need not go down that road today.
    2 pm
    Let us consider what might happen in future, given the current political shifts in Northern Ireland. We cannot pass a Bill without considering the consequences, for those who will the means also will the consequences. We cannot simply say, "Oh, we passed the Bill, but we don't worry about the consequences." Everything that we do in the House has a consequence for citizens—whether a few or many—given Sinn Fein's rampaging electoral success in Northern Ireland.
    It is clear to those of us who live there—perhaps it is obscured as yet from those who live elsewhere in the United Kingdom—that there is a strong possibility that Sinn Fein-IRA will replace the SDLP and some of its Members in the House. If that happens and IRA members are elected to the Dail, the whole concept of the Union and the consent principle embodied in the agreement will be undermined, hollowed out and destroyed. That is what the IRA is about.
    The IRA is perhaps rather cleverer than some hon. Members seem to think. I have never thought that there was such a thing as mindless violence in the IRA's lexicon. Its violence is always for an end and it is always carefully thought through, and the Bill is part and parcel of its attack on the integrity, territory and constitution of the United Kingdom. In all truth, unless the Minister sees it in that light and understands it, he does not know what he is trying to push through the House today.
    Why have the Government given the IRA those consequences? What threats were made or implied—bombs in London, Manchester and Birmingham? The capability exists; the IRA has the weapons, explosives and people. It has spent the past two or three years recruiting, and shifting weapons and explosives. We are facing an even more sophisticated and dangerous organisation than that which existed several years ago. Its troops are on the street. Far worse, its sleepers are on the street, and they are over here.
    Is that body of people—Sinn Fein-IRA—worthy of the concession? The Minister has told us that they must meet the obligations involved in sitting here—they do not; they will not. They do not want to sit here. They have a totally different agenda. They are simply using the House as the excuse to claim that they are the representatives of a people in an all-Ireland republic. No doubt, there are warm relationships with Dublin, but at what price have

    1161
    they been bought? What is the warmth of the relationship between Sinn Fein-IRA and the Government of this country?
    The Government maintain that the ceasefire is intact so long as the terrorist leaders do not say that it is over or do not take part in active attacks—but that means active attacks on the security forces. Murders of civilians, especially of those of the same denomination and religious community, are dismissed as mere housekeeping. Neither I nor the victims and their families think that that is housekeeping: it is murder, but some folk in the House sanitise it using the phrase "killings in Northern Ireland." Killings? They are cold-blooded, ruthless murders in furtherance of Sinn Fein-IRA's political and constitutional objectives and of undermining normal, decent society in Northern Ireland, which in many parts of the Province such as the inner cities, has been replaced by mafia rule.
    Numerous concessions were made on the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000. The Dublin Government, the SDLP and leaders of the Roman Catholic Church pocketed them, but they were not considered to be enough. The concessions made yesterday were not enough. Further changes will be demanded of the police, and the special branch will have to be broken up. Local policing boards will have to be put in place and that will give greater power to Sinn Fein-IRA. It is all part and parcel of the Government's capitulation to terror, murder and violence. The people of Northern Ireland pay the primary price now, but the lessons for the rest of the United Kingdom are real and dreadful.
    Honour in this place demands integrity over democratic structures. Our national interests have to be protected and we should reject the Government's attempt to reinstate the Bill. We have got to forget about sordid little deals with thugs and murderers for political gain. We should stop being afraid of what the IRA might do to us and concentrate on what we can do to the IRA to destroy it as a terrorist, military and political force. Only when that evil organisation is destroyed—it can be destroyed only by being exposed—will we achieve real peace. That is why the Bill is wrong: it helps, rather than diminishes, the IRA's influence.
    Mr. Gerald Howarth: It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross). Not only do I agree with virtually everything that he said, but I had the great pleasure of being with him all night on 25 and 26 January when he was able to give us the benefit of his very sound advice. I know that Ministers particularly appreciated that.
    I place on record my apologies to the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland for not being present when he opened the debate. Unfortunately, one cannot be in two places at once, and I was doing a press conference with Baroness Young in the other place on the age of consent, another measure that the Government have sought to railroad through Parliament. The Under-Secretary and I shared the night together on 25 and 26 January—if I can use that expression without it being misunderstood.
    The House should remind itself of what happened on that occasion. The Minister rightly reminded us that not many Members voted against the Bill on Second Reading,
    1162
    which took place the day before the Committee stage. I was one of them, because some of us had the suspicion that the Government were trying to smuggle through a measure that they described as modest. They suggested that there was nothing of great moment in the Bill and that we could all be perfectly comfortable with it.
    I, along with some of my right hon. and hon. Friends, thought that there was something odd about the Bill. It was clearly designed to extend to Members of the Irish Parliament the same rights enjoyed by Members of Commonwealth legislatures. It is a bizarre idea that, given all the struggles of the 19th century, citizens of the Irish Republic should want once more to be part of our Commonwealth, or empire as it formerly was.
    Given the Prime Minister's obsession with the word "modernisation", it occurred to me that, instead of repealing the legislation that to this day allows Members of Commonwealth legislatures, such as those in Kenya, Zimbabwe and Nigeria, to sit in this place, he wanted to extend the right to sit in the House. However, that right was being extended not to another Commonwealth country or to one, such as South Africa, that had been a member and was then readmitted, but to a country that had emphatically renounced any idea of wishing to be part of the Commonwealth of which Her Majesty the Queen is the head. It struck me as astonishing that, far from seeking to repeal the measure in the name of his pet obsession of modernisation, the Prime Minister actually wanted to use it. I tried to discover why. The reason is that the Government found a purpose for the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975. We began to wonder whether that purpose was legitimate or whether there was something more sinister behind it.
    There is no doubt that when we discussed the Bill in a Committee of the whole House, some of us were concerned about concessions being made to Sinn Fein. We tried to press the point. In my intervention on my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), I pointed out that the Minister said on Second Reading:
    The Bill is not part of the Good Friday agreement, but it is consistent with it. Separate development of direct interparliamentary links between the various legislatures was envisaged at the time of the Good Friday agreement.
    The hon. Gentleman sought to give us the impression that the Bill is not part of the Good Friday agreement, no part of a wider deal and no part of a side agreement, but that it merely reflects the overall feeling of good will between the United Kingdom and the Government of the Republic of Ireland and others. He suggested that we were wide of the mark to think that the measure was being introduced at the behest of Sinn Fein.
    We pressed on through the evening to try to discover whether that was the case and I referred to something else that the Minister said on Second Reading. He sought to allay our fears by saying:
    It is time to build a sounder basis to our institutional relationships and to provide a basis on which we can proceed, as two islands just off the mainland of Europe, with many common links, historical and otherwise, between the United Kingdom and the Irish Republic—a basis for ensuring that those closer links are given some institutional background. I believe that that explains this fairly modest Bill.
    Any fears that we had about the involvement of Sinn Fein were smoothed away by an extremely suave Minister, but we were having none of it and kept pressing the Government. It was not my intention or, I venture to

    1163
    suggest, that of other hon. Members to keep the House up all night. We wanted to drive at the truth and get an answer to the question posed by the hon. Member for East Londonderry—what was the purpose of the Bill? We wanted to know why it was so urgent that we had to have Second Reading one day and remaining stages the following day. The Minister said that it was not urgent, but the Government's actions spoke louder than words, and we were not satisfied that we were getting truthful answers.
    2.15 pm
    Mr. John M. Taylor: Is not the claim to urgency the most bogus claim of all? We have had since 1949 to put the matter right, if we had wanted to.
    Mr. Howarth: My hon. Friend makes a telling point and is entirely right—we could have acted earlier.
    There was a great discrepancy between the Minister saying that the Bill was not urgent and the business managers pressing it through two days on the trot. The Government's actions were at variance with the Minister's assurances, and assurances about the origins and purposes of the Bill were at variance with what we were beginning to understand about it. We were pleased that we pressed the Government through the night because eventually, at about 2.40 am, the Minister told us what the Bill was about. He said:
    I dealt with the question of whom we discussed the matter with on Second Reading, but let me make it clear that representations have been received from, and discussions held with, the leader of the Ulster Unionist party and the Irish Government. I understand that representations have been received by the Government from Sinn Fein. However, let me make it clear that the Government are not trading on issues. As always, representations are judged on their merits, and I believe that the measures in the Bill are justified on their own merits. The hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone will be aware also of the issue in relation to clause 2 and the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble).
    I am not quite sure what the last few words mean.
    In the early hours of the morning—one good reason why we should not suspend our proceedings at 10 o'clock—we finally extracted an admission from the Minister, who I believe is an honourable man, that representations had been received from Sinn Fein, although the measure is not part of the Belfast agreement. His admission led us to the justifiable conclusion that there was more to the Bill than simply trying to create a more formal institutional relationship between this Parliament and the Parliament of the Irish Republic. Indeed, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay) said, we began to believe that the Bill was a further appeasement of the men of violence.
    The Bill is not on its own: it is part of a raft of measures, one of which—on the financing of political parties—was debated yesterday. The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) made a powerful point when he said that the Scottish National party will be committing a criminal offence if it raises money from expatriate Scots to fund its campaigns in Scotland, but that Sinn Fein will not be committing a criminal offence if it raises money for its party political purposes from Noraid and the United States. Special treatment will be given to Sinn Fein and, indeed, to other parties in Northern Ireland.
    Mr. George Howarth: I suspect that you may rule me out of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but the exclusion in the
    1164
    Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Bill for parties in Northern Ireland is not at the request of Sinn Fein. It arose from discussions that we had with all political parties in Northern Ireland.
    Mr. Gerald Howarth: I am grateful to the Minister for providing the House with that information. He made that point yesterday, and the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) disputed it. I understand that the Minister had discussions with other members of his party, who said that they would not make the issue one on which they would oppose.
    Nevertheless, the principal beneficiaries are unlikely to be ex-patriot Unionists. Given funding as it is generally understood in this country and the massive fundraising operations in the United States, the real beneficiary is much more likely to be Sinn Fein. I make the point only in passing in order to make my overall point about the Bill. It is one of a number of measures that form a clear pattern of advantage to those who were men of violence and to their political supporters.
    As the Member of Parliament for Aldershot, formerly the home of the Parachute Regiment, I am bound to say that my constituents are in trepidation of being called before the wretched Saville inquiry in Londonderry to answer for what happened nearly 30 years ago. That inquiry was set up entirely at the behest of the Prime Minister for one purpose only: to appease republican sentiment. We therefore begin to see this Bill not as a nice, warm and cuddly measure to forge closer links between the Irish Parliament and the United Kingdom Parliament, but as part of a raft of measures and actions that add up to give Unionists cause for anxiety and republicans cause for celebration.
    Dr. Godman: The hon. Gentleman talks about "that wretched inquiry". May I point out that many of us believe that its object is to get to the truth of what happened on that terrible day?
    Mr. Gerald Howarth: I do not disbelieve the hon. Gentleman in his desire. Nor do I disbelieve the families of those who died in their desire, as they see it, to get to the truth. I merely say to the hon. Gentleman that from that inquiry can come no winners whatever. There will be no victors; there will merely be grief, the opening up of old and deep wounds and a postponement of reconciliation. It is scandalous that so much British public money is being expended on an inquiry that has held itself in a thoroughly biased—and I would say disreputable—fashion.
    The inquiry refused the repeated requests of my constituents—men who had served their country and put their lives on the line and who are now civilians and have no protection—to claim anonymity when giving evidence. They do not have their network of paramilitaries and others to support them. I do not want to labour the point or drift away from the subject of the Bill; I was responding to the hon. Gentleman and making it clear that I do not doubt his sincerity on the issue. However, I am bound to put on record my reservations, and the fact that I see all these matters forming a pattern.
    The hon. Member for East Londonderry mentioned reciprocity. It was also dealt with in Committee, and what

    1165
    was said was interesting. In answer to a point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst, the Minister said:
    We ban Members of the Irish Parliament from being Members of this House. There is no provision in Irish law similar to section 1(1)(e) of the House of Commons Disqualifications Act 1975. Members of the House of Commons and the House of Lords—and, indeed, Members of the legislatures of other countries—are not disqualified on that account from membership of the Irish Parliament. To that extent, the reciprocity sought by the amendment already exists. Members of the Irish Parliament are, however, required to be Irish nationals.—[Official Report, 25 January 2000; Vol. 343, c. 199-225, 305-09.]
    Therefore, there is clearly not reciprocity. Unless they are an Irish national, somebody sitting in this House will not qualify to be a Member of the Dail, so it is a one-way street, as the hon. Member for East Londonderry said.
    The hon. Gentleman also referred to conflict of interest. Again, it is perfectly clear that one cannot on the one hand swear allegiance to the United Kingdom Crown and advance the causes and interests of this country, while at the same time being a Member of a Parliament of another sovereign country, advancing its causes and interests. There will be cases of clear conflict of interest. They are two different countries.
    Mr. Öpik: I ask the hon. Gentleman the question that I have already asked: is it his party's policy to repeal the ruling that allows members of other state legislatures in the Commonwealth to stand for this House?
    Mr. Howarth: That is a different matter altogether. As the hon. Gentleman will observe, I am not on the Front Bench. I am a bit more of a free agent. However, I understand that, had I been on the Front Bench, I would have been able to answer in the affirmative. I hope that that helps him. The ability of members of legislatures on the African continent or, indeed, of Australia and New Zealand, to be Members of this House at the same time appears to be an anachronism—but that is another issue.
    As I said earlier, the Minister said that this was a modest Bill. I disagree fundamentally; it is not a modest Bill. It reinforces the justifiable fears of Unionists. Even if it is not specifically a squalid act of appeasement of Sinn Fein, its effect is to confer a unique, unreciprocated benefit on those who resent the Union between Ulster and Great Britain and refuse to swear allegiance to the Crown, who may even have personally been involved in taking the lives of those who served the Crown in Her Majesty's forces.
    I see in the ten-minute Bill of the hon. Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara), to which he spoke on 14 November and which I successfully opposed, part of the pattern. Once the oath of allegiance is removed, it is much easier for people who do not owe allegiance to this country to sit as cuckoos in the nest in this Parliament but serve another country and its interests.
    Mr. Corbyn: The endearing quality of the hon. Members for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross) and for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) is their obsession with a byzantine world of conspiracy theories. They imagine that the world is some massive conspiracy designed to achieve I am not sure what.
    1166
    Both hon. Members today completely lacked any vision of the future that they want for Northern Ireland. They did not at any stage say that they endorse the peace process. Neither said that he endorsed the Good Friday agreement, and neither paid any compliment for three years of ceasefire, the Northern Ireland Act 1998 or the setting up of a devolved Assembly—or for the fact that there is no longer the same level of death, mayhem and destruction in Northern Ireland. I accept that all is not perfect, but there must be some idea of where we go from here. The hon. Gentlemen's proposal appears to be to stick their head in the sand, put the clock back and ignore the massive political steps that Unionists, republicans and nationalist movements in Northern Ireland have taken, and to return to what—another 20 years of 20,000 British troops in Northern Ireland and prisons such as the Maze? That is the alternative. If the hon. Member for Aldershot is serious about getting peace in Northern Ireland, he should look at the achievements of the Good Friday agreement and the enormous political moves of leaders of both communities in Northern Ireland to endorse that process.
    2.30 pm
    Mr. Gerald Howarth: The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point. I am entirely happy to put on record my support for the brave decision made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major) who initiated the whole business. At the time, I thought that that decision was both brave and right. However, it is a different matter to suggest that the Bill is, intrinsically, a key component in continuing the peace process. It is not in the interests of the peace process, but I am in favour of the ceasefire continuing and the Belfast agreement lasting.
    Mr. Corbyn: I am relieved to hear those comments. This is not the only issue—or even the most central one—in the Good Friday agreement or other discussions. The hon. Gentleman must concede that it is a building block which, we hope, will contribute to a future in Northern Ireland that is free from violence and full of political engagement by all parties.
    Mr. Thompson: Is it not a threat to say that, if things do not go that the way they ought to, or if they do not go the way the Government or Sinn Fein think they should go, there will be a return to violence? Is that not political blackmail?
    Mr. Corbyn: I am not in a position to threaten anybody with anything. However, unless one builds on the progress that has been made and acknowledges the enormous political jumps made by the SDLP, Sinn Fein and the Ulster Unionists to get to the present situation—where there are people with whom to talk and negotiate—the mayhem of loyalist violence that we have seen in the past six months and breakaway republican organisations will prevail. One cannot negotiate with those organisations because there is no one with whom to negotiate, so there will be a downward spiral to a very nasty future indeed.
    That is not meant to be a threat, as I want to see peace in Northern Ireland and understand that the principles behind the original Hume-Adams accord and decisions by the Government led by the right hon. Member for

    1167
    Huntingdon (Mr. Major) and the current Government led to a recognition of the traditions of both communities in Northern Ireland. Surely, that is the only way forward. The hon. and learned Member for North Down (Mr. McCartney) shakes his head. He is free to do that and, doubtless, he will address us later on the subject. Surely, we should have a vision of the future rather than looking back endlessly at how we can unpick what has happened in the past three years. That is the only point that I want to make on that score, as I am in danger of being ruled out of order.
    If one looks carefully at the way in which disqualification legislation applies in the House and at the history of Ireland, one can see that the Bill is logical as it puts Ireland on the same footing as Commonwealth citizens. That equivalence has always been in evidence in many different ways. For example, Irish citizens can vote in British elections, as can Commonwealth citizens, and are afforded the same political rights. I recall a time in the early 1980s when the Government led by Margaret Thatcher seemed to be moving in the direction of removing the vote from Irish citizens living in Britain. Fortunately, however, they backed off from that after a big campaign by the Irish community. However, the Bill is a logical extension of the provision that already applies to Commonwealth countries, which gives non-British nationals the right to vote in British elections and also extends to Irish nationals.
    Mr. Robert McCartney: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the Republic of Ireland deliberately removed itself from the Commonwealth and is an independent sovereign state. But for an accident of proximity, it would be entirely different from any other Commonwealth country.
    Mr. Corbyn: The words "accident" and "proximity" are a rather unusual description of Britain's involvement in Northern Ireland and Ireland over the past 800 years. Other countries, such as South Africa and Pakistan, have been removed or have removed themselves from the Commonwealth, but, despite that, their nationals kept the right to vote in British elections. When those countries later returned to the Commonwealth, their nationals still had that right. The logic for the Bill is therefore plain.
    The hon. and learned Member for North Down knows perfectly well that there is a free movement of people between Britain and Ireland and that passports are not necessarily required for travel to the Republic from Britain. He also knows that Irish people have civic rights in this country, as enshrined in the Ireland Act 1949 and subsequent legislation.
    Earlier, we discussed the European parallel. As Opposition Members see it, the idea of sovereignty in parliamentary elections is clearly at variance with European law. It is possible to be a candidate or a Member of the European Parliament representing a constituency in any member state. I would not recommend this but, as I said earlier, someone could be in the unusual position of representing an English constituency in the Westminster Parliament, be resident in Scotland—and therefore eligible to be a Member of the Scottish Parliament—and, as a European resident, stand in Finland for election to
    1168
    the European Parliament. That could mean a lot of travelling and lead to a complicated life, but it is legally possible. The idea that the Bill is an enormous step in the dark is nonsense, because it embodies the logic of what already goes on.
    Opposition Members say that if we pass the Bill, we will be seen to have thrown another bone to Sinn Fein and the republican movement. Some people see the Northern Ireland peace process as a matter of bones and carrots in which one gives a carrot to one party and throws a bone to the next. I am not sure what it is like to digest bones and carrots at the same time but I suppose it is possible, although very dangerous if one is a vegetarian animal.
    The disappointments that have recently been rewarded with the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000 have been noted throughout Northern Ireland. Many of us strongly supported the Patten proposals and hoped that they would be accepted in their entirety, but they were not. Likewise, the Army board's perverse decision to reinstate Guardsmen Fisher and Wright and not suspend them, despite their conviction for a dreadful killing, does not play well. Such things make it more difficult to persuade people that the peace process and the process of reconciliation are genuine, but it is important that we try to do that.
    The Good Friday agreement is the best hope around, and the Bill is part of that process. I hope that the House will reject Lords amendment No. 1, which would effectively eliminate the whole Bill. I agree with the Opposition spokesman that deleting clause 1 would destroy the Bill. We should recognise that the Bill is putting right an anomaly in the Northern Ireland Act 1998 and the process by which the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) was removed from office in 1982, following the loss of a case in which he was deemed to be a Member of Assemblies in two different countries.
    We are putting right a legal wrong and demonstrating that the peace process is working. We are demonstrating the value of the Good Friday agreement and recognising that the traditions of both communities in Northern Ireland and the island of Ireland are alive and well. I hope that the House rejects the Lords amendment and reinserts clause 1 into the Bill.
    Mr. Thompson: I am happy to speak in support of the Lords amendment, as I believe that clause 1 should be removed. When the Bill went to the other place, I am sure that their lordships were as surprised as us, and that they, too, asked, "What on earth is this Bill about?" The Bill is called the Disqualifications Bill, but that is a misnomer. It would have been better to call it a qualification Bill, as it seems to qualify members of Sinn Fein to be Members of the Dail, Members of Parliament and Members of the Northern Ireland Assembly. We, of course, were asking ourselves what it was all about. We then discovered that it was possible for members of a Parliament that belonged to the Commonwealth to be Members of the United Kingdom Parliament. I suspect that few Members of the House knew that that was possible. We were told that no one has ever taken advantage of that legislation, which must exist somewhere, although I have not yet discovered

    1169
    where. We were then presented with the idea that the right should be extended to citizens of the Republic of Ireland, so that they, too, could sit in this Parliament.
    I think that the Government have not been too happy about the Bill. First Reading occurred on 21 December 1999, the day on which the House rose for Christmas. That did not suggest that the Government were too keen to make the Bill known to anybody at that time. After long debate in Committee and on Third Reading, we all thought that the Bill had been buried and that we would never see it again. Every time the Government introduce a Bill on Northern Ireland, they always speak about the necessity for speed, say that everything must be done as quickly as possible and present the situation as an emergency. That argument was also used for this Bill. When it came to its passage, however, it took the Government 10 months to introduce the Bill in the House of Lords. We all thought that it had been buried and forgotten, but, lo and behold, it has re-emerged.
    Thankfully, the other place, in its wisdom, saw through the dangers and difficulties of the Bill and recommended the removal of clause 1. I support that proposal entirely, as it would kill the Bill. We all hope that it will be killed and buried, and that we will never see it again.
    When the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. O'Brien), introduced the Bill, it was clear that he was not too sure what it was about. Perhaps he does not fully understand its significance even now. I am not too sure that the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, who is currently present, is happy with it either. The uneasiness of his demeanour certainly seems to suggest that that is the case.
    When a Bill is put before the House, we must ask what evil it will remedy, what disadvantage it will remove and what fault it will correct. No one has suffered from any fault or disadvantage because the measures in the Bill were not in place.
    Mr. Corbyn: Before the hon. Gentleman exhausts himself and his arguments against the Bill, I have a question. Does he realise that if it is enacted, he will have the opportunity to stand for election as a Member of the Dail?
    Mr. Thompson: I assure the hon. Gentleman that I have no desire to sit in the Parliament of the Irish Republic. I am proud and happy to sit in this Parliament, and I have no desire to sit in the Parliament of a foreign country.
    When the Bill was presented to the House of Lords, their lordships immediately asked what it was about. They then asked who had asked for its introduction. It is absolutely clear that Sinn Fein is asking for the Bill, as it will benefit most from it. As we all know, Sinn Fein is to fight the next Dail election and hopes to secure Members in the Dail. It currently has one such Member, but more prominent party members might hope to win seats in the Dail at the next election, so that Sinn Fein will be able to say "We are now an all-Ireland party that represents both parts of Ireland." That is why the Bill has been introduced—to satisfy Sinn Fein and it alone.
    2.45 pm
    Mr. Beggs: Does my hon. Friend agree that there could be a further motive? By gaining even a few seats in the Dail, does not that small party hope to be the tail that wags the dog of whichever major party is in government?
    Mr. Thompson: I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. Of course, that is one of the aims of Sinn Fein. The proportional representation system of the Parliament of the Republic of Ireland means that there is always a close contest in which the small parties often control which party gets into government. Then, when they are in government with the party that takes power, they have a large say in what goes on. Sinn Fein therefore hopes that it will win enough seats at the next election for the Dail to enable it to decide which party goes into power and to be part of that Government. In such circumstances, it might even be possible for a Sinn Fein Minister to be included in the Government of the Republic of Ireland. That would build Sinn Fein up and help to give it an all-Ireland image, enabling it to boast that it is the only republican party that can have that role. Of course, that would be to its advantage.
    We must ask not only who wants the Bill—it is obviously Sinn Fein—but the next question, which has also been asked by their lordships. Who made the concession on the Bill? We have been trying to get the Government to tell us who asked for it and who conceded it. It has become fairly obvious that the Prime Minister conceded to Sinn Fein and gave it the Bill. It seems to be his baby, although I am not sure whether his view is reflected throughout the Government. It does not seem to be reflected among Labour Back Benchers, as very few of them turn up to defend the Bill. Indeed, I think that only one Back Bencher has so far been prepared to defend it. Perhaps the others will come to aid the Government in their difficulties.
    The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department and the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, who is currently on the Front Bench, might not be all that happy with the Bill, but they must listen to their master's voice and do what he says. That is why the measure has been brought back to the House and why the Government are attempting to redress the difficulties that they encountered in the House of Lords.
    Another aspect of the Bill has never been satisfactorily tackled. We were told that the Bill was intended to bring us into parity with the rest of the United Kingdom. When the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department introduced the Bill, he said:
    The Bill ends the prohibition against members of the Irish legislature—that is, of both the Dail and the Senate—being a member of any legislature in the United Kingdom. They will therefore be permitted to be Members of this House, the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Assembly and the Northern Ireland Assembly.—[Official Report, 24 January 2000; Vol. 343, c. 25.]
    As I understand it, the Bill allows members of the Dail and the Senate to sit in this House and in the Northern Ireland Assembly. However, I do not think that it enables Members of the Dail and the Senate to sit in the Scottish Parliament or the Welsh Assembly. When the Minister introduced the Bill, he said that that was the case, but I think that I am right in saying that the Bill does not produce that result. Perhaps the Under-Secretary will clarify that when he replies.

    1171
    The Bill was introduced more than a year ago, and even if we were to accept that it was relevant then and it was given as a sop to Sinn Fein and the IRA, during the past year events have shown that they should have no concessions at all. During the Bill's passage, the IRA has committed three murders, it has refused to fulfil its obligations under the Belfast agreement, and, more important, it has just said that it will not support the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000 or sit on the policing board and that it will actively encourage young nationalists not to support the new force.
    It is clear that Sinn Fein and the IRA demand concession after concession, but when they are given a concession they do not reciprocate. They simply forget their obligations and continue to ask for more concessions from the Government. Because of the nature of Sinn Fein-IRA, with their massive army, a massive number of weapons and their capability to wreak havoc not only in Northern Ireland but on the mainland, there is always the temptation for the Government to concede more and more to them in order to keep them quiet and prevent them from using their arms. That is always to the disadvantage of those of us who are democrats and who wish to move forward in a democratic fashion, rather than through the use of illegal weapons.
    I come now to how the Bill relates to the Commonwealth, the EU and America. We are told that the Bill was introduced because of our unique relationship with the Republic of Ireland. I am not sure that it has always been that good. We often have rows with the Irish Government and relations are frequently anything but good. At times they are cold and frosty. No one could say that the present relationship between the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and the Foreign Minister of the Republic of Ireland, Mr. Cowen, is all that warm. We are told by the press that it is most frosty. We do not always have an excellent relationship with the Republic of Ireland. But that is the reason given for the introduction of the Bill.
    If that were the case, surely we should extend the Bill to America, because the United Kingdom has a special relationship with America. We speak the same language. Many Americans originally came from the mainland and from Northern Ireland. If the republican movement was sincere, it would be asking for America to be included, because it has many friends in America. The American President has visited Northern Ireland twice during his eight-year term and he is coming back again, showing what a close relationship he has not only with Northern Ireland but with the rest of the United Kingdom. Surely if a special relationship exists between the Republic of Ireland and this Parliament, it would be logical, sensible and desirable to extend the measure to our friends in America, or those who were our citizens and friends years ago.
    We are all members now of the EU and we are told that there is a new relationship between the countries of Europe. If the extension is to be made to the people of the Republic of Ireland, why not to the other 13 members of the EU? Why cannot they sit in this Parliament as well? Is this not a case of discrimination? Of all the people of the EU, only one country has this tremendous privilege. Under human rights and the new relationship which is growing and which many wish eventually to emerge into a union of one state, surely we should be extending the advantage to other EU members.
    1172
    The truth of the matter is that the Bill is designed only to placate Sinn Fein and to enable its members to sit in the Dail and the Northern Ireland Assembly so that they can claim to be an all-Ireland party. Therefore, it is a sop to them. That is one very good reason for this Parliament to rejoice at the House of Lords rejection of the clause and to reject the Government's motion to disagree with their amendment.
    Mr. McNamara: It is always a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for West Tyrone (Mr. Thompson) because he has the unique ability to convince me that my Government are right. Sometimes in the past I have wondered about the course of action being taken by my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Treasury Bench, but on this occasion the hon. Gentleman has succeeded in convincing me that they are right.
    I, too, welcome the fact that the President of the United States will visit these islands again next month. We should all welcome that, not only because of the closeness of our ties with the United States and its support for the creation of the European rapid reaction force, but because of its special and significant role under President Clinton in helping the peace process in Northern Ireland. We should acknowledge the President's role in his appointment of Senator Mitchell, and his continuing interest in the peace process in Northern Ireland, which at times could not have proceeded without his stalwart support.
    The right hon. Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay) admitted that the loss of clause 1 would destroy the Bill, and that is true. But there was a certain lack of logic in what he said. In the Northern Ireland Act 1998 he agreed to allow members of the Irish Senate to be members of the Assembly. It seems that it is all right for people in the north to be members of the Irish Senate but not for people in the Republic to be members elsewhere. There is a certain lack of logic in the cause that he has advocated today.
    If the Bill were not enacted, section 36(5) of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 would not be repealed. We would still be left with the right of the Irish Government to appoint people to the Irish Senate, and for those people to be Members of the Northern Ireland Assembly, without any of the restrictions currently in clause 2.
    3 pm
    The original alteration under the 1998 Act was made specifically to facilitate an improvement of relations and to rectify a glaring wrong. My hon. Friend the Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) was appointed to the Irish Senate to give the people of the north a voice in the Oireachtas, but he then lost his seat in the then Assembly after a challenge by the Unionists. That bit of petty-mindedness was rectified by the 1998 Act. Had eminent people such as Senator Wilson of Enniskillen and John Robb, the distinguished surgeon, stood for election, such petty-mindedness would have prevented them from operating positively. John Robb was a great worker for reconciliation among the communities, as was Senator Wilson, who overcame a tremendous blight on his life as a result of the dreadful bombing in Enniskillen.
    Mr. Robert McCartney: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. McNamara: With respect, no. I gave an undertaking to try to be brief because I know that the

    1173
    hon. and learned Gentleman, the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) and the Government and Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen want to speak.
    The Bill is proper and right, and the Opposition appear to be standing on their heads in respect of previous legislation that they agreed to and passed and their approach to the Bill.
    Every speaker across the way on the Conservative Benches, in particular the right hon. Member for Bracknell, argued that the measure is somehow or other a concession to Sinn Fein. The largest nationalist party in Northern Ireland, which collects the most votes and has the most seats, is the Social Democratic and Labour party. It supports the provision up to the hilt. We often find that those Conservative Members disguise their reluctance to support a policy with which they once agreed—the implementation of the Good Friday agreement—by saying that the Bill is another sop to terrorists and Sinn Fein. The largest political party in the nationalist community agrees with the measure and at no time and in no circumstances has it in any way advocated violence. Indeed, it has suffered for that, having been attacked by both sides over its strong, persistent refusal to espouse or to have anything to do with violence. On the role of the SDLP, we should welcome the fact that the Government introduced the Bill.
    Mr. Gerald Howarth: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. McNamara: No, I will not, for reasons that I gave to the hon. and learned Member for North Down (Mr. McCartney).
    Mr. Thompsonrose—
    Mr. McNamara: No. I extend those reasons to the hon. Member for West Tyrone (Mr. Thompson). I resisted the temptation to intervene in his speech, so I can say with honesty that I did not make any interventions.
    It has been suggested that the Bill is a plot to make Sinn Fein an all-Ireland party. I hold no brief for Sinn Fein, but it is already an all-Ireland party. It already has representation in the Oireachtas and on the British-Irish Inter-Parliamentary Body. It will remain in those institutions, whether we pass the Bill or not. That will not affect its status or willingness to stand as a party in both parts of Ireland, which we know is its determination. Indeed, we know that the present coalition Government currently depend greatly for support on the four independent Members in Dail Eireann. Nothing new is being said.
    The proposal involves not a great extension or a sub-revolutionary issue, but a recognition of the unique relationship between the Republic of Ireland and the United Kingdom. It also denotes the Government's willingness to recognise the particular situation in which nationalists in the north find themselves and recognises that they have an aspiration and that they would cease to be able to express that aspiration if the Lords amendments were added to the Bill.
    When we have thrown out the Lords amendments, I hope that the other place will think very carefully about whether it is using its position down the Corridor to savage and undermine the Good Friday agreement and the peace process for its own petty political ambitions.
    Mr. Robert McCartney: Listening to the contributions of the hon. Members for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) and for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) made me wonder whether I live on a different planet.
    I have lived in Northern Ireland my entire life. I have worked intimately with both communities, and I have a reputation, which may seem strange to some, for being an entirely non-sectarian politician. That position has been endorsed publicly by at least two Taoisigh of the Irish Government.
    What is the purpose of the Bill and this particular timing? A fundamental of attacking the democratic process has been to use the institutions of democracy to destroy it. Friedrich Engels, the political associate of Marx, was a particular advocate of that approach—he said that people who wanted to bring down and subvert an institution or a Government should make use of the very provisions that endorse the democratic process. Sinn Fein has been a master of that art. It has been inextricably linked with one of the most deadly, brutal and callous terrorist organisations in Europe. That position has been endorsed by the Prime Minister and successive Secretaries of State. Those two groups are inextricably linked, which means that they can never be separated.
    When I consider the direction of, and progress in, the peace process, what do I see? I see the threat of physical violence, particularly to the mainland and the complex civilisation that great metropolitan areas offer. I see the targets that those areas offer. I see successive British Governments faced with the question of what to do in the face of a terrorist threat, which can be made good against our major cities.
    There are two approaches to that problem. The first is to follow the advice of Lord Palmerston and say that England—he thought of the United Kingdom as England—has no long-term friends and no long-term enemies, merely interests. At present, the interests of the British Government are best served by appeasing the IRA. Such a policy does not work in the face of terror. It did not work between 1936 and 1940, when exactly the same methodology and surrender to terrorism were employed.
    Another view—another tradition in British politics—was expressed by Lord Salisbury when he described surrender to the barbarians as a fatal vice that destroyed society and, indeed, turned an organised society into a mob of competing interests. That is exactly what that policy has done to Northern Ireland. It has turned what was an organised society into a mob of competing interests. The whole policy has encapsulated Salisbury's fatal vice.
    Have no doubt: by any criteria, members of the IRA, with which Sinn Fein is inextricably linked, are barbarians. One of their barbarous acts was referred to by the hon. Member for Hull, North when he talked about Enniskillen. He tried to invert the argument by saying that Gordon Wilson, whose daughter was killed in that atrocity, nevertheless accepted an Irish Taoiseach's offer to become a member of the Irish Senate. That is true, but who committed the barbarity of Enniskillen? The IRA, which the Prime Minister tells us is inextricably linked with the one political party likely to benefit most from these provisions.
    It could be logically argued—the hon. Member for Islington, North developed such an argument—that MEPs from Finland, Members of the Dail Eireann and Members

    1175
    of the Scottish Parliament could bifurcate, do many things and be in different places at once. Logically, that is possible, but in practice it is impossible. That is shown by the fact that membership of this House is available to people in Commonwealth countries, but no one has taken advantage of that process, which is perhaps nothing more than an historical anomaly.
    The situation in Northern Ireland is very different because of what I described as the accident of proximity. Ireland is proximate to the United Kingdom mainland, and has a physically contiguous border with part of the United Kingdom—Northern Ireland. The influx of citizens of the Republic is such that their numbers must be recognised. Indeed, that is one of the factors that people do not understand. Since the Republic of Ireland became an independent sovereign country outside the Commonwealth, more than 1 million of its citizens have thought it advisable to live, work and enjoy the benefits of the land of the Anglo-Saxon oppressor—the United Kingdom.
    3.15 pm
    The truth is that both the content and the timing of the Bill are entirely dictated by a process of appeasement and of encouraging Sinn Fein to live up to promises that it never fulfils. It shows the vacillating and cowardly nature of successive British Governments, who have decided to succumb to the fatal vice and appease the barbarians.
    We started off in 1993 with the Downing street declaration—the joint Government declaration—paragraph 10 of which was absolutely specific that any party that wished to participate in the democratic process of negotiations towards a settlement would first have to eschew violence permanently, and would have to demonstrate its total commitment to solely democratic means. Most democrats would say, "Fair do's. That's a basic principle of democracy," especially as there is no evidence from the democratic world of an Executive who claim to be democratic but who contain Ministers who are inextricably linked to an armed terrorist organisation. The reason why there is no example of that elsewhere in the world is that it goes to the very heart of the democratic process—it is the antithesis of the democratic process.
    What have British Governments done? They have moved from the position in paragraph 10 to a midway position. Under the so-called Washington 3 principle, they permitted Sinn Fein-IRA to take part in the negotiations if they showed an earnest of their good faith by handing over a tranche of their weaponry and bombs. In August 1995, the Northern Ireland Office issued a statement to the effect that to do otherwise would be undemocratic and unconstitutional. That was the first of a number of positions from which successive British Governments resiled, and they gave in to the fatal vice of appeasing the barbarians.
    The next step was to get Sinn Fein-IRA into the negotiations. Under the Government, they were allowed into the negotiations in July 1997 on the basis of a six-week ceasefire and the resumption of a ceasefire that had proved to be tactical, short-lived, totally cynical and broken at will with the Canary Wharf bomb.
    That was not the end of it, because after Sinn Fein-IRA were admitted into the negotiations, successive Secretaries of State told the people of Northern Ireland that the negotiations were on a twin track: one track would
    1176
    deliver a political settlement, and the other would deliver decommissioning. We were told that, in the end, we would have a political settlement on a democratic basis, with the fundamental and overriding requirement of democracy that all the parties to that democratic political settlement would be dedicated entirely to peaceful means, having abandoned their weaponry.
    Well, 10 April 1998 arrived and the parties signed the agreement, but the decommissioning train never even left the station. Not a single ounce of Semtex or a single bullet has yet been handed over. There again, democracy was to make a final contribution to appeasing the terrorists and exhibit the fatal vice.
    The agreement was a total fudge. People talk about the Belfast agreement or the Good Friday agreement as if it was some miracle of peace. In fact, it encapsulated the basic fiction of trading Sinn Fein and the IRA as two distinct and separate entities, which was always what Sinn Fein wanted. Why? Because it wanted to carry on Friedrich Engels's principle of using the institutions of democracy to destroy it, and it could do that only by giving Sinn Fein the image of a totally independent party that has nothing to do with the IRA, who were armed.
    The Bill is a further instalment of the fatal vice. In both its content and its timing, its purpose is to placate Sinn Fein-IRA, because they can deliver one thing that no one else can: destruction and death to the major cities of the United Kingdom, just as Hitler was able to do. In those days, Mr. Chamberlain and Lord Halifax followed the line of appeasement and gave in to the fatal vice. Only when a man appeared and adopted a policy that said, "We will pay no more ransom and we will stand up for what is right, democratic and honourable" were the United Kingdom and Europe saved from fascism.
    The IRA will not go away. It will continue to extract further and further ransoms.
    The House should consider this. In 1939, bombs were kept out of London because the Czechs were sacrificed. In this House the then Prime Minister, Neville Chamberlain, asked "What do we know of this faraway country?" He spoke of "this middle European country of which we know little." When it comes to the sacrifice of a foreign interest such as the Czechs, or the sacrifice of the loyal British subjects—the pro-Union subjects—of Northern Ireland, we perhaps find that both are expendable.
    One does not like to make it too evident. One does not do it in one fell swoop. One employs the gradualist principle. We are talking about slices of salami, and this is another slice: another derogation from the principle of democracy which states that terrorists and their political frontmen should never be placated. We should never, ever surrender to the fatal vice of appeasing the barbarians.
    Mr. Hogg: In view of the lateness of the hour, and because I know others wish to speak, I shall be brief. I shall confine myself to four points—no, five.
    I strongly support what was said by the hon. and learned Member for North Down (Mr. McCartney). He asked, rhetorically, what was the purpose of the Bill, and why it had been presented at this stage. I hope the Under-Secretary of State will forgive me if I say that I do not think that he advanced a good reason for the Bill's existence. He spoke—I listened to him carefully—of the warm relations between us and the Government of Ireland. There are such warm relations, and I am glad that

    1177
    there are; but that is in no sense a sufficient justification for what we are doing. We have warm relations with the Governments of all European Union countries, but we are not considering giving those countries the rights that we are minded to give the citizens of Ireland.
    I agree with the hon. and learned Member for North Down and others that this is part of a deal that has been struck with Sinn Fein. I find that a great obstacle to giving the Bill any further consideration, because I am extremely cautious about giving any concessions to Sinn Fein. I ask myself "Why should I?", and I cannot reach a sensible conclusion. Sinn Fein has been an apologist for murder for many years.
    Mr. MacKay: Come on, Dougie.
    Mr. Hogg: I am going to come on.
    Mr. MacKay: It is a question of time.
    Mr. Hogg: I am well aware of that, but, if my right hon. Friend will forgive me for a moment, I intend to make my points.
    I am not in favour of making any concessions to Sinn Fein, and I regard that as a serious objection to what we are doing. Sinn Fein has not made concessions to democracy, and I am not in favour of making concessions to Sinn Fein.
    That was my first point. My second is that there will be an inherent clash of loyalties. There is bound to be a division of loyalties between those who sit in the Dail and those who sit in this House. We need only look at the terms of the oath—they are in "Erskine May"; Members may wish to remind themselves of them—to see that they are incompatible with sitting in another legislature. [Interruption.]
    I wish my right hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay) would stop interrupting. He spoke at considerable length himself. [Interruption.]
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I called the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg), and he must be able to make his speech without interruption.
    Mr. Hogg: I am merely making my points, but I am being barracked by my own Front Bench, and I do not approve of it.
    Mr. MacKay: Oh dear, dear, dear.
    Mr. Hogg: My right hon. Friend may not like being barracked from behind, and I do not like being barracked from in front. It is discourteous, apart from anything else.
    I was talking about the clash of loyalties that will be inherent if a member of another legislature is allowed to sit in this House.
    Let me now make my third point, which relates to the Commonwealth. It is true that citizens of Commonwealth countries have long enjoyed the right that we are now minded to extend to citizens of Ireland, but, as the Under-Secretary of State rightly pointed out in an
    1178
    intervention, it has not been exercised within the last 100 years. I am bound to say that, if I had to consider giving such a right to a Commonwealth citizen, I would not do so. That is not to say that we should use parliamentary time to take the right away, but the precedent is not satisfactory, and I would not base an argument on it.
    My fourth point is this. If we are to grant the right to citizens of the Republic, I see no distinction between that and granting it to a citizen of any European Union country. I would rather take the route of reciprocity by giving the right to all citizens of all European Union countries than give a distinctive right to citizens of the Republic.
    That brings me to my last point—which I would have reached even sooner had I been given time by my right hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield.
    Mr. MacKay: Bracknell!
    Mr. Hogg: I mean my right hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell.
    My last point relates to the lack of reciprocity. A franchise generally implies the existence of reciprocal rights, but there are no effective reciprocal rights in the case of Ireland, because membership of the Dail is confined to citizens of Ireland. I think that a perfectly sensible requirement, but I do not see why we should give rights to the citizens of Ireland unless there is proper reciprocity between its citizens and the legislature here in Westminster.
    Mr. John M. Taylor: First, as the Minister said at the outset, without clause 1, the Bill is meaningless; secondly, the whole discussion has nothing to do with the Good Friday agreement; and, thirdly, it was bogus from the outset to claim that the need for the Bill was ever urgent. We have had since 1949 to do something; moreover, the issue unaccountably disappeared for 10 months.
    The parallels with the Commonwealth are no longer of any relevance, because no one has come here from a Commonwealth Parliament in the past 100 years. Moreover, no discernible party has any beneficial interest except Sinn Fein, whose interest is destabilising as far as Northern Ireland and the United Kingdom as a whole are concerned.
    In another place, Lord Cope summarised the arguments with the greatest possible cogency and coherence. Had I been given a little longer, I might have quoted some extracts from what he had to say; but as I have not, I simply commend his remarks to the House.
    The hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross) reminded us that, once upon a time—for that matter, it is still technically the case—Members here could be elected for more than one constituency. Of course, they always had to disclaim one. The hon. Gentleman also asked a question, which I also ask: what reciprocation will there be for the Government's largesse? The answer is none. Could we sit in the Dail? No.
    I can bring personal experience to the arguments about the European Parliament. I had a dual mandate for 12 months between 1983 and 1984, but in both places my loyalty was to the United Kingdom and in particular to the English midlands, and in only one Parliament did I swear an oath.

    1179
    I thought the speech of the hon. Member for East Londonderry was splendid, in that he agreed with me, not least about who the two beneficiaries were.
    Mr. Corbyn: Is that why it was a splendid speech?
    Mr. Taylor: I was not deliberately paying myself a compliment. I lack the vanity for that.
    I enjoyed the entertaining speech of the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik), who, I am led to believe, recently appeared even more entertainingly on television. He described his assessment of the Bill as "a judgment call". I think that that is a type of Liberal Democrat post-modernism, to be contrasted with the stern reminder about consequences from the hon. Member for East Londonderry.
    3.30 pm
    My hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) gave us a very valuable, if disturbing insight into the Committee's consideration of the Bill. He also drew on yesterday's speech by the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond).
    My hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot also unburdened himself powerfully on the subject of the Saville inquiry. I shall not follow him down that road.
    An article of good faith and a convention of the House is that, if an hon. Member inadvertently misleads another Member or other Members, he or she will put it right at the first opportunity. In his admirable speech, my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot was asked by the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire if a "Conservative Government would repeal". Thinking that the hon. Gentleman was referring to this Bill, I nodded. However, when he completed his question, I realised that he was referring to Commonwealth entitlement. Had I known that, I would not have nodded.
    Although the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) was predictable, he was—to give him his due—consistent.
    The hon. Member for West Tyrone (Mr. Thompson) felt that the Bill would be better described as a qualifications Bill. He also spoke of the missing 10 months in the life of the Bill.
    The hon. Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) claimed that he was reassured if he found himself at odds with the hon. Member for West Tyrone. I can reciprocate that sentiment in favour of him.
    The hon. and learned Member for North Down (Mr. McCartney), by contrast, gave us an authentic Northern Ireland view, as well as a quote from Palmerston. For good measure, he also gave us a quote from Salisbury.
    I have personally done my best, in rather difficult circumstances, to repair the winding-up speech convention between Front Benchers. I hope that the Minister will take that as a gesture of good faith on my part, which I do not extend to the legislation.
    Mr. George Howarth: The good faith and generosity of the hon. Member for Solihull (Mr. Taylor) is always taken as read by Labour Members, and certainly by me. I would not in any way malign him for his speech.
    1180
    I shall try to address some of the issues that have been raised in this quite good and interesting debate. When people have had legitimate concerns, they have expressed them.
    The hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross), among other hon. Members, asked who wants the Bill. The Government want the Bill, or we would not have proposed it. However, that is not the whole story, because the Bill is worth while in its own terms. I have already given the reasons why I believe that, and I do not want to detain the House by repeating them, but there are compelling and persuasive reasons why the Bill should be passed.
    Not only is the Bill supported by Sinn Fein, but it has been welcomed by people in the nationalist community in Northern Ireland—including members of the nationalist public who want the democratic principle to be widened and improved, and members of other political parties, notably the Social Democratic and Labour party. I admit that—for whatever reasons, although I am sure that they are good ones—SDLP Members are not here to express that support in person. However, I have had discussions with the Deputy First Minister, the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon), and with the hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady), and they have continuously reassured me that they very much support the Bill.
    Two other parties represented in the Assembly—the Northern Ireland Women's Coalition and the Alliance party—have expressed their support for the Bill. Although I do not pretend that their support for the Bill has always been ringing, they understand some of the precedents and compelling reasons behind it.
    Last but not least, the Bill has been welcomed by the Irish Government. Because we are on such warm terms with the Irish Government, I believe that it is important that we continue that understanding. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for West Tyrone (Mr. Thompson) doubts those warm terms. I do not know what relationship he has with the Irish Government, but he should not confuse his feelings for them with the Government's relations with them.
    The issue of reciprocity has been raised. An equivalent to the Disqualifications Bill does not exist in Irish law, which does not prevent someone from sitting in both the Irish and British legislatures. However, as has rightly been said, nationality is one criterion determining eligibility to stand for the Dail Eireann. Anyone with Irish nationality can stand for the Dail.
    Although I am sure that the hon. and learned Member for North Down (Mr. McCartney) would not want to take Irish nationality, it is available to him. For all I know, he may have taken it—although I suspect not.
    Mr. Robert McCartney indicated dissent.
    Mr. Howarth: Nevertheless, it is open to any member of the community in Northern Ireland to take Irish nationality. Indeed, as the House has expressed such enthusiasm for the principle of reciprocity, through the channels available to us, I shall make it clear to the Irish Government that there seems to be enthusiastic support for a different approach to nationality.
    Mr. Thompson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Howarth: No; I do not have time. The hon. Gentleman will forgive me, but he himself spoke at great length, and I have very little time.
    I should like to make one other point on the SDLP, the wider nationalist community and other supporters of the Bill, and to make it directly to the right hon. Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay). I do not think that he intended to be in any way discourteous to any of those parties. I know that, as a supporter of the Good Friday agreement—although he has some reservations about some aspects of it—he has respect for the parties that support the agreement. However, in saying that the Bill exists only to appease Sinn Fein and the IRA, the right hon. Gentleman could—I am sure inadvertently—give offence to the other parties in Northern Ireland that support the Bill.
    I know that the right hon. Gentleman would not wish to give offence to the SDLP, which supports the Bill, or to the Alliance party. Although the Alliance party has some reservations about the principles involved, it supports the Bill. I am sure that the right hon Gentleman would not wish to give offence to the Northern Ireland Women's Coalition, which in very specific terms has supported the Bill. Of course he would also not wish to give offence to the Irish Government, who have welcomed the Bill. Therefore, to say that the Bill is purely about appeasing Sinn Fein and the IRA is to be unfair to the other parties that have supported it.
    I believe that what we are trying to do is to further the warm and close relationships that we have with the Republic of Ireland. I hope that the House will recognise that, and that hon. Members will support us in rejecting the Lords amendment. I also hope that the House of Lords will recognise that another large majority in this place in favour of clause 1 is a very heavy hint about our precise feelings about it.
    Question put, That this House disagrees with the Lords in the said amendment:—
    The House divided: Ayes 338, Noes 129.

    Division No. 366]

    [3.40 pm

    AYES

    Ainger, Nick

    Benton, Joe

    Alexander, Douglas

    Berry, Roger

    Allan, Richard

    Best, Harold

    Allen, Graham

    Betts, Clive

    Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

    Blackman, Liz

    Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

    Blears, Ms Hazel

    Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

    Blizzard, Bob

    Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

    Borrow, David

    Atherton, Ms Candy

    Bradley, Keith (Withington)

    Atkins, Charlotte

    Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

    Austin, John

    Bradshaw, Ben

    Bailey, Adrian

    Brake, Tom

    Banks, Tony

    Breed, Colin

    Barnes, Harry

    Brinton, Mrs Helen

    Barron, Kevin

    Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

    Battle, John

    Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

    Bayley, Hugh

    Browne, Desmond

    Beard, Nigel

    Buck, Ms Karen

    Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

    Butler, Mrs Christine

    Begg, Miss Anne

    Byers, Rt Hon Stephen

    Bell, Martin (Tatton)

    Caborn, Rt Hon Richard

    Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

    Campbell, Mrs Anne (C?bridge)

    Bennett, Andrew F

    Campbell-Savours, Dale

    1182

    Caplin, Ivor

    Grocott, Bruce

    Casale, Roger

    Grogan, John

    Caton, Martin

    Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

    Cawsey, Ian

    Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

    Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

    Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

    Chaytor, David

    Hanson, David

    Chidgey, David

    Healey, John

    Clapham, Michael

    Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

    Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

    Hendrick, Mark

    Clark, Dr Lynda

    Hepburn, Stephen

    (Edinburgh Pentlands)

    Heppell, John

    Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

    Hewitt, Ms Patricia

    Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

    Hill, Keith

    Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

    Hinchliffe, David

    Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

    Hodge, Ms Margaret

    Clelland, David

    Hood, Jimmy

    Clwyd, Ann

    Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

    Coaker, Vernon

    Hope, Phil

    Coffey, Ms Ann

    Hopkins, Kelvin

    Coleman, Iain

    Howarth, Rt Hon Alan (Newport E)

    Colman, Tony

    Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

    Connarty, Michael

    Hoyle, Lindsay

    Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

    Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

    Cooper, Yvette

    Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

    Corbyn, Jeremy

    Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

    Corston, Jean

    Humble, Mrs Joan

    Cotter, Brian

    Hurst, Alan

    Cousins, Jim

    Hutton, John

    Cox, Tom

    Iddon, Dr Brian

    Cranston, Ross

    Illsley, Eric

    Crausby, David

    Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

    Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

    Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

    Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

    Jamieson, David

    Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

    Jenkins, Brian

    Dalyell, Tam

    Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

    Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

    Johnson, Miss Melanie

    Darvill, Keith

    (Welwyn Hatfield)

    Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

    Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)

    Davidson, Ian

    Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

    Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

    Jones, Ms Jenny

    Dean, Mrs Janet

    (Wolverh'ton SW)

    Denham, John

    Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

    Dismore, Andrew

    Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

    Dobbin, Jim

    Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa

    Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

    Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

    Donohoe, Brian H

    Keeble, Ms Sally

    Dowd, Jim

    Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

    Drown, Ms Julia

    Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

    Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

    Kelly, Ms Ruth

    Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

    Kemp, Fraser

    Edwards, Huw

    Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

    Efford, Clive

    Khabra, Piara S

    Ellman, Mrs Louise

    Kidney, David

    Ennis, Jeff

    Kilfoyle, Peter

    Fitzpatrick, Jim

    King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

    Flint, Caroline

    King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

    Flynn, Paul

    Kumar, Dr Ashok

    Foster, Rt Hon Derek

    Lammy, David

    Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

    Laxton, Bob

    Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

    Lepper, David

    Galloway, George

    Levitt, Tom

    Gapes, Mike

    Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

    Gardiner, Barry

    Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

    George, Andrew (St Ives)

    Linton, Martin

    George, Bruce (Walsall S)

    Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

    Gerrard, Neil

    Love, Andrew

    Gibson, Dr Ian

    McAvoy, Thomas

    Gilroy, Mrs Linda

    McCabe, Steve

    Godman, Dr Norman A

    McCafferty, Ms Chris

    Godsiff, Roger

    McDonagh, Siobhain

    Goggins, Paul

    Macdonald, Calum

    Golding, Mrs Llin

    McDonnell, John

    Gordon, Mrs Eileen

    McFall, John

    Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

    McIsaac, Shona

    Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

    McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

    Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

    McNamara, Kevin

    1183

    McNulty, Tony

    Sarwar, Mohammad

    Mactaggart, Fiona

    Savidge, Malcolm

    McWalter, Tony

    Sawford, Phil

    McWilliam, John

    Sedgemore, Brian

    Mahon, Mrs Alice

    Shaw, Jonathan

    Mallaber, Judy

    Sheerman, Barry

    Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter

    Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

    Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

    Shipley, Ms Debra

    Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

    Short, Rt Hon Clare

    Martlew, Eric

    Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

    Maxton, John

    Singh, Marsha

    Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

    Skinner, Dennis

    Merron, Gillian

    Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

    Michael, Rt Hon Alun

    Smith, Angela (Basildon)

    Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

    Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

    Miller, Andrew

    Smith, Miss Geraldine

    Mitchell, Austin

    (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

    Moffatt, Laura

    Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

    Moonie, Dr Lewis

    Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

    Moran, Ms Margaret

    Snape, Peter

    Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)

    Soley, Clive

    Morley, Elliot

    Southworth, Ms Helen

    Morris, Rt Hon Sir John

    Spellar, John

    (Aberavon)

    Squire, Ms Rachel

    Mountford, Kali

    Starkey, Dr Phyllis

    Mullin, Chris

    Steinberg, Gerry

    Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

    Stevenson, George

    Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

    Stewart, David (Inverness E)

    Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

    Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

    Naysmith, Dr Doug

    Stoate, Dr Howard

    Norris, Dan

    Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

    O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

    Stringer, Graham

    O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

    Stuart, Ms Gisela

    O'Hara, Eddie

    Stunell, Andrew

    Olner, Bill

    Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann

    O'Neill, Martin

    (Dewsbury)

    Öpik, Lembit

    Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

    Organ, Mrs Diana

    Taylor, David (NW Leics)

    Osborne, Ms Sandra

    Temple-Morris, Peter

    Palmer, Dr Nick

    Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

    Pearson, Ian

    Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

    Perham, Ms Linda

    Timms, Stephen

    Pickthall, Colin

    Tipping, Paddy

    Pike, Peter L

    Todd, Mark

    Plaskitt, James

    Touhig, Don

    Pollard, Kerry

    Trickett, Jon

    Pond, Chris

    Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

    Pope, Greg

    Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

    Pound, Stephen

    Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

    Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

    Turner, Neil (Wigan)

    Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

    Twigg, Derek (Halton)

    Prescott, Rt Hon John

    Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

    Primarolo, Dawn

    Prosser, Gwyn

    Tyler paul

    Purchase, Ken

    Tynan, Bill

    Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce

    Vis Dr Rudi

    Quinn, Lawrie

    Walley, Ms Joan

    Radice, Rt Hon Giles

    Ward, Ms Claire

    Rapson, Syd

    Wareing, Robert N

    Raynsford, Nick

    Watts, David

    Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

    Webb, Steve

    Rendel, David

    White, Brian

    Robertson, John

    Whitehead, Dr Alan

    (Glasgow Anniesland)

    Wicks, Malcolm

    Roche, Mrs Barbara

    Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

    Rogers, Allan

    Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

    Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff

    Winnick, David

    Rooney, Terry

    Woolas, Phil

    Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

    Worthington, Tony

    Rowlands, Ted

    Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

    Roy, Frank

    Wright, Tony (Cannock)

    Ruddock, Joan

    Wyatt, Derek

    Russell, Bob (Colchester)

    Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Ryan, Ms Joan

    Mr. Robert Ainsworth and

    Salter, Martin

    Mrs. Anne McGuire.

    1184

    NOES

    Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

    Lait, Mrs Jacqui

    Amess, David

    Leigh, Edward

    Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

    Letwin, Oliver

    Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

    Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

    Baldry, Tony

    Lidington, David

    Beggs, Roy

    Luff, Peter

    Beresford, Sir Paul

    Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

    Body, Sir Richard

    McCartney, Robert (N Down)

    Boswell, Tim

    MacGregor, Rt Hon John

    Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

    McIntosh, Miss Anne

    Brady, Graham

    MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

    Brazier, Julian

    Maclean, Rt Hon David

    Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

    McLoughlin, Patrick

    Browning, Mrs Angela

    Madel, Sir David

    Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

    Maples, John

    Burns, Simon

    May, Mrs Theresa

    Butterfill, John

    Moss, Malcolm

    Cash, William

    Norman, Archie

    Chapman, Sir Sydney

    O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

    (Chipping Barnet)

    Ottaway, Richard

    Chope, Christopher

    Page, Richard

    Clappison, James

    Paice, James

    Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)

    Pickles, Eric

    Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth

    Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

    (Rushcliffe)

    Prior, David

    Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

    Redwood, Rt Hon John

    Collins, Tim

    Robathan, Andrew

    Cormack, Sir Patrick

    Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

    Cran, James

    Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

    Curry, Rt Hon David

    Ross, William (E Lond'y)

    Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

    Ruffley, David

    Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

    St Aubyn, Nick

    Day, Stephen

    Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

    Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

    Shepherd, Richard

    Evans, Nigel

    Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

    Faber, David

    Soames, Nicholas

    Fabricant, Michael

    Spelman, Mrs Caroline

    Fallon, Michael

    Spicer, Sir Michael

    Flight, Howard

    Spring, Richard

    Forth, Rt Hon Eric

    Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

    Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

    Steen, Anthony

    Fox, Dr Liam

    Streeter, Gary

    Fraser, Christopher

    Swayne, Desmond

    Gale, Roger

    Syms, Robert

    Garnier, Edward

    Tapsell, Sir Peter

    Gibb, Nick

    Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

    Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

    Taylor, Rt Hon John D (Strangford)

    Gorman, Mrs Teresa

    Taylor, John M (Solihull)

    Gray, James

    Taylor, Sir Teddy

    Green, Damian

    Thompson, William

    Grieve, Dominic

    Townend, John

    Gummer, Rt Hon John

    Tredinnick, David

    Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

    Trend, Michael

    Hammond, Philip

    Tyrie, Andrew

    Hawkins, Nick

    Walter, Robert

    Heald, Oliver

    Waterson, Nigel

    Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

    Wells, Bowen

    Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

    Whittingdale, John

    Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

    Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

    Horam, John

    Wilkinson, John

    Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

    Willetts, David

    Hunter, Andrew

    Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

    Jack, Rt Hon Michael

    Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

    Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

    Young, Rt Hon Sir George

    Key, Robert

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Kirkbride, Miss Julie

    Mr. John Randall and

    Laing, Mrs Eleanor

    Mr. Peter Atkinson.

    Question accordingly agreed to.
    Lords amendment disagreed to.
    It being more than three hours after commencement of proceedings, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER put the remaining Questions required to be put at that hour, pursuant to Order [29 November].
    Lords amendments Nos. 2 to 9 agreed to.
    Committee appointed to draw up Reasons to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing to their amendment No. 1: Mr. James Cran, Mr. Jim Dowd, Mr. George Howarth, Mr. Tom Levitt and Mr. John M. Taylor to be members of the Committee; Mr. George Howarth to be the Chairman of the Committee; Three to be the quorum of the Committee.—[Mr. Dowd.]
    To withdraw immediately.
    Reasons for disagreeing to Lords amendment No. 1 reported and agreed to; to be communicated to the Lords.

    Clause 1
      AMENDMENT OF SECTION 1(1)(E) OF THE DISQUALIFICATION ACTS
      Lords amendment: No. 1, Leave out Clause 1
Criminal Justice and Court Services Bill
Lords amendments in lieu of certain Lords amendments to which the Commons have disagreed, considered.
Criminal Justice and Court Services Bill

  Schedule 1
  3.54 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Mike O'Brien): I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in their amendment in lieu of Lords amendment No. 121.
  The amendment requires selection panels to be set up in respect of all appointments made to local probation boards by the Secretary of State after the National Probation Service comes into effect. It further requires that the board be represented on any selection panel making a final recommendation about the appointment of the chief officer.
  On consideration of Lords amendments, the House rightly disagreed to an amendment that would have made local probation boards responsible for the appointment of chief probation officers. Our view is that such appointments should be made by the Secretary of State. We regard this as one of the essential elements in the creation of a truly national service that is well equipped to reduce reoffending and to protect the public.
  To ensure that the National Probation Service is ready to come into being on 1 April 2001, we have undertaken preparatory work and set up arrangements for the appointment of chief officers. We have ensured that a local representative, usually the chairman designate of the board, will be included as a member of the selection panel. That is important in order to ensure adequate local input into the selection decision.
  On further consideration in another place, the Government's proposals were agreed, subject to the amendment now before us. This ensures that the procedure of securing local involvement in selection that the Government have begun will continue into the new service.
  I commend the amendment to the House.
  Mr. Nick Hawkins: My right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) has suggested in debates on the Government's earlier versions of clauses relating to this issue that, although there may be some merit in the principle of chief officers of probation boards being appointed centrally—and we recognise that the Government have now, in national guillotine week, been forced to make further concessions—our colleagues in

  1187
  another place raised legitimate concerns about the proposal. In particular, the question was raised as to where the balance of responsibility should lie when a chief officer is centrally appointed. For example, if someone serving a probation order were injured during their detention in a probation hostel, who would be liable?
  In my previous professional career, as well as in my parliamentary career, I have dealt with the legal side of those sentenced to probation orders. I am well aware that the questions of legal responsibility and liability are exceptionally important. Conservative Members are not convinced that the Government have addressed those concerns fully in the last-minute concession and revision that they have been forced to make. The amendment deals only with an alteration in the process of appointing the chief officer, and not with the substantive point about which my noble Friend Baroness Blatch spoke in another place two days ago.
  There is little precedent for the method of appointing chief officers that the Government have now chosen. Chief constables and chief executives of national health service trusts are not appointed centrally. We have pointed out on many occasions when dealing with the Bill that the Secretary of State is proposing to give himself great powers. That is another example of the Government behaving like control freaks. It is recognised inside and beyond this place that this is a control-freak Government. The Home Secretary has undoubtedly arrogated to himself huge powers in the Bill. As it stood, the clause allowing the chief officer to be appointed directly by the Home Secretary was just another in a long line of powers that the Home Secretary was taking to himself in the Bill.
  The overall power remains. The Government made a last-minute concession after the proposals were severely mauled in another place, and it is possible that it might be a way out of the problem that the Government have set for themselves. The Home Secretary has acknowledged in the House on a previous occasion that there is a tension.
  We recognise that the Home Secretary has given assurances about the lines of accountability. We welcome the fact that the Government have been forced to make a concession and that they have agreed to address the concerns raised by Baroness Blatch and other Conservative peers in another place.
  4 pm
  We also welcome the fact that at least this section of the Bill has been allowed a further debate in national guillotine week—a week in which proper debates have been rare. For example, earlier this week, when we were considering a major piece of legislation, only two groups of amendments out of the nine listed were debated at all, and many matters on which we wished to divide the House were never even reached.
  Although we feel that the Government have been right to make some concessions, concerns remain. Some of my right hon. and hon. Friends may take the opportunity of this debate to raise their continuing concerns about the powers of the Home Secretary.
  Mr. Simon Hughes: The amendment that has come back to us is not what my colleagues and I wanted. We supported the position of the Lords on the previous round, when they insisted that the chief probation officer should be appointed by the board and then
  1188
  approved by the Secretary of State, rather than the other way round. Just for the record, the matter went back to the Lords once the Government had reversed their decision last time. The Government were nearly defeated again in a vote—their majority was only 12 earlier this week when the Bill was back at the other end of the building.
  This is still a hotly contested matter. As the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) made it clear, it relates to the question whether we have more central or more devolved control. I shall not rehearse the arguments of my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Jackie Ballard) in our previous debate in this place. However, when she put the case for more local control and the Secretary of State started to put the contrary case, he soon became aware that his case was not borne out by the facts, which he was good enough to admit.
  There are no universal parallels—such people are not always appointed centrally. Chairs of school governors, head teachers, chairs of governing bodies of colleges, chancellors of universities, chief executives of health authorities—a particularly good parallel example—and of health trusts are all appointed locally. There is a process, of course, and the appointments depend on what system applies. However, there is no universal rule.
  We preferred the alternative proposal. However, we had to decide whether to go up and down the Corridor for another 24 hours or whether to accept an amendment that is a compromise—albeit a compromise in the right direction—and, if so, whether to amend it further. This amendment is better than nothing, but it is only a compromise position. It does two things: it provides for a selection panel process and for board representation in the selection process by the Secretary of State.
  We have had a big general debate this parliamentary year about the future of the probation and prison services, and the interlinking inspectorates of both. However, we have not seen established the sort of continuous review process that would be beneficial to politicians and to professionals, would depoliticise these issues slightly and would regularly allow a proper appraisal of the good functioning of the services. I have argued before for a standing conference on the police so that there could be regular appraisal of what we need to do to reform the police service. My colleagues and I strongly believe that that would be very appropriate at present in relation to the prison and probation services.
  I have one other timetabling comment. It is a sign of the year that we have had that on what is—or may be—the last day of the parliamentary year, we are considering the third Home Office Bill to have come to the House this day. This week, we have dealt with five Home Office Bills, some of which are still to complete all their stages. We had the Freedom of Information Bill on Monday; the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Bill yesterday; the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Bill; the Disqualifications Bill; and now we are debating the Criminal Justice and Court Services Bill.
  I am not against legislation when it is necessary. I am not even against having 12 Home Office Bills in a year, if necessary. However, like the Minister, I will not be unhappy if the Queen's Speech contains a smaller number. If, as the press reports say, we get no more

  1189
  than six, we will be pleased. If the Government manage to consolidate the six into three—which looks as though it might be possible—we would be even happier, as would Parliament.
  I repeat that I am not against legislation where it is necessary, but we should learn the lesson that it is not good to legislate on the hoof. I share the view of the hon. Member for Surrey Heath that although today, as it happens, we do not have a guillotine on this Bill, we had a guillotine on the Disqualifications Bill. We had a severe guillotine on the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Bill yesterday and another severe guillotine on the Freedom of Information Bill on Monday. Even if we discount extended contributions—not necessarily all central to the point, although all in order—we must, as a Parliament, be able to do our job better than we can by preventing discussion of many matters and rushing discussion of a load of legislation through at the end of the parliamentary year.
  We shall not object further. Given that the amendment is a compromise rather than an absolute refusal, we are prepared to accept it, although it would certainly not be our first option.
  Mr. Eric Forth: The Minister gave the lie to the difficulties that seem to face everyone who has participated so far in the debate by reminding the House that we are dealing with appointments by the Secretary of State. When the Minister spoke of a truly national service, but with adequate local input, he summarised very well the dilemma that comes through clearly in the schedule with which we are dealing and the amendment that we are considering.
  To make sense of the amendment, which refers to paragraph (2)4 of schedule 1, we have to look at the way in which the schedule is structured and so put the amendment into context. Schedule 1 deals with local boards. They are to
  consist of a chairman, a chief officer and not less than five other members.
  It is worth reminding ourselves that one of the members is to be appointed by the Lord Chancellor from among judges of the Crown court. That is all specific and straightforward enough, and would reinforce the national element of the Minister's desire. Then—here is the key to the matter—paragraph 2(3) states:
  The chairman, the chief officer and the other members are to be appointed by the Secretary of State.
  So far so good, one would have thought. Quite a key point is made in paragraph 2(4), which states:
  Regulations may make provision as to their appointment…
  This is only a permissive provision; it is not prescriptive to say that regulations "may" make provision as to their appointment. I suppose—unless the Minister tells me otherwise—that it would be perfectly possible under the schedule, certainly in theory, for the Secretary of State to appoint the board members anyway.
  Amendment No. 121 says that the regulations made under section 4 "must make provision". However, as paragraph 2(4) of schedule 1 refers only to "may", there
  1190
  is a provisionality here—if that is a word—of which we must be aware. The Minister is looking puzzled, and I am open to correction.
  Mr. Mike O'Brien: I am not quite sure whether the right hon. Gentleman has read the provision properly or whether I have misunderstood his point. Is he suggesting that the Secretary of State may appoint the persons whom others, such as the Lord Chancellor, are appointing, or is he simply referring to the tenure? Paragraph 3(4) of schedule 1 states:
  Regulations may make provision as to the tenure of office of the members (including the circumstances in which they cease to hold office or may be removed or suspended from office).
  Mr. Forth: I am grateful to the Minister, but I am looking at schedule 1(2)(4), which states:
  Regulations may make provision as to the appointment (including the number, or limits on the number, of members who may be appointed
  and so forth. The Lords amendment enhances or elaborates on that provision. As the words used in the schedule are "may make provision," the Lords amendment may never come into effect. The primary regulations may not be made. I put down that marker, which is worth bearing in mind.
  We are talking about the procedure whereby most of the members of the board are to be appointed. We know that one will certainly be appointed by the Lord Chancellor, who can only appoint a Crown court judge. That much we know.
  The schedule states:
  Regulations may make provision as to their appointment
  and continues, helpfully, with the words "including the number". That raises some interesting questions about the sort of number that the Minister may have in mind—or the limits on the number. The schedule continues with the words:
  and any conditions to be fulfilled for appointment as a member,
  which is an important provision. It suggests that the whole matter could be severely prescribed by regulations, thus limiting the options that may be open.
  The amendment reads:
  Regulations made by virtue of sub-paragraph (4) and coming into force on or after the coming into force of section 4 must make provision—
  (a) for the selection procedure for the chairman, the chief officer and other members of the hoard who are to be appointed by the Secretary of State to include selection panels.
  Mr. James Clappison: Before my right hon. Friend moves on to the role of selection panels, which I apprehend will be his next point, does he share my curiosity about the appointment by the Lord Chancellor of the Crown court judge to the board? I do not dispute the appointment, but why is it to be a Crown court judge and not a member of the lay magistracy? Magistrates have far more experience of dealing with the probation service and see more of its workings than Crown court judges.
  Mr. Forth: I have an eye on you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, as I suspect you may be on the point of telling me that that question is not strictly germane to the amendment.

  1191
  I am always loth to run foul of you, sir, so I will decline to answer my hon. Friend directly for the moment. I may return to his question.
  A sequence of procedures is being built up that I assume is supposed to be helpful. Although the regulations only "may" be made, they must make provision if they are made. In the amendment, we have an apparently helpful addition to the requirement for the selection procedure for the chairman, chief officer and other members of the board, which is, "to include selection panels".
  Who will appoint the panels? From my experience, what is often supposed to be a reassurance in such cases is not. If one were cynical—those who know me know that that could never be said of me—one might say that the provision amounts to additional bureaucracy, not to say obfuscation. I will not argue that case. For the moment at least, I will accept the Minister's argument at face value. We are supposed to assume that including selection panels in the process is designed to be helpful and positive, but it gives rise to the question, "Who will select the panels?"
  I assume that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will agree that that is a very old question in politics. It is all very well trying to establish a mechanism that looks bland, neutral, innocuous or helpful, but one must look behind that. I am supposed to be reassured by the selection panel, which will play a key role in the appointment of the chairman, the chief officer and other members of the board. Who will appoint that panel? I bet I know the answer before the Minister gives it. I would not mind betting that it is the Secretary of State.
  Mr. Mike O'Brien indicated assent.
  4.15 pm
  Mr. Forth: The Minister indicates that I am right. That is not due to any great perspicacity on my part. I just know these things because it is the way the world works, and it is certainly the way this Government work. The Minister is trying to persuade us that selection panels are a good thing, but he will be the one to appoint them—technically it will be the Secretary of State, but in reality it will probably be the Minister
  Mr. Hawkins: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the question that he has raised goes back almost to classical times? It concerns the powers of Government and who really guards the guards—quis custodiet again. That issue is particularly relevant for this Government, above all, because they always want to take more power into their hands.
  Mr. Forth: I am afraid that that appears to be the case. In deciding who will be on the panel, it is inevitable that a degree of influence—not to say control—will come into the process.
  For example, will the Lord Chancellor be consulted by the Secretary of State about the formation of the panel? In that case, the Lord Chancellor will have double the influence. He is already to appoint one member directly. He may even be allowed to appoint members of the panel. It could go as far as that. One immediately sees the difficulty that arises.
  Mr. Hawkins: As my right hon. Friend will know, I have a particular interest in what the Lord Chancellor
  1192
  may or may not do, as I shadow the Lord Chancellor's Department. Would my right hon. Friend be interested to know that the Lord Chancellor might be consulted behind the scenes, informally. My hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) asked whether the appointments should be circuit judges or lay magistrates. It is worrying that it is not clear whether the consultations will be happening behind the scenes, with rumours and messages between Ministers. We want such decisions to be open and transparent, not the result of control freakery, on which, sadly, the Government seem to be bent.
  Mr. Forth: I am afraid that I agree that that is the case. I will deal with the relationship between sub-paragraph (4), the amendment and sub-paragraph (5). Of course, the latter states:
  Regulations must provide, so far as it is practicable to do so, for the persons appointed to be representative of the local community in the board's area.
  I mention that in the context of the selection process. Presumably there will have to be an attempt to develop some knowledge of the characteristics and requirements of each local area to fulfil the requirement in sub-paragraph (5).
  I am running ahead of myself. Having identified the problem—or at least the implication about selection panels—paragraph (b) of the amendment states that regulations may be made
  in the case of the chief officer—
  singling him out—
  for the board to be represented on any selection panel …
  That raises another interesting question. Will the board decide what its representation on the panel will be, or will the Secretary of State decide how the board will be represented?
  There could be a conflict. Let us suppose that the Lord Chancellor says, "I insist that it is my appointee on the board who will be the representative on the selection panel." The Secretary of State may say, "No. I will decide which of the board will be represented." The board may say, "No, we want to decide who will represent us on the selection panel."
  It is a fair question to ask know how the process will work, since there are some doubts as to that. Guidance from the Minister would be helpful. Having said that, all that will happen is that a final representation will be made to the Secretary of State. It will come as no surprise to old hands at this business that the Secretary of State is going to do it anyway; he is subject only to a recommendation. The board is to be represented on the selection panel making a final recommendation to the Secretary of State—as I read the provision. That seems to be at odds with paragraph (a), which provides that the selection procedure will "include selection panels".
  What is to be the role of the selection panels? I infer from the measure that it is only to make a recommendation to the Secretary of State. We know nothing about the composition of the panels; we do not know who will appoint them. However, we know—or I think we do—that all they will do is to make a recommendation to the Secretary of State, who will have the final say.
  There is a rather unhealthy circularity in that process. I am not sure how much further forward it takes us. My hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins)

  1193
  and the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) were more generous; they said that, while the process might not be perfect, it took us somewhat further. The more I ponder the matter, the less sure I am about that.
  Mr. Hawkins: Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is a difference between my comments and those of the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey? I was concentrating on the fact that the Government had been forced to make a concession; the hon. Gentleman said that the process was taking us in the right direction. I was rather less generous to the Government; my view is closer to that of my right hon. Friend.
  Mr. Forth: I am always delighted to accept a lack of generosity to the Government. That is extremely appropriate in most circumstances that I can envisage. It is for the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey to decide how generous he will be; he is probably rather better disposed to the Government than we are.
  Mr. Simon Burns: They are partners.
  Mr. Forth: Indeed, all too often, they are partners. However, I shall not be drawn into that, Mr. Deputy Speaker; I shall resist any temptation placed in my way by my hon. Friends to elaborate on that point.
  The amendment will not add much to the process, apart from additional doubt and bureaucracy—although it will undoubtedly add more time and personnel. As soon as we start making provision for selection panels, they will have to be staffed and supported and will be subject to procedures that require time. That not only requires money—no object, of course, to this Labour Government—but could add a further time dimension to the process that might, in some circumstances, be extremely disadvantageous.
  We are talking about local boards and sub-paragraph (2) of paragraph (5) of the schedule reasonably requires that:
  Regulations must provide … for the persons appointed to be representative of the local community in the board's area.
  How satisfied will we be with those rather grand figures, appointed by the Lord Chancellor on one hand or by the Secretary of State on the other, who will be making important decisions whether or not they are advised by the selection panel? That is only an option—it is not mandatory; even if the selection panel comes into being and carries out its work, it can only make a recommendation to the Secretary of State. I admit that, in those circumstances, it would be unusual for a Secretary of State to ignore such advice, but it remains a possibility.
  We must be extremely careful about such provisions. No doubt it is well meaning—as such provisions often are; it comes to us from another place, and one always has due regard for the views of its Members, who include a number of experts and legal minds. However, I wonder whether the provision will have anything like the beneficial or positive effect that was undoubtedly intended.
  1194
  Will the Minister tell us more about the role of the panels? How does he envisage the working out of the relationship between the Secretary of State and the Lord Chancellor? If I read aright the inclination of his head earlier on, perhaps he will be able to reassure us that it would be unusual for the Secretary of State not to accept the recommendations of the panel. The hon. Gentleman's comments would help us to make progress on this matter.
  Mr. Clappison: I am glad to be able to speak on the amendment, as the subject of the Bill is of great interest to me. I add my remarks to those made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) and by my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins).
  I agree with the general tenor of my hon. Friend's remarks. He especially adverted to the open question of who would be legally responsible if anything happened to someone serving a probation order or to someone resident in a probation hostel. He may want to ask the Minister a further question on legal liability: what is the legal liability to those who are affected by the behaviour of those who leave probation hostels?
  My hon. Friend will be aware of at least one important case in our dusty memories of the law of negligence—the Home Office against the Dorset yacht club. That involved the legal liability of the occupants of the yacht club to people in the custody of the Home Office.
  Mr. Hawkins: Like me, my hon. Friend is a member of the Bar and studied such cases—perhaps more years ago than either of us would care to remember. He is right to note that I had precisely that type of case in mind when I made my opening remarks. The liability of the chief officer appointed and of the person who appoints that officer is a vital issue. I am delighted that my hon. Friend, from his considerable experience both when he was an Opposition Home Office spokesman and as a member of the Bar, is putting pressure on the Government on that matter.
  Mr. Clappison: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for those remarks. I hate to point out that I have a certain amount of sympathy for some of the comments made by the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), although I think that he was uncharacteristically—for a Liberal Democrat—generous to the Government. [HON. MEMBERS: "Uncharacteristically?"] I was being ironic.
  There was a scintilla of truth in the hon. Gentleman's point about the volume of Home Office legislation that is being crammed before the House—including these amendments—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey strayed almost to the limits of my patience on that point, but I let him do so because he was relatively brief.
  Mr. Clappison: Indeed, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Gentleman was arguing that the matter should be properly examined so that it did not join the long list of previous failed Government measures, such as the Crime and Disorder Act 1998.

  1195
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst correctly referred to the mechanics of the appointments. The relationship between the chief officer and the board will be important; it will affect the operation of the board in a particular area. It is similar to the relationship between the chief executive and the board of a company.
  Clearly, the House of Lords originally had it in mind that the chief officer—the chief executive figure—should be appointed by the board itself; that would make an important difference to the relationship. The Government propose—as they so often do—that all appointments, including that of the chief officer, are to be made by them; the board would not be entrusted with the appointment of the chief officer. Does the amendment go far enough to ameliorate the centralisation created by the Government's top—down approach, which we see in this Bill and in so much legislation?
  Mr. Forth: My hon. Friend is an expert in these matters. Does he know, from his reading of the amendment, who will appoint the selection panels? That is surely crucial and, furthermore, germane to the point he makes.
  Mr. Clappison: My right hon. Friend touches on an important point: the independence of the selection panels and of those who serve on them. I hope I do not stray too far out of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, by pointing out that this is one more example of the Government's top-down approach. We saw it recently with the Learning and Skills Act 2000, under which similar provisions mean that local learning and skills councils are not entrusted with the appointment of their chief executive—it all has to come down from the Secretary of State.
  Does the amendment ameliorate that? How independent will the selection panels be? In response to my right hon. Friend, the Minister confirmed that the selection panels would be appointed by the Secretary of State. That being the case, we need to know what sort of people will sit on the selection panels. Will the Secretary of State keep a list of those who serve on selection panels? Will one selection panel deal with all appointments, or will a panel be specially set up each time a local board or a chief officer has to be appointed? We need to know.
  4.30 pm
  Paragraph 2(5) to schedule 1 states that "the persons appointed to" the board must
  be representative of the local community.
  If one selection panel covers the whole country and deals with each board, how can it fulfil that provision and have that sort of knowledge? Can we expect that it will guided by the one person who is appointed in each case by the Lord Chancellor's Department? The Minister needs to tell us more about that.
  Who will sit on those panels and how independent will they be? That is what concerns us, given that such a centralised procedure is to be put in place. How independent will the local boards be? How independent will those who appoint the chief officers of probation and make such recommendations be, given the importance of the relationship between the chief officer and the local board? We need to hear a little more from the Minister, but I am not holding my breath.
  1196
  I agree with the Minister that a national service would be created. In some ways, the Government have gone too far in the direction of creating a national service. However, I parted company from him when he said that reducing reoffending and protecting the public were part of the Government's objectives and were embodied in the amendment and provision. I honestly doubt whether the provisions will help to reduce reoffending. At the end of day, the same probation officers, with the same background and training, using the same orders as those available to them under criminal justice legislation, will deal with the same offenders. I realise how difficult it is for the probation service to deal with offenders.
  Perhaps the intention is to create a national structure to provide national standards, and the Government's assumption is that that will have an effect in reducing crime nationally, but I am doubtful about that. If the provision represents an attempt to change the culture of the probation service, the Minister is misguided, because its culture has changed considerably in recent years; the Government are a bit behind the times. In any event, probation officers have to work with the offenders—or their clients, as they are sometimes called. That is an extremely difficult task.
  Mr. Hawkins: My hon. Friend spoke about some of those issues in earlier debates and knows that many of them were covered in Committee, but does he agree that, in talking about the vital issue of the legal responsibility, one of the things that most outrages the public is the terminology? People are referred to as clients when they should be called offenders.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That is not within the scope of the amendment.
  Mr. Clappison: I understand my hon. Friend's point, but I do not want to stray down that path, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  The important issues are how much independence there will be in individual areas; how much scope there will be for local decision taking; and how much influence local boards can bring to bear on chief officers to deal with the problems in their areas. Given the Government's proposal, I doubt whether they will have the local discretion, that is so important. I doubt whether the amendment goes far enough in ameliorating the effect of the centralised structure that the Government have put in place. The amendment looks very much like a fig leaf.
  I should like the Minister to say more about the arrangements for selection panels. Who will sit on them? My right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst made the important point that all the procedures will cost money and require bureaucratic structures and services. When the selection panels have undertaken those processes, will the Home Secretary always accept their recommendations, or can he reject them and appoint someone he prefers? We need to know more because if the latter is the case, the amendment really is a fig leaf.
  Mr. Mike O'Brien: This has been a useful debate. Many points have been made, and I shall attempt to deal with each of them. The hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) welcomed—albeit in a rather curmudgeonly fashion—the fact that the Government had

  1197
  listened to the debate and had been prepared to propose some changes to the Bill. He recognised that the Home Secretary had sought to give reassurances on several matters.
  It seems to me to be clear where the legal responsibility lies. The local probation board is the employer and will be a body corporate. The board therefore has all the usual liabilities of such an organisation. It will be responsible for any action that may arise in tort. Who appoints the chief officer is irrelevant to such matters. We are dealing with how a particular person is appointed to a job, and who or which legal person—a body corporate in this case—is liable if an action arises is a separate issue, so there need be no confusion. I hope that I can reassure the hon. Members for Surrey Heath and for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) that that is the case. I am not sure whether any great change is involved.
  We agree that chief officers will be appointed in a new way, but we believe that the system is right for a different system—a national service. There is a difference of view between the Government and many Opposition Members about the way in which the Bill has developed. We have argued for the broad principles of a national service on other occasions. This is a particular amendment, so I shall not argue about whether there should be national or local control, but simply say that the Government have listened with care to the debate and have accepted that a panel should be set up and, therefore, that there should be a selection process. Nevertheless, the decision will finally rest with the Home Secretary.
  The right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) asked why the amendment contains the words:
  in the case of the chief officer, for the board to be represented on any selection panel making a final recommendation to the Secretary of State.
  He said that recommendations are not binding. Of course they are not binding. He rightly went on to say that the Secretary of State will take the final decision, but I emphasise that the Secretary of State must give full and proper consideration to a recommendation. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman it is usual to accept such a recommendation.
  The right hon. Gentleman will know that any decision taken by a Secretary of State—or, indeed, any Minister—is subject to a test of reasonableness. Okay, it is Wednesbury unreasonableness, rather than reasonableness, and the Secretary of State must have a reason for not accepting the recommendation of the panel drawn up to conduct the interview.
  Mr. Clappison: Is it not a little unrealistic of the Minister to suggest that a selection panel appointed by the Home Secretary would take him to judicial review, saying that he had behaved unreasonably? Could not provision be made for the Home Secretary to explain his decision if it were different from the recommendation of his own selection panel?
  Mr. O'Brien: Like me, the hon. Gentleman is a lawyer and he knows full well that a person who has a locus in a case may be able to challenge the Secretary of State's decision. That need not be done by the board.
  1198
  The hon. Gentleman's view may not be without foundation. A board appointed by the Home Office and the Secretary of State is probably unlikely to take the Secretary of State to court. If we look back into the realms of administrative law, we may find that that has happened. However, a challenge is more likely to be made by someone who is not appointed. There may be others who, for a particular reason, might also want to make a challenge.
  Mr. Hawkins: I do not wish to criticise the Minister for this, but he might be short-circuiting his own argument. He refers to Wednesbury unreasonableness, but our debates can now be examined in the light of the Pepper v. Hart ruling. Those of us who are lawyers, such as my hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) and myself, may understand the concept of Wednesbury unreasonableness, but my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) and my hon. Friends the Members for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) and for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall) will not be familiar with it. The Minister should explain the concept, not least for those outside who take a great interest in these procedures.
  Mr. Forth: And for the record.
  Mr. Hawkins: Yes, and for the record. The Minister should explain exactly what he is talking about. I understand him, but I am not sure that those reading his words will.
  Mr. O'Brien: As the hon. Gentleman will know, Wednesbury unreasonableness would refer to the Secretary of State making a totally unreasonable or crackers decision. He is not entitled to do that, or make a decision that is so arbitrary that it is contrary to the weight of all the evidence before him. To that extent, as I said to the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst—as a former Minister, he is probably aware of this legal issue—there are controls on the way in which a Secretary of State would have to respond to a decision on the appointment of a panel and on the recommendations that come from that panel.
  I also make it clear to the hon. Member for Surrey Heath that the Pepper v. Hart ruling is relevant only to cases in which there is ambiguity. I hope that the drafting of parliamentary draftsmen does not give rise to a level ambiguity that would cause the ministerial statements that are covered by Pepper v. Hart to be dragged into the argument.
  Mr. Hawkins: I heard my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) criticise the way in which a Bill that we considered earlier this week had been drafted. I do not want to return to that argument because you would rule me out of order if I did, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I think that the Minister is being a little complacent in suggesting that parliamentary draftsmen could never produce anything that was ambiguous. Conservative Members are concerned about this issue because the current Home Secretary frequently gets involved in decisions that we would regard as crackers—to use the Minister's own word. For example, the Home Secretary got into terrible trouble yesterday for calling for a British football team. Most of the British population thought that idea was crackers.
  Mr. O'Brien: If I followed the hon. Gentleman's example and discussed a British football team I would soon be ruled out of order, so I shall not do that.

  1199
  Rulings such as Pepper v. Hart were made because there is, on occasion, ambiguity in legislation. We all understand that. I was dealing with an issue raised by the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst who asked me to clarify the issue of recommendation. I have sought to do that by setting out how I interpret that provision.
  4.45 pm
  The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) expressed some general concerns about the Bill. I understand them but I shall not go down that route, because this is a specific amendment. The hon. Gentleman referred to the number of Home Office Bills of which this is one. This is a modernising Bill, and modernising our criminal justice system is a substantial process. We inherited a system that was very old-fashioned, and we have had many debates with the forces of reaction who have opposed some of the changes that we have made. Perhaps that is a necessary process.
  The appointment of the chief probation officer is important and almost unique. In many ways, the service is unique. The position is clear to us. The board is responsible for service delivery, and the chief officer is a member of the board and he has executive responsibility for the delivery of the service. The Secretary of State will appoint the chief officer, who will help to make board policy. If there is a dispute, the Secretary of State can direct the whole board. That is how we shall deal with conflicts of interest and conflicts of policy.
  The membership of the board is a straightforward issue. It is intended that it will be able to make reasonable and straightforward decisions about the people who are selected. Selection will not just take place across the whole country, because there will be local boards, but the main board will include a national director designate, the chairmen designate of each area who are to be appointed, an independent diversity adviser and an independent assessor. Such people are likely to be on it.
  The hon. Member for Hertsmere asked me about the judge who will be appointed by the Lord Chancellor. The judge is there by statute and reflects the current position on appointments. On the hon. Gentleman's point about magistrates, we intend that regulations will provide for a certain proportion of magistrates to be involved in the process of appointment and selection. I hope that that deals with that point.
  Mr. Clappison: If the Home Secretary overrules the selection panel and appoints someone as a chief officer of probation whom it has not recommended, that may affect people's confidence in the appointment. Under what circumstances might the Home Secretary exercise that power to overrule the recommendation?
  Mr. O'Brien: I have said a fair amount about that and have followed the route laid out by the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst. The Secretary of State is likely to accept a recommendation unless he has good reason not to. That would be the normal process, as the right hon. Gentleman said. I cannot take the issue further than that.
  Mr. Hawkins: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. O'Brien: Yes, but I have been on my feet for some time and I am anxious to make progress after I have given way.
  Mr. Hawkins: The Minister is aware that we are not under any great time pressure, as this debate is one of the few in national guillotine week that is not guillotined.
  On appointments and the choice of lay magistrates, which was one of the most important points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere, does the Minister accept that it is of huge concern to the Magistrates Association and its members and to the Association of Magisterial Offices? There is a strong belief, which we have articulated in debates on this Bill and on many other occasions, that the Government are constantly downgrading the role of lay magistrates. Magistrates, their clerks and our constituents are very concerned about that and we want to ensure that magistrates have a proper role. The selection of magistrates is vital.
  Mr. O'Brien: I hear what the hon. Gentleman says and no doubt we will bear those concerns in mind.
  The hon. Member for Hertsmere complained about a top-down process. We are creating a modern national probation service. The hon. Gentleman might have a different idea about how we should do that, but we are making our approach clear, whether or not he agrees with it. I do not accept the description of that process as top-down. We are trying to create a service that will better deliver the quality assurance that the public need on the ability of the service to reduce reoffending. That is the key test and the basis on which the public will judge the reforms. We want to ensure that the national service will provide consistent standards and adherence to offender programmes, which we hope will be proved to work. There is a wide disparity in the enforcement of sentences, as demonstrated by the audits undertaken by the Association of Chief Probation Officers. We need to deal with such issues.
  The hon. Gentleman said that many of the same people will be in the service in future, and that may well be the case. However, as he also said, it is important that cultures change. He is right to say that the culture in the probation service has been changing for the better—and very much so. That process will continue and be enhanced by our reforms. It will give greater focus to the work that is under way and also deal with the disparities and differences between areas, some of which are very good and some of which are less so. The changes can raise the general standard of probation service delivery.
  The hon. Gentleman asked who will serve on the selection panels. I have identified some members, but we must bear it in mind that the Nolan procedures are part of the general process of making Government appointments. The aim is not just to appoint the great and the good who arise out of nowhere, but to follow a more open and considered process, as set out by Nolan. As for being guided by the judge, I am sure that members of the selection panel will give appropriate weight to the judge's opinion, but it is not their role to decide legal issues. The judge will be able to reflect an awareness of the way in which the courts operate, but we are concerned about the selection of someone who can fulfil the role of an

  1201
  executive running a local probation service. The opinions of people who have a more appropriate understanding of how to make appointments will also be given due and appropriate weight.
  The right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst referred to paragraph 2(4) of schedule 1—I misunderstood him at first and thought that he was referring to paragraph 3(4). He is right about appointments, but we shall make regulations, although the Bill says only that we may do so. I am not going to give him an undertaking to that effect, but that is our intention.
  I am being advised that the selection panels will not always include a judge. To make the position clear for the hon. Member for Hertsmere, sometimes magistrates will be on them.
  Mr. Hawkins: I am grateful to the Minister for correcting his earlier answer, and I realise that he is receiving messages. I want to be clear whether, in order that all hon. Members may be aware of who sits on the panels, the Minister is prepared to undertake today regularly to put details of membership in the Library. There has been quite a lot of debate on that point. My right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst and my hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere and I think that the matter, which was pursued in Committee, is important. I hope that our asking the Minister to reassure us that information on appointments will be placed in the Library on a continuing basis will not be too great a burden on the taxpayer.
  Mr. O'Brien: The appointment of anyone to any panel or organisation will be subject to freedom of information legislation.
  Mr. Hawkins: There must be a request.
  Mr. O'Brien: That is not so under freedom of information legislation. Under the Act, the probation service, like any public authority, will be obliged to have a system for ensuring the publication of information; it will have to have mechanisms for that. The sort of information that will be provided will be considered under that legislation in the normal way.
  Public authorities will probably make much of the information available on the internet. It would no doubt be possible to access the internet from the Library. The hon. Gentleman asked whether information on membership would always be available. I am saying that if such national probation service information is available under the freedom of information legislation, it will be accessible. I do not know whether a piece of paper needs always to be put in the Library. That would be operating in an era in which the hon. Gentleman and I grew up. That era has gone; information can now be accessed differently.
  Mr. Hawkins: The Minister is talking about provisions in the Freedom of Information Bill—or Act, as it will become. Neither a Labour Freedom of Information Bill—or, as it was perhaps more accurately called in debate earlier
  1202
  in the week, the Freedom from Information Bill—nor the internet is a substitute for the responsibilities of Her Majesty's Government to this House and its Members.
  Mr. Forth: Certainly not for all of us.
  Mr. Hawkins: I hear my right hon. Friend pointing out that it is not sufficient for all hon. Members that information is accessible on the internet. I ask the Minister specifically to ensure that details of membership of selection panels, which have been a matter of party political controversy, will be placed in the Library. That is the undertaking that I am looking for because a number of my right hon. and hon. Friends are not persuaded by new Labour's obsession with the internet as a substitute for everything. We think it is important that the Government abide by their responsibilities to Parliament, which Ministers of this Government have so often forgotten.
  Mr. O'Brien: The hon. Gentleman is much too curmudgeonly. I was attempting to help him by saying that not only is it likely that information will be available, but that any member of the public should be able to access it. I shall go further and remind him that, as a Member of Parliament, he has right of access to information about anything that the Government do, subject to all the usual caveats about security and so forth. No doubt, he makes use of the parliamentary questions procedure from day to day. There is no reason why, in relation to the public interest, information on the selection panel for the probation service could not be placed in the House of Commons Library. However, some people might have a less than charitable interest in the probation service and those who appoint its members in particular localities. I am sure that that information could be made available to Members of Parliament and I suspect that it would be available to any member of the public. I need more time to consider the hon. Gentleman's concern, but I undertake to write to him and send a copy of the letter to the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst. That should provide the hon. Gentleman with the reassurance that he wants.
  5 pm
  I shall now deal with the matter raised by the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst, who said that it looks as though the selection procedures will cost a lot of money and that, of course, money is no object to the Government. I am sure that he realises that the public finances were in a mess when we inherited them from the previous Government. We are now sorting them out and are dealing with what was a serious problem for the previous Government. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman about that, but would not go so far as to say that money is no object. Certainly, however, the public finances are now in a better state, and I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving me the chance to make that point.
  Lords amendment agreed to.
  Lords amendment: No. 135, in schedule 1, in page 48, line 18, at end insert
  ("(though they may manage it)")
  Mr. Mike O'Brien: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in their amendment in lieu of Lords amendment No. 135.

  1203
  The amendment makes it clear that local probation boards will manage land even though they cannot own it. During the passage of the Bill, there were many discussions here and in another place about who should manage the land and the buildings that the probation service will occupy. The other place tabled an amendment to enable local boards to own and manage land with the approval of the Secretary of State. The Government were reluctant to go down that route, as we believe that all land occupied by the probation service should be owned centrally.
  Local boards should not spend their time discussing whether they wish to buy, sell and administer land. Instead, they ought to discuss how to prevent reoffending and protect the public. We had a certain view about how the boards should spend their time, but have listened carefully to the debate and have always made it clear that those occupying certain premises should be responsible for their day-to-day management. The amendment that the Lords accepted in lieu of their original amendment makes that clear, and is consistent with the position that the House has taken all along. I commend the amendment to the House.
  Mr. Burns: I accept the Minister's point about buildings, but will he explain more about the land that is involved and the purpose for which it is used?
  Mr. O'Brien: The probation service has land for offices and the courses that it runs. If it had the resources, it might feel that it could purchase land on which it could run a scheme. For example, it might want to purchase garage land on which it could run training courses. Alternatively, it might want land on which to build classroom accommodation. Various possibilities, therefore, could result from the probation service wanting to engage in the ownership and management of land.
  We were reluctant that boards should become too involved in that process. I do not think that other parties would disagree that the prime objective of the National Probation Service is to prevent reoffending. That should be the focus of boards' discussion.
  Mr. Clappison: Do any of the current probation committees hold land in the sense in which that term is used in the Bill? If so, will they be required by the Bill to divest themselves of that land?
  Mr. O'Brien: I am afraid that my knowledge of the extent of the ownership of land by the various local probation boards is limited. Officials are nodding to indicate that there is some ownership. As I said, we intend boards to spend their time not managing or owning land, but preventing reoffending. In future, the probation service will ensure that it deals with what constituents of the hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) and my own constituents in North Warwickshire want it to tackle.
  People want the service to prevent reoffending. I would be surprised if the hon. Member for Hertsmere were approached by constituents who said that they wanted the board of their local probation service to spend its time managing land. That would apply whether or not it owned the land, although I suspect that the probation service does not own much land and I am not aware of any particular examples of such ownership. However, I do not want to
  1204
  suggest to the hon. Gentleman that there are no instances in which a current local board owns some land, as I suspect that somebody somewhere might well have entered into an agreement for the purchase of land.
  The hon. Member for Hertsmere asked what would happen in respect of such ownership. The source of the resources for the land and the circumstances under which it was owned would have to be examined. The hon. Gentleman can work through the legal points, just as I can. I suspect that, in a number of cases, resources will have been provided by a local county council. In such circumstances, the land would be likely to revert to those who had paid for it. However, that will depend on the particular local circumstances that apply. Those are broad legal principles and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman can understand them.
  Mr. Burns: Will the Under-Secretary give way?
  Mr. O'Brien: I was attempting to finish, but I shall give way once more.
  Mr. Burns: Unlike the hon. Gentleman, I am not a lawyer, so I should like to clear up a point that is causing me further confusion. Paragraph 13(1) of schedule 1 states that
  a local board may do anything which appears to it to be necessary or expedient for the purpose of, or in connection with, the exercise of its functions.
  Paragraph 13(2) states:
  That includes, in particular—
  (a) holding property. The Lords amendment would, of course, add management of land to that provision. I understand that, but paragraph 13(3) states:
  But a local board—
  (a) may not hold land.
  That seems to contradict paragraph (2).
  Mr. O'Brien: Property can be owned for a period, as it will not necessarily be land. It can vary. If I remember rightly, land is defined in the Law of Property Act 1925. As I have repeatedly said, the Government aim to ensure that the local boards do not spend a lot of their time managing land. Of course, they will hold various sorts of property. Substantial evidence, supported by the national conditions survey of probation accommodation, suggests that probation land is generally not well managed. For example, there is high overcapacity in accommodation across the current probation estate, a large part of which is deemed unsuitable for present or future purposes. That applies to as much as 30 per cent. of the estate. There is also significant over-staffing on estate management. According to the national conditions survey of probation accommodation, the level of over-staffing could be as much as 75 per cent. There are inefficiencies in the use of resources across the estate. There is a significant number of undocumented occupations and approximately £;30 million is required to bring the estate up to standard. In its present state, the property—that which is occupied, and, in a small number of cases, owned by the probation service—is probably unattractive for the private finance initiative. The aim is to ensure that that is dealt with on a much more centralised basis or that property should revert

  1205
  to those who previously owned it so that the probation service can focus on those matters with which the hon. Gentleman's constituents and mine want it to deal.
  References to property can mean anything from a paperclip and a pencil, but land usually means land with buildings. A person may lease a building but not necessarily own the freehold of the land on which it rests. That is an important distinction. The main aim of centralising ownership and management of the probation estate is to allow accounting responsibility to be placed squarely where it should be, which is on the Government. As a result, there will be better control of investment, procurement and development, thus making best use of the probation service's assets. It will be part of the wider civil estate and derive benefits from that. Cost savings will be achieved as a result of economies of scale and rationalisation, perhaps involving the sharing of accommodation where appropriate. There will also be greater effectiveness in the delivery of building and management services, which can benefit the probation service and other public sector organisations.
  I repeat that the objective is to ensure that the new boards and service managers concentrate on delivery of their core functions and are not distracted by matters relating to real estate.
  Mr. Simon Hughes: The Minister makes the argument well, but does the Secretary of State for Health have the power to direct health authorities or trusts to dispose of property to streamline the estate, and does the Home Secretary have the power to direct police authorities to get rid of property in order to achieve a more streamlined result and to save money? I do not think they do, and, if they do not, there is no logical reason why the probation service should have such a power and no local responsibility.
  Mr. O'Brien: I have just set out why we need more centralised control. There is a serious problem with the present quality of accommodation. There is overcapacity and some dilapidation. We need to be able to benefit from economies of scale, so we take the view that the probation service should be run differently. Whether the NHS is run in the same way and whether the Secretary of State has a particular power is completely irrelevant. We seek to deal with the matter in a sensible and straightforward way to ensure that taxpayers, who put so many resources into the probation service, obtain the value for money that they deserve. The National Probation Service requires a measure of central control in the way in which its property and land is administered, so that the boards can concentrate on what we want them to do.
  Mr. Hawkins: When the Minister said in reply to the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) that the matter was perfectly straightforward, he was a little wide of the mark. My right hon. and hon. Friends and the hon. Gentleman, by their careful and skilful probing, have revealed how opaque is the Minister's thinking. Indeed, they hit on the very grave concern that several Opposition Members expressed in Committee. The issue arose in the first place because, during our probing in Committee, it was made clear that those few words—which are, on the surface, apparently
  1206
  innocuous—reveal the Government's overall strategy towards Home Office matters and many others. They want to centralise and have all the control themselves.
  5.15 pm
  In particular, they want to grab all control and ownership of land. I and many other hon. Members come across exactly the same issue in our constituencies all the time. The Treasury, with its grasping hands, is keen to seize ownership of land and control it centrally so that it can be sold off. That is part of the Government's cynical attempt to raise funds and to build up their war chest.
  Mr. Stephen Pound: Crikey, they've rumbled us!
  Mr. Hawkins: The hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Pound), a wise observer of his party and, in particular, of the Treasury Bench, points out, from a sedentary position, that I have rumbled them. We have rumbled the Government; we are making an entirely serious point.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), my hon. Friends the Members for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) and for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) and others are aware that, with regard to Ministry of Defence land, for example, there has been a programme, since the Government came to power, of sales, undoubtedly to the detriment of our armed forces, because the Chancellor of the Exchequer wishes to build up a war chest. Mr. Deputy Speaker, you would call me to order if I spent too long developing my thesis with regard to other Departments. We are concerned with the Home Office.
  Mr. Clappison: On these provisions, does my hon. Friend share the sneaking feeling, which I get when the Minister speaks about overcapacity, that we are being softened up? Is it not more often the case that probation officers are crying out for accommodation in which to put young people who are often in trouble?
  Mr. Hawkins: Absolutely.
  Mr. Forth: That involves sell-offs and redundancies.
  Mr. Hawkins: As my right hon. Friend rightly says, that involves sell-offs and redundancies. The Government's approach is a cynical ploy.
  The Minister's increasingly desperate attempt to reconcile the obviously irreconcilable text that was wisely spotted by my hon. Friend the Member for West Chelmsford simply showed that it is impossible to justify such incredibly sloppy drafting. The Government are determined not to allow any local ownership of land because they want to keep control so that, as soon as the Chancellor wants more ready cash, the land can be flogged off. That would be to the detriment of local probation services and of offenders whom the probation service is trying to reform.
  Mr. Mike O'Brien: The hon. Gentleman's comments are becoming increasingly bizarre. Is he really suggesting that when there is clear evidence of overcapacity and of taxpayers not getting value for money, the Government

  1207
  should not make efforts to ensure that taxpayers get value for money, and that the resources saved should not be directed to programmes to prevent reoffending? Is it Conservative party policy to ensure that taxpayers do not get value for money and that money goes into buildings rather than being used to ensure that criminals do not reoffend? That would be bizarre.
  Mr. Hawkins: The Minister has got to be terribly careful. He was not listening to what I said. We do not—we never would—accept his word that there is overcapacity. My right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst and my hon. Friends the Members for Hertsmere and for West Chelmsford pointed out that all we have in this context is the Minister's claim that there is overcapacity, which we do not accept. My county probation service tells me that it is constantly strapped for cash, especially in the shire counties of the south-east, which my hon. Friends and I represent. The probation service has been strapped for cash because the Government deliberately targeted funding at their friends in the north and the midlands, and in Scotland and Wales. They have undoubtedly left all the authorities in the shire counties, including the probation service, short of money to do the job they are supposed to do.
  Mr. Mike O'Brien: I regret that the hon. Gentleman feels that he must make a personal slight, and I am sure that on reflection he will realise that it is inappropriate. I said in my initial statement on this amendment that the national conditions survey of probation accommodation had identified a 16.8 per cent. overcapacity. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will now feel that it is appropriate to withdraw his personal comment about me, and accept that there is other evidence.
  Mr. Hawkins: I hear what the Minister says, but I am afraid that we do not accept at face value a survey that states that there is overcapacity. In our democracy, we have such debates to test whether the Government's statistics are correct. During the 18 years for which we were in government, Labour Opposition spokesmen constantly attacked our statistics and my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Conservative Government Front Bench. They would not accept our phrases and words. I am not attacking the Minister in his personal capacity, but specifically and directly in his ministerial capacity. We do not accept what he says about overcapacity, and all my right hon. and hon. Friends from shire counties know the reality. The Government are deliberately penalising our authorities over their probation services, as they do over everything else.
  Mr. Clappison: I think that I can help my hon. Friend. Does he recollect a time in the previous Parliament when the present Prime Minister was the shadow Home Secretary and complained about a shortage of accommodation for young people in trouble? He called in particular for the creation of more secure accommodation places, without delay, to use his words.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I advise the House to come back to the terms of the amendment, rather than have a general debate.
  Mr. Hawkins: I accept your ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but this amendment in lieu relates to the question
  1208
  of land. My hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere rightly pointed out that during the previous Parliament, the present Prime Minister, when he was shadow Home Secretary, attacked the Conservative Government because of a shortage of land and buildings specifically for the probation service, including facilities for looking after young offenders. I think that I can appropriately reply to my hon. Friend without going out of order, by saying that he has a good point.
  It is important to recognise that we are challenging the Government on their amendment in lieu, and particularly its sloppy and contradictory drafting, because we do not accept their statistics. We do not think that in three and a half years of a Labour Government we have gone from the shortage that the Prime Minister previously attacked to an overcapacity.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman prefaced his remarks by saying that he accepted my ruling, then he ignored it. I do not admire that, and I ask him to respect the Chair's rulings. The issue before us concerns ownership and management.
  Mr. Hawkins: I am grateful, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I shall move on. I shall return to the important point that my hon. Friend the Member for West Chelmsford raised in an intervention.
  The wording of the amendment in lieu is contradictory. The schedule that the Government propose to amend entails a contradiction in terms. We are back to the same issues that we discussed on another Bill during national guillotine week, when my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) pointed out that, under pressure, the Government and those who advise them have resorted to desperation tactics and have produced self-contradictory amendments. We have a right to debate them and to challenge the drafting, especially when the terms of the amendments seem, on the face of it, to be contradictory.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am not disputing the hon. Gentleman's right, I am merely urging him to get on with it.
  Mr. Hawkins: I am endeavouring to do so, and I shall bring my remarks to a close in a moment.
  My right hon. and hon. Friends who have intervened on the Minister have revealed the severe problems and contradictions in the Government's choice of wording. We think that there is a weakness. This issue has not suddenly emerged today: it was explored at some length in Committee—I took the Bill through its Committee stage. The Government will recognise that this matter has been debated at some length, because there is a serious issue about whether local autonomy should prevail. We have always felt that local probation services have a serious duty to perform, and that their responsibilities should not be unduly restricted, and that includes their ability to own and manage land.
  I think that I speak for probation services the length and breadth of the country. I know that I have raised the concerns of my own county probation service, and my right hon. and hon. Friends may want to pursue the issue further on behalf of their probation services.
  Mr. Simon Hughes: I could not have predicted that what might be described as the "last knockings" of our debate—although I do not wish to be disparaging about the part of the Bill that we are discussing—would generate such heat and drama. Similarly, had I consulted the week's programme, little would I have thought that the serried ranks of all the parties would be present for a major set-piece debate on what is clearly a central issue. In fact, to be honest, I do not think it is that; but it raises one important principle, and one supplementary drafting point.
  Like the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins), I think that, ultimately, the draftsmen missed a trick. I am not making a huge point, but let us look at the schedule. The paragraph dealing with the ancillary powers of the probation service provides for
  directions given by the Secretary of State
  and then states that
  a local board may do anything which appears to it to be necessary or expedient
  —including holding property, and so on. However, the paragraph goes on to say that the board "may not hold land". Surely if the drafting had produced the words "may hold property but not land", we would have got it right in the first place—but I suspect that the Bill will not be amended perfectly before it becomes law, and I doubt that it is the first Bill that will have been passed without being perfectly drafted.
  Let me now deal with my substantive point, and draw attention to one example and one principle. Around the corner from my constituency office is a building run by the probation service. As it happens, I do not know who owns the building—had I realised that this would be such a big debate, I would have walked around the corner and asked—but it has been in probation service use for as long as I have been a Member of Parliament and probably before, and is well used. It is not a residential building; it is a building for day use—for training, and so forth.
  Let us imagine that the probation service rents that building from another owner, in either the private or the public sector. Let us imagine that there comes a time when the owner says, "I am going to sell the building. Either you buy it from me, or I will sell it to someone else. You can have the freehold, but I am afraid that if you do not take it, I will not provide another lease on it; I will get rid of it."
  In that event, the local board would have no power to buy the building. It would be subject to the central control that the Minister says is necessary so that the estate can be rationalised. The local board may not persuade the probation service of the intrinsic value of the building in the sense that, in the board's view, it is in a good location, has been fitted out well or has worked well for the client base. Ultimately, the board may have to say to the owner, "We are sorry, but we cannot buy the building"—whereupon the owner will say, "I am sorry, but in that case I will sell it, because I am not willing to give you a further lease". I feel that the "strict central control" argument may often militate against the interest of the local service.
  I am not in a position to dispute the figures given by the Minister relating to the survey's findings in regard to overcapacity, but I am sure that the same argument could be advanced in respect of the national health service. The NHS certainly has a great deal of land that is not being
  1210
  fully used. The argument could be advanced in respect of the police and education, and I am sure that it could still be advanced in respect of public highways, where a lot of space that was not being fully used has been acquired for purposes of road-building and the like. Although the railways are no longer in the public sector, it used to be possible to advance the argument in that context, because huge amounts of land were not being used. Anyway, in public policy terms, the argument could be relevant in many areas.
  All that I say to the Government is this: it strikes me that we are removing a flexibility that may be to the advantage of the local services. The fact is that what may work in, say, Surrey, or in London, may not work in Durham, Cleveland, Powys or Gwent.
  The whole idea of having a local service is that it is a service intended to respond to local needs. In that sense, it is different from the prison service. The Prison Service does not work on the basis that everyone goes to prison near where they live. The Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office, who is present now—probably waiting for the next debate—has a prison in his county town, the city of Nottingham. He will know that not everyone in Nottingham prison is a Nottinghamshire resident. The basis on which the Prison Service works is that, depending on people's prison needs, they may be sent to a high-security prison at the other end of the country, or they may be imprisoned locally.
  5.30 pm
  It does not work like that in the probation service. People do not suddenly say, "You're on probation. We're going to send you to Westmorland, although you live on the Walworth road." Nor do they say in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath), "Here you are in Somerton, but we've decided that you'll report every Saturday morning in Surrey." It is a local service, and there is a very strong argument that there should be flexibility in a local probation service. It seems unnecessary to restrict that.
  I end by linking together the two points. We could always provide the Secretary of State with a reserve power to direct, and to intervene when a continuing dispute between a local board and the national service cannot be resolved. Therefore, it is unnecessary to bar the local probation service from owning land.
  The new Lords amendment seems less satisfactory, and it would perhaps be better to stick to the original one. I wonder whether it might not be better to ask the House to vote on the matter—so that the serried ranks of hon. Members waiting to vote can do so, the Government can be overthrown, and we can have a little more excitement before Parliament rises.
  Mr. Burns: I do not wish to detain the House for long—not only because I do not wish to test your patience, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but because of an earlier intervention by the Minister in which he sought to be helpful in allaying my concerns. However—this is not a criticism of him—as I told him in an earlier intervention, I am not a lawyer and do not have a lawyer's mind, and I am still confused and concerned about the drafting of paragraph 13 of schedule 1, which seems to be contradictory. If I explain in some detail my concern

  1211
  and confusion, perhaps the Minister, with his razor-sharp lawyer's mind, will be able to assure a layman that the Government's intentions are quite logical.
  As I understand it, if the Government accept the Lords amendment in lieu, schedule 1, paragraph 13(3)(a) will provide:
  But a local board—
  (a) may not hold land though they may manage it.
  To my simple mind, that is completely obvious and understandable. Then, paragraph 13(1) quite clearly states:
  a local board may do anything which appears to it to be necessary or expedient for the purpose of, or in connection with, the exercise of its functions.
  The confusion for me arises when one goes to schedule 1 paragraph 13(2)(a), which states:
  That includes, in particular—
  (a) holding property.
  Earlier, the Minister said—I think that this is commonly accepted—that the terms "property" and "land" are synonymous. Some people may feel that property is the actual building on land, but it is the land and the building. Some property is just land, whereas other property is land with buildings on it.
  If that is a correct analysis of the word "property", surely paragraph 13(2)(a) is contradicted by 13(3)(a). The paragraph seems to be saying both that the board may hold property and that a local board may not hold land. I just cannot understand the logic of that.
  Mr. Mike O'Brien: It might be helpful if I deal with the point now rather than in my reply. "Property" is a broad term that includes both land and things from computers to pencils. The provision is not inconsistent. It says that all types of property may be held, but land may not be held. That is the type of property that the board may not hold. The board may hold other types of property, from pencils to computers. Although it may also hold a lease, it cannot own freehold. Thus the board will not be in the business of dealing with the purchase and sale of freehold land or long leases involving land. Additionally, it may well be renting premises. So, although it will need to manage land, it cannot own it.
  Mr. Burns: I am grateful to the Minister, but I am not altogether wiser. I am trying to think of the implications of what he has just said. I understood him to say that those involved may manage property and land, but may not own it. I understand that, but why does the Bill say that they may hold property but not land? I do not see the difference. Is the word "hold" legalese for own, rather than manage? If so, I will finally understand the point.
  Mr. O'Brien: "Hold" will mean owning land or owning a right in land. The difficulty, as lawyers will understand, is that land law is essentially a legal fiction or structure. It is a creation of a way of ownership that is based on an understanding of the difference between legal ownership and equitable ownership. There are different ways in which land may be owned: some legal, some equitable. If I tried to explain it, I would confuse the hon. Gentleman even more, which I do not want to do.
  Mr. Burns: The Minister is absolutely right. We will not move the debate forward if I pursue this narrow point.
  1212
  This is a badly drafted proposal, unless one is a lawyer. I hope that it will not provide a rich seam for lawyers to benefit from in future years.
  The Minister has said that the probation service cannot own land. It can have a lease or manage land, but cannot own it. Does that mean that the land that the probation service currently owns will have to be divested so as to comply with the Bill?
  Mr. O'Brien indicated assent.
  Mr. Burns: The Minister helpfully nods; that raises a number of questions.
  Mr. Clappison: The Minister's justification for his proposal is that owning land would distract the probation service. Will not the probation boards now have the distraction of selling land?
  Mr. Burns: My hon. Friend makes a telling point. The Minister said that the probation service can manage properties but cannot own them. Surely that will be a distraction in its own right.
  I wish to return to the narrow point about the selling off of properties and land currently owned by the probation service, which, once the Bill comes into force, will be illegal for them to hold. I assume—this thought has only just entered my head on the hoof, so to speak—that there will be provisions in the Bill for a timetable for the probation service to divest itself of the land, so that it would not, for example, be acting illegally by still owning land if the Bill were to become the law of the land a week today. I am sure that the Government have realised that there will have to be a time lag to avoid such potential embarrassment and self-inflicted damage.
  Mr. Hawkins: Might not it assist those who report our proceedings if my hon. Friend were to reflect further on the phrase that he employed when he said that something had entered his head on the hoof?
  Mr. Burns: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that helpful and pertinent intervention. However, I do not want to test your patience, Madam Deputy Speaker, so I shall return to the Bill.
  I am not quite sure why selling off the land is so necessary as part and parcel of the schedule. I do not see an absolute need for the service not to own land. If it can manage its own property and land, why cannot it own them? From a longterm, Treasury point of view—the Government make so many criticisms of short-termism that one would think that they would welcome a long-term view—land and property prices generally appreciate in value. The probation service, as the freeholder of the land, will lose an asset that would otherwise appreciate in value, if it has to sell it.
  What will be the mechanisms for selling off the land? The probation service might, for example, operate in a town in which it owned facilities, properties and land ideal for its uses. The property might even be purpose built and therefore unattractive for land developers to buy, demolish and redevelop. Why should the probation service go through the agony of the fruitless exercise of selling off its property under the provisions of the schedule, then have to look elsewhere to rent or acquire

  1213
  similar property or land in order to carry out its duties? That would be a false economy, and rather—1 am trying to think of a parliamentary term—foolish. Perhaps the Minister would like to put me out of my agony by explaining this now.
  Mr. Mike O'Brien: The hon. Gentleman makes some interesting points. However, if we were proposing to do what he suggests, he would be right—it would be foolish. We are not expecting the probation service to sell the land, then try to buy it back. Under clause 19, an order may be made to vest the land in the Home Secretary, who would then be able to administer it centrally. The offices that the local probation services currently occupy would continue to be their offices. The services would just not have the job of owning them—that would be done centrally by the Crown estate.
  Mr. Burns: The matter is becoming clearer. The Minister is saying that, under the clause, the probation service will not be allowed to own the land or property. However, rather than being sold off to the private sector to make a profit, the land will be shuffled from the probation service to the Home Secretary. The ownership will then be transferred to the Home Office or to the Government body with responsibility for buildings.
  Mr. O'Brien: A further point is that some land may be sold off because, if the number of local organisations reduces from 20 to eight, there will be some overcapacity by reason of that change. Therefore, there may be sales at some point, but they will be done centrally.
  5.45 pm
  Mr. Burns: Presumably, on that basis, the Minister assumes that the majority of the land and property will go to the Home Office, with only a relatively small proportion being sold off to the private sector.
  I wonder, on reflection, whether it is all worth it. I am unaware that the probation service has encountered the worry and concern of managing its estate, among the many pressures on its time, duties and functions. It seems slightly pointless and a waste of time to shuffle around the ownership of property and land. I suppose that it is the Government's desire for modernisation that leads them to tidy up the system and concentrate the ownership at the centre, rather than around the country. However, as the Minister said about another aspect of this debate, that is Government policy. We may not like it, but they are perfectly entitled to do so. Whether it works is another matter.
  Presumably, there will be sufficient staff and trained people to ensure that the land and property that is shuffled to the central Government estate is managed properly. Does the Minister anticipate conflict between the probation service and the management at the centre? Are there proper procedures by which to ensure a smooth transition and the effective and smooth management of the estate, without leading to friction and, ironically, distraction? If the probation service is no longer directly responsible for its estate, any conflict or problem could become extremely distracting.
  1214
  I understand that the Minister does not want to sort out all my points as we go along, but I would be grateful if he could enlighten us in his winding-up speech.
  Mr. David Heath: I rise to make a very short speech, Madam Deputy Speaker, as I am sure you will be pleased to hear. I simply want to question the Minister on one point. He referred to the reversion of land at present held by the probation service to a local authority—a county council or metropolitan authority. I am not clear what mechanism would apply for that purpose. I looked carefully at clauses 18 and 19, which contain a mechanism whereby land that is at present vested within the probation service can be taken into the ownership of the Crown Estate Commissioners or the Home Office. That extends further in that land owned by a local authority can, by the same mechanism, be moved directly to the Home Office.
  I am not clear about land that has been acquired by a probation committee. Such a committee is not cognate with the local authority; as I know to my cost, having been leader of Somerset county council, it is a precepting authority. There seemed to be an ever-increasing bill from the probation service which the local authority was powerless to amend and it was simply a question of paying whatever the probation committee decided. That money, whether it was revenue or capital, was then entirely within the province of the probation committee, to spend as it saw fit. I am not aware that land that was then owned by the probation committee was retained in the ownership of the local authority. Therefore, how could land that was owned by the probation committee revert to a local authority that had never owned it? If land had been acquired for the specific purposes of such a committee, would the metropolitan authority or county council ever have had any title to enable the land to revert to its ownership? If that were not the case, the Bill would need to provide a specific mechanism. I see no such mechanism.
  I see the Minister nodding confidently. I am sure that he will give me a satisfactory answer in his reply.
  Mr. Clappison: The issue before us is whether probation boards, as they will be, will be allowed to own land or merely to manage it. The Minister's explanation of the Government's reasons for pursuing that course, and of why they are reluctant to allow the boards to own land, takes some swallowing. The Government are trying to prevent probation boards from being distracted by the ownership of land. That would seem a strange explanation if it were given in any other walk of life, with any other organisation in the public or the private sector. It is made even more strange by the fact that, under schedule 1(13)(2) the probation boards can hold property other than land, enter into contracts, invest sums and accept gifts. They can do all those things, which are apparently not distractions, but they are not allowed to own their own property—their own land.
  My hon. Friend the Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) made a fair point when he said that, in legal terms, this is a confusing use of the word "property", since property is usually synonymous with land: indeed, the law relating to land is the Law of Property Act 1925. For the purposes of the Bill, however, the word does not apparently have that meaning.

  1215
  Why are the probation boards not to be allowed to own land? The Minister gave us the real reason when he referred to clause 19 and schedule 3, which make the matter a little clearer. The Minister wants to put in place a scheme whereby the land owned by probation committees will be transferred to him. That is the scheme referred to in clause 19.
  Schedule 3 deals with the way in which the scheme will operate, although it does not spell out what is being done. Taken in conjunction with what the Minister has told us about schedule 1, it makes it clear that we are talking simply of grabbing land held by the probation committees—a land grab by the Minister.
  Some considerations need to be scrutinised. When the Minister refers to property held by a probation board, what does he mean by the word "held"? What legal interest does that encompass? In response to an intervention by my hon. Friend the Member for West Chelmsford, the Minister said that probation committees would be allowed to lease land but not to own it and that they would not be able to take out a long lease. What sort of lease will they be able to take out under the provisions? We need to know more about the meaning of the word "hold".
  Will the Minister tell us how he expects probation committees to deal with their properties when they do not own them? If they do not own the property, will they have to go to the Home Secretary whenever they want to alter it? Will the committees be deterred from investing in their properties? Clearly, they will not want to invest in something that they do not own Will the Minister deal with that? What happens when the Home Secretary decides that he wants to act at variance with the probation board? Whose wishes take priority? Can the Home Secretary simply tell the board that the Government think that there is overcapacity, and that they want to sell the land or do what they like with it? What happens if the probation board takes a different view?
  I was surprised to hear the Minister's justification on overcapacity; what he said did not relate to my experience or to that of the Hertfordshire probation service. Members of that service are crying out for additional places for young people in trouble. Sometimes, such young people have had to go into custody because there was not enough space for them in probation hostels. In Hertfordshire, there is tremendous pressure on places owing to the lack of land and property available to the probation service. The Minister tells us that there is overcapacity; that will come as a surprise to many people involved with the criminal justice system.
  What if there is a difference between the probation board and the Secretary of State concerning the use of the board's land? Will the Secretary of State simply tell the board what to do? On what basis will the proposed transfer take place? Will there be compensation? Paragraph 3 of the schedule is relevant because it deals with the transfer of ownership that must occur if probation boards are not allowed to own land. What compensation will be paid under that provision?
  Under paragraph 2(2) of the schedule, what would happen to a person who might have a legal interest in property or land that is currently owned by a probation committee? For example, what would happen to the legal rights of someone who benefited from an easement or a covenant on such land? Will their rights be transferred away along with the committee's ownership of
  the land? We need to hear more about that matter from the Minister.
  1216
  A host of issues lie behind this seemingly innocent, technical amendment. They arise from the Government's reluctance—even hostility—to the idea that probation committees should own their land. I suspect that, in future, probation boards will be put at a legal and commercial disadvantage by this measure; it will affect their operations. Far from the ownership of land causing a distraction, they will suffer from the distraction of not owning land—they will have to manage it and make various arrangements. They will experience a series of distractions because they do not own their land and thus cannot make decisions about their property. A further distraction could be provided by the intervention of the Secretary of State, who might decide to do something else with the land.
  Given that the transfer will go ahead, will the Minister tell us how the matter will be dealt with in the Government accounts? Will it be counted as an asset to the Government—as a future windfall? Will it be classed as repayment of debt?
  The provision gives rise to many important issues. The Minister will have to say far more; he cannot merely claim that ownership of land by probation committees is a distraction that prevents them from carrying out their functions and suggest, in addition, that there is overcapacity. He must spell out the answer to all the legal questions—as regards probation boards and other people who may have an interest.
  6 pm
  Mr. Forth: It is proposed to amend paragraph 13(1) of schedule 1, which states:
  Subject to any directions given by the Secretary of State, a local board may do anything which appears to it to be necessary or expedient for the purpose of, or in connection with, the exercise of its functions.
  That is a wide discretion.
  In that context, we need to refer back to clause 1(2)(c), which lays a responsibility on the service and thus on local boards to provide—among other things—accommodation in approved premises. That is the link with property and gives us the clue as to why we have had to get involved in this matter—or indeed why the Government have had to become involved.
  It is interesting that clause 3(2) states:
  The Secretary of State may make any payment he considers appropriate towards expenditure incurred by any person for any of those purposes.
  Further, clause 5(1) states:
  It is a function of a local board … to make arrangements for ensuring that sufficient provision is made for the purposes mentioned in section 1 in respect of this area.
  So there is a series of interlinking duties and powers, as one would expect in such measures, which sets the scene for the board to make proper provision for the discharge of its responsibilities.
  During this brief debate, the Minister has made great play of the onus that he places on local boards to reduce reoffending. Presumably, he will also want to ensure that proper and adequate provision is made for the discharge of local boards' functions right across the policy spectrum. Presumably, anything that might inhibit that would be undesirable and counterproductive. That is the cause of much puzzlement among my hon. Friends and me.

  1217
  Why has that arbitrary restriction been introduced? I can well understand my hon. Friends' mystification about the fact that the board will be encouraged to hold property, but will be prohibited from holding land. That arbitrary distinction is not only unnecessary, but as my hon. Friends have said, may eventually be counterproductive. Of course the obligation in clause 1(2)(c) to provide accommodation in approved premises suggests that—in layman's terms—property has to be acquired and made available.
  I would add in parenthesis that I, too, speak as a non-lawyer. My hon. Friend the Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) and I have the advantage of not being lawyers and, therefore, we can see things with greater clarity and in broader perspective. I suggest that a problem may well arise with freeholds and leaseholds if a distinction is made between property and buildings on one hand and land per se on the other. It strikes me, as a layman, that an unnecessary difficulty might be introduced if the board sought property without holding or owning the land.
  That may or may not be a real distinction—perhaps the Minister will help us—but if I am correct, or even partially correct, such a distinction would introduce an unnecessary complication to the management function of the local boards. I am sure the Minister would be the first to claim or concede that the boards' principal responsibility is to those in their charge to reduce or eliminate reoffending.
  Mr. Peter Bottomley: I am not a lawyer either. What will happen if the local people take out a leasehold and share it with other people, who persuade them that they should take out a flying freehold, so that, although they do not own the land, they start to own the freehold? Has my right hon. Friend considered that complication?
  Mr. Forth: Not yet, but my hon. Friend tempts me greatly. He strengthens the point that that apparently and deceptively simple provision will cause several complications, and we have not yet dealt with the amendment.
  The Lords amendment suggests that, although the boards may not hold land, they may manage it. That represents yet another complication that is not only unnecessary but positively undesirable. We are in danger of getting boards involved in a complex series of relationships involving property and the holding and management of land.
  Why has that unnecessary entanglement been introduced? The Minister has done his best to try to explain why and to satisfy the House about it. He is renowned for his powers of persuasion but, try as he might, he failed to carry the House with him. He spent time on the issue and he brought all his expertise, experience and lawyer's gifts to bear. Still he failed to convince me, and probably my hon. Friends, that we should accept the distinction in paragraph 13(2) and 13(3) of schedule 1 and—what is even worse—the complication introduced by the Lords amendment. In that sense, we are no further forward. In fact, we are more worried than we were before that the local boards, with the great responsibilities that have been laid upon them by this Bill
  1218
  and other legislation, will be deterred from fulfilling that responsibility if they are to adhere to the letter of the requirement.
  That raises another serious matter. Will the local boards be required to adhere to the letter of the requirement? From what the Minister said, I got the sense that the requirement need not be implemented in too exact or punctilious a way. My hon. Friend the Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) then discovered from the Minister that sleight of hand may be involved and that the Secretary of State could end up holding the land instead of the local board. That is a distinction without a difference.
  We can start to play games about the notional ownership of the land and consider whether it should be held by the local board or the Secretary of State, but the point has been made that the board would be distracted from its duties if it had the difficulty of holding the land. The local board may have to manage the land, however. Holding the land is deemed to be too complicated or difficult, but managing it is deemed to be perfectly satisfactory. That is completely the wrong way round. I could have understood the provision if it had said that the board may hold the land but must not get involved in its management because that would distract it from its purpose. The Minister is trying to tell us that there is something inherently undesirable in a board's holding the land, but that it is perfectly acceptable for it to manage it.
  The provision is all over the place; it is unsatisfactory; it is the wrong way round; it is upside down; and it is any other way that one can think of.
  Mr. Peter Bottomley: It is inside out.
  Mr. Forth: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) said that he might have been minded to divide the House on the issue. We are now at the stage at which we shall have to think seriously about whether we are prepared to nod it through. It may be late in the Session, but it is not too late. There is still time for the Minister to give us a further explanation.
  Mr. Clappison: Is my right hon. Friend aware that this is an important subject? The probation service owns land and property throughout the country that is used to accommodate young people who are in trouble. If that land is not available, those young people may have to be put into custody at even greater expense to the taxpayer or left out in the community where they may commit offences against members of the public.
  Mr. Forth: Regrettably, that is entirely possible. I do not want my hon. Friend to misunderstand me. I am not implying that this is a minor matter—quite the opposite. The fact that it is before the House at this stage is a matter for regret rather than rejoicing. It is the type of issue to which we should give full consideration and, so far, we have managed to do that.
  The challenge to the Minister is serious. If he is not able to do better than he has heretofore, in his opening remarks and interventions, we may be forced to express our dissatisfaction with the provision by seeking to establish the view of the House in a Division. We have done our best to ask the proper questions. We shall now assess the Minister's reply.
  Mr. Mike O'Brien: The debate has taken an interesting turn or two. It has gone through a few S-bends

  1219
  and meandered so much that, to some extent, debate on a straightforward and narrowly drafted clause has expanded into a great discussion on who owns what and how it is managed.
  Call me a lawyer, but I have to say that the situation is clear. The board's principal responsibility is to prevent and tackle reoffending. We want it to spend its time doing that instead of dealing with the problem and responsibility of owning land. The Bill clearly shows that it can own and manage property, the broad definition of which includes everything from a paperclip to a computer, and which could include land. The Bill excludes ownership of land as such. We accept that the board will need to manage property, which may include the office from which it runs its service.
  Mr. Clappison rose—
  Mr. O'Brien: I shall take one intervention, but this has been a long debate and I want to make substantial progress.
  Mr. Clappison: I hope that the Minister will answer the questions that have been put to him. Can he set the scene for that by telling us what the word "hold" means? What will the probation board be allowed to hold?
  Mr. O'Brien: The hon. Gentleman is well aware that "hold" is a term of art that is used in property legislation. It goes back to the Law of Property Act 1925 which refers to the way in which land is held and transferred. If the hon. Gentleman wants a dissertation on the meaning of "hold", he can look at the various legal textbooks; I do not propose to give a lecture on it now. All we are talking about in this context is the ownership of land. We are saying that a board will be able to hold and manage property, which may include paperclips and computers, but not to own long leases or the freehold of property. That is the principle behind what we are doing. We want the board to concentrate on the job in hand, so as to ensure that it deals with issues of reoffending.
  The Opposition have always supported the proposition that the board should be able to manage land. They tabled an amendment to that effect in another place. The hon. Member for Hertsmere said that our proposal is a land grab by Ministers. I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman should have made such a silly point. He well knows that the land is owned by the taxpayer and that its benefits will accrue to the taxpayer—if, indeed, there are any.
  The hon. Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Bums) said that the value of land often increases, as do the benefits to the owner. I have two comments to make on that. First, although 1 accept that land usually increases in value, it does not always; indeed, the hon. Gentleman will remember when it decreased under the Conservative Government. Secondly, local authorities all too often held on to land in the hope that it might either be of use or be something that they could sell at a greater profit in some years' time. There should be proper business management of such matters. Decisions made locally will not properly consider the overall interests of the taxpayer. The money to run the probation service—locally or nationally—comes from the taxpayer. It is right that the capital or assets that belong to the service should be well managed to bring the taxpayer value for money. That is what the proposal is all about and what we want to achieve.
  1220
  On the transfer of land, and in response to the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath), most of the land owned by the probation service will revert to the Crown estate—in effect, to the Home Secretary—so it will be controlled and managed nationally. If the land is owned in some way by the local authority—or jointly owned, since there may be all sorts of different relationships and legal obligations that have developed over the years—the individual characteristics under which local arrangements have been arrived at will have to be examined nationally, and perhaps some land will have to go to a county council. However, normally, because 100 per cent. of probation service capital costs have historically taken a national route, whereas 20 per cent. of the service's revenue costs have come from local government, the capital will revert. There may be particular local circumstances, which will have to be considered case by case. I hope that that deals with the hon. Gentleman's point.
  6.15 pm
  The hon. Member for West Chelmsford asked whether there were provisions for compensation. The answer is yes, there may be local circumstances—perhaps with a county council or otherwise—as a result of which it is decided that the council owns a proportion of the property, and some compensation will have to be paid. I understand that that is set out in schedule 3. Compensation would be paid where—I think that this is the phrase used—it is just to do so.
  The issue of drafting legislation has floated around during the debate—and here I enter a defence of parliamentary draftsmen, who are experts at what they do. It takes about five years to qualify as a parliamentary draftsman. The job is difficult and there is all too often a tendency to be overly critical of them. Ministers are responsible for what we put before the House, and we do our best to ensure that we accept that, but, on this occasion, criticism seems to have been aimed in the direction of the parliamentary draftsmen. Many of them have been working in that office for decades. They have highly skilled and technical legal abilities. There are always good reasons for their drafting—at least they certainly believe so. To some extent, it is a pity that they do not have a right of reply to Members of Parliament and perhaps, on occasion, to Ministers.
  I shall now deal with another couple of points that were raised. The first is how and when the property will vest nationally to the Crown estate. It will vest on what is called vesting day, following an order under clause 19. The probation service will then become part of the Crown estate and, in effect, all properties will be owned by the Home Office—although probation boards will continue to have an ability to influence local operation and so will describe the requirements for offices and other facilities. The boards will continue to have direct responsibility for management of the property in the area, and will retain responsibility for determining their property needs.
  The hon. Member for Hertsmere indicated that there was a shortage of probation hostels. As a Minister in the previous Government, he should assume his share of responsibility for that. As I understand it, overcapacity in the probation service relates primarily to office space and other land. As I have already said, where we are reducing 20 locally based services to eight, there will be some

  1221
  savings to the taxpayer. It is right that those savings revert to the taxpayer and are spent on public services, especially those that reduce reoffending.
  The basis of the amendment is to ensure that boards direct their attention to the people's priority of reducing reoffending. That is why it is before the House and that is why I commend it to the House.
  Mr. Peter Bottomley: The House will agree with the Minister's final words. We all want to reduce reoffending—and, for that matter, reduce offending in the first place—but the details of the debate are not about that. If the Minister discovers that anything that he has said could be better put, I hope that he will take the opportunity afforded by written answers in the new Session. Perhaps some of the details could be improved. The question of the long leasehold is still unclear to most people who have been following the debate. The Minister said that a short leasehold is all right. However, what happens when a local board asks whether a five-year lease is a short or long leasehold? Is a long lease 15 or 25 years? Some issues may not be clear to local boards.
  When invited to do so, the Minister conceded that he is nationalising a lot of property and taking it into central control. That has been noted, but if the Minister is not proposing to table a manuscript amendment to tidy up the details, the House may have to return to the matter in future. The hon. Gentleman has left the situation unclear, with the exception of the central point that, under Labour, land is nationalised. The Conservatives would leave more freedom for local people.
  Mr. O'Brien: I shall reply to what some may regard as an uncharacteristically trite point from the hon. Member for Worthing, West (Mr. Bottomley). Land that is reverting to the taxpayers' Government was provided by taxpayers.
  Mrs. Angela Browning: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Should the Minister not have required leave of the House to return to the Dispatch Box?
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Sylvia Heal): The Minister accepted an intervention. Would he like to continue?
  Mr. O'Brien: I am grateful, Madam Deputy Speaker. I have made my point and we can move on.
  Question put, That this House agrees with the Lords in their amendment in lieu of Lords amendment No. 135:—
  The House divided: Ayes 275, Noes 116.

  Division No. 367]

  [6.21 pm

  AYES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Austin, John

  Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

  Bailey, Adrian

  Ainger, Nick

  Banks, Tony

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov"try NE)

  Barnes, Harry

  Allen, Graham

  Barron, Kevin

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  Battle, John

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

  Bayley, Hugh

  Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

  Beard, Nigel

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

  1222

  Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

  Galloway, George

  Bennett, Andrew F

  George, Bruce (Walsall S)

  Benton, Joe

  Gerrard, Neil

  Berry, Roger

  Gilroy, Mrs Linda

  Best, Harold

  Godman, Dr Norman A

  Betts, Clive

  Godsiff, Roger

  Blackman, Liz

  Goggins, paul

  Bradley, Keith (Withington)

  Gordon, Mrs Eileen

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  Brinton, Mrs Helen

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Grogan, John

  Browne, Desmond

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  Buck, Ms Karen

  Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

  Butler, Mrs Christine

  Hanson, David

  Byers, Rt Hon Stephen

  Healey, John

  Caborn, Rt Hon Richard

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Hewitt, Ms Patricia

  Campbell-Savours, Dale

  Hill, Keith

  Cann, Jamie

  Hinchliffe David

  Caplin, Ivor

  Hodge, Ms Margaret

  Casale, Roger

  Hoey, Kate

  Caton, Martin

  Hood, Jimmy

  Cawsey, Ian

  Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Hope, Phil

  Chaytor, David

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Clapham, Michael

  Howarth, Rt Hon Alan (Newport E)

  Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Clark, Dr Lynda

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  (Edinburgh Pentlands)

  Hurst, Alan

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Hutton, John

  Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

  Iddon, Dr Brian

  Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

  Illsley, Eric

  Clelland, David

  Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

  Clwyd, Ann

  Jackson, Helen Hillsborough

  Coffey,Ms Ann

  Jamieson, David

  Coleman, Iain

  Jenkins, Brian

  Colman, Tony

  Johnson,Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

  Connarty, Michael

  Johnson, Miss Melanie

  Cook,Frank (Stockton N)

  (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Cooper, Yvette

  Johnson, Mrs Fiona (Newark)

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Corston, Jean

  Jones, Ms Jenny

  Cousins, Jim

  (Wolverh'ton SW)

  Cox, Tom

  Jones,Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Cranston, Ross

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  Crausby, David

  Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Kaufman,Rt Hon Gerald

  Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

  Keeble,Ms Sally

  Dalyell, Tam

  Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

  Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

  Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

  Darvill, Keith

  Kemp, Fraser

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Khabra, Piara S

  Davidson, Ian

  Kilfoyle,Peter

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

  King,Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Ladyman, Dr Stephen

  Denham, John

  Lammy, David

  Dismore, Andrew

  Laxton, Bob

  Dobbin, Jim

  Lepper, David

  Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

  Levitt, Tom

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Dowd, Jim

  Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

  Drown, Ms Julia

  Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Lock, David

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Love, Andrew

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Edwards, Huw

  McCabe, Steve

  Efford, Clive

  McCafferty, Ms Chris

  Ennis, Jeff

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Field, Rt Hon Frank

  Macdonald, Calum

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  McDonnell, John

  Flint, Caroline

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  McIsaac, Shona

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

  Mckenna, Mrs Rosemary

  Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

  McNamara, Kevin

  1223

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Shaw, Jonathan

  McWalter, Tony

  Sheerman, Barry

  McWilliam, John

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Mallaber, Judy

  Shipley, Ms Debra

  Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter

  Short, Rt Hon Clare

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

  Singh, Marsha

  Martlew, Eric

  Skinner, Dennis

  Meale, Alan

  Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

  Merron, Gillian

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  Michael, Rt Hon Alun

  Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

  Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

  Smith, Miss Geraldine

  Miller, Andrew

  (Morecambe & Lunesdale

  Moffatt, Laura

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Moran, Ms Margaret

  Snape, Peter

  Morley, Elliot

  Soley, Clive

  Mountford, Kali

  Spellar, John

  Mullin, Chris

  Squire, Ms Rachel

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Starkey, Dr Phyllis

  Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

  Stevenson, George

  Naysmith, Dr Doug

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  Stoate, Dr Howard

  O'Hara, Eddie

  Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

  Olner, Bill

  Stringer, Graham

  O'Neill, Marlin

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  Osborne, Ms Sandra

  Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann

  Palmer, Dr Nick

  (Dewsbury)

  Pearson, Ian

  Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

  Perham, Ms Linda

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Pickthall, Colin

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Pike, Peter L

  Timms, Stephen

  Plaskitt, James

  Tipping, Paddy

  Pollard, Kerry

  Todd, Mark

  Pope, Greg

  Touhig, Don

  Pound, Stephen

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Purchase, Ken

  Tynan, Bill

  Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce

  Vis, Dr Rudi

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Wareing, Robert N

  Rapson, Syd

  White, Brian

  Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

  Whitehead, Dr Alan

  Robertson, John

  Wicks, Malcolm

  (Glasgow Anniesland)

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  (Swansea W)

  Rogers, Allan

  Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen

  Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff

  Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

  Rooney, Terry

  Winnick, David

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Woolas, Phil

  Roy, Frank

  Worthington, Tony

  Ruddock, Joan

  Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

  Ryan, Ms Joan

  Wyatt, Derek

  Salter, Martin

  Sarwar, Mohammad

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Sawford, Phil

  Mr. Tony McNulty and

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Mr. Mike Hall.

  NOES

  Allan, Richard

  Butterfill, John

  Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

  Cash, William

  Akinson, David (Bour'mth E)

  Chapman, Sir Sydney

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  (Chipping Barnet)

  Baldry, Tony

  Chidgey, David

  Beggs, Roy

  Chope, Christopher

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Clappison, James

  Body, Sir Richard

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)

  Boswell, Tim

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth

  Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

  (Rushcliffe)

  Brady, Graham

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Brazier, Julian

  Collins, Tim

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Cran, James

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Curry, Rt Hon David

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

  Burns, Simon

  Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

  1224

  Day, Stephen

  MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

  Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Evans, Nigel

  Maples, John

  Faber, David

  Moss, Malcolm

  Fabricant, Michael

  O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

  Fallon, Michael

  Öpik, Lembit

  Forth, Rt Hon Eric

  Ottaway, Richard

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Page, Richard

  Fraser, Christopher

  Pickles, Eric

  Gale, Roger

  Rendel, David

  Garnier, Edward

  Robathan, Andrew

  Gibb, Nick

  Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

  Gill, Christopher

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

  Ross, William (E Lond'y)

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Ruffley, David

  Green, Damian

  St Aubyn, Nick

  Grieve, Dominic

  Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

  Gummer, Rt Hon John

  Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

  Soames, Nicholas

  Hammond, Philip

  Spelman, Mrs Caroline

  Hawkins, Nick

  Spicer, Sir Michael

  Heald, Oliver

  Spring, Richard

  Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

  Stanley, Rt hon Sir John

  Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

  Steen, Anthony

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

  Streeter, Gary

  Horam, John

  Swayne, Desmond

  Howarth, Gerald,(Aldershort)

  Syms, Robert

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Jack, Rt Hon Michael

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Townen, John

  Key, Robert

  Trend, Michael

  Kirkbride, Miss Julie

  Tyrie, Andrew

  Laing, Mrs Eleanor

  Waterson, Nigel

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Wells, Bowen

  Leigh, Edward

  Whittingdale, John

  Letwin, Oliver

  Wilkinson, John

  Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

  Willetts, David

  Lidington, David

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Livsey, Richard

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

  Loughton, Tim

  Luff, Peter

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Mr. John Randall and

  McIntosh, Miss Anne

  Mr. James Gray.

  Question accordingly agreed to.

  Schedule 1

    LOCAL BOARDS
    Lords amendment: No. 122, in page 46, line 15, at end insert—
    ("() Regulations made by virtue of sub-paragraph (4) and coming into force on or after the coming into force of section 4 must make provision—

    (a) for the selection procedure for the chairman, the chief officer and the other members of the board who are to be appointed by the Secretary of State to include selection panels,

    (b) in the case of the chief officer, for the board to be represented on any selection panel making a final recommendation to the Secretary of State.")

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

    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
    That the draft Producer Responsibility Obligation (Packaging Waste) (Amendment) (England and Wales) Regulation 2000, Which were laid before this House on 20th November, be approved.— [Mr. Jamieson.]
    Question agreed to.

  HUMAN RIGHTS (JOINT COMMITTEE)
  Motion made,
  That the Lords Message [12th July] communicating a Resolution, That it is expedient that a Joint Committee of both House be appointed—
  to consider and report on:

  (a) matters relating to human rights in the United Kingdom (but excluding consideration of individual cases);

  1225

  (b) proposals for remedial orders, draft remedial orders and remedial orders made under section 10 of and laid under Schedule 2 to the Human Rights Act 1998; and

  (c) in respect of draft remedial orders and remedial orders, whether the special attention of the House should be drawn to them on any of the grounds specified in House of Lords Standing Order 73 (Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments);

  to report to the House:

  (a) in relation to any document containing proposals laid before the House under paragraph 3 of the said Schedule 2, its recommendation whether a draft order in the same terms as the proposals should be laid before the House;

  (b) in relation to any draft order laid under paragraph 2 of the said Schedule 2,

  its recommendation whether the draft order should be approved;
  and to have power to report to the House on any matter arising from its consideration of the said proposals or draft orders; and
  to report to the House in respect of any original order laid under paragraph 4 of the said Schedule 2, its recommendation whether:

  (a) the order should be approved in the form in which it was originally laid before Parliament; or

  (b) that the order should be replaced by a new order modifying the provisions of the original order; or

  (c) that the order should not be approved,

  and to have power to report to the House on any matter arising from its consideration of the said order or any replacement order,
  be now considered.
  Hon. Members: No!
  Mr. Nick Hawkins: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. My understanding is that the Lords Message is debatable, and we on these Benches want to debate it.
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Sylvia Heal): I advise the hon. Gentleman that there is a further motion to be dealt with, and it might be more appropriate if he made his objections known then.
  Mr. Gerald Howarth: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Some of us believe in debate and in holding this arrogant Government to account. It is clearly stated on the Order Paper that motion 5, which stands in the name of the Leader of the House and is entitled Human Rights (Joint Committee), is not debatable after 7 pm. I am capable of reading the clock and seeing that it is 6.39 pm, so presumably we have the opportunity to consider the important proposal that there should be a Joint Committee to discuss that matter. May we now discuss it?
  Madam Deputy Speaker: In no way was it my wish to curtail debate on a debatable motion. I merely suggested that it might be more appropriate to launch a debate when we reach motion 6. However, if the hon. Gentleman wants to debate motion 5, clearly he is entitled to do so.
  Question proposed.
  6.40 pm
  The Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office (Mr. Paddy Tipping): I agree with those voices in the House that say it is important to debate this motion.
  1226
  During the passage of the Human Rights Act 1998, the Government committed themselves to the establishment of a Joint Committee on Human Rights. That Committee was widely welcomed across political parties, although it may have caused controversy in some of the parties and in both Houses. The Lords have agreed to a remit for that Joint Committee, and the motion invites the Commons to agree that remit.
  The Committee's terms of reference give it a wide power to consider matters relating to human rights in the United Kingdom. In that role, it will choose subjects and hold inquiries in the normal way. It will also have a specific duty to consider and report on remedial orders made under the Human Rights Act.
  The Human Rights Act preserves parliamentary sovereignty. The courts will have no power to strike down primary legislation on the ground that it is incompatible with convention rights, but they will be able to declare that legislation is incompatible with those rights. It will be up to Parliament to decide what action, if any, should be taken following a declaration of incompatibility. Changes to the incompatible legislation could be made through fresh primary legislation or through remedial orders.
  Remedial orders will follow roughly the same pattern as deregulation orders. A proposal will be laid and consulted on, during which time the Committee can report, and then a draft order will be laid, which may or may not incorporate any amendments suggested by the Committee. The Committee will report on the draft order. There is also provision, in cases of urgency, for orders having the effect of law immediately to be laid before Parliament for approval and for amendments be made to them, if necessary taking account of any report from the Committee.
  The Human Rights Committee is expected to play a role in examining remedial orders analogous to that played by the Select Committee on Deregulation regarding deregulation orders. It is not known how frequently such remedial orders will be laid, but it is hoped that they will be rare. However, whether they are rare or not, the Joint Committee on Human Rights will be able to provide Parliament with an expert opinion on them.
  The Committee will be able to scrutinise legislation before Parliament to decide whether it is compatible with the European convention on human rights—especially draft legislation or that subject to a statement made under section 19(1)(b) of the Human Rights Act. However, nothing in its terms of reference compels it to do so.
  The task of scrutinising statutory instruments for technical faults will remain with the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments. The grounds for objection to an instrument's vires have been widened by the Human Rights Act to include incompatibility with the ECHR. The Government firmly believe that human rights should be central to our considerations—I think that the current and cult word is "mainstreaming". Giving scrutiny of the human rights aspects of delegated legislation to the JCHR would run counter to that view, would swamp the Committee by requiring it to examine the 1,500 or so instruments laid in a typical Session, and would lead to duplication of effort.
  When the two Houses have reached agreement on the principle that there should be a Committee and have agreed a common remit, we will bring forward detailed Standing

  1227
  Orders covering its powers. It may assist the House if I explain those powers. The Committee is expected to have six Members from each House, on the model of the Joint Committee on Parliamentary Privilege. It will have the powers commonly given to Select Committees, plus a power to exchange papers with other Committees. Discussions are currently taking place about membership of the Committee. Following those discussions, the House of Commons will be asked to approve the membership.
  Mr. Eric Forth: Can the Minister tell us how the Chairman of the Committee will be elected, or appointed?. It would be helpful for us to know whether the Minister envisages any ground rules, or whether the matter will be entirely for the discretion of Committee members.
  Mr. Tipping: It will be a matter for the House. Members will have an opportunity to vote.
  I hope that, following my assurances, the House will approve the resolution.
  6.45 pm
  Mr. Nick Hawkins: We are delighted to have an opportunity to scrutinise the proposal. I note from columns 233 and 234 of the Official Report on 12 July that all that happened in another place was that the Attorney-General read out the proposal on behalf of his noble Friend Lady Jay. There was no debate, so it is particularly important for the democratically elected Chamber to scrutinise what is being suggested.
  Mr. Forth: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Hawkins: I certainly will, on this occasion.
  Mr. Forth: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I hope he is not suggesting that 14 minutes constitutes adequate time for the House to scrutinise something as important as this.
  Mr. Hawkins: I am sorry if I have not already made that clear. I certainly agree with my right hon. Friend that the time allowed is inadequate. Nevertheless, we think it important to debate the motion. I was delighted to hear the Minister agree, when we raised our points of order with you, Madam Deputy Speaker, that it was debatable and should be debated.
  As I have said, I agree with my right hon. Friend that the time remaining is inadequate. For that reason, the House may decide that further debates are needed in a later Session.
  Mr. John Gummer: Surely the reason that we have any time at all is, in a sense, an accident. It is difficult for the Minister to suggest the existence of any credibility for the debate when the remaining minutes are not only few but accidental. It does not look as if the Government were over the moon about their attempt to give the House an opportunity for debate.
  Mr. Hawkins: My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. This may be another example of a happy coincidence calling the Government to account, and my right hon.
  1228
  Friend was justified in suggesting as much. However, Conservative Members are determined to use what time is left to seek to hold the Government to account.
  Ever since the Government incorporated the European convention on human rights into our legislation, Conservative Members have repeatedly questioned them about the cost of implementation to the taxpayer. Throughout the process, the Government have said that the cost will be negligible. In questions to both the Home Secretary and the Lord Chancellor's Department, I have repeatedly suggested that the Government woefully underestimated that cost. Because of our feeling that the Government horrendously underestimated it, we are especially delighted to have the opportunity to examine the further piece of parliamentary bureaucracy that the Government propose in the establishment of the Joint Committee.
  Jean Corston: Is it not extraordinary that Conservative Members should complain that there was a short debate this evening? In 1995, a Conservative Government—incidentally, the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) was a Minister then—
  Mr. Forth: A distinguished Minister.
  Jean Corston: So the right hon. Gentleman says; others may have a different view. Anyway, that Government incorporated article 2 of the convention without any parliamentary scrutiny or debate.
  Mr. Hawkins: The hon. Lady is seeking to go back five years into history. I hope she will correct her unwillingness to describe my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) as a distinguished Minister, which indeed he was. When I was a new Back Bencher, I had the great privilege of supporting him in much of the valuable work that he was doing, particularly when he was a Minister of State at the Department for Education. He was one of the best and most diligent Schools Ministers that the House has ever had the pleasure of working with.
  Government Back Benchers' churlishness in failing to recognise the work done by distinguished Ministers such as my right hon. Friend is an absolute disgrace. It is absolutely typical of them to say that they believe in human rights while being unwilling to pay tribute to the work done by my right. hon. Friends in the previous Government.
  I should like to examine the terms of the undoubtedly bureaucratic innovation that the Government are suggesting in the resolution. I am one of a relatively small number of hon. Members who have sat—in the previous Parliament—on a Joint Committee. There are not many such Committees. However, the one on which I sat—which had many distinguished Members of this place and of another place—undoubtedly used to get tied up in bureaucracy.
  One of the concerns that I know is shared by my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst—which they may be able to outline in a moment if they are able to catch your eye, Madam Deputy

  1229
  Speaker—is that the Government are seeking in the resolution to impose an additional cost and bureaucratic burden arising from the Human Rights Act 1998.
  Mr. Andrew Miller: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his courtesy in giving way. However, I am also slightly confused. The resolution begins by mentioning the "Lords Message [12 July]". I presume that that means that the message has been in the hon. Gentleman's hands, or at least in the public domain, since 12 July. What representations have Conservative Members made, through the usual channels, to have a longer debate on the subject?
  Mr. Hawkins: I have not personally been involved at any stage in my parliamentary career in what are usually referred to as the usual channels. I do not think the hon. Gentleman has ever been involved on behalf of his party in what are usually referred to as the usual channels. I therefore do not think that he can ask such a question, and I am certainly not able to answer it.
  Mr. Gummer: Does my hon. Friend agree that a matter of this importance does not require requests for debate from the Opposition? Since when has debate in this House been something that the Opposition should request? When the previous Government were in office, we constantly had debates because we thought that subjects were sufficiently important to debate. The trouble with this Government is that they do not want debate on anything at all.
  Mr. Hawkins: Of course my right hon. Friend, who has vastly more experience of how the usual channels operate than the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller) or me, is absolutely right. The Government constantly attempt to bypass Parliament and to curtail debate or abolish it entirely. When we are considering the human rights issue, perhaps we should also be considering the human rights of parliamentarians.
  Mr. Forth: Does my hon. Friend not think it odd—sinister, in fact—that something that arose on 12 July is being brought to the House by the Government only in the very last minutes of this Session? What does he think has been happening to the resolution in the intervening several months? Are the Government ashamed of it, or do they want to avoid debate? Why has it taken so long for the Government to bring it to the House?
  Mr. Hawkins: That is an appropriate question. The Government chose to have one of the longest summer recesses in living memory. This proposal was put before another place before the recess, and we could have had plenty of time to deal with it. Why should this appear today? Why have the Government been so secretive? My right hon. and hon. Friends will be pressing the Minister to respond if we have a further debate. If there is not time for debate, the Government could withdraw the motion and bring it back in a new Session—
  Mr. Forth: Tomorrow.
  Mr. Hawkins: Or tomorrow, as my right hon. Friend says, when there could be scope for a more thorough debate.
  6.55 pm
  Mr. Gerald Howarth: I am grateful to the Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office for his unfailing courtesy in dealing with the House, even if he is the messenger of some ghastly messages.
  I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for at least telling the House what the proposal is all about. It is right that a matter of topical interest to the public—human rights—should be brought before us at the 59th minute of the 11th hour. That suggests that the Government wanted to smuggle this through at the last minute.
  Mr. Tipping: I said straightforwardly that we wished to debate that matter. The debate may not be completed today; it may be necessary to have a further debate at another date.
  Mr. Howarth: The House will be grateful to the Parliamentary Secretary for that, as there would be a wish on our part to debate the issues. Human rights and the way in which the law is developing in that area are causing great concern.
  I wish to refer to the impact of the European convention on human rights on this House. I have said many times that it is deeply offensive to our democratic and constitutional principles in this country for the composition of Her Majesty's armed forces to be determined not by this House but by European Court of Human Rights judges who are not nationals of this country, let alone Members of this House.
  Mr. David Taylor: Can the hon. Gentleman not say that they are foreigners?
  Mr. Howarth: The hon. Gentleman anticipates me. They are, indeed, foreigners, or aliens. They are manifestly not Members of this House. The Government are perfectly entitled to bring the proposal to the House for debate and a vote, but that was not the practice. The Government said that they had been handed down a decision by the European Court and they simply had to comply with it, as they have done without a vote in this House or in another place.
  Mr. Christopher Chope: Does my hon. Friend share my concern that the Joint Committee will not be able to look at individual cases? Is that not a major failing?
  Mr. Howarth: I am not in favour of these matters being addressed by the Joint Committee. My immediate reaction is that this will be a hellish bureaucratic procedure. For example, the order states that the Joint Committee will be appointed
  to consider and report on:
  (a) matters relating to human rights in the United Kingdom.
  That is a complete open sesame. What are we letting ourselves in for? Will we have to sit in permanent session, considering whether it is the human right of girls in school to wear trousers if they so wish, rather than the designated uniform of that school? Are we to—
  7 pm
  Sitting suspended.
  7.32 pm
  On resuming—
  Message to attend the Lords Commissioners:
  The House went; and, having returned:

  ROYAL ASSENT
  8 pm
  Mr. Speaker: I have to acquaint the House that the House has been to the House of Peers, where a Commission under the Great Seal was read, authorising the Royal Assent to the following Acts:

  Race Relations (Amendment) Act 2000

  Children (Leaving Care) Act 2000

  Freedom of Information Act 2000

  Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000

  Transport Act 2000

  Insolvency Act 2000

  Protection of Animals (Amendment) Act 2000

  Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000

  Disqualifications Act 2000

  Criminal Justice and Court Services Act 2000

  Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 2000

PROROGATION

  Her Majesty's Most Gracious Speech
  Mr. Speaker: I have further to acquaint the House that the Lord High Chancellor, one of the Lord Commissioners, delivered Her Majesty's Most Gracious Speech to both Houses of Parliament, in pursuance of Her Majesty's Command. For greater accuracy, I have obtained a copy and also directed that the terms of the speech be printed in the Journal of the House. Copies are being made available in the Vote Office.
  The Gracious Speech was as follows:

  My Lords and Members of the House of Commons
  My Government has taken action to secure economic stability and steady growth, based on its long-term objectives for monetary and fiscal policy. The goal is high and stable levels of growth and employment. My Government has sought to secure the conditions which enable it to increase investment in public services.
  Improving education continues to be my Government's highest priority. An Act has been passed to establish a new Learning and Skills Council to secure high standards for post-16 education and training and a new emphasis on securing skills needed in the economy
  Legislation has been passed to improve health and social care, reforming the system for protection of vulnerable people.
  My Government has published an NHS Plan, setting out a programme of investment and reform for the health service. The Plan will redesign NHS services to focus on the needs of patients, and will be supported by a sustained increase in NHS funding.
  To ensure high levels of employment, my Government is continuing the New Deal to help more young people and the long-term unemployed, and announced the creation of a new Working Age agency to continue the progress made on developing Welfare to Work policies.
  My Government is continually looking for ways to improve productivity, including in the public sector. The spending plans announced in July were accompanied by Public Service Agreements setting out targets for service improvement. An Act has-been passed to introduce the latest accounting methods in Whitehall.
  My Government is committed to delivering a competitive and well-regulated economy. An Act has been passed which reforms the regulatory framework for the gas and electricity sectors in England and Wales. Legislation has been enacted to transform the Post Office into a plc owned by the Government. Legislation has also been passed to improve the regulation of financial services and markets, establishing the Financial Services Authority as the single statutory regulator. An Act has been passed to remove legal barriers and create a framework of trust to make it easier for commercial transactions and Government services to take place electronically.
  An Act has been passed to reform the child support system. It also reforms the State Earnings Related Pension Scheme through the introduction of a State Second Pension and provides for the withdrawal of benefits from offenders who fail to complete community sentences.
  Measures have been put forward to reduce crime. An Act has been passed to improve the protection of children from violent and sex offenders and to strengthen community sentences. Legislation has been enacted to provide new powers for the police and courts to tackle disorder connected with football matches.
  An Act has been passed to put in place permanent UK-wide legislation against terrorism. Legislation has also been passed to update and regulate law enforcement capabilities to address changes in technology and the introduction of the Human Rights Act.
  An Act has been passed which fulfils my Government's promise to legislate on a range of transport issues. This reforms air traffic control, railways and local transport services. My Government has published a ten-year plan for the modernisation of the country's transport system.
  My Government has continued its plans for the reform of local government. An Act has been passed to improve its accountability and innovation. An Act has been passed to give the public a new right of access to open countryside. It also improves the law on rights of way and the management of Sites of Special Scientific Interest and Areas of Outstanding National Beauty and strengthens the enforcement of wildlife law.
  My Government has continued its programme of constitutional reform. Legislation has been enacted which will give the public a statutory right of access to information held by public authorities.
  An Act has been passed to regulate the funding of political parties and campaign expenditure and to ensure the fair conduct of referendums. My Government is determined to improve equality of opportunity. An Act has been passed outlawing race discrimination in certain public functions and placing a duty on specified public authorities to promote race equality.
  My Government has continued to co-operate with the devolved administrations in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland in the interests of all of the people in the United Kingdom. In Northern Ireland my Government has worked closely with the Irish Government to secure full implementation of the Good Friday Agreement. It has fulfilled its commitment to transfer powers to the Northern Ireland Assembly in accordance with the wishes of the people as expressed in a referendum.
  An Act has been passed to implement recommendations of the Report of the Independent Commission on policing in Northern Ireland. My Government will continue to implement other parts of the Good Friday agreement within its responsibility.

  Members of the House of Commons
  I thank you for the provision you have made for the work and dignity of the Crown and for the public service.

  My Lords and Members of the House of Commons
  The Duke of Edinburgh and I were pleased to receive the State Visit of Her Majesty Queen Margrethe of Denmark and Prince Henrik in February.
  We recall with pleasure our visit to Australia in March. Similarly we were delighted to pay a State Visit to Italy and a Visit to the Holy See in October.
  My Government has continued to take a leading role in the European Union. The Special European Council in Lisbon signalled new developments in Europe' s approach to economic and social reform.
  Preparing for enlargement is a challenge for the European Union, and my Government is playing a key role. My Government has worked for practical measures to strengthen the European Union's foreign and security policy and continues to work with our allies to strengthen and modernise NATO.
  My Government has made a large political, military and financial commitment to build peace and stability in the Balkans. It has played a leading role in helping to rebuild Kosovo.
  My Government has taken decisive action in support of the UN operation in Sierra Leone, and continued to support the UN in bringing self-determination to the people of East Timor. In the G8 and other forums my Government has taken a leading role in tackling issues of poverty eradication, debt relief and the causes of conflict.

  My Lords and Members of the House of Commons
  I pray that the blessing of Almighty God may attend you.
  A Commission was also read for proroguing this present Parliament, and the Lord Chancellor said:
  My Lords and Members of the House of Commons: by virtue of Her Majesty's Commission which has now been read, we do, in Her Majesty's name, and in obedience to Her Majesty's Commands, prorogue this Parliament to Wednesday the sixth day of December, to be then here holden, and this Parliament is accordingly prorogued to Wednesday the sixth day of December next.
  End of the Third Session (opened on 17 November 1999) of the Fifty-Second Parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, in the Forty-Ninth Year of the Reign of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second.

Preamble
[SIR ALAN HASELHURST in the Chair]

Poverty and Social Exclusion
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned.—[Mr. Clelland.]
2.30 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Hugh Bayley): We are here to discuss an important issue and I am glad to see so many hon. Members present—from all parties, although largely from the Government side—for this important debate. I am particularly impressed because it may be the last day of the Session.
For most of the 20th century, poverty in the United Kingdom was in retreat, especially after the second world war, when the Labour Government under Clement Attlee introduced the welfare state. The change in the first half of the century was well documented in my constituency by a prominent Liberal social reformer, Seebohm Rowntree, who produced three reports chronicling a section of the population in York who were living in poverty. The first report was published in 1901, the second, "Poverty and Progress" in 1941 and the third, "Poverty and the Welfare State" in 1951. They broadly documented the fact that Victorian-style poverty had disappeared—forever, it was assumed.
In the 1960s and 1970s further progress was made under Macmillan, Wilson and Callaghan, but in the last two decades of the 20th century, poverty re-emerged with a vengeance. Between 1979 and 1997, the proportion of households on low incomes doubled, as did the proportion of households with people of working age in which nobody worked—with severe consequences for child poverty. In 1979 one child in 10 born in the UK was born into poverty. By 1997 that figure had increased to one child in three. The gap between rich and poor also widened. The income of the richest 20 per cent. of pensioners over that period increased twice as fast as the income of the poorest 20 per cent. of pensioners.
Over that 20-year period poverty cut a new and tragic scar across the nation, dividing communities. That was not a temporary problem, linked to the cycles of boom and bust under the Conservative Government; when the country went into recession, hundreds of thousands of people were forced out of work, and not just for one or two years until things improved—for most of them, it was for ever. People were written off not just for a year or two, but for a generation. As we know, poverty is inherited, generation after generation. Children growing up in households that live on benefits learn to expect to live on benefits themselves. That is the cycle of deprivation that the Government are determined to break.
The key to breaking that cycle is creating the conditions for a strong and stable economy, which provides opportunities for all. We need to back up that basic economic policy with action to train, support and
282WH
encourage young people, lone parents and disabled people to make use of the opportunities that a successful economy provides. We also need to reform the benefits system to remove the poverty traps that prevent people from escaping poverty and dependency—to offer people a hand-up rather than a hand-out.
Poverty is a complex issue. It is obviously about money, but also about education, housing, health care, crime, and the community in which people grow up. Tackling poverty has led to the development of policies that link up across government. In February 1999 the Secretary of State for Social Security announced that the Government would produce an annual report on poverty, and in March the Prime Minister put child poverty at the heart of the Government strategy when he announced the intention to halve the proportion of children in Britain living in poverty over 10 years and to eliminate child poverty over 20 years. That will not be easy; it certainly cannot happen overnight. Current measures, such as improving children's educational attainment at school, will not bear fruit for many years to come. But, we must take action now in order to reduce poverty in the future.
In our first annual report on poverty, published in September 1999, we set out a range of indicators—32 in all—to illustrate the progress, or lack of it, made by the Government in tackling poverty in a wide variety of dimensions. We use those indicators to judge ourselves, as others will use them to judge us. The indicators have several dimensions and we know that we shall not always make progress in every one. We hope over time to be able increasingly to discern a trend in the right direction.
The second annual report, published this year, recorded progress in terms of the measures adopted to tackle poverty and their effect. It is, of course, too early to reach definitive judgments about the result of our policies. Some elements of the report were based on statistics that were gathered before our measures to tackle poverty were introduced. The figures on pensioner poverty, for example, take no account of the introduction of the minimum income guarantee for pensioners. We shall use the same measures each year to ensure consistency; that will enable people to assess what progress has been made.
I want to say a few words about the Government's actions to tackle child poverty. We are investing £540 million in Sure Start programmes to provide additional help to children in their early years. So far 194 Sure Start schemes have been established, providing local services tailored to local needs. In Barrow, a health visitor out-of-hours help line is widely used and greatly valued. In Sheffield, Sure Start was used to create story sacks of books and equipment to help parents and care workers looking after children. In Hastings, three Sure Start centres were established. They provided a baby clinic, a health clinic, a music group, a get-cooking group to encourage more nutritious meals, and play-link home visitors, which, backed up by the new deal for lone parents, currently supports 90 families. Some 200 additional child care places are planned to allow more women to benefit from the new deal.
Measures in the previous four Budgets will lift more than a million children out of poverty. Child benefit has been increased this year to £15 for the first child and £10 for subsequent children—a 26 per cent. increase in real

283WH
terms. This year, the working families tax credit, together with the minimum wage, guarantee a minimum income of £208 a week, when one person in the family is in full-time work. That will increase to £214 a week from April. All families with children are better off—on average, by more than £15 a week—as a result of the Government's changes. A couple on income support with two children aged under 11 years are nearly £30 better off compared with the position in 1997. On average, families in receipt of the working families tax credit are receiving £30 more than they did when in receipt of the predecessor benefit, family credit. More than half a million lone parents are in receipt of the working families tax credit.
Mr. Eric Pickles: Does the Under-Secretary concede that the figures to which he is referring do not show the increase in the tax burden that has fallen particularly heavily on people on lower incomes? They now have to pay more because of the Government's stealth taxes.
Mr. Bayley: The hon. Gentleman is wrong. The Government have reduced taxes, especially in respect of those on low incomes. Income tax has been reduced and a new lower 10p starting rate of tax has been introduced for families on low incomes. We want to ensure that work pays. We introduced tax credits to ensure that people in work, even on a low income, are better off employed on the mix of wages, tax and in-work benefits, such as tax credit, than they are out of work with out-of-work benefits. That is crucial to the Government's strategy and why so many more people are in work. As a result of the macroeconomic policies of the Government, there are a million more jobs in the economy than when they came to power 1997. Without such policies, the opportunities for people to escape from a life of dependency on benefits would not exist.
People of working age form a crucial group. People at work create the resources that support children and, to a large extent, the resources that support older people in retirement. Under the welfare system that we inherited, too much was spent on the cost of economic failure and paying people not to work. Too little was invested in creating opportunities for people to work, which is why the Government embarked on a far-reaching programme of welfare reform to change the system so that it deals with modern society. We have made a good start. Unemployment is now at its lowest level for 20 years. Nearly half a million fewer people are in receipt of unemployment benefits than was the case just over three years ago when the Labour Government came to power. Furthermore, 100,000 fewer lone parents are on benefits.
The Prime Minister announced today that we had met our manifesto commitment to help 250,000 young people into work. Youth unemployment has come down by 70 per cent. since May 1997. The percentage of working age people in workless households is down from 13.2 per cent. in 1997 to 11.9 per cent. this year. People are better off in work as a result of our welfare reform policy. About 1.5 million people are better off because of the introduction of the minimum wage.

284WH
I refer now to what the Government are doing for older people. After we were elected, our first priority was to do more to help the poorest pensioners. When we came to power, the basic state pension for a single pensioner was £62.45 a week. In April last year, we introduced the minimum income guarantee to boost the income of the poorest pensioners. This year, the rate of the minimum income guarantee is £78.45, which is £16 more than the basic state pension was when we were elected. From April next year, it will rise to £92.15 for a single pensioner and to £140.55 for couples. As I said, those changes have not fed into in this year's poverty report.
Nearly 2 million pensioners are better off as a result of the minimum income guarantee. We are also taking action to help all pensioners, not only the poorest, with the winter fuel allowance. We introduced it at £20 per household and this winter it will be £200. We have introduced free television licences for pensioners aged over 75 and we have announced a substantial increase in the basic state pension next year of £5 a week for single pensioners and £8 a week for couples.
We are doing more to help pensioners across the board. As shown in the proposals published in the pension credit paper, we intend to do more to help those prudent pensioners who have put money aside for their retirement, to ensure that people with modest savings can benefit from the minimum income guarantee. We are taking steps to improve opportunities for people now at work—first, by reforming the state earnings-related pension scheme so that people on lower incomes will get a better return through the state second pension and, secondly, by creating stakeholder pensions, which will be available from next year.
Poverty exists everywhere. It exists in the inner city, in suburbs, market towns and rural areas. The Conservative Government ignored rural poverty. They hid it behind images of lengthening shadows, village cricket greens and old maids bicycling to Holy Communion through the morning mist. Yesterday, this Government published a White Paper to help tackle the causes of poverty and social exclusion in the countryside.
We propose a mandatory 50 per cent. rate relief for village shops, public houses and garages. We are putting £100 million into primary health care centres and mobile clinics in rural areas. We are supporting village post offices with a £270 million investment programme. Each year, 3,000 affordable homes will be built in small settlements. Over the next three years, we shall invest an extra £240 million in rural transport.
Towns and cities need a community response to poverty. We are taking that forward with 26 health action zones, 73 education action zones and 15 employment zones, and through such measures as the new deal for communities, in which we are investing £1.6 billion over 10 years. In Nottingham, for instance, a new deal for communities is providing pre-school learning. It will draw banks and supermarkets back into deprived areas and create healthy living centres. In Newport in Wales, Duffryn high school is opening in the evening to increase the uptake of adult education and life-long learning.
We know that tackling poverty will not be easy. There is no quick fix. Action needs to be taken by local communities and local authorities, at national level and

285WH
even at European level. Indeed, at the Lisbon special Council meeting in March, the need for a European poverty strategy was put on the agenda by the Government and other European Governments. To be successful, co-operation between Departments is essential.
Mr. Gareth R. Thomas: On the question of co-operation, I am sure that my hon. Friend recognises the potential of credit unions to help those in poverty gain access to affordable credit. I am sure that he is also aware of the recommendations of the Treasury task force on the need for a new central services organisation to widen access to credit unions. I realise that it is not my hon. Friend's immediate responsibility, but when he starts stalking the corridors of Whitehall again, I hope that he will prod his officials, particularly those who speak to Treasury officials and Treasury Ministers, to ensure that the central services organisation is up and running as quickly as possible.
Mr. Bayley: I most certainly will. My hon. Friend's question illustrates well why tackling poverty must be a matter for joined-up government. The debt problems are real. The access to credit for the poor is appalling. Some poor people are strung out into a life of misery by loan sharks. Affordable and appropriate access to credit is therefore extremely important and must form part of the strategy.
Mr. Pickles: I should be grateful for the Minister's views on another problem. Some are trapped by loan sharks but what about those who are trapped into poverty when they buy white goods? They are given interest-free credit for a year or two, but enormous penalty points come later, with 30 or 40 per cent. rates of interest. I am sure that he has had a number of such cases in his constituency, as I have. People who are trapped in poverty can encounter usurious rates. The rates seem reasonable initially but ultimately trap them.
Mr. Bayley: I am interested in what the hon. Gentleman says. My constituents have not come to me with that problem, but we should consider it. We need transparency so that people understand what they are letting themselves in for when they take on loans. They need advice. It is difficult for people on low incomes to deal with their debts. I agree with the hon. Gentleman on that score. I hope that he will look at his party's proposals to reduce the amount of money in the social fund by some £90 million. That will have a devastating effect on poor families and will push a lot of poor people towards loan sharks and the sort of short-termism that he rightly criticises.
The last two interventions demonstrate clearly why it is important for the Treasury, the Department of Trade and Industry, the Department of Social Security and other Departments to work together to get consistency of policy. There is no point in tackling the slum housing that prevents people from creating for themselves a pathway out of poverty, if one does not also tackle poor education, poor health or the high rate of crime. Someone who starts up a business may be put out of
286WH
business by criminals. One needs joined-up action to tie together the initiatives that different parts of Government, nationally and locally, are taking.
Mr. Steve Webb: On the issue of the relationship between the DSS and the rest of the Government, the DSS, like other Departments, signs a public service agreement which is referred to in this document. Some of the goals are public service agreement targets. I am not clear whether these have any teeth. What is the sanction if a Department fails to hit such a target? Who cares?
Mr. Bayley: The Treasury cares. The income stream that Departments get is tied to performance. Each time a Department negotiates with the Treasury it receives funding in return for delivering on certain policies. If a Department fails to deliver it will find it difficult to convince the Treasury that it will deliver policy effectively in future. That is the basic sanction. It is an important point. There is no point in being tied to particular goals unless one is held to account for their attainment. Government Departments and Ministers will be held to account by Parliament in forums like this. It is also important to have clear accountability within Government.
Some of our initiatives will take years to bear fruit. However, if we do not take action now, we simply defer even further the time when we will see the substantial progress that we in our party, at least, want to see. We are making significant progress even though there is still an extremely long way to go. The Government's commitment to tackling poverty and social exclusion is clear. We give it a high priority because tackling poverty is morally right and economically good, common sense. So long as there is a Labour Government our commitment to tackling poverty and social exclusion will remain high.
2.45 pm
Mr. Eric Pickles: I welcome the Under-Secretary's support for a common-sense approach to welfare reform. The consensus on that matter will greatly interest my leader.
Uneven credit rates are a problem. If this year is similar to last year, immediately after Christmas I will be contacted by constituents who opted 12 months ago for 10 months or a year's interest-free credit on white goods such as refrigerators or washing machines. The initial payments required are relatively modest—perhaps £500 deposit, or payments of £10 a month. However, if the purchasers fail to pay in full on the date specified at the end of the interest-free period, they face much higher interest rates. I have to offer debt counselling in conjunction with my local citizens advice bureau because people on modest earnings find themselves trapped by those high interest rates. The position is explained, but only in very small print, which is not immediately obvious to the purchaser, and that is a problem that should be tackled.
The Under-Secretary seemed genuinely surprised when I talked about joined-up Government and suggested that increasing indirect taxation adds to the burden on the poor. It is no longer fashionable for Labour politicians to refer to the tax burden, and I

287WH
believe that they have a sentence of about 20 words to describe it. However, I understand from the Institute for Fiscal Studies that the tax burden on those in the bottom fifth of the income scale has increased from 37 per cent. to 40 per cent. Whatever the Minister may have to say about targeting benefits, the result of that is that what his party attempts to give with one hand, it takes away with the other.
The Minister made a thoughtful speech in which he recited the Government's perceived achievements, but it was not very passionate. We should all be committed to tackling social exclusion and poverty, and should advocate that commitment on a moral level. The hon. Gentleman is usually a robust speaker, but passion is lacking from the Government's approach to poverty because of the way in which they look at the problem.
Mrs. Linda Gilroy: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Pickles: I shall give way when I have finished my point, because I would like to know the h Lady's views on what I am about to say.
The hon. Lady and her hon. Friends refer to the problem as social exclusion, but we should be talking about social inclusion. That is not just a matter of semantics: one phrase ghettoises the other. People should be released and given opportunities, and I believe that the Government are thinking about that.
Mrs. Gilroy: The hon. Gentleman will be delighted to know that under the Labour-run Plymouth council, the department that dealt with such matters was called the social inclusion unit.
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that actions speak much louder than words? Will he offer an apology to my constituents for the legacy left by my Conservative predecessor in 1997 of the poorest ward in England?
Mr. Pickles: Part of the problem facing us is that people attempt to make cheap political points. I live in a prosperous area now, but for most of my adult life I lived in a poor area, and I am very much aware of what the previous Conservative Government did. I saw estates transformed with money from central Government. Schemes, housing associations, local authorities, local businesses, schools, and the then training and enterprise councils worked together to transform people's lives in poor areas.
Ms Hazel Blears: The hon. Gentleman says that estates were transformed during the years of Conservative Government and paints a wonderful picture of social inclusion and a happy world for everyone. If that is so, could he explain why unemployment went up to 3 million, crime doubled and the number of children in workless households doubled during those Conservative years?
Mr. Pickles: The hon. Lady should not talk about crime, given what the Labour Government have done with the police, but I will deal with the matters that she
288WH
has raised. I can see that my poor attempt to reach consensus in the Chamber is failing, so I will have to make several other points.
The social exclusion unit could be more successful if it adopted a more inclusive approach. An interesting article in The Guardian this week said that the Government were thinking of creating a Ministry for the poor. They are particularly keen to avoid the word "exclusion" and move towards a statement of inclusion, like the unit mentioned by the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Mrs. Gilroy). According to The Guardian—I am sure it must be accurate—the Government's intention to establish the Department
would be seen as an acknowledgement that the social exclusion unit has not been as successful as the prime minister envisaged.
We are all sorry about that. That article also says:
A string of studies and initiatives, including an £800m neighbourhood renewal scheme, have been produced but the unit has been the victim of "turf wars" with departments.
That is a familiar picture from comedies such as "Yes, Minister", but it is a sad one when we are dealing with reality. One reason why the social exclusion unit has failed is that it has not managed to keep its momentum going on poverty issues, despite all the good intentions.
A leading accountancy firm published a report saying that one problem was cynicism inside Departments about the unit's effectiveness. It calls the policy action teams a mixed bag and describes the people attracted to it as young Turks—people who are keen but have little authority. I was once described as a young Turk, but I have moved on since then. The report also says that the unit has not built a relationship with the voluntary sector and has not managed to tap into good government and local networks. It says that there was less enthusiasm inside the Government for the unit than outside, and that it tended to work against the grain of Departments and needed to gain consensus. If it moved towards a greater feeling of inclusion, it might be able to achieve that.
There is no sharper reminder of the need to deal with poverty and social exclusion on the cross-disciplinary basis mentioned by the Under-Secretary—involving the police, housing, and health and benefit reform—than the tragic death of the young man this week. All of us who saw pictures in the newspapers of the estate where that young boy bled to death and listened to interviews on this morning's "Today" programme find the matter deeply shocking and depressing. We heard that people turn a blind eye to crime and assaults on that estate. This morning, I heard a young lady saying, "You are just grateful if it's not you."
The assault coincided with a speech by the Home Secretary, in which he tried to spell out the nature of citizenship. He said that we all had a duty to report minor crimes and criminal damage, although he did not want to encourage a have-a-go society. Hon. Members know that, in many parts of Britain today, that is not realistic advice. If one reports such matters to the police—if one is lucky enough to get through on the phone—it is unlikely that one will see flashing blue lights or the Bill suddenly arriving. It is unlikely that anything will happen, as the police have retreated from many estates and rural parts of the United Kingdom. That is not because they do not want to be there; it is because of rising crime and the substantial drop in police numbers

289WH
and resources. Police numbers have dropped by more than 2 per cent., and the increase in resources announced by the Home Secretary this week is less than a third of 1 per cent. Additional cuts will be made, and the police are being forced to prioritise.
Ms Karen Buck: Does the hon. Gentleman not agree that whatever happens to police resources, it is unlikely that police can be at the scene of a crime when it occurs? That is a well known fact. The Government's strategy has rightly been focused on prevention. That is the purpose of programmes such as the new deal for communities, which is under way in Southwark. The reorientation of single regeneration budgets is about tackling design issues, working with young people and prevention.
Mr. Pickles: I do not disagree, but people need the protection of the police. The hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Thomas)—who has distinguished us with his presence today—and I were on a talk show earlier this week. The presenter told us that a lone woman in a car had rung up to say that she had witnessed several thefts from motor vehicles in front of her. She had telephoned the local police and told them about the crimes and that she was in the car by herself. However, 45 minutes later, a policeman had not arrived. That is a common occurrence. I have the honour to hold a police parliamentary fellowship, and have been out on patrol with the police. I have seen the strain that they are under. It is simply not possible to offer any kind of response to such minor crimes.
As a result of changes introduced by the Government—most notably, the Human Rights Act 1998—the audit trail has to be followed for the simplest crimes. The concept of proportionality means that police officers simply do not do it, not because they do not want to, but because they are under-resourced. In London, the Metropolitan police is slightly less than 1,000 officers understaffed. It is not surprising that police are not able to respond. It is not good enough for the Home Secretary to advocate a policy that will not be a success and will further undermine the public's confidence in the police. That is an example of the Government becoming out of touch with reality on the streets.
The Under-Secretary said that today was a national day of celebration because the Government have achieved one of their election pledges—no doubt Labour Members have in their wallets or handbags a pledge card on which they can put a tick, which says that 250,000 young people have been through some scheme. [Hon. Members: "Hear, hear."] The Under-Secretary should take note of the ease with which I can excite his colleagues. However, the matter is related to an election pledge, not to reality. The Financial Times said that 80 per cent. of the 250,000 would have got jobs without an intervention from the new deal. It is likely that the jobs would have been created anyway.
Mr. Jeff Ennis: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Pickles: I will in a second. I want to finish making my point, because I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will want to comment on it. The Economist pointed out
290WH
that only 113,000 young people, not 250,000, were on the long-term list. It was easy to achieve the election pledge because of the natural reduction that was occurring before the Labour party came into power. The hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) could have had such a card—I could have had a card. I congratulate the Labour party for producing a card that states the blindingly obvious.
Mr. Ennis: During 18 years of Tory misrule, more than one third of a million young people were out of work for more than 12 months. That figure has sunk to 6,000. Does that not suggest that the new deal programme has been successful?
Mr. Pickles: The hon. Gentleman has been reading too much from his own cards. Under the Conservatives, roughly 5,000 young people a month dropped out of long-term unemployment; under this Government, the number is a smidgeon over 4,000. That information comes from my memory, and I will check it later in case I am wrong.
Caroline Flint: We may concede that some of the young people going through the new deal programme would have got jobs anyway. However, the same commentators, in the reports that I read, added that those young people were better trained, had more confidence and were more equipped for sustainable prospects, having gone through the programme, than they would otherwise have been.
Mr. Pickles: Commentators are saying exactly the opposite. They say that training needs are not met by the courses and that a significant number of people do not take up jobs that last more than 13 weeks. In reality, when the scheme is removed from the election pledge, it has not proved terribly effective. I cannot think of a better way of describing that achievement. No doubt, Mr. Stevenson—or should I call you Mr. Deputy Speaker?
Mr. George Stevenson: I am told that I am a Deputy Speaker.
Mr. Pickles: Great. Well, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I know that you are a well read man, so you will probably recall the American novelist—[Interruption.]
Mr. George Stevenson: Order. I've been demoted. I am not a Deputy Speaker, so the hon. Gentleman was right first time.
Mr. Pickles: I am grief stricken to hear of your demotion.
Mr. George Stevenson: So am I.
Mr. Pickles: Your time will come, sir. Of that I am confident.
You will remember that Thomas Berger, the American novelist, created a character called Jack Crabb, who was once asked by a sentimental interviewer whether it was possible for a lamb to lie down with a lion. He replied that it was perfectly possible, providing

291WH
that one had an ample supply of lambs. That is similar to the way in which the Labour party has achieved its pledge.
I hope that the hon. Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) does not mind, but I prefer the analysis made by the right hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson). He said:
Our present training scheme is not delivering,
and that young people were being trained in redundant skills for jobs that were not there. I regret to tell the hon. Lady that, but someone who was very much involved in those initiatives seems to regard them as something of a failure.
The Prime Minister has been keen to claim victory, but on examination, the figures turn out to be lower than he has said. Only a year ago he claimed that 170,00 young people had found jobs through the new deal. That turned out to be only 148,000, and the figure was later revised down to 126,000. I hope that the celebration of the figure of 250,000 will not turn out to be premature.
Only 27 per cent. of jobs obtained through the new deal last more than 13 weeks. That was the reference that I was making in my exchange with the hon. Member for Don Valley. We should think about what the Government defined as social exclusion. Only one of the 11 new deal areas has so far received a good grade for education options, and four were judged unsatisfactory. Typical criticisms included poor attendance, insufficient workplace experience and clients being put through inappropriate programmes. As The Times Educational Supplement put it in March,
Unless it is tackled, the New Deal will…fail to help many of the most socially excluded.
That is quite a problem.
The relative position of young people who have turned their backs on education is also worrying. I am sure that hon. Members saw an article in The Economist in July, containing startling figures showing that
more teenagers appear to be neither in school, nor in training or work. Ten years ago, about 100,000 were in this category: today there are some 173,000…of the population between 16 and 18.
The article continued:
Around 15 per cent. of people between 16 and 24 were not seeking work in 1998, as against 10 per cent. a decade ago. In short, the relative position of young people who have turned their back on education has worsened.
The article also states that
the risk of ending up…without either a full-time job or a place in government-supported training has increased from one in ten a decade ago to one in three.
That represents a considerable worry to the Government.
If the Government are to succeed in tackling poverty—and I hope that they do—they will have to take a dose of their own medicine. They will have to adopt what they describe as joined-up government. They will have to recognise people's right to the protection of the law and their need for co-operation with the agencies that provide good quality housing, particularly in urban areas. They will have to recognise too that their taxation policies—their stealth taxes and
292WH
other ways of increasing the burden on poor people—have put more people into poverty. Those people have less money with which to survive under the present Government.
If the Government manage to achieve all their aims I shall cheer them to the rafters, but they should not feel smug, or produce phoney statistics, and they should get on with the job of eradicating poverty.
3.18 pm
Ms Karen Buck: The commitment to the eradication of child poverty and the establishment of targets on child poverty and other issues, as set out in the document "The Changing Welfare State", are the bravest and most radical actions of the Government. I am not alone in that view. Last week, Martin Barnes, director of the Child Poverty Action Group, said in evidence to the Social Security Committee that the pledge to end child poverty was positive and exciting, and that the Chancellor had a genuine political commitment to ending child poverty and is setting a radical agenda. As we know, that has already set the framework for lifting 1.2 million children out of poverty during this Parliament.
The document "Opportunity for all—Tackling poverty and social exclusion" recognises that poverty is multi-dimensional, as does my hon. Friend the Minister. Most obviously, it is a matter of pounds and pence, but it is also a relative issue defined at least in part by people's ability to participate meaningfully in modern society. Poverty also has a social and cultural dimension, hence the four strands of the Government's approach set out in the document. They are income, education, intervention and community development, four parts of an inseparable whole.
I applaud the action that has been taken—the working families tax credit, the child benefit increases, the new children's tax credit that comes into effect in April and, looking into the future, the integrated child credit—under those four headings to tackle the many components of poverty. The reform of child support was also long overdue. I especially welcome the £10 disregard in the child maintenance premium and the maintenance disregard in the working families tax credit. That has done a great deal to underpin work incentives for single parents.
In my constituency, I am pleased by the Government's progress in tackling underlying causes of poverty and problems such as those mentioned by the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles), who referred to urban estates. We have been fortunate enough to secure three new single regeneration budgets, which have been used to direct resources to a new neighbourhood warden scheme in a high-crime area, among other projects.
The budgets are also being significantly invested in youth projects to divert young people from crime. Two sure start programmes are under way, which are examples of the most imaginative and exciting schemes that the Government have launched. An education action zone is providing resources to underpin additional investment in schools, and is working with disaffected pupils and many children for whom English is an additional language. I saw the evidence with my

293WH
own eyes while serving for many years as a local councillor, so I know that that progress is in stark contrast to the record of the previous Government, under whose stewardship inequality and poverty rocketed, as we have heard.
We all accept that there is much more to do. I want to concentrate on some issues that I would like the next Labour Government, who we believe will be essential to this country, to tackle. There are clusters of issues that cause me most concern, and I shall continue to press the Government to deal with them.
The Government inherited a decision from the previous Government to restrict council tax benefit to people in households in higher council tax bands. That is deeply unfair and punitive. Many families in London—I know that the same is true of other areas—are allocated new-build accommodation, especially homes built by housing associations, which is inevitably located in higher council tax bands because London property prices are so high. People taking new tenancies in housing association property are disproportionately likely to be on income support. Out of their already low income, they have to make a contribution towards their council tax. I feel that that cuts across a social inclusion agenda. If we are serious about wanting mixed communities in which people on lower incomes live in more prosperous areas—ironically, that includes less prosperous areas in London—we must make the necessary investment. I very much hope that the Government will review this particular issue, in the interests of social inclusion, and I shall continue to press them to do so.
The Government should now move swiftly on to more fundamental reform of housing benefit. Housing benefit continues to be a major block to work incentives, and there are aspects of the current housing benefit system—again, inherited from the previous Government—that unfairly penalise families who are already on low incomes. In particular I am thinking of the single-room restrictions for the under-25s, which have caused a great deal of hardship. In high-cost areas, the housing benefit restrictions are causing dreadful distress and hardship to vulnerable families, especially if the restrictions are not offset by emergency payments through the housing benefit system. I know that positive thinking is being done about how to deal with some aspects of that, but we need to tackle it.
Another problem with housing benefit was set out in some detail in the report by the Select Committee on Social Security on housing benefit. Higher rates of non-dependant deductions are especially harsh for families with adult, working children, whose incomes are heavily offset against their parents' housing benefit. That can cause disharmony in families. In areas outside London, I understand that the higher rate of non-dependant deductions can exceed the total housing benefit paid. That issue urgently needs to be addressed by the Government. I know that the issues are being examined, but if we are going to proceed further with work incentives, to match up with the forthcoming integrated children's tax credit, we need to examine them more urgently.
The document "Opportunity for all—Tackling poverty and social exclusion" introduces—newly, I think—an indicator of housing need. It rightly recognises that children who grow up in substandard
294WH
housing face serious disadvantages. I applaud the Government for what they have already done on that. Housing investment will soon have doubled under this Government. The release of capital receipts for improvements in housing stock was most welcome, and great progress has been made in renovating some of our worst estates. However, housing need, as opposed to the quality of accommodation of those who are already housed, has now become a critical issue.
London and the south-east are especially badly hit. The London boroughs have 46,000 families in temporary accommodation. That number has rocketed in recent years. Ironically, it has done so because the capital is a victim of its own success. Although there is a slight increase in total demand for housing, in some cases due to the number of refugees and asylum seekers, that is only a small element of the problem. The core of the problem is that in a normal property market, there is a steady outflow of people from social rented accommodation into the private sector. That has stopped in the south-east. House prices are now so out of reach for people on average incomes, let alone those on lower incomes, that people are not leaving social housing. New lettings have virtually ceased. Even people in properties that are statutorily defined as overcrowded, and people in category A medical priority, cannot be rehoused. In some boroughs, 90 per cent. of lettings go to homeless families, meaning that families in situ experiencing desperate levels of overcrowding have no prospect of being rehoused.
Dr. Howard Stoate: My hon. Friend mentioned medical need for rehousing. The life expectancy of a child born in social class V is now nine years less than that of a child born in social class I. Much of that is due to substandard housing, overcrowding and all the other problems of social exclusion, which is unacceptable. Obviously, I am pleased that my hon. Friend is calling on the Government to narrow the unacceptable gap in inequalities and social disadvantage.
Ms Buck: My hon. Friend has a great deal of professional expertise in this field, and he is absolutely right. The unmet housing need, the overcrowding and the need to house families in temporary accommodation, damages children's health and educational achievement. Those housing problems are linked to high levels of school mobility and damage to the continuity of children's education. At home, such children do not have an opportunity to play or a quiet space in which to do their homework. Tragically, the consequences of that will stay with them throughout their lives. To indicate the type of problems that we are experiencing, I shall give a few examples from my surgery in the past two or three weeks. Last week, one of my constituents, who is a doctor, wrote to me from his bed-and-breakfast accommodation in Hackney. He told me:
The hotel is unsuitable for disabled people such as my wife and myself…my longstanding hypertension causes repeated loss of consciousness, with one episode occurring when I was on the narrow entrance steps…my children are suffering due to the lack of space and the valuable time travelling to and from school (on the other side of London). There have been permanent implications caused to my son and daughter's future as they both failed their exams as a direct consequence of the chain of events triggered by our state of housing.

295WH
The Onojobe family have four children, one of whom has profound mental and physical disabilities. They live in a tiny two-bedroom flat, which is extremely overcrowded. There is no room for the specialist equipment that the disabled child needs to help his condition, and that hinders his development.
A Mrs. Saunders wrote to me, stating:
I have been living with my sister for the last three years after being evicted from my home. Myself and my three children are confined in my sister's living room, where we sleep on the floor. My sister has three children of her own. We are constantly cold and my daughter is wetting herself because of the conditions. My children have no place to do their homework and my position at work is being affected by this.
That family would not be counted among the 46,000 families in temporary accommodation.
Nor would the Charles family. Five children and their mother share a two-bedroom flat. The six-year-old has sickle cell anaemia and nocturnal enuresis, but he has no space for private rest or recovery. His mother said:
All the pressure is causing my asthma and migraine to occur regularly. All the stress, arguing and fighting can literally drive you to suicidal thoughts. I love my children dearly, especially Michael. He has been through a lot in his six years—more than some adults.
On Tuesday, I met a woman attending a project providing media skills for socially excluded people. She told me that she attended the project to try to save her mental health. She shares her room with two children, and has been told that she cannot expect to receive a housing offer for at least two years.
That is a sprinkling of examples from the past couple of weeks. From my case-work, I could replicate them 500 times. I stress that the Government's record on housing has been very positive. During the 18 years of the previous Conservative Administration, investment was slashed in housing renovations, improvements to the housing stock and new building. Progress has been made, but it has been slow, and we have not yet addressed the full regional implications of housing stress in the south. A different type of housing stress occurs in the north—caused, ironically, by under-occupation—and that deserves to be addressed equally seriously.
In the excellent "Opportunity for all" document, we are rightly tackling the problem of children growing up in substandard accommodation. We must set a target to end the placing of families in bed-and-breakfast accommodation for more than a few weeks. We must end the disgrace of children growing up in bed-and-breakfasts, and set ambitious targets to end the chronic overcrowding that is destroying the lives of thousands of my constituents.
I am pleased that last week the Home Office issued a document on the integration of refugees, which begins to address the serious issue of the significant numbers of asylum seekers and refugees who have been living in Britain for, in many cases, up to 10 years. In my experience—my constituency contains a large population of refugees—they are skilled people with high aspirations. When I attend my migrant and refugee forum to talk to people and hand out awards to those on courses, I am amazed to discover that I am addressing lawyers, doctors, engineers and others with professional
296WH
qualifications. The concentration of skill among our asylum-seeking community is astounding, and we have not made use of that. Under the previous Government, such people were dismissed and abandoned, and I am proud that we are beginning to address that problem.
All that the Government have done and all that we have still to do is based on our successful management of the economy. As was said, that management has reduced unemployment to a 20-year low, brought record low inflation and low interest rates, and made possible the beginnings of investment in our public services. I applaud the Government for that, but there is still a long way to go to raise all Britain's communities to the level that we should expect in a civilised and relatively prosperous country.
I have outlined my specific concerns about gaps in the programme that have yet to be addressed, but I know that Labour is delivering, can deliver and will deliver. It is essential that we secure another term in office to make further progress on meeting those targets.
3.36 pm
Mr. Steve Webb: It is always a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Regents Park and Kensington, North (Ms Buck), who brings great knowledge to the subject. In among her inevitable words of party loyalty and the statistics that have been bandied to and fro, she tells the truth as it is on the ground and conveys the human side of this subject. I welcome her contribution, which has, I hope, set the pattern for the rest of the debate, and I shall try to strike a similar tone. If Thursday afternoons in Westminster Hall are to consist merely of three hours of political knockabout, we might as well go home.
I welcome the debate, and I am glad that the Government are not afraid to use the p-word—to talk about poverty. That is an entirely positive development. As hon. Members know, I have many reservations about the Government's overly complex strategy, but I do not want to dwell on that. I want to talk about the way in which we assess this—or any—Government's poverty strategy. Is it being conducted in the right way? Can it be conducted in a way that will help the constituents to whom the hon. Lady referred? Because the various targets are disparate, it is almost impossible to hold the Government to account.
I raised the issue of public service agreements, and the Under-Secretary said that the Treasury does care whether the Department of Social Security fulfils them. If Departments such as the Department for Education and Employment or the Department of Health were to fail to deliver on a particular project, one could readily imagine that the Treasury might penalise them by holding back funds. However, it is much harder to see how that would work for a demand-led Department, such as the Department of Social Security. I find it hard to believe that the Treasury would say, "You can't have the money for pensions this week because you've missed your public service agreement." That is not how the system works, and I doubt whether there is any sanction to speak of on the Department of Social Security. For example, if the Government wanted to increase the pension, I find it hard to believe that the Treasury would tell the Department of Social Security that it could not implement a popular policy simply because it missed its target. I therefore wonder just how forceful the targets are.

297WH
I worry about any Government being judge and jury on their own performance. The Government's annual report is widely derided and no one takes it seriously, but the publication that we are discussing today, "Opportunity for all", is much more serious. However, it runs the risk of being rather more partisan than one would wish, and I shall give one example concerning statistics on drugs. On page 224, the publication states:
The percentage of young people reporting the use of any illegal drug last month.
That is, the last month before the survey. It goes on to say that
17 per cent. used a drug in 1994, 18 per cent. did so in 1996, 19 per cent. did so in 1998.
One might conclude that that does not look too good in terms of getting the figures down. However, a tiny footnote states:
Note: increase from 17 per cent. to 19 per cent. is not statistically significant.
In other words, we are supposed to regard those figures as meaningless. Drug use may have gone up or down—who knows? I suspect, however, that if drug use had decreased from 19 per cent. to 17 per cent., there would have been no footnote.
The tenor of this document is defensive. When the statistics go the right way, it is all glory, glory; when they go the wrong way, we are told that we should be looking at different ones. That is the problem with the Government judging their own performance.
I have a number of practical suggestions for the Minister—
3.40 pm
Sitting suspended for a Division in the House.
3.55 pm
On resuming—
Mr. Webb: On "Just a minute", Mr. Stevenson, participants receive a bonus for speaking when the bell goes.
I am worried about the Government being judge and jury. I have made the general point that it does not advance debate if the Government proclaim themselves successful in their own, internally audited objectives. I am sure that my former colleagues at the Institute for Fiscal Studies, the university of Bath and many other institutions would be only too glad to take on the task of assessing independently and objectively how well the Department of Social Security is doing in achieving its objectives and commenting on whether those objectives were right. If the Government would state their objectives, independent commentators would be reassured that there would be no changes in the indicators, delays in publication and other such things that Governments of all parties do when things are going wrong. I hope that the Government will consider adding confidence to a worthwhile exercise by contracting out assessment of their progress along the lines of a public-private partnership.
Holding the Government to account for their progress on poverty is difficult with so many disparate indicators and there should be a composite indicator of progress against poverty. It is tempting to go through
298WH
the report and say, "There are 22 wins, seven losses and 15 draws", but that would be facile because the comparison might be between the percentage of people putting money into occupational pension schemes and the number of children who die before the age of five. Such statistics cannot be compared to each other.
So, how can we hold the Government to account and see whether progress is being made? The hon. Member for Regents Park and Kensington, North (Ms Buck) referred to the rise in inequality under the Conservatives. The Office for National Statistics today produced the family expenditure survey, which records income as well as expenditure. I have been given the figures for the poorest fifth and the richest fifth of the population for 1999–2000. In each of the first three years of the present Government, the proportionate gap between rich and poor widened. That is not a surprise, because it is part of a 20-year trend, but the hon. Lady was under the impression that such matters were different now. If there are many indicators, it is difficult to see the big picture.
I have a positive suggestion for bringing all the indicators together in a single yardstick. It is modelled on what used to be called the breadline Britain approach. The first stage of the exercise is to ask members of the community what is important to their quality of life. I am sure, given his background, that the Minister will be familiar with such an approach. It is not a top-down approach but a bottom-up approach and the answer will be different in different communities, different parts of the country, different ethnic groups, rural and urban areas, and so on. Poverty might be rising in one community and falling in another because different factors are important to them. National aggregate methods pick up the priorities of the Government, not of the communities.
If people are asked what is good for their quality of life, some will mention tangibles, such as cash, public transport and access to services, and others will mention intangibles, such as fear of crime. Intangibles can be used because people's attitudes can be tracked to see whether they feel more or less secure. A measuring rod is not necessary because what is measured is the way that people feel about their circumstances. The next step is to audit the extent to which people in each community reach their goals and how many of them have the things that their community believes are important—for example, how many people are living without fear of crime, have access to good public transport and so on. One can then measure the number of people, which will be down to just one figure, who lack the necessities that make for the good life. Different poverty lines can be drawn to define people who lack a few and people who lack a lot.
The beauty of the system is twofold. First, one can track it over time to spot whether the number of people who have multiple deprivation and are lacking in many respects is going up or down. Secondly, it is tremendously intuitive. When the Government say—as did the hon. Member for Regents Park and Kensington, North—that they have taken 1 million children out of poverty, that statistic must be derived from the number of children with household-equivalent disposable weekly income below 50 per cent. of the mean before housing costs. That is meaningless to most people, and just 50p above or below the threshold can, in effect, put

299WH
1 million people into or out of poverty at a stroke. As that does not accord with people's understanding of poverty, it gives no credibility to the idea that a Government will ever abolish child poverty. It is a tremendously noble idea, but I wonder what the world will look like when a Prime Minister finally stands up and announces to the House that today no child in the country is living in poverty.
The central point is that we must have a single definition, not 32 indicators, although I accept that poverty is multi-faceted. We will never know if the Government have got rid of child poverty unless they define exactly what they are going to get rid of.
Ms Glenda Jackson: I have listened to the hon. Gentleman with great interest. My borough, Camden, has already engaged in the process that he describes. It has undertaken a comprehensive survey of its residents to find out what is most important to them, which makes interesting reading.
However, no such surveys, however detailed and however hard the work of putting them through the doors, help to clarify one of the problems to which the Government are committed and which, as my hon. Friend the Member for Regents Park and Kensington, North said, will take time to resolve—that is, the sense of being excluded from society. Socially excluded people look at such surveys and say, "It doesn't affect me, because nobody ever listens to me." That is why we need far more of the kinds of schemes in which the Government are engaged.
Mr. Webb: I am not necessarily out of sympathy with the hon. Lady. The conduct of the exercise requires a lot of effort to ensure that it is not only the literate middle classes who return the forms, and it is important to ensure that community workers target certain groups and isolated individuals to obtain a broad cross-section.
The hon. Lady said that when people are asked what is important to them, they often feel that the exercise is nothing to do with them, that it is not worth doing or that nothing will change as a result. We should use the yardstick that I have described to judge the Government, because all Governments should have an interest in targeting the things that people say matter to them, rather than the indicators that the Government have themselves chosen, to bring the figures down.
Ms Buck: I am listening carefully to the hon. Gentleman's interesting points.. What worries me about the subjective kind of analysis that he proposes is how to reconcile the breadth and depth issue. The minority of people who lack a proper home feel that lack overpoweringly strongly, and their feelings cannot be compared with those of people who are well housed and have adequate incomes but fear crime in their neighbourhood. I am not sure how the hon. Gentleman's subjective analysis would help us deal with those comparators.
Mr. Webb: That is a fair point. Someone who was living in bed-and-breakfast accommodation would
300WH
show up on the indicators as being multiply deprived, because they would have to put a cross against half the indicators on the list, whereas someone living relatively comfortably but with a fear of crime would perhaps fail only one of the tests. No method is perfect. Trying to sum up many disparate experiences to arrive at a number is fraught with all kinds of problems. However, it has to be done, because otherwise we cannot hold the Government—or any Government—to account, and we will not be able to judge whether we are winning the battle against poverty.
Some sort of composite indicator is needed. The statistics most regularly published on poverty are of households with below average income. I once put a question to Ministers that was batted straight back. I ask it again, hoping for a more constructive response. One problem is that all the figures are out of date. The family resources survey finishes its field work at the end of the financial year, but it takes several months for the analysis to be completed before the figures are crunched. It takes months, if not years, to get from the data to the actuality—as it has during the present Parliament. By the time of the next election—assuming that it will be in April or May next year—the information on households with below average income reflected in "Opportunity for all" will show that pensioner poverty has increased. The Minister agreed, but said that things are now different. Perhaps they are, but we do not know. We do not have the objective facts on which to judge the matter.
I make a constructive suggestion. We should concentrate on those statistics that make an impact. The unemployment and inflation figures make an impact because we get them all the time. They obviously affect mortgage payments and so on, so they are often in the news. However, the poverty figures are published only once a year. Why cannot the figures of houses below average income be issued in summary form every quarter? The answer that I normally receive to that question is that the samples are too small. However, the 1979 figures were based on the family expenditure survey of about 7,000 households. The current figures are based on the family resources survey of more than 25,000 households. A quarter of that is comparable to the number of households in the 1979 survey that Ministers are always citing. The annual disaggregated analysis obviously could not be done with a small sample, but a summary analysis certainly could.
If we knew once a quarter what progress was being made against poverty, the figures would not always be out of date and would not seem so useless. We would know much more, quarter by quarter, about what is going on. Publishing the figures once a quarter would keep poverty in the political debate. Just as we all watch out for the inflation figure, so people would look out for the poverty figures. That would be constructive.
Ms Jackson: The hon. Gentleman is arguing against his own point. Missing from his equation is the question of whether people regard themselves as being in poverty. The survey undertaken in the United States of America by the Democratic party before the recent presidential election made it clear that families who were making ends meet, however narrow those ends may have been, did not regard themselves as being economically unempowered. We should be considering a definition of poverty that shows it to be unacceptable to society.

301WH
I crave your indulgence, Mr. Stevenson, to be allowed to give a precise example. During the time of the previous Administration, I visited several schools with classrooms that were too dangerous for the children to be taught in; the children were being taught in the cloakroom. That would have been totally unacceptable to our society 10 years beforehand, but because many of the parents of those children believed that no one listened to them, their horizons and aspirations were continually shrinking. It is up to us to define poverty, and the problem is not exclusively to do with money.
Mr. George Stevenson (In the Chair): Order. I indulged the hon. Lady, but that is not a precedent. Interventions should be short.
Ms Jackson: I thank you for it, Mr. Stevenson.
Mr. Webb: The hon. Lady makes some important points. Clearly, poverty of aspiration is a danger; if the exercise that I suggest is carried out, some people will not expect or demand a lot. Such an exercise should include some swapping, with people from deprived areas being sent to the more comfortable areas of the country to give them a taste of what others experience and to raise their expectations. That would give people a chance to demand more. Indeed, they should have the right to demand it.

We certainly should not ask people whether they feel poor. Clearly, those whom we might think are living in poverty—those, as the hon. Lady said, who are just about making ends meet—would not want to be labelled as poor. One should conduct that sort of exercise for the benefit of the whole community. One should not ask "the poor" what they think. One should ask society. To avoid the poor being put on the spot, everyone should be asked for their views.
I shall draw my remarks to a close in a moment, because hon. Members want a chance to speak. The key point is that it is good that we are talking about poverty, and that there are goals. However, the Government vacillate between focusing on a single figure that has no intuitive resonance, such as the million people being taken out of poverty by the budget—the budget has probably taken a million from one side of the line to slightly on the other side of the line—and a plethora of targets against which it is hard to hold them to account. A lot of effort is needed. We must make sure that the data on which the surveys are based are more up to date, and we must consolidate all those things into an independently assessed view of poverty. The hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Ms Jackson) said that we should define poverty, but I do not think so. We should ask the community what they think quality of life is, and when we as Parliament fail to deliver that, we should be held to account. We should not tell them that they are not poor—they should tell us.
4.10 pm
Caroline Flint: My starting point in the debate is to welcome and endorse the analysis described in the social exclusion unit report, "A National Strategy for Neighbourhood Renewal" and the Department of Social Security report "Opportunity For All". Both reveal key aspects of poverty and social exclusion, such
302WH
as the centrality of work, not simply to the individual family but to the whole community. The social exclusion unit report states:
The main driver of neighbourhood decay has, in most areas, been economic…Mass unemployment and the closure of particular industries has devastated communities.
Crucially, it states:
New industries required higher skills and there has not been enough help for people to adjust to the changing job market.
At last we have a Government who have begun to pinpoint some of the causes of deprivation. Unfortunately, the only Conservative Member who was present earlier, the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles), is no longer here. I would say to him that if one remembers the previous Tory Administrations, who were in power for 18 years, it is not hard to find and identify the Government who were responsible for that chronic failure.
I represent a former coalfield constituency. We have one working pit left which employs 300 miners. It used to employ thousands. Certain wards, and pockets within more prosperous areas, were devastated by the destruction of the coal industry. As "Opportunity For All" states:
One of the most powerful manifestations of poverty and social exclusion occurs when whole communities find themselves trapped outside mainstream society, suffering a range of interrelated problems like high rates of worklessness, high crime rates, low educational achievement and poor health.
Those problems beset large parts of my constituency. The problem is not that a few thousand people made a cultural decision to opt out of work and live a good life on benefits, but that that choice was forced on them. The official Opposition may believe that there is no alternative to pit closures, but the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development report on the energy policies of Independent Energy Agency countries, especially the France 1996 Review, refers to the actions of the state-owned subsidiary Charbonnage de France, which owned the French coalmines. It stated that the French Government:
agreed in principle in 1986 to close uneconomic coal mines gradually over 20 years.
However,
A major social and regional programme was set up by CdF to help miners to find employment elsewhere and encourage the development of new industries in the affected areas.
It concludes:
The French Government is handling the closure of uneconomic mines in a pragmatic and sensible manner… and tries to mitigate the social upheavals associated with mine closures in areas that depend heavily on the industry for employment.
It is to the eternal shame of the Thatcherites that they turned a blind eye to lessons from across the channel—a French lesson that my constituents would have welcomed 15 years ago. There was an alternative. Without such a strategy, the outcome was low employment, depressed incomes and neighbourhood decline. That is the Thatcher legacy for too many communities and why today's debate is so necessary.
The Government's strategy is a breath of fresh air in my area, as colleagues from south Yorkshire will discuss later. We have a task force for coalfield areas, objective 1 funding, health action zones to attack chronic poor health, a package of support for the coal industry and

303WH
major investment in neighbourhood renewal. However, I caution the Government about regeneration efforts. We have learned from the Conservative years that tree planting and cosmetic makeovers have limited effect if the economic prospects of the community remain unaffected. However, large regeneration funds are being administered by local partnerships, in some cases amounting to £50 million or more, and targeted at only 4,000 households. That is some £12,500 per household. We have the right to expect dramatic results.
Some local authorities have traditionally taken a top-down, paternalistic approach to institutions providing services for, not with, the community. A balance must be struck between the voices of the community and its need to see some short-term wins, while recognising that some other problems will take much longer to solve.
Several different partnerships are in operation, all of which are well intentioned. Often the same people are in every partnership. Sometimes community organisations may be represented, but the tactic is to take them back into the community to hear the voice of people who are not signed up to a political party or in a tenants association.We have no strategies for going out from those boards or resources to make those people first among equals. No level playing field is involved in making that community voice heard. It is easier for people who are employed full time by the health service or the local authority or, indeed, for political representatives to take time out and be heard.
We need to make those partnerships effective. I understand how important they are. We must have strategies to make them real so that people understand what is going on. With the best intentions in the world, the danger is that the people who sit on the boards—I sit on a Sure Start board and include myself in this criticism—spend a lot of time talking and understand how long things take, while the people with whom we are most trying to work and help do not have a clue what is going on and see no early wins that could be a building block for future development. We must examine that.
We must also examine how we could better evaluate what is happening on the ground. There is still too much box ticking between local strategies and regional Government offices. When several regeneration projects overlay each other, we should be able to see the boundaries between one project and its aim, targets and outcomes and another project that comes in over the top. For example, in Doncaster, in year four of a six-year regeneration programme, another project was placed on top.
I do not suggest that different packages should not overlay each other. However, the wider community may not be in receipt of a package and, witnessing crime and poverty, it asks why money is being spent on programmes that are being placed on top of each other without identifying the outcomes.
It is also crucial that people have a sense of distinctive packages working. People on the ground must be held to account for their actions so that some years down the line the demarcations are not so blurred that when another project is introduced with another name no one can put up his hand to say what did and did not work, while the community has no clear idea about what is
304WH
going on and asks, "What was the name of the project that started in 1997? What is the new name for it in 2003?" Those are real issues, and we may be in danger of losing the trust and faith of the people with whom we most want to work and whom we most want to help. That important aspect needs to be tackled.
I am not sure whether such matters are the responsibility of my hon. Friend, but I urge the Government to consider the evaluation and implementation of policies, and the provision of resources. I suppose that I should hold back from saying that an agency similar to the Office for Standards in Education should consider such matters. [Interruption.] There was a sharp intake of breath at that remark from those in the Chamber. Something must be put in place that is tangible and can show which systems work.
We need to experiment. Sometimes plans may not work as well as we thought they would. A sense of trust must be created between those who are trying to grapple with such problems. Sometimes a certain solution may not work, but we should be visionary and mature enough to say, "Well, that did not work, but we are flexible enough to try another system." Evaluations of problems must be meaningful, so that something that is not working is not allowed to keep on ploughing its furrow and losing support. For there to be innovation, risks have to be taken. That sometimes involves things not working as we would want them to, although other results could be fantastic and picked up in other areas.
Another part of the evaluation process is to consider how to spread good practice. That is not to say that central Government can present a blueprint to a community and simply say that a certain system can work. However, there are common issues. If people knew more about what was working in other communities, they could demand more of the same or at least say to the agencies that act on their behalf, "How about trying this?" Knowledge empowers people to know what other people have or have not, whether it be a voice in terms of community partnerships or an understanding of strategies and projects that have worked elsewhere.
I urge the Government not to be too prescriptive about the use of neighbourhood renewal funds. At present, such funds are distributed to authorities pro rata, corresponding to the number of wards that fall within the 10 per cent. most deprived wards nationwide. As my hon. Friend knows, a neighbourhood with the same deprivation characteristics as the nation's most deprived areas may be shrouded in a wider area of prosperity. Electoral wards are not homogenous. They do not necessarily equate to one natural community. More often, they contain several communities. I hope that the Government's guidance on neighbourhood renewal will ensure that the fund can be deployed to target deprivation within a ward. Only then will areas of desperate need in my constituency, such as Edlington, Dunscroft and parts of Rossington, avoid being bypassed once more because their deprivation is masked within a larger geographical area.
I commend the Government's use of a range of social indicators to measure poverty. Some have asked what poverty means and how it is measured. About 14 million people in the United Kingdom are on less than half average income. Such a measure of relative poverty

305WH
places Britain higher than Slovakia or the Czech Republic where only about 2 per cent. of the population is defined as officially poor.
Let us consider real or absolute poverty. We cannot ignore the comment in a recent UNICEF paper, which stated
In the Czech and Slovak Republics (which had the lowest poverty rates using both relative definitions) almost all children are now counted among the poor. There is no doubt that absolute poverty rates are very high in these countries.
Any person who is committed to social justice knows that we live in a material world, but poverty is not about having one television rather than three. Everyone knows the difference between people being able to feed their children and buying mobile phones. I want an attack on real child poverty, pensioner poverty and the overwhelming poverty of the workless household. That is not to say that I do not appreciate the arguments about raising people's expectations about what they should have. One could provide interesting and diverse answers for the hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb), who talked about asking people how they defined poverty. That raises as many problems as it answers. That is why we must have a realistic attitude.
I would give a higher priority to the areas where people live, the poor housing, the food in their stomachs and health care than to other material needs, which I consider rather cosmetic. A quarter of the population is poor according to some of the current definitions, which are sometimes so broad as to be practically useless. There is also a danger that they will alienate sections of the public who would be more supportive of antipoverty campaigns. People who do not see themselves as well off and who make choices about how they spend their money and sometimes make sacrifices cannot see some of the values that we place in our definitions of poverty.
In cases of real poverty and neighbourhood decay the Government have placed a rightful emphasis on reviving local economies through a range of measures. At the micro level I particularly commend in my constituency the Conisborough town centre partnership, which is led by some small high street traders supported by the Conisborough and Denaby development trust. It is working with people in the community to renew the small town centre, to improve its appearance and to market it to complement local tourist attractions. Those local people are trying to make a difference with real vision. Their efforts should be rewarded with single remuneration fund sums to support the employment of a town centre manager to fulfil that project. It is inexpensive but crucial. Its success requires the local council and its partnership to devolve power and not to try to second guess the community's needs or to bypass them by appointing its own local development staff. Sometimes power must be passed to people to let them get on with the job.
At the other extreme we have the potential for wholesale economic restructuring in a large brownfield area around the former RAF base at Finningley. That site, with its long history of aviation, is best suited to that purpose. I am new to the area that I represent and a new MP. My hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, East and Mexborough (Mr. Ennis) and I have been overwhelmed by the people power on this issue. I must be the first MP to have presented a petition of over
306WH
21,000 signatories against a public inquiry on an airport development. I will not go into all of that, but there has been a bottom-up campaign from people from all walks of life. They range from those with no qualifications to the highly skilled, and they argue that it is something that they can understand. Why is that? Well, it is tangible. Everyone knows what an airport looks like. A business park can be anything. It has sparked the local people's imagination. That is the same for any project that aims to combat poverty.
The report is not a one-off. It is part of a continuing debate. Our partnerships must work with people, not just for them. Most people want a decent, happy life. People expect better and they are right to demand it. The view is sometimes expressed that such schemes are not worth it and simply throw good money after bad. People who attack the new deal attack any progress that we make. It is precisely because of that sort of mindset that my constituency did not appear on the Conservative political map or the Conservative agenda. It is why I, as a democratic socialist, became involved in politics. I want to make a difference and to bring about change. I welcome today's debate.
4.30 pm
Mr. Paul Goggins: It is a privilege to contribute to this afternoon's debate. There have been several powerful and thoughtful speeches. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Minister on initiating the debate. I checked with the Library this morning, and in case my hon. Friend does not know already, I can inform him that this is the first Government-initiated debate on poverty in more than 20 years. The fact that we are now debating the issue says much for the Government and for what they are trying to do about poverty, disadvantage and social exclusion.
It is a matter of regret that the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles), the one Conservative Member who contributed—and a member of the party responsible for a trebling of poverty in this country—is no longer with us. He was not even supported by any of his hon. Friends earlier in the debate. It is well to remember, given that the hon. Gentleman used some slightly warmer words than we have been accustomed to—I think that he even wished the Government well—that it is only a little more than 10 years since Baroness Thatcher tried to abolish child benefit. We would do well to remember that it is not long since such matters were the subject of Conservative policy debate.
The document "Opportunity for all—Tackling poverty and social exclusion" is an exciting start on a tough journey, on which the Government are not afraid to embark. Anyone who talks about tackling poverty and social exclusion in this country must know that it is a serious challenge and not to be approached superficially. Everything that I see and hear from the Government reassures me that they do not see the challenge as superficial.
It is fair to say that it took the Government a little time to get into their stride in setting up their campaign and strategy against poverty. However, I am sure that those are now firmly established. The strategy is based on the simple strapline, "Work for those who can and

307WH
security for those who can't". My hon. Friend the Minister outlined something of what has been achieved with respect to work, including the million extra jobs. In every region of the country, employment rates are above the European average. We have also heard today that the new deal pledge to take 250,000 young people off the dole and put them into work has been met.
In my constituency, 1,158 young people have begun the new deal programme since it started in April 1998. Of those, 550 are in work and 253 have had some work experience or training. Those are young people for whom it is not always easy to find work. Those people were completely discarded by the previous Government, but the present Government are giving them hope. Long-term youth unemployment in my constituency has fallen by 75 per cent. since the general election. I find it offensive that the Opposition are so churlish about what the new deal has achieved in bringing hope to a generation of young people.
Making work pay has been another important aim of the Government, and the working families tax credit has made a huge difference to more than 4,000 families in my constituency, who are on average £30 a week better off than they would have been on family credit, the previous system. There have been significant changes in the number of people claiming benefit. The number of people claiming or depending on income support has dropped by more than a million since the Government came to power in May 1997. More than a third of a million children are no longer in households that depend on income support but in households that depend on wages. That is a huge step forward in a relatively short time.
The second part of the strapline that I mentioned concerned security for people who cannot work. Clearly pensioners are in that category. I look on the minimum income guarantee introduced by the Government with great joy. Several thousand pensioners in my constituency were, at the time of the election, on incomes of less than £70 a week. Soon they will be on incomes of at least £92 a week, rising shortly after that to £100 a week. That is a massive improvement in their income and quality of life, and the winter fuel allowance and the arrangements for television licences will add to that.
I recently received a written answer from my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer stating that 3,900 disabled people in the north-west region now claim the disabled person's tax credit—a substantial increase on the 2,800 who claimed the disability working allowance, which it replaced. Not only is it a more effective form of financial support, but many more people are claiming it, which means that many more disabled people have gone back into work. There have been other initiatives, such as the disabled child premium, which has now risen to over £30 a week.
I single out the action that has been taken in regard to carers because I know that the Minister has taken great care to improve support for carers, by increasing the carer premium by £10. There have also been welcome changes to invalid care allowance, which has been made available to people over 65. The earnings threshold has
308WH
been changed so that people are more able to stay in touch with the world of work and enjoy the benefits of the invalid care allowance.
On points raised by the hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb), I draw hon. Members' attention to the work of the family budget unit at King's college in London, which was today brought to my attention by Save the Children. That interesting research, along the lines that the hon. Gentleman mentioned, calculated a low-cost, acceptable budget for a family. In January 1998, it estimated that the income support payable to a family consisting of a couple and two children fell £39 short of what it regarded as a low-cost, acceptable budget. That measure is today short by £10—a massive improvement of nearly £30. We are not there yet, but that is a massive stride for such a short space of time, bringing children closer to an exit from poverty.
I wish to focus on four points. The first is on means-testing. In debates about poverty, benefits and related subjects, the Opposition frequently level accusations that the Government are bent on increasing means-testing. They always imply that means-testing is a mean-spirited measure, based on a poor-law approach and the measures taken in the 1930s to combat extreme poverty. In fact, we are all means-tested, in many different ways. If our children go to university, we are means-tested. We are means-tested when we pay income tax.
We have to achieve consensus on means-testing so that it is seen not as a measure of meanness but as a way of maintaining decent minimum standards. The minimum income guarantee is a good example of that. £100 a week is not a king's ransom, but if one has £100 a week and receives the winter fuel allowance, housing benefit, council tax benefit and a free TV licence, that is not abject poverty. We have to develop a new philosophy and approach to means-testing, so that more pensioners and other people who are having a hard time understand that they have the right and entitlement to claim for means-tested support. However, means-testing on its own is not enough. As well as a more positive attitude from politicians, it is essential that we have strategies that increase self-reliance so that people contribute more to a second pension, which will ultimately take them out of the means-tested level.
My second point echoes what my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) said, and is that no Government of any colour can by themselves solve the problem of poverty. A bottom-up approach is necessary to raise families who live in poor communities out of poverty. The policies developed around the neighbourhood renewal unit are right.
Benchill ward in my constituency provides a good example. When the new deprivation index was published in the summer, it had the dubious honour of being declared the most deprived ward in the country. Whether that is true remains debatable, but it is a deprived area by any measure. I was encouraged by the attitude of local people to headlines in the newspapers. They want to fight back, not just lie down and accept that they are victims of poverty.
I should like to share with hon. Members some recent developments in that ward. Family action Benchill is the main voluntary organisation at the centre of the Sure Start initiative in the community. A local housing

309WH
company called Willow Park is investing £70 million in local housing and includes on its board local tenants elected by local residents. It is engaging local people in the future of investment in housing. Metrolink trams will run through the Benchill area in the not-too-distant future. We expect two new primary schools. There is a vibrant community centre and further education colleges working with the community to develop basic skills and construction skills to help with housing improvements. Credit unions are also important, and some people are working within the primary care trust and voluntary organisations to improve health in the area. They all engage local people who have had a hard time, but who want to come to grips with their communities and their lives. All that is making a real difference.
Ultimately education is the key. Only one in five children leaving schools in my constituency gain five or more A to C grades at GCSE. We all know that that is not good enough. I spoke to a nursery teacher last week. She told me that four out of five children leaving her nursery class cannot count to five, speak in simple short sentences or recognise basic colours. Sure Start will make a real difference. We need sustained investment in education to give our children hope for the future.
I welcome, of course, the million jobs and the 1.2 million children coming out of poverty, but the further we go towards driving down poverty, the harder our task will become. Unemployed people who are well motivated and possess skills will find it easier to move into the world of work, but people who are demotivated and deskilled and who come from families with generations of unemployment will be much harder to reach. We should not kid ourselves that it will not be tough. It will, and we all have a responsibility. Employers have the responsibility to take risks and offer a job to someone who has not been employed before. Employees have the responsibility to be mentors to young people and to encourage and support them. If we all accept those responsibilities, I am hopeful for the future, but it will be tough.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley about the need to consult people with direct experience of poverty—locally and nationally. We must be informed by that experience rather than by what policy experts believe may be the answer. People who know poverty from their own direct experience must have their say. We know from surgeries and constituency work how important that is. National policy must also engage with the experience of poverty. I cite the work of organisations such as ATD 4th World and Church Action on Poverty, for which I used to work. I pay great tribute to the my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Ross) for chairing the all-party parliamentary group on poverty and bringing together in one room Cabinet and senior Ministers with people who have direct experience of poverty and can ask direct questions about it. That represents real inclusion.
The Government have made a tremendous start; there is achievement and aspiration in the document. If we run the economy as sensibly as we have done so far
310WH
and mix that with commitment to and compassion for those who have had a hard time in recent years, we can solve the problem of poverty. I am confident that we will.
4.44 pm
Ms Hazel Blears: I am delighted to take part in the debate. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe and Sale, East (Mr. Goggins) that there have been some powerful speeches today. I appreciate the opportunity to learn from other Members about the problems in their constituencies.
When we talk about social exclusion and grand plans to tackle poverty, we assume that the problems are the same wherever people live, but that is not so. Different communities have different problems. The debate can draw out the issues that are so pressing to us, as representatives of the public.
I am saddened and disappointed that no Conservative Members are present. That is a matter of great regret if, as we have been told, this is the first debate on poverty and related issues initiated by the Government in 20 years. I am not making a party political point. The issues affect all hon. Members and their constituents. I hoped that all parties would be represented and would contribute their ideas to the debate.
Be that as it may, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Minister on an excellent report. At long last, it brings together work being done in different Departments. Departmentalism is one of the most difficult issues to tackle; it has gone on for years in Whitehall and, to some extent, in local government. Departments concentrate on service delivery in health, education, social services and crime and disorder without drawing them together.
I was impressed that the report put people at the centre. It talks about children and young people, about older people, people of working age and communities. That is how our people see themselves, not as in need of health care or education or as the victims of crime, but as people living in a community. That is why the report is so incredibly refreshing.
It is good that we are beginning to join up not only talk about these issues but action. As a Government, we could be accused of having lots of strategies, glossy documents and grand plans, but whether they are translated into real, tangible action on the ground is a matter on which we still have some distance to go. My hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) said that people want to see and touch and feel the experience of the improvements. We have plans and we are beginning to take action, but it is a long, slow process to translate those ideas and proposals into action. In our second term as a Labour Government, which I trust that we will attain, I want faster, more radical action and real commitment to translating ideas into things that make a difference to local people.
Like many hon. Members who are present in this debate, I represent one of the poorest communities in Britain and my constituency has huge health problems. My hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Dr. Stoate) talked about health inequality. Anyone born in Salford today is likely to die five years earlier than someone born in Berkshire, Hertfordshire or Surrey, and there is no clearer indication of health inequality, but everyone has an equal right to life. Tackling that inequality must be a top political priority.

311WH
My region has seen massive unemployment and two recessions. Engineering and other traditional industries there have been decimated. I strongly believe that we are now picking up the legacy of that economic collapse, which has led to social problems such as family breakdown and the disempowerment of local communities.
I am happy that last year Salford had the largest fall in unemployment anywhere in the north-west region. That is a marvellous result. People are beginning to get back into work, but many of the new jobs are fragile, low-paid and not sustainable over a long period. We must not be complacent about the 1 million new jobs, as many are very shaky. We must reinforce and sustain that employment so that people can look to the future and plan their lives for years to come, rather than living a hand-to-mouth existence for three or six months. We have much to do to strengthen the new jobs in our economy.
The report is an excellent recognition of the interrelated nature of the problems that we face. At long last we can say publicly that poor health is linked to poverty and unemployment. For 18 years, those words were taboo in the Department of Health, and people were not allowed to say that the link existed. The view was that the poor health of poor people was their own fault, because they did not eat the right foods or exercise and they were irresponsible and feckless. At long last we can recognise the truth: there is a real link between poverty and poor health.
The report's emphasis on bringing together financial support, education and training, and economic development is key to tackling poverty. It is all very well to give as much extra money as we can to poor areas and poor families, but we must ensure that people on low incomes and in poverty have the means to improve their lives themselves. I have found time and again that the way to sustain change and improvement is to allow people to be in control of shaping their own lives and influencing their own destinies. Giving them the skills, training and confidence to be able to do that is fundamental. We have talked about giving people a hand up, not a handout. Our strategy is based on empowering people to change their own lives.
I shall concentrate on chapter 5 of the report, which refers to narrowing the gap between deprived areas and the rest of the country. It says that outcomes will be dramatically improved and there will be more jobs, better educational attainment, higher skill levels, less crime and better health in the most deprived areas. That sounds like utopia, and I have no doubt that a long and arduous journey will be required to get there, but it is the most worthwhile aim that I have seen expressed in a Government document for a long time.
I have a great deal of experience in trying to help to regenerate communities. I chair a regeneration partnership in Seedley and Langworthy in Salford, one of the most depressed areas in my community. The area has about 3,000 families and about 400 empty homes. Until recently, one family a week simply walked away from the area because of dereliction, crime, family breakdown and all the other problems with which we are unfortunately too familiar.
312WH
One problem in the area is that most of the property is private sector owner-occupied. It is much easier to regenerate council estates, where the local authority owns the land and the property and can draw in partners to make a difference. In areas of small terraced properties, particularly across the north of England, people may have invested £25,000 or £30,000 in their property. I recognise that that is not a great deal in London, but it is a substantial amount for many people in our communities. Houses in the area are changing hands, if people are lucky, for £3,000 or £4,000. They are in massive negative equity, so seeking to regenerate such communities is incredibly difficult.
One innovative scheme that we have proposed is the home swap scheme. I hope that the Government will support it. With our limited single regeneration budget moneys, we cannot afford to compensate all the people affected by giving them £30,000 and allowing them to walk away. Unfortunately, that is what many of them would like, but we want them to stay in the community. We are setting up what I believe is a unique scheme whereby people can transfer from their current home—which will be demolished—to an improved house in the same community, taking their negative equity with them. They can continue to pay only the mortgage that they were paying on the house that will be demolished. They have a considerable increase in equity, and we will place that on the property as a land charge, which will taper out over a period of years. The scheme will secure people in the community, and they will not have an extra mortgage to pay. It will also deter speculators from moving into the increased-equity houses and selling them off straight away. We will encourage people to stay for perhaps five years, and the liability will taper over that period.
We have had to gain the support of building societies. In a way, it is in their interest to support the home swap scheme, because if house values in the area do not increase through regeneration, they will never recoup the equity and payments owed to them. We are drawing in commercial stakeholders to support this innovative scheme.
I am told that legislation allows us to operate the scheme, but in pushing forward the boundaries, we will be right at the cutting edge, and I would welcome the Government's support. Where we have creativity and imagination, we will also have flexibility of implementation. If we succeed in the home swap scheme, we will be able to use it right across areas of small, owner-occupied housing, where there is massive negative equity, and people will stay in the community. There will no longer be massive slum clearance, breaking up communities and dispersing them to the four winds. Instead, we will keep people with skills, talent and local connections in the community, by providing them with a better home at the same price that they have been paying for a derelict house for years and years. That will give people trust and confidence in staying in our community.
The second innovative scheme that we are developing relates to page 158 of the report, where we talk about tackling financial exclusion. To be honest, most poor communities want cash. I recognise the tremendous contribution of credit unions in allowing people access to finance. I also feel strongly that, just because he or she is poor, a person should not have to go to a mutual

313WH
support organisation, however good it is. Why cannot that person go into a bank like anybody else and obtain access to credit and things that he or she needs?
Tomorrow, in Salford, we are launching Salford moneyline. Again, I think that the initiative is unique in the country, with the possible exception of a similar scheme that is being developed in Plymouth. It will be a kind of people's bank, similar to the scheme that the Government have been trying to introduce through the Post Office, although we are still awaiting the outcome of those proposals. Salford moneyline is funded through single regeneration budget money, European money and with money from the local university. A senior executive has been seconded from Barclays bank to work on the project. Many stakeholders are involved.
The initiative will provide a lending institution for local people. It will tackle the moneylenders and loan sharks, and hopefully it will put them out of business. Seven innovative financial products have been developed, including a home improvement loan and a family loan to deal with the issues raised by the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles) relating to the purchase of white goods and other large family expenditure. There is a getting to work loan, which will provide people with tools and perhaps enable them to buy a bicycle or some minimal form of transportation and clothes for a new job. Those are big expenses that can put a family budget out.
There will be a fresh start loan to consolidate debts, and a bridging loan that is to be repaid from money that is expected in the future. There will be an enterprise loan to help to set up small businesses, and a community loan to assist not-for-profit, community-based organisations in establishing commercial ventures. Salford moneyline is an innovative idea, and I hope that the Government may learn from the examples that it provides.
A spin-off of that project is the recent establishment of training schemes to train people to work in the financial services sector. They will be trained in basic book-keeping and accounting to enable them to get a job at Salford moneyline or to become a volunteer director of the company. We should be learning from such creative ideas all the time.
The idea of sharing best practice has been mentioned. Why are we constantly reinventing the wheel? There are projects like those in my city going on throughout the country. Why can we not have a website or directory that we could all use, to find out what financial exclusion projects exist to meet needs such as the need for child care? In these days of 21st-century technology it should not be beyond us to set up such a network.
Duplication is a tremendous problem in regeneration. Like those of other hon. Members, my constituency has a health action zone, an education action zone, as well as single regeneration budget and sure start programmes and a new deal for communities. I am grateful that my community has all those initiatives, but it takes a huge amount of time to administer them—to tick the boxes and examine the performance indicators. We need a set of performance indicators that combine those schemes. They are all about improving the quality
314WH
of life for ordinary people, and it should not be beyond us to come up with indicators that apply across the board, to avoid duplication.
We should consider how all our initiatives relate to local government. If we are not careful, the social exclusion initiatives, many of which require match funding from local authority budgets, will run at a time when our revenue support grant settlement is difficult, to say the least. In many local authority areas, councils are having to take hard decisions on closing facilities at the same time as we have huge social exclusion initiatives.
The political message from the Government may become confused, which I do not want to happen. All the good things that the Government are doing should be recognised at local level, but if local people are then faced with the closure of residential homes or nurseries, the message will become incredibly confused. We must see more interaction with local government. The initiatives must also shape the provision of mainstream services. There cannot be separate, parallel universes. We must have communication and change together.
We must also have multi-skilled workers who can cover a range of services for poor families. Families under pressure can receive visits from education welfare officers, housing officers, health visitors, debt counsellors and welfare rights officers. Those who have recently had babies might see a midwife as well. Families can be visited by about a dozen local authority people. For goodness' sake, we need one multi-skilled worker to perform health, benefit and housing checks. Families could establish a relationship with a named worker, in whom they could have confidence as their advocate. We are wasting resources in multiple interventions with poor families, and we do not achieve the needed outcomes. It is about breaking professional barriers, as professions are sometimes precious about workers' status. We should state that those workers' status would be enhanced rather than their skills being diluted, as they would become multi-skilled workers in deprived communities. We need to be radical about that.
The initiatives will not succeed as they could unless local people feel that they own and administer them, and are confident in being connected to the political process. We must put resources into citizenship, and not only in terms of young people's curriculums, although that will help in the future. Several generations have grown up with no idea how the world works. They do not know where the leaders of power are, or what local government or the health service does. An investment in citizenship would empower local people. We have something called community champions in Salford, which takes people through a range of citizenship initiatives. They will be the advocates and ambassadors for their community. I do not want to chair my regeneration partnership in two years' time. I want local people with support, encouragement and skills to take charge of the projects.
The path that the Government have embarked on is absolutely fantastic. The task is incredibly difficult, but we have made a brilliant start. I remember the messages of the 1980s, phrases such as, "Everyone for himself," "There's no such thing as society," and, "Look after number one." I am delighted that those days are well and truly over. The report is clear evidence of the

315WH
progress that we have made so far, and I look forward to many years of the Labour Government in which improvements continue in our communities.
5.3 pm
Mr. Jeff Ennis: I am delighted to have the opportunity to participate in what I consider to be an important debate. There is no doubt that one of the main reasons why the Labour Government were elected with such a massive majority in 1997 was their commitment to the social inclusion agenda and the alleviation of poverty in this country. In 18 years, the previous Government had become notorious for creating a so-called underclass, with employment running at up to 3 million and many caught in the poverty trap.
One has only to consider the damage that the previous Government did to my constituency and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) by closing down all the local pits virtually overnight in the early 1990s. Everyone is aware that it was done primarily for political reasons rather than economic ones. In 1997, that left my constituency with the lowest level of gross domestic product per capita in the country, at only 62 per cent. of the European average. It is no wonder that South Yorkshire has qualified for objective 1 funding from Europe.
I want to focus my remarks on the energy in the community project being undertaken in Thurnscoe, a former mining village in the heart of my constituency. Admittedly, it is more of a fuel poverty rather than a general poverty project, but I draw it to hon. Members' attention for two main reasons. First, it represents an excellent case study of what the Government are trying to achieve in the general alleviation of poverty. Secondly, this happens to be national warm homes week.
Fuel poverty is one of the more defined aspects of general poverty; it has been defined as affecting households that spend more than 10 per cent. of their income on fuel. An estimated 6 million households fall into that category, so it is a major social issue. Fuel poverty leads to cold, damp homes and exacerbates respiratory illnesses, heart attacks and strokes, all of which are prevalent in Barnsley and Doncaster. One in three households in my constituency contain at least one disabled person, which is a legacy of the mining industry.
The energy in the community project was launched in February by TXU Europe, in collaboration and partnership with Barnsley council and Groundwork Dearne Valley, in Thurnscoe. The project, in which £3 million will be invested over three years, will aim to use energy efficiency and education to reduce fuel poverty and enhance quality of life, with a focus on community regeneration and environmental issues. So far, more than 30 per cent. of the households in Thurnscoe—more than 800 properties—have registered for the project, and the village has shown considerable interest.
The project offers a variety of energy-related benefits to Thurnscoe residents, including energy-efficient light bulbs, smoke alarms, carbon monoxide alarms and cold
316WH
alert devices. It also offers home safety, security and water use advice, along with simple locks and door chains. In addition, it provides an energy survey and report detailing practical measures that householders can take to reduce energy bills and improve comfort. The project also gives guidance through various grant schemes.
Householders who are believed to be eligible for free installation of insulation and/or heating measures under the Government's home energy efficiency scheme will be referred to the scheme for further assessment. If householders are ineligible for the home energy efficiency scheme but receive council tax benefits, TXU will pay for energy efficiency improvement measures, including loft and cavity wall insulation, draught-proofing and pipe and cylinder lagging, as recommended by the energy survey.
In the broader community, the first sponsorship awards to groups in Thurnscoe have been made from the TXU community energy fund, which is designed to help local groups to make energy and sustainability-related improvements to community buildings and Thurnscoe amenities. A committee of five local volunteers makes decisions on all the applications that draw down from the fund. In May, five TXU staff led a successful workshop on electricity and energy efficiency at Gooseacre school in Thurnscoe.
On Monday, I helped to open the new energy in the community pop-in centre in Thurnscoe, which is the first of its kind in the United Kingdom. The centre is a community access resource at which residents can get free advice and guidance about how to save energy and money and help to save the environment. If each of the 800 households already registered go on to have loft insulation installed, they could save, on average, £109 a year each. That would add up to a total saving of more than £87,000 in energy bills. If all the other energy-saving measures can be adopted by those households—hot water tank jackets, cavity wall insulation, draught proofing and so on—the savings per household would be approximately £231 per annum, or £184,800 for all 800 households. The total savings could be even higher, as the project partners are aiming to survey at least a further 1,200 households in Thurnscoe. Many of them will qualify for the free home insulation measures offered.
The project is also contributing significantly to the regeneration of this former mining area. It has already created three full-time jobs for local people who live in Thurnscoe, running the local pop-in centre and carrying out home energy surveys. More jobs are expected to be generated by contracts to install home insulation measures. I hope that the profile brought by the project should also draw attention to the area and assist further regeneration.
I want to thank TXU Europe for having the foresight to invest heavily in such a socially responsible and innovative project. It has fully involved not only the appropriate Department but the local council, Groundwork Dearne Valley, the three local ward councillors, the two local primary schools—Thurnscoe Gooseacre primary school and Thurnscoe The Hill primary school—and local people. In addition, it has provided local employment.

317WH
When the project has been fully evaluated, I am convinced that it will provide a best practice model of how socially responsible companies can work in partnership with the relevant agencies, to address not only fuel poverty issues but all the poverty issues that affect the lives of the many vulnerable people in our society.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. George Stevenson: Order. We have until 5.45 pm for this debate. I want to give the Minister 10 minutes to wind up, and three hon. Members want to speak. Need I say more?
5.11 pm
Mrs. Linda Gilroy: It is a pleasure to follow the many hon. Members who have outlined the benefits in relation to the report. Many communities share the aim—envisaged in the report—of a fair and prosperous society, with opportunity for all, the length and breadth of the country.
I inherited from my Conservative predecessor—it is a pity that the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles) is no longer here to draw on the experience that many hon. Members have of that legacy—several of the poorest wards in England, including the poorest ward. Conditions in my constituency have improved as a result of many projects, such as education action zones and health action zones. Unemployment is at the national average for the first time in 20 years, having fallen from 12,000 to less than 4,000. Again, it is a pity that the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar is not here to hear those figures, which represent a transformation in the lives of many families.
At the time of the general election, I calculated, using the Tory Government's figures, that a cost of £9,000 per unemployed person amounted to more than £100 million in Plymouth alone. Clearly, the figure has decreased proportionately, although our investment was criticised by the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar, whose hon. Friends would abolish the new deal. When the history books on the first Labour Government in 20 years are written, the investment of the windfall levy on the over-high profits of privatised public utilities will be found to have been hugely wise.
My hon. Friend the Minister said that it was necessary to create the conditions in which poverty could be tackled. Employment is one of the best paths out of poverty. The joined-up thinking and action at national level represented in the report—we have discussed making work pay and the new deal programmes—has been more than matched by people working in partnership locally in Plymouth. I cannot speak too highly of the Employment Service. Chris Holland and her team—Colleen Cann, Lyn Johns and Wendy Holmes—have worked their socks off to deliver it. Our evening newspaper has given us a great deal of help by publicising role models in a highly can-do community in Plymouth that is tackling the dreadful legacy left us.
The Employment Service team could not have done it without employers such as E. Thomas Construction, Marine Projects and Matalan, and public service employers such as the national health service, Dartmoor
318WH
prison and the Ministry of Defence. Small businesses have also played a role. I pay tribute to David Beardsley of the Federation of Small Businesses. He was rather sceptical at first, but since then we have had no greater champion. He shares my enthusiasm for seeing as many as possible of the 17 million small businesses in Europe being able to create a job, which would resolve the problem of unemployment overnight—and we are making good headway.
It is difficult to maintain partnerships such as the Plymouth 20-20 partnership—chaired by Bob Ball, the vice-president of Gleason Corporation—in communities that have been so badly affected by poverty. We use a phrase in Plymouth: partnership fatigue. The fact that there is only a small critical mass of businesses to support them is especially challenging.
Tomorrow, I will speak to students from Stoke Damerel community college as part of the programme of "put it to your MP" surgeries that UNICEF has encouraged Members of Parliament all over the country to run. Their advance questions reflect the challenges that we all face and are a sad reflection of the legacy of poverty bequeathed by 20 years of underinvestment in our city. I hope that they will be asking different questions in five or 10 years' time. Let me quote some of their questions: "Why do you think underage children drink alcohol and take drugs?"; "Why are some schools better off than others, with more money and more equipment?"; "Do you think Plymouth has a serious drug problem, and how can we protect children from this?"; "Why is there so little for young people to do in Plymouth that is free?"; "Why are there so many homeless people and what are we doing for them?"; and, "Why does it seem that a lot of rich people look down on others?" Those questions are an indictment of the quality of life that has resulted from the legacy that we were left.
I will tell the students about investment in our schools that is giving money directly to their governors and head teachers, and will ask them to look out for the scaffolding that is a sign of building and refurbishment work at many local primary schools, which they probably attended—Prince Rock, Mountwise and Holy Cross, to name but a few. I shall tell them that thanks to the Government's investment, the number of infants in classes of more than 30 in Plymouth is down from just over 3,000 to about 200.
I shall tell the students that everyone should receive a good start, and will explain how Sure Start is bringing that prospect to my neighbouring constituency of Plymouth, Devonport. The LARK project is bringing services to more than 300 children aged four and under and their brothers, sisters, mothers and fathers. Some of my local communities would like that kind of scheme—especially Stonehouse, where people were disappointed that the Sure Start bid by a team led by Dr. Trevor Aughey did not succeed. I am delighted that as a result of the report they might have another chance—it says that the number of such programmes will double to 500 by 2004.
My hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, East and Mexborough (Mr. Ennis) mentioned the value of warm homes to older people. Many members of Efford senior citizens club, whom I recently met at their Christmas fair, told me that they were delighted by the package that the Government are delivering, especially the

319WH
winter fuel allowance. That has been criticised, but for people who have to choose between heating and eating—as too many do—it has been a hugely important boost at the right time of year. The Government are doubling the money going into the home energy efficiency scheme. Last week, I visited the home of Mrs. Adams in Cattedown when she was having her central heating installed. By 2004, HEES is expected to have helped 800,000 households.
When, as a new Member in 1997, I became involved in the campaign for the Warm Homes and Energy Conservation Bill, I thought that 15 years was an ambitious target for the elimination of fuel poverty. I now think that it is not ambitious enough. I hope that the process can be accelerated by the Bill, which received cross-party support, and by the recognition of the interministerial group on which my hon. Friend the Minister serves with many of his colleagues from across government. If we are serious about tackling child poverty and pensioner poverty, it is essential to tackle fuel poverty, which can mean the difference between paying 5 per cent. and 20 per cent.—sometimes even 30 per cent.—of one's income towards fuel.
I am conscious that other Members want to contribute to the debate, so I shall end on this point. We in Plymouth have some serious concerns. Given that, unfortunately, Tories control it, our city council will no longer take quite as seriously the issues that underpin the partnerships and the good work that I have described. That attitude is reflected by the absence of a Tory spokesperson in this Chamber. The Tories in Plymouth have made cutting parking charges a priority, yet at the same time homes are threatened with closure.
I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will continue to work with other Departments to ensure that, in terms of taxpayers' money, priority is given to tackling poverty, so that we can achieve the very best opportunities for all, and the social justice and economic efficiency that that will bring.
5.21 pm
Mr. Hilary Benn: This has been an excellent and necessary debate. In terms of poverty, we in this country have one of the worst records in the western world—certainly among the countries belonging to the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, bar the United States of America.
As a relatively new Member representing the constituency of Leeds, Central, I have reflected on this issue a great deal. Leeds is a city of contrasts. The first city of Leeds is thriving, diversifying and attracting new businesses, and there has been strong civic leadership. Although my hon. Friend the Minister is entirely correct to say that getting right the economy of the city of Leeds will provide the foundation, on its own that is not enough.
In the past 15 years, Leeds has created about 30,000 new jobs. Earlier this year, a report by Leeds training and enterprise council stated that, with luck, Leeds will do the same in the next 15 years. However, unemployment will remain unchanged. That report pulled me up short, because it defines in a nutshell the problem in Leeds and the country as a whole.
320WH
Of course, there is the second city of Leeds. It so happens that four of the five wards that I represent—City and Holbeck, Hunslet, University and Richmond Hill—are among the most deprived in the country. Although those communities are about only a mile and a half away from Leeds city centre, where one finds the symbols of economic success, in terms of opportunity, aspiration and hope they could be on a different planet. One of the best ways in which our society measures the quality of life in a given area is through the value attached to houses and homes. Last year in Leeds, the first penthouse was sold for £1 million, but a house in one of those outlying communities cannot be sold for £2,500. Like me, many hon. Members who have contributed to this debate represent two cities, two areas and two communities. There is no doubt that the first city cannot in truth prosper if the second city cannot have a greater share of that prosperity.
I have been struck by the extent of disadvantage. I hate to use the term "multi-faceted", but it is true that disadvantage comes in many different forms. According to the relevant league table, a particular secondary school in my constituency is not doing very well. However, 50 per cent. of its kids receive free school meals, and 50 per cent. have special educational needs. That constitutes true disadvantage.
Many people who visit our surgeries on a Saturday say, "We've got a problem with housing." Frequently, they then let slip that a member of their family suffers from ill health. We know from experience that it is the people who live in the poorest areas who suffer the highest levels of crime. In Holbeck, the area covered by the largest police division in my constituency, 60 per cent. of crime is drug related.
We have all heard what it is like to live in a poor neighbourhood: the vandalism, the rubbish and the low-level nuisance on the streets. I met a woman last year who was too frightened to walk three streets to go to the one remaining shop in her community. When I spoke to the shopkeeper, I learned that he spends most of his life, when his shop is closed, behind the boarded-up shutters, because he feels isolated within his community. That type of atmosphere corrodes people's confidence in their community.
Poor people pay more for their food because, in some cases, they cannot get to the supermarket, and the local shops charge more. My hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, East and Mexborough (Mr. Ennis) said that poor people pay more for their fuel, particularly those who are on pre-payment meters. Our society has, in a sense, moved forward: we have invented a new form of purchasing goods—internet shopping—that is denied to people without a bank account because they cannot enter the crucial account number. There is a debate about the universal bank—perhaps it will be set up by the Post Office. I say to the banks, which have a social responsibility in that area, that they should spend less time whingeing about having to contribute to allowing people to access financial services, and spend more time making it work in practice. In our society, it is astonishing that we load so many extra costs on people who already have so little.
The final point that strikes me about this debate, and this is a common view that has been expressed by everybody who has contributed so far, is that to tackle social exclusion we need a combination of help and

321WH
self-help—to use a slightly old-fashioned expression. We need both, not least because disadvantage manifests itself—certainly in my constituency—as a profound alienation from the political process. I speak with great authority on this subject, as my hon. Friends will realise, because 80 per cent. of the people in my constituency did not vote in the by-election that returned me to the House. In the previous general election, 45 per cent. did not vote, because they cannot see the difference that we, as politicians, could make to their lives.
The challenge for us is to show that we can make a difference. We cannot do it all for people, but we can target help. The most welcome feature of the Government—for all the criticism, the things we have yet to do and the failures and challenges that lie ahead—is that they are absolutely serious about trying to target help. For example, the excellence in cities initiative is pumping £19 million into the most disadvantaged schools in my constituency, including the one where 50 per cent. of children receive free school meals and 50 per cent. have special educational needs.
The second part of the equation, self-help, is especially important. For all the problems in my constituency that I have discovered in 17 months as a Member of Parliament, what always gives me hope is the astonishing range of community organisations that are working their guts out to make a difference. They include organisations such as Caring Together in Woodhouse and Little London, which ran a pensioners party two weeks ago, and South Leeds Health for All, which is trying to tackle health problems by getting people to talk about them. It is running a men's health group—let us be honest, men are not terribly good at looking after their health.
As other hon. Members have said, we must ensure that targeted support is available to organisations on the ground in a form that they can access. The hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) asked how we can judge whether we have made a difference, and that is a relevant question. The answer is that, in life, that which we are most proud of is that which we have worked hardest to achieve. If people feel that they can do it for themselves and the Government have helped them to achieve it, perhaps we shall have begun to tackle this serious problem.
5.28 pm
Ms Glenda Jackson: Following the contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Benn), I have two points to make. In broad terms, I agree with everything that my hon. Friends have said. I am not surprised that the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles) has run away. I was surprised that he dared to show his face, given that it was 18 years of Conservative Government that created the greatest explosion of unemployment, poverty, homelessness and bankruptcy that this country has ever seen.
I welcome everything that the Government are doing to tackle the issues of poverty and social exclusion. Building on the speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, Central, I would like to concentrate on people who have for more than two and a half decades been told day in and day out, directly and indirectly: that they have no value, no contribution to make, and are not part of their society but merely spongers.
322WH
The Government's targeting of resources is of immense benefit, but I strongly urge them to examine how to support people who are prepared to tackle issues in their own communities and who obtain results when action by local authorities, central Government and official organisations does not because people discount and mistrust them. For example, in my constituency we have won a private finance initiative grant to transform a large estate in Hampstead which, because of the depredations of the previous Government, was allowed to fall into a state of disrepair. The scheme is being run by a dedicated team of tenants with help from the local authority and the wider community. However, the tenants committee is unable to engage a larger group of people to support the exercise. To repeat the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Salford (Ms Blears), if only there was some way of disseminating information to groups that are engaged in best practice, we would see immense improvements in a very short time.
My hon. Friend the Member for Regents Park and Kensington, North (Ms Buck) described in graphic detail the almost intolerable burden caused by lack of affordable housing and outright homelessness in London. That is as prevalent in my constituency as in the rest of London. She made some points that I would have made and I can replicate her story from my constituency surgeries. It has been estimated that there are 160,000 hidden homeless people in London. They may be living in extremely overcrowded conditions or moving from night to night to sleep on friends' sofas or floors. There is particular concern about women who are deliberately placing themselves in physical and sexual danger because they do not want to be on the streets.
Those who work to get people off the streets are seeing a resurgence of tuberculosis. A group that organises an ambulance run around central London on Saturday nights is seeing trench foot on the streets of this city for the first time since the first world war. We must work hard for those people—and those in my constituency to whom I referred—who have been made to feel alienated. We must recreate in them what my hon. Friend referred to as citizenship.
My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, Central highlighted the need to recreate the democratic links that will bring people back not just to the ballot box but to their own communities.
The other dreadful waste is that of human ability. We are wasting enormous resources. When people are engaged in their own communities, they have immense and varied talents. They learn quickly and can approach problems innovatively and in a way that is often not possible for those of us who are looking at them every day, such as local authorities, which, with the best will in the world, may become bureaucratised in their approach to problems.
I warmly welcome the Government's approach and I must tell the hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) that I have seen improvements in my constituency, particularly for single parent families who are eligible for family credit. I can give a precise example of a mother who had felt ashamed that she could not afford to allow her child to invite a schoolfriend back to tea. Now she can, and that is a step forward in building the confidence of not only the mother but the family and the wider community. It will be a long, hard road, but the

323WH
building of that confidence, and giving back to people the sense that they are human beings and have a valuable contribution to make is important. That it is their community and their country is a vital part of the Government's programme.
5.35 pm
Mr. Bayley: The debate has been excellent. I have learned a lot from it, because hon. Members have been talking from their experience in their constituencies about what does and does not work. I hope that the Government can provide a better co-ordinated framework for its anti-poverty strategy. I hope that hon. Members present and others who will read the report of our dete will pick up on the many examples given of good practice.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Ms Jackson) starkly described a parent who could not afford to provide tea for her child's schoolfriend. Such a simple case shows how awful it is that anyone should grow up in such circumstances. We must ensure that such changes concern all children in Britain, which is why we have made the historic commitment to halve child poverty within a decade and to eliminate it within 20 years.
It is a shame that only one contribution was made from the Conservative Benches. The hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles) explained that something had occurred in his constituency and that he could not stay throughout our proceedings. Although he made some partisan points, he also made some interesting ones to which I shall respond, as did the hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb).
Excellent contributions were made to the debate by my hon. Friends the Members for Regents Park and Kensington, North (Ms Buck), for Don Valley (Caroline Flint), for Wythenshawe and Sale, East (Mr. Goggins), for Salford (Ms Blears), for Barnsley, East and Mexborough (Mr. Ennis), for Leeds, Central (Mr. Benn), for Plymouth, Sutton (Mrs. Gilroy) and for Hampstead and Highgate. Interesting interventions were also made by my hon. Friends the Members for Dartford (Dr. Stoate) and for Harrow, West (Mr. Thomas).
The hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar talked of loan agreements with interest-free periods. I am pleased to say that my hon. Friend the Minister for Competition and Consumer Affairs recently hosted a conference to examine that problem. He secured a commitment from lenders to participate in a task force led by the Department of Trade and Industry to investigate improving the transparency of information provided to consumers before and when concluding credit agreements, including the small print. He will report back to the Government in the spring.
The hon. Gentleman referred to the problems of crime in poor neighbourhoods, as did many others hon. Members. However, he did not acknowledge that crime is falling under this Government. Since 1997, it has fallen by 6 per cent. Domestic burglary is down by 24 per cent. and vehicle crime by 17 per cent. Such drops have not happened by accident, but as a result of the Government's initiatives, such as their spending
324WH
£60 million on the reducing burglary initiative. An extra £150 million is being spent on closed circuit television. In all, £400 million is being spent on a crime reduction strategy. I must say, even in his absence, that his slightly curmudgeonly remarks were biased. He was wrong about the evaluation of the new deal that we rightly celebrated today. It enabled 250,000 young people to get off benefits and into work.
The official evaluators, the National Institute of Economic and Social Research, said that the new deal has paid substantially for itself within two years, and that unemployment would have been twice as high had we not had it. The Industrial Society said that the new deal benefits the labour market
because people leave it better equipped, motivated and skilled to face the rest of their working lives.
The hon. Member for Northavon asked for a more independent analysis of the performance of the Government's poverty strategy. In July, we called in a wide range of academics to review what we were doing and advise us on the way in which we evaluated and measured our performance and on the indicators used. Those academics included John Hills from the London School of Economics; Brian Nolan from the Economic and Social Research Institute, Ireland; Johnathan Bradshaw from the University of York; and Sheldon Danzinger from the University of Michigan—all people of whom the hon. Gentleman will have heard.
Those academics reviewed our methodology and means of reporting and advised us to use a range of indicators, because focusing on a single indicator would not take account of the entire range of dimensions of people's lives that are affected by poverty. It would be a mistake to concentrate simply on housing, income or health rather than using a range of indicators. Even within a single field, such as income, it is important—for reasons that hon. Members have explained well—to use a range of indicators.
It is important to consider relative poverty, because people can feel impoverished if they are relatively poorer than others in their community, but it is also important to consider absolute poverty, as it means that people cannot heat their homes and may freeze to death in winter. We should consider, too, persistent poverty. If one is poor for six months, one may have a rough time but one will probably survive. If one is poor for six years, oneself and one's children are probably going to be trapped in poverty for ever.
A range of indicators must be used, although that does create the difficulty mentioned by the hon. Member for Northavon. It would be easier if there were a single measure against which the Government's performance could be judged. However, in a move towards transparency, a range of measures should be used. To make our performance easier to assess, we have chosen five headline measures for our work on—for example—child poverty. The five key measures are the increased opportunities for parents to work, improved family incomes, higher educational standards, better quality housing and reduced health inequalities. They are only five measures, but they may make it easier to assess the overall trend and judge whether the Government's policies are working than would the 32 or—in this year's report—34 measures used in total.
My hon. Friend the Member for Regents Park and Kensington, North made an excellent speech about housing and council tax benefits and the terrible

325WH
problems created by the housing shortage in London—points echoed by my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate. The Government will soon respond to the consultation responses we received to our housing Green Paper. The Government are paying attention to the issues raised by both those hon. Members.
My hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley talked about the devastating effect of mine closures on her constituency, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, East and Mexborough. The former referred, too, to the importance of involving not only the community leaders but all the community. I agree that that is extremely important. The Government cannot slay the dragon of poverty on our own—neither can local people or community groups—but together we can do it.
There is a need for experimentation. Mistakes will be made, but we must be honest enough to report them. For example, in the new deal for disabled people, we
326WH
have made some mistakes in rehabilitation programmes. However, we have learned from that. When we establish larger scale rehabilitation programmes next year, we shall intervene at an earlier stage so that the likelihood of success will be greater.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe and Sale, East talked about the additional funding the Government have provided for carers of the most severely people. That underlines the second part of the equation: we want to provide not only work for those who can work—that is what the new deal means—but security for those who cannot work.
My hon. Friend the Member for Salford said that people will not welcome what we are doing and pat us on our backs until they can see a difference on the ground. People are beginning to see that difference. The unemployment rates are falling in her constituency and in those of all hon. Members in this Chamber.
It being quarter to Six o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the sitting lapsed, without Question put.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Millennium Dome
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many recruits from the New Deal for Young People(a) have worked and (b) are working in the Millennium Dome. [134827]

  Janet Anderson
  I regret that it has not been possible to provide an answer before Prorogation. I shall therefore write to the hon. Member and place a copy of my reply in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport when he last met the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland to discuss the Dome. [135415]

  Janet Anderson
  [holding answer 30 October 2000]: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has had no meetings with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland to discuss the Dome.

  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will list the meetings he has attended since September 1999, together with their dates, at which the future use of the Millennium Dome site was discussed, indicating who was in attendance at each meeting. [139167]

  Janet Anderson
  [holding answer 20 November 2000]: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State attended meetings on 1 December, 13 December and 15 December 1999, at which the future use of the Millennium Dome was discussed.

  These meetings were attended by Lord Falconer, Minister of State at the Cabinet Office and Shareholder of the New Millennium Experience Company, Andrew Smith, Chief Secretary to the Treasury, and Hilary Armstrong, Minister for Local Government and the Regions. Officials from the Competition Team, the Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS), the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (DETR), English Partnerships (EP), the New Millennium Experience Company (NMEC), and the Millennium Commission (MC) were also present.

  New Millennium Experience Company
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (1) what advice he has received, from whom, and when, as to the solvency of the New Millennium Experience Company; [134495]

  (2) if he will make a statement on the liability of directors of the New Millennium Experience Company under the Companies Acts. [134483]
  712W
  Janet Anderson
  [holding answer 26 October 2000]: I regret that it has not been possible to provide an answer before Prorogation. I shall therefore write to the hon. Member and place a copy of my reply in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what assessment he has made of the New Millennium Experience Company's fulfilment of the requirements placed upon it by section 221 of the Companies Act 1985, with particular reference to the requirement to maintain a record of its assets and liabilities. [134430]

  Janet Anderson
  [holding answer 26 October 2000]: I regret that it has not been possible to provide an answer before Prorogation. I shall therefore write to the hon. Member and place a copy of my reply in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Mr. Marshall-Andrews
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will place in the Library documents communicating to the New Millennium Experience Company indemnities for the directors of the company, as referred to in the National Audit Office report, HC 936. [138418]

  Janet Anderson
  I regret that it has not been possible to provide an answer before Prorogation. I shall therefore write to my hon. and learned Friend and place a copy of my reply in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many people on the payroll of the New Millennium Experience Company have received remuneration through offshore accounts. [140424]

  Janet Anderson
  [holding answer 27 November 2000]: I regret that it has not been possible to provide an answer before Prorogation. I shall therefore write to the hon. Member and place a copy of my reply in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will list those contracts entered into by the New Millennium Experience Company which have not complied with public procurement procedures. [140556]

  Janet Anderson
  [holding answer 27 November 2000]: 1 refer the hon. Member to the reply given to him by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on 21 November 2000, Official Report, columns 138–39W.

  Departmental Employees (New Deal)
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many people his Department employs under the New Deal for Young People. [137955]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  I regret that it has not been possible to provide an answer before Prorogation. I shall therefore write to the hon. Member and place a copy of my reply in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Picketts Lock
  Mr. Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (1) if a new Lottery agreement between Sport England and Wembley National Stadium
  713W
  Ltd. excluding athletics from Wembley, will be concluded before the feasibility studies into Picketts Lock, Enfield, are concluded; [139853]

  (2) what contingency plans he has for a London venue for the World Athletics Championships in 2005 if the feasibility studies conclude that Picketts Lock is unsuitable. [139854]

  Kate Hoey
  [holding answer 27 November 2000]: I regret that it has not been possible to provide an answer before Prorogation. I shall therefore write to the hon. Member and place a copy of my reply in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Sports Injuries
  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how much was spent by his Department on research into the prevention of sports injuries in the last three years. [140665]

  Kate Hoey
  [holding answer 28 November 2000]:
  I regret that it has not been possible to provide an answer before Prorogation. I shall therefore write to the hon. Member and place a copy of my reply in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Wireless Telegraphy Act 1949
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will amend the Wireless Telegraphy Act 1949 to ensure that inquiry officers are prevented from entering private property unless they have reasonable grounds for suspecting that television is being watched illegally. [141095]

  Janet Anderson
  TV Licensing's inquiry officers have no authority to enter any premises without the owner's or occupier's consent, unless authorised to do so by a search warrant issued by a justice of the peace in England, Wales or Northern Ireland or, in Scotland, a sheriff. Under section 15(1) of the Wireless Telegraphy Act 1949 (as amended), a justice of the peace or a sheriff may issue a warrant if satisfied by information on oath that there is reasonable ground for suspecting that an offence under the Act has been or is being committed, and that evidence of the commission of the offence is to be found on the premises specified. The Government consider that this provides adequate safeguards and therefore have no plans to amend the 1949 Act.

  Athletes (Lottery Funding)
  Mr. Trickett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what age limitations apply to athletes seeking lottery funding. [141202]

  Kate Hoey
  I regret that it has not been possible to provide an answer before Prorogation. I shall therefore write to my hon. Friend and place a copy of my reply in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Cycling
  Mr. Trickett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (1) how many velodromes operated in the United Kingdom in the last four years; where they were; how many velodromes are proposed to be closed; and if he will make a statement; [141203]
  714W
  (2) how much (a) capital and (b) revenue funding was provided to the sport of cycling by his Department in each of the last four financial years; [141204]

  (3) what his estimate is of the number of cyclists who use the Manchester velodrome. [141201]

  Kate Hoey
  I regret that it has not been possible to provide an answer before Prorogation. I shall therefore write to my hon. Friend and place a copy of my reply in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Disabled Tourists
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what plans he has to make English tourist resorts more attractive to disabled tourists. [141271]

  Janet Anderson
  I regret that it has not been possible to provide an answer before Prorogation. I shall therefore write to the hon. Member and place a copy of my reply in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Accommodation (Disabled People)
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (1) what is the deadline by which accommodation businesses with 12 beds or fewer must comply with the Disability Discrimination Act 1999; [141274]

  (2) what powers he has to regulate the provision of accommodation for disabled tourists in hotels and guest houses in England. [141275]

  Janet Anderson
  I regret that it has not been possible to provide an answer before Prorogation. I shall therefore write to the hon. Member and place a copy of my reply in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Free Television Licences
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what plans he has to award to disabled pensioners aged under 75 years free television licences; and if he will make a statement. [141078]

  Janet Anderson
  The Government have no plans to extend the availability of free television licences to disabled pensioners below the age of 75.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Portcullis House
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Chairman of the Administration Committee what arrangements apply to hon. Members who wish to provide refreshments to constituents at events in rooms in Portcullis House; if hon. Members are entitled to make their own refreshment arrangements; and if she will make a statement. [140823]

  Mrs. Roe
  Catering in the multi-purpose conference rooms (the Attlee Suite and the Macmillan Room) will be provided by the Refreshment Department. Hon. Members will be invited to liaise directly with the Portcullis House Catering Manager, as different menu options are available.
  715W
  At the time of booking Meeting Rooms M to U, hon. Members will be asked if they require any refreshments and they will be offered tea, coffee, biscuits, sandwiches, morning pastries or afternoon cakes.

  Currently, hon. Members are able to make their own arrangements for providing refreshment in the Jubilee Room and in Room E in 7 Millbank.

  I understand that all of the arrangements in Portcullis House will be reviewed after six months of operation.

DEFENCE

  Air War Capability
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the ability of the United Kingdom to fight an air war in bad weather. [134917]

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

  Petrol Costs (Ministerial Cars)
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the cost was in each of the past three years of petrol for his Department's fleet of ministerial cars; and how many vehicles there are in that fleet. [134932]

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

  Sickness Absence
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the progress made by his Department since 1999 in reducing sickness absence; what targets he has agreed with the Cabinet Office; and if he will make a statement. [135465]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 26 October 2000]: I will write to the hon. member and a copy of my letter will be placed in the Library of the House.

  Nuclear Disarmament
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement about progress made on the Government's commitment to nuclear disarmament given at this year's Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty Conference at the United Nations. [135400]

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

  "Voices"
  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much his Department spent on advertising space in the recent Government publication, "Voices". [135590]

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

  Special Advisers
  Mr. Tyrie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 5 June 2000,Official Report, column 21W, on special advisers, if he will list the destination and the total cost, including travel, accommodation and subsistence allowance, on each of the occasions when departmental or non-departmental special advisers travelled abroad in an official capacity. [135244]

  Mr. Hoon
  During the period 31 March 1999 to 31 March 2000, special advisers in this Department travelled on official business to Washington and Portugal at a total cost of £5,071. The cost of these visits were accounted for in the expenditure on Ministers' travel overseas published by the Prime Minister on 28 July 2000,Official Report, column 969W, which for 1999–2000 was £4.6 million compared to £7.9 million for the last year of the previous Administration.

  Nuclear Weapons
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what discussions he has had with his counterparts in the other states armed with nuclear weapons; and what progress he has made, following the statement on nuclear disarmament agreed at this year's Non-proliferation Treaty Conference at the United Nations. [135328]

  Mr. Hoon
  [holding answer 2 November 2000]: I have had discussions on a range of subjects with my counterparts from the other nuclear weapon states since the conclusion of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) Review Conference in May. We will continue to work with the other nuclear weapon states in the spirit of our joint statements to the 2000 NPT Review Conference and the meetings of its Preparatory Committee. We are unequivocally committed to the global elimination of nuclear weapons and welcome the successful agreement of a final document at the Review Conference containing a package of measures on nuclear disarmament.

  The United Kingdom's constructive role in negotiation of that document has been widely recognised.

  Civil Servants (Relocation)
  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 2 May 2000, Official Report, column 13W, which relocation companies hold contracts with his Department for the relocation of civil servants; when those contracts were last renewed; where the contracts were advertised; and what the length and value of each contract is. [137172]

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

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will place in the Library a copy of the document DCI Gen 150/97 covering guidance on answers to parliamentary questions. [137346]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 9 November 2000]: I am withholding a copy of the Defence Council Instruction under Exemption 2 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.
  717W
  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will place in the Library a copy of his Department's guidance on answers to parliamentary questions. [137345]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 9 November 2000]: I refer my right hon. Friend to HC67 1996–97, the Government Response to the Second Report from the Committee (Session 1995–96) on Ministerial Accountability and Responsibility published in November 1996.

  Defence Systems
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what capabilities the Royal Navy's SSNs have for connectivity in the littoral environment; what equipment they have for improving connectivity in littoral zones; when DERA's and Thomson Marconi Sonar's RTOF Buoy will be available to the Royal Navy; and if he will make a statement. [139653]

  Dr. Moonie
  SSNs have a wide range of communications capability usable in all environments. I refer the hon. Member to the answer my hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces gave on 20 November 2000,Official Report, column 5W, which stated that we are conducting research to improve the connectivity of our submarines. The RTOF Buoy is being investigated as part of this research.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the cost is to the RN of purchasing its current connectivity equipment; what the cost of the RTOF Buoy is; what time scale has been set for implementation of the RTOF Buoy in SSN; and if he will make a statement. [139719]

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

  Gurkhas
  Mr. Bill O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many members of Gurkha regiments who were prisoners of the Japanese in the Second World War and their widows will receive compensation; and if he will make a statement. [138618]

  Dr. Moonie
  As I announced on 7 November 2000,Official Report, columns 159–70, the Government are making a single ex gratia payment of £10,000 to each of the surviving members of the British groups who were held prisoner by the Japanese during the Second World War, in recognition of the unique circumstances of their captivity. Those who are eligible to receive this payment include former members of HM Armed Forces who were made prisoners of war.

  Prior to 1947 there were no Gurkha Regiments in the British Army. The (old) Indian Army, which included Gurkha regiments, was separate from the British Army and responsibility for it passed to the new Governments of India and Pakistan when those countries became independent. Former members of the (old) Indian Army generally did not receive payments under UK auspices under the 1951 San Francisco Treaty of Peace with Japan and are not eligible for the current ex gratia scheme.

  Plutonium
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what United Kingdom origin reactor grade plutonium has been fabricated into a nuclear device and subsequently tested for reliability and yield by British defence authorities since 1970. [138986]

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

  Defence Aviation Repairs Agency
  Mr. John Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what the cost to DARA was of monitoring(a) Armondbank, (b) Fleetlands, (c) RAF Sealand and (d) RAF St. Athan in the financial year 1999–2000; [139328]

  (2) what recent representations he has received about the cost to the Royal Air Force of work undertaken by the Defence Aviation Repairs Agency; [140985]

  (3) how many RAF personnel were in DARA at RAF St. Athan on 1 April 1999; [141167]

  (4) what plans headquarters Strike Command have to reduce the number of RAF personnel at DARA at RAF St. Athan by April 2002; [141169]

  (5) what the estimated cost is of locating the headquarters of the Defence Aviation Repairs Agency outwith the existing DARA sites; [141164]

  (6) what reason the chief executive of DARA does not consider RAF St. Athan as a cost effective and strategic location for the headquarters of DARA; [141165]

  (7) what cost savings are expected from re-locating the DARA headquarters from RAF St. Athan to the Bath/Bristol area; [141166]

  (8) if the personnel department at DARA at RAF St. Athan keeps computerised records of the home addresses of their staff. [141168]

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

  RAF St. Athan
  Mr. John Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when the RAF plans to upgrade and repair the runway at RAF St. Athan. [139324]

  Mr. Spellar
  There are no plans to upgrade the runway at RAF St. Athan. However, repairs have been undertaken during this year and are planned to continue during 2001.

  Mr. John Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) if he will list the buildings at RAF St. Athan and the purposes for which they are used; [140988]

  (2) what plans he has for the future of RAF St. Athan. [140984]

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

  European Rapid Reaction Corps
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) if he will list the military advantages over the existing NATO structure of EU countries allocating forces to a rapid reaction corps; [139953]
  719W
  (2) what criteria he will apply to the provisional allocation to an EU rapid reaction corps of the UK armed forces currently assigned to NATO. [139951]

  Mr. Hoon
  The UK is not allocating forces to an EU Rapid Reaction Corps.

  The EU, with the assistance of NATO, has identified the required pool of forces and capabilities to carry out the full range of Petersberg tasks. EU member states have nominated those elements of their own national forces they believe could contribute to this requirement and have committed themselves to make further improvements to meet a defined level of capability (the 'Headline Goal') by 2003.

  Our declaration of forces to NATO is unaffected.

  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what access to US intelligence facilities a separate EU rapid reaction corps will have. [139958]

  Mr. Hoon
  Access by the EU to American intelligence facilities is a matter for the US Government. As a member of NATO, however, the US has welcomed the impetus being given to strengthening a common European policy in security and defence. Work is in hand to afford the EU access to Alliance capabilities in support of operations in which NATO as a whole is not militarily engaged.

  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the role of a separate EU rapid reaction corps in the creation of a common European defence policy. [139961]

  Mr. Hoon
  There is no intention to create a separate EU rapid reaction corps.

  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what representations he has received from the USA about the European Rapid Reaction Force proposal. [140281]

  Mr. Hoon
  [holding answer 24 November 2000]: William Cohen, the US Defense Secretary, speaking at NATO Defence Ministers Informal Meeting on 9–10 October, said,
  "Let me be clear on America's position. We agree with this goal—not grudgingly, not with resignation, but with wholehearted conviction".

  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what parliamentary scrutiny will apply to the agreements reached on setting up the EU Rapid Reaction Corps. [140087]

  Mr. Hoon
  [holding answer 24 November 2000]: I refer the hon. Member to my statement to the House on 22 November 2000, Official Report, columns 319–20, and in particular my answer to the points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara). In addition the Government remain open to scrutiny by the Defence Select Committee whose remit is to "examine the expenditure, administration and policy" of the Department.

  Research Organisations
  Mr. Page
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what research organisations are owned by his Department; and what their budgets are for the year 2000–01. [R] [140158]
  720W
  Dr. Moonie
  I will write to the hon. Member and a copy of my letter will be placed in the Library of the House.

  Press Officers
  Mr. Duncan Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many additional press officers he plans to recruit; where they will be based; and how much has been allocated for their recruitment. [140016]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 24 November 2000]: I will write to the hon. Member and a copy of my letter will be placed in the Library of the House.

  Military Exports
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what proportion of defence attachés' time was allocated to promoting military exports in the last five years. [140705]

  Mr. Spellar
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) on 29 November 2000,Official Report, column 642W.

  No comparable information is available for earlier years.

  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the occasions in the past two years when UK service personnel have been used to promote the sales of military equipment(a) in the UK and (b) abroad; and what income was derived from such activities. [140703]

  Dr. Moonie
  Many staff in my Department contribute to the Government's support for defence exports. As an indication of the level of activity involved, I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for South Derbyshire (Mr. Todd) on 16 November 2000,Official Report, columns 741–42W, which includes details of occasions when defence personnel, including service personnel, have been used to promote the sales of military equipment at specific events in the UK and overseas.

  Defence exports save the defence budget around £400 million a year. These savings come from spreading fixed overheads over the longer production runs generated by exports, from the sale of surplus defence equipment and from receipts of commercial exploitation levy on equipment developed using public money.

  Training (Foreign Armed Forces)
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will breakdown the income derived by the UK Government from training in the UK of service personnel from foreign forces in each of the last three years. [140707]

  Mr. Spellar
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) on 27 November 2000,Official Report, column 429W.

  C-17 Globemaster Aircraft
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the minimum operational flying height permitted under the terms of the lease of the four Boeing C-17 Globemaster aircraft for the RAF will be. [140572]
  721W
  Mr. Spellar
  There is no minimum operating height, other than for flight safety reasons, within the flight envelope for the C-17 aircraft. However, as the requirement which the C-17s will meet is that for outsized strategic airlift, not tactical airlift, we have no plans to use these aircraft for low level operations.

  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if the air-dropping of troops or equipment will be permitted under the terms of the lease of the four Boeing C-17 Globemaster aircraft for the RAF. [140570]

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

  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the maximum number of flying hours permitted for each of the four Boeing C-17 Globemaster aircraft will be under the terms of their lease for the RAF; and what penalties are specified if the figure is exceeded. [140571]

  Mr. Spellar
  Under the terms of the lease there is no restriction on the number of flying hours permitted either for individual aircraft or across the fleet.

  HMS Sheffield
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence for what reason the Exocet missile system was removed from HMS Sheffield; what replacement system HMS Sheffield will carry over the next 10 years of its service life; and if he will make a statement. [140711]

  Mr. Spellar
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith) on 8 June 2000,Official Report, column 338W.

  Mustard Gas (Pigs)
  Mr. Wyatt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 16 November 2000,Official Report, column 741W, on mustard gas and pigs, whether the company testing the model cream for treating mustard gas burns is a British company; whether untreated controls are being run; and how many and what species of animals were used in (a) 1998, (b) 1999 and (c) 2000 to date. [140725]

  Dr. Moonie
  The purpose of the on-going work involving mustard gas and pigs at the Chemical and Biological Defence Sector of the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency (DERA) is to develop better protection for UK servicemen should mustard gas be used as a weapon against them. All testing, including that for the cream for protection against mustard gas injury, is carried out by DERA at Porton Down.

  Each animal acts as its own control. That is, a small amount of mustard is applied to sites on the back that both have, and have not, been pre-treated with the protective barrier cream.

  All the animals involved are large, white domestic pigs. The study involved six animals per year for 1998 and 1999, and a total of ten animals in 2000 to the current date.

  Military Attacks (NATO States)
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if his Department will make publicly available plans and other documents it has obtained from the archive of(a) the Soviet Union and (b) other Warsaw Pact countries since the end of the Cold War, relating to possible military attacks on NATO states. [136236]

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

  Porton Down
  Mr. Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list by(a) species, (b) numbers involved and (c) nature of the research, the experiments carried out on animals at Porton Down in each of the last five years. [141021]

  Dr. Moonie
  I will write to my hon. Friend and a copy of my letter will be placed in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what representations regarding future court action he has received from lawyers representing the families of servicemen who underwent experiments at Porton Down. [141063]

  Dr. Moonie
  I will write to my hon. Friend and a copy of my letter will be placed in the Library of the House.

  Kosovo
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans there are for joint NATO and Yugoslav Army patrols between Kosovo and Serbia. [141062]

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

  Andrew Weir
  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he has signed the contract for the roll-on, roll-off ferries with Andrew Weir. [140977]

  Mr. Hoon
  Not yet. Negotiations to finalise the details of the agreement are continuing with AWSR Shipping Ltd.

  Trident
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what account his Department takes of the number of anti-ballistic missiles deployed by other countries when determining the number of warheads deployed on United Kingdom Trident submarines. [141158]

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

  National Missile Defence
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 30 October 2000,Official Report, columns 505–06W, on national missile defence, if he will set out the views of the UK to which he referred. [141159]
  723
  Mr. Hoon
  I will write to my hon. Friend and a copy of my letter will be placed in the Library of the House.

  POWs (Germany)
  Mr. Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) how many protected personnel were prisoners of war in Germany during the Second World War; and how much pay was deducted by his Department from those protected personnel; [141147]

  (2) what assessment he has made of the shortfall in pay to protected personnel who were captured and held by Germany as prisoners of war during the Second World War. [141146]

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

  National Parks
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many days in each of the last 10 years have land in national parks been closed to the public because of military training; and which national parks were affected in each year. [141112]

  Dr. Moonie
  I will write to my hon. Friend and a copy of my letter will be placed in the Library of the House.

  School Results
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on trends in the qualifications achieved by pupils at(a) Key Stages (i) one, (ii) two and (iii) three, (b) GCSE and (c) A-level in schools run by his Department over the last 10 years. [141111]

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

  Kursk Submarine
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence for what reason the Royal Navy LR5 submersible rescue vessel deployed to rescue the Kursk submarine did not proceed with the operation; and if he will make a statement. [140909]

  Mr. Hoon
  The Royal Navy Submarine Search and Rescue Service, which includes the rescue submersible LR5, was deployed to the Barents Sea in support of a major operation assembled by the Russians to rescue the crew of the submarine Kursk. Overall command of this operation remained at all times in Russian hands. The decision on whether or not to deploy the LR5 depended on an inspection of the Kursk by specialist Norwegian divers. Tragically, following that inspection, the Russian authorities confirmed that all on board the Kursk had died. The LR5 was not therefore required and the Royal Navy Submarine Search and Rescue Service was withdrawn.

  Christmas Deployments
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many members of(a) the RAF, (b) the Army and (c) the Royal Navy he expects to be (i) serving abroad and (ii) deployed in front-line duties between 24 December
  724W
  and 2 January 2001; what percentage of overall strength of each force this represents; and if he will make a statement. [139757]

  Mr. Spellar
  The current estimate of the number of personnel who will be serving abroad and deployed in front-line duties over the Christmas and new year period is as follows:

  Naval service

  Army

  RAF

  Estimated numbers serving abroad

  5,100

  34,500

  6,600

  As a percentage of trained strength

  13

  35

  12

  Of those serving abroad, estimated numbers deployed on operations are

  4,000

  6,200

  3,800

  As a percentage of trained strength

  10

  6

  7

  Notes:

  1. All figures rounded to the nearest 100

  2. Data exclude Mobilised Reservists

  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what provisions have been made to ensure family contact on 25 December, 31 December and 1 January 2001 for those members of the armed forces who will be separated from their families on these dates; and if he will make a statement. [139758]

  Mr. Spellar
  We attach great importance to service personnel deployed on overseas operations being able to keep in touch with their families throughout the year. It is for this reason that personnel deployed on operations are given 20 minutes' publicly funded telephone time each week. Previous concerns about the adequacy and reliability of the welfare telephone services in some overseas theatres have been resolved by the introduction of Project Welcome. This welfare telephone service is deployed in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, Italy, Kosovo, Bosnia and Sierra Leone and aboard some of the operationally deployed ships and RFAs (Royal Fleet Auxiliaries). Free blueys (aerogrammes), e-blueys and concessionary parcel rates are also provided. We are also in the process of introducing free access to e-mail facilities.

  Meetings have been held with the contractor responsible for providing the operational telephone welfare service (Project Welcome) to ensure that it is robust enough to cope with the extra demand that will be placed on it over the Christmas period. Measures to give service personnel on operations extra concessionary rates over the Christmas period, for calls beyond their free allowance, are also under consideration.

  For ships at sea who are not covered by Project Welcome funding has been secured to provide personnel with 10 minutes free call time over the Christmas period.

  Post-traumatic Stress Disorder
  Ms Kelly
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what research his Department has undertaken into the number of former and serving personnel suffering from severe cases of post-traumatic stress disorder; [141217]

  (2) what assistance his Department offers to serving and former servicemen suffering from severe cases of post-traumatic stress disorder. [141216]
  725W
  Dr. Moonie
  I will write to my hon. Friend and a copy of my letter will be placed in the Library of the House.

  RAF Chilmark
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement about the application of the Crichel Down rules to the former RAF Chilmark; what progress has been made in identifying former owners; and when a new trust will be established to manage the site. [141040]

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

  Scots Guardsmen Fisher and Wright
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) whether Scots Guardsmen Fisher and Wright will be deployed for service in Northern Ireland; [141105]

  (2) when the Scots Guardsmen Fisher's and Wright's engagement with the Army will cease; and if they will have an opportunity to re-engage. [141106]

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

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what were the exceptional circumstances taken into consideration by the Army Board which enable James Fisher and Mark Wright to remain in the Army. [141015]

  Dr. Moonie
  The decision of the Army Board reflects the view of an employer about the future service of two employees. Queen's Regulations allow for the retention of individuals who have received a custodial sentence where there are exceptional reasons that make retention desirable. The Board gave the fullest possible consideration to all of the relevant circumstances of the case before coming to its decision. This is a confidential matter for the employer, the Army, and the employees. Given the degree of public interest we have been as open as we could be about the Board proceedings and we have confirmed the outcome. To go further than that, and to release the Determination of summary of its contents, which inevitably covers matters personal to the soldiers, would clearly be inappropriate.

  Gulf Veterans
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence for (1) what reason former Gulf veterans are informed they can only obtain copies of their military medical records if they give a declaration that they do not intend to sue his Department; [141079]

  (2) what reasons Gulf veterans on incapacity and disablement living allowances seeking copies of their medical records have to pay a fee to his Department; [141019]

  (3) what reason Gulf veterans seeking a copy of their military medical records have to state that their cases are not ones in which his Department is currently interested. [141080]

  Mr. Spellar
  I will write to my hon. Friend and a copy of my letter will be placed in the Library of the House.
  726W
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many Gulf veterans have died since April 1995; how many of them(a) claimed to be suffering from Gulf War Syndrome and (b) claimed to be suffering from symptoms of an ill-defined nature caused by service in the Gulf War; how many deaths in (a) and (b) were suicides; and if he will make a statement. [141017]

  Mr. Spellar
  According to my Department's records, in the period 1 April 1995 to 28 November 2000,278 UK Gulf veterans (service and ex-service personnel) died. None of these records show "Gulf War Syndrome" as a cause of death. Records are not available indicating whether those who died claimed to be suffering from Gulf War Syndrome or whether they claimed to be suffering from the symptoms of an ill-defined nature caused by service in the Gulf conflict. Of the 278 UK Gulf veterans who died, 50 deaths were categorised under the International Classification of Diseases 9th Edition Revision 1977 as due to suicide and injury undetermined whether accidental or intentional.

  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller) on 20 July 2000, Official Report, columns 247–48W, regarding mortality data covering the period 1 April 1991 to 30 June 2000 comparing the UK Gulf veterans to a matched control group.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence for what reason ill Gulf veterans have not been offered tests for exposure to depleted uranium. [140492]

  Mr. Spellar
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Smith) on 29 November 2000,Official Report, column 643W.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what warnings were given to British troops about the use of ammunition containing depleted uranium prior to(a) the Gulf War and (b) service in Kosovo; [140493]

  (2) what measures were taken to ensure that British troops serving in the Gulf War were protected against ingesting radioactive particles from depleted uranium. [140494]

  Mr. Spellar
  Early in the 1990–1991 Gulf conflict, the Ministry of Defence decided that the DU-based tank round should be brought into service to give our forces a better capability against Iraqi tanks. At the same time a bulletin was produced setting out safety procedures. Explosive ordnance disposal personnel, whose work entailed a direct risk of significant exposure, were provided with detailed instructions on the precautions that they should take to protect their health. Instructions were also issued to Ordnance Corps personnel involved in the handling, transportation and storage of the ammunition. It appears that tank crews and other personnel were not issued with such advice. This omission was publicly recognised by MOD in July 1993.

  More recently, a copy of a signal message dated 25 February 1991, from the MOD to one Armoured Division in Saudi Arabia, has been found. The signal provides advice on measures to be taken to prevent exposure to respirable DU dust hazards. Although it is suggested that a subsequent signal was sent promulgating

  727W
  the advice to other units in theatre, so far, no evidence has been found among contemporary records to substantiate whether this advice was in fact promulgated.

  Service personnel deployed to Kosovo are given appropriate force protection advice including available appropriate protective equipment, including gloves and respiratory equipment, which they should wear if they encounter targets suspected of being damaged by DU-based ammunition.

  Depleted Uranium (Yugoslavia)
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what recent assessment he has made of the effects of depleted uranium on the health of British troops in Yugoslavia. [141209]

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

  Chemical Weapon Stores
  Mr. Ruane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the threat to old underground chemical weapon stores from recent flooding. [141207]

  Dr. Moonie
  I will write to my hon. Friend and a copy of my letter will be placed in the Library of the House.

  Warrior Armoured Vehicle
  Mrs. Fitzsimons
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the use of the Warrior armoured vehicle. [141259]

  Mr. Spellar
  A number of precautionary operating restrictions have been put in place on the use of the Warrior Armoured Vehicle. Over the past nine months there have been three separate incidents of a failure in the drive shaft system of Warrior vehicles. Damage has also been found in a further four vehicles following a fleet-wide inspection programme that was initiated following a failure in February. The most recent failure occurred on 17 November 2000. Prior to this year Warrior had experienced only two similar failures since entering service in 1987.

  The particular problem concerns the universal joint of the drive shaft system. On each occasion the joint has broken causing a loss of drive, braking and steering to the left-hand track of the vehicle. In view of the potential safety implications of further failures restrictions have been introduced. The main restrictions are the introduction of a 30 kph speed limit, limited use on public roads and an increase in the frequency of inspections.

  Work on a technical solution is well advanced and trials of a modification are under way. If these trials prove successful, delivery and fitting of modified drive shafts is expected to begin in March 2001 with all 786 vehicles expected to be converted by August 2001.

  Serles Houses, Winchester
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he will announce a decision on the sale of Series House in Winchester. [140906]
  728W
  Dr. Moonie
  I wrote to the hon. Member on 29 November, together with all other hon. Members who had previously expressed an interest in the future of Serles House, to say that I have agreed that the property should be sold to Hampshire County Council (subject to access arrangements being resolved).

  My officials have written to the council and to other interested parties in similar terms.

  Criminal Convictions (Army)
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) how many soldiers have been discharged from the Army in each of the last five years for(a) murder and (b) possession, use or trafficking in drugs; [141018]

  (2) how many members of the Army have been retained in service in each of the last five years having been convicted of (a) murder and (b) possession, use or trafficking in drugs; [141014]

  (3) how many soldiers found to be (a) in possession of, (b) using and (c) trafficking drugs have been retained in service for exceptional circumstances; and what are the circumstances in each case. [141016]

  Dr. Moonie
  The Army monitors centrally only statistics of those who have been tried by court martial. Records of those who appear in civilian courts are held at individual regiments and to interrogate those would incur disproportionate costs. We are aware, however, of two people who have been retained in the Army following a conviction of murder in a civilian court. Any murder committed in the UK or Cyprus comes under the jurisdiction of the civil police and is tried in a civilian court. Any murder committed in Germany would, however, be subject to court martial action. No soldier has been tried for murder, by court martial, in the last five years.

  Up to May 2000, the Army monitored only those cases tried by court martial and those drug offences related statistics are set out in the table:

  Date

  Number to trial

  Discharged

  1995

  38

  31

  1996

  34

  27

  1997

  14

  12

  1998

  17

  14

  1999

  19

  17

  2000 (to date)

  8

  7

  Those who have been convicted by court martial and retained in the Army for drug offences are in the following table:

  Date

  Numbers retained

  Conviction

  1995

  4

  Not recorded

  1996

  2

  1 Not recorded/1 Possession

  1997

  0

  n/a

  1998

  2

  Possession

  1999

  2

  Possession

  2000(to date)

  1

  Possession

  729
  The retention of individual soldiers in relation to drug offences is a matter between the employer and employee. Disclosure of the personal circumstances of such cases is inappropriate.

  Soldiers caught using drugs can also be tried summarily by their Commanding Officer. Since May 2000, the Army has been monitoring cases of summary dealing and recorded figures to date show that 24 soldiers have been dealt with summarily. The Commanding Officer's powers of discipline do not include the power to dismiss. There is, however, a system for administrative dismissal which could be implemented as a result of the soldier's overall performance.

  The Army's Compulsory Drug Testing programme also highlights those guilty of drug abuse and those caught will normally, but not always, be administratively discharged.

  Military Training
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) when he last discussed the Otterburn training area with the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions; [141254]

  (2) what has been the impact on (a) Catterick Garrison, (b) Salisbury Plain Training Area and (c) other training areas of the delay in constructing new infrastructure at Otterburn training area. [141252]

  (3) what assessment he has made of the impact on military training in respect of (a) the MLRS system, (b) the AS90 gun and (c) other training of the delay in constructing new infrastructure facilities at Otterburn in Northumberland. [141251]

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

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Rwanda
  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what has been the Government's response to Rwanda's appeal for emergency assistance to famine stricken regions. [139770]

  Clare Short
  WFP are about to launch an appeal totalling US$8.2 million for food aid to 270,000 vulnerable people in the south and south-east of Rwanda affected by drought. In the meantime, we are in close contact with our office in Kigali, other donors and non-government organisations in order to monitor the situation carefully, including the effect of the recent floods. The UK will give very careful consideration to the WFP appeal and be ready to respond as necessary.

  Child Labour
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will list the countries with whose Governments she has discussed the use of child labour during the last 12 months. [139454]

  Clare Short
  The focus of our recent work on child labour has been to encourage the International Labour Organisation to extend the number of countries in which 730W
  it operates and to sharpen its targeting on children in the worst forms of child labour through a series of "Time-Bound Programmes". Our support has allowed the International Programme for the Elimination of Child Labour to extend into a regional programme in the Arab States and in Eastern Europe over the last year. These are in addition to our ongoing IPEC support in India and South East Asia and our direct collaborative support to governments, civil society organisations and international bodies such as UNICEF.

  Sex Tourism
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will list the countries to which she has offered help and advice about combating sex tourism; and if she will make a statement. [139460]

  Clare Short
  Combating sex tourism is one aspect of a wider set of issues in which poor people—particularly young women and children—are vulnerable to the interests of the sex industry, national and international trafficking and associated illegal activities. It is an international problem which requires internationally coordinated action. Much of our focus is on reducing the vulnerability of young people being recruited into this industry. With other Government Departments, we are supporting efforts of regional and international agencies to combat trafficking, strengthen law enforcement and improve the mechanisms for prosecution of those who commit sex offences abroad.

  Most recently in May 2000, a meeting of Law Enforcement agencies in Seoul followed up the ASEM Child Welfare Experts' recommendations from October 1998. China has offered to host the next ASEM Child Welfare Experts' Meeting. There is wide regional support for this initiative.

  We very recently reviewed the ILO programmes we support in Northern Thailand as part of an initiative to combat trafficking in the Mekong basin of South East Asia. Good progress has been made in establishing offices, staff and ground level activities in Laos, Cambodia, China as well as Thailand.

  Congo
  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what support her Department is providing to British NGOs working in the Democratic Republic of Congo to assist people who are dependent on food aid as a result of conflict. [139771]

  Clare Short
  Since the current conflict began in the Democratic Republic of the Congo in August 1998, the UK has committed over £3.5 million in humanitarian assistance, targeted towards the most vulnerable sections of the population on both sides of the conflict. Our combinations are channelled through well-established UK-registered NGOs. This year, for example, we have worked with the Save the Children Fund, the British Red Cross, the International Committee of the Red Cross, Medecins sans Frontieres and Oxfam. Our assistance has focused mainly on emergency health and nutrition, and water and sanitation.

  Technical Co-operation and Training Scholarships
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how many technical co-operation and training scholarships for study in the United Kingdom were offered by her Department in(a) 1990 and (b) the latest date for which figures are available. [140729]

  Clare Short
  In financial year 1990–91, 12,619 students studied in the UK financed from our bilateral country programmes. The figure for 1999–2000 was 2,878. This reflects a shift over that period from UK-based training to in-country and regional training.

PRIME MINISTER

  Correspondence
  Mr. Wyatt
  To ask the Prime Minister when Mr. A. Blee, a constituent of the hon. Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey, will receive answers to his letters of 17 February 1998, 12 February, 23 February, 18 April and 26 September. [134144]

  The Prime Minister
  I understand that Mr. Blee supplied my office with copies of the letters referred to by my hon. Friend and that a response has now been sent.

  Conflict Prevention Review
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the objectives of his cross-departmental review of conflict prevention, indicating the size of the(a) overall budget and (b) budget to be spent on peacekeeping. [138703]

  The Prime Minister
  The outcomes of the Government's cross-departmental review of conflict prevention were set out in Chapter 36 of the Spending Review 2000 White Paper (Cm 4807) published in July, copies of which are available from the Library.

  Civil Service
  Mr. Fallon
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list(a) those public servants who have the right of direct access to the Prime Minister and (b) those who may exercise that right through the Head of the Home Civil Service. [139523]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 21 November 2000]: Ministers and officials have access to the Prime Minister in order to carry out their responsibilities.

  No. 10 Press Office
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Prime Minister what instructions the No. 10 Press Office has issued to(a) Ministers and (b) Government departments about the handling of European announcements and information. [140279]

  The Prime Minister
  I refer the right hon. Member to the answer given to him by the Minister of State, Foreign 732
  and Commonwealth Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz), on 24 November 2000, Official Report, column 345W.

  Russian Plutonium Disposition Programme
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Prime Minister what matters in respect of United Kingdom assistance to the Russian plutonium disposition programme were discussed at his recent meeting with the Russian President. [140514]

  The Prime Minister
  I did not discuss UK assistance to the Russian plutonium disposition programme at my recent meeting with President Putin. I discussed it with President Putin at the Okinawa Summit in June. There have not been any changes to the UK pledge of assistance since then.

  The G8 has established a Plutonium Disposition Planning Group, which will hold regular meetings to develop the Russian plutonium disposition programme. Officials from the FCO and Russia, as well as other G8 countries, will attend. The first meeting of this group will take place on 7–8 December.

  President of Russia
  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on his recent meetings with the President of Russia, with special reference to their discussions on Chechnya and missile defence. [140701]

  The Prime Minister
  I had useful talks with President Putin in Moscow on 20 and 21 November. We covered a range of issues, including Chechnya and missile defence. On Chechnya, President Putin repeated his concerns over the threat to security from Chechen separatists, while on missile defence he repeated publicly that he was ready to continue contacts with the US.

  Royal Commission (Child Abuse)
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will establish a Royal Commission on the extent of child abuse; and if he will make a statement. [138764]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 27 November 2000]: The Government have taken firm action to help and protect the most vulnerable children and young people in our society. In our response to the Waterhouse Report we set out a wide ranging policy and legislative programme that includes:
  the recently passed Care Standards Act which sets out wide-scale reform of the systems to protect vulnerable people and will regulate and improve standards in children's homes and other care services. The Act also establishes the post of a National Children's Rights Director within the National Care Standards Commission with a remit across all children in receipt of services regulated by the Commission;
  the Protection of Children Act 1999 places the Department of Health's Consultancy Index—the list of individuals deemed unsuitable to work with children—on a statutory footing. Regulated child care providers are now required to check the names of anyone they propose to employ in posts involving regular contact with children against the list; and
  the £885 million Quality Protects programme which is designed to improve the management and delivery of children's social services. Linked to this programme, the Government are working with the other agencies with child protection responsibilities to identify better ways to safeguard children and promote their welfare.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Minimum Wage
  Mr. Jim Murphy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the effectiveness of the national minimum wage in poverty reduction. [139544]

  Mr. Byers
  Figures from the Office of National Statistics show that before the Government introduced the new law in April 1999, around 1.5 million workers were earning less than the minimum wage. By spring this year, that figure had fallen to 300,000. And many of those 300,000 are in receipt of training or accommodation, where lower rates can legitimately be applied.

  But poverty among those with jobs is only part of the problem and the national minimum wage is only part of the solution. Initiatives such as tax credits, benefit and pension reform and the New Deal for the unemployed also have an important role to play in reducing poverty.

  Mr. Rammell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on his plans to review the reduced minimum wage for young people. [139545]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  We have asked the Low Pay Commission to continue to monitor and evaluate the impact of the minimum wage and to report its findings by July 2001. We have particularly asked the Commission to look at the youth rate and to continue monitoring the 21-year old cut off.

  Subcontinent
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what contracts for the supply of goods to the Indian subcontinent have received support from the Export Credits Guarantee Department in the current year. [139546]

  Mr. Caborn
  The following new contracts involving the supply of goods to the Indian sub-continent have received ECGD support this calendar year.

  Bangladesh

  The supply of and construction of bridges, contract value £15.7 million.

  India

  The development of safe mooring infrastructure for a liquefied natural gas terminal for the Dabhol power plant, contract value £15.5 million.

  Sri Lanka

  The sale of two Airbus A330–200 aircraft, contract value £55 million.

  Post Offices (ACT)
  Mr. Robathan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment he has made of the impact on the post office network of switching benefit payments to automated credit transfer from 2003. [139547]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  We are fully committed to modernisation of the post office network and have made the largest ever investment into the Post Office, of half a billion pounds on post office automation, to make a start 734
  and with more to follow. When the move to ACT starts in 2003, post offices will be equipped to play a re-invigorated role at the heart of community life.

  By accepting all 24 recommendations of the PIU report on the future of the post office network, we have demonstrated our continuing commitment to maintenance of a nationwide network of post offices.

  Both before and after the change to ACT, those benefit and pension recipients who wish to continue to collect their benefits money in cash, in full, across a post office counter, will still be able to do so.

  Consumer Protection
  Mr. John Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how he plans to enforce consumer protection measures during the pre-Christmas shopping period. [139548]

  Mr. Caborn
  The Department is working with consumer protection enforcement bodies such as the Office of Fair Trading and Trading Standards Departments and with business to highlight areas of particular concern so that consumers can shop with confidence.

  Climate Change Levy
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations he made to the Chancellor before the pre-Budget report concerning the climate change levy. [139549]

  Ms Hewitt
  My Department made representations to HM Treasury in advance of the pre-Budget report on a number of issues including the climate change levy. It has worked with HM Treasury and other Departments in the development and implementation of the levy. The Government have aimed to balance its environmental objectives with the need to safeguard the competitiveness of UK business; and my Department has, in this context, maintained close contacts with business to ensure that its views are taken into account.

  Euro
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps he is recommending small businesses to take in preparation for the United Kingdom joining the single European currency. [139550]

  Mr. Caborn
  Planning is the key to a smooth and cost-effective changeover. Individual businesses and sectors must make their own commercial and operational judgments about their approach.

  Universal Bank
  Mr. Baldry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on progress towards the establishment of a Universal Bank in post offices. [139551]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  The Post Office and the banks are working together to develop the concept of Universal Banking services.

  Centres of Excellence
  Mr. Hopkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on progress made in establishing centres of excellence in United Kingdom universities. [139552]

  Ms Hewitt
  The Government want to see a diversity of excellence in universities, with universities adopting a variety of missions, building on their strengths. The Government believe that all universities should focus on producing excellent teaching, though the nature of teaching may vary. Some universities will also want to focus on excellent research, some on excellent knowledge transfer, and some on a combination of these, so there is a diversity of excellence. The Government have supported the development of centres of excellence through a number of programmes.

  European Social Agenda
  Mr. Lilley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what discussion he has held with the Secretaries of State for Education and Employment and for Social Security about the potential costs to business of the European social agenda. [139553]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  My right hon. Friend the Minister for Employment, Welfare to Work and Equal Opportunities and I attended the Employment and Social Policy Council at which proposals for a new European Social Agenda were agreed on 28 November. The Agenda will now be considered by Heads of States at the Nice European Council in December. The Government made clear our support for a European Social Agenda which takes forward the Lisbon European Council objective that the European Community should become the most competitive and dynamic knowledge-based economy in the world capable of sustainable economic growth with more and better jobs and greater social cohesion. The agreed text will take forward this objective.

  The impact on business, including potential costs, is one of the factors that the Government as a whole take into account in their responses to proposals for the agenda and any measures brought forward to effect its implementation.

  Single European Market
  Ms Dari Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment he has made of the benefits to manufacturing industry of membership of the single European market in the last 12 months. [139554]

  Mrs. Liddell
  Our membership of the European Single Market gives all UK business access to the largest Single Market in the world—a market of nearly 380 million consumers. Over 55 per cent. of the UK's trade, worth over £200 billion a year, is with the EU.

  We attract a huge amount of inward investment as a gateway to the Single Market, from countries outside the EU.

  The European Union is the world's largest trading bloc and membership of that bloc is crucial for British trade, investment and prosperity.

  Receivership
  Mr. Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans he has to review the law relating to the disposal of company assets following receivership; and if he will make a statement. [139555]

  Dr. Howells
  I have no such plans.

  Enterprise Promotion
  Mr. Miller
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps he is taking to promote enterprise among disadvantaged communities. [139556]

  Mr. Caborn
  My Department recognises the importance of promoting enterprise among disadvantaged communities. The Small Business Service's remit includes tackling social exclusion, by ensuring that Business Links' plans take account of the needs of their local communities and by utilising the Phoenix Fund to promote enterprise in deprived areas. We offer regional selective assistance to eligible investment projects and, in conjunction with HM Treasury and the Inland Revenue, we are considering the recommendations of the Social Investment Task Force on ways of introducing new sources of private and institutional investment into disadvantaged communities.

  Dounreay
  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement about the management of the prototype fast reactor fuels at Dounreay. [139557]

  Mr. Byers
  Following a public consultation I have been considering the arguments for and against each of the options for this fuel. I expect to announce my decision soon.

  Family-friendly Employment
  Fiona Mactaggart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what discussions he has held with business and industry about family-friendly employment policies; and if he will make a statement. [139558]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  The ongoing review of maternity pay and parental leave has included extensive discussions with employers, employees and interest groups. The Confederation of British Industry, the British Chambers of Commerce, the Federation of Small Business, and industry specific bodies, have all participated in these meetings. Individual business, both large and small, have also been consulted.

  Procurement
  Mr. St. Aubyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what discussions he has held with the Secretary of State for Defence on the extent to which his procurement policies are open to competition. [139559]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  My Department maintains a close dialogue with that of my right hon. Friend on the wider industrial implications of defence procurement decisions. This ensures that when individual decisions are made these implications are fully taken into account.

  Car Industry
  Mr. Hammond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make statement on the future of the motor car industry in the United Kingdom. [139560]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  The UK motor industry continues to have good prospects, with new production lines coming on stream in 2001. 1999 car production was the highest since 1972; sales were the fourth highest on record and UK exports were the highest ever. Since 1997, some 9,600 new jobs have been announced with over £3 billion of new investment.

  Fireworks
  Mr. Gapes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans he has to review the law concerning the sale of fireworks. [139561]

  Dr. Howells
  The Fireworks (Safety) Regulations 1997 introduced comprehensive controls on the types and sizes of fireworks which can be sold to the public. I have no plans to introduce further controls on fireworks or to review the existing Regulations.

  Regional Development Agencies
  Mr. Ennis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the role that RDAs will play in supporting local business forums. [139562]

  Mr. Caborn
  The RDAs have a statutory purpose to promote business efficiency, investment and competitiveness in their regions. As part of this, they work closely with the full range of business organisations in their area.

  Iran
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps he is taking to improve trade with Iran. [139563]

  Mr. Caborn
  The Government are committed to strengthening the commercial relationship with Iran to our mutual benefit. TradePartnersUK are currently running an extensive programme of exhibitions, seminars and outward trade missions to Iran. We are also funding visits by UK experts, to identify areas where UK companies can assist Iran develop her economy. The sectors where opportunities have already been identified include; hydrocarbons, mining, power generation, automotive, water and waste management, and agriculture including the packaging industry. In addition my officials, both in the UK and in Tehran, continue to provide information and advice to allow companies, especially small and medium-sized enterprises, to make informed decisions about exporting to this important market—indeed we have just strengthened the commercial team in Tehran in recognition of the improved relations between Britain and Iran.

  I visited Iran in October to support the 48 UK companies that exhibited at the Tehran International Trade Fair. During my visit, I was pleased to announce that the Export Credits Guarantee Department will now provide medium term cover to help UK exporters win business in Iran. My visit, the first by a UK Minister for Trade in
  738W
  20 years, underlines this Government's commitment to building on the strong commercial relationship that goes back many years.

  Business Opportunities
  Mr. Goggins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what action his Department is taking to support the development of new business opportunities linked to universities. [139564]

  Ms Hewitt
  A key aim of the Government's White Paper, "Excellence and Opportunity: a science and innovation policy for the 21st century", which was published in July of this year, is to strengthen the links between business and universities to realise the business opportunities offered by science. The White Paper sets out a range of measures to support these stronger links which build on the success of schemes such as Science Enterprise Centres to bring business skills into the curriculum and University Challenge to provide seed funding. These will provide our scientists and engineers with more incentives and skills, and strengthen the links between them and industry, so that they can play a greater role in wealth creation.

  The White Paper announced a Higher Education Innovation Fund of £140 million over three years to further enhance university-business knowledge transfer. This will triple existing HEROBAC funding by the third year. It will be a permanent funding stream to build on universities' potential as drivers of growth in the knowledge economy, and will, therefore, help universities to respond to the needs of business—especially SMEs. We are also providing funding for one more round of University Challenge and putting £15 million more into Science Enterprise Centres. We are also doubling the number of new starts for Faraday Partnerships, from four to eight a year, to link the science base to business networks.

  Cefn Croes Windfarm
  Mr. Simon Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will hold a public inquiry on the Cefn Croes windfarm proposal in Ceredigion; and if he will make a statement. [139565]

  Mr. Byers
  I have yet to hear the views of the Ceredigion county council. Until their views are known it is too early to say whether a public inquiry will be necessary.

  Impact Assessments
  Mr. Cotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what measures he is taking to ensure that impact assessments are effective. [139566]

  Ms Hewitt
  New guidance announced on 9 August, which is available on the Cabinet Office website, includes a number of important advances on previous practice. Civil servants are required to prepare an initial regulatory impact assessment early in the policy-making process before Ministers consider regulatory and non-regulatory policy options. As the policy develops, the guidance requires more thorough assessment of costs and benefits of proposals throughout the lifetime of the policy in
  739W
  question. Ministers are required to certify their confidence that the "benefits justify the costs" rather than that "the correct balance has been struck".

  Textiles
  Charlotte Atkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the progress of the action plan for the textile industry. [139567]

  Ms Hewitt
  The Government have made considerable progress on the implementation of the 12 point plan for the textile and clothing industry, announced on 6 June 2000 by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and the Minister for Employment, Welfare to Work and Equal Opportunities. A new unit has been set up within the DTI to implement the 12 point plan as well as the recommendations contained in the National Strategy, produced by the industry led Textiles and Clothing Strategy Group which were directed at Government.

  Major developments have included:

  the establishment of a major new supply chain initiative for the textiles and clothing industry;

  temporary relaxation of the rules for trade fair support to enable more textiles and clothing companies to receive assistance;

  the establishment of more projects to help the technical textiles sector;

  initial meetings between public procurement agencies and manufacturers to discuss ways to improve UK supplies of securing contracts.

  Shipbuilding
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what recent representations he has received concerning the European Union's shipbuilding intervention fund. [139568]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  I have received representations from the industry, the trade association and the trade unions and a number of hon. Members, including my hon. Friend.

  Post Offices
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what discussions he has had with the European Commission regarding his proposals for a national bank in post offices. [139569]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  The European Competition Commissioner has been informed about the new package of measures to modernise the post office network, including universal banking, and my officials are in contact with the European Commission.

  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many sub-post offices have(a) reduced opening hours and (b) closed (i) permanently and (ii) on a temporary basis since June 1999; how many have subsequently been re-opened (A) in Scotland and (B) in each Scottish local authority area; and if he will make a statement. [138993]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  [holding answer 21 November 2000]: I am advised by the Post Office that their records are maintained on a financial year basis and that for the year to end March 2000, 380 sub-post offices in Scotland
  740W
  were classified as operating a reduced opening hours service. During the 1999–2000 financial year there was a net closure of 29 sub-post offices in Scotland, all on a temporary basis. The Post Office does not hold figures by local authority area.

  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what progress has been made on support for pilot projects to enable post offices to become(a) one-stop shops and (b) general Government practitioners in Wales. [141157]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  This is a matter for the devolved Administration.

  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations he has received on the application of climate change levy charges to rural post offices which are customers of Northern Electric and Gas; and if he will make a statement. [140881]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  The Department of Trade and Industry has received no representations from rural post offices about the climate change levy. We are aware that energy supply companies, including Northern, are in the process of writing to all their non-domestic customers, forewarning them of the inclusion of the climate change levy on their energy bills following 1 April 2001. The climate change levy is intended to increase energy efficiency across all sectors of business, and will help the UK to meet its Kyoto targets for reducing greenhouse gas emissions, and move towards our domestic goal to cut CO2 emissions by 20 per cent. Some of the revenues from the levy will be used for energy efficiency initiatives which will help small businesses.

  Mr. Sanders
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what formal requirements there are for the Post Office to keep open(a) rural and (b) urban sub-post offices; and if he will make a statement. [140452]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  As recommended in the Performance and Innovation Unit report, a formal requirement has been placed upon the Post Office to maintain the rural network and to prevent any avoidable closures of rural post offices. A rural post office is defined as one serving a community of up to 10,000 inhabitants.

  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many post offices, including sub-post offices, have closed in(a) England, (b) Wales, (c) Scotland and (d) Northern Ireland in each of the last 10 years in areas defined as rural and areas defined as urban; and to publish the criteria used to define an area as rural or urban. [136721]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  [holding answer 6 November 2000]: For the years from March 1991 to March 1998, a reliable split between rural and urban offices is not available. Total net closures for these years were as follows:

  Year to end March

  Number

  1991

  233

  1992

  478

  1993

  202

  1994

  176

  1995

  175

  1996

  193

  1997

  163

  1998

  243

  741W

  Closures

  Year to end March

  Rural

  Urban

  1999

  England

  -167

  -18

  Scotland

  -25

  0

  Wales

  -10

  -3

  Northern Ireland

  -12

  +2

  2000

  England

  -271

  -92

  Scotland

  -30

  +1

  Wales

  -40

  +54

  Northern Ireland

  -2

  -2

  Notes:

  The figures shown are net closures, indicated by a minus sign, or net openings, indicated by a plus sign.

  The urban closure data include data anomalies between countries caused by revisions of codings.

  The net total figures for the United Kingdom are correct but the ongoing process of revising data has affected individual country totals.

  In the figures above the Post Office has defined rural offices as those located in a community of fewer than 6,300 inhabitants. In the light of the Performance and Innovation Unit Report (which defined a rural post office as one located in a community of up to 10,000 inhabitants), the Post Office is currently agreeing with the Postal Services Commission a process and format for reporting information on the network including the definitions that will be used. The Government definition of a rural post office is one located in a community of up to 10,000 inhabitants.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many sub-post offices have closed in the last six months in(a) urban and (b) rural areas. [140167]

  Mr. Byers
  I understand from the Post Office that figures for the six months until the end of October are not available.

  Mr. Lilley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if the Post Office proposal to offer retirement and pensions services and information for the over-55 year group will require sub-post office staff to register with the Financial Services Authority. [140264]

  Mr. Byers
  [holding answer 24 November 2000]: The Post Office has no proposals to offer financial advice on retirement pension provision.

  Mr. Lilley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if the Performance and Innovation Unit has made an estimate of the number of mergers of sub-post offices required by its recommended programme of modernisation for the urban network. [140263]

  Mr. Byers
  [holding answer 24 November 2000]: The Performance and Innovation Unit has not made such an estimate.

  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the age profile was, in five year periods, for owners of sub-post offices in(a) 1980, (b) 1990 and (c) currently. [140094]
  742W
  Mr. Byers
  Information for 1980 and 1990 is not available. Currently the age profile of sub-postmasters is as follows:

  Age range

  Number

  Up to 20

  7

  21–25

  108

  26–30

  311

  31–35

  645

  36–40

  1,947

  41–45

  2,454

  46–50

  3,199

  51–55

  3,454

  56–60

  2,513

  61–65

  1,239

  66–70

  477

  71–75

  217

  76 and over

  166

  The number of sub-postmasters shown in the table is not the same as the number of sub-post offices. Sub-postmasters may operate more than one outlet.

  Mr. Hammond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what pressure he plans to bring to bear on the Post Office to end the practice of demanding substantial premiums from retailers willing to take over a discontinued sub-post office business. [140131]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  I understand from the Post Office that among the measures taken to protect the post office network, and smaller post offices in particular, they have in recent years raised the threshold of the introductory payments for taking on a sub-post office. Such payments do not apply to offices for which the post office remuneration is less than £14,000 a year. I have asked the Post Office to consider whether more can be done to make the contractual terms and arrangements more flexible and attractive to prospective subpostmasters.

  Research Organisations
  Mr. Page
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what research organisations are owned by his Department; and what their budgets are for the year 2000–01. [R] [140155]

  Ms Hewitt
  The Department of Trade and Industry has responsibility for two organisations which conduct scientific research: the National Physical Laboratory (a government-owned, contractor-operated organisation) and the UK Atomic Energy Authority (a non-departmental public body; NDPB).

  DTI also has accounting officer responsibilities for the Research Councils which are established as seven separate NDPBs. As well as funding research and training in the science and engineering base some of the Research Councils operate research institutes, as shown in the table.

  The budgets for 2000–01 are necessarily estimates. The figures given are the estimated total budgets for the individual organisations. These estimates will typically include predicted income from a number of different sources including other parts of the public sector, the private sector and international sources. The estimated income will not all be directed to the funding for research as the same organisations also carry out other functions of a technical nature (this is particularly the case for UKAEA).
  743

  £ million

  Research organisation

  Estimated budget 2000–01

  Government-owned, contractor-operated

  National Physical Laboratory

  150

  Non-Departmental Public Bodies

  UK Atomic Energy Authority

  2240

  BBSRC

  The Babraham Institute

  16.0

  Institute for Animal Health

  25.1

  Institute of Arable Crop Research

  25.1

  Institute of Food Research

  14.0

  Institute of Grassland & Environmental Research

  14.8

  John Innes Centre

  22.3

  Roslin Institute

  13.3

  Silsoe Research Institute

  9.8

  Council for the Central Laboratory of the Research Council

  3111.4

  Medical Research Council

  Institutes and Units4

  179.5

  NERC

  British Antarctic Survey

  32.8

  British Geological Survey

  35.1

  Centre for Coastal & Marine Sciences

  515.2

  Centre for Ecology & Hydrology

  31.2

  Southampton Oceanography Centre

  66.3

  PPARC

  UK Astronomy Technology Centre

  2.6

  Note:

  1. The estimated current financial year's turnover of National Physical Laboratory Management Limited, which is the company contracted to run the National Physical Laboratory for the Department.

  2. The main activity of the UKAEA is to manage nuclear liabilities in a way which is safe, secure and environmentally responsible. Their principal research activity is into the use of nuclear fusion as a future energy source, this programme's budget is estimated to be £14.3 million in 2000–01.

  3. CCLRC is funded primarily through other Research Councils.
  4. MRC units are internal divisions of the MRC and individual budgets are not available.

  5. NERC is in the process of re-organising the Centre for Coastal and Marine Sciences.

  6. The figure for the Southampton Oceanography Centre is the contribution for the science budget only. As SOC is a joint venture between NERC and the University of Southampton it is not possible to give an equivalent figure for external receipts.

  Insolvency Service Agency
  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if the Quinquennial Review of the Insolvency Service Agency will be completed within the six month time scale. [140233]

  Dr. Howells
  Stage 1 of the Quinquennial Review of the Insolvency Service was completed in September. Stage 2 will commence following the announcement of the Stage 1 report, and is expected to be completed within three months.

  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what consultation arrangements he proposes between the Insolvency Service Agency and the relevant trade unions to discuss Stages I and II of the Agency Quinquennial Review; and when this consultation will(a) take place and (b) be concluded. [140236]
  744W
  Dr. Howells
  The relevant trade unions and staff have been consulted by the Quinquennial Review Team as part of the Stage 1 review, in accordance with the Cabinet Office Guidance on the conduct of Quinquennial Reviews. When ministerial decisions have been reached and announced, the Insolvency Service will discuss the implementation of the conclusions of the Quinquennial Review with the relevant trade unions through the normal Whitley channels. As in Stage 1, the relevant trade unions will be invited to meet the Quinquennial Review Team to discuss Stage 2 issues when the Review Team begin their work. This will follow the announcement of the Stage 1 report.

  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will place a copy of the Stage I Quinquennial Review report for the Insolvency Service Agency in the Library. [140234]

  Dr. Howells
  A copy of the Stage 1 Quinquennial Review Report will be placed in the Library of the House when the Stage 1 Report is announced to the House.

  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when(a) the Insolvency Service Agency trade union side and (b) members of staff in the Insolvency Service will be informed of the results of Stage I of the Agency Quinquennial Review. [140235]

  Dr. Howells
  The Insolvency Service Agency Trade Union Side and staff will be informed of the results of Stage 1 of the Insolvency Service Quinquennial Review when recommendations have been agreed by DTI, HM Treasury and Cabinet Office Ministers, and the report has been announced to the House. The Quinquennial Review report was presented to Ministers on 27 October 2000. An announcement will be made as soon as possible.

  Lead-replacement Petrol Duty
  Mr. Alan Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans he has to ensure that the proposed reduction in lead-replacement petrol duty will be passed on by(a) petrol retailers and (b) oil companies to motorists. [140445]

  Mr. Byers
  The retail price of gasoline is set at forecourts by competitive marketing between petrol retailers. Competitive pressure is likely to result in the proposed reduction in lead replacement petrol duty being passed on to consumers at the pump.

  Oil Supplies
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what research he has commissioned into the future supply of oil. [140610]

  Mr. Byers
  [holding answer 28 November 2000]: The Department is aware of a wide range of academic and industry studies which look at future world oil supplies and meets regularly with experts to discuss this and other oil market issues.

  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what his latest estimate is of the extent of(a) United Kingdom oil reserves and (b) world oil reserves. [140612]
  745W
  Mr. Byers
  [holding answer 28 November 2000]: My Department publishes estimates of remaining recoverable oil and gas reserves in the annual "Brown Book". The latest edition (Development of UK Oil and Gas Resources 2000) is available in the Library of the House and on the Web at http://www.dbd-date.co.uk/bbonline/

  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what estimates he has made of the future demand for oil in(a) the UK, (b) the EU and (c) the world. [140592]

  Mr. Byers
  My Department has just completed a revised set of energy projections for the UK. The projections will be published as Energy Paper 68 entitled: "Energy Projections for the UK" and include estimates for the use of oil and other fuels. Energy Paper 68 is provisionally expected to be available from the Stationery Office on 8 December. Copies will also be lodged in the Library of the House.

  The DTI makes no projections of oil demand outside of the UK. Some bodies make such projections, principally the International Energy Agency and the European Commission. The latter's baseline scenario projects modest growth in the use of oil.

  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what estimate he has made of the extent of the availability of unconventional oil sources including(a) gas to distillates, (b) heavy oils and (c) sands and shales. [140593]

  Mr. Byers
  The gas from the UK Continental Shelf would be suitable as a feedstock for gas to distillates technology. The exploitation of this technology would depend on the business case for this process in a UK context. The UK does not have significant reserves of either of the other two sources.

  Departmental Payment
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what percentage of correctly presented bills were paid by his Department within 30 days of receipt of goods and services or a valid invoice in the last 12 months. [140728]

  Mr. Byers
  The percentage of correctly presented bills which were paid within 30 days of receipt of goods and services or a valid invoice, for the period 1 January 2000 to 31 October 2000, was 93 per cent.

  Comparable information prior to 1 January 2000 is not available.

  Sub-postmasters
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many sub-postmasters have resigned in(a) the past three months, broken down by region and (b) the same three month period in each of the last three years. [140843]

  Mr. Byers
  I understand from the Post Office that the figures are not available in the form requested.

  Sterling
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what recent discussions he has had with manufacturing industry on the level of sterling. [140964]
  746W
  Mr. Byers
  We are in frequent contact with manufacturing industry, at both ministerial and official level, covering a range of issues affecting manufacturers.

  Consumer Complaints
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the trend of consumer complaints in the last 10 years. [140940]

  Dr. Howells
  Local authority trading standards departments provide the Office of Fair Trading with regular returns detailing the number of consumer complaints that they have received. The Director General of Fair Trading publishes these in his annual report to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, copies of which are placed in the Library of the House. The report does not deal with complaints made to other regulatory bodies, such as the utilities regulators, Government Departments, representative bodies such as the National Consumer Council and the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux, and trade associations.

  For the year ending 30 September 1989, the number of consumer complaints reported by local authorities to the OFT was 583,760. By the year ending 30 September 1999, this had risen to 897.704.

  Debt Collection Agencies
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list for each of the last 10 years, the number of(a) complaints the Office of Fair Trading has received against debt collection agencies, (b) agencies whose licences have been revoked and (c) agencies which were found to be trading without a licence. [140975]

  Dr. Howells
  The Office of Fair Trading does not have records in the form specified and this information could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  However, figures relating to the number of consumer credit licences for debt collectors and investigators which the Director General was minded to revoke, suspend or vary compulsorily are set out in his Annual Reports to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. These are available in the Library of the House.

  The Office of Fair Trading Annual Report also contains figures on the number of consumer complaints reported by trading standards departments and advice agencies in the financial services and related industries, although debt collectors are not specifically identified.

  Unfair Trading
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry on how many occasions in each of the last 10 years the Director General of Fair Trading has used his powers under Part III of the Fair Trading Act 1973 to take action against traders whose actions were considered to be unfair to consumers. [140974]

  Dr. Howells
  The Director General of Fair Trading has taken action under Part III of the Fair Trading Act 1973
  747W
  in each year since 1990. A table setting out the details of the action taken is listed below. These figures are set out in the Director General of Fair Trade's annual reports to

  Year

  1990

  15 assurances given, 2 undertakings given to the court and 4 court orders.

  1991

  7 assurances given, 1 undertaking given to the court and 2 court orders.

  1992

  26 assurances given, 1 court order.

  1993

  22 assurances given, 1 undertaking given to the court.

  1994

  15 assurances given, 8 court orders and 1 conviction for breach of a court order.

  1995

  22 assurances given, 3 court orders.

  1996

  30 assurances given and 1 court order.

  1997

  8 assurances given, 4 court orders, and 2 people found guilty of breaching earlier undertakings.

  1998

  3 assurances given, 2 court orders and 1 person found guilty of contempt of court for breaching earlier undertakings.

  1999

  4 assurances given, 1 person found guilty of breach of a former court order and 2 people found guilty of breaching earlier undertakings.

  Oil and Gas Exploration
  Mrs. Brinton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will suspend further consideration of the 19th round of oil and gas licensing of environmentally sensitive areas to the west of the Shetland Islands until the regulations applying the EC Habitats Directive to the offshore industry have been implemented; and if he will list the sites requiring designation as special areas for conservation. [140887]

  Mr. Byers
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Member for Energy and Competitiveness in Europe on 25 October 2000,Official Report, column 129W.

  Mrs. Brinton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what factors he took into account in granting approval for oil and gas exploration of the White Zone between the Shetland and Faroe Islands. [140886]

  Mr. Byers
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given to the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas) on 9 November 2000,Official Report, columns 333–34W.

  Employment and Recruitment Agencies
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) which organisations have made representations to his Department(a) in support of and (b) against a four week limit on temp to perm fees; [140894]

  (2) what assessment he has made of the impact on the labour market of the proposed four week limit on the temp to perm fees in the Employment Agency Regulations; [140896]

  (3) what discussions he has had with employment and recruitment agencies relating to the imposition of a four week limit on the temp to perm fees; [140893]

  (4) what discussions his Department held with the recruitment industry concerning the four week limit for temp to perm fees in the draft Employment Agency Regulations. [140895]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  I have received over 200 representations on our proposal to limit the length of time an agency can demand a transfer fee from an employer after a hiring ceased where the employer wishes to take a temporary worker on permanently. Many representations have been duplicate circular letters submitted by agencies or their permanent staff against the proposals. Representations in support have been received from
  748
  my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, copies of which are available in the Library of the House.

  agencies, employers, trade unions and professional associations. My Department and I have had continuous discussions with the industry since the publication of the proposals by means of meetings, visits, correspondence, conference speeches and telephone. In common with all regulatory proposals an impact assessment has been prepared. We expect our proposals to improve labour market flexibility by removing barriers to entry into the permanent employment market, while allowing agencies to recoup their investment in the workers they supply and greater freedom to recruit.

  Ilisu Dam
  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he has considered the implications of the World Commission on Dams Report for his decision on an export credit for the Ilisu Dam; and if he will make a statement. [140755]

  Mr. Caborn
  We are studying carefully the Report of the World Commission on Dams. We will take account of the Report in considering our decision on Ilisu.

  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what progress has been made by the Turkish authorities in meeting the four conditions for UK ECGD support announced in December 1999; and if he will make a statement. [140756]

  Mr. Caborn
  Progress has been made on the four conditions since my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State's statement to the press in December last year. However, we will have a much clearer idea of the extent to which those conditions have been addressed when we have seen and assessed the updated Environmental Impact Assessment Report, the response of the Turkish authorities to that document and the Resettlement Action Plan.

  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if the recommendations and guidelines for good practice identified in the recent World Commission on Dams Report will be used to shape the policies of the Export Credits Guarantee Department. [140757]

  Mr. Caborn
  The Report is clearly a seminal document and will require detailed study. ECGD propose to consult with other Departments, in particular the Department for International Development (who provided funding for the Commission), the Department
  749W
  of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the Department of Trade and Industry and Trade Partners.

  ECGD will also seek to ensure that the Export Credit Agencies issues raised by the Report are properly and fully considered by the OECD, and will also liaise with ECAs bilaterally. We will of course consider how far the Report affords us a template for our decision making process on future dam projects where we are approached for cover.

  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what discussions he has had with the Governments of(a) Turkey, (b) Syria and (c) Iraq relating to the legal implications of the Ilisu Dam for cross border water sharing agreements between these countries and obligations under international law. [140758]

  Mr. Caborn
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry has had no discussions with the governments of Turkey, Syria or Iraq on the Ilisu Dam. We are of course aware that the Syrian and Iraqi governments have made representations to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office regarding the project, and the issue of waterflow to downstream states is one of the four conditions outlined by my right hon. Friend in his statement to the press last December. My officials and their Foreign and Commonwealth office counterparts remain in touch with Turkish officials regarding these conditions.

  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he expects to receive a copy of the updated Environmental Impact Assessment report and Resettlement report in respect of the Ilisu Dam. [140759]

  Mr. Caborn
  The latest information we have is that the updated Environmental Impact Assessment Report is expected to be made available to the Turkish buyer shortly. When the buyer has had the opportunity to respond, the Report will be made available to the Export Credit Agencies involved in the project. We envisage this will be early in the New Year. We have been informed by the contractors that the Resettlement Action Plan is expected to take longer, but timing is still uncertain.

  Plutonium
  Mr. Colman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what procedures are in place to ensure that weapons-grade plutonium from magnox reactors is not used for military purposes.[140982]

  Dr. Howells
  All the magnox reactors in the United Kingdom, with the exception of those at Chapelcross, are subject to Euratom safeguards and to the terms of the UK/Euratom/IAEA safeguards agreement. These safeguards arrangements are designed to detect the diversion of nuclear material from its declared civil uses. The announcement of the outcome of the Strategic Defence Review (SDR) in July 1998 included a commitment that all planned future reprocessing would be carried out under safeguards. All such reprocessing of irradiated magnox fuel, including that from Chapelcross, is therefore subject to the safeguards arrangements described above.
  750W
  Mr. Colman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what quantity of weapons-grade plutonium has originated in the UK's civil magnox reactors in each of the last 20 years. [140981]

  Mr. Byers
  The information requested is available only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Colman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry for what reason his Department has ceased publication of full records of plutonium production in civil reactors. [140983]

  Mr. Byers
  I refer my hon. Friend to the replies given to my hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy (Dr. Moonie), on 2 June 1998,Official Report, column 162W, and my hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Smith) on 24 June 1998, Official Report, column 499W.

  Beer Industry
  Mrs. Dean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) what assessment he has made of the competitive impact of the growth of pub-owning chains in the United Kingdom beer market; [139940]

  (2) when he will announce the findings of the six-month review of the beer orders conducted by the Office of Fair Trading; [139941]

  (3) what assessment his Department has made of the pattern of ownership in the tenanted UK pub estate. [139942]

  Dr. Howells
  The Office of Fair Trading's review of the 1989 Beer Orders addresses a number of issues in the pub and brewing industries, including structural changes in the pub retailing sector. We are currently considering the Office's report carefully, and will make a statement shortly.

  Gas Prices
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what his assessment is of the consequences of the recent doubling of the price of gas; and if he will make a statement.[140868]

  Dr. Howells
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Minister for Energy and Competitiveness in Europe on 6 November 2000,Official Report, column 13W.

  Supermarkets
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what progress has been made following his request to the Director General of Fair Trading to draw up a code of practice on relations between supermarkets and their suppliers following the publication of the Competition Commission's report "Supermarkets: A report on the supply of groceries from multiple stores in the United Kingdom" (Cm 4842). [141156]

  Dr. Howells
  The Director General of Fair Trading's discussions with the major supermarkets on a Code of Practice are continuing. He hopes to make a draft available to representatives of suppliers for comment, as requested by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, in early January. My right hon.
  751W
  Friend asked the Director General of Fair Trading to report back to him in three months' time (ie by the middle of January).

  Biscuit Industry
  Mr. Gordon Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations he has received concerning the impact on jobs and investment of the recent mergers and takeovers in the British biscuit industry. [139541]

  Ms Hewitt
  It is not our policy to disclose the identity or content of representations on cases so that interested parties may comment freely without any concern that their comments might then be disclosed.

  Oil and Gas Directorate
  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many of his Department's oil and gas directorate posts were in(a) Aberdeen, (b) Glasgow, (c) London and (d) elsewhere in each of the last three years. [137335]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The number of Oil and Gas Directorate posts located in(a) Aberdeen, (b) Glasgow, (c) London and (d) elsewhere in each of the last three years are as follows:

  1998

  1999

  2000

  Aberdeen

  56.3

  60.3

  72.3

  Glasgow

  0

  0

  0

  London

  102.3

  99.3

  103.8

  Other

  0

  0

  0

  Accurate figures are difficult to provide in view of the transfer in 1999 of 14 Aberdeen DTI Oil and Gas Directorate staff working on Royalties to the Inland Revenue in Aberdeen. In addition this year has seen the transfer of 22.5 DTI Infrastructure and Energy Project staff to the Oil and Gas Directorate following the merger of Infrastructure and Energy Projects Directorate with British Trade International. Of the posts transferred 19.5 are based in Aberdeen and 3.5 in London.

  Electricity Consumption
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment he has made of the effect on UK domestic and electricity consumption of putting forward the clocks by one extra hour; and if he will make a statement. [140132]

  Mr. Byers
  The 1989 Green Paper "Summertime: A Consultation Document" (CM722) concluded that the impact of putting the clocks forward by one extra hour was marginal in terms of energy consumption.

  Coal Miners' Compensation Scheme
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what has been the average length of time taken to process a claim for compensation on behalf of coal miners' suffering from(a) emphysema and (b) chronic bronchitis; and what steps he is taking to speed up payments. [140449]
  752W
  Mr. Byers
  This information is not available in the form requested.

  As to speeding up the process, we are working with the solicitors representing the claimants and our contractors to streamline the complex procedures where ever possible. At the High Court hearing in Sheffield two weeks ago Mr. Justice Turner, the High Court judge with responsibility for the British Coal respiratory litigation, praised the efforts and commitment of all concerned to improve the progress on what is the largest personal injury litigation ever in the UK, while recognising that significant improvements still needed to be made. He also went on to say that the complexity of the procedures is a necessary part of ensuring that claimants get in full the fair compensation due to them.

  With compensation for vibration disease, over £270 million has been paid out in coal health compensation so far. Last week compensation payments were totalling £1 million a day.

  Mobile Phone Transmission Equipment
  Mr. Blizzard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment he has made of the potential for mobile phone transmission equipment to interfere at close range with other businesses using electrical equipment. [140462]

  Ms Hewitt
  Virtually all electrical and electronic equipment that is liable to cause interference or be affected by it is subject to European Directive 89/336/EEC on electromagnetic compatibility (EMC). In addition radio equipment is subject to the new Radio and Telecommunications Terminal Equipment (R&TTE) Directive. These directives are designed to ensure that radio, electronic and electrical equipment can co-exist in the electromagnetic environment. Details of these directives can be found on the Department's Radiocommunications Agency's website www.radio.gov.uk.

  Diesel Prices
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will introduce a regulatory regime to stabilise the pump price of diesel in the United Kingdom at the November 1999 price. [141001]

  Mr. Byers
  My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced a number of changes in fuel duty rates in his pre-Budget statement which would lead to a reduction in the pump price of ultra low sulphur diesel.

  Rural Petrol Stations
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) if he will assess a review of the factors affecting the number of petrol stations in rural areas which have closed during the past six months; and if he will make a statement; [140835]

  (2) if he will introduce a scheme to subsidise petrol stations in rural areas. [140841]

  Mr. Byers
  The Government in our recently published White Paper "Our Countryside: The Future—a Fair Deal for Rural England" announced our intention to consult on
  753W
  a wide range of measures to secure access to vital services in rural areas. These include a proposal for rate relief for garages offering community benefits.

  Oil and Gas Prices
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what his policy is regarding the de-linking of oil and gas prices; and if he will make a statement. [140844]

  Mr. Byers
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the Minister for Energy and Competitiveness in Europe's answer on 6 November 2000,Official Report, column 13W.

  European Coal and Steel Community
  Mr. Geraint Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the EU inter-Governmental legal requirements of transferring the assets of the European Steel and Coal Community to the European Community budget. [141281]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  At the Amsterdam Council in 1997 and in two further Council decisions in 1998 and 1999, it was unanimously agreed by EU member states that when the ECSC expires in July 2002 its assets should be transferred to the European Community budget and used to fund research into the coal and steel sectors. These industries fully support this decision since the ECSC's assets derive from the ECSC levy paid by them until 1997. The Legal Services of the Council of the EU have advised that such a transfer cannot be achieved under the Treaty Establishing the European Community as it stands, as there is no legal provision for it. Member states all agree that the forthcoming inter-governmental conference meeting in Nice should be invited to adopt, as part of the Nice Treaty, a protocol which will be attached to the Treaty Establishing the European Community. This will enable the transfer to take place. Parliament will be asked to ratify the protocol before it comes into force.

  Steel Industry
  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the price paid for electricity by the United Kingdom steel industry. [139536]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  The Department conducts a quarterly survey of 1,200 manufacturing companies in Great Britain, the results of which are published in "Energy Trends". Data collected by the survey for Quarter 2 2000 indicate that extra large industrial users of electricity, i.e. those consuming more than 150,000 kWh per annum, pay 2.57p/kWh.

  The average price of electricity for extra large industrial consumers has fallen continually in real terms over the past five years. Between Q2 1995 and Q2 2000 the average price paid by extra large industrial consumers had decreased by nearly 25 per cent. in real terms.

  The New Electricity Trading Arrangements (NETA) will put significant downward pressure on electricity prices. Indeed, in anticipation of NETA, forward prices for 2001 are already 30 per cent. lower in real terms than in 1998. The programme of plant divestment by major electricity generators has also contributed to these price reductions.

  Nuclear Power Stations
  Mr. Ruane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will estimate the total cost of decommissioning the UK's nuclear power stations. [141191]

  Mr. Byers
  The total undiscounted cost of decommissioning the UK's nuclear power stations is currently estimated at £12.6 billion.

  Medical Tests (Wales)
  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many medical assessment procedures were conducted at each of the testing centres in Wales in each calendar month from January to date. [141151]

  Mr. Byers
  Since January this year the Department has carried out a total 4,326 medical tests in Wales, some 1,769 full Medical Assessment Processes and 2,557 spirometry tests. These are broken down by centre as follows:

  Spirometry

  MAP

  Swansea1

  January

  359

  0

  February

  31

  0

  March

  47

  22

  April

  34

  45

  May

  34

  29

  June

  1

  68

  July

  39

  59

  August

  54

  63

  September

  73

  52

  October

  3

  79

  November (to date)

  0

  93

  Mountain Ash

  January

  625

  0

  February

  207

  1

  March

  89

  0

  April

  144

  1

  May

  78

  3

  June

  16

  76

  July

  111

  82

  August

  111

  78

  September

  32

  127

  October

  60

  141

  November (to date)

  79

  123

  Cardiff

  January

  9

  —

  February

  1

  —

  March

  1

  —

  April

  0

  —

  May

  1

  —

  June

  1

  —

  July

  6

  —

  August

  3

  —

  September

  1

  —

  October

  2

  —

  November (to date)

  2

  —

  Newport

  January

  116

  1

  February

  38

  8

  March

  27

  15

  April

  7

  45

  May

  6

  78

  June

  5

  89

  755W

  Spirometry

  MAP

  July

  16

  84

  August

  31

  69

  September

  23

  63

  October

  11

  82

  November (to date)

  23

  93

  1 Healthcall have carried out spirometry assessments on all those claimants in the Swansea area for whom they have details but the centre will remain open to assess new claimants as and when their details are passed to Healthcall.

  2The Cardiff centre is a spirometry only centre. As with Swansea, Healthcall have carried out spirometry assessments on all those claimants in the Cardiff area for whom they have details.

  Employment Agencies Act
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he plans to introduce changes to the regulations under the Employment Agencies Act 1973 restricting temporary to permanent fees; and if he will make a statement. [141269]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  I will write to the hon. Member and place a copy of that letter in the Libraries of the House.

PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL

  Home Care Charging Policy
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the President of the Council, pursuant to her answer of 27 November 2000,Official Report, column 486W, on home care charging policy, for how long Oldham Council had had a Liberal Democrat majority when she provided her oral answer of 11 May 2000, Official Report, column 1015; and if the council had undertaken a review of its charging policy during that time. [141068]

  Mrs. Beckett
  Oldham Council has had a Liberal Democrat majority since 4 May. I understand that no review of the council's charging policy has taken place since then.

  Special Advisers
  Mr. Tyrie
  To ask the President of the Council, pursuant to her answer of 5 June 2000,Official Report, column 1W, on special advisers, if she will list the destination and the total cost, including travel, accommodation and subsistence allowance, on the occasion when departmental or non-departmental special advisers travelled abroad in an official capacity.[135252]

  Mrs. Beckett
  During the period 31 March 1999 to 31 March 2000, a special adviser travelled abroad on official business on one occasion—on a visit to the Netherlands on Millennium Bug business. The total cost of this visit was £936. The cost of this visit was accounted for in expenditure on Ministers' travel overseas published by the Prime Minister on 28 July 2000,Official Report, column 968W, which for 1999–2000 was £4.6 million compared to £7.9 million for the last year of the previous Administration.

ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS

  Greenhouse Gases
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what estimate he has made of the contribution made by(a) UK-based airlines and (b) UK airports to greenhouse gas emissions; and what contributions they are expected to make to help the UK reach its Kyoto targets. [136197]

  Mr. Mullin
  The UK reports its emissions as required by internationally agreed reporting guidelines, including greenhouse gas emissions. In 1998 greenhouse gas emissions from civil aviation movements entirely within the UK were 0.95 MtC. Under the Kyoto Protocol, emissions from international flights are not allocated to individual countries. Emissions from UK airports are not reported separately. The UK total greenhouse gas emissions in 1998 were 192.65 MtC.

  Details of action being taken, both in the UK and internationally to reduce future aviation emissions, will be set out in the UK's climate change programme to be published shortly. It is not possible to quantify the contribution that the results of this action may make to achieving the UK's Kyoto target. But in any event action in other areas of the transport sector and in other sectors of the economy is expected to achieve the target and move the UK towards its domestic goal to cut emissions of carbon dioxide by 20 per cent. by 2010.

  In keeping with the requirements of the Kyoto Protocol, the UK is working within the International Civil Aviation Organisation on measures to reduce emissions from international civil aviation. Options include technological and operational improvements and market-based incentives. An ICAO decision on policy options is expected in autumn 2001.

  The UK supports an emissions trading scheme in the long term and an emissions charge in the meantime.

  Health and Safety Executive
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) if he will place in the Library a copy of the Sykes Accommodation report on the implications of closing the Hull Office of the HSE: [134242]

  (2) what the cost was of the preparation of the Sykes report; and if it was distributed to trade unions and employers in the Humberside region. [134243]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 2 November 2000]: The business case for HSE's Yorkshire and North East Accommodation Review was co-ordinated by Jim Sykes, Head of the region's Specialist Group. A document entitled "Accommodation Review: Yorkshire and North East Region" setting out a range of options was prepared for internal use. Since it was believed that none of the accommodation changes identified would affect the level of service provided by HSE, the report was not circulated outside HSE. A copy of this document is, however, now being placed in the Libraries of the House, and is being sent to trade unions and employers in the Humberside region. No record exists of the cost of preparing the business case, but it is estimated that the document

  757W
  "Accommodation Review: Yorkshire and North East Region" took about a week to prepare. This document followed earlier work by Mr. Sykes' predecessor who, it is thought, spent about two weeks on it with approximately two months' administrative support.

  London Underground
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what recent decisions he has made about(a) the private sector operating in the London Underground and (b) running the deep-level underground; what consultations he has held on these matters with the London Mayor and the Greater London Authority; and if he will make a statement. [136974]

  Mr. Hill
  Some Underground support functions, such as cleaning, are already contracted out to the private sector. We have no plans, however, for private sector operation of core train or station functions, or running of the Underground, as proposed by the opposition. We are continuing to make progress with the public-private partnership, which will leave operations in the hands of the public sector and bring in the private sector to invest in maintaining and upgrading the infrastructure. Ministers have had several meetings with the Mayor and the GLA on the subject of the Underground.

  Mr. Pound
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how much London Transport has spent to date on consultancy costs for the London Underground public-private partnership; and what forecast he has made of total expenditure on consultancy costs. [141282]

  Mr. Hill
  I understand from London Transport that their expenditure on external consultants from 20 March 1998 (the date of the Government's announcement) to 30 September 2000, for work on the PPP and restructuring of London Underground, was £69.4 million. The remaining consultancy work required on the project has now become clearer and London Transport estimate that the final amount should be around £92 million. I can also report, pursuant to my answer to the hon. Member for Eltham (Mr. Efford) of 18 May 2000,Official Report, column 252W, that the consultancy expenditure incurred by London Transport to 31 March 2000 was over-stated at £60.3 million and should have been reported as £59.6 million.

  Energy Conservation Authorities
  Mrs. Gilroy
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what progress has been made by each energy conservation authority as defined in the Home Energy Conservation Act 1995 in improving the energy efficiency of the domestic housing stock in their area, at the most recent date for which figures are available. [137326]

  Mr. Meacher
  The overall improvements in energy efficiency, as reported by energy conservation authorities 758W
  in England in the period 1 April 1996 to 31 March 2000, have been placed in the Libraries of the House.

  Ministerial Visit (China)
  Mr. Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 26 October 2000,Official Report, column 172W, what the total cost was of his recent visit to China for all the members of his delegation; and if he will break down the costs. [137235]

  Mr. Prescott
  [holding answer 7 November 2000]: The total cost for my delegation, including that given in my answer of 26 October 2000, Official Report, column 172W, is estimated to be approximately £43,000. Details of this trip will be included in the annual list of Cabinet Ministers' visits overseas which will be published after the end of the financial year. Total Government expenditure on ministerial visits in 1999–2000 was £4.6 million compared to £7.9 million for the last year of the previous Administration.

  UN Convention on Biological Diversity
  Joan Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what steps the Government are taking in relation to genetic use restriction technologies following the recommendation of the Conference of the Parties to the UN Convention on Biological Diversity concerning the approval of such technologies by parties for field testing prior to appropriate assessments being made in regard to socio-economic impacts, biological diversity and food security. [138795]

  Mr. Meacher
  In line with the decision of the Conference of the Parties to the Convention, the Government support strict, case by case, precautionary action to control the field testing and commercial development of gene use restriction technologies. As called for in the decision, we will make available information on UK experience and expertise on such technologies through the clearing-house mechanism under the Convention.

  Road Traffic
  Mr. Moore
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list those local authorities that have set targets for the overall level of road traffic in their area as part of their full local transport plans, giving the targets in each case. [139678]

  Mr. Hill
  As part of their full local transport plans submitted in July 2000, local traffic authorities in England (outside London) submitted road traffic reduction reports as required by the Road Traffic Reduction Act 1997. Copies of the reports have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses. A number of authorities, shown in italics in the table, submitted plans containing targets for the overall level of road traffic for their area. Others set targets for part of their area or for some types of traffic.
  759W

  Authority

  Target

  Bath & North East Somerset

  In Bath, to achieve a 10 per cent. reduction in the average 1990–99 traffic flow levels by 2006. In Keynsham, to constrain traffic growth to the current 1.5 per cent. per annum on the four radia routes. In North Radstock, to keep traffic growth at the current level of 1 per cent. per annum. On the inter-urban corridors to reduce the average growth in all vehicle traffic to 0.5 per cent. per annum for the five year to 2006.

  Bedfordshire

  Decrease travel to work by car from 71 per cent. in 1991 to 58 per cent. in 2011. Increase travel to work by public transport from 11 per cent. in 1991 to 15 per cent. in 2011. Increase travel to work on foot from 12 per cent. in 1991 to 15 per cent. in 2011. Increase travel to work by cycle from 4 per cent. in 1991 to 10 per cent. in 2011.

  Blackburn

  Reduce annual peak hour traffic growth to zero by 2006. Contain off-peak hour traffic growth to zero by 2006. Contain off-peak traffic growth to local low growth levels.

  Blackpool

  A reduction in traffic growth from the predicted 7.4 per cent. to 14 per cent. for 2000–06 to 1 per cent. to 5 per cent.

  Bournemouth, Poole & Christchurch1

  Reduce the rate of growth of traffic on roads by 50 per cent. by 2006 and zero thereafter.

  Bracknell Forest

  To limit the growth of road traffic in the Borough in the morning peak period to 14 per cent. above the 1996 level by 2006.

  Brighton & Hove

  Stabilise the level of car traffic entering and leaving the central area of Brighton and Hove, based on 1996 traffic levels, by 2006, and reduce those levels by 5 per cent. by 2011.

  Bristol

  Reduce growth in private car traffic by 20 per cent. by 2005 and thereafter to seek a 20 per cent. reduction by 2015.

  Buckinghamshire

  To reduce the proportion of journey to work trips made by car by 3 per cent. In urban areas, growth rate target set at half the base growth rate. In rural areas, to reduce the volume of HGV traffic on the strategic highway network by 5 per cent. by 2006.

  Cambridgeshire

  Reduce traffic by 1.3 per cent. per annum in the central area of Cambridge by 2006. Stabilise traffic levels on Cambridge radial routes.

  Cheshire

  Restrain traffic growth to 15 per cent. by 2011.

  City of York

  Limit overall growth in traffic to 4 per cent. (1999–2006) with a reduction of 13 per cent. on secondary and residential roads.

  Cumbria

  In Carlisle, Zero traffic growth overall from 2000–05. In Kendall, to reduce current traffic levels by 20 per cent. in 2005. In Lake District, zero traffic growth by 2005.

  Darlington

  Limit road traffic approaching the urban area in 2006 to 7.5 per cent. higher than in 2000. Limit road traffic approaching Darlington town centre in 2006 to 4 per cent. higher than in 2006.

  Derby City2

  To stem the rate of traffic growth completely across the city centre cordon with total peak hour traffic volumes in 2005–06 no greater that those in 2000–01. To stem the rate of traffic growth across the urban area cordon to at least 1 per cent. below NRTF central growth forecasts by 2006.

  Derbyshire

  Increasing the number of bus journeys to at least 50 million per annum within five years. An increase of 20 per cent. in the number of employees cycling to work where employers have adopted cycling as part of their Travel Plan by 2005–06. An increase of 25 per cent. in the number of secondary school pupils cycling to school where schools have adopted cycling as part of school Travel Plan. A reduction of 6 per cent. in the number of single occupancy car journeys to work within two years of an employer adopting a Travel Plan. Increase the percentage of primary school pupils travelling to school by non-car modes by 5 per cent. by 2005–06.

  Dorset

  For Weymouth, Portland and Chickerall, to reduce the forecast level of traffic growth by 10 per cent. by 2006 and 30 per cent. by 2016 (compared to 1996). For Dorchester, Bridport, Sherbourne and North Dorset, to reduce the forecast level of traffic growth by 10 per cent. (compared to 1996) by 2006 and 20 per cent. by 2016. For Wimbourne, Purbeck, Ferndown, Verwood, West Moors, Colehill and Corfe Mullen, to reduce the forecast level of traffic growth by 10 per cent. by 2006 and 25 per cent. by 2016 (compared to 1996). Reduce congestion in rural areas by 10 per cent. by 2006 and 20 per cent. in 2016.

  Durham

  Reduce the forecast growth of traffic from 1.5 per cent. to 0.33 per cent. per annum throughout the plan period.

  East Riding

  To maintain 2000–01 traffic levels in Beverley town centre. To maintain 2000–01 traffic levels in Goole town centre. To reduce 1997 traffic levels in Bridlington town centre by 10 per cent. by 2004.

  760W 761W

  Authority

  Target

  East Sussex

  Traffic growth in Eastbourne not to exceed 23 per cent. between 1998 and 2006. Traffic growth in Bexhill and Hastings not to exceed 14 per cent. between 1998 and 2006. Traffic growth in Lewes package not to exceed 8 per cent. between 1998 and 2006. Traffic growth in Newhaven package area not to exceed 8 per cent. between 1998 and 2006.

  Essex

  To reduce the rate of growth in traffic (vehicle kilometres) based on 1998 traffic levels to 5 per cent. to 10 per cent. (main urban areas), 0 per cent. to 5 per cent. (inter urban areas) and 5 per cent. to 10 per cent. (other areas).

  Gloucestershire

  By 2010, average daily traffic volumes to increase by no more than 20 per cent. compared with 1996 levels. By 2006 the increase over 1996 to be no more than 15 per cent.

  Greater Manchester3

  Annual car traffic on A and B Roads to grow by no more than 8 per cent. by 2006 and 10 per cent. by 2011. No growth in peak hour car trips in the regional centres. Reduction of traffic between 2006 and 2011 of 5 per cent. in key centres.

  Hampshire

  To halve the rate of growth in traffic by 2020.

  Hartlepool

  Limit overall traffic growth to less than 5 per cent. between 2000 and 2005.

  Herefordshire

  To restrict the growth in traffic levels in Hereford to 1 per cent. per annum during the period 2001 to 2010.

  Hertfordshire

  Reduce the percentage of road based journeys made by car in 2011 to 61 per cent. from 68.4 per cent. (Cheshunt/Waltham Cross), 60.7 per cent. from 69.9 per cent. (Hemel Hempstead), 59.8 per cent. from 67 per cent. (Bishop's Stortford), 51.5 per cent. from 63.8 per cent. (Hitchin), 51.2 per cent. from 60.7 per cent. (Borehamwood) and 56.4 per cent. from 62.9 per cent. (Harpenden).

  Isle of Wight

  To limit the growth of traffic to an average of 1 per cent. per annum over the period 2000–10 on roads in the North East Triangle Strategy Area. To limit the growth of traffic during the months of June, July and August to an average of 1 per cent. per annum over the period 2000–10 on roads in the Coastal Resorts Strategy Area. To limit the growth of traffic on classified roads in the Rural Strategy Area to an average of 1½ per cent. per annum over the period 2000–10. To achieve no growth in traffic flows on unclassified roads in the Rural Strategy Area over the period 2000–10.

  Kent

  1 per cent. reduction in traffic growth by 2005.

  Kingston upon Hull

  To reduce the percentage of car modal split for journeys to work and increase that of other modes.

  Lancashire

  Traffic growth during the plan period to he below 5 per cent.

  Leicester City4

  A 4 per cent. reduction in car trips to the City Centre in the morning peak by 2006.

  Lincolnshire

  To constrain the growth in peak hour traffic in Gainsborough, Louth, Sleaford, Spalding and Stamford to 5 per cent. between 2000 and 2006. To constrain peak hour traffic congestion in Greater Lincoln, Grantham, Boston and Skegness (in the summer season) to 2000 levels by 2006.

  Medway

  To control the growth in car traffic to Chatham city centre by 1.5 per cent. below average predicted growth forecast by 2006 during the day.

  Merseyside5

  Total traffic growth not to exceed 20.8 per cent. in 2006 and 29.2 per cent. in 2011. Car traffic growth not to exceed 21.2 per cent. in 2006 and 29.2 per cent. in 2011.

  Middlesbrough

  Reduce Annual Average Daily Flows to 0 per cent. growth at the town centre cordon by 2005 and 2 per cent. by 2010. Reduce peak hour flows to 0 per cent. growth at the town centre cordon by 2005 and 2 per cent. by 2010.

  Milton Keynes

  To reduce car use for the journey to work from 77 per cent. (1997) to 62 per cent. by 2006 and to 55 per cent. by 2011.

  Norfolk

  Norwich Inner Ring Road cordon crossing traffic levels to be no higher than 1995 levels in 2006. Growth in traffic crossing the Norwich Outer Ring Road cordon to be less than 10 per cent. between 1995 and 2006. Growth in traffic crossing the King's Lynn town cordon to be no more than the NRTF central growth estimate by 2006. Growth in the traffic crossing the Great Yarmouth town cordon to be no greater than the NRTF central growth estimate by 2006.

  Northamptonshire

  No growth in morning inbound peak hour car vehicle flows (from 1999 level) on the radial routes in Northampton. Car vehicle traffic growth is no greater than 1 in 15 (the 1999 base level) in the urban areas (other than in Northampton) by 2005 (NRTF low growth forecast).

  North Lincolnshire

  To keep overall traffic growth to an average of 2.2 per cent. or less for the next five years.

  762W 763W

  Authority

  Target

  North Somerset

  In Weston-Super-Mare, a 19 per cent. reduction in the rate of traffic growth by 2006 and 34 per cent. by 2011. In Clevedon, a 26 per cent. reduction in the rate of traffic growth by 2006 and 40 per cent. by 2011. In Portishead, a 52 per cent. reduction in the rate of traffic growth by 2006 and 69 per cent. by 2011. In Nailsea, a 14 per cent. reduction in the rate of traffic growth by 2006 and 21 per cent. by 2011.

  North Yorkshire

  To achieve zero growth in Harrogate and Scarborough town centres from 2000. To limit traffic growth in the North York Moors National Park to at least 1 per cent. below average national traffic growth. To limit traffic growth in the Yorkshire Dales National Park to at least 2 per cent. below average national traffic growth. To reduce traffic flow on the A19 through Selby by 30 per cent. on the opening of the Selby bypass and restrain growth from that time not to exceed national low growth forecasts.

  Nottingham City6

  Limit traffic growth in the morning peak from 1991 to 2006 to 2 per cent. Restore traffic levels in the morning peak at 2011 to 1991 levels.

  Nottinghamshire

  Limit traffic growth in West Nottinghamshire to 9 per cent. by 2011 based on 1999 levels. Limit traffic growth in rural area to 16 per cent. by 2011 based on 1999 levels.

  Oxfordshire

  To reduce traffic growth in the period 2000–15 to half the forecast growth for Oxfordshire.

  Peterborough

  Private car traffic in the central area to be held below local traffic forecasts for the next five years. By 2015 to reduce the levels of private cars in the central area of the city to 2000 levels.

  Plymouth

  Maintain morning peak traffic volumes at 2000 levels at City Centre Cordon.

  Portsmouth

  To secure no growth for private vehicles (cars and vans) into the core area during the morning peak period by 2006, relative to 1999.

  Reading

  Reduce car trips to Reading town centre by 0 per cent to 3.5 per cent. by 2005. To increase public transport trips to the town centre by 25 per cent. to 35 per cent. by 2005. To increase cycle trips to the town centre by 50 per cent. to 60 per cent. by 2005. To increase walking trips to the town centre by 25 per cent. to 30 per cent. by 2005.

  Shropshire

  To reduce cars entering Shrewsbury town centre by 5 per cent. by 2005. To limit traffic growth to 1 per cent. or less per annum on all roads (outside the town centre) in the Shrewsbury area. To limit traffic growth to 2 per cent. or less on inter urban roads until 2005 and to 1 per cent. or less thereafter.

  Slough

  Zero growth in traffic in the morning and evening weekday peak hours and growth in daily traffic flows which are no more than those which have been observed over the last five years.

  Southampton

  Reduce the proportion of car use at peak periods on the main routes to the City Centre from the average 1994–96 levels of 71 per cent. to 65 per cent. by 2005 and 60 per cent. by 2010. Increase the proportion of peak period public transport trips to the City Centre from the average 1994–96 levels of 26 per cent. to 30 per cent. by 2005 and 33 per cent. by 2010. Increase the proportion of off-peak public transport trips to the City Centre from the average 1994–96 levels of 21 per cent. to 25 per cent. by 2005 and 28 per cent. by 2010. Increase cycle use from the average 1994–96 levels of 1.6 per cent. to 4 per cent. by 2005 and to 7 per cent. by 2010.

  Somerset

  To reduce the forecast peak hour car traffic growth in Taunton and Yeovil by 50 per cent. and in Bridgwater by 40 per cent. For A and B roads, to reduce traffic growth by 5 per cent. for the period 1996–2011.

  Southend-on-Sea

  Traffic growth less than forecast growth of 11 per cent. by 2006.

  South Gloucestershire

  Limit traffic growth 2001–06 to 6 per cent. overall and reduce traffic growth to 0 per cent. per annum by 2010.

  South Yorkshire7

  Contain traffic at 1999 levels by 2006.

  Stockton-on-Tees

  Limit traffic growth to low growth figure of 4.5 per cent. (2000–05).

  Stoke on Trent

  The overall rate of traffic growth in Stoke on Trent (excluding trunk roads) to be constrained to an increase of only 10 per cent. between 1999 and 2011 in comparison with the 1997 low growth NRTF projected increase of 15 per cent. over the same period.

  Suffolk

  In Ipswich, by 2006 to have stabilised traffic flows and congestion at 1999 levels. In South Lowestoft, to reduce the annual growth rate in car traffic to zero per cent.

  Surrey

  To limit road traffic levels on county roads to 8 per cent. growth by 2006, 10 per cent. by 2011 and zero growth above the 1998 level by 2016 with a reduction thereafter.

  Swindon

  To slow the forecast rate of traffic growth in the morning peak by 16 per cent. between 1999 and 2006 and 39 per cent. between 1999 and 2011.

  764W 765W

  Authority

  Target

  Telford & Wrekin

  Reduce traffic growth to 1.6 per cent. per annum by 2010.

  Thurrock

  Reduce traffic levels in central urban areas by 5 per cent. by the year 2011, relative to unconstrained traffic levels. Reduce traffic levels in other non-central areas by 2.5 per cent. to 5 per cent. by 2011, relative to unconstrained traffic levels.

  Tyne and Wear8

  Limit total vehicle kilometres on principal roads in 2006 to 2.524 billion, compared to 2.274 billion in 1996–97.

  Warrington

  A 68 per cent. and 43 per cent. reduction in the rate of traffic growth to 2006 and 2011.

  Warwickshire

  Avoid congestion increasing journey times on the local highway network by more than half between 1999 and 2011. Reduce the proportion of school journeys undertaken by car from 37 per cent. in 1999 to 33 per cent. by 2006 and 24 per cent. by 2011.

  West Berkshire

  To limit traffic increases to NRTF low growth forecast in the Newbury/Thatcham area for 1999–2006. To limit traffic increases to mid growth forecasts in rural areas for 1999–2006.

  West Midlands9

  To contain the growth in traffic between 1996 and 2006 to between 10 per cent. and 13.5 per cent. for a 24 hour weekday.

  West Sussex

  Reduce vehicle kilometres driven in within a 12 hour weekday period by: 2.5 per cent. (2006), 7.5 per cent. (2011) and 15 per cent. (2016) in the Coastal Towns. 5 per cent. (2006), 10 per cent. (2011) and 15 per cent. (2016) in the Central Towns. 5 per cent. (2006), 2.5 per cent. (2011) and 10 per cent. (2016) in Rural Areas.

  West Yorkshire10

  Traffic growth not to exceed 5 per cent. by 2006.

  Wiltshire

  In Western Wiltshire, a reduction in rate of traffic growth from 22 per cent. to 10 per cent. In Salisbury, a reduction in rate of traffic growth from 20 per cent. to 10 per cent. In Devizes, a reduction in rate of traffic growth from 27 per cent. to 17 per cent. In the remainder of Wiltshire, all other routes to be constrained to NRTF low growth.

  Windsor & Maidenhead

  In Maidenhead, traffic growth to increase by no more than 6 per cent. by 2006 from 1999. In Windsor, traffic growth to increase by no more than 6 per cent. by 2006 from 1999. In other areas, traffic to increase by no more than 10 per cent. by 2006, based on vehicle kilometres.

  Wokingham

  To restrain traffic growth in the northern part of the district to 3 per cent. below NRTF by the year 2006. To restrain traffic growth in the central part of the district to no more than NRTF by the year 2006. To restrain traffic growth in Wokingham town centre to 2.5 per cent. below NRTF by the year 2006. To restrain traffic growth in the Reading Urban Area part of the district to 2.5 per cent. below NRTF by the year 2006. To ensure that traffic growth in the southern part of the district does not exceed 1.5 per cent. of NRTF by the year 2006. To constrain car travel growth by residents to existing levels.

  1A joint plan for the Bournemouth, Poole and Christchurch area.

  2A joint plan with Derbyshire County Council.

  3A joint plan for the Metropolitan area consisting of the following traffic authorities: Bolton, Bury, Manchester, Oldham, Rochdale, Salford, Stockport, Tameside, Trafford and Wigan.

  4A joint plan with Leicestershire County Council.

  5A joint plan for the Metropolitan area consisting of the following traffic authorities: Liverpool, Knowsley, St. Helens, Sefton and Wirral.

  6A joint plan with Nottinghamshire County Council.

  7A joint plan for the Metropolitan area consisting the following the traffic authorities: Sheffield, Rotherham. Barnsley and Doncaster.

  8A joint plan for the Metropolitan area consisting of the following traffic authorities: Gateshead, Newcastle, N. Tyneside, S. Tyneside and Sunderland.

  9A joint plans for the Metropolitan area consisting of the following traffic authorities: Birmingham, Coventry, Dudley, Sandwell, Solihull, Walsall and Wolverhampton.

  10A joint plan for the Metropolitan area consisting of the following traffic authorities: Leeds, Kirklees, Calderdale, Bradford and Wakefield.

  Source

  NRTF—Department of Transport National Road Traffic Forecasts 1997

  Home Energy Efficiency Scheme
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what additional money he has allocated to the Home Energy Efficiency Scheme; and if he will make a statement in respect of eligible insulation and central heating measures. [139668]

  Mr. Meacher
  The Home Energy Efficiency Scheme provides grants of up to £2,000 for comprehensive packages of insulation and heating improvements. The scheme is aimed at those households who are most 766W
  vulnerable to cold-related ill health: older people and families on low incomes, and the disabled and chronically sick. The scheme is focused on the private sector where nearly 70 per cent. of the fuel poor in England are found.

  Following the Comprehensive Spending Review this summer, the budget for the Home Energy Efficiency Scheme has been set at:

  2000–01: £122 million

  2001–02: £153 million

  2002–03: Increased by £14 million to £167 million

  2003–04: Increased by £18 million to £171 million.

  767W
  The scheme provides packages of measures drawn from the following list:

  Insulation measures

  Loft insulation

  Draughtproofing doors and windows

  Cavity wall insulation

  Hot water tank insulation

  Compact fluorescent lamps

  Heating system measures

  Gas room heaters with thermostat controls

  Electric storage heaters

  Closed solid fuel fire cassette

  Electric dual immersion water heater with foam insulated tank

  Timer controls for electric space and water heaters

  Central heating through electric or gas systems (only for low income households aged 60 years or more).

  The package offered is tailored to the conditions of the individual property.

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to extend the entitlement to home energy efficiency scheme plus grants to those receiving the savings element of the proposed Pension Credit. [140634]

  Mr. Meacher
  At present, all households aged 60 or more and in receipt of Income Support, Council Tax Benefit, Housing Benefit or income-based Job Seekers Allowance are eligible for the higher tier of grants available under the Home Energy Efficiency Scheme (HEES) for England. This higher tier is in recognition of the particular difficulties faced by low-income older households. In total, we estimate that over 3.7 million older households—some 60 per cent. of all such households—are eligible for grants up to £2,000.

  We continue to monitor carefully all aspects of HEES and will consider in due course whether the eligibility criteria should be extended to include the Pension Credit when it is introduced in 2003.

  Polegate Bypass
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how much compensation has been agreed for contractors in respect of the postponement of the original Polegate Bypass project. [140302]

  Mr. Hill
  I have asked the Chief Executive of the Highways Agency, Mr. Tim Matthews, to write to the hon. Member.Letter from Tim Matthews to Mr. Nigel Waterson, dated 30 November 2000
  The Parliamentary Under Secretary of State, Keith Hill, has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question about the original Polegate Bypass.When my predecessor wrote to you on 11 November last year, interim on account payments totalling £5m (including VAT) had been paid to those who submitted tenders for the cancelled Weald and Downlard DBFO project. This included the Polegate Bypass scheme among others. Since then a further £51,000 has been paid following the receipt of additional supporting evidence provided by the claimants.

  Mobile Phone Transmission Equipment
  Mr. Blizzard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what regulations govern the installation of mobile phone transmission equipment as it relates to human health. [140464]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  There are no specific regulations governing the installation of mobile phone transmission equipment as it relates to health. However, telecommunications operators have a duty under the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974 and the Management of the Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999 to ensure that so far as is reasonably practicable, their work activities—which would include the installation and operation of their equipment—do not expose people to risks to their health and safety.

  The Government's statutory adviser, the National Radiological Protection Board, has published guidelines on limiting exposure to electromagnetic radiation. All mobile phone transmission equipment should meet these guidelines. Following publication of the Stewart report on mobile phones and health in May 2000, the Government accepted that, as a precautionary measure, the emissions from mobile phone base stations should meet the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) guidelines for public exposure as expressed in the EU Council Recommendation of 12 July 1999 on the limitation of exposure of the general public to electromagnetic fields (OHz to 300GHz). Most base stations already meet the ICNIRP guidelines and all new base stations will do so.

  Lorry Drivers
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what data he has collated on the link between the speed patterns of lorries and other commercial vehicles and the working hours of drivers over the last 10 years. [140528]

  Mr. Hill
  The recently completed Driver Fatigue project included an investigation of sleep related vehicle accidents occurring on certain motorways. About 25 per cent. of the sleep related vehicle accidents occurring on these motorways were work related (ie involving commercial vehicles). This type of accident occurs more often between 0200 hrs. and 0700 hrs. suggesting that night workers are particularly vulnerable, as are those driving home after a night shift, in the early morning and after the shift has lasted 12 hours.

  Flytipping
  Mr. McDonnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what estimate his Department has made (1) of the volume of illegally flytipped waste removed by(a) the Environment Agency and (b) local authorities in (i) 1995, (ii) 1996, (iii) 1997, (iv) 1998, (v) 1999 and (vi) 2000; [140511]

  (2) of the cost to (a) the Environment Agency and (b) local authorities of removing waste illegally flytipped in (i) 1995, (ii) 1996, (iii) 1997, (iv) 1998, (v) 1999 and (vi) 2000. [140510]

  Mr. Mullin
  Under section 59 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 the Environment Agency and local authorities may remove flytipped waste from land in
  769W
  certain circumstances. Where these powers are used the agency or local authority is entitled to recover its costs from the person who deposited the waste or knowingly caused or permitted its deposit.

  The Environment Agency does not currently collate data on the removal of flytipped waste. However, based on budget information the Agency has estimated that its costs for the removal of flytipped waste are approximately £500,000 per annum. No precise figures are available on the volumes of waste removed.

  Data on the costs and volume of the removal of flytipped waste by local authorities are not held centrally.

  Mr. McDonnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) if he will list the individuals and companies prosecuted by the Environment Agency for illegal flytipping in the London area in 1999 and 2000; [140500]

  (2) how many prosecutions have been secured by (a) the Environment Agency and (b) local authorities in relation to illegal flytipping (i) nationally and (ii) in the London area in 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999 and 2000; [140505]

  (3) what has been the average fine levied on (a) individuals and (b) companies convicted of illegal flytipping in (i) 1995, (ii) 1996, (iii) 1997, (iv) 1998, (v) 1999 and (vi) 2000. [140504]

  Mr. Mullin
  Flytipping is not defined in legislation but the term is generally used to refer to the illegal disposal of waste on sites which have neither a waste management licence nor a registered exemption from licensing—in contravention of sections 33 or 34 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990. However, it is also an offence under section 33 to dispose of waste in contravention of a licence. The available data do not separately identify the two different types of offences committed under section 33 and the following information therefore includes offences other than flytipping.

  The Environment Agency advises that in the time available to answer the question it is unable to provide a list of those prosecuted specifically under sections 33 or 34 of the 1990 Act in the London area in 1999 and 2000. However, I am happy to write to my hon. Friend with this information and to place a copy of my letter in the Library of the House.

  In the meantime, the Environment Agency has provided the following list of individuals and companies successfully prosecuted by its Thames Region for waste offences under Part II of the 1990 Act:

  January 1999 to December 1999

  David Kennedy trading as (t/a) D and A Developments

  John Rawlings

  Robert Clarke

  Andrew Baughan t/a Banbury Demolition

  Anthony Cnincharo

  Joseph Lee

  Philip Watson

  M and P Mccarthy Bros.

  William Winters

  Frederick Holmes

  770W

  Sonny Smith

  John White

  John Holmes

  Brian Davies

  Lee Sardell

  Greenwich Waste Management Ltd.

  Mark Avery

  Geoffrey David Parker

  Thomas Arthur Copas

  Copas Brothers (Farms) Ltd.

  Lee Richard Pearson

  J. L. Dicks (Honeywagon) Company Ltd.

  Bernard John Soyer

  Mark Pattenden

  Lee Drewitt

  Kevin Maloney

  Caleb Beldom

  Paul Anthony Bridger

  Mark Kirby

  Roger Irwing

  William David Tiller

  James William Warren

  Moinui Islam

  Gary Nigel Langley

  Thomas Patrick Wall

  January 2000 to October 2000

  Paul Thornton

  David Millard

  Allan John Payne

  Richard Colin Day

  Frank Gerald McDonagh

  Thames Water Utilities Ltd.

  Giuseppe Severino

  Christopher John Dann

  Ruben Reed

  Barry Croucher

  Russell Payne

  Dean Stroud

  David Prater

  James Hyatt t/a Surrey Waste Services

  Peter King

  Sung Hoon Baeg

  George Collins

  Daniel Praeter

  Tony Lee Farrell

  Sam Frankham

  Mark Mahoney.

  The average fines levied on individuals in all courts for offences under sections 33 and 34 of the 1990 Act, taken from the Home Office Court Proceedings Database, are as given:

  (i) 1995: £377

  (ii) 1996: £650

  (iii) 1997: £775

  (iv) 1998: £612

  (v) 1999: £654

  (vi) 2000: data not yet available.

  771W
  The average fines levied on organisations in all courts for offences under section 33 and 34 of the 1990 Act, taken from the Home Office Court Proceedings Database, are as follows:

  (i) 1995: £1,191

  (ii) 1996: £2,623

  (iii) 1997: £2,125

  (iv) 1998: £2,221

  (v) 1999: £2,585

  (vi) 2000: data not yet available

  Note

  "Organisations" includes companies, agencies, local authorities, private bodies etc.

  The Crime and Criminal Justice Unit of the Home Office does not hold data on prosecutions taken by the Environment Agency separately from those taken by local authorities. The available figures, as shown in (i) and (ii) below, are taken from the Home Office Court Proceedings Database based on the principal offence. Data also include prosecutions by police:

  (i) The total number of defendants prosecuted at magistrates courts for offences under sections 33 and 34 of the 1990 Act in England and Wales for offences under sections 33 and 34 of the 1990 Act in England and Wales

  Year

  Number

  1995

  134

  1996

  199

  1997

  173

  1998

  220

  1999

  233

  2000

  1—

  1Data not yet available

  (ii) The total number of defendants prosecuted at magistrates courts for offences under sections 33 and 34 of the 1990 Act in the Metropolitan police area

  Year

  Number

  1995

  31

  1996

  34

  1997

  39

  1998

  56

  1999

  70

  2000

  1—

  1Data not yet available

  Mr. McDonnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will launch an investigation into the role of criminal gangs in illegal flytipping in the London area. [140506]

  Mr. Mullin
  There are strict controls in place to ensure that waste is disposed of without danger to the public or the environment. The responsibility for the investigation of any alleged breaches of these controls and subsequent enforcement action rests with the Environment Agency and, in some circumstances, with local authorities as waste collection authorities. Any evidence of flytipping, including the involvement of criminal gangs, should be reported to the Environment Agency so that it may undertake relevant investigations.

  Mr. McDonnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans the Government have to increase the penalties for illegal flytipping. [140507]
  772W
  Mr. Mullin
  The maximum penalties for flytipping of waste are already severe—an unlimited fine and up to five years' imprisonment on conviction in a Crown Court—and the Government have no plans to increase them. The courts are independent of the Government and it is for them to determine the penalties they impose, within the terms of the relevant legislation, and to ensure that sentences fully reflect the gravity of offences which damage the environment.

  However, it is the Government's view that severe penalties should be imposed for significant breaches of environmental law. The Government's response to the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs Select Committee's Reports on the Environment Agency (2000) and on the Operation of the Landfill Tax (1999) made this clear and set out the action being taken to ensure that the Courts are fully aware of the Government' s concern about this issue.

  Mr. McDonnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans the Government have to review the law on illegal flytipping. [140508]

  Mr. Mullin
  The Government currently have no plans to review the legislation on flytipping. However, the FlyTipping Forum which brings together the Government, the Environment Agency, local authorities, the National Farmers' Union, the Country Landowners Association and other national organisations is addressing the specific problem of flytipping on farms. It is assessing the scale of the problem, and will look at how the enforcement agencies can work more effectively together, including the pursuit of offenders and more effective deterrence. The Government will then consider the results of this research and any recommendations which the Forum may make.

  Mr. McDonnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans the Government have to provide assistance to local authorities in tackling illegal flytipping. [140509]

  Mr. Mullin
  Local authorities' responsibilities for flytipping are funded through the Revenue Support Grant. Substantial extra resources—an increase of £1,127 million by 2003–04—will help fund environmental, protective and cultural services. Local authorities will set their own priorities for the use of these resources.

  Dr. Stoate
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what steps have been taken to publicise the 24 hour emergency telephone hotline for members of the public reporting information about flytipping incidents. [140994]

  Mr. Mullin
  The Environment Agency's emergency hotline (0800 80 70 60) plays an important role in alerting the Agency to all types of environmental incidents—including flytipping. The Agency promotes the number as widely as possible through their public relations activities—including flytipping campaigns and the FlyTipping Forum—and it features in a wide range of the Agency's reports and publications such as the "Customer Charter" and waste management explanatory leaflets.

  Dr. Stoate
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many calls have been received by the Environment Agency's 24 hour
  773W
  emergency telephone hotline for members of the public reporting information about flytipping incidents since it was set up; and how many have resulted in the prosecution of suspected flytippers. [140993]

  Mr. Mullin
  The Environment Agency received 30 reports of fly tipping incidents on their 24 hour emergency telephone hotline (0800 80 70 60) in the period from 31 March 1999 to 1 April 2000. The hotline is used for the reporting of all environmental incidents and the Agency does not collate data on how many prosecutions result from the public's use of it. However, I have asked the Agency whether it is possible to establish how many of the 30 reported flytipping incidents have resulted in prosecutions. I will write to my hon. Friend on receipt of the Agency's response and place a copy of my letter in the Library of the House.

  Poster Hoardings
  Mr. McDonnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will review the law on the erection of poster hoardings. [140503]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  This was included in the proposals in our Modernising Planning consultation paper "Outdoor Advertisement Control", issued in July 1999. I announced our conclusions in the light of the consultation response on 29 June 2000,Official Report, column 600W, in reply to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, North-East (Mr. White). In relation to Areas of Special Control of Advertisements, a further announcement was made on 28 November 2000, Official Report, column 554W, in reply to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North (Mr. Chaytor).

  Environmental Agreements
  Mr. Moore
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what progress he has made in considering the options for defining the relationship between multilateral environmental agreements and World Trade Organisation disciplines since the publication of his response to the 16th report from the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs Committee. [140334]

  Mr. Meacher
  Clarifying the relationship between Multilateral Environmental Agreements (MEAs) and the rules of the World Trade Organisation (WTO) remains an important priority for the United Kingdom and the European Union. We will continue to press for inclusion of this issue in a new trade Round.

  The European Community submitted a paper on "Resolving the Relationship between WTO rules and Multilateral Environmental Agreements" to the WTO Committee on Trade and Environment when it met on 24–25 October. The paper was designed to stimulate a positive discussion among WTO members on the nature of the problem and what our aims should be in clarifying the relationship. It discusses the need for some form of WTO accommodation mechanism for trade measures mandated by MEAs. An option for this mechanism considered by the paper is "reversal of the burden of proof' under Article XX of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (the General Exceptions clause), which would require that any party challenging a mandated
  774W
  MEA trade measure would have to prove that the measure does not meet the conditions of Article XX. The paper makes clear, however, that we have not reached a final conclusion on the merits of this option, and that we remain ready to consider any proposals made by other WTO members.

  We will continue to use all opportunities to engage with developing countries on this issue. We are funding the Commonwealth Secretariat to host a workshop on Trade and Sustainable Development, to which twenty Commonwealth countries including the UK have been invited, on 19–22 January 2001. The issue of the relationship between Multilateral Environmental Agreements and WTO rules will be one of the subjects discussed at the workshop.

  M25 (Essex)
  Mr. Pickles
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) what the most recent date was on which the signing of the strategic diversion routes through the Essex section of the M25 was checked for continuity and accuracy; and how often that signing is checked; [140467]

  (2) what discussions he has had with the Highways Agency about ensuring that the signing of the strategic diversion routes through the Essex section of the M25 is regularly maintained. [140466]

  Mr. Hill
  Responsibility for the maintenance of the `symbol' diversion signs from the M25 in Essex rests with the highway authority of the road on which the sign is placed. For trunk roads my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport, the Environment and Regions is Highway Authority and the Highways Agency acts on his behalf. The Highways Agency maintains the signs in accordance with an agreed code of practice. For other roads the local authority takes responsibility and Agents act on its behalf.

  The Highways Agency checked the symbol diversionary signs for the Essex section of the M25 for continuity and accuracy in 1998–99 and these were reviewed as part of the London Primary Route Signing Project in 1999.

  Train Protection Systems
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what estimate he has made of the cost of installing(a) the Train Protection Warning System and (b) the Automatic Train Protection System. [140420]

  Mr. Hill
  The only estimate made by the Secretary of State for installing the Train Protection and Warning System (TPWS) was as part of the regulatory impact assessment for the Railway Safety Regulations 1999, laid in the House in August 1999. This showed an estimated cost ranging between £130-£155 million. The Secretary of State has not made an estimate of the cost for installing Automatic Train Protection (ATP). More recent industry estimates suggest that the figure will be closer to £330 million for TPWS and in the order of £2 billion for ATP.

  Rail Maintenance Staff
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many maintenance staff were employed on track maintenance duty(a) by British Rail in the year before privatisation and (b) by Railtrack in September 2000. [140419]

  Mr. Hill
  The British Railways Board's Annual Report and Accounts 1995–96 show that 15,745 staff were employed by British Rail Infrastructure Services on infrastructure maintenance, track renewal and design duties.

  No maintenance staff were employed by Railtrack in September 2000. Upon privatisation, the former British Rail Infrastructure Services Units were transferred to other private sector companies.

  Rail Funding
  Mrs. Betty Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what funding was provided by Government to the United Kingdom rail industry in each year from 1997 to date; and what the value was of such funding for rail services to and within Wales. [140332]

  Mr. Hill
  Train operating companies (TOCs) receive Support for Passenger Rail Services (SPRS) from the Franchising Director and income from Passenger Transport Executives (PTEs) for rail passenger services in major conurbations. Also, freight operating companies (FOCs) receive freight grant payments from my Department. The first table shows the value of all three types of funding to all TOCs and FOCs in Great Britain in each year since 1996–97. The figures for 2000–01 are estimated outturns.

  Cash prices £ million

  Payments

  SPRS

  PTE

  Freight grant

  1996–97

  1,809

  291

  12

  1997–98

  1,429

  375

  21

  1998–99

  1,196

  337

  19

  1999–2000

  1,033

  312

  17

  2000–01

  913

  280

  16

  The second table shows Shadow Strategic Rail Authority estimates of the proportion of total SPRS payments which relates to train-miles travelled in Wales. There are no PTEs in Wales. Equivalent data for freight grants are not available.

  Cash prices £ million

  Payments—SPRS

  1996–97

  101

  1997–98

  77

  1998–99

  68

  1999–2000

  74

  2000–01

  n/a

  Coach Companies
  Mr. Wyatt
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many times 776W
  coach companies in the Isle of Sheppey have been investigated for safety reasons by the Vehicle Inspectorate in the past five years. [140324]

  Mr. Hill
  In the Isle of Sheppey, nine separate investigations in respect of four different coach companies have been carried out by the Vehicle Inspectorate in the past five years.

  Affordable Housing
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what increase in the number of affordable houses he expects in rural areas as a result of the planned change in approach of the Housing Corporation's Approved Development Programme. [140316]

  Mr. Mullin
  [holding answer 27 November 2000]: The Housing Corporation is implementing a more strategic approach to the distribution of the Approved Development Programme to ensure resources are targeted effectively to meet regional and local priorities. The number of affordable homes provided in rural areas will depend on regional and local assessments of housing need, as well as the measures for increasing affordable housing which has been set out in our Rural White Paper.

  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what targets he has set for the provision of affordable housing in drawing up the Rural White Paper. [140315]

  Mr. Mullin
  [holding answer 27 November 2000]: The Government recognise that in many areas there is a need for more affordable housing. That is why we shall be almost doubling funding for affordable housing through the Housing Corporation's Approved Development Programme over the next three years. Our Rural White Paper has set out our policies for affordable housing provision in rural areas.

  Mesothelioma
  Mr. Clapham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many deaths there were from mesothelioma and what the standard mortality rate was in each(a) county and (b) district, for the most recent year for which figures are available. [140761]

  Mr. Meacher
  The Health and Safety Executive maintains a register of deaths in Great Britain for which mesothelioma is mentioned on the death certificate. The latest year for which data are available is 1998.

  A paper produced by HSE's Epidemiology and Medical Statistics Unit (EMSU), `Mesothelioma area statistics: county districts in Great Britain 1986–1995' is the most up-to-date analysis of the mesothelioma register by the old local government structure (phased out between 1995–98), and is available in the Libraries of the House. No further analysis was undertaken during the progressive introduction of unitary authorities between 1995–98. The first complete year of mesothelioma deaths based on the new geography is 1998. A table showing the number of mesothelioma deaths in 1998 and the death rates (per million people) by the new government structure has been placed in the Libraries of the House.

  Finsbury Park Single Regeneration Budget
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what is the total Government expenditure on the Finsbury Park Single Regeneration Budget(a) to date and (b) estimated for its lifetime. [139982]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 27 November 2000]: The Finsbury Park Single Regeneration Budget scheme was approved on 1 December 1999. The projected Government expenditure for the financial year 2000– 01 is £2.54 million, and up until the end of June 2000 £490,464 had been spent in total. Total Government expenditure over the seven year life of the scheme is estimated at £25 million.

  Air Traffic Control
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he has held talks with the CAA about the capacity constraints, the hourly flow rates and general re-organisation agreed for area control and terminal control of NERC in the period January 2001 to December 2002. [140698]

  Mr. Mullin
  There are regular meetings between the CAA and the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions to discuss matters of mutual interest and concern. In turn, the CAA's Safety Regulation Group has responsibility for the safety regulatory oversight of the New En-Route Centre programme and the ongoing operation of the London Area and Terminal Control Centre at West Drayton. The New En-Route Centre will not enter operational service until the Safety Regulation Group has issued an approval, supported by the NATS Safety Case for the new centre. The Safety Regulation Group has also been involved in the oversight of the operational conversion training programme.

  From January 2001 to January 2002 there are not planned to be hourly flow rates for other than normal control of demand over capacity. Post January 2002, when Swanwick becomes operational, specific flow control measures will be implemented for a temporary period, while staff gain confidence in the new procedures and equipment. Thereafter, hourly flow rates will be applied for the normal control of demand over capacity.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the plans that have been made by NATS to protect low cost airlines from the effects of the cuts in capacity expected at the commencement of the New En-Route Centre. [140691]

  Mr. Mullin
  Airline operators have been briefed by NATS that there will be a reduction in capacity during the transfer of operations from West Drayton to Swanwick. This reduction in capacity will be a temporary measure while staff gain confidence with the new procedures and equipment they will be using at Swanwick. The reduction in capacity will be managed through the imposition of flow control measures which will be applied fairly to all operators.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what training programmes are in place to bring up to full complement 778W
  validated air traffic controllers at the London Area and Terminal Control Centre; and how long it will be before the training of new controllers is completed. [140689]

  Mr. Mullin
  NATS has an ongoing programme to recruit and train new air traffic controllers for NATS units throughout the UK. There is no shortage of staff to meet operational requirements in Area Control operations at the London Area and Terminal Control Centre at West Drayton in 2001. In addition, NATS has a full complement of 255 controllers to meet current operational requirement in the Terminal Control operation at West Drayton, although a slight shortfall, 10 to 14 controllers, is expected after the introduction of two new air traffic sectors in spring 2001.

  NATS plans to continue to increase the number of operational air traffic controllers in order to meet future operational requirements at the New En-Route Centre and elsewhere, and the anticipated pattern of retirements and resignations. A 50 per cent. increase in the intake of student controllers is planned next year and recruitment will continue at a high level for a number of years thereafter to meet forecast demand for increases in airspace capacity. Training controllers for West Drayton currently takes around three and a half years from entry into the College of Air Traffic Control.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what effect the commencement of the new training programme for air traffic controllers at the National En-Route Centre will have on the day-to-day work of the London Area and Terminal Control Centre; when the cuts in capacity following the introduction of NERC will take place; and what explanation has been offered to the airlines. [140690]

  Mr. Mullin
  The training of controllers for the New En-Route Centre will commence on 2 January 2001 and finish in January 2002. NATS currently has 360 air traffic controllers available to meet a budgeted requirement for 300 controllers in the Area Control operation at the London Area and Control Centre at West Drayton. This overbearing has been in place for some time in order to meet development requirements at the New En-Route Centre. Next year the overbearing will be used to provide cover for the operational conversion training programme. By June 2001, the actual number of controllers is anticipated to increase to 374.

  It is anticipated flow restrictions will be introduced on a temporary basis when the New En-Route Centre is introduced into operational service. This is a standard safety procedure which is applied whenever major new developments enter operational service, to enable staff to gain confidence in new procedures and equipment in the live operational environment. The conversion training programme is a complex exercise, the details of which have been communicated to the airlines.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if the New En-Route Centre at Swanwick will operate in all its planned sectors when it becomes operational in 2002. [140694]

  Mr. Mullin
  When the New En-Route Centre opens in January 2002 it will have procedures in place for up to 29 sectors, as is the case with the current Area Control operation at West Drayton. As is also the case at West
  779W
  Drayton, the actual number of sectors open at Swanwick will vary to match seasonal traffic demand, depending on the amount of traffic requiring an air traffic control service. It is anticipated that 24 to 26 of the 29 sectors will typically be open at any one time, though precisely which sectors are open will vary in accordance with traffic flows. These numbers generally match the numbers of sectors currently open at West Drayton.

  VED (Lorries)
  Mr. Lansley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if hauliers with a reduced pollution certificate will continue to receive the rebate to aid lorries meeting the most stringent emissions standards, in addition to the reduction in vehicle excise duty announced in the Chancellor's pre-Budget report 2000. [140650]

  Mr. Hill
  As indicated in the PBR, the reform of the structure of lorry VED and related issues, including reduced pollution certificates, are now subject to consultation with the road haulage industry and more widely. Discounts for vehicles that offer pollution advantages will continue to be part of the reformed package, subject to constraints such as EU minimum rates.

  Mr. Lansley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if all payments of the vehicle excise duty for lorries will be sent out by the target date of January 2001. [140652]

  Mr. Hill
  The Government have stated that notification of entitlement and invitations to apply for rebates will be sent to keepers of vehicles during December 2000 and January 2001, and that they intend that rebates will be sent to keepers within 28 days from the receipt of applications at DVLA. The Government will make every effort to meet those targets.

  Mr. Lansley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when the DVLA will be writing to hauliers inviting them to apply for a vehicle excise duty rebate; and if those renewing licences after 30 November will have to make a payment in full and receive a rebate at a later date. [140649]

  Mr. Hill
  We intend that all those entitled to rebates will receive notification as soon as possible after 30 November. The amount payable by those taking out licences with effect from 1 December onwards will be the statutory Vehicle Excise Duty less the amount of the rebate, so that there will be no need for a separate transaction to receive the rebate.

  Millennium Dome
  Mr. Norman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many times he has met Robert Bourne of Legacy plc(a) this year and (b) in previous years. [140717]

  Mr. Prescott
  I have met Robert Bourne on a number of occasions this year as part of the competition process for selling the Millennium Dome. I have not met him on any other occasion.
  780W
  Mr. Norman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) if the fee agreement with Lazard for the sale of the Millennium Dome is contingent on success; [140716]

  (2) what fees will be due to Lazards in the event of a successful sale of the Millennium Dome. [140715]

  Mr. Prescott
  The involvement of Lazard in the process for selling the Millennium Dome has concluded with the award of preferred bidder status to Legacy plc. The fees payable to Lazard were not dependent on either Legacy plc reaching preferred bidder status or an eventual successful sale of the Dome.

  Mr. Norman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what estimate his Department has made of the total cost of negotiating and finalising the sale of the Millennium Dome, broken down by fees paid to(a) merchant banks, (b) lawyers, (c) accountants and (d) other advisers. [140720]

  Mr. Prescott
  The breakdown of costs requested is commercially confidential, in order not to compromise future Government negotiations with professional firms about the provision of advice. The costs arising in all the categories listed will be met from within the budget for the Dome legacy competition. This is held by English Partnerships, and currently stands at £6.9 million.

  Road Fatalities
  Mr. Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions after what length of time a death from injuries following a road traffic accident ceases to be recorded as a fatal accident; and if he will make a statement. [140603]

  Mr. Hill
  A road accident is recorded as fatal if any casualty in that accident dies within 30 days of the accident. This is in accordance with the definition which is widely used internationally.

  Rail Safety
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the Rail Regulators' Review of Access Charges; what assessment he has made of the extent to which the Rail Regulators have complied with his obligation to promote the safety of the railway; and if he will place copies of documents relating to such an assessment in the Library. [140731]

  Mr. Hill
  [holding answer 28 November 2000]: I will write to the hon. Member and place a copy of my letter in the Libraries of the House.

  Marine Nature Conservation
  Mrs. Brinton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the geographic extent of the review of Marine Nature Conservation with regards to(a) distance offshore and (b) marine nature conservation in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. [140935]

  Mr. Mullin
  The original Terms of Reference for the Review of Marine Nature Conservation were to consider issues to the limit of UK Territorial Waters. However,
  781W
  since then the Review's Terms of Reference have been extended to allow consideration to issues up to the limit of UK jurisdiction, that is the UK Continental Shelf and superjacent waters to a limit of 200 nautical miles from baselines.

  The devolved Administrations have responsibility for marine nature conservation up to the limit of Territorial Waters, subject to the requirements to meet international and European obligations.

  Mrs. Brinton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what the timetable is for his Department's review of marine nature conservation. [140936]

  Mr. Mullin
  The Working Group of the Review of Marine Nature Conservation was originally due to report its findings to Ministers by the end of this year. However, since that timetable was agreed the Review's Terms of Reference have been extended to include consideration of issues beyond UK Territorial Waters to the limit of UK jurisdiction. In view of this, the timetable for reporting on the outcome of the Review has been extended and the Working Group is now expected to report on its consideration of issues to the extent of UK Territorial Waters during the first quarter of next year. The Working Group's final report, taking into account issues to the limit of UK jurisdiction, will be presented to Ministers by the end of summer next year.

  Road Fund Licence
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions to what point will the road fund licence rebates to the registered keeper in respect of cars under 1500 cc be backdated; and if he will make a statement. [140938]

  Mr. Hill
  My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced in the pre-Budget report his intention that the increase to 1500cc in the threshold for the lower rate of vehicle excise duty for cars will be backdated to November 2000. Detailed arrangements will be subject to consultation with the motoring organisations.

  Rents
  Mr. Coleman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list for(a) England and (b) London the average rent in (i) 1989–90, (ii) 1992–93, (iii) 1995–96, (iv) 1998–99 and (v) 1999–2000 (A) in pounds per week and (B) as a percentage of the relevant bottom quartile and bottom decile male earnings for (1) the average council dwelling, (2) the average housing association dwelling and (3) the average three room dwelling rented by a private tenant claiming Housing Benefit referred to the rent officer. [140997]

  Mr. Mullin
  The available figures are given in the table. The earnings figures used in the answer are of full-time manual male employees. In many cases tenants will have much or all of the rent met by Housing Benefit.
  782W

  Local authority rents

  Average rent

  Rent expressed as percentage of:

  Year

  £ per week

  lower decile earnings

  lower quartile earnings

  England

  1989–90

  20.86

  14.8

  11.7

  1992–93

  30.84

  19.1

  15.2

  1995–96

  38.41

  22.0

  17.5

  1998–99

  42.33

  21.7

  17.3

  1999–2000

  43.92

  n/a

  n/a

  London

  1989–90

  24.65

  16.0

  12.2

  1992–93

  41.777

  23.5

  18.3

  1995–96

  50.76

  27.4

  21.0

  1998–99

  55.44

  27.1

  20.6

  1999–2000

  58.00

  n/a

  n/a

  Note

  The local authority average weekly unrebated rent per financial year

  Housing Association/RSL rents

  Average rent

  Rent expressed as percentage of:

  Year

  £ per week

  lower decile earnings

  lower quartile earnings

  England

  1989–90

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  1992–93

  34.44

  21.3

  17.0

  1995–96

  44.00

  25.2

  20.0

  1998–99

  51.68

  26.5

  21.1

  1999–2000

  52.95

  n/a

  n/a

  London

  1989–90

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  1992–93

  40.25

  22.5

  17.7

  1995–96

  50.28

  27.1

  20.8

  1998–99

  59.28

  29.0

  22.0

  1999–2000

  61.36

  n/a

  n/a

  Notes

  The above figures are net weekly rents, excluding service charges

  The 1992–93 figures for London is indicative only

  The 1999–2000 figures are provisional and unpublished

  Source

  Housing Corporation, HAR/10 and RSR

  Average rent paid by private tenants claiming housing benefit and referred to a rent officer

  Average rent

  Rent expressed as percentage of:

  Year

  £ per week

  lower decile earnings

  lower quartile earnings

  England

  1989–90

  40.23

  28.5

  22.6

  1992–93

  59.88

  37.1

  29.6

  1995–96

  69.73

  39.9

  31.7

  1998–99

  72.84

  37.4

  29.7

  1999–2000

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  London

  1989–90

  57.62

  37.3

  28.5

  1992–93

  82.62

  46.3

  36.3

  1995–96

  97.23

  52.5

  40.3

  1998–99

  108.89

  53.2

  40.4

  1999–2000

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  Note

  The above figures are the average rents determined for benefit purposes and cover all private lettings and all sizes of dwelling referred to rent officers

  Source

  Rent Officer Statistics, published by DETR

  Housing Subsidy
  Mr. Coleman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list for each local authority in England(a) the amount of housing HRA subsidy payable in 2000–01, (i) in total and (ii) per dwelling and (b) the projected figures for 2001–02. [140998]

  Mr. Mullin
  I have placed a table in the Library showing the latest figures for Housing Revenue Account subsidy payable in 2000–01. This is based on local authority estimates as reported in their advance subsidy claims. The figures will, therefore, be subject to change following receipt of audited outturn figures in due course. Figures for 2001–02 are not yet available.

  Mr. Coleman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how much was the estimated overall revenue subsidy including Housing Benefit in each of the last 10 financial years in England(a) per council dwelling and (b) per private rented dwelling where the tenant was in receipt of Housing Benefit. [141005]

  Mr. Mullin
  The figures requested are shown in the table. The Housing Revenue Account Subsidy figures include both the housing and rent rebate elements. The figures for the private rented sector (which includes registered social landlords) show the average rent allowance subsidy per claimant.

  £

  Financial year

  Housing revenue account subsidy per council dwelling

  Rent allowance subsidy per claimant

  1990–91

  922

  1,294

  1991–92

  964

  1,635

  1992–93

  1,036

  2,001

  1993–94

  1,100

  2,248

  1994–95

  1,137

  2,445

  1995–96

  1,130

  2,594

  1996–97

  1,154

  2,682

  1997–98

  1,124

  2,757

  1998–99

  1,026

  2,811

  1999–2000 (Provisional)

  1,085

  2,875

  Note

  Rent allowance subsidy has been calculated on the assumption that central Government meet 95 per cent. of the amount received by the tenant. Weekly averages have been converted to annual amounts, but individual claimants will not necessarily receive benefit for a whole year

  Housing Investment
  Mr. Coleman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the total gross investment in housing for each of the OECD countries for(a) 1979–80, (b) 1989–90 and (c) 1999–2000 expressed as (i) a percentage of GDP and (ii) in pounds per million households. [140999]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  I have been asked to reply. The information requested falls within the responsibility of the National Statistician. I have asked him to reply.
  784W
  Letter from John Pullinger to Mr. lain Coleman, dated 30 November 2000

  The National Statistician has been asked to reply to your recent question on the total gross investment in housing for each of the OECD countries for (a) 1979–80, (b) 1989–90 and (c) 1999–2000 expressed as (i) a percentage of GDP and (ii) in pounds per million households (140999). I am replying in his absence.

  Data, on an annual calendar basis, are available from the OECD Economic Outlook Database for investment in housing.

  Council Housing
  Mr. Coleman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list for(a) England and (b) each London borough for the years (i) 1979–80, (ii) 1985–86, (iii) 1990–91, (iv) 1993–94, (v) 1996–97 and (vi) 1999–2000, (A) the number of lettings, including nominations to housing associations by councils to new applicants, (B) the number of such lettings and dwellings of two or more bedrooms, (C) the number of acceptances of households as priority homeless and (D) the number of such acceptances where there were dependent children or a pregnant woman. [141000]

  Mr. Mullin
  I have placed in the Libraries of the House a table presenting the information requested.

  Improvement and Development Agency
  Mr. Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what has been the annual turnover of the Improvement and Development Agency; and how much funding it has received to date from(a) central Government and (b) local authorities. [140794]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 29 November 2000]: From its establishment in April 1999, the Improvement and Development Agency's (IDeA's) turnover and its make-up are as follows:

  £

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  Turnover

  19,703,000

  125,516,000

  Revenue Support Grant (England)

  10,685,192

  14,939,300

  Local authority subscriptions

  1,123,800

  1,151,900

  Sales and other income (from specific projects and trading activities)

  7,894,008

  19,424,800

  1Estimated

  A substantial proportion of the IDeA's sales are to local authorities.

  Neighbourhood Warden Schemes
  Dr. Stoate
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what mechanism has been established to evaluate the performance of schemes supported by the fund to promote new neighbourhood warden schemes; and if he will make a statement. [140990]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  The Neighbourhood Wardens' Unit will be managing the programme. The Government Offices are responsible for monitoring the performance of schemes within their region. The Neighbourhood Wardens' Unit have recently let a contract to Crime Concern and Social Development Direct. They will
  785W
  provide independent national evaluation to all schemes that receive funding from the neighbourhood wardens' programme.

  Dr. Stoate
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he will announce the allocation of the fund to promote new neighbourhood warden schemes in 2000–01 to 2002–03; and when new applications for funding starting in 2001–02 can be submitted. [140989]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  The Neighbourhood Wardens' programme is being jointly funded by the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions and the Home Office. There is a budget of £13.5 million over three years until March 2002–03. My hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Clarke), the Champion Minister, announced the results of the first tranche of bidding on 18 September. Funding totalling £7.52 million will go to 45 schemes in England and five schemes in Wales. A decision on a further 42 schemes has been deferred to allow further development of their Implementation Plans.
  As yet, no decision has been taken on a second bidding round.

  Housing New Lettings (London)
  Mr. Austin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what estimate he has made of the number of new lettings available to London councils in housing provided by(a) local authorities and (b) registered social landlords in each of the last five years. [140866]

  Mr. Mullin
  The available information is as follows:

  New lettings provided in London by boroughs and registered social landlords

  London boroughs

  RSLs

  Total new lettings

  1995–96

  40,150

  11,500

  51,650

  1996–97

  40,440

  9,300

  49,740

  1997–98

  37,320

  8,280

  45,600

  1998–99

  32,250

  8,310

  40,560

  1999–2000

  28,060

  8,040

  36,100

  Notes

  1. New lettings exclude transfers of existing LA or RSL tenants other than some 200 RSL tenant transfers to London boroughs' stock.

  2. London borough lettings include both secure and non-secure (eg introductory) tenancies.

  Source:

  DETR Housing Investment Programme returns Housing Corporation CORE returns.

  A17 (Public Lavatories)
  Sir Richard Body
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many public lavatories for which he is responsible there are on the A17 road; and what proposals he has for their future. [141199]

  Mr. Hill
  The Secretary of State is responsible for one public lavatory on the A17. This is at the Carter Plot picnic site, East Heckington, Lincolnshire. Options for its 786
  future are being considered. The views of the local authorities will be taken into account before decisions are taken.

  Drink Driving
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment he has made of the impact of continuing disruption of rail services on the number of drink driving offences this winter. [140923]

  Mr. Hill
  I have not made any such assessment. Railtrack is working to complete the track recovery programme as quickly as it can so that train services can be restored to normal as soon as possible.

  Maritime Pollution
  Mr. Alan Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment he has made of the appropriateness of the Tyne and Wear Oil Pollution Contingency Plan to deal with a major maritime pollution incident. [141184]

  Mr. Hill
  The Local Authority Tyne and Wear Oil Pollution Contingency Plan was submitted to the Coastguard Agency in 1995. It was updated in December 1999 by the merged Maritime and Coastguard Agency (MCA). In light of the revision of the National Contingency Plan (NCP) for marine pollution from shipping and offshore installations, published in February 2000, the MCA wrote to each maritime Local Authority asking for a status update on their oil pollution plans. Once a response has been received from Tyne and Wear Emergency Planning Unit the MCA will assess the appropriateness of this plan.

  Mr. Alan Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to improve preparations to deal with major maritime pollution incidents by(a) increasing the Civil Defence Specific Grant, (b) increasing funding by the Maritime and Coastguard Agency and (c) placing a statutory duty on local authorities to prepare and respond to such incidents. [141185]

  Mr. Hill
  (a) Civil Defence Specific Grant is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department.

  (b) Adequate funding has already been provided to allow the Maritime and Coastguard Agency to undertake its role in preparing, and assisting other bodies to prepare, for major maritime pollution incidents. This role includes implementing the "National Contingency Plan for Marine Pollution from Shipping and Offshore Installations" and contributing to the overall effectiveness of the "National Contingency Plan" by conducting exercises with local authorities, training contingency planners and providing stockpiles of material and equipment needed to combat pollution.

  (c) The matter is still under active consideration.

  Building Regulations
  Sir Sydney Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he expects to receive recommendations from the Building
  787W
  Regulations Advisory Committee regarding changes to part L of the Building Regulations; and if he will make a statement. [140863]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  Proposals to change Part L of the Building Regulations were put out to public consultation in June this year, and over 350 responses have been received. These proposals are now being re-examined by my Department in conjunction with the Building Regulations Advisory Committee, and I hope to receive the Committee's recommendations in the first half of next year.

  Local Government Pension Scheme
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to enable a pension to be paid under the local government pension scheme to one nominated financial dependant where there is no spouse; and if he will make a statement. [140913]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  The Government's White Paper "Partnership in Pensions" in December 1998 explained that if the general membership of a public service scheme such as the Local Government Pension Scheme wanted in future to provide survivor benefits for partners other than a legal spouse, and were prepared to meet the additional costs, we would consider how this might be achieved. My Department is currently liaising with the Employers' Organisation and the Trade Union representatives, who are working up joint proposals, about how an amendment to the scheme might be introduced which will not adversely impact on local authority employers' pension costs.

  Railway Network (South Nottinghamshire)
  Mr. Coaker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment he has made of Nottinghamshire County Council's plans for the South Nottinghamshire Railway Network. [141108]

  Mr. Hill
  The South Nottinghamshire Rail Network was included as part of the proposals for local heavy rail network development within the Greater Nottingham Local Transport Plan submitted jointly in July 2000 by Nottinghamshire County Council and Nottingham City Council. The plan made clear that the authorities and their partners, including Derbyshire County Council, the Train Operating Companies and Railtrack, are continuing to develop their proposals.

  I understand that a pre-qualification bid for the South Notts Rail Network submitted to the shadow Strategic Rail Authority under the Rail Passenger Partnership scheme has been successful. It is now for the respective partners in the scheme to work up a detailed bid.

  Mr. Coaker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment he has made of the proposed extension of the South Nottinghamshire Railway Network to include Gedling. [141109]

  Mr. Hill
  While the Greater Nottingham Local Transport Plan did contain an outline proposal to provide rail access to Gedling, it remains for the partners in the South Nottinghamshire Rail Network scheme to submit further details to the sSRA in support of an RPP bid.

  Foreign-owned Vehicles
  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what steps are taken by his Department to check the roadworthiness of foreign-owned trucks and trailers arriving at sea ports. [140910]

  Mr. Hill
  Records of the checks of foreign-owned trucks and trailers by the Vehicle Inspectorate do not identify where the location was a port.

  In the year 1999–2000, 3,684 such vehicles were checked for roadworthiness and 314 prohibitions were issued.

  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many prosecutions there have been in each of the last three years of(a) drivers and (b) owners of foreign-owned trucks and trailers found to be unroadworthy on arrival at sea ports. [140911]

  Mr. Hill
  Roadworthiness checks on foreign vehicles are carried out by the Vehicle Inspectorate's vehicle examiners who prohibit rather prosecute as this is a more effective sanction. Records of these checks do not identify where the location was a port. In the year 1999–2000, 3,684 such vehicles were checked for roadworthiness and 314 prohibitions were issued. In 1998–99, 3,498 vehicles were checked and 301 prohibitions issued, and in 1997–98, 5,343 vehicles were checked and 354 prohibitions issued.

  Modified Agricultural Crops
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he last met representations of the Supply Chain Initiative for Modified Agricultural Crops. [141120]

  Mr. Mullin
  My right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment met representatives of SCIMAC on 29 November.

  Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the role and purpose of the Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment. [141119]

  Mr. Mullin
  The Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment (ACRE) is a statutory science and technical committee formed under section 124 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990.

  ACRE advises the UK Government, the devolved Administrations and the Health and Safety Commission/Executive on the risks posed to human health and the environment from the deliberate release of genetically modified organisms. The Committee also advises on the release of non-native plants and animals covered by sections 14 and 16 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981.

  ACRE members are independent and appointed purely for their scientific and technical expertise. The Committee meets approximately eight times each year and the Agenda and Minutes of the meetings are published on the

  789W
  Internet at www.environment.detr.gov.uk/acre/index.htm. Further information about the role, purpose and activities of ACRE, its membership and full Terms of Reference may be found in the Committee's 1999 Annual Report, a copy of which is in the House Library, as well as on the website above.

  Norfolk and Norwich Hospital (Transport)
  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what joint assessment he has made with the University of East Anglia on bus routes to the Norfolk and Norwich hospital. [140924]

  Mr. Hill
  The Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions has made no joint assessment with the University of East Anglia on bus routes to the Norfolk and Norwich Hospital. Public transport access is a matter for Norfolk County Council, as the local transport authority, to discuss with the Hospital Trust and the commercial operators. It is important that solutions to local transport problems are developed locally.

  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what discussions he has had with the East Anglian Ambulance Service on road transport to the Norfolk and Norwich hospital. [140919]

  Mr. Hill
  The Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions has had no discussions with the East Anglian Ambulance Service on road transport to the Norfolk and Norwich Hospital. It is the responsibility of Norfolk County Council, as the local transport authority, to discuss with the East Anglian Ambulance Service the matter of road transport to the hospital.

  Local Traffic Flows (Norwich)
  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what further assessment the Highways Agency has made of local traffic flow following the employment of the Norwich Research Park facilities. [140927]

  Mr. Hill
  I have asked the Chief Executive of the Highways Agency, Mr. Tim Matthews, to write to my hon. Friend.

  Letter from Tim Matthews to Dr. Ian Gibson, dated 30 November 2000

  The Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions has asked me to reply to your recent question.

  The Highways Agency has not carried out an assessment of local traffic flow following the employment of the Norwich Research Park facilities.

  If you wish to discuss this matter further please contact Alan Kirkdale, Highways Agency's Area Manager, telephone 01234 796095.

  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what further assessment he has made of the local traffic flow since the planning of a medical school adjacent to the Norfolk and Norwich hospital. [140926]

  Mr. Hill
  The Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions has made no assessment of the traffic flow since the planning of a medical school 790W
  adjacent to the Norfolk and Norwich Hospital. Assessment of the local traffic flow is a matter for Norfolk County Council as the local transport authority to address.

  National Parks
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list for the years(a) 1979–80, (b) 1989–90 and (c) 1998–99, (i) the number of visitors to, (ii) the budget of and (iii) the spend per visitor at each national park. [141116]

  Mr. Mullin
  The Government grant for each National Park in England and Wales was:

  Park

  1979–80 £000

  1989–90 £000

  1998–99 £000

  1994 visitor survey1 Million

  Brecon Beacons

  297

  818

  1,942

  3.7

  Broads1

  —

  900

  1,500

  5.4

  Dartmoor

  399

  1,117

  1,942

  3.8

  Exmoor

  262

  916

  1,607

  1.4

  Lake District

  709

  1,742

  2,836

  13.9

  Northumberland

  251

  560

  1,184

  1.4

  North York Moors

  370

  1,112

  2,179

  7.8

  Peak District

  909

  2,462

  4,060

  12.4

  Pembrokeshire

  323

  989

  2,098

  4.7

  Snowdonia

  431

  1,311

  2,654

  6.6

  Yorkshire Dales

  449

  1,155

  2,104

  8.3

  Total

  5,1543

  13,082

  24,106

  69.4

  1'Visitors to National Parks', Countryside Commission, 1996, ISBN 086170 46812 Broads Authority created in 1988.

  3Includes a separate publicity budget for all Parks of £754,000

  The grant figures do not include local authority contributions to Park Authorities (usually one-third of Government grant) or other sources of finance, e.g. EU funding.

  The visitor figures come from the only national survey for all parks, which was produced in 1994. The totals for the Peak District, Lake District and Snowdonia are considered to be substantial under-estimates. A new national survey of park visitors is expected in the next UK Day Visits Survey, which is due to be undertaken in 2001. A number of Park Authorities carry out their own regular surveys, but that information is not held centrally. It is therefore not possible to produce a comparison of Park Authority spend per visitor.

  Environment Agency
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how much was spent in the earliest and most recent years for which figures are available by the Environment Agency in each of its administrative areas. [141038]

  Mr. Mullin
  The information is as follows.

  £ million

  Environment Agency region

  1996–97

  1999–2000

  Anglian

  96.2

  92.1

  North East

  66.7

  70.7

  North West

  49.6

  65.9

  Midlands

  65.2

  70.6

  Southern

  46.5

  50.4

  South West

  56.1

  54.6

  Thames

  92.8

  141.0

  Wales

  43.6

  48.7

  Rural Post Offices
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what representations he has received on the application of climate change levy charges to rural post offices as customers of Northern Electric and Gas; and if he will make a statement. [140880]

  Mr. Meacher
  The Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions has not received any representations from rural post offices regarding climate change levy charges. The climate change levy will take effect on 1 April 2001 and will apply to all of the non domestic sector. The levy will play a major role in helping the UK to meet its targets for reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he will reply to the question of 2 November from the hon. Member for Hull, North; and if he will place in the Library a copy of the Sykes' Accommodation report on the implications of closing the Hull Office of the HSE. [141107]

  Mr. Meacher
  I replied to my hon. Friend's question today, Official Report, columns 756–57W.

  Community Transport Services
  Judy Mallaber
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he will extend fuel duty rebate to community transport services as announced in Transport 2010-the Ten Year Plan. [141002]

  Mr. Hill
  We are taking forward the commitment announced in "Transport 2010" that we would work up proposals for extending fuel duty rebate to a wider range of community transport services. We shall be consulting on these proposals shortly with the intention of having new rules in place for the 2001––02 financial year.

  Urban Capacity
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will require local authorities to publish their urban capacity reports. [140904]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  Forthcoming good practice guidance to local authorities will advise authorities to take account of the views of interested parties and potential users in preparing urban housing capacity studies. It is expected that local authorities will publish these studies and the guidance will advise them to do so.

  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions which local authorities in Hampshire have completed an urban capacity study. [140905]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  Hampshire County Council undertook a co-ordinated urban capacity study for the whole of the county in 1998 for the County Structure Plan. Since then five authorities have completed their own urban capacity studies and a further six have studies which are under way.
  792W
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will instruct local authorities not to identify any reserve sites for new building until all authorities in a planning region have completed urban capacity studies. [140903]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  Our planning guidance for housing (PPG3) states that all local authorities should undertake urban housing capacity studies. They should take account of such studies in updating their local plans. All sites proposed for housing development should be tested against the policies set out in PPG3.

  Starter Home Initiative
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if Hampshire Police are included in the Government's Starter Home Initiative for key public workers. [140946]

  Mr. Mullin
  We announced in July that £250 million would be available over the next three years to fund the Starter Home Initiative. This will help key workers on modest incomes to buy their own homes in high price, high demand areas while helping their employers to address their recruitment needs. We will be announcing further details of the scheme, and inviting bids for funding, in the near future.

  Packaging Waste
  Mr. Bill O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what percentage of packaging waste that is currently reprocessed is generated from(a) industrial waste, (b) retail waste and (c) local authorities; and if he will make a statement. [141178]

  Mr. Mullin
  Businesses that are obligated to recover and recycle specified tonnages of packaging waste under the Producer Responsibility Obligations (Packaging Waste) Regulations are not required to establish whether the packaging waste is derived from the commercial, industrial or household waste stream. However, of the tonnages of packaging waste that flow into the waste stream in the UK, the amounts of each of the main packaging materials that arise as waste in(a) the commercial/industrial and (b) the household (i.e. collected by local authorities) waste stream are as follows:

  Commercial/industrial stream (%)

  Household waste stream (%)

  Total tonnage in waste stream

  Paper

  87.5

  12.5

  3,855,000

  Glass

  16

  84

  2,200,000

  Aluminium

  5

  95

  120,000

  Steel

  29

  71

  750,000

  Plastics

  35

  65

  1,678,900

  As targets for recovery and recycling of packaging waste rise, it is likely that greater amounts of packaging waste from the household waste stream will be collected and recovered.

  Mr. Bill O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment he has made of progress towards achieving his target of
  793W
  a 28 per cent. increase in the recovery and recycling of packaging materials up to the end of 2001; and if he will make a statement. [141179]

  Mr. Mullin
  When the Producer Responsibility Obligations (Packaging Waste) Regulations 1997 Regulations came into force, recovery was at 30 per cent. of which recycling made up around 27 per cent. By the end of 1999 we had reached 38 per cent. recovery and we expect to reach 50 per cent. in 2001 in line with the EC Directive target. We are already meeting the Directive's recycling target of 25 per cent.

  Businesses obligated under the packaging Regulations have been working towards the target levels of packaging waste recovery in the EC Directive on Packaging and Packaging Waste since the Regulations came into force in 1997. The Directive requires the UK to recover 50 per cent. of packaging waste by 2001. In our estimation, the UK's recovery of packaging waste will have to increase from around 38 per cent. at the end of 1999 to reach 50 per cent. in 2001, i.e. an increase of some 12 percentage points or, in tonnage terms, just over one million tonnes. We would expect further progress to be made in the course of 2000 but final figures for 2000 will not be available until mid 2001.

  Mr. Bill O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the impact of the Producer Responsibility Obligations (Packaging Waste) Regulations 1997 on the recovery and recycling infrastructure in the last three years. [141180]

  Mr. Mullin
  In the three full years in which the recovery and recycling obligations under the Producer Responsibility Obligations (Packaging Waste) Regulations 1997 have been in effect, the recovery and recycling infrastructure in the UK has had to develop to deal with increasing amounts of reprocessing in order to meet interim targets under the Regulations.

  The following table shows the interim targets in the packaging Regulations, the tonnage of packaging waste estimated to flow into the waste stream in each of the three years, and the amounts of packaging waste recovered and recycled.

  1998

  1999

  2000

  Targets (recovery and recycling)—percentage

  38

  43

  45

  7

  10

  13

  Tonnage in waste stream—million tonnes

  10.2

  9.2

  9.2

  Recovery (recycling)—tonnes

  3,338,705

  3,497,647

  12,577,982

  (2,890,351)

  (3,006,342)

  —

  1Up to end September 2000 only

  In 2001, the tonnage of packaging flowing into the UK waste stream is estimated at 9.3 million tonnes, 50 per cent. of which must be recovered if the Directive targets are to be met. The UK recovery and recycling infrastructure will therefore have to deliver some 4.65 million tonnes of packaging waste recovery next year.

  Mobile Phone Base Stations
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he expects to publish the results of the consultation on mobile phone base stations. [141073]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  The 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 our conclusions as soon as practicable.

  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what estimate he has made of the number of mobile phone base stations that have been relocated because of concerns about their proximity to(a) schools and (b) dwellings. [141074]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  The Department has made no such estimate.

  Recycled Materials
  Mr. Ruane
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what was the total amount of(a) glass, (b) paper, (c) aluminium and
  (d) plastic recycled in the United Kingdom in each of the last 20 years. [141142]

  Mr. Mullin
  We do not hold the total amounts of recycling carried out in each of these materials over the last 20 years and the information can be obtained only at a disproportionate cost. However, information on previous years' recycling for these materials can be found in the Digest of Environmental Statistics Number 20, copies of which are available in the House Library.

  Mercury
  Mr. Ruane
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how much mercury he estimates has been released into the atmosphere from crematoria in the United Kingdom in each of the past 20 years; and if he will make a statement. [141192]

  Mr. Hill
  The National Atmospheric Emissions Inventory estimates the figures for mercury emissions from crematoria since 1978 as follows:

  Year

  Crematoria (tonnes mercury emitted)

  UK total

  Crematoria as percentage of UK total

  1978

  1.8

  39.7

  4

  1979

  2.0

  41.7

  5

  1980

  1.3

  37.4

  3

  1981

  1.3

  36.6

  3

  1982

  1.3

  34.0

  4

  1983

  1.3

  32.6

  4

  1984

  1.3

  30.6

  4

  1985

  1.3

  33.9

  4

  1986

  1.3

  33.0

  4

  1987

  1.3

  31.7

  4

  1988

  1.3

  32.9

  4

  1989

  1.3

  31.9

  4

  1990

  1.3

  31.4

  4

  1991

  1.3

  32.2

  4

  1992

  1.3

  30.6

  4

  1993

  1.4

  24.5

  6

  795W

  Year

  Crematoria (tonnes mercury emitted)

  UK total

  Crematoria as percentage of UK total

  1994

  1.3

  23.6

  6

  1995

  1.3

  18.2

  7

  1996

  1.3

  14.6

  9

  1997

  1.3

  12.9

  10

  1998

  1.3

  12.4

  11

  Total contribution

  38.8

  953.7

  4

  My Department is currently reviewing the existing statutory guidance which addresses air pollution from all sectors regulated by local authorities under Part I of the Environmental Protection Act 1990, including that for crematoria.

  Blue Green Algae
  Mr. Ruane
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many(a) lakes, (b) rivers and (c) waterways have been affected by blue-green algae in each of the past 20 years; and if he will make a statement. [141190]

  Mr. Mullin
  Data are only available since 1991, and the Environment Agency does not collate information in the format requested. The following table shows for each of the last nine years the total number of water bodies in England and Wales which the Environment Agency is aware have suffered from blue-green algae, either through

  Number of water supply disconnections made by water undertakers for non-payment of a water bill

  (a) Total disconnections

  (b) Non-households

  (c) Households

  Percentage of households

  1989–90

  n/a

  n/a

  8,426

  10.042

  1990–91

  n/a

  n/a

  7,673

  10.038

  1991–92

  n/a

  n/a

  21,282

  10.105

  1992–93

  21,735

  3,099

  18,636

  10.092

  1993–94

  15,088

  2,636

  12,452

  10.062

  1994–95

  12,832

  2,785

  10,047

  10.050

  1995–96

  7,822

  1,996

  5,826

  10.029

  1996–97

  4,691

  1,543

  3,148

  0.016

  1997–98

  3,681

  1,774

  1,907

  0.009

  1998–99

  2,877

  1,748

  1,129

  0.005

  1999–2000

  3,582

  3,455

  2127

  0.001

  n/a = Not available

  1Totals numbers of households before 1 April 1996 are estimated

  2Number to 30 June 1999, when household disconnections for non-payment were made unlawful by the Water Industry Act 1999

  Notes

  Information has not been kept in the form above for 1980–89 (before privatisation)

  No figures are available of disconnections caused by cut-off valves in pre-payment units

  Sewage Works
  Mr. Ruane
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many sewage works have breached United Kingdom pollution limits, ranked by the responsible water company in descending order, for each of the past 20 years. [141212]

  Mr. Mullin
  I will write to my hon. Friend with the available data and place a copy of my letter in the Libraries of the House.
  796W
  the Agency's own regular monitoring programme or throgh investigating reports recived from members of the public.

  Year

  Number of water bodies where blue-green algae confirmed

  1991

  269

  1992

  248

  1993

  195

  1994

  245

  1995

  271

  1996

  220

  1997

  249

  1998

  211

  1999

  172

  Sewage Works

    Water (Disconnections)
    Mr. Ruane
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many(a) customers, (b) business customers and (c) private customers have been disconnected by water companies in the United Kingdom in each of the past 20 years; and what proportion of households is represented by customers in (c). [141208]

    Mr. Mullin
    Under the Water Industry Act 1999, the Government have ended water companies' right to disconnect household customers for non-payment of bills.

    The Office of Water Services have the following figures for disconnection in England and Wales. Regulation of the water industry in Scotland and in Northern Ireland is fully devolved.

    Domestic Air Fares
    Mr. Sheerman
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what powers he has to set limits on domestic air fares; and if he will make a statement. [141171]

    Mr. Mullin
    Domestic air fares in the UK are subject to Council Regulation 2409/92 on fares and rates for air services, which provides for Community air carriers to set fares at the levels they wish and to enter the markets they wish without restriction. The Regulation allows member states to withdraw a basic fare which is considered, in the
    797W
    light of all relevant factors, to be excessively high in relation to the costs of providing the service, and to take action against predatory pricing.

    These provisions do not apply to fares established by public service obligation in accordance with Council Regulation 2408/92 on access by Community air carriers to intra-Community air routes. Member states may impose a public service obligation in respect of scheduled air services to an airport serving peripheral or development regions within its territory, or on a thin route to any regional airport, such route being considered vital for the economic development of the region, to the extent necessary to ensure the adequate provision of services satisfying fixed standards of continuity, regularity, capacity and pricing, which standards air carriers would not assume if they were solely considering their commercial interest, and may reimburse carriers for meeting these standards. A public service obligation may therefore include a tariff obligation limiting fare levels or requiring concessionary fares for certain categories of passenger.

    Pesticides
    Mr. Gareth R. Thomas
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what action he is taking to encourage a reduced use of pesticides. [141027]

    Mr. Mullin
    The Department (together with MAFF's Pesticides Safety Directorate) provides the secretariat for the Pesticides Forum which brings together organisations with an interest in the use of pesticides and their impact. The Forum's primary purpose is to advise on and promote responsible pesticide use. The Government have been exploring with the agrochemical industry whether the objective of minimising the adverse environmental impact of pesticide use could be achieved through a partnership approach. The industry has proposed a package of voluntary measures, but the Government believe these still fail to meet a number of concerns raised in the recent consultation exercise. The Government would like to see further improvements and will be holding discussions with the Crop Protection Association on developing a more substantial package in the run up to Budget 2001.

    Exotic and Dangerous Animals
    Dr. Tonge
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to control further the sale of exotic and dangerous animals in pet shops; and if he will make a statement. [140828]

    Mr. Mullin
    The Government have no immediate plans to extend their controls on the sale of these animals but will look at this issue again when their review of the Dangerous Wild Animals Act 1976 is completed next April.

    United Airlines Boeing 767–300
    Dr. Tonge
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what discussions he has had with the Civil Aviation Authority concerning the risk of fire on United Airlines Boeing 767-300 flying into Heathrow on 9 January 1998; and if he will make a statement. [140918]
    798W
    Mr. Mullin
    This incident was investigated by the Department's Air Accidents Investigation Branch and copies of their report, which was published on 2 November, have been placed in the Library. As the aircraft involved in this incident was on the US aircraft register and operated by a US airline, it is regulated by the US Federal Aviation Administration and not the Civil Aviation Authority. The majority of the recommendations contained in the report were addressed to the aircraft manufacturer and the FAA. However, the CAA has accepted recommendations 99–50 and 99–51 and has initiated appropriate action.

    Energy Efficiency
    Mr. Wigley
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) what the average Standard Assessment Procedure rating is for energy efficiency in homes in England; [141022]

    (2) how many homes in England have a Standard Assessment Procedure rate of below 20 for energy efficiency in the home. [141023]

    Mr. Meacher
    The Standard Assessment Procedure (SAP) rating is designed to reflect the energy efficiency of a dwelling. It runs from 1 (highly inefficient) to 100 (highly efficient).

    Data from the English House Condition Survey show that in 1996 the average SAP rating of the housing stock was just under 44 SAP points; and that 1.5 million households had a SAP rating of below 20.

    Excise Duty
    Mr. Wigley
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what steps he is taking to ensure that new vehicle excise duty forms for applications for lower excise duty are available to road hauliers throughout the United Kingdom; and if restrospective applications for lower excise duty will be accepted in cases where vehicle excise duty forms are not available. [141013]

    Mr. Hill
    In Great Britain, V85/1 and V11 licence renewal reminders that have or will be sent to hauliers in respect of licences expiring at the end of November and December 2000 have already been produced and quote the full rate of Vehicle Excise Duty. However, when hauliers apply for a new licence using these forms at one of DVLA's local offices, the lower rate will be applied. Reminder issues from January 2001 will quote the lower rate. Similar arrangements will apply in Northern Ireland.

    Railtrack
    Mr. Campbell-Savours
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) if bulging in railway line products supplied to Railtrack from Italy has implications for Railtrack's renewal programme; [141227]

    (2) if he will secure from Railtrack an assurance that all strings of railway lines imported and used on the national rail network comply with Railtrack specifications; [141228]
    799W
    (3) if he will secure from Railtrack an assurance that all Railtrack products used on the national railway network are as individual pieces of equipment traceable as to (a) country of manufacture and (b) name of manufacturer; [141229]

    (4) what proportion of Railtrack's (a) current and (b) future renewal programme involves the use of heat-treated rails; [141230]

    (5) what assessment he has made of the safety and usage implications for the life of railway lines arising out of the use of (a) heat-treated and (b) non-heat-treated railway lines on the national rail network; [141231]

    (6) on how many occasions Railtrack has been served with enforcement orders relating to its operations since 1994; [141232]

    (7) if he will list all train derailments since 1994; [141233]

    (8) what assessment he has made of Railtrack's compliance with condition No. 7 of its operations licence in relation to the number of broken rails in each year since 1994; [141234]

    (9) if he will place a copy of the Balfour Beatty maintenance audit report on railway stewardship of August in the Library; [141235]

    (10) if ultrasonic testing of railway lines at the site of the Hitchin crash included angle probe ultrasonic testing in the period prior to the crash; [141236]

    (11) if ultrasonic testing of railway lines on site throughout the UK rail network included angle probe ultrasonic testing as a matter of routine; [141237]

    (12) what assessment he has made of the implications for safety in the national rail network arising from not using angle probe techniques in the ultrasonic testing of railway lines; [141238]

    (13) if levels of asymmetry tolerance in relation to railway lines imported from Italy in 2000 have implications for the safety of the national rail network; [141239]

    (14) if levels of asymmetry tolerance in relation to railway lines imported from Corus operations in France have implications for the safety of the national rail network; [141240]

    (15) if the return of railway lines imported from Italy in 2000 was related to the need to maintain safety standards on the national rail network; [141241]

    (16) if problems with the welding of railway lines imported from Italy in 2000 have implications for renewal of the national rail network; [141242]

    (17) if he will request Railtrack to provide details as to the nature of the contractual arrangements for the import of railway lines from Italy; [141243]

    (18) if he will discuss with Railtrack the implementation of arrangements whereby future maintenance contracts for maintenance contractors will exclude the right of Railtrack to override recommendations for maintenance and renewal made by maintenance and repair contractors and include the right of maintenance contractors to vary repair and maintenance contracts with the approval of regulatory bodies. [141244]
    800W
    Mr. Hill
    I will write to my hon. Friend and place a copy of my letter in the Library of the House.

    M4 (Dauntsey)
    Mr. Gray
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when resurfacing work is due to take place on the stretch of the M4 motorway near Dauntsey. [141247]

    Mr. Hill
    I will write to the hon. Member and place copies of my letter in the Libraries of the House.

    GM Trials
    Mr. Willis
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what procedure the Government have established to protect the health and safety of workers on GM farm trial sites. [141255]

    Mr. Meacher
    I will write to the hon. Member and place copies of my letter in the Libraries of the House.

    Otterburn
    Mr. Key
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) when the(a) first public inquiry and (b) second public inquiry were (i) opened and (ii) concluded into the proposals for changes to the Otterburn training area in Northumberland National Park; [141249]

    (2) when the Otterburn training area public inquiry inspector presented his report to Ministers; and when he will announce his decision; [141250]

    (3) if he will remove Otterburn training area from the Northumberland National Park and add Kielder Forest to the National Park. [141253]

    Mr. Mullin
    I will write to the hon. Member and place a copy of my letter in the Library of the House.

    Construction
    Mrs. Brinton
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) if he will make a statement on the role of the construction industry in providing(a) placements and (b) subsequent jobs under the New Deal; [141262]

    (2) if he will make a statement on the role of (a) schools and (b) further education establishments in providing career options in the construction industry. [141263]

    Ms Beverley Hughes
    I will write to my hon. Friend and place a copy of my letter in the Library of the House.

    Road Building Schemes
    Mrs. Brinton
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what guidance his Department has issued to local authorities on the assessment of the economic implications of major new road building schemes following the publication of the "Transport and the Economy' report by the Standing Advisory Committee on Trunk Road Assessment; and what steps he is taking to ensure the implementation of its recommendations. [141264]

    Mr. Hill
    I will write to my hon. Friend and place a copy of my letter in the Library of the House.

    Clock Tower, Westminster
    Mr. Fearn
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the effects of the recent construction work around Westminster Station on the structural stability of the Clock Tower. [141272]

    Mr. Hill
    I will write to the hon. Member and place a copy of my letter in the Library of the House.

    Endangered Species
    Mr. Fearn
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to increase public awareness of trends in the number of endangered species and their conservation. [141276]

    Mr. Mullin
    I will write to the hon. Member and place a copy of my letter in the Library of the House.

    Poll Tax
    Mr. Trickett
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what proportion of poll tax has not been collected; what is its cash value; and how much has been written off as impossible to collect. [141273]

    Ms Beverley Hughes
    I will write to my hon. Friend and place a copy of my letter in the Library of the House.

    Floods (West Sussex)
    Mr. Flight
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what account he will take of the recent flooding in West Sussex in revising PPG25; and if he will make a statement. [141278]

    Ms Beverley Hughes
    I will write to the hon. Member and place a copy of my letter in the Library of the House.

    Audit Commission
    Dr. Gibson
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he plans to publish the Government's response to the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs Select Committee report (HC 174411) of its inquiry into the work of the Audit Commission and the second stage of the Financial Management and Policy Review of the Audit Commission; and if he will make a statement. [141299]

    Ms Armstrong
    I have today laid before Parliament the Government's response to the Select Committee Report on the Audit Commission. I have also today published the Government's response to the Financial Management and Policy Review of the Audit Commission (FMPR).

    In formulating our response to the Select Committee we have had regard to the work of the School of Public Policy, University of Birmingham which recently completed the second stage of the FMPR. This Report, which we are also publishing today, recognises the Commission as a well managed organisation providing important benefits at reasonable cost. Copies of this Report and our response to it have been placed in the House Library. We have also published the FMPR Reports and Select Committee responses to them on the DETR website.

    The Government welcomed the overall findings of both the Select Committee and the FMPR that the Audit Commission is a well respected body, which is doing a difficult task well. The Government have a high regard for the work of the Commission and this has been reflected in our decision to give the Commission a pivotal role in our best value plans for local government including the establishment of a Best Value Inspection service. The Commission has also been asked to develop a new inspection capacity in the NHS alongside that of the Commission for Health Improvement.

  EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

    "Voices"
    Mrs. May
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement on the total revenue received from advertising in the most recent edition of "Voices" magazine. [139165]

    Ms Jowell
    [holding answer 20 November 20001 The total revenue raised from advertising in the November 2000 issue of "Voices" was £35,180.

    Information Technology
    Charlotte Atkins
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement about broadening access to information technology within disadvantaged communities. [139192]

    Mr. Wills
    [holding answer 29 November 2000]: The Prime Minister has given a commitment that, by 2005, all those who want it will have the opportunity to access the internet. We are currently investing more than £1.7 billion in initiatives to ensure that everyone is able to reap the rewards of the digital revolution.

    Excellent progress is being made in improving computer/pupil ratios. 88 per cent. of all schools are now connected to the internet. In future, school leavers should be able to use and benefit from new technologies.

    We are taking specific action to tackle the difficulties that a significant number of adults and communities currently face in accessing ICT. On 11 September the Prime Minister set out the Government's agenda to get the UK online. We have pledged that by the end of 2002 there will be around 6,000 UK online centres throughout England with access points in many public libraries, colleges and within local communities. The Prime Minister also announced over 600 successful applications in the first phase of UK online centres funded through the Capital Modernisation Fund (CMF). These centres are specifically focused on the most deprived urban and rural areas. 50,000 free computer training courses are being made available for jobless people across the country under our UK online computer training scheme. We are also piloting an initiative to wire up homes and schools in some of the most disadvantaged communities in England, and we are introducing the "Computers within Reach" pilot scheme. In the period up to the end of March 2001, we intend to provide up to 35,000 subsidised computers in local pilots in deprived communities.

    Mr. Jim Murphy
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement about the Government's policy on widening access to information technology within local communities. [139194]

    Mr. Wills
    [holding answer 29 November 2000]: The Prime Minister has given a commitment that, by 2005, all those who want it will have the opportunity to access the internet. Responsibility for ICT access in Scotland has been devolved, so for information on these issues in the Scottish context, I refer my hon. Friend to the Scottish Executive.
    804W
    The position in England is that we are currently investing more than £1.7 billion in initiatives to ensure that everyone is able to reap the rewards of the digital revolution.

    Excellent progress is being made in improving computer/pupil ratios. 88 per cent. of all schools are now connected to the internet. In future, all school leavers should be able to use and benefit from new technologies.

    We are taking specific action to tackle the difficulties that a significant number of adults and communities currently face in accessing ICT. We have pledged that by the end of 2002 there will be around 6,000 UK online centres throughout England with access points in many public libraries, colleges and within local communities. In September the Prime Minister also announced over 600 successful applications in the first phase of UK online centres funded through the Capital Modernisation Fund (CMF). These centres are specifically focused on the most deprived urban and rural areas in England. We are also piloting an initiative to wire up homes and schools in some of the most disadvantaged English communities. And we are introducing the "Computers within Reach" pilot scheme. In the period up to the end of March 2001, we intend to provide 35,000 subsidised computers in local pilots in deprived communities. In addition, up to 50,000 free computer-training courses are being made available for jobless people across the country under our UK online Computer Training scheme.

    Child Care
    Ms Julie Morgan
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what financial assistance is available for child care for parents in(a) training and (b) full-time education; and what plans he has to make more such resources available. [140356]

    Ms Hodge
    [holding answer 27 November 2000]: Child care support for parents in learning is a key component of Government action to increase participation in education and training. Those in training in Great Britain are primarily assisted by the New Deal programme, including the New Deal for Lone Parents, and through Career Development Loans. Where trainees receive a wage, they are eligible, under the normal rules, for Working Families Tax Credit. Students in full-time further education may also be assisted by these two schemes and through the Access Funds and the Childcare Support Fund (England only). For students in higher education, this year we have introduced a Mature Students Bursary, paid through universities' and colleges' Access Funds, of up to £1,000 a year, which is intended for the additional costs such as child care or travel that mature students incur. Students with children are also eligible for age-related child dependants grants and for the institutions' Hardship Funds which provide sources of funding for child care costs.

    Expenditure for 2001–2002 on the schemes of support for those in training and in further education will be announced shortly. For higher education we plan to introduce next year a new child care grant for full-time students with dependent children. The grant, paid as a

    805W
    statutory entitlement, will be based on actual costs of £100 a week for one child in registered or accredited child care, with a higher costs ceiling for more than one child.

    Statistics
    Mrs. May
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list the publication dates of statistics to be released by his Department and agencies in the next 12 months. [140363]

    Mr. Wicks
    [holding answer 27 November 2000]: A copy of the monthly release schedule for statistical publications for the period October 2000 to September 2001 has been placed in the Library. Alternatively, it can found on the Department for Education and Employment statistical website (http://www.dfee.gov.uk/statistics/DB/SFR/s0200/). In total there are some 82 statistical publications planned over this period. The website also provides the exact dates for publications that will be released shortly (http://www.dfee.gov.uk/statistics/whatsnew.html).

    Special Needs Education (Lancashire)
    Mr. Jack
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what(a) proposals and (b) reports he has received in the last 12 months from Lancashire County Council in connection with their plans to reorganise education provision for those with special needs or severe learning difficulties; and if he will place copies of them in the Library. [140385]

    Jacqui Smith
    [holding answer 29 November 2000]: Lancashire Local Education Authority published a document, "Review of Special School Provision in Lancashire", in May this year. Consultation on this document ended on 31 August. If, as a result of consultation, the authority decides to reorganise any of its special needs provision, it will have to publish formal proposals. A statutory two-month period will follow, during which objections to the proposals may be submitted to the authority. Responsibility for deciding school reorganisation proposals transferred from the Secretary of State to local School Organisation Committees on 1 September 1999.

    Copies of the Lancashire consultation document can be obtained from the local education authority.

    Industrial Relations
    Mr. Boswell
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what recent consultations he has held with employers and staff in(a) higher education and (b) further education into the state of industrial relations in these sectors. [140393]

    Mr. Wicks
    [holding answer 29 November 2000]: My right hon. Friend meets higher and further education employers and staff from time to time to discuss a variety of topics. Staff matters were included on the agenda when he last met HE union representatives on 29 November.

    Individual Learning Account
    Ms Kelly
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many people have(a) opened an individual learning account and (b) used their individual learning account, broken down by (i) age and (ii) occupation. [139497]
    806W
    Mr. Wicks
    To date 448,228 people have opened an Individual Learning Account in England.

    The further information requested is contained in the following tables. This relates solely to accounts opened under the national framework of individual learning accounts and reflects account usage from September 2000. The breakdown is not available nationally in relation to the 192,615 accounts opened through Training and Enterprise Councils (TECs)/Chamber of Commerce Training and Enterprise (CCTE) before the national framework was launched. Of the 255,613 accounts opened under the national framework, 78,314 account holders are currently using their accounts. This understates the position as there are two factors which result in a difference between the number of accounts opened and the number being used. People need to open their accounts before booking their learning, and learning providers have up to 42 days in which to notify the Individual Learning Account Centre of learning being undertaken by ILA holders.

    Broken down by age

    Age group

    Number of individual learning accounts opened

    Number of individual learning accounts used for learning

    19–30

    71,032

    21,394

    31–40

    80,370

    24,469

    41–50

    58,195

    17,526

    51–60

    33,277

    10,508

    60+

    12,739

    4,417

    Total

    255,613

    78,314

    Broken down by occupation

    Occupation

    Number of individual learning accounts opened

    Number of individual learning accounts used for learning

    Housewife/Homemaker

    23,859

    8,255

    Manual/Factory worker

    13,375

    4,397

    Owner Manager 2501 staff

    7,884

    2,072

    Office/Retail worker

    54,328

    17,014

    Senior Manager/Professional

    24,639

    14,781

    Skilled worker/Tradesperson

    18,948

    6,618

    Teaching/Lecturer

    12,555

    5,893

    Other

    47,405

    3,062

    Not allocated to occupational sector

    52,620

    16,222

    Total

    255,613

    78,314

    1Less than

    Note

    Figures apply to England only.

    Teacher Numbers
    Mr. Edwards
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many teachers were made redundant in England as a result of falling school rolls in 1999–2000. [140605]

    Ms Estelle Morris
    The number of teachers made redundant as a result of falling school rolls is not held centrally.

    The full-time equivalent number of regular teachers in the maintained sector has increased by 6,900 since January 1998.
    807W
    Mr. Prior
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many qualified teachers have stopped teaching within five years in each of the last five years. [138902]

    Ms Estelle Morris
    I will write to the hon. Member and place a copy of my letter in the Library.

    Mr. Allan
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many teachers there are in each local education authority; and how many of them have applied for the performance related pay threshold assessment in(a) actual terms and (b) as a percentage of the number of teachers in each LEA. [140775]

    Ms Estelle Morris
    I will write to the hon. Member and place a copy of my letter in the Library.

    Dr. Stoate
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many teachers were employed in(a) primary and (b) secondary schools in each of the last five academic years in (i) England and (ii) Kent. [139478]

    Ms Estelle Morris
    I will write to my hon. Friend and place a copy of my letter in the Library.

    Ms Kelly
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many teachers left the profession in each year since 1990,(a) due to ill health, (b) to pursue other careers and (c) as a direct result of disciplinary action. [139500]

    Ms Estelle Morris
    I will write to my hon. Friend and place a copy of my letter in the Library.

    Accident Prevention
    Mrs. Spelman
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how much was spent by his Department on(a) research into the prevention of accidents on school premises and playing fields and (b) public awareness campaigns on road safety in the last 12 months for which figures are available. [140661]

    Jacqui Smith
    [holding answer 28 November 2000]: We have not commissioned research in this area. On the second part of the question I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin), of 28 November 2000, Official Report, column 554W.

    Parental Leave Directive
    Mr. Bercow
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what estimate he has made of the annual cost of the Parental Leave Directive to his Department. [134691]

    Mr. Wills
    Under the Statutory arrangements staff in the Department can take 13 weeks parental leave. Parental leave is unpaid and there has been no annual cost to the Department.

    E-learning
    Mr. Allan
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will provide a list of the Government initiatives to improve information and communications technology infrastructure in schools for 808W
    each of the years 2000–01 to 2003–04; indicating in each case how much (a) public funding and (b) private funding will be provided. [140777]

    Mr. Wills
    Our investment in education includes several initiatives that will help to support the improvement of schools' ICT infrastructure. Our main programme is the National Grid for Learning, which is supporting a total of over £1 billion of publicly funded expenditure, including £657 million between 1998 and 2002 (including £205 million in 2000–01, and £245 million in 2001–02), and a further £710 million between 2002 and 2004. This will ensure that all schools are able to reach a common threshold of access to ICT, and to progress beyond this.

    In addition, several other initiatives support ICT-related expenditure, including technology colleges and City Learning Centres (which provide state-of-the-art ICT-based learning opportunities for pupils and the wider community) and Education Action Zones and Excellence Clusters (which may use ICT as part of a package of measures to address under-performance). With the exception of City Learning Centres, private sector sponsorship supports each of these initiatives, but it is not possible to predict how much sponsorship will become available during this period.

    Mr. Allan
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) what interest the private sector has shown in his proposals to establish e-learning foundations; and if he will make a statement; [140776]

    (2) what role local education authorities will play in the process of establishing and maintaining e-learning foundations; [140778]

    (3) what targets have been set for private sector contributions to e-learning foundations; [140773]

    (4) how the national e-learning foundations will relate to the National Grid for Learning; and if he will make a statement. [140772]

    Mr. Wills
    The e-Learning Foundation will help the Government's drive to bridge the digital divide by providing children from low income families and in disadvantaged areas with portable computers and internet access to learning materials. The initiative runs in parallel with the National Grid for Learning's programme of connecting all schools to the web by 2002 and improving pupil/computer ratios in schools. 98 per cent. of all secondary schools and 86 per cent. of all primary schools are already connected to the internet.

    The initiative is a partnership between Government, community groups and the private sector. Local e-Learning Foundations across the country will engage parents, the local business community and other major sponsors in funding equipment for disadvantaged children in that community. The national e-Learning Foundation is charged with brokering contributions from the corporate business sector.

    Specific targets for private sector contributions will be agreed between the national e-Learning Foundation and my Department's officials in due course.

    E-Learning Foundations can operate at a range of different levels; for example, an individual school, a group of schools, or a wider community foundation. LEAs may wish to run their own foundation, as has happened in the case of Nottingham local authority.

    Schools (Internet)
    Mr. Burstow
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make it his policy to allow local education authorities to act as monitors of minimum standards for internet service providers to schools and to stop non-monitored access of chatrooms in schools. [140785]

    Mr. Wills
    [holding answer 29 November 2000]: Policies on students' access to chatrooms and the services provided by internet service providers are a matter for each school. However, access to unsuitable materials is something we take very seriously and we have issued advice to schools and local education authorities on all aspects of internet safety. The Department's Superhighway Safety Guide includes advice on filtering software, monitoring student access, acceptable use policies and the use of chatrooms.

    Named Person Scheme
    Mr. Edwards
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what the aims of the named person scheme are for children with special educational needs; and what assessment he has made of the scheme. [140858]

    Jacqui Smith
    The aim of the named person scheme is set out in the Code of Practice on the Identification and Assessment of Special Educational Needs, paragraphs 4:70 to 4:73. The named person is intended to be someone, named by the authority when a statement of special educational needs is served on parents—someone who can give the parents advice and information about their child's special educational needs. The scheme has been subject to assessment by my Department, and new arrangements are being proposed in the draft revised Code of Practice, issued for consultation by my Department earlier this year, and separately for Wales by the Office of the Welsh Assembly, for a new Independent Parental Supporter who would replace the named person.

    Work-related Studies
    Mr. Win Griffiths
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list the local education authorities involved in the work-related studies project, indicating in each case the value of the project and the progress in meeting their objectives. [140941]

    Mr. Wicks
    The Department is providing funding to local education authorities in 2000–01 to support locally derived and delivered work-related learning projects under two initiatives:

    Key stage 4 demonstration projects grants in 2000–01

    LEA

    £

    Barking and Dagenham

    18,000

    Barnsley

    25,000

    Camden

    28,000

    Cheshire

    31,000

    Coventry

    20,000

    Croydon

    20,000

    Gloucestershire

    28,000

    Greenwich

    12,000

    Kirklees

    15,000

    Lewisham

    24,000

    Merton

    24,000

    Newham

    22,000

    810W

    Key stage 4 demonstration projects grants in 2000–01

    LEA

    £

    Sheffield

    19,920

    Shropshire

    18,000

    Southwark

    20,000

    St. Helens

    14,000

    Stoke-on-Trent

    18,000

    Trafford

    18,000

    Wigan

    27,000

    Worcestershire

    20,000

    Action research projects grants in 2000–01

    LEA

    £

    Barnsley

    60,000

    Coventry

    61,000

    Derbyshire

    63,000

    Devon

    65,000

    Dudley

    50,000

    Islington

    65,000

    Lancashire

    65,000

    Leicester

    65,000

    Manchester

    65,000

    Portsmouth

    58,000

    Rochdale

    27,000

    Sheffield

    77,000

    Solihull

    65,000

    Southwark

    66,000

    Tower Hamlets

    53,000

    Wakefield

    60,000

    Warwickshire

    53,000

    Wigan

    65,500

    York

    50,000

    The aim of the programmes is to develop work-related opportunities which are relevant to all 14 to 16-year-olds, but with the disaffected and underachievers a priority. The projects seek to encourage schools to pursue innovative approaches to vocational and work-related education that also help pupils make a successful transition to adult and working life.

    An independent national evaluation is being carried out on these projects on behalf of the Department. The Key Stage 4 Demonstration Projects evaluation has been completed and the report is currently being made ready for publication. The evaluation found that projects made good progress against key objectives during the two years they were evaluated, with project participants showing improving attendance and behaviour and helping with attainment and progression.

    The Action Research Projects evaluation is still under way, with outcome data being collected. This should be complete by the end of this year, with a report ready in early 2001.

    Teachers (Remuneration)
    Ms Kelly
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what recent research his Department has undertaken on salary and employment comparisons between teachers and other professions. [141220]

    Ms Estelle Morris
    My Department has published research this month by the University of Cambridge on ill health retirement and absenteeism among teachers, which includes comparisons with other professions.
    811W
    Pay comparisons are available from a number of sources such as the New Earnings Survey, and these are taken into account as appropriate by the School Teachers' Review Body and by my right hon. Friend in their annual consideration of the level of teachers' pay.

    Mr. Nigel Jones
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list for each local education authority(a) in receipt of area cost adjustment and (b) not in receipt of area cost adjustment, the average teacher salary in each of the last 10 years for which figures are available. [140518]

    Ms Estelle Morris
    Average salaries of full-time qualified teachers (including heads and deputy heads) in the maintained schools sector at 31 March of each year 1990 to 1999, by local education authorities, are contained in tables, copies of which have been placed in the Library. Local authorities created by local government reorganisation are shown below their parent authorities.

    Reforms of teachers' pay, implemented in full from September 2000, will mean that good teachers will benefit from the new post-threshold pay scale and the new upper pay scale.

    Mrs. May
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many teachers are eligible to apply to cross the threshold to the upper pay scale in each of the local education authorities in Berkshire. [140585]

    Ms Estelle Morris
    [holding answer 28 November 2000]: I will write to the hon. Member and place a copy of my letter in the Library.

    Ghausia Girls High School
    Mr. Gordon Prentice
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment when the Ghausia Girls High School in Nelson was inspected by Ofsted; how long the inspection took; how many inspectors were involved; and when the report will be published. [140969]

    Ms Estelle Morris
    This is a matter for Ofsted and I have asked HM Chief Inspector of Schools to write to my hon. Friend and to place a copy of his letter in the Library.

    Higher Education Funding
    Mrs. May
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will set out the unit of student funding in higher education for each of the next three financial years.[140364]

    Mr. Wicks
    [holding answer 27 November 2000]: Between 1989–90 and 1996–97, under the previous Government, the unit public funding for higher education students in England fell by 36 per cent. In 1997, the National Committee of Inquiry into Higher Education chaired by Lord Dearing stated that planned further rapid reductions in unit funding were not achievable without putting quality unacceptably at risk, and that efficiency improvements should be limited to 1 per cent. a year for the following two years. The present Government agreed with and followed Lord Dearing's recommendation. Now, for the first time in over a decade, there will be a real-terms increase in funding per student in 2001–02, and that level of funding will be sustained in the following two years.

    Teacher Training
    Mr. Willis
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what the cost in real terms was of training a teacher for each of the years from 1990 to 2000. [140771]

    Ms Estelle Morris
    Teacher training takes many forms and funding comes from a number of sources. In addition to Government grants to institutions to run ITT courses, ITT providers receive public and private fee income and many ITT students will be receiving support in the form of grants, loans or the newly introduced training salaries for postgraduate trainees. No figures are available centrally of the total cost, including all of these factors, of training a teacher.

    Mr. Llwyd
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many students failed to complete their teacher training courses; and what percentage of all the students on such courses this represented in the most recent academic year for which figures are available.[134911]

    Ms Estelle Morris
    I will write to the hon. Member and place a copy of my letter in the Library.

    Mr. Willis
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) if he will list for each UK teacher training institution the number of(a) target and (b) actual acceptances for (i) PGCE courses and (ii) BEd courses for each of the years 1997 to 2000 for (A) secondary teaching, broken down by subject specialism, and (B) primary teaching; [140784]

    (2) how many people entered initial teacher training courses for (a) primary and (b) each secondary subject through (i) undergraduate, (ii) postgraduate and (iii) employment-based routes in each academic year from 1992–93 to 2000–01; and how many people in each intake have gained qualified teacher status to date. [140854]

    Ms Estelle Morris
    I will write to the hon. Member and place a copy of my letter in the Library.

    Ms Kelly
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) what measures he has introduced to encourage professionals from the private sector to enter the teaching profession; and how many people from the private sector have trained as teachers in each year since 1990; [141221]

    (2) how many students undertook teacher training in (a) BEd and (b) PGCE courses, and how many of these were mature students, in each year since 1990. [141222]

    Ms Estelle Morris
    I will write to my hon. Friend and place a copy of my letter in the Library.

    Connexions Service
    Mr. Boswell
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what guidance is being made available to local Connexions services in connection with the development of their business plans. [140391]

    Mr. Wicks
    [holding answer 29 November 2000]: Planning guidance was issued on 23 October to the 16 Connexions Partnerships who have been invited to prepare business plans to introduce the Connexions service

    813W
    in 2001. Supplementary guidance, e.g. on Personal Advisers, will be issued shortly. Guidance for partnerships starting in 2002 will be made available next year.

    New Technologies in Schools
    Mr. Allan
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what his Department's definition is of high specification computers; and if he will list the machines that are so categorised. [140432]

    Mr. Wills
    The Department does not use the phrase "high specification" computers or provide a minimum technical specification of computers suitable for use in schools since this will change continually as technology develops. It is also important that schools are able to choose the ICT that they consider most appropriate to improve educational opportunities for their pupils. The Department therefore provides schools with advice and guidance so that they are able to plan, procure and use ICT effectively. In doing so they are able to make reference to appropriate functional specifications for networking, hardware, software and content, training and support that have been agreed as the basis for NGfL (National Grid for Learning) Managed Services.

    Pre-school Playgroups
    Mr. Bercow
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many pre-school playgroups closed in(a) 1997–98, (b) 1998–99 and (c) 1999-–2000. [134777]

    Ms Hodge
    I will write to the hon. Member and place a copy of my letter in the Library.

    University of Buckingham
    Mr. Bercow
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans he has to visit the University of Buckingham. [136461]

    Mr. Wills
    I will write to the hon. Member and place a copy of my letter in the Library.

    Schools (Sutton)
    Mr. Burstow
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will estimate spending per pupil in secondary schools in the London Borough of Sutton for each year from 1985–86 to 1999–2000, expressed in 1997–98 prices; and if he will make a statement. [134884]

    Ms Estelle Morris
    [holding answer 6 November 2000]: I will write to the hon. Member and place a copy of my letter in the Library.

    Sport England (Planning Application)
    Dr. Tonge
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many planning applications were(a) received and (b) rejected by Sport England in each of the last 12 months. [136753]

    Jacqui Smith
    [holding answer 6 November 2000]: I will write to the hon. Member and place a copy of my letter in the Library.

    Leeds LEA
    Mr. Hilary Benn
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what the total spending was on schools in Leeds local education authority in each of the last 10 years in(a) cash and (b) real terms; and what was the spending per pupil on the same basis in that period. [137367]

    Ms Estelle Morris
    Spending on schools in Leeds, from 1990–91 to 1998–99, the latest year for which this information is available, is set out in the following table. The figures are based on Net Institutional Expenditure and expressed in cash terms and at 2000–01 prices.

    Net Institutional Expenditure

    Per pupil

    (a) cash £000

    (b) real terms £000

    (a)cash £

    (b) real terms £

    1990–91

    172,020

    230,710

    1,670

    2,240

    1991–92

    194,360

    245,580

    1,870

    2,360

    1992–93

    203,800

    257,510

    1,920

    2,350

    1993–94

    205,810

    245,320

    1,900

    2,270

    1994–95

    213,080

    250,470

    1,940

    2,280

    1995–96

    219,810

    251,160

    1,990

    2,270

    1996–97

    228,860

    253,340

    2,060

    2,280

    1997–98

    226,080

    243,370

    2,030

    2,180

    1998–99

    248,240

    259,640

    2,220

    2,320

    The following table sets out the resources made available to Leeds local education authority since 1995–96. The special and specific grant totals include the money for schools announced in the Budget on 21 March 2000. These figures are not directly comparable with the net institutional expenditure figures set out: they show an increase in funding per pupil of £60 in real terms between 1995–96 and 1997–98; with a much larger real terms increase over the last three years of £430 per pupil.

    Funding per pupil at 2000–01 prices1

    £ per pupil

    Standard Spending Assessment

    Special and Specific Grants

    SSA and Special/ Specific Grants

    1995–96

    2,440

    30

    2,470

    1996–97

    2,470

    30

    2,490

    1997–98

    2,490

    40

    2,530

    1998–99

    2,550

    40

    2,590

    1999–00

    2,610

    120

    2,730

    2000–01

    2,680

    280

    2,960

    1Figures have been rounded to the nearest £10.

    It is not possible to provide comparable figures from before 1995–96, because of changes to the SSA methodology between 1994–95 and 1995–96.

    Departmental Directorates
    Mrs. May
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) how many staff are employed in the Schools Directorate of his Department; and what the establishment is for that directorate; [137306]

    (2) how many staff are employed in the Lifelong Learning Directorate of his Department; and what the establishment is for that directorate; [137307]
    815W
    (3) how many staff are employed in the Employment, Equality and International Relations Directorate of his Department; and what the establishment is for that directorate; [137308]

    (4) how many staff are employed in the Legal Adviser's Office of his Department; and what the establishment is for the directorate; [137309]

    (5) how many staff are employed in the Government Offices for the Regions on business relating to his Department; [137310]

    (6) how many staff are employed in the Strategy and Communications Directorate of his Department; and what the establishment is for that directorate; [137311]

    (7) how many staff are employed in the Personnel and Support Services Directorate of his Department; and what the establishment is for that directorate; [137312]

    (8) how many staff are employed in the Finance and Analytical Services Directorate of his Department; and what the establishment is for that directorate. [137313]

    Mr. Wills
    [holding answer 8 November 2000]: This is a breakdown of the work covered by the following Directorates in DfEE:

    Schools Directorate:
    The Schools Directorate deals with most aspects of education policy for children up to 16 years, including early years. The aim of the Directorate is to transform standards in schools, enabling all children to fulfil their potential, to make an effective transition to adulthood and the world of work and to develop an appetite for lifelong learning.

    Corporate Services and Development Directorate:
    The Corporate Services and Development Directorate is responsible for the delivery of value-for-money services within the Department, covering information technology, human resources, facilities management and procurement. It fosters and supports the modernisation of DfEE by implementing policies and practices which encourage and facilitate new ways of working.

    Employment, Equality and International Relations:
    Is responsible for developing a programme of labour market interventions—including the New Deals—designed to help people to move from welfare into work; Developing policies to combat discrimination in employment, based on gender, race, disability and age; Designing and implementing the National Childcare Strategy; and influencing EU and other international partners, so that their policies and initiatives support domestic policies.

    Government Offices for the Regions:
    The role of Government Offices is to manage programmes on behalf of parent Departments, to support and facilitate effective linkages between partners and programmes and to inform the development of Departments' policies from the regional perspective.

    Legal Adviser's Office:
    The Legal Adviser's Office is responsible for providing legal advice to the Department for Education and Employment.

    Lifelong Learning Directorate:
    The Lifelong Learning Directorate is responsible for supporting Ministers in creating policies aimed at developing in everyone a commitment to lifelong learning, so as to enhance their lives, improve their employability in a changing labour market and create the skills that our economy and employers need. The Directorate supports the modernisation of the DfEE through the introduction of new ways of working.
    816W
    Finance and Analytical Services Directorate:
    The Finance and Analytical Services Directorate covers a broad range of work aimed at ensuring good value for money from the Department's resources. This includes securing and allocating the resources needed to deliver the Department's overall aim and objectives through the regular Spending Reviews. Policy work is also supported by the analytical teams who produce statistical reports, including production of the school performance tables on which school improvement is measured; provide an evidence base on which the whole Department can depend; and commission and manage research aimed at informing policy development. All of this will help us to get our priorities right and ensure that we make the most of our limited resources.

    Strategy and Communications Directorate:
    SCD is responsible for effectively developing the Department's strategy at national, regional and local levels, and ensuring that it is communicated with target audiences across everything DfEE does. SCD manages DfEE policy interests with Government Offices and Regional Development Agencies, and sponsors closer working by the rest of DfEE with employers. It also has responsibility for cross-Government initiatives including those on social exclusion and regeneration, and manages relationships with the public whether through correspondence, telephone or Internet.

    The Department aims to deliver high quality public services as part of a modernised civil service. Against this background we have created a unit to drive forward a continuous improvement strategy that encompasses: a programme of Better Quality Services reviews to assess whether our current delivery arrangements are the best available; "Identifying Efficiency Action" reviews which are incisive scrutinies of a range of the Department's activities that offer scope for efficiency action; and the promotion of the European Foundation For Quality Management Model and Benchmarking in the development of Divisional Improvement Plans. These reviews are key in moving resources to deal with new pressures.

    A breakdown of staffing figures for the Department is shown in the following table.

    Directorate

    Staffing figures as of 1 July 2000

    Schools Directorate

    1,247

    Corporate Services and Development Directorate

    954

    Employment, Equality and International Relations

    643

    Government Offices for the Regions

    1753

    Legal Adviser's Office

    10

    Lifelong Learning

    11,013

    Strategy and Communications

    231

    Finance and Analytical Services

    586

    1Some functions currently carried out in these areas will transfer in April 2001 to the Learning and Skills Council.

    Statisticians
    Mrs. May
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many(a) statisticians and (b) economists have been employed in his Department in (a) 1997–98, (b) 1998–99, (c) 1999–2000 and (d) 2000–01. [137305]

    Mr. Wills
    [holding answer 8 November 2000]: The Department for Education and Employment (DfEE) employed 33 economists in each of the years 1997–98, 1998–99, 1999–2000 and 2000–01.
    817W
    The number of statisticians employed by DfEE in each of the four years in question was:

    Number

    1997–98

    39

    1998–99

    41

    1999–2000

    44

    2000–01

    52

    The increase between 1999–2000 and 2000–01 includes regrading of staff as statisticians.

    Departmental Employees (HIV)
    Mr. Wigley
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will take steps to ensure that people who are HIV-positive do not suffer discrimination as a result of employment practices followed by his Department. [137786]

    Ms Hodge
    I will write to the right hon. Member and place a copy of my letter in the Library.

    Nursery Places
    Mr. Ruane
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many nursery places were available in each of the last 20 years; and if he will estimate the number of such places in the next three years. [137823]

    Ms Hodge:
    [holding answer 10 November 2000]: I will write to my hon. Friend and place a copy of my letter in the Library.

    Training Schemes
    Mr. Ruane
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many people were on training schemes in each of the last 15 years. [137731]

    Ms Jowell
    [holding answer 10 November 2000]: I will write to my hon. Friend and place a copy of my letter in the Library.

    Jobseeker's Allowance
    Mr. Willetts
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many recipients of Jobseeker's Allowance have been(a) disqualified and (b) sanctioned for refusing offers of employment in each quarter since the introduction of the benefit. [138308]

    Ms Jowell
    Firstly, can I make clear that claims for Jobseeker' s Allowance (JSA) are not subject to disqualifications. Sanctions replaced disqualifications when JSA replaced Unemployment Benefit (UB) in 1996.

    Information on the numbers and types of decisions given by Employment Service Officers on labour market questions are published in the "Analysis of Sector Decision Making" (formerly known as the "Analysis of Adjudication Officers' Decisions"), copies of which are held in the House of Commons Library.

    The number of sanctions imposed for Refusal of Employment (RE) in each quarter since the introduction of JSA on 7 October 1996 are as follows. I should point out that the figures relate to the number of "sanctions",
    818W
    rather than the number of "recipients", as it is possible that some jobseekers have been sanctioned more than once in the course of one claim.

    Refusal of employment sanctions imposed

    Quarter

    Number

    1 October 1996 to 31 December 1996

    1,189

    1 January 1997 to 31 March 1997

    3,097

    1 April 1997 to 30 June 1997

    5,894

    1 July 1997 to 30 September 1997

    6,889

    1 October 1997 to 31 December 1997

    6,198

    1 January 1998 to 31 March 1998

    3,749

    1 April 1998 to 30 June 1998

    2,581

    1 July 1998 to 30 September 1998

    2,751

    1 October 1998 to 31 December 1998

    3,163

    1 January 1999 to 31 March 1999

    2,947

    1 April 1999 to 30 June 1999

    3,691

    1 July 1999 to 30 September 1999

    4,497

    1 October 1999 to 31 December 1999

    5,342

    1 January 2000 to 31 March 2000

    6,215

    1 April 2000 to 30 June 2000

    5,653

    You may wish to note a number of factors underlying the figures set out in this letter. First, the total number of JSA claimants was falling over the period set out. Secondly, during the period October 1996 to March 1997 a number of claimants continued to receive UB as a transitional arrangement, and were liable to disqualification rather than a JSA sanction.

    From the introduction of JSA in October 1996 to September 1997, the Employment Service Annual Performance Agreement (APA) included a target for referrals to adjudication officers on a number of grounds including Refusal of Employment. After a period of piloting, this was replaced in April 1999 by a new Labour Market Activity Target which, among other factors, measured the extent to which possible cases of RE had been appropriately followed up. The higher figure in the first quarter of 2000 reflects a period when a backlog of cases from the previous quarter was identified and referred for a formal decision. Figures for RE sanctions imposed during the period July to September 2000 are due to be lodged in the Library of the House by the end of December.

    Skills Training
    Mr. Ruane
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what the total budget for skills training was in each of the last 15 years; and what is the estimated budget for the next three years. [137732]

    Mr. Wicks
    I will write to my hon. Friend and place a copy of my letter in the Library.

    New Deal Gateway
    Mr. Brady
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) how many people have entered the New Deal gateway(a) once, (b) twice and (c) three times or more in respect of the (i) New Deal for Young People, (ii) New Deal for the over 25s, (iii) New Deal for the over 50s and (iv) New Deal 25-plus pilots; [138093]

    (2) when he will answer the questions tabled by the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West for answer on 8 November. [140889]
    819W
    Ms Jowell
    [holding answer 13 November 2000]: The latest figures show that to the end of August 2000:

    (i) New Deal for Young People

    (a) 408,845 young people had entered the Gateway period of New Deal once;

    (b) 40,542 young people had entered the Gateway period of New Deal twice; and

    (c) 1,242 young people had entered the Gateway period of New Deal three or more times.

    Young people entering for a second or third time had not necessarily been through the full Gateway period before.

    (ii) New Deal 25+

    (a) 198,769 people aged 25+ had entered the advisory interview process period of New Deal once;

    (b) 29,913 people aged 25+ had entered the advisory interview process period of New Deal twice; and

    (c) 8,008 people aged 25+ had entered the advisory interview process period of New Deal three or more times.

    We cannot provide figures for the number of people who have entered New Deal 50+ or 25+ pilots more than once. In practice very few people have had time to enter New Deal 50+ twice. It has been running nationally only since April 2000, and a client needs a full six months without a job before re-entering.

    Education Funding (Wandsworth Borough)
    Mr. Cox
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) if he will list the sums given by his Department for education in the London Borough of Wandsworth in each of the last three years; [138665]

    (2) if he will list the school education projects which have received his Department's support in the Tooting parliamentary constituency in each of the last three years. [138666]

    Ms Estelle Morris
    I will write to my hon. Friend and place a copy of my letter in the Library.

    New Deal for Young People
    Mr. Allan
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many benefit sanctions were imposed on participants in the New Deal for Young People scheme in each year since its introduction(a) nationally and (b) by region, broken down between each of the four options. [138353]

    Ms Jowell
    [holding answer 17 November 2000]: I will write to the hon. Member and place a copy of my letter in the Library.

    Research Organisations
    Mr. Page
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what research organisations are owned by his Department; and what their budgets are for the year 2000–01. [R] [140159]

    Mr. Wicks
    I will write to the hon. Member and place a copy of my letter in the Library.

    School Closures
    Mr. Gordon Prentice
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many primary schools have closed in each year since 1990; and if he will indicate the reasons for closure in each case. [140331]

    Ms Estelle Morris
    I will write to my hon. Friend and place a copy of my letter in the Library.

    Labour Market Access
    Mr. Alexander
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans he has to introduce measures to tackle labour market access for the most disadvantaged groups; and if he will make a statement. [140832]

    Ms Hodge
    I will write to my hon. Friend and place a copy of my letter in the Library.

    National Qualification for Headteachers
    Mr. Willis
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many teachers have started the National Qualification for Headteachers course, broken down by(a) Government office region, (b) gender and (c) ethnic background in each recruitment cycle, from (i) primary, (ii) secondary including middle schools where appropriate and (iii) special schools; and how many in each group have (A) completed the course, (B) are continuing with the qualification and (C) have withdrawn. [140855]

    Ms Estelle Morris
    I will write to the hon. Member and place a copy of my letter in the Library.

    NUS Publication
    Mr. Boswell
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what reply he has sent to the recent publication by the National Union of Students `Equal Access or Elitist Entry'. [140397]

    Mr. Wicks
    [holding answer 29 November 2000]: I will write to the hon. Member and place a copy of my letter in the Library.

    Key Stage 1
    Mr. Brady
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many children at Key Stage 1 are being taught in classes of(a) under 25, (b) under 20, (c) under 15, and (d) under 10. [140861]

    Ms Estelle Morris
    I will write to the hon. Member and place a copy of my letter in the Library.

    Student Jobs
    Mr. Boswell
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what recent assessment he has made of the weekly hours worked for remuneration which are not directly connected with their study programmes by full-time students in(a) higher and (b) further education. [140870]

    Mr. Wicks
    I will write to the hon. Member and place a copy of my letter in the Library.

    Carers
    Ms Julie Morgan
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what help is available to help carers return to employment after the death of the person they have cared for. [140891]

    Ms Jowell
    I will write to my hon. Friend and place a copy of my letter in the Library.

    Disability Discrimination Act
    Ms Julie Morgan
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what measures he is taking to publicise the provisions of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995. [140925]

    Ms Hodge
    I will write to my hon. Friend and place a copy of my letter in the Library.

    Comparative Spending Statistics
    Mr. Win Griffiths
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list for(a) 1997–98, (b) 1987–88, (c) 1979–80 and (d) 1974–75 the amount spent and the spending per head on (i) under fives at schools, (ii) further education and (iii) higher education. [141044]

    Ms Estelle Morris
    I will write to my hon. Friend and place a copy of my letter in the Library.

    Education Maintenance Allowance
    Mr. Nigel Jones
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what steps he is taking to ensure that the education maintenance allowance will be available nationwide; and when that availability will be achieved. [141047]

    Mr. Wicks
    I will write to the hon. Member and place a copy of my letter in the Library.

    Departmental Liaison
    Mr. Win Griffiths
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list the meetings held during the last 12 months between his and other departments to discuss the education and employment of children and young people, indicating which other departments were in attendance. [141115]

    Mr. Wills
    I will write to my hon. Friend and place a copy of my letter in the Library.

    Education Funding (Leicestershire)
    Mr. Reed
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) if he will list the(a) cash and (b) percentage increase in education funding for Leicestershire County Council in (i) each year from 1997–98 to 2000–01 and (ii) 2001–02 based on the provisional standard spending assessment; [141176]

    (2) if he will list in (a) cash and (b) percentage terms the extent to which funding of Leicestershire County Council (i) varied from the county council standard spending assessment average in each year from 1997–98 to 2000–01 and (ii) will vary in 2001–02 based on provisional standard spending assessment figures; [141175]
    822W
    (3) what the average standard spending assessment funding is per (a) primary pupil and (b) secondary pupil for (i) English counties and (ii) Leicestershire, based on provisional educational standard spending assessment, for 2001–02. [141177]

    Ms Estelle Morris
    I will write to my hon. Friend and place a copy of my letter in the Library.

    National Grid for Learning
    Mr. Allan
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many(a) primary schools and (b) secondary schools have entered into contracts for National Grid for Learning managed services. [141200]

    Mr. Wills
    I will write to the hon. Member and place a copy of my letter in the Library.

    Training Schemes (Fatalities)
    Mr. Ruane
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many young people were accidentally killed while on Government training schemes in the last 10 years; and what percentage this represents of young people on such schemes. [141210]

    Mr. Wicks
    I will write to my hon. Friend and place a copy of my letter in the Library.

    Training Budget
    Mr. Ruane
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what the employment training budget was for the long-term unemployed for each of the last 20 years. [141211]

    Mr. Wicks
    I will write to my hon. Friend and place a copy of my letter in the Library.

    Student:Teacher Ratios
    Mr. Willis
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what the average student:teacher ratio for school sixth forms, further education colleges and sixth form colleges for students aged 16 to 19 was in each year from 1992–93 to 1999–2000. [141266]

    Mr. Wicks
    I will write to my hon. Friend and place a copy of my letter in the Library.

    Funding (16 to 19-year-olds)
    Mr. Willis
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what the average revenue resource from public funds was to support full-time students aged 16 to 19 in(a) school sixth forms, (b) further education colleges and (c) sixth form colleges in each year from 1992–93 to 1999–2000. [141267]

    Mr. Wicks
    I will write to the hon. Member and place a copy of my letter in the Library.

    Learning and Skills Councils
    Fiona Mactaggart
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement on the progress being made on the appointment of the board members of the local learning and skills councils. [141260]
    823W
    Mr. Boswell
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will now list appointments to the local learning and skills councils. [140871]

    Mr. Wicks
    Bryan Sanderson, Chairman of the Learning and Skills Council, has today announced the appointment of the members of the local learning and skills councils. Each local LSC chair will be writing to Members of Parliament whose constituencies are within their areas with full details of the relevant councils. A list of all successful candidates has been placed in the Library.

    Mr. Chope
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will place in the Library a copy of the guidance issued to learning and skills councils on arrangements for 16 to 19-year-olds for 2001–02. [140914]

    Mr. Wicks
    My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State published his remit letter for the Learning and Skills Council on 9 November. This set out the Government's key priorities for the first three years of the council's operation, including maximising the levels of participation and attainment for 16 to 19-year-olds. Copies have been placed in the Library. My right hon. Friend will also be issuing his first annual grant letter to the Council shortly, and this will include key objectives for young people's learning for 2001–02. Copies of this letter will also be placed in the Library.

    Mr. Chope
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment when the learning and skills councils will issue letters of interest to providers showing indications of funding allocations in 2001–02. [140915]

    Mr. Wicks
    The Learning and Skills Council will issue indicative funding allocation in February 2001 to further education colleges in respect of the 2001–02 academic year and to other providers in respect of the 2001–02 financial year. This is in line with the timetable previously operated by the Further Education Funding Council and the training and enterprise councils.

    Mr. Chope
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment when local learning and skills councils will be fully operational. [140916]

    Mr. Wicks
    Local learning and skills councils will have taken responsibility for their full range of activities, other than the funding of school sixth forms, by 1 April 2001. Responsibility for school sixth form funding will pass to the local councils in April 2002.

    Sure Start
    Charlotte Atkins
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many Sure Start programmes have been(a) established and (b) proposed by local district authorities in England and Wales; and which of these address (i) urban deprivation, (ii) rural deprivation and (iii) semi-rural deprivation. [140675]

    Yvette Cooper
    I have been asked to reply.

    This answer refers to England only, as Sure Start in Wales is a devolved issue and a matter for the Welsh Assembly. To date in England, 122 Sure Start programmes have been established in areas of disadvantage, with a further 72 under development. Sure Start programmes are not 'proposed' by local district authorities. Rather, districts with high levels of deprivation are identified and local partnerships in these
    824W
    areas, comprising of representatives from statutory, voluntary and community bodies, are invited to develop a Sure Start programme in their area. The 194 programmes referred to above are in the 152 local authority districts in England listed and are located in all types of area: urban; semi-urban; semi-rural and rural. Sure Start programmes are targeted on the most disadvantaged neighbourhoods and thus all address deprivation. The following table indicates the type of district in which Sure Start programmes are located, although the nature of the Sure Start catchment area may differ from that of the district as a whole.

    District

    Number of Sure Start programmes to date

    District Type

    Birmingham

    3

    Urban

    Bradford

    3

    Urban

    Kingston Upon Hull

    3

    Urban

    Leeds

    3

    Urban

    Leicester

    3

    Urban

    Liverpool

    3

    Urban

    Manchester

    3

    Urban

    Sheffield

    3

    Urban

    Barnsley

    2

    Coalfields

    Blackburn with Darwen

    2

    Urban

    Brent

    2

    Urban

    Bristol

    2

    Urban

    Camden

    2

    Urban

    Derby

    2

    Urban

    Doncaster

    2

    Urban

    Hackney

    2

    Urban

    Halton

    2

    Urban

    Haringey

    2

    Urban

    Hartlepool

    2

    Urban

    Knowsley

    2

    Urban

    Lambeth

    2

    Urban

    Middlesbrough

    2

    Urban

    Newcastle

    2

    Urban

    Newham

    2

    Urban

    Nottingham

    2

    Urban

    Rotherham

    2

    Urban

    Salford

    2

    Urban

    Sandwell

    2

    Urban

    Sefton

    2

    Urban

    Southwark

    2

    Urban

    Stoke-on-Trent

    2

    Urban

    Sunderland

    2

    Urban

    Tower Hamlets

    2

    Urban

    Wolverhampton

    2

    Urban

    Allerdale

    1

    Semi-urban

    Ashfield

    1

    Semi-urban

    Barking and Dagenham

    1

    Urban

    Barrow-in-Furness

    I

    Urban

    Bassetlaw

    1

    Semi-urban

    Berwick-upon-Tweed

    1

    Rural

    Blackpool

    1

    Urban

    Blyth Valley

    1

    Semi-urban

    Bolsover

    1

    Coalfield

    Bolton

    1

    Urban

    Boston

    1

    Rural

    Bournemouth

    1

    Urban

    Brighton and Hove

    1

    Urban

    Bromley

    1

    Urban

    Burnley

    1

    Urban

    Bury

    1

    Urban

    Calderdale

    1

    Urban

    Cannock Chase

    1

    Semi-urban

    Chesterfield

    1

    Coalfields

    Chester-le-Street

    1

    Coalfields

    Copeland

    1

    Coalfields

    Corby

    1

    Coalfields

    Coventry

    1

    Urban

    825W

    District

    Number of Sure Start programmes to date

    District Type

    Croydon

    1

    Urban

    Darlington

    1

    Urban

    Derwentside

    1

    Coalfields

    Dover

    1

    Urban

    Dudley

    1

    Urban

    Ealing

    1

    Urban

    Easington

    1

    Coalfields

    East Lindsey

    1

    Rural

    East Riding of Yorkshire

    1

    Rural

    East Staffordshire

    1

    Semi-Urban

    Ellesmere Port and Neston

    1

    Semi-Urban

    Enfield

    1

    Urban

    Fenland

    1

    Rural

    Gateshead

    1

    Urban

    Gloucester

    1

    Urban

    Great Yarmouth

    1

    Urban

    Greenwich

    1

    Urban

    Hammersmith and Fulham

    1

    Urban

    Harlow

    1

    Urban

    Hastings

    1

    Urban

    Havant

    1

    Urban

    Havering

    1

    Urban

    Herefordshire

    1

    Rural

    Hillingdon

    1

    Urban

    Hounslow

    1

    Urban

    Hyndburn

    1

    Urban

    Ipswich

    1

    Urban

    Isle of Wight

    1

    Semi-Rural

    Islington

    1

    Urban

    Kensington and Chelsea

    1

    Urban

    Kerrier

    1

    Semi-rural

    Kings Lynn and West Norfolk

    1

    Rural

    Kirklees

    1

    Urban

    Lancaster

    1

    Semi-rural

    Lewisham

    1

    Urban

    Lincoln

    1

    Urban

    Luton

    1

    Urban

    Mansfield

    1

    Coalfields

    Medway Towns

    1

    Urban

    Milton Keynes

    1

    Urban

    Newark and Sherwood

    1

    Semi-Urban

    North Devon

    1

    Rural

    North East Lincolnshire

    1

    Urban

    North Lincolnshire

    1

    Urban

    North Tyneside

    1

    Urban

    Northampton

    1

    Urban

    Norwich

    1

    Urban

    Nuneaton and Bedworth

    1

    Semi-Urban

    Oldham

    1

    Urban

    Oswestry

    1

    Rural

    Oxford

    1

    Urban

    Pendle

    1

    Urban

    Penwith

    1

    Semi-rural

    Peterborough

    1

    Urban

    Plymouth

    1

    Urban

    Portsmouth

    1

    Urban

    Preston

    1

    Urban

    Reading

    1

    Urban

    Redbridge

    1

    Urban

    Redcar and Cleveland

    1

    Coalfields

    Restorme

    1

    Semi-rural

    Rochdale

    1

    Urban

    Rossendale

    1

    Semi-Urban

    Scarborough

    1

    Semi-rural

    Sedgefield

    1

    Coalfields

    Sedgemoor

    1

    Rural

    Shepway

    1

    Urban

    Slough

    1

    Urban

    Solihull

    1

    Urban

    South Tyneside

    1

    Urban

    Southampton

    1

    Urban

    Southend-on-Sea

    1

    Urban

    826

    District

    Number of Sure Start programmes to date

    District Type

    St Helens

    1

    Urban

    Stockport

    1

    Urban

    Stockton-on-Tees

    1

    Urban

    Swindon

    1

    Urban

    Tameside

    1

    Urban

    Telford & Wrekin

    1

    Urban

    Tendring

    1

    Semi-rural

    Thanet

    1

    Semi-rural

    Thurrock

    1

    Urban

    Torbay

    1

    Semi-rural

    Wakefield

    1

    Urban

    Walsall

    1

    Urban

    Waltham Forest

    1

    Urban

    Wandsworth

    1

    Urban

    Wansbeck

    1

    Coalfields

    Warrington

    1

    Urban

    Waveney

    1

    Semi-rural

    Wealden

    1

    Semi-rural

    Wear Valley

    1

    Coalfields

    West Lancashire

    1

    Semi-urban

    Westminster

    1

    Urban

    Wigan

    1

    Urban

    Wirral

    1

    Urban

    Note:

    The district classification used is based on a simplified version of the ONS classification of districts

    Charlotte Atkins
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what evaluation he has made of the Sure Start programme. [140677]

    Yvette Cooper
    I have been asked to reply.

    The Sure Start programme is based on evidence of what works in improving the health and well-being of young children, so that they will be ready to succeed when they start school. It is a cornerstone of the Government's drive to tackle child poverty and long term social exclusion. The evidence for Sure Start has been drawn from other countries, as there has been no other similar programme in this country.

    The Government are committed to undertaking a long term, wide ranging national evaluation of the Sure Start programme in England. The Sure Start Unit is in the process of commissioning this from independent, external experts and work will begin in January 2001. The evaluation will look at the extent to which Sure Start makes a difference to children, families and communities in the short, medium and long term. It will attempt to establish what works, why, how and under what circumstances. The evaluation will also look at how cost effective the Sure Start programme is. A large sample of children will be tracked over time to see whether and how Sure Start has improved outcomes for them in later life.

    In addition, each local programme will evaluate its own activities and monitor its progress towards national targets and objectives. These local evaluations will feed back into the on-going development of the programme and also inform the national evaluation.

    Sure Start is a very new programme but there is already significant enthusiasm for the programme by parents in Sure Start areas and signs of better co-ordination of services for young children and their families at local level.

    New Deal
    Mr. Goggins
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many people aged 18 to 25 years completed the Gateway Stage of New Deal for each year since the programme was introduced. [140867]

    Ms Jowell
    The figures requested are contained in the following table:

    Total leavers from Gateway

    January to March 1998

    2,665

    April 1998 to March 1999

    163,730

    April 1999 to March 2000

    183,776

    April 2000 to March August 2000

    70,405

    Total

    420,576

    Mr. Brady
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what is the total expenditure to date on the(a) New Deal for Young People, (b) New Deal for the over 25s, (c) New Deal 25-plus pilots and (d) New Deal for the over 50s. [138092]

    Mr. Andrew Smith
    I have been asked to reply.

    The outturns of Windfall Tax financed expenditure across New Deal Programmes for 1997–98, 1998–99 and 1999–2000 are as set out in table 4.1 a of the 2000 Pre-Budget Report "Building Long-term Prosperity For All", Cm4917.

    Between 1998 and 2000, New Deal 18-24 and 25-plus participants also benefited from funding of £140 million and £35 million respectively from within DfEE's DEL, for programmes for which they would otherwise have been eligible.

    Further Education (IT)
    Mr. Boswell
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what action he is taking to encourage the development of managed learning environments based on IT in further education. [140869]

    Mr. Wicks
    The further education sector is currently working with learndirect and private sector suppliers of managed learning environments. These suppliers are being encouraged to work towards common standards for their managed learning environments, so that their products will meet the needs of the sector. It is anticipated that the specification work for this will be completed in the summer of 2001.

    Further Education Funding Council
    Mr. Win Griffiths
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list from the earliest and most recent years for which figures are available the(a) amount and (b) percentage of total expenditure spent on (i) staff costs, (ii) operating expenses and (iii) other expenses of the Further Education Funding Council. [141042]

    Mr. Wicks
    For the first and last years of available data for the Further Education Funding Council for England, expenditure on pay costs and non-pay costs and the percentage of total expenditure that represents were as 828W
    follows (the figures for staff costs include all staff and agency employees. Contract staff are included in operational costs):

    1993–941

    1999–2000

    Staff costs (£)

    8,607,000

    13,421,000

    percentage of total expenditure

    0.32

    0.40

    Operational costs (£)

    13,134,000

    11,779,000

    percentage of total expenditure

    0.49

    0.35

    1 16 months

    Higher Education Funding Council
    Mr. Win Griffiths
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list from the earliest and most recent years for which figures are available the(a) amount and (b) percentage of total expenditure spent on (i) staff costs, (ii) operating expenses and (iii) other expenses of the Higher Education Funding Council. [141043]

    Mr. Wicks
    For the first and last years of available data for the Higher Education Funding Council for England, expenditure on pay costs and non-pay costs and the percentage of total expenditure that represents were as follows:

    1995–96

    1999–2000

    Staff costs (£)

    5,127,000

    6,395,000

    Percentage of total expenditure

    0.14

    0.15

    Other costs (£)

    6,748,000

    5,340,000

    Percentage of total expenditure

    0.19

    0.13

    For the first two years of its operation (1993–94 and 1994–95) the HEFCE's administration costs were not split. From the 1995–96 financial year, the administration budget was split only into pay and non-pay costs. Staff costs include all staff, agency employees and contract staff.

    Employment and Social Policy Council
    Mr. Hood
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what the outcome was of the Employment and Social Policy Council held in Brussels on 27 to 28 November; and if he will make a statement. [141136]

    Ms Jowell
    Along with my hon. Friend the Minister for Competitiveness, I represented the UK at the Employment and Social Policy Council held in Brussels on 27 to 28 November.

    This was a busy Council, the most significant item being the agreement brokered on the Social Policy Agenda, which identifies the main priorities in the field of social policy for the next five years. The agreed text, to be sent to the Nice European Council for adoption, emphasises the goals agreed at the Lisbon Council in March, in particular in the areas of employment, social inclusion and the use of the open co-ordination approach.

    Council agreed the three elements of the Autumn Employment Package: the draft Employment guidelines; Recommendations on member states' employment policies and the Joint Employment Report for 2000, prior to the European Council at Nice.
    829W
    The Presidency made a progress report on a proposal for a decision on a community programme providing analytical support for the European Employment Strategy which is being negotiated in working group.

    The Presidency presented its progress reports on the work undertaken on simplifying the legislation co-ordinating social security systems for migrant workers and on this year's miscellaneous amendments to Regulation 1408/71. It also presented an interim report on the future of social protection. Council agreed an action programme to tackle social exclusion, providing funding for exchanges of information and best practice in this area.

    Council discussed both information and consultation and the European Company Statute; the Presidency published its conclusions on these dossiers without any agreement being reached.

    The Council agreed to adopt the community action programme on gender equality and also agreed conclusions on balancing work and family life, following up the Beijing platform for action.

    The Council reached political agreement on a compromise proposal on the Physical Agents (Vibrations) Directive, which seeks to protect workers from the effects of vibrations and also agreed to invite the Commission to monitor scientific developments in this field.

    Music Tuition (Schools)
    Mr. Jenkins
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what assessment he has made of the opportunities for children in state schools to learn to play musical instruments.[139875]

    Jacqui Smith
    I will write to my hon. Friend and place a copy of my letter in the Library.

    Rural Deprivation
    Charlotte Atkins
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what steps the Government are taking to address(a) poor health outcomes and (b) low educational aspirations amongst children in (i) rural and (ii) semi-rural areas. [140676]

    Jacqui Smith
    I will write to my hon. Friend and place a copy of my letter in the Library.

  FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

    Special Advisers
    Mr. Tyrie
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 5 June 2000,Official Report, column 45W, on special advisers, if he will list the destination and the total cost, including travel, accommodation and subsistence allowance, on each of the occasions when departmental or non-departmental special advisers travelled abroad in an official capacity. [135248]

    Mr. Robin Cook
    I will write to the hon. Member shortly and place a copy of the letter in the Libraries of the House.

    Sri Lanka
    Mr. Love
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the prospects for a resolution of the divisions in Sri Lanka following the recent elections; and if he will make a statement. [139416]

    Mr. Hain
    We are appalled at the devastation and misery caused by the conflict in Sri Lanka.

    During my recent visit to Sri Lanka on 22 and 23 November, I was able to meet, among others, many Government Ministers, the opposition leader and figures from minority parties. I got the impression that most people are war-weary. I noted that there now seems to be a willingness to take the peace process forward. We urge both sides to work with Norway to achieve a peaceful resolution of the conflict through negotiation. The Secretary of State made the same points to President Kumaratung when they met on 28 November.

    We stand ready to help, in whatever way we can.

    World Trade Organisation
    Mr. Bercow
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the effect of the new draft Protocol on arrangements for participation by the EU in WTO proceedings on Government practice; and to what Article 7.3 refers. [139902]

    Mr. Vaz
    The purpose of the draft Protocol is to establish a single procedure for the EU' s (the Community and the member states) participation in the WTO. The Protocol is one of several suggestions put forward by the Presidency on the reform of the Common Commercial Policy. We are considering it along with others.

    Article 7.3 is intended to ensure that, in a dispute settlement case against one or more member states, the Commission and the member states involved will take steps to avoid calling into question or jeopardising the benefits accruing to the Community and/or the other member states from their membership of the WTO.

    EU Intergovernmental Conference
    Mr. Bercow
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on his policy towards the last resort clause in the IGC enhanced co-operation discussions, and on how co-operation will be challenged under this principle. [139915]

    Mr. Vaz
    The Government see a positive role for enhanced co-operation in an enlarged European Union, provided that it is open to all and does not undermine the coherence of the EU, in particular the Single Market.

    We have also made clear that it should be the exception, not the rule: and therefore we support a last resort clause. It is for the ECJ to ensure that in the interpretation and application of the EU Treaties the law is observed.

    Mr. Bercow
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if French Presidency IGC draft, Article 93 TEC, section 4, permits the establishment of corpus juris by qualified majority voting. [139920]
    831W
    Mr. Vaz
    As soon as the information can be compiled I will write to the hon. Member, and place a copy of my letter in the Libraries of the House.

    Mr. Bercow
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on(a) the operations of and (b) his policy on Article 300(6) TEC of the Progress report of the IGC. [139913]

    Mr. Vaz
    As soon as the information can be compiled I will write to the hon. Member, and place a copy of my letter in the Libraries of the House.

    Mr. Bercow
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what definition of discrimination and double taxation is used in Article 93 as referred to in the Progress report of the IGC. [139922]

    Mr. Vaz
    Article 93 TEC of the Progress report on the IGC does not define discrimination and double taxation.

    The Government have made clear that they will not accept QMV for tax.

    Mr. Bercow
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list those organisations already extant which could be absorbed into the EU under the principle of enhanced co-operation. [139964]

    Mr. Vaz
    Enhanced co-operation is intended to allow a group of countries to undertake a particular activity together. It cannot affect the institutional framework of the EU.

    Mr. Bercow
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on his policy towards including the concept of risk of serious breach, in lieu of actual breach, by a member state of the principles set out in Article 6(1) TEU, as established in Article 7 TEU of the IGC proposals; and if voting rights may be suspended consequently without such breach having occurred. [139904]

    Mr. Vaz
    There have been various proposals for a new early warning mechanism for Article 7 TEU in the event of a risk of a breach by a member state of fundamental rights. The latest Presidency proposal provides for the Council to address recommendations to the State in question. As in the current Treaty, any suspension of voting rights could take place only if the Council determined that such a breach had taken place. The Government are considering the scope for change to this article.

    Mr. Bercow
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what definition is used of fundamental freedoms in subsection 1 of Article 181 of the Progress report of the IGC. [139923]

    Mr. Vaz
    Article 181a of the Progress Report on the IGC does not define fundamental freedoms.

    Mr. Bercow
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the term "organised civil society" in the context of Article 257 TEC of the Progress report of the IGC. [139921]

    Mr. Vaz
    The term "organised civil society" has been inserted with the intention of widening the scope of representatives on the Economic and Social Committee.
    832W
    The Government support amendments of the article that will make the Committee more representative of modern society.

    Mr. Bercow
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on participation by devolved Governments in the IGC. [139781]

    Mr. Vaz
    The devolved governments have been fully involved in the preparation of the Government's IGC position and have been consulted at every key stage in the negotiations process.

    EU Passports
    Mr. Bercow
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the European Commission's plans for a new design for EU passports. [139785]

    Mr. Vaz
    The European Commission is studying whether there are ways of improving the security of travel documents, including passports. No official proposals have yet been put forward. The Commission have made it clear that they have no intention of proposing the replacement of national emblems with EU stars. The Government will look at any proposals to improve security on their merits, and will oppose any ideas that have no practical security justification.

    EU Voting Procedures
    Mr. Bercow
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the implications of Article 207(2) TEC section 2 of the draft Treaty of Nice, on the removal of individuals from posts; and if the section applies to other posts identified as subject to QMV. [139917]

    Mr. Vaz
    Article 207(2) would have no implications for individuals already in post. Were it to be adopted by the Conference it would mean qualified majority voting being used for the appointments of their successors.

    Sierra Leone
    Mr. Bercow
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations were made to the Sierra Leone Government to accept those elements of the Lomè peace accords over which it expressed doubt; and if he will make a statement. [139847]

    Mr. Hain
    We were in close and regular touch with the Government of Sierra Leone during the Lomè peace negotiations, in Lomè itself and in Freetown. The Government of Sierra Leone had to make a number of difficult choices in the negotiations. But it negotiated and signed the Lomè Peace Agreement freely in the expectation that it would form the basis for lasting peace and stability in Sierra Leone.

    European Council
    Mr. Mitchell
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if decisions of the European Council which require unanimous agreement require the assent of representatives of(a) all member states or (b) only those member states present at the meeting. [139971]
    833W
    Mr. Vaz
    Decisions of the European Council require unanimous agreement of all member states. In practice Heads of State and Government are always represented at the European Council.

    Mr. Mitchell
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will request the members of the European Council to instruct its Secretariat to publish as soon as is practicable after the conclusion of the Nice Summit, the text of the Treaty agreed and the text of current EU treaties as they would be following its ratification; and to make such publications available for an appropriate period prior to the formal signing of the Treaty.[140524]

    Mr. Vaz
    All key papers put to the Intergovernmental Conference are published on the Council Secretariat website www.europa.eu.int. The Treaty agreed at Nice will be presented as soon as possible to Parliament in the form of a Command Paper.

    EU Transparency
    Mr. Llew Smith
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps he has taken to encourage his counterparts to increase transparency and openness in the European Union; what proposals have been put forward to increase access to papers and deliberations of the Council of Ministers; what mechanisms exist for the public to find out what documents are discussed in(a) council meetings and (b) Coreper; and if he will make a statement on the United Kingdom's position on the report by Michael Cashman MEP on transparency in EU institutions. [140551]

    Mr. Vaz
    A new Regulation on public access to Council, Commission and European Parliament documents is currently being negotiated, and is due to be adopted by May 2001. The Government are pushing for the easiest possible access to the widest range of documents. The report by Michael Cashman MEP set out the European Parliament's proposed amendments to the Commission's proposal. The UK can support many of these. Council documents are listed on a public register which is available on the internet at www.ue.eu.int.

    Peacekeeping College
    Ms Oona King
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress has been made with establishing the Peacekeeping College in Britain; and if he will make a statement. [140845]

    Mr. Hain
    The establishment of a UN Military Staff college is one of a number of reforms of UN peacekeeping which we have been pursuing with UN partners and the UN Secretariat. In October, the UN Secretary-General directed the Secretariat to produce concrete recommendations based on the proposals put forward by member states for such a college. Officials in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Ministry of Defence are now liaising on the practicalities of how to take forward the UK proposal with the Secretariat.

    Qualified Majority Voting
    Mr. Spring
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if, for the purposes of the Government's policy on qualified majority voting, Treaty Articles 24 TEU; 62(2)(a) TEC; 62(2)(b)(ii) TEC;834W
    62(2)(b)(iv) TEC; 62(3) TEC; 63(2)(a) TEC; 63(3)(b) TEC; and 66 TEC fall within the definition of border controls. [140966]

    Mr. Vaz
    The Government consider border controls to be the ability to control the flow of persons across the UK's frontiers. We have made clear we will insist on retaining unanimity for frontier controls.

    Iraq
    Mr. Alan Campbell
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what(a) qualifications and (b) experience are required of his Department's civil servants dealing with claims to the United Nations Compensation Commission regarding Iraq; and what changes have been made to the requirements in the last 10 years. [141153]

    Mr. Hain
    I shall write to my hon. Friend shortly, and place a copy of my letter in the Libraries of the House.

    Middle East
    Mr. Clappison
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of(a) Syrian control and influence in Lebanon and (b) Syria's role in respect of terrorist violence to be directed against Israel by Hezbollah and other groups in the vicinity of the Israel-Lebanon border. [141092]

    Mr. Hain
    Relations between Syria and Lebanon are a matter for their respective governments. We condemn all acts of terrorism whatever their origin, cause or motive and are also greatly concerned by any violations of either Israeli or Lebanese sovereign territory across the UN `Blue Line'. We continue to urge the Lebanese government to re-establish its control in the south and call on all parties to exercise restraint and to refrain from acts of provocation. We have encouraged Syria to use the influence it has to support regional calm.

    Mr. Clappison
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Government of Iran concerning(a) its policy on Israel and (b) the Middle East Peace Process. [141093]

    Mr. Hain
    We regularly discuss the Middle East Peace Process with the Iranian Government, and continue to encourage them to play a constructive role in the region.

    Mr. Clappison
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the supply of arms and materials to Hezbollah(a) from Syria and (b) from Iran through Syria. [141091]

    Mr. Hain
    We have serious concerns about the continuing activity of Hezbollah as an armed faction in South Lebanon and their attacks across the UN-designated `Blue Line'. We have strong counter-proliferation concerns over arms supplies of any sort to paramilitary groups and bring these concerns regularly to the attention of governments in the region, including Syria and Iran.

    Mr. Clappison
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent
    835W
    representations he has made to Syria concerning (a) Hezbollah violence against Israel and (b) the Middle East Peace Process. [141090]

    Mr. Hain
    The Secretary of State raised both of the issues to which the hon. Member refers at his meeting with President Bashar Al-Asad in Damascus on 12 October.

    Mr. Clappison
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the Government of Iran's policy on supply of arms to Hezbollah paramilitary forces in Lebanon. [141087]

    Mr. Hain
    We have a long-standing concern about Iran's record of support for terrorist groups, which we regularly raise with the Iranian Government.

    Mr. Clappison
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of Iranian policy in respect of the Middle East Peace Process. [141094]

    Mr. Hain
    Iran has recently publicly adopted a more moderate stance towards the Middle East Peace Process. We continue to urge it to do so.

    Mr. Clappison
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of links between the Government of Iran and Hezbollah. [141089]

    Mr. Hain
    The Iranian Government maintain high level political contacts with Hezbollah.

    Mr. Clappison
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent attacks have been mounted by Hezbollah paramilitary forces against Israeli military and civilian targets in the vicinity of the Israel-Lebanon border. [141088]

    Mr. Hain
    The Government condemn all breaches of either Lebanese or Israeli sovereign territory and call upon all sides to respect the UN delineated "Blue Line" and continue to urge all parties to exercise restraint and to refrain from acts of provocation.

    Since Israel's withdrawal from southern Lebanon on 24 May there have been several minor infringements of the Blue Line by both sides.

    In addition Hezbollah have carried out two significant attacks against Israeli forces. These attacks took place in territory occupied by Israel in 1967 and not in Israel itself. On 7 October Hezbollah fired mortars at Israeli positions near Mount Dov as cover for the operation to kidnap three IDF soldiers. On 26 November Hezbollah detonated a roadside bomb about 1 km from the Blue Line in the Occupied Golan. Since 7 October Israeli forces have regularly violated Lebanese airspace, including high altitude observation flights as far north as Beirut and low level helicopter flights over the south, one of which landed in a Lebanese village. In response to the two Hezbollah attacks, Israeli forces have also mounted operations against targets in south Lebanon.

    Ahmadi Muslims
    Mr. Colman
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make representations to the Pakistan Government in respect of the(a) independence and (b) openness of the judicial inquiry into the murders of Ahmadi Muslims in Pakistan. [140920]

    Mr. Hain
    We are aware that the local authorities in Pakistan have begun judicial inquiries into the disturbing recent attacks on Ahmadis in Punjab, Pakistan. We will continue to follow the progress of these inquiries closely, emphasising to the Pakistani authorities that it is in Pakistan's interest that they are seen to be transparent and independent.

    Mr. Colman
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what reports he has received concerning recent murders of Ahmadi Muslims in Pakistan; and if he will make a statement. [140760]

    Mr. Hain
    We are deeply concerned at reports of recent attacks on Ahmaddiyas in Ghatalian and Takht Hazara, Punjab, which resulted in the death of 10 Ahmadiyya worshippers and the wounding of many more.

    We regularly raise our concerns about the position of Pakistan's Ahamdiyya community with the Pakistani authorities, most recently with the new Pakistan High Commissioner to the UK on 24 November.

    I also wish to applaud the important contributions made by supporters of the Ahmadiyya to British Society.

    The Ilois
    Mr. Dalyell
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent assessment Her Majesty's Government have made of the distribution of £4 million given to the Mauritius Government in 1982. [141065]

    Mr. Battle
    Under a 1982 Agreement between HMG and the Government of Mauritius, the £4 million paid by HMG was placed in a Trust Fund for the benefit of the Ilois. Power over the distribution of the funds rested with the Fund's Board of Trustees, made up of representatives of the Government of Mauritius and Ilois.

    No recent assessment has been made of how the board distributed those funds.

    Mr. Dalyell
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what offer has been made by the US Government on compensation to the Ilois. [141052]

    Mr. Battle
    None that we are aware of but this is a matter for the US Government.

    Mr. Dalyell
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when Her Majesty's Government will complete the feasibility study of the return of the Ibis to the island of Diego Garcia. [141053]

    Mr. Battle
    The feasibility study covers the outer islands, not Diego Garcia. It is too early to specify when the study will be completed. But the terms of reference for the studies, drawn up by independent consultants, make clear that it will not be in less than a year.
    837W
    Mr. Dalyell
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans Her Majesty's Government have to restore land to former inhabitants, under Clause 4 of the British Indian Ocean Territory Ordinance (2000). [141058]

    Mr. Battle
    In line with the recent court judgment, section 4 of the BIOT Immigration Ordinance 2000 allows the Ibis to visit and remain on the islands of the Territory, excluding Diego Garcia where access will continue to be controlled strictly and will be by permit only. Studies are in hand on the feasibility of resettlement of the outer islands of the territory.

    Mr. Dalyell
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions Her Majesty's Government have had with the US Administration over the return of the Ibis to Diego Garcia; and if he will make a statement on their employment prospects.[141059]

    Mr. Battle
    The stated hope of Ilois representatives to return to live on Diego Garcia has been discussed with US officials. While there are no plans for them to do so, there are no impediments in BIOT law or policy preventing Ilois from being employed by the contractors on Diego Garcia.

    Mr. Dalyell
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what air access and port facilities are to be made available on Diego Garcia to the Ilois; and at what cost. [141056]

    Mr. Battle
    Our discussions with the Americans in the light of the court judgment indicate that these facilities will not be made available as a matter of course.

    Mr. Dalyell
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if Her Majesty's Government are planning to offer British citizenship to the Ilois on the same basis as other British Dependent Territory citizens. [141054]

    Mr. Battle
    This matter is being reviewed in the light of the recent court judgment.

    Mr. Dalyell
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans Her Majesty's Government have to facilitate the return of the people of the Ilois to their homeland. [141055]

    Mr. Battle
    The purpose of the feasibility study is to investigate to what extent the outer islands can be re-inhabited. Any further work will be subsequent to the outcome of this study.

    Mr. Dalyell
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will establish a committee of inquiry to determine levels of compensation to be paid to the Ilois.[141064]

    Mr. Battle
    HMG have paid over £4.5 million for the direct benefit of the Ilois. There is no intention to make any further similar payments. But HMG are undertaking a comprehensive feasibility study, the results of which will give us a better idea of what is possible and what will need to be provided by way of physical and social infrastructure. The costs in terms of public funding will need to be considered at that point.
    838W
    Mr. Dalyell
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what training and educational programmes Her Majesty's Government will finance for the Ilois. [141066]

    Mr. Battle
    The feasibility studies will consider what development activities could sustain a new civilian population in BIOT, and identify current skills among the Ibis population who wish to return to the territory. Only when these studies are complete will we be able to assess what is possible.

    Mr. Dalyell
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans Her Majesty's Government have to facilitate the development of improved economic conditions for the Ilois; and what is the time-frame. [141057]

    Mr. Battle
    The remit of the feasibility studies include economic, financial and social development issues.

    Kosovo
    Mr. Dalyell
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what response he has sent to the letter from Sir Arnold Wolfendale, sent to him on 17 October, on the subject of Kosovo. [141060]

    Mr. Vaz
    I will write to my hon. Friend shortly and place a copy of this letter in the Libraries of the House.

    Avrupa Newspaper
    Mr. Dismore
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about the attack on the Avrupa newspaper in Northern Cyprus on 27 November.[R] [140879]

    Mr. Vaz
    The Government are aware of a fire at the Avrupa newspaper printing house in northern Cyprus. The police are currently investigating the cause. We will continue to monitor the situation.

    Dora Johnson
    Mr. Fitzpatrick
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs upon what basis the refusal of entry clearance for Dora Johnson from Lagos, Nigeria was made. [141132]

    Mr. Vaz
    I will write to my hon. Friend shortly.

    Anti-ballistic Missile Treaty
    Mr. Flynn
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs for what reason it is his policy to preserve and strengthen the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty; and how his Department intends to give effect to this policy. [141032]

    Mr. Vaz
    I will write to my hon. Friend shortly and place a copy of the letter in the Libraries of the House.

    Mr. Flynn
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty prohibits the deployment of anti-ballistic missile systems for nationwide defence. [141033]

    Mr. Vaz
    I will write to my hon. Friend shortly and place a copy of the letter in the Libraries of the House.

    International Criminal Court Bill
    Mr. Keetch
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the responses to the consultation on the draft International Criminal Court Bill; and if he will make a statement. [141046]

    Mr. Hain
    The Government received 45 submissions giving comments on the draft International Criminal Court Bill. Submissions were invited and received from parliamentarians, academics and lawyers as well as human rights, religious and professional organisations. Valuable suggestions were received. We will issue in due course a summary of the main points raised, together with our response.

    Adrian Thorpe
    Mr. McNamara
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 24 November 2000,Official Report, column 344W, if the written comments by Adrian Thorpe in the manuscript referred to reflected the departmental position on this issue. [141206]

    Mr. Vaz
    No. Nor is there any record of a departmental position having been taken on this issue.

    Lloyd Pinnock
    Mr. Laurence Robertson
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make representations to the Spanish authorities in respect of Mr. Lloyd Pinnock, held in custody in Ibiza; what charges have been brought against him; for what reason bail was rescinded; and if he will make a statement. [141041]

    Mr. Hain
    Lloyd Pinnock was arrested on 18 August in San Antonio, Ibiza, on drugs charges. Bail was set at 2.5 million pesetas (approximately £8,620). The court revoked bail in October after making further inquiries. Mr. Pinnock' s defence is a matter for his lawyer in Ibiza.

    Our Consulate in Ibiza is responsible for ensuring the well-being of Mr. Pinnock and other British prisoners in Ibiza. Our Vice-Consul in Ibiza visits the prisoners on a monthly basis and last visited Mr. Pinnock on 29 November. Mr. Pinnock was in good health and had no welfare problems.

    Rebuttal Unit
    Mr. Steen
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs on what date the Rebuttal Unit in his Department was set up; what its terms of reference are; how many staff are employed in it; what the annual costs of the unit have been since its establishment; and if the unit is(a) permanent or (b) temporary. [141051]

    Mr. Vaz
    I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for West Suffolk (Mr. Spring) on 9 November 2000,Official Report, column 367W.

    Angel Quintero and Claudia Monslave
    Dr. Tonge
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has 840W
    made to the Colombian Government concerning the disappearance of Colombian human rights workers Angel Quintero and Claudia Monslave. [140815]

    Mr. Battle
    The British Embassy in Bogota has made representations to the Colombian Government about the disappearance of Angel Quintero and Claudia Monslave. HM Ambassador also made our concern clear to the local authorities in Medellin during a recent visit to that city. FCO officials have raised this matter with the Colombian Ambassador to London and have asked to be kept informed of developments.

    We remain very concerned about the safety of all human rights defenders in Colombia. We will continue to do what we can to assist them. We will continue to monitor this case and keep in close contact with the Colombian authorities and others about it.

    Warsaw Pact
    Dr. Julian Lewis
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment his Department has made of(a) Soviet and (b) other Warsaw Pact countries' contingency plans for possible military attacks on NATO states on the basis of archives discovered since the end of the Cold War. [135043]

    Mr. Spellar
    I have been asked to reply.

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

    Armed Forces (European Communities)
    Mr. Bercow
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what are the(a) ranks and (b) positions of the officers assigned to the Council Secretariat referred to in his answer of 14 November 2000, Official Report, columns 608–09W, on Armed Forces (European Communities); on what areas and to whom they offer advice; who funds their pay and expenses; and if he will make a statement. [139905]

    Mr. Hoon
    I have been asked to reply.

    The two United Kingdom officers on secondment to the Council Secretariat are a Major General, who is Head of the interim Military Staff and a Wing Commander, who is a staff officer. The interim Military Staff serve the Council of the European Union. The United Kingdom pays the salaries of the two officers on secondment.

  SOCIAL SECURITY

    Incapacity Benefit
    Mr. Pickles
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on the number of people receiving Incapacity Benefit, or its equivalent, on the grounds of dependency on(a) drugs and (b) alcohol for each year since 1990. [139322]

    Mr. Bayley
    Incapacity Benefit replaced Sickness Benefit and Invalidity Benefit in April 1995. As separate figures for Sickness Benefit are not available, the table shows the number of people with a diagnosis of alcoholism or drug abuse as the main medical condition
    841W
    who, at a date in each year since 1990, were entitled to Invalidity Benefit or the Incapacity Benefit equivalent (either short-term higher or long-term rates).

    Thousand

    Alcoholism

    Drug abuse

    31 March 1990

    4.3

    *0.8

    30 March 1991

    5.0

    *1.0

    4 April 1992

    5.6

    *1.6

    3 April 1993

    7.3

    *1.6

    2 April 1994

    8.6

    2.6

    12 April 1995

    8.7

    2.8

    29 February 1996

    9.0

    2.8

    28 February 1997

    10.3

    2.9

    28 February 1998

    11.3

    3.8

    28 February 1999

    11.8

    4.1

    29 February 2000

    12.7

    4.4

    Notes:

    1. Diagnosis codes are coded from the International Classification of Diseases, 9th edition up to 1995, and the 10th edition from the introduction of IB. If there is more than one diagnosis, only the first shown is coded. It should also be noted that some doctors may be reluctant to show these diagnoses on medical certificates.

    2. Figures for Sickness Benefit recipients are excluded as they cannot be separated from claims to National Insurance credits only.

    3. Numbers marked * are taken from very few sample cases and are therefore subject to a high degree of error, they should therefore only be used as an indication of the situation. Numbers are expressed as thousands and are rounded to the nearest hundred.

    Sources:

    Figures from 1990 to 1995 are taken from a 1 per cent. sample of IVB claimants.

    1996 figures are taken from a 5 per cent. sample of the benefit computer system and exclude a small number of cases held clerically.

    Asbestos-related Diseases
    Mr. Clapham
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people were in receipt of disablement awards for asbestos-related diseases in each(a) county and (b) district in the most recent year for which figures are available; and what change there was in the number of awards in the last 12 months from the previous year. [140727]

    Mr. Bayley
    The information is not available in the format requested. Such information as is available is in the tables.

    The tables compares the number of newly diagnosed Industrial Injuries Disablement Benefit asbestos-related assessments from July 1998 to June 1999 and from July 1999 to June 2000.

    Diagnosed in the period July 1998 to June 1999

    D1

    D3

    D8

    D9

    All

    All Regions

    376

    631

    38

    206

    1,251

    North East

    27

    52

    5

    21

    105

    North West

    80

    81

    4

    34

    199

    Yorks and Humber

    6

    22

    2

    8

    38

    East Midlands

    39

    56

    4

    20

    119

    West Midlands

    22

    47

    4

    21

    94

    East

    20

    83

    5

    10

    118

    London

    14

    39

    1

    4

    58

    South East

    26

    94

    4

    39

    163

    South West

    43

    63

    3

    21

    130

    Wales

    27

    18

    4

    14

    63

    Scotland

    69

    69

    2

    12

    152

    Overseas

    3

    7

    —

    2

    12

    842W

    Diagnosed in the period July 1999 to June 2000

    D1

    D3

    D8

    D9

    All

    All Regions

    428

    623

    35

    231

    1,317

    North East

    26

    47

    5

    18

    96

    North West

    97

    87

    3

    35

    222

    Yorks and Humber

    20

    41

    3

    15

    79

    East Midlands

    28

    59

    1

    15

    103

    West Midlands

    42

    50

    3

    25

    120

    East

    8

    53

    1

    13

    75

    London

    14

    41

    4

    8

    67

    South East

    37

    65

    7

    20

    129

    South West

    67

    81

    1

    44

    193

    Wales

    16

    17

    5

    27

    65

    Scotland

    66

    70

    2

    10

    148

    Overseas

    7

    12

    —

    1

    20

    Diagnosed in the period—percentage change

    D1

    D3

    D8

    D9

    All

    All Regions

    14

    -1

    -8

    12

    5

    North East

    -4

    -10

    0

    -14

    -9

    North West

    21

    7

    -25

    3

    12

    Yorks and Humber

    233

    86

    50

    88

    108

    East Midlands

    -28

    5

    -75

    -25

    -13

    West Midlands

    91

    6

    -25

    19

    28

    East

    -60

    -36

    -80

    30

    -36

    London

    0

    5

    300

    100

    16

    South East

    42

    -31

    75

    -49

    -21

    South West

    56

    29

    -67

    110

    48

    Wales

    -41

    -6

    25

    93

    3

    Scotland

    -4

    1

    0

    -17

    -3

    Overseas

    133

    71

    —

    -50

    67

    Notes:

    1. Information is collected on first diagnosed assessments, based on 100 per cent. count, involving asbestos-related prescribed diseases and is analysed by Government Office Region (GOR).

    2. Industrial Injuries Disablement Pension is paid for asbestos-related diseases from 1 per cent. disability assessment for Pneumoconiosis (D1) and Diffuse Mesothelioma (D3) and from 14 per cent. for Primary Carcinoma of the lung with accompanying evidence of one or both (a) asbestos (b) unilateral or bilateral diffuse pleural thickening (D8), and for unilateral or bilateral diffuse pleural thickening (D9). Prescribed Diseases D3, D8 and D9 are always regarded as asbestos-related, the tables also show D I cases where asbestos is identified as the attributable agent.

    Far East Prisoners of War
    Mrs. Lait
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if(a) widows and (b) widowers who were Far East prisoners of war are also entitled to the ex-gratia payment for their spouse in cases where the spouse was also a Far East prisoner. [140929]

    Mr. Bayley
    Yes. In such a case the claimant would satisfy the criteria for payment on two counts—first, as a surviving member of one of the British groups held captive by the Japanese during the second World War and, second, as the surviving spouse of someone who would otherwise have been entitled to an ex-gratia payment.

    Winter Fuel Payments
    Mr. Webb
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his answer of 24 November 2000,Official Report, column 348W, on Winter Fuel Payments, when he will complete his assessment of the administrative costs of the change; and on what date his Department printed the first Winter Fuel Payment cheques for this winter. [140980]
    843W
    Mr. Rooker
    Invoicing and allocation of administrative costs are not yet complete. The first of this winter's Winter Fuel Payment girocheques were printed on 11 and 12 November, the weekend before the issuing of payments began on 13 November.

    Disability Living Allowance
    Mr. Wigley
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list the(a) care component and (b) mobility component for those in receipt of Disability Living Allowance at the latest date for which figures are available, broken down by the nations and regions of the United Kingdom. [141012]

    Mr. Bayley
    The information is in the table.

    Disability Living Allowance awards current at 31 May 2000 by country, region and component

    Thousand

    All awards

    Care component only

    Mobility component only

    Care and mobility component

    Great Britain

    2,130.5

    286.9

    587.8

    1,255.8

    England

    1,717.0

    240.7

    466.9

    1,009.5

    Wales

    176.1

    20.5

    54.4

    101.2

    Scotland

    237.3

    25.7

    66.5

    145.1

    North East

    139.8

    18.6

    45.6

    75.6

    North West

    344.6

    43.5

    99.1

    202.0

    Yorkshire and Humberside

    209.6

    26.7

    61.7

    121.1

    East Midlands

    151.6

    20.2

    41.2

    90.2

    West Midlands

    207.3

    28.4

    53.5

    125.5

    East

    144.2

    22.0

    36.5

    85.7

    London

    198.8

    33.1

    41.9

    123.8

    South East

    181.5

    28.0

    49.3

    104.2

    South West

    139.6

    20.1

    38.2

    81.3

    Note:

    Figures are for Great Britain only. Figures for Northern Ireland are the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.

    Source:

    DSS (Analytical Services Division-Information Centre) 5 per cent. sample

    Mr. Flight
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what percentage of Disability Living Allowance claims are referred to appeal; what are the key issues considered in appeals; and if he will make a statement. [140875]

    Mr. Bayley
    The administration of Disability Living Allowance is the responsibility of Alexis Cleveland, Chief Executive of the Benefits Agency. She will write to the hon. Member.

    Letter from Charlie MacKinnon to Mr. Howard Flight, dated 29 November 2000:

    The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked Alexis Cleveland to respond to your recent Parliamentary Question asking what percentage of disability living allowance claims are referred to appeal; what are the key issues considered in appeals; and if he will make a statement. Due to annual leave I am replying on her behalf.

    Appeals can arise from any decision given during the life of a Disability Living Allowance (DLA) claim and it is therefore not possible to provide statistics which relate solely to appeals which are received against new and renewal claims. However, the attached table of figures gives an indication of the ratio of appeals to all appealable decisions.
    844W
    DLA has two separate components, mobility and care, which are based upon the claimant's care and mobility needs arising from a medical condition. There are two rates of mobility component and three rates of the care component and entitlement depends on the level of the claimant's needs.

    Decision-makers assess entitlement to DLA based on all the evidence presented in support of an individual claim against the criteria for each component. If a claimant is unhappy with a decision, he has the right to request a reconsideration. If the decision-maker finds no evidence to revise the decision at the reconsideration stage, the dispute process allows the claimant to appeal to an independent appeal tribunal. The main issues which tribunals are asked to consider are dissatisfaction with decisions which do not award any rate of DLA or those where the level of benefit which has been awarded is disputed, and dissatisfaction with the period of an award.

    I hope this information is helpful.

    Disability Living Allowance

    Total of new claims, renewals and s/sessions cleared

    Appeals received

    Ratio of appeals to claims, renewals and s/sessions (Percentage)

    2000

    April

    56,505

    7,009

    12.40

    May

    71,705

    9,061

    12.64

    June

    81,268

    9,913

    12.20

    July

    89,575

    10,431

    11.64

    August

    71,427

    11,177

    15.65

    September

    66,185

    8,695

    13.14

    October

    67,107

    9,048

    13.48

    Year to date total

    503,772

    65,334

    12.97

    Household Incomes
    Mr. Ruane
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many households had an income below the average household income in each of the last 20 years. [141205]

    Mr. Bayley
    Such information as is available can be found in the following publications, copies of which are held in the Library:

    Households Below Average Income 1979 to 1988–89

    Households Below Average Income 1979 to 1990–91

    Households Below Average Income 1979 to 1991–92

    Households Below Average Income 1979 to 1992–93

    Households Below Average Income 1979 to 1993–94

    Households Below Average Income 1979 to 1994–95

    Households Below Average Income 1979 to 1996–97

    Households Below Average Income 1994–95 to 1997–98

    Households Below Average Income 1994–95 to 1998–99.

    Pensioners (Benefit Payments)
    Mr. Cousins
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will estimate the number of pensioners in(a) actual terms and (b) as a percentage of the total number who receive (i) Housing Benefit and (ii) Council Tax Benefit at (A) the full rate and (B) less than the full rate in each of the nations and regions of the UK. [140648]

    Mr. Rooker
    The information is in the tables.
    845W

    Housing Benefit recipients aged 60 and over on full rate or part rate by Government Office Region—May 1999

    All Housing Benefit recipients aged 60 and over by Government Office Region—May 1999

    All Housing Benefit recipients aged 60 and over on full rate or less than full rate by Government Office Region—May 1999

    Government office region

    Number

    Full rate Percentage

    Number

    Part rate Percentage

    Numbers

    Percentage

    Great Britain

    1,769,000

    100

    1,054,000

    60

    715,000

    40

    North East

    109,000

    6

    62,000

    4

    47,000

    3

    North West

    221,000

    12

    141,000

    8

    80,000

    5

    Yorkshire and Humberside

    178,000

    10

    110,000

    6

    68,000

    4

    East Midlands

    111,000

    6

    61,000

    3

    49,000

    3

    West Midlands

    176,000

    10

    112,000

    6

    64,000

    4

    East

    144,000

    8

    83,000

    5

    61,000

    3

    London

    233,000

    13

    139,000

    8

    94,000

    5

    South East

    179,000

    10

    93,000

    5

    86,000

    5

    South West

    121,000

    7

    71,000

    4

    50,000

    3

    England

    1,472,000

    83

    873,000

    49

    599,000

    34

    Wales

    81,000

    5

    54,000

    3

    28,000

    2

    Scotland

    216,000

    12

    128,000

    7

    88,000

    5

    Source:

    Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit Management Information System, Annual 1 per cent. sample, taken in May 1999.

    Council Tax Benefit recipients aged 60 and over on full rate or part rate by Government Office Region—May 1999

    All Council Tax Benefit recipients aged 60 and over by Government Office Region—May 1999

    All Council Tax Benefit recipients aged 60 and over on full rate or less than full rate by Government Office Region—May 1999

    Government office region

    Number

    Full rate Percentage

    Number

    Part rate Percentage

    Number

    Percentage

    Great Britain

    2,542,000

    100

    1,497,000

    59

    1,046,000

    41

    North East

    149,000

    6

    82,000

    3

    67,000

    3

    North West

    337,000

    13

    202,000

    8

    135,000

    5

    Yorkshire and Humberside

    253,000

    10

    150,000

    6

    103,000

    4

    East Midlands

    173,000

    7

    97,000

    4

    76,000

    3

    West Midlands

    270,000

    11

    164,000

    6

    106,000

    4

    East

    208,000

    8

    121,000

    5

    86,000

    3

    London

    290,000

    11

    183,000

    7

    107,000

    4

    South East

    252,000

    10

    136,000

    5

    115,000

    5

    South West

    184,000

    7

    111,000

    4

    74,000

    3

    England

    2,115,000

    83

    1,245,000

    49

    870,000

    34

    Wales

    129,000

    5

    87,000

    3

    42,000

    2

    Scotland

    299,000

    12

    164,000

    6

    134,000

    5

    Notes:

    1. The data refer to benefit units, which may be a single person or a couple.

    2. The figures have been rounded to the nearest thousand.

    3. The percentages have been rounded to the nearest whole number.

    4. Pensioner cases have been identified as those where the claimant is aged 60 and over.

    Source:

    Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit Management Information System, Annual I per cent.

    Child Support
    Mr. Win Griffiths
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) how many people in paid employment in each CSA administrative region were being assessed for child support payments, but subsequently lost the source of income on which the assessment was being made in the last 12 months; and what proportion this represents of the total number of persons in paid employment; [139392]

    (2) how many people in each CSA administrative region have received requests for child support payments, broken down by (a) self-employed, (b) PAYE employees, (c) unemployed and (d) receiving benefit not connected with unemployment; and what proportion this represents of persons in each case. [139393]
    846W
    Angela Eagle
    [holding answer 27 November 2000]: The administration of the Child Support Agency is a matter for the Chief Executive, Mr. Doug Smith. He will write to my hon. Friend.

    Letter from Mr. Doug Smith To Mr. Win Griffiths, dated November 2000:

    I am replying to your Parliamentary Questions to the Secretary of State for Social Security about the Child Support Agency.

    You ask how many people there were in paid employment who had been assessed for child maintenance but who have, during the last 12 months, lost their source of income.

    The information is not available in the format requested. Such information that is available is shown in Table 1 in the attached annex. This shows those who were employed as at 31 August 1999 and their employment status as at 31 August 2000 by CSA Business Unit.
    847W
    You also ask about the number of people in each CSA Business Unit who have received requests for child support payments, broken down into status, and what proportion this represents of persons in each case. Table 2 provides this information and gives the latest data available. The table includes cases where child support liability was assessed but no payment was requested because the

    Table 1. Number of non-resident parents who were in employment at 31 August 1999 and were still in employment at 31 August 2000, by CSA Business Unit: all cases1

    Agency Business Units

    Number in employment2 at 31 August 1999

    Number still in employment2 at 31 August 2000

    Number not in employment at 31 August 2000

    Midlands

    80,000

    71,000

    5,000

    South Eastern

    67,000

    63,000

    3,000

    Scotland and North East England

    87,000

    80,000

    6,000

    South Western

    86,000

    78,000

    4,000

    Wales and North West

    83,000

    70,000

    6,000

    Eastern

    89,000

    83,000

    5,000

    All

    491,000

    3445,000

    328,000

    Number of population in paid employment4

    27.5 million

    28 million

    28 million

    Percentage of CSA customers in paid employment against population as a whole

    1.78

    1.59

    —

    1All cases include employed and self-employed with full and interim assessments

    2Those cases that are still employed as at August 2000 may have had periods of unemployment during the year

    318,000 cases not accounted for in August 2000 are no longer on the Child Support Computer System (CSCS) indicating that they are no longer liable for child support, or their cases have been suspended for some reason.

    4NRP benefit status is more indicative of the case at take-on rather than at the current time

    Notes:

    Figures are rounded to the nearest thousand; therefore totals may not tally

    Figures are based on a 5 per. cent. sample of CSCS

    Source:

    Labour Force Survey (seasonally adjusted) rounded to the nearest half million.

    Table 2. Number of non-resident parents in each CSA Business Unit who were charged during quarter ending 31 August 1999

    Agency

    Total number of cases

    Number of cases where payment is requested

    Percentage of cases where payment is requested

    Self-employed

    52,000

    33,000

    63.46

    Employed

    440,000

    275,000

    62.50

    JSA/IB

    99,000

    12,000

    12.12

    Income Support

    218,000

    8,0000

    3.67

    JSA (Cont)

    19,000

    11,000

    57.89

    Incapacity/Disabled

    31,000

    4,000

    12.90

    Other

    116,000

    46,000

    39.66

    Midlands

    Self-employed

    6,000

    3,000

    50.00

    Employed

    73,000

    43,000

    58.90

    JSA/IB

    15,000

    2,000

    13.33

    Income Support

    36,000

    1,000

    2.78

    JSA (Cont)

    3,000

    2,000

    66.67

    Incapacity/Disabled

    4,000

    0

    0.00

    Other

    20,000

    8,000

    40.00

    South Eastern

    Self-employed

    16,000

    12,000

    75.00

    Employed

    50,000

    29,000

    58.00

    JSA/IB

    16,000

    2,000

    12.50

    Income Support

    33,000

    2,000

    6.06

    JSA (Cont)

    2,000

    1,000

    50.00

    Incapacity/Disabled

    4,000

    1,000

    25.00

    Other

    24,000

    9,000

    37.50

    Scotland and North East England

    Self-employed

    6,000

    4,000

    66.67

    Employed

    82,000

    54,000

    65.85

    JSA/IB

    21,000

    3,000

    14.29

    Income Support

    38,000

    1,000

    2.63

    JSA (Cont)

    4,000

    2,000

    50.00

    Incapacity/Disabled

    7,000

    0

    0.00

    Other

    17,000

    7,000

    41.18

    848W
    non-resident parent was either paying child maintenance direct to the parent with care or where their maintenance assessment was calculated as nil.

    The Department produces a CSA Quarterly Summary of Statistics that is available in the House of Commons Library and you may find the information it contains of further interest.

    Table 2. Number of non-resident parents in each CSA Business Unit who were charged during quarter ending 31 August 1999

    Agency

    Total number of cases

    Number of cases where payment is requested

    Percentage of cases where payment is requested

    South Western

    Self-employed

    10,000

    5,000

    50.00

    Employed

    76,000

    48,000

    63.16

    JSA/IB

    13,000

    2,000

    15.38

    Income Support

    25,000

    1,000

    4.00

    JSA (Cont)

    2,000

    1,000

    50.00

    Incapacity/Disabled

    3,000

    0

    0.00

    Other

    15,000

    5,000

    33.33

    Wales and North West

    Self-employed

    8,000

    5,000

    62.50

    Employed

    55,000

    29,000

    52.73

    JSA/IB

    16,000

    2,000

    12.50

    Income Support

    48,000

    3,000

    6.25

    JSA (Cont)

    2,000

    1,000

    50.00

    Incapacity/Disability

    8,000

    1,000

    12.50

    Other

    21,000

    9,000

    42.86

    Eastern

    Self-employed

    7,000

    4,000

    57.14

    Employed

    81,000

    50,000

    61.73

    JSA/IB

    18,000

    2,000

    11.11

    Income Support

    41,000

    2,000

    4.88

    JSA (Cont)

    2,000

    1,000

    50.00

    Incapacity/Disabled

    4,000

    0

    0.00

    Other

    20,000

    9,000

    45.00

    Dr. Godman
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many parents caring for children have been penalised by way of a reduction in income support for failing, or refusing, to provide information concerning an absent parent to the Child Support Agency in
    849W
    (a) Inverclyde and (b) Scotland in the past four years; what was the average amount of reduction; and if he will make a statement. [140550]

    Angela Eagle
    The administration of the Child Support Agency is a matter for the Chief Executive, Mr. Doug Smith. He will write to my hon. Friend.

    Letter from Mr. Doug Smith to Dr. Norman A. Godman, dated November 2000:

    I am replying to your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Social Security about the Child Support Agency.

    We do not have an accurate figure for the number of Reduced Benefit Directions imposed in the Inverclyde area. Based on a 5% sample of the whole national caseload, we would estimate there to have been around 100 cases over the last 4 years, but you will appreciate that this is an estimate and may not be accurate.

    The following figures represent the number of lone parents claiming Income Support in Scotland who had a Reduced Benefit Direction. Because the Income Support data is only extracted once a month, there may be a small number of claimants who have had a Reduced Benefit Direction for a short period of time that are not included in these figures:

    Year

    Number

    1996–97

    1,700

    1997–98

    1,600

    1998–99

    2,200

    1999–2000

    600

    The latest average reduction for parents with care on Income Support is £20.99 per week. This figure is based on an average of two quarters, May 2000 and August 2000. Other years' average reductions for Scotland are:

    Year

    £

    1997–98

    18.23

    1998–99

    18.46

    1999–2000

    20.28

    A reduced Benefit Direction will not be made when a lone parent has good cause for not seeking maintenance. Good cause is accepted where there are reasonable grounds to believe that the parent or any child living with her would suffer harm or undue distress as a result of pursuing child maintenance. Reductions will not be implemented if the parent with care is in a vulnerable group such as where there is a Disability Premium in payment.

    Benefits Agency staff now visit the parent with care and help her complete an application form. This has led to a significant increase in the number of parents co-operating. Some 90% of parents with care co-operate now, compared to 30% in 1997, and there has also been a 72.7% reduction in the number of Reduced Benefit Directions imposed in 1999/2000 against 1998/1999 figures.

    Data have been provided by DSS Analytical Services Division (ASD) using a quarterly 5% sample of cases on the Income Support Computer System. These figures, which are rounded to the nearest thousand. may be unreliable because they are subject to sampling error.

    I hope this is helpful.

    Dr. George Turner
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how his Department has utilised the power to incur expenditure on child support reform provided under the terms of section 82 of the Welfare Reform and Pensions Act 1999; and if he will set out the procedures that have been developed in relation to this and future uses of the section 82 power. [141294]
    850W
    Angela Eagle
    Section 82 of the Welfare Reform and Pensions Act allows my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to seek the approval of the House for expenditure in preparation for a change in the law ahead of the law receiving Royal Assent, where, without such advance expenditure, it would not be possible to deliver a service for which he is responsible by the due date. Section 82 requires a report to be laid before the House and the House to approve the report by resolution before expenditure can commence.

    In addition to the specific procedures and controls specified in the legislation, the Government have already given a commitment that the Social Security Select Committee and the Committee for Public Accounts will be provided with copies of drafts of such reports, before they are formally laid before the House—19 May 1999, Official Report, columns 1337–38. This will enable both Committees to have an input into the process and, in particular, to ensure that the use of this power is only for the purposes stated to Parliament by Ministers.

    We can now give a further undertaking, to provide the House with an outturn report setting out the actual expenditure incurred under the terms of section 82 for each use of the power, either at the end of the specific period to which the power relates or following the termination of its application by the receipt of Royal Assent to the related Bill, whichever is earlier.

    The first, and so far the only, use of the power was in respect of Child Support reform. On 11 April 2000 the House approved expenditure of up to £45 million divided into two elements:

    (i) a maximum of £6 million for expenditure by the Child Support Agency on the legislative-dependent elements of the child support reform process;

    (ii) a maximum of £39 million of accruing liability under a PFI contract, also on the legislative-dependent elements of child support reform.

    At the time of the approval of the report it was not clear whether the related legislation, the Child Support, Pensions and Social Security Act would secure Royal Assent ahead of or following the parliamentary summer recess. In the event. Royal Assent was secured on the last day before the recess, 28 July 2000. Equally, the timing of the signing of the PFI contract with Affinity was not clear at the time of the preparation of the report, but in the event took place in early August.

    The actual expenditure relying on section 82 was therefore confined to £2.66 million, spent by the Child Support Agency on the early costs of reform implementation. In the event it was not necessary to incur any liability under the PFI contract ahead of the Act passing into law.

    Housing Benefit Fraud
    Mr. Webb
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many housing benefit best value inspections the Benefits Fraud Inspectorate has carried out in the current financial year; and which local authorities were inspected. [140963]

    Mr. Rooker
    The Best Value arrangements came into force from April this year requiring local authorities to arrange reviews of their services, including those relating to Housing Benefit. The BFI will be involved in
    851W
    inspections of those Best Value reviews that cover Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit. The BFI has recently received details of those local authorities that are planning reviews over the coming year and is now involved in its first best value inspection.

    Mr. Willetts
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to alter the appointment process for local authority fraud investigators. [141082]

    Mr. Rooker
    None.

    Mr. Willetts
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what estimate of total benefit fraud has been made by the Benefit Fraud Inspectorate for each of the local authorities which it has inspected. [141084]

    Mr. Rooker
    The information requested is available in the reports of the Benefit Fraud Inspectorate for each local authority, which have been placed in the library. The BFI estimates are derived from calculations made in the Department of Social Security's report: National Housing Benefit Accuracy Review 1997–98, published in July 1998.

    Pensioner Benefit Units
    Mr. Field
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many pensioner benefit units(a) received and (b) were entitled to but did not receive, (i) Income Support, (ii) Housing Benefit and (iii) Council Tax Benefit in 1998–99; and what percentage of all pensioner benefit units this represented. [141141]

    Mr. Rooker
    Estimates of the number of pensioners entitled to but not receiving income related benefits in 1998–99 will be published on 8 December in "Income Related Benefits Estimates of Take-up in 1998–99".

    Child Benefit
    Mr. Matthew Taylor
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will estimate the distribution of changes in net incomes from a £5 increase in Child Benefit by(a) gross income bands, (b) equivalised gross income bands and (c) equivalised net income bands of recipient families using each band of £5,000 (i) up to £40,000 and (ii) over £40,000; and if he will make a statement. [140864]

    Angela Eagle
    It is not possible to provide the information requested as a wide range of assumptions would have to be made.

    We are committed to eradicating child poverty in 20 years and halving it in 10. To this end, we have already taken wide-ranging action, including measures to improve family incomes and help parents into work.

    Significant rises in Child Benefit now mean that £15 a week is paid for the eldest child (up by 26 per cent. in real terms since 1997) and £10 a week for all other children. The introduction of the Working Families Tax Credit alongside the National Minimum Wage guarantees families with children with one person in full-time work, a minimum income of £208 per week (from October 2000), which rises to £214 from April 2001.

    Occupational Pensions Regulatory Authority
    Dr. George Turner
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he has appointed a new Chairman of the Occupational Pensions Regulatory Authority. [141293]

    Mr. Darling
    I am pleased to announce that following the recommendation of the selection panel I have appointed Harriet Maunsell OBE to serve as Chairman of the Occupational Pensions Regulatory Authority (OPRA) for a period of five years from 1 April 2001. Mrs. Maunsell has been a member of OPRA since 1997 and was for five years Deputy Chair of the Occupational Pensions Board.

    Minimum Income Guarantee
    Mr. Flynn
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many pensioner households and individual pensioners are(a) entitled to and (b) receiving the minimum income guarantee; to what levels these numbers are expected to increase in (i) 2001–02, (ii) 2002–03 and (iii) 2003–04; and how many, in addition to these, he expects to benefit from the pension credit in 2003–04. [141160]

    Mr. Rooker
    Currently around two million pensioners and pensioner couples benefit from the Minimum Income Guarantee. As a result of the measures outlined in the pre-Budget report, over two million pensioners will benefit in 2001–02, this will increase to 2.2 million in 2002–03.

    From 2003 the Pension Credit will be introduced. We estimate that half of all pensioner households, comprising 5.5 million pensioners, will benefit from the Pension Credit.

    Notes:

    1. The numbers currently receiving the Minimum Income Guarantee are based on administrative data on current claims to the Minimum Income Guarantee, from the Quarterly Statistical Enquiry for August 2000. This includes RCNH and RA cases.

    2. We are unable to give forecasts on future MIG entitlement.

    3. The Pension Credit is made up of the guaranteed income top-up and the savings credit.

    4. All figures have been rounded to the nearest 100,000 cases.

    5. Pension Credit figures have been calculated using the Policy Simulation Model for Income Related Benefits. This models the benefits system and is based on data from the Family Resources Survey (FRS) for 1997–98. The FRS survey does not contain any information on RCNH or RA cases.

    6. The Pension Credit is a new benefit and therefore we have provided estimates of entitlement.

    7. The estimates are done on a benefit unit rather than a household basis. A benefit unit is a single pensioner or a pensioner couple. It is possible that more than pensioner benefit unit could live in the same household but in general the benefit unit is a reasonable approximation for a household for pensioners.

    Mr. Willetts
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Knowsley, South (Mr. O'Hara) of 23 March 2000,Official Report, column 661W, if he will estimate the (a) gross and (b) net cost of raising the minimum income guarantee (i) to £92.15 a week for single pensioners and £140.55 a week for married couples in 2001, (ii) to the expected level for 2002 and (iii) to £100 a week for single pensioners and £154 a week for married couples by 2003; and if he will estimate how many more people will be eligible for the main income-related benefits at each of these levels. [139253]
    853W
    Mr. Rooker
    The increases to the Minimum Income Guarantee (MIG) rates will benefit nearly two million pensioners. From April 2001 the new MIG rates will be £92.15 for all single pensioners-a real terms increase of £12.45 a week. The new MIG for couples will be £140.55 a week—a real terms increase of £16.65 for the poorest couples.

    The expected cost of this for income-related benefits over the next three years will be around £420 million annually and is included in the forecasts of expenditure. The number of additional pensioners that will be eligible for the main income-related benefits as a result of the new MIG rates will be around 300,000 a year.

    Ex-service Men
    Ms Kelly
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what recent discussions he has had on the issue of treatment for ex-service men suffering from severe post traumatic stress disorder; and if he will make a statement. [141219]

    Mr. Bayley
    As with other psychological illnesses, treatment for people, including ex-service men with severe post traumatic stress disorder is a matter for the Department of Health and the National Health Service. Earlier in the year (March 2000) I launched an international, multi-disciplinary conference on "Psychological Injury: Understanding and Supporting". Among the delegates were representatives of ex-service organisations. The meeting included presentations and syndicate discussion on treatment effectiveness in post traumatic stress disorder. The proceedings will be published shortly.

    Ms Kelly
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what studies his Department has undertaken on the funding of treatment for ex-servicemen suffering from a psychiatric disability. [141290]

    Mr. Bayley
    The Department has not undertaken any studies on the funding of treatment for ex-servicemen suffering from a psychiatric disability.

    State Pension
    Mr. Field
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will give the reasons for the difference between the expected level of basic state pension given in the consultation paper on the Pension Credit (Cm 4900) and the expected level of basic state pension given in his answer to the right hon. Member for Birkenhead on 27 November 2000,Official Report, column 433W. [141139]

    Mr. Rooker
    I refer my right hon. Friend to page 19 of Chapter 4 of the Pension Credit consultation document (Cm 4900), which clearly states that all pension and benefit rates are illustrative.

    Mr. Matthew Taylor
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to Cm 4917, if he will update his answer on the costs of changes to pensions to the hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) of 3 July 2000,Official Report, column 15W; and if he will make a statement. [138339]

    Mr. Webb
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will estimate the cost to the Exchequer, net of savings in means-tested benefits and of additional income tax revenue, of an increase of £5 per week in the basic state pension together with the introduction of age 854
    additions of £5 per week at age 75 and £10 per week at age 80 years if such a policy were to be implemented in April 2001 and was in addition to the increases already announced for that date. [139073]

    Mr. Rooker
    Revised estimates indicate that the gross costs of the spending proposals set out by the hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) are £0.1 billion lower in 2001–02, 2002–03, 2004–05 and 2005–06 than estimated in my written answer of 3 July 2000,Official Report, column 15W. The estimate for 2003–04 is unchanged. If the consequential effects on Incapacity Benefit assumed in my answer of 3 July are excluded, the estimated gross cost is reduced further by £0.4 billion in 2001–02 and 2002–03, by £0.5 billion in 2003–04 and by £0.4 billion in 2004–05 and 2005–06. The effect of offsetting income-related benefits is to reduce costs by another £1.1 billion each year. Excluding tax effects as well reduces costs by £0.3 billion on top of that in the three years for which estimates are available.

    Mr. Field
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will estimate the additional cost in each of the next five years, (1) net of means tested benefits and taxation, of an increase in the single person's basic state retirement pension in April 2001 by(a) £5 for 75 to 79-year-olds and (b) £10 for 80-year-olds and above; [140950]

    (2) net of taxation and reduced expenditure on means tested benefits, of an increase in the basic state pension of (a) £5 for 70 to 79-year-olds and (b) £10 for those aged 80 years and over. [141140]

    Mr. Rooker
    The information is in the table.

    The cost of a flat rate addition to the basic state pension of £5 for those aged 75–79 and £10 for those aged 80 and above

    Gross cost (£ billion)

    Net cost(IRB and tax savings)

    Net cost (IRB only)

    2001–02

    1.9

    1.1

    1.2

    2002–03

    2

    1.2

    1.3

    2003–04

    2.1

    —

    1.3

    2004–05

    2.1

    —

    1.4

    2005–06

    2.2

    —

    1.4

    Notes:

    1. Figures are rounded to the nearest £0.1 billion.

    2. Gross costs of pension increase estimated by the Government Actuary's Department.

    3. Income tax revenue estimated by the Inland Revenue, and income-related benefits savings, are estimated using the Policy Simulation Model.

    4. Estimates of income tax revenue are not available beyond 2002–03.

    5. Costs are given in cash terms.

    6. Legislation and computer systems would not allow for the implementation of this.

    7. Figures are illustrative.

    Pensioners
    Mr. Field
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) if he will estimate, using the assumptions used to calculate the number of pensioners eligible for the pension credit, how many pensioner couples in 2003 will have a pre-credit weekly income(a) below £123, (b) £123 to £153, (c) £154 to £200 and (d) over £200; [140952]
    855W
    (2) if he will estimate, using the assumptions used to calculate the number of pensioners eligible for the pension credit, how many single pensioners in 2003 will have a pre-credit weekly income (a) below £77, (b) £77 to £100,
    (c) £100 to £134 and (d) over £134. [140951]

    Mr. Rooker
    I refer my right hon. Friend to the written answer I gave him on 28 November 2000,Official Report, columns 487–88W.

    Mr. Alexander
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what steps he has taken to increase the disposable income of pensioners since 1997. [141268]

    Mr. Rooker
    Since 1997 we have introduced the Winter Fuel Payment, the Minimum Income Guarantee and, from April 2001, transitional arrangements for Retirement Pension. Changes to tax and benefits during this Parliament will mean that pensioner households will on average be £580 a year better off.

    Our additional discretionary spending on pensioners will reach over £4 billion extra in the last year of this Parliament.

    Mr. Boswell
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many occupational pensioners in receipt of incapacity benefit will(a) receive that benefit in full, (b) suffer a partial benefit abatement and (c) suffer a full abatement, on account of their pension. [139624]

    Mr. Bayley
    [holding answer 23 November 2000]: Incapacity Benefit recipients who have an occupational or personal pension at the point of change (6 April 2001) will not be affected.

    Existing recipients and anyone with a pension of less than £85 will not be affected.

    The information on Incapacity Benefit (IB) for the next three years is as follows.

    Thousands

    2001–02

    2002–03

    2003–04

    Partial abatement

    20

    40

    65

    Full abatement

    *

    5

    5

    Receiving IB in full

    1,630

    1,635

    1,635

    Notes:

    1. Case loads have been rounded to the nearest 5,000 and may not sum due to rounding (⋆ denotes a case load of less than 2,500).

    2. Abatements have been calculated from data taken from the 1996–97 Family Resources Survey. Case loads are consistent with September 1999 GAD forecasts of IB case loads.

    Wales
    Mr. Win Griffiths
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how much was spent by his Department in Wales in each of the last five years on(a) the elderly, (b) people with long-term illnesses or disabilities,(c) families, (d) unemployed people, (e) children and (f) other categories of people, indicating the percentage of the budget spent on each group. [141172]

    Mr. Bayley
    I will write to my hon. Friend.

    Mr. Win Griffiths
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how much was spent on disability living allowance by his Department in Wales in each of the last five years. [141173]
    856W
    Mr. Bayley
    The administration of Disability Living Allowance is the responsibility of Alexis Cleveland, Chief Executive of the Benefits Agency. She will write to my hon. Friend.

    Letter from Charlie MacKinnon to Mr. Win Griffiths, dated 29 November 2000:

    The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked Alexis Cleveland to respond to your recent Parliamentary Question asking how much was spent on disability living allowance by his Department in Wales in each of the last five years. Due to annual leave I am replying on her behalf.

    The relevant information is as follows:

    Year

    £ million

    1995–96

    313

    1996–97

    375

    1997–98

    421

    1998–99

    451

    1999–2000

    474

    I hope this information is helpful.

    Mr. Wigley
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how much of the Sure Start budget has been spent in Wales; and if he will make a statement. [141029]

    Angela Eagle
    We will write to the right hon. Member.

    Mr. Wigley
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many homes in Wales are defined as fuel poor households. [141030]

    Mr. Rooker
    We will write to the right hon. Member.

    Benefit Fraud (Wales)
    Mr. Llwyd
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many cases of benefit fraud were discovered in each constituency in Wales in each of the last five years. [140123]

    Mr. Rooker
    The information is not available by constituency.

    We have instituted a regular series of measurement exercises to provide an up to date estimate of the level of fraud in Income Support and Jobseeker's Allowance. The results of this exercise are published regularly by the Government Statistical Service.

    Pensioner Incomes
    Mr. Webb
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will estimate the value in(a) 2030, (b) 2040 and (c) 2050 of the full basic state pension combined with a full state second pension as a percentage of the rate of minimum income guarantee, assuming that the MIG is indexed to earnings and the basic state pension and state second pension are indexed to prices from their levels announced for 2003. [140459]

    Mr. Rooker
    We cannot estimate this at present as the total income gained by State Second Pension recipients will be affected by the proposed Pension Credit. The value and structure of the Pension Credit so far in to the future is not yet known. This is one of the issues we are consulting on at present.

    Carers
    Ms Julie Morgan
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what financial help is available for carers who reach retirement age. [140890]

    Mr. Bayley
    Carers of retirement age may be entitled to a number of social security benefits depending on their individual circumstances, primarily retirement pension and income related benefits including the Minimum Income Guarantee.

    Entitlement to Invalid Care Allowance, if determined before age 65, continues afterwards, which allows many low income carers to continue to benefit from the carer premium paid as part of the income related benefits.

    On 3 October, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security, announced the intention to extend the opportunity to claim Invalid Care Allowance to carers aged over 65 years. Some older carers will thereby be able to receive Invalid Care Allowance for the first time, and many more carers on low incomes will hence gain access to the carer premium. We intend to introduce this change as soon as the legislative timetable permits.

    My right hon. Friend also announced on 9 November that the carer premium will be increased by £10 a week on top of the normal uprating from April 2001, an increase of over 70 per cent.

    Mr. Sheerman
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) at what age the Invalid Care Allowance ceases for(a) a woman caring for a sick husband and (b) a man caring for a sick wife; [140767]

    (2) what steps he is taking to ensure that provision for carers of Alzheimer patients continues after the carers reach pensionable age. [141170]

    Mr. Bayley
    The rules for Invalid Care Allowance (ICA) are the same for men and women. For people under 65, entitlement to ICA continues for as long as the conditions of entitlement are met. Entitlement, once determined, continues beyond age 65.

    The rules relating to overlapping benefits mean that after state pension age (65 for a man and 60 for a woman), Invalid Care Allowance may no longer be payable, or payable in full, if Retirement Pension is in payment.

    On 3 October, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security announced the intention to extend the opportunity to claim Invalid Care Allowance to over-65-year-old carers. Some older carers will thereby be able to receive Invalid Care Allowance for the first time, and many more carers on low incomes will hence gain access to the carer premium. We intend to introduce this change as soon as the legislative timetable permits.

    My right hon. Friend also announced on 9 November that the carer premium will be increased by –10 a week on top of the normal uprating from April 2001, an increase of over 70 per cent.

    Disabled People
    Mr. Alexander
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on the measures in his welfare reform programme which will assist disabled people to take up work. [141224]
    858W
    Mr. Bayley
    The New Deal for Disabled People is a joint initiative between this Department and the Department for Education and Employment which has been testing a range of approaches—a personal adviser service, innovative schemes and benefit changes—to find out which approaches are more helpful for disabled people.

    We have announced that a national network of Job Brokers will be set up to offer people receiving incapacity benefits the support, guidance and preparation they need to find paid work and move off benefit dependence.

    Budget 2000 also announced plans to test the effectiveness of helping people when they become ill in work, with job retention and rehabilitation pilots. These pilots, beginning from 2001, will test the effectiveness of early work-focused help, involving health, employment and other services.

    Disabled Claimants
    Mr. Willetts
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will estimate the cost of introducing an all savings disregard for all benefit claimants with disabilities, broken down into the cost associated with each benefit. [141086]

    Mr. Bayley
    It is not possible to estimate the cost of introducing an all savings disregard for all benefit claimants with disabilities, without specifying more fully the underlying assumptions.

    Pension Credit
    Mr. Willetts
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what steps he will take to distinguish between the pension credit allocating pension rights after divorce and the pension credit announced by the Chancellor in his Pre-Budget report. [141031]

    Mr. Rooker
    They are clearly distinguishable.

    Mr. Flynn
    To ask the Secretary of State for SocialSecurity, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Newport, West on 20 November 2000,Official Report, columns 67– 68W, on pensioner income, if he will provide an amended version of the table on page 30 of the consultation paper on the Pension Credit indicating how it will reward savings income of up to £135 a week in the case of a single pensioner with a full basic state pension. [140625]

    Mr. Rooker
    This information is available in the table on page 30 of the Pension Credit consultation document (Cm 4900). This table assumes a full basic state pension of £77. This shows how the credit rewards savings, second pensions and earnings up to incomes of £135 a week for a single pensioner.

    Benefit Errors
    Mr. Field
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security on how many occasions in the past three years a
    859W
    computer error has led to duplicate payments of benefit amounting to £1 million or more; and how many benefit claims were affected on each occasion. [140947]

    Mr. Rooker
    We will write to my right hon. Friend.

    Claimants (Police Information)
    Mr. Pickles
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) if he will make a statement on the level of discretion available to officials in his Department to disclose information to the police on claimants under the new guidance, indicating the extent to which the discretion differs from previous guidance; [138700]

    (2) what discussions he has held with the Home Secretary on the new guidance issued to officials in his Department on the disclosure of information on claimants to the police;[138699]

    (3) if he will place a copy in the Library of the (a) new guidance and (b) previous guidance issued to officials in his Department on the disclosure of information on claimants to the police; [138697]

    (4) what definition he applies to serious and minor crimes in his new guidance issued to officials in his Department on co-operation with the police on the disclosure of information on claimants; [138698]

    (5) what representations he has received from the Police Federation on the new guidance issued to officials in his Department on the disclosure of information on claimants to the police.[138696]

    Mr. Rooker
    Guidance on the level of discretion available to officials in this Department and other matters relating to disclosure of information to the police is contained in the Protection of Customer Information Guide. This was published in April 2000, to replace previous guidance which had been issued in 1992 and which had become out of date. The level of discretion available to officials was unaffected by the revision of the guidance.

    We have had an exchange of correspondence with ministerial colleagues in the Home Office about the guidance and officials have had discussions with the Association of Chief Police Officers. We have received no representations from the Police Federation about it. A copy of the new guidance has been placed in the Library. The new guidance can also be viewed on the DSS homepage at www.dss.gov.uk. The previous guidance was withdrawn when the new guide was published, but I am arranging to place a copy in the Library for comparison purposes until the end of 2000.

    Asylum Seekers (Benefits)
    Mr. Lidington
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what his Department spent on social security benefits for asylum seekers in the financial year 1999–2000; what his estimate is of the amount paid in social security benefits to asylum seekers in 2000–01 to date; what his estimate is of the likely total of such expenditure for the entire financial year 2000–01; if he will show for each period(a) the total estimated expenditure, (b) expenditure on Income Support and Jobseeker's Allowance, (c) expenditure on Housing Benefit and(d) expenditure on Council Tax Benefit; and if he will make a statement. [139373]
    860W
    Angela Eagle
    [holding answer 20 November 2000]: Information is not available in the format requested. Such information as is available is in the table.

    Estimated expenditure for Income Support and Jobseeker's Allowance (income-based), combined

    £ million

    1999–2000

    136

    2000–01

    157

    1To date

    Notes:

    1. Expenditure for 2000–01 to date covers the period April to September 2000 and does not include Jobseeker's Allowance (income-based). Jobseeker's Allowance expenditure on Asylum Seekers is, however, negligible.

    2. Estimates are based on the Income Support Quarterly Statistical Enquiries from May 1999 to August 2000, and the Jobseeker's Allowance Quarterly Statistical Enquiries from May 1999 to February 2000.

    3. The amounts shown reflect the revised figures for Asylum Seekers receiving Income Support published in table 7.1 of the August 2000 Quarterly Statistical Enquiry. Figures previously published and used as the basis for previous calculations of expenditure were incorrect due to a tabling error.

    4. Housing Benefit (HB) and Council Tax Benefit (CTB) expenditure on Asylum Seekers in 1999–2000 cannot be estimated until the May 2000 1 per cent. sample of HB and CTB claims has been published (spring 2001).

    5. Responsibility for the costs of asylum seeker support passed to the Home Office in April 1999 following the Comprehensive Spending Review. The Department is reimbursed by the Home Office for the costs of social security benefits paid to asylum seekers.

    Social Fund
    Fiona Mactaggart
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what proportion of applicants to the Social Fund received(a) loans, (b) grants and (c) refusals in the last 12 months. [139713]

    Angela Eagle
    The information is in the table.

    The proportions of discretionary Social Fund applicants who received an award and whose applications were refused between November 1999 and October 2000

    Percentage of applications on which an initial award was:

    Made

    Refused

    Community Care Grants

    37

    63

    Budgeting Loans

    67

    30

    Crisis Loans

    72

    27

    Notes:

    1. The number of awards after review are not included in the table; if these awards were included then the percentage of applications resulting in an award would be Community Care Grants 46 per cent., Budgeting Loans 68 per cent. and Crisis Loans 72 per cent.

    2. Percentages may not sum due to rounding, applications being withdrawn, applicants not responding to loan offers and applications not decided at the time of the count.

    Compensation Recovery Unit
    Mr. Wigley
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what percentage of the compensation package for sick miners the Compensation Recovery Unit expects to(a) deduct and (b) retain. [140448]
    861W
    Mr. Bayley
    The amount recovered is in respect of benefits already paid to the miners in consequence of their illness and is recovered direct from the Department of Trade and Industry not from the miners themselves. At present, this stands at £14,868,340.07.

    Child Support Agency
    Mr. Hunter
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) if he will take measures to ensure that complaints awaiting investigation by the Independent Case Examiner for the Child Support Agency are investigated more promptly; and if he will direct more resources towards achieving this; [140469]

    (2) what the backlog of complaints awaiting investigation by the Independent Case Examiner for the Child Support Agency was in (a) November 1999, (b) May 2000 and (c) November 2000. [140468]

    Angela Eagle
    In November 1999 there were 170 cases awaiting investigation. By May 2000, this had risen to 204 cases and by November 2000 there were 218 cases in this category. Overall, the percentage of cases referred to the Independent Case Examiner as a percentage of the Child Support Agency caseload has fallen from 0.17 per cent. in 1989–99 to 0.11 per cent. in 1999–2000

    Additional funding was allocated in September 2000 which will mean a 17 per cent. increase in investigative resources.

    Benefit Savings Thresholds
    Mr. Webb
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will set out the weekly benefit savings thresholds allocated to each local authority in(a) 1998–99, (b) 1999–2000 and (c) 2000–01. [141007]

    Angela Eagle
    The information has been placed in the Library.

    Mr. Webb
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list the local authorities that were allocated weekly benefit savings thresholds below £60,000 in(a) 1998–99, (b) 1999–2000 and (c) 2000–01. [141009]

    Angela Eagle
    The information is in the table.

    Local authorities with weekly benefit savings thresholds below £60,000

    1998–99

    1999–2000

    2000–01

    Alnwick

    yes

    yes

    yes

    Berwick-upon-Tweed

    yes

    yes

    yes

    Blaby

    yes

    yes

    yes

    Bridgnorth

    yes

    yes

    yes

    Bromsgrove

    no

    yes

    yes

    Castle Morpeth

    yes

    yes

    yes

    City of London

    yes

    yes

    yes

    Comhairle nan Eilean Siar

    yes

    yes

    yes

    Daventry

    yes

    no

    yes

    Derbyshire Dales

    yes

    yes

    yes

    Forest Heath

    yes

    yes

    yes

    Harborough

    yes

    yes

    yes

    Isles of Scilly

    yes

    yes

    yes

    Melton

    yes

    yes

    yes

    Oadby and Wigston

    yes

    yes

    yes

    Orkney

    yes

    yes

    yes

    Oswestry

    no

    yes

    yes

    Ribble Valley

    yes

    yes

    yes

    Richmondshire

    yes

    yes

    no

    Rutland

    yes

    yes

    yes

    862W

    Local authorities with weekly benefit savings thresholds below £60,000

    1998–99

    1999–2000

    2000–01

    Shetland

    yes

    yes

    yes

    South Bucks

    yes

    no

    no

    South Holland

    no

    no

    yes

    South Northants

    yes

    yes

    yes

    Teesdale

    yes

    yes

    yes

    Tynedale

    yes

    no

    no

    Mr. Webb
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will(a) list the local authorities that failed to meet at least 75 per cent. of their weekly benefit savings thresholds and (b) detail the penalties incurred by each of those local authorities in (i) 1998–99 and (ii) 1999–2000. [141008]

    Angela Eagle
    The information is in the table.

    Local authorities that failed to meet at least 75 per cent. of their weekly benefit savings thresholds

    £

    Authority name

    Penalties 1998–99

    Penalties 1999–20001

    Allerdale

    —

    5,958

    Aylesbury Vale

    —

    1,648

    Barnet

    3,795

    79,247

    Basingstoke

    4,589

    —

    Breckland

    —

    9,306

    Brighton and Hove

    —

    54,819

    Bromley

    —

    12,382

    Canterbury

    69,002

    69,317

    Ceredigion

    84,200

    40,941

    Charnwood

    44,384

    16,847

    Clackmannanshire

    2,962

    —

    Colchester

    —

    47,927

    Copeland

    —

    37,998

    Croydon

    —

    48,854

    Darlington

    —

    8,673

    Dundee

    —

    33,634

    East Devon

    —

    39,882

    East Hampshire

    —

    3,678

    Glasgow

    —

    10,678

    Greenwich

    —

    12,388

    Hackney

    418,365

    500,998

    Hambleton

    —

    6,195

    Harrow

    6,494

    176,712

    Hart

    —

    16,459

    Knowsley

    —

    87,318

    Leicester

    —

    99,747

    Mansfield

    24,270

    —

    Neath Port Talbot

    —

    38,125

    Newham

    —

    335,293

    North Ayrshire

    100,060

    —

    North Norfolk

    16,854

    —

    North Wiltshire

    —

    9,461

    Norwich

    21,050

    47,601

    Plymouth

    —

    53,196

    Reading

    105,580

    —

    Renfrewshire

    10,497

    —

    Salisbury

    69,644

    13,357

    Sandwell

    —

    21,011

    Scottish Homes

    197,639

    67,846

    Sevenoaks

    —

    23,356

    Solihull

    —

    7,912

    South Ayrshire

    39,905

    —

    South Buckinghamshire

    —

    168

    South Gloucestershire

    —

    11,468

    South Norfolk

    15,599

    —

    Southend on Sea

    —

    4,653

    Southwark

    —

    140,929

    863W

    Local authorities that failed to meet at least 75 per cent. of their weekly benefit savings thresholds

    £

    Authority name

    Penalties 1998–99

    Penalties 1999–20001

    Stevenage

    —

    24,256

    Suffolk Coastal

    —

    2,520

    Swansea

    26,009

    —

    Taunton Deane

    —

    9,490

    Tendring

    —

    126,116

    Waltham Forest

    —

    13,075

    Wandsworth

    108,809

    —

    Wealden

    56,078

    14,789

    West Dunbartonshire

    37,305

    —

    West Lothian

    —

    28,948

    West Somerset

    —

    2,339

    Westminster

    —

    120,211

    Windsor and Maidenhead

    —

    34,459

    Wirral

    421,401

    142,853

    1Figures for 1999/2000 are unaudited and are subject to change.

    Housing Benefit
    Mr. Webb
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many claims for housing benefit have not been processed within 14 days since 1 April. [140962]

    Angela Eagle
    The information is not yet available.

    Mr. Webb
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many amendments have been made to Housing Benefit regulations since 1 January. [140961]

    Angela Eagle
    I refer the hon. Member to my written answer to the hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) on 6 November 2000,Official Report, column 95W.

    Mr. Coleman
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list for(a) England and (b) London for each of the years 1990 to 2000 the number of private rented tenants claiming Housing Benefit for the years 1990–91 to 2000–01 inclusive, (i) the average eligible rent, (ii) the average amount of Housing Benefit paid per tenant and (iii) the total of Housing Benefit paid to private tenants. [140996]

    Angela Eagle
    The available information is in the tables.

    Private tenants case load, average eligible rent and Housing Benefit for England and London 1990–2000

    Private tenants

    Average eligible rent (£)

    Average Housing Benefit (£)

    England

    1990–91

    929,000

    30.40

    26.20

    1991–92

    958,000

    36.50

    33.10

    1992–93

    1,195,000

    44.20

    40.50

    1993–94

    1,379,000

    49.10

    45.50

    1994–95

    1,497,000

    53.20

    49.50

    1995–96

    1,614,000

    56.60

    52.50

    1996–97

    1,653,000

    58.90

    54.30

    1997–98

    1,609,000

    60.80

    55.80

    1998–99

    1,570,000

    62.50

    56.90

    1999–2000

    1,543,000

    63.90

    58.20

    London

    1990–91

    188,000

    40.80

    35.90

    1991–92

    202,000

    46.30

    42.80

    1992–93

    267,000

    54.80

    50.90

    1993–94

    307,000

    61.50

    58.20

    1994–95

    340,000

    67.90

    64.60

    864W

    Private tenants case load, average eligible rent and Housing Benefit for England and London 1990–2000

    Private tenants

    Average eligible rent (£)

    Average Housing Benefit (£)

    1995–96

    362,000

    72.60

    68.90

    1996–97

    360,000

    75.70

    71.50

    1997–98

    339,000

    78.10

    73.50

    1998–99

    323,000

    80.00

    74.60

    1999–2000

    303,000

    82.60

    77.00

    Notes:

    1. The data refer to households, which may be a single person, couple or a family.

    2. The caseload figures have been rounded to the nearest thousand.

    3. The average cash amounts have been rounded to the nearest ten pence.

    4. The Private Tenant figures include cases that are classified as Registered Social Landlords/Housing Association.

    5. Figures from the Quarterly 100 per cent. caseload stock-count for any non-responding authorities will have been estimated. Private Tenant figures exclude any Extended Payment.

    Source:

    1. Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit Management Information System, annual 1 per cent. sample, taken in May 1990 and May 1991.

    2. Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit Management Information System Quarterly 100 per cent. caseload stock-count taken in each quarter from May 1992 to February 2000.

    Annual Housing Benefit rent allowance expenditure in respect of private tenants for England and London from 1990 to 1999

    £ million

    England

    London

    1990–91

    1,565

    —

    1991–92

    2,167

    —

    1992–93

    2,934

    —

    1993–94

    3,809

    —

    1994–95

    4,432

    —

    1995–96

    4,946

    1,495

    1996–97

    5,272

    1,557

    1997–98

    5,125

    1,460

    1998–99

    5,095

    1,410

    Notes:

    1. The rent allowance expenditure information includes the expenditure in respect of registered Social Landlords/Housing Association tenants.

    2. Information for London is not available before 1995–96.

    Source:

    Housing Benefit Subsidy claim forms from local authorities and Housing Revenue Account data from the Department of Environment, Transport and the Regions.

    Mr. Alasdair Morgan
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) if he will further amend the Housing Benefit (General) Amendment (No. 2) Regulations 1998, part 3(h), to take account of individuals whose financial circumstances have changed between selling the property they continue to reside in and making a claim for Housing Benefit; [140437]

    (2) for what reason the amendment of Regulation 7 of the Housing Benefit Regulations excluded from benefit people who had previously owned their home. [140438]

    Angela Eagle
    The intention of the provision was to halt the abuse where an owner-occupier transfers ownership of his or her home without money changing hands, or for less than the market price, and rents it back. Housing Benefit is still available to anyone who can prove that he or she was forced to transfer or sell because of, for example, mortgage arrears.
    865W
    We are also aware of some cases where people sold their properties on a commercial basis some time ago and are now renting them. There is no evidence to suggest that such transactions took place to enable the seller to take advantage of the Housing Benefit scheme. We are proposing, therefore, to introduce regulations shortly which will enable an ex-owner to claim Housing Benefit provided five years have elapsed since he or she ceased to own the property.

    Dr. Iddon
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what impact the transfer of local authority housing stock into other control has had on expenditure on Housing Benefit to date. [141193]

    Angela Eagle
    The information is not available. This is because the data local authorities provide on Housing Benefit spending do not enable us to distinguish between spending on tenants who live in stock that has been transferred and those who live in other stock.

    Mr. Love
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what recent meetings he has had with interested parties on the subject of Housing Benefit; and if he will make a statement. [141104]

    Angela Eagle
    In recent months I have, on behalf of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security, met with local councillors, local authority representatives and Members of the House who have an interest in Housing Benefit.

    We are always keen to listen to the views of people with an interest in Housing Benefit. To this end, we are currently studying the consultation responses to the Housing Green Paper and we will take decisions on how to proceed in the light of them. We will announce our intentions shortly.

    Mr. Willetts
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his answer of 20 November 2000,Official Report, column 67W, to the hon. Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) on Housing Benefit, if he will provide the same information concerning the proportion of Housing Benefit claims that are cleared within 14 days of receipt for each other local authority. [141083]

    Angela Eagle
    The available information has been placed in the Library.

    Independent Living Fund
    Mr. Andrew George
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what assessment he has made of the(a) number of recipients of, (b) total expenditure on and (c) upper and lower payments made by his Department from the Independent Living Fund for each of the last three years. [141144]

    Mr. Bayley
    The Independent Living Funds (ILFs) operate on a UK basis and the number of recipients of payments from the ILFs for the last three years was as follows:

    31 March 1998: 15,575

    31 March 1999: 15,189

    31 March 2000: 15,262.

    The total UK expenditure for the last three years was:

    Year ending 1997–98: £113,655,548

    Year ending 1998–99: £117,745,387

    Year ending 1999–2000: £126,154,830.

    866W
    The maximum sums payable by the Funds remained unchanged since their inception in 1993 until 27 January 2000. From 1993 the maximum payment paid by the Independent Living (Extension Fund) was £560 per week and for the Independent Living (1993) Fund £300 per week. In January these amounts were increased to £625 for the Extension Fund and £375 per week for the 1993 Fund. The lowest payment made in an individual case in each of the last three years was £1 per week.

    Mr. Andrew George
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will estimate the cost to his Department of removing the means test from the Independent Living Fund. [141145]

    Mr. Bayley
    Up to date information is not available. I will write to the hon. Member shortly with the information.

    Benefit Fraud
    Mr. Willetts
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security which of the principal and supplementary recommendations in the Scampion report on organised benefit fraud(a) have been accepted, (b) are being considered and (c) have been rejected; if local authorities have been notified of the Scampion report; and if he will place the full text of the report on the internet. [141049]

    Mr. Rooker
    Following the Scampion Report work is under way in the following main areas:

    strengthen the central organised fraud investigation service

    establish a National Benefits Intelligence Unit

    set up joint working agreements with LAs

    replace Weekly Benefit Savings

    take forward and provide an audit trail for supplementary recommendations.

    Local authorities have been notified of the Scampion report and have been involved in the consultation process for joint working and the review of subsidy arrangements.

    The report will be available on the internet shortly.

    Mr. Pickles
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what working estimate was used by his Department for Housing Benefit fraud; what the level was of detected housing benefit fraud in each year since 1990; and if he will make a statement. [139329]

    Angela Eagle
    Housing Benefit fraud was not measured prior to 1993. The method of measurement was changed in 1998 as a result of reports by the National Audit Office and Audit Commission. This makes it impossible to make a meaningful comparison across the period.

    Mr. Webb
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his answer of 17 November 2000,Official Report, column 807W, on benefit fraud, if he will set out the specific measures of the direction issued to Northampton Borough Council. [141006]

    Mr. Rooker
    I have placed a copy of the direction in the Library.

  NORTHERN IRELAND

    Hamill Case
    Mr. William Ross
    To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland under what powers the Police Ombudsman in Northern Ireland has commenced an investigation into the Hamill case. [141161]

    Mr. Ingram
    The Police Ombudsman is supervising the investigation into the complaint against the police made in relation to the murder of Robert Hamill under the provisions of Part VII of the Police (NI) Act 1998. The Commencement Order signed by the Secretary of State on 4 November 2000 provides that complaints which were made under the 1987 Police (NI) Order shall continue to be dealt with under Part VII of the Police (NI) Act 1998.

    Northern Ireland Voluntary Trust
    Mr. Field
    To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) if he will set out the criteria by which funds for the Northern Ireland Voluntary Trust are distributed; [139814]

    (2) if he will break down the geographical distribution of funds for the Northern Ireland Victims Trust to date. [139813]

    Mr. Ingram
    The Core Funding for Victims/Survivors Groups Grant Scheme is administered by the Northern Ireland Voluntary Trust (NIVT) on behalf of the Victims Liaison Unit in the Northern Ireland Office. The criteria used by NIVT are set out in the Guidance for Applicants brochure produced by NIVT. A copy has been placed in the Library of the House.

    The geographical distribution of funding is given in the following table by District Council area. In addition, a number of the groups which have received funding provide services on a regional basis.

    District council area

    £

    Armagh

    2,000

    Belfast

    576,398

    Coleraine

    73,660

    Cookstown

    3,100

    Craigavon

    80,000

    Derry

    7,550

    Down

    87,800

    Dungannon

    10,000

    Fermanagh

    81,346

    Newry and Mourne

    1,070

    North Down

    88,718

    Omagh

    44,190

    Strabane

    86,000

    Regional

    985,787

    Total

    2,127.619

  WALES

    Children's Commissioner for Wales
    Mr. Edwards
    To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement about the establishment of a Children's Commissioner for Wales. [139934]
    868W
    Mr. Paul Murphy
    The office of the Children's Commissioner for Wales is being established under the Care Standards Act, which received Royal Assent on 20 July. The role of the Commissioner reflects Sir Ronald Waterhouse's first recommendation in his report "Lost in Care".

    The Commissioner's functions will extend to all social care services for children regulated by the Act: children's homes, residential family centres, local authority fostering and adoption services, fostering agencies, voluntary adoption agencies, domiciliary care, private and voluntary hospitals and clinics, the welfare aspects of daycare and childminding services for all children under the age of eight, and the welfare of children living away from home in boarding schools.

    The Commissioner's functions include the review and monitoring of arrangements by the service providers above for dealing with complaints, whistle-blowing and advocacy; the provision of advice and information; the examination, where the Commissioner considers appropriate, of the cases of particular children to be defined in regulations who are receiving or have been in receipt of such services; the provision of assistance, including financial assistance, and representation, in respect of proceedings or disputes or in relation to the operation of procedures and arrangements monitored by the Commissioner; and making reports, including an annual report on the exercise of his/her functions to the National Assembly for Wales.

    Dee Estuary
    Mr. Ben Chapman
    To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what arrangements are being put in place for the maintenance of the ecology of the Dee Estuary in advance of the forthcoming water framework directive and the Dee Estuary Strategy. [140430]

    Mr. Paul Murphy
    In relation to that part of the Dee Estuary falling in Wales, this is a matter for the National Assembly.

    Special Educational Needs
    Mr. Win Griffiths
    To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list by local education authority the number of cases taken to the Tribunal for Special Educational Needs each year from its inception until July 1999, indicating the number of cases in which the tribunal ruled that additional support should be provided for children with special needs. [140567]

    Mr. Paul Murphy
    I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given by the Minister for School Standards on 28 November 2000,Official Report, column 583W.

    Child Protection Registers
    Mr. Win Griffiths
    To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list, for each local authority area, how many children there were on child protection registers broken down, by type of abuse, in(a) 1990, (b) 1997 and (c) 2000; and what was the rate of abuse per 10,000 children for Wales. [140565]

    Mr. Paul Murphy
    Figures for 1990 and 1997 are set out in the table. Since 1 July 1999, this has been a matter for the National Assembly for Wales.
    869W

    Children on Child Protection Registers

    Neglect, Physical and sexual abuse

    Neglect and physical abuse

    Neglect and sexual abuse

    Physical abuse and sexual abuse

    Neglect (only)

    Physical abuse (only)

    Sexual abuse (only)

    Emotional abuse (only)

    Grave concern: household contains known abuser

    Grave concern: other

    Total

    Rate per 10,000 Population aged 0–17 Year

    at 31 March 1990

    Clwyd

    1

    4

    0

    1

    19

    83

    54

    16

    107

    86

    371

    39

    Dyfed

    0

    25

    3

    2

    37

    60

    26

    25

    68

    109

    355

    45

    Gwent

    0

    9

    0

    1

    61

    122

    32

    14

    36

    92

    367

    35

    Gwynedd

    0

    1

    1

    1

    8

    10

    2

    0

    15

    20

    58

    11

    Mid Glamorgan

    0

    5

    0

    0

    12

    61

    23

    15

    35

    28

    179

    14

    Powys

    0

    0

    1

    0

    20

    10

    9

    2

    21

    22

    85

    33

    South Glamorgan

    1

    8

    2

    5

    106

    112

    26

    34

    144

    315

    753

    78

    West Glamorgan

    0

    1

    2

    1

    12

    23

    8

    2

    64

    21

    134

    16

    Wales

    2

    53

    9

    11

    275

    481

    180

    108

    490

    693

    2,302

    35

    at 31 March 1997:

    Isle of Anglesey

    0

    0

    0

    0

    7

    4

    4

    2

    1—

    1—

    17

    11

    Gwynedd

    0

    5

    5

    4

    16

    24

    15

    13

    1—

    1—

    82

    32

    Conwy

    0

    5

    0

    1

    18

    27

    1

    2

    1—

    1—

    54

    24

    Denbighshire

    0

    1

    0

    0

    9

    16

    3

    8

    1—

    1—

    37

    18

    Flintshire

    0

    2

    0

    0

    3

    12

    12

    2

    1—

    1—

    31

    9

    Wrexham

    0

    3

    2

    0

    6

    10

    3

    7

    1—

    1—

    31

    11

    Powys

    0

    2

    3

    0

    12

    1

    6

    19

    1—

    1—

    43

    16

    Ceredigion

    0

    0

    0

    0

    7

    9

    9

    8

    1—

    1—

    33

    24

    Pembrokeshire

    0

    1

    1

    0

    26

    13

    13

    19

    1—

    1—

    73

    28

    Carmarthenshire

    0

    6

    0

    2

    54

    27

    12

    24

    1—

    1—

    125

    34

    Swansea

    0

    0

    0

    0

    32

    36

    33

    22

    1—

    1—

    123

    24

    Neath Port Talbot

    0

    0

    0

    0

    60

    42

    16

    40

    1—

    1—

    158

    50

    Bridgend

    0

    0

    0

    2

    4

    22

    1

    8

    1—

    1—

    37

    12

    The Vale of Glamorgan

    0

    6

    0

    4

    13

    44

    8

    33

    1—

    1—

    108

    37

    Cardiff

    4

    35

    5

    6

    143

    109

    48

    112

    1—

    1—

    462

    61

    Rhondda, Cynon, Taff

    0

    8

    2

    0

    47

    30

    12

    36

    1—

    1—

    135

    24

    Merthyr Tydfil

    1

    7

    0

    0

    22

    12

    12

    14

    1—

    1—

    68

    46

    Caerphilly

    5

    12

    1

    4

    31

    50

    30

    19

    1—

    1—

    152

    36

    Blaenau Gwent

    0

    0

    2

    0

    23

    10

    8

    7

    1—

    1—

    50

    29

    Torfaen

    0

    2

    0

    0

    10

    19

    6

    2

    1—

    1—

    39

    18

    Monmouthshire

    0

    0

    0

    1

    16

    16

    5

    7

    1—

    1—

    45

    23

    Newport

    0

    3

    6

    6

    55

    29

    19

    8

    1—

    1—

    126

    37

    Wales

    10

    98

    27

    30

    614

    562

    276

    412

    1—

    1—

    2,029

    30

    1Not applicable

    Note:

    Comparisons between abuse categories for these years are not possible as the category 'Grave concern' was discontinued in 1993. Continuing Grave concern cases were assigned to another category.

    Farm Incomes
    Mr. Win Griffiths
    To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the(a) average annual income of farmers in each of the last 10 years prior to devolution and (b) the average annual direct subsidy per farm in Wales

    £000

    1993–94

    1994–95

    1995–96

    1996–97

    1997–98

    1998–99

    LFA farms

    Net farm income

    16.0

    7.0

    18.4

    14.3

    8.1

    4.4

    Total direct subsidies

    21.7

    20.2

    27.3

    26.4

    22.7

    28.4

    Lowland farms

    Net farm income

    10.4

    8.5

    16.0

    10.3

    3.3

    -1.3

    Total direct subsidies

    7.1

    7.7

    11.5

    11.4

    10.5

    13.0

    NHS Dentists
    Mr. Win Griffiths
    To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list for each health authority area in Wales the ratio of NHS dentists to the population in each of the 10 years prior to devolution, indicating for each year the areas where there has been a shortage of NHS
    870W
    distinguishing between those which (i) are and (ii) are not in less favoured areas. [140569]

    Mr. Paul Murphy
    Following is the available information. Data cannot be provided on a consistent basis before 1993.

    dentists and the number required to make up the shortfall in each case. [140640]

    Mr. Paul Murphy
    The numbers of NHS dentists, and rates per 10,000 population in each year, are set out in the table. The 1990 count was taken on 30 September; those for later years on 31 March. It is for individual health
    871W
    authorities to determine whether the level of dental manpower in their area is adequate in the light of local needs.

    General Dental Practitioners in Wales

    1990

    Number

    Rate1

    1990

    Clwyd

    11

    2.7

    Dyfed

    98

    2.8

    Gwent

    125

    2.8

    Gwynedd

    69

    2.9

    Mid Glamorgan

    134

    2.5

    Powys

    34

    2.9

    South Glamorgan

    131

    3.2

    West Glamorgan

    135

    3.6

    Wales

    837

    2.9

    1991

    Clwyd

    110

    2.7

    Dyfed

    97

    2.8

    Gwent

    136

    3.0

    Gwynedd

    63

    2.6

    Mid Glamorgan

    133

    2.5

    Powys

    38

    3.2

    South Glamorgan

    131

    3.2

    West Glamorgan

    134

    3.6

    Wales

    842

    2.9

    1992

    Clwyd

    116

    2.8

    Dyfed

    101

    2.9

    Gwent

    134

    3.0

    Gwynedd

    65

    2.7

    Mid Glamorgan

    140

    2.6

    Powys

    34

    2.9

    South Glamorgan

    131

    3.2

    West Glamorgan

    135

    3.6

    Wales

    853

    2.9

    1993

    Clwyd

    108

    2.6

    Dyfed

    103

    2.9

    Gwent

    133

    3.0

    Gwynedd

    65

    2.7

    Mid Glamorgan

    128

    2.4

    Powys

    34

    2.8

    South Glamorgan

    131

    3.2

    West Glamorgan

    129

    3.5

    Wales

    831

    2.9

    1994

    Clwyd

    119

    2.9

    Dyfed

    104

    3.0

    Gwent

    142

    3.1

    Gwynedd

    66

    2.7

    Mid Glamorgan

    122

    2.2

    Powys

    32

    2.7

    South Glamorgan

    135

    3.3

    West Glamorgan

    138

    3.7

    Wales

    858

    2.9

    1995

    Clwyd

    118

    2.8

    Dyfed

    100

    2.8

    Gwent

    140

    3.1

    Gwynedd

    65

    2.7

    Mid Glamorgan

    128

    2.4

    Powys

    33

    2.7

    South Glamorgan

    138

    3.3

    West Glamorgan

    128

    3.5

    Wales

    850

    2.9

    872W

    General Dental Practitioners in Wales

    1990

    Number

    Rate1

    1996

    Clwyd

    115

    2.7

    Dyfed

    99

    2.8

    Gwent

    137

    3.0

    Gwynedd

    64

    2.7

    Mid Glamorgan

    123

    2.3

    Powys

    35

    2.9

    South Glamorgan

    149

    3.6

    West Glamorgan

    133

    3.6

    Wales

    855

    2.9

    1997

    Bro Taf

    221

    3.0

    Dyfed Powys

    143

    3.0

    Gwent

    174

    3.1

    Morgannwg

    176

    3.5

    North wales

    199

    3.0

    Wales

    913

    3.1

    1998

    Bro Taf

    226

    3.1

    Dyfed Powys

    146

    3.0

    Gwent

    175

    3.1

    Morgannwg

    176

    3.5

    North Wales

    207

    3.1

    Wales

    930

    3.2

    1999

    Bro Taf

    237

    3.2

    Dyfed Powys

    158

    3.3

    Gwent

    184

    3.3

    Morgannwg

    184

    3.7

    North Wales

    211

    3.2

    Wales

    974

    3.3

    1Per 10,000 Population

    Note:

    Principals, assistants and vocational trainees treating at least some NHS Patients

    Mr. Win Griffiths
    To ask the Secretary of State for wales if he will list by health authority area the number and percentage of(a) adults and (b) Children registered with NHS dentists in Wales in each of the last 10 years prior to devolution. [140639]

    Mr. Paul Murphy
    Patients have been required to register with a dentist only since 1 October 1990. Following are the figures requested, as at 30 September of each year.

    children

    Adults

    Number

    Percentage population

    Number

    percentage Population

    1991

    Clwyd

    48,791

    51.7

    126,816

    39.8

    Dyfed

    38,809

    50.3

    107,701

    39.6

    Gwent

    52,600

    49.9

    138,659

    40.6

    Gwynedd

    25,946

    49.6

    76,889

    41.2

    Mid Glamorgan

    57,899

    44.3

    140,996

    34.4

    Powys

    12,257

    46.9

    36,177

    39.3

    South Glamorgan

    53,281

    56.0

    134,443

    43.1

    West Glamorgan

    48,912

    58.8

    129,699

    45.2

    Wales

    338,495

    50.9

    891,380

    40.2

    873W

    Children

    Adults

    Number

    Percentage population

    Number

    Percentage population

    1992

    Clwyd

    56,166

    59.5

    171,558

    53.6

    Dyfed

    47,371

    61.3

    151,635

    55.4

    Gwent

    66,770

    63.0

    202,095

    58.9

    Gwynedd

    30,766

    58.7

    101,082

    54.0

    Mid Glamorgan

    74,767

    57.1

    217,466

    52.8

    Powys

    15,817

    60.3

    50,538

    54.4

    South Glamorgan

    65,247

    67.9

    191,728

    61.0

    West Glamorgan

    59,404

    71.1

    184,076

    64.0

    Wales

    416,308

    62.4

    1,270,178

    56.9

    1993

    Clwyd

    60,114

    63.7

    181,750

    56.5

    Dyfed

    47,050

    60.8

    151,768

    55.4

    Gwent

    68,429

    64.3

    196,546

    57.1

    Gwynedd

    30,746

    58.7

    89,561

    47.7

    Mid Glamorgan

    77,687

    59.2

    221,993

    53.7

    Powys

    17,195

    65.5

    49,994

    53.4

    South Glamorgan

    68,100

    69.9

    187,850

    59.5

    West Glamorgan

    61,811

    74.2

    187,747

    65.2

    Wales

    431,132

    64.5

    1,267,209

    56.6

    1994

    Clwyd

    61,728

    65.2

    186,729

    57.9

    Dyfed

    47,422

    61.2

    153,942

    56.0

    Gwent

    68,603

    63.9

    194,788

    56.5

    Gwynedd

    30,194

    57.4

    78,361

    41.7

    Mid Glamorgan

    77,328

    58.8

    221,218

    53.5

    Powys

    16,237

    61.7

    46,627

    49.7

    South Glamorgan

    67,713

    68.6

    183,673

    58.1

    West Glamorgan

    62,433

    74.8

    188,568

    65.6

    Wales

    431,658

    64.2

    1,253,906

    56.0

    1995

    Clwyd

    59,713

    63.1

    172,131

    53.3

    Dyfed

    46,266

    59.7

    141,089

    51.3

    Gwent

    68,696

    64.0

    186,866

    54.2

    Gwynedd

    27,539

    52.4

    67,084

    35.7

    Mid Glamorgan

    75,446

    57.4

    217,194

    52.6

    Powys

    15,999

    60.8

    45,104

    48.0

    South Glamorgan

    70,058

    71.0

    180,564

    57.1

    West Glamorgan

    61,791

    74.0

    186,886

    65.0

    Wales

    425,508

    63.3

    1,196,918

    53.4

    1996

    Bro Taf

    107,700

    60.9

    288,840

    52.0

    Dyfed Powys

    62,194

    59.6

    182,223

    48.9

    Gwent

    85,019

    62.8

    221,675

    52.7

    Morgannwg

    83,034

    73.3

    246,481

    63.8

    North Wales

    88,419

    60.0

    237,897

    46.8

    Wales

    426,366

    63.0

    1,177,116

    52.5

    1997

    Bro Taf

    109,512

    61.6

    288,695

    51.7

    Dyfed Powys

    62,420

    60.0

    173,903

    46.5

    Gwent

    86,119

    63.6

    220,162

    52.2

    Morgannwg

    83,885

    74.3

    248,644

    64.3

    North Wales

    92,562

    62.9

    252,151

    49.6

    Wales

    434,498

    64.2

    1,183,555

    52.6

    1998

    Bro Taf

    100,975

    56.9

    245,417

    43.7

    Dyfed Powys

    56,965

    55.0

    148,573

    39.5

    Gwent

    80,728

    59.9

    196,336

    46.5

    Morgannwg

    76,968

    68.8

    219,309

    56.5

    North Wales

    89,408

    61.0

    233,645

    45.7

    Wales

    405,044

    60.1

    1,043,280

    46.2

    Miners' Compensation
    Mr. Wigley
    To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many centres for assessing the compensation claims of former miners for chest disease there are in Wales. [141037]

    Mr. Byers
    I have been asked to reply.

    There are currently five MAP centres operational in Wales, located in Swansea, Mountain Ash, Newport and Wrexham—Mountain Ash has two sets of testing equipment and is therefore counted as a double centre. The Department is planning to open two further centres in South Wales, located in Ystrad Mynach and Ammanford. The centres are also equipped to carry out spirometry assessments, along with an additional centre in Cardiff.

    Floods
    Mr. Martyn Jones
    To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what plans he has to discuss with the Association of British Insurers problems relating to the insurability of homes and businesses at risk of flooding. [139462]

    Miss Melanie Johnson
    I have been asked to reply.

    Both I and the Minister responsible for flood and coastal defence have recently held meetings with representatives of the insurance industry to discuss how the industry is responding to the floods and also to discuss issues of insurability for homes and businesses at risk of flooding.

    We urged the insurance industry to continue to give maximum priority to dealing with flood and other severe weather-related claims. We were assured that claims are being—and would continue to be—dealt with as speedily and effectively as possible. The Government will be looking to the whole industry to deliver on this commitment, and encourage all insurers to aim to meet the highest possible standards.

    Looking to the future, industry representatives made it clear that the industry is keen to provide continued insurance cover for homes and businesses around the country, and would be encouraging individual companies not to make hasty judgments on large premium increases or future insurability. Government and industry will need to work closely in partnership to deliver continuing protection for homeowners and businesses at risk of flood damage, to ensure that issues of vital importance are taken forward effectively and speedily (including the appropriate development of planning policies, building regulations, sustainable construction practice and design, farming practice and flood defence policy).

  AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

    Correspondence
    Sir Brian Mawhinney
    To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when the right hon. Member for North-West Cambridgeshire will receive a reply to his letter of 25 May on behalf of Mr. Penn. [135789]

    Mr. Nick Brown
    (holding answer 30 October 2000]: A response to the right hon. Member for North-West Cambridgeshire was originally sent on 23 June but due to

    875W
    a regrettable failure in recent months by the external courier firm contracted by MAFF to deliver certain mail to the House, it was not delivered. The Department's contract with the courier firm has been terminated. A response was re-sent to the right hon. Member on 27 November.

    Departmental Policies
    Mr. Kaufman
    To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food 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. [136151]

    Mr. Nick Brown
    Since May 1997 my Department has undertaken a volume of work which will, both directly and indirectly, benefit the constituents of Manchester, Gorton. Among many other things:

    MAFF prepared the foundations for the creation of the independent Food Standards Agency (FSA) which was established on 3 April 2000. The FSA is now up and running as an independent champion for consumers.

    The Department played a leading role in the reform of the Common Agricultural Policy; this means savings equivalent to £65 on the typical family's annual food bill.

    MAFF launched the Pet Travel Scheme; for the first time in over 100 years pets have been able to enter the country without quarantine. The scheme is expected to be completely up and running by April next year.

    We have sought to protect the interests of consumers of basmati rice, both with regard to its labelling and in negotiations on the Commission's proposals for reform of the EU rice regime.

    There has been work on better labelling of food, and improved EU-wide labelling on GM content of food. We have also issued tough new guidance on misleading country of origin labelling.

    We have put in place powerful measures to protect the public against BSE, and have taken steps to ensure that British beef is now among the safest in the world.

    Further details of the work of my Department can be found on our website www.maff.gov.uk.

    Primates
    Mr. Baker
    To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many primates have been imported into the UK for research purposes for each month since October 1999; of these, how many were imported through the Port of Dover; and if he will make a statement. [137292]

    Ms Quin
    The figures requested are detailed in the table.

    Month

    Number of primates imported for research purposes

    Number imported through Dover

    October 1999

    25

    0

    November 1999

    5

    0

    December 1999

    109

    44

    January 2000

    200

    200

    February 2000

    200

    200

    March 2000

    48

    48

    April 2000

    48

    0

    May 2000

    234

    1174

    June 2000

    172

    142

    July 2000

    239

    239

    876W

    Month

    Number of primates imported for research purposes

    Number imported through Dover

    August 2000

    39

    39

    September 2000

    302

    302

    October 2000

    168

    168

    Total

    1,789

    1,556

    1These figures adjust those provided in the answer given to the hon. Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey of 17 July 2000, Official Report, column 6W. It is now clear that fewer animals were actually imported in these months than import licences were issued for.

    BSE
    Mr. Breed
    To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what advice his Department publishes regarding the likelihood of the BSE prion remaining in soil treated with infected blood and bonemeal fertilisers. [139134]

    Ms Quin
    Mammalian meat and bone meal may not be used in fertilisers for agricultural land. Fertilisers for non-agricultural use may include mammalian meat and bone meal only if it has first been treated to the pressure-cooking standard.

    In June 1996, SEAC considered the disposal of blood and gut contents from abattoirs. The Committee noted that the spreading of blood and gut contents on land had been normal practice. They noted that concern had been expressed about the practice; however, given that no BSE infectivity had ever been detected in blood, and that there was no evidence of horizontal transmission of disease which would suggest that cattle wastes were directly infective to cattle, they saw no reason to recommend that this practice should be prohibited.

    Mr. Breed
    To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) what recent advice his Department has published regarding the safe disposal of packs of blood, fish and bonemeal which may contain the BSE prion; [139135]

    (2) what recent advice his Department has published regarding the use of fertilisers containing blood, fish and bonemeal extracts. [139136]

    Ms Quin
    In January 1998, SEAC examined the practice of feeding fishmeal to farmed fish. They concluded that there was no reason to prohibit the practice.

    The Committee also considered the use and disposal of bovine blood and concluded there was no significant risk associated with disposal of bovine blood on agricultural land.

    Mammalian meat and bonemeal and blood meal derived from animals not slaughtered under the over-30-months-scheme (providing it is not from BSE suspects or SRM) can be legally incorporated into pet food production and non-agricultural fertiliser. Blood meal from such animals can also be included in animal feed. However, most blood and bonemeal is incinerated or landfilled.

    SEAC reviewed the use of dried mammalian blood in animal feed on 29 September 2000. They agreed that there was no evidence to suggest the presence of BSE infectivity in cattle blood and concluded that there was no compelling need to change previous advice.
    877
    Ms Walley
    To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he last met the Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee to discuss proposed regulations relating to liquid condensate. [139151]

    Ms Quin
    Ministers have not personally discussed this matter with SEAC. However, at its meeting on 3 June 1999 SEAC clarified its earlier advice by confirming that rendering condensate should no longer be spread on any land, and not just those fields where cattle might graze. SEAC considered this issue on 28 November and a public summary will be published on 19 December.

    Mr. Drew
    To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what additional help he plans to offer British beef farmers affected by a loss in consumer confidence caused by the recent discovery of BSE cases in France and Germany. [141129]

    Ms Quin
    At its meeting on 4 December the EU Agriculture Council will consider a number of proposals from the Commission. Full details of these are not yet available but we understand that they are designed both to restore consumer confidence in the beef market and to ease cash-flow problems faced by beef producers.

    Mr. Drew
    To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what recent discussions he has had with his EU colleagues with regard to an EU-wide labelling of beef. [141130]

    Ms Quin
    I refer to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Minister to my hon. Friend the Member for Clydesdale (Mr. Hood) on 21 July 2000,Official Report, columns 372–73W. Regulation 1760/2000 of the European Parliament and the Council subsequently came into effect and introduced an EU-wide compulsory system for the labelling of fresh, chilled, frozen and minced beef.

    Farm Incomes
    Mr. Baker
    To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what the average farmer's income was in(a) England and (b) the smallest regional level applicable to the Lewes constituency for which figures are available, in each of the last 10 years. [139037]

    Ms Quin
    [holding answer 20 November 2000]: The information requested is given in the table. The eastern region is the smallest regional level covering the Lewes constituency for which figures are available. However, the east covers a large area of England from Lincolnshire to Hampshire and therefore is not necessarily representative of farming in the Lewes constituency. Data for 1999–2000 for England will be published in March.

    Average net farm income for all full-time farm businesses in England and the east (real-terms, 1999 prices)

    £000/farm

    Year

    England

    East

    1989–90

    24.7

    26.9

    1990–91

    21.3

    24.9

    1991–92

    21.5

    25.0

    1992–93

    26.5

    28.0

    1993–94

    28.0

    30.0

    1994–95

    33.2

    38.4

    1995–96

    42.4

    51.9

    878W

    Average net farm income for all full-time farm businesses in England and the east (real-terms, 1999 prices)

    £000/farm

    Year

    England

    East

    1996–97

    32.3

    39.7

    1997–98

    14.5

    17.1

    1998–99

    10.5

    13.4

    Source:

    Farm Business Survey

    Mr. Ben Chapman
    To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on farm incomes. [141283]

    Mr. Nick Brown
    I am disappointed to announce to the House that predictions for farm incomes this year suggest a further significant fall of 27 per cent. by comparison with 1999. A statistical press release has been placed in the Library of the House.

    The Government remain committed to helping farmers through these difficult times; last December I announced the Government's long-term strategy for agriculture, which aims to help secure a more competitive and sustainable farming industry, with a stronger market orientation.

    This commitment is underpinned by a comprehensive range of initiatives including: reform of the Common Agricultural Policy; significant increases in expenditure on rural development and agri-environment schemes; new measures to reduce the burden of regulation on farming; promotion of increased co-operation and collaboration across the food supply chain; and targeted financial support to the sectors in greatest difficulty.

    IACS
    Mr. Breed
    To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of the length of the IACS form filled in by farmers; and if he will make a statement. [140405]

    Ms Quin
    The report of the IACS and Inspections Red Tape Working Group found that:In general the (IACS) forms and guidance notes (issued in other member states) are of a similar level of complexity … with the exception of the Republic of Ireland.

    The Government have listened to industry concerns about the volume of red tape which farmers have to face, and we are taking steps to review the IACS forms and guidance, in the light of the Group's recommendations about the readability, familiarity and appearance of the IACS scheme literature, so as to achieve not only simpler English and clearer communication, but also a common format with other MAFF documentation. Consultation with industry during the drafting stages remains a key feature. From 2001, we plan to make it possible for all farmers submitting claims in England to complete and submit the IACS form electronically. These 'intelligent' forms will both save time for farmers, and also lessen the possibility of making inadvertent errors, since inconsistencies will be highlighted and totals calculated automatically.
    879W
    Miss McIntosh
    To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he will take to speed up the payment of IACS to cereal growers; and if he will make a statement. [140882]

    Ms Quin
    Under the EU' s Arable Area Payments Scheme (AAPS) most payments to cereal growers in respect of this year's harvest are required to be made between 16 November 2000 and 31 January 2001. In England the Ministry's Regional Service Centres commenced payments on 16 November and estimate that over 70 per cent. of claims will have been cleared for payment in the first two weeks of processing. It is hoped that the exercise will be completed by the end of December.

    GM Crops
    Mr. Llwyd
    To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) if the Chardon LL crop will be placed on the national seed list following the completion of the one-year tests;[140441]

    (2) what further tests there will be on the Chardon LL crop following the completion of the one-year tests. [140440]

    Ms Quin
    Chardon LL was proposed for addition to the National List in March 2000. Information has come to light recently that the testing of this variety for distinctness, uniformity and stability (DUS) by the French authorities was based on one year's data from accredited breeders' trials and one year's data from Government run trials. This may not have complied with EC requirements. MAFF is seeking the views of the European Commission on the legal status of the DUS testing procedures used by the French authorities for this variety. The UK authorities are not seeking further tests on Chardon LL pending receipt of the European Commission's views. Chardon LL will be added to the UK National List only if all the legal requirements have been met in full.

    Arable Farming
    Mr. Cotter
    To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will publish details of the Government's application for EU aid in the form of agrimoney compensation for the UK's arable farmers. [140680]

    Ms Quin
    I have today placed in the Libraries of the House a copy of the notifications of schemes for the arable and flax and hemp sectors sent to the European Commission on 2 November. These may be subject to amendments in the light of the Commission's comments.

    Mr. Cotter
    To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of trends in cereal growers' incomes during 2000–01; and if he will make a statement.[140679]

    Ms Quin
    I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to the hon. Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh) on 16 November 2000,Official Report, column 780W.

    Mr. Martyn Jones
    To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the recent changes announced by the EU allowing arable farmers in the UK to continue to claim subsidy payments based on the total area of their fields. [141154]
    880W
    Ms Quin
    I refer my hon. Friend to the replies given to my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) on 7 November, 2000,Official Report, column 150W, and to the hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Mr. Robertson) on 24 November, Official Report, column 325W.

    Biomass Production
    Mr. Win Griffiths
    To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the support provided by his Department for biomass projects in each of the last 10 years; and if he will make a statement on trends in the amount of land devoted to biomass production over this period. [140992]

    Ms Quin
    I have written to my hon. Friend with details, and copies of the letter have been placed in the Libraries of the House.

    Common Agricultural Policy
    Mr. Baker
    To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of the impact of the CAP on intensification in the(a) beef and veal and (b) dairy sectors; and if he will make a statement. [140786]

    Ms Quin
    [holding answer 29 November 2000]: The CAP has increased unit returns from the production of beef and milk (among other products). This has encouraged the use of a greater volume of inputs per unit of output and some increase in stocking rates. In recognition of this the EU has introduced measures to begin to mitigate these effects—extensification payments for beef and agri-environmental schemes in other sectors.

    Animal Welfare
    Mr. Baker
    To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to his answer of 21 July 2000,Official Report, columns 373–74W, on animal welfare, if he will make a statement on the work of the Interdepartmental Ministerial Group on Animal Welfare and its progress in meeting its objectives. [140795]

    Mr. Morley
    [holding answer 29 November 2000]: The Interdepartmental Ministerial Group on Animal Welfare met formally for the first time on 20 July this year. Ministers with animal welfare responsibilities from the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, the Home Office and the Department for Agriculture and Rural Affairs in Northern Ireland, and officials from the other devolved Administrations discussed and agreed the terms of reference of the Group. They also discussed matters of current interest to each Department, as well as a number of cross-cutting issues. Members of the Group issued a joint statement (MAFF News Release 243/00), highlighting their aim of ensuring that the UK's animal welfare strategy is effectively co-ordinated. The next meeting of the group will take place in the early part of next year.

    Shellfish Dredging
    Sir Richard Body
    To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what consultations he has had with Eastern Sea Fisheries about the proposal to allow one particular boat to dredge for shellfish out of season. [141198]
    881W
    Mr. Morley
    The Eastern Sea Fisheries Joint Committee (ESFJC) administer the fishery under the terms of the Wash Fishery Order 1992. There has been no consultation between the ESFJC and my Department on this particular issue.

    Pithing
    Mr. Letwin
    To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of the proportion of animals which remain conscious after being stunned in slaughterhouses.[141194]

    Mr. Morley
    No assessment has been made of the number of animals which remain conscious after being stunned in slaughterhouses, and the information could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. The Meat Hygiene Service (MHS) conducts a biennial review of animal welfare in slaughterhouses, and the latest review indicated that in 0.6 per cent. of slaughterhouses some bovines, and in 0.3 per cent. of slaughterhouses some sheep, were stunned ineffectively.

    Legislation protecting the welfare of livestock at slaughter requires that any animal inadequately stunned must be re-stunned immediately. The legislation is monitored and enforced on a daily basis in licensed slaughterhouses by Official Veterinary Surgeons of the MHS.

    River Flooding
    Mr. Gareth R. Thomas
    To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what action he is taking to alleviate and prevent the flooding of non-main rivers. [141138]

    Mr. Morley
    The Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has policy responsibility for flood and coastal defence, while operational responsibility for delivering the service falls to the operating authorities: the Environment Agency, local authorities and internal drainage boards. The Environment Agency has a general supervisory duty over all matters relating to flood defence. Local authorities and internal drainage boards are empowered to undertake work on non-main rivers. The Ministry provides grant aid for capital flood defence schemes. To be eligible for Ministry grant, schemes must meet specific economic, environmental and technical criteria and achieve an appropriate "priority score" (derived from an assessment of ministerial priorities, urgency and benefit:cost ratio).

    Veterinary Dispensing
    Mrs. Ray Michie
    To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what recent representations he has received from(a) farmers and (b) veterinary surgeons in Scotland regarding his consultation on the reform of the dispensing of veterinary products; and if he will make a statement. [141028]

    Ms Quin
    The group carrying out an independent review of dispensing as part of the Action Plan for Farming has received written representations from the National Farmers Union of Scotland and one individual farmer. The group has also received 32 representations from veterinary surgeons in Scotland. The chairman and a member of the Independent Review Group have met the National Farmers Union of Scotland and attended 882W
    a meeting of the Northern and Scottish Veterinary Action Group in Edinburgh during November. These representations, along with those received from elsewhere in the United Kingdom, are being carefully considered by the review group, which will report to my right hon. Friend the Minister by 31 March 2001.

    Sugar Beet
    Miss McIntosh
    To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will postpone(a) proposed increases in price and (b) reductions in quotas for sugar beet pending further reform of the common agricultural policy; and if he will make a statement. [140899]

    Ms Quin
    The Government have made it clear that they would like to see further reform of the EU sugar regime, and a review in two years would coincide with other reviews of agricultural sectors in the EU. We are not in favour of price increases or quota cuts.

    Growth Promoters
    Ms Jenny Jones
    To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the antibiotics approved for use as growth promoters in farm animals in the(a) United Kingdom and (b) EU member states. [140898]

    Ms Quin
    Antimicrobial growth promoters are authorised as feed additives throughout the European Union under procedures set out in Council Directive 70/524 EEC as amended. The four growth promoters currently authorised are Avilamycin, Flavophospholipol, Monensin Sodium and Salinomycin Sodium. None of these antimicrobial compounds is authorised or is in a class of antibiotics authorised for the treatment of humans or animals.

    Expenditure
    Mr. Yeo
    To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what are the departmental expenditure limits for the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, the Intervention Board and the Forestry Commission for the period covered by the last three spending reviews, calculated according to the(a) cash and (b) resource budgeting method. [134009]

    Mr. Nick Brown
    [holding answer 23 October 2000]: There have been only two spending reviews as such; the first was the Comprehensive Spending Review in 1998 and the second was the 2000 Spending Review. The relevant total MAFF, Intervention Board and Forestry Commission departmental expenditure limits are as follows:

    £ million

    1998 spending review

    2000 spending review

    Year

    Cash

    Resource

    Cash1

    Resource

    1999–2000

    1,344

    1,385

    —

    —

    2000–01

    1,265

    1,314

    —

    —

    2001–022

    1,303

    —

    —

    1,258

    2002–03

    —

    —

    —

    1,328

    2003–04

    —

    —

    —

    1,348

    1Departmental plans are currently being finalised. Cash requirements will not be available until that process is complete.

    2Changes in the 2001–02 figures between the 1998 spending review and the 2000 spending review are explained in the answer to PQ 134008, Official Report, 31 October 2000, at column 377W.

    Departmental Employees (HIV)
    Mr. Wigley
    To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will take steps to ensure that people who are HIV-positive do not suffer discrimination as a result of employment practices followed by his Department. [137785]

    Ms Quin
    The Ministry aims to create and promote an environment in which all staff are treated fairly and with respect and have equality of opportunity for employment and advancement solely on the basis of their suitability for the work.

    Beef Imports
    Mr. Robert Jackson
    To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what restrictions are imposed on the import of beef for processing and re-export; and what quantities of beef have been imported from France for such purposes in the last 12 months. [138777]

    Ms Quin
    [holding answer 17 November 2000]: The re-export of beef and beef products produced in Great Britain from imported beef is subject to the restrictions of the XAP scheme as set out in the Bovines and Bovine Products (Trade) Regulations 1999. All establishments involved in the production chain from initial import through to final re-export must be officially approved under this scheme and under official veterinary supervision. They must also have a system of tracing and segregation in place and comply with strict requirements on labelling, storage, sealing and certification.

    2,722 tonnes of beef carcase meat was imported from France during the 12 months ending August 2000. However, official overseas trade statistics do not record the end use of imported goods, and data on any re-export of this beef under the XAP scheme are not available.

    Better Regulation Task Force
    Mr. Steen
    To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has to hold meetings with representatives of the farming industry in(a) the United Kingdom and (b) Devon following the publication of the Better Regulation Task Force report on Environmental Regulations and Farmers. [139316]

    Ms Quin
    [holding answer 22 November 2000]: I and my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment are considering the report very carefully. It was also discussed at the Agriculture Industry Forum on 23 November. We are now considering how to build on this, and what further discussions will be helpful to further work to reduce unnecessary burdens on fanning while giving proper protection to the environment.

    Mr. Steen
    To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food which regulations will be repealed as a result of the Better Regulation Task Force's review of environmental regulations and farmers. [140833]

    Mr. Steen
    To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food which regulations will be repealed following Better Regulation Task Force review of environmental regulations and farmers. [140872]
    884W
    Ms Quin
    I refer the hon. Member to the answer given on 27 November 2000,Official Report, column 402W.

    French Beef
    Mr. Edwards
    To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will estimate the volume of French beef imported into the UK in the last 12 months for which figures are available. [140852]

    Ms Quin
    The volume of beef imported into the UK from France in the 12-month period from September 1999 to August 2000, as recorded by the Overseas Trade Statistics, is approximately 5,500 tonnes. 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. Similarly, this figure will exclude any beef of French origin imported from other member states.

    Salmon
    Mr. Ruane
    To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what levels of(a) dichlorvos, (b) carithaxanthin and (c) oxytetracycline have been found in salmon in the United Kingdom in the last 12 months. [141183]

    Ms Quin
    The Veterinary Medicines Directorate (VMD) operates a statutory national surveillance scheme, which implements Directive 96/23. Under the scheme a wide range of home-produced animals and animal products, including farmed fish, are analysed to monitor residue levels for a large number of veterinary medicines and environmental contaminants. These include dichlorvos and oxytetracycline.

    In 1999, 22 samples of farmed salmon were tests for organophosphates and 160 samples were tested for tetracyclines. Up to 11 September 2000, 16 samples of farmed salmon have been tested for organophosphates and 122 samples tested for tetracyclines. No residues of organophosphates or tetracyclines were detected. Results of completed analyses are published on a quarterly basis in the VMD's Medicines Act Veterinary Information Service (MAVIS) and in the VMD's annual report.

    Canthaxanthin is a carotenoid pigment permitted as an additive in feed for salmon and trout. We do not have data for levels of canthaxanthin found in salmon in the United Kingdom for the last 12 months. However, in its report of June 1997 the European Commission's Scientific Committee for Food stated that a representative level of the substance in salmon would be 0.1mg canthaxanthin per 100g of fish.

  HEALTH

    Flu Vaccine
    Mr. Burstow
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list for each health authority(a) the number of people eligible for the flu vaccine, (b) the number of shots

    885W
    of vaccine available, (c) whether it has reported a shortage in supply and (d) the take-up of vaccine to date. [135153]

    Yvette Cooper
    [holding answer 30 October 2000]: The number of people over 65 eligible for flu vaccine is shown in table 1. The number of shots of vaccine available to each health authority is not held centrally. Health authorities are currently collating the latest information on uptake rates so far to submit to the Department and we will release these figures in due course.

    General practitioners 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. Table 2 shows the main health authorities affected, all of which will receive the full supplies by the end of November.

    Table 1: Health authority flu uptake rates as at 31 October

    Region/HA

    Number of 65 and over per HA1

    Eastern

    Bedfordshire

    72,759

    Cambridgeshire

    102,828

    East and North Hertfordshire

    74,134

    Norfolk

    155,515

    North Essex

    150,827

    South Essex

    113,328

    Suffolk

    118,562

    West Hertfordshire

    80,437

    Northern and Yorkshire

    Bradford

    68,842

    Calderdale and Kirklees

    86,578

    County Durham

    98,024

    East Riding

    95,057

    Gateshead and South Tyneside

    60,662

    Leeds

    109,718

    Newcastle and North Tyneside

    77,097

    North Cumbria

    55,690

    North Yorkshire

    133,554

    Northumberland

    52,840

    Sunderland

    44,378

    Tees

    82,885

    Wakefield

    46,803

    South East

    Berkshire

    99,821

    Buckinghamshire

    87,158

    East Kent

    117,048

    East Surrey

    71,266

    East Sussex, Brighton/Hove

    155,188

    Isle of Wight

    29,008

    North and Mid Hampshire

    74,982

    Northamptonshire

    87,515

    Oxfordshire

    85,950

    Portsmouth and South East Hampshire

    89,786

    Southampton and South West Hampshire

    92,134

    West Kent

    142,844

    West Surrey

    99,662

    West Sussex

    151,876

    886W

    Table 1: Health authority flu uptake rates as at 31 October

    Region/HA

    Number of 65 and over per HA1

    North West

    Bury and Rochdale

    55,189

    East Lancashire

    75,668

    Liverpool

    66,656

    Manchester

    55,442

    Morecambe Bay

    56,851

    North Cheshire

    42,415

    North West Lancashire

    87,998

    Salford and Trafford

    70,525

    Sefton

    54,453

    South Cheshire

    109,557

    South Lancashire

    46,398

    St. Helen's and Knowsley

    48,286

    Stockport

    47,797

    West Pennine

    66,737

    Wigan and Bolton

    82,301

    Wirral

    57,312

    London

    Barking and Havering

    63,319

    Barnet

    45,446

    Bexley and Greenwich

    61,926

    Brent and Harrow

    56,405

    Bromley

    50,246

    Camden and Islington

    43,475

    Croydon

    42,466

    Ealing, Hammersmith, Hounslow

    76,641

    East London and City

    63,468

    Enfield and Haringey

    60,214

    Hillingdon

    34,408

    Kensington, Chelsea, West

    46,953

    Kingston and Richmond

    46,165

    Lambeth, Southwark and Lew

    84,388

    Merton, Sutton and Wandsworth

    79,603

    Redbridge and Waltham Forest

    59,525

    South West

    Avon

    160,918

    Cornwall and Isles of Scilly

    98,842

    Dorset

    150,916

    Gloucestershire

    96,867

    North and East Devon

    99,794

    Somerset

    95,242

    South and West Devon

    114,099

    Wiltshire

    93,707

    Trent

    Barnsley

    36,067

    Doncaster

    45,779

    Leicestershire

    138,709

    Lincolnshire

    119,534

    North Derbyshire

    64,172

    North Nottinghamshire

    63,871

    Nottingham

    99,105

    Rotherham

    38,682

    Sheffield

    85,312

    Southern Derbyshire

    89,391

    South Humber

    51,099

    West Midlands

    Birmingham

    145,501

    Coventry

    46,559

    Dudley

    50,031

    Herefordshire

    32,279

    North Staffordshire

    76,207

    Sandwell

    45,996

    Shropshire

    69,229

    Solihull

    33,045

    887W

    Table 1: Health authority flu uptake rates as at 31 October

    Region/HA

    Number of 65 and over per HA1

    South Staffordshire

    87,173

    Walsall

    41,455

    Warwickshire

    80,244

    Wolverhampton

    39,636

    Worcester

    88,251

    Grand total—England

    7,780,879

    1Population data taken from mid-year resident population estimates for 1999 by health authorities, for 65 and over

    Note:

    Uptake data taken from flu co-ordinators monitoring returns

    Table 2: Health authorities reporting vaccine supply problems

    Region

    Health authority

    Northern and Yorkshire Region

    North Cumbria

    South East Region

    East Sussex, Brighton/Hove

    North West Region

    Salford and Trafford

    London

    Brent and Harrow Croydon East London and City Hillingdon Kensington, Chelsea and Westminster

    West Midlands

    Walsall

    Meat Inspection Charges
    Mr. Gill
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was(a) the cost of and (b) the length of time taken to produce the Maclean report on meat inspection charges. [137565]

    Ms Stuart
    I am advised by the Food Standards Agency that the total cost of the Meat Inspection Charges Task Force was approximately £44,250. The Task Force's deliberations took approximately two and a half months. The initial meeting of the Task Force took place on 6 April 2000 and its final report and recommendations were published by the Food Standards Agency on 26 June.

    Mr. Gill
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the organisations that have made representations regarding meat inspection charges within the past 12 months. [137566]

    Ms Stuart
    I am advised by the Food Standards Agency that a large number of organisations have made representations regarding meat inspection charges within the past twelve months. A full list is being placed in the Library.

    Care Homes
    Mr. Burstow
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what information he has received over the last six months from local authorities and health authorities regarding(a) capacity in nursing homes and residential care homes, (b) changes in time taken to find suitable care home spaces for patients discharged from hospital and (c) local and regional variations in (i) care home capacity and (ii) hospital discharge times. [137121]

    Mr. Hutton
    [holding answer 9 November 2000]: National Statistics, relating to 31 March 2000, on the number of residential care and nursing home places/ registered beds were published in the Statistical Bulletin "Community Care Statistics 2000: Residential Personal
    888W
    Social Services for Adults, England" on 28 November. As part of securing effective planning for the coming winter the social services inspectorate has asked directors of social services for an indication of changes in the supply of residential care and nursing home places available in their areas.

    Information on the length of delay in discharging patients to care homes is not collected centrally. Information is collected for England on the percentage of over-75s whose discharge is delayed awaiting a care home placement, some of whom will be exercising their right to await a place in a home of their choice. For the second quarter of 2000 (the latest figures available) this was 3.8 per cent., a total of 1757 individuals.

    The community care statistics 2000 referred to show the breakdown of residential care and nursing home places/registered beds at health and local authority level. Laing and Buisson's Care of Elderly People Market Survey 2000 shows the occupancy rate in private nursing and residential homes, by region, in March 2000.

    Information on hospital discharge times is not collected centrally.

    Abattoirs
    Mr. Paterson
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what advice he has received from the Food Standards Agency about the Restriction on Pithing (England) Regulations 2000 with particular reference to the impact on working practices in abattoirs. [139649]

    Ms Stuart
    The Food Standards Agency has advised that many abattoirs may have to modify their current working practices to compensate for the ban on pithing. I understand that to minimise the risk of injury to staff from involuntary kicking by stunned animals, abattoirs will need to hoist and slaughter animals very quickly after stunning. To achieve a short stun to slaughter time modifications may be required to enable staff to operate out of the range of kicks. In some cases this may mean abattoirs will have to adapt buildings and/or equipment.

    The Food Standards Agency is undertaking a consultation exercise on the introduction of the Restriction on Pithing (England) Regulations 2000. One of the main purposes of the consultation exercise is to obtain information, direct from stakeholders, on the potential effects the new legislation will have. The Agency will advise me if any additional information is obtained by this exercise which closes on 30 November.

    Mr. Paterson
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate has been made as to the likely rise in the number of days employees in abattoirs may be absent as a result of the prohibition on pithing. [139617]

    Ms Stuart
    [holding answer 22 November 2000]: No estimate has been made as to the possible rise in employee absence in abattoirs following the introduction of the pithing ban.

    The Food Standards Agency is leading the consultation exercise on the introduction of the Restriction on Pithing Regulations (2000). One of the main purposes of the consultation exercise is to obtain information, direct from stakeholders, on the potential effects the new legislation will have. Once the consultation exercise ends on 30 November more information may be available.
    889W
    Mr. Paterson
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the impact on the commercial liability of abattoirs of the Restriction on Pithing (England) Regulations 2000 with specific reference to(a) small abattoirs and (b) large abattoirs; and if he will make a statement. [139619]

    Ms Stuart
    [holding answer 22 November 2000]: The Food Standards Agency is conducting a consultation exercise on the introduction of the Restriction on Pithing (England) Regulations 2000.

    One of the main purposes of the consultation is to obtain information, direct from those most affected, on the possible impact of the new legislation. The consultation documents specifically request information on the financial implications to both small and large abattoirs, and in particular asks if modifications to slaughterline procedures will be required.

    Once the consultation exercise ends on 30 November, the Agency will closely examine the responses it has received and make an assessment on the commercial impact on abattoirs of all sizes.

    Mr. Paterson
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what estimate has been made as to the number of employees in abattoirs likely to suffer injury as a result of the prohibition on pithing; [139620]

    (2) if the prohibition of pithing under the Restriction on Pithing (England) Regulations 2000 will create a significant increase in risk to the safety of employees in abattoirs. [139622]

    Ms Stuart
    [holding answer 22 November 2000]: The Food Standards Agency is conducting a consultation exercise on the introduction of the Restriction of Pithing Regulations (2000). As part of this exercise the Agency is seeking information on the potential impact of the Regulations including any possible impact on worker safety.

    Pithing is currently practised in many abattoirs to immobilise stunned animals to reduce the risk of worker injury through involuntary kicking.

    Safety in the workplace is the responsibility of the Health and Safety Executive (HSE). I understand the HSE is, in collaboration with the meat industry, developing guidelines and procedures that will help to minimise any potential risk to abattoir employees.

    Mr. Paterson
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what the basis is for his policy forbidding the use of pithing in abattoirs; [139618]

    (2) if the practice of pithing bovine animals in abattoirs gives rise to a significant risk to human health. [139623]

    Ms Stuart
    [holding answer 22 November 2000]: The ban on pithing is being introduced as part of a wider package of measures which implement European Union Decision 2000/418/EC. The Food Standards Agency advises me that, overall, these measures will provide benefit to consumers in terms of further reducing the risk of possible exposure to BSE infectivity. This is also the view of the Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee.
    890W
    The ban was included in the EU Decision on the advice of the Commission's Standing Veterinary Committee, following research that found that pithing could give rise to the contamination of blood with small fragments of brain tissue. This, in turn, could lead to the contamination of the edible parts of the carcase.

    Deaf People
    Ms Oona King
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what funding is available to health authorities and primary care groups specifically to enable deaf people to access counselling services throughout the National Health Service; [139788]

    (2) what funding is available to health authorities, and primary care groups to facilitate the provision of general medical services for deaf people. [139789]

    Mr. Hutton
    Services for deaf people are funded in the same way as for other groups of the population. All key local stakeholders are involved in the planning, prioritisation and delivery of the local health improvement programmmes and service agreements, which provide the means for addressing local issues, such as services for deaf people.

    Family Data
    Mr. Nigel Jones
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment his Department has made of the number of man-hours per year it will take local authority social services departments to collect and process the core data set of information on children and families required by the draft Children's Social Services Core Information Requirements Data Model.[140520]

    Mr. Hutton
    The children's social services core information requirements do not impose new tasks on councils. They were developed collaboratively with representative local authorities and published for consultation on 18 October. They are the Department's response to long-standing requests from local authority social services that a "minimum data set" for children's services be mapped and published. The core requirements comprise statistical information collected by central Government and the additional information that local authorities need themselves to plan and manage children's social service effectively. Most authorities do already collect the bulk of the specified information, either routinely or as and when required. The requirements are intended to assist local authorities in their negotiations with software suppliers to commission information systems that best suit their needs and promote the greatest possible efficiency in children's services.

    NHS Dentistry
    Mr. Win Griffiths
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has made of the number of NHS dentists needed to ensure that everyone has access to an NHS dentist. [140636]

    Mr. Hutton
    It is not possible to estimate with accuracy the number of National Health Service dentists needed to ensure that everyone has access to a NHS dentist. There are now 17,692 dentists in the General Dental Service (traditional, high street dentists) in England compared to 16,303 in 1997.
    891W
    Although the number of dentists has consistently risen, the amount of time they spend treating NHS patients has dropped. This is because, on average, dentists have increased the amount of time that they devote to private practice and more are working part-time.

    Mr. Win Griffiths
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list for health authority area the ratio of NHS dentists to the population in each of the last 10 years, indicating for each year the areas where there has been a shortage of NHS dentists and the number required to make up the shortfall. [140641]

    Mr. Hutton
    The information for England has been placed in the Library.

    This information does not necessarily reflect whether there was a shortage of National Health Service dentists. A number of other factors also have a strong bearing. Such factors include the varying level of commitment of dentists to the NHS and different levels of demand.

    Mr. Win Griffiths
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list, by health authority area, how many(a) adults and (b) children registered with NHS dentists in each of the last 10 years; and what percentage this represents of the total number of adults and children respectively. [140638]

    Mr. Hutton
    The information for England has been placed in the Library.

    The information shows that the number of patients registered with a dentist has declined since 1993. This is mainly due to dentists choosing to increase their private practice, to more dentists working part-time, the reduction in the registration period in 1996 and a drive to eliminate duplicate registrations.

    Comparable data for 1991 are not available because registration was only introduced in October 1990 and the number of patients registered was still growing until 1992.

    Mr. Win Griffiths
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many students are undertaking dental studies; and how many new students entered dental schools in each of the last 10 years.[140637]

    Mr. Hutton
    In January 2000 there were 4,185 students in training in the United Kingdom. The table shows the number of new pre-clinical students entering dental schools in the United Kingdom for the academic years 1991–92 to 2000–01.

    UK dental schools—admissions to dental schools in the United Kingdom

    Academic year

    Actual intake of pre-clinical students

    1991–92

    870

    1992–93

    849

    1993–94

    891

    1994–95

    936

    1995–96

    924

    1996–97

    937

    1997–98

    888

    892W

    UK dental schools—admissions to dental schools in the United Kingdom

    Academic year

    Actual intake of pre-clinical students

    1998–99

    866

    1999–2000

    877

    2000–011

    915

    1Provisional data

    Source:

    Higher Education Funding Council for England Universities and Colleges Admissions Service

    Visudyne
    Mr. Amess
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will take steps to ensure that Visudyne is made available to NHS patients. [140575]

    Ms Stuart
    Visudyne (Verteporfin) received its marketing authorisation from the European Commission on 27 July. It may be prescribed for National Health Service patients when it is clinically appropriate to do so.

    Child Abuse
    Mr. Mackinlay
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent research has been commissioned and evaluated into the extent of child abuse and its causes; and if he will make a statement. [140002]

    Mr. Hutton
    [holding answer 27 November 2000]: The Government are committed to researching into the nature and extent of child abuse and its causes. In 1995, they published key findings from a programme of 20 pieces of research, undertaken at the time of the implementation of the Children Act 1989, which came into force in October 1991. "Child Protection: Messages from Research" is available from The Stationery Office; it served to make the lessons of research accessible to professionals working with children and to demonstrate their relevance for policy and practice.

    The Government acknowledge the value of the study published this week by the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, "Child Maltreatment in the United Kingdom", as an authoritative contemporary prevalence study of abuse and neglect.

    This latest research follows the important work of the NSPCC-supported independent National Commission of Inquiry into the Prevention of Child Abuse, chaired by Lord Williams of Mostyn, published as "Childhood Matters" in 1996, and available from The Stationery Office.

    We continue regularly to commission research into the needs of children and the impact of services which aim to promote and safeguard the welfare of children. Projects considering the causes, directly or in part of child abuse include; a study aimed at advancing knowledge about the psychological maltreatment of a specific group of children and the comparative costs and outcomes of different interventions for sexually abused children.

    Nursing Care
    Mr. Burstow
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 22 November 2000, Official Report, column 209W, concerning nursing care, if he will
    893W
    make available in the Library the methodology and data used to calculate the differences in the average costs of residential and nursing care. [140488]

    Mr. Hutton
    [holding answer 28 November 2000]: The "Care of Elderly People, Market Survey 2000", published by Laing and Buisson (available in the Library), found that in March 2000 the average difference in fees for elderly people in private nursing homes and private residential homes was just over £100 a week. This formed the basis of the estimation of the costs of nursing care.

    Learning Disabilities
    Mr. Boswell
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he will publish a strategy document on people with learning disabilities. [140394]

    Mr. Hutton
    [holding answer 29 November 2000]: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced in October 1999 that work was to start on developing a new national learning disability strategy. Work has been taken forward in six working groups—children, family carers, supporting independence, health, partnerships, workforce planning and training—whose membership included representatives of central and local government, the health service, academic interests, voluntary organisations, service users, their families and carers. Seven regional seminars held between March and May provided occasions for local organisations—local authorities, health authorities, service providers, service users, and carers—to hear about and contribute to the strategy.

    I announced in October that the strategy is to be published as a White Paper in the early months of next year.

    Nursing Home Care
    Mr. Burstow
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health in what circumstances NHS trusts will top up the fees of a social services department-funded nursing home placement; how many NHS trusts are topping-up; and how much trusts have spent on topping-up in each of the last three years for which figures are available. [140793]

    Mr. Hutton
    [holding answer 29 November 2000]: The National Health Service cannot top up the fees for a basic package of nursing home care funded by social services. However, the NHS will provide services which are additional to the basic package of nursing home care, such as continence advice or chiropody. Information is not collected centrally on the separate costs of these services, which form part of normal community health service and other NHS provision.

    War Pensioners
    Mrs. Lait
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on his policy towards the access to treatment by the NHS for war pensioners. [141010]

    Mr. Hutton
    We have made it clear that National Health Service hospitals should give war pensioners priority treatment for those conditions for which they receive a pension or have received a gratuity. In the past three years we have reminded NHS trusts of the arrangements for priority treatment of war pensioners (Health Service Guidance 97/31). I have placed copies of these documents in the Library.

    Community Health Councils
    Mr. Bob Russell
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to the oral answer of the Prime Minister to the hon. Member for Eddisbury (Mr. O'Brien) of 15 November 2000,Official Report, column 937, what action he has taken to ensure full consultation with the Association of Community Health Councils for England and Wales as regards the future role of community health councils in respect of the National Plan. [R] [1409451]

    Ms Stuart
    Over the past few months we have held a series of stakeholder seminars both nationally and locally involving key patient, user and voluntary sector organisations to develop the detail of the new arrangements for public and patient involvement. The Association of Community Health Councils for England and Wales (ACHCEW) has been a key player in the national seminars and has separately met health Ministers and officials. ACHCEW have also undertaken to conduct their own exercise to take the views of community health councils locally, and a major national event for these purposes will be held on 4 December.

    The output from the seminars, and from the event to be hosted by ACHCEW will be taken into account when developing the guidance for the new arrangements, which will be launched at a national event in the New Year.

    MRSA Infection
    Ms Jenny Jones
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will assess the public health implications of the use of antibiotic growth promoters in farm animal feed in relation to the efficacy of the treatment of MRSA infections. [140897]

    Mr. Denham
    An in-depth review of microbial antibiotic resistance in relation to food safety was undertaken by the Advisory Committee on the Microbiological Safety of Food (ACMSF) and published in September 1999. The Government's response to the ACMSF's recommendations was published on 24 March 2000. Copies of the report and our response are available in the Library.

    We are committed to a co-ordinated research programme to investigate problems associated with resistance to antimicrobials in the context of public health. This programme is being co-ordinated by an interdepartmental steering group on resistance to antibiotics and other antimicrobial agents. The steering group carries out this work as part of the implementation of the Government strategy to combat antimicrobial resistance which was published in June. Infection control, including MRSA, is one of the key parts of this strategy. Copies are available in the Library.

    Antimicrobial growth promoters are authorised as feed additives throughout the European Union under procedures set out in Council Directive 70–524 EC as amended. None of these antimicrobial compounds is authorised or is in a class of antibiotics authorised for the treatment of humans or animals, and as such would not directly affect the treatment of MRSA infections.

    Infertility Treatment
    Ms Keeble
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has for tackling variations in access to treatment for infertility; and if he will make a statement. [141284]

    Yvette Cooper
    The provision of infertility services causes concern to many couples.

    We have listened carefully to the representations we have received from couples seeking infertility treatment, and from their Members of Parliament and interested bodies working in the field. And we have been considering how we can best respond to these very genuine concerns about variations in provision. We are placing in the Library a report on a baseline survey of infertility services in the National Health Service in 1997 conducted by the Department.

    The Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists has produced three sets of guidelines for the management of infertility treatment. We are therefore asking the National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) to consider and update these documents to ensure that clinical guidelines, based on the latest knowledge and best practice are available for use throughout the NHS.

    We want to see an improved service and greater efficiency for the benefit of patients. We see the referral of these guidelines to NICE as a major step forward in infertility treatment by which we can act positively to improve services and reduce the postcode lottery in this area of health care.

    Parliamentary Questions
    Mr. Paterson
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he will answer the questions tabled by the hon. Member for North Shropshire for answer on 22 November on the subject of pithing (Refs. 13617–20, 139623, 139649 and 139683). [141298]

    Ms Stuart
    I replied to the hon. Member today,Official Report, columns 888–90W.

    Ambulance Service
    Mr. Burstow
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list for each of the last three years and for each NHS region the average number of 999 calls placed to the ambulance service in each month from December to March. [141003]

    Ms Stuart
    The information requested is not available on a monthly basis. Information about the number of 999 calls to National Health Service ambulance trusts in each NHS region for each of the last three years is contained in the Department of Health Statistical Bulletin "Ambulance Services, England 1999–2000". A copy is in the Library and available on the website www.doh.gov.uk/public/sb0014.htm.

    Zanamivir
    Dr. Tonge
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what contraindications there are to healthy adults taking zanamivir for influenza. [140826]
    896W
    Ms Stuart
    Relenza (zanamivir) is for the treatment of both influenza A and B in adults and adolescents of 12 years and over who present with symptoms typical of influenza when influenza is circulating in the community. It is contraindicated in patients who are hypersensitive to any ingredient of the preparation.

    Dr. Tonge
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to make zanamivir available over the counter in pharmacies for self treatment of influenza. [140827]

    Ms Stuart
    Relenza (zanamivir) is classified as a Prescription Only Medicine under criteria embodied in United Kingdom and European Community legislation. We have taken steps to allow for the direct supply of zanamivir by health professionals (including pharmacists and nurses) under the generalised directions of a doctor through patient group directions. There are no proposals to change the legal status of zanamivir to pharmacy only.

    Overseas Healthcare Charges
    Fiona Mactaggart
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health by what means UK residents travelling abroad are informed about charges for healthcare in other countries. [141045]

    Ms Stuart
    For countries with which the United Kingdom has reciprocal health arrangements, information about patient charges is included in the public information leaflet "Health Advice for Travellers", copies of which are available in the Library. Information about charges in non-reciprocal agreement countries is not routinely collected.

    Shipman Case
    Mr. Brady
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what legal costs have been incurred by his Department in contesting the judicial review of his Department's decision not to allow a full public inquiry into the Shipman case. [140892]

    Mr. Denham
    The legal costs incurred by the Department in contesting the judicial review of the decision to take evidence in private were £53,025 (this includes the cost of the original Laming Inquiry which has now been abandoned). In addition we have agreed to pay the applicants' legal costs which are currently subject to the detailed assessment of the court.

    English Abattoirs (Inspection Charges)
    Mr. Mitchell
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proposals he has for extending the type of financial help with inspection charges made available in the Welsh Assembly's draft agricultural budget to English abattoirs; and what discussions he has held with the Commission about the acceptability of such help. [136661]

    Ms Quin
    I have been asked to reply.

    As announced in the Rural White Paper published on 28 November, Agriculture Departments in England, Scotland and Wales have agreed to transfer £8.7 million to the Food Standards Agency for the three financial years 2001–02 to 2003–04; this will enable the FSA to implement the principal recommendation of the Task Force chaired by Colin Maclean to revise the method of charging for Meat Hygiene Service inspections in

    897W
    abattoirs and cutting plants. The FSA will be consulting the industry shortly on its proposals. Implementation of the Maclean recommendation will significantly reduce inspection charges levied on many small and medium-sized meat plants and thus be of considerable benefit to the rural economy.

    Water Fluoridation
    Mr. Win Griffiths
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the levels of tooth decay among(a) children and (b) adults in areas where fluoride (i) is and (ii) is not present in drinking water. [145000]

    Mr. Hutton
    The recent independent systematic review of water fluoridation conducted by the University of York Centre for Reviews and Dissemination confirmed that fluoridation reduces tooth decay by, on average, 2.25 teeth per child, and increase by 15 per cent. the proportion of children completely free from tooth decay.

    Adults living in fluoridated areas have less tooth decay and keep more of their own teeth for longer than those living in non-fluoridated areas.

    Mr. Win Griffiths
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will introduce legislation to allow local communities to take decisions on the fluoridation of drinking water in their areas.[140564]

    Mr. Hutton
    Section 89 of the Water Industries Act empowers health authorities to consult on the fluoridation of their water supplies but Section 87 gives the water undertaker discretion over whether or not to accept a request to add fluoride.

    We will be discussing the research report of the systematic review of water fluoridation undertaken by the National Health Service Centre for Reviews and Dissemination at the University of York with representatives of the water industry. The Medical Research Council is establishing a working group to advise on whether further research in the area of water fluoridation and human health is required. We will review the need for any changes in the legislation when this action is complete.

    Cancer
    Mr. Fearn
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many(a) female and (b) male cancer sufferers there are in England and Wales. [139664]

    Miss Melanie Johnson
    I have been asked to reply.

    The information requested falls within the responsibility of the National Statistician. I have asked him to reply.

    Letter from Len Cook to Mr. Ronnie Fearn, dated 30 November 2000:

    As National Statistician I have been asked to reply to your recent question on the numbers of female and male cancer sufferers in England and Wales. (139663)

    The latest available estimate is for 1993(a) In that year there were about 600,000 females (2.3 per cent. of the female population) and 365,000 (1.5 per cent. of the male population) in England and Wales who had been diagnosed with cancer(b).

    (a) Patients diagnosed from 1971 (when records began) to 1992 who were still alive in 1993.

    898W

    (b) All malignant neoplasms (International Classification of Diseases Tenth Revision (ICD10) codes C00-C97, excluding non-melanoma skin cancer (ICD10 C44).

    These results were published by the Office for National Statistics (ONS) in the article 'Cancer trends in England and Wales, 1950–1999' in Health Statistics Quarterly No.8 earlier this month. This is the first reliable information on cancer prevalence to be produced. A copy of this publication has been placed in the House of Commons Library.

  CABINET OFFICE

    Investors in People
    Miss McIntosh
    To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office who is responsible for administering Investors in People. [139118]

    Mr. Stringer
    The Department for Education and Employment is responsible for the administration of IIP at national level, with IIPUK as the standard setting body. The Cabinet Office maintain a strategic overview for the administration of IIP in the Civil Service although individual Departments and agencies are responsible for their own achievement.

    Chequers
    Mr. Lidington
    To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office how many helicopter flights to and from Chequers there have been on Government business since 2 May 1997. [139339]

    Mr. Stringer
    As far as I am aware, between 2 May 1997 and 20 November 2000 there were three flights to and from Chequers on Government business, all of which involved the transport of foreign leaders visiting Britain.

    Departmental Policies
    Mr. Kaufman
    To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office if she 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. [136150]

    Mr. Stringer
    The policy recommendations in Cabinet Office reports relate to England as a whole and it is therefore not possible to say what their specific impact is on the Manchester, Gorton constituency. Additionally any policy changes arising from Cabinet Office units, such as the Social Exclusion Unit and the United Kingdom Anti-Drugs Co-ordination Unit, reports are implemented by the appropriate Government Department rather than by the Unit itself.

    Cabinet Committee on Rural Affairs
    Mr. Breed
    To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what level of civil service staff support is provided to the Cabinet Committee on rural affairs; and what the approximate annual cost is of this support. [140404]

    Mr. Stringer
    It is established practice under exemption two of Part II of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information not to disclose information relating to the proceedings of Cabinet Committees.

    People's Peerages
    Mr. Gordon Prentice
    To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office if it is a condition of appointment to a people's peerage that the applicant sits on the Cross Benches; and if she will make a statement. [140330]

    Mr. Stringer
    I understand that the House of Lords Appointments Commission has made clear that it is looking to recommend non-party political members of the House of Lords. Membership of a party or past political activity is not a bar to nomination but the Commission will seek to assure itself that the nominee, if recommended for appointment, will act independently of the political parties. However, once created, where a peer sits in the House of Lords is a free choice of the peer and the party whose whip he or she wishes to take.

    Mr. Gordon Prentice
    To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office if she will publish a breakdown of the applications for a people's peerage by(a) gender, (b) age, (c) ethnic background, (d) place of residence, (e) employment status and (f) occupation. [140326]

    Mr. Stringer
    I understand that the House of Lords Appointments Commission is still analysing the applications which it has received but hopes to make this information available soon.

    Mr. Gordon Prentice
    To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office when candidates for the people's peerages will have their names submitted to Her Majesty the Queen. [140327]

    Mr. Stringer
    I understand that the House of Lords Appointments Commission hopes to be in a position to pass its recommendations to the Prime Minister in the first three months of 2001.

    Mr. Gordon Prentice
    To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office if unsuccessful applicants for a people's peerage are to be given reasons for their rejection. [140328]

    Mr. Stringer
    I understand that the House of Lords Appointments Commission has not undertaken to give reasons as to why a nominee has been unsuccessful.

    Mr. Gordon Prentice
    To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office how many applicants for a people's peerage are to be invited for interviews. [140329]

    Mr. Stringer
    I understand that the House of Lords Appointments Commission has not yet reached a decision on this.

    Mr. Gordon Prentice
    To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office if rejected applicants for a people's peerage will be allowed to re-apply. [140325]

    Mr. Stringer
    I understand that the House of Lords Appointments Commission will assess all nominations on individual merit, guided by the published assessment criteria drawn up by the Commission. Some nominees will not meet these criteria but it is of course open to them to resubmit their nominations.

    NDPBs (North-East)
    Mr. Beith
    To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office if she will list those non-departmental public bodies(a) which have (i) headquarters and (ii) administrative offices within the area covered by the Government Office
    900W
    for the North East, (b) whose remit covers broadly the same area as that of the Government Office for the North East and (c) have members appointed following consultations involving the Government Office for the North East. [140699]

    Mr. Stringer
    This information is not held centrally. However, the annual "Public Bodies" publication provides general information on the location, remit and membership of all non-departmental public bodies. Copies of "Public Bodies 1999" have been placed in the Libraries of the House. "Public Bodies 2000" is due to be published next month.

    Civil Service (Sickness)
    Mr. Matthew Taylor
    To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office when she plans to publish the Cabinet Office annual report on sickness in the Civil Service. [141085]

    Mr. Stringer
    The report on sickness absence in the Civil Service in 1999 is currently being finalised and is expected to be published shortly. A further announcement will be made at that time and copies of the report will be placed in the Libraries of the House.

    Business Regulation
    Mr. Clappison
    To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what recent representations she has received about the level of regulation on business. [139570]

    Mr. Stringer
    My ministerial colleagues and I have sought and received representations from a wide range of business organisations. I have met most recently with the Industry Forum and the Chemical Industries Association and have also visited local Chambers of Commerce in many parts of the country. My officials in the Regulatory Impact Unit meet regularly with the Institute of Directors, the Confederation of British Industry, the Federation of Small Businesses, the Forum of Private Business, the British Chambers of Commerce and the TUC.

    Constitutional Convention
    Mr. Matthew Taylor
    To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what guidance is provided to Departments on what constitutes a constitutional convention for the purposes of the Civil Service Code; and if she will make a statement. [141246]

    Mr. Stringer
    The Civil Service Code explains the key constitutional principles that govern the Civil Service.

    Civil Servants
    Mr. Livsey
    To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office if she will remove the restrictions on civil servants employed in the intermediate grades to permit them to stand as parliamentary candidates. [141034]

    Mr. Stringer
    The rules on the conduct of civil servants with respect to political activities are set out in the Civil Service Management Code. Their scope is under review.

    Better Regulation Task Force
    Mr. Steen
    To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what have been the administrative and running costs of the Better Regulation Task Force in each of the last three years. [140873]

    Mr. Stringer
    I refer the hon. Member to the answer
    I gave him on 29 November 2000, Official Report, column 671W.

    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
    [pursuant to his reply, 13 November 2000, c. 551W]: 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)

    Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food

    58

    Intervention Board

    3

    Cabinet Office

    13

    Privy Council Office

    1

    Charity Commission

    25

    Culture, Media and Sport

    4

    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

    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

    3,840

  LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

    Judges' Lodgings
    Mr. Dismore
    To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will list(a) the locations of judges' lodgings and (b) the number of nights each lodging was occupied in each of the last five years. [139153]

    Jane Kennedy
    The information requested for the three years 1997–98 to 1999–2000 is set out in the table.902W
    Prior to 1997 lodgings were administered locally and the requested information could be provided for the two years before 1997 only at disproportionate cost.

    Judges lodgings—number of nights occupied

    Number/lodgings name

    1997–98

    1998–99

    1999–2000

    1 Birmingham

    630

    695

    585

    2 Bristol

    430

    378

    323

    3 Caernarfon

    10

    16

    13

    4 Cardiff

    360

    335

    331

    5 Carlisle

    60

    43

    59

    6 Chelmsford

    68

    98

    113

    7 Chester

    175

    187

    198

    8 Exeter

    110

    118

    73

    9 Leeds

    480

    480

    509

    10 Leicester

    100

    45

    62

    11 Lewes

    170

    155

    120

    12 Lincoln

    60

    65

    42

    13 Liverpool

    430

    400

    529

    14 Maidstone

    140

    165

    120

    15 Manchester

    605

    565

    492

    16 Mold

    25

    50

    23

    17 Northampton

    20

    25

    23

    18 Norwich

    115

    155

    130

    19 Nottingham

    195

    345

    201

    20 Oxford

    35

    45

    72

    21 Plawsworth

    560

    470

    554

    22 Plymouth

    40

    23

    15

    23 Preston

    210

    240

    274

    24 Reading

    115

    99

    110

    25 Sheffield

    205

    257

    230

    26 St. Albans

    105

    120

    165

    27 Stafford

    130

    135

    146

    28 Swansea

    145

    90

    147

    29 Truro

    25

    46

    20

    30 Warwick

    10

    10

    38

    31 Winchester

    340

    295

    370

    32 Worcester

    40

    35

    29

    Mr. Dismore
    To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (1) in respect of the Crown courts situated at(a) St. Albans, (b) Reading, (c) Chelmsford, (d) Colchester and (e) Maidstone (i) how many sitting days were held at each court in each of the last five years, (ii) how many nights the judges' lodgings were occupied in each of the last five years, (iii) how may High Court judges sitting at each of the courts (A) regularly made use of the lodgings, and (B) habitually commuted from their own residence to court and (eave) what was the annual cost of each of the lodgings for each of the last five years [139156]

    (2) what assessment he has made of the value of judges' lodgings and associated expenditure as a benefit in kind for income tax purposes. [140787]

    Mr. Lock
    I regret that it has not been possible to provide an answer before prorogation. I shall write to the hon. Member and place a copy of the letter in the Library.

    Mr. Dismore
    To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will place in the Library the guidance agreed with the judiciary on the use of lodgings. [140804]

    Jane Kennedy
    Copies of the general guidance on the use of lodgings agreed with the judiciary in 1997 have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.
    903W
    It should be noted that the single judge allowance (referred to in the guidance as being £280 per judge week) was raised to £310 from the beginning of 2000.

    Mr. Dismore
    To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will issue guidance to(a) High Court and (b) circuit judges on when it is appropriate to commute to court from home; and if he will make a statement. [140806]

    Current rates of accommodation allowances paid to circuit judges staying away from home

    Subsistence1

    Hotels and private clubs in London

    Actual expenditure up to a ceiling of £100 for bed and breakfast costs plus 24 hour allowance of £21 and personal incidental expenditure allowances of £5

    Hotels and private clubs elsewhere

    Actual expenditure up to a ceiling of £80 for bed and breakfast costs plus 24 hour allowance of £21 and personal incidental expenditure allowance of £5

    Staying with friends/relatives in London

    £32.45

    Staying with friends/relatives elsewhere

    £31

    Own property in London (e.g. town flat)

    Reimbursement of certain expenses necessarily incurred up to a limit of £32.45

    Own property elsewhere (e.g. country cottage)

    Reimbursement of certain expenses necessarily incurred up to a limit of £31

    Rented accommodation in London

    Actual expenditure up to a ceiling of £60 for rental costs plus 24 hour allowance of £21 and personal incidental expenditure allowance of £5

    Rented accommodation elsewhere

    Actual expenditure up to a ceiling of £50 for rental costs plus 24 hour allowance of £21 and a personal incidental expenditure allowance of £5

    Hotels, private clubs and rented accommodation in London as an alternative to the above

    £65.15 plus a personal incidental expenditure allowance of £5

    Hotels, private clubs and rented accommodation elsewhere as an alternative to the above

    £62.40 plus a personal incidental expenditure allowance of £5

    1Night subsistence per night

    Mr. Dismore
    To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will list for each judges' lodgings(a) whether it is (i) rented, (ii) leased and (iii) owned by the Crown, (b) in the case of the lodgings which are rented or leased (i) what the length of the lease is, (ii) what the cost per annum is of (x) rent, (y) service charges and (z) rates, (iii) if the lease is a full repairing lease and (iv) whether the lease is subject to the Landlords and Tenants Act 1954, in respect of business

    Judges lodgings

    Property

    Tenure

    Lease expiry

    Repairing lease

    Landlord and Tenants Act

    Comments

    Birmingham

    Leasehold

    29 September 2074

    Yes

    Yes

    —

    Bristol

    Leasehold

    31 December 2016

    Yes

    Yes

    6 months notice

    Caernarfon

    Hiring

    n/a

    —

    —

    —

    Cardiff

    Freehold

    —

    —

    —

    —

    Carlisle

    Hiring

    n/a

    —

    —

    —

    Chelmsford

    Leasehold

    Licence

    No

    No

    12 months notice

    Chester

    Freehold

    —

    —

    —

    —

    Exeter

    Hiring

    n/a

    —

    —

    —

    Leeds

    Leasehold

    Holding over

    Yes

    Yes

    —

    Leicester

    Hiring

    n/a

    —

    —

    —

    Lewes

    Leasehold

    30 August 2006

    Internal only

    Yes

    6 months notice

    Lincoln

    Hiring

    n/a

    —

    —

    —

    Liverpool

    Leasehold

    31December 2010

    Yes

    Yes

    Break option in 31 December 2003

    Maidstone

    Freehold

    —

    —

    —

    —

    Manchester

    Freehold

    —

    —

    —

    —

    Mold

    Leasehold

    31 March 2017

    Yes

    Yes

    Break option in 2004 and 2011

    Northampton

    Hiring

    n/a

    —

    —

    —

    Norwich

    Freehold

    —

    —

    —

    —

    Nottingham

    Freehold

    —

    —

    —

    —

    Oxford

    Leasehold

    Holding over

    No

    No

    —

    Plawsworth

    Freehold

    —

    —

    —

    —

    Plymouth

    Hiring

    n/a

    —

    —

    —

    Preston

    Freehold

    —

    —

    —

    —

    904W
    Mr. Lock
    No. Such guidance is not required. I refer my hon. Friend to the written answers given to him by my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre Forest (Mr. Lock) on 24 November 2000,Official Report, column 343W.

    Mr. Dismore
    To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will list the allowances for accommodation expenses paid to circuit judges staying away from home.[140812]

    Mr. Lock
    The table sets out the allowances, and the current rates at which they are paid.

    tenants; and (c) in the case of those that are owned (i) what the current capital value is of the property, (ii) what the cost is for each of the last three years of maintenance and (iii) what the cost is for each of the last three years of rates. [140813]

    Jane Kennedy
    The information requested is contained in the tables. While the capital values of the individual freehold lodgings are classified as "Commercial in Confidence", I can confirm that the estimated total capital value of the freehold lodgings estate is £10.84 million.
    905W

    Judges lodgings

    Property

    Tenure

    Lease expiry

    Repairing lease

    Landlord and Tenants Act

    Comments

    Reading

    Freehold

    —

    —

    —

    —

    St. Albans

    Freehold

    —

    —

    —

    —

    Sheffield

    Freehold

    —

    —

    —

    —

    Stafford

    Hiring

    n/a

    —

    —

    —

    Swansea

    Freehold

    —

    —

    —

    —

    Truro

    Hiring

    n/a

    —

    —

    —

    Warwick

    Hiring

    n/a

    —

    —

    —

    Winchester

    Leasehold

    28 September 2896

    Yes

    Yes

    —

    Worcester

    Hiring

    n/a

    —

    —

    —

    £

    CILOR/Rates

    Property

    Rent

    Service charge

    Hiring charge

    1998–99

    1999–2000

    2000–01

    Birmingham

    550.00

    560.36

    —

    4,426.34

    5,037.88

    —

    Bristol

    26,000.00

    —

    —

    11,873.70

    9,844.54

    13,904.41

    Caernarfon

    —

    —

    4,838.00

    —

    —

    —

    Cardiff

    —

    —

    —

    8,597.16

    8,593.16

    8,034.00

    Carlisle

    —

    —

    22,718.00

    —

    —

    —

    Chelmsford

    25,000.00

    42,195.00

    —

    —

    —

    38,272.00

    Chester

    —

    —

    —

    10,448.86

    10,779.52

    10,604.43

    Exeter

    —

    —

    33,930.00

    —

    —

    —

    Leeds

    25,000.00

    24,999.25

    —

    8,382.83

    8,648.11

    —

    Leicester

    —

    —

    25,449.00

    —

    —

    —

    Lewes

    30,000.00

    —

    —

    2,828.99

    3,138.47

    3,008.33

    Lincoln

    —

    —

    21,411.00

    —

    —

    —

    Liverpool

    14,000.00

    —

    —

    18,272.99

    9,742.71

    —

    Maidstone

    —

    —

    —

    10,923.80

    11,269.49

    8,736.00

    Manchester

    —

    —

    —

    25,202.20

    28,609.54

    32,876.65

    Mold

    10,000.00

    25,029.31

    —

    —

    —

    —

    Northampton

    —

    —

    11,967.00

    —

    —

    —

    Norwich

    —

    —

    —

    9,356.48

    9,652.57

    —

    Nottingham

    —

    —

    —

    8,657.43

    7,594.66

    8,620.74

    Oxford

    15,975.00

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    Plawsworth

    —

    —

    —

    21,335.74

    7,594.66

    6,968.00

    Plymouth

    —

    —

    8,467.00

    —

    —

    —

    Preston

    —

    —

    —

    6,649.27

    6,859.69

    7,786.47

    Reading

    —

    —

    —

    2,469.43

    2,549.09

    2,704.00

    St. Albans

    —

    —

    —

    14,248.44

    22,187.34

    14,976.00

    Sheffield

    —

    —

    —

    6,293.06

    6,492.21

    7,369.34

    Stafford

    —

    —

    60,897.00

    —

    —

    —

    Swansea

    —

    —

    —

    4,943.37

    5,104.69

    4,330.33

    Truro

    —

    —

    13,623.00

    —

    —

    —

    Warwick

    —

    —

    1,254.00

    —

    —

    —

    Winchester

    17.50

    —

    —

    9,973.91

    10,289.54

    10,122.41

    Worcester

    —

    —

    11,399.00

    —

    —

    —

    Note:

    Prior to 1999–2000 Government Departments were not liable to pay non-domestic rates. A charge in lieu of rates (CILOR) was paid to the Crown Property Unit.

    £

    Maintenance

    Council Tax

    Property

    1997–98

    1998–99

    1999–2000

    1998–99

    1999–2000

    2000–01

    Birmingham

    —

    —

    —

    423.00

    446.26

    468.76

    Bristol

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    Caernarfon

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    Cardiff

    15,473.00

    35,142.59

    38,186.25

    —

    —

    —

    Carlisle

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    Chelmsford

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    Chester

    16,145.00

    46,096.10

    31,672.51

    —

    —

    —

    Exeter

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    Leeds

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    Leicester

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    Lewes

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    Lincoln

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    Liverpool

    —

    —

    —

    107.00

    390.51

    390.51

    Maidstone

    30,273.00

    119,359.31

    46,415.00

    —

    —

    —

    906W 907W

    £

    Maintenance

    Council Tax

    Property

    1997–98

    1998–99

    1999–2000

    1998–99

    1999–2000

    2000–01

    Manchester

    17,435.00

    34,287.17

    44,964.24

    356.92

    381.19

    401.82

    Mold

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    Northampton

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    Norwich

    38,312.00

    26,893.83

    21,275.00

    —

    —

    —

    Nottingham

    10,527.00

    12,957.55

    20,469.01

    —

    —

    —

    Oxford

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    Plawsworth

    74,026.00

    87,993.19

    53,722.41

    —

    —

    —

    Plymouth

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    Preston

    24,072.00

    103,722.34

    31,557.10

    —

    —

    —

    Reading

    35,223.00

    19,650.69

    7,122.00

    —

    —

    —

    St. Albans

    40,303.00

    42,623.45

    26,603.00

    —

    —

    —

    Sheffield

    117,904.00

    123,353.04

    137,003.24

    —

    —

    —

    Stafford

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    Swansea

    39,568.00

    90,937.31

    43,161.53

    —

    —

    —

    Truro

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    Warwick

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    Winchester

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    Worcester

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    Mr. Dismore
    To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will list, for judges' lodgings, what in each case, is(a) the geographical distance between the lodging and the court it serves and (b) the average time taken to travel from (i) lodgings to court and (ii) court to lodgings, by chauffeur-driven car in time for the start of proceedings each day, and to return at the end of the day; and if he will make a statement.[140805]

    Jane Kennedy
    The information requested is contained in the following table. Where lodgings service more than one court, the figure quoted represents the estimated distance/travelling time between the lodgings and its principal court centre.

    Distance and travelling time between courts and judges' lodgings

    No.

    Lodgings name

    Distance (miles)

    Estimated time taken to and from lodgings and court (minutes)1

    1

    Birmingham

    4.0

    15–20

    2

    Bristol

    2.5

    10

    3

    Caernarfon

    2.0

    10

    4

    Cardiff

    6.0

    15

    5

    Carlisle

    10.0

    20–30

    6

    Chelmsford

    275

    32

    7

    Chester

    4.0

    10

    8

    Exeter

    1.0

    10

    9

    Leeds

    4.0

    15

    10

    Leicester

    2.0

    10

    11

    Lewes

    5.0

    12

    12

    Lincoln

    2200

    35

    13

    Liverpool

    2.5

    20

    14

    Maidstone

    6.0

    20

    15

    Manchester

    4.0

    15

    16

    Mold

    40.0

    32

    17

    Northampton

    1.0

    5

    18

    Norwich

    2.0

    15

    19

    Nottingham

    2.0

    10

    20

    Oxford

    10.0

    30

    21

    Plawsworth

    14.0

    30

    22

    Plymouth

    1.0

    5

    23

    Preston

    8.0

    20–30

    24

    Reading

    2.0

    10

    25

    Sheffield

    5.0

    20

    26

    St. Albans

    4.0

    10

    27

    Stafford

    2200

    35

    28

    Swansea

    5.0

    20

    908W

    Distance and travelling time between courts and judges' lodgings

    No.

    Lodgings name

    Distance (miles)

    Estimated time taken to and from lodgings and court (minutes)1

    29

    Truro

    7.0

    20

    30

    Warwick

    40.0

    32

    31

    Winchester

    0.5

    10

    32

    Worcester

    17.0

    15

    1Based on estimated travelling times and subject to the vagaries of traffic conditions

    2 Yards

    3 Walk

    4Within the precincts of the court

    Mr. Dismore
    To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department on which circuits and at which lodgings circuit judges are accommodated under arrangements made on those circuits; if, when circuit judges are accommodated in judges' lodgings, they are entitled to(a) no allowance in addition, (b) a lesser allowance than High Court judges and (c) the same allowance as High Court judges; and if he will make a statement. [140811]

    Jane Kennedy
    The network of judges' lodgings is primarily provided for High Court judges when they try serious criminal and civil cases on circuit in the principal towns and cities outside London, although occasionally circuit judges also reside there. When they do, they are charged a nominal £31 per night.

    Mr. Dismore
    To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department on how many occasions in the last three years circuit judges' overnight hotel accommodation expenses were met, when there were vacant facilities available in judges' lodgings within reasonable travelling distance of the court where the judge concerned was sitting; and if he will make a statement. [139734]

    Jane Kennedy
    To provide the information requested would require a search of data held in manual form at local level and would incur disproportionate cost.

    Court Houses
    Mr. Townend
    To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will review the decision of the Humberside Magistrates Courts Committee to close the court houses in east Yorkshire and change the petty sessions areas. [140562]

    Jane Kennedy
    The Justices of the Peace Act 1997 provides that decisions concerning magistrates courts and petty sessions areas are for the local magistrates courts committee.

    I have received three appeals against proposed courthouse closures in the Humberside Magistrates Courts Committee area. When the parties have completed their representations, I will decide the appeals. I have one application to reorganise petty sessions areas in the same area. I will consider this application when it is complete.

    Criminal Cases Review Commission
    Mr. Wigley
    To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what assessment he has made of the impact on the number of firms that will be able to put in applications to the Criminal Cases Review Commission into legal aid support following the introduction of the changes to the franchise requirements in April 2001. [140836]

    Mr. Lock
    In order to ensure, minimum quality standards for firms providing publicly funded defence services, from 2 October 2000, only those firms with a Crime Franchise were entitled to carry out work funded by the Legal Services Commission. This includes applications to the Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC). Although the number of offices of legal firms doing criminal work reduced from some 6,500 to 3,300, these 3,300 offices represented over 90 per cent. of expenditure for criminal legal aid in the previous 12 months.

    In order to accommodate those firms which specialised in CCRC work, special arrangements were introduced in March 2000 to enable them to obtain a Crime Franchise.

    From April 2001 all work funded by the LSC will be under contract and all firms with a Crime Franchise will be eligible. It is expected that the 3,300 quality assured firms currently working in this area will apply for a contract and continue to provide services after April 2001.

    Mr. Wigley
    To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how much legal aid was paid for appeals to the Criminal Cases Review Commission in each of the past three years. [140842]

    Jane Kennedy
    Criminal legal advice and assistance is available to make applications before the Criminal Cases Review Commission. However, the Legal Services Commission does not keep central records at the necessary level of detail to readily identify expenditure on these cases. The information requested could therefore be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

    Judicial Appointments
    Mr. Sayeed
    To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many(a) barristers and (b) solicitors have been appointed Circuit Judges in the last five years who have not sat previously as recorders.[140847]
    910W
    Jane Kennedy
    During the period 27 November 1995 to 28 November 2000 the total number of circuit judge appointments was 186. Out of this figure,

    (a) three barristers, and

    (b) four solicitors

    had not sat previously as recorders, although all but one had other judicial experience prior to appointment.

    Lawson Case
    Mr. Duncan Smith
    To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will place in the Library a transcript of the case of Rev. Paul Lawson and Harry Lawson, 4 August 1998 to 13 August 1998. [140838]

    Jane Kennedy
    Paul and Harry Lawson were acquitted and as a result no transcript of the case was ever prepared. I am therefore unable to place a copy in the Library.

    Marshals
    Mr. Dismore
    To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department in relation to the High Court judges marshall when on circuit (1)(a) what are the duties of the marshal, (b) who appoints the marshal, (c) who pays the wages and fees of the marshal, (d) what was the total cost of the marshal service to public funds for each of the last three years, (e) what uniform, dress code or badge of office distinguishes the marshal, (f) how many marshals there are and (g) what are the qualifications and experience required to be a marshal; and if he will make a statement; [140808]

    (2) (a) what is the selection or appointment procedure is followed in choosing a marshal, (b) what training is given to ensure the marshal is appointed in accordance with equal opportunities legislation, (c) for each of the last two years, how many marshals were (i) men, (ii) women and (iii) from ethnic minority backgrounds; and if he will make a statement. [140807]

    Mr. Lock
    I regret that it has not been possible to provide an answer before prorogation. I shall write to the hon. Member and place a copy of the letter in the Library.

    Fast-track Cases
    Mr. Dismore
    To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what monitoring of costs in fast-track cases has taken place; what data relating to costs in fast track-cases have been collected; and if he will make a statement. [140816]

    Mr. Lock
    None.

    Mr. Dismore
    To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what plans he has to introduce benchmark costs for fast-track civil cases; and if he will make a statement.[140817]

    Mr. Lock
    The Government have no plans at present to introduce benchmark costs for fast-track civil cases.

    Mr. Dismore
    To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what consultations he has held on the issue of benchmark costs in fast-track cases; and if he will make a statement. [140822]

    Mr. Lock
    Following consultation with senior judiciary, my Department commissioned a scoping study to identify the existing sources and quality of data that
    911W
    could be accessed in order to assist judges to take a consistent approach when carrying out summary assessment of costs for pre-trial proceedings in fast-track cases and selected proceedings in multi-track cases, and to propose a method of gathering data and analysing it in order to provide a basis for benchmarking.

    The study found that fixed and benchmarking exercise could not be developed from historical data and recommended that a sampling exercise be carried out to obtain and analyse reliable data to inform any decisions on the establishment of fixed and benchmark costs.

    The findings of the study were discussed with the senior judiciary. They felt that guidelines should be developed using the expert knowledge of the judiciary and in consultation with the professions, on the basis that actual data might only produce figures reflecting the current inconsistent approach to assessment.

    The Senior Costs Judge has, through consultation with designated civil judges, district judges and representatives of the legal profession, collected and published guideline rates for solicitors throughout the country, to assist judges and practitioners when carrying out summary assessment. The Senior Costs Judge, at the request of the Master of the Rolls, is consulting widely with judges, the legal profession and other groups in order to develop benchmark figures for a limited range of procedures in both the fast track and the multi-track. The senior judiciary envisage that the benchmark figures might be applied to those procedures, while at the same time retaining the discretion of the court to depart from them in out of the ordinary cases. The senior judiciary wish to see how the benchmark scheme operates in practice before it is extended to other procedures or further developed for the fast-track.

    Civil Procedure Rules
    Mr. Dismore
    To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many cases have been issued in the County Court since the Civil Procedure Rules were introduced solely to determine the issue of assessment of costs. [140818]

    Mr. Lock
    The numbers of requests for detailed assessment hearings are set out in the following table.

    Requests for detailed assessment hearings

    Month/year

    County court1

    District Registry2

    1999

    April

    16

    0

    May

    62

    0

    June

    163

    4

    July

    179

    30

    August

    191

    57

    September

    379

    64

    October

    267

    61

    November

    379

    70

    December

    410

    85

    2000

    January

    334

    77

    February

    509

    75

    March

    618

    117

    April

    419

    73

    May

    377

    84

    912W

    Requests for detailed assessment hearings

    Month/Year

    County court1

    District Registry2

    June

    807

    91

    July

    578

    75

    August

    536

    79

    September

    626

    61

    October

    522

    69

    1BMS Task JH75

    2BMS Task DR55

    Legal Costs
    Mr. Dismore
    To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department for each of the last two years, what was(a) the longest, (b) the shortest and (c) the average wait for an assessment appointment before a taxing master in London; and what is the current expected time scale for obtaining an appointment. [140809]

    Mr. Lock
    Figures are not available in the format requested. However, over the last two years, bills up to £35,000 in value have been subject to an average wait of six to eight weeks and bills over £35,000 between three and five months. Currently, bills up to £50,000 are subject to an average delay of six weeks and bills over £50,000, five months.

    Mr. Dismore
    To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, for each of the last two years how many district judges have referred, from their county courts, cost assessments to the Supreme Court Costs Office; and if he will make a statement. [140810]

    Mr. Lock
    Statistics are not kept in the form requested, and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

    Mr. Dismore
    To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will list the procedures he has assessed as suitable for benchmarking of costs; and if he will make a statement. [140820]

    Mr. Lock
    None.

    Mr. Dismore
    To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what arrangements are in place to collect information about summary assessments of costs after(a) interim and (b) final hearings; and if he will make a statement. [140821]

    Mr. Lock
    While details of these assessments should be retained on court files there are no arrangements in place at present for central collation and processing of the information they contain.

    Mr. Dismore
    To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department when he plans to introduce benchmarking of costs; and if he will make a statement. [140819]

    Mr. Lock
    The Government have no plans at present to introduce benchmarking of costs.

    Court Judges
    Mr. Dismore
    To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many court judges are in post in(a) London and (b) elsewhere; how many court judges' vacancies there are in (i) London and

    913W
    (ii) elsewhere; how long the longest vacancy has (A) lasted and (B) is expected to last; and if he will make a statement. [140814]

    Mr. Lock
    High Court Judges are not posted to a particular location. There are currently 104 High Court Judges in post. One High Court Judge, Mr. Justice Bratza, is a Judge of the European Court of Human Rights and is based in Strasbourg. There are at present no vacancies on the High Court Bench.

    Child Contact Centres
    Mrs. Brinton
    To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what representations he has received on the effectiveness of child contact centres in facilitating contact between children and non-residential parents and other family members. [141187]

    Jane Kennedy
    I have received a number of representations about the effectiveness of child contact centres both from hon. Members and from others. The Government greatly value the work of contact centres and the service they provide for children, their parents and other family members. We firmly believe that it is for the benefit of children as well as parents to remain in contact with each other unless there is some reason why this would be unsafe or inappropriate in a particular case.

    Mrs. Brinton
    To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department which agency will(a) have responsibility for and (b) bear the cost of, police checks on volunteer workers in Child Contact Centres. [141186]

    Jane Kennedy
    Police checks on volunteer workers in Child Contact Centres are currently the responsibility of the probation service. Consideration is being given to the future responsibility for these checks. I shall write to my hon. Friend with these details shortly and place a copy of my letter in the Library of the House of Commons.

    Legal Aid
    Mr. Simon Hughes
    To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department in each of the last three years, what disciplinary inquiries he has made into the inappropriate granting of legal aid in criminal cases; what the value was of payments recovered; and if he will make a statement. [140943]

    Jane Kennedy
    Earlier this year, the Court Service instigated a disciplinary investigation into one case, that of the granting of legal aid to Kenneth Noye. Three members of staff were involved: one person resigned before the disciplinary process was complete; a second has had a disciplinary penalty imposed, which is currently subject to appeal within agreed procedures; and the third has been found not culpable. There were no investigations in either of the previous two years.

    No payments have been recovered in this case. Even if it could be proved that Mr. Noye has misrepresented his financial position on his legal aid form, the Department is unlikely to consider undertaking civil action for damages to recover the costs of legal aid. It would be an unwarranted use of public funds to take such an action where the prospect of recovering any significant sum of money is remote, bearing in mind Mr. Noye's status as a bankrupt and the competing claims of other creditors.

  HOME DEPARTMENT

    Closed Circuit Television
    Dr. Julian Lewis
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what progress he has made in providing that business premises open at unsocial hours must protect purchasers of those goods by CCTV as a condition of being licensed to trade at such times. [136234]

    Mr. Charles Clarke
    Under the Crime Reduction Programme Closed Circuit Television (CCTV) Initiative, businesses may join crime and disorder reduction partnerships to bid for funding for external CCTV systems as a deterrent, and to help identify offenders entering or leaving their premises. The current bidding round under the initiative, which closes on 22 December, specifically encourages bids from small shopping centres to deal with this kind of problem. Protection of goods and persons on these premises falls within the general duty of care owed by employers and service providers towards their staff and customers, and the requirements of Health and Safety legislation. Internal CCTV systems are widely used for this purpose, but since business premises do not require a licence to trade at unsocial hours, their use cannot be a condition of licensing.

    Departmental Policies
    Mr. Kaufman
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department 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. [136170]

    Mr. Charles Clarke
    The Home Office is working to build a safe, just and tolerant society in which the rights and responsibilities of individuals, families and communities are properly balanced, and the protection and security of the public are maintained. Detailed information on the impact of the Home Office policies across the full range of responsibilities is set out in Home Office Annual Reports. A copy of the most recent report, Home Office Annual Report 1999–2000, is available in the Library.

    The impact of Home Office policies and actions is not normally examined by constituency and the statistics which the Department collects cannot be matched in the way requested although set out as follows are examples relating to Manchester, Gorton constituency or the immediate locality:

    Crime data for all recorded offences are collected centrally at police force area level. Manchester, Gorton forms part of "C" Division of the Greater Manchester police, who have provided the following information on the overall number of recorded crimes in this division:

    year ending March 1997–41,373; and

    year ending March 2000–53,475.

    These figures are not, however, directly comparable as there was a change in counting rules for recorded crime on 1 April 1998 and the earlier figure excluded minor criminal damage.

    A £47,000 burglary reduction project is focusing on students in Rusholme.
    915W
    A £500,000 targeted policing project is looking at offending behaviour among armed criminals in South Manchester.

    Gorton have a successful neighbourhood wardens bid of £185,000 to provide warden coverage in three parts of Gorton, namely Gorton North, South and West, using five wardens. This project aims to provide a visible, accessible presence in the area, with wardens having a crime prevention focus, complementing other services such as the police. There will also be work around the support of vulnerable people, such as the elderly, environmental and housing management issues.

    More generally, all of the policies of the Home Office will impact on the residents of Manchester, Gorton to a greater or lesser extent. For example:

    376 Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnerships have been established;

    the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 ensures greater protection for victims in rape trials;

    Ministers have taken proper responsibility for the Prison Service;

    racial harassment and racially motivated crimes have been made criminal offences by the Crime and Disorder Act 1998;

    the asylum backlog has been cut from over 102,000 in January this year to below 76,000 by the end of September; and

    good progress is being made in reducing the incidence of fire related deaths in the home.

    Civil Servants (Relocation)
    Mr. Hunter
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home 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. [137193]

    Mrs. Roche
    The current contract for relocation services for the Home Office and Prison Service is held by Hambro Countrywide Relocation (HCR) Ltd. The tender was advertised in the Official Journal of the European Community (OJEC) and the competitive tendering process resulted in a contract for the period 16 June 1995 to 30 November 2000. The value of the relocation business for this period is estimated at £5 million, which includes the basic management fee charged for each case handled by the relocation company but paid for by the Home Office and prison service for the relocation case, such as legal fees, valuations and bridging costs.

    The service was advertised again in the OJEC on 23 February 2000. Following a competitive tendering exercise the contract is to be awarded to Cendant Relocation (UK) Ltd. for a maximum contract period of five years, commencing 1 December 2000.

    Reporting of Crimes (Internet)
    Mr. Edward Davey
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what preparations his Department has made to allow members of the public to report crimes via the Internet and email; and if he will make a statement. [137602]

    Mr. Charles Clarke
    I will write to the hon. Member and place a copy of my letter in the Library.

    Asylum Seekers (Liverpool)
    Mrs. Ellman
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what communications were received from Liverpool City Council concerning the suitability of the Landmark and the Inn on the Park in Liverpool for asylum seekers prior to his Department signing a contract with the management of these premises. [138750]

    Mrs. Roche
    I understand that Liverpool City Council wrote to my officials in the National Asylum Support Service (NASS) on 29 February. Unfortunately this correspondence was not taken into account before the contract with Landmark was signed because it was not seen by the team handling the negotiation of the contract. It is not clear whether the letter went astray before arrival or within the NASS. The communication from Liverpool City Council will be taken into account in ongoing contractual negotiations.

    Prisons
    Jackie Ballard
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the average number of days spent in hospital post-birth was by prisoners before return to prison in the last 12 months; and what special arrangements exist for granting additional time in hospital if mother and baby are to be separated. [137807]

    Mr. Boateng
    The average number of days spent in hospital post-birth by prisoners before return to prison in the last 12 months was three days. In cases of separation, each case is assessed on individual circumstances; there are no set time scales for remaining in hospital.

    Special Constables
    Mr. Edwards
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to pay special constables for their work; and if he will make a statement about their role. [140457]

    Mr. Charles Clarke
    The Special Constabulary is a voluntary body designed to assist the regular police. Its members are drawn mainly from the communities served by each local force. Special Constables perform constabulary duties and exercise constabulary powers under the supervision of, and supported by, regular officers. They play an invaluable role by assisting regular police officers to tackle crime and the fear of crime.

    We have no current plans to pay special constables for the work they do. But we are looking at a range of ideas for improving recruitment and retention within the Special Constabulary.

    Holocaust Memorial Day
    Dr. Tonge
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if the Government will include reference to the massacre of Armenians in 1915–16 in the commemoration of the Holocaust Memorial Day in January 2001. [140369]

    Mr. Mike O'Brien
    [holding answer 27 November 2000]: Holocaust Memorial Day is focused on learning the lessons of the Holocaust and other more recent atrocities that raise similar issues. We took a conscious decision to focus on events around the Holocaust and thereafter, although we did examine requests to consider

    917W
    the atrocities and other events that preceded the Holocaust. (Examples include the Crusades, slavery, colonialism, the victims of Stalin and the Boer War.) It is always difficult to draw a line and wherever it is drawn it runs the risk of being misinterpreted.

    A particular focus on events around the period 1939–45 and thereafter should not be seen as failing to acknowledge, sympathise and respect the concerns about prior events.

    The massacres of Armenians in 1915–16 were an appalling tragedy condemned by the Government of the day and now. We understand the strength of feeling about this terrible period and extend our sympathies to the descendants of the victims.

    The Government's decision to give a particular focus to Holocaust Memorial Day does not prevent recollection by the Armenian community of these appalling events. Others may also seek to highlight other atrocities.

    Horse Racing
    Mr. Robertson
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will introduce legislation to(a) change the status of the Tote, and (b) abolish the horse racing levy system; and if he will make a statement. [R] [140345]

    Mr. Mike O'Brien
    [holding answer 27 November, 2000]: We will bring forward legislation when the necessary parliamentary time can be found. I hope to make a statement shortly explaining in more detail our thinking on how the Horserace Betting Levy Board's current responsibilities would be dealt with after its abolition.

    Asylum Seekers
    Mr. Hancock
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many asylum seekers have(a) lost their appeals, (b) been removed from the UK after losing an appeal and (c) left the UK voluntarily after losing an appeal in each of the last 10 years; and if he will make a statement. [140709]

    Mrs. Roche
    The available information is given in the table.

    Asylum Appeals (excluding dependants) dismissed1 by adjudicators of the Immigration Appellate Authority, 1994 to 2000

    Year

    Number2

    1994

    1,935

    1995

    5,565

    1996

    10,785

    1997

    18,145

    1998

    21,195

    1999

    11,135

    2000, January to October

    11,450

    1Excludes the outcome of subsequent appeals

    2Provisional figures rounded to the nearest 5

    918W

    Removals and voluntary departures of asylum applicants1, excluding dependants, 1994 to 2000

    Year

    Number

    1994

    2,108

    1995

    3,171

    1996

    4,845

    1997

    7,160

    1998

    6,910

    19992

    7,645

    2000, Jan to Oct2

    7,605

    1Including applicants who had not appealed against an initial refusal

    2Includes persons returned under the Voluntary Assisted Returns Programme

    Mr. Hancock
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many applications for asylum have been processed in each of the(a) last six months and (b) last 10 years; and if he will make a statement. [140902]

    Mrs. Roche
    The information requested is given in the tables.

    Applications, excluding dependants, received for asylum in the United Kingdom, and decisions made for the period May 2000 to October 20001

    Applications2

    Decisions2,3,4

    May

    6,185

    10,765

    June

    5,900

    10,470

    July

    6,255

    8,855

    August

    6,430

    9,770

    September

    6,435

    8,145

    October

    6,970

    8,180

    1Provisional figures

    2Figures rounded to the nearest 5.

    3Decisions include cases decided under the backlog criteria.

    4Decisions do not necessarily relate to applications made in the same period and exclude the outcome of appeals or other subsequent decisions.

    Applications, excluding dependants, received for asylum in the United Kingdom, and decisions made 1990 to 1999

    Applications1

    Decisions1,2

    1990

    26,205

    4,025

    1991

    44,840

    6,075

    1992

    24,605

    34,900

    1993

    22,370

    23,405

    1994

    32,830

    20,990

    1995

    43,965

    27,005

    1996

    29,640

    38,960

    1997

    32,500

    36,045

    1998

    46.015

    31,570

    19993,4

    71.160

    33,720

    1Figures rounded to the nearest 5.

    2Decisions do not necessarily relate to applications made in the same period and exclude the outcome of appeals or other subsequent decisions.

    3Decisions include cases decided under the backlog criteria.

    4Provisional figures.

    Sir John Stanley
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what his estimate is of the number of individuals believed still to be in the UK but whose whereabouts are unknown,(a) who have applied for asylum but whose applications have not yet been finally determined and (b) whose applications for asylum have been refused. [140765]
    919W
    Mrs. Roche
    I regret that we are not able to provide a reliable estimate because the information required to make an estimate is not available.

    Miss Widdecombe
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many asylum seekers whose claims were made(a) prior to 1 July 1993 and (b) between 1 July 1993 and 31 December 1995 have been granted leave to remain, and for what periods, under the backlog clearance exercise; how many granted leave to remain had their asylum applications considered under normal procedures and refused; how many did not receive an initial determination of their asylum application; and if he will make a statement. [134877]

    Mrs. Roche
    [pursuant to her reply, 10 November 2000,c. 425W]: The figure 6,135 is the number of applications lodged prior to July 1993 and the figure 15,400 is the number of asylum applications lodged between 1 July 1993 and 31 December 1995. The number of applications still not determined under the backlog clearance exercise is now negligible.

    Bail Supervision Schemes
    Mr. Win Griffiths
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the trend in(a) court case adjournments and (b) the use of secure accommodation following the introduction of bail supervision schemes. [140646]

    Annex B—Remand decisions/episodes by age and gender—total population

    1 July to 30 September 2000

    10 yrs

    11 yrs

    12 yrs

    13 yrs

    14 yrs

    Remand

    Male

    Female

    Male

    Female

    Male

    Female

    Male

    Female

    Male

    Female

    Unconditional Bail

    57

    1

    167

    25

    401

    34

    742

    141

    1546

    290

    Conditional Bail

    20

    1

    73

    2

    169

    21

    367

    70

    821

    178

    Bail Supervision and Support

    1

    0

    9

    0

    8

    2

    31

    6

    58

    10

    Local Authority Accommodation

    2

    0

    14

    0

    35

    0

    66

    13

    161

    42

    Court Ordered Remand

    0

    0

    0

    0

    7

    1

    21

    0

    50

    10

    Remand in Custody

    0

    0

    1

    0

    3

    0

    5

    0

    17

    4

    Total

    80

    2

    264

    27

    623

    58

    1232

    230

    2653

    534

    15 yrs

    16 yrs

    17 yrs

    Total

    Remand

    Male

    Female

    Male

    Female

    Male

    Female

    Male

    Female

    Unconditional Bail

    2,458

    400

    3,052

    457

    3,826

    495

    12,249

    1,843

    Conditional Bail

    1,350

    220

    1,685

    273

    2,101

    275

    6,586

    1,040

    Bail Supervision and Support

    96

    23

    171

    30

    252

    23

    626

    94

    Local Authority Accommodation

    202

    23

    277

    34

    18

    3

    775

    115

    Court Ordered Remand

    25

    9

    35

    10

    21

    0

    159

    30

    Remand in Custody

    133

    1

    287

    5

    742

    43

    1,188

    53

    Total

    4,264

    676

    5,507

    809

    6,960

    839

    21,583

    3,175

    1 April to 30 June 2000

    10 yrs

    11 yrs

    12 yrs

    13 yrs

    14 yrs

    Remand

    Male

    Female

    Male

    Female

    Male

    Female

    Male

    Female

    Male

    Female

    Unconditional Bail

    43

    10

    169

    21

    406

    73

    866

    181

    1,655

    398

    Conditional Bail

    19

    6

    51

    10

    169

    43

    470

    124

    841

    250

    Bail Supervision and Support

    1

    2

    0

    0

    2

    1

    22

    4

    54

    9

    Local Authority Accommodation

    4

    1

    5

    3

    19

    4

    85

    16

    148

    29

    Court Ordered Remand

    0

    0

    0

    0

    17

    0

    19

    1

    40

    6

    Remand in Custody

    0

    0

    1

    0

    0

    0

    4

    1

    13

    0

    Total

    67

    19

    226

    34

    613

    121

    1,466

    327

    2,751

    692

    920W
    Mr. Charles Clarke
    Figures from the Lord Chancellor's Department showing the average number and length of adjournments in the youth court since February 1999 are at annex A. Statistics are not collected centrally on the various reasons for adjournments.

    Annex B summarises returns from youth offending teams on the number of remands made between 1 January 1999 and 31 March 1999, 1 April 2000 and 30 June 2000 and 1 July 2000 and 30 September 2000.

    The Youth Justice Board are supporting some 120 bail supervision and support projects across England and Wales. We await full evaluation reports, but expect the schemes progressively to improve young defendants' responses to bail and hence courts' confidence in it.

    Annex A

    Average number of adjournments

    Average length of adjournments (days)

    1999

    February

    2.5

    23

    June

    2.3

    21

    October

    2.5

    22

    2000

    February

    2.4

    23

    June

    2.5

    23

    September

    2.6

    23

    921W

    15yrs

    16 yrs

    17 yrs

    Total

    Remand

    Male

    Female

    Male

    Female

    Male

    Female

    Male

    Female

    Unconditional Bail

    2,641

    482

    3,511

    557

    4,146

    476

    13,437

    2,198

    Conditional Bail

    1,556

    329

    2,046

    347

    2,471

    251

    7,623

    1,360

    Bail Supervision and Support

    138

    13

    167

    24

    177

    19

    561

    72

    Local Authority Accommodation

    201

    32

    271

    37

    24

    2

    757

    124

    Court Ordered Remand

    60

    5

    35

    20

    29

    2

    200

    34

    Remand in Custody

    139

    6

    228

    8

    801

    48

    1,186

    63

    Total

    4,735

    867

    6,258

    993

    7,648

    798

    23,764

    3,851

    1 January to 31 March 1999

    10 yrs

    11 yrs

    12 yrs

    13 yrs

    14 yrs

    Remand

    Male

    Female

    Male

    Female

    Male

    Female

    Male

    Female

    Male

    Female

    Unconditional Bail

    32

    5

    149

    8

    425

    67

    722

    128

    1,537

    320

    Conditional Bail

    23

    2

    64

    4

    161

    10

    416

    59

    943

    165

    Bail Supervision and Support

    0

    0

    3

    1

    6

    3

    19

    1

    58

    16

    Local Authority Accommodation

    6

    0

    17

    0

    38

    7

    145

    19

    353

    29

    Court Ordered Remand

    0

    0

    0

    0

    2

    0

    22

    1

    44

    3

    Remand in Custody

    1

    0

    1

    0

    0

    0

    5

    0

    10

    0

    Total

    62

    7

    234

    13

    632

    87

    1,329

    208

    2,945

    533

    15yrs

    16 yrs

    17 yrs

    Total

    Remand

    Male

    Female

    Male

    Female

    Male

    Female

    Male

    Female

    Unconditional Bail

    2,528

    457

    3,771

    492

    4,327

    511

    13,491

    1,988

    Conditional Bail

    1,505

    257

    2,418

    280

    2,589

    274

    8,119

    1,051

    Bail Supervision and Support

    69

    22

    144

    12

    100

    15

    399

    70

    Local Authority Accommodation

    368

    72

    497

    57

    46

    25

    1,470

    209

    Court Ordered Remand

    26

    3

    63

    6

    17

    0

    174

    13

    Remand in Custody

    171

    9

    480

    2

    1,186

    53

    1,854

    64

    Total

    4,667

    820

    7,373

    849

    8,265

    878

    25,507

    3,395

    Domestic Violence and Fire-related Deaths
    Mrs. Spelman
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much was spent by his Department on(a) research into the prevention of (i) domestic violence and (ii) fire-related deaths and injuries and (b) public awareness campaigns to prevent fires in the last 12 months for which figures are available. [140659]

    Mr. Boateng
    The Home Office spent a total of –8,769 on research into the prevention of domestic violence in the 12 months up to 31 October 2000. In the same period, a total of £856,463 was spent on research into the prevention of fire related deaths and injuries and £3,787,657 was spent on public awareness campaigns to prevent fires.

    Young Offenders
    Mr. Win Griffiths
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list by police authority area the percentage of those(a) on remand and (b) in prison who are (i) black children and (ii) young people in each of the last 10 years. [140588]

    Mr. Boateng
    I will write to my hon. Friend and place a copy of the letter in the Library.

    Mr. Win Griffiths
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list for each police force area, for each of the last 10 years, the average time from arrest to sentence of persistent young offenders. [140647]
    922W
    Jane Kennedy
    I have been asked to reply.

    Arrest to sentence times for persistent young offenders in England and Wales are available from 1996 only, and by police force area from 1997 only. Arrest to sentence times by police force area can be found in the Lord Chancellor's Department Press Notice (issue 154–99–table 2) for 1997 and 1998 and the Lord Chancellor's Department Statistical Bulletin (issue 3/2000–table 2) for 1999 and the first two quarters of 2000. Copies have been placed in the House of Commons Library.

    Mr. Win Griffiths
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people are in custody in each youth offenders' institution broken down by the counties, county boroughs and boroughs from which they come; and what percentage of them come from homes which are over 100 miles away from the institution concerned. [141174]

    Mr. Boateng
    I will write to my hon. Friend as soon as possible, and place a copy of the letter in the Library.

    Blantyre House
    Mr. Llwyd
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many former prisoners from Blantyre House re-offended in each of the last five years. [140934]

    Mr. Boateng
    The information is not available in the form requested. I shall write to the hon. Member, as soon as possible, and place a copy of the letter in the Library.
    923W
    Mr. Llwyd
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the annual cost was per prisoner of running Blantyre House in each of the last three years. [140972]

    Mr. Boateng
    The annual cost per prisoner at Her Majesty's Prison Blantyre House for the last three financial years is set out in the table:

    £

    Cost per prisoner (cash terms)

    1997–98

    17,700

    1998–99

    17,957

    1999–2000

    20,010

    Data for cost per prisoner place reflect establishment costs only and does not include Head Quarter overheads. These figures are not comparable with the Prison Service cost per prisoner Key Performance Indicator.

    Mr. Llwyd
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the annual cost of running Blantyre House was in each of the last three years. [140933]

    Mr. Boateng
    Expenditure by Blantyre House in the last three years, covering both current and capital expenditure, was as follows:

    £

    1997–98

    2,196,753

    1998–99

    2,188,236

    1999–2000

    2,396,923

    Criminal Records Bureau
    Mr. Chope
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he intends to carry out a regulatory impact assessment into the impact of fees to be charged by the Criminal Records Bureau on voluntary and charitable organisations working with young people; and if he will make a statement. [140937]

    Mr. Charles Clarke
    I refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett) on 20 November 2000,Official Report, column 87W.

    Murder (Prisons)
    Mr. Llwyd
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many murders in prisons in England and Wales in each of the last 10 years were found to be racially motivated; [140957]

    (2) how many murders have been recorded in prisons in England and Wales for each of the last 10 years. [140930]

    Mr. Boateng
    The numbers of homicides between prisoners over the period requested, and the ethnicity of those who died, is given in the table. Information about the racial motivation of those convicted of murder is not recorded. In one of this year's cases evidence of the accused's racial attitudes was a prominent feature of the evidence presented at the trial.
    924W

    Homicides between prisoners in HM prison service establishments England and Wales 1991–2000 (October) calendar years

    Year

    Total

    Ethnicity

    1991

    2

    2 x White

    1992

    2

    2 x White

    1993

    3

    3 x White

    1994

    3

    2 x White; 1 x Black Caribbean

    1995

    2

    2 x White

    1996

    2

    1 x Asian Pakistani; 1 x White

    1997

    2

    2 x White

    1998

    5

    5 x White

    1999

    0

    —

    2000

    3

    1 x Asian-Pakistani; 2 x White

    Prison Suicides
    Mr. Llwyd
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many suicides there were in prisons in England and Wales for each of the last 10 years. [140960]

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

    Self-inflicted deaths in HMP establishments England and Wales, 1990–20001

    Calendar year

    Male

    Female

    Total

    1990

    49

    1

    50

    1991

    42

    0

    42

    1992

    39

    2

    41

    1993

    46

    1

    47

    1994

    61

    1

    62

    1995

    57

    2

    59

    1996

    62

    2

    64

    1997

    65

    3

    68

    1998

    79

    3

    82

    1999

    86

    5

    91

    2000

    69

    8

    77

    Total

    655

    28

    683

    1Count as at 28 November 2000

    Prisons (Cell Sharing)
    Mr. Llwyd
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement about the risk assessment of inmates who share cells. [140932]

    Mr. Boateng
    The Prison Service is committed to preventing loss of life or injury to prisoners who are required to share cells.

    Improvements have been made to the way in which prisoners are risk assessed—a revised Prisoner Escort Record (PER) that accompanies individuals during court or prison moves and highlights specific risk factors, including violence, racist behaviour and sexual offences, now in use estate-wide. Accompanying guidance reinforces the importance of passing PER information to the staff involved in, for example, first-night risk assessment and accommodation issues.

    Work has also been undertaken to develop a Safer Prisons initiative. The Prison Service will shortly be introducing a Safer Prisons Standard that will encourage a 'whole-prison' approach. As well as setting out actions to reduce violence and bullying in establishments, it also focuses on prisoner care and staff/prisoner relationships.

    Prison Training
    Mr. Llwyd
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action he is taking to provide prison employees with(a) racial and (b) sexual orientation awareness training; and if he will make a statement. [140931]

    Mr. Boateng
    Prison Service employees have access to equal opportunities training for both staff and prisoner issues. Prison Service Orders have also been issued to assist staff.

    Equal Opportunities Officers who deal with staff issues and Race Relations Liaison Officers who deal specifically with prisoners are appointed and trained in each establishment. The role of Equal Opportunities Officer includes raising awareness in discrimination and harassment. In addition, race relations training is provided as part of the Prison Officer Induction Training course.

    Police Numbers
    Mr. Loughton
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many police officers(a) left and (b) joined the profession in each of the last 10 years. [140797]

    Mr. Charles Clarke
    [holding answer 29 November, 2000]: The information requested is set out in the table. Before April 1995 information was collected on a calendar year basis. From April 1995 it has been done on a financial year basis. The table reflects the different collection periods.

    Year

    Total police recruitment

    Total police wastage

    1990

    3,044

    2,738

    1991

    4,933

    5,005

    1992

    5,863

    4,993

    1993

    5,131

    5,490

    1994–951

    6,409

    6,989

    1995–96

    6,014

    6,421

    1996–97

    6,523

    5,951

    1997–98

    6,543

    6,657

    1998–99

    5,391

    6,104

    1999–2000

    4,535

    5,948

    1The figures for 1994–95 cover 15 months to take account of the change from calendar year to financial year.

    Sir Patrick Cormack
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many serving officers were in the police forces of England and Wales on(a) 1 May 1997 and (b) 31 October 2000. [141036]

    Mr. Charles Clarke
    Information on police numbers is collected twice a year in March and September. Police numbers for March 1997 are set out in the table.

    Police numbers for September 2000 are currently being validated and we hope to publish them within the next few weeks.

    Police numbers in England and Wales

    Force

    Total strength at 31 March 1997

    Avon and Somerset

    2,989

    Bedfordshire

    1,094

    Cambridgeshire

    1,302

    Cheshire

    2,046

    926W

    Police numbers in England and Wales

    Force

    Total strength at 31 March 1997

    City of London

    859

    Cleveland

    1,459

    Cumbria

    1,144

    Derbyshire

    1,791

    Devon and Cornwall

    2,865

    Dorset

    1,284

    Durham

    1,461

    Dyfed-Powys

    1,005

    Essex

    2,961

    Gloucestershire

    1,133

    Greater Manchester

    6,922

    Gwent

    1,243

    Hampshire

    3,452

    Hertfordshire

    1,759

    Humberside

    2,045

    Kent

    3,260

    Lancashire

    3,247

    Leicestershire

    1,949

    Lincolnshire

    1,196

    Merseyside

    4,230

    Metropolitan Police

    26,677

    Norfolk

    1,432

    Northamptonshire

    1,177

    Northumbria

    3,677

    North Wales

    1,369

    North Yorkshire

    1,338

    Nottinghamshire

    2,323

    South Wales

    2,976

    South Yorkshire

    3,159

    Staffordshire

    2,211

    Suffolk

    1,180

    Surrey

    1,620

    Sussex

    3,085

    Thames Valley

    3,695

    Warwickshire

    926

    West Mercia

    2,040

    West Midlands

    7,113

    West Yorkshire

    5,209

    Wiltshire

    1,154

    Total

    125,057

    Speed Cameras
    Dr. Stoate
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the eight pilot schemes introduced in January allowing police forces to retain income from speeding fines in order to finance the operation and provision of speed cameras in their areas; and what plans he has to introduce the scheme nationwide. [140973]

    Mr. Charles Clarke
    The pilots were launched in April for a two-year period and the six monthly evaluation is nearing completion. The success of the pilots is to be judged primarily on casualty reduction; early indications are encouraging. The Government Departments concerned and the Association of Chief Police Officers are considering the issue of a national rollout in the light of the emerging information from the pilots.

    Police and Prison Services (Wales)
    Mr. Wigley
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much of the budget for the(a) Police Service and (b) Prison Service was spent in Wales in the last 12 months for which figures are

    927W
    available (i) in actual terms, (ii) as a percentage of total expenditure on these services and (iii) per head of population in Wales. [141011]

    Mr. Charles Clarke
    In 1999–2000 revenue spend by police authorities on the police service in Wales, supported by Government grants, in actual terms was £375.438 million. This is 5.04 per cent. of total police net revenue expenditure in England and Wales and £127.83 per head of population in Wales.

    The only information available for the Prison Service in respect of spend in Wales for the financial year 1999–2000 is the expenditure by Cardiff, Prescoed/Usk and Swansea Prisons and the payments made to the operators of Parc Prison. Spend in 1999–2000 was £54.753 million in actual terms. This represents 2.97 per cent. of the total Prison Service expenditure in 1999–2000 or £18.64 per head of population in Wales. However, because many Welsh prisoners, particularly from North Wales, are held in prisons in England this does not give a true reflection of the impact of Wales on Prison Service costs.

    Anti-social Behaviour Orders
    Mr. Chaytor
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make it his policy to collect information on anti-social behaviour orders by subdivision within each police authority. [140846]

    Mr. Charles Clarke
    I refer to the answer given to my hon. Friend by my hon. Friend the Minister of State on 23 October 2000,Official Report, column 47W. We have no plans to collect information in the way he suggests.

    Bramshill
    Ms Roseanna Cunningham
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what discussions there have been between his Department and the Justice Department of the Scottish Executive on the merits of promoting Bramshill and the Scottish Police College for the proposed training centre for senior police officers in Europe; and which Ministers were involved in the discussions; [141286]

    (2) what external accreditation process has been undertaken for the command course conducted at Bramshill; [141291]

    (3) what assessment of candidates is undertaken and what accreditation and qualifications are available for successful students of the command course at Bramshill. [141285]

    Mr. Charles Clarke
    I will write to the hon. Member and place a copy of the letter in the Library.

    Poll Tax
    Mr. Trickett
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people have served prison sentences following poll tax related offences in each of the last five years; and what his estimate is of the total cost to his Department of such imprisonments. [141261]

    Mr. Boateng
    I will write to my hon. Friend and place a copy of my letter in the Library.

    Police
    Ms Roseanna Cunningham
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what criteria in respect of(a) education and (b) training were used in selecting a candidate for the European training centre for senior police officers. [141292]

    Mr. Charles Clarke
    I will write to the hon. Member, and place a copy of the letter in the Library.

    ACPO
    Ms Roseanna Cunningham
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department who conducted the last independent evaluation of the extended interview process used for the assessment of prospective ACPO and ACPOS rank police officers; when the evaluation was completed; and if he will make a statement. [141287]

    Mr. Charles Clarke
    I will write to the hon. Member and place a copy of the letter in the Library.

    Released Murderers
    Mr. McLoughlin
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people convicted of murder have been released from prison; and what was the length of sentences served in each of the last five years. [141295]

    Mr. Boateng
    I will write to the hon. Member and place a copy of my letter in the Library.

    Hilda Murrell
    Mr. Dalyell
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the outcome of recent DNA tests found in connection with the killing of Miss Hilda Murrell. [141061]

    Mr. Charles Clarke
    I will write to my hon. Friend and place a copy of my letter in the Library.

    Isiko Immigration Case
    Mr. Hancock
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action he plans to take following the recent High Court decision on the Isiko immigration case; and if he will make a statement. [141150]

    Mrs. Roche
    My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary's appeal against the judgment of Mr. Justice Hidden was heard by the Court of Appeal on 23 November. Judgment was reserved. Action in cases which raise similar issues have been suspended pending the Court of Appeal judgment.

    Departmental Liaison
    Mr. Win Griffiths
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the meetings held during the last 12 months between his and other departments to discuss family and children policies and services, indicating which other departments were in attendance. [141113]

    Mr. Boateng
    Ministers and officials from the Home Office have held many meetings over the last 12 months to discuss family and children policies and services.
    929
    The detailed information requested is not listed because it falls within the exemptions provided by the Code of Practice on Access to Government Initiatives.

    Mr. Tuazon
    Mr. Chope
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when his Department will respond to the request for advice made by the British Embassy in Manila in relation to the entry clearance application of Mr. Arsenio J. Jacinto Tuazon; and if he will make a statement. [140912]

    Mrs. Roche
    We have confirmed with the British Embassy in Manila that no advice has been sought from the Home Office with regard to Mr. Tuazon's application for entry clearance. The application is being considered by an entry clearance officer and the Joint Entry Clearance Unit is writing to the hon. Member about the case.

    London Fire Service
    Mrs. Dunwoody
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what consultations have taken place between the Health and Safety Executive, his Department, and elected Greater London Authority members about the proposed deal to hand control of the London Fire Service to The Leasing Group (Lattice plc); [141148]

    (2) if he will place in the Library details of the arrangements entered into by The Leasing Group (Lattice plc) and the Greater London Authority to take control of the Fire Service; and if he will list all the fire engines and fire stations included in these arrangements. [141149]

    Mr. Mike O'Brien
    Statutory responsibility for the provision of, and any contractual arrangements to secure, an efficient fire service in London rests with the London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority. The contract signed between the Authority and The Leasing Group Fire Services on 16 November 2000 is for the provision, management and maintenance of the Authority's operational and non-operational vehicles and fireboats and some operational equipment. It does not include fire stations. The Home Office is supporting the project through the provision of notional credit approvals under the Private Finance Initiative.

    Extradition (Scotland)
    Dr. Godman
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent discussions he has had with representatives of the Scottish Executive concerning Crown representation at cases involving extradition applications for persons resident in Scotland; and if he will make a statement. [140549]

    Mr. Charles Clarke
    I have had no such discussions with representatives of the Scottish Executive.

    HMP Blakenhurst and HMP Manchester
    Mr. Simon Hughes
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the Prison Service Evaluation Panel's recommendations were concerning the future 930W
    management of HMP Blakenhurst and HMP Manchester; when the panel's reports were made; when the panel's recommendations will be made public; and if he will make a statement. [140944]

    Mr. Boateng
    The Evaluation Panel has not yet finalised its recommendations. The Prison Service Management Board considered the Panel's provisional report on 17 November and endorsed the Panel's requirement for further clarification. It is anticipated that the result of the competition will be announced before Christmas.

    Representation of the People
    Ms Glenda Jackson
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) when he will lay regulations to bring into force section 6 of the Representation of the People Act 2000; [140876]

    (2) when he will lay regulations to bring into force section 1(2) of the Representation of the People Act 2000. [140877]

    Mr. Mike O'Brien
    The regulations are available in draft form on the Home Office website (www.homeoffice.gov.uk) and comments are invited. I intend to lay them so that they come into force on 16 February 2001, immediately after the new electoral registers are published and in good time for the local elections to be held in May 2001.

    Convicted Ex-servicemen
    Ms Kelly
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many ex-servicemen have been convicted of a criminal offence in the last five years; and how many of these have been homeless. [141218]

    Mr. Charles Clarke
    The Home Office Court Proceedings Database does not identify offenders to the detail required.

    Police Cautions
    Mr. Laurence Robertson
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many cautions were given by the police to offenders(a) in Gloucestershire and (b) in England and Wales, in each of the last five years for which figures are available; what percentage of the total number of crimes committed these figures represent; and if he will make a statement. [141124]

    Mr. Charles Clarke
    Information, taken from the Home Office Cautions Database, on the number of offenders cautioned by the police(a) in Gloucestershire and (b) in England and Wales for the last five years for which figures are available, and the percentage of crimes recorded by the police which were dealt with by a caution is given in the table. Offenders may have been cautioned for more than one offence.
    931W

    Number of offenders cautioned1 within Gloucestershire and England and Wales by type of offence, 1995–96

    Area and type of offence

    Indictable offences

    Gloucestershire Summary non-motoring

    Total

    Indictable offences

    England and Wales Summary non-motoring

    Total

    1995

    2,745

    93

    2,838

    202,585

    88,657

    291,242

    1996

    2,410

    48

    2,458

    190,810

    95,383

    286,193

    1997

    2,283

    48

    2,331

    189,358

    92,729

    282,087

    1998

    2,457

    440

    2,897

    191,722

    96,162

    287,884

    1999

    2,083

    671

    2,754

    170,576

    95,550

    266,126

    1Offenders may be cautioned for more than one offence.

    Crimes recorded by the police—proportion dealt with using a caution

    Percentages

    Gloucestershire

    England and Wales

    1995

    4

    4

    1996

    3

    3

    1997

    4

    4

    1998–99

    5

    5

    1999–2000

    5

    4

    Traffic Wardens
    Mr. Bob Russell
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many police forces have transferred duties previously undertaken by traffic wardens to local authorities; and if he will make a statement. [140979]

    Mr. Charles Clarke
    The information requested is not held centrally.

    Mrs. Farmer
    Mr. Sanders
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what he will make a decision on the application to remain in the UK from Mrs. Farmer of Babbacombe Road, Torquay, Ref D 259977. [141103]

    Mrs. Roche
    Mrs. Farmer's application will be considered under policies currently the subject of Judicial Review in the case of Isiko, which was heard by the Court of Appeal on 23 November. As soon as the judgment has been handed down and examined, consideration of Mrs. Farmer's application will proceed without delay.

    Cannabis
    Dr. Tonge
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what volumes of(a) cannabis and (b) skunk cannabis have been seized in each of the last 10 years. [140860]

    Mr. Charles Clarke
    Drug seizure returns do not usually distinguish 'skunk' from other types of herbal cannabis. Cannabis is classified into four categories—herbal, liquid (oil), resin, and plants. Information for the quantities of cannabis seized in the United Kingdom for the last 10 years for which data are available is given in the table. This is taken from the Home Office Bulletin on Drug Seizure and Offender Statistics.
    932W

    Quantities of cannabis seized in the United Kingdom 1989–98

    Herbal(kgs.)

    Plants(no.)

    Resin(kgs.)

    Liquid(kgs.)

    1989

    6,780.9

    6,263

    52,577.9

    10.4

    1990

    9,337.5

    34,299

    21,549.5

    1.6

    1991

    9,525.1

    8,896

    22,676.0

    2.5

    1992

    11,391.1

    11,839

    39,705.3

    6.8

    1993

    11,976.0

    40,589

    41,584.8

    13.2

    1994

    11,578.9

    57,846

    51,430.1

    11.8

    1995

    13,871.5

    94,202

    44,607.0

    5.6

    1996

    34,189.1

    116,218

    66,936.7

    17.5

    1997

    31,120.2

    114,988

    118,849.2

    26.6

    1998

    21,659.5

    71,970

    85,822.9

    7.4

    Source:

    Drugs Research Unit, Home Office Research Development and Statistics Directorate

    Drug Convictions
    Dr. Tonge
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proportion of the prison population has been imprisoned in each of the last 10 years as a result of crimes committed to support the use of(a) heroin, (b) tobacco, (c) cocaine and (d) cannabis. [140859]

    Mr. Boateng
    The information requested is not available. No statistics are collated centrally on offences committed to support the use of illegal drugs and tobacco. However, information on persons who have been convicted of drug offences is contained in the Home Office Bulletin on Drug Seizure and Offenders, a copy of which is in the Library. Reference was made in a written answer on 27 November 2000,Official Report, column 441W, to the hon. Member about information bearing on the relationship between drug use and crime that is becoming available through Home Office's programme of interviewing and drug testing arrestees.

    Home Detention Curfew Scheme
    Miss Widdecombe
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if prisoners serving their sentences on the home detention curfew scheme are disqualified from(a) voting at and (b) standing in elections; and if he will make a statement. [140878]

    Mr. Boateng
    Prisoners who are released on home detention curfew are eligible to vote in all elections and to stand for election to the House of Commons, the National Assembly for Wales and the European Parliament. They are disqualified from standing for membership of a local authority in England and Wales if they have been convicted and sentenced to a term of imprisonment of more than three months in the five years preceding the date of the election.

    Bingo
    Mr. Fearn
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will propose legislation to remove limits on the level of prizes and the frequency of games for linked and multiple bingo games in the Gaming Act 1968; [141070]

    (2) if he will propose legislation to remove limits on added prize money from the Gaming Act 1968; [141072]

    (3) if he will propose legislation to extend the term of a bingo club licence from one year to three years; [141076]

    (4) if he will introduce legislation to simplify the system of charges in the Gaming Act 1968; [141071]

    (5) if he will introduce legislation to remove existing restrictions on bingo; [141075]

    (6) if he will introduce legislation to remove the 24 hour time limit before new members can play bingo. [141069]

    Mr. Mike O'Brien
    I announced on 6 November 2000 that the Government were publishing a consultation document on proposals to deregulate certain aspects of the bingo industry. Our paper makes three proposals. It suggests abolishing the current requirement for licensed bingo clubs to notify the licensing authority of changes in their charges to players 14 days in advance; allowing clubs to have a mixture of jackpot and lower prize gaming machines; and amending the law on multiple bingo so that it can offer more than one national, regional and house prize.

    The consultation period for these proposals ends on 16 February 2001. Subject to comments received, the Government plan to lay a draft Order under the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994 to give effect to them, for scrutiny by Parliament.

    Earlier this year, we amended the statutory regulations which govern the charges which licensed bingo clubs may make to their players. This change has considerably simplified these arrangements.

    In February this year, we announced an overall review of the controls on gambling in Great Britain. The review, chaired by Sir Alan Budd, is proceeding and it will report to the Home Secretary next summer. Aside from our proposed Order under the 1994 Act the Government have no plans to make any other changes to the Gaming Acts as they relate to licensed bingo prior to receiving this report.

    Children's Manifesto
    Ms Shipley
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent representations he has received on "Our Children, Their Future—A Children's Manifesto" published by NSPCC, Barnardos and the Child Poverty Action Group. [140415]

    Mr. Boateng
    [pursuant to his reply, 28 November 2000, c. 517W]: It should also be noted that I will shortly be meeting senior representatives of the Child Poverty Action Group to discuss the main recommendations in the Manifesto.

  TREASURY

    Marriages (Immigration)
    Mr. Crausby
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) how many marriages suspected to be solely for immigration purposes were reported by registrars to the Registrar General in(a) 1996, (b) 1997, (c) 1998 and (d) 1999, separated by registration area; and how many of these marriages were reported to the Home Office in (i) 1996, (ii) 1997, (iii) 1998 and (iv) 1999; [134762]

    (2) how long it has been the practice of the Registrar General to report to the Home Office marriages suspected to be solely for immigration purposes; on what authority the practice was commenced; and what is its purpose. [134761]

    Miss Melanie Johnson
    The information requested falls within the responsibility of the Registrar General. I have asked him to reply.

    Letter from Len Cook to Mr. David Crausby, dated 30 November 2000:

    As Registrar General I have been asked to reply to your recent questions on the practice of reporting marriages to the Home Office suspected to be solely for immigration purposes and the numbers of these marriages reported between 1996 and 1999. (134761, 134762)

    Arrangements for the reporting of suspected marriages of convenience by the Registrar General were introduced in 1925 at the request of the Home Secretary. The purpose of these reports is to identify marriages suspected to have been arranged for the sole purpose of evading statutory immigration controls. The reporting is on a non-statutory basis.

    During 1996, 1997, 1998 and 1999 Superintendent Registrars reported 607, 421, 467 and 315 cases to the Registrar General. Of this number, information in respect of 519, 294, 344 and 267 reports respectively were passed to the Home Office.

    Details of the reports received by registration district are shown in the attached tables. These tables are too large to be reproduced in Hansard and I have therefore made arrangements for them to be placed in the House of Commons Library. Figures for 1996 marriages reported to the Home Office are not available by registration district.

    Brussels (Official Visits)
    Dr. Julian Lewis
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the occasions he has visited Brussels on official business since May 1997. [134969]

    Miss Melanie Johnson
    The Chancellor has travelled to Brussels on numerous occasions for meetings of ECOFIN and for other engagements.

    Official Diary
    Mr. Matthew Taylor
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will place in the Library his official diary for the month of July. [134459]

    Miss Melanie Johnson
    During the month of July my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer attended a number of meetings with ministerial colleagues and others, carried out duties in the House of Commons, gave several speeches and undertook a number of engagements in his constituency.

    General Insurance Reserves
    Mr. Matthew Taylor
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he will issue draft regulations on general insurance reserves. [135897]

    Miss Melanie Johnson
    The draft regulations were issued on 17 November. The Government will ensure that adequate time is made available for comments to be made on the draft, before the statutory instrument containing the final regulations is laid before Parliament.

    Overseas Investment
    Mr. Bercow
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the trends in the proportion of the overseas assets of the United Kingdom which are invested outside the European Union. [136405]

    Miss Melanie Johnson
    The information requested falls within the responsibility of the National Statistician. I have asked him to reply.

    Letter from Len Cook to Mr. John Bercow, dated 30 November 2000:

    As National Statistician I have been asked to reply to your recent question on the proportion of the United Kingdom's assets invested outside the European Union. (136405)

    The Office for National Statistics (ONS) does not compile a geographical breakdown of the United Kingdom's total external assets although some information is available. A geographical breakdown of direct investment abroad is published annually in Overseas Direct Investment (ISSN 1369–1538)

    Cross-border Shopping
    Mr. Öpik
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what his latest estimate is of the impact on net tax revenue of the purchasing abroad of(a) fuel for heavy goods vehicles operating in the UK, (b) tobacco products for consumption in the UK and (c) alcoholic beverages for consumption in the UK; and if he will make a statement; [138014]

    (2) what his latest estimate is of the percentage of (a) fuel used in heavy goods vehicles, (b) tobacco products consumed and (c) alcoholic beverages consumed in the United Kingdom which are purchased abroad; and if he will make a statement. [138013]

    Dawn Primarolo
    For the most recently published estimates of the revenue loss from cross-border shopping for alcohol and tobacco I refer the hon. Member to the answer given on 26 November 1999,Official Report, columns 254–55W. New figures for the overall revenue loss from cross-border shopping are in the process of being produced and will be published in due course. There are no figures for cross-border shopping for fuel for use in certain types of vehicle.

    ECOFIN Council
    Mr. Hood
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the outcome of the ECOFIN Council held in Brussels on 7 November; and if he will make a statement. [137764]

    Miss Melanie Johnson
    I attended the meeting of the Economic and Finance Council of Ministers.
    936W
    The Commission presented its report on implementation of the Risk Capital Action Plan and a Review of Specific Community Financial Instruments for SMEs, which it was agreed will form the basis of a joint Council/Commission report to the Nice European Council.

    The Commission agreed that their Communication on structural indicators can be reconciled with the work of the Economic Policy Committee (EPC) to allow for a single set of indicators to act as a base for the synthesis report for the Stockholm European Council in March 2001.

    The Commission presented a progress report on the contribution of public finances to growth and employment. The EPC presented a report on the impact of aging populations on public pension schemes. The Presidency asked the EPC to continue its work, widening it to include the impacts of aging on financing public health care.

    ECOFIN discussed the report of the Economic and Financial Committee (EFC) on exchange rate strategies for accession countries. The report will be submitted to the Nice European Council.

    The Commission presented its proposal for recasting the Financial Regulation. The Presidency thanked the Commission and remitted the detailed work to the Budget Committee.

    Mr. Hood
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the outcome was of the ECOFIN Council held in Brussels on 26 to 27 November; and if he will make a statement. [140888]

    Miss Melanie Johnson
    The Chancellor attended the meeting of the Economic and Finance Council of Ministers.

    Agreement was reached on the substantial content of the Directive on taxation of savings based on the UK proposal of exchange of information rather than a withholding tax on cross-border savings income. The UK policy objective of securing an agreement consistent with the outcome of the Feira European Council—including the requirement for all member states to move to full exchange of information no later than seven years after adoption of the Directive—was achieved. The agreement will enhance the effectiveness of tackling tax evasion, minimise the administrative burden on the City and maintain the competitiveness of UK and EU financial markets.

    Agreement was also reached on further work under the Code of Conduct and on the timetable for the rollback of harmful measures.

    The salient points of the Wise Men's initial report on the Regulation of European Securities Markets were presented. Ministers asked the group to continue its work and report finally in February. Their conclusions support the Chancellor's strategy for a more dynamic and efficient single market in financial services, published in July 2000.

    On the question of VAT registration of non-EU suppliers of e-commerce services Ministers asked for further work on all possible options and for a revised draft directive to be presented to ECOFIN before June 2001.
    937W
    On the economic and financial stability of accession countries it was agreed the Commission would prepare annual macroeconomic analysis for discussion at the high level group with accession countries, followed by ECOFIN conclusions. Ministers emphasised that these arrangements impose no new criteria upon the candidate countries and will promote a dialogue that will facilitate the transition process.

    The European Court of Auditors presented its Annual Report for 1999. Ministers noted the Report. They will consider discharge on the basis of this report in March 2001.

    The Council examined and agreed conclusions on updated Stability Programmes for Germany, the Netherlands and Finland.

    Price Indices
    Mr. Edward Davey
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) if he will review the methodology for adjusting for quality improvements in the calculation of the Retail Prices Index; and if he will make a statement; [137865]

    (2) what research his Department has undertaken on the matter of hedonic price indices; and if he will make a statement. [137864]

    Miss Melanie Johnson
    The information requested falls within the responsibility of the National Statistician. I have asked him to reply.

    Letter from John Pullinger to Mr. Edward Davey, dated 30 November 2000:

    The National Statistician has been asked to reply to your recent questions on the methodology for adjusting for quality improvements in the Retail Price Index (RPI) (137865) and hedonic price indices (137864). I am replying in his absence.

    The Office for National Statistics (ONS) does not currently use hedonic regression techniques to correct for changes in quality of new goods in the RPI sample. However, changes in quality are allowed for in two ways. Firstly, explicitly using option costs for computers. In this case the actual costs of individual changes of specification in the computer are recorded, and 50 per cent of this cost is applied to the price of an item as the value of the quality change. Secondly, for all other items, we make an implicit adjustment. In this case when a new item is selected during price collection, to replace an item no longer available, any price change, above that seen in other goods of this type, is assumed to be related to quality changes.

    However the ONS is actively participating in discussions about which methods are most appropriate for quality adjusting price indices. As part of the ongoing methodological research programme for the RPI, the ONS is looking closely at the question of adjustments for quality changes in new goods introduced into the index, whether these be improvements or reductions in quality. This work involves a technical assessment of the current methodology used in the RPI, comparing this with practices in other countries and evaluating which methodology is most appropriate for the UK.

    As part of this work we are examining techniques either used by other National Statistics Offices, or recommended by academics, to see if they are of potential use in the UK. In particular, we are looking at whether the hedonic regression techniques adopted in the USA, and other countries, would be suitable for the UK, both theoretically and practically. The research will not, necessarily, recommend a single quality adjustment technique, but rather may recommend different solutions for different product groups.
    938W
    This work is taking place in close collaboration with Eurostat, other National Statistical Offices, and the academic community to ensure that results are based on a strong foundation, and can be used to allow International comparisons to be made.

    The results will also be taken into account in the work on methodological improvements for the Producer Price Index (PPI).

    This work is progressing, and the results will be published when reliable conclusions have been reached.

    NIRS2
    Mr. Webb
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) when he expects the problems with the NIRS2 computer system to be resolved; [138257]

    (2) if he will estimate the total cost to date of the work carried out to rectify the problems with the NIRS2 computer system; [138255]

    (3) if he will detail the total amount of compensation that has so far been paid as a result of the problems with the NIRS2 computer system; [138253]

    (4) if he will estimate the total cost of the work required to fully rectify the problems with the NIRS2 computer system; [138256]

    (5) if he will estimate the total amount of compensation that he expects to be paid as a result of the problems with the NIRS2 computer system. [138254]

    Dawn Primarolo
    [holding answer 13 November 2000]: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave him and the hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) on 31 October 2000, Official Report, column 409W.

    Mr. Bercow
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what his estimate is of the cost to date to the taxpayer of the NIRS2 computer problem. [136140]

    Dawn Primarolo
    [holding answer 13 November 2000]: I refer to the answer I gave the hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) on 19 June 2000, Official Report, column 106W.

    Fuel Duties
    Mr. Matthew Taylor
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his oral statement of 8 November 2000,Official Report, columns 315–27, on the pre-Budget report, and the document "Building Long Term Prosperity for All", Table 6.2, what estimate he has made of the carbon savings per annum from a 1 per cent. cut in fuel duties in real terms; and if he will make a statement. [138283]

    Mr. Timms
    [holding answer 14 November 2000]: In the PBR the Chancellor announced that duty would be frozen in real terms, the duty on ultra low sulphur petrol would be cut by 2p a litre subject to there being nationwide access, and in those circumstances the duty on ultra low sulphur diesel would be cut by 3p a litre.

    The impact on CO2 emissions from any duty charge introduced at the Budget will be published in the Budget Red Book.

    Minimum Wage
    Mr. Peter Bradley
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the number of workers in the rural economy who have benefited from the introduction of the statutory minimum wage, broken down by employment sector. [139024]

    Miss Melanie Johnson
    The information requested falls within the responsibility of the National Statistician. I have asked him to reply.

    Letter from John Pullinger to Mr. Peter Bradley, dated 30 November 2000:

    The National Statistician has been asked to reply to your parliamentary question on the number of workers in the rural economy who have benefited from the introduction of the national minimum wage (NW) (139024). I am replying in his absence.

    The Office for National Statistics (ONS) has no estimates of employees in the rural economy that have benefited from the NMW. ONS does have estimates of people with pay less than NMW rates. These can be found on the National Statistics website, reference:

    http://www.statistics.gov.uk/themes/labour-market/nmw-lowpay-tables.asp

    They are based on an improved methodology which uses data from both the New Earnings Survey (NES) and the Labour Force Survey (LFS).

    The estimates cannot be used as a measure of non-compliance with NMW legislation because it is not possible from either the LFS or the NES to identify whether an individual is eligible for NMW rates. For example it is not possible to identify people such as apprentices and those undergoing accredited training who are exempt from the minimum wage or are entitled to lower rates.

    Economically Inactive People
    Mr. Field
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer in how many constituencies there was a rise in the numbers of economically inactive people between(a) 1997 and 1998, (b) 1998 and 1999 and (c) 1997 and 1999. [138501]

    Miss Melanie Johnson
    [holding answer 16 November 2000]: The information requested falls within the responsibility of the National Statistician. I have asked him to reply.

    Inactive people by regions (SSR)1, spring (March to May) 1984–2000

    Thousand

    Spring

    United Kingdom

    Great Britain

    England

    North

    Yorkshire and Humberside

    East Midlands

    East Anglia

    South East

    1984

    16,608

    16,148

    13,690

    961

    1,482

    1,103

    569

    4,715

    1985

    16,634

    16,171

    13,693

    987

    1,457

    1,141

    575

    4,774

    1986

    16,718

    16,267

    13,774

    969

    1,480

    1,101

    587

    4,829

    1987

    16,672

    16,208

    13,692

    944

    1,473

    1,136

    577

    4,815

    1988

    16,453

    15,994

    13,514

    944

    1,487

    1,132

    552

    4,675

    1989

    16,214

    15,757

    13,339

    944

    1,475

    1,082

    559

    4,614

    1990

    16,198

    15,745

    13,337

    967

    1,459

    1,104

    538

    4,592

    1991

    16,413

    15,957

    13,503

    971

    1,457

    1,122

    577

    4,661

    1992

    16,728

    16,269

    13,842

    974

    1,473

    1,141

    590

    4,803

    1993

    16,954

    16,461

    13,939

    979

    1,470

    1,145

    581

    4,860

    1994

    17,032

    16,526

    14,055

    981

    1,497

    1,182

    574

    4,929

    1995

    17,155

    16,657

    14,162

    1,001

    1,486

    1,177

    599

    4,929

    1996

    17,172

    16,675

    14,151

    990

    1,507

    1,164

    612

    4,919

    1997

    17,184

    16,687

    14,198

    995

    1,529

    1,166

    647

    4,15

    1998

    17,361

    16,855

    14,318

    1,027

    1,515

    1,183

    630

    4,974

    1999

    17,237

    16,728

    14,193

    1,019

    1,519

    1,193

    631

    4,917

    2000

    17,169

    16,637

    14,140

    1,000

    1,488

    1,169

    631

    4,949

    940W
    Letter from John Pullinger to Mr. Frank Field, dated 30 November 2000:

    The National Statistician has been asked to reply to your recent question about the numbers of economically inactive people in parliamentary constituencies (138501). I am replying in his absence.

    Estimates of the number of people economically inactive are not available at constituency level.

    However, information on economic activity rates at parliamentary constituency level can be derived on an annual basis from the Labour Force Survey (LFS), which is the main source of labour market data on individuals. The inactivity rate for all aged 16 and over is available for each constituency, for the periods March 1997 to February 1998 and March 1998 to February 1999.

    As with any sample survey, LFS estimates are subject to sampling variability. The smaller the estimate the larger the variability relative to the size of the estimate. For this reason comparisons between small areas such as parliamentary constituencies should be treated with caution.

    Inactive people are those who are neither employed or unemployed. This group includes for example all those who were looking after a home or retired.

    Mr. Ruane
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many economically inactive people there were in each region of the United Kingdom in each of the last 20 years. [140486]

    Miss Melanie Johnson
    [holding answer 27 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. Chris Ruane, dated 30 November 2000:

    As National Statistician I have been asked to reply to your parliamentary question about the number of economically inactive people in each region of the UK in each of the last 20 years. (140486)

    The Labour Force Survey (LFS) is the main source of labour market data on individuals used by National Statistics. Estimates of the number of economically inactive people are only available since 1984 when the International Labour Organisation (ILO) definition of unemployment came into use. The attached table shows the estimates of the number of people economically inactive in each Standard Statistical Region in the UK since spring 1984.

    People aged 16 or over are classed as economically inactive by the LFS if they are neither employed or ILO unemployed. This groups includes for example all those who were looking after a home or retired.
    941W

    Thousand

    Spring

    Greater London

    Rest of South East

    South West

    West Midlands

    North West

    Wales

    Scotland

    Northern Ireland

    1984

    1,918

    2,797

    1,401

    1,530

    1,929

    926

    1,533

    460

    1985

    1,908

    2,866

    1,380

    1,506

    1,872

    949

    1,530

    462

    1986

    1,958

    2,870

    1,415

    1,486

    1,907

    939

    1,555

    451

    1987

    1,926

    2,889

    1,369

    1,497

    1,882

    976

    1,540

    464

    1988

    1,902

    2,773

    1,381

    1,487

    1,855

    958

    1,522

    458

    1989

    1,854

    2,759

    1,354

    1,462

    1,849

    918

    1,499

    458

    1990

    1,837

    2,755

    1,370

    1,445

    1,862

    917

    1,491

    453

    1991

    1,902

    2,759

    1,367

    1,476

    1,872

    939

    1,515

    455

    1992

    1,976

    2,827

    1,401

    1,530

    1,932

    957

    1,469

    459

    1993

    1,937

    2,923

    1,412

    1,540

    1,952

    989

    1,533

    493

    1994

    1,990

    2,937

    1,411

    1,513

    1,967

    971

    1,500

    506

    1995

    1,993

    2,937

    1,415

    1,543

    2,013

    966

    1,529

    498

    1996

    1,981

    2,938

    1,445

    1,544

    1,972

    973

    1,552

    497

    1997

    1,963

    2,951

    1,408

    1,555

    1,983

    956

    1,532

    497

    1998

    2,038

    2,936

    1,420

    1,538

    2,032

    1,000

    1,537

    506

    1999

    1,967

    2,948

    1,400

    1,533

    1,982

    980

    1,555

    509

    2000

    1,998

    2,948

    1,419

    1,572

    1,915

    982

    1,514

    533

    1Standard Statistical Regions (SSR) have been used for consistency as they are available since 1984

    Source:

    ONS—Labour Force Survey

    Average Wages (Financial Services Sector)
    Mr. Wigley
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what his most recent estimate is of the average weekly gross wage of(a) men and (b) women in the financial services sector. [139154]

    Miss Melanie Johnson
    The information requested falls within the responsibility of the National Statistician.
    I have asked him to reply.

    Letter from John Pullinger to Mr. Dafydd Wigley, dated 30 November 2000:

    The National Statistician has been asked to reply to your recent question about the average gross weekly earnings of men and women in the financial services sector (139154). I am replying in his absence.

    The New Earnings Survey (NES) provides earnings data for different industry sectors based on the 1992 Standard Industrial Classification (SIC92). Estimates for full-time employees are published for all industry sectors when there is a sufficiently large sample of employees and the statistics have an acceptable level of accuracy. I have provided data for the SIC92 'financial intermediation' industry sector in the attached table including previously unpublished estimates for part-time employees and for all males and all females. The figures are for Great Britain and are based on the 2000 NES, the latest survey for which data are available.

    The NES is based on a one per cent sample of employees in the PAYE system and is therefore likely to under-represent low paid staff earning below the tax threshold and in particular those who work part-time. Averages will be affected by a relatively small number of employees earning very high gross weekly earning.

    Average gross weekly earnings of employees in financial intermediation industry sector

    £

    Gross weekly earnings

    Males

    Full-time

    653.9

    Part-time

    1—

    All

    644.1

    942W

    Average gross weekly earnings of employees in financial intermediation industry sector

    £

    Gross weekly earnings

    Females

    Full-time

    379.3

    Part-time

    170.1

    All

    323.4

    1Denotes that a reliable estimate is not available

    Note:

    2000 NES, Great Britain: Employees on adult rates, whose pay for the survey period was unaffected by absence

    Immigration (Registration Officers)
    Mr. Lidington
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) if it is his policy that registration officers should check(a) the passports and (b) the validity of visas of persons intending to marry; and if he will make a statement; [139342]

    (2) what guidance he (a) has issued and (b) plans to issue to registration officers about sharing information with the immigration authorities; [139341]

    (3) what training he is providing for registration officers about their duties under the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999. [139340]

    Miss Melanie Johnson
    The information requested falls within the responsibility of the Registrar General. I have asked him to reply.

    Letter from Len Cook to Mr. David Lidington, dated 30 November 2000:

    As Registrar General for England and Wales I have been asked to reply to your three recent questions about the arrangements for the coming into force on 1 January 2001 of section 24 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 (the 1999 Act). As you know, section 24 is concerned with the duty on registration officers to report suspicious marriages. Specifically you asked about registration officers checking passports and visas and their training and guidance to be issued. (139340/1/2)
    943W
    Under current legislation, registration officers need to ensure the accuracy of information contained in the notice of intention to marry. To achieve this they may examine a variety of documents. The person giving notice of marriage may be asked to provide documentary evidence showing use and spellings of names and details of age and marital status in order to verify the particulars. A variety of documents, including a passport, may be produced.

    I have not issued any policy guidance to registration officers regarding checks on passports on the validity of visas of persons intending to marry. However, the 1999 Act places a duty on registration officers to report to the Home Office marriages they reasonably suspect as being sham marriages. If, in the course of examining a passport, a registration officer discovers the visa of a part to a marriage has expired this may be taken into account, together with other factors, in assessing whether the marriage is a sham.

    Registration officers in England and Wales have been invited to attend a seminar arranged to address both the impact on their statutory duties and the consequential amendments to marriage law arising from the 1999 Act.

    The Reporting of Suspicious Marriages and Registration (Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 2000 are to be laid before Parliament shortly. They set out the procedure for reporting sham marriages to the Secretary of State for the Home Department where it is suspected that the marriage is or has been entered into for the purpose of avoiding the effect of United Kingdom immigration law. The regulations specify that reports are made direct to the Immigration and Nationality Directorate and stipulate the information to be contained in reports.

    A copy of these regulations will be issued to every superintendent registrar in England and Wales. They will also receive written guidance and revised instructions for inclusion in the Handbook for Registration Officers that will contain advice about reporting arrangements. I have no plans to issue further guidance on sharing information with the immigration authorities.

    Heroin (Deaths)
    Mr. Flynn
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the trend has been in the number of deaths in the UK resulting from heroin use between 1990 and the most recent year for which figures are available. [137468]

    Miss Melanie Johnson
    [holding answer 20 November 2000]: The information requested falls within the responsibility of the National Statistician. I have asked him to reply.

    Letter from John Pullinger to Mr. Paul Flynn, dated 30 November 2000:

    The National Statistician has been asked to reply to your recent question on the trend in the number of deaths in the UK resulting from heroin use between 1990 and the most recent year for which figures are available (137468). I am replying in his absence.

    Methods for identifying deaths related to heroin differ among the constituent countries of the UK. Figures on the basis currently used in all countries are only available from 1994 onwards.

    For Britain (England & Wales and Scotland), these figures represent the number of deaths where the underlying cause of death is regarded as resulting from drug-related poisoning, according to the current National Statistics definition, and heroin or morphine were either mentioned on the death certificate, or in additional available information. As heroin breaks down in the body into morphine, the latter may be detected at post mortem and recorded on the death certificate. Figures are therefore provided for deaths with a mention of either substance.

    Figures for Northern Ireland represent deaths where the underlying cause was due to poisoning by opiates and related narcotics, code N965.0 in the International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Division, (ICD9).
    944W
    The figures requested are presented in the table below:

    Deaths with a mention of heroin or morphine1 in Britain, and in Northern Ireland those due to poisoning by opiates and related narcotics2, 1994–98

    Year

    Number

    1994

    336

    1995

    439

    1996

    557

    1997

    525

    1998

    764

    Total

    2,621

    1 Deaths with underlying cause codes 292, 304, 305.2–305.9, E850-E858, E950.0-E950.5, E962.0 and E980.0-E980.5, using the International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, (ICD9), where heroin or morphine was mentioned on the death certificate.

    2Deaths with an underlying cause of ICD9 N965.0

    Workless Households
    Mr. Denzil Davies
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what his most recent estimate is of the percentage of workless households in(a) England and (b) Wales. [139453]

    Miss Melanie Johnson
    The information requested falls within the responsibility of the National Statistician. I have asked him to reply.

    Letter from Len Cook to Mr. Denzil Davies, dated 30 November 2000:

    As National Statistician I have been asked to reply to your recent question on the percentage of workless households in England and Wales. (139453)

    The most recent estimates are that, in spring (March to May) 2000 the percentage of workless households in England was 14.9 per cent and in Wales it was 21.2 per cent.

    These estimates refer to working age households, which are defined as households with no-one in employment, that include at least one person of working age, i.e. a woman aged between 16 and 59 or a man aged between 16 and 64. Households with economically inactive people on disability benefit are included in these estimates.

    Household Incomes
    Mr. Denzil Davies
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the disposable household income, after housing, fuel and travel costs, per head in Wales as a percentage of an English average of 100 at the most recent date for which figures are available. [139459]

    Miss Melanie Johnson
    The information requested falls within the responsibility of the National Statistician. I have asked him to reply.

    Letter from John Pullinger to Mr. Denzil Davies, dated 30 November 2000:

    The National Statistician has been asked to reply to your recent question on disposable household income (139459). I am replying in his absence.

    Information on income and expenditure is available from the Family Expenditure Survey, taking the three years 1996–97 to 1998–99 together. Over that period disposable income, after deducting housing, fuel and travel costs, per head in Wales was estimated to be 83 per cent of the figure for England.

    The sample of about 300 households in Wales each year is too small to give a reliable estimate so three years are combined. The estimate is still subject to sampling variability, like all estimates from sample surveys. For the estimate based on three years data the estimated upper and lower bounds for the percentage (90 per cent confidence) are 77 per cent to 88 per cent.

    Registered Disabled Persons
    Mr. Wigley
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what percentage of registered disabled persons in each nation and region of the UK were in(a) part-time and (b) full time employment at the latest date for which figures are available. [139780]

    Miss Melanie Johnson
    The information requested falls within the responsibility of the National Statistician. I have asked him to reply.

    Letter from John Pullinger to Mr. Dafydd Wigley, dated 30 November 2000:

    The National Statistician has been asked to reply to your recent question about the percentages of registered disabled persons by nation and region (139780). I am replying in his absence.

    Estimates on the number of registered disabled people are not available. However, the Labour Force Survey (LFS) which is the main source of labour market data on individuals used in National Statistics does contain information on disability.

    Canada (Visits)
    Mr. Field
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the dates and purposes of visits to Canada by(a) himself, (b) Treasury Ministers and (c) Treasury officials since 1 May 1997. [139815]

    Miss Melanie Johnson
    [holding answer 23 November 2000]: The Chancellor visited Canada on 30 September 1998 to attend the Commonwealth Finance Ministers' Meeting and on 24 October 2000 to attend a meeting of G20 Finance Ministers. On both occasions he had a number of additional bilateral meetings. No other Treasury Ministers have visited Canada since May 1997. The information requested on visits by officials is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

    Unemployment/Vacancy Ratio
    Mr. Cousins
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to the Pre-Budget report, if he will list the unemployment to vacancy ratio in each(a) nation and (b) Government office region of the United Kingdom. [140540]

    Estimated resident population mid-I971 to mid-1999 for Government Office Regions

    1971 (Thousand)

    1999 (Thousand)

    Population change (Thousand)

    Percentage

    England and Wales

    49,152.0

    52,689.9

    3,537.9

    7.2

    North East

    2,678.5

    2,581.3

    -97.2

    -3.6

    North West

    7,107.8

    6,880.5

    -227.3

    -3.2

    Yorkshire and Humberside

    4,902.3

    5,047.0

    144.7

    3.0

    East Midlands

    3,651.9

    4,191.2

    539.3

    14.8

    West Midlands

    5,146.0

    5,335.6

    189.6

    3.7

    East

    4,454.3

    5,418.9

    964.6

    21.7

    London

    7,529.4

    7,285.0

    -244.4

    -3.2

    South East

    6,829.7

    8,077.6

    1,247.9

    18.3

    South West

    4,111.8

    4,935.7

    823.9

    20.0

    Wales

    2,740.3

    2,937.0

    196.7

    7.2

    Source:

    Office for National Statistics Crown Copyright 2000
    946W
    Miss Melanie Johnson
    [holding answer 27 November 2000]: The information requested falls within the responsibility of the National Statistician. I have asked him to reply.

    Letter from John Pullinger to Mr. Jim Cousins, dated 30 November 2000:

    The National Statistician has been asked to reply to your recent question regarding the unemployment to vacancy ratio in each nation and Government Office region of the United Kingdom (140540). I am replying in his absence.

    The Labour Force Survey (LFS) is the main source of labour market data on individuals used by the Office for National Statistics (ONS). The official measure of unemployment is derived from the LFS and is defined on a consistent and internationally recognised basis set out by the International Labour Organisation (ILO). It counts as unemployed people who are a) without a paid job, b) available to start work within the next two weeks and c) have either looked for work in the last four weeks or are waiting to start a job already obtained.

    ONS also publishes the monthly number of people who are claiming unemployment-related benefits, also known as the claimant count.

    The only figures available on vacancies are those notified to Jobcentres. It should be borne in mind that Jobcentre vacancies represent only a proportion of all vacancies in the economy, broadly a third overall. This proportion is also likely to vary across regions and between different skills and occupations.

    Demographic Changes
    Mr. Win Griffiths
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on demographic changes in each standard planning region since 1970. [140568]

    Miss Melanie Johnson
    The information requested falls within the responsibility of the National Statistician. I have asked him to reply.

    Letter from Len Cook to Mr. Win Griffiths, dated 30 November 2000:

    As National Statistician I have been asked to reply to your question concerning demographic changes in each standard planning region since 1970 (140568).

    There are two tables attached, the first shows the total change in population from mid-1971 to mid-1999 for Government Office Regions (GORs). To allow comparisons to be made, the 1971 data in this table are expressed in terms of GOR boundaries in existence in 1999.

    Population change can be broken down into the two main components of natural change (which is the difference between births and deaths) and migration and other changes. The second table shows these components of population change from 1981 to 1999 for GORs. Data are not readily available prior to 1981 for the breakdown of the components of population change in the regions.
    947W

    Estimated population change, 1981 to 1991 and 1991 to 1999—England, Wales by Government Office Region

    Thousand

    Change 1981–91

    Change 1991–99

    Area

    Resident Population mid-1981

    National change

    Migration(and other changes)1

    Resident Population mid-1991

    Natural change

    Migration(and other changes)1

    Resident Population mid-1999

    England and Wales

    49,634.3

    885.2

    580.0

    51,099.5

    779.4

    811.0

    52,689.9

    England

    46,820.8

    860.2

    527.0

    48,208.1

    773.0

    771.9

    49,752.9

    North East (GOR)

    2,636.2

    22.2

    -55.9

    2,602.5

    3.8

    -25.0

    2,581.3

    North West (GOR)

    6,940.3

    83.6

    -138.6

    6,885.4

    51.6

    -56.4

    6,880.5

    Yorkshire and the Humber (GOR)

    4,918.4

    65.1

    -0.7

    4,982.8

    58.1

    6.1

    5,047.0

    East Midlands (GOR)

    3,852.8

    76.4

    106.2

    4,035.4

    51.1

    104.7

    4,191.2

    West Midlands (GOR)

    5,186.6

    138.3

    -59.5

    5,265.5

    92.8

    -22.6

    5,335.6

    Eastern (GOR)

    4,854.1

    127.5

    168.3

    5,149.8

    97.1

    172.0

    5,418.9

    London (GOR)

    6,805.6

    242.0

    -157.6

    6,889.9

    315.6

    79.5

    7,285.0

    South East (GOR)

    7,245.4

    111.2

    322.3

    7,678.9

    110.0

    288.6

    8,077.6

    South West (GOR)

    4,381.4

    -6.1

    342.5

    4,717.8

    -7.0

    224.9

    4,935.7

    Wales

    2,813.5

    25.0

    53.0

    2,891.5

    6.5

    39.1

    2,937.0

    1The other changes component of net civilian migration and other changes is made up of a number of factors, the main one of which at GOR level is changes over time in the number of armed forces personnel resident in areas.

    Note:

    Figures may not add due to rounding

    Source:

    Office for National Statistics Crown Copyright 2000

    Working Hours
    Mr. Ruane
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the average number of hours worked each week by British workers was in each of the last 20 years. [140482]

    Miss Melanie Johnson
    [holding answer 27 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. Chris Ruane, dated 30 November 2000:

    As National Statistician I have been asked to reply to your parliamentary question about the average number of hours worked each week by British workers in each of the last 20 years.

    The Labour Force Survey (LFS) is the main source of labour market data on individuals used by National Statistics. The table overleaf shows the average actual weekly hours worked, in the reference week in the United Kingdom from spring (March to May) 1979 to spring 2000.

    Average actual weekly hours1 of work; spring (March to May) 1979–2000; United Kingdom Not seasonally adjusted

    All persons

    1979

    35.7

    1981

    32.3

    1983

    36.8

    1984

    33.4

    1985

    34.0

    1986

    36.8

    1987

    33.8

    1988

    34.6

    1989

    34.4

    1990

    36.9

    1991

    34.0

    1992

    32.9

    1993

    33.2

    1994

    33.4

    1995

    33.6

    1996

    33.5

    1997

    33.1

    1998

    33.0

    1999

    33.1

    2000

    32.9

    1Average hours actually worked in the reference week. Total hours include overtime (paid and unpaid) and exclude lunchbreaks

    Source:

    ONS—Labour Force Survey

    VED (Lorries)
    Mr. Lansley
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how the transitional payments for vehicle excise duty for lorries differ from those to be introduced next year. [140651]

    Mr. Timms
    A consultation document asking for views on how lorry vehicle excise duty should be reformed was published alongside the pre-Budget report. As a transitional arrangement, the Chancellor also announced that up to 50 per cent. of lorry vehicle excise duty paid in this financial year will be rebated. The Department of Environment, Transport and the Regions has announced further details of the transitional arrangements in News Release 698 dated 14 November 2000.

    Married Couple's Allowance
    Mr. Robertson
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the cost to the Exchequer in the 2001–02 tax year of re-introducing the married couple's allowance, without its related allowances, at(a) the April 1993 rate up-rated to 2000–01 prices, (b) the April 1995 rate up-rated to 2000–01 prices and (c) the April 1998 rate up-rated to 2000–01 prices. [140342]

    Dawn Primarolo
    [holding answer 27 November 2000]: The full year costs of re-introducing the married couple's allowance in 2001–02 would be, approximately:

    (a) £5.0 billion;

    (b) £2.6 billion; and

    (c) £2.6 billion.

    These estimates are based on the Survey of Personal Incomes and are consistent with the November 2000 pre-Budget Report.

    Ultra-low Sulphur Fuel
    Mr. Matthew Taylor
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 22 November 2000,Official Report, column 246W, on ultra low sulphur fuel, for what reason he is unable to provide estimates of costs for future years. [140779]
    949W
    Mr. Timms
    As announced on page 127 of the pre-Budget Report, the announced cuts in ultra low sulphur road fuels are conditional on the oil companies guaranteeing nationwide access
    to ultra low sulphur petrol (ULSP). The cost of the cuts will depend on the speed with which the oil companies now respond. An indicative estimate of the likely cost in 2001–02 was contained in the pre-Budget Report. Costings for 2001–02, 2002–03 and 2003–04 will be published in Budget 2001, if the cuts are implemented.

    G3
    Mr. Matthew Taylor
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer at what time and on what date(a) the Treasury and (b) the Bank of England were informed of the intention of the G3 group of countries to intervene in support of the euro on 22 September. [140780]

    Miss Melanie Johnson
    The United Kingdom took part in the G7 intervention on 22 September 2000. Full details were set out in the Treasury press notice of 4 October and the Pre Budget Report (Cm 4917) on 8 November.

    Capital Gains Indexation
    Mr. Matthew Taylor
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answers of 9 November 2000,Official Report, column 343W and 21 November 2000, Official Report, column 144W, concerning capital gains tax indexation, if he will make a statement on capital gains tax indexation for future years. [140547]

    Dawn Primarolo
    [holding answer 28 November 2000]: An update of the answers will be available after the Budget forecast in spring 2001.

    Mr. Matthew Taylor
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the cost of capital gains taper relief to the Treasury for the five financial years from 2001–02. [140487]

    Dawn Primarolo
    [holding answer 28 November 2000]: The costs of structural reliefs (including capital gains tax taper) for 1999–2000 and 2000–01 are given in the Tax Ready Reckoner and Tax Reliefs, which was published on 9 November 2000. These are £130 million and £310 million respectively. Estimates for future years are highly dependent on assumed growth in asset values.

    The capital gains tax taper was introduced in Budget 1998 and amended in Budget 2000. The capital gains tax taper and associated changes in Budget 1998 were introduced on a broadly revenue neutral basis. The costs of the changes in Budget 2000 are given in the Financial Statement and Budget Report 2000.

    Pensioner Price Indices
    Dr. George Turner
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) if he will list for the period which determined the changes in the rate of the state pension, the annual movement in(a) the RPI and (b) the Pensioner Price Indices in each of the last five years; [140671]

    (2) when the items included in the Pensioner Price Indices were last reviewed; [140672]
    950W
    (3) what steps he has taken to ensure that the items included within the Pensioner Price Indices reflect the needs of the average pensioner. [140673]

    Miss Melanie Johnson
    The information requested falls within the responsibility of the National Statistician. I have asked him to reply.

    Letter from Len Cook to Mr. George Turner, dated 30 November 2000:

    As National Statistician, I have been asked to reply to your three recent questions asking:

    1) for the annual movement in (a) the RPI and (b) the Pensioner Price Indices in each of the last five years, for the period which determined the changes in the rate of the state pension;

    2) when items included in the Pensioner Price Indices were last reviewed; and

    3) what steps have been taken to ensure that the items included within the Pensioner Price Indices reflect the needs of the average pensioner.

    In response to question one, it is the annual percentage increase in the September RPI that is used to uprate state pensions. The Pensioner Prices Indices are only published quarterly so I have chosen to list figures for the third quarter, that is the quarter July to September. Pensioner Indices are only calculated for one person pensioner households and two person pensioner households.

    Percentage annual increase in

    RPI

    One pensioner Household

    Two pensioner Household

    Year ending

    September to September

    Q3-Q3

    Q3-Q3

    1996

    2.1

    2.2

    2.5

    1997

    3.6

    1.0

    1.6

    1998

    3.2

    1.3

    1.6

    1999

    1.1

    1.4

    1.5

    2000

    3.3

    1.1

    1.5

    In response to question two, the items contained in the basket of goods, which is used to calculate both the RPI and the Pensioner Price Indices are reviewed annually.

    In answer to your third question, the Pensioner Price Indices relate to pensioner households whose income is mainly (at least 75%) dependent on state benefit. The Pensioner Price Indices are effectively a subset of the RPI as the same price data is used to produce both, however the Pensioner Price Indices exclude certain items that the RPI includes, such as housing costs, school meals and NHS prescription charges. For items where pensioners receive special rates (such as rail and bus fares), we produce special pensioner indices that differ from those in the RPI. In addition, there are various items and sections where pensioner expenditure patterns differ greatly from those used in the RPI—these include milk, soft drinks, footwear, fees and subscriptions, takeaways, T.V. licences, beer and wine sales (both 'on' and `off), tobacco, domestic services, chemists' goods, maintenance of motor vehicles, and books and newspapers. The weights used to construct the Pensioner Price Indices are therefore adjusted accordingly to take these different spending patterns into account.

    Dr. George Turner
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what(a) representations and (b) consultations he has had on the Pensioner Price Indices. [140674]

    Miss Melanie Johnson
    None.

    Pay
    Mr. Ruane
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer by what percentage the pay of(a) manufacturing and (b) service industry employees has changed in each of the last 20 years. [141214]
    951W
    Miss Melanie Johnson
    The information requested falls within the responsibility of the National Statistician. I have asked him to reply.

    Letter from John Pullinger to Mr. Chris Ruane, dated 30 November 2000:

    The National Statistician has been asked to reply to your recent question about the percentage change of earnings in the manufacturing and service sectors in the past 20 years (141205). I am replying in his absence.

    The Average Earnings Index (AEI)is the Office for National Statistics preferred method for measuring changes in average earnings. The attached table shows annual growth rates in average earnings for each of the past 20 years in services and manufacturing.

    Census Data
    Mr. Oaten
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he will publish the census data collected in 2001. [141137]

    Miss Melanie Johnson
    The information requested falls within the responsibility of the National Statistician. I have asked him to reply.

    Letter from Len Cook to Mr. Mark Oaten, dated 30 November 2000:

    As National Statistician and Registrar General for England and Wales I have been asked to reply to your recent question asking when the 2001 Census data will be published (141137).

    Mid 2001-population estimates for local authority areas for England and Wales, based on the 2001 Census, are planned to be published in late summer 2002.

    More detailed figures from the 2001 Census are planned to be released towards the end of 2002 and during 2003. These will provide information for the local parts of the country and up to national level.

    Working Families Tax Credit
    Mr. Willetts
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the passported benefits to which recipients of the working families tax credit are entitled and the conditions attached to their receipt. [141050]

    Dawn Primarolo
    The Working Families Tax Credit is used by a wide range of Government, devolved administrations, local authorities and non-Government organisations as a gateway to the help that they provide. A complete list of all benefits made available by others, and the entitlement conditions they set could only be provided at disproportionate cost. The Inland Revenue includes information about the major types of help provided by other departments as part of information given to applicants.

    Financial Services and Markets Act 2000
    Mr. Flynn
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what changes his Department has made in the last three years to the number of legal advisers it employs to deal with the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 and consequent secondary legislation. [141196]

    Miss Melanie Johnson
    A team was employed full-time on preparation of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 until Royal Assent in June 2000. Thereafter additional members have been added for the secondary legislation required to implement the Act.
    952W
    Mr. Flynn
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the preparation of secondary legislation relating to the introduction of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000. [141195]

    Miss Melanie Johnson
    The Treasury is currently consulting on a number of statutory instruments, including the Financial Promotion Order, and the Regulated Activities Order (which defines the scope of financial regulation), and will be starting consultation shortly on several other instruments.

    Civil Servants
    Mr. Matthew Taylor
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list constitutional conventions that civil servants in his Department are expected to comply with when undertaking their duties; and if he will make a statement. [141245]

    Dawn Primarolo
    I refer the hon. Member to the reply which the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office is giving him today.

    Sickness Absence
    Mr. Matthew Taylor
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 6 November 2000,Official Report, column 78W, on sickness absence, how often managers are required to submit information on sickness absence; and in what form. [141081]

    Miss Melanie Johnson
    Managers complete a sickness absence notification form in line with the July 1998 report on Managing Attendance in the Public Sector.

    Income Tax
    Mr. Matthew Taylor
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the revenue yield, on a national accounts basis, of increasing the basic rate of income tax by 1p for the three financial years commencing in 2003–04; and if he will make a statement. [141189]

    Dawn Primarolo
    Estimates for changing the basic rate of income tax by 1p on a National Accounts Basis are given in table 4 of the "Tax Ready Reckoner and Tax Reliefs" (HM Treasury, November 2000).

    Mr. Matthew Taylor
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many income tax payers have an income tax liability of(a) less than £40 and (b) more than £40 per annum; and what the average income tax liability is of somebody with an income tax liability of less than £40 per annum. [140862]

    Dawn Primarolo
    In 2000–01 some 0.8 million taxpayers are liable to less than £40 income tax out of 27.9 million. The average income tax liability of those 0.8 million is around £20.

    This information is based on the Survey of Personal Incomes and is consistent with the November pre-Budget Report.

    Civil Service Costs
    Mr. Laurence Robertson
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the total(a) salary cost and (b) non-salary cost of the civil service in the last year for which figures are available. [141026]
    953W
    Mr. Andrew Smith
    The information requested is set out in Public Expenditure Statistical Analyses 2000–01 (Cm 4601), a copy of which is in the Library.

    Bingo
    Mr. Fearn
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will introduce legislation to reduce the level of duty on bingo. [141077]

    Mr. Timms
    The Chancellor reviews all duty rates in the run up to the Budget.

    Expenditure
    Mr. Win Griffiths
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list by standard planning region the spending per head in(a) 1997–98, (b) 1987–88, (c) 1979–80 and (d) 1974–75 on (i) health and personal social services, (ii) education, (iii) transport, (iv) housing, (v) agriculture, (vi) social security, (vii) law, order and protective services, (viii) environmental services and (ix) trade, industry, energy, employment and training; and the total amount spent in each sector. [141110]

    Mr. Andrew Smith
    I refer my hon. Friend to tables F 1 and F2 of Public Expenditure Analyses to 1993-94 (CM 1520) for 1987–88 and tables 8.9 and 8.10 of Public Expenditure Statistical Analyses 2000–01 (CM 4601) for 1997–98. Regional information prior to this is not available. The tables are not fully comparable because of changes in definitions of the spending aggregates, and functional sectors and in the boundaries of regions. Data on spending levels in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland are not available on a comparable basis.

    Petrol Smuggling
    Mr. William Ross
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what his estimate is of the quantity of petroleum products smuggled from(a) the Irish Republic and (b) other countries into Great Britain in each of the last five years up to the latest date for which information is available. [141048]

    Dawn Primarolo
    No such estimates are available.

    Mr. William Ross
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the sums lost to the Revenue in(a) 1999 and (b) the financial year 1999–2000 due to the smuggling of petroleum products from the Irish Republic into Northern Ireland. [141067]

    Dawn Primarolo
    HM Customs and Excise has responsibility for excise revenues. I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Baker) on 20 March 2000,Official Report, column 442W.

    Export Credits Guarantee Department
    Mr. Ian Stewart
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he plans to review the implementation of the recommendations made by KPMG in December 1999 on the adequacy of the risk management systems and processes of the Export Credits Guarantee Department. [141296]

    Mr. Timms
    On 25 July this year my right hon. friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry published the ECGD Risk Management Review [Cm 4792], which was jointly commissioned from KPMG by HM Treasury 954W
    and ECGD. Alongside the Review HM Treasury and ECGD Ministers also published an Action Plan to address all the recommendations made in KPMG's report.

    The Government, in their response to the Trade and Industry Committee's report on the future of ECGD, noted that they intended to commission a follow-up, independent report to assess progress in addressing the recommendations made by KPMG.

    KPMG have been re-engaged to undertake this follow-up review. It is to be undertaken in two stages with the following Terms of Reference:

    Stage I

    The consultants are required to examine progress in addressing the recommendations set out in sections 1, 2, 3 and 5 of the KPMG report. In particular the consultants should: comment on the adequacy and effectiveness of the actions taken in remedying the shortcomings identified in the KPMG report; examine and report whether each KPMG recommendation has been sufficiently addressed; and where further progress is deemed necessary, recommend what action should be taken, its priority and the timescale within which it should be addressed.

    The consultants should also examine ECGD's proposals to develop a capital-based portfolio management system (PMS 3) at whatever stage its development has reached by Stage I of this follow-up study. The consultants are required to comment on whether the proposals are likely to address the recommendations made in section 4 of the KPMG report and, where they might not, recommend changes to the framework under development accordingly.

    The consultants will be required to begin the assessment of Stage I by end-October 2000. This stage should be completed within a four-week timescale.

    Stage II

    The consultants will be required to: assess whether ECGD's systems and procedures, following measures taken, constitute an effective pro-active risk management system envisaged in sections 3 and 4 of KPMG's report which delivers real control over risk. This should not conflict or duplicate with ECGD's current invitation to tender for consultancy on portfolio management; examine any area(s) where further progress was deemed necessary during Stage I of the study, and report whether the relevant KPMG recommendation(s) have been subsequently addressed; discuss and recommend (on the basis of the above analysis) whether the operating environment is now such that restoration of high level delegated authorities from HM Treasury to ECGD would be appropriate and whether ECGD should have full operational autonomy.

    It is envisaged that the consultants will begin the Stage II assessment in spring 2001, to be completed within a two-week timescale.

    The consultants will need to verify that agreed changes to operations and procedures are implemented in practice throughout the risk management process. They can expect to have unrestricted access to Government papers relevant to the study and to be able to question such employees of ECGD or other Government Departments as they judge necessary.
    955W
    The output from this project will be a report at the end of Stage I and a second one at the end of Stage II, addressing the relevant issues set out in these Terms of Reference.

    VAT (Charitable Almhouses)
    Mr. Bob Russell
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will reduce to 5 per cent. the VAT payable for repairs and modernisation of charitable almshouse property. [R] [140978]

    Dawn Primarolo
    The modernisation of a listed almshouse may be zero-rated provided that the work is an alteration which requires listed building consent. Also, in the Pre-Budget Report we announced plans for a reduced rate of VAT for the conversion of a residential property into a different number of dwellings.

    Hypothermia Statistics
    Mr. David Taylor
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer in how many deaths in England and Wales in 1998–99 and 1999–2000 hypothermia was registered as the direct cause of death on the death certificate broken down by those aged(a) 60 to 74 years, (b) 75 to 84 years and (c) 85 years and over. [140917]

    Miss Melanie Johnson
    I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) on 22 November 2000,Official Report, columns 248–49W.

    Incontinence Pads
    Dr. Tonge
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will reduce VAT on incontinence pads available in shops to 5 per cent. [140825]

    Dawn Primarolo
    Incontinence pads can already be zero-rated by retailers supplying incontinent people living in their own homes. They are exempt from VAT when provided as part of the care incontinent people receive in nursing and residential homes.

    Individual Pension Accounts
    Mr. Willetts
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if it remains his policy that individual pension accounts will be available from April 2001. [140754]

    Miss Melanie Johnson
    The Government are considering responses to the document "Individual Pension Accounts" published in July and a further announcement will be made in due course.

    National Investment and Loans Office
    Barbara Follett
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to assess the past performance of, and future options for, the National Investment and Loans Office. [141279]

    Miss Melanie Johnson
    The National Investment and Loans Office fulfils an important role at the heart of Government. It comprises three bodies: the National Debt Office (NDO) administers departmental investment funds, including the National Insurance Fund and the National Lottery Distribution Fund. These funds are invested in gilts and other government securities; the Public Works Loan Board (PWLB) makes and administers loans (drawn 956W
    on the National Loans Fund) to local authorities; and the Office of the Paymaster General (OPG) holds balances and provides a banking service to Government Departments and other public bodies.

    I have asked Treasury officials to conduct a review of NILO's operations, working closely with NILO's senior management, and consulting NILO's customers and other interested stakeholders. The objective is:
    To review the management performance of the National Investment and Loans Office since it absorbed the Office of the Paymaster General in 1996, and to advise Treasury Ministers on the options to improve future delivery of Government objectives.

    The review will conclude by spring 2001.

    Child Tax Credit
    Mr. Matthew Taylor
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what percentage of child tax credit forms have been returned since they have been issued. [141280]

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

    IR35
    Mr. Brady
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 24 November 2000,Official Report, column 340W, on IR35, what legal costs have been incurred to date by Her Majesty's Government in defending the action for judicial review of IR35 brought by the Professional Contractors Group. [140976]

    Dawn Primarolo
    I cannot add anything to my previous reply.

    National Insurance
    Mr. Field
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the main areas of investment of the excess surplus in the National Insurance Fund were in the past five years; and what proportion of the excess surplus was invested in each area. [140949]

    Dawn Primarolo
    Details of investments appear in the National Insurance Fund Accounts prepared by the Department of Social Security and published annually by The Stationery Office.

    Mr. Field
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much of the National Insurance Fund's excess surplus has been invested in the past five years; and what the annual rate of return was in each year. [140948]

    Dawn Primarolo
    Investments are set out in the National Insurance Fund Accounts published annually by The Stationery Office.

    Petrol Prices
    Miss McIntosh
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what recent representations he has received on the increased cost of petrol; and if he will make a statement. [135795]

    Mr. Timms
    Treasury Ministers receive representations on a wide range of issues. The Chancellor made a statement on fuel duties in his pre-Budget statement on 8 November.

    Spending Review 2000
    Mr. Matthew Taylor
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) which environmentally damaging subsidies Departments have committed themselves to reducing or eliminating during the review of spending before the publishing of Spending Review 2000 (Cm 4807); and if he will make a statement; [137857]

    (2) which environmentally damaging subsidies Departments have committed themselves to (a) reducing and (b) eliminating during the review of spending before the publishing of Spending Review 2000 (Cm 4807); and if he will make a statement. [141225]

    Mr. Andrew Smith
    During the course of SR 2000, the Financial Secretary reminded Green Minister colleagues of the need to look carefully to ensure that their Departments' subsidies remain justifiable. For example, there will be better protection of the countryside through the shift from production subsidies to deliver environmental improvements in agriculture as set out in the England Rural Development Plan.

    Post Offices
    Mr. Home Robertson
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what extra funding has been made available to the Department of Trade and Industry for the development of post office counter services in rural and deprived urban areas; and what consequential allocation was made to the Scottish Executive. [139068]

    Mr. Andrew Smith
    The Government's plans to modernise the Post Office Network in the UK are set out in "Spending Review 2000: New Public Spending Plans 2001–03". As set out in the Supplementary Memorandum submitted by DTI to the Trade and Industry Select Committee, included in the Committee's thirteenth report on the Post Office and the Future of the Network, this included provision of £220 million for DTI for a UK wide programme. Copies of both can be found in the Library of the House.

    Road Haulage Industry
    Dr. Julian Lewis
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what discussions he has had in the past year with representatives of the road haulage industry; and on what dates. [134964]
    958W
    Mr. Timms
    Treasury Ministers have had a number of discussions with representatives of the road haulage industry. I attended meetings of the Road Haulage Forum, which includes representatives of the Freight Transport Association, Road Haulage Association and Transport and General Workers Union, on 8 December 1999, 9 February 2000, 17 April 2000, 26 July 2000, 19 October 2000 and 14 November 2000.

    Special Advisers
    Dr. Julian Lewis
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many special advisers are currently employed in the Treasury; and what their duties in each case are. [134968]

    Miss Melanie Johnson
    I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on 28 July 2000,Official Report, column 972W.

    Mr. Bercow
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the annual salary cost of his Department's special advisers. [134698]

    Miss Melanie Johnson
    I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office on 12 July 2000,Official Report, column 605W.

    Mr. Tyrie
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 18 July 2000,Official Report, columns 111–12W, on special advisers, if he will list the destination and the total cost, including travel, accommodation and subsistence allowance, on each of the occasions when the Treasury's special advisers travelled overseas on Government business. [135247]

    Miss Melanie Johnson
    I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on 18 July 2000,Official Report, columns 111–12W. The cost of these visits were accounted for in expenditure on Ministers' travel overseas published by the Prime Minister on 28 July 2000, Official Report, column 969W.

    Mr. Bercow
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer on how many occasions his Department's special advisers have travelled abroad at public expense and at what cost since May 1997. [136389]

    Miss Melanie Johnson
    I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer I gave on 18 July 2000,Official Report, columns 111–12W and to the answer given by my hon. Friend the then Economic Secretary to the Treasury on 27 July 1999, Official Report, columns 403–04W.

Preamble
The House met at eleven of the clock: The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Lichfield.

Detention Centre Rules
Lord Avebury Lord Avebury asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will conduct an open consultation on the draft detention centre rules before presenting them to Parliament.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Bassam of Brighton): My Lords, the Government have recognised the importance of consultation throughout the process of drafting the detention centre rules. A re-drafted version of the rules has recently been distributed for further consultation, and we have revised the timetable for implementation of the rules in order to ensure that there is sufficient time to consider properly the comments that are received in response.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, I appreciate that the Government have moved some distance from the original draft rules, thus tacitly admitting that they were modelled too closely on the Prison Rules. However, was sufficient time allowed for the further consultation following the distribution of the revised paper on 14th November, given that most of the recipients considered the deadline to be 1st December and responded accordingly? That included the Asylum Rights Campaign, whose letter was dated yesterday. Given the volume of suggested further amendments received in response to the circulation of the paper on 14th November, would it be useful to have an open round table of all the organisations involved so that these matters can be thrashed out before the draft rules are presented to Parliament?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, it is worth bearing in mind that consultation on the rules began as far back as January 1999 and has continued, both formally and informally, ever since. The consultation has been extensive: it has involved HMCIP, NGOs, the United Nations High Commission for Refugees, the Refugee Council, the Medical Foundation for the Care of Victims of Torture and a number of others. I take the noble Lord's point about the shortness of time in relation to a specific document. If we receive representations after the date when the formal consultation period ends, we shall continue to consider those. On the noble Lord's final point as to whether it would he advisable to have a round table, if we receive that representation from the consultation bodies we shall give it fair consideration.
The Earl of Sandwich: My Lords, does the Minister agree that, after more than three years of this
1460
Government being in office, asylum seekers in detention are still waiting for basic communications, full written reasons and medical assistance or at least information about medical facilities? Why has it taken so long for what he would describe as a "listening government" to act?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, my understanding is that those in detention centres do receive written reasons and explanations. They have access to a full range of legal advice and to medical advice. We try to make conditions in the detention centre estate as reasonable and humane as possible under the circumstances. These centres are essential; and those in government have a responsibility to ensure that they are maintained in good quality. For that reason there has also been considerable investment in improving the quality of the detention centre estate.
Lord Alton of Liverpool: My Lords, how many people are currently in detention centres and what are their family profiles? For what kind of duration are they likely to remain in the centres?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I do not have those precise statistics in front of me but I am happy to provide them in writing. The period of time spent in a detention centre depends on the complexity of the case. Our aim is to ensure that people spend as little time there as possible. The detention centre estate is enabling the Immigration and Nationality Directorate to turn over decisions much more quickly than was previously the case. I shall pick up the other points in correspondence with the noble Lord.
Baroness Sharples: My Lords, will the Minister place a copy of his reply in the Library?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I shall be more than happy to do so.
Lord Greaves: My Lords, is it not ridiculous that, while one member of a family may be detained in a centre in the South of England, other family members may be dispersed over 200 miles away in the North? Is that not a wrong application of the dispersal policy?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, without having full knowledge of the circumstances of the case to which the noble Lord refers, it would be difficult and wrong of me to pass judgment at the Dispatch Box. There may be circumstances in which it is entirely appropriate. The general approach is usually to attempt to keep family groups together. If the noble Lord is concerned about the circumstances of dispersal in a particular case, I shall be happy to investigate it.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, I believe that after the detention centre rules have been settled, operating standards will need to be developed in line with them. What is the time-scale for all this coming into practice?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I am not able to give an answer now on what is quite a complex matter. I shall correspond with the noble Lord.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, is the Minister aware that I am extremely grateful to him for his first Answer, and especially for his reference to the possibility of consultations with the organisations concerned? Will he allow me a week or 10 days in which to consult the organisations that have been involved in this process—especially the Asylum Rights Campaign—to see whether they would find such a meeting useful?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I always endeavour to be helpful to the noble Lord and others who are concerned about such matters. If the noble Lord would care to make contact with officials in my office, I shall consider what arrangements can be made.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, although the rules are clearly most important, can the Minister give the House an assurance that these centres will be used primarily to detain people who are about to be deported, and not as a random deterrent for asylum seekers generally?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, detention centres are not used in a random fashion; indeed, one of their principal purposes is to hold those who are facing removal in the very near future. The noble Lord will appreciate that many of the cases with which we have to deal are very complicated. Therefore, it is only right and proper that people are held while full investigations are made into their circumstances. I believe that that is as far as I can go on this point.

Firearms Register: Implementation
11.10 a.m.
Lord Marlesford Lord Marlesford asked Her Majesty's Government:
Why the central register of all persons who hold, or who have applied for, a firearm or shotgun certificate which was required to be set up under Section 39 of the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1997 has not been set up and by what date it will be set up.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, time-scales for this project were recently reassessed because of the need to develop concurrently a link between the national DNA database and criminal records on the police national computer. I understand that the Police Information Technology Organisation, which is responsible for taking matters forward, has agreed with the Association of Chief Police Officers that a combined approach is the best way of taking forward both proposals. Development work on the project has now started. The register is expected to be operational by February 2002.
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. Given that the object of the amendment to the Act was to prevent a repetition of tragedies such as Hungerford and Dunblane, does the noble Lord agree that it is disgraceful that the Home Office is only now—three years later—starting to do anything about the matter? Has the noble Lord taken note of the report of the Home Affairs Select Committee of another place, chaired by his honourable friend Mr Robin Corbett, which said:
"We are appalled that the national database of certificate holders … is not yet in immediate prospect"?
Further, does the noble Lord agree with the Select Committee when it says:
"We regard this system, which will allow the swift and effective exchange of information on applications made for certificates between all police forces, as absolutely central to the safe and effective operation of the firearms licensing system."?
Will the noble Lord put a bomb under the Home Office?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I am not entirely sure that it would be appropriate to put a bomb under the Home Office. However, the noble Lord makes an important point. He is, of course, to be congratulated on introducing this section of the legislation. Concern has been expressed about the delay, but it is our desire to get matters absolutely right. Obviously I am well aware of the correspondence entered into with Robin Corbett setting out the position as far as concerns the Section 39 amendment to the Act. Yes, we are well aware of the problem. But we are on the case and are beginning to ensure that matters are put right. I, too, share the noble Lord's view that the register is extremely important. However, it is important to bring it into line with the DNA register.
Lord Palmer: My Lords, in the light of that exchange, can the Minister confirm just who is running the country—is it the civil servants, or, indeed, is it the Ministers?
Noble Lords: Oh!
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I hesitate to say that that is a fatuous question. However, it is apparent that we are the Government of the day; that we are responsible as a government; and that we take decisions and run the country.
Lord Mackenzie of Framwellgate: My Lords, I welcome the reply of my noble friend the Minister to the Question. Although local police forces are invaluable in policing local communities, does my noble friend agree that it is absolutely essential that intelligence is shared? Of course, we have the police national computer and the National Criminal Intelligence Service, but we are talking here of the type of information that needs to be commonly held. If is it not commonly held within police forces, it should be held nationally. I urge my noble friend to expedite this project with due haste.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I always listen most carefully to what my noble friend says on such matters. He is absolutely right. However, we also believe that it is right for us to have a combined development approach because that is the best practical solution to the problem of taking forward with minimal delay both the central register of certificate holders and the development of a link between the national DNA database and criminal records on the PNC. We believe that to be the right approach. I should add that that approach is supported by ACPO and other authorities within the police service.
Lord Monson: My Lords, there have been reports suggesting that the cost of setting up the central register will work out at something like six times the sum originally estimated. Can the Minister comment?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I am unable to confirm whether or not that is the case. I do not recognise that estimate. However, I shall be happy to undertake further investigations and advise the noble Lord accordingly in due course.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the Minister may know that I was the Home Office Minister when this legislation passed through the House. At that time, I gave an assurance in very good faith that this work would be undertaken speedily. Therefore, I feel dishonoured by what has happened. Nearly four years later, almost nothing has happened. A letter written to Robin Corbett only this month stated that some 1,400 person days would be needed to complete the work. In that case, if there were 10 people involved, it would be only 140 days—a mere four or five months. The work could have been completed in one year, certainly in two years; but here we are, almost four years later, in this situation. Can the Minister explain why it is only now that there is a sense of urgency in the Home Office?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, there is always a sense of urgency in the Home Office. I refute the suggestion that we have been negligent in our approach. The noble Baroness is well aware that the legislation was passed in 1997. Indeed, I pay tribute to her for her role in that process. However, I repeat the point that I made a few moments ago. We believe that there are advantages in a combined development. I am sure that most Members of your Lordships' House recognise the value of having that DNA link. It is very important, valuable and powerful technology. It will enhance crime prevention and improve the quality of public safety. Those are our paramount concerns.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester: My Lords, is my noble friend familiar with the recent research by the University of Durham which shows a 52 per cent growth in the replica gun market over the past two years? Does he agree that this is a worrying and dangerous trend, not least because replica guns these days look terrifyingly like the real thing, cause real
1464
problems for the police in fighting crime and also have the undesirable effect of introducing children at a young age to a gun culture? Will he consider an amendment to what I believe is the 1968 Firearms Act to outlaw these undesirable toys so that we fall in line with countries such as France, Belgium and Holland which have already done so?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, the Firearms Act already applies to replica firearms that can be readily converted to fire live ammunition or use of replica firearms to cause fear of unlawful violence. The Government understand the public concern about the misuse of replica firearms and are giving active consideration to whether further steps are needed to deal with them. We are in this respect grateful for the advice recently received from the Home Affairs Committee of another place and also from the Firearms Consultative Committee. Therefore we are giving active consideration to the very point that the noble Lord makes.
Lord Renton: My Lords, are village post offices able to provide firearms application forms to be filled in, or have people got to go to the police station?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I do not know the answer to that. I shall happily find out and advise the noble Lord.

Sierra Leone: Aid Policy
11.21 a.m.
Baroness Rawlings Baroness Rawlings asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is their aid policy for Sierra Leone.
Baroness Amos: My Lords, our policy in Sierra Leone is to work to promote peace and security and to strengthen the democratic processes. This will lay the foundations for the sustainable long-term development that is needed to enable progress to be made towards meeting the international development targets. We shall continue to work closely with other government departments in the pursuit of these aims. We shall also continue to provide humanitarian support for the large number of people displaced by the conflict.
Baroness Rawlings: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that detailed Answer. In the DfID development report of April 2000 emphasis is placed on the continuing support of the security sector. According to the report, that started in June 1999. Clearly this past strategy has been a failure. In the light of that will the Minister tell the House what appraisal Her Majesty's Government have carried out and how this package has been reconstructed?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I do not agree that our programme in Sierra Leone has been a failure. We have worked long and hard to promote peace and stability not only in Sierra Leone but also in the region. With respect to our programme in Sierra Leone, we have made it clear that we shall focus on help with security, the budget, good governance and humanitarian relief. In that respect we have worked with the police services and the defence services to ensure that we promote security within Sierra Leone.
Lord Redesdale: My Lords, given that many of the problems associated with Sierra Leone are due to the collapse of the governmental process, will the Minister give some examples of DfID's work in good governance?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, we are working to strengthen governance within Sierra Leone. For example, we support the establishment of an anticorruption commission which is an initiative of the President of Sierra Leone. We are also taking forward work in preparation for next year's elections because in terms of establishing the long-term democratic process in Sierra Leone those elections will be extremely important.
Baroness Whitaker: My Lords, I understand that the Government have spent some £35 million this year in Sierra Leone. How will this fund policy development in education, particularly primary education?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, we have committed £35 million to spend in Sierra Leone this year. We are also allocating money to humanitarian activities and have made contributions not only to UN managed programmes and projects but also to both international and local NGOs. As regards specific education projects, we have a project with Christian Aid which is aimed at the resumption of a quality primary education for children in Freetown. We also have a project, Conciliation Resources, to equip vulnerable, disaffected and marginalised youth with the skills and education needed to sustain meaningful livelihoods.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, in the light of the substantial military commitment that the security aspects of the aid programme to Sierra Leone involve, has the noble Baroness consulted her noble friend on the Front Bench about the direct effects of that substantial commitment on military overstretch, particularly given the Government's propensity—as we read in the newspapers recently in regard to the Middle East—to make further offers of British troops for peacekeeping purposes? In the light of our tendency to make those commitments, will that overstretch be in any way mitigated by an increase in the defence budget?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, we are in constant discussion across the departments that are engaged in work in Sierra Leone. Those departments are the
1466
Department for International Development, the Ministry of Defence and FCO. As the noble Viscount will be aware, the defence commitments in Sierra Leone involve training the Sierra Leone army. We think that it is important that that army is properly trained so that it is able to deal effectively with the rebels in Sierra Leone. On the specific matter of overstretch, the noble Viscount will be aware from comments of my noble friend Lady Symons in this House that this is constantly under review. In the Statement that my noble friend made to the House last month she made the position clear.
Lord Tomlinson: My Lords, will my noble friend advise your Lordships' House what measures the Government are taking to seek to promote not merely the kind of security about which she has just spoken but security for civilians as and when Sierra Leone emerges from this bloody conflict?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, we are working hard to reform and improve the effectiveness, for example, of the police in Sierra Leone. We are helping to improve public confidence in the police. We are also working to help to reintegrate ex-combatants. We recognise that in the rural areas this is a much slower process. That is partly the result of the history of the police being targeted by the rebels in rural areas. There are problems with access, but we shall continue to make progress on this matter.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the NGOs—I declare an interest as someone involved in an NGO—very much welcome the anti-corruption measure that she mentioned as it is most disappointing to raise funds and then find that they do not reach those who need help? Will that policy be applied throughout Africa rather than just in Sierra Leone?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, working to deal with corruption in different countries across the world is a key priority for us in terms of our development agenda. We shall want to learn the lessons from any anti-corruption commission that is established in Sierra Leone to see whether or not what we learn from Sierra Leone can be used in other countries.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, with regard to the civil society in Sierra Leone, what assistance have the Government given in particular to women's organisations? Have they considered, for instance, the work which is being done by Mrs Zainab Bangura?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, a key theme of our work in all the countries in which we work is to promote gender equality. I shall have to write to the noble Lord on the funding of specific women's organisations in Sierra Leone. I shall, of course, place a copy of the letter in the Library of the House.

Climate Conference, The Hague: Outcome
11.30 a.m.
The Earl of Liverpool The Earl of Liverpool asked Her Majesty's Government:
What plans they have to reverse the failure of the recent climate conference at The Hague.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Lord Whitty): My Lords, the failure of The Hague Conference is obviously deeply disappointing. All sides were committed to securing agreement but negotiators ultimately ran out of time on this extremely complex and important matter. It has already been agreed that the talks will resume next year, probably in May or June. The Government will continue to work with our EU partners and other countries to build on the progress made in the Hague and to ensure that an agreement is reached.
The Earl of Liverpool: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. I was pleased to read today in the press that the Deputy Prime Minister will not be attending the European meeting of Ministers on 17th December, particularly as that falls on a Sunday. Will that meeting involve the American delegation and the other members who attended the conference at The Hague? Without their attendance, the meeting seems unlikely to achieve anything.
Finally, does the Minister agree that in the light of recent events, the task of defending the UK's national interest at the forthcoming Nice conference will be that much more difficult?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the noble Earl's question contains a number of misapprehensions. There is a European Environment Council on, I think, 18th and 19th December. That may be an appropriate point at which to discuss the issues arising from The Hague. But contacts with our EU partners are continuous. Progress may well be made before or at that point.
On the role of the Deputy Prime Minister, the House should be aware that if it were not for the Deputy Prime Minister the progress that was made in bringing the American and EU positions closer together would not have occurred. We were very close to reaching an agreement. As regards timing, it was unfortunate that we did not get further. We now need to pick up the pieces on that and develop a closer approximation between the American/EU position and that of the group of 77. That will require a lot of diplomacy. It will not be solely in relation to the EU or any EU meeting.
Lord Judd: My Lords, does the Minister agree that while the Deputy Prime Minister should be warmly congratulated on his tireless work, together with his Minister of State, in getting so close to an agreement, the truth remains that the position of the United States leaves much to be desired? I refer to the proportion of the crisis generated for which it is responsible and the minimum level of its readiness to respond.
1468
Can my noble friend assure us that whoever forms the new administration in the United States will have an early visit from a person at the most senior level—the Prime Minister would be ideal—to ensure that we win American commitment without which substantial progress will never be made?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, it is clear that the position of the United States is crucial to reaching agreement on these issues and in making serious progress. Emissions levels in the United States are one of the major causes of the current climate change problems. It is, therefore, important that the American political and business leadership take that seriously. Within the present Administration, we have serious recognition of that. For that reason America was prepared to move significantly in the latter stages of the discussion at The Hague from its somewhat intransigent original position. We welcome those moves. We believe that we can build on them. We hope that we can build on them, whoever is in the White House in January. It is noticeable that in American public and to some extent corporate opinion there is a positive move towards doing something about climate change. I hope that whoever is the political leader of America takes account of that and begins to lead on it.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, will the Minister reassure us that, despite the failure at The Hague, the EU countries will persevere in their efforts to achieve the objectives they have already set themselves to deal with climate change and, indeed, intensify those efforts as an example to the rest of the world?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I believe that I can give that commitment. I certainly assure the House that the UK Government are on course for meeting their commitment to the EU contribution towards Kyoto.
However, there are some problems within Europe. When we castigate the United States, we also have to recognise that although in policy terms the EU is well in advance of the United States, many EU countries are not on course to achieve their commitments with regard to the EU bubble as a contribution to Kyoto. Only the UK and, to a large extent, Germany are on target.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, will the Minister confirm that one of the problems about the final agreement was that the United States proposed what were called forest sinks which would deal with some of the effects of emissions? Will the noble Lord promise that, while supporting the concept of forest sinks, Her Majesty's Government will ensure that that does not mean that monoculture of forests will replace the traditional rain and maritime forests of the world?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the noble Baroness is correct. The issue of sinks was important. The Americans started from the position of wanting to make a major contribution from afforestation within the United States and developed countries and also acquiring credit for planting afforestation largely

1469
within developing countries. They removed that latter point from their negotiating position towards the end, which was most beneficial, and became significantly more flexible on the former. Although maintenance of forests plays a role, it is important that positive measures are also taken to reduce emissions, and that the two are not seen as counter-poised.

Protection of Animals (Amendment) Bill
Read a third time, and passed.

Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Bill
11.37 a.m.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons reason be considered forthwith.
Moved, That the Commons reason be considered forthwith.—(Lord Bassam of Brighton.)
On Question, amendment agreed to.

Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Bill
  COMMONS REASON FOR DISAGREEING TO A LORDS AMENDMENT
  [The page and line refer to HL Bill 48 as first printed for the Lords.]
  LORDS AMENDMENT
  130 After Clause 64, insert the following new clause—

  TAX RELIEF ON POLITICAL DONATIONS.
  After section 379 of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 (interpretation of sections 369 to 378) there shall be inserted—
  Tax relief on political donations.
  379AA.—(1) Tax relief shall be available to an individual ("the donor") in accordance with this section on qualifying political donations made by him of up to £500 in any year of assessment.
  (2) A donation is a qualifying political donation for the purposes of this section if it is made to a registered political party (other than a minor party) and—

  (a) it takes the form of the payment of a sum of money,

  (b) it is not subject to a condition as to repayment.

  (c) it is not conditional on or associated with, or part of an arrangement involving, the acquisition of property by the political party, its members or accounting units, otherwise than by way of gift, from the donor or a person connected with him, and

  (d) the donor is a registered elector.

  (3) For the purposes of this section a political party is an eligible political party if—

  (a) it is a registered party within the meaning of section 22 of this Act other than a minor party, and

  1470

  (b) at the last general election preceding the donation in question—

  (i) two members of that party were elected to the House of Commons, or

  (ii) one member of that party was elected to the House of Commons and not less than 150,000 votes were given to candidates who were members of that party.

  (4) If an individual makes a qualifying donation he shall be entitled, on making the payment, to deduct and retain out of it a sum equal to basic rate tax thereon.
  (5) Where a sum is deducted under subsection (4) above, the sum deducted shall be treated as income tax paid by the person to whom the payment is made.
  (6) Any person by whom a qualifying donation is received shall be entitled to recover from the Board, in accordance with regulations, an amount which by virtue of subsection (5) above is treated as income tax paid by him; and any amount so recovered shall be treated for the purposes of the Tax Acts in like manner as the qualifying political donation to which it relates.
  (7) The following provisions of the Taxes Management Act 1970, namely—

  (a) section 29(1)(c) (excessive relief) as it has effect apart from section 29(2) to (10) of that Act,

  (b) section 30 (tax paid in error, etc) apart from subsection (1B),

  (c) section 86 (interest), and

  (d) section 95 (incorrect return or accounts),

  shall apply in relation to an amount which is paid to any person by the Board as an amount recoverable in accordance with regulations made by virtue of subsection (6) above but to which that person is not entitled as if it were income tax which ought not to have been repaid and, where that amount was claimed by that person, as if it had been repaid as respects a chargeable period as a relief which was not due.
  (8) In the application of section 86 of the Taxes Management Act 1970 by virtue of section (7) above in relation to sums due and payable by virtue of an assessment made for the whole or part of a year of assessment ("the relevant year of assessment") under section 29(1)(c) or 30 of that Act, as applied by that subsection, the relevant date—

  (a) is 1st January in the relevant year of assessment in a case where the person falling within subsection (5) above has made a relevant interim claim; and

  (b) in any other case is the later of the following dates, that is to say—

  (i) 1st January in the relevant year of assessment; or

  (ii) the date of the making of the payment by the Board which gives rise to the assessment.

  (9) The Board may by regulations make provision—

  (a) for the purposes of any provision of this section which relates to any matter or thing to be specified by or done in accordance with regulations;

  (b) with respect to the furnishing of information by donors or recipients, including, in the case of recipients, the inspection of books, documents and other records on behalf of the Board; and

  (c) generally for giving effect to this section.

  (10) In this section—
  "financial year" in relation to any person, means a financial year of that person for the purposes of the relevant regulations;
  "interim claim" means an interim claim within the meaning of the relevant regulations;
  "relevant interim claim" means, in relation to an assessment made for a period coterminous with, or falling wholly within, a person's financial year, an interim claim made for a period falling wholly or partly within that financial year; and

  1471
  "the relevant regulations" means regulations made under subsection (9) above.
  (11) Section 839 of this Act shall apply for the purposes of this section to determine whether one person is connected with another."")
  The Commons disagreed to this amendment for the following reason—
  130A Because it interferes with the public revenue, and the Commons do not offer any further reason, trusting that this reason may be deemed sufficient.
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 130 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 130A. The other place has disagreed with your Lordships' Amendment No. 130 because it interferes with the public revenue. It is not, therefore, a matter for this House. Taxation and tax relief are for the elected House alone to determine.
  Moved, That the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 130 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 130A.—(Lord Bassam of Brighton.)
  Lord Goodhart: My Lords, since another place has relied on privilege, there is nothing further that can be done with the amendment. I simply express the hope that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will consider the matter carefully and will persuade himself by the time of the next Budget that it is appropriate to grant tax relief for the reasons which have been expressed clearly in debates in your Lordships' House.
  Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart. It clearly would be right for this House to defer to the privilege of the Commons which it has claimed in this matter and not to insist on the amendment.
  At same time we believe that in recommending this tax relief the Neill committee was on to a good point. It should happen. However, the issue was discussed in our earlier debates. I do not need to repeat the arguments except to say that we continue to support the policy. We hope that in a more appropriate Bill, perhaps a finance Bill, the Chancellor of the Exchequer will look favourably on the proposals of the Neill committee.
  Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, the Commons reason is expressed very widely and, I think, unusually, but they are undoubtedly entitled to insist on their financial privilege in this matter. I therefore respectfully agree with what the two noble Lords have said.
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I am grateful for the comments of noble Lords in this brief debate. To pick up the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, the Government set out their priorities in the spending review and the Pre-Budget Report. Noble Lords are welcome at any time to make representations on particular matters of this nature. There is nothing else that can be properly said on the issue at this stage.
  1472
  On Question, Motion agreed to.
  Lord Carter: My Lords, I am sure that the House is aware that we shall now have to adjourn during pleasure to await the Commons message on the Disqualifications Bill. That is likely to arrive at about four o'clock, so I propose to adjourn until then. We will then resume to receive the message and adjourn again for about 30 minutes to enable any amendments to be tabled. We shall then continue with the consideration of the Commons amendments. I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until 4 p.m.
  Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
  [The Sitting was suspended from 11.41 a.m. to 4 p m.]
  Lord Carter: My Lords, I understand that we have to wait to receive a Message from the Commons. The advice is that we should now adjourn during pleasure until 4.30 p.m., by which time we shall be certain to have received a message. We shall then adjourn again for only 10 minutes in order to allow an amendment to be tabled. Therefore, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until 4.30 p.m.
  Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
  [The Sitting was suspended from 4.1 to 4.30 p.m.]

Message from the Commons
A Message was brought from the Commons, That they agree to certain of the amendments made by your Lordships to the Disqualifications Bill without amendment and they disagree to the remaining amendment, for which they assign a reason.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until 4.40 p.m.
Moved accordingly and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 4.31 to 4.40 p.m.]

Disqualifications Bill
The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Lord Falconer of Thoroton): My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons reason be now considered.
Moved, That the Commons reason be now considered.—(Lord Falconer of Thoroton.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS REASON FOR DISAGREEING TO A LORDS AMENDMENT AND MANUSCRIPT MOTION TO BE MOVED ON CONSIDERATION OF COMMONS REASON
[The page and line refer to HL Bill 25 as first printed for the Lords.]

LORDS AMENDMENT
1 Clause 1, leave out Clause 1
The Commons disagreed to this amendment for the following reason—
1A Because it is appropriate to remove the disqualification for membership of the House of Commons and Northern Ireland Assembly of members of the legislature of Ireland (the Oireachtas).
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 1, to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 1A.
The Disqualifications Bill is back before this House today following the decision by the other place to reject your Lordships' amendment to leave out Clause 1. The Government resisted this amendment in the other place and were supported in that position by 338 votes to 129—a large and conclusive majority.
The elected Chamber of this Parliament has now clearly indicated its wishes with regard to this Bill and I hope that your Lordships will recognise the legitimacy of that view and respect the wishes of the House on which this Bill will have a bearing. Before asking this House to indicate whether or not it intends to insist on its original amendment, I should like to use this opportunity once again, briefly, to set out the Government's position in relation to the Bill in the hope that at this late stage, now that the other place has given its opinion on the matter, your Lordships will be persuaded against insisting on the original amendment to remove Clause 1 from the Bill.
Perhaps I can take head on two arguments made in earlier debates. One is that this Bill is not wanted by anyone other than Sinn Fein; the other is the claim that we are engaged in an unjustified and discreditable attempt to appease republicans who have yet to abandon violence unequivocally.
I take the first argument. The Bill has the support of the SDLP which has courageously stood up for constitutional nationalist principles for many years. I know that my noble friend Lord Fitt takes a different view of the matter from his former colleagues in the SDLP. But that is their considered position and it is right that the House should give due weight to it.
The Bill also has the wholehearted support of the Irish Government. I urge the House to reflect on the contribution which successive Dublin governments have made to the peace process over the past few years. We have our separate interests. There have been and will continue to be occasions when we disagree. But when we can proceed together on an agreed basis, we should do so, for that is in the best interests of sustaining confidence in the political process, not only in Northern Ireland, but also throughout these islands. That relationship between Ireland and the United
1474
Kingdom was proved in the negotiations which resulted in the Belfast agreement. It was the British and Irish Governments working together with the parties which made it possible to reach agreement. Throughout the difficult process which led to that agreement, and subsequently when we experienced setbacks in the full implementation of the agreement, the Irish Government were key players in bringing the political process back on track, sometimes at substantial cost and in the face of personal tragedy.
Our relationship with Ireland has been strengthened not only by the Belfast agreement, but also by the British-Irish agreement which replaced the Anglo-Irish Agreement. Under the new agreement, the Irish Government fulfilled their commitment to amend Articles 2 and 3 of the Irish constitution, a move supported by 94 per cent of their electorate.
This Bill also has the support of a number of the smaller parties in Northern Ireland, including the Alliance Party and the Women's Coalition, neither of which could, by any stretch of the imagination, be described as fellow travellers of the republican movement. The crucial point is that it reflects the Government's view of what, in a modest way, will help to break down some of the old barriers that were necessary for as long as the Republic maintained a constitutional claim to a part of the United Kingdom but are no longer justified in the light of the new situation created by the Belfast agreement.
I turn to the second argument that this is somehow part of an appeasement process. I recognise that assurances from me to the contrary will fail to persuade those noble Lords who are disposed to believe the worst. However, I ask how it can possibly be regarded as appeasement of the paramilitaries when the effect of the Bill is to increase the opportunity to pursue legitimate political objectives through properly elected legislative bodies. If someone is able to persuade the electorate of a constituency in Northern Ireland and of a constituency in the Republic to send him or her to represent them both in Dublin and Belfast, or in Dublin and London, or any combination of the three, do we need to prohibit that by law? That is the effect of the restrictions in the present Disqualifications Act. In the Government's view, those restrictions no longer serve any useful purpose.
Democracy is not something about which we need to be frugal or grudging in these islands. It is for the people to decide who they wish to represent them in their elected assemblies and parliaments. Let us give them the most generous possible choice and place no unnecessary barriers in their way. In a modest way, this Bill increases that choice. The House of Commons has confirmed that it wishes the old restrictions on its membership and that of the Northern Ireland Assembly to be lifted. I urge the House not to insist on an amendment which, by completely undermining this Bill, would be contrary to the new spirit of British/Irish relations, which we should all be committed to nurturing.
I should like to mention that the Liberal Democrats have consistently supported this Bill, believing it to represent a modest contribution to the peace process.

1475
We are grateful for that. They have made points about the process by which the Bill has progressed through Parliament. This is not the place to defend that process. However, we believe that the benefit of the Bill is worthwhile.
Moved, That the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 1 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numberered 1A.—(Lord Falconer of Thoroton.)

MOTION MOVED ON CONSIDERATION OF COMMONS REASON NO. 1A
Lord Cope of Berkeley 1B Lord Cope of Berkeley rose to move, as an amendment to the Motion that this House do not insist on their Amendment No. 1 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered No. 1A, leave out "not".
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 1B standing in my name to insist on your Lordships' Amendment No. 1.
It remains our view that this is a dangerous Bill for Northern Ireland and for the rest of the United Kingdom. That is well known to your Lordships. I do not propose again to detail all the arguments, although I shall touch on some points. It was made clear by the noble and learned Lord that the question for consideration today is not only about the dangers of the Bill but also about your Lordships' House insisting on the amendment. Whatever may happen in the future, this House reflects the decisions taken last year on its membership. Its powers are settled in the Parliament Acts. There is no doubt that we are legally entitled to insist on this amendment. Whether or not we should do so is a matter of judgment. That is partly a question of the effects of the Bill but also a question of the nature of the Bill. There can be no question but that this is a constitutional Bill.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, the question as to who sits in the legislature of any country is clearly a constitutional matter of the highest importance. I do not profess to be an expert on international constitutions, but I have never heard of a country with a written constitution that does not, among other things, fix who sits in the legislature. It is also a normal feature of written constitutions to fix more elaborate methods than mere legislation to ensure wide support for changing the constitution—so-called entrenched provisions. For example, the Irish constitution provides, among other things, for a referendum on a change to the constitution.
Presumably, the House of Commons also agrees that this is a constitutional measure, as the Committee stage was held on the Floor of the House and not in the usual Standing Committee. Many people believe that this House has a special responsibility in respect of constitutional Bills. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Richard, said so only yesterday in another debate.
Furthermore, the Bill was not in the Government's manifesto—
Lord Richard: My Lords, I do not believe that I said that. I recollect that the point I sought to make was
1476
that the only circumstance in which it would ever be justifiable for this House to insist on an amendment would be one which raised a grave constitutional issue. I do not believe I ever said that I thought this House had a special responsibility for constitutional matters.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, I have the words in front of me. The noble Lord spoke about a major constitutional issue being at stake. I hope that I did not misrepresent him—if I did, I apologise. However, he certainly made the point that there was a difference between some constitutional issues and other issues when it came to the use of our powers. I am grateful to the noble Lord for indicating his agreement to that.
Apart from that, the Bill was not in the Government's manifesto. It was not in the Belfast agreement which on other occasions we have been told to follow word by word, almost slavishly. It was not in the British/Irish agreement. It was not even in the Queen's speech last year. It was introduced as a matter of great urgency—so it was said at the time—into another place, all stages being taken on 24th and 25th January. It was not discussed again by another place until a few hours ago, when it was discussed for three hours under a guillotine.
In those circumstances, we are not only entitled to insist on our amendment but have a duty to judge carefully whether the Bill is in the national interest. It is our view that it is not. If the Bill were carried, the principal beneficiary would be Sinn Fein/IRA. Few people, if any, will want to sit in both Parliaments at the same time. However, Sinn Fein would be able to try to have people elected simultaneously for both United Kingdom constituencies and Dail seats, not to take advantage of the seat in Westminster—we know that it spurns doing so—but in order to claim to represent parts of the United Kingdom in Dublin in the Dail. That would be most damaging to the United Kingdom.
The argument also used by Ministers concerns the peace process, good will and so forth. The right honourable Mr Howarth, the Northern Ireland Minister, speaking in the debate in another place not long ago, referred to the warmth of the relationship between the United Kingdom and the Irish Republic. He indicated that it was like the Commonwealth, which it left 50 years ago, and greater than with any other European Union country, even those which have been our allies in peace and in war. Even the Prime Minister yesterday referred to the Commonwealth analogy in reply to the right honourable Mr Trimble.
Therefore, I make no apology for repeating that the Commonwealth comparison is rubbish. No Commonwealth MP has ever sat in Westminster at the same time and in practice none will ever do so. The Minister gave up using that argument long ago in our debates in this House; and quite rightly, too, because it was exploded. I am shocked that no one has told the Prime Minister what a bogus argument it is.
The fact is that no one can legally represent two different constituencies at the same time in the House of Commons. No one can sit in this House and in

1477
another place. This Bill provides a right for Irish citizens to represent two different constituencies in two different sovereign Parliaments whose national interests sometimes differ. The noble and learned Lord said a few moments ago that we had our separate interests. Of course we want good relations with the Republic and its government, but we have our separate interests. The two Parliaments also have separate interests, and no man can serve two masters.
I emphasise "Irish citizens" because no one who is not an Irish citizen can sit in the Dail. As far as I am aware, there is no proposal by the Irish Government or anybody else to alter the Republic's constitution to allow us to sit in the Irish Parliament. There is no reciprocation at all from the Irish Government or Sinn Fein. All that the Irish Government have said this week while this matter has been coming to the boil is that they will not support Catholics joining the Northern Ireland police service. There is not much good will in that. We believe that this is a one-sided Bill in which we should not acquiesce.
Moved, as an amendment to the Motion that the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 1 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason numbered 1A, leave out "not".—(Lord Cope of Berkeley.)
Lord Rogan: My Lords, I speak in support of the amendment. By now all noble Lords are aware of the issues which surround the Bill. It is yet to be confirmed to me, and to the satisfaction of others in this House, who exactly demanded this shameful measure of constitutional reform. However, one does not require the deductive skills of Sherlock Holmes or Inspector Morse to infer from the consequences of this Bill who demanded it: plainly and simply, it was Sinn Fein. That is the only party to benefit from the Bill. As the noble Lord, Lord Cope of Berkeley, said, this measure is not part of the Belfast agreement which is the basis for constitutional reform in Northern Ireland. An agreement that we cannot cherry pick appears to be the very document to which the Government can attach other measures.
In another place this very afternoon the Minister defended this measure on the grounds that it was consistent with the Belfast agreement. I should like to correct that error. The Belfast agreement is founded on consensus which clearly this measure does not have. A belated and half-hearted statement of support by the SDLP should not be interpreted as anything other than that. It is not an indication that that party supported this measure at the outset, merely that the SDLP was pressurised either by the Government or Sinn Fein to make some kind of statement of support.
There is no support by parliamentarians in the Republic of Ireland. The noble Lord, Lord Fitt, has told this House on more than one occasion of the lack of support by parliamentarians in the Republic of Ireland. No reciprocal measure is to be introduced in the Republic of Ireland. Should Members of the legislature of the Republic of Ireland be able to sit in
1478
another place, or in the Northern Ireland Assembly, if Members of the United Kingdom legislature are unable to sit in Dublin? That is not correct.
When I refer to Members of the United Kingdom legislature I mean all of them; but only MPs from Northern Ireland constituencies, not from the mainland, may be permitted to sit in the Irish Parliament. Is the Minister aware that the Government of the Republic of Ireland, even if they wanted to reciprocate—I believe that they do not—are unable to do so without reforming their constitution? Further, they cannot do that without a referendum on an amendment to the Republic's constitution. Indeed, I believe that the Irish Government are not minded to amend their constitution. But then the Irish Government are not permitting Sinn Fein/IRA to dictate to them on this issue of constitutional reform.
Here in the United Kingdom we can amend our constitution without a referendum. We can amend our constitution by passing a Bill such as this.
We are under a duty to consider carefully the Bill as it amends our constitution. But we are not under a duty to please and placate Sinn Fein at every juncture. If anything, the Disqualifications Bill should actually disqualify persons from membership of another sovereign parliament and ours. It should remove the anomaly of the Commonwealth parliaments, not add to that anomaly by including the Republic of Ireland.
If countries with which the United Kingdom has special relationships are to receive favourable amendments to our constitution, which will be next? The United States, with which we have a special relationship, left the Commonwealth in 1776. Will it be next to have its disqualification removed? Or is that conditional on Sinn Fein demanding it? I urge and plead with noble Lords to accept the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Cope, and bury this constitutional monstrosity.
5 p.m.
Lord Smith of Clifton: My Lords, as has been apparent from the previous two contributions, those noble Lords opposed to Amendment No. 1 tend to couch their strict constructionalist rather black-lettered legalistic arguments in somewhat apocalyptic terms with warnings of dire consequences. It is their view that not only the hallowed canons of constitutionalism are being contravened, but, worse, the floodgates are being opened to the most rampant forms of Irish nationalism. Such argumentation is all rather too far-fetched.
It is that sort of mindset which ferments disunity within the ranks of unionism and inhibits the development of a more positive and modern interpretation of unionism that is congruent with contemporary realities and attempts to make the Belfast agreement work.
Those noble Lords who support Amendment No. 1 believe that positive benefits may ensue from having one or two representatives who hold seats in Dublin, London or Belfast. That point was made by my noble

1479
friend Lord Shutt of Greetland on Report. As the noble Lord, Lord Rogan said, we should seek reciprocity from Dublin in that regard.
Some element of cross membership may be beneficial and may help to melt the somewhat frozen attitudes that either end of the dialectical spectrum invariably characterise our debates on Northern Ireland. It is time that that the era of old men in bowler hats, collarettes and long johns is consigned to the museum of political history. For that reason the Liberal Democrats support the Commons amendment.
Lord Mayhew of Twysden: My Lords, at every opportunity in this House I have asked the question: who has asked for the Bill? Your Lordships' House has yet to hear an answer. It was not unreasonable to ask that because it is only when one knows who has asked for a Bill that one can have a reliable idea of how it will be used if it is passed.
I noticed a significant distinction between the speeches of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, on the Dome and on this Bill. Yesterday he was at great pains to point out that it was the Conservative Party which had asked for the Dome. The noble and learned Lord was perfectly entitled to do that. He did that on a number of occasions. Indeed, he did little else. No one can complain that the matter was irrelevant. It was highly relevant. It may not have carried the noble and learned Lord very far, but it was relevant.
But when it comes to answering the same question about the Bill we do not get an answer. The nearest he came to giving an answer was to say to me that it is an inappropriate question. When that answer was first given there was such a guffaw from all sides of the House that one might have been back in the House of Commons.
I do not easily make difficulties for the Government in their Northern Ireland policies. I have tried hard to be supportive of them. They have been right to try to build confidence. But where they have gone wrong here, if I may suggest it respectfully, is that they have failed to recognise how fragile unionist confidence now is. If the Bill is forced through without an answer to the question, "Who has asked for it?", it will be very bad for unionist confidence. That is a very serious matter.
The only other explanation for the Bill was given by the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, at Second Reading when he said that,
"this surely is now the right time to extend this modest courtesy to the Irish Parliament".—[Official Report, 27/7/00; co1.721.]
I should like to suggest that it is now high time that a modest courtesy was extended to our own Parliament by giving an appropriate answer to the question I have put.
Lord Fitt: My Lords, as I listened to the "Today" programme this morning, the lady who reads the news—presumably she had a script in front of her—said that today in the House of Lords the
1480
Disqualifications Bill would be discussed, a Bill which would ensure that Sinn Fein would be able to sit both in the Irish Parliament and in the British Parliament. There you have it. The BBC knows what the Bill is about. I know what it is about. But there we had a national broadcast telling us what the Bill is all about. No one else in the political arena of the island of Ireland, North or South, has asked for the Bill.
As I came into your Lordships' House, I heard that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, had made reference to me, saying that I was out of step with the SDLP. He is quite right. I left the SDLP five years before I became a Member of your Lordships' House. I left the SDLP because, as I said then, it was getting too close to extreme republicanism. That is why I left the SDLP. Had I agreed with the SDLP, I would have been expressing the same sentiments as it is expressing today.
Throughout our debates on the Bill I have repeatedly posed the question, as have other noble Lords—the question was being asked in the other place today—"Who has asked for the Bill?" None of the major political parties in the Republic has asked for it. Fianna Fail, Fine Gael or the workers' party have not asked for it. Before I came into the House today I watched the proceedings in another place on television. I was hoping to see a member of the SDLP saying, "We want the Bill. We have asked for the Bill". Why is it that every time the Bill is discussed in the House of Commons, no SDLP Members are there? Is it because they are frightened of the Bill? Even more seriously, is it because they are frightened to say that they are frightened, as Sinn Fein is at the moment a very direct threat to the SDLP?
The SDLP knows very well that none of its members will fight for a seat in the Dail. It knows very well that no one from Fianna Fail, Fine Gael or the other major parties will fight for a seat over here. Indeed, they could not fight for a seat over here because they would have to have a residence qualification. There is no reciprocation whatever. An Englishman sitting in the other place could not fight for a seat in the Republic because he has to be an Irish citizen to sit in the Dail. It seems that the traffic is all one way.
As I watched on the monitor what was happening in the other place, it all became clear to me. On the previous occasion we discussed the Bill I was watching the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer. He read every word of what he was telling the House. I watched George Howarth today. He read every word. My mind went back to the House of Commons, where I was an MP for many years. One of my close and dear friends, a man whom I revered, was Michael Foot. When Michael Foot stood at the Dispatch Box and read every word, we all knew that he did not believe in a word he was saying. I would say that to him later in the Corridors, and he would confirm it. The same thing is happening here.
We have heard the argument about the Commonwealth. I do not believe that it is valid.
Perhaps I may interject against myself and say that if there was not a single unionist or Protestant Member from Northern Ireland sitting in the House, I would

1481
say exactly the same things. I am not persuaded by any unionist or Protestant argument; I am persuaded by my conscience.
Last week or the week before, I read the Irish newspapers after I had spoken in the House. An old friend of mine—an old-time journalist—commented on this House and referred to the unionists and the House taking an anti-Irish stance, as the House has reputedly done over many centuries, particularly in 1993. I am sorry that my former friend had to question my motives in speaking as I do in this House on this Bill. I am expressing honestly the concerns of many people in Northern Ireland, who see the traffic all going one way.
I have a press report of what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, said in the House two or three weeks ago. It states:
"He told Peers in the House of Lords last night that 2,804 people had been murdered in the province between 1969 and last month … But charges had only been brought in respect of 958 murders … There had been 1,860 civilians murdered (688 charges), 441 soldiers (106 charges), 300 members of the RUC (111 charges)".
Those kinds of figures activate the minds of the people of Northern Ireland. It may only be a press report or a quote from Hansard, but that is not the way it affects people in Northern Ireland. I have often said that you could walk from the Belfast Telegraph office through Belfast's main street, Royal Avenue, at any time of the day, and you would be certain to walk past some of the people who have carried out those atrocious murders. That is what makes the people of Northern Ireland think as they do.
As to the question of the Commonwealth, I heard again today that we must treat Ireland as we would any other part of the Commonwealth. As I have said, Ireland left the Commonwealth of its own volition in 1949. If we must treat Ireland as we would any other part of the Commonwealth, does that mean that we will allow a representative from Ireland to attend the next Commonwealth conference? That would be one way of treating Ireland as any other part of the Commonwealth. We all know that no one from the Commonwealth has ever attempted to take up what they have been permitted to do. If that had been the case, we could have Idi Amin or Robert Mugabe sitting here, or some of the other so-called parliamentarians of Commonwealth countries. The Commonwealth argument does not hold water.
I am opposing this Bill because of my total and absolute abhorrence of the men of violence in Northern Ireland. I have lived through the violence for many years. The IRA succeeded in burning my house and everything in it, including every memento that I had acquired throughout my married life. It did so because it could not intimidate me into agreeing with what it was doing, and it could not intimidate me into keeping quiet about what it was doing. I have no hesitation in saying what is my motivation: I deplore and detest every action of the IRA and the loyalist paramilitaries, although it was the IRA who caused the damage to myself.
1482
Sinn Fein is, to use the jargon, inextricably linked with the IRA. If Sinn Fein were not tied to the IRA and acting as its political wing, I should have no hesitation in supporting the Bill. Sinn Fein could have within its ranks people who would make good public representatives and, indeed, good Ministers. It is because of its link to the men of violence that I oppose this measure.
There is no doubt that something has happened behind the scenes. No one knows what is the motivation behind this obnoxious little Bill. Perhaps we shall know in 30 years' time when the papers are made available. The promulgation of this measure is an attack on democracy—not because of the wording, but because of the motivation behind it; because it has been demanded by Sinn Fein/IRA, which will be the only political party in Northern Ireland to gain from the Bill.
I repeat: why did not the SDLP issue a public statement? Why did its members not stand up yesterday, or when the Bill received its Second Reading, and say that they supported it? That is difficult to understand. I heard the Minister say today that the Irish Government support the Bill. Why did no one in the Irish Government stand up in the Irish Parliament and say, "We are quite happy with the content of the little Bill that is going through Westminster. We find no objection to it"? No one has expressed support for it.
I repeat my statement that the Bill has been demanded by Sinn Fein. It is inextricably linked to the men of violence who have carried out so many murders and wrecked so many lives in Northern Ireland. I cannot support anything that Sinn Fein demands.
5.15 p.m.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, it is always a great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, and again I salute his courage. No one in this House speaks with greater authority on Northern Irish matters. I am sorry that I did not hear his intervention, but I noted that the noble Lord, Lord Richard, was "rolled out" once again yesterday as the "big gun" to give an obiter dictum on the propriety or otherwise of your Lordships rejecting the Government's NATS proposals yet again. The noble spoke of the importance of exercising our judgment rather than our full powers in that case. When he was challenged by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, he went on to make the distinction to which my noble friend Lord Cope alluded a moment ago.
In that instance, I agreed wholeheartedly with the judgment of the noble Lord, Lord Richard. Like him, I believe that the full exercise of our powers should be a "nuclear" option, used sparingly and if possible not at all. The noble Lord was right when he said (at col. 1329) that further resistance by your Lordships would be justified only,
"if a major constitutional issue were at stake".
The noble Lord knows, and has even been kind enough to acknowledge on the Floor of the House, that he and I have agreed on matters affecting your Lordships more often than some people outside the

1483
House might expect. I only hope that that agreement has not caused him too much embarrassment in his own party. Knowing the noble Lord, I am sure that it has not.
In spite of the fact that I would go further than the noble Lord in wanting to see the powers of this House as a constitutional long-stop increased and even become enshrined in convention and possibly in statute, I am interested to find that the noble Lord has not yet been rolled out on this particular issue. Perhaps he is holding his fire. However, I understand why the noble Lord was rolled out: it was due to the respect and affection with which he is regarded on all sides of the Chamber, as a former leader of his party in this House and, indeed, as a former Leader of the House. It is absolutely right that he should talk about noble Lords exercising their judgment. I suspect that the noble Lord and I will find ourselves in separate Lobbies yet again this evening. I am sorry about that, because it seems to me that this is a case where noble Lords ought really to think seriously about exercising their judgment.
We have heard this Bill variously described by members of the Government Front Bench in this House as either, "a mere piece of tidying up—rectifying an anomaly", or, by the Captain of the Gentlemen-at-Arms, the noble Lord, Lord Carter, as "a part of the choreography of the Good Friday agreement". If it is the former, it is a matter of minor importance to the Government. In that case, I have to ask: why are they so keen to promote it, and why have they agonised so much about the tactics used as it has been pushed through Parliament? But if it is the latter, as my noble friend Lord Cope and other speakers have said, it is a matter of major importance. If that is the case, why have not the Government come clean with Parliament in their explanations as regards what lies behind this Bill?
Like other noble Lords who have spoken, this seems to me to be a thoroughly pernicious and dangerous piece of legislation. It endows Members of another place with a divided loyalty. I venture to remind your Lordships of a phrase of Queen Elizabeth I, which was used in another context; namely, that she did not like her dogs to wear foreign collars. I believe that that encapsulates why that is unwise for people who will be elected to what is still, at least in some instances, the sovereign Parliament of our country.
This Bill panders to Sinn Fein/IRA's desire to be able to claim to represent parts of Northern Ireland in the Dail before the people of the Province have expressed a wish to leave the United Kingdom. In doing so, I fear that it will make the unification of Ireland more likely rather than less likely, because it will make it seem even more inevitable than many of the Government's activities thus far have made it seem.
I hope that the noble and learned Lord will be able to allude to my following point when he concludes the debate on behalf of the Government. If my information is correct, this Bill was demanded by Sinn Fein/IRA with Mr Ahern, the Taoiseach, acting as an
1484
intermediary between them and our Prime Minister. As I understand it, it was demanded as a price for Mr Adams' silence in the wake of the five famous hand-written promises issued by our Prime Minister before the referendum on the Good Friday agreement took place—promises which, I should remind your Lordships, were not kept in the event.
The question before us is both big and important. As your Lordships have pointed out, it is embodied in a nasty little Bill. We have always supported the bi-partisan policy on our side and, indeed, when in government, we were extremely grateful when the party opposite supported us in turn. However, I hope that noble Lords will agree that we have always made it plain that, should things go too far, we would withdraw our support. Indeed, it seems as though the bi-partisan policy is supporting something that, in particular, appeases terrorists more than appears to be remotely sensible.
Even in its own terms, it seems to me that the Government's policy is not working. Indeed, within minutes of the Police (Northern Ireland) Bill being passed by your Lordships' House, it was being flouted by Sinn-Fein/IRA. It is as if its members are laughing in the face of the Government by encouraging Roman Catholics in the Province not to join the police force, which was, of course, one of the principal reasons that the Government initially gave for introducing that legislation. In my opinion, this Bill is even worse. It appeases the terrorists; it will not persuade them any more than the police legislation did to throw away the Armalite in favour of the ballot box. I am in no doubt whatever that not only should noble Lords throw out the Bill again on its merits, but also, in view of the constitutional and radical nature of what is proposed, I suggest that they would be well within their rights to do so.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, I have listened to many speeches of the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, on the subject of Northern Ireland. I think that he has used the expression "appease the terrorists" against the Government on several occasions and on several different measures. So there is nothing unique about the accusations that he made today.
My noble friend Lord Fitt and I have been friends for many years. I have known him since he was in the Commons. I very much respect him as a person of integrity and as someone who has suffered from terrorism. I have been fortunate not to have suffered from terrorism although other Members of this House have so suffered. Anyone who has suffered directly from terrorism obviously speaks with more moral authority than those who have not. I think nevertheless that he will allow me to disagree with him on this occasion in the spirit of friendship which has always characterised our debates here and our friendly discussions outside.
The noble Lord, Lord Cope, and the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, both said that the Bill is dangerous. They may disagree with the Bill. They may think that the Government have made an error of judgment. However, I believe that the word

1485
"dangerous" is an exaggeration in relation to a Bill the consequences of which will be much smaller than has been suggested.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Cope, that with the Bill on the statute book our Government have every right to say to the Government in Dublin that they should reciprocate and pass measures to grant the same rights to British people to seek to enter the Dail as will be granted the other way in this legislation. However, the bottom line is that Northern Ireland is different and the relationship between the British Government and the Irish Government is different from the relationship we have with any other government in the world. Northern Ireland is pivotal to that different relationship.
There are all kinds of arrangements between the British Government and the Irish Government involving Northern Ireland which are quite different from the arrangements we have anywhere else; for example, the cross-border bodies, the north-south ministerial council, and so on. Therefore it is not that unusual that we should seek as a government to introduce a measure which is different from that which would in effect apply elsewhere. I understand that as regards the Commonwealth it would apply in the same way but it would have more bite as regards the relationship between this country and Ireland.
My understanding is that the Government of the Republic support the Bill, the SDLP supports the Bill and Sinn Fein also supports the Bill. This is not just a matter of dealing with Sinn Fein. Indeed, I believe that the main effect of having this Bill on the statute book—
Lord Laird: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. Will he join me and others in this spirit of friendship in encouraging the Irish Government to ensure that they implement fully the Belfast agreement, applying human rights to the same standards that apply in our country to those people who are discriminated against on religious and political grounds in the Irish Republic? Will the noble Lord join me in that call to the Irish Government?
Lord Dubs: My Lords, I certainly will. I certainly call all the people who are parties to the Good Friday agreement to adhere to all elements of that agreement, be it opposition to discrimination, support of human rights or whatever. I gave that assurance at the Dispatch Box when I was a Northern Ireland Minister and I am happy to repeat it. I am happy to discuss the details of the matter with the noble Lord at any time in the friendly spirit which characterises our discussions.
The main effect of the Bill would be that a Member of Parliament representing a Northern Ireland constituency would be active in the Irish Parliament, in the Senate in Dublin rather than in the Dail. It is much more likely that Seamus Mallon or Gerry Adams would find a place in the Senate. Therefore they would not represent a constituency in the traditional sense in which Members of the House of Commons represent their constituencies.
1486
I do not believe that that is such an untoward outcome. If it helps in the peace process, if it helps in better relationships between the British Government and the Irish Government but, above all, if it contributes to peace in Northern Ireland, I think that it is not a bad thing.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I join with the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, in his total condemnation of terrorist violence. There is no justification for it and the guiding principle of this Government has been to counter the incidence of paramilitarism in every form and at every point. The people who support the Bill—the Irish Government, the British Government, the SDLP and the Women's Coalition—would not agree with the characterisation that this in any way promotes violence.
This Bill removes a disqualification for membership of the House of Commons. It is a Bill which the House of Commons has just passed, having put back Clause 1 by a substantial majority. It was not and could not have been in the manifesto because it is a product in part of the consequences of the Belfast agreement and the improving relationship between the British and Irish Governments. Both the Irish Government and the British Government believe that it would contribute to the peace process. They believe that it assists the relationship between the two governments which the governments believe are a substantial foundation for the improved relationships which have led to the continuation of the peace process.
That is a judgment that has been made by the British Government. It is a judgment that has been made by the Irish Government after very considerable thought and consideration of the issue. The Bill would allow Members of the Dail to sit in the House of Commons, the Northern Ireland Assembly or the other assemblies or parliaments in this country. The electorate would be able to decide for themselves whether they are prepared to countenance a Member who is or might be also a Member of the Dail.
I respectfully ask Members of this House to consider carefully the fact that the peace process is a matter where delicate judgments have to be made. Those are judgments which have to be made in part by the British and Irish Governments. They have made a judgment that this modest measure helps. I suggest that it would be wrong for this House to override that judgment.
Finally, in another place, my honourable friend Mr Howarth, the Under-Secretary of State, undertook to raise with the Irish Government the issue of reciprocity; that is, removing the requirement of Irish citizenship which is a requirement for membership of the Dail. I ask noble Lords not to insist on their amendment.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, we support the Belfast agreement, the British/Irish agreement and the cross-Border bodies to which agreement has given rise. The existence of those cross-Border bodies makes this Bill less necessary. They provide for the co-operation which has been spoken about.

1487
The noble and learned Lord spoke a moment ago of this Bill as a consequence of the Belfast agreement. I remind noble Lords that the Belfast agreement was hammered out between the parties involved, line by line and word by word over agonising weeks and days, eventually through Maundy Thursday into Good Friday. Every word was carefully weighed; and this measure was not a proposal on the table let alone in the agreement at that time.
We are told that we should accept it in the interests of good will between ourselves and the Irish although, as the noble and learned Lord said in his opening speech, we have our separate interests. Of course we want good will. But we were told a few days ago that if we passed the Police (Northern Ireland) Bill we would see better co-operation. Not only has that not materialised, the measure has so far been rejected.
We still believe that the Bill has great dangers. I was standing by to deal with new points from the Government's side but there were none. No new points have been raised. I wish, therefore, to press the amendment and seek the opinion of the House.
5.34 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 1B) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 138; Not-Contents, 158.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Ackner, L.

Denham, L.

Alexander of Weedon, L.

Donaldson of Lymington, L.

Allenby of Megjddo, V.

Eccles of Moulton, B.

Ampthill, L.

Eden of Winton, L.

Anelay of St Johns, B.

Elles, B.

Ashcroft, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Astor, V.

Elton, L.

Astor of Hever, L.

Feldman, L.

Attlee, E.

Ferrers, E.

Bagri, L.

Fitt, L.

Baker of Dorking, L.

Flather, B.

Blaker, L.

Fookes, B.

Blatch, B.

Freeman, L.

Blood, B.

Gilmour of Craigmillar, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Goschen, V.

Bridgeman, V.

Greenway, L.

Brigstocke, B.

Hanham, B.

Burnham, L. [Teller]

Hanningfield, L.

Buscombe, B.

Harris of High Cross, L.

Butterworth, L.

Harris of Peckham, L.

Byford, B.

Hayhoe, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Henley, L. [Teller]

Campbell of Croy, L.

Higgins, L.

Carlisle of Bucklow, L.

Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, L.

Chadlington, L.

Hogg, B.

Chalfont, L.

Hooper, B.

Colwyn, L.

Howe, E.

Cooke of Islandreagh, L.

Howe of Aberavon, L.

Cope of Berkeley, L.

Howell of Guildford, L.

Courtown, E.

Hunt of Wirral, L.

Craig of Radley, L.

Jopling, L.

Craigavon, V.

Kimball, L

Cranborne, V.

Kingsland, L.

Crickhowell, L.

Laing of Dunphail, L.

Cumberlege, B.

Laird, L.

Darcy de Knayth, B.

Liverpool, E.

1488

Lucas, L.

Rawlings, B.

Luke, L.

Rees, L.

Lyell, L.

Rees-Mogg, L.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Renfrew of Kaimsthorn, L.

McFarlane of Llandaff, B.

Renton, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Roberts of Conwy, L.

Mancroft, L.

Rogan, L.

Marlesford, L.

Rotherwick, L.

Marsh, L.

Saatchi, L.

Mayhew of Twysden, L.

St John of Fawsley, L.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Molyneaux of Killead, L.

Seccombe, B.

Monro of Langholm, L.

Selborne, E.

Monson, L.

Sharples, B.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Newton of Braintree, L.

Skidelsky, L.

Nickson, L.

Slim, V.

Noakes, B.

Stewartby, L.

Northbrook, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Norton of Louth, L.

Swinfen, L.

O'Cathain, B.

Taylor of Warwick, L.

Onslow, E.

Thatcher, B.

Oppenheim-Barnes, B.

Trefgarne, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Trumpington, B.

Parkinson, L.

Vivian, L.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Walker of Worcester, L.

Peel, E.

Walpole, L.

Pilkington of Oxenford, L.

Wilberforce, L.

Powell of Bayswater, L.

Williamson of Horton, L.

Prentice, L.

Willoughby de Broke, L.

Prior, L.

Young, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Falkland, V.

Addington, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Ahmed, L.

Faulkner of Worcester, L.

Alli, L.

Filkin, L.

Amos, B.

Gale, B.

Andrews, B.

Gibson of Market Rasen, B.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Gladwin of Clee, L,

Ashton of Upholland, B.

Goldsmith, L.

Attenborough, L.

Goodhart, L.

Bach, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Barker, B.

Grabiner, L.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Bernstein of Craigweil, L.

Greaves, L.

Blackstone, B.

Greengross, B.

Borrie, L.

Grenfell, L.

Bradshaw, L.

Guildford, Bp.

Bragg, L.

Hamwee, B.

Brennan, L.

Hardy of Wath, L.

Brett, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

Harris of Haringey, L.

Brookman, L.

Harris of Richmond, B.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Harrison, L.

Burlison, L.

Haskel, L.

Carter, L. [Teller]

Hayman, B.

Castle of Blackburn, B.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Chandos, V.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Clarke of Hampstead, L.

Howells of St. Davids, B.

Clement-Jones, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Hoyle, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Crawley, B.

Hunt of Chesterton, L.

Dahrendorf, L.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Davies of Oldham, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L. (Lord Chancellor)

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

Desai, L.

Jacobs, L.

Donoughue, L.

Jay of Paddington, B. (Lord Privy Seal)

Dubs, L.

Eatwell, L.

Judd, L.

Evans of Temple Guiting, L.

Kennedy of The Shaws, B.

Falconer of Thoroton, L.

King of West Bromwich, L.

Falkender, B.

Layard, L.

1489

Lea of Crondall, L.

Roper, L.

Lester of Herne Hill, L.

Russell, E.

Lipsey, L.

Russell-Johnston, L.

Lockwood, B.

Sainsbury of Turville, L.

Longford, E.

St. John of Bletso, L.

Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

Sandberg, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L. [Teller]

Sandwich, E.

Sawyer, L.

McIntosh of Hudnall, B.

Scotland of Asthal, B.

MacKenzie of Culkein, L.

Scott of Needham Market, B.

Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.

Sharman, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Shutt of Greetland, L.

McNally, L.

Simon, V.

Maddock, B.

Simon of Highbury, L.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Smith of Clifton, L.

Massey of Darwen, B.

Smith of Gilmorehill, B.

Methuen, L.

Stone of Blackheath, L.

Miller of Chilthorne Domer, B.

Strabolgi, L.

Mishcon, L.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

Mitchell, L.

Taverne, L.

Morris of Manchester, L.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Newby, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Northover, B.

Thornton, B.

Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay, L.

Tomlinson, L.

Parekh, L.

Tope, L.

Perry of Walton, L.

Tordoff, L.

Phillips of Sudbury, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Uddin, B.

Prys-Davies, L.

Wallace of Saltaire, L.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Walmsley, B.

Randall of St. Budeaux, L.

Warner, L.

Razzall, L.

Warwick of Undercliffe, B.

Watson of Richmond, L.

Rea, L.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Redesdale, L.

Whitaker, B.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Whitty, L.

Rennard, L.

Wilkins, B.

Richard, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Rogers of Riverside, L.

Woolmer of Leeds, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
5.45 p.m.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I am in some difficulty. The other place is still discussing the Criminal Justice and Court Services Bill and we have to await the Message that it has accepted the Lords amendments. The best I can do is to move that the House do adjourn during pleasure to await a Message from the Commons. We shall then display on the annunciator screens the time at which we expect to receive that Message. I believe I am correct in stating that once we have received it, I can then adjourn the House to await Prorogation.
Lord Henley: My Lords, before the noble Lord moves that Motion, I wonder whether he can give the House some idea as to when he thinks the other place might be sending forward the amendments. Could he suggest that we adjourn for two hours, three hours or whatever and then come back and let us know?
Lord Carter: My Lords, I think it would be safer to adjourn for the moment during pleasure so that I can find out what is happening. The procedure in the other place is not nearly as well whipped as ours! The debate on the Lords amendments to the Criminal Justice and
1490
Court Services Bill is taking longer than we expected. I believe that a number of Conservative Members are taking a particular interest in it. There is also a Business of the House Motion and another matter to be dealt with. Rather than adjourn for two or three hours and then find that we could come back at 7 p.m., it would be easier to adjourn during pleasure. The moment we are able to place a time on the annunciator screens, we shall do so.
Lord Henley: My Lords, the noble Lord the Government Chief Whip is a member of the Government. Therefore, we presume that he has some idea of what his colleagues are doing in another place.
Noble Lords: Oh!
Lord Henley: No, my Lords, I am serious. The Government have total control over their business in another place. They seem to be issuing guillotines every day, night and day. Can the noble Lord give us further advice as to when we might come back? There is no point in saying one hour or two hours. I cannot say. It is up to the Government, who control the other place, to say when we might come back. Can the noble Lord assist us?
Lord Carter: No, my Lords, I cannot. It is as simple as that. I understand that there is not a timetabled Motion on the Bill which is being discussed. That has to be completed in order for a Message to be sent, and I understand that it is open ended. I assure noble Lords that it would be simpler to adjourn the House during pleasure while we await a Message from the Commons. The moment we know that we will receive that Message, we can come together, receive it and adjourn for prorogation.
Lord Henley: My Lords, how will we know when we are coming back? Would it not be better if the noble Lord said that that would be at least one hour?
Lord Carter: My Lords, if it is easier, I can adjourn the House for one hour. If we find that we could have returned at 6.15 p.m., I think that the House will be cross. I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until 6.30 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 5.49 to 6.30 p.m.]
Lord Carter: My Lords, I am reliably informed that the other place will be able to send us a message at 7 o'clock on the Criminal Justice and Court Services Bill. At that time I shall be able to tell the House at what time we will prorogue.
I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until 7 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[House adjourned during pleasure from 6.31 to 7 p.m.]
Lord Carter: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until 7.30 p.m. for the Royal Commission.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 7.1 to 7.30 p.m.]

Criminal Justice and Court Services Bill
Returned from the Commons with the amendments agreed to.

Royal Commission
7.30 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Irvine of Lairg): My Lords, it not being convenient for Her Majesty personally to be present here this day, she has been pleased to cause a Commission under the Great Seal to be prepared for proroguing this present Parliament.
Then, the Lords Commissioners (being the Lord Chancellor, the Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Jay of Paddington), the Lord Marsh, the Lord Strathcylde and the Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank) being present and the Commons being at the Bar, the Lord Chancellor said: My Lords and Members of the House of Commons, Her Majesty, not thinking fit personally to be present here at this time, has been pleased to cause a Commission to be issued under the Great Seal, and thereby given Her Royal Assent to divers Acts, the Titles whereof are particularly mentioned, and by the said Commission has commanded us to declare and notify Her Royal Assent to the said several Acts, in the presence of you the Lords and Commons assembled for that purpose; and has also assigned to us and other Lords directed full power and authority in Her Majesty's name to prorogue this present Parliament. Which Commission you will now hear read.
A Commission for Royal Assent and Prorogation was read.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, in obedience to Her Majesty's Commands, and by virtue of the Commission which has been now read, We do declare and notify to you, the Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons in Parliament assembled, that Her Majesty has given Her Royal Assent to the several Acts in the Commission mentioned; and the Clerks are required to pass the same in the usual Form and Words.

Royal Assent
The following Acts received the Royal Assent:

Race Relations (Amendment) Act,

Children (Leaving Care) Act,

Freedom of Information Act,

Countryside and Rights of Way Act, Transport Act,

Insolvency Act,

Protection of Animals (Amendment) Act,

1492

Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act,

Disqualifications Act,

Criminal Justice and Court Services Act,

Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act.

Prorogation: Her Majesty's Speech
Her Majesty's most gracious Speech was then delivered to both Houses of Parliament by the Lord Chancellor (in pursuance of Her Majesty's Command) as follows:
"My Lords and Members of the House of Commons,
"My Government have taken action to secure economic stability and steady growth, based on their long-term objectives for monetary and fiscal policy. The goal is high and stable levels of growth and employment. My Government have sought to secure the conditions which enable them to increase investment in public services.
"Improving education continues to be my Government's highest priority. An Act has been passed to establish a new Learning and Skills Council to secure high standards for post-16 education and training and a new emphasis on securing skills needed in the economy.
"Legislation has been passed to improve health and social care, reforming the system for protection of vulnerable people.
"My Government have published an NHS Plan, setting out a programme of investment and reform for the health service. The plan will redesign NHS services to focus on the needs of patients, and will be supported by a sustained increase in NHS funding.
"To ensure high levels of employment, my Government are continuing the New Deal to help more young people and the long-term unemployed, and announced the creation of a new Working Age agency to continue the progress made on developing Welfare to Work policies.
"My Government are continually looking for ways to improve productivity, including in the public sector. The spending plans announced in July were accompanied by Public Service Agreements setting out targets for service improvement. An Act has been passed to introduce the latest accounting methods in Whitehall.
"My Government are committed to delivering a competitive and well-regulated economy. An Act has been passed which reforms the regulatory framework for the gas and electricity sectors in England and Wales. Legislation has been enacted to transform the Post Office into a plc owned by the Government. Legislation has also been passed to improve the regulation of financial services and markets, establishing the Financial Services Authority as the single statutory regulator.
"An Act has been passed to remove legal barriers and create a framework of trust to make it easier for commercial transactions and government services to take place electronically.
"An Act has been passed to reform the child support system. It also reforms the State Earnings Related Pension Scheme through the introduction of a State Second Pension and provides for the withdrawal of benefits from offenders who fail to complete community sentences.
"Measures have been put forward to reduce crime. An Act has been passed to improve the protection of children from violent and sex offenders and to strengthen community sentences. Legislation has been enacted to provide new powers for the police and courts to tackle disorder connected with football matches.
"An Act has been passed to put in place permanent UK-wide legislation against terrorism. Legislation has also been passed to update and regulate law enforcement capabilities to address changes in technology and the introduction of the Human Rights Act.
"An Act has been passed which fulfils my Government's promise to legislate on a range of transport issues. This reforms air traffic control, railways and local transport services. My Government have published a 10-year plan for the modernisation of the country's transport system.
"My Government have continued their plans for the reform of local government. An Act has been passed to improve its accountability and innovation.
"An Act has been passed to give the public a new right of access to open countryside. It also improves the law on rights of way and the management of Sites of Special Scientific Interest and Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty and strengthens the enforcement of wildlife law.
"My Government have continued their programme of constitutional reform. Legislation has been enacted which will give the public a statutory right of access to information held by public authorities.
"An Act has been passed to regulate the funding of political parties and campaign expenditure and to ensure the fair conduct of referendums.
"My Government are determined to improve equality of opportunity. An Act has been passed outlawing race discrimination in certain public functions and placing a duty on specified public authorities to promote race equality.
"My Government have continued to co-operate with the devolved administrations in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland in the interests of all the people of the United Kingdom.
"In Northern Ireland my Government have worked closely with the Irish Government to secure full implementation of the Good Friday agreement. They have fulfilled their commitment to transfer powers to the Northern Ireland Assembly in accordance with the wishes of the people as expressed in a referendum.
"An Act has been passed to implement recommendations of the Report of the Independent Commission on Policing in Northern Ireland. My Government will continue to implement other parts of the Good Friday agreement within their responsibility.
"Members of the House of Commons,
"I thank you for the provision you have made for the work and dignity of the Crown and for the public service.
"My Lords and Members of the House of Commons,
"The Duke of Edinburgh and I were pleased to receive the State Visit of Her Majesty Queen Margrethe of Denmark and Prince Henrik in February.
"We recall with pleasure our Visit to Australia in March. Similarly we were delighted to pay a State Visit to Italy and a Visit to the Holy See in October.
"My Government have continued to take a leading role in the European Union. The Special European Council in Lisbon signalled new developments in Europe's approach to economic and social reform.
"Preparing for enlargement is a challenge for the European Union, and my Government are playing a key role. My Government have worked for practical measures to strengthen the European Union's foreign and security policy and continue to work with our allies to strengthen and modernise NATO.
"My Government have made a large political, military and financial commitment to build peace and stability in the Balkans. They have played a leading role in helping to rebuild Kosovo.
"My Government have taken decisive action in support of the UN operation in Sierra Leone, and continued to support the UN in bringing self-determination to the people of East Timor.
"In the G8 and other forums my Government have taken a leading role in tackling issues of poverty eradication, debt relief and the causes of conflict.
"My Lords and Members of the House of Commons,
"I pray that the blessing of Almighty God may attend you".
After which the Lord Chancellor said:
My Lords and Members of the House of Commons, by virtue of Her Majesty's Commission which has been now read We do, in Her Majesty's name, and in obedience to Her Majesty's Commands, prorogue this Parliament to the 6th day of December, to be then here holden, and this Parliament is accordingly prorogued to Wednesday, the 6th day of December next.
Parliament was prorogued at one minute before eight o'clock.

  NMEC: Solvency
  NMEC: Solvency
  Millennium Dome Site: Sale
  Millennium Dome Site: Sale
  NMEC: Indebtedness
  NMEC: Indebtedness
  Northern Ireland: Bill of Rights
  Northern Ireland: Bill of Rights
  Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission
  Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission
  Disqualifications Bill
  Disqualifications Bill
  Northern Ireland: Appointments
  Northern Ireland: Appointments
  The Queen's Speech: Disclosure
  The Queen's Speech: Disclosure
  Cabinet Office Website Search Engine
  Cabinet Office Website Search Engine
  Minister for e-Commerce
  Minister for e-Commerce
  e-Envoy: Responsibilities
  e-Envoy: Responsibilities
  European Union Committee Scrutiny
  European Union Committee Scrutiny
  Game Meat from USA and Canada: Import Controls
  Game Meat from USA and Canada: Import Controls
  Farm Incomes
  Farm Incomes
  MAFF Site, Tolworth: Disposal
  MAFF Site, Tolworth: Disposal
  European Union Sugar Regime
  European Union Sugar Regime
  Zimbabwe: Government Funding
  Zimbabwe: Government Funding
  Albania: UN Weapons Collection Programme
  Albania: UN Weapons Collection Programme
  Trafficking and Sexual Exploitation of Women
  Trafficking and Sexual Exploitation of Women
  European Union Development Policy
  European Union Development Policy
  European Development Assistance
  European Development Assistance
  Bailiff Law
  Bailiff Law
  Takeovers Directive: European Parliament Reaction
  Takeovers Directive: European Parliament Reaction
  Miners' Compensation
  Miners' Compensation
  Late Payments: Research Findings
  Late Payments: Research Findings
  European Security and Defence: Access to NATO Assets
  European Security and Defence: Access to NATO Assets
  Armed Forces: Strategic Sea-Lift Capability
  Armed Forces: Strategic Sea-Lift Capability
  Pension Credit
  Pension Credit
  Winter Fuel Payments
  Winter Fuel Payments
  Fire Safety Legislation
  Fire Safety Legislation
  Fire Safety Inspections
  Fire Safety Inspections
  Burglary: Repeat Offences
  Burglary: Repeat Offences
  Tamil Asylum Seekers: Medical Foundation Report
  Tamil Asylum Seekers: Medical Foundation Report
  Interception Warrants
  Interception Warrants
  Asylum Seekers: Appeal Procedure
  Asylum Seekers: Appeal Procedure
  Council of Europe Member Countries: Prisoners' Voting Rights
  Council of Europe Member Countries: Prisoners' Voting Rights
  Israeli/Palestinian Peace Negotiations
  Israeli/Palestinian Peace Negotiations
  Kuwaiti Prisoners of War in Iraq
  Kuwaiti Prisoners of War in Iraq
  Democratic Republic of Congo: Atrocities
  Democratic Republic of Congo: Atrocities
  Sudan: Human Rights
  Sudan: Human Rights
  River Danube: Clearance
  River Danube: Clearance
  Human Rights: Measurement Criteria
  Human Rights: Measurement Criteria
  UN/China Technical Co-operation Agreement: Human Rights
  UN/China Technical Co-operation Agreement: Human Rights
  UK Veto and the European Commission
  UK Veto and the European Commission
  EU Single Market Issues: Use of Veto
  EU Single Market Issues: Use of Veto
  Specified Risk Materials (Amendment) Regulations 2000
  Specified Risk Materials (Amendment) Regulations 2000
  NHS Powered Wheelchairs and Vouchers
  NHS Powered Wheelchairs and Vouchers
  Infertility Treatment: Provision Variations
  Infertility Treatment: Provision Variations
  Employment and Social Policy Council,/ 27–28 November
  Employment and Social Policy Council,/ 27–28 November
  Joint Committee on Human Rights
  Joint Committee on Human Rights
  Looted Art
  Looted Art
  Commonwealth Games 2002: Shooting Event Arrangements
  Commonwealth Games 2002: Shooting Event Arrangements