Sitting of 10 April 2001

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

  Fluoridation
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton: What plans he has to introduce legislation on the fluoridation of drinking water. [156283]
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Ms Gisela Stuart): Over the last 40 years, the fluoridation of water in selected areas has made a worthwhile contribution to improving oral health, but we are taking further expert advice on the effects of fluoridation before considering whether changes should be made to the current legislation which leaves the water undertakers to decide whether to agree to health authority requests for new fluoridation schemes.
  Mr. Winterton: I am personally strongly opposed to the mass fluoridation—the mass medication—Of the public water supply, so I ask the Minister how the present Government and the Medicines Control Agency can reconcile their policy and practice with United Kingdom and European medicines legislation because the whole purpose of adding fluoride to drinking water is to treat, prevent or cure a disease. That is the intention of those authorising the process, and that is how the consumer perceives it. Is there going to be legislation compulsorily to medicate our total water supply?
  Ms Stuart: It was our desire to establish a good scientific evidential basis for fluoridation. The York report was published last October and as a consequence of that we have asked the Medical Research Council to provide a better evidential base; but as the hon. Gentleman rightly pointed out, the purpose is to improve the dental health of this nation, so I hope that, despite the fact that we shall be asking for evidence, he welcomes the tremendous investment in South Cheshire health authority, which has approved some 27,000 extra registrations for dentists. He now has a dental access centre in his constituency, and some £60,000 was invested in the dental care development fund. We are therefore working on both fronts—to improve the dental health of the nation and to obtain better evidence.
  Mr. David Hinchliffe: My hon. Friend is aware that this is a hugely contentious issue. I wonder
  832
  whether, in the light of the fact that the Government are committed to devolving decision making in a range of areas to local people, there may be a commitment in principle to enable local ballots to take place to ensure local determination on whether fluoride is added to water supplies.
  Ms Stuart: Despite the number of applications that we have had for fluoridation, none of them has succeeded simply because we have made it absolutely clear that the majority of the population would have to be in favour of any extra fluoridation, should it be implemented.
  Mr. Andrew Robathan: But is not the evidence extremely mixed, including that from the York report? Although it appears that fluoride does have some good topical effect on teeth, too much fluoride discolours teeth and we do not yet know its long-term effects on the bone mass. Fluoride is, after all, a poison. Will the Minister comment on that?
  Ms Stuart: Of course there are also hugely varying levels of naturally occurring fluoridation in the country—there are many areas where fluoride occurs naturally in the water. That is why there is a two-pronged attack. We are not only looking at the evidential basis of what adding fluoride would do, but at the same time improving access to and the quality of the dental services available. In particular, we are paying attention to what happens to children—setting up pilot projects that encourage young children to brush their teeth more frequently. We are working along both lines, to improve dental health and to do further research on fluoridation.

  Community Disability Equipment
  Mr. Tom Levitt: If he will make a statement about the provision of community disability equipment. [156284]
  The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr. John Hutton): An additional £105 million is being made available to the national health service for community equipment services over the three years from April 2001, and local authorities are receiving additional provision in their personal social services settlements. New guidance aimed at improving these services was issued last month and copies of the guidance are available in the Library.
  Mr. Levitt: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. In parts of the country such as my own, where assessments are carried out by social services in one local authority and the implementation of disability services in the home is carried out by the housing authority in another, there is some confusion. I am sure that the guidelines will be very helpful. Would my hon. Friend note that last Friday I opened a disability equipment loan centre organised by the British Red Cross in Buxton, and take this opportunity to welcome the co-operation of the voluntary sector in this way?
  Mr. Hutton: Yes, I certainly would. May I start by wishing my hon. Friend many happy returns as I believe that it is his birthday? Also, I hope that he will have another happy return in the not-too-distant future.

  833
  I certainly agree with my hon. Friend about the importance of the voluntary sector and the role that it can play and the contribution it can make in this important area. I strongly agree that there is an overwhelming case for the integration of social services and NHS equipment services at a local level. My hon. Friend will be aware that the Government are committed to seeing that take place, and we have issued guidance to local authorities and the NHS to ensure that that can take place in 2004.
  Mrs. Caroline Spelman: Despite the Prime Minister's personal intervention, taking responsibility for community disability a year ago, it remains an area of failure, although we welcome the announcement of the money today. However, the Audit Commission's recent report—Called, rather ironically, "Fully Equipped"—States that poor quality services are stripping disabled people of their dignity. Will the Secretary of State match our proposal to establish a single fundholder to pay out incapacity benefit and with the power to purchase physical aids, physiotherapy and a range of other medical treatments?
  Mr. Hutton: We need to be absolutely clear about one thing: the problems did not start on 1 May 1997. In fact, the report to which the hon. Lady refers represents just as much a description of the Tory years, when they were managing the NHS, as anything else. Of course, we would take her strictures on the subject a little more seriously if she and her hon. Friends would match our spending on social services, because she will be aware that the report deals with social services issues. She will also be aware that until and unless the Conservative party matches that spending, her words and her crocodile tears will be dismissed as completely contemptible.

  Cancer Treatment
  Mr. Peter L. Pike: What major capital investments in cancer treatment facilities have been made in the last two years. [156285]
  The Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Alan Milburn): Some £95 million from the new opportunities fund and £100 million of NHS resources are being invested in cancer treatment facilities, and 56 new linear accelerators, 95 new CT scanners and 35 MRI scanners have now been allocated across the health service.
  Mr. Pike: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. I am sure that he will be aware of the announcement last week of the additional resources for the Royal Preston hospital, which will ensure that the facilities in that hospital can meet the needs of the people of Lancashire. We welcome that, but can he assure us that that hospital will be able to meet the needs of all the people in Lancashire in the future and supplement the facilities that have been traditionally provided at the Christie hospital in Manchester?
  Mr. Milburn: There is a very important role for both hospitals, and it is extremely important that we invest in more equipment and staff in those cancer services and, indeed, in greater prevention of cancer in the first place. As my hon. Friend is well aware, after decades of the shameful neglect of cancer services, the investment is now being made. It is worth my hon. Friend's reminding his
  834
  constituents in the weeks to come that, under the previous Government, not a single penny was earmarked for cancer services funding, but under this Government in this financial year £280 million extra will be invested in modernising cancer services.
  Mr. Peter Lilley: Is the Secretary of State convinced that the NHS has yet got the balance right between surgical and chemical or radiotherapy cancer treatments? Is he aware that this country has pioneered the microsurgical treatment of cancer, which increased survival rates and reduced the complications and indignities suffered by patients when it was adopted and disseminated abroad? Why is not more effort being put into disseminating those skills throughout the NHS?
  Mr. Milburn: With all respect to the right hon. Gentleman, a big effort is being made to ensure that not only chemotherapy and improved radiography services and so on are available, but that more surgical options are available to cancer patients. As he is aware, during the past year or so, we have made great strides in ensuring that, although all the problems have not been solved, there is at least progress on the waiting times that cancer patients have to endure for initial outpatient appointments. We set a target for patients to be seen within a fortnight. Thankfully, about 100,000 women with suspected breast cancer have now been seen within a matter of weeks, rather than months, which was the situation previously, and they go on to a variety of treatments, including surgery.
  The right hon. Gentleman is right to suggest that we must get the balance right, but to do so we must ensure that the investment is sustained. If he is as concerned as he says he is about those issues, he might have a word with his colleagues on the Conservative Front Bench to remind them that watching Labour's health funding for the NHS is an important priority for his party.
  Mr. Michael Clapham: I welcome the investment in cancer treatment, but, as my right hon. Friend will be aware, mesothelioma is a particularly nasty form of cancer, caused by exposure to asbestos. This year, there have been 1,500 deaths from mesothelioma, and Professor Peto's forecast is that that will rise considerably and peak in about 2010 or 2020. He will also be aware that the Macmillan foundation is training a network of nurses to provide care for people suffering from mesothelioma, but there is a need in the initial stages for an information line. Will he consider how an information line may be set up and co-ordinated in the first stages to support that network of nurses?
  Mr. Milburn: If my hon. Friend cares to write to me with his suggestions. I will gladly consider them. He also made an important broader point, which is that inevitably in the NHS service we often focus on how we can improve treatment services. However, as we all know, a huge number of deaths from illnesses such as cancer and coronary heart disease are preventable by action in the workplace and by tackling such things as smoking. We are committed to such preventive action, and it will be worth my hon. Friend's reminding his constituents that while the Government are backing measures that mean

  835
  that fewer people will smoke in future, most notably by a ban on tobacco advertising, the Conservative party, despite its warm words, refuses to back such a ban.
  Mr. Philip Hammond: Labour's manifesto at the last general election pledged to end waiting for cancer surgery. Does the Secretary of State consider the pledge to have been met?
  Mr. Milburn: As the hon. Gentleman knows, we set a target for reducing—[Interruption.] If the hon. Gentleman can wait before asking another question, he will get an answer to the first. We set a target for reducing the time that it takes to get people with suspected cancer into hospital. I am pleased to say that between 95 and 97 per cent. of women with suspected breast cancer are now being seen within a fortnight. We have set additional targets for people to be seen within a fortnight for all forms of suspected cancer, including lung and prostate cancer. As a consequence, we are reducing the waiting times for all forms of cancer treatment.

  Female Sterilisation
  Fiona Mactaggart: If he will publish guidelines for NHS trusts about the information to be given to women facing sterilisation operations relating to the chances of failure. [156286]
  The Minister for Public Health (Yvette Cooper): The Department of Health funded the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists to review and publish guidelines for sterilisation for all its members. The guidelines state clearly that all women should be informed, before a sterilisation operation, that the failure rate is around one in 200.
  Fiona Mactaggart: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. My question was inspired by my constituent, Marilyn Kearney, whose daughter Phoebe was born after Marilyn had had a failed sterilisation. She was not properly informed of the one in 200 failure rate; indeed, the person who operated on her thought that it was much lower. Since her plight has been publicised, women throughout the country have been in touch with her to say that they were not informed of the failure rate. What can the Government do to make sure that women undergoing the operation know that they risk a one in 200 chance of it failing, which might influence their decision about whether to proceed?
  Yvette Cooper: My hon. Friend makes an important point. It is critical that women get full, accurate information before they make such important decisions. The guidelines to which I referred were disseminated to all the members of the royal college and are widely available to the trusts. However, we will pursue with the royal colleges what further measures might be possible to ensure that the guidelines are being adhered to throughout the country.
  Mrs. Marion Roe: Is the Minister aware that I was fortunate in gaining a place in the ballot for private Members' Bills in this Session and that my Bill covers standardised patient consent forms for all patients in the NHS and the independent sector? Does she agree that
  836
  all patients should be given a standardised form, explaining the treatment that they are about to receive and its risks and benefits? Will she support my Bill and its principles?
  Yvette Cooper: I certainly support the principles of informed consent for all patients. We are keen to see measures that would improve the information given to patients as well as the counselling and support that they receive. It is not simply about providing patients with written information and particular facts; they must also have the chance to ask questions and to receive proper counselling, especially when they have conditions or face operations for which choices have to be made or where there are alternatives to the treatment that is being offered.

  Acute Care (Waiting Times)
  Mr. Owen Paterson: If he will make a statement on waiting times for acute care. [156287]
  The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr. John Denham): Average waiting times for admission to hospital have fallen to 13 weeks, compared with 15 weeks in June 1998. By the end of 2005, no one will wait more than three months for a routine first out-patient appointment or more than six months for non-urgent admission to hospital under the targets set out in the NHS plan.
  Mr. Paterson: In that case, will the Minister please telephone Dr. Ian Rummens, the secretary of my local medical committee, who has said that, despite there being a very mild flu epidemic this winter, it has been impossible to get patients into acute beds in any Shropshire hospital and into hospital in Hereford and Wrexham Maelor? Will the Minister please ring Dr. Rummens and address the question of increasing the number of acute beds?
  Mr. Denham: I am not clinically qualified to know whether the hon. Gentleman suffers from amnesia, but he certainly has problems with his memory. About 40,000 hospital beds were lost under the previous Government, and this past winter has been the first for many years in which the number of general and acute beds went up. There were also more critical care beds in the national health service. The statistics for Shropshire show that the number of in-patients on the waiting list has fallen from the peak of 9,635 to 7,200 in February this year.
  Ms Rosie Winterton: What can be done to ensure that general practitioners give accurate information to patients about waiting times? I was contacted recently by a number of constituents who complained about how long they had been told they would have to wait for care. When I looked into the matter, I found that the information that they had been given was wildly inaccurate. When I told them that, they felt rather aggrieved and there was perhaps the suspicion that they had been put under pressure to seek private treatment to receive quicker care. What can be done to make sure that GPs provide accurate information to their patients about such matters?
  Mr. Denham: I would certainly be very concerned if there was any suggestion that patients had been encouraged

  837
  to go private in those circumstances. We have made it clear to hospital trusts that we wish them to provide local GPs with consultant-specific information about waiting times, so that GPs are able not only to inform their patient correctly and accurately about any likely length of wait but can decide according to the condition of their patient whether to refer to a specific consultant with specific expertise or whether a generic referral to a particular team of consultants might be more appropriate and might involve a shorter wait. We have publicised that guidance over the past year to the NHS, and I will be happy to follow the matter up in my hon. Friend's area to see whether that system is operating. That is the way the problem should be tackled.
  Mr. Nick Harvey: Given the current concern about the increasing incidence of cases of tuberculosis, with a 50 per cent. rise in London over the past decade, is not the Minister concerned about the waiting times to see thoracic consultants? They have more than doubled since the Government came to office and have gone up fivefold in London. Is not that in no small part due to the fact that we have half as many specialists per head of population as the European average? Although we know that the Government have plans to recruit more doctors and nurses, that will take time. What can the Government do to accelerate the process for this particular speciality?
  Mr. Denham: The hon. Gentleman is right to say that we have made clear our plans to increase the number of consultants, including thoracic consultants, in the NHS in the years to come. We take TB very seriously. As he knows, there has been a worldwide resurgence in cases of TB, so that is why it is important to expand the capacity of the NHS to deal with the health problems that arise.
  The hon. Gentleman referred to London. London, as a region, has already set itself the target of increasing the number of TB-trained nurses, and that is why we are also expanding the number of doctors and nurses across the board.
  Mr. Christopher Leslie: Is it not true that cutting waiting times depends not only on the availability of consultants, but on having sufficient theatre space and theatre time? Will my right hon. Friend assure me that the extra £116 million invested in Bradford royal infirmary, which serves my constituents, will help to contribute to reduced waiting times in the future?
  Mr. Denham: The unprecedented investment that the Government are making in the NHS is enabling us to expand its capacity. I was able to refer earlier to the increased numbers of beds in the NHS, and we have 17,000 more nurses and more than 6,000 more doctors in the NHS. The capital programme that we have under way, which includes the largest ever hospital-building programme in the history of the NHS, will clearly expand operating theatre capacity. Those measures taken together can give us confidence that we will continue to cut the time that it takes people to receive treatment.
  Mr. Julian Brazier: Is the Minister aware that behind the Casualty Watch revelation that the worst wait of all in an accident and emergency unit was at the Kent and Canterbury hospital, is a burgeoning list of
  838
  delays in elective surgery, as reflected in my postbag which has a flood of cases of delayed operations? Are the Government still unwilling to review their plans to spend £102 million reconfiguring buildings in a programme that will provide no extra capacity whatsoever, when half the area's consultants unanimously decided in a meeting to pass a motion saying that there was insufficient capacity to provide decent health care?
  Mr. Denham: First, the Government have exceeded their manifesto commitment to cut waiting lists. The in-patient waiting list is 125,000 below the figure that we inherited. As for the Casualty Watch figures, the hon. Gentleman should be a little careful. Two out of the top three cases were kept in the accident and emergency department because of a clinical decision; it was not that no beds were available in the rest of the hospital. The doctors involved made a clinical decision that it was right to keep those patients under observation in the accident and emergency department. It would be wrong to believe that a lack of capacity lay behind their treatment.
  Of course I am aware that the proposals for the hon. Gentleman's area are controversial. However, I believe that the Government's investment in them will allow us to deliver a national health service in east Kent of which he can be proud. Controversies often surround such issues. That is why decisions are taken only after careful consultation and consideration.
  Mr. Steve McCabe: I suppose that if 50 per cent. are unanimous, the other half take a different view. However, does my right hon. Friend agree that the best way to bring down and keep down waiting lists is to abolish the nonsense of the internal market, to sustain investment in the health service and to modernise it? The only people who can expect to gain from the Conservatives' policies are those who can afford to buy their treatment.
  Mr. Denham: My hon. Friend is correct: we need to get our priorities right. One of the Government's priorities has been to save £1 billion from the bureaucracy associated with the internal market and to plough it into patient care so that we can treat more patients. He will be aware that the Conservative party proposes to remove £340 million from the money that is invested to treat people on the waiting list, which would cut something like 310,000 operations for cataracts, hernias, knees, hips and so on. That is music to the ears of those who wish to promote private insurance, but a great concern to his constituents and to mine.
  Dr. Liam Fox: In its 1997 manifesto, Labour said that it would take
  "100,000 people off waiting lists"
  and cut the cost of bureaucracy. Will the Minister confirm that his Department's figures show that the cost of running the Department of Health has increased by £30 million? Contrary to the impression that he just tried to give the House, the total number of patients waiting—in-patients plus out-patients—has increased by 93,000 in

  839
  England and Wales. Can he spare us the spin for once, admit that the figures are correct and tell us that Labour has failed on both its main pledges?
  Mr. Denham: No, I shall not do that because the truth is that, when we were elected in 1997, about which the hon. Gentleman has reminded us, in-patient and out-patient waiting lists were going up. This Government have successfully turned the corner on both those waiting lists. In-patient lists are down by more than we promised in the manifesto and out-patient waiting times are also falling. Over the past year, for the first time since records began, both in-patient and out-patient lists have been falling.

  Coronary Heart Disease
  Ms Ruth Kelly: If he will make a statement about his plans to cut the incidence of coronary heart disease. [156288]
  The Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Alan Milburn): We have made investment in treating coronary heart disease and its prevention a priority. There are more heart specialists and more heart operations, and there is more help for people to give up smoking—the biggest avoidable cause of death from heart disease.
  Ms Kelly: Is my right hon. Friend aware that people who have a family member with heart disease are four times more likely to suffer the same disease themselves? In the light of that fact, will he congratulate the British Heart Foundation, which has visited more than 40 towns and cities to publicise that issue? Does he agree that raising awareness of heart disease is incredibly important in combating it?
  Mr. Milburn: I very much agree with my hon. Friend. The British Heart Foundation plays a very important role, not just in public education but in the support that it offers families who are hit by this dreadful disease. Heart disease is the biggest killer in the country; it kills around 150,000 people a year. I know that the BHF is looking to launch a major research programme into the genetics behind heart disease, and that is welcome. I hope that my hon. Friend will join me in welcoming the recent announcements of my colleagues in the Department of Trade and Industry. An extra £71 million is to be invested, jointly with the Higher Education Funding Council and the Wellcome Trust, in some of these areas.
  I notice that the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) was quoted in the papers this morning as saying that the £71 million is being spent on the treatment of phobias. Nothing could be further from the truth. The money is, for example, for research at the university of Oxford into computer simulation to aid better treatment and drugs for heart disease and diabetes; for research at the university of Glasgow into genes that trigger conditions such as depression, asthma and cancer; and certainly for research, in places such as Nottingham and University college, London, into human brain disorders including schizophrenia, autism and memory decline among the elderly. I hope that my hon. Friend will welcome that, unlike the hon. Gentleman.
  While I am referring to the hon. Gentleman, I might add that I would have thought he would welcome research into phobias; after all, it could be helpful for the
  840
  Conservative party, given the prevalence of Europhobia, homophobia and xenophobia among some of those on the Conservative Benches.
  Mrs. Ann Winterton: Is the Secretary of State aware of the unequivocal support of my constituents who have suffered from the most serious form of coronary heart disease for the Wythenshawe heart transplant centre, which is under threat of closure? Is he aware that that is a centre of excellence, the work of which is most highly valued throughout the north-west? Its location is easily accessible for patients from south of Manchester, including those in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton).
  Mr. Milburn: Keep it in the family, as they say.
  On the serious issue that the hon. Lady raises, as she knows, the Department and Ministers have received representations not only from people in the north-west, which we take very seriously, but from colleagues in Sheffield and Birmingham too. Some difficult decisions will have to be taken, and they must be informed by the best clinical advice that we can get. She is aware of some of the clinical issues around these matters. As yet, Ministers have not received formal advice. I hope that we can make the right decision as soon as we are able, but, in the meantime, we hear the representations.
  Angela Smith: I know that the Secretary of State is aware that prevention and early intervention are key to tackling heart disease and greatly reduce the risk. Does he therefore accept that creating health awareness at a young age is the key? Will he strengthen links between the Department for Education and Employment and the Department of Health to ensure that sports education in schools is given very high priority?
  Mr. Milburn: That is very important. There are certain things that we need to do in the short term, and things that we must do in the longer term. There is more that we can do in the short term to increase the number of cardiologists, cardio-thoracic surgeons and heart operations, and that is happening, but the greatest gain in tackling coronary heart disease will come from improved prevention, rather than improved treatment. As my hon. Friend says, sport in schools is incredibly important, as is diet among school children. She is aware that we have introduced an initiative to provide free fruit to children in school for the first time. It is hugely welcome in the schools where it has been tried out, and I have no doubt that in the longer term it will bring great benefit in terms of health gain, not just among the children who receive a free piece of school fruit, but among their families.
  Dr. Liam Fox: The Secretary of State will be aware that figures show that failure to screen adequately means that up to 30 per cent. of coronary care beds in the United Kingdom are occupied by patients who do not have a cardiac problem. In the Government's overall strategy, what is the place of Troponin testing, and what are the Government's plans?
  Mr. Milburn: We need to do more not just in respect of screening, but, as the hon. Gentleman is aware, to ensure that when patients are referred by their general practitioner to hospital, they are treated as quickly as possible. That is

  841
  why we have established 130 rapid-access chest pain clinics—first, to ensure that the people who need heart treatment get it as quickly as possible and, secondly, to screen out the people who do not have heart disease but who might have some other form of chest pain. That is what the rapid-access chest pain clinics are doing. They are widely available in many hospitals across the country and by 2003 they will be available in all hospitals. If the hon. Gentleman is as serious as he says he is about tackling coronary heart disease and improving cardiac care, I hope that he agrees that it was a fundamental mistake of the Government of which he was a member not to earmark a single penny piece for improvement in heart services.

  Carers
  Mr. Huw Edwards: If he will make a statement about co-ordination of health and social services policy to support carers. [156289]
  The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr. John Denham): The national service frameworks for mental health, older people and coronary heart disease will help to ensure greater attention to carers' needs across the NHS and social services. The additional flexibility introduced by the Health Act 1999, together with the new powers to establish care trusts, will also lead to closer integration of health and social care. By 2003–04, an additional 75,000 carers will benefit from extra services.
  Mr. Edwards: Does my right hon. Friend agree that more has been done to support carers in the first four years of this Government than at any other time in the past, and that with the national carers strategy, the Carers and Disabled Children Act 2000 and the increase in social security benefits for carers introduced this week, there is a significant improvement in provision for the 9,000 carers in Monmouthshire? Given that the Conservative party has made no commitment to match the Government's commitment to social services spending, does my right hon. Friend accept that the Carers and Disabled Children Act 2000, which is to be introduced by local authorities later this year, would be jeopardised?
  Mr. Denham: My hon. Friend makes some important points. It is worth quoting Diana Whitworth, the chief executive of the Carers National Association, on the publication of the recent national service framework for the elderly. She said of the policies in that document:
  "Carers have often been marginalised or excluded by healthcare professionals. The NSF"—
  that is, the national service framework—
  "promises to tackle that once and for all."
  That is just one example of the endorsement of the extra investment in financial support and services for carers that the Government have introduced. My hon. Friend is right to say that all that is threatened by the Conservative party's refusal to promise to match our investment in social services.
  Mr. Michael Fabricant: Will the Minister join me in praising the service provided by the minor injuries unit and respite care beds at the Victoria hospital in Lichfield? Will he finally end the confusion that has
  842
  reigned for the past three years regarding the future of the Victoria hospital? Will he say once and for all that the Victoria hospital will remain open?
  Mr. Denham: Few people have done more to create a cloud of uncertainty over the future of the Lichfield hospital than the hon. Gentleman. What I can say to him and to other hon. Members is that the investment that the Government will make in support for carers, as well as that which we are making in intermediate care, provides the best guarantee of continuing good provision of community facilities for those who need care and respite care. He will understand that all that is threatened by some of the policies that he supports.

  Smoking (Young People)
  Mr. David Taylor: What progress is being made in preventing young people from taking up smoking. [156290]
  The Minister for Public Health (Yvette Cooper): The most recent evidence shows that smoking rates among children aged from 11 to 15 fell from 13 per cent. in 1996 to 9 per cent. in 1999, while adult smoking levels also fell. However, smoking rates among 16 to 19-year-olds rose between 1992 and 1998. That is why the Government have put in place a broad strategy to cut deaths from smoking, including the banning of tobacco advertising, which has a significant impact on smoking among children and young people.
  Mr. Taylor: In the next 24 hours, 500 British teenagers will, on average, take a decade off their lives by taking up smoking. Is my hon Friend convinced that we can reduce that dreadful toll by hitting the targets set out in the 1998 White Paper, "Smoking Kills"? Will she introduce a national scheme to provide children with proof-of-age cards, which have been successful in parts of Leicestershire and elsewhere in reducing under-age tobacco sales? Will she read the Hansard record for 24 April, when my ten-minute Bill will be debated, and take the opportunity to review those topics?
  Yvette Cooper: My hon. Friend is right that smoking has a huge impact on health. We have already made progress on under-16s, but we have considerably more to do. He mentioned proof-of-age cards, which can play an important part in enforcement strategies to cut under-age sales. We are keen to encourage the sort of programme that has been initiated in Leicestershire, and we shall consider his proposals in detail.
  Mr. Nick St. Aubyn: Given the appalling increase since the Government came to power in the number of teenagers who smoke illegally imported tobacco, is not it one of the worst cases of Government mismanagement that they increase taxes on tobacco while failing to increase the services and Customs and Excise men to stop the smuggling? It is their fault that these teenagers are now smoking illegal cigarettes.
  Yvette Cooper: I must point out that smuggling is a serious problem not only in this country, but in Italy, which has low duty rates. Smuggling is a problem of organised crime and not of duty rates. That is exactly why the

  843
  Government are investing more than £200 million over three years in tackling smuggling. The hon. Gentleman's party has not pledged to match that investment. The Conservatives may have made commitments in respect of investing in the health service, but I should point out that, unless they can match our investment in tackling smuggling, as well as in personal social services, they will not have the impact on health and on saving lives that is needed.

  Social Inequalities
  Mr. Hilary Benn: If he will make a statement on social inequalities in health. [156291]
  The Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Alan Milburn): Across the Government, there is a commitment to tackle health inequalities. For the first time, new national targets have been set to reduce the health gap among children and between geographical areas. We have backed that commitment with extra resources for the poorest parts of the country.
  Mr. Benn: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that reply. Is he aware of the research published by Dr. Richard Mitchell and Professor Daniel Dorling of the university of Leeds, and Dr. Mary Shaw of the university of Bristol, which suggests that about 7,500 lives a year could be saved among people under the age of 65 if inequalities in wealth were to decrease? Does he therefore agree, unlike the previous Government, that reducing poverty has as big a part to play in reducing health inequalities as the improvements in primary health care to which he is committed?
  Mr. Milburn: I agree with my hon. Friend. As all hon. Members know from their constituencies, there is a direct relationship between poverty, deprivation and ill health. That is irrefutably the case. We also know from the statistics that a child born today into the poorest family in the land will, on average, live 10 years less than a child born into the richest family in the land, which, for most people, is an unacceptable state of affairs that must change. We know what the attitude of previous Governments has been. The hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) summed it up neatly when he said:
  "all we hear from the Opposition"
  the Labour party
  "is poverty, poverty, poverty, la, la, la & It is just boring for Conservative Members."—[Official Report, 22 October 1992; Vol. 212, c. 636.]
  It might be boring for the hon. Gentleman, but it is a fact of life for millions of our fellow citizens, which we came into politics to change.
  Sir Patrick Cormack: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many social inequalities are caused by variable waiting lists? Will he address the sort of problem that is faced by constituents of mine who have to wait significantly longer for their treatment at the New Cross hospital in Wolverhampton than those who live in Wolverhampton itself? That is a real social inequality, which needs addressing.
  Mr. Milburn: We must ensure that people, wherever they live, whatever their background and regardless of
  844
  their ability to pay, receive the right treatment when they need it. Sadly, that is not a position to which the Conservative party is committed.
  Mr. Eric Illsley: Nowhere are social inequalities in health more apparent than in my constituency, mainly as a result of historical underfunding under the previous Government. Even now, because of the difficulties in my area, my local health authority faces yet another deficit in its health budget of about £3 million. I plead once again with my right hon. Friend to reconsider the funding of Barnsley health authority, whose funding is one of the lowest in the country, to try to alleviate some of those problems.
  Mr. Milburn: As my hon. Friend is aware, not only Barnsley health authority but health authorities throughout the country will receive extra investment. He will also be aware that we are committed to changing the way in which cash is distributed within the NHS to ensure that it is much more geared to tackling such appalling health inequalities. In the meantime, we have made £130 million available to 50 or so health authorities with the highest incidence of early deaths and high morbidity from some of the diseases that we have been discussing today, including coronary heart disease and cancer.
  We have a simple choice: we can either continue to do what has been done in the past and wring our hands at the dreadful facts around inequalities, regret those facts and say that, in the end, trickle-down economics will hit the poorest communities and the poorest people, or recognise, as the Government do, that we must learn from history that trickle-down economics have failed and have not benefited the poorest people in the poorest communities. We can then redouble our effort to do what Governments for many a generation should have done, which is to improve the nation's health overall and improve the health of the poorest people fastest.
  Mr. David Chidgey: Does the Minister share my worry about the social consequences in communities of CJD outbreaks? Is he aware that the national surveillance unit has just identified a number of clusters throughout the kingdom, including in my constituency, but its preliminary investigations have shown no strong links? I am anxious that there should be a detailed investigation into the causal links between the cases in my constituency. Does he agree that it is vital that such detailed investigations are carried out as quickly as possible, first to identify causal links and, secondly and most importantly, to allay the concerns of those in larger communities who are frightened by that terrifying disease?
  Mr. Milburn: The hon. Gentleman is right to say that it is a terrifying disease. The national variant CJD surveillance unit does a good job and, where there are outbreaks or clusters, we must try to find out why. The hon. Gentleman is aware that, in Queniborough in Leicestershire, research was carried out into the background factors that led to a cluster of deaths from variant CJD. If there are other clusters, we shall want to consider background causes. We must do that because we

  845
  have to get to the bottom of why these things are happening and, hopefully, in the future, be in a better position to do something about them.
  Mr. Lawrie Quinn: Does my right hon. Friend recognise the inequalities in health provision in rural areas such as my constituency? Will he confirm that, in future, hospitals such as Whitby community hospital will be a focal point for dealing with inequalities in dentistry provision and eyesight problems, and that they will form a key plank in our strategy for tackling inequalities in rural areas?
  Mr. Milburn: My hon. Friend makes a good point. All too often, we perceive health inequalities in terms of the concentration of poverty and deprivation in inner-city or urban areas such as those that my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, Central (Mr. Illsley) mentioned. However, as we all know from our constituencies, there are also large concentrations of poverty, deprivation and ill health in rural areas. I therefore give my hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Mr. Quinn) a firm assurance that, when the new formula for distributing cash across the national health service is introduced in 2003, it will have a particular perspective on the way in which we recognise the needs of rural communities.

  National Service Framework (Older People)
  Dr. Vincent Cable: If he will make a statement on the national service framework for older people. [156292]
  The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr. John Hutton): The Government are determined to improve the quality and range of NHS and social care services for older people. The national service framework, which was published last month, will ensure fair, high-quality, integrated health and social care services for older people. It sets new standards to help root out age discrimination and drive up the quality of care. Implementation of the new standards will be carefully monitored.
  Dr. Cable: May I welcome the framework and ask the Minister how, and over what time scale, he envisages the removal of age discrimination from the NHS? How would the framework apply to my constituent, a 71-year-old lady who is marooned in Kingston hospital after a serious stroke? She cannot be moved because the nearest and most appropriate stroke rehabilitation unit, the Wolfson unit, operates a strict age bar and admits no one who is over 65.
  Mr. Hutton: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's support for the objective that we aim to achieve through the national service framework. I have been advised that the Wolfson unit does not set age-based criteria for admission as he suggests. I understand that it recently treated a 92-year-old in similar circumstances to his constituent. We have clearly set out in the national service framework that we want all age-based eligibility rules to be reviewed by October this year and the necessary action taken as soon as possible after that.
  The hon. Gentleman is a man of good will, and he will understand that it will take time to put right the years of neglect and indifference that we inherited from the
  846
  previous Administration. We are determined to do that. Older people are the largest users of NHS services and often the biggest supporters of the NHS. It is time for the Government and Parliament to pay proper attention to their needs in the NHS.
  Ms Joan Walley: I thank my hon. Friend for taking such action. It is long overdue and it will make a genuine difference to older people, especially those who suffer strokes and from osteoporosis. Will he work closely with modernisation action in the NHS to ensure that there will be money to enable us to take advantage of the framework and implement it properly where need is greatest?
  Mr. Hutton: I certainly agree with my hon. Friend that we have a big task ahead of us in converting the aspirations of the national service framework into tangible improvements on the ground and in the front line. The national service framework has made some important declarations about improvements in stroke care services. They have been strongly welcomed by the Stroke Association, which has worked closely with us to develop the framework. It is a big job and we intend to work closely with all the key partners who have helped us to develop the standards and, of course, with the NHS and social services.
  Mr. Desmond Swayne: Does the Minister agree that the national service framework will be little more than fine-sounding words if we continue to lose intermediate care beds at the current rate? Why have we lost 50,000 such beds in the care home sector in the past 12 months? What will he do about it?
  Mr. Hutton: The hon. Gentleman is wrong; 50,000 beds have not been lost in the care home sector. Between 7,000 and 8,000 beds have been lost in that sector over the period that he mentioned. [Interruption.] Those are the figures. It is clear to Labour Members that Conservative Members hate being confronted with the truth about issues. However, we intend to deal with them. The number of intermediate care beds in the NHS is set to increase, and it is very important that it does so.
  The hon. Gentleman will also want to reflect on the fact that an important part of the extra investment in intermediate care services will be local government investment through social services. I know that he does not like this, but let me remind him that his lectures on the subject are utterly bogus unless and until his hon. Friends can agree to match our spending on social services. They have been given numerous opportunities to do that, but they have never to this date said that they will match our spending

  Children's Hospices
  Mr. Lindsay Hoyle: If he will take steps to ensure that children's hospices receive the same level of funding as adult hospices in future allocations. [156294]
  Mr. Peter Bradley: What new resources are to be provided for existing children's hospices. [156295]
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Ms Gisela Stuart): Children's hospices have the same access to health service funding as adult hospices. We are increasing funding for the provision of palliative care services and expect children's hospices to benefit thereby. In addition, funding will be available later this year from the new opportunities fund, specifically for services in support of children with life-threatening illnesses, including those provided by children's hospices.
  Mr. Hoyle: It is an interesting answer. My hon. Friend may be aware of the excellent work done by Derian house in my constituency, which treats children not only from the north-west but from other regions. It is a very specialist children's hospice. Is she aware that children's hospices are the poor relations when it comes to funding, and that they received only £25,000, which is not acceptable? I put down a challenge to my hon. Friend: please will she personally look into the funding of children's hospices and ensure that there is a big improvement in what they receive? I know that we could work together for the benefit of children's hospices.
  Ms Stuart: Not only am I happy to take up that challenge but I have in front of me details of Derian house, and I am aware of the good work that it does. We have to ensure that children's hospice provision is developed in a strategic way, and that is why we have set up a regional group. I urge my hon. Friend to encourage the hospice in his constituency to take part in that review. We have also made new funds available. The new opportunities funding that was announced recently by the Department for Culture. Media and Sport will make available about £300 million to spend on health initiatives. We envisage that about £48 million will be available over the next three years to provide palliative care for children with life-threatening and life-limiting illnesses. I hope that he will encourage the hospice to be part of that process to ensure that strategic care is provided in his area.
  Mr. Bradley: I am sure that the Minister will want to join me in paying tribute to the Shropshire and Mid Wales adult hospice and the Hope House children's hospice, which serves my community. They, and the hospice movement in general, welcomed the announcement of additional funding made by the Secretary of State last October, but six months later they are still seeking clarity. Will my hon. Friend confirm that the new resources will meet the needs not only of new initiatives in children's hospice provision but of existing hospices? Will she also confirm that a contribution will be made towards core funding, as well as new initiatives at those hospices? The hospices have been waiting a long time for the clarity that they seek, and they need some assurance from my hon. Friend the Minister so that they can plan for the future.
  Ms Stuart: Of course; that is why the directions laid down for the bidding for new opportunities funding will provide exactly what my hon. Friend asks for. I have looked at the provisions for Hope House hospice and I note that the secretary of its association is a member of the children's taskforce and is playing a key role in the Association of Children's Hospices. I know from a meeting today that the association is satisfied that the
  848
  current arrangements will allow hospices to plan for the future in the best interests of the children who need and deserve that care.
  Mr. David Tredinnick: Will the Minister ensure that some of the extra money will go towards paying for the complementary therapists who do so much in hospices such as the Loros in Leicestershire? Now that the Government have helpfully published the response to the Lords report on complementary medicine, will she pledge perhaps £100,000 towards research?
  Will the Minister have a word with a counterpart of hers? If homeopathy is good enough for humans, is it not good enough for animals in the foot and mouth disease crisis? Will she have a word with the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food?
  Ms Stuart: I have long since stopped thinking of supplementary questions from the hon. Gentleman; I think of complementary questions. He is aware that homeopathy has played a significant role in palliative care. We shall continue to look at that and take it forward.
  Sir Teddy Taylor: Is the Minister aware that, in Southend, where for many years we have had a wonderful hospice called Fair Havens and where, more recently, a children's hospice has opened, although we raise increasing sums every year to help the hospice, because the percentage of funding covered by public funds is being reduced, the burden is becoming greater every year? Does she not feel that there might be a case for a proper review by the Department of the percentage funding carried by the Government for both adult and children's hospices, because the percentage is genuinely going down and the burden on the community is continuing to increase?
  Ms Stuart: I am aware that we need to increase the total amount of funding available for palliative care. That is why we made £50 million available for both adults and children. However, as I said earlier, children's hospices in particular have developed in a non-strategic way, so we need to ensure that each region has proper provision. Within that, children's hospices will bid for both health improvement money and new opportunities funding, so that we can strike the right balance between what is raised from the voluntary sector and what the NHS provides. That will vary from area to area.

  ROYAL ASSENT
  Mr. Speaker: I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified her Royal Assent to the following Acts and a Measure:

  Vehicles (Crime) Act 2001.

  Criminal Defence Service (Advice and Assistance) Act 2001.

  Election Publications Act 2001.

  Regulatory Reform Act 2001.

  Elections Act 2001.

  Kent County Council Act 2001.

  Medway Council Act 2001.

  Churchwardens Measure 2001.

Points of Order
12.32 pm
Mr. Michael Fabricant: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Despite Government assurances to the contrary, I have been receiving reports all morning from Gentleshaw in my constituency and from elsewhere that people delivering census forms have been walking in sensitive areas—in farms and along country lanes—and so risking spreading foot and mouth disease still further in my part of Staffordshire. There must be some mechanism by which, if that continues throughout the recess, I can make formal contact with Government Departments to ensure either that Government guidelines are kept to—namely, that the forms are delivered by post—or, as I would prefer, given that the Prime Minister has decided to postpone the county elections for a month because of foot and mouth disease, that the census application forms will also be delayed for at least a month, or until the foot and mouth outbreak is over. What mechanisms are there during the recess, other than a phone call or letter, whereby I can report the transgressions that are spreading foot and mouth disease?
Mr. Speaker: I would say that phone calls are the best mechanism. There is nothing to beat a phone call in these circumstances.
Mr. John Wilkinson: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. As the custodian of our liberties, could you ask a Law Officer of the Crown to come to the House today to make a statement on the implications for British justice of the extraordinary conviction of a freedom-loving Englishman in Sunderland for selling produce in the measures of his birth? It is a matter of grave significance for freedoms in our country.
Mr. Speaker: That is not a point of order.
Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Did you possibly miss a Bill when you read out the list of Bills that have been given Royal Assent? Did you not miss the regulation of PR companies Bill?
Mr. Speaker: No.

BILL PRESENTED
  CRYSTAL PALACE
  Mr. Geraint Davies, supported by Mr. Stephen Twigg and Ms Oona King, presented a Bill to transfer the Crystal Palace and Park to the Greater London Authority; to restrict commercial uses of the said land; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 11 May, and to be printed [Bill 84].

  Regulation of Debt Management and Credit Repair Services
  12.34 pm
  Mr. David Ames: I beg to move,
  That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the Consumer Credit Act 1974 to give the Director General of Fair Trading a duty to establish a Code of Practice for traders who offer consumers the services of debt management and credit repair; and for connected purposes.
  I came into some money at the weekend, when I was one of the tiny number of those who won on the grand national. Unfortunately, my stake of £2 each way did not yield winnings sufficient to service adequately the huge debt that has been incurred by people across the United Kingdom. However, I believe that the largely unregulated way in which the current system works allows the most vulnerable sectors of society to be led slightly astray by some advertisements, particularly in tabloid newspapers.
  If my Bill were to become law, traders would be obliged to comply with a code, and the Director General of Fair Trading would be given powers to enforce compliance with it by use of compliance orders, fines and compensation orders. The Bill would also ensure that, before publishing the code, the director general is required to consult representatives of consumers and those who are likely to be affected by it. The code would be published and widely disseminated.
  The Bill would prescribe the issues to be addressed in the code of practice, including the advertising and marketing of personal debt services; the terms on which such services are provided; charges; the standards of services to be provided by the trader; arrangements in debt management services for the protection of client moneys; arrangements for ensuring the competence of the trader's staff; procedures for handling complaints from consumers; and any other such matters as the director general, having consulted, considers necessary and appropriate for the protection of consumers' interests.
  I know that the Minister for Competition and Consumer Affairs is interested in the issue because I recently had the good fortune to attend a meeting that he hosted and at which I engaged in conversation with representatives of citizens advice bureaux. I decided to persuade the House of the Bill's merits largely because of those conversations.
  The National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux recently published a report, entitled "Daylight Robbery", that highlights the fact that consumer credit borrowing has increased dramatically in the past 20 years. In the past 21 years, there has been a revolution in the consumer credit industry. As of August 2000, outstanding unsecured consumer credit in the United Kingdom amounted to £122 billion. It is a huge sum, equivalent to £3,425 for every adult between 18 and 65 in the United Kingdom.
  Consumers' enthusiasm—I do not criticize them for it—to buy now and pay later has been matched by credit companies' willingness to devise an ever greater range of credit products. In the past two years, citizens advice bureaux across the country have reported a 37 per cent. increase in the number of inquiries on consumer credit debts. In the past 10 years, citizens advice bureaux and other free advice agencies have seen an increase in the number of commercial companies offering services for a fee to those who are in debt. Undoubtedly the number of such companies has mushroomed.

  851
  Since deciding to promote this Bill, I have been inundated by letters from people describing their debt problems. However, as I said, although I came into money at the weekend, I am afraid that my £86.50 will not be sufficient to service all their debts. Nevertheless, I should like to share one example with the House. One person, whom I shall call "client A", has one dependent child. The client contacted a debt management company for help with debts of £25,000, and the company told the client that creditors would accept offers of £1 per month. However, when bailiffs began to call at the client's home, the client discovered that no agreement had been reached with creditors.
  The client went to the CAB for advice. The CAB adviser discovered that the client's total debt was £51,000. When the CAB spoke to the client's creditors, it found that the debt management company had not made any arrangements with creditors. The creditors told the adviser that they would rather deal with the CAB than with a debt management company. I am delighted to say that, as a result, the CAB has the client's debt under control.
  The National Consumer Council contacted me, saying:
  "People are often at their most vulnerable when needing debt management services. To feel confident in using them, they need clear information about the choices available in the market place"—
  this is what I am asking the Minister to consider—
  "and also to know what to expect from both fee charging and free services."
  The NCC believes:
  "debt management services should be properly regulated".
  I am also indebted to the Sunday Express. A journalist there called Rachel Baird has, for the last few weeks, written a series of articles headed "Debt 'Parasites' Spark Crusade", in which she has reported the experiences of all sorts of people who—sadly—have got into debt, panicked and gone to some of the companies that I am describing, with very unfortunate effects.
  The company Direct Line has contacted me to say that it
  "is concerned many consumers are using the services of these agencies without being fully aware of the potential consequences and costs. Often, it would be more effective for the consumer, and in their best long-term interests, to deal directly with the lender".
  852
  Direct Line is concerned about misleading advertising, hidden costs, the impact on credit rating, failure to take the full financial situation into account, and long-term costs.
  Equidebt is another company that has contacted me. It speaks of a breed of cash flow managers targeting vulnerable people who want up-front payment of some sort. It says that such managers want to make money out of such people. The Finance and Leasing Association also contacted me.
  As we all know, there are many advertisements for such services in the newspapers. They say, for instance, "Debt Problems? Money Worries?", offer "unsecured personal loans", and make such statements as
  "We could arrange you a mortgage fast!"
  Perhaps many of those companies are responsible; perhaps the majority give good advice. Unfortunately, according to the citizens advice bureaux, not all of them do.
  Many of the advertisements suggest that, for a fee, companies advertising credit repair services can wipe the slate clean for those who have got into money difficulties in the past and had court judgments recorded against them. That is nonsense.
  There is a real need for consumers to be protected from the services of debt management and credit repair companies. Those needing such protection are undoubtedly the poorest and most vulnerable members of society. I hope that the House will support the Bill.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. David Amess, Mr. David Atkinson, Mr. Richard Burden, Mr. Simon Burns, Sir Sydney Chapman, Mr. Roger Gale, Mrs. Linda Gilroy, Mr. Mike Hancock, Ms Oona King, Mrs. Marion Roe, Mr. Alan Simpson and Mr. David Wilshire.

  REGULATION OF DEBT MANAGEMENT AND CREDIT REPAIR SERVICES
  Mr. David Amess accordingly presented a Bill to amend the Consumer Credit Act 1974 to give the Director General of Fair Trading a duty to establish a Code of Practice for traders who offer consumers the services of debt management and credit repair; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 27 April, and to be printed [Bill 85].

Points of Order
12.44 pm
Mr. Tim Yeo: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The House goes into recess this afternoon, and during the next 12 days it is certain that many hon. Members on both sides of the House will be questioned about the foot and mouth disease crisis. To measure the progress that has been made in overcoming the crisis, the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food was—until last Thursday—Publishing daily figures for the number of animals authorised for slaughter, the number being slaughtered and the number of carcases disposed of. However, when I asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food yesterday whether that daily publication would continue during the recess, he was unable to give an answer during the hour and a half that he spent in the House.
Do you, Mr. Speaker, have further reassurance from MAFF that the information will be made available to hon. Members? That is essential if they are to answer the proper concerns of their constituents during the recess. If the information is not available, we shall not be able to judge whether the crisis is getting worse or better. I hope that the Minister will give you an assurance before the House rises that the information will be available.
Mr. Speaker: That is not a matter for the Chair. The hon. Gentleman will know that yesterday I allowed the statement made by the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to run for an hour and a half, so that everyone concerned could closely examine the case that the right hon. Gentleman put. I can tell the hon. Gentleman only that the Minister will have heard his comments and will—I have no doubt—take serious note of what he said.
Sir Patrick Cormack: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You have indeed been extremely helpful to the House over the foot and mouth crisis. Many times in the past, the suggestion has been made that Members should be able to table written questions during the recess for written answer. I do not know whether it is within your discretion to allow that during the forthcoming recess; I accept that it may not be. However, if it is, will you allow it? If it is not, will you be kind enough to refer the matter to the appropriate Committees so that perhaps, in future, we may have the chance to put such questions?
Mr. Speaker: Questions can be tabled, but they are not answered. The matter has been looked at by the appropriate Committee; I understand that it is still being examined. Until the Committee comes up with an answer, I can have no discretion in the matter.

Orders of the Day

  International Development Bill (Programme) (No. 2)
  12.47 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Development (Mr. Chris Mullin): I beg to move,
  That in the Order of 6th March (International Development Bill (Programme)) the following be substituted for paragraphs 4 and 5—
  4. Proceedings on consideration and Third Reading shall be completed at today's sitting.
  5. Proceedings on consideration shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at Three o'clock.
  5A. Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at Four o'clock.
  The motion proposes that the remaining stages of the International Development Bill be completed in the House today. It is supplementary to the programme motion approved for the Committee stage, which finished on 15 March.
  The Bill is important, but it is also short, simple and uncontroversial. We have already spent about 16 hours debating it—Seven on Second Reading and nine in Committee—and have covered a great deal of the ground. I hope that our debate today will be similarly constructive and that, to that end, we shall not spend too much time debating the programme motion. I commend the motion to the House and will set an example by sitting down.
  12.48 pm
  Mr. Gary Streeter: I certainly do not want to detain the House for too long on the programme motion—frankly, there is precious little time this afternoon to discuss some important amendments to an important Bill. However, the Minister would not expect me to let him off the hook quite that lightly. It is important to record—Yet again—some important points of principle about the way that the Government whistle legislation through the House without proper scrutiny or consideration.
  The Bill was printed on 15 February this year. Second Reading took place on 6 March. The Bill went into Committee on 12 March and was out again on 15 March. When it came out of Committee, several important new clauses—some of them drafted by me—had not been considered. In one sense, the Minister is right to say that the Bill is relatively uncontroversial. However, because it sets out the framework for international development—probably for many years to come; the previous Act of this type was in force for 21 years—it is essential that we get it right. The Conservatives and other hon. Members have raised important points that we want the Government to consider.
  Today, we have two hours to consider 12 important amendments—one or two of which are fundamental to the essence of the Bill. That is not enough time. However, our main complaint about the programme motion, as you will know, Mr. Speaker—I suspect that you have heard this speech once or twice since Christmas—is one of principle. These newfangled programme motions are being imposed on the House of Commons by a heavy-handed Government using their massive majority.

  855
  The result is that debate is stifled and insufficient scrutiny given to legislation. We all know that that means that legislation will be less good than it would otherwise be.
  In this case, the community of non-governmental organisations has not had time to study the Bill properly, nor had an opportunity to make its comments on the Bill known to us. There has not been enough time during the Bill's consideration to tease out important points from the Government.
  Mr. John Bercow: Does my hon. Friend agree that if the Government increased the allocation of time for Report, it would be possible to incorporate in the Bill the terms of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development convention against bribery in international business dealings, thereby answering the consistent call of Her Majesty's Opposition and the recent request of the hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Colman)?
  Mr. Streeter: My hon. Friend makes an important point. It is one of the many failings of the Government in the last 12 months that they have failed to introduce important anti-bribery legislation, despite a commitment from a Minister in April 2000 to do so at the earliest opportunity. The earliest opportunity came in the Queen's Speech in the autumn; it came and it went. The legislation was not in the Queen's Speech and there is insufficient time to insert it into the Bill that we are considering today.
  I ask the Government again to reconsider programme motions. They clearly are not a great success and there is no point in driving through legislation if it later turns out to be bad legislation because of insufficient time.
  Members of Parliament are all in this place for a number of reasons. We are here to represent our constituents—that is important. We are here for some of us to become members of Governments and shadow Governments. But above all, we are here as Members of Parliament to make law. That is what our constituents think they send us here for. Perhaps we are becoming too much like glorified social workers now, but we are really here to make law.
  It is important that there is consensus across the Chamber on the rules of procedure by which we seek to make and improve law. There are 659 of us in the House, all of us having the incredible privilege of being one of a small number of people in this country who can make legislation. What a great privilege and onerous responsibility that is. The onus therefore is on the Government to ensure that our rules of law making are fair, and that they give proper time for scrutiny, and proper time for Her Majesty's Opposition to consider things properly. That is not the case with this programme motion. For those reasons, I wish to register our firm opposition to it.
  12.52 pm
  Mr. Simon Thomas: I shall speak briefly in opposition to the programme motion and to echo many of the points of the Conservative spokesman. The Minister is right that the Bill is simple, short and relatively uncontroversial, and it will remain uncontroversial if we do not get much opportunity to add anything to it.
  As the Minister said, the Bill has had 16 hours of scrutiny, but I emphasise that Report is one of the few opportunities that ordinary Back Benchers, especially
  856
  Back Benchers from minority parties, have to table amendments and hear them debated. I hope that we shall have the opportunity to do so this afternoon, but I believe that, in guaranteeing only an hour and a half for Report, the Government have done a disservice to their own Bill.
  Dr. Jenny Tonge: Would we not all have more time to debate important amendments to the Bill if we stopped talking about the programme motion and got on with it?
  Mr. Thomas: I do not accept that point at all. It is right and proper that we challenge the Government when they table programme motions such as this one. This is only the second time that I have spoken in a debate on a programme motion; I do not make it a habit. I do make it a habit, as I believe that the hon. Lady does, to oppose programme motions, because in drafting those motions the Government never allow sufficient time for debate.
  I do not oppose programming on principle. If we allow enough time for Back Benchers to speak and for scrutiny of the different clauses, we should be able to reform the House, and should have a proper amount of time to go through every clause, but that does not mean that we should sit mute when the Government move an inappropriate programme motion. After Report and Third Reading, we shall have an Adjournment debate on matters to be considered before the Easter recess, which is a nice tradition in the House but less important than the vital job of legislation. We have got our priorities slightly wrong, and it is appropriate to take the opportunity to say so.
  This is an important Bill, and there are some important issues that need scrutiny, especially in the first group of amendments on the Bill's objectives. For that reason, I did not intend to speak for more than a couple minutes but it was important to make our views known.
  12.55 pm
  Mr. Edward Leigh: I was surprised by the comment made by the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge), because she seemed to blame those hon. Members who want to make a couple of perfectly serious points on the programme motion. Under this procedure, every minute that we use to debate the programme motion comes out of the total debate, and that is unfair.
  My hon. Friend the Member for South-West Devon (Mr. Streeter) said that we have about two hours to discuss all 10 amendments; but, of course, we will only have two hours if we have a very short programme motion debate. That puts us under intolerable pressure and is not a fair way to proceed.
  The Minister defeated his own argument by saying that the Bill is non-controversial. It is non-controversial, but with such a Bill, it is right and proper for the Government to agree with the Opposition, through the usual channels, exactly how much time is needed. Perhaps two hours may be enough, or perhaps three hours would be right, but narrow time limits have been imposed without explanation. The Minister made no attempt to explain why we must finish this business by 4 o'clock, especially given that all that follows is the Easter Adjournment debate, so there is no rhyme or reason for doing so. The Government are simply determined to table programme motions on everything.

  857
  There are 10 amendments in four groups. If we debated each amendment for the same time, we would spend about 10 to 12 minutes on each. The Bill may not be controversial, but while a Bill may be non-controversial in a party political sense, people may still have serious points of view. International development is vital to many people outside the House. They are concerned about poverty in the third world and want Parliament to have a serious debate. They may well look askance at a Parliament that, on average, devotes only 12 minutes to each amendment.
  Perhaps some of the amendments need no debate at all, but for the Government arbitrarily to lay down such a time limit on such a Bill damages the political process and the parliamentary process. The programme motion is unfair, and I regret and oppose it.
  12.57 pm
  Mr. Tom Clarke: I had not planned to take part in this debate, but having been present during the whole debate on Second Reading and having served on the Standing Committee that considered the Bill, I thought that it might be appropriate to say a few words. I might even persuade the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) that he protests too much.
  I refer the hon. Member for South-West Devon (Mr. Streeter), as well as his colleagues, to the Official Report of the proceedings of the Standing Committee. I genuinely invite them to consider whether the Committee's time, which they protested earlier was not enough, was used in the best interests of the Bill and the procedures of the House. I shall offer them a few examples of the kind of trivia that the Committee had to consider for two days, although I concede that everything that was said must have been in order or the Chairman would have ruled it out of order.
  As reported in column 6, the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) thought it right to tell us the story, yet again, of David and Goliath—all very interesting. As reported in column 8, the hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan) lectured my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. McNulty) on his girth. Later, as the discussions continued, the hon. Member for Faversham and Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe), who normally makes constructive contributions, asked the Committee to focus on the need to export abroad, as he put it. Elizabeth Filkin. Those subjects are fascinating, but whether they help the Bill or international development is another matter entirely.
  We then moved on to the bizarre events of the afternoon of Thursday 15 March. All the members of the Committee assembled for our fourth sitting at 2.30 pm, but the Chairman, the hon. Member for Bournemouth, West (Mr. Butterfill), was not there. He was half an hour late, and without the assistance of one of my hon. Friends, who started the Committee proceedings seven minutes late, we would have been delayed still further. The hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham then took another seven minutes to complain that we did not have enough time.
  We are being told by the Opposition today that Parliament is being short-changed. However, if one reads columns 81 to 82 and 88 to 89 of the report of the Committee proceedings, one will find that we had an
  858
  exchange on contact lenses, the work of opticians generally and the wonderful merits of hormone replacement therapy. I found that fascinating, but we were supposed to be making progress on the Bill and the important subjects that it covers, so was that a sensible use of our parliamentary time? I can tell the hon. Member for South-West Devon that I certainly did not think so.
  At the heart of the Bill lies the need to challenge poverty internationally. The Bill is a move in the right direction, and I would do the House no further service if I did not sit down now and allow it to continue with its important business.
  1.2 pm
  Mr. Bowen Wells: The right hon. Member for Coatbridge and Chryston (Mr. Clarke) was making the case of my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Devon (Mr. Streeter) when he spoke as he did about the Committee stage. It was perfectly possible for the Government and the Opposition to agree between them how much time the Bill needed. As I understand it, no consultation took place, and the result was that because the Opposition rightly oppose the whole concept of programming consideration of Bills, we had the kind of discussion about which the right hon. Gentleman complains. I have only read those exchanges—I did not participate.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) is right when he complains that we do not have sufficient time this afternoon properly to discuss the important questions on the Bill. It is a disgrace to Parliament; it is the wrong way to proceed, and we should not be in this position. The Bill deals with substantial matters of practical importance, not the party political issues between us. We need to understand and properly debate them. However, we have so organised Parliament that that will not happen. I only hope that in the time now left to us we can have an important, reasonable and sensible debate.
  Question put:—
  The House divided: Ayes 244, Noes 75.

  Division No. 185]

  [1.4 pm

  AYES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Browne, Desmond

  Allen, Graham

  Burden, Richard

  Anderson, Rt Hon Donald (Swansea E)

  Burgon, Colin

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Ashton, Joe

  Campbell—Savours, Dale

  Atherton, Ms Candy

  Cann, Jamie

  Austin, John

  Caplin, Ivor

  Bailey, Adrian

  Caton, Martin

  Barron, Kevin

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Battle, John

  Clapham, Michael

  Bayley, Hugh

  Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

  Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

  Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

  Bennett, Andrew F

  Berry, Roger

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Betts, Clive

  Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

  Blackman, Liz

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

  Blizzard, Bob

  Clelland, David

  Bradley, Rt Hon Keith (Withington)

  Clwyd, Ann

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Coleman, Iain

  Brinton, Mrs Helen

  Colman, Tony

  859

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

  Cooper, Yvette

  Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)

  Corbett, Robin

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Cousins, Jim

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Cox, Tom

  Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Cranston, Ross

  Joyce, Eric

  Crausby, David

  Kaufman, Flt Hon Gerald

  Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

  Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

  Cummings, John

  Kelly, Ms Ruth

  Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

  Khabra, Piara S

  Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

  Kidney, David

  Darvill, Keith

  King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Kingham, Ms Tess

  Davidson, Ian

  Ladyman, Dr Stephen

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Lammy, David

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

  Laxton, Bob

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

  Lepper, David

  Leslie, Christopher

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Levitt, Tom

  Denham, Rt Hon John

  Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

  Dismore, Andrew

  Lock, David

  Dobbin, Jim

  Love, Andrew

  Donohoe, Brian H

  McCabe, Steve

  Dowd, Jim

  McCafferty, Ms Chris

  Drew, David

  McCartney, Rt Hon Ian (Makerfield)

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  McIsaac, Sona

  Edwards, Huw

  McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Ennis, Jeff

  McNulty, Tony

  Etherington, Bill

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Field, Rt Hon Frank

  McWilliam, John

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Fitzsimons, Mrs Loma

  Mallaber, Judy

  Flint, Caroline

  Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

  Flynn, Paul

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Maxton, John

  Foulkes, George

  Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

  Fyfe, Maria

  Meale, Alan

  Galloway, George

  Michael, Rt Hon Alun

  Gapes, Mike

  Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

  Gardiner, Barry

  Miller, Andrew

  George, Rt Hon Bruce (Walsall S)

  Mitchell, Austin

  Gerrard, Neil

  Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

  Gibson, Dr Ian

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

  Gilroy, Mrs Linda

  Godman, Dr Norman A

  Mullin, Chris

  Goggins, Paul

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Naysmith, Dr Doug

  Gordon, Mrs Eileen

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  O'Hara, Eddie

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Olner, Bill

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Osborne, Ms Sandra

  Grocott, Bruce

  Pearson, Ian

  Hain, Peter

  Perham, Ms Linda

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  Pickthall, Colin

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  Pike, Peter L

  Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

  Pope, Greg

  Healey, John

  Pound, Stephen

  Hendrick, Mark

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Heppell, John

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Hill, Keith

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Hinchliffe, David

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Hood, Jimmy

  Rapson, Syd

  Hope, Phil

  Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

  Howells, Dr Kim

  Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Rowlands, Ted

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Roy, Frank

  Illsley, Eric

  Ruddock, Joan

  Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

  Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

  Jenkins, Brian

  Ryan, Ms Joan

  860

  Sarwar, Mohammad

  Todd, Mark

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Trickett, Jon

  Shaw, Jonathan

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

  Shipley, Ms Debra

  Turner, Neil (Wigan)

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Tynan, Bill

  Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

  Vis, Dr Rudi

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

  Ward, Ms Claire

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Watts, David

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  White, Brian

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Whitehead, Dr Alan

  Soley, Clive

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Starkey, Dr Phyllis

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Stevenson, George

  Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Winnick, David

  Stoate, Dr Howard

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  Wood, Mike

  Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

  Woodward, Shaun

  Stringer, Graham

  Woolas, Phil

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  Worthington, Tony

  Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

  Wright, Tony (Cannock)

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Wyatt, Derek

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

  Tellers for the Ayes: Mr. Don Touhig and Mr. David Jamieson.

  Timms, Stephen

  Tipping, Paddy

  NOES

  Allan, Richard

  McIntosh, Miss Anne

  Amess, David

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

  Beith, Rt Hon A J

  Moore, Michael

  Bell, Martin (Tatton)

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Bercow, John

  Oaten, Mark

  Blunt, Crispin

  O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

  Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

  Ottaway, Richard

  Brand, Dr Peter

  Page, Richard

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Paterson, Owen

  Burnett, John

  Rendel, David

  Burns, Simon

  Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

  Burstow, Paul

  Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)

  Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)

  Ruffley, David

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

  Sanders, Adrian

  Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

  Chidgey, David

  Spicer, Sir Michael

  Clifton—Brown, Geoffrey

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  Streeter, Gary

  Cotter, Brian

  Stunell, Andrew

  Day Stephen

  Swayne, Desmond

  Donaldson, Jeffrey

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Evans, Nigel

  Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Tonge, Dr Jenny

  Fox, Dr Liam

  Tredinnick, David

  Gidley, Sandra

  Tyler, Paul

  Gray, James

  Viggers, Peter

  Harvey, Nick

  Wallace, Rt Hon James

  Hayes, John

  Walter, Robert

  Waterson, Nigel

  Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

  wells, Bowen

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Wilkinson, John

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Willis, Phil

  Kirkbride, Miss Julie

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

  Laing, Mrs Eleanor

  Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

  Tellers for the Noes: Mr. Christopher Chope and Mr. Edward Leigh.

  Livsey, Richard

  Luff, Peter

  Question accordingly agreed to.

Orders of the Day
  International Development Bill
  Not amended in the Standing Committee, considered.
  International Development Bill

    New Clause 2
    REDUCTION IN POVERTY: AID GIVEN THROUGH THIRD PARTIES
    '.—The Secretary of State shall make arrangements to ensure that no United Kingdom Government aid for a developing country or countries which is to be disbursed via a third party (including multilateral development banks, United Nations agencies, and institutions of the European Union) is made available to that third party unless he is satisfied that it is likely to contribute to a reduction in poverty.'.—[Mr. Streeter.]
    Brought up, and read the First time.
    1.15 pm
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Development (Mr. Chris Mullin)rose—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I do not think that the Minister should be moving the clause.
    Mr. Gary Streeter: May I just say that the Minister would get away that lightly only in his dreams?
    I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
    Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 2, in clause 1, page 1, line 10, at end insert—
    'or the promotion of good governance'.
    No. 5, in page 1, line 18, leave out from "that" to end of line 20 and insert—
    'in the opinion of the Secretary of State, meets the needs of the present generation without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.'.
    No. 6, in page 1, line 20, at end insert—
    ', but does not allow for any dilution of the developmental purpose to reflect commercial, political or other considerations.'.
    No. 3, in clause 4, page 2, line 10, after "may", insert—
    'provided he is satisfied that to do so is likely to contribute to a reduction in poverty or the promotion of good governance'.
    No. 4, in clause 11, page 5, line 17, at end insert—
    '(3A) No payment may be made under this section unless the Secretary of State is satisfied that to do so is likely to contribute to a reduction in poverty or the promotion of good governance.'.
    Mr. Streeter: This group of amendments is primarily about two vital issues. We are short of time in this important parliamentary debate so, if the House considers nothing else and if the Minister listens to nothing else this afternoon, may I urge him to listen to our arguments on good governance and all of the aid spending realised by the United Kingdom through third parties, including the European Union, the United Nations and other multilateral organisations? Will he consider extremely carefully the points that we seek to make?
    I should like to talk about good governance. Obviously, our amendment addresses the issue of good governance, which we want included in the Bill. There was a long but curtailed discussion about good governance in
    862
    Committee, and I must tell the Minister that it is fundamental for us. There is nothing new in people in international development talking about the subject. My distinguished predecessor Baroness Chalker—although I do not believe that she ever occupied my position in opposition—talked a lot about good governance and did many good things to establish a proper focus on good governance in British aid policy. I accept that the Minister and his boss, the Secretary of State, often talk about good governance and that it is part of the British aid programme. However, we are arguing that it is not just one factor to be considered in British aid; it is not an optional extra, but the very core of what British aid should be if it is to make a difference to the starving millions around the world.
    The Opposition accept and embrace the poverty focus in the Bill but, from our experience and all that we read from commentators and experts, we believe passionately that if we are to deliver a reduction in poverty in the next few years for those living in abject misery and privation, we must put in place in the developing countries that we are seeking to help a much stronger framework for democracy, the rule of law, a strong civil service and burgeoning civil society. That is the essential framework for reducing poverty in those nations.
    I have read carefully the Committee proceedings and disagree with the right hon. Member for Coatbridge and Chryston (Mr. Clarke), whose contributions I usually support, as I did not see any evidence of people being distracted or going off on a frolic of their own, as Lord Denning famously said. There were only two or three sentences suggesting such behaviour, but that happens in any Committee in which Members of opposing parties throw ideas at one another that may not be directly to the point. However, the Committee was focused and there was not enough time to deal with all of our important new clauses and amendments.
    The hon. Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge) asked why Conservative Members were focusing on good governance, not education, clean water or promoting the position of women. All those issues are important but, as I said, good governance is not just another factor. When building a house, one must have doors, windows and a roof; one cannot get anywhere without a foundation or framework. Good governance is the foundation and framework of any aid policy that this country must operate. It is not an optional extra—the doors and the windows—but the framework, the foundation, the absolute essence. It is because we are so passionately convinced of that that we want it reflected in the Bill.
    We want good governance to be the focus for this Government, our next Government—who will come to office on 7 June—and future Governments of whatever political colour. We want it to be the framework of our aid policy for years to come. I hope that the Minister will consider amendment No. 2 carefully and agree that such an important foundation needs to be expressed in the Bill.
    I know that the Minister greatly respects the things that I say—he looks bewildered and puzzled by that—but such comments are not just my thoughts and observations. Increasingly, international development experts and commentators around the world are concluding that good governance is an essential ingredient.

    863
    The excellent United Nations development programme poverty report 2000 states:
    "Effective governance is often the missing link between anti-poverty efforts and poverty reduction.
    A missing link between anti-poverty efforts and poverty reduction: governance. Even when a country tries to implement economic policies to foster pro-poor growth and mount targeted poverty programmes, inept or unresponsive governance … can nullify the impact.
    When Governments are unaccountable or corrupt, poverty reduction programmes have little success in targeting benefits."
    That emphasises that, if one is not careful to work with a Government of a developing country to build good governance into the system, so many of our aid and development programmes become merely a mechanism of pouring money into a black hole. We have seen that over many years.
    The World Bank policy research report, "Assessing Aid", of November 1998, with which the Minister is no doubt familiar, states on page 4:
    "First, financial assistance must be targeted more effectively on low-income countries with sound economic management. In a good policy environment financial assistance is a catalyst for faster growth, more rapid gains in social indicators, and higher private investment. In a poor policy environment, however, aid has much less impact. Clearly, poor countries with good policies should receive more financing than equally poor countries with weak economic management."
    In order further to back up my arguments, the excellent report, "Aid and Reform in Africa", of 27 March 2001—a very recent report—also by the World Bank, states on page 33:
    "Successful reform is undergirded by a strong commitment to good governance. This is essential for rebuilding business confidence".
    Good governance is not an optional extra, but the very heart of the matter.
    There is a second point that I wish to make to back up our arguments for the expression of good governance in the Bill. It is an important, practical point. All of us in this Chamber want to bear down on global poverty. There is not a single Member of Parliament who is not horrified and repulsed by the poverty that we see when we travel to some of the worst slums in the world. We want to make our own contribution to alleviating that. Most of us are also practical people, however, and we want to know that we are not merely wasting money and coming up with good-sounding language, but focusing on what works.
    It is a truism that we have in this country a rich history of good governance. It does not always feel like that; when debating the programme motion, we could have persuaded ourselves that some of our good governance is under threat. However, with our stable democracy, our strong civil service, with which we look forward to working in just a few weeks, and our much respected independent judiciary, we have the history, knowledge and expertise in governance that we can share with developing countries, and which they are hungry to learn from us.
    Who in this Chamber can doubt that we know how to collect tax? In many developing countries, they have no such expertise or systems of tax collection. We know all about Customs and Excise, security forces and civil society. I am not saying that we have it all sorted out or that we live in a perfect society—far from it.
    Mr. Andrew Rowe: Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the shadows on
    864
    the picture is the cost of elections? There are many developing countries where the cost of getting elected is so high that it is wholly unrealistic to expect a Member of Parliament not to spend his time in office trying to reimburse himself. That, of course, sharply undermines good governance.
    Mr. Streeter: From his vast experience, my hon. Friend makes an important point. That is indeed the case. Some of the work that we have done in the Westminster Foundation for Democracy, about which I shall say a few words later, reinforces his point. It is not just the cost of getting elected; sometimes, in developing countries, the salary levels of people in important civil service positions are so low that although one can never condone corruption, there is almost an imperative for them to be open to such inducements in order to feed their families.
    We have vast expertise in this country, and many in the developing world are hungry to learn from us about building good governance in their countries. There is a danger that the international development community is trying to do too much—its work is too scatter-gun. It would be far better to focus on a key issue, such as good governance, which will strengthen the framework, and to make sure that we can deliver on it.
    From my experience with the Westminster Foundation for Democracy, which I strongly believe in and support—I am the vice-chairman of that excellent organisation—I know that democracy-building is long term, invisible, intangible and difficult to measure. However, I also know that it is essential for strong frameworks to grow and develop in developing countries, particularly those that have no recent history of democracy. We can be proud of the work of the British Council in supporting good governance abroad, and that work needs to be expanded.
    I have set out two reasons why good governance should be written into the Bill, and there is a third reason. Focusing on strengthening the governance of a nation state is dealing with the world as it is. We know that globalisation is going on all around us, and we read books and articles and go to conferences about it. There are people out there protesting and trying to stop globalisation and the march of the multinational corporations. Sometimes they have a point, and sometimes they have a less strong point.
    Most of us in the Chamber believe that there is no stopping globalisation: it is happening, and there is nothing much that we can do. In part, it is due to the success of the technological breakthroughs of recent times, increased mobility and the telecommunications revolution. Globalisation is here to stay. There are those who are trying to stop it, but others argue that it contains the answers to every problem faced by humankind. There are globalisation junkies who say that we should be thinking about global governance and allowing multilateral organisations to tackle the issues globally.
    That is not yet the real world. Perhaps one day we will move towards global governance, although I have profound doubts about that. It does not seem to strike a chord with the reality of human nature, but there are those who think that that is the way to solve the problems confronting us, and there is an increasing fashion in international development to think along those lines.
    However, we are still a world of nation states. The decisions of a national Government are still by far the most important decisions impacting, for example, on a

    865
    child in Malawi. They are more important than anything that the World Bank or the International Monetary Fund may say or do. In trying to build good governance and working with the Government of Malawi to strengthen democracy, the civil service and civil society in that country will help them to make better decisions on behalf of the children of that country. By promoting good governance, we are cutting with the grain, not against it. We are not floating off into some philosophical nonsense about globalisation solving all our problems.
    The world is made up of nation states, and this policy supports that important truth. I hope that the Minister will listen to these arguments.
    Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. Does he accept that the advanced western nations are sometimes good at intervening militarily to prevent or suppress tyranny, but are often not very good at following up to create sustainable democratic civil institutions—in other words, good governance? That is why it is essential that when we give aid to countries such as Bosnia-Herzegovina we should try to promote the sustainable civil institutions.
    1.30 pm
    Mr. Streeter: My hon. Friend is right. Such action is hard to take, but it is ultimately the only solution. When we visit Kosovo and the Balkans, as I have done in the past couple of years, we sense that the NGO community has moved in, is reluctant to move out and is making all the decisions. It is far better for us to be strengthening capacity in emerging nations and allowing them to have proper, strong institutions of government. My hon. Friend makes a powerful point. No one is saying that such help is easy to provide, but it should be the focus of our aid. Those are the reasons why I believe that good governance should be included in the Bill and why I urge the Government to accept amendment No. 2.
    I want to speak now to new clause 2, which deals with a similar but unrelated point. We accept that UK aid should have a poverty focus, but the stark reality is that 50 per cent. of the Department for International Development's budget is spent not by the British Government, but by other multilateral organisations. Some 30 per cent. is spent through the European Union, and up to 20 per cent. is spent via the United Nations and other multilateral organisations. Thus, 50 per cent. of our aid will not be subject to the poverty focus. The new clause asks the Government, what is the point of introducing an important safeguard and framework for UK aid spend, when half the money that we spend will not be subject to the poverty focus?
    I do not want to bore the House with the failings of the EU aid budget. Very few quotations suffice to make the point, which we have debated time and time again. To be fair to the Secretary of State, she has been as critical as anyone of the EU's scandalous and abysmal failure in promoting the interests of the poorest people in the world. On 17 May 2000, she said:
    "Anyone who knows anything about development knows that the EU is the worst agency in the world, the most inefficient, the least poverty-focused, the slowest, flinging money around for political gestures rather than promoting real development."
    866
    I sometimes wish that she would more often say what she really means. In November 1999, she said:
    "The EU's development efforts are very, very, very ineffective. There is poor management and then they get fraud".
    In the Financial Times in July 2000, she said:
    "The EU is running out of time to make concrete improvements in quality and effectiveness on the ground."
    In the same article, the said:
    "If there is no substantial progress in implementation during the next two years, the member states should think seriously about scaling back EU programmes and spending the money better elsewhere."
    I could not have put it better myself. It is absolutely scandalous that the EU continues to misuse 30 per cent. of British taxpayers' money, because of lack of focus, fraud and misuse, and because it is getting it horribly wrong.
    I am afraid that any hon. Members who think that the EU aid programme is getting better after the recent reforms are sadly mistaken. There is no evidence to suggest that that is happening. Two recent reports published by the European Parliament, that much-loved institution, state that the EU aid programme reached rock bottom in 1999. I should like to cite page 12/14—there does not seem to be a page 13—of one of those reports, which is dated 23 March 2001. In parliamentary terms, the report is hot off the press; indeed, in European parliamentary terms, it is extremely hot off the press.
    Mr. Edward Leigh: My hon. Friend makes some effective points about the EU budget. When we take power on 7 June—I sincerely hope that we will do so—and he takes his richly deserved seat in the Secretary of State's chair, what can he do to start the process of withdrawing us from the scandalous waste of money that he describes, so that we can spend taxpayers' money to relieve third-world poverty?
    Mr. Streeter: My hon. Friend makes a telling point. In a moment, I shall spell out yet again our policy on ensuring that the abuse comes to an end and that we can scale back and claw back to member states the ability to spend the money bilaterally. We all know that that would ensure better value for money.
    I shall return to that point shortly, but I want first to read my quotation from the important European Parliament report to which I referred. Of course, we enjoy reading these wonderful reports. The committee that produced the report
    "regrets that in 1999 only one of the top 10 recipients of EC overseas development assistance was a least developed country"—
    only one in 10—
    "and that the percentage of EC ODA going to low income and least developed countries fell below fifty per cent. for the first time ever".
    It sees that as
    "contradictory to the Community's commitment to poverty reduction re-emphasised in the Council's and the Commission's Policy Statement."
    The EU's aid programme is getting worse, and 30 per cent. of British taxpayers' aid money is spent via that aid programme.
    Mr. Bowen Wells: Is my hon. Friend aware that US$850 million of the European

    867
    development budget is being spent on Serbia and Kosovo, the same amount that is allocated for the whole of Latin America and Asia, where about 80 per cent. of the poorest people live? Is not that as much a scandal as what my hon. Friend describes?
    Mr. Streeter: My hon. Friend sums up the matter nicely, if grotesquely. It is a scandal which must come to an end. How much longer can we wait? The Conservative party is the only political party pressing for concrete action to bring the scandal to an end. The Government had an opportunity at the recent Nice summit to put the matter on the agenda and to start to build a portfolio of support for scaling back the EU aid programme and allowing member states to spend that money bilaterally.
    Since I was the Conservative party's spokesman on Europe in 1997–98, I have become convinced that there is an appetite for such an approach. The Nice summit was an opportunity for the Government to put that issue on the agenda. I urged them several times to do so, but they failed to take that opportunity. As a result, the rather feeble agreement that has now been reached is to review the performance of the EU aid programme in 2006—five more years of waste and five more years of the poorest people in the world suffering in the way that we have described. The Government should have started work on that at the Nice summit and it is to be regretted that they did not.
    Under the EU aid programme, 30 per cent. of our aid budget is without a poverty focus. Can the Minister honestly say that it is right that the Bill should have no reference to the fact that any money that we spend via multilateral organisations, whether the EU or the UN, should also have a poverty focus? That would place the Government under a legal obligation to ensure that every pound that is spent via the EU comes within the poverty focus and is properly spent, and would place them under a legal requirement not to sit back and allow the current situation to continue, but to sort the matter out. That is why that should be in the Bill.
    Mr. Rowe: As one reason the EU budget is so badly spent is that the EU is quite open about the fact that it has political rather than development imperatives, if the Government are prepared to go along with that, would it not be appropriate for the money that is being spent on our behalf by the EU to come from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office's budget?
    Mr. Streeter: That is an interesting suggestion, which I hope the Minister will take on board. It is wrong for development aid to be spent via the EU, either as a second tier of immigration policy for the southern European states, or as part of the wider Foreign Office or political diplomatic agenda.
    New clause 2 and the amendments grouped with it contain two important points. We say that good governance should be the focus of the Bill and included in it, because without it the Bill will be less effective.
    Secondly, the Bill should contain a legal obligation to ensure that any money spent by the British Government via the European Union or the United Nations is not be misused. I could have said much about the United Nations' effectiveness in spending our aid money, but I want to give other colleagues time to speak.
    868
    The Government should be legally obliged by the measure not to sit back and allow such scandalous abuse and misuse to continue, but to build alliances, partnerships and support. I believe that they would be pushing against an open door, certainly with northern European and Scandinavian states, which are as fed up as we are. They should sort out the problem.
    I hope that the Minister will take those substantive points into account. I believe that they have been fully argued and I am sure that my hon. Friends will speak in support of new clause 2. I hope that he will accept it and that we will not need to put it to the vote.
    Mr. Wells: I want to make three points in support of my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Devon (Mr. Streeter) and the new clause and other amendments in the group. I shall speak about good governance and humanitarian aid. However, first, I want to consider whether the money allocated to international bodies such as the World Bank, the European Union, the development banks and other organisations such as the United Nations development programme and UNICEF could be subject to legal challenge under the Bill as currently drafted.
    The Department for International Development spends more than 50 per cent. of its budget on multilateral institutions, which do not have a poverty focus as their only and single-minded purpose. The Bill enshrines that purpose. It is therefore clear that a citizen of this country or a non-governmental organisation could take the Department for International Development to court for allocating part of its budget to, for example, the European Union, which does not spend the money on poverty-focused purposes. That is a genuine danger. Those who drafted the Bill have recognised that, and I am sure that they will inform the Minister of the difficulty.
    Clause 4 provides for the Secretary of State to support organisational funds that "wholly or partly" exist for the relevant purposes outlined in clause 1,
    "if he is satisfied that to do so is likely to contribute to a reduction in poverty."
    Clause 4 could be used as a defence in a court case against the Department for International Development on its use of international development money allocated by Parliament for relieving poverty. Is the Minister satisfied that the Department is adequately protected by the wording of clause 4? That is an important question if a lot of money and time is not to be wasted on court proceedings. I believe that the clause leaves the Department open to serious challenge in the courts. I should regret such a fruitless use of money and time, which could mean a reduction in the amount of money that the Department can spend on relieving abject poverty.
    I want to reflect on what we mean by good governance. I presume that we do not mean the sort of time-wasting activity that we discussed when we considered the programme motion. I hope that we do not define good governance as imposing from above a Westminster-style parliamentary system on the people of other countries. However, good governance requires the maintenance of specific principles.
    First, the Executive in any country should be accountable to the people through a representational body, however it is formed. I often argue that democracy is the traditional way in which African countries have ruled themselves. The previous Secretary-General of the

    869
    Commonwealth, His Excellency Emeka Anyaoku, often used to refer in speeches to the way in which his chief ruled his area in south-west Africa. There, a meeting of all the people is held, as in a platonic Greek state. The chief is chief by tradition, not necessarily by inheritance. He is the senior man, but he is expected to listen to, take advice from and find the majority opinion within the meeting. Then, together with his elders, some of whom in some African tribes are and have always been—in living memory—elected, he takes the final executive decisions.
    A similar process has been described to many of us on visits to Swaziland, which is a monarchy. That procedure is changing, but it is keeping to the principle that the Executive have to be accountable to their people and rule by consent. In essence, that is what our Parliament tries to achieve. If countries achieve it by a different route, we should not oppose it, but welcome and support it in any way that we can.
    1.45 pm
    The next thing that is essential is that we have a reliable and objective judiciary. That is not an easy thing to achieve. Even in this country, we are questioning whether we are right to leave the appointment of judges entirely in the hands of the Lord Chancellor, in view of his conduct in recent times in trying to raise money for political purposes from those who might be appointed to judgeships. Even we are not certain that we have got the right mechanism for appointing people to enforce with impartiality the laws passed by Parliament and the Executive.
    A reliable and objective judiciary is essential if domestic savings are to be re-invested in a country and even more if we are to achieve the objective set out in the eliminating world poverty White Paper and the globalisation White Paper, both issued by the DFID during this Parliament, of bringing in the private sector to be the engine of growth, employment and opportunity in some of the poorest countries. Without that capacity to rely on an impartial judiciary, which will make objective decisions, the accumulation of domestic and overseas investment will not occur, and the abjectly poor will remain abjectly poor.
    A survey entitled "Voices of the People" asked ordinary people in third-world countries what concerned them most about their Government and corruption. Their first concern was corruption in the judiciary and their second was corruption in the police force, to whom they always have to pay fees for one thing or another—to pass a police barrier on the road or to get a licence to do something or other.
    Good governance requires a first-class impartial judiciary, an impartial police force and an objective and impartial civil service, which is essential to good administration. Those elements have to exist if we are to bring about development. The concept of good governance has come to the fore in development thinking as a result of failures of the past. Without such a framework in developing countries, it is close to impossible to get development to take place. So it is right to include the question of good governance in the Bill as it is essential to realising its objective, which is of course to eliminate abject poverty throughout the world.
    870
    Another thing that worries me about the proposals is whether we should allow regional development banks to invest in humanitarian aid. If we passed the new clause, we would exclude the possibility of regional banks providing such aid.
    As I said on Second Reading, humanitarian aid is a problem because it is being thoroughly abused, which is undermining the whole concept of it. Such aid depends on the impartiality of its delivery. It should go to both or all sides of a conflict or violent event: to those who have been killed, maimed or injured who are working for the Government and those who have been killed, maimed or injured who are protesting or conducting a violent campaign against the Government. The Red Cross is trusted to go in on both sides and to provide humanitarian aid to them.
    That principle has been established since the mid-19th century. If we throw it away, it will be at great expense: there will be much human suffering in those violent situations. That is why I am concerned that we make certain that humanitarian aid is delivered impartially.
    In the post-cold war era, the concept of humanitarianism has been deepened and broadened in principle and in practice.
    Mr. Tom Clarke: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not mind if I echo what a number of people have already said. We shall miss him very much and we admire greatly the tremendous work that he has done on international development.
    On the specific point that the hon. Gentleman raises, does he agree that, whoever is responsible for delivering humanitarian aid, it is crucial that they continue to work increasingly with non-governmental organisations, so that the aid is seen to be delivered to the people who should be benefiting?
    Mr. Wells: I agree. We must be careful that we work with NGOs that are properly managed, organised and capable of delivering the aid to both sides impartially. If one NGO, for whatever reason, has adopted a particular position on the conflict in which it is working, I suggest that it be thereby excluded from delivering such humanitarian aid so as to maintain the impartial nature of the aid. That is essential if we are to be able to help, for example, in the distribution of food—we all saw the starvation conditions produced by conflict in Ethiopia many years ago.
    One of the difficult questions that we face is whether we are feeding the two armies in a conflict as a primary result of the distribution of food, so that the fighting can continue for longer. By all admission, much food aid distributed in those circumstances does support the belligerents. In those circumstances we need to train NGOs to deliver impartially—they are the people to do so—because we cannot employ Government people to distribute the aid if they are in conflict with a large part of the civil population. The NGOs therefore play a crucial role.
    As I have said, humanitarian assistance in the post-cold war period has been extended because it has begun to be used as a method by which to influence internal disputes within countries. As we all know, since the fall of the Berlin wall, we have predominantly dealt with conflicts within countries, not between countries. Although the type

    871
    of conflict in which we were engaged in Kosovo and elsewhere in the Balkans is an example of that change, the examples of Sierra Leone and of Angola also stare us in the face. It is a very difficult issue
    I am worried that humanitarian assistance is increasingly associated with politico-military intervention by the west. The obvious example of that is NATO's appointment of a "humanitarian general"—a general in charge of humanitarian assistance provided by NATO. The Select Committee on International Development met the general, the first to be appointed, who was very efficient and had organised most of Albania with the consent of its Government. He was given control of the ports, airports and all the roads leading to the border with Kosovo, all of which he ran with exemplary efficiency and discipline. Nevertheless, he called himself a humanitarian NATO general.
    Let us consider that role for a moment. He was a humanitarian general on behalf of one side of a conflict. Was he offering those services to the Serbs in Kosovo? Was he also prepared to run their ports, airports and military logistics to assist them? It does not make any sense at all, but that is what we have started to slip into by using the word "humanitarian" for such purposes.
    The relationship between humanitarian and political action has become very complex, and an international consensus is lacking on the political character and legitimacy of humanitarian assistance. I believe that that situation will become more acute if we continue down the same road. I also believe that clause 3 places us in danger of allowing the operation of humanitarian assistance to slip further. As hon. Members will have noticed, clause 3 exempts the Government from a requirement to ensure that money spent on humanitarian assistance is used for poverty reduction programmes. It requires that the money be spent not on pro-poor policies, but simply on humanitarian aid.
    In its reply to the sixth report of the International Development Committee, on conflict prevention and reconstruction, which was published in 1999, the Department for International Development defined humanitarian aid as
    "all measures in situations of conflicts, disasters and emergencies, which are intended to save lives, relieve suffering, hasten recovery, protect and rebuild livelihoods and community, and reduce vulnerability to future crises. This includes disaster relief, preparedness, prevention and mitigation, food aid and assistance to refugees and other displaced populations. It also includes essential measures to re-establish structures and systems to govern and administer services where these have broken down due to the crisis or disaster".
    Currently, there is no statutory basis—the Bill does not provide one—for humanitarian assistance. The definition rests on an analysis of content and not on principle. Furthermore, it does not take into account the political distinction between relief and development assistance. I believe that we have to address ourselves to that issue and that, to protect itself, the Department also has to think about the issue.
    I know that the Department does not wish to provide a definition because it is afraid that, if it does so, it will be taken to court in a judicial review. If the Government provided a definition, a decision to spend money on humanitarian assistance could be challenged in court. As we know, in court, definitions are manna for lawyers. I think that the risk of such legal action is a real danger.
    872
    Conversely, leaving the definition as vague as it is in the Bill runs the equal danger of allowing humanitarian assistance to be used in a manner that is partial and that promotes conflict rather than the reverse.
    2 pm
    We must think about how we can achieve the objectives that we have set in regard to humanitarian assistance. I would define them as follows: to prevent and alleviate human suffering, to protect life and health, and to ensure respect for the human being. Arguably, that definition provides for the protection and re-establishment of livelihoods, not just the saving of lives. In other words, unlike development assistance or political intervention, humanitarian assistance is concerned with the preservation and dignity of individuals. It is based on their humanity, not on the development of particular political or economic systems or on political affiliation. That definition—probably refined—might fulfil the purposes that we all want to be maintained and sustained in respect of humanitarian assistance as defined in clause 3.
    That is all that I wish to say at this stage, but I believe that there are important issues that should be reflected in the Bill.
    Mrs. Maria Fyfe: I want to offer a few thoughts on good governance. In a few weeks, we are all likely to be touring the country telling the population that the other side is incapable of delivering good governance; yet here we are, discussing how other countries may deliver it.
    1 was relieved to note that Opposition Members are not talking nowadays of trying to impose a west-approved system on other countries, but I feel that the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Wells) is expecting a great deal in some instances. While representative democracy and an independent judiciary are ideals that we hope can be aspired to by every country—the sooner the better—in many cases we seem to be a long way from achieving those aims. In far too many countries, for example, women—despite constituting half the population—do not have a say in how their countries are run, let alone play a part in Government or judiciary. If we are calling for good governance, we should ensure that women have an equal right to run their own countries.
    What the Secretary of State has done over the past four years is crucial. She has developed literacy and numeracy programmes, and that alone is a key element. Literacy and numeracy present populations with the opportunity to challenge, as they enable them to think for themselves, to argue, to campaign and to get things done. My right hon. Friend's concentration over those four years, and in the Bill, on promoting education—especially women's education—is what is required. We must begin where people are, not where they are likely to be.
    Mr. Leigh: I support new clause 2 and the amendments grouped with it.
    Good governance is indeed crucial to the debate; we know that from our own experience. When this country suddenly leapt forward, it was because we started to pay High Court and other judges rates that ensured that they were incorruptible. From that moment we gave an enormous boost to good governance. The same applies to the civil service. Why did the country leap forward in

    873
    the last century, in terms of good governance? Because corruption was cleared out of the civil service; civil servants were paid a decent salary, and were recruited through competitive examinations. The House should pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Devon (Mr. Streeter) for putting good governance on the agenda.
    I want to concentrate on new clause 2, and its emphasis on a reduction of poverty. There is no doubt at all that EC assistance is too often influenced by political expediency rather than being concentrated on the reduction of poverty—I think that both sides of the House are convinced of that. As we have heard, that means that EU assistance, in the name of development aid, goes to relatively rich countries which are neighbours of the EU; such aid is thus unavailable for really poor countries.
    I join the whole House in paying tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Wells) for his chairmanship of the Select Committee on International Development and for the way in which he has developed the debate in a bipartisan spirit. He has contributed much to a greater understanding of the issues in the House and in the Conservative party. The Committee's ninth report is excellent; I very much hope that all Members will take a few moments to glance through it.
    The report is fair. I do not want to be accused of EU bashing. I want to defend the EU—just for a moment—so that no one can say that we are trying to use new clause 2 merely to bash the EU. The report stated that the EU is perfectly entitled to take an interest in what is going on in Poland, in Bosnia or in Serbia. However, that is a political objective; it should not be part of the aid budget. As the report stated on page ix:
    "EC external assistance policies are clearly determined more by political priorities than poverty alleviation. Pre-accession aid and the stability of the regions surrounding the EU are indeed important political objectives."
    We all accept that. It is vital for all of us in this place that Poland, for instance, is ready to join the EU. However, we are in a ridiculous situation, as Chris Patten outlined in the report. He stated:
    "A consequence of that is that today we spend twice as much in Poland preparing for accession as we spend in Latin America and Asia combined."
    That cannot be right.
    There must be a better way. We look forward to the comments of the Under-Secretary of State for International Development on this point. Can we not convince the Council of Ministers and our friends in the EU that we are entitled to pay our fair share in helping Serbia, Bosnia or Poland or other hot spots close to our borders, but that we need a ring-fenced budget? As the report states:
    "All too often Category 4, initially envisaged as a source of finance for community development programmes, is 'raided' by the Council of Ministers to fund political initiatives that they do not wish to fund bilaterally, amounting to what Clare Short described as 'political gestures'."
    The Committee asks for
    "a budget for expenditure in all developing countries dedicated to its principles".
    I agree.
    874
    I do not seek here to make a party political point or any point directed against the EU. I fully accept that everyone has their own priorities. However, when we are faced with dire poverty in the world, and when both sides of the House face enormous difficulties in the political debate trying to convince hon. Friends that we should devote more resources to the world's poorest populations, even though that may result in fewer hospitals, schools and roads—all the things that our voters actually want—how can we go to our electorates and argue for that aid when we see such waste, or at least misdirection, of resources? People think that those resources are going to help the world's poorest people, but they are in fact being diverted for political objectives. I hope that the whole House can agree with new clause 2 on that point.
    The picture gets worse, however. Whatever one's opinion of the EU, one has to be critical of the way that it spends its money. On 6 August 2000, the Sunday Telegraph reported that
    "nearly two years after Hurricane Mitch devastated Central America, leaving almost 7,000 people dead, the EU has failed to deliver a penny of the £170-million package pledged to help survivors of the disaster."
    The article accuses the European Commission of
    "'gesture politics' because they have a history of announcing grand aid packages to the Third World without having a clue how the money should be spent on the ground."
    The report says, at page xvi:
    "The Committee has heard of a number of examples of delays and inefficiencies in disbursement. Population Concern gave the Committee two examples of such delays: the first was a delay of thirteen months"—
    13 months!—
    "in the disbursement of funds for four mini-projects in Bolivia and Peru; in the second instance—a Community-based Distribution Programme in Karachi—The funding situation became so dire that the Director of a local NGO in Pakistan took out a personal loan to pay staff salaries".
    The picture persists; it is not good enough. After all, we are talking about public money. It may be public money disbursed by an international organisation, a multinational organisation; there may not be very great political pressure—in fact, there is virtually no political pressure—on the way these moneys are disbursed. There may not even be much public interest. However, as a result of the lack of control and lack of concern, some poor person who is trying to do a decent job to help some of the world's poorest people, in some little office in Pakistan, has to pay salaries cut of her own pocket. That is simply not good enough.
    Mr. Rowe: My hon. Friend is probably aware that one of the pressures under which the EU operates is that whenever there is evidence of malfeasance there is a huge outburst of scandal and horror, and then, instead of reviewing all its procedures and ensuring that there is one accountable person, the EU simply increases the number of signatures that have to appear on each authorisation. Far from improving accountability, that requirement hugely diminishes it, and colossally increases the time that such an authorisation takes to go through the system.
    Mr. Leigh: My hon. Friend, who speaks with great knowledge on these subjects, makes a perfectly valid point. It is difficult to advise the EU on how to proceed, but I suppose that the problem boils down to a lack of

    875
    political oversight, of national interest and of national concern—the equivalent of Ministers being brought back to the House to be brought to account. As a result there are scandals and bad publicity, and as my hon. Friend says, it is then necessary to add another layer of bureaucracy because people involved in the process get worried about their career and the way they will be reported in the press.
    The Commission, in a statement on development policy, has analysed the problems that it faces in implementing commitments. Fair enough. It listed them as
    "a complex and fragmented aid system: policies guided by instruments rather than by policy objectives; substandard monitoring and evaluation procedures; burdensome ex-ante financial controls; lack of human resources."
    Let us consider the point about lack of human resources. Is the reason why the EU is unable to devote itself adequately to relieving poverty in the third world the fact that it does not have the right number of staff? The Commission has argued that there is a shortfall of 1,300 staff, and that therefore it simply cannot deliver the programme in the way it should. It says that the shortfall has the obvious effect of leaving a few staff to deal with an enormously increased amount of money to spend and makes it obvious that the efficiency of the programmes will be damaged, and that it will be less likely that they will be followed up and corruption detected.
    Is it true that the reason why the EU is performing so badly is that there is a shortfall of 1,300 staff? I suspect not. My viewpoint is shared by the International Development Secretary, who declared her opposition to giving the Commission any more money for staff and has promised to "fight to the death" to prevent it unless the Commission improves the quality of what it is doing already.
    The International Development Secretary, to whom I pay tribute, is being absolutely robust in this. She is saying that the problem is not due to lack of staff at all. Fair enough. If we therefore are all agreed—I see Labour Members nodding—why is she willing to continue to use the European Commission to distribute aid despite its being, in her words,
    "the worst development agency in the world',
    and despite the fact that, in her words.
    "the poor quality and reputation of its aid bring Europe into disrepute"?
    I have never heard a Minister, whether Conservative or Labour, use such strong language to describe any EU institution. This is not someone who has a reputation as a Eurosceptic trying to score political points, but the International Development Secretary, who describes the Commission as
    "the worst development agency in the world'.
    That is why the group of amendments before us is so apposite. It does not make sense for the International Development Secretary to continue to use and depend on the EU for aid distribution despite its being truly awful. Surely she and her junior Minister, who is here today, must agree with the Conservative new clause to propose that no aid be allowed to be distributed by a third party unless the Secretary of State is satisfied that it is likely to result in a reduction of poverty. That is all the new clause is about.
    876
    2.15 pm
    If we place our hopes in the illusion of the EU's reforming itself and suddenly becoming, contrary to all the expectations of the International Development Secretary, an efficient organisation which works solely for the reduction of poverty in a holistic manner, I believe that we are fooling ourselves. The all-party International Development Committee, in producing the report, has been
    "exasperated with the failure of the Commission to reform its development activity effectively."
    That all-party Committee says that it would be foolishness to assume that the EU will now reform itself. The EU has far too many problems with its aid programme to reform itself effectively in the foreseeable future.
    I believe that it would be better if the United Kingdom took the decision to spend this money itself, controlled by this Parliament, for the reduction in poverty in the world and to help the world's poorest people.
    Dr. Jenny Tonge: I rise to speak to amendment No. 6, but I hope that the House will allow me to make a few comments first on the other amendments and the new clause before us.
    The hon. Member for South-West Devon (Mr. Streeter), as usual, said a great deal about good governance, and many people in the House would agree with what he says. It is indeed fundamental. It lies at the core of any development programme in an underdeveloped country. However, as the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Wells) said, we must question what good governance is. It is sometimes extremely difficult to put a finger on what its ingredients are.
    I was about to rise to ask the hon. Gentleman whether Uganda would be an example of good governance. I remember his having great doubts when we were out there, and yet Uganda seems to be doing quite well in development terms, and delivering the goods as far as the Department for International Development is concerned. If we intend to declare that people will get aid only to further good governance, and that that is at the very core of poverty alleviation, it is worth remembering that it is quite difficult to assess what good governance is.
    The hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford mentioned the police and the judiciary. In doing so, he perfectly illustrated what I am always saying: that poverty can be alleviated only by addressing very many factors. One cannot give one factor a higher priority than another. How can one have a good police force, and above all a good judiciary, without education? Should not education therefore lie at the core of development? One cannot educate people or maintain good governance unless those people are relatively healthy and have a health care system—so should not health care be at the core? One cannot have good health without clean water, so should not clean water be at the very core? So is not clean water just as important as good governance? They all go together; it is thus absolutely right that the core powers are set out in the way that they are, and that they do not give one factor more importance than another. It is important that we go ahead on many fronts.
    Certainly, it may sometimes feel, as the hon. Member for South-West Devon said, that this is a bit of a scatter-gun approach, but it has to be that way, because

    877
    these aspects will improve and the countries involved will improve only if all those factors are addressed at the same time. I cannot therefore support the amendments tabled by the Conservative party.
    We all have sympathy with what has been said about the inefficiency of European Union aid. I shall not bore the House again with my story of reading reports from the Court of Auditors. They contain absolutely horrific stories of projects not started, not completed or not reported on, and of money not even wasted but simply not used—just sitting there, not delivering the aid that was intended. Sadly, EU aid gives the Conservative party another opportunity for a bit of Europe bashing, and I wish that the EU would put its house in order because it provides such a wonderful excuse to attack Europe and all things European.
    I remind Conservative Members that if they had played a more wholehearted part in setting up all those institutions, and if they had been there enthusiastically insisting that the European aid budgets were managed properly, instead of washing their hands, like Pontius Pilate, of all things European, we would be in a much better state today and they could not criticise what goes on in our name.
    Mr. Wells: As the hon. Lady will know, because she was a member of the Select Committee when we drafted the report to which my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) referred, we recommended not that we should withdraw money from the European aid programme, but that we should make that programme perform better. Does she agree that Mr. Chris Patten and Mr. Nielsen—the two Commissioners principally concerned with European aid—have introduced many new measures which will come into force this year and promise to make European aid much more efficient and to deliver pro-poor policies in the third world?
    Dr. Tonge: Yes, I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman, and I am hopeful that reform will take place. Conservative Members have quoted the Secretary of State on many occasions this afternoon. She is unhappy about the way things work, and she will ensure that we will not contribute more funds until they improve. I have a lot of faith in my constituent, Commissioner Patten—he is not all the Conservative party's; he is partly mine too. He and his colleague are sincerely trying to improve matters, but I repeat that it is very foolish of the Conservative Opposition continually to carp about the systems that they set up but now want nothing to do with.
    I want to make one last point on European aid. It is rather strange that the Conservative party says that good governance and political considerations are of the very essence if we want to relieve poverty, and that good governance must be top of the aid agenda, since that is precisely what many European aid projects do. They are trying to deliver good governance, which will improve the countries where they operate and bring them into the first world and, eventually, the European Union. Conservative Members have been speaking on both sides of the argument.
    Mr. Streeter: I am reluctant to interrupt the hon. Lady's speech, which I am greatly enjoying, and I am
    878
    keen to deal with the other groups of amendments, but I must make two points. First, the EU may well be building good governance in certain places, but our argument is that it is doing so in the wrong places; it is not doing it in the poorest countries, which are those most desperate for a measure of good governance.
    Secondly, is the hon. Lady aware of a recent report—again, produced by the European Parliament—in which the Parliament expresses massive pessimism about whether the European aid reforms which Commissioner Patten has just introduced will work, because they do not deal with the EU culture, which is so bureaucratic, ineffective and unfocused? Is not that the problem? We all want those reforms to work, but I am afraid that, living in the real world, we profoundly believe they will not.
    Dr. Tonge: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that contribution. He reinforces what I say: much European aid is being used for the purposes that he suggests it should be used.
    Mr. Streeter: But in the wrong places.
    Dr. Tonge: Well, who is to say which are the wrong places, when talking about good governance? The Conservative party must sort out its argument; there is an element of confusion among some Opposition Members this afternoon.
    I should like to deal with tied aid. In the White Paper on globalisation, we are told:
    "The UK Government is totally committed to the multilateral untying of aid."
    It also states that the Government will
    "untie all UK development assistance from 1 April 2001."
    The Government have already untied the knots and aid is now untied, so why have they not mentioned tied aid in the Bill? Would it not have been wonderful for all those of us who criticised the Pergau dam—the most famous example of all—to have seen the words "tied aid" in the Bill? That would have been a recognition, as the White Paper states, that the Government are legislating to stop the practice.
    The White Paper states that more than a third of the total amount of aid to developing countries—about £13 billion—is given on the condition that it is tied to the purchase of products and services. According to the White Paper, tied aid
    "reduces the value of that aid by about 25 per cent."
    It states that "it is grossly inefficient" to supply developing countries with incompatible equipment from different development agencies.
    Project objectives are skewed towards commercial considerations, and capital intensive projects are favoured more than smaller, more effective poverty-focused projects. Tied aid also
    "encourages a donor driven approach to development. It signals that development agencies' major concern is not development, but their national contracts."
    All that is stated in the White Paper.
    Mr. Wells: I apologise for intervening on the hon. Lady and thank her for allowing me to do so. Does she not think that clause 1 would prohibit the retying of aid?

    879
    Apart from being poverty focused, the Bill's objective is, under clause 1, to exclude any possibility of reintroducing tied aid.
    Dr. Tonge: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. I find it difficult to grapple with that concept. The Department and the Minister have been very kind; they have been patient with me, and they have spent a long time discussing clause 1 with me, but I am still not satisfied that it will stop the reintroduction of tied aid. I am told that it will do so, but I dispute that; it is not clear enough.
    Clause 1 states:
    "'development assistance' means assistance provided for the purpose of … furthering sustainable development in one or more countries outside the United Kingdom, or … improving the welfare of the population of one or more such countries."
    It also states that
    "'sustainable development' includes any development that is, in the opinion of the Secretary of State, prudent".
    What is prudence in the mind of Secretaries of State?
    We know that the current Secretary of State is a very prudent person and that, on the whole, we would trust her with international development, but what of future Secretaries of State? Pigs may fly, and someone in the Chamber may become a Secretary of State one day—I do not refer to the hon. Member for South-West Devon. Nevertheless, clause 1 is not clear, because nowhere does it say that it
    "does not allow for any dilution of the developmental purpose to reflect commercial, political or other considerations."
    That is what I am told that clause 1 is intended to say, which is why I suggest in amendment No. 6 that that phrase should be included. That is what the clause is supposed to say, so why not say it?
    2.30 pm
    Mr. Simon Thomas: I shall address most of my remarks to amendment No. 5, which stands in my name and those of my colleagues. First, however, I shall comment briefly on the new clause and other amendments.
    There is a great deal of virtue in new clause 2 and its purposes, which were set out by the hon. Member for South-West Devon (Mr. Streeter). There is an obvious failure in the European Union aid policy. The only question that we need answer is whether we should place on the Secretary of State a responsibility that should be fulfilled by the European Parliament and the Commission, which are accountable. There are difficulties with accountability which we need to address at a European level.
    Mr. Ian Davidson: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that over a long period the European Parliament and the Commission have shown themselves incapable of reforming the aid programme, and that in those circumstances, it is necessary for the House to consider taking action?
    Mr. Thomas: I certainly agree that we need to consider taking action, and that is why I think new clause 2 worthy of consideration. However, whether we should put that responsibility on the Secretary of State is a matter of
    880
    opinion. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that, so far, we have seen little action by the European Parliament. It has new powers in this regard and is supposedly able to call people to account on the budget, but we have yet to see that happen.
    I am less clear about the issue of good governance. The hon. Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge) put her finger on it when she said that good governance is a worthy aim of international development, but it is not the sole aim and it should not receive a higher priority than other aims such as education and health services and clean water.
    Amendment No. 5 deals with sustainable development, which lies at the heart of the Bill's objectives. To be absolutely clear for the purposes of debate, sustainable development is not an objective like good governance or clean water; it is the whole framework within which we should deliver international aid policies. Agenda 21, agreed in the Rio declaration to which the previous Government wholeheartedly signed up, defines sustainable development as
    "the progressive integration of the economic, social and issues in the pursuit of development that is economically efficient, socially equitable and responsible and environmentally sound".
    That is a rather cumbersome definition, but it makes it clear that sustainable development is about more than delivering one aid package or achieving one type of improvement.
    Some Members may feel that sustainable development is about the environment, and are asking why we should be discussing it in relation to a Bill on international development. They may think that we need first to get the economy going or to address social needs. It must be emphasised that sustainable development is about the environment, social needs and the economy coming together in a package that allows a country to develop in a way that will give its future generations the opportunity to thrive.
    The Government have sought to define sustainable development in the Bill in that context. I welcome their attempt to do so, but I do not know who dreamt up the definition because it does not square with those used by the Government in other regards. Recently in his career, the Under-Secretary has used other definitions elsewhere in the Government. I tabled my amendment because the definition in the Bill does not cover all our needs.
    As the hon. Member for Richmond Park has pointed out, the Bill says that sustainable development
    "includes any development that is, in the opinion of the Secretary of State"—
    I have no objection to its being the Secretary of State's opinion—
    "prudent having regard to the likelihood of its generating lasting benefits for the population of the country or countries in relation to which it is provided."
    I suppose that the definition is okay in itself, but I am not sure what it really means. It does not sufficiently tie the hands of future Secretaries of State as regards the introduction of tied aid, which has already been mentioned, or support for projects that do not meet what we think of as the criteria for sustainability.
    Amendment No. 5 would introduce what is generally known as the Brundtland definition of sustainable development, which is now the most widely accepted

    881
    international definition. I am not the one who says that; it is the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions. The DETR's development strategy, "A Better Quality of Life", asks:
    "What is sustainable development? At its heart it is the simple idea of ensuring a better quality of life for everyone, now and for generations to come."
    That is rather worthy, but it does not mean very much. However, the strategy goes on to say:
    "A widely used international definition is 'development which meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs'."
    I seek to amend the Bill to include that definition, which is accepted by the DETR.
    Interestingly, the only other legislation passed by the House which has included a reference to sustainable development is the Government of Wales Act 1998, which placed on the National Assembly for Wales an obligation to introduce sustainable development. It did not include a definition, but in responding to the obligation, the Assembly has come up with one. Lo and behold, it says:
    "A widely used international definition featured in the 1987 United Nations Brundtland report to the World Commission on Environment and Development, is: 'development which meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs'."
    I have given two clear examples of how the Government have rightly sought to establish a definition of sustainable development: one, directly, through the DETR, and the second, indirectly, by placing an obligation on the National Assembly for Wales, which responded by using the Brundtland definition.
    There is another recent definition of sustainable development, which is contained in the European Union's 6th environmental action programme, but out of sensitivity to what some hon. Members regard as gobbledegook emerging from Europe, I will not quote it. It is not as acceptable to me as it may be to other hon. Members.
    It is important to get that definition right. We know from the debate that we are now having on climate change that the worst effects are being felt in sub-Saharan Africa and developing countries. We will experience the least effects here, and we can cope with storms, floods and extreme summer temperatures using our technology and our economy. However, our Kyoto obligations and the need to develop international development aid in light of those obligations mean that we need a much clearer view of what sustainable development is.
    We should have a strong definition so that we can respond to any international feeling, such as that demonstrated by America, which may be expressed about Kyoto and global warming in the near future. Having the right definition is vital, and in providing development aid we must not transfer the burden of meeting our Kyoto targets to the developing countries themselves. First and foremost, they have to bring themselves up to a level at which they can cope with climate change. There are some worrying ideas concerning the clean development mechanism which means that we may place our burdens on those countries through development aid. I do not want that to happen, and a stronger definition of sustainable development may be a way to avoid it.
    882
    I concur with the general view that the Secretary of State will not misuse the existing definition in the Bill, but a future Secretary of State may negotiate within the Government or the World Trade Organisation or on the general agreement on tariffs and trade, about which concern was expressed on Second Reading. They will have to report back to the House about how they are fulfilling the obligations placed on them by the Bill. For that reason, we need a firmer definition of sustainable development. If the Under-Secretary is not prepared to accept my definition, will he explain what the definition in the Bill means?
    How do the Government intend to report back to the House on how they are achieving their obligations and objectives under that definition? It has been suggested that we need an annual in bi-annual debate on the matter. As a member of the Environmental Audit Committee, which has in the past considered how Departments have set out and followed guidelines on sustainable development, using Green Ministers to do so, I ask how we will show that we are delivering sustainable development if we do not have the right definition. Are the sustainable development aims that the Government want achieved in this country those being achieved through our development aid in other countries?
    Mr. Mullin: We have had a good debate about a large group of amendments, and I shall do my best to say something about all of them.
    The amendments and the new clause tabled by the hon. Member for South-West Devon (Mr. Streeter) all seek to change the aim or purposes for which development assistance can be provided. The Bill sets out a simple aim for British development assistance. With the exception of assistance to the overseas territories and that provided in response to disasters and emergencies, assistance can be provided only if it is likely to contribute to a reduction in poverty.
    New clause 2 provides that no UK development assistance could be disbursed through third parties unless the Secretary of State is satisfied that it is likely to contribute to a reduction in poverty. I am afraid that the new clause stems from a misreading of the Bill. Most of the assistance listed in it—in particular, assistance to agencies of the United Nations and to the European Development Fund—is provided for under clause 4(2), which allows a Secretary of State to support organisations and contribute to funds, and here I quote from that subsection,
    "if he is satisfied that to do so is likely to contribute to a reduction in poverty."
    That is exactly the same as the test proposed in the new clause.
    The Opposition may have been confused by clause 8, which provides for a Secretary of State to enter into arrangements to provide development assistance with third parties. I can reassure the House that this clause, too, is subject to the powers set out in clauses 1 to 4. Assistance given via third parties must, to the same extent as assistance given directly by the Secretary of State, be likely to contribute to a reduction in poverty.
    The new clause also refers to payments via multilateral development banks. I take this to be a reference to payments made under clause 11. I will cover that point when I reach amendment No. 4 shortly.

    883
    The hon. Member for South-West Devon and some of his colleagues got excited at the mention of the European Union. He is right to draw attention to the poor record of the EU's aid policy, but it might help to put his indignation in context if I say that, at the Edinburgh summit in 1992, a Tory Government signed up to the huge increase in aid to be channelled via the European Community.
    Mr. Streeter: I have made this point before, but the Minister will know that it is only since 1997–98 that the true horror of the EU's aid programme has become apparent to us all. If he is right to say that all British Government aid—whether or not it goes through the EU—must reduce poverty, what will he and the Secretary of State do the day after the Bill becomes an Act? He surely cannot pretend that the EU's programme has a poverty focus.
    Mr. Mullin: I am about to deal with that point. However, it is slightly odd that the horror, as the hon. Gentleman describes it, of the EU's development budget became apparent only after the change of Government in 1997. That makes one wonder what the previous Government were doing before then. However, I shall not make too much of that point, because we have had a good-natured debate and I acknowledge that there is a serious problem with the EU development budget and the way in which it is spent.
    I think that the hon. Gentleman misunderstands one point, so I should clarify the scope of the Bill. Only expenditure on the European Development Fund is covered by the Overseas Development and Co-operation Act 1980 and will be covered by the Bill. Expenditure on all other European Community development programmes, such as Poland and Hungary Aid for Reconstruction of the Economy—PHARE—Which provides financial and technical co-operation to central and eastern European countries, and the MEDA programme, which provides development assistance to 12 middle-income countries in the Mediterranean, are and will continue to be covered by the European Communities Act 1972.
    2.45 pm
    Over the past five years, programmes covered by the 1972 Act have accounted for more than 70 per cent. of DFID's expenditure in the European Community. Therefore, this Bill deals with the European Development Fund and the 30 per cent. of our contribution to the EC aid programme that is spent through the EDF. The fund provides development assistance to 77 African, Caribbean and Pacific countries and, with one exception, they are all developing countries. The EDF covers 39 of the world's 48 least-developed countries and the central objective of the Cotonou agreement, which governs the EDF, is poverty reduction.
    In 1999–2000, DFID contributed £213 million to the EDF and the UK Government argued strongly and successfully that EDF allocations should reflect its poverty focus and 71 per cent. of country allocations now go to the least-developed countries, and a further 18 per cent. to other low-income countries.
    We have taken advice and I can confirm that, given the EDF's clear focus on poverty reduction as set out in the Cotonou agreement, the Secretary of State will be able to
    884
    continue to contribute to it under the Bill. I think that that addresses the point that the hon. Gentleman made a moment ago. The fact that the majority of EC development programmes fall outside the scope of the Bill does not mean that we do not engage with them to improve their efficiency, effectiveness and poverty focus. The scale and scope of the EC's development operations mean that it has the potential to play a major role in reducing poverty but, so far, it has not come close to fulfilling that potential.
    Mr. Wells: We should reflect on the ties on the EU aid budget outside the EDF. It is compulsory that every country in the EU contributes and many of them have never spent any money on development at all. To abandon that source of money would lead to a serious reduction in the amount of aid available to poor countries.
    Mr. Mullin: I agree with the hon. Gentleman that we should reflect on that point. He and other hon. Members are right to draw attention to it, but it is not relevant for the purposes of this Bill. Much of the discussion about aid to middle-income countries and the aid that has been misdirected is covered by the European Communities Act 1972 and it will not be affected by the Bill. That is the only point that I wish to make.
    Mr. Rowe: I had not until this moment realised the point that the Minister has just made, and I am grateful to him for making it. However, does he not realise that the issue is extraordinarily confusing for the general public? As I understand it, the 0.3 per cent., or whatever it is, that we now spend includes the money covered by the 1972 Act. It is therefore caught up in the rhetoric about whether our money goes to the poorest countries. When ordinary people try to reassure themselves that we are a generous country, they will think that the whole of that 0.3 per cent. goes to the poorest countries, but that is clearly not so.
    Mr. Mullin: I say again that hon. Members are right to draw attention to the problems with a large part—if not all—of the EU's development spending. However, many of those points are not relevant to the Bill and the new clause, because they deal with funds that will not be governed by the Bill. The money spent by the EC through the EDF is, by and large, spent in a better way and is more directly targeted at the poorest countries than some of the EC's other expenditure.
    Mr. Davidson: Does my hon. Friend accept that EU aid generally is inefficient, slow, disorganised and unaccountable? If so, what action are he and the Government taking to ensure that the 30 per cent. which is covered by the Bill is spent more effectively? If that money is focused on the poorest countries but is not spent well, why should we give the EU aid budget more money?
    Mr. Mullin: My point is that the 30 per cent. that is accounted for in the European Development Fund is the better-spent European aid. It is targeted at the poorest countries, which is what my hon. Friend wants. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has put us at the forefront of ensuring that all the EU's budget—not just the 30 per cent.—is spent more efficiently, and we shall continue to lead the way. The relatively new Danish European Commissioner is making a great effort to

    885
    implement reforms. As he is dealing with a mighty task, we have to give him some leeway to make progress, and there are signs that that is happening.
    Many other issues besides the European aspect of our development aid have been raised. Amendments Nos. 2, 3 and 4 attempt to insert a reference to good governance. They are all unnecessary and undesirable, and the Government will resist them.
    Amendment No. 2, which relates to clause 1, proposes that good governance should be an aim of development assistance and independent of poverty reduction. I entirely accept that the quality of governance is critical for the eradication of poverty. If Governments are unrepresentative and ineffective, and where corruption is endemic, economic growth and sound development suffer. I do not disagree with anything that the hon. Member for South-West Devon and other hon. Members said about the importance of good governance.
    Chapter 1 of our 2001 departmental report, published last month, details the policies and actions that we are pursuing to promote sustainable livelihoods. We are strengthening governance and encouraging economic growth, which benefits the poor and upholds human rights. Let me offer a few brief examples to demonstrate the range of activities and initiatives that we support. In Uganda, we are supporting changes in the banking laws to increase access by the poor to financial services. We are also supporting a five-year commercial justice reform programme that aims to create a sound legal environment in which both foreign and domestic businesses can feel confident, and thereby increase investment levels. In Croatia, the Ukraine, Uganda and Russia, we are working with the Clerk's Department to strengthen the parliamentary system. In Jonestown, Jamaica, we are working with the Government and the local community to reduce violent crime.
    The Bill will not prevent the Secretary of State from supporting those interventions because they all contribute to the reduction of poverty, either through furthering sustainable development or through promoting the welfare of the people. So to make good governance an additional aim of development assistance is unnecessary and undesirable. The quality of governance is important, but, as the hon. Member for Richmond Park forcefully made clear, so are health, education, water, enterprise development, trade, investment and so on. All those aspects of development are interdependent. To mention one without the others would give a distorted perspective on development, which could weaken the Secretary of State's other powers.
    We are clear in our understanding that support for good governance is possible within the powers set out in the Bill. If we elevate it to the level of a specific free-standing aim, then on the principle that nothing unnecessary is stated in legislation, every additional aim would cast doubt on the core power. If support for good governance is not, as we believe, implicit in action to reduce poverty, what does the core power cover? We are anxious not to dilute that power. That is our key consideration.
    Amendment No. 3 provides that the activities authorised in clause 4(1) should be likely to promote the reduction of poverty or good governance. Concern was expressed in Committee that because it was not linked to
    886
    that requirement, it created a loophole that would allow the Secretary of State to provide development assistance for any reason whatsoever. That concern is misplaced and stems from a misunderstanding of the Bill's structure.
    As clause 4(1) makes clear, the Secretary of State may only exercise his or her powers
    "with a view to preparing for or facilitating the exercise of his powers under section 1, 2 or 3".
    It is wrong to suggest that there is no link between that power and the core power. It does not create a loophole and is entirely consistent with the Bill's poverty focus. The amendment is therefore defective.
    Amendment No. 4 relates to clause 11, which provides for payments to multilateral development banks. It is a reworking of the provisions of the Overseas Development and Co-operation Act 1980 and supports payments by way of subscription and contribution to a number of multilateral financial institutions. The amendment would require that all such payments must be likely to contribute to the reduction of poverty or to promote good governance.
    I need to make two points on that. First, those payments fall due because of international agreements entered into by various Governments, including the previous Administration. It would be a very serious matter if Parliament proposed that the Secretary of State be put in a position of having to renege on the United Kingdom's financial commitments. Secondly, any such payments are, in any event, subject to the prior approval of the House, as stated in subsection (5). It follows that if the House is unhappy with the making of a particular payment, it has the power to prevent it. In that respect, the amendment is unnecessary and an undesirable additional constraint.
    A common thread runs through the amendments: they all attempt to add good governance to the aims or purposes of the Bill. Let me again make it clear that the Secretary of State will be able to support activities that promote good governance. The quality of governance is vital for the sustainable reduction of poverty. I can further reassure hon. Members that the Secretary of State will be able to continue to support all the activities—including those of good governance—that we are currently backing.
    Amendment No. 5, tabled by the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas), relates to clause 1 and deals with a different issue. It attempts to insert a particular interpretation of sustainable development which would impose an unreasonable constraint on the Secretary of State. The amendment interprets sustainable development as being something that
    "meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations".
    As the hon. Gentleman said, that is taken from the 1987 Brundtland report. We believe that the interpretation is excessively narrow and puts undue emphasis on environmental concerns. We are aiming for a balance between environmental, economic and social concerns. Let us take, for example, the extraction of minerals. If extraction is managed properly and the income generated is used for productive purposes, it can enable a country to lift itself and its people out of poverty; yet such extraction

    887
    would diminish the resources available for future generations. Would that compromise their ability to meet their own needs?
    Mr. Simon Thomas rose—
    Mr. Mullin: I hope that the hon. Gentleman is not going to intervene because I am up against the clock.
    The Brundtland definition lies at the environmental end of the spectrum of views on sustainable development. At the other end, there are equally sound definitions that favour a fundamentally economic definition. Neither is necessarily nor wholly right. The Government believe that sustainable development must take account of environmental, economic and social considerations.
    Finally, we debated the issues relating to amendment No 6, tabled by the hon. Member for Richmond Park, at length in Committee. If I do not get a chance to cover all the arguments in the two minutes that are left to me, a glance at the record will show the Government's case. The amendment relates to clause 1 and would ensure that a Secretary of State cannot take political, commercial or non-developmental considerations into account in exercising the core power. The hon. Lady knows that I have a great deal of sympathy for the intention behind the amendment. One of the Government's reasons for introducing the Bill is to ensure that development assistance can no longer be used for improper commercial or political ends. The amendment seeks to do just that. The question for the House is not whether or not we should use development funds for improper political or commercial ends such as tied aid; there is consensus that we should not do that. The question is how we can prevent such an abuse most securely and effectively. The Bill makes no explicit reference to outlawing improper—
    It being Three o'clock, MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair, pursuant to Order [this day].
    Question negatived.
    Mr. Streeter: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. You will know that we have just spent about two hours debating one group of amendments to this important Bill and that there has been no filibustering, time wasting, distraction, deviation or unnecessary repetition. The Minister dealt properly with the amendments and the points made in argument and had to gabble to make his responses in time. In fact, he did not quite make it. There are now three groups of amendments that we shall not be able even to consider before Third Reading, for which an hour has been allocated. Is there any way that the programme motion can give us the flexibility now to continue to discuss those important amendments before we come to Third Reading? If rot, is that not an indictment of the Government, who have been unacceptably heavy-handed in curtailing debate and the proper scrutiny of this important Bill?
    Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Sylvia Heal): I am bound by the order of the House agreed to earlier. I regret that there is no room for flexibility.
    Mr. Leigh: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The fact remains that there are three amendments on the vital matters of sector-wide
    888
    development assistance, the involvement of non-governmental bodies and the renewal of the Bill. I know that you do not have the power to intervene but you listened to the whole debate and I am sure that you appreciate that there has been no time wasting. The Bill is not controversial or party political; no one is going to attack the Government from a party political viewpoint. If Government Members told you now that they would like to allow discussion of further amendments, would that be possible?
    Madam Deputy Speaker: As I said earlier, I am bound to follow the order of the House. Consideration has been completed.
    Mr. Wells: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Is it not within your power to draw the attention of the business managers of the House to the dissatisfaction of the House with the time allocated to debating the Bill?
    Madam Deputy Speaker: I must inform the hon. Gentleman that that is not a point of order, but a point for debate.
    Mr. Streeter: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. If I were to move a motion that the House should consider the remaining three groups of amendments and the House divided on that issue, surely, as a sovereign House of Commons, we have the ability to decide to debate those issues for another 45 minutes?
    Madam Deputy Speaker: I repeat once again to hon. Members that the House has already made a decision and I must abide by that decision and the order of the House.
    Order for Third Reading read.
    3.3 pm
    Mr. Mullin: I beg to move That the Bill be now read the Third time.
    The major reason for introducing the Bill is to ensure that development assistance can no longer be used for improper commercial or political ends. Under the Bill, there will be none of the ambiguity that allowed a previous Secretary of State to support the Pergau dam. There will be no basis for the re-establishment of the aid and trade provision or, indeed, any improper links between aid and trade. The Bill reflects and supports the United Kingdom's development effort. The Overseas Development and Co-operation Act 1980 allows the Secretary of State to provide assistance for the purposes of
    "promoting the development or maintaining the economy of a country or territory outside the United Kingdom, or the welfare of its people".
    Those purposes have not greatly constrained the Government's ability to refocus our country's development effort on the reduction of poverty, but we believe that it is not enough that legislation merely allows us to do most of the things that we need to do.
    The Bill will ensure that we make the most effective contribution possible to the reduction of poverty. First, it requires that our development effort, with the exception of assistance to overseas territories and assistance given in response to man-made or natural disasters and emergencies, must be likely to contribute to the reduction of poverty through sustainable development or welfare

    889
    improvement. Secondly, it provides a wider range of tools for achieving that aim. It provides for the use of a wider range of financial instruments than are available under the 1980 Act, including shares, options and guarantees. Those instruments will allow us to capitalise on the enormous potential contribution of the private sector to poverty reduction, with less risk of distorting markets, creating unfair competition or compromising companies' incentive to operate efficiently and sustainably, while retaining greater control and influence over the long-term use of Government funds.
    The Bill will also place on a proper footing the Secretary of State's support for organisations undertaking development awareness and advocacy activities. The Government believe that if we are to succeed in meeting international development targets, we need to build greater awareness and understanding of development issues across the UK and internationally. Such support is currently possible only on the basis of the Appropriation Act 1999.
    May I say a word about an issue that was not touched on in our debate a moment ago, but which was mentioned in Committee? I have considerable sympathy with Members who have spoken in favour of an annual debate on development in this House, as does my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development. I hope that the House can find the time to hold such debates in future, but it is inappropriate—as I am sure everyone will realise—to use legislation to determine the allocation of parliamentary time, as some amendments sought to do. Whether we have an annual development debate is a matter for the House authorities.
    May I also return briefly to tied aid, since I was cut off in mid-flow a moment ago? As I said, we had a good debate on the issue in Committee, and the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge) had a chance to make again on the Floor the powerful arguments that she made in Committee. I shall repeat our position: the clear statement of principles and purposes of development assistance will ensure that any improper use of development assistance is ruled out. As I have said, under the Bill, there will be none of the ambiguity that allowed a previous Secretary of State to support the Pergau dam and there will be no basis for the re-establishment of the aid and trade provision. That position may not be the most publicly attractive, but we have been advised that it is the most effective safeguard against the improper use of aid funds.
    I appreciate that the hon. Lady will not agree with me, but I hope that she will at least accept that we took seriously her representations on the subject. We had a long meeting with officials who advised the Government on the matter and, although we may have not succeeded in convincing her, we have considered carefully the points that she and other hon. Members have made. The most effective means of achieving the goal sought by her—and us—is the Bill as worded. It is no failure not to mention tied aid in the Bill. There would be a failure if the Bill allowed aid to be used for improper political or commercial purposes. I can reassure the House that the Bill prevents such misuse, and that therefore we will not fail.
    890
    This is a short, straightforward and important Bill. I welcome cross-patty support for its fundamental aim of focusing British development assistance on the reduction of poverty and it is a pleasure to commend it to the House.
    3.9 pm
    Mr. Streeter: We share with the Government a common objective: we find the abject poverty experienced by 1.3 billion people in the world utterly unacceptable. Most of us in this Chamber will have travelled and seen that with our own eyes and listened to people's stories. Such people have nothing—no proper job, no access to food, clean water, health care or education, and worst of all, often no hope.
    It is morally inexcusable and offensive that we should see so much poverty in our world. Increasingly, in this globalised environment, it is a matter for us all. There is now no escape, no "head in the sand" attitude to be taken, no passing by on the other side. We cannot continue to live in an interdependent, multi-media, globalised environment without straining every sinew to do what we can to meet the needs of the world's poorest people. My conviction is that we can do a lot—by Government action, through charities and non-governmental organisations, at multilateral level and through individual effort. We can make a difference and therefore we should make a difference.
    Today we are discussing what the British Government should do. This Bill sets out the framework for international development over the next few years, and in that respect we wish it well. Obviously, we do not oppose the measure. Its main provision is a poverty focus, and we support that. We have sought to improve the Bill and we shall continue to support measures to ensure that a focus on good governance is right up there in the Government's considerations.
    I want to say a word about the Secretary of State. We have supported much of her effort over the past four years. This is probably our last debate before the general election—it is more or less our first in four years, so it is almost certainly our last—So I pay tribute to her work and to that of her Department over the Parliament. She has worked with great conviction and sincerity, and shines as a beacon in a Government among whom there are perhaps not enough conviction politicians. We support what she has done. Much of her work has been extremely effective.
    As we have argued, policy on good governance should be reflected in the Bill. I heard what the Minister said; I hope that his assurances mean that his Department has embraced from the arguments that have come at him across the Chamber a fresh awareness of the importance of good governance not just as an optional extra but as the foundation and framework of ensuring that the living standards of the world's poorest people rise over time. Such a framework can attract direct foreign investment and allow the private sector to do its job in creating employment—allowing entrepreneurs to flourish and investment to be made. That is the only way in which living standards will rise over time for those in the poorest countries. He gave his response to our arguments, and we accept it, but we believe that good governance should be at the centre of British aid policy.
    We have argued that the Bill should include a provision that money spent through multilateral organisations, whether the European Union, the United Nations or other

    891
    agencies, should be focused on poverty as is aid spent directly by the Government. We heard what the Minister said to that. For the first time, we heard his argument about the European Communities Act 1972 and what is covered by the Bill. That is because there was not enough time for that important clause to be considered in Committee. Is not that a stark illustration of the programme motion denying proper debate and scrutiny of legislation? We need not have spent so much time on the issue today, and could have spent more time discussing other issues that we did not reach, had we been able to hear the Minister's response in Committee.
    It is important for our Government to be under a legal obligation to stop the scandal of EU aid policy. We all hope that the reforms introduced recently by Commissioner Patten will be effective, but we have little conviction that they will be. He is taking on the overwhelming bureaucratic culture of the EU, which does not deliver. Payments are not made and there is simply no focus. We hope that the reforms work, but believe and fear that they will not. Therefore, we regret that the Government did not take the opportunity at the Nice summit to put the matter on the agenda so that, instead of waiting another five years to review the workings of the reforms, there would already be a mechanism to ensure that more aid is spent bilaterally and more effectively, and that more people are helped.
    We wanted a debate today on pitting more resources at the disposal of NGOs and charities because we believe that they are a very effective vehicle for disbursing aid. Of the current Department for International Development budget, 8 per cent. is spent by British NGOs. That is fine, but it should be doubled. We have committed ourselves to doubling the amount over the next Parliament. Pound for pound, that £195 million—the 8 per cent.—provides the best value for Government money. It is a pity that the percentage is so small.
    We have expressed concern at the increase of sector-wide funding, which results in lack of control and more scope for abuse, misuse and corruption. We have placed on record several times our deep regret that the Government have failed to introduce an anti-bribery Bill, even though they pledged last year to do so at the earliest opportunity.
    We have made such points and argued for improvement of the Bill; our support is not tantamount to a blank cheque. None the less, we shall not oppose Third Reading. We regret the way in which the Bill was railroaded through the House; even by Third Reading, important new clauses and amendments have not been scrutinised. I ask the Government and their business managers how that can be right. We have approached out job as Opposition responsibly. Today, we have made arguments that the Minister has taken seriously, but still there has been no time to discuss the role of British charities in DFID's plans for the future or sector-wick funding. Can that possibly be right? I ask the Government to think again about the way in which they are pushing legislation through the House.
    Mr. Davidson: I suggest to the hon. Gentleman that we would have had much more time to discuss all those important issues had we not been. subjected to
    892
    long, rambling, incoherent speeches from Conservative Members in Committee. We could easily have made much more progress had we not gone over points several times.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Order. Before the hon. Member for South-West Devon (Mr. Streeter) responds to that intervention, I should point out that we have spent enough time on that aspect. May we debate giving the Bill a Third Reading?
    Mr. Streeter: That is the complete answer to the hon. Gentleman's intervention.
    We support the Bill, although it is not as perfect as it might have been. We accept that poverty deserves to be at the heart of the United Kingdom aid programme and that a focus on reducing it is therefore in its rightful place. We are prepared to work within the confines of the Bill.
    In government, we will maintain the aid budget; march towards a figure of 0.7 per cent. of gross national product; focus on good governance; increase the proportion of aid spent via British aid NGOs and charities, doubling it over a Parliament; take steps to end the EU aid scandal to ensure that British taxpayers get value for money and the poorest people of the world receive the help that they so richly deserve; set up Aid Direct, a web-based advice service, which, with the help of the NGO community, will match needs to resources; and crack down on corruption and restore confidence in the British aid programme. We shall support the Government in effectively implementing the measures.
    The Conservative party, in opposition or in government, will play its full part in eradicating the unacceptable reality of abject global poverty.
    3.18 pm
    Mrs. Fyfe: I thank you for calling me to speak in this debate, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because this is my last opportunity to speak on international development as I plan to leave the House at the general election. I assure my hon. Friends that I shall be brief. Many served in Committee and are anxious to speak.
    I want to put on record the fact that I am very proud of the Government's record on international development and in tackling poverty. The fact that we have had two White Papers in four years, whereas there was not one over the previous 18 years, is a short, sharp point that will speak for itself during the election campaign. However, I want to take this opportunity to pose two questions to my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench.
    The first question relates to the role of non-governmental organisations. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister will agree that some NGOs are more successful than others in focusing on helping people to help themselves, rather than simply doing good unto others. Some NGOs now wish to be involved in a campaigning role. How does he see the way forward for NGOs under the Bill and in the framework of the Department's future work?
    Secondly, when we were discussing good governance earlier, I had in mind that sad country, Afghanistan, which is the opposite of an example of good governance. It is so hard to know what to do in such a case. The world's media have focused recently on the vandalism of the destruction of age-old statues, but insufficient attention

    893
    has been paid to the barbaric cruelty perpetrated upon the local population, especially women. When NGOs have to pull out because they cannot allow their women workers to be put in danger there, it is a sad state of affairs. How do we drive matters forward in countries such as Afghanistan?
    I conclude by saying that if anyone can do it, this team will. I look forward to watching the Department's success in future.
    3.21 pm
    Mr. Wells: I, too, welcome the Bill, which will sharpen the focus of the Department's work on the reduction of poverty. This is the first time that that has been set out in statutory form. The Secretary of State and her Department are to be congratulated on introducing the Bill and getting it on to the statute book this parliamentary Session. I know that there were difficulties in persuading our business managers to allow sufficient time for it to come before us. It is much to the credit of the Department that the Bill will reach the statute book, and I hope that it will have a swift passage through the other place, so that it can inform the Department' s work in the next Parliament and for many Parliaments thereafter.
    It is a great credit to the Secretary of State also that during this Parliament she produced two White Papers, whereas none had been produced for more than 20 years. The first White Paper set out the poverty focus, and the latest one dealt with globalisation. In terms of legislation and publications, the Department for International Development has been extremely active and well served by the Secretary of State throughout this Parliament. I congratulate her on her achievements and those of her Department.
    There are one or two problems with the Bill, which I pointed out on Second Reading and about which I have been nagging away today. Let me elaborate on the definition of humanitarian aid which is missing from clause 3. That could get the Department into difficulties in the future if it is challenged legally through the judicial review process, which I hope it will not be.
    A definition of humanitarian aid should contain various elements. Content is not a primary issue, as it was in the definition given to the Select Committee. The demands of working in diverse conflict situations mean that a single definition of assistance is neither feasible nor desirable. More important are the issues of context, objectives and principles.
    As regards context, according to the existing Development Assistance Committee definition, an emergency is a situation where the capacity of Government or other authorities and the community is overwhelmed and the population is unable to meet its basic needs. In conflict situations, an emergency may be created by the magnitude or gravity of the humanitarian needs, or by the fact that the acts that have given rise to the needs are very recent. The situation then requires emergency tools.
    The objective of humanitarian assistance should be to prevent and alleviate human suffering, to protect life and health, and to ensure respect for the human being. Arguably, such a definition provides for protecting and re-establishing livelihoods, not just saving life. In other words, unlike development assistance or political
    894
    intervention, humanitarian assistance is concerned with the preservation and dignity of individuals on the basis of their humanity, not on the development of particular political or economic systems, or on the basis of political affiliation. Clause 3 rightly absolves the Secretary of State from adopting pro-poor policies in respect of humanitarian assistance.
    The principle of impartiality, which follows from the argument that I have set out, is crucial to humanitarian aid. Humanitarian actors should not discriminate on the basis of nationality, race, religious beliefs, class or political opinions. Resource allocation should be guided solely by people's needs, with the most urgent cases of distress receiving priority, on whatever side those in distress are fighting.
    The ability of humanitarian organisations to operate legally and safely in a conflict situation is determined by their ability to demonstrate their independent character. Actual and perceived involvement of a donor Government in the workings of international humanitarian organisations potentially compromise that independence.
    A definition of humanitarian assistance would not provide a quick fix to the complex dilemmas facing humanitarian actors, including donors, but it would reaffirm in law existing policy commitments and provide a benchmark against which policy could be assessed. It would reiterate in UK law the existing DFID policy commitment to uphold international law. It would put in place a central plank in a rights-based approach to development, which I know the Secretary of State supports.
    A definition of humanitarian aid would complement an ethical dimension to foreign policy, which I believe the Government still support, and it would cement the independence of the Department for International Development from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. That is an important principle. As my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Devon (Mr. Streeter) stated, should the Conservative party be elected and he be the Secretary of State, the Conservative Government would maintain those as separate Departments. I welcome that.
    A definition of humanitarian assistance would provide a statutory base for policy, in place of the soft policy of internal statements. Finally, it would conform to public expectations and understanding of the purpose of humanitarian aid. Those are forceful and important arguments for making sure that humanitarian aid is used for humanitarian purposes, and that we do not undermine the essence of humanitarian aid, which is given so effectively and generously, notably by the Red Cross and Red Crescent organisations, with Medecins sans Frontieres and others. To undermine that would be a serious mistake.
    I shall not take up much more of the House's time on Third Reading, as I know that others want to speak. I congratulate the Department, the Secretary of State and the Minister on the departmental report 2001 which, for the first time, as a result of work between the International Development Committee and the Department, presents in readable form the policies being pursued by the Department. The report makes that available to a much wider audience than ever before.
    I take the opportunity to tease the Department a little about a circumlocution in the introduction to the report. The Secretary of State refers proudly to a 13.8 per cent.

    895
    increase in real terms, about which I am delighted, and claims that the Department's budget is at its highest in real terms. She states:
    "The International Development budget is now at the highest level ever in real terms, and the ratio of Official Development Assistance to Gross National Product is on course to rise from 0.26 per cent. in 1997 to 0.33 per cent. by 2003–2004."
    However, the Secretary of State does not mention what the aid budget is as a percentage of gross national product this year. I am not good at mathematics and I probably have the wrong start figures, but I believe that it has risen from 0.26 per cent. in 1997 to 0.31 or 0.28 per cent.—I have been given both figures, but I am not certain which it is.
    Mr. Mullin: It is 0.31 per cent.
    Mr. Wells: Well, I offer many congratulations, but I should like to tease the Government a little.
    That figure means that the aid programme has not reached the average that was achieved under 18 years of Conservative Government. [Interruption.] Hon. Members may laugh, but we achieved an average expenditure of 0.33 per cent. of gross national product. I know that many people find that difficult to believe, bat it is the truth.
    Mr. Tony Worthington: The hon. Gentleman's use of statistics is hilarious. He is saying that it took him 18 years to reduce the level significantly, after which we have taken four years to raise it to its current level. The previous Labour Government achieved a figure of 0.51 per cent., and it took the Conservatives 18 years to get down to 0.26 per cent. We have got it up to 0.31 per cent. in four years, and we will certainly reach a much higher level in future.
    Mr. Wells: I wanted merely to bring to the House's attention a little-known figure: during the Conservative Government's years in office, an average of 0.33 per cent. of gross national product was spent on aid. I hope that we shall reach that level within the next year; indeed, I hope that we will exceed it. I know that that is the Government's policy, and I congratulate them on it. I wanted only to point out those figures.
    Mr. Mullin: I know that the hon. Gentleman means extremely well, but he is being a little naughty. As he said, he is teasing us. Does he recall the figure when Labour last left office in 1979? I shall help him. It was approaching 0.5 per cent.
    Mr. Wells: I remember that level, which was the highest that had been achieved by that time. Of course, the figure to which the Under-Secretary refers was not an average, but spending approached, if not matched, that level in 1979. I wanted to point out that the Conservative party is not completely neglectful of the needs of overseas development, and that we contributed to those needs an average of 0.33 per cent. of gross national product.
    The worrying figure, which is not a tease, is the fall in private flows. I think that we will have to examine how we can improve that figure. Private flows form a major part of British assistance to developing countries, and always have done. In 1996, they accounted for £11.3 billion, but they fell to just £3.8 billion in 1999.
    896
    That is a serious problem for us all. If we have the ambition to improve that figure, we must take measures to encourage private flows. After all, private investment is designated by the White Paper as the engine of development. The departmental report also contains private investment measures that will have to be considered.
    Bribery and corruption are another major problem. I commend to the House the report on corruption that was produced by the Select Committee on International Development. As my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Devon said, there is a need for the Government to introduce legislation as quickly as possible to ensure compliance with the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development convention on bribery of public officials overseas. Indeed, we must also press on with trying to get the private and public sectors to adopt anti-corruption measures both in this country and overseas. Without those efforts, we will not achieve good governance either here or overseas, and we will not get the development that we would like to see as a result of our increased public sector investment in the third world.
    3.34 pm
    Mr. Worthington: I was sorry that I could not be present earlier, when hon. Members failed to reach amendment No. 1, which I tabled. I was involved in other development work on the Standing Committee that is considering the International Criminal Court Bill.
    However, I want to use my amendment as an expression of concern about the way in which the House deals with development issues. The hon. Member for South-West Devon (Mr. Streeter) gave my point away. He spoke about having the first debate in four years at which the Secretary of State was present. I remember years when not even the Under-Secretary attended debates, as he was in another House. There were no debates on development. The Bill is the first such development measure in 20-odd years, and it is possible that no other Bill will be introduced for another 20 years, as international development does not lend itself to domestic legislation. There have been years in which not a single debate on development has occurred in the House, and there may be such years to come.
    I believe that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary said some kind words about my amendment. I am not convinced that it is perfect, but I hope that we will find some way of achieving an annual debate on development issues. To my mind, development is becoming increasingly important in the life of this country. It has gone up the agenda, partly because of the contributions of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and her team. The Opposition talk constantly about establishing an aid agency and giving aid. Indeed, that is all that they talk about. This Government have established a Department for International Development that is a different sort of creature. It is much more than an aid agency. Under my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Department is concerned with the major issues facing the world today.
    I should like to list some of those issues. They include the activities of the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund, and the aim of eliminating world poverty. They also include globalisation, corruption and HIV-AIDS. The Department is about the very

    897
    sustainability of the planet. It is concerned with the relationship between north and south on trade issues such as the price of drugs. Indeed, it is concerned with every trade issue. Those and many other matters surface in the Department's work, but they are not discussed in the House. When we consider what goes on in the House, we must ask whether it is surprising that many people—especially the young—wonder whether we live in the same world as that which concerns them.
    Many hon. Members will know of the success of Jubilee 2000 in tapping into that public concern about development issues. In particular, people are concerned about debt. It is in relation to that concern that the big meetings occur. I was once asked to stand in for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State at a meeting. I went to St. Albans cathedral to be faced with a huge congregation. That is not my usual experience. Hundreds of people attended a meeting on that particular issue. That is what people are concerned about and it is where today's politics lies, but their anxiety is not reflected in this House. We do not talk about it. What does the House say about the incredible pandemic of HIV-AIDS? The International Development Committee produced an excellent report on that issue. It pointed out that three times as many lives are lost through AIDS each year as are lost through war or aggression. What does this place say as a forum for debate? It says nothing.
    I tabled a modest amendment to try to ensure that we have at least an annual debate on development. There are precedents for that arrangement. There is a regular debate on Wales, and even the armed services regulations have to be approved annually, but development receives no such consideration. If there is another way of introducing such an arrangement, I hope that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will consider it. We must face up to the fact that the way in which the House deals with development issues—and, indeed, some other issues—is not satisfactory. We spend a lot of time on issues that are much less important than those with which the Department for International Development deals. We must address that problem, which is what my amendment sought to do. I hope that my hon. Friend will use his considerable influence to deal with the matter, as he has achieved much more in the past than overcoming opposition to such proposals. I have every confidence that when the Bill returns to this House, it will at least contain provision for an annual debate. My faith is placed in him.
    3.39 pm
    Dr. Tonge: I wish to add my comments to those of the hon. Member for South-West Devon (Mr. Streeter) about the Secretary of State who, sadly, has left her place. She has been an excellent Secretary of State, and we have all admired the work that she has done. She is sometimes terrifying, but always inspiring. She has led two Ministers and a Department, all of whom have worked equally hard, and I congratulate them all. The Bill is a suitable finale for their first term of office, and I thank them all for their work.
    I welcome the reassurances that I have had from the Minister that there will be no more tied aid and no more aid for trade from the Government. He provided those reassurances many times, which is just what my
    898
    amendment was intended to make him do, and I am delighted that he did it. My beady eyes will be on the Department to ensure that it sticks to those worthy ideals.
    Those ideals will depend a great deal on co-ordination with other Government Departments, which is a theme to which I have returned many times during this Parliament. It is all very well DFID having great purposes and being determined to relieve poverty, but those ideals must be backed by the Foreign Office, the Department of Trade and Industry, the Ministry of Defence and No. 10 Downing street. and I hope that they will remember that.
    I use as an example the fact that we still await a decision on export credit guarantees for the Ilisu dam. If those are granted to Balfour Beatty for that project, other Departments will be going against DFID's ideals, because we know that that project will create poverty and hardship, which, presumably, DFID will then have to alleviate. Therefore co-ordination between Departments is important.
    I have constantly asked for such co-ordination in the area of conflict prevention and arms control, which is another theme to which I have returned over and over again in this Parliament. On that point, I can end on a good note because the draft Bill on the control of arms has been published. I doubt whether I shall understand much of it without many people to help me out, but I shall take it home for Easter, and I thank the Government from the bottom of my heart for publishing it. We have waited for four years to see it and now at last it is here.
    Lastly, I return to the theme of the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Wells). The proportion of GNP that we spend on aid is interesting. Looking at a House of Commons paper on international development I saw, sadly, that in 1999, under this Government, that fell to 0.23 per cent. It is slowly rising and the intention is that it should continue to rise, and I am well aware that it is at the highest level in real terms for many years, but if we are to continue increasing the proportion of GNP that we spend on aid at the same rate as we are doing at the moment, it will take 50 years to achieve the 0.7 per cent. that is recommended by the United Nations, and I ask the Secretary of State and the Minister to reflect on that. I do not want to wait 50 years to equal some Scandinavian countries which are already spending 0.7 per cent. of their GNP.
    It is essential that we do that. The relief of poverty is not only the right thing to do, but, for all the reasons that the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington) gave, it is in our interests and in the interests of our children and grandchildren that we take a firm stand on development and ensure that poverty is alleviated worldwide. I commend the Bill to the House.
    3.44 pm
    Mr. John McFall: Like other hon. Members, I welcome the Bill for the simple reason that, as has been said, for 18 years nothing at all was done. It is at the centre of the Government's thinking. The international conference on the abolition of child poverty in February was attended by the Chancellor and the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, as well as many international guests. The Chancellor's presence demonstrated that this is a serious issue, which is at the heart of Government, and that is a consequence of the Bill. I congratulate the Chancellor and the Secretary of State on that.

    899
    Much has been made of good government, particularly by the Opposition, but this is a humanitarian issue. There are instances where Governments are disengaged from the community and it is important that we put resources in on the ground. We should never forget that 30,000 children die needlessly every day for lack of access to clean water, proper sanitation and basic medicines. The humanitarian case overrides the consideration of good government.
    The other big issue on which the Secretary of State and others should focus now is international trade. Trade barriers cost poorer countries £500 million a year, 14 times more than they receive in overseas aid. The next big battle for the Government will be to ensure that the trade barriers are reduced and that free trade is allowed for third-world countries.
    The other important aspect is alternative development strategies. They are complex, but it is important not simply to take the word of third-world Governments and others that something is being done. If we are to ensure that anti-poverty strategies are at the heart of our approach, we need alternative development strategies, which render individuals, campesinos and peasants, the opportunity to forge a living. In the previous debate, drugs from South America and elsewhere were mentioned, but it is no use eliminating drugs if people are not given the encouragement of economic support.
    Lastly, perhaps because of my background, I come to education, which is the best anti-poverty strategy that there is. We should not forget that 130 million children in the world, two thirds of whom are girls, do not attend primary school.
    Mr. Wells: Will the hon. Gentleman reflect on the fact that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe) will shortly leave Parliament, and would he care to compliment her on the way in which she has continually brought to the attention of the House the necessity for education, health care and aid in the third world? She has done a wonderful job during her time in this Parliament.
    Mr. McFall: The hon. Gentleman takes my breath away because that was my next point. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe) has been in the House the same length of time as I have been and has been a good colleague to me and to others. She has pioneered many social justice issues, and, along with the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Wells), and not forgetting the hon. Member for Faversham and Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe), has considered international development and other third-world issues. I congratulate my hon. Friend. I am told that when the leaves the House she intends to take up politics seriously.
    Mr. Worthington: Is my hon. Friend aware that, as well as all those admirable qualities of my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe), she was born on the same day and in the same year as Tina Turner?
    Mr. McFall: That certainly takes my breath away. I am told that she does a good impersonation.
    Mrs. Fyfe: Would my hon. Friend like me to sing a song?
    Mr. McFall: I had better return to my peroration. I mentioned that 130 million children do not have the
    900
    chance of an education, despite it being a fundamental human right, a social justice right and an economic right. We must ensure that those individuals play their full part in the world and that the consequences of the Bill are felt worldwide.
    The Government have made great strides; other Members have mentioned the United Nations contribution target of 0.7 per cent. of gross national product. Let us work at it year after year so that we achieve it. All hon. Members, irrespective of party, will applaud that.
    3.49 pm
    Mr. Rowe: I welcome the Bill and I am sorry that there was no reason to include the importance of development education in it. I support the point that the hon. Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall) made about instructing everyone in the nation about the importance of the money that we give for international development.
    I have suggested to the Minister privately that it would be worth while asking every individual in the nation to consider their expenditure and ask themselves what they can buy with 0.5 of 1 per cent. of their income and whether it is worth more than giving fresh water to someone who is dying for the lack of it, or creating an opportunity for someone in the developing world. I believe that most people's generosity would lead them to conclude that spending 0.5 of 1 per cent. of their income on the developing world was well worth it.
    If we cannot appeal to people's sympathy and compassion, we should appeal to their self-interest. If we do not do that in our globalised environment, we shall be overwhelmed by difficulties that originate in the developing nations.
    Cambodia is one of the poorest countries on earth. Forty-six per cent. of the population is under 15 and 2.5 per cent. is over 65. What on earth will the 46 per cent. do when, next year or the year after, they try to enter a labour market that does not exist? Such instability will rage around the world.
    What will happen to the 23 million orphans in sub-Saharan Africa if they have nothing to do and nowhere to go? They will not be able to live. They, too, will constitute a huge element of instability. Initially, the developed world will be asked to try to help, but it will ultimately discover that it is being attacked. Similarly, the Victorians decided to construct drains for the whole population when they discovered that the rich would catch cholera if they did not. We should take account of such self-interest in our education programme.
    I am delighted that the Department for International Development has published a document on disability. The disabled are always the poorest of the poor; they suffer the greatest disadvantages. Although the document is so general that it does not commit the Department to much, it is at least a beginning for an issue that needs to be taken seriously.
    I urge the Department to work with those admirable non-governmental organisations that are beginning to consider their accountability. We should try to ensure that we bring into a net of serious accountability as many NGOs that work in development as possible. Many NGOs currently conduct their development work to their own agenda, which is not always to the benefit of people in the developing world. Such accountability is not

    901
    good enough. I am delighted that Oxfam, the World Development Movement and others are working together to try to create a better system. I hope that Ministers will take it into account. We did not have the chance to discuss that when we considered the amendments.
    I commend the Bill. I believe that the Department is doing a good job on the whole but that it could do better.
    3.54 pm
    Mr. Tom Clarke: I am delighted to follow the hon. Member for Faversham and Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) and to add to the tributes to him. He has applied himself wonderfully not only to international development, but, as he showed in his speech, to disability, care in the community and other caring issues. I like to believe that his period at the then Scottish Office stood him in good stead.
    We do not have enough time to pay tribute to all the achievements of my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe). For me, she is the personification of the Glasgow logo that shows an enormous, broad smile and carries the slogan, "Glasgow smiles better".
    We are considering an excellent Bill from an outstanding Department. The mood of the debate and the atmosphere in the House today is much better than on Second Reading. Development education is therefore making progress, perhaps even on the Opposition Benches. I join my hon. Friend the Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington) in calling for more debates in Government time. However, I say gently to the hon. Member for South-West Devon (Mr. Streeter) that when I held his job, I persuaded the shadow Cabinet to have a full day's debate in Opposition time.
    I welcome the Government's confirmation of their essential strategy of poverty reduction and the fact that they are trying to tackle positively from a base of achievement problems that millions of people face throughout the world. Time does not allow me to deal with many figures, and I shall cite only one. When the Callaghan Government fell and Judith Hart was Minister for Overseas Development, our contribution to the United Nations aid figure was 0.52 per cent. In 1997, we inherited a figure of 0.26 per cent. from the previous Government. I look forward to the achievement of a 45 per cent. increase in real terms by 2004.
    I welcome our strategy for health, education and HIV-AIDS. Many of us have witnessed severe problems such as the land mines in Angola, the terrible events in
    902
    Rwanda, HIV-AIDS in Uganda and the compelling need to tackle debt cancellation and restructuring. The Government have done the latter, to their enormous credit. Whatever happens it the coming weeks, we can look the British people in the face. Their support for the Brandt report led to the biggest ever delegation and lobby to Parliament. They were right, and their priorities were right. The Bill means that we can face the rest of the world, especially the developing countries, which deserve the best. The Government and the excellent Department for International Development have made a great start.
    3.58 pm
    Mr. Leigh: In a couple of minutes, all hon. Members will support a Bill that states:
    "The Secretary of State may provide any person or body with development assistance if he is satisfied that the provision of the assistance is likely to contribute to a reduction in poverty."
    That is clear, but there is no point in giving the Secretary of State the tools if we do not provide her with the means to do the job.
    One must put facts on the record. In 1996, under the Conservative Government, the figures for aid were 0.2 per cent. of gross national product for official flows and 1.83 per cent. for total flows. In 1999, under a Labour Government, the figure fell to 0.23 per cent. of GNP for official flows and 0.69 per cent. for total flows. Even taking the Government's spending plans for the next two years into account, they will have given less aid as a percentage of GNP over the Parliament than any previous Conservative Government in more than 30 years. Yet in their manifesto, the Government pledged to increase international development aid to 0.7 per cent. of GNP.
    Under the previous Conservative Government, aid spending as a proportion of GNP totalled an average of 0.3 per cent. per year. Under Labour, the figure for the past three years has been only 0.25 per cent. Even if we take account of Department for International Development forecasts for aid spending in the next two years, the figure is only 0.2 per cent. The years 1997 to 2000 show an average of 0.26 per cent. That is not good enough.
    It is not good enough that the European Union accounts for a third of the Department's total spending. The Secretary of State described the EU as the worst aid agency in the world. We should we proud of the Bill, but ashamed of the Government's record.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

  Adjournment (Easter)
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  That this House, at its rising today, do adjourn until Monday 23 April.—[Mr. Pearson.]
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Before I call the first speaker, I remind the House that there is a 10-minute limit on Back-Bench speeches in this debate.
  4 pm
  Mr. Tom Cox: I wish to raise the issue of Cyprus. As hon. Members know, Cyprus is often discussed in the House, and rightly so. I declare an interest at the outset. I chair the all-party Cyprus group, to which members of all the major political parties belong.
  Britain is one of the guarantor powers for the island of Cyprus, along with Greece and Turkey. Following the invasion of Cyprus in 1974 by the Turkish military forces, Cyprus has remained a divided country. The south of the country is under the control of the democratically elected Government of the Republic of Cyprus; the north of the island, with the support of the Turkish army, has now become the supposedly independent state of northern Cyprus. I say "supposedly independent state" because, after many years, that state is recognised only by Turkey. It is not recognised by the United Nations, the European Union or the Council of Europe, and it is most certainly not recognised by the Government of the United Kingdom.
  Since the events of 1974, many attempts have been made to find a solution that would safeguard the interests and security of both Greek and Turkish Cypriots. There are without doubt Turkish Cypriots who want a settlement. They see that, in the years since 1974, nothing has taken place that has led to any meaningful development in the economy or in the day-to-day lives of the people who live in northern Cyprus.
  The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz), visited Cyprus last month. He sent me a letter following that visit, in which he told me of the people whom he had met. What he did not say and what I have not seen in any official statement is what discussions he had with the leading politicians in the (north and south of the island. That is one of the reasons why I have sought a debate in the House this afternoon.
  Since 1974, repeated attempts have been made to find a settlement. Many organisations, countries and politicians have been involved in discussions. There have been many opportunities to obtain a settlement. The real issue for many hon. Members has been and still is Mr. Denktash, who has only one objective—recognition of the state that he has created in northern Cyprus.
  Over the years, the United Nations has passed many major resolutions on Cyprus. All have clearly set out the type of settlement that the United Nations wishes to see in place to protect Greek and Turkish Cypriots, to rebuild the economy of the north, and to bring meaningful peace and prosperity to the whole of the island. After all the attempts that have been made, one has to ask why it has not been possible to reach a settlement. I suggest that one can sum up the reason in a few words: Mr. Denktash and his friends and supporters in Turkey are the reason why there has not been the progress that one would have liked.
  904
  One could give many examples of the promises and the actions of Mr. Denktash that have caused the despair that now prevails in Cyprus. My hon. Friend the Minister will be aware of the United Nations proximity talks. Many of us thought that they could be the breakthrough to meaningful discussions on the future of Cyprus. No one has done more in recent years than President Clerides of Cyprus to show a willingness to involve Turkish Cypriots in discussions and to show how those in northern Cyprus can be part of the discussion of the future of Cyprus—by which I mean all aspects of its future.
  Cyprus has applied for membership of the European Union. President Clerides has repeatedly called on Mr. Denktash to join him in the talks on Cyprus' application, but Mr. Denktash has always refused to take part. I ask the Minister to outline the present position regarding the proximity talks. Are they still on? Do they still have any real meaning? What is the British Government's position on those talks?
  I have already spoken of Turkey's role in northern Cyprus. The statements that Turkish politicians make on northern Cyprus and their visits to it are hardly the actions of politicians who believe that northern Cyprus has nothing whatever to do with Turkey and is solely the responsibility of Mr. Denktash. I do not think that anyone anywhere in the world believes that. I make those comments because everyone in the House knows that Turkey's great wish is to join the European Union. If it really wants that, does it have no role to play in ensuring that the proximity talks take place and real progress is made in them?
  I have already talked of the so-called state of northern Cyprus and the views and demands of Mr. Denktash that his state be recognised before he will enter into any real discussion on the future of Cyprus. As he knows, because he has been told repeatedly, that recognition will not take place. There will be no recognition of the state that he created.
  Cyprus is important to Britain because both countries are members of the Commonwealth. After almost 27 years of occupation and countless talks and discussions, what real progress has been made towards a meaningful settlement? One has only to read the statements and views of the United Nations on why there has been no development that could lead to a settlement. In a word, the reason is Mr. Denktash. He is the reason why there has been no progress. What is the United Kingdom's position on the proximity talks? I accept that we support them, but are we doing enough to ensure that they are on the road to meaningful discussions? What is the EU doing? What is the United States of America doing?
  Richard Holbrooke, former US permanent representative at the United Nations under the Clinton Administration, said in a television interview on 1 March this year:
  "The primary blockage at this point lies with the leadership in Northern Cyprus."
  Could anything be clearer? Could there be a greater indictment by a senior world politician of Mr. Denktash than that statement?
  I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Mr. Tipping), the Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office, will clearly convey to my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary the dismay of many Members of Parliament, and the need both for much greater effort to restart the talks and for Mr. Denktash, and especially

  905
  Turkey, fully to understand the role that they must play in seeking meaningful progress for the benefit of both Greek and Turkish Cypriots.
  4.9 pm
  Sir Sydney Chapman: I am grateful to be called in the Easter recess Adjournment debate. I wish to raise three issues of concern to my constituents and then to comment on foot and mouth disease.
  The first issue relates to crime and police manpower in the borough of Barnet. We all know that, for decades, until the beginning of the 1990s, the number of recorded crimes soared. From about 1992, there was a gentle reduction—perhaps the adjective is not appropriate—in the Metropolitan police area until about two or three years ago, when there was suddenly a significant upswing of 8.7 per cent. in recorded crimes. That coincided—I am sure it was not coincidental—with quite a significant fall in the number of police.
  The point to be made about police manpower in the Metropolitan area is that it is not only a question of putting in place policies and incentives to recruit people to the force. It is particularly necessary to try to keep them, because there is a well above average number of early retirements, retirements or transfers to other police forces.
  Barnet was dealt with disproportionately badly for two or three years, although I recognise that that changed very recently. Five years or so ago, manpower stood at over 700 officers. The difficulty is that, since 1997—I think that it was in 1998 or 1999—that part of Hertsmere has, rightly, been removed from the Metropolitan area; the Metropolitan police area is now within the confines of the Greater London area. However, I cannot believe that 150 or so officers should have been transferred from my borough to Borehamwood. The total fell about 18 months ago to only 479 police officers, serving a borough with a population of 320,000. The minimum shift strength in the borough was 32, but only 22 were available. Even the Labour/Liberal Democrat council was moved to condemn the Government for not providing the resources and to express concern about the increase in crime.
  We now know that there is to be an increase—we hope to get about 64 of the 1,050 extra police that have been promised for the Metropolitan police area. Who is providing the extra 1,050? Is it the Government, or is it Mayor Ken Livingstone? What I do know is that, in order to provide the extra 64 officers in Barnet, this year, the Greater London Authority precept on council tax payers has risen by no less than 22 per cent.
  The second issue that I wish to raise concerns the NHS in the borough. I have never had so many complaints not only about waiting list times, but about waiting to get on waiting lists, postponed operations, and facilities in the local hospital. Despite the fact that phase 1A of Barnet general hospital's redevelopment was completed in April 1997—we are looking forward to the completion of phase 1B, hopefully in a year's time—the facilities in many respects still leave much to be desired. I hope that the Government will deal with that problem.
  It is not just a question of increasing resources, which have certainly increased in the past four years, as they did in the previous 18 years. It is almost incredible that,
  906
  in 1979, expenditure on the NHS throughout the United Kingdom was only £8 billion. It had risen to £42 billion 18 years later, in 1997, but to listen to the criticisms levelled at it before 1997, one would not have known that. I concede the point to Labour Members: they have increased the resources for the NHS, but there are still valid criticisms to be made, and shortages and unfairnesses to be tackled.
  The third issue is the appalling state of the London underground. My constituency, unfortunately in this respect, nestles at the end of the Northern and Piccadilly lines. Again, I have never had so many complaints about the service before. I believe that my constituents are pragmatic people. They do not much care who runs the London underground or, indeed, other public services. What they want is a reliable and efficient service at a reasonable cost and to be able to travel in reasonable comfort. Since the Government came to power, despite their promises, not a penny's extra private investment—or any private investment—has gone into the London underground. I do not want to take sides between the Government on the one hand and Mayor Livingstone and Bob Kiley on the other, but I wish the Government would get their act together and get on with devising a structure that will lead to the necessary investment going into our tube system.
  I finish with a comment on the dreadful foot and mouth disease. That issue is of concern in our towns, as it is in our countryside. We in Chipping Barnet, in the very north of London—we do not nestle in the Cotswolds—are perhaps well placed because we are where the metropolis meets the countryside. London Members in particular will know that there are thousands of acres of green belt within the Greater London area and that, on many of them, there are farms with livestock.
  The point that is repeatedly driven home to me and to my constituents is that town and countryside are interdependent. That very interdependence strengthens the fabric and unity of our nation. I hope that the Government will respect and recognise that, as they seek to tackle this dreadful disease which is affecting an industry that was already suffering very badly.
  4.17 pm
  Mr. Bruce Grocott: I do not know any more than anyone else whether this will be the last recess Adjournment debate before the general election, but, to take as a working hypothesis that the summer recess Adjournment debate will come after the general election, it is not a bad time to do a little stocktake on the past four years. I want to begin by doing a stocktake in my constituency.
  My desire to do so was triggered by my visit last Friday to a sure start scheme in Overdale in my constituency—a scheme with which I was obviously already familiar. We are talking not about words or about speeches: we are talking about real bricks and mortar on the ground, and the provision of real facilities. To see in Overdale a brand new family centre, to see people employed there in a brand new nursery, with things such as toy libraries, to see the home-visiting facility for families who need the support, to have met the 100th mother who had, if you like, voted with her feet to join the scheme—none of these things is compulsory; people will benefit from them only if they want to do so—was a source of great pride to me: pride in both the Government and the Labour-controlled local authority.

  907
  I was particularly proud because that scheme is not a one-off, out-of-the-blue scheme. It is consistent with a timeless principle: we should try to give all our children an equal chance. Although I am particularly proud of that achievement, there are many others. I should like to mention a couple of them.
  Three or four weeks ago, at the Princess Royal hospital, we opened a brand new maternity unit. That national health service unit can bear comparison with maternity units anywhere else in the public sector or in the private sector in the United Kingdom and probably anywhere abroad. It has terrific facilities, including proper facilities for visiting children. Any Government, and certainly any constituency Member of Parliament, would be proud of that unit. There has also been a £650,000 refurbishment of the Princess Royal hospital's accident and emergency unit.
  Those are real facilities and real achievements, not just politicians' words. Those improvements have been made not because someone in a focus group thought that they would be a good idea, but because they are consistent with the Labour party's timeless principle that health care should be available free at the point of need and on the basis of need, not the ability to pay.
  I could cite many other examples of what has been achieved in the past four years in Telford. There has, for example, been a 73 per cent. reduction in youth unemployment in Telford. Unlike four years ago—bar one or two schools which have specific, local and good reasons why the objective could not be achieved—almost all infant classes now have fewer than 30 pupils. That is a great source of pride.
  At the other end of the age spectrum, 9,500 pensioners in Telford are benefiting from the winter fuel payment, and 3,800 pensioners are benefiting from the free television licence. Those are both sources of pride. However, in terms of long-held views, perhaps the most important statistic of all—I do not have constituency figures, but I have figures for the west midlands—is the fact that an estimated 150,000 low-paid workers in the region will benefit from the proposed minimum wage increase.
  Those are all real achievements. As the general election approaches, however, I have been puzzled by our opponents' reaction to them. Those achievements—in the health service, child care facilities and reduced unemployment—are not affecting only my constituency. They are not a unique moonbeam shining only on Telford but are affecting every constituency in Britain. What do our opponents say about those national developments? Do they say that they are opposed to them morally and on principle? I very much doubt that they could say that.
  Presumably our opponents' only other line of defence to our achievements is to say, "All that would have happened anyway. They are part of an inexorable law of nature." However, they cannot say that either. I remind Conservative Members that they passionately opposed the national minimum wage on grounds of principle and thought that it was fundamentally wrong. They even presented what they thought was, a coherent and principled argument against it. However, the national minimum wage was not achieved by accident.
  Conservative Members reacted in precisely the same manner to the new deal and to decreasing youth unemployment. I leave it to them to decide, when the
  908
  general election comes, on their own strategy for explaining those improvements in their own constituencies—[Interruption.]
  Perhaps the hon. Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) does not want to talk about the improvements in his constituency, and I do not blame him for that. However, Labour Members' strategy is to say that those improvements have not simply happened—as some of our opponents like to say when they have nothing better to say—because of opinion polls or focus groups. The fundamental improvements in our health service are the result of the timeless principles on which the Labour party was founded and are building on the greatest achievement of any peacetime Government in the past century—the establishment of the national health service, in 1948, in the teeth of opposition from the Tories.
  In the previous Parliament, in 1998, it was a matter of enormous pride to go to Lichfield cathedral to celebrate the 50th anniversary of that great achievement by a Labour Government—the establishment of the national health service. I do not know how many cathedrals have celebrated the 50th anniversary of a Tory Government's achievement, but so far I have not been invited to such an event. Nye Bevan would have been proud of the current modernisation of the national health service.
  The national minimum wage also was not the consequence of the remarks of a focus group or the results of an opinion poll but was consistent with the timeless principles of the Labour party. I make no apology for mentioning that a national minimum wage was advocated by Keir Hardie. Indeed, last year was the centenary of the establishment of the Labour party. Who among the 129 delegates who were present—with no money and no resources—at the founding meeting of the Labour party, on 27 February 1900, would have believed that, in 24 years, Labour would be in government and that, at the turn of the century, it would form a Government with a majority that was greater than the total number of founding delegates?
  As we set the ground rules and prepare the territory for the general election, I fervently hope that we compare not only Labour's record after four years in office with that of the previous Tory Government after their 18 years in office, but the values that inspire the two parties, how well they have stood the test of time and how well they have served their constituents. If the judgment is made on that basis, I have no doubt whatever about the outcome.
  4.27 pm
  Mr. Patrick Nicholls: The unfolding tragedy of the foot and mouth crisis clarifies a number of issues. The first is that it is abundantly clear that Ministers cannot be blamed for the outbreak of foot and mouth. In due course, if the Minister for the Environment is right, there will be a public inquiry into the outbreak. Indeed there should be a public inquiry; after such an event, we have to discover the lessons that can be learned. It is tempting to say—although I shall try to keep my remarks fairly narrow—that if Ministers had considered earlier the experience of the 1967 outbreak, they might have been able to avoid some of the mistakes that they have made.
  I would be the first to say that I do not envy Ministers waking up one fine morning to discover that the foot and mouth crisis was breaking across the country. Those of us who have been in government, and those of my

  909
  hon. Friends who aspire to it, realise that that was an appalling thing for Ministers to have to confront. I say that to set the scene. It would be quite unfair to use the foot and mouth outbreak to attack the Government. There are, after all, many other good reasons for attacking the Government.
  In any crisis, however, Ministers have to remain accountable and be prepared to come to the House to answer the questions put to them. When an urgent situation arises in a constituency, Ministers have to be prepared to respond to it instantly. Ministers in this Government, like those in the previous Government, have been prepared to respond to hon. Members who write to them genuinely saying that they have a desperately urgent constituency matter that requires an urgent ministerial response.
  The trouble is that that has not always happened in this crisis. One has had to go to the most extraordinary lengths to persuade Ministers to perform their basic function, which is to be accountable to the House and to answer legitimate questions put to them by hon. Members. Thus it was that, on 30 March, I discovered that a landfill site in my constituency would receive carcases from an infected area. One might have thought that I discovered that fact from a letter from a Minister, a telephone call from an official or from the National Farmers Union, but that is not how I learned of it. I discovered the fact from a media contact who said, "You are the local MP. You will obviously be able to tell us why the Government have decided to move carcases from an infected area into that uninfected area."
  As that happened 10 days ago, before my innocence had not been entirely destroyed, I decided to try to contact the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. However, that did not work. Instead, I spoke to the media, the Environment Agency and to similar organisations. Eventually, during the course of the day, I began to piece together what might be happening.
  I did not feel that the fact that I had been prepared to start making telephone calls, and to try to put together a picture of what was happening, constituted a sufficient response: I needed to tell my constituents what was going on. By the end of the day I had sent a letter to the Minister of Agriculture, telling him what I understood from my inquiries to be the position. What I understood was that carcases would be brought in from an infected area, but that they would be carcases that had resulted from the cull welfare scheme—in other words, carcases that were not infected.
  Even that was bad enough, however. It would still mean that traffic was being promoted between an infected and an uninfected area. Although the carcases themselves had resulted from the welfare scheme, the situation was unacceptable. I made that point in an e-mail that I sent to the Minister of Agriculture on the same day, but I heard nothing. I heard nothing on the Saturday, or on the Sunday. On the Monday, I had still heard nothing.
  I told the Ministry that if I had not received a response by Question Time on Monday, I would have to raise the matter on the Floor of the House. I think the record will show that, of the devices I am prepared to use in the House, the arguably bogus point of order is not one; but it must be said that on the Monday, the Tuesday and the Wednesday I had to make three points of order which I
  910
  might describe as being of arguable validity, and which those who are less charitable might term thoroughly bogus. They consisted of my asking the occupants of the Chair whether they had had any indication that the Minister of Agriculture wanted to come to the House and confirm what was going on.
  Finally, on the Wednesday, I received a letter from the Minister of State that purported to answer my points. I think that the letter was sent only because I was continuing to raise points of order. The letter—from which I will quote one paragraph—is chilling.
  It is difficult for me—an aficionado of "Yes Minister", and one who has done some of this sort of stuff in the distant past—to decide whether to admire the subtlety of refusing to give the precise assurances that were requested, or to condemn the sheer brazenness of the assumption that anyone could be fooled for a moment. Following my request that I should be told whether it was true that the carcases would simply be those resulting from the cull welfare scheme, I was treated to this reply. I shall emphasise certain words, because the emphasis that they should receive would not otherwise be apparent.
  The Minister of State told me:
  "The use of landfill is principally for the disposal of sheep and pigs from the livestock welfare disposal scheme of which there are over 1 million animals in the pipeline. Pigs and sheep from neighbouring farms where animals may have been exposed to the virus but not showing visible signs of disease may also be deposited. We are making the very best endeavours to ensure that as far as possible stock from protection zones go to landfill in protection zones. But we cannot guarantee in this extremely serious situation that this will always happen. Also with the recent SEAC decision, where landfill operators are content we will also bury disease free or at risk cattle less than five years of age."
  That lack of assurance was completely at variance with everything that I had been able to discover locally. It also meant that when I attended a meeting convened specially by Teignbridge district council at the weekend—because the council wanted to find out what was happening—far from my being able to provide reassurance, I was unable to do anything of the kind.
  As a result of that meeting, I sent a detailed message to the Minister of State pointing out that the assurances given flatly contradicted some of what MAFF officials were saying locally—not in letters to me, as the Member of Parliament, but in a circular letter to the chief executives of the various local authorities. I had never heard of a protection zone, and neither had the National Farmers Union.
  Let me give an example. MAFF officials have said certain things in correspondence; meanwhile, we are told:
  "The objective of the authorities responsible for the disposal arrangements is to ensure that all carcases are transported for disposal (a) within infected areas or (b) within non infected areas, but not from one area to another."
  Again, what was implied by MAFF officials and what was said by the Minister were completely at variance.
  By that stage, my confidence that I would receive a response from Ministers had disappeared. In a detailed letter that I sent to the Minister of State after the meeting on Friday, I wrote that I saw only one remaining opportunity to find out from Ministers what was going on. I told the Minister that she must ask a number of specific questions, and added that if she did not ask them I would raise them on the Adjournment.

  911
  The Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office is present. On such an occasion, his right hon. Friend the Leader of the House would normally say, "That is extremely interesting. It has nothing to do with me, but it is super to see you. I will refer your comments." It is a time-honoured formula, as is perfectly understandable.
  I made it clear to the Minister of State that I was going to send a copy of my letter to the Leader of the House, containing specific questions, and that I would expect those questions to be answered today. I said, possibly more in hope than in expectation, that she might be more successful in getting replies out of her right hon. Friend than I had been.
  These are the questions that I want the Parliamentary Secretary to answer today, as he is present. I want to know whether the order allowing the burial of cattle at Fosterville will be rescinded forthwith. I want to know whether the site at Deep Moor will be used for any subsequent disposals that would otherwise have been destined for Fosterville. I want the Parliamentary Secretary to make it clear that if a Fosterville site continues to be used—I strongly disapprove of that in any event—it should be used only for sheep and pigs in the livestock welfare disposal scheme, and that those animals should not have been exposed to any possibility of coming into contact with the virus. Finally, I want an assurance that in no circumstances will cattle be deposited at Fosterville.
  Those are questions of which the Parliamentary Secretary, through his colleague, has had specific notice, and I think that they need to be answered today. It is bizarre that we should have to expect a Minister with no departmental responsibility to measure up to what should be expected of Her Majesty's Government; but if we do not receive answers to those questions today, the people of the west country will form their own impression of what this Government are really all about.
  4.36 pm
  Mrs. Alice Mahon: I want to raise an important matter involving what I believe was a serious miscarriage of justice affecting two of my constituents, Gareth Perrett and Richard Perrett. Both are former policemen. Gareth Perrett was an inspector in Halifax with 29 years' service; his son Richard served in the Odsal division in Bradford for several years. Both had unblemished records.
  As MP for Halifax, for many years I have worked closely with Inspector Gareth Perrett. I know him well, and have always found him to be an excellent police officer, completely on top of his brief and well liked and respected in the community.
  On 7 February 1998, an alleged incident occurred on a flight from Orlando to Manchester. The two Perretts and a friend were reported by two passengers for disorder: they claimed that the men had had too much to drink, and were noisy. On arrival at Manchester, the three men were met by the police. They were told that a complaint had been made. They were not arrested, and they were not told what the complaint had been: they were allowed to collect their car and drive home to Halifax.
  As a senior officer, Gareth Perrett felt that there had been a misinterpretation, or a misunderstanding, of the men's behaviour. He sent a letter to the senior officer at Manchester airport. He thought that he should at least
  912
  have been provided with a list of passengers, which would have enabled him to obtain evidence that neither he nor the other two men had done anything wrong. The Manchester police disregarded the letter, and the Crown Prosecution Service did not follow up its suggestions.
  At that stage, both Inspector Perrett and his son still had no idea what the complaint against them was. Only when they read a report in the local press did they find that they had been accused of upsetting two passengers. Three months after the incident, a summons was served. The men were accused of being drunk on an aircraft, and using abusive or insulting words in the hearing or sight of a person which might cause harassment, alarm or distress.
  On 12 June, my constituents pleaded not guilty to both charges. The second charge was withdrawn, which left them with the charge of being drunk on an aircraft. They have always denied that. The police produced no video evidence, and after they had met them from the plane they had allowed them to drive home. That is difficult to understand.
  Gareth Perrett, or Richard, sought evidence from other passengers, but were met by a wall of opposition from Britannia Airways. The investigating police force was not helpful either. My constituents therefore set about finding passengers, and managed to locate a family who had been sitting close to them on the aircraft. That family are completely teetotal—as they made a point of saying in court; they gave evidence that the three men were
  "only a bit merry and not causing the problems suggested."
  The family were the main witnesses and the case collapsed. The two men were declared not guilty and left the court without a stain on their character, although the judge did remark that there might have been some juvenile behaviour.
  The two men returned to work. However, their problems were far from over; three months later, they were told to appear at a disciplinary hearing before the new chief constable, who—ignoring both the verdict of the court and the testimony of witnesses who had spoken in their favour—asked both men to resign. Later, at an appeal, a tribunal upheld the chief constable's decision but took note only of his conclusions; the independent evidence was not even discussed.
  I took up the case with the Home Office for three main reasons. I am not convinced that the case of the Perretts was fairly investigated either by the Greater Manchester police or the West Yorkshire police. I do not believe that a court's not guilty verdict should have been overturned by a chief constable who had taken more notice of exaggerated press reports. I do not believe that two excellent police officers should have lost their jobs; they are lost to the service, at a period when we are desperately short of good, experienced officers.
  The Home Secretary has turned down their appeal; he says that he took into account the response of the chief constable and the recommendations of the tribunal. I am very disappointed that he has done so. I am the last person in the world to condone disruptive or drunken behaviour on an aircraft, but after going into the case in great detail—listening to the local community and reading the proceedings thoroughly—I feel that an injustice has been perpetrated.
  Like the court, I do not believe that a serious offence took place. I do not believe that people should be tried twice. I want the Home Office to take another look at

  913
  the case. Recently, a senior reinstated police officer pleaded guilty to far more serious offences; we should remember that the Perretts were proved not guilty.
  The emotional cost to the family has been tremendous. They are a local family who are well known and well respected. The two men have been under great stress; they have lost income and have experienced personal hurt. I did not feel that the House should adjourn without me drawing attention to this case—I shall certainly pursue it.
  4.43 pm
  Mr. James Wallace: Although politics can be an unpredictable science, I suspect that this may be my last speech in the Chamber—although I continue to have the privilege of representing Orkney in the Scottish Parliament. There have been several highlights during my 18 years as a Member of Parliament, but the fact that I was a Member of the Parliament that delivered a Scottish Parliament—for which my party had campaigned for more than a century—and that I had the opportunity to play a part in that process brings me considerable pleasure.
  One consequence of the Scottish Parliament and of legislation passed in this place is that the Orkney and Shetland constituency has been split in two, so when the general election is called I shall cease to have a representative link with Shetland. That is why I want to focus on an important issue in Shetland—one of the major incidents that occurred during my time as a Member of Parliament.
  On 5 January 1993, the oil tanker Braer went aground at Garths Ness on the southern tip of Shetland, spilling its cargo of 84,000 tonnes of oil. Regrettably, more than eight years on, there is still unfinished business. I shall devote my remarks especially to the outstanding claims of people who believe that their property was damaged as a result of the spillage.
  I declare a personal interest. I have a small cottage about a mile from where the tanker went aground; subsequently, it was noted that the felt roof was warped. The roof was replaced by benefit of the compensation fund at a cost of between £3,000 and £4,000.
  Unfortunately, not everyone has been so lucky in having their compensation claims met. The International Oil Pollution Compensation Fund has the advantage that those who want to claim do not have to prove negligence on the part of the ship owner or the ship's master. In any event, it is sometimes speculative—and would have been in the case of the Braer—whether the owner or master would have had the resources to meet compensation claims. However, the downside of that advantage is that compensation from the fund is limited—in respect of the Braer, it is limited to a pay-out of about £50.6 million.
  At the outset, quick payments were needed to help cash flows for the worst affected industries, especially fishing and fish farming. Although there was subsequent criticism that payments were made too quickly, even with the benefit of hindsight it is right that businesses that had lost trade overnight should have been helped over their immediate difficulties.
  Claims had to be identified before 15 January 1996. In October 1995, 2,000 claims, amounting to £45 million, had been settled. At that stage, a moratorium was placed
  914
  on further payments. Payments were resumed only in May last year, with a dividend of 40 per cent. of approved, unpaid claims being met.
  Many of the claims have been subject to court proceedings. It is only during the past few weeks that a judgment has been entered for one of the major cases, so the sub judice rules no longer apply. It relates to claims made by people who believed that their asbestos cement roofs were damaged.
  My constituents and their legal representatives have expressed concern that an unduly legalistic approach was taken by the International Oil Pollution Compensation Fund. Nit-picking points have been made. Although it is not improper for solicitors and counsel advising the fund to draw attention to how its liability might be minimised, we are entitled to ask whether it is politically or morally proper that a fund set up to compensate the victims of pollution should adopt such an approach.
  I shall give the House an example. In the case of a couple whose jointly owned property suffered damage from oil pollution a claim was made by the widow, because her husband, sadly, had died in the meantime. The claim was challenged and compensation was reduced by half because she had sued only in her own name and not as the executrix of her husband's estate. No doubt the challenge was legally correct, but it begs the fundamental question of whether it was morally correct.
  I have raised such issues with the fund itself and with successive Ministers with responsibility for shipping. The view seems to be taken that although the Government are party to the convention, it is inappropriate for them to intervene in individual cases. However, if the Government cannot intervene as a member of the fund, who can?
  The most significant set of claims relates to damage to asbestos cement roofs. People found that their roofs started to buckle and to show signs of damage about 18 months after the Braer went aground and after dispersant was used to try to clear up the spoil. Although, at first, cases were based on damage by oil, when they came to court they were based on contamination by dispersant. In either event, the Lord Ordinary in the Court of Session—Lord Gill—found against the claimants. I do not criticise Lord Gill, as his carefully written opinion reflects the evidence laid before him.
  My concern is that the fund undertook several surveys and received reports that it subsequently withheld from the claimants. Those reports may have been helpful to their cause.
  In a faxed message to the director of the fund, Mans Jacobsson, in November 1994, Dr. Brian Dicks said:
  "The recent reports from the Fund's surveyors in Shetland"—
  he gives a number of dates—
  "illustrate a number of the above points, and also contain circumstantial evidence that some current roofing problems may be attributable to oil contamination, based on geographical location and comparison with a small number of controls."
  He said that it was important to recognise that a significant part of the comparative control process was provided by the experience gained from the fund's surveyors.
  I have subsequently been advised from local sources that a local surveyor, acting on behalf of the fund, submitted to the fund a number of reports concerning damage to asbestos roofs. The principal report concerned

  915
  the final six months of 1994, and detailed visits, surveys and periodic inspections of a number of properties, including some done beyond the contaminated area to be used as controls. Another surveyor submitted reports in respect of a number of individual claims, including one of damage to an asbestos roof in the village of Cunningsburgh, where the owners had not even thought of claiming until it was suggested to them by a representative of the fund because of the apparent damage to the roof. Now, five years later, and after litigation, they find themselves with a bill for legal expenses.
  Efforts have been made by the solicitors for the claimants at the appropriate point in the proceedings to recover the documents and reports. That was resisted by the fund. No doubt it had a legal basis for doing so and the court adjudicated accordingly, but it misses the point. No one in Shetland asked for an oil tanker to land on their doorstep and spill its load, and if the reports do not support the claimants' case, what is to be lost by their disclosure? If, on the other hand, they do lend support to the claimants' case, that survey changes the whole picture. Whatever may be the strict legal position, surely there is a moral case for the fund not to hide behind legal technicalities, but to compensate those who have suffered loss.
  I have asked the fund, both in writing and when I met the director last week, whether he would disclose these documents and, to be fair, he has agreed that he will consider the request. I have addressed a similar request to the shipping Minister, the hon. Member for Streatham (Mr. Hill). I was due to meet him this morning, but unfortunately that meeting has had to be postponed until later in the month. It is important, in the interests of fairness, for these documents to be released. I urge him to use his good offices to recover them. If they do show that there was evidence of the type of damage through contamination that the claimants believe that there is, I believe that an ex gratia settlement from the fund, or indeed from the Government, who had responsibility for the spraying, would be in order.
  I wish to raise two further points relating to the Braer. The first concerns expenses. It would be unfair if huge expenses were landed on the doorsteps of those who had the oil land on their doorstep. To be fair, the director of the fund has said that he will not be sending the bailiffs in. Finally, on equality of treatment, there is £3.7 million of unpaid claims already established but only £2.4 million available for further payments. Inevitably, that means a dividend, but others have been paid in full. I have asked successive shipping Ministers how the Government intend to address that inequality, and I still await an answer.
  In the House we regularly pay lip service to the adage that the polluter must pay. It is intolerable that the victims of pollution should pay. There is a huge sense of grievance and injustice. There is a belief, too, that a compensation fund should do just that: compensate. I seek the disclosure of the survey reports and an indication of how the Government intend to ensure that there will be equality of treatment.
  This is unfinished business. I suspect that I shall not be a Member of the House when it is finished, but I very much hope that it will be concluded in a satisfactory and just way.
  4.52 pm
  Mr. Tony Banks: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for calling me. As I explained, it is my wedding anniversary today. I planned a whole evening of fun, frolics and Mrs. Banks, and I would not want to disappoint her. She has not had many fun frolics with me over recent months—or, I hope, with anyone else.
  I want to raise a couple of issues on the Adjournment. First, I very much support the Government's decision to delay the local elections—and therefore, we must conclude, the general election. To hold a general election against the backdrop of foot and mouth would not have looked very good, to put it mildly, and it could have been potentially disastrous, given the record of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. No one should ever underestimate MAFF's ability to foul up big-time, and the idea of that happening during a general election is too awful to contemplate.
  I feel very sorry for my right hon. and hon. Friends who are MAFF Ministers, because they are caught between an agricultural industry seemingly bent on self-destruction and the daleks that staff MAFF, who are always chanting, "Exterminate them, exterminate them!" I really cannot understand why MAFF seems to be obsessed with slaughtering animals.
  Bovine tuberculosis has been prevalent for many years, and MAFF's only response seems to be to kill the badgers. I find that totally unacceptable. Badgers are a protected species, but of course the Government have given themselves a dispensation in that regard, and I understand that MAFF is spending something like £34 million over seven years on killing badgers. It is also using surveillance techniques, police helicopters and photographers, and that is just to deal with concerned members of the public and journalists who try to discover what is going on.
  There seems to be considerable weight of scientific opinion around the world that badgers are not responsible for bovine TB. Perhaps those at MAFF should look rather more carefully at the standards of animal husbandry before they go around slaughtering thousands of badgers.
  Like many things at MAFF, killing badgers seems to be based more on voodoo than science. Of course, the same is true of the mass slaughter of healthy animals during the current outbreak of foot and mouth disease. The slaughter seems to have nothing to do with animal welfare; it is all about commercial viability. Even if we were to accept—clearly, opinion suggests that we should—the slaughter of infected animals, the slaughter of healthy creatures is cruel and wanton, if only because it flies in the face of nature.
  Thank God MAFF does not run the national health service, although if it did it would certainly have a dramatic impact on waiting lists! The agricultural industry has played dice with nature for far too long, and now we are paying the price. First, innocent animals pay the price—they are slaughtered in their tens of thousands—and secondly, the taxpayer does so.
  I cannot believe something that I read in the newspaper. I very rarely believe what I read in the newspapers, but I hope that it is untrue that Mr. Waugh, the farmer at Heddon-on-the-Wall who is allegedly responsible for starting the foot and mouth outbreak in this country by feeding pigs infected meat, is to receive about £50,000 in compensation. I hope that we will find out whether that

  917
  man is guilty. If he is guilty, he should be prosecuted. If he is guilty, he deserves to go to jail; he does not deserved to be given £50,000 in compensation, paid for by the taxpayer. Indeed, others deserve to be punished—those farmers who moved sheep around the country among their own fellows to fiddle the common agricultural policy.
  I feel very sorry, obviously, for decent farmers, but they must be protected by eliminating the rogues and crooks in the industry. My own humble opinion is that there should be a farms inspectorate, rather like the factories inspectorate, which would enable inspectors to enter any farm to assess the standards of animal husbandry and other matters that relate to the production of food. The agricultural industry has acted irresponsibly. We should remember that it brought us salmonella in eggs, BSE, CJD and swine fever, and now it has brought us foot and mouth. We do not need to be experts; we just have to understand nature to know that if we fly in its face, something will go badly wrong.
  I remember saying from the Opposition Benches that it was obviously plausible that BSE would enter the human food chain, and Ministers saying that there was no chance of that happening. They were being advised by their MAFF officials, and they said that there was no chance, but our own innate sense told us that if animal protein was fed to herbivores, there would be a price to pay. If a species is fed to the same species—same species feeding—there will be a price to pay. People do not need qualifications in animal husbandry to understand those very basic points of nature.
  Intensive farming also represents a blatant disregard for nature, and in the end nature will extract a hideous price from us. I only hope that the next Labour Government will implement a full inquiry into how we produce our food, as the Prime Minister promised—assuming, of course, that we have not all been poisoned by then.
  The second issue that I want to raise is the culling of harp seals in Canada, around the Magdelene islands in the north of Newfoundland. This year's cull, which is going on at the moment, involves 275,000 harp seals, leading, some experts say, to a decline in the seal population. Hon. Members may not know that there are two methods of killing seals in Canada. In most cases, a sealer will approach a young seal and club it over the head with an instrument known as a hakapik, which has a 1.5 m handle and an iron head with a curved spike on one side and a short, blunt projection on the other. The seal is hooked and dragged to a central location, where it is skinned.
  Alternatively, sealers will shoot many seals from boats, incapacitating the seals so a sealer can approach them for clubbing or skinning. In many cases, the group of seals will writhe in agony until they are killed, and it is common for shot seals to skip into the water and bleed to death, because they are lost to the sealers.
  An international panel of vets has claimed that as many as 42 per cent. of seals killed were likely to have been alive when they were hooked, dragged and skinned. How on earth can the Canadian Government allow that barbarity to continue? They say that the fishermen maintain that the seals predate on cod, which is leading to a rundown in the cod stocks. However, we know that industrial fishing methods have depleted cod stocks
  918
  around the world. There are times when human beings can be venal, selfish and purblind about this planet's resources. The slaughter of harp seals is a disgrace to the entire Canadian nation. What protests have the Government made to the Canadian authorities to let them know how detestable the practice is in the eyes of the public not only in this country, but around the world?
  It is a pretty depressing note to finish on, but there are times when I think that human beings as a species are positively detestable. On that cheery note, I set off for a night of fun and to prepare myself for the general election.
  5 pm
  Mr. Christopher Gill: It might surprise the hon. Member for West Ham (Mr. Banks) to hear that I agree with a small part of what he said. I, too, am concerned about the wholesale slaughter of healthy animals, but I will not embark on a discursive argument with him because I want to confine my remarks to foot and mouth disease.
  I know from personal experience that border controls on the import of meat and meat products into New Zealand are very stringent. That point was confirmed to me at New Zealand house only three weeks ago, when the opinion was given that it is far easier to smuggle drugs and duty free into New Zealand than animal products.
  We should contrast that situation with the United Kingdom, where smuggling is now big business, and the smugglers, unlike the totally harmless vendor of a pound of bananas in Sunderland, are having a bonanza. Alcohol and tobacco smuggling now costs the Treasury £4.25 billion per annum and has led to the loss of countless jobs in he brewing industry and the retail sector. Asylum seekers are smuggled—as many as 100,000 entered the country last year, and doubtless there are more in the pipeline. It is impossible to quantify drug running, but drugs are undoubtedly widely and easily obtainable. The Government have lost control in all those areas. Notwithstanding the fact that we live on an island and are separated from our nearest neighbour by 21 miles of sea, or that we are intrinsically a law-abiding nation, smuggling is rife and extends even to the commodity in which I declare an interest—meat.
  On 21 March I asked what response the Agriculture Minister had made to a letter from Mr. Lawrence of Ciel Logistics in May 2000 concerning the health risks associated with consignments of bush meat arriving at Heathrow from Africa. The Minister of State answered:
  "None; the letter was passed to Her Majesty's Customs and Excise for reply."—[Official Report, 9 April 2001; Vol. 366, c. 476W.]
  Mr. Lawrence had written to express his concern about the lack of control over the movement of products of animal origin for human consumption via UK ports, with particular reference to Heathrow airport. In his letter of 10 May to the Agriculture Minister he said:
  "The points I would like to discuss with you in more detail face to face involve the importation of illegal products and the resource required to combat the detection of these goods … The risk to the community is extremely high given some of this product could contain disease i.e. anthrax, foot and mouth etc. Do I need to say more?"
  Unfortunately for us all, the answer to that question seems to be yes. Mr. Lawrence subsequently had to write

  919
  again highlighting the problem. Speaking to the Farmers Union of Wales, he described how at Heathrow his organisation had found
  "more than five tonnes of illegal meat concealed in suitcases that arrived on 14 flights from Lagos".
  He added:
  "We have also found cases packed with bush rats, antelope meat, fish and monkeys."
  When asked in Agriculture questions by the hon. Member for Staffordshire, Moorlands (Charlotte Atkins), about personal imports of meat and meat imports the Minister of State replied that
  "this issue needs to be considered urgently and it needs to be considered at the European level."—[Official Report, 5 April 2001; Vol. 366, c. 490.]
  In other words, Ministers have consistently said, "Not me guv. I'm only the Minister." These are matters for Her Majesty's Customs and Excise, for the European Union or for anyone other than this craven Government.
  Nothing better illustrates the Government's whole approach to the foot and mouth epidemic sweeping the country than their failure to heed the warnings, their failure to follow the advice in the Northumberland report that followed the 1967 outbreak, their failure to act decisively and to establish a workable command-and-control system, and the paralysis in the decision-making process that has invariably resulted in too little too late.
  Part of the explanation for that miserable state of affairs is the fact that agriculture policy decisions are taken at the centre; there is no local, regional or national autonomy. The agriculture collective in which the British industry is enmeshed is controlled from Brussels. That is why, when the European Union decided to close all livestock markets, the Minister could not without reference to Brussels tell the House whether the United Kingdom could continue to use market premises as collection centres for abattoirs. That is why, to the utter amazement of the British public, the Government—of whom the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz) is still a member—cannot make the ultimate decision about vaccination. So it goes on.
  Last year, I told the House that the common agricultural policy had failed and failed comprehensively. I said:
  "It has failed producers, consumers, taxpayers and the nation."—[Official Report, 11 May 2000; Vol. 349, c. 1075.]
  Those words have been echoed by the Prime Minister. Last month, he was reported as saying that the common agricultural policy was
  "bad for taxpayers, bad for consumers, had for the environment and ultimately bad for farmers".
  The Prime Minister and I make unlikely bedfellows, but I am delighted to welcome him to the real world.
  News bulletins today are saying that, since movement restrictions were imposed, there have been 300 illegal sheep movements. It is impossible to know whether that figure is an overestimate or an underestimate—who knows?—but we know for certain that those illegal sheep movements are a direct consequence of the European Union sheep regime based, as it is, on quotas and headage payments. Unlike the old UK deficiency payment scheme, it is wide open to fraud and abuse.
  To return to the Government's handling of the outbreak, a week last Friday I had a site meeting with my constituent, Mr. Michael Holloway of Gwarthlow farm,
  920
  Churchstoke. He had been told the previous day that his dairy herd was to be slaughtered. Present at the meeting was an Army officer who assured me that organisationally matters were generally well under control, but that operationally there were problems because there was a shortage of vets and of slaughtermen. That was on the very day that I read in my newspaper that the British Small Animal Veterinary Association had offered to cancel its annual conference so as to volunteer its members to assist the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food with the cull, an offer that MAFF had apparently declined.
  In the meantime, my constituent, Mr. A. C. Webster of Ludlow, who is a qualified slaughtermen, had been refused permission to take unpaid leave to go on the cull even though he was temporarily without work with his employer, the Meat Hygiene Service, which is another agency of government. The facts simply do not add up. If they do, they add up to a picture of muddle and confusion out of which the Government emerge with little credit.
  We have the nonsensical situation in which fit animals in restricted areas cannot be consigned to abattoirs, but animals in the welfare disposal scheme apparently can be. We have the ridiculous situation in which healthy animals in contiguous and firebreak areas are being killed sometimes against their owners wishes, while the cull of 1.5 million animals that owners want to dispose of under the welfare disposal scheme is endlessly delayed.
  The situation is appalling. Healthy animals are being dispatched, even though there is a massive backlog of carcases to dispose of. In addition, we have the phenomenon of the Minister urging farmers not to appeal against the culling of healthy animals when, from day one, the biggest problem has been the Government's failure to authorise the prompt dispatch and disposal of animals known to be infected. That is against a background of the ban on the export of meat and meat products from other countries with foot and mouth disease being applied on a regional or provincial basis rather than a national basis, as in the case of the Netherlands and Uruguay. In fairness, I note that restrictions on Northern Ireland will be lifted next week, subject to there being no further outbreaks. I welcome that.
  In the few seconds remaining to me, I want to deal with another aspect of the crisis and draw Ministers' attention to the plight of my constituents who, through no fault of their own, are without an income. It is self-evident that if one is running a business and there are insufficient customers or profits on sales to cover the overheads, the business is unsustainable. Even worse, if there are no customers, the business must cease trading. It could not be put better—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has had his 10 minutes.
  5.11 pm
  Shona McIsaac: The speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Telford (Mr. Grocott) was inspiring. I am sure that most hon. Members would echo what he said about the improvements that have been made to many different aspects of public services in their constituencies. However, I want to focus on something on which the Government are not doing so well.

  921
  I am concerned about East Ravendale school in the Lincolnshire wolds. Every time I hear Education Ministers say that they are getting rid of outside toilets and mobile classrooms in schools, I want to put up my hand and say to the Secretary of State, "Please, sir. You're not doing that in East Ravendale." The school is successful and I pay tribute to the head teacher, Mike Pickwell, on what he and his teachers manage to achieve in difficult circumstances. To put it simply and succinctly, the conditions in which the children are being taught are not acceptable in this day and age, especially given the Government's commitment on school facilities.
  The school has only three girls' and three boys' toilets for a roll of about 130 pupils. Those outside toilets are used by all age groups, from three-year-olds to year 6. It is difficult to supervise children, especially the very young ones, when they use the toilets, which are damp and mouldy. The children always get soaked when they go to them from their classrooms in bad weather and there are no disabled facilities. In addition, the toilets have recently been invaded by rats. I do not want to dwell on that. It is a rural school and there is wildlife around it. However, the rats have caught the imagination of the pupils who recently wrote to me and presented me with some wonderful books that show how they feel about them. Almost every page has a picture of rats. Although the rats are smiling, I do not think that the children are so happy. One picture is of a girl in an outside loo shrieking with horror because the rats are underneath her.
  The staff loos are also outside. They have not been invaded by rats, but there are many friendly spiders. There is one toilet for male staff and one for female staff, which have to be used when they get changed for PE lessons. It is impossible to have inside toilet facilities in the school because there is no building in which to put them. All five classrooms in the school are in mobile facilities that are well past their sell-by date and on a slope. They suffer from severe structural problems and inadequate glazing, poor heating and poor ventilation. That means that classrooms are too hot in summer and far too cold in winter; they are overcrowded and there is virtually no room for information technology facilities. I am afraid that rats have taken up residence under one mobile classroom.
  There is just one small brick building in the school—the old school hall, which, for metric martyrs in the House measures 9.6 m by 4.5 m, so there is no space in it for inside toilets. The hall is used for teaching the children, but it is also the main entrance to the school so, when anyone visits, lessons are disrupted. We need a new school; it is as simple as that. There is no room for medical facilities in the school; the children cannot do PE properly, and equipment has to be stored in an old garage. Because of the physical geography of its location—there are slopes and steps between mobile classrooms—disabled children cannot go to the school. Even for the able-bodied children, it is very dangerous in icy weather.
  Land is available for a new school, and it is owned by the local authority. I am trying to encourage Ministers to assist the local authority to secure funding for a new
  922
  school for East Ravendale. A letter from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment was sent to the leader of the council, Councillor Len Taylor, on 30 March, in which he states:
  I am very concerned at what you describe, particularly given that I have sought to target funding to eliminate reliance on outside toilets and reduce the level of temporary accommodation in poor condition."
  We managed to get officials from the Department for Education and Employment to visit the school on 2 April, when we experienced what was probably the best weather of the year so far. They chose to visit on a lovely spring morning; it was sunny and the bulbs were out. They must have thought that they were visiting an idyllic village in the Lincolnshire wolds. They should have seen it when it was pouring with rain, the kids were getting wet going outside all the time, and damp was being brought into the classrooms. That would have shown them the problems faced by the school.
  The school, the parents, the chair of governors, Mark Webb, Councillor Len Taylor, the director of education, Geoff Hill, and I all support the campaign for a new school in East Ravendale, as that is the only way that we are going to tackle the problem of mobile classrooms and outside toilets. The campaign has gone on for too long; I do not want East Ravendale school to be the only school left in the country with outside toilets. If an Education Minister stands up and says that the Government have got rid of outside toilets, I shall jump up again to say, "Oh no you haven't. Get on and help the council to get funding for a new school in East Ravendale."
  5.17 pm
  Mr. Simon Burns: I welcome the opportunity before the Easter Adjournment to raise two issues of crucial importance to my constituents, on which something needs to be done urgently.
  First, the erection of telecommunications masts by Orange is causing tremendous problems in a residential area of Chelmsford. The mast that is the bone of much contention in the town was refused planning permission by Chelmsford borough council. Orange took the council's decision to appeal with the independent planning inspectorate, which reversed the council's decision to allow that unsightly telecommunications mast to be erected in a residential area, opposite shops and surrounded by domestic dwellings. The mast is unsightly and there is still a belief that masts are a health hazard although, to be fair, the jury is still out on that issue.
  Something is seriously wrong when a community is united against having a telecommunications mast in its residential area, the local authority, the Member of Parliament and everyone else are opposed to it, but companies are allowed to put masts up against the wishes of local people. Springfield residents association and local residents in the Bodmin road and Torquay road area of Chelmsford have fought vigorously—as, to its credit, has Chelmsford borough council—although, sadly, to no avail.
  The time has come for this House and the Government to look again at the whole issue of planning and telecommunications masts. We have seen just the tip of the iceberg; another wave of masts will have to be erected owing to the popularity of mobile telephones. We need to change planning guidance, so that the views of local

  923
  communities and the environmental impact and the possible health hazard of masts are taken more into account.
  We must also bring greater uniformity to the decision-making process of the planning inspectorate in Bristol. We in Chelmsford have seen decisions on cases in Stanmore and in Harrow, for example, where applications were made to place similar masts in similar residential areas. The planning inspectorate has said that on grounds of both visual impact and possible health problems those masts should not be erected, yet the inspector who considered the appeal in Chelmsford has allowed erection of the mast to go ahead.
  My constituents are perplexed. How can one inspector say no in Stanmore because the mast would be in a residential area, might create a health hazard and would certainly be unsightly, but another from the same organisation say yes in Chelmsford? We must consider the issue as a matter of urgency because it will impact more and more on people's lives and on more and more hon. Members' constituencies.
  The second issue that I should like to raise concerns the number of houses that are to be inflicted on the Chelmsford local authority area as a result of the planning diktats of the Deputy Prime Minister and the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions.
  Over the next 10 years, 12,500 new dwellings are to be forced on Chelmsford. This decade, greenfield sites will be concreted over because Chelmsford does not have enough brownfield land to sustain the housebuilding that the Government are demanding of it. I always thought—the Deputy Prime Minister confirmed this in a written answer to me a year ago—that the 60 per cent. brownfield build figure was a national average. Therefore, areas that can take more than 60 per cent. brownfield site development should have more housing, and areas that do not have enough brownfield sites to meet the target should take less.
  We have been landed with the building of 12,500 houses. I particularly resent the fact that 2,500 of them will be nothing to do with the future housing needs of mid-Essex. We are being told to take 2,500 houses in order to relieve pressure on housing in the south of the county. The Government want the Thames gateway to be an area of industrial development and growing employment. Why cannot the housing be in that part of the county in order to sustain the jobs that the Government rightly want to create? Sadly, we must have them in Chelmsford; they are being dumped on us—we are being asked to take a disproportionate amount of housing.
  Where is that housing to go in the Chelmsford local authority area? There is a reasonable amount of brownfield land in my constituency, which will obviously be used up, but we must still provide a significant amount of other land for extra housing. The village of Boreham has been singled out by Liberal Democrat-controlled Chelmsford borough council for 2,000 of the houses. Boreham is a very small village and a compact community, and to swamp it with more than 2,000 houses will totally destroy its nature.
  There is an irony that will be apparent to anyone who is not cynical. Sadly, any cynical person will have seen the trend in Liberal Democrat-controlled councils throughout the country. By strange co-incidence, Boreham had a by-election for Chelmsford borough council in early
  924
  July last year. Of course, the prospect of significant housebuilding in the village was a major issue in the campaign. The seat had been held for 13 years by a Liberal Democrat councillor who had retired. Through literature, interviews and press releases to the local papers, the Liberal Democrat candidate, with the full support of the Liberal Democrat leader of the council, spent the entire campaign assuring prospective voters that he was solidly opposed to any housebuilding in Boreham, and that as the elected councillor, he would fight against it.
  Funnily enough, the Conservatives won that by-election, which shows the good sense of the good people of Boreham. Not only did they win it, but they won it on a turn-out of 42 per cent., with a 30 per cent. swing to the Conservatives. Lo and behold, only three months ago, it was Liberal Democrat-controlled Chelmsford borough council that decided to dump 2,000 houses on the village of Boreham. My constituents in Boreham are utterly perplexed at that sudden about-turn.
  Although the Liberal Democrat candidate is not the borough councillor for Chelmsford, the leader of Chelmsford borough council is still the same man who stood side by side with that candidate when they were trying to get the voters of Boreham to vote for him, assuring the people of Boreham that they would not have the housing there and that the Liberal Democrats would protect Boreham from becoming a suburb of Chelmsford.
  That is a classic example of the Liberal Democrats' behaviour. In what I assume will shortly be a general election, I would not want to be the Liberal Democrat parliamentary candidate campaigning in the village of Boreham. The people of Boreham have been bitten once and they will not believe a single word that a Liberal Democrat politician tells them, not only about housebuilding, but on any other subject under the sun.
  My constituency will be crucified by the amount of housebuilding that is to be forced upon it in the next 10 years. That is wrong. Even at this late stage, I urge the Government to place the proposed 2,500 houses in the Thames gateway and to reconsider the number of houses that they believe should be built.
  5.27 pm
  Mr. Harry Barnes: Last Wednesday, at about 11.15 am, it was finally recognised that there had been an escape of sulphur trioxide from the sulphuric acid plant at Rhodia Eco Services Ltd, which is known locally as Staveley Chemicals, a previous name of the plant. Staveley Chemicals dominates the Staveley area and used to employ a great number of people. It now employs only 130, but those are important jobs.
  The emissions had lasted for half an hour and, in breezy conditions, were spread over the rest of Staveley and into the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn). If it had been raining at the time, or there had been a great deal of moisture in the air, that would have turned the sulphur trioxide into acid, creating serious problems. It is not easy to determine whether it was worse for the breeze to disperse the sulphur trioxide, or whether the situation would have been worse if it had remained static, held by rain.
  The emergency services moved quickly and, once the situation became clear, the police and fire services were on the spot. Nineteen roads in Staveley were blocked off, and the indications are that the emergency services

  925
  operation worked well, although there is further debriefing to be done and further information to be supplied to Derbyshire county council.
  Staveley Chemicals has a siren that sounds when any emergency occurs. It now has an all-clear system, which ensured that another signal was sounded 45 minutes after the emergency signal, when the procedure had been completed. At one stage, it had only the initial emergency sound, so when false alarms occurred, people sometimes remained in their homes for considerable periods with their windows locked. Some of them stayed hidden under tables and so on, and did not know when to come out. I subsequently made representations suggesting the introduction of an all-clear system. There is a difficulty in the area, as Coalite at Bolsover, which is not far away, also has a siren system and it is not always clear which siren is being sounded.
  The current investigation into what occurred is being conducted under the COMAH—control of major accident hazards—regulations. The incident in question took place after recent maintenance work. Three policemen and a television camera worker were taken to the Chesterfield and North Derbyshire Royal hospital and released later after treatment. Immediate investigations were set up by the integrated pollution control unit of the Environment Agency, working in association with the Health and Safety Executive. The plant's liaison committee, which is chaired by councillor Vicky Lang, meets today in Staveley to look into what occurred. The Derbyshire county council emergency planning unit is also reviewing operations with regard to the emergencies.
  Unfortunately, the incident was not unique in North-East Derbyshire. In May and June 1998, there were two serious escapes of acid gas at the SARP plant in Killamarsh. In one incident, the gas escaped from a tanker. The other escape was emitted from a tank that imploded. In that incident, the tank that the tankers were filling up imploded, with a massive escape of acid gas. My right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment later visited the SARP plant and the Killamarsh area. The offending processes at Killamarsh have since been moved from the site, which is now owned by Onyx. I am seeking the close attention of my right hon. Friend and of the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions with regard to the incident. It is likely that prosecutions will occur following the Environment Agency investigation.
  Under the Pollution Prevention and Control Act 1999, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions has power to introduce regulatory measures. Although that Act derived from the need to codify European Union regulations, it was also influenced by the SARP incidents, which had an important impact on the understanding of these matters that was gained by my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment. We must find out whether the powers that the 1999 Act provides are adequate for dealing with such circumstances, or whether the legislation should be added to, perhaps with provisions that confer prosecution powers against directors.
  I have raised that matter with my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary in connection with the ex-Vinatex workers group. The Vinatex firm was situated in the Staveley area, near Staveley Chemicals. It closed shortly
  926
  before I became an MP in 1987. An investigation that was recently conducted by the trade union safety team made various suggestions about the problems that occurred and about the risks faced by workers in the plastics industry in terms of cancers and other serious effects. It also pointed out the lessons that can be learned about more serious action in future. The matter is well understood by my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment, and the incident at Staveley, which covered a vast area, needs to be taken on board in that regard.
  Staveley Chemicals is next to Stanton plc, which is owned by Saint-Gobain, a French-based multinational company. Saint-Gobain took over Biwater Industries (Clay Cross) Ltd. in my constituency and immediately announced the plant's closure with the loss of nearly 700 jobs, leaving only a few maintenance workers. Jobs at Stanton plc, next to Staveley Chemicals, seem to be guaranteed for the time being, but given the way in which Saint-Gobain operates and is seeking to transfer a great deal of pipe production overseas, a problem still exists for Stanton plc.
  I want to refer to the dismissal of workers at Biwater. Marks and Spencer proposed the closure of 18 stores in France, but after a plea by trade unions, on 29 March a judge in Paris ruled that Marks and Spencer had failed in its responsibility under French and EU law to give due warning to the workers, contrary to works council provisions in particular. Britain has no similar legislation, but had we had it, the 700 jobs at the Biwater plant in Clay Cross might still remain.
  These problems arising in my constituency in the Staveley area and in Clay Cross, provide lessons for the Department of Trade and Industry.
  5.37 pm
  Mr. Andrew Rowe: My speech today is in two parts. First, I want to lay before the House the situation of my constituent, Mr. Crawley. Mr. Crawley is dying; indeed, he may already be dead as I speak. He has cancer, and neither his family nor I are in any doubt that his condition has been caused by the stress to which he has been subjected by the Ministry of Defence.
  I shall not weary the House with all the details of his case; suffice it to say that Mr. Crawley's firm, Chesswood Floors, was a flooring contractor to the Ministry of Defence. His work for it in Kent over several years was of a quality which allowed him to win a contract carpeting MOD houses in Aldershot.
  Out of the blue, acting on an allegation of fraud from an undisclosed source, the Ministry of Defence raided his office in May 1992 and took from it not only papers relating to the MOD but all his other business papers, to which it had no legal right whatever.
  As a result, Chesswood Floors was forced into liquidation, Mr. Crawley's honesty had been impugned, the Crown Prosecution Service has confirmed that it has no charges to bring—yet the Government, despite assurances on several occasions, have failed to disclose the necessary documents to allow Mr. Crawley a chance to rebut the allegations. Whenever he has complained, the MOD has told him that if he does not like it he can always go to court. How crude, how disingenuous and how tyrannical.

  927
  The MOD knows perfectly well that Mr. Crawley cannot afford to go to court. The whole thing smacks of MOD techniques perfected over centuries of dealing with aggrieved citizens—drag it out long enough and they will die off. We have seen it with soldiers entitled to compensation often enough; we are seeing it here now.
  This is a clear case of Government bullying which has killed one of my constituents, and we should not adjourn until the Government promise instant action and redress.
  Our procedures, based on the mediaeval belief that the best way to arrive at the truth is through adversarial confrontation, make it difficult to concentrate hon. Members' minds on anything but the shortest of short terms. However, unless we make a considered examination of the country's future, we shall betray not only those who sent us here but their children and grandchildren.
  By some international measurements, we are one of the half-dozen richest countries in the world. We have houses, footballers and disc jockeys worth several million pounds. We are inventive, energetic and proud of our achievements. Why should not our current prosperity last for ever?
  I live on the top floor of a block of flats. The block is well run, and serious defects are quickly spotted and speedily remedied. If I wish to improve my flat, I can do so with confidence. I sometimes believe that the United Kingdom is like a block of flats; let us call it UK court. It is full of people on the upper flows who are busily engaged in improving their property, building penthouses, putting in swimming pools and picture windows. However, unlike my block of flats, the basement of UK court is rotting away. Before too long, the effects of the largely neglected rot will spread to higher floors and destroy the building.
  I invite hon. Members to consider elements that should receive much more attention. I begin with demography. By 2016, for the first time in our history, the number of people who are over 65 will be greater than that of those under 16. That will present enormous challenges. In previous centuries, we coped with demographic shifts by improving technology. However, the greatest need of an ageing and increasingly solitary population will be for human help. Its members are likely to be the least well equipped to adapt to new technologies. We shall need people to fill the gap.
  The current debate on immigration should therefore be conducted without hysteria. We need more people if our public services are to survive and our older citizens are to be adequately cared for. We can find them either by immorally robbing much poorer countries of the skilled people on whom their future depends, or by adopting a rational immigration policy. Such a policy would either make use of the skills of our current immigrants instead of forcing them to do unskilled, illegal work, or it would establish a quota of foreigners who would be allowed to settle here permanently.
  There are two other choices. First, we could stop killing our unborn children. Abortion rates among women aged 16 to 19 and 20 to 24 have been growing fast. In the 16 to 19 age group, abortions have increased from 2.5 per 1,000 in 1968 to 26.5 per 1,000 in 1998. For 20 to 24-year-olds, abortions have increased from 3.4 to 30.4 per 1,000 women. The UK has chosen a path that makes substituting foreigners for UK-born citizens inevitable.
  928
  The second option brings me to the next symptom of rot in UK court. We could make better use of our young people. We could start to love our children instead of disregarding them. We could give them the care and education that they need. We could give those who go off the rails the support that would return them to mainstream society. We currently do precisely the opposite. As a society, we do not love our children. In 1999, the Office for National Statistics found that 10 per cent. of our schoolchildren suffer from mental disorders and 30 per cent. of those are never seen by a consultant or even a general practitioner. Such children are four times more likely to play truant, three times more likely to suffer from specific learning difficulties and 10 times more likely to be in trouble with the police.
  This is when we really show how we care for our children: once those children, whose homes are poor and usually fragmented, go off the rails, we clamour for them to be subjected to the full rigour of the law. "Lock them up", we cry, and we do. Although the incidence of youth crime has scarcely altered in the past 10 years, the number of those locked up has "gratifyingly" increased. Between 1991 and 2000, the number of male young offenders under sentence in young offenders institutions rose from 5,683 to 8,224. And what a good place to send them: 77 per cent. reoffended within two years of their discharge. Between a quarter and a third of the residents of young offenders institutions are not even convicted but are on remand. We should be ashamed of ourselves.
  We should be even more ashamed of the next thing that I am about to mention. I wonder whether the House realises that, once in a young offenders institution or any other penal institution, a child is deprived of the protection of the Children Act 1989. If a 15 or 16-year-old on remand is raped, the social services cannot even carry out an investigation under the Act. What do we think we are doing?
  Let us leave on one side our children who take to crime—after all, everyone else does. Let us look at our schools. We travel the world teaching other countries how to run an education system, so we surely must be good at it. Each year, 200,000 children fail to obtain at least one GCSE of grade C or above, and 30,000 leave with no graded GCSEs at all. That is hardly a stunning return on 42,000 hours of compulsory school attendance. No wonder truancy is on the increase.
  GCSEs apart, what about skills? In some parts of England, almost four out of 10 adults cannot read or write properly or do simple sums. About 24 per cent. of adults in the United Kingdom can be described as functionally illiterate. As the international adult literacy survey found, 8 million people in the United Kingdom are so poor at reading and writing that they cannot cope with the demands of modern life.
  This rich, proud country is turning out of its schools more functionally illiterate people than any country in the European Union except Italy. Not only is it a disgrace—indeed, a form of child abuse—but it spells huge dangers for the rest of us. People who cannot find work or earn a decent wage turn disproportionately to antisocial behaviour and disrupt the lives of the rest of us. If compassion does not move us, let us try self-interest. Self-interest persuaded the Victorians to build public drains. Would it persuade us to improve our schools?

  929
  It had better, because even if we set aside the need for dignity and self-regard as unimportant, we need these men and women for the future.
  I could go on and on. I could point to the alarming rise in sexually transmitted infections and the frequent comments from our young that they do not know enough about HIV-AIDS. I could ask whether we are on the verge of a sharp increase in HIV. I could point out that our young people drink more alcohol and drink to excess more often than any other young people in Europe. We should listen to the voices of young people. The creation of the UK Youth Parliament has been of some benefit so far. Let us listen to the young people who have positive ideas for the future and try to make sense of our lives.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Sylvia Heal): Order. I see that a considerable number of Members wish to contribute to the debate. If hon. Members make their comments even shorter than 10 minutes, several more may be able to catch my eye.
  5.48 pm
  Mr. John McDonnell: I wish to raise two constituency cases relating to the investigation of and response to complaints about health treatment. They have led me and many others to draw attention to the need for further reform of the NHS complaints procedures. The first case relates to an elderly man, and the second to a child.
  The elderly man, Mr. Alfred Riddle, was taken into hospital on 8 March 1993. He was advised by his consultant that he had a small bleeding ulcer that required surgery. The family were advised that there was some risk, owing to his age. The operation was carried out on 10 March. He was then admitted to the intensive care unit. He died 16 days after the operation. The family were informed half an hour before he died that he had been suffering from stomach cancer and that it had spread, causing major organ failure. The family refused the death certificate as a result. They asked the key question why incorrect information had been provided before surgery, thus precluding Mr. Riddle senior and his family from making an informed decision about the proposed treatment.
  When the hospital was questioned, it gave several different responses at different times. The family took up the complaint formally with the hospital trust in 1994. They were dissatisfied with the reply, which they found to be dissembling. They requested an independent review. The request was considered by the associate director of public health, but was deemed inappropriate. The family were instructed to resolve the matter locally. No appeal against that decision was possible under the procedure at that time. A number of meetings were held with the family. That did not resolve the complaint.
  The family then approached the health service commissioner to seek an intervention, but with no success. The commissioner rejected the case because complaints should normally reach the ombudsman within a year of the event taking place or coming to his notice.
  930
  I wrote to the Minister, Baroness Jay, suggesting an independent review to satisfy the family. That was rejected. The advice provided was that the only alternative was for the family to seek legal advice. I sought a further ministerial meeting this time with Baroness Hayman. I was then informed that no appeal against the decision to refuse an independent review was possible under the original procedures and new procedures for NHS complaints had been instituted, but that a complaint that had first been lodged under the old procedures could not be taken up under the new procedures.
  The system has proved to be totally inadequate in establishing the truth of the case, in satisfying the family's concerns and in demonstrating that any lessons have been learned for the future so that no one else has to go through that experience. Naturally, the family are not only concerned but extremely angry. Nearly 10 years after the event, they still do not know the facts of what happened to their beloved father.
  I turn to an equally, if not more, tragic case: the case of my constituent Joanna Nash. She was aged six. She became ill on 31 August 1994, at which time she was taken to her doctor. The doctor advised her mother not to take her to hospital immediately, but on the following day she was no better. On 1 September 1994, Mrs. Nash took Joanna to Hillingdon hospital, where it was felt by the treating doctor that she should not be admitted; gastro-enteritis was diagnosed.
  On 3 September 1994, Mrs. Nash took Joanna back to the hospital as there were no visible signs of improvement in her daughter's condition. This time, Joanna was admitted to hospital. Her kidneys had failed. On Sunday 4 September 1994, Joanna was transferred to Great Ormond Street children's hospital where her condition was immediately diagnosed as haemolytic uraemic syndrome and she was put on a dialysis machine. Unfortunately, that six-year-old child died on Friday 9 September 1994 at Great Ormond Street hospital.
  The family were concerned with the treatment that Joanna received at Hillingdon hospital and met the consultants to question them about the nature of the treatment that was received, about the treatment that should have been received and about what the diagnosis should have been. They found the answers to be insufficient, to say the least. They went to an independent professional review. They discovered that even during the independent review, a number of factors had not been taken into account. Hillingdon hospital had refused to supply a blood sample to specialists so that they could further the investigation.
  At no stage have the family been given a copy of the report that the specialists undertook in the investigation itself. Later, they discovered that the condition was caused by the bacterium E. coli O157, but the review itself never discovered that. They had to find that information themselves.
  Joanna's notes were looked at independently as a result of the family's own intervention. It became apparent that errors were made in her "treatment", which not only failed to diagnose the problem, but even made the condition worse.
  On the basis of that information, the family sought to reopen the inquiry. They were refused and told that it was not possible within the existing procedures, so there has been no opportunity to investigate and to demonstrate

  931
  whether the practices for treating Joanna were adequate or whether any lessons have been learned. The Nashes have set up an organisation that has campaigned over a number of years, linking families who have gone through similar experiences. I pay tribute to the work that they have done to raise awareness of that condition and of the need for better treatment. However, throughout all this, they have been told that the time limits preclude any further investigation of their daughter's death.
  I believe that it is time to review the NHS complaints procedure to deal with the difficult cases that have been caught in the transitional process of change between the two complaints systems: the one prior to April 1996 and the one after it. There is a need to review cases that have been debarred simply because they were initially pursued under the system before 19 April 1996. There is a need to institute procedures for reopening inquiries when new information comes to light. There is a need for greater flexibility in the administration of time limits. No time limits are set in relation to serious crimes or miscarriages of justice and none should be set in these cases. There is now a need for a specialist agency to investigate complex cases that is similar to the Criminal Cases Review Commission which investigates miscarriages of justice. I urge that there should be greater lay input to any new procedure that we may establish.
  My sympathy goes out to the families who have suffered so much—the Riddle family and the Nash family. They have suffered because the system was inadequate to meet their concerns. However, I salute them for their persistence in seeking reform and justice.
  5.55 pm
  Mr. Tony Baldry: I shall try to be extremely brief as I appreciate that colleagues wish to contribute to the debate. However, given that we shall have a 12-day recess, it is a great pity that time could not be found for a proper day-long debate on the impact of the foot and mouth crisis which is affecting many hon. Members. I think that many people in the countryside will find it bizarre that we shall be taking a recess of almost a fortnight in which hon. Members will have no opportunity to question Ministers. I am also still waiting for just one answer to any of my written questions that is more substantive than, "I will write to the hon. Gentleman as soon as possible."
  Some weeks ago, at Little Chesterton in my constituency, we had an isolated outbreak of foot and mouth. It was a devastating tragedy not only for the farmer concerned, Clive Hawes, but for the surrounding area. The result of that isolated incident was that MAFF designated an area within a 16 km radius of the outbreak as an infected area. The designation covers a vast area, going from Abingdon to Witney, round to Buckingham, Aylesbury and Thame and back to Abingdon, and affects a large number of farmers.
  The effect of being in a designated area is that farmers inside it are subject to even tighter controls than those applying outside it. They cannot, for example, send their animals to slaughter or move them more than half a kilometre. It is also difficult for farmers in the area to enter animals into the welfare disposal scheme because, whereas animals in an infected area have to be slaughtered within that area, there is no slaughterhouse in the area. Although on-farm slaughter is an option, that option does
  932
  not seem to have been approved yet by MAFF and the Intervention Board. So, the animals are trapped on the farms, and the farms are rapidly becoming overstocked. We shall have some extremely distressing animal welfare problems.
  Yesterday, I informed the Agriculture Minister of the concerns of Mrs. Wilcox, who has 3,000 piglets on her farm in temporary straw accommodation which has become waterlogged from the heavy rain. They cannot be slaughtered or moved. Almost daily, farmers telephone me in considerable distress because they cannot resolve issues in relation to ewes that are lambing in inappropriate conditions. However, their stress is compounded by the fact that they cannot get any answers from MAFF. No one answers the telephones or will tell them what is happening. More important, no one seems to recognise the problems that those farmers are facing.
  To date, there have been no further outbreaks of foot and mouth in Oxfordshire. In previous outbreaks, the boundary of an infected area could be reviewed and reduced. Now, we have a ludicrous situation in which MAFF can designate an infected area of 16 km, but says that it cannot lift the designation without authorisation from Brussels. There does not seem to be an accepted understanding or process of how such authorisation is sought.
  Therefore, large numbers of farmers in Oxfordshire seem to be stuck in a system in which their farms are simply over-burgeoning with livestock that they cannot move or have slaughtered, producing ever-increasing animal welfare problems. MAFF officials do not yet seem to be able to consider ways of approaching Brussels to determine how they can modify an infected area boundary. They seem to have the power to impose draconian restrictions, but no power to remove them.
  I entirely accept the need for livestock movements to be controlled, especially in the tragic areas where the disease is running riot, but common sense must prevail. In the case of farmers in my constituency, there must be a strong argument for an urgent review of the existing control measures. Those farmers cannot simply be left to struggle on until MAFF officials get round to dealing with their problems.
  I ask the Minister to use his influence with his MAFF colleagues to encourage them to carry out an urgent review of the current infected area imposed in Oxfordshire. I believe that there are similar problems in Leicestershire and Northamptonshire, where isolated outbreaks have also taken place. Can there please be some recognition of the problems that are being experienced? Otherwise, over the Easter break Ministers will see on their television screens an increasing number of distressing pictures of animals that are themselves in considerable distress—scenes that I think would be offensive to everyone, and which are already causing great concern to the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals and others. Farmers are powerless to act, and they are becoming increasingly upset.
  I would like to say much more about the impact of foot and mouth disease on individual farmers and businesses connected with tourism in my constituency, but I know that time is short and others wish to speak. I hope that the Minister will take my points on board. I would welcome a substantive written reply to my queries, and something more from the Government than everyone seems currently

  933
  to be receiving—the standard response to parliamentary questions, which is that an answer will be given as soon as possible. What we would like, and our farmers would like—as would others who are involved—is some answers today.
  6.2 pm
  Dr. Rudi Vis: I want to focus on the earthquake in Gujarat. I have met constituents of all faiths, races and backgrounds who have contributed in one way or another to the many victims and loved ones of that horrible earthquake, which took place on 26 January 2001.
  Huge cracks in the salt flats of the Rann of Kutch—it is not always understood how such cracks come about—marked the epicentre of the quake. At that point, some six miles below the surface, a failure in the seismic fault triggered an earthquake measuring 7.9 on the Richter scale. It resulted in the death of many thousands of people; it has also meant the destruction of the livelihoods of far more people in India and elsewhere than can be imagined.
  Many of our constituents who have close ties with India through friends and family jumped into action with money-raising and other activities. Quite a few immediately went to India to help. Most of our schools helped with fund-raising in imaginative ways; temples, mosques, churches and synagogues sprang into action. I am honoured to represent a constituency containing so many people who immediately went out of their way to help India in whatever manner they could think of, and I am sure that I am not the only Member present with such constituents.
  This tragedy is no different from similar occurrences in Greece, Turkey, China, El Salvador and Iran, but the scale of death and destruction is almost inevitably greater in India. The earth shook 1,200 miles away from the epicentre, and the quake was felt as far away as Nepal. Gujarat is a state with 42 million people, and tens of thousands of British Indians have extended families in that part of the sub-continent.
  Within two days, the Indian army had mobilised its biggest emergency operation since the massive quake in 1950. The United Kingdom sent a 70-strong team ready to search for survivors, and to help fight diseases, set up tent camps, provide food and blankets, and assist in hospitals. India was well prepared in many ways—or as well prepared as it could have been—because almost half of India is prone to earthquakes. The weakest links are, perhaps, the collapsed modern tower blocks, which point to the ignoring of building codes and a failure to observe safety measures.
  I wrote to the Prime Minister and to Ministers who deal with immigration matters to ask our Government to review speedily and with compassion immigration procedures for dependants of British citizens affected by the horrors of the earthquake and its aftermath. The replies were entirely positive and sensitive; I thank the Prime Minister and his colleagues for that.
  I also wrote to Ministers about the enormous work undertaken in India by the BAPS Swaminarayan Sanstha who have provided food, medicine, clothing and many other necessities for the survivors of the earthquake.
  934
  The distribution of relief material was the initial focus of BAPS; help was given to about 300 towns and villages by 6,500 volunteers, including doctors and many professionals. To give but one example, well over 1.5 million pouches of water have already been provided by BAPS. All the volunteers offer honorary service and the organisation has zero administration costs—remarkable in itself—so every pound donated goes directly and in full to the relief of the sufferers.
  At present, rehabilitation of the homeless is the focus for BAPS; there is an imaginative low-cost, sponsor-a-home scheme and a hospital with modern facilities is being constructed in Bhuj.
  Mr. Gareth R. Thomas: My hon. Friend describes clearly what has been happening in his constituency. Equally, in my constituency, in the borough of Harrow, considerable efforts have been made by the Asian community and by churches and synagogues alike to raise funds to relieve the immediate suffering of those in the Gujarati earthquake. Does my hon. Friend share my view that we also need to consider how we rebuild the communities which have been hit by the earthquake? We must continue to exert pressure on our Government and on other Governments to ensure that, once the immediate publicity disappears, we retain the focus on rebuilding the state of Gujarat.
  Dr. Vis: I thank my hon. Friend for those comments; I associate myself with every word of them.
  I had planned to say a few more things, but as time is limited and other hon. Members want to speak, I shall point out only that if people want further information, they should please consult the website—www.swaminarayan.org. Will my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office consider any further assistance that the Government could give to victims of the earthquake?
  6.7 pm
  Mr. Mark Oaten: I, too, shall be brief, so as to allow other hon. Members to speak. I want to raise three planning issues on which the Government need to step in, to take account of the frustrations experienced by many local authorities and the constituents of many hon. Members when dealing with such matters. We need Government action.
  The first issue relates to planning for mobile phone masts and to points made earlier. I agreed entirely with the comments of the hon. Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns)—at least, until he started talking about by-election results. There are considerable concerns in my constituency. Objections to the siting of phone masts have been made by action groups such as the Byron avenue action group and by a large number of villagers in my own village of Bramdean. At present, the policy is a mess; up and down the country, the four main providers submit applications week by week and no strategic consideration has been made of how local authorities can handle them.
  We have the bizarre situation that some masts, below a certain height, do not require full planning permission, so the system can almost be bypassed. Conflicting advice and messages are received on health. Sometimes the message from the Government is that local authorities should take a precautionary approach, but there are no

  935
  provisions in planning law to enable them to enact such an approach so as formally to take account of health concerns. Throughout the country, test cases take conflicting views. With the development of new technology, we have the prospect that, within two or three years, houses will be built with small masts in their attics.
  Will the Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office reconsider the Government's proposed solution? They have suggested a voluntary code, but that is not the best way forward. In any case, the code needs strengthening. We need a system that encourages and makes much easier the shared use of sites. We must clarify what is meant by a precautionary approach for loca1 authorities; that information needs to be built into the planning system. What do the Government mean by the "next stage" of health concerns? What will the Stewart committee investigate? When will it report? Finally, I hope that the voluntary code will exist for a trial period only and that if the industry fails to abide by it, the Government will consider tougher legislation.
  My second issue concerns local authorities' general planning and enforcement powers. I am sure that many hon. Members have concerns about local authorities' inability to take action if a business has been set up, or if someone has built on a piece of green land. The law is very weak in that area. Some individuals challenge court rulings. Others drag such issues out for many years.
  In Swanmore, a village in my constituency, a saga has been going on since 1985. There have been several city council rejections of an application to convert a poultry house to residential use. There have been county court rulings against that application, and twice the Secretary of State has rejected the application, but the developers are still there, many years afterwards.
  I hope that the Government will review local authorities' powers, but I understand that they have no plans to do so. They believe that those powers are strong enough already. I consider that many hon. Members would regard that stance as weak. Local authorities' powers should be greatly strengthened, because individuals who simply ignore court orders are running rings around them.
  My final point relates to the problems involved in compulsory purchase and planning. Greater clarity is needed from the Government. I have in my constituency a new town called Whiteley, a lovely town. A commitment was made to build a road into the town, called Whiteley way. Everyone made contributions to that end, and it was assumed that the land could be bought for agricultural prices—about £600,000. There was then a judgment, the Kent County Council v. Bachelor judgment, which said that the owner of a crucial piece of land that needed to be built on could hold it for a ransom fee. As a result, that land is not now valued at agricultural prices but is worth millions of pounds. That makes it virtually impossible for the local authority to proceed and build a necessary road, which was promised to people in the area.
  The Government committed themselves to a review of compulsory purchase and the cost of compensation. I understand that that review recommended that new legislation be introduced very soon to clarify the issue. To date, nothing has happened. I hope that the Minister can respond on that point.
  936
  I have been brief to allow others to contribute. I hope that if the Minister cannot refer to these issues in his winding-up speech, he will give me a commitment to allow me to come back to him on all of them.
  6.13 pm
  Mr. Jim Fitzpatrick: I shall be as brief as I can, but that is not to lessen the importance of the issue that I raise, which is the murder of my constituent, Mr. Shiblu Rahman, who was stabbed many times in east London in the early hours of 1 April 2001. He leaves a widow and two young daughters. The Metropolitan police are treating the murder as a racist attack.
  I wish to commend all those people, especially on the Lincoln estate, who have assisted the police with their inquiries, representing the whole community of east London. I wish also to express appreciation to the authorities for their sensitivity in handling the family's needs. Visas were provided for family members from Bangladesh. The local authority, the London borough of Tower Hamlets, considered the rehousing needs of the widow and her children. Support was also given by other authorities.
  I wish to register on behalf of the family a number of concerns. I have already written to Chief Superintendent Rose Fitzpatrick—no relation—who is commander of the Metropolitan police in Tower Hamlets, who have good communications with the family. Indeed, the local commander, Mr. Smith, met the family yesterday and a liaison officer was appointed very early on. I have also written to the chief executive of the London ambulance service, who has responded by fax today, advising me that he will respond to the issues that I have raised with him, hopefully tomorrow.
  The family have many concerns. Some have been addressed by the Metropolitan police, but others require answers. The meeting between the Metropolitan police and the family yesterday has resulted in the Met promising a full response within three weeks to a number of the issues raised, such as why no family members were allowed into the flat that Mr. Rahman managed to reach before he was transported to hospital, to assist in translating and taking evidence, and the fact that Mr. Rahman was not taken to hospital by the police or family members before the ambulance arrived.
  The family's other main concerns include the time that the ambulance took to arrive, which was estimated at between 31 minutes and an hour, depending on different accounts; that no family member was allowed to travel with Mr. Rahman in the ambulance to the Royal London hospital; and, of course—finally and most importantly—whether earlier arrival at the hospital might have saved Mr. Rahman's life. They are reasonable, but angry questions from a very distressed and close family.
  As I said earlier, Mr. Rahman, who was only 34, leaves a widow and two very young children. Those responsible need to be caught and prosecuted, and justice, as ever, not only needs to be done, but be seen to be done. The questions that I have asked must be answered. Clearly, from the evidence that I have received, the police have learned lessons from the Macpherson inquiry, but there are still issues to be addressed, and the London ambulance service has to address the serious questions that it has been asked.

  937
  I know that the House will condemn the murder of my constituent, Mr. Shiblu Rahman—a decent, ordinary, working member of our community. We certainly collectively condemn racism and expect the best and most sensitive treatment of his dependants.
  I raise this matter to express my condolences to the family, to reassure them that their concerns will be addressed, to put down a marker that the serious questions that they have asked must be answered to their satisfaction and to give notice that I will naturally seek a full Adjournment debate at the appropriate time further and fully to examine the serious issues that have been raised by this heinous crime and to ensure that the safety of all my constituents is foremost in Poplar and Canning Town.
  6.16 pm
  Mr. Peter Viggers: There is increasing frustration and anger among perceptive commentators about the manner in which the Government are treating Parliament, and the situation this afternoon is indicative of that. First, the Prime Minister defers the local elections theoretically to concentrate on foot and mouth disease, and then the Government announce an extremely long Adjournment at Easter in a week when five separate programme motions—or guillotines—have been tabled for five separate measures. The truth is that the Government do not really think that Parliament has a role in a crisis.
  I was talking to a Cabinet Minister in a corridor last week. I congratulated him on the fact that he had been in the Chamber briefly when one of his junior Ministers was taking some business through the House and said that it was a pity that Cabinet Ministers could not spend more time in the Chamber, to which the Cabinet Minister replied, "I can't sit in there; we've got a country to run." How different from what happened under the Government formed by Mrs. Thatcher—as she then was—when the Falkland islands were invaded and it was decided that Parliament should sit on a Saturday to debate the issue.
  This Government's attitude seems to be that if hon. Members sit back and allow the Government to get on with their business, they will run the country and get it right. I want to raise an issue that the Government have not got right. If the Government were to listen to Parliament and if Parliament were available for the next week or so, it would provide a better opportunity for hon. Members to debate the issue.
  I heard with disbelief yesterday that it was intended to bury the carcases of slaughtered animals at Romsey in Hampshire. Hampshire is not affected by foot and mouth disease, and the last thing that local people want is their county to be infected with it. Clearly, if carcases are to be brought into the county and buried at Romsey, there must be such a risk, however detailed the arrangements to stop the infection spreading.
  Immediately on arriving at the House, I went to the Table Office and asked to table a question for priority answer. I was told that, as the House was rising today, the earliest date on which my priority question could be answered was 23 April. So I have to wait all that time to find out whether animals are to be buried in Hampshire. I then went to my office and discovered that the Minister for the Environment had written a letter to the chief
  938
  executives of the local authorities on Wednesday 4 April, but that it was not sent to hon. Members until 6 April—a Friday, which all my hon. Friends know is the day on which Ministers publish answers that they do not really want people to read. Although the information was available on 4 April that the Environment Agency intended Squad wood, Salisbury road, Romsey to be an approved licensed landfill site to be used for burying carcases, Members were not told until the Friday of that week, and received the letter on the following Monday.
  There have been developments. Hampshire county council has of course taken the matter up with the Environment Agency. The company in question has objected to the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions and been given a verbal assurance that the Romsey site will probably not be used. The Environment Agency says that it is "highly unlikely" that it will be used, at least in the short term. If it is used at all, it will be for local animals and every carcase will come in an individual body bag, disinfected and with all precautions taken.
  There has been a huge number of calls from people in Hampshire expressing absolute disbelief that Romsey is to be used for the burial of carcases. It is appalling that the county council, despite having done all it can, has no influence to stop that. If the Government say, by diktat, that the site is to be used, it will be used. On behalf of the people of Hampshire, I ask for the same assurance that was given to the people of West Sussex, where county council leaders have been told that the disposal of carcases in landfill sites in the county will cease immediately and that there will be no further disposal without consultation.
  Will the Government give an assurance, through the Parliamentary Secretary, that the notice from the Minister for the Environment will be withdrawn, and that there will be no further imposition of carcases on landfill sites in Hampshire until there has been further discussion?
  6.21 pm
  Mr. Stephen Hepburn: I am delighted to have the opportunity to raise the issue of coal health compensation on behalf of the retired miners in my constituency and elsewhere. My constituency had a great tradition of coal mining, as did the north-east as a whole, before the previous Government got their hands on it and destroyed what had been a great industry.
  I congratulate my hon. Friend the Minister for Energy and Competitiveness in Europe on the determination that he has shown. He has demonstrated that he will succeed in getting compensation for the miners. I praise the Government for their attitude to the matter. They are responding to the miners' claim for justice, which the Tory Government and British Coal resisted for years. In January 1996, my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. Clapham) asked the Tory Minister to introduce a miners' compensation scheme, only to be told that their health problems were due mainly to smoking.
  As we know, this compensation claim is the biggest in British history, with more than 142,000 claimants. I was proud when the Labour Government accepted it without question and made billions of pounds available to the miners who had done so much service for British industry. By taking the workers' side for once, a Government have

  939
  turned industrial relations around. We remember how the previous Government treated the miners, and the miners will never forget it.
  In my constituency, 499 miners with respiratory diseases have made claims. Sadly, 13 of them died before they could receive their entitlement and only 87 have received full settlements up to now. That is a success rate of less than 20 per cent., which is unacceptable. We are talking not about statistics but about real people who want their entitlement to make life easier for themselves and their families.
  I have contact with almost 100 of those miners when I meet them in my surgery or at the local shops. When they talk to me in that wheezing tone, it breaks my heart to see how the health of men who were once big, strong and fit has been affected to such an extent that normal life is impossible for them. That is why I support the campaign instigated by my local newspaper, the South Shields Gazette, and its editor, Rob Lawson, to get an additional testing centre based in south Tyneside.
  In discussions with Ministers and their officials earlier today, I discovered that there are a total of 10,290 live claimants in the north-east. Almost 80 per cent. have had the appropriate tests at the centres in Newcastle and Durham. The Government have provided a domiciliary service to test housebound miners in their homes. We can therefore conclude that the vast majority of miners have passed through the first gateway. However, a testing centre in south Tyneside would be convenient for the small number who are left and their families.
  The campaign has the support of my predecessor, my noble Friend Lord Dixon of Jarrow and my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark). We have already met my hon. Friend the Minister for Energy and Competitiveness in Europe and we were delighted with his response. He said that resources were not a problem in ensuring that miners received what they were entitled to. There were no budgetary constraints and money was not an issue, so the possibility of establishing an additional testing centre would be investigated.
  However, the real problems with the scheme are the legal complexities and the lack of respiratory specialists. Legal problems are holding up the claims and, after a lifetime in the pits, that is not what miners want to hear. With their lives destroyed, they have to wait for payments while lawyers argue. Each time the Government try to speed up or improve the process, both sets of lawyers must agree. Hundreds of millions of pounds must be going in fees to lawyers while more miners die every day.
  Is it not nonsense that miners who have already been diagnosed with bronchitis and emphysema have to go through another medical to satisfy the lawyers? Those miners have already been diagnosed and been awarded the industrial injuries benefit, but they have to wait in a queue. We all know that that is part of a court judgment, but the dying men in my constituency do not want to listen to court judgments. Why cannot the lawyers accept existing medical records, as they do for deceased claimants?
  The shortage of respiratory specialists is another major problem that is delaying full settlements. I applaud the actions of my hon. Friend the Minister in ensuring that the oldest and most ill are given priority. I know that the younger and fitter miners in my constituency who find that their appointments have been rescheduled will agree
  940
  that the older men who cannot breathe should go first. I would also like to appeal to specialists—whether they are retired, working in the private sector or in the NHS—to come forward to give extra of their time to a great cause.
  The Government's efforts are there to be seen. They have tried to recruit more specialists, given priority to the sickest and oldest miners, given widows special priority payments, offered domiciliary procedure for the housebound and IRISC, the Government's insurer, is employing 340 people to deal with the cases. That means that more than 1,000 people are being processed each week. In the north-east, more than £77 million has been paid out and, over the next six months, an acceleration in the process means that an additional £68 million will be paid out.
  The Tories will never be forgiven for destroying a great industry and we should never forget the debt that we owe to the miners and to the widows who nursed them at home when they were sick. They deserve justice and the Labour Government are determined that they will receive it.
  6.27 pm
  Mr. David Amess: Before the House adjourns for the Easter recess, I wish to raise a number of quick points.
  The first is about housing stock transfer. The Labour Government encouraged Southend to run a ballot on its 7,000 properties, and that ballot took place a week ago. Some 68 per cent. of those eligible voted and 49.2 per cent. voted for and 50.8 per cent. voted against. When the ballot was set up, the Liberal Democrats and the Labour party controlled the council and it seems that certain elements have undermined the ballot by talking about fat cats and the rest of it. Unfortunately, the result of the ballot has left Southend council tax payers in a difficult position. People will be made redundant and the £59 million that was available to refurbish the housing stock appears to have gone by the by.
  My second point is about the exclusion of pupils from schools. It is extraordinary that the Government set targets for the number of youngsters who are excluded from school without having set up any alternatives as to how we educate those young people. The most shocking aspect concerns circular 10/99. As a result of the circular, young people can bring drugs to schools. The headmaster might expel them but, if the young children have not sold the drugs, but just passed them on, parents can appeal against the expulsion and the youngsters can be reinstated. I will not name names, but two pupils in two different schools have been reinstated, which has completely undermined the authority of the headmasters involved. The leader of the secondary heads union in Essex recently wrote to hon. Members who represent that county's constituencies about the shortage of teachers and the pressures that they are under. Is it any wonder when one considers the undermining effect of circular 10/99?
  On the police issue, time after time, Southend puts in bids for closed circuit television which are not approved because they are not of good enough quality. I want to know what we have to do to produce an acceptable bid. The chief constable tells me, "It doesn't matter, David, that there aren't as many police as there used to be since we have had this Labour Government because we've got the new technology to try and catch the criminals."

  941
  However, for whatever reason, we have not been successful in those bids. The latest wheeze is that police officer numbers are being increased by Home Office recommendations which say that if no places are available at training colleges, officers will work out their five weeks at police stations. That will happen in Southend and they are included in police numbers.
  As for the Palace theatre in Southend, I was delighted when it reopened because it is marvellous. But here we go again—our request for a grant was turned down. For some reason, the Eastern arts board does not understand the quality of the wonderful productions that take place there.
  Finally, on transport, there have been many complaints about the local Arriva bus services, with which there are problems. The company has cut services and increased prices, and the low-rise buses are no longer available. I am also concerned about the c2c rail service. When the Conservative Government decided to reorganise British Rail, I was delighted that the Fenchurch Street service was going to have new rolling stock. Unfortunately, under the Labour Government new rolling stock has been delivered which cannot be used. I hope that Ministers will do something about transport and other problems in Southend because we do not recognise the rosy picture painted by the hon. Member for Telford (Mr. Grocott).
  6.32 pm
  Valerie Davey: I want briefly to acknowledge the important contribution that the Government have made to improving not only the levels of employment in this country, but the quality of the terms and conditions of service. I also want to mention an issue that I hope the Labour Government will tackle after the next election.
  Bristol, West has never registered as a deprived constituency, but unemployment has been a significant factor for many years in some areas. During the past four years, unemployment has fallen by 45 per cent. More importantly, thanks to the new deal, the number of 18 to 24-year-olds who claim benefit for more than six months has fallen by 87 per cent. It is good to know that in my constituency and throughout the country, more young adults are beginning to achieve. Doors are opening for them when previously they had been slammed shut and they are beginning to direct their own lives. Those successes are a huge plus for this Labour Government.
  The Government's achievements, however, are about much more than the unemployment level. They have introduced the national minimum wage. That especially affects women and has been increased to £4.10. They have also introduced four weeks' paid holiday, equal rights that are proportionate for part-time workers, an extension of maternity leave to 18 weeks and parental leave of three months within the first five years of parenthood. In addition, they have restored trade union rights—especially at GCHQ—if there are 21 or more staff and the majority wish it. The much tougher approach to health and safety has reduced accidents at work.
  The Disability Rights Commission Act 1999 and the commission have been added to the Sex Discrimination Act 1975, the Equal Pay Acts and the Race Relations Acts. "Yes," we might say, "that is huge step forward.
  942
  What more do we want?" People come to my constituency surgeries who are concerned, not just about fairness at work, but dignity at work. If hon. Members think they have heard that phrase before, they are right. Legislation was originally introduced in the House of Lords in December 1996 by Lord Monkswell to tackle the extremely important issue of bullying at work which, unfortunately, we have been unable to address in this Parliament.
  Legislation on fairness goes a long way, but people are still coming to my surgery who have been sidelined and overruled. Inexplicably, their contracts have not been renewed, they have been passed over for promotion and, puzzlingly, they have been proposed for redundancy. That is not just a bad day at the office; people's careers have been stunted, their personal lives turned upside down and, worse, they have suffered prolonged periods of physical and mental illness. Bullying, which we often associate only with school, is still, sadly, prevalent in the workplace. The trade unions were stringent in taking that up years ago; between 14 and 53 per cent. of people interviewed recognised that they had been bullied. The Trades Union Congress launched a campaign in October 1998; in 1995, the Manufacturing Science and Finance Union contacted 140,000 people in a survey and found that 30 per cent. of those interviewed considered bullying to be a significant problem. I want to pay special tribute to Chris Ball, an MSF officer, for the work that he has done, and continues to do, in promoting that area among his members and the wider work force.
  The Dignity at Work Bill was introduced and completed its passage through the House of Lords. It was introduced in the House of Commons by my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard) then, sadly, received no further attention. However, amendments were tabled in Committee, and the measure provides the basis for an important new Bill. Following amendment in the Lords and in Committee, the Dignity at Work Bill stated that employees had their right to dignity at work breached if they experienced
  "behaviour on more than one occasion which is offensive, abusive, malicious, insulting or intimidating"
  or
  "unjustified criticism or more than one occasion".
  That right was also breached if punishment was
  "imposed without reasonable justification"
  or if
  "changes in the duties or responsibilities of the employee to the employee's detriment"
  were inflicted without reasonable justification.
  I am sure that my constituents welcome the work that the Government have already done but, certainly on the basis of casework that I am dealing with in my surgery, they look to the next Labour Government to introduce a dignity at work Bill.
  6.38 pm
  Mrs. Angela Browning: As is traditional, the majority of Members who have contributed to today's debate have raised a wide variety of matters to do with their constituencies. Some contributions have concerned genuine life-and-death matters, and the House listened with concern to individual cases with which Members are dealing. Those cases could

  943
  not have been heard by a more responsive member of the Government, and I know that the Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office will certainly follow them through.
  During the Christmas Adjournment debate, I recall awarding my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess) the prize for the most innovative contribution. He packed in a lot today, and I am at a loss to understand why his constituency—which, I am sure, is most deserving—fails to attract bids for closed circuit television, let alone its excellent theatre. I can only urge him to keep trying; I am sure that he can think of something.
  The hon. Members for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon), for Telford (Mr. Grocott), for Winchester (Mr. Oaten) and for Bristol, West (Valerie Davey) and my hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Sir S. Chapman) all made speeches that related to their constituencies.
  The speech of the hon. Member for Cleethorpes (Shona McIsaac) was fascinating, particularly as it included visual aids. I am reminded of the poem by my namesake about the problem with rats. It occurred to me that if the hon. Lady arranged for them to be rounded up and brought here, they might make some friends. [Interruption.] I was thinking of Portcullis House and not of Members on these Benches.
  The situation that the hon. Lady described sounds terrible. I was tempted to suggest that the rats should be trapped, but I realised that the hon. Member for West Ham (Mr. Banks), who has left to participate in his wedding anniversary celebrations, might not have approved. None the less, the hon. Lady's speech was very interesting. She takes the prize this time for the most innovative contribution to our debate.
  The right hon. and learned Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) also raised a local matter. Although I am sure that it was not his swan-song in this Chamber, we realise that time is running out and that perhaps we shall not be able to hear him speak all that frequently in future. We wish him well with his constituency problem and in his future elsewhere.
  The hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes) also raised very important issues; he always takes the opportunity of these debates to raise matters of great importance. The emergency that he described was of great concern. I know that the Parliamentary Secretary will have listened very carefully to it.
  My hon. Friend the Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) raised the question of masts and went on to address planning matters. I have total sympathy with him on the latter point, as I have a similar problem in my constituency with excessive housebuilding on greenfield sites—yet again with the approval of the Liberal Democrat party.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Faversham and Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) made a thoughtful contribution to the debate. He described a very sad constituency case and went on to deal with matters to do with young people and how this House should address the challenges of making policy on them. He has also announced that he will retire at the election. We shall certainly miss speeches such as that he gave this afternoon.
  The hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. McDonnell) raised two very sad and tragic cases. The hon. Member for Poplar and Canning Town
  944
  (Mr. Fitzpatrick) also raised local issues, as did the hon. Member for Jarrow (Mr. Hepburn). I will not be drawn into a party political response to the hon. Member for Jarrow, although I remind him in respect of his comments about the Conservative Government that the Labour Government are taking the matter forward only because there has been a High Court judgment. The hon. Gentleman will know that High Court judgments must be applied, whichever party is in power. We welcome the fact that the Labour Government are taking the matter forward, but it is not of their own volition. The matter was tested first in the High Court. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman knows the background to that as well as I do.
  Other hon. Members raised matters concerning important issues outside these shores. The hon. Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox) began the debate by addressing the difficult and on-going problems of Cyprus, about which I know he has much knowledge, which he wanted to share with the House again today. The hon. Member for West Ham, who, unfortunately, is not in his place, raised the way in which Canadian seals are culled. I know that that subject is close to his heart. The hon. Member for Finchley and Golders Green (Dr. Vis) raised the tragic situation surrounding the earthquake in Gujarat, which clearly affects many of his constituents.
  Conservative Members raised matters to do with foot and mouth, which is hardly surprising. My hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet mentioned that not just people living in the countryside are very concerned about the tragedy and crisis that have struck us. We also heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill) on the subject, in which I know he is well versed.
  From the contributions of my hon. Friends the Members for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls) and for Banbury (Mr. Baldry), we sensed their frustration about getting answers in time, which many of us have shared in the past few weeks. When there is a crisis of any kind, the relevant Government Department is besieged with dozens of letters and questions. My hon. Friends made it clear that if, in a crisis such as the present one, Members of Parliament cannot get answers and our intervention in individual cases in our constituencies are not dealt with in 24 or 48 hours, there may be dramatic consequences. Cattle may be slaughtered unnecessarily. Sheer frustration has been the hallmark of the past few weeks for Members of Parliament who wanted quick answers to pressing and urgent matters.
  Mr. Nigel Evans: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mrs. Browning: No. I am sorry to disappoint my hon. Friend, but I have only 10 minutes and it is not customary to give way in winding-up speeches such as this.
  In his initial comments, my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers) spoke of the changes to our procedures that are taking place in the House, which deny hon. Members the opportunity properly to debate, question and scrutinise the proceedings of the House. As shadow Leader of the House, I have made known my own concerns about that. My hon. Friend went on to speak of foot and mouth, the disposal of carcases into landfill and his frustration at not being able to use normal procedures in the House, and the frustration outside at the failure to get answers to a problem there.

  945
  Unfortunately, we were not able to hear contributions from all those who wished to speak, which is a mark of the interest of hon. Members in such debates. If, by chance, there is to be a general election on 7 June, there are still matters related to foot and mouth and other subjects in their constituencies that hon. Members will want to discuss in the few weeks remaining after the House returns on 23 April. On behalf of the official Opposition, I make a request through Madam Deputy Speaker for Ministers to come to the Dispatch Box to respond, and for bids from hon. Members for Adjournment debates to be favourably received during those few weeks. I know that many hon. Members would not want to go from this place into an election without receiving answers to serious issues such as those that have been raised in all parts of the House today.
  6.47 pm
  The Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office (Mr. Paddy Tipping): We had 21 speakers from the Back Benches and I, too, am disappointed that not every hon. Member who wished to speak in the debate had the opportunity to do so. A large number of points have been made and it will not be possible for me to deal with them all this evening, but I give an undertaking that I will draw them to the attention of Ministers and try to get written responses to the many questions that have been asked.
  It has been speculated that this might be the last Adjournment debate before the general election. I know nothing of that and nothing of timetables, but we had the opportunity to hear what may be a last speech from my hon. Friend the Member for Telford (Mr. Grocott), from the right hon. and learned Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) who, because of other commitments, has limited opportunities to make presentations to the House, and from the hon. Member for Faversham and Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe). Whatever happens, I wish them all well.
  A number of my hon. Friends and other hon. Members raised individual cases. My hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon) spoke of the Perrett case; my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Canning Town (Mr. Fitzpatrick) raised the case of Mr. Rahman; and my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. McDonnell) raised two constituency cases. I know that my hon. Friends are all outstanding campaigners who will pursue these matters with vigour. Whatever I can do in a personal capacity to assist them, I will do. In response to my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington, I believe that one of the things that we could best do in the NHS is to encourage professionals and hospital trusts to convene a meeting quickly when matters go wrong and to make an early apology. A great deal would be resolved if the professionals took that suggestion seriously. I heard what he said about involving more lay members in those procedures; again, I think that he is right.
  The right hon. and learned Member for Orkney and Shetland spoke about an issue that he has pursued for many years. He said that it was unfinished business, and I hope that we can move towards resolving it, although I point out again that arbitration and mediation would be more appropriate than legal processes. He mentioned the compensation fund, and I hope that it will be possible to
  946
  get the disclosures that he seeks. He is meeting very soon the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, my hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Mr. Hill), the Minister with responsibility for shipping, who will have the benefit of reading the comments that he made today. I shall try to ensure that his points are dealt with.
  My hon. Friend the Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes) again raised the issue of Biwater. He is, as ever, a doughty campaigner on the matter, but he is also keen to try to improve the environment in north-east Derbyshire. He asked for the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, in conjunction with others, to take measures to deal with the matters to which he referred. I think that he made a strong case, and I will do what is possible to help him.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow (Mr. Hepburn) spoke movingly on a subject that is close to my heart. Indeed, it is also close to the heart of my hon. Friend the Member for Islwyn (Mr. Touhig), who sits on the Whips Bench. A great deal more needs to be done to help former miners. After all, these men gave their health and, in some cases, their lives, to keep us warm. The Government are currently paying out £1 million a day in compensation, and I believe that we will eventually pay out about £4 billion. We are dealing with the largest civil case in history, and it will take three to four years to settle it, but I promise my hon. Friends the Members for Jarrow and for Islwyn that we will leave no stone unturned in trying to speed up the process.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox), who often takes pole position in such debates, raised the issue of Cyprus, on which he is a doughty campaigner. The Government are committed to working with the United Nations to try to resolve the problems, despite all the difficulties.
  My hon. Friends the Members for Finchley and Golders Green (Dr. Vis) and for Harrow, West (Mr. Thomas) referred to the earthquake in India, which was a tragic event. Like them, I wish to join the voluntary groups and faith groups that are working hard both in this country and in India in trying to bring some humanity into what can be described only as an appalling situation. My hon. Friend the Member for Finchley and Golders Green asked for all the Government's efforts to be made to resolve the problem. I give him an undertaking that we will look again to see what more might be done.
  A number of planning issues were mentioned. I am keen to address them, as I share hon. Members' concerns. Housing and the erosion of the green belt are a major issue. As the hon. Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) recognised, the Government have made proposals to build more on brownfield land than on greenfield land. We propose that 60 per cent. of building should occur on brownfield sites. In my area in the east midlands, two out of every three new houses will be built on brownfield sites. That contrasts with the record of the previous Government, under whom one out of every three houses was built on brownfield land. We must do more to work on brownfield sites and to adopt a sequential approach. As he rightly said, the reclaimed land in his area should be developed first, before there is erosion into greenfield land and into the green belt. That is the Government's intention.

  947
  The hon. Gentleman also mentioned telecommunications masts, on which he was supported by the hon. Member for Winchester (Mr. Oaten) I remind both hon. Gentlemen that my right hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning gave an indication only last month of the new regulations that the Government intend to introduce. It is important that masts of under 15 m in height are part of the planning regime. It also important that we adopt a precautionary approach and that more money is spent on research. After the work of the Stewart committee, an extra £7 million has been spent on research. I acknowledge that there are difficulties in this area. We all want the benefits of telecommunications, but the downside is sometimes difficult to anticipate and perhaps we should have a more strategic approach to the matter.
  The hon. Member for Winchester also mentioned the vexed issue of enforcement powers for local councils. I think that he has a point. There is real problem when villains play the planning system, and I hope that we can do more. The hon. Gentleman also talked about compulsory purchase and said that not a lot had been done. There has been a major consultation exercise and a working party, and the Government have asked the Law Commission to consider the issue with the aim of bringing forward legislation as soon as possible.
  Not surprisingly, many hon. Members referred to the foot and mouth outbreak. The hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Baldry) spoke movingly about the real problems in Oxfordshire. He clearly knows the problems, and I hope that, in areas such as his where there has been one outbreak and where the infection now seems to be under control, we shall be able to lift the restrictions. The hon. Gentleman or one of his hon. Friends said that it is easy to impose restrictions but that it is often more difficult to lift them, and we now need to try to move forward.
  I was delighted with the comments made by the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Sir S. Chapman) about foot and mouth being an urban and a rural problem. He is right. The issue affects small and big businesses, and those who try to divide town and country communities on the issue are being short-sighted
  The hon Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill) rightly said that import control was a major issue, and I agree. There are strict laws and regulations and severe fines, but we must ensure that we have the resources to implement them. We need more Customs and Excise officers. We are acting on that, but the hon. Gentleman is right to ask us to do more.
  948
  My hon. Friend the Member for West Ham (Mr. Banks) is no longer with us; he has gone to have fun and frolics with his wife. He entertained us before that, but I shall save time for his comments later.
  The hon. Members for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls) and for Gosport (Mr. Viggers) made slightly different points, but let me chastise them. The Conservative party has called for landfill to be used for the disposal of carcases. Their party wants a quick solution to the problem and believes that landfill should be used. The Environment Agency and others have been consulted. It may well be the case that some sites, as the hon. Member for Gosport clearly recognises, have been approved but will not be used, but it will be important that all of us, from whatever part of the country, play our part in sorting out the problem. The hon. Member for Teignbridge asked for his letter, but the Minister is in Sweden. I promise him a reply soon.
  Several hon. Members have talked about achievement. My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, West (Valerie Davey) talked about unemployment falling and the hon. Member for Faversham and Mid-Kent talked movingly about the importance of commending young people. Let me commend him on his work with the UK Youth Parliament. We should commend success, not criticise failure quite so much.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Cleethorpes (Shona McIsaac) talked about the East Ravendale school, and we await some success there. Outside toilets are disappearing all over the country, as are mobile classrooms. I am pleased that the Minister for School Standards has now joined us because she is to make a major speech during the Easter recess on further capital investment in our schools. I wish my hon. Friend the Member for Cleethorpes well.
  The hon. Member for Chipping Barnet talked about the need for extra investment in the NHS and the police, and he fairly recognised that it was beginning to happen. My hon. Friend the Member for Telford talked about what has happened in his community under Labour, and I was struck with the 50th anniversary of the NHS in Lichfield.
  We now need to go forward, to invest in public services and in a vision of the future. We shall do that.
  It being Seven o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

  Marjorie Evans
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Touhig.]
  7 pm
  Mr. Huw Edwards: I am pleased to have the opportunity to draw hon. Members' attention to the case of my constituent, Marjorie Evans. Mrs. Evans lives in Usk, in Monmouthshire. Since 1987, she has been the head teacher of St. Mary's school in Caldicot. The school has more than 200 pupils and includes a special needs unit. Although the school is in Monmouthshire, it is in the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for Newport, East (Mr. Howarth).
  Mrs. Evans recently returned to school after an 18-month suspension. Her case has been lengthy and controversial, but the school is not in my constituency and my involvement was therefore limited to supporting Mrs. Evans as a constituent and making representations on her behalf after the conclusion of the case.
  I appreciate that ministerial responsibility for the school and for Monmouthshire education authority lies with the National Assembly for Wales. However, I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Minister for School Standards will acknowledge that the case has national significance and implications for education and the teaching profession in England and Wales. My aim in the debate is to highlight some of the wider issues that arise from the case and its implications for education. First, I want to examine the background.
  I was first aware of the Marjorie Evans case when it was reported that the stipendiary magistrate in Abergavenny had suggested that Mrs. Evans could face a custodial sentence for assault. It was alleged that she had slapped a pupil who was being disruptive. The pupil was known to suffer from behavioural problems and had been prescribed Ritalin. The conviction and the three-month suspended sentence caused considerable public disquiet. Mrs. Evans appealed against the conviction and the case was heard in Cardiff Crown court. She was cleared of all charges. There was considerable public relief at the overturning of the conviction, and Mrs. Evans walked from court with her reputation restored, ready to return to school.
  Immediately afterwards, however, the police stated that further charges were being investigated and that Mrs. Evans remained suspended. The matter was considered at considerable length by Gwent police, the Crown Prosecution Service, the board of governors and Monmouthshire county council. It was concluded that
  "there was no credible evidence against her",
  and she was able to return to her position. There was another wave of relief and, indeed, joy when Mrs. Evans returned to St Mary's school. It was a great pleasure to speak to her on the phone with the happy noise of the school in the background.
  I met Mrs. Evans at her home in Usk after the magistrates court case in Abergavenny. She was with her local National Union of Teachers representative, Andrew Haig. Mrs. Evans has been represented throughout the case by her union, and credit must be given to Gethin Lewis, secretary of NUT Cymru, and the NUT solicitor, David Evans.
  950
  Mrs. Evans had been found guilty of assault and her reputation had been besmirched by the comments of the stipendiary magistrate, who claimed that she had been a disgrace to the community, the teaching profession and the pupils in her care. The legal aspects of the case merit a separate Adjournment debate. This evening, however, I shall concentrate on its educational implications.
  My impression of Mrs. Evans at the time was of someone who was dedicated to the education and care of children; she had been in teaching for more than thirty years. Not only had her career been brought to a shuddering halt by the allegations against her, but she faced the possibility of a jail sentence and the end of her career. Mrs. Evans is a remarkably strong person who was intent on clearing her name and returning to school, but nothing would ever be the same again.
  Mrs. Evans has come to personify every teacher's nightmare and she has endured what every teacher dreads. She wants to ensure that no other teacher has to go through a similar ordeal again. She has come through it, yet serious questions remain.
  Four key issues arising from the case deserve to be considered. They are the management of disruptive pupils and the exercise of reasonable restraint; the automatic suspension of teachers subject to allegations by pupils, parents or even fellow staff; the need for guidance to local education authorities and governing bodies on dealing with allegations of abuse; and the disciplinary process for dealing with teachers adopted by governing bodies and LEAs. I shall outline some of those issues in more detail.
  It is an unfortunate aspect of teachers' role that they have to deal with disruptive pupils. In certain cases, that behaviour may be violent either towards members of staff or to pupils. Where teachers have to restrain pupils, there is clearly a problem of defining what reasonable restraint is. It is a legal duty of head teachers to maintain order, yet to do so they require the power and resources to meet the expectations of society and their legal responsibilities. It is a matter of considerable concern throughout the teaching profession, and the profession deserves clear national guidelines that apply to England and Wales and that are applied consistently.
  The case also raises the question of exclusion for persistently disruptive pupils and the resources that are necessary to continue those children's education outside the mainstream education system. There is in Monmouthshire no pupil referral unit for pupils at key stage 2 who are boys between the ages of seven and 11. There is no provision whatever for girls of any age.
  I am a member of the Welsh Affairs Committee, and during our recent inquiry into social exclusion in Wales we visited a pupil referral unit in Denbighshire, where excluded pupils were able to continue their education and receive the specialist support that they needed. It would be ideal if such provision were available in all authorities. It is a matter that the Government should look into.
  Teachers are in a unique position, as the primary responsible adults with whom children come into contact outside the home and who are in a position to detect signs of abuse. Yet their daily contact and caring role makes teachers vulnerable to accusations of abuse by pupils, parents or even staff. Such allegations may be false, malicious, misplaced or misinterpreted. I ask my right hon. Friend the Minister for School Standards to consider whether it is appropriate for a teacher to be automatically

  951
  suspended when the allegations are of low-level physical abuse. Such teachers are suspended on full pay. That is intended to be a neutral form of action, yet in reality it rarely is.
  Even where teachers have been exonerated, their careers have been ruined by the stress of months of suspension, and pupils have been denied the skills and support of the teacher who has been so suspended. There is no question but that teachers should be automatically suspended in cases of suspected sexual abuse or where there is evidence of serious physical harm. The key question is whether it is appropriate automatically to suspend a teacher who is subject to an allegation when there has been no investigation of the teacher's viewpoint.
  The next point concerns the availability of expert advice. Do local authorities have access to specialist advice in such cases? Can they remain impartial when giving advice? Teachers who are suspended have to prove that they are innocent; that is quite different from the usual process of law. It is proposed that there should be agreed national guidelines across England and Wales to assist LEAs and governing bodies to investigate allegations before they consider suspension.
  We owe a great deal to the people who sit on governing bodies. They give of their time voluntarily, but they take on immense responsibilities for the running of the school. They need support, advice and training to help them carry out such a difficult task as being involved in disciplinary action against teachers. There was considerable public concern in Marjorie Evans' case about why it took 18 months from her suspension to her return to school. She had to go to the High Court to require Monmouthshire county council to reveal the allegations against her and which disciplinary procedures it was following.
  I understand that Jane Davidson, the Minister for Education and Lifelong Learning in the National Assembly for Wales, has ordered an inquiry into the process and has invited the county council, the NUT and the governing body to respond. These issues were raised at a conference in Cardiff last November, called by the NUT to discuss best practice in dealing with allegations of abuse against teachers. I met Mrs. Evans at the conference. These issues are likely to be raised again at the NUT national conference in Cardiff this weekend, which I also hope to attend. I understand that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment will attend, too, and may make a statement pertaining to the implications of the case. Recently, I was pleased to welcome him to my constituency and to King Henry VIII comprehensive school in Abergavenny, where he heard of the support of the teachers of Monmouthshire for Marjorie Evans. He has been an inspirational figure, and I hope that he will be able to look at those issues in some detail.
  Our teaching profession plays a vital role in the education and welfare of children and young people. I commend teachers' dedication, skills and professionalism. They deserve protection from the threat that their careers could be ruined as a result of false or malicious allegations. Pupils deserve the opportunity to be taught and to study in a classroom undisturbed by the activities of other pupils who are disruptive or violent, whether to other pupils or to staff.
  The case of Marjorie Evans has highlighted a series of issues that deserve the fullest examination. She has endured a traumatic episode. We rejoice that she has
  952
  resumed her career, but lessons must be learned. I sincerely hope and believe that the Minister will be able to take on those issues in her deliberations with ministerial colleagues and representatives of the teaching profession.
  7.11 pm
  The Minister for School Standards (Ms Estelle Morris): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth (Mr. Edwards) on securing this debate. Adjournment debates are traditionally occasions when hon. Members bring concerns of individual constituents to the attention of Ministers and the House—and long may that continue—but I am not sure that I have ever answered an Adjournment debate in which an hon. Member has talked about the case of an individual constituent that has had such wide-ranging implications for my Department's work. I thank my hon. Friend both for letting us know what has happened to Mrs. Evans and for focusing us on some difficult issues.
  I do not think that there are easy answers to any of the issues that my hon. Friend has raised. People have deliberated about and discussed them for many a year. They are now perhaps further up the nation's agenda than they were previously. I suspect that that is in no small part due to the incidents that have surrounded the suspension and reinstatement of Mrs. Evans.
  Having acknowledged my hon. Friend's contribution, I know that he will appreciate that I want most of all to acknowledge Marjorie Evans, her contribution to education and what has happened to her in the past 22 months. She is a teacher of long standing, high reputation and high esteem. She has been teaching for more than 30 years. If we added together the number of children whom she must have taught and the number of communities that she must have served, the total would be higher than any of us could imagine. As many good teachers who have been in the profession for as long as Marjorie Evans know, they change people's lives. I think that, when Marjorie Evans started her career, she never for a minute dreamed that she would make headline news because of these incidents.
  I join my hon. Friend in congratulating Mrs. Evans on the steadfast way in which she has behaved throughout, and on her successful return to school. She has shown tremendous courage, energy and continuing commitment to her community and to the children. There will have been many who would not have withstood what she went through and still have wanted to return to school. As I said when I had the chance to spend a few minutes with her before the debate, I wish her well for her return and for September—the start of the first academic year in which she will have resumed her duties in full.
  I put on the record my appreciation of the work and representation of the National Union of Teachers, the professional body of which Mrs. Evans is a member. Such bodies have many roles in our national life, but any individual teacher who is a member of a teachers' union hopes most of all that, when they need help individually in their professional life, the union will answer the call. The NUT has done that exceptionally well. I know that Mrs. Evans pays tribute to the work of the officers of the NUT in Wales. I join in recognising their steadfastness and enthusiasm in representing her.
  My hon. Friend was right to say that Mrs. Evans is a teacher in a school in Wales and that this Parliament has no responsibility for what goes on in Welsh schools,

  953
  which is properly the responsibility of the Assembly. I do not want to tread on any toes in that respect. Instead, in the time I have available, I should like to do two things. First, as I have had the opportunity to speak to my colleague Jane Davidson, the Assembly's Minister for Education and Lifelong Learning, I should like to confirm the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth. Secondly, I should like to reflect on some matters outside the Evans case from which we may be able to learn some lessons that we can apply in England, in Wales and in Scotland.
  My hon. Friend was right that Jane Davidson has confirmed to me that she has written to the local authority and the governing body seeking information on the procedures that they followed in the Evans case. The Assembly will want to exercise its power to examine those procedures, but not the specific allegations against Mrs. Evans. As one of the features of the case has been a re-examination of allegations, it is important to make it clear that the Assembly and the Minister will want to examine only procedures and not the substance of the allegations. The examination will be conducted under section 496 of the Education Act 1996 which allows examination and consideration of the reasonableness of procedures used.
  The governing body and the local authority were asked to respond to the Assembly by 12 April on the procedures, particularly on the time scale allowed for decision making. I am pleased that my colleague Jane Davidson has also invited the NUT to comment on the case and its involvement in it. I understand that the school's governing body has asked for a one-week extension, to 19 April. which has been granted.
  I know that, on receiving the representations, my colleague Jane Davidson will decide on possible action as quickly as possible. She will want first to decide on copying the information in the responses to each of the parties, which will be a matter for her, and then to advise the Assembly on the information. Only after completing her investigations will she want to say whether the local education authority or the governing body acted unreasonably and whether, on behalf of the Welsh Assembly, she wants to direct them to change their procedures. As a Minister in the United Kingdom Parliament I will have no involvement in those matters.
  Additionally, while she is investigating those matters, Jane Davidson will quite properly neither meet Mrs. Evans nor speak on the record about them. That is how the process should properly be conducted, and I think that it is in everyone's interests that we keep that process separate from my comments on possible lessons to be learned.
  As I said, the specific case is a matter for the Welsh Assembly. However, I know from my duties in the House and in relation to teachers in England that such a case could have occurred in an English school. I think that we will all want to examine the case to determine whether we can improve how such matters are dealt with.
  It is hugely difficult to strike the right balance in dealing with such cases. I am not being complacent, but I suspect that whatever rules, lessons or guidance we decide we want to follow, some of the most difficult decisions that Ministers, local authorities and governing bodies ever
  954
  have to make will be on such cases. However, we have to become better at making such decisions by establishing clear guidelines and ensuring that everyone understands his or her responsibilities. As I shall explain later, we particularly have to ensure that action is taken in a timely fashion.
  I think that there is great agreement on the challenge facing us and that it is more a matter of striking the right balance. Regardless of what people think about Mrs. Evans's case or other cases that have come to public attention, no one—not Mrs. Evans, the school, my hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth, the Welsh Assembly, and certainly not the United Kingdom Government—wants allegations of abuse or inappropriate behaviour against children not to be investigated.
  There have been too many debates in the House on cases—not least in Wales—in which allegations have not been properly investigated for us not to have learned some lessons. Some children's lives have been blighted because there have not been timely investigations. However, although the facts sometimes show that allegations are true and that there was a need for an investigation and action, sometimes the facts show that allegations are not true. When they are not true, a different set of people—teachers, teachers' families, the wider school community and the wider general community—become the victims.
  That is the difficulty involved in examination of cases such as this. Once the allegations have been made, whether they are true or not, a life may be ruined unless they are dealt with in a timely and correct fashion. We must work harder to get the balance right.
  Let me acknowledge something, without giving any figures. I do not think that anyone, certainly in Government, has ever said that some teachers' careers have not been blighted. As one who taught in a school for 18 years, I know what it must be like to have taught children, to have trusted them and gone to work every day to further their chances in life—to have put heart, soul and professional energy into that—then to find that false allegations have been made about one's professional conduct. I well understand what it must be like to find that one's standing in the community that is the most important to one has been put at risk. But we need to get the balance right, and there are no easy solutions in that regard.
  I am especially struck by the inordinate length of time that it seemed to take to process the case that we are assessing. We need to examine the way in which such cases are dealt with and to find out why progress is so slow—why there are gaps of weeks or months while nothing is resolved. During the last 12 months, the Government have been working with a teacher and child protection group consisting of a joint forum, containing representatives of teachers' unions—including all six teacher representatives of the NUT—and representatives of local authorities. We have looked at ways of speeding up the process to ensure that any allegations of abuse are dealt with as quickly and fairly as possible.
  That, I think, is how we should act. While not cutting out investigations, proper consideration, discussion with governing bodies, letting local authorities have their say and following the proper course of law, we should ensure that all those elements of justice—which we want to retain—do not move as slowly as they seemed to in the

  955
  case of Mrs. Evans. My hon. Friend is right: in due course the Secretary of State will want to report to the nation on what we have learned from our working party, and how we want to proceed on the basis of that.
  Of all the lessons that have been learned, I think that the one relating to speed needs most to be considered. We should think about guidance and guidelines that suggest how governing bodies should carry out their responsibilities. Considering those who go on to governing bodies, and choose to give their time—voluntarily—to a community and a school, I suspect that not many governors imagine that they could eventually be put in this position. At times like this, when difficult decisions must be made, governing bodies—not just the governing body at St. Mary's, but governing bodies of schools throughout our countries—need support.
  We should also consider whether the guidelines that we give governing bodies help them to do their jobs as effectively as they might, and whether, during that difficult procedure, they need support to carry out their functions. I do not want anyone to interpret that as a suggestion that their rights or obligations should be removed; we should ensure that they are supported as much as possible.
  The process that we have been discussing has been unusually lengthy. What I have been most conscious of throughout is this: we may reflect nationally on what it means for the 450,000 teachers in our two countries, and for the 24,000 schools and 24,000 governing bodies, but at the centre of the debate is one school, St. Mary's junior school—not in my hon. Friend's constituency, but in the neighbouring constituency of my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Arts—one governing body, and one community that wants to get on with learning, teaching and furthering life chances. Over the past two years—nearly—those people have been propelled, not through their wishes or for reasons of their making, into national headlines that they did not invite.
  Every teacher at St. Mary's, every parent who sent a child there and every governor who gave generously of his or her time did so not to have a debate about this issue, but to get on with the process of teaching and learning. That is the agenda on the basis of which that school can move forward. We should not forget that.
  Mr. Edwards: Does my right hon. Friend agree that such disruption affects other schools as well? While Mrs. Evans was suspended as head of her school, a
  956
  head from another school—St. David's school in Abergavenny—was transferred there, so that other school, too, might have been disadvantaged.
  Ms Morris: My hon. Friend is right. Schools are learning communities, but they are also dependent on other schools. That wider learning community—all the neighbouring schools—has felt the impact. I have never been to an area where schools did not show generous concern about what happens to their neighbours—they are eager to give of their talents, and care when other schools are in difficulty. I readily acknowledge that.
  I suspect that what is beginning to happen at St. Mary's is that relationships are being rebuilt; trust is beginning to be firmed up again; and the focus on teaching and learning is beginning to return. In relation to my hon. Friend's point, we also owe a debt of gratitude to the teachers—both the full-time staff and those who came in to help—who have kept the school going throughout 21 months of turmoil. Learning has continued: children have left and begun school during that time.
  Most of all, schools want stability. They want a head who is secure in a permanent post. They want to be able to focus on teaching and learning—for children and for the wider community. St. Mary's school is embarking on that task of rebuilding and of settling down. I am sure that everyone in the House will wish the school well.
  After all the turmoil that Mrs. Evans has undergone and after all the support given by my hon. Friend, perhaps something worthwhile will come out, because we too have learned lessons—both as a school service and as nations for whom education is a major service. We shall reflect on the matter. It is poor consolation for people whose lives have been disrupted, but I suspect and hope that in future cases, the lessons that we have learned from St. Mary's will be reflected. In that small way, I hope that something good might have come out of a case that has made people suffer and made them miserable for the past 21 months.
  To finish on a note that will unify us, I wish Mrs. Evans well in the career that she has resumed. I thank my hon. Friend and everyone who has supported Mrs. Evans. Most of all, I wish the children, the governors, the parents, the community and the teachers every good fortune as teachers focus on what they went into the job to do—teaching the children who come through their gates.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at twenty-eight minutes past Seven o'clock.

WALES

  Foot and Mouth
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what discussions(a) he and (b) staff in his Department had with officials of the National Assembly concerning possible outbreaks of foot and mouth disease, prior to 19 February; and if he will make a statement. [154825]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  I regularly meet the First Secretary to discuss a range of issues affecting Wales, including agricultural matters. My officials and officials within the Assembly are also in frequent contact about agricultural issues.

  However, prior to the 19 February, these discussions did not include the possible outbreak of foot and mouth disease.

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what additional resources are being made available to the National Assembly for Wales to help agricultural and tourism-related businesses to survive the financial effects of the consequences of foot and mouth disease. [154840]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  The Assembly is involved in the decisions being made on assistance for rural businesses affected by the consequences of foot and mouth disease. Any additional funding for the Assembly would be provided under the funding arrangements for the devolved Administrations, which were set out in the Statement of Funding Policy in July 2000.

  GM Crops
  Mr. Simon Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales on what date he received notification from the Department of the Environment, Transport and Regions of its recent decision to license GM crop sites in Wales; and if he will make a statement. [157986]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  I was aware, as were Assembly Ministers and officials, that sites across the UK were being sought for the second year of the Farm Scale Evaluations programme.

  The decision on locations for the trials was taken by the Scientific Steering Committee for the programme, on the basis of advice from the Research Consortium and information about the availability of sites from the Supply Chain Initiative on Modified Agricultural Crops (SCIMAC).

  DETR officials informed relevant officials about the three GM maize sites proposed for Wales once they had themselves been notified of the exact locations by SCIMAC. DETR then announced the sites on Tuesday
  492W
  3 April and wrote to county and community councils in Wales with proposed sites in their areas to provide information about the Farm Scale Evaluation programme.

  Any further information on the detail of the announcement would be a matter for the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions.

SOLICITOR-GENERAL

  Jay Abatan
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Solicitor-General if he will review the decisions taken by the Crown Prosecution Service following the fatal attack on Jay Abatan in Brighton in January 1999, following the findings of the review by Essex police into the handling of the case in Sussex. [157143]

  The Solicitor-General
  The aim of review by the Essex police into the fatal attack on Jay Abatan was to examine the conduct of the investigation by Sussex police officers. The review was commissioned by the Sussex police. The Crown Prosecution Service in Sussex has not yet received a copy of the review but remain willing to consider any findings relating to the way the CPS dealt with the prosecution of the case.

  I explained in a detailed written answer on 24 May 2000, Official Report, columns 528–31W, when responding to a question put down by the hon. Member, that the decisions made by the Sussex Crown Prosecution Service were entirely satisfactory, given the evidence produced by the initial police investigation. I am willing to reconsider that conclusion in the light of any findings of the review.

  Sussex police have appointed a new investigation team. Consistent with this fresh start, the Chief Crown Prosecutor for CPS Sussex made arrangements for a senior lawyer from Hampshire Crown Prosecution Service to deal with any prosecution which may result from the new investigation.

ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS

  Child Road Deaths
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will publish a breakdown of the main reasons for child road deaths in each of the last three years. [157095]

  Mr. Hill
  [holding answer 5 April 2001]: Statistics on the main contributory factors in child road fatalities are not available. However, the main road user types of child fatalities can be identified as follows:

  Child fatalities aged 0–15: Great Britain

  1997

  1998

  1999

  Pedestrians

  138

  103

  107

  Cyclists

  33

  32

  36

  Car occupants

  74

  64

  71

  Others

  10

  7

  7

  All road users

  255

  206

  221

  Single European Sky
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what topics are under discussion in relation to the proposed Single European Sky for report to the Gothenburg European Council in June. [157336]

  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  The European Commission is still working on its Single Sky proposals which it intends to elaborate in a second Communication on Single Sky. Until the Communication has been formally presented to the College of Commissioners it is not possible to determine what precise proposals are to be put forward. The issue is expected to be discussed at the Gothenburg Council in June in general terms.

  £ million

  Nature of funding

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  12001–02

  Housing Investment Programme

  213.581

  12.421

  13.792

  336.442

  449.785

  Housing Revenue Account Subsidy

  £853.30 per

  £958.02 per

  dwelling

  —

  —

  —

  dwelling

  Capital Receipts Initiative

  2.878

  9.702

  10.111

  n/a

  n/a

  Neighbourhood Renewal Funding

  —

  —

  —

  —

  4.198

  ERDF funding

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Transport Supplementary Grant

  4.835

  4.501

  3.490

  0.245

  2.250

  Transport Annual Capital Guideline

  4.785

  4.802

  3.653

  0.535

  0

  Transport Block Supplementary Credit Approval

  5.670

  4.163

  4.218

  9.683

  2.250

  Rural Bus Challenge Grant

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Rural Bus Subsidy Grant

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1 Where known

  2 1997–98 HIP allocation inherited from the previous Government's spending plans. Present Government introduced CRI from 1997–98.

  3 Single Housing Pot introduced from 2000–01 resulting in CRI being merged with HIP.

  4 Resource accounting has resulted in a change to the way capital resources are allocated for 2001–02, with the introduction of a new Major Repairs Allowance (MRA) to cover the cost of maintaining local authority housing in a sound condition. The Leeds MRA allocation for 2001–02 is £35.656 million and, for comparison purposes, is included in the 2001–02 HIP allocation above.

  Note:

  Leeds' overall capital allocation of £49.785 million represents an increase of 266.7 per cent. on the inherited 1997–98 allocation.

  Further transport figures:

  In addition, the following funds have been allocated to the West Yorkshire PTA, some of which have been/will be spent in the Leeds CC area.

  Nature of funding

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  Transport Block Supplementary Credit Approval

  0

  0

  3.000

  2.500

  157.607

  Rural Bus Challenge Grant

  0

  0

  0.364

  0.209

  0.917

  Rural Bus Subsidy Grant

  0

  0.556

  0.556

  0.556

  0.710

  1 This figures has yet to be split between the five West Yorkshire authorities.

  The Leeds Initiative SRB Round 1 scheme: Removing barriers—creating opportunities

  The programme consists of a package of employment and job creation measures designed to reduce unemployment and crime in inner city areas. The scheme is focused on four Community Priority Areas (CPAs):

  East Leeds CPA

  North Leeds CPA

  West Leeds CPA

  South Leeds CPA.

  Departmental Policies (Leeds, Central)
  Mr. Hilary Benn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will set out, with statistical information relating as directly as possible to(a) Leeds, Central parliamentary constituency and (b) the City of Leeds, the effects of his Department's policies and actions since 2 May 1997. [157442]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  The principal funding that this Department has provided to City of Leeds local authority in 1997 to present is shown in the table. This includes grants and borrowing approvals for revenue and capital expenditure.

  It is not possible to determine how much of this money has been spent on Leeds, Central constituency. It is for the local authority to decide where within its boundary these resources are applied.

  Lifetime total SRB funding is £16.48 million which is expected to lever in an additional investment of £26.5 million from other public and private sector sources over a seven year period commencing 1995–96.

  The Leeds Initiative SRB Round 2 scheme: Rebuilding our communities

  The programme aims to build on Round 1 activities by investing in physical regeneration in the East Bank area of Richmond Hill and by capitalising on training, employment and business growth opportunities in the East Bank and Chapeltown/Harehills, Hyde Park/Burley and Beeston Urban Renewal Areas. The scheme is primarily

  495W
  housing led and aims to stimulate local business and employment growth through major housing investment programmes.

  The scheme has attracted a lifetime total SRB funding of £12.5 million which is expected to lever in an additional investment of £55.7 million from other public and private sector sources over a seven year period commencing 1996–97.

  Community action and support against crime—SRB Round 2 scheme

  A three year scheme commenced 1996–97 and targeted on the Chapeltown and Harehills area of Leeds. The scheme provided a local focus for tackling high crime rates by strengthening community resolve to fight crime and overcome the fear of crime. It mixed target hardening and property marking with increased community participation in Neighbourhood Watch, enhanced victim support services, diversionary activities for youth and drugs counselling. The SRB contribution totalled £200,000.

  The Leeds Initiative SRB Round 3 scheme: Leeds partnership with young people

  The scheme proposes to tackle deprivation by providing assistance to young people aged nine to 25 living in the four most deprived electoral wards in the city: Burmantofts, Chapel Allerton, Harehills and the University.

  The lifetime total SRB funding is £23.9 million which is expected to lever in an additional investment of £49.1 million from other public and private sector sources over a seven year period commencing 1997–98.

  The Leeds Initiative SRB Round 4 scheme: Investing in the community

  This scheme is targeted at the communities of Beeston Hill and Holbeck. The overall objective is to develop a sustainable regeneration strategy for the target area that will provide the local communities with an improvement to the quality of their lives.

  The scheme has attracted a lifetime total SRB funding of £7.4 million which is expected to lever in an additional investment of £16 million from other public and private sector sources over a seven year period commencing 1998–99.

  The Leeds Initiative SRB Round 5 scheme: Better neighbourhoods and confident communities

  A seven year scheme, commencing 1999–2000, targeted at the most socially excluded neighbourhoods in Leeds. Its focus cuts across the range of SRB Objectives and seeks to address issues of neighbourhood decline in the following four main areas of concern:

  Community Involvement

  Neighbourhood Management

  Community Safety

  Improving Opportunities.

  The overall lifetime funding package totals £61.164 million, of which the SRB contribution is £24.864 million.

  The Leeds Initiative SRB Round 6 scheme: Aire Valley employment area

  The overall objective of this seven year scheme, commencing 2000–01, is to transform the area, which forms the region's largest industrial site, into a high quality, sustainable employment base for the people of
  496W
  Leeds (particularly deprived communities in the east and south of the city) and the Yorkshire and Humberside region as a whole.

  The overall lifetime funding package totals £46.4 million, of which the SRB contribution is £11.6 million.

  European Funding

  Leeds was not eligible for Objective 2 funding under the 1997–99 programme. However, it was eligible for support under the KONVER Community Initiative (to support diversification of economic activities in areas dependent on the defence sector). Projects in the area received offers of support totalling nearly £860,000 via ERDF measures and £234,000 via ESF.

  The Chapeltown/Harehills area was also eligible for support under the URBAN Community Initiative (to support the development of urban areas in crisis). Projects in the area received offers totalling some £2.2 million via ERDF measures and £300,000 via ESF. The initiative was actually managed by a Board/Committee made up of local authority and local community representatives.

  For Objective 3 (ESF), Leeds had £2.86 million in 1997, £4.1 million in 1998 and £8 million in 1999–2000.

  For Objective 4 (ESF), it had £105,000 in 1998 and £1.5 million in 1999.

  Packaging Waste (Pots)
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if plastic plant pots are considered to be packaging for the purposes of the Producer Responsibility Obligation (Packaging Waste) Regulations 1997. [157603]

  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  A recent High Court ruling confirmed the interpretation of the Producer Responsibility Obligations (Packaging Waste) Regulations 1997 (as amended) that has been taken since the Regulations came into force in 1997. Where an empty plant pot is brought as a retail product, it is not packaging. Where a plant is bought in a pot and will be kept in the pot throughout its life, or where a pot is made of biodegradable material and will be planted in the garden with the plant, the pot is not regarded as packaging. However, where plants are bought in a plant pot or a seed or bedding tray and will be transplanted to the garden, such pots are packaging. This is because these pots are used to keep the plants in good condition throughout the sales process until replanting and contain the plants for the ease and convenience of the purchaser in handling and transporting them. As such, each pot constitutes a 'sales' unit at the time of purchase.

  Transport Council
  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what the outcome was of the Transport Council held in Brussels on 4 and 5 April; what the Government's voting record was at the Council; and if he will make a statement.[157537]
  497W
  Mr. Hill
  I represented the United Kingdom at the Council, which was held in Luxembourg.

  The Council opened with a policy debate on the Commission's second package of maritime safety issues. The Presidency presented a questionnaire focusing on the three elements in the package: improved ship monitoring, an additional compensation fund mechanism in cases of oil pollution, and the creation of a European Maritime Safety Agency (EMSA). The Commission hoped for common positions at the June Council. I stressed the importance of considering these proposals in the context of the International Maritime Organisation (IMO) and of existing member state competence, an approach shared by most member states present.

  On Galileo, the Council adopted an approach that established milestones for future significant decisions about the launch of the development (December 2001) and the deployment (December 2003) phases. I was one of a number of Ministers to speak in support of this approach, which is intended to ensure that the project is based on sound financial management and private sector financing, as required by successive conclusions of the European Council. The decision milestones are necessary if Galileo is to deliver tangible benefits to the public and provide the taxpayer with good value for money. I also argued for more work to be carried out this year to meet UK and other member states' concerns about costs, management arrangements, the definition of the services and attracting private finance. This work will help the Council make an informed decision in December about the future of the project.

  The Council agreed a Resolution setting out priorities for further progress in integrating environmental issues into transport policy. The Commission said it would follow up many of these priorities in the forthcoming Common Transport Policy White Paper.

  There was a progress report and policy debate on the draft regulation establishing a European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA). The Presidency sought views on the key issues of which aircraft should be covered, the mechanism for appointment of the Executive Director, and inspections of member states and investigations of undertakings. I joined others in expressing the views that only member state registered aircraft should be covered, that the Executive Director should be appointed by the Agency's Administrative Board, and that EASA should have the powers of inspection and investigation. The Presidency concluded that discussion should continue in the Working Group, aiming for a common position as soon as practicable.

  The Council agreed Conclusions urging member states to be in a position to ratify the Montreal Convention on air carrier liability by 31 December 2002. The Council also agreed a Decision for Community ratification of the Convention, to be deposited simultaneously with those of the member states. The Presidency hoped that a decision on a revision of Regulation 2027/97 would be taken in June.

  The Commissioner reported on her recent visit to the United States to discuss ways to limit aircraft noise in future. She felt the exchange had been useful and further technical meetings had since been arranged.
  498W
  The Commissioner also initiated a discussion on the state of the European airline industry, arguing that a Community mandate to negotiate with the US was a necessary precursor of airline consolidation.

  The Presidency presented a framework for the Community to negotiate on aviation environmental issues, particularly aircraft noise, in the run-up to the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) General Assembly in September. This framework was agreed unanimously.

  Pending the First Reading of the European Parliament there was political agreement on the text of a Regulation requiring third country lorry drivers to carry a certificate of legal employment. The UK maintained a parliamentary scrutiny reserve.

  Following a Commission presentation, the Presidency confirmed that the directive on professional driver training would be discussed at the June Council.

  The Council debated a proposed amendment to the directive on weights and dimensions of heavy vehicles, requiring member states to accept the use of 15 metre buses. The Presidency presented a global compromise addressing delegations' outstanding concerns. At the end of the debate, the Presidency concluded that there was general political agreement, but that the text of a derogation for the UK (addressing our concerns at the out-swing of these vehicles) would be remitted to Coreper for further consideration.

  The Council adopted Conclusions on the Commission's recent Recommendation on the maximum permitted blood alcohol level for drivers. The Conclusions underline the importance of progress on a range of drink drive measures including collaboration between member states.

  The Council discussed a proposed amendment to the directive on compulsory use of safety belts and child restraint systems. The text under discussion attempted to solve outstanding concerns on the detailed requirements for young children to use adult seat belts in the absence of appropriate child restraints. A number of member states had concerns about the proposals. The UK was among those taking the view that it required further examination. The Presidency concluded that the Council could not reach agreement and remitted the text for further consideration at the technical level, hoping for a common position in June.

  There was a progress report and policy debate on new proposals to update the procurement procedures for public transport services. The Commission hoped that the new regulations would be discussed in June.

  There was a discussion over lunch of the draft directive on the harmonisation of weekend lorry bans. The Commission emphasised the importance of harmonising the periods during which member states may impose bans and stressed that the proposal applied only to new bans and to the transport Trans-European Network. Consultation would be required on the imposition of new bans. I joined a number of member states in supporting the proposal.
  499W
  The Commission noted the success of the Ecopoints system in managing lorry transits through Austria. It would be maintained only until 2003. The Commission undertook to issue a report soon about operation of the system.

  No formal votes were taken at this Council.

  Energy Efficiency Savings
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the time scale for achieving the 30 per cent. energy efficiency savings laid down in the House Energy Conservation Act 1995. [157539]

  Mr. Meacher
  The Home Energy Conservation Act 1995 requires designated energy conservation authorities to prepare a report setting out energy conservation measures that the authority considers practicable, cost-effective and likely to result in significant improvement in the energy efficiency of residential accommodation in its area.

  In England, the Secretary of State for the Environment asked energy conservation authorities to prepare a strategy for making at least substantial progress towards a 30 per cent. improvement in energy efficiency over a 10-year period commencing 1 April 1996. Strategies were not expected to exceed 15 years. Similar arrangements apply in the devolved Administrations.

  I have placed in the Library information on improvements reported by each local authority in England from 1 April 1996 to 21 March 2000 (the latest data available).

  M27
  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when resurfacing of junctions 2 to 4 of the M27 motorway will commence; and if he will make a statement. [157966]

  Mr. Hill
  Resurfacing of the M27 between junctions 2 and 4 is programmed to start in late autumn 2001, subject to funds being available.

  Bus Services
  Mr. Grogan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many bus services were operated from Tadcaster(a) in May 1997 and (b) on the most recent date for which figures are available; and if he will make a statement. [157961]

  Mr. Hill
  The total number of bus departures from Tadcaster bus station on an average weekday were 85 in May 1997 and 100 in April 2001.

  Mr. Grogan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many buses were operated from Selby(a) in May, 1997 and (b) on the most recent date for which figures are available; and if he will make a statement. [157960]

  Mr. Hill
  The total number of bus departures from Selby bus station on an average weekday were 190 in May 1997 and 214 in April 2001.

  Pilots' Licences
  Mr. Gerald Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to amend the Air Navigation Order to give effect to a national private pilot's licence; when he hopes to amend the ANO; and if he will permit flying hours undertaken by student pilots from 1 May to count towards the issue of an NPPL. [157962]

  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  The Civil Aviation Authority advises that detailed negotiations with industry representatives over proposals for a national private pilots licence are moving towards a satisfactory conclusion. Once agreement has been reached, there will follow the normal period of consultation and, subject to general agreement on the proposals, it is hoped to amend the ANO in order to give effect to a NPPL from the beginning of next year.

  As regards previously accumulated flying hours, the NPPL is envisaged as being a "stand alone" licence, with no read across or equivalence to the Joint Aviation Requirements—Private Pilot's Licence. It will, in effect, exist in isolation of other ICAO compliant licences. Therefore, training to the NPPL syllabus will not be permitted prior to its coming into effect, and no credit will be granted for flying hours acquired under other training syllabuses.

  Railtrack
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how much Government funding has been provided to Railtrack through other bodies in each year since 1997. [157752]

  Mr. Hill
  My answer dated 18 December 2000,Official Report, column 7W, provided details of Government funding to train operating companies (TOCs) in 1997–98, 1998–99 and 1999–2000. In addition, the Government paid freight grants of £21 million, £19 million and £17 million respectively to freight operating companies (FOCs) in those years. That funding is not hypothecated to cover particular types of expenditure, so it cannot be directly identified as the source of payments made by TOCs and FOCs to Railtrack. For example, in addition to Government funding, TOCs receive income from Passenger Transport Executives, from fares paid for passenger services and from payments made for other services.

  The table provides details, for 1997–98, 1998–99 and 1999–2000, of access charges paid to Railtrack by TOCs and FOCs, as stated in Railtrack's Annual Reports and Accounts 1998–99 and 1999–2000.

  Access charges paid to Railtrack by Tocs and Focs

  £ million cash prices

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  Passenger access charges paid by TOCs

  2,149

  2,169

  2,175

  Freight access charges paid by FOCs

  164

  169

  158

  Railtrack's passenger and freight income

  2,313

  2,338

  2,333

  Note:

  Railtrack's passenger and freight income makes up some 90 per cent. of its total income. The company's profitability is therefore contingent on Government funding.

  London Underground
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many fires there have been on London Underground property in each of(a) the last 10 years (b) the past 12 months. [157473]

  Mr. Hill
  [holding answer 9 April 2001]: London Underground have provided the following figures for fires on their property in recent years and by month in 2000–01.

  Year

  Total

  1996–97

  378

  1997–98

  407

  1998–99

  360

  1999–2000

  301

  2000–01

  280

  Month

  Total

  2000

  April

  19

  May

  36

  June

  35

  July

  26

  August

  18

  September

  15

  October

  27

  November

  17

  December

  12

  2001

  January

  25

  February

  22

  March

  28

  Figures for years before 1996–97 could only be provided at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many services on the London Underground have been delayed for more than 30 minutes due to train or passenger accidents in each of(a) the last 10 years and (b) the past 12 months. [157471]

  Mr. Hill
  [holding answer 9 April 2001]: This is an operational matter for London Underground Ltd. (LUL) who have provided the following information on delays to train services of 30 minutes and over as a result of train or passenger accidents, for recent years and in the last 12 months.

  Total

  1996–97

  64

  1997–98

  51

  1998–99

  48

  1999–2000

  57

  2000–01

  52

  Total

  April 2000

  1

  May 2000

  10

  June 2000

  5

  July 2000

  2

  August 2000

  4

  502W

  Total

  September 2000

  1

  October 2000

  7

  November 2000

  4

  December 2000

  3

  January 2001

  5

  February 2001

  7

  March 2001

  3

  Figures for years before 1996–97 could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Channel Tunnel Rail Link
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what the projected cost is of the revised Channel Tunnel Rail Link II; how much of this will be(a) public and (b) private finance; how many extra train paths per hour it is estimated will be provided (i) between St. Pancras-Kings Cross and Fawkham Junction and (ii) between Fawkham Junction and the Channel Tunnel; when it is expected that tunnelling for CTRL II will be completed; and when work on the remodelled St. Pancras-Kings Cross International station will be completed. [157463]

  Mr. Hill
  [holding answer 9 April 2001]: Following the collapse of the original 1996 agreement with London and Continental Railways and the re-structuring of the deal in 1998, the total cost of the Channel Tunnel Rail Link is expected to be £5.2 billion in outturn (ie nominal) prices. Section 1 is expected to cost £1.9 billion and Section 2 £3.3 billion.

  Government will provide grants of £2.3 billion for the construction of Section 2. Thus up to the completion of construction £2.3 billion of funding will be public and £1 billion private sector. Government will also receive land rental payments from leasing the land on which the CTRL is built to the Concession holder.

  When complete the full length of the CTRL will allow for up to six Eurostar paths per hour, eight paths reserved for the Domestic Operator, two Open Access paths and paths for high speed freight.

  The current Section 2 programme shows tunnelling to be completed in June 2005 and work at St. Pancras in March 2006. The Section 2 of the CTRL is expected to open and services to start running in 2007.

  Foot and Mouth
  Mr. Cash
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will place Stafford borough council and Newcastle-under-Lyme borough council on the list of those areas in receipt of business rate relief in respect of foot and mouth disease. [157613]

  Mr. Meacher
  Stafford borough council and Newcastle-under-Lyme borough council are not authorities which meet the criteria or rurality used for the targeting of this scheme. However, I have agreed to keep the operation of the scheme under review.
  503W
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the rural local authorities to which the emergency business rate relief scheme is applicable due to the outbreak of foot and mouth disease. [157497]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 9 April 2001]: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff) on 26 March 2001, Official Report, columns 425–26W.

  Mr. Burgon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what steps he is taking to ensure there is adequate landfill capacity to dispose of animal carcases from the foot and mouth disease outbreak; and if he will make a statement. [158295]

  Mr. Meacher
  I issued yesterday the Waste (Foot and Mouth Disease) (England) Regulations 2001 for statutory consultation with appropriate bodies and a copy was placed in the Library of the House.

  The main purpose of the proposed Regulations is to enable the Secretary of State to issue directions requiring the holders of waste management licences for specified landfill sites to accept and dispose of specified kinds of agricultural waste. These Regulations and the consequential directions are necessary to ensure that waste arising from the foot and mouth disease outbreak is disposed of effectively and in ways which ensure protection for the environment and human health.

  Recycling
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many projects in Coventry, funded by his Department, are designed to improve levels of recycling. [157860]

  Mr. Meacher
  The provision of recycling facilities is the responsibility of local authorities and in this case Coventry city council. Major extra funding for local authorities was announced in the Spending Review 2000. By 2003–04 revenue support will have risen by £1.1 billion over 2000–01 provision, in the Environmental Protection and Cultural Services allocation, which includes waste. There will also be a £140 million ring fenced fund for waste and recycling, and £220 million for PFI waste schemes over the next three years.

  Coventry may also benefit from projects over wider areas, but I am not aware of any projects funded by DETR which are specific to supporting recycling in Coventry.

  Kyoto Agreement
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what progress is being made to reduce carbon dioxide emissions in accordance with the Kyoto Protocol. [157859]

  Mr. Meacher
  Under the Kyoto Protocol, the UK has agreed to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions by 12.5 per cent. relative to the 1990 level over the period 2008–12. The Government have recently published figures which show that in 1999 the UK's greenhouse gas emissions were 14.5 per cent. below 1990 levels. This represents a 6.5 per cent. reduction between 1998 and 1999.
  504W
  The Government have also published provisional estimates of carbon dioxide emissions in 2000. These show that emissions were 7.5 per cent. below 1990 levels in 2000, consistent with the general downward trend in emissions shown in the UK Climate Change Programme. However, emissions increased by about 2 per cent. between 1999 and 2000, mainly as a result of increased use of coal in power stations because of maintenance and repair at nuclear and Combined Cycle Gas Turbine power stations and higher gas prices towards the end of the year.

  The UK Climate Change Programme, published in November 2000, sets out a range of policies and measures that could reduce the UK's greenhouse gas emissions to 23 per cent. below 1990 levels in 2010, significantly beyond the UK's target under the Kyoto Protocol.

  Housing Costs
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many organisations indicated their views on the exclusion of elements of housing costs from the calculation of household income used to define fuel poverty(a) by making submissions to the consultation on the new HEES scheme and (b) by appending their names to other submissions; and how many organisations supported (i) the exclusion of housing costs, (ii) the inclusion of housing costs, (iii) other suggestions and (iv) making no comment. [158003]

  Mr. Meacher
  The consultation document on the New Home Energy Efficiency Scheme invited comment on whether the calculation of household income should exclude any element of housing costs such as rent or mortgage payments.

  A total of 252 responses to the consultation document were received. Some organisations submitted both an individual response as well as appending their names to a response from an umbrella organisation in the area.

  The breakdown of responses is as follows:

  (i) 20 per cent. of respondents supported the exclusion of some or all housing costs in the calculation of household income;

  (ii) 34 per cent. of respondents supported the inclusion of housing costs in the calculation of household income;

  (iii) 6 per cent. of respondents offered other suggestions;

  (iv) 40 per cent. of respondents made no comment.

  A copy of the full analysis of the consultation responses was placed in the House of Commons Library in November 1999.

  The consultation draft of the UK Fuel Poverty Strategy shows the number of fuel poor both on the basis of making no allowance for housing costs in the calculation of household income, and by excluding any Housing Benefit or Income Support for Mortgage Interest (ISMI) payments. Comments are invited on the draft strategy by 31 May 2001.

  Rural Taskforce
  Mr. Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many businesses in rural areas have applied for rate relief under the terms of the Rural Taskforce package announced on 20 March. [158001]
  505W
  Mr. Meacher
  It is for local authorities to operate the discretionary hardship rate relief scheme for businesses affected by foot and mouth disease in rural areas and take up will depend on what type of scheme is introduced by the authority. It is too early to estimate how many businesses will apply for these schemes.

  Mr. Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many of the measures announced by the Minister for the Environment in his statement on foot and mouth of 20 March 2001,Official Report, columns 191–93, have been implemented in full; and if he will make a statement. [158004]

  Mr. Meacher
  Of the measures announced on 20th March, we have taken the statutory measures necessary to introduce additional financial support for local authority discretionary hardship rate relief schemes to help businesses affected by foot and mouth disease in rural areas and issued guidance to authorities. Implementation is for authorities and many have announced their intention to introduce a scheme. The deferral of tax, VAT and NIC payments is being considered on a case by case basis in response to applications by business. The Small Business Service is providing advice and business support and extension of the Small Firms Loan Guarantee Scheme was announced on 6th April. The details of operation of the matched funding scheme for charities were announced by the Countryside Agency on 28th March.

  Mr. Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what representations he has received from the Local Government Association about(a) the cost of district councils' contribution to the rate relief package announced on 20 March and (b) the list of councils whose business ratepayers are eligible for relief. [157996]

  Mr. Meacher
  I and Ministerial colleagues have met with representatives of the Local Government Association to discuss operation of the discretionary hardship rate relief scheme for businesses affected by foot and mouth disease in rural areas. Members of the Association have put forward concerns on the application of the scheme to larger businesses, the 5 per cent. contribution made by local authorities, and additions to the list of 151 authorities to whom the scheme applies.

  Mr. Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what representations he has received from district councils about the cost of their contribution to the rate relief package announced on 20 March. [157995]

  Mr. Meacher
  I have received representations from district councils with mixed urban and rural areas who have sought to be included with the 151 rural authorities who will benefit from the higher rate of contribution to the costs of hardship rate relief which I have made available.

  In addition I understand that some small rural district authorities are concerned that it will be difficult for them to find the 5 per cent. of the cost which the scheme requires.

  Mr. Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many times the Rural Taskforce has met; and what budget has been allocated to it. [157994]
  506W
  Mr. Meacher
  The Rural Taskforce has now met four times under my chairmanship, and the fifth meeting will be on Wednesday 11 April. The costs involved in providing support for the Taskforce are being met from the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions' running costs budget.

  Railway Disruption
  Mr. Hurst
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what measures he is taking to ensure rail passengers affected by the recent disruptions are compensated; and if he will make a statement. [158070]

  Mr. Hill
  Late last year, train operators announced two compensation packages totalling £70 million for passengers with monthly or longer season tickets whose journeys were severely disrupted by speed restrictions, Railtrack's track renewal programme and widespread flooding. Weekly and daily ticket holders can claim compensation for delays under their train operator's Passenger Charter. Bidders for replacement franchises will be expected to improve on current Passenger Charter obligations

  Virgin Trains
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will publish the grounds on which the Strategic Rail Authority agreed to Virgin Trains' proposals for a 10 per cent. increase in rail fares. [157783]

  Mr. Hill
  The increases announced by Virgin relate in the main to unregulated fares. Under the terms of its franchise, any increase in unregulated fares is a commercial matter for Virgin. However, in the light of recent disruption on the rail network, and the wish to attract more passengers to rail, the Government find Virgin's announcement regrettable. The Strategic Rail Authority will be meeting representatives from Virgin shortly to discuss the matter.

  Departmental Policies (Camden)
  Ms Glenda Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will set out the effects, with statistical information on(a) Hampstead and Highgate and (b) the London borough of Camden of his Department's policies since 2 May 1997. [158020]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  The principal funding that this Department has provided to the London borough of Camden since 2 May 1997 is shown in the table. This includes grants and borrowing approvals for revenue and capital expenditure.

  It is not possible to determine how much of this money has been spent on Hampstead and Highgate. It is for the local authority to decide where within its boundary these resources are applied.
  507W

  £ million

  Nature of funding

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–021,2

  Revenue Support Grant

  59.755

  137.006

  137.060

  137.020

  144.218

  Income from National Non-Domestic Rates

  1.238

  43.051

  46.794

  52.353

  53.063

  Housing Investment Programme

  9.924

  8.787

  9.824

  32.280

  18.758

  Housing Revenue Account Subsidy

  102.273

  96.985

  90.429

  93.095

  —

  Capital Receipts Initiative

  2.658

  8.612

  9.262

  —

  —

  Cash Incentive Scheme

  0.500

  0.189

  0.050

  —

  —

  SRB funding3

  0.301

  0.849

  1.153

  2.351

  —

  Neighbourhood Renewal Funding

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  2.110

  Transport Supplementary Grant

  0.325

  0.280

  0.359

  —

  —

  Transport Annual Capital Guideline

  0.325

  0.280

  0.359

  —

  —

  Transport Block Supplementary Credit Approval

  2.066

  2.450

  0.890

  2.805

  —

  Capital Challenge (Basic Credit Approvals)

  —

  1.717

  2.859

  —

  —

  Capital Challenge (Supplementary Credit Approvals)

  0.729

  0.388

  0.369

  —

  —

  n/a = Not Applicable

  1Where known

  2Figures provided where possible; however, not all grants for 2001–02 have been determined as yet

  3Figures shown are only for the SRB schemes for which Camden is the accountable body

  Note:

  The figures shown are the most accurate currently available, as the London Development Authority SRB database is currently in the process of verification

  Single Regeneration Budget (SRB) Schemes

  London borough of Camden are the accountable body for the West Euston and the All Change at Camden Central SRB Schemes. There are three other SRB schemes that cover parts of the borough, which are run in partnership with other London boroughs and other external stakeholders.

  West Euston

  The West Euston Scheme was approved under SRB Round 3 and covers an area bounded by Euston Station in the East, Euston road to the South and Albany street to the West. The scheme's key objectives are to regenerate the West Euston area, to create economic opportunities, to make the area safe and secure to live and work, and to assist the unification of the community. Major projects cover racial integration, training, housing improvements and facilities for the elderly in the community.

  All Change at Camden Central

  The scheme aims to transform the lives of deprived and socially excluded people living in parts of Somers Town, St. Pancras, Regent's Park and Camden wards. Its objectives are to address inequalities through capacity building; education, employment and training initiatives; accessible I.T. provision; community safety and anti-social behaviour measures; health and sports provision; and housing improvements.

  The other SRB schemes that cover parts of London borough of Camden are New Commitment to Kilburn (Brent and Camden), which received £6.599 million in total funding; Kings Cross, which received £37.5 million; and Young People, Drugs and Crime in Gospel Oak (Camden and Islington) which received £1.0 million.

  Single Rail Franchise (Wales)
  Mr. Simon Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will publish the date for the commencement of the single rail franchise for Wales, and if he will make a statement. [158096]

  Mr. Hill
  The Strategic Rail Authority announced on 15 February that Arriva plc/Connex Transport UK Ltd., FirstGroup plc, National Express Group plc and Serco 508W
  Rail had been shortlisted to compete for the Wales and Borders franchise. It is not possible to publish a commencement date as there is no set timetable for awarding this franchise.

  Advisory Group on Motorcycling
  Mr. Pound
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the progress of the Advisory Group on Motorcycling. [158177]

  Mr. Hill
  The Advisory Group on Motorcycling has been meeting since May 1999 to discuss issues of concern to those who ride motorcycles. The Government are today publishing an Interim Report of the Advisory Group on Motorcycling. Copies have been placed in the Library of the House.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Miners (Compensation)
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will publish the number of claims and the amount of compensation paid to ex-miners under the(a) miners' compensation scheme and (b) vibration white finger scheme in the Caerphilly parliamentary constituency. [157545]

  Mr. Hain
  The Department's claim handling agents, IRISC, have registered 3,268 claims in respect of chronic bronchitis and emphysema from claimants in the Caerphilly constituency, as defined by post codes CF46, CF81, CF82, CF83 and NP1. As at 4 April the Department had settled 93 claims in full, and made a further 896 interim settlements.

  In addition, IRISC have registered 2,282 claims in respect of Vibration White Finger from claimants in the Caerphilly constituency. As at 4 April the Department had settled 466 claims in full, and made a further 360 interim settlements.
  509W
  In total the Department has paid out nearly £9.3 million in respect of respiratory and Vibration White Finger related compensation in the Caerphilly constituency.

  Healthcall Ltd.
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the length of the contractual agreement is between his Department and Healthcall Ltd. in respect of their work in the medical assessment of ex-miners; when the contract will terminate; and if the contract will be re-tendered if the compensation process is unfinished by the end of the current contract. [157582]

  Mr. Hain
  [holding answer 9 April 2001]: The contract signed by the Department with Healthcall Services Ltd. runs for 36 months from 1 November 1999, and is subject to an additional 12 month extension. No decision has been taken at present as to whether the contract will be re-tendered if the assessment process is unfinished. I have met its managers regularly over the past two months to discuss progress in compensation payments and they are co-operating fully in speeding up the system of medical assessments.

  Hawk Jets (Exports)
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) what support his Department has given to British Aerospace with regard to that company's contract to supply Hawk jets to India; [156885]

  (2) which Ministers from his Department have been involved in discussions with (a) BAE and (b) the Indian Government regarding the contract to supply Hawk jets to India. [156886]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  [holding answer 4 April 2001]: I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence on 9 April 2001, Official Report, column 367W.

  One North East
  Mr. Ronnie Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how much was spent on industrial investment and environmental improvements by One North East in the Blyth Valley constituency in each year since 1997. [157296]

  Mr. Caborn
  One North East commenced its operations on 1 April 1999. The total expenditure by One North East since then in the Blyth Valley constituency amounts to £8.94 million as shown in the table.

  £ million

  Year

  Single Regeneration Budget

  Land and Property Budget

  1999–2000

  1.917

  1.515

  2000–01

  1.933

  3.575

  Most expenditure related to industrial investment and environmental improvements but the total does include an element of expenditure on community/social inclusion activity.

  National Weights and Measures Laboratory
  Valerie Davey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement about the conclusions of the Quinquennial Review of the National Weights and Measures Laboratory. [158294]

  Dr. Howells
  The first stage of the five-yearly Review of the National Weights and Measures Laboratory (NWML) has now been completed.

  NWML will continue as an Executive Agency of the DTI.

  NWML is a regulatory body. The current functions of NWML form a coherent group that benefits from being managed as a whole Ministers have therefore decided not to proceed with the alternative option considered by the Review, that of transferring the bulk of NWML's work to NPL Management Ltd. (the company which runs the National Physical Laboratory under contract to the DTI) with a small policy unit kept in the DTI. This organisational separation of policy from operations would risk reducing the quality of the work, and has been criticised by interested parties. The present integrated structure is seen as a great strength of NWML.

  As announced on 28 July 2000, Official Report, column 1095W, the reviewer recommended that the policy part of NWML should be taken back into the Department organisationally and that the operational part should be contractorised by merger with NPL, which is already contractorised. However, the Review Steering Board recommended that this option should not be proceeded with until a business plan for the merger could be prepared and until Ministers had assessed its value for money and feasibility.

  I have now considered the business plan prepared by NPL Management Ltd. and have received further advice from the Review Steering Board. I have also had the benefit of representations made by many interested parties. I accept that the merger with NPL would result in financial savings to the Department, but they are relatively modest. However, I have come to the conclusion that the benefits to the Department, to the users of NWML's services, and to the UK, which arise from having NWML run as an integrated body outweigh these potential savings.

  This announcement will appear on the DTI's website.

  Post Office
  Mr. Dobbin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he has approved the Post Office's five-year Strategic Plan 2001 to 2006; and if he will make a statement. [158292]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  The Government have approved the Post Office's five-year Strategic Plan for 2001–06, endorsing the Board's view that this should be the basis on which management should drive the business forward. This is a five-year rolling Plan which is updated annually. The Plan represents a key element in the new arms-length relationship that the Government have established with the Post Office in fulfilment of the reforms described in the White Paper published in July 1999. The Post Office is continuing to build on last year's Plan. Nevertheless, it recognises that there remains much to do in an increasingly competitive marketplace.
  511W
  The key features of the Strategic Plan are commercially confidential, and as such will not be published. In approving the Plan, the Government have maintained the medium term target for the Post Office to achieve a 13 per cent. return on capital employed for its operational business. This excludes the network of post offices and any non-operational interest arising from past surpluses. Return on capital employed is defined as profit before interest payable and tax, but after operating interest receivable, divided by operating capital employed.

  Steel Plants
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans he has to introduce set aside systems for steel plants until the depression in the steel trade ends. [157786]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  My Department has no plans to introduce set aside systems for steel plants.

  Electrical Waste
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of schemes for retail take-back of electrical waste in(a) Austria, (b) Germany, (c) the Netherlands and (d) Switzerland. [157610]

  Ms Hewitt
  Detailed assessments for the four named countries have not been undertaken. The formal take-back schemes are relatively new and vary greatly in scope and approach to funding. Direct comparison is difficult. Switzerland (1998) and the Netherlands (1999, 2000) have both legislated for retailer take back but the Government are unaware of any formal assessments by the Swiss or Dutch Governments. Germany has developed a draft ordinance (1999) which is currently the subject of a review. Austria introduced a draft ordinance in 1994 covering only lamps and white goods. This is currently being reviewed by the Austrian authorities.

  Pyrolysis
  Jane Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will include energy from waste by pyrolysis in the renewables obligation. [157227]

  Mr. Hain
  No firm commitment can yet be made regarding the status of pyrolysis or other energy from waste technologies under the Renewables Obligation. My Department is still considering the responses to the consultation document on the Obligation. A summary of the responses was published on 20 March, and we will publish our revised proposals as soon as possible.

  Jane Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) if he will assess the benefits of energy from waste generated by pyrolysis; [157225]

  (2) if his Department will promote energy from waste by small-scale pyrolysis. [157228]

  Mr. Hain
  Pyrolysis may prove to be a cleaner means of energy recovery from waste than incineration and cost-effective at a smaller scale. This could contribute to achieving the proximity principle proposed in the Government's Waste Strategy and complement local recycling schemes.
  512W
  My Department is currently supporting three research projects assessing the potential of pyrolysis through its New and Renewable Energy R&D Programme. These are two projects monitoring the waste gas technology installation at the Nash sewage works near Newport, South Wales and a comparative technical assessment of energy conversion technologies for municipal solid waste concentrating on pyrolysis being undertaken by Mitsui Babcock.

  In addition, the Department's Programme supported earlier monitoring work with Compact Power that helped them move from pilot to demonstration.

  The Programme maintains strong links with the IEA Bioenergy Agreement and through participation in this has access to relevant work in most other OECD countries.

  Jane Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will assess the potential effect of pyrolysis on the level of the waste stream to landfill. [157226]

  Mr. Hain
  The extent to which pyrolysis reduces the volume of waste to landfill depends very much on the pyrolysis technology employed. Some of these technologies produce a glass-like residue that can be used for road aggregate avoiding almost any landfill stream, some a lighter ash and some a charcoal-type material that can be quite bulky. However, I do wish to find ways of encouraging new technology that converts waste into renewable energy, after maximum recycling.

  Employment Tribunals (Scotland)
  Mr. Grieve
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many persons have been appointed chairman or part-time chairman of employment tribunals in Scotland without being a Scottish advocate or solicitor of not less than seven years' standing. [157611]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  [holding answer 9 April 2001]: Part-time Chairmen of Employment Tribunals in Scotland are appointed by the Lord President of the Court of Session in accordance with Section 5a of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) (Scotland) Regulations 1993.

  Telecommunications Council
  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the outcome of the Telecommunications Council held in Brussels on 4 and 5 April was; what the Government's voting record at the Council was; and if he will make a statement. [157538]

  Ms Hewitt
  I represented the UK on the telecommunications aspects of the Transport and Telecommunications Council held in Luxembourg on 4–5 April.

  The Council reached political agreement on common positions in respect of three proposals for Directives arising from the European Commission's 1999 communications review: on a common regulatory framework for electronic communications networks and services; on access to, and interconnection of, electronic communications networks and associated facilities; and on the authorisation of electronic communications networks and services. I strongly welcomed this

  513W
  agreement as a significant step toward fostering the competitive communications markets that are a vital element in the European Union's target to be the most successful knowledge economy in the world by 2010.

  The Presidency gave a progress report on a fourth proposal for a Directive, on universal service and users' rights relating to electronic communications networks and services.

  The Presidency indicated that it expects the Council to reach common positions on all four proposals at the next Transport and Telecommunications Council, to be held in Brussels on 27–28 June.

  The Presidency also indicated that it expects the Council to reach common positions on proposals for a Regulation on the implementation of the Internet top level domain "EU" and on amending Directive 97/67/EC with regard to further opening to competition of Community postal services at the next Transport and Telecommunications Council.

  The Council also held discussions on a Commission Communication on the introduction of third generation mobile communications in the EU; on the eEurope 2002 Action Plan, including network security and a Commission Communication on creating a safer information society by improving the security of information infrastructures and combating computer-related crime; and on international aspects of the organisation and management of the Internet.

  The Commission provided information on implementation by member states of the Regulation on unbundled access to the local loop.

  Engineers (Recruitment)
  Dr. Iddon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what targets he has set for the recruitment of engineers in the next 10 years; and what account he has taken of the current level of UCAS acceptances for engineering degrees. [156167]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  The Government do not set targets for the recruitment of engineers. However, we do listen carefully to employers when developing strategies to meet future skills needs in engineering. We also take account of statistical data and research reports from a wide variety of sources, including UCAS. The National Training Organisations (NTOs) also have a key role in providing detailed and accurate information on future skills issues across a range of sectors and we hope to see this role developed and enhanced as a result of the current consultation exercise aimed at strengthening the NTO Network.

  It has, however, become increasingly apparent that there is a need for improved information on the developing skills needs in engineering over the longer term, particularly in relation to the new technologies. The need for such information was recognised as a key issue for the Hawley Review of the Engineering Council set up by my noble Friend the Minister for Science and Innovation in October 1999. It is currently being considered in further detail by the Education and Training working group set up by the Engineering Council as part of the transitional arrangements for the establishment of the Engineering and Technology Board (ETB) in October
  514W
  2001. Lord Trefgarne. Chairman of the Engineering and Marine Training Authority (EMTA), the National Training Organisation for engineering manufacture, chairs this group.

  The Government recognise the fundamental importance of maintaining an adequate flow of bright and well-motivated people into engineering and we continue to support a wide range of initiatives aimed at promoting engineering as a rewarding and challenging career. These include the Campaign to Promote Engineering (CPE) and the Science Engineering Technology Mathematics Network (SETNET).

  The latest initiative in this area is the Science Technology Engineering Mathematics (STEM) Delivery Programme, to which DTI has committed £6 million over the next three years. This aims to provide young people and their science teachers with access to the very best business-sponsored support materials and schemes by providing a single point of support through each Learning and Skills Council area in England (separate arrangements will apply in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland). The key objective for the programme will be to ensure that every young person in the UK under 16 should have the opportunity to experience an appropriate STEM activity at least once in each Key Stage.

  The STEM Delivery Programme will also include the establishment of a nation-wide Science and Engineering Ambassadors Scheme (SEAS) to encourage younger people engaged in careers in science and engineering to go back into schools to encourage others to follow them. This will be launched jointly by DTI and DfEE at the start of Science Year in September 2001.

  Departmental Policies (Ribble Valley)
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will set out, with statistical information relating as directly as possible to the Ribble Valley constituency, the effects on Ribble Valley of his Department's policies and actions since 2 May 1997. [157848]

  Mr. Caborn
  This Department does not maintain statistical information at constituency level.

  The people of Ribble Valley, like many others throughout Lancashire, have benefited from my Department's Employment Rights policies which include National Minimum Wage, Working Time Directive, Part Time Working Regulations and improved maternity leave.

  In addition, five wards in Ribble Valley are eligible for Enterprise Grant Scheme funding.

  In the North West region, my Department's policies have contributed to growth in employment by 107,000 and a fall in unemployment by 63,000; reductions in youth unemployment by 75 per cent. and long-term unemployment by 54 per cent.

  Urban 2 Programme
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the progress of the bids under the Urban 2 Programme scheme. [157438]
  515W
  Mr. Caborn
  The Government are still in negotiations with the European Commission about the number of projects which the Commission will accept from the United Kingdom under the new round of the Urban Community Initiative.

  Industrial Property
  Mr. Salter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what advisory structure he proposes for intellectual property following the recent review of the Standing Advisory Committee on Industrial Property. [158293]

  Dr. Howells
  I propose to reform the Standing Advisory Committee on Industrial Property in line with the recommendations of the recent review of SACIP. The review identifies a need for the Patent Office and DTI Ministers to have access to independent, horizon-scanning advice on intellectual property in the round, which would allow us to view policy in its broad economic and social context. The committee's name will be changed to the IP Advisory Committee. It will have new terms of reference and its remit will include copyright as well as patents, trade marks and designs. Members will be appointed in accordance with the guidance from the Office of the Commissioner for Public Appointments.

  Mox Fuel
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on UK-US collaboration on Mox fuel development. [156372]

  Mr. Hain
  I am not aware of any such collaboration.

  Motor Vehicle Body Repairs
  Mr. Stevenson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if the Director General of Fair Trading will include motor vehicle body repair in the inquiry into standards in the vehicle servicing and repair sector. [157125]

  Dr. Howells
  The Director General of Fair Trading completed his inquiry into the car servicing and repair industry and reported his conclusions in August last year. His inquiry concentrated on the provision of routine maintenance and the replacement, repair and adjustment of defective parts and components, as the majority of consumer complaints he received were about these subjects.

  I understand that the Director General has no plans to conduct any further inquiries into the car repair sector at present.

  Paypoint Terminals
  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, pursuant to his answer of 2 April 2001,Official Report, column 4W, on paypoint terminals, what assessment he has made of the implications for competitiveness in convenient bill payment facilities of the Post Office's policy. [157631]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  This issue was reviewed by the Office of Fair Trading in 1998 whose conclusion was that the Post Office policy in this regard neither created a significant issue for consumers nor constituted a barrier to competitors, such as PayPoint, except to a very marginal degree.
  516W
  The Performance and Innovation Unit also examined Post Office policy in this area and concluded in their June 2000 report "Counter Revolution Modernising the Post Office Network" that there were good network-sustaining reasons for such a policy.

  Electricity Supplies
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what regulations on interruptions to domestic electricity supplies will apply from April 2002; and what compensation will be available to residents whose supply is significantly interrupted after that date. [157583]

  Mr. Hain
  Regulations 17 and 23(1) of the Electricity Supply Regulations 1988, as amended, cover interruptions to domestic electricity supplies. Regulation 17 relates to the sufficiency of an electricity supplier's works and regulation 23(1) relates to the precautions, which a supplier has to take against supply failure. These requirements are to be carried forward in the draft Electricity Safety, Quality and Continuity Regulations 2001. These draft regulations, which are currently at the public consultation stage, are expected to be in force by the end of this year.

  Compensation payable to a resident if supply is not restored in a given time is covered by the Office of Gas and Electricity Market's (OFGEM's) Guaranteed Standards of performance. This is currently £50 plus £25 for each additional 12 hours if electricity supply is not restored within 18 hours of a fault. It is recognised, however, that changes to the Guaranteed Standards will be required from April 2002 but this is a matter that is currently under discussion. Also under consideration is a new Guaranteed Standard which covers the level of compensation payable to residents who have suffered more than a specified number of interruptions in a given period of time. That standard will apply from April 2002.

  Hollis Industries
  Mr. Lilley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he was advised that the inquiry into Hollis Industries had obtained evidence of an invoice of £200,000 payable to the hon. Member for Coventry, North-West (Mr. Robinson). [157165]

  Mr. Byers
  [holding answer 6 April 2001]: I refer the right hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Baker), on 2 April 2001, Official Report, columns 5–6W. This makes it clear that, acting on the advice of my Permanent Secretary, I ruled myself out of the involvement in the inquiries into the companies associated with my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, North-West (Mr. Robinson), principally Hollis Industries plc. As a result I did not see or receive advice on any evidence obtained during these inquiries.

  Mr. Lilley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, pursuant to his answer of 2 April 2001,Official Report, column 7W, on Hollis Industries, if he will place in the Library the advice to which he refers. [157167]

  Mr. Byers
  [holding answer 6 April 2001]: As the right hon. Member is aware, the actual confidential minutes containing advice from officials to Ministers are not published. This has been the practice under successive administrations.
  517W
  However, the statement issued by the Department on 23 March 2001 made it clear that I received advice from the Permanent Secretary on 8 January 1999 that I should rule myself out of any inquiries into companies associated with my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, North-West (Mr. Robinson), or out of any decisions that needed to be taken but that this matter should be delegated to officials. I accepted this advice.

  Grant-making Schemes
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list each grant-making scheme and initiative which has been launched by his Department since May 1997, together with funds available for distribution in 2001–02. [157162]

  Dr. Howells
  Information on the Department's schemes and initiatives together with planned expenditure for 2001–02 and outturns are available in the annual Expenditure Plans Reports, copies of which are available in the Library of the House.

  A list of main grant-making schemes and initiatives launched by the Department since May 1997 is as set out.

  DTI grant-making schemes and initiatives launched since May 1997

  Biotechnology Exploitation Platform Challenge

  Biowise

  Coal Operating Aid Scheme

  Development Fund and Community Finance Initiative elements of the Phoenix Fund

  Enterprise Grant Scheme

  Higher Education Innovation Fund/Reach Out Fund

  ICT Carrier programme

  Internet Incubator Fund

  Joint Infrastructure Fund (and its predecessor, Science Research Infrastructure Fund)

  LINK Foresight Awards

  Manufacturing for Biotechnology

  Partnership Fund

  Public Sector Research Exploitation Fund

  Recycling Programme

  Regional Innovation Fund

  Science Enterprise Challenge

  Sustainable Technologies Initiative

  University Challenge

  University Innovation Centres

  Note: Some of these were launched jointly with other organisations

  Departmental Policies (Tiverton and Honiton)
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will set out, with statistical information relating as directly as possible to the Tiverton and Honiton constituency, the effects on Tiverton and Honiton of his Department' s policies and actions since 2 May 1997. [157806]

  Mr. Caborn
  The Department has provided the following support for businesses in Tiverton and Honiton Constituency since May 1997.
  518W
  Enterprise Grants

  The Enterprise Grants scheme is a simplified scheme that was introduced in April 2000 to help small firms undertake fixed capital investment projects. Two offers totalling £2,965 have been made to firms in the Tiverton and Honiton constituency.

  Smart

  Smart awards are designed to help small firms with the introduction of new products and processes. Four Smart awards totalling £268,125 have been made to firms in the Tiverton and Honiton constituency.

  Business Link

  PROSPER Business Link has provided services to small businesses in the Tiverton and Honiton constituency since 1997. These include general and specialised advice to help businesses grow, export development counselling, ICT advice, and a full range of specialist information. From April 2001 these services will be provided by the Small Business Service operating through a franchise awarded to a PROSPER led partnership. This new service will be more customer focused ensuring that services are driven by local need.

  Ministerial Conference, Doha
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry where and when the strategic goals to be pursued by the European Union at the four Ministerial Conference of the World Trade Organisation scheduled for Doha in November were(a) agreed and (b) made public; and which Ministers and officials were present when the goals were agreed. [157327]

  Mr. Caborn
  The EU's aims for a New Round of multilateral trade talks were set out ahead of the three Ministerial Conference of the World Trade Organisation (WTO) at Seattle in the General Affairs Council (GAC) Conclusions of 26 October 1999. Those aims were discussed in European Standing Committee C on Monday 22 November 1999 and the Government's proposals were accepted.

  The GAC in Seattle on 3 December 1999, attended by myself and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, confirmed the EU's comprehensive approach to a New Round.

  Following the failure at Seattle to launch a New Round, the UK has been fully involved in reviewing the EU's position through numerous discussions at Ministerial and official level. These include a Ministerial meeting in Porto which I and other EU Trade Ministers attended, on 17–18 March 2000, and most recently another Ministerial meeting of EU Trade Ministers on 25 February 2001, which I attended.

  The EU is still seeking the launch of a comprehensive round of talks: we maintain that only a broad-based inclusive agenda can encompass priority issues for every WTO Member, increasing the incentive to tackle more difficult areas and so bringing greatest benefits to all.

  The EU's principle of a comprehensive mandate was supported by the House of Lords Select Committee on the European Union in its report on the EU Mandate after Seattle (HL Paper 76: published 13 June 2000). That report noted the need for it to be pragmatic and flexible in its execution of that mandate.

DEFENCE

  Advanced Short Range Air-to-Air Missile
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list(a) the original in-service date, (b) the revised in-service date and (c) the latest expected in-service date for ASRAAM; and if he will make a statement. [157179]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 9 April 2001]: The in-service date set at the main approval point for ASRAAM was December 1998. Technical problems with the missile hardware and software, combined with a decision to alter the delivery programme to align better with the candidate aircraft, resulted in the approval of a revised in-service date of April 2001

  Matra BAE Dynamics (MBD), the prime contractor for ASRAAM, has not yet achieved the missile performance level required by the Ministry of Defence (MOD). The company has encountered a number of technical problems, which have caused some delay to the programme and mean that the in-service date of April 2001 will not be achieved. The MOD is not prepared to take delivery of any missiles until MBD can show that an acceptable standard can be met. However, we have made clear to the company the need to resolve the problems and to agree a revised programme to its entry into service. Until that time, Tornado F3, Harrier GR9 and Sea Harrier FA2 aircraft will continue to have an effective short-range air-to-air capability using Sidewinder missiles.

  Agency Performance Targets
  Mr. Coaker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what performance targets have been set for the Naval Manning Agency for 2001–02. [158296]

  Mr. Spellar
  The Key Targets that have been set for the Chief Executive of the Naval Manning Agency for the financial year 2001–02 are set out. The targets build upon progress made by the Agency since it formed on 1 July 1996.

  Deployment:

  (a) The percentage of filled Officer billets to be—94 per cent. or greater.

  (b) The percentage of filled rating billets to be—92 per cent. or greater.

  (c) The percentage of filled other rank t fillets to be—90 per cent. or greater.

  Manpower Planning:

  The variation of strength to requirement to be—between plus ½ and minus 2 per cent.

  Career Management:

  (a) The percentage of Officers receiving the required Notice of Change to be—60 per cent. or greater.

  (b) The percentage of ratings receiving the required Notice of Change to be—98 per cent. or greater.

  (c) the number of occurrences where Minimum Time Ashore criteria are met to be—99 per cent. or greater.

  520W
  NMA Corporate Efficiency:

  (a) To achieve strict control of NMA manpower overheads to within plus or minus 2 per cent. of the baseline established for manpower overheads as at 1 April 2000.

  (b) To carry out two benchmarking exercises.

  (c) To achieve a Customer Confidence Score of 63.

  Financial:

  (a) To operate the NMA within zero to minus 1 per cent. of its 2001–02 Net Cash-Allocation for Operating Activities.

  (b) Production of Annual Accrual Accounts to be completed by July 2002.

  Mr. Coaker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what key targets have been set for the Naval Recruiting and Training Agency for 2001–02. [158297]

  Mr. Spellar
  These key targets have been set for the Naval Recruiting and Training Agency for 2001–02:

  To deliver RN personnel to the trained strength (or to other training organisations) within 4 per cent. variance from the tasked requirement.

  To deliver RM recruits to Commandant General Royal marines within 3 per cent. variance from the tasked requirement.

  To obtain 96 per cent. "Satisfactory" assessments from the employers of NRTA trainees.

  To maintain success rates of 95 per cent. in Career Training and 97 per cent. in examined pre-joining training.

  To reduce the variance between RNR Trained Strength and Total Requirement to 32 per cent.

  To retain tasked capacity while operating NRTA within its 2000‒01 resource allocation.

  To achieve net benefits of £12 million in FY 2001–02 from the partnering arrangement with Flagship Training Ltd.

  Mrs. Golding
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what performance targets have been set for the Defence Communication Services Agency for 2001–02. [158298]

  Mr. Spellar
  Key Targets have been set for the Chief Executive of the DCSA for the financial year 2001–02. The targets build on the progress already made by the Agency since it formed in April 1998 and are:

  Key Target 1—Service Assurance

  To meet an average of 98 per cent. for measured services against the performance targets agreed with the Agency' s customers.

  Key Target 2—Service Positioning

  To commission on average 93 per cent. of new information service requests on, or before, the dates agreed with customers when the order is initially agreed by the DCSA.

  Key Target 3—Operationally Urgent Service Restoration

  To restore an average 96 per cent. of interrupted services classed as operationally urgent within four hours of the fault being reported to the DCSA, or within other specific periods agreed with customers.

  Key Target 4—Service Support

  To achieve an 85 per cent. average success rate against agreed standards in response to demands on all DCSA Operator Assistance Centres (OACs) and helpdesk facilities.
  521W
  Key Target 5—Customer Satisfaction

  To achieve a 75 per cent. average of customers/users who express moderate or high satisfaction with the way they have been treated by the Agency and the subsequent services and support provided by the DCSA.

  Key Target 6—Efficiency Measurement

  To achieve an improvement in efficiency by reducing the average unit cost of output for DCSA products by 5 per cent. per annum.

  Key Target 7—Introduction of New Projects on Time

  To determine a baseline for the average cumulative slippage of complex projects' In Service Dates (ISD) and then to set performance improvements to reduce that figure.

  Non-lethal Weapons
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many times officials from his Department have held meetings with the United States Department of Defence under the information exchange agreement on non-lethal weapons systems signed on 2 February 1998 under the US-UK Master Information Exchange Memorandum of Understanding on non-lethal weapons; when and where each meeting was held; and with which section of the United States Department of Defence each meeting was held. [157343]

  Mr. Hoon
  Five formal meetings have been held:

  13–14 May 1998 at Farnborough (UK)

  18–19 November 1998 at San Antonio

  29–30 April 1999 at Quantico, Virginia

  21 January 2000 at Quantico, Virginia

  1 December 2000 in London.

  Under the auspices of the Master Information Exchange Memorandum of Understanding on Non-Lethal Weapons there have also been a series of non-lethal weapons-related wargames, now completed, as follows:

  19–20 January 2000 at Quantico, Virginia

  11–14 April 2000 at quantico, Virginia

  13–16 June 2000 at Carlisle (US)

  12–15 September 2000 at Newport (US)

  29–30 November 2000 in London.

  All these meetings were held with the US Joint Non-Lethal Weapons Directorate.

  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many information exchanges have been signed under the US-UK Master Information Exchange Memorandum of Understanding on non-lethal weapons since 18 November 1994; on what date and at what location and with which section of the US Department of Defense each information exchange was signed. [157301]

  Mr. Hoon
  One Annexe to the Master Information Exchange Memorandum of Understanding on non-lethal weapons has been signed: UK-RN-N-97–5951 on Non-lethal Weapons Systems. This was signed on 2 February 1998, with a duration of five years, at Quantico, Virginia with the US Joint Non-Lethal Weapons Directorate.

  Heavy Lift Aircraft
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many heavy lift aircraft there are in the UK; and how many more will be acquired as a part of the Strategic Defence Review. [157862]

  Mr. Hoon
  The Strategic Defence Review concluded that we needed to improve our strategic airlift capability to allow us to move forces and equipment quickly to an overseas theatre. In my statement on 16 May 2000,Official Report, columns 149–61, I announced the intention to order 25 A400M to fulfil our long-term outsize airlift requirements from the latter part of the decade.

  I also announced that we would be leasing four C-17 aircraft to improve our strategic airlift capability until A400M enters service. This contract has now been signed and we expect to take delivery of the aircraft in May this year.

  The RAF's heavy lift capability is currently provided by the following in-service aircraft types:

  Aircraft type

  Number in-service

  C-130J

  115

  C-130K

  239

  VC10 C Mk 1 K

  11

  TriStar KC Mk 1

  4

  1Of the 25 ordered, 17 have been delivered to date, of which two are completing the acceptance process

  2The C-130K fleet size is planned to reduce progressively to 26 aircraft as C-130J deliveries are completed

  Macedonia (Rules of Engagement)
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what British troops are stationed on the Macedonian border; and what their rules of engagement are. [157863]

  Mr. Spellar
  At the end of March, the British-led Task Force CAMBRAI deployed to the US-led sector in MNB(E), with an area of responsibility which includes a stretch of the Kosovo/Macedonian border. This Task Force currently totals some 400, of whom some 200 are British troops.

  The rules of engagement for British troops in MNB(E) are robust, as they are for other UK troops serving in KFOR.

  Defence Jobs (Coventry)
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many jobs in Coventry are dependent on the UK defence industry. [157864]

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

  Amphibious Landing Vessels
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the capabilities will be of the amphibious landing vessels that will replace the existing ones. [157865]
  523W
  Mr. Hoon
  The Alternative Landing Ships Logistic (ALSLs) are designed for the carriage and offload at sea of troops, their equipment and stores, including ammunition, directly into a potentially hostile environment. They represent an important element of the modernisation of the UK amphibious capability foreseen in the Strategic Defence Review.

  The current Landing Ships Logistics (LSLs) are mostly over 30 years old and of decreasing utility. The four new ALSLs will each have double the Linear Metre capacity of an LSL, thus providing greater vehicle and equipment carriage to support the embarked troops. This represents a marked increase in our amphibious lift capability. The ALSLs will be able to offload troops more quickly, by sea and air simultaneously, at a safer distance, and in significantly worse sea conditions. They can also provide tactical logistics support to land forces, and are flexible ships which can undertake a wide variety of other military tasks.

  General Service Medal
  Mr. Sawford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to award a general service medal to veterans of the Suez emergency. [157987]

  Dr. Moonie
  The Suez operation of 1956 is recognised by the "Near East" clasp to the General Service Medal. There are no plans to institute a medal for the earlier period of emergency from 1951 onwards. The then Under-Secretary of State for Defence my hon. Friend the Member for Warley (Mr. Spellar), reviewed the matter in 1998 and found no evidence that he believed would enable him to persuade the Committee on the Grant of Honours, Decorations and Medals to overturn their policy of non-retrospection, or to revoke any of the decisions made at the time or following various Departmental reviews since 1990. No such evidence has subsequently come to light.

TREASURY

  Limited Liability Partnerships
  Barbara Follett
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what powers he has to authorise limited liability partnerships under the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000. [158182]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  From 6 April 2001, businesses are able to organise themselves as limited liability partnerships (LLPs), in addition to other existing business structures.

  The effect of EC law is to prevent insurance business being undertaken by LLPs. We will ensure FSMA is consistent with that.

  There is no evidence of interest in banking (ie deposit-taking) businesses seeking to be organised as LLPs. Were there any evidence of interest in using the LLP structure, we would need to examine the issues closely.

  LLPs carrying on financial services business, other than insurance or deposit taking, may seek authorisation under the FSMA from the Financial Services Authority after N2.

  Departmental Administration Expenditure
  Mr. St. Aubyn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what the latest estimate is, measured in(a) resource accounting terms and (b) resource accounting terms at 2001 prices, of the planned increase in the annual total gross expenditure on administration by all Departments from 1996–97 to 2003–04; [157875]

  (2) what the latest estimate is, measured in (a) cash terms and (b) cash terms at 2001 prices, of the planned increase in the annual total gross expenditure on administration costs by all Departments from 1996–97 to 2003–04. [157874]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  Public Expenditure Statistical Analyses (PESA) 2000–01 (Cm 4601, 2000) published the final set of departmental administration cost plans on a cash basis. In accordance with "Better Accounting for the Taxpayer's Money" (Cm 2626, 1994), Departments were required to produce resource information from April 1998. This year's edition of PESA 2001–02 (Cm 5101, 2001) contains resource-based administration cost plans from that date, although estimates for the earlier years are included in footnote six.

  The latest GDP deflator is published on the Treasury website (www.hm-treasury.gov.uk).

  Disabled Persons Tax Credit
  Ms Glenda Jackson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many people in Hampstead and Highgate will benefit from the recent rise in Disabled Persons Tax Credit. [158012]

  Dawn Primarolo
  I refer my hon. Friend to my answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson) on 22 January 2001,Official Report, column 425W. All recipients of the Disabled Persons Tax Credit will benefit from this month's increases, and from the further increase to the basic credit in June.

  Energy-saving Materials
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make it his policy to extend the reduced rate of VAT on energy-saving materials to energy-saving materials sold direct for fitting by the purchaser. [157888]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Energy-saving materials sold direct to the public are not included in the list of goods and services to which, under agreements with our European partners, a reduced rate of VAT may apply. We will be seeking their inclusion as a result of the European Commission's general review of reduced rates planned for 2003.

  Pay-slip Booklets
  Mr. Mallon
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many pay-slip booklets for the 12-month period commencing April 2001 were re-issued by the Inland Revenue; for what reason the re-issue was necessary; and what the total cost of re-issuing the booklets was. [157896]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Inland Revenue issues approximately 1.3 million pay-slip booklets during February/March each year to all employers, for their use in making payment in the year commencing on the following 6 April. Thereafter, the IR issues booklets
  525W
  weekly to new employers and to those employers who have requested a re-issue due to loss, eg because of change of address or damage. Re-issues are not counted separately from new cases but the average weekly issue of 100 since the bulk issue does not suggest re-issues are occurring on a wide scale for a particular reason.

  European Community (Contributions)
  Mr. Gerald Howarth
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will set out the annual(a) gross and (b) net contributions to the European Community made by the United Kingdom since 1973. [157398]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  [holding answer 6 April 2001]: Details of the United Kingdom's gross contributions, abatement, public sector receipts and net contributions for the period 1973–74 to 1998–99 can be obtained from various Departmental Reports of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's Departments or, previously, Government Expenditure Plans.

  The net contribution figure for 1999–2000, and the Government's latest estimate for 2000–01, can be found at footnote 2 to Table C11 of the Budget 2001 (HC 279) published in March. Details of these two figures, ie gross contribution, abatement and public sector receipts, will be included in this year's Departmental Report of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's Departments.

  Widowers
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to pay retrospectively widower's bereavement payments to all men widowed between 6 April 1994 and 5 April 2000 who paid tax in(a) the year in which they were widowed and (b) the following year. [157856]

  Dawn Primarolo
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer I gave the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mrs. Michie) on 23 November 2000,Official Report, column 317W.

  Departmental Policies (Ribble Valley)
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will set out, with statistical information relating as directly as possible to the Ribble Valley constituency, the effects on Ribble Valley of his Department's policies and actions since 2 May 1997. [157843]

  Mr. Timms
  Ribble Valley, along with the rest of the United Kingdom, is benefiting from the long-term action we have taken to build economic stability and secure high and stable levels of growth and employment. Since the general election, claimant unemployment in the constituency has fallen by 436, or 45 per cent., youth unemployment is down by 77 per cent., and long-term unemployment has fallen by 70 per cent.

  Macro-economic stability is being complemented at the micro-economic level by the Government's policies to ease the transition from welfare into work and to make work pay. To the end of January 2001, the new deal for 18-24 year olds had helped 215 young people in Ribble Valley constituency gain valuable skills and experience—114 (53 per cent.) of whom had moved into employment. The Working Families Tax Credit (WFTC), introduced in
  526W
  October 1999, is helping to make work pay for low and middle-income families. In August 2000, 1,400 families in the constituency were benefiting from WFTC.

  The Government are also committed to policies that enable pensioners to share in the country's rising prosperity. All pensioners, including 18,800 in Ribble Valley, will receive an above-inflation increase in the basic state pension from April 2001. Single pensioners will receive an extra £5 a week, and couples will receive an extra £8 a week. All pensioners aged 75 or over have also been entitled to a free TV licence since November 2000—including around 7,500 in Ribble Valley.

  Departmental Policies (Tiverton and Honiton)
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will set out, with statistical information relating as directly as possible to the Tiverton and Honiton constituency, the effects on Tiverton and Honiton of his Department's policies and actions since 2 May 1997. [157811]

  Mr. Timms
  Tiverton and Honiton, along with the rest of the United Kingdom, are benefiting from the long-term action we have taken to build economic stability and secure high and stable levels of growth and employment. Since the general election, claimant unemployment in the constituency has fallen by 562, or 39 per cent., youth unemployment is down by 84 per cent., and long-term unemployment has fallen by 73 per cent.

  Macro-economic stability is being complemented at the micro-economic level by the Government's policies to ease the transition from welfare into work and to make work pay. To the end of January 2001, the New Deal for 18 to 24-year-olds had helped 423 young people in Tiverton and Honiton constituency gain valuable skills and experience—236 (56 per cent.) of whom had moved into employment. The Working Families Tax Credit (WFTC), introduced in October 1999, is helping to make work pay for low and middle income families. In August 2000, 2,100 families in the constituency were benefiting from WFTC.

  The Government are also committed to policies that enable pensioners to share in the country's rising prosperity. All pensioners, including 22,500 in Tiverton and Honiton, will receive an above-inflation increase in the basic state pension from April 2001. Single pensioners will receive an extra £5 a week, and couples will receive an extra £8 a week. All pensioners aged 75 or over have also been entitled to a free TV licence since November 2000—including around 9,700 in Tiverton and Honiton.

  Foot and Mouth
  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will permit the early review of the working families tax credit assessments of those affected by foot and mouth disease. [157596]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Families whose income is affected by the foot and mouth outbreak may be able to take advantage of the working families tax credit by applying to the Inland Revenue. The Tax Credit Office helpline—which can advise on eligibility and issue application forms—can be contacted on 0845 609 5000 in Great Britain and 0845 609 7000 in Northern Ireland.
  527W
  Mrs. Gilroy
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received about the operation of the Working Families Tax Credit in relation to small businesses which are suffering a substantial reduction in cash flow as a result of foot and mouth disease; and if he will make a statement. [157223]

  Dawn Primarolo
  An employer who does not have enough PAYE tax, National Insurance contributions or student loan deductions out of which to pay the Working Families Tax Credit that is due to an employee can telephone the Inland Revenue Accounts Office to ask for additional funding. We are aware of only one such request to date as a result of cash flow problems arising from foot and mouth disease. The necessary funding was provided in this case.

  Motorcycling (VAT)
  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer pursuant to his answer of 2 April 2001,Official Report, column 46W, on motorcycling (VAT), if he will reduce VAT on vital replacement parts for motorcycle helmets and safety clothing worn by motorcyclists, to the lowest applicable rate. [157632]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Replacement parts for motorcycle helmets and safety clothing worn by motorcyclists are subject to VAT at the standard rate. EU law does not permit a reduced rate for such items.

  Epilepsy
  Mr. O'Hara
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many deaths from epilepsy were recorded in the periods between(a) 1 November 1999 and 28 February 2001 and (b) 1 November 1997 and 28 February 1999. [157553]

  Mr. Timms
  [holding answer 9 April 2001]: The information requested falls within the responsibility of the National Statistician. I have asked him to reply.

  Letter from Karen Dunnell to Mr. Eddie O'Hara, dated 10 April 2001:
  The National Statistician has been asked to reply to your recent question about the number of deaths from epilepsy recorded between (a) 1 November 1999 and 28 February 2001 and (b) 1 November 1997 and 28 February 1999 (157553). I am replying in his absence.
  There were 1,144 deaths from epilepsy (classified according to the International Classification of Diseases Ninth Revision, ICD(9)345) occurring between 1 November 77 and 28 February 1999. Information is not yet available on the number of deaths that occurred between 1 November 1999 and 28 February 2001. Data based on date of occurrence of death in 2000 will not be available until October 2001.

  Minimum Wage
  Ms Glenda Jackson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many people in Hampstead and Highgate will benefit from the uprating of the national minimum wage. [158022]

  Mr. Timms
  The information requested falls within the responsibility of the National Statistician. I have asked him to reply.
  528W
  Letter from Karen Dunnell to Ms Glenda Jackson, dated 10 April 2001:
  The National Statistician has been asked to reply to your recent question about the number of people in Hampstead and Highgate who will benefit from the uprating of the national minimum wage (NMW) (158022). I am replying in his absence.
  The Office for National Statistics has published estimates of the number of jobs paid at less than NMW rates for 1998, 1999 and 2000. These estimates are based on an improved methodology using data from the New Earnings Survey (NES) and Labour Force Survey (LFS). This methodology provides the best estimates for the number of jobs in the UK paid below low hourly rate thresholds and was developed to overcome the deficiencies inherent in using the NES and LFS separately for measuring low pay.

  Estimates for the United Kingdom and Government Office Regions are posted on the National Statistics website at: www.statistics.gov.uk/ nsbase/themes/labour-market/nmw-lowpay-ables.asp

  Estimates for Parliamentary Constituencies of numbers of jobs paid below NMW rates are not available on the basis of the methodology applied for producing the national and regional level figures.

  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many people in Pendle benefited from the introduction of the national minimum wage; and how many are estimated to benefit from its recent increase. [157772]

  Mr. Timms
  The information requested falls within the responsibility of the National Statistician. I have asked him to reply.

  Letter from Karen Dunnell to Mr. Gordon Prentice, dated 10 April 2001:
  The National Statistician has been asked to reply to your recent question about the number of people in Pendle who have benefited from the introduction of the national minimum wage (NMW), and the number who will benefit from the increase to £4.10 (157772). I am replying in his absence.
  The Office for National Statistics has published estimates of the number of jobs paid at less than NMW rates for 1998, 1999 and 2000. These estimates are based on an improved methodology using data from the New Earnings Survey (NES) and Labour Force Survey (LFS). This methodology provides the best estimates for the number of jobs in the UK paid below low hourly rate thresholds and was developed to overcome the deficiencies inherent in using the NES and LFS separately for measuring low pay.
  Estimates for the United Kingdom and Government Office Regions are posted on the National Statistics website at:
  www.statistics.gov.uk/nsbase/themes/labour_market/ nmw_lowpay_tables.asp
  Estimates for Parliamentary Constituencies of numbers of jobs paid below NMW rates are not available on the basis of the methodology applied for producing the national and regional level figures.

  Ministerial Residences
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the budget figure for the cost of maintaining, servicing and victualling official residences for Ministers in the 2000–01 Budget year. [146373]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 22 January 2001]: This is a matter for the Prime Minister, who answered the right hon. Gentleman's question on 2 February 2001, Official Report, columns 331–32W.

  Motor Insurance
  Mr. Stevenson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of(a) the value of United Kingdom motor insurance claims and (b) the number of such claims in (i) 1999 and (ii) 2000. [157139]

  Mr. Timms
  Statistics on United Kingdom motor insurance claims are published annually by the Association of British Insurers. Such market trends are kept under review.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Holocaust Denial
  Mrs. Ellman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has held with EU colleagues in relation to legislation against holocaust denial; and if he will make a statement. [156113]

  Mr. Vaz
  Holocaust denial was discussed in January at the Stockholm International Forum on Combating Intolerance, at which my right hon. Friend the Minister of State for Home Affairs led the UK delegation. The Government continue to play a leading role in post-Holocaust affairs, in particular through their active membership of the International Task Force on Holocaust Education, Remembrance and Research, and through its role as Account Holder for the Nazi Persecution Relief Fund. The Government have also been closely following developments on slave/forced labour compensation and have made clear that they expect fair treatment for any eligible British citizens.

  Visa Applications
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to the answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Ruffley), of 22 March 2001,Official Report, column 317W, on visas, how many of the cases in which the Minister for Europe intervened related to (a) his constituency and (b) the Indian sub-continent. [156356]

  Mr. Vaz
  [holding answer 30 March 2001]: (a) None. (b) I have overturned 34 decisions related to the subcontinent since October 1999. This represents 0.01 per cent. of over 308,000 applications received in the sub-continent in that period.

  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs on how many occasions(a) he and (b) the Minister for Europe have replied personally to representations by hon. Members concerning refusals of visa applications lodged in (i) Islamabad, (ii) Delhi and (iii) Bombay since 1999. [156529]

  Mr. Vaz
  [holding answer 2 April 2001]: Hon. Members' representations about visa refusals are not recorded separately. The information requested could be collected only at disproportionate cost by examining all the case files for the posts in question since 1999.

  Air Passenger Duty
  Mr. Austin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) what representations he 530W
  has received from the EU associated member states regarding changes to air passenger duty: and if he will make a statement; [156826]

  (2) what discussions he has had with the Republic of Slovenia regarding changes to air passenger duty. [156828]

  Mr. Vaz
  The Slovenian Ambassador wrote to my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary on 22 September 2000 on behalf of 11 negotiating EU applicants (all except Hungary) to ask if we could bring forward the application of the European Economic Area rate to Slovenia and other EU associate member countries.

  After detailed consultation with other Government Departments, in particular HM Custom and Excise, the Foreign Secretary replied formally on 5 February 2001 that we could not as this was a taxation issue with both legislative and revenue consequences. In response to a further letter from the Ambassador a meeting with relevant officials was suggested to discuss the matter further.

  Turkey
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Turkish Government regarding the case of Fatima Pollattas and Ceven Salmanoglu and their colleagues. [156541]

  Mr. Vaz
  [holding answer 3 April 2001]: We are very concerned about the case of Ms Pollattas, Mr. Salmanoglu and others. Our Embassy in Ankara raised this case most recently on 23 March with the Turkish Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Our Consulate-General in Istanbul attended the first hearing on 21 March. We will continue to monitor developments in this case.

  Biological Weapons Convention
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to attend the negotiations in Geneva on a protocol to strengthen the Biological Weapons Convention. [156968]

  Mr. Wilson
  A total of seven weeks of meetings are scheduled for the rest of this year in Geneva on a Protocol to strengthen the Biological Weapons Convention (BWC). The Protocol is an important arms control objective for the Untied Kingdom and Foreign Office Ministers have already addressed the BWC ad hoc group on two separate occasions to stress the need for a successful outcome to the negotiations. We are currently assessing the contents of the draft Protocol which was tabled by the Chair of the BWC ad hoc group (Ambassador Toth, Hungary) on 30 March, and also await first reactions for the other countries involved. We welcome the appearance of the text at this stage of the negotiations. We will consider ministerial attendance as negotiations proceed.

  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the status of the negotiations with the ad hoc group in Geneva for a protocol to strengthen the Biological Weapons Convention. [157114]

  Mr. Wilson
  On 30 March the Chairman of the Biological Weapons Convention (BWC) ad hoc group, Ambassador Tibor Toth of Hungary, tabled the text of a draft Protocol to the BWC. This has been sent to all States
  531W
  Parties and will come under discussion at the next negotiating session which begins in Geneva on 23 April. The UK has played a leading role throughout these negotiations as we have had responsibility for the section of the text on compliance measures—the core of the future Protocol. We welcome the appearance of the text and are currently assessing this overall content. A successful outcome by the time of the BWC Review Conference remains a possibility but will depend upon the reaction to the text from all countries involved over the coming months. An effective BWC Protocol remains an important arms control objective for the United Kingdom as it will help fill the last remaining gap in Treaty provisions designed to stem the proliferation of WMD.

  Panikos Tsiakourmas
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has had regarding the case of Mr. Panikos Tsiakourmas of Cyprus; and if he will make a statement. [157031]

  Mr. Vaz
  We remain deeply concerned about the continued detention of Mr. Tsiakourmas. During my visit to Cyprus on 14 March, I raised the issue with Mr. Denktash, and urged him to find a satisfactory resolution to the case. I also met Mrs. Tsiakourmas and reassured her that we would remain strongly engaged in seeking Mr. Tsiakourmas' release.

  Libya
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the progress of negotiations with Libya [156906]

  Mr. Battle
  The UK and US began talks with Libya in New York at the beginning of February. These trilateral talks are focused on how Libya can comply with the requirements of the UNSCRs: no more, no less. The trilateral talks are supported by bilateral talks in London and Tripoli.

  Foot and Mouth (Tourism)
  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what measures diplomatic posts are taking to ensure that potential foreign visitors are aware of tourism opportunities in the United Kingdom. [156979]

  Mr. Wilson
  Diplomatic Posts work closely with the British Tourist Authority overseas to promote the UK as a tourist destination. Since the outbreak of foot and mouth disease earlier this year posts have been implementing a pro-active public diplomacy campaign to provide the most up to date facts about how the UK is handling the disease.

  At the Prime Minister's request posts have also redoubled their efforts to promote the message that Britain is open for business. This has included updating websites, placing articles, giving interviews and rebutting false allegations. The target audience for this activity has included the media, the travel industry and the local business community. Here we have held regular briefings for London-based foreign correspondents and have used the FCO's dedicated TV and radio services to feed stories into thousands of broadcasts around the world.

  Palestine
  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to Yasser Arafat regarding the release from prison of members of(a) Hamas and (b) Islamic Jihad. [156907]

  Mr. Wilson
  The Secretary of State raised concerns about the release of prisoners belonging to groups responsible for terrorist acts during his meeting with President Arafat on 11 October 2000.

  The Government are in regular contact with the Palestinian Authority and the Government of Israel, and urge them to resume security co-operation and to do all in their power to end violence, restrain extremism and minimise incitement and provocations.

  Rapid Reaction Force
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 20 March 2001,Official Report, column 109W, on the Rapid Reaction Force, what obligations are waived for Denmark and applicable to the United Kingdom. [157403]

  Mr. Vaz
  Under Protocol 5 of the Treaty on European Union, Denmark does not participate in the elaboration and the implementation of decisions and actions of the Union which have defence implications and is not obliged to contribute to the financing of operational expenditure arising from such measures. The UK participates fully in the development of the European Security and Defence Policy.

  China
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action the United Kingdom proposes to take in(a) London and (b) Geneva, to encourage UN Commission for Human Rights members to vote against the no-action motion China will propose at the 57 UNCHR. [157451]

  Mr. Battle
  EU Foreign Ministers agreed at the General Affairs Council on 19 March that the EU should oppose and actively lobby against any no-action motion tabled by China at the 57th session of the UN Commission on Human Rights.

  Lobbying in Geneva and the capitals of some UNCHR member states has already been carried out on behalf of EU member states, including the United Kingdom, by the Swedish Presidency. This will continue until the vote, which is expected to take place on 18 April.

  Brigadier Stephen Saunders
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the investigation into the murder of Brigadier Stephen Saunders, former defence attaché to Greece. [157597]

  Mr. Battle
  A team of Metropolitan police officers continues to work closely with the Hellenic National police in Athens on the investigation into the murder of Brigadier Saunders. Operational details of the
  533W
  investigation must remain confidential but we, and the Greek Government, remain committed to bringing Brigadier Saunders' murderers to justice.

  Belize
  Mr. Peter Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 29 March 2001,Official Report, column 746W, what information the British High Commission has received from (a) Belize Telecommunications, (b) its representatives as to the steps it intends to take either to (i) pursue its claims and (ii) to resolve the dispute; and if he will make a statement. [157959]

  Mr. Battle
  This issue is now in the hands of the Belize Public Utilities Commission and the Belizean Government. We hope that it will soon be resolved.

  EU Newsletter
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what the cost of the(a) publication and (b) distribution of the spring 2001 EU Newsletter was; how many copies were published; and to whom it was distributed. [157763]

  Mr. Vaz
  The production costs came to £3,896.00 for 10,000 copies. Due to the use of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office internal post system for the distribution of many copies, we estimate that postage fees totalled less than £100.00.

  Recipients included UK MEPs, MPs, British Embassies in the EU, UK Universities, Local Government Authorities and the European Commission Representation in the UK for onward transmission to public libraries and European Information Centres.

  Keith Vaz
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 16 March 2001,Official Report, column 776W, if, in his discussions with the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz), he asked the hon. Member if he had sought to ensure the co-operation of witnesses in respect of each of the complaints in relation to which the Parliamentary Commissioner reported she had not completed her inquiry. [157564]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  [holding answer 9 April 2001]: As was clear from the previous reply, the discussion referred to took place after the publication of the report of the Committee on Standards and Privileges and after the Commissioner had brought her inquiries to a conclusion.

  Kyoto Agreement
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action is being taken by Her Majesty's Government and other European Governments to bring the United States back into the Kyoto Agreement. [157861]

  Mr. Battle
  The UK has raised climate change and the importance of the Kyoto Protocol at the highest levels in the US Administration. Our EU partners have also taken steps to persuade the Americans to remain in the Kyoto process; there have been bilateral contacts as well as a534W
  visit by the Environment Minister of Sweden, the Environment Commissioner and senior Belgian officials to Washington last week.

  Over the period of the recently-launched US review of climate policy and in the run up the resumed international negotiations on the Kyoto Protocol in Bonn in July, the Government will continue strongly to urge full US participation in the international efforts to tackle climate change.

  Ministerial Visits (Balkans)
  Mr. Duncan Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs on what dates he has visited(a) Croatia and (b) Bosnia-Herzegovina since January 2000. [157978]

  Mr. Vaz
  The Foreign Secretary has visited Croatia twice since January 2000: on 13 March 2000, meeting President Mesic and Prime Minister Racan, and on 23–24 November 2000 to attend the Zagreb Summit. I visited Croatia in February 2000. The Secretary of State last visited Bosnia in March 1998.

  Human Rights (China)
  Mr. Wilkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the objectives of the human rights dialogue between the United Kingdom and the People's Republic of China and the criteria he has established for the evaluation of its success. [157528]

  Mr. Battle
  HMG's overall objective in pursuing a structured human rights dialogue with China is to promote the highest possible adherence by China to existing international standards on human rights. While the specific objectives of each round of dialogue reflect issues of particular interest or concern at that time, the strategic direction of the dialogue process remains constant. To that end, the dialogue is accompanied by a comprehensive programme of technical advice and assistance on specific areas which give rise to human rights concerns.

  In taking forward our dialogue with the Chinese Government, we are guided inter alia by the objectives agreed by the EU General Affairs Council on 22 January for the EU's own dialogue with China. These are:

  ratification and implementation of the International Covenants on Civil and Political Rights and on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights;

  co-operation with human rights mechanisms (visit by the UN Rapporteur on Torture, invitation to other Rapporteurs, follow-up to recommendations from conventional mechanisms and recommendations by Rapporteurs, implementation of the agreement with the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights);

  in the context of seeking the universal abolition of capital punishment including in China, as a first step to promoting compliance with ECOSOC guarantees for the protection of those sentenced to death and restriction of the cases in which the death penalty can be imposed, in keeping with Article 6 of the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights; provision of statistics on use of the death penalty;

  reform of administrative detention; introduction of judicial supervision of procedures; respect for the right to a fair and impartial trial and for the rights of the defence;

  respect for the fundamental rights of all prisoners, including those arrested for membership of the political opposition, unofficial religious movements or other movements; progress on access to

  535W
  prisoners in Chinese prisons, including in the autonomous regions; constructive response to individual cases raised by the EU;

  exercise of freedom of religion and belief, both public and private; respect for the right to organise;

  respect for cultural rights and religious freedoms in particular in Tibet and Xinjiang, halt to the "patriotic education" campaign in Tibet, access for an independent delegation, acceptable to both sides, to visit Gedhun Choekyi Nyima, the child designated by the Dalai Lama as 11th Panchen Lama.

  In addition, the UK's approach to the last two rounds of the dialogue with China was aimed at:

  the end to jamming of the BBC World Service broadcasts;

  freedom of expression and freedom of the press.

  We will carry out regular reviews of the dialogue process, which will include an assessment of progress achieved on these objectives.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Departmental Policies (Lincoln)
  Gillian Merron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will set out, with statistical information relating as directly as possible to the Lincoln constituency, the effects on Lincoln of his Department's policies and actions since 2 May 1997. [152982]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  [holding answer 20 March 2001]: Since May 1997, my Department has introduced and developed a variety of initiatives which will impact on my hon. Friend's constituency which promote our objectives of access, excellence, education, and creativity and employment. We have published our strategies to take this forward in "Tomorrow's Tourism" and "A Sporting Future for All", which was recently followed up by "The Government's Plan for Sport". We have tackled the issue of social inclusion taking forward the recommendations of Policy Action Team 10 on Arts and Sport and developing social inclusion policies across all our areas which is recognised within the most recent progress report "Building on PAT10".

  We have given more support to the cultural and sporting infrastructure. The Spending Review 2000 secured a doubling of the budget for sport and the largest ever increase for the arts: an increase of 80 per cent. from £186 million in 1997–98 to £336 million in 2003–04. In taking forward our aim to develop the educational potential of culture and sport £40 million has been allocated to developing Creative Partnerships; we have established through lottery funding, the £30 million National Foundation for Youth Music; and secured an additional £130 million for primary schools sports and arts facilities through the Space for Sport and the Arts programme. With £120 million of central Government and Lottery funding we will be providing a school sports co-ordinator in one in four secondary schools to work with local primary and special schools to improve sporting provision and physical education for children in the most deprived areas. We have delivered free access to national museums for children and the over 60s and additional money will be provided to allow this to be extended to everyone in December 2001. We have commissioned a taskforce which is currently considering the issues facing non-national museums in the regions.
  536W
  We have made improvements in the way the Lottery is spent to ensure a fairer distribution. The introduction of the New Opportunities Fund for spending on health, education and the environment has made a real difference to communities everywhere. For instance it has invested £120 million to support the People's Network, which will enable all 4,300 public libraries to offer free public Internet access through UK on-line learning centres; and a further £50 million to stimulate development of content to support the Network.

  We have set up a Regional Cultural Consortium in each of the English regions outside London to champion culture and creativity, including heritage, sport and tourism, and to draw up regional cultural strategies identifying regional objectives and priorities.

  We have published a Green Paper "Culture and Creativity: The Next Ten Years", setting out how individual creative talent can be given the support it needs from childhood to flourish; how artists and cultural institutions can be freed from bureaucratic controls; and how the freedom to explore and enjoy creativity and culture can be made available to all.

  Through their commitment to public service broadcasting, the Government have helped to foster an environment in which a creative, commercially successful broadcasting industry provides a wide range of UK-made, high quality, original programmes catering for all viewers and listeners. We have ensured a secure funding base for the BBC and S4C, while giving them the freedom to develop commercial operations which complement and support their public service remit. We have made clear in the Communications White Paper that public service broadcasting will continue to have a key role to play in the digital future. The Government have introduced free television licences for people aged 75 or over from 1 November last year.

  My Department sponsors the British Tourist Authority (BTA) which continues to promote Britain effectively as an attractive tourist destination for overseas visitors. The BTA's successful marketing activities are aimed at bringing benefits to all parts of the UK, including Lincoln.

  In delivering these initiatives we aim to make cultural and sporting activities inclusive ones, boosting participation and improving the quality of life for all.

  Lincoln

  According to the information supplied to us by the distributing bodies for the national lottery awards database, there have been 98 national lottery awards to Lincoln, totalling £9,064,778.

  Ten Millennium Award Winners have been identified from Lincoln and between them they have received grants totalling £29,400.

  Information on the number of beneficiaries of free television licences by constituency is not available, but estimates based on the 1991 Census indicate that there were approximately 5,900 people aged 75 or over living in the Lincoln constituency.

  English Heritage input:

  Places of Worship Grants

  St. Swithin, Lincoln, offered £28,700

  St. John Ermine, Lincoln, offered £70,000—£66,000 paid to date

  537W

  Secular Grants

  17 Minster Yard, Lincoln £16,000 all paid

  18 Minster Yard, Lincoln £21,000 all paid

  Lincoln Castle (walls) £25,000 all paid (in two offers)

  Conservation Area Partnership Scheme 1997–98 and 1998–99 total of £314,000 offered

  Heritage Economic Regeneration Scheme 1999–2000 and 2000–01 total of £200,000 offered.

  There are of course other initiatives in the wider context of the region which may have an effect on the Lincoln constituency. These are:

  East Midlands Arts Board received £6,853,000 in 2000–01 from the Arts Council to support arts and cultural activity across its region. In 2001–02 this will increase to £7,771,701 or by 12.4 per cent.

  Lincolnshire Library Authority which received £60,980 in 1999–2000 for an ICT project

  The National Foundation for Youth Music are currently considering bids for Lincoln but they have not been confirmed as yet.

  My Department has also given support to Supporters Direct, who have been instrumental in assisting the formation of the Supporters' Trust that has recently taken over the ownership of Lincoln City Football Club.

  Departmental Policies (Chichester)
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will set out, with statistical information relating as directly as possible to the Chichester constituency, the effects on Chichester of his Department's policies and actions since 2 May 1997. [155280]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  Since May 1997 my Department has introduced and developed a variety of initiatives which will impact on the constituency of Chichester which promote our objectives of access, excellence, education and creativity and employment. We have published our strategies to take this forward in "Tomorrow's Tourism" and "A Sporting Future for All", which was recently followed up by "The Government's Plan for Sport". We have tackled the issue of social inclusion taking forward the recommendations of Policy Action Team 10 on Arts and Sport and developing social inclusion policies across all our areas which is recognised within the most recent progress report "Building on PAT10".

  We have given more support to the cultural and sporting infrastructure. The Spending Review 2000 secured a doubling of the budget for sport and the largest ever increase for the arts: an increase of 80 per cent. from £186 million in 1997–98 to £336 million in 2003–04. In taking forward our aim to develop the educational potential of culture and sport £40 million has been allocated to developing Creative Partnerships; we have established through lottery funding, the £30 million National Foundation for Youth Music; and secured an additional £130 million for primary schools sports and arts facilities through the Space for Sport and the Arts programme. With £120 million of central Government and Lottery funding we will be providing a school sports co-ordinator in one in four secondary schools to work with local primary and special schools to improve sporting provision and physical education for children in the most deprived areas. We have delivered free access to national museums for children and the over 60s and additional money will be provided to allow this to be
  538W
  extended to everyone in December 2001. We have commissioned a task force which is currently considering the issues facing non-national museums in the regions.

  We have made improvements in the way the Lottery is spent to ensure a fairer distribution. The introduction of the New Opportunities Fund for spending on health, education and the environment has made a real difference to communities everywhere. For instance it has invested £120 million to support the People's Network, which will enable all 4,300 public libraries to offer free public internet access through UK online learning centres; and a further £50 million to stimulate development of content to support the Network.

  We have set up a Regional Cultural Consortium in each of the English regions outside London to champion culture and creativity, including heritage, sport and tourism, and to thaw up regional cultural strategies identifying regional objectives and priorities.

  We have published a Green Paper "Culture and Creativity: The Next Ten Years", setting out how individual creative talent can be given the support it needs from childhood to flourish; how artists and cultural institutions can be freed from bureaucratic controls; and how the freedom to explore and enjoy creativity and culture can be made available to all.

  Through their commitment to public service broadcasting, the Government have helped to foster an environment in which a creative, commercially successful broadcasting industry provides a wide range of UK-made, high quality, original programmes catering for all viewers and listeners. We have ensured a secure funding base for the BBC and S4C, while giving them the freedom to develop commercial operations which complement and support their public service remit. We have made clear in the Communications White Paper that public service broadcasting will continue to have a key role to play in the digital future. The Government have introduced free television licences for people aged 75 or over from 1 November last year.

  My Department sponsors the British Tourist Authority (BTA) which continues to promote Britain effectively as an attractive tourist destination for overseas visitors. The BTA's successful marketing activities are aimed at bringing benefits to all parts of the UK, including Chichester.

  In delivering these initiatives we aim to make cultural and sporting activities inclusive ones, boosting participation and improving the quality of life for all.

  Chichester

  According to the information supplied to us by the distributing bodies for the national lottery awards database, there have been 93 national lottery awards to Chichester totalling £8,561,530.

  Thirty-five Millennium Award Winners have been identified from Chichester and between them have received grants totalling £80,834.

  ReSource have recently allocated £75,888 from the Designated Challenge Fund to the 'Weald and Downland Open Air Museum'. They were previously allocated £64,000 in May 2000 and £72,800 in July 1999.

  English Heritage have offered the following grants.
  539W

  £

  Site

  Offer date

  Grant offer

  Payments to date

  St. Andrew's Church, Tangmere

  13 March 2001

  17,000

  None

  Cowdray Castle, Midhurst

  27 March 2000

  200,000

  None

  St. Giles Church, Merston

  30 March 2000

  32,385

  None

  St. Mary and St. Gabriel, South Harting

  12 January 1998

  81,100

  72,990

  The Chapel, Petworth House

  24 March 1998

  18,000

  18,000

  Chichester Cathedral (South West Tower)

  —

  2,500

  2,500

  Chichester Cathedral (Nave Aisle)

  —

  13,000

  13,000

  Information on the number of beneficiaries of free television licences by constituency is not available, but estimates based on the 1991 Census indicate that there were approximately 10,500 people aged 75 or over living in the Chichester constituency.

  There are of course other initiatives in the wider context of West Sussex which may have an effect on the Chichester constituency. These are:

  West Sussex Library Authority, which includes the Chichester constituency, was a partner in a consortium which received an award of £145,138 from the DCMS/Wolfson Public Libraries Challenge Fund in 1998–99.

  South East Arts received £4,046,000 in 2000–01 from the Arts Council to support arts and cultural activity across its region. In 2001–02 this will increase to £4,847,711 or by 19.8 per cent.

  DCMS/Wolfson Public Libraries Challenge Fund—awards to London library authorities

  £

  Local authority

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  Barking and Dagenham

  —

  —

  —

  60,000

  Barnet

  114,873

  —

  —

  1160,739

  Bexley

  —

  —

  —

  47,571

  Brent

  63,000

  —

  —

  49,758 and 1116,823

  Bromley

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Camden

  —

  —

  1109,233

  1160,739 and 1116,823

  City of London

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Croydon

  —

  128,446

  —

  1149,645

  Ealing

  49,096

  —

  102,187

  27,845

  Enfield

  —

  —

  —

  160,739

  Greenwich

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Hackney

  —

  —

  1109,233

  166,649

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  —

  —

  —

  1116,823

  Haringey

  86,419

  —

  —

  1160,739 and 166,649

  Harrow

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Havering

  —

  —

  —

  1160,739

  Hillingdon

  —

  —

  —

  1116,823

  Hounslow

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Islington

  —

  —

  1109,233

  1149,645 and 1160,739 and 166,649

  Kensington and Chelsea

  —

  —

  —

  1116,823

  Lambeth

  —

  —

  165,679

  —

  Lewisham

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Merton

  —

  —

  —

  32,225 and 17,482

  Newham

  —

  —

  —

  1160,739

  Redbridge

  —

  —

  —

  1160,739

  Richmond Upon Thames

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Southwark

  40,191

  —

  —

  25,189

  Sutton

  —

  —

  —

  17,482

  Tower Hamlets

  —

  —

  —

  1160,739

  Upper Norwood

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Waltham Forest

  —

  —

  —

  1160,739

  Wandsworth

  50,000

  —

  —

  —

  Westminster

  —

  —

  —

  1116,823

  1 The authority was a partner in a consortium of authorities which received the amount indicated. It is not possible to say what proportion of consortium awards benefited a particular partner authority

  Grants (London Boroughs)
  Ms Buck
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will list(a) each category of grant and (b) the amount of each grant paid by his Department to each London borough in (i) 1997–98, (ii) 1998–99, (iii) 1999–2000 and (iv) 2000–01; and what the projected figure is for 2001–02. [155431]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  Information about the various grants awarded by non-departmental public bodies such as the Arts Council of England, Sport England and English Heritage can be obtained from those bodies.

  Information about grants awarded by the DCMS/Wolfson Public Libraries Challenge Fund and the Designated Museums Challenge Fund are described in the following tables:
  541W
  We cannot give projected figures for 2001–02 as DCMS/Wolfson is a challenge fund and considers projects from across England on the basis of merit.

  Designated Museums Challenge Fund1

  £2

  Borough/Museum

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  Total

  City of Westminster

  Courtauld Gallery

  50

  75

  75

  200

  London Transport Museum

  52.5

  95

  95.5

  243

  Total City of Westminster

  102.5

  170

  170.5

  443

  LB of Camden

  University College London, Petrie Museum of Egyptian Archaeology

  62

  105

  119

  286

  Jewish Museum

  50

  85

  65

  200

  Sir John Soane's Museum

  0

  95

  82.5

  177.5

  Percival David Foundation of Chinese Art

  0

  85

  33.5

  118.5

  Museum of the Royal College of Surgeons

  0

  60

  49

  109

  Total LB of Camden

  112

  430

  349

  891

  LB of Lewisham

  Homiman Museum

  100

  99.5

  63.5

  263

  City of London

  Museum of London

  0

  131.5

  218.5

  350

  LB of Greenwich

  Royal Artillery Museum of Rotunda

  0

  0

  89

  89

  LB of Southwark

  Dulwich Picture Gallery

  52

  80

  60

  192

  1 Allocations have been made to institutions in London between 1999–2000 and 2001–02 (the life of the fund)

  2 Rounded to the nearest £500

  Note:

  The figures reflect the Designated Museums Challenge Fund allocations made to museums and galleries in London in those years. These are not necessarily the figures drawn down by the institutions concerned in those years.

  Departmental Policies (Southwark)
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will set out, with statistical information relating as directly as possible to the London borough of Southwark, the effects on the London borough of Southwark of his Department's policies and actions since May 2 1997. [155981]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  [holding answer 2 April 2001]: Since May 1997 my Department has introduced and developed a variety of initiatives which will impact on my right hon. Friend's constituency which promote our objectives of access, excellence, education, and creativity and employment. We have published our strategies to take this forward in "Tomorrow's Tourism" and "A Sporting Future for All", which was recently followed up by "The Government's Plan for Sport". We have tackled the issue of social inclusion taking forward the recommendations of Policy Action Team 10 on Arts and Sport and developing social inclusion policies across all our areas which is recognised within the most recent progress report "Building on PAT10."

  We have given more support to the cultural and sporting infrastructure. The Spending Review 2000 secured a doubling of the budget for sport and the largest ever increase for the arts: an increase of 80 per cent. from £186 million in 1997–98 to £336 million in 2003–04. In taking forward our aim to develop the educational
  542W
  potential of culture and sport £40 million has been allocated to developing Creative Partnerships; we have established through lottery funding, the £30 million National Foundation for Youth Music; and secured an additional £130 million for primary schools sports and arts facilities through the Space for Sport and the Arts programme. With £120 million of central Government and Lottery funding we will be providing a school sports co-ordinator in one in four secondary schools to work with local primary and special schools to improve sporting provision and physical education for children in the most deprived areas. We have delivered free access to national museums for children and the over 60s and additional money will be provided to allow this to be extended to everyone in December 2001. We have commissioned a Task Force which is currently considering the issues facing non-national museums in the regions.

  We have made it improvements in the way the Lottery is spent to ensure a fairer distribution. The introduction of the New Opportunities Fund for spending on health, education and the environment has made a real difference to communities everywhere. For instance it has invested £120 million to support the People's Network, which will enable all 4,300 public libraries to offer free public internet access through UK online learning centres; and a further £50 million to stimulate development of content to support the Network.
  543W
  We have established the Greater London Authority and an elected Mayor for London. The Mayor now has responsibility for most aspects of culture in London and has appointed a Cultural Strategy Group to advise him and to draw up a cultural strategy for London.

  We have published a Green Paper "Culture and Creativity: The Next Ten Years", setting out how individual creative talent can be given the support it needs from childhood to flourish; how artists and cultural institutions can be freed from bureaucratic controls; and how the freedom to explore and enjoy creativity and culture can be made available to all.

  Through their commitment to public service broadcasting, the Government have helped to foster an environment in which a creative, commercially successful broadcasting industry provides a wide range of UK-made, high quality, original programmes catering for all viewers and listeners. We have ensured a secure funding base for the BBC and S4C, while giving them the freedom to develop commercial operations which complement and support their public service remit. We have made clear in the Communications White Paper that public service broadcasting will continue to have a key role to play in the digital future. The Government have introduced free television licences for people aged 75 or over from 1 November last year.

  My Department sponsors the British Tourist Authority (BTA) which continues to promote Britain effectively as an attractive tourist destination for overseas visitors. The BTA's successful marketing activities are aimed at bringing benefits to all parts of the UK, including the London borough of Southwark.

  In delivering these initiatives we aim to make cultural and sporting activities inclusive ones, boosting participation and improving the quality of life for all.

  London borough of Southwark

  According to the information supplied to us by the distributing bodies for the national lottery awards database, there have been 470 national lottery awards to the London borough of Southwark totalling £52,454,303. 158 Millennium Award Winners have been identified from the London borough of Southwark and between them they have received grants totalling £400,323.

  Under the Space for Sport and Arts scheme, Southwark local education authority has been allocated up to £2.2 million towards providing improved facilities for sport and arts in primary schools which can also be used by the wider community.

  English Heritage (EH) Grants awarded since 2 May 1997:

  Dulwich College—offered £56,118. Fully paid

  St. George the Martyr—offered £36,298. Paid £33,153

  St. Mary's, Rotherhithe—offered £50,960 Paid £44,350 (Project completed)

  85 Blackfriar's road—offered £38,000. Paid £25,998

  St. Peter's Walworth—offered £59,872. Paid £1,145

  Conservation Area Partnership Schemes (CAPS)

  Bankside offered £51,300

  Bermondsey street offered £255,000

  544W
  Local Authority Conservation Staff

  Offered £47,559. Paid £17,321

  Southwark Church of England Cathedral:

  1998–99—offered £10,943. Fully paid

  1999–2000—offered £8,852. Fully paid

  2000–01—offered £55,000. Paid £47,000

  Southwark Roman Catholic Cathedral:

  1998–99—offered £45,000. Fully paid.

  The Dulwich Picture Gallery has received the following allocations from the DCMS sponsored Designated Museums Challenge Fund:

  £

  1999–2000

  52,000

  2000–01

  80,000

  2001–02

  60,000

  Total

  192,000

  Additional DCMS resources are being allocated to its sponsored national museums and galleries to enable those that charge for admission currently to go free from 1 December 2001. This will include the Imperial War Museum's Lambeth Road Headquarters subject, as elsewhere, to the agreement of its Trustees.

  Information on the number of beneficiaries of free television licences by borough is not available, but estimates based on the 1991 Census indicate that there were approximately 5,600 people aged 75 or over living in the North Southwark and Bermondsey constituency.

  There are other initiatives in the wider area which may have an effect on the London borough of Southwark. These are:

  London Arts received £26,765,000 in 2000–01 from the Arts Council to support arts and cultural activity across its region. In 2001-02 this will increase to £29,886,048 or by 11.66 per cent.

  Camberwell and Peckham have received one grant for £27,000 from the Millennium Festival.

  Tobacco Sponsorship
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what help has been given to those sports which have relied on tobacco sponsorship; and if he will make a statement. [157315]

  Kate Hoey
  [holding answer 6 April 2001]: Over the past two years, there has been extensive contact with the seven sports that sought assistance to make the transition from tobacco sponsorship. The taskforce of business and sponsorship has been there to make information available, offer advice to support the development of new marketing strategies, make initial contact with potential sponsors and offer professional advice on how the sports can start to position themselves in a changing marketplace.

  The taskforce has now concluded the first phase of its work to identify the needs of the sports and ascertain how best it can assist them. Assistance with the replacement of existing contracts can most effectively be targeted in the 12 to 18 months before they lapse, which is the normal lead-in time for negotiating new sponsorship agreements.

  545W
  I am in close touch with the seven sports affected and the taskforce has made clear to them that its assistance is still available as and when they require it.

  The "Hanover"
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (1) if the Advisory Committee on historic wreck sites was consulted about the length of the licence granted to excavate the wreck site of the "Hanover"; and if he will make a statement; [157425]

  (2) for what reason the licence to excavate the wreck site of the "Hanover" is without a specific time limit; and if he will make a statement. [157426]

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  In July 1997 the "Hanover" wreck site was the subject of an emergency designation under the Protection of Wrecks Act 1973. Mr. Colin Martin, who was working on the site at the time, immediately applied for leave for judicial review of the Designation Order. The terms of the licence were agreed as part of the settlement of the action. The Advisory Committee on Historic Wreck Sites was not formally consulted on the terms of the licence but they were kept informed of developments throughout. Decisions on the granting of licences are for the Secretary of State to make, consulting as he sees appropriate. There is no set time limit for licences granted under the Protection of Wrecks Act.

  Listed Buildings (Liverpool)
  Mrs. Ellman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will list the listed buildings there are in(a) the City of Liverpool and (b) Riverside constituency; and how much funding has been allocated to them to assist conservation in the last three years. [157432]

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  Statistics are not available for these geographical areas, but there are 3,125 listed buildings on Merseyside. The list can be consulted at the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, at Liverpool City Council or at the National Monuments Record Centre in Swindon. Over the last three years, buildings in Liverpool have attracted conservation grants from the Heritage Lottery Fund (HLF) and English Heritage totalling £43.4 million, of which £42.8 million was for buildings in Liverpool Riverside. These figures include a grant of £26.7 million from the HLF for development and refurbishment of the Liverpool Museum and Walker Art Gallery.

  Royal Opera House
  Mr. Efford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (1) what discussions he has had with the Royal Opera House regarding its concessionary ticketing policy; and if he will make a statement; [157534]

  (2) what discussions he has had with the Royal Opera House regarding the availability of standby tickets; and how many performances since the Royal Opera House reopened there have been for which standing tickets were available. [157535]

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I have discussions from time to time with the Chairman and management of the Royal 546W
  Opera House to ensure that Covent Garden is open to a broader audience and for the public to have the widest possible access to performances.

  The Royal Opera House currently offers a number of concessionary and standby rates. These include:

  For performances in the main auditorium where standby tickets have been made available on the day of performance, senior citizens, students, under 18s, those in receipt of Job Seeker's Allowance or Invalid Care Allowance, members of BECTU, MU, Equity, Incorporated Society of Musicians, the Friends of Covent Garden and Stage Pass, holders of a City of Westminster ResCard and residents of London WC2 postal area can buy one reduced-price ticket per person from the Box Office. Stand-by tickets for the best available seat are £12.50 for ballet and £15 for opera performances and, when available, will be released for sale four hours before curtain-up.

  Customers with disabilities who join the free Royal Opera House Access List receive a 50 per cent. discount on tickets for themselves and a companion.

  Senior citizens, students, under 18s and those in receipt of Job Seeker's Allowance receive a £1 discount off the ticket price of Backstage Tours.

  Standing tickets are available at all performances of ballet and opera in the main auditorium.

  Outside companies using the Linbury Studio Theatre or the Clore Studio Upstairs must honour the existing concessionary schemes.

  Each season, at least two productions of opera will be relayed into the Covent Garden piazza free of charge.

  The Royal Opera House companies continue to attract a large and varied audience for their work. In the first season after re-opening the House achieved over 90 per cent. capacity for performances of opera and ballet with ticket prices reduced in many areas. A broad and innovative programme of education work has involved over 100,000 school children as well as young people and adults from all backgrounds. I commend the board and management of the House for their commitment to making the Royal Opera House accessible to the widest possible audience.

  Richmond Park
  Mr. Colman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport when he will reopen Richmond Park to vehicular traffic. [157764]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  Discussions are under way between the relevant bodies, including the Royal Parks Agency and Historic Royal Palaces. I am hopeful that an announcement about the re-opening of Richmond Park, Bushy Park and the Home Park at Hampton Court will be made in the next few days.

  Regional Arts Boards
  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will initiate consultations upon the proposals made by the Arts Council of England to wind up the regional arts boards prior to their implementation; and if he will make a statement. [157988]

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State was consulted personally by the Chairman and the Chief Executive of the Arts Council prior to the announcement of the proposed changes, and the Department for the Environment, Transport and the Regions was also informed. The development of the proposals will involve
  547W
  further consultation with colleagues and stakeholders, and the views of the Regional Arts Boards themselves are being sought and will be considered closely.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  A/F Protein Inc.
  Mr. Alan Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development (1) if(a) she and (b) her Department's officials met representatives of A/F Protein Inc. of Waltham, Massachusetts, USA; [157759]

  (2) what representations (a) she and (b) her officials have received from representatives of A/F Protein Inc. of Waltham, Massachusetts, United States and what her response was. [157760]

  Clare Short
  Neither I nor any of my officials has met representatives of A/F Protein Inc. or have received representation from them.

  Fish (Research)
  Mr. Alan Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development (1) if she will list the overseas academic private sector, Governmental and non-Governmental organisations which have been funded partly or wholly by her Department to(a) conduct and (b) co-operate in, transgenic and genetic research into fish; and if she will list the purpose, timescale, costs and titles of that research; [157757]

  (2) if she will provide a full project summary for project R7284, genetic improvement and utilisation of indigenous tilapia in Southern Africa, and the names of participating institutions and organisations in the United Kingdom and Africa. [157758]

  Clare Short
  This information is available on the DFID website www.dfid.gov.uk.

  Mr. Alan Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will list the international visits her Department has undertaken in connection with fish genetics programmes. [157277]

  Clare Short
  Staff in my Department participated in a workshop on "Practical Strategies for Poverty Targeted Research" which took place in Hanoi in November 2000.

  Mr. Alan Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development (1) if she will list the members of the Aquaculture Research Programme, indicating their(a) scientific qualifications and (b) commercial interests; [157272]

  (2) if she will list the advisers (a) to and (b) within the Fish Genetics Programme, indicating their commercial interests. [157273]

  Clare Short
  The information requested is available in the Bibliography of DFID fisheries research programmes, 1990–98.

  Mr. Alan Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will list the commercial partners involved in her Department's programmes working on GM fish stocks(a) in the UK and (b) internationally. [157278]
  548W
  Clare Short
  There are no UK or international commercial partners involved in our programme on GM fish stock which is entirely funded by my Department.

  Debt Cancellation
  Ms Julie Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will urge other countries to adopt a policy of 100 per cent. debt cancellation to the heavily indebted poor countries at the next meeting of the World bank. [157536]

  Clare Short
  I am pleased that a number of countries are following the UK's lead in providing additional relief on their remaining bilateral debts for Heavily Indebted Poor Countries (HIPC).

  We will continue to take every opportunity to encourage others to follow the UK's example, including at the spring meetings of the World Bank and IMF.

  Palestinian National Authority
  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make further aid to the Palestinian National Authority conditional on a reduction in corruption; and if she will make a statement. [156897]

  Clare Short
  All UK aid is provided in a way which is well protected against corruption.

  The people of the West Bank and Gaza are suffering badly from the effects of the current conflict and the economic sanctions imposed by Israel. We will continue to provide help to reduce poverty and support democratic and accountable government in the West Bank and Gaza.

SCOTLAND

  Postal Services
  Mr. Alexander
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps are being taken to improve postal services in Scotland; and if he will make a statement. [153579]

  Mr. Foulkes
  The Horizon project to computerise all post office systems is nearing completion. This will mean that all customers, regardless of location, will now have access to the same high technology and top quality service. Ring fenced support has been allocated over the next three years to implement recommendations in the Performance and Innovation Unit report on modernisation of the Post Office network.

  The Government fully recognise the pivotal role which the Post Office plays in communities across Scotland. A new £2 million UK wide fund, which is available for the 2001–02 financial year to support initiatives to maintain or re-open post office facilities in areas where the traditional post office is closing, will help to strengthen the rural post office network in Scotland. All of these initiatives will ensure that we can build a post office network which goes from strength to strength.

  Departmental Policies (Edinburgh, South)
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if she will set out, with statistical information relating as directly as possible to the Edinburgh, South
  549W
  constituency, the effects on Edinburgh of the Department's policies and actions in health, education and other services since 2 May 1997. [155338]

  Mr. Foulkes
  [holding answer 26 March 2001]: On health, a range of policies have been adopted since May 1997 to improve the NHS in Scotland. These measures include, for example, the abolition of the internal market and the commitment to substantial increases in expenditure on the NHS. All areas of Scotland, including Edinburgh and Edinburgh, South, benefit from these policies.

  On education, between 1997 and 1999 there was a 10 per cent. reduction (from 63 to 57) in the number of primary school classes in Edinburgh, South with more than 30 pupils. Between 1996 and 1999, the number of teachers (full-time equivalent) employed in Edinburgh, South rose by 15 in primaries and by 12 in secondaries. The pupil-teacher ratio dropped from 21.5 to 19.7 in primaries and from 13.3 to 13.0 in secondaries over this period.

  Between 1996 and 1999, the percentage of the S4 school roll gaining five or more Standard Grades at levels 1–4 in secondary schools in Edinburgh, South rose from around 61 per cent. to around 74 per cent.

  Early in 1999, the City of Edinburgh council was awarded funding of £600,000 over three years for a New Community schools project under phase 1 of the pilot programme. Four primary schools in Edinburgh, South are included in the project (Fernieside, Gilmerton, Moredun and St. John Vianney RC).

  Also early in 1999, the City of Edinburgh council was awarded £1.5 million over three years to implement an Education Action Plan to improve attainment in schools facing particular challenges. Two secondary schools in Edinburgh, South are covered by the Education Action Plan (Gracemount and Liberton High Schools).

  Additional capital resources of £0.6 million in 1997–98 and £1.7 million in 1998–99 and 1999–00 were made available to the City of Edinburgh council under the New Deal for Schools for repairs to school buildings across the council's area.

  The recurrent grant in aid allocations to the three Edinburgh Further Education colleges rose from £30.762 million for financial year 1997–98 by 9.9 per cent. to £33.812 million for financial year 1999–2000.

  Since 1 July 1999, health and education have been mainly devolved matters for the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Executive.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Capital Modernisation Fund
  Maria Eagle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the impact of the Capital Modernisation Fund on his Department. [158176]

  Mr. Straw
  Modernising the criminal justice system is a cornerstone of effective crime fighting and in reducing the fear of crime. Capital Modernisation Fund investment 550W
  in innovative Departmental programmes is ensuring that crimes are detected, offenders prosecuted, and victims supported more quickly, effectively and efficiently.

  The Home Office has benefited from over £220 million investment from Round 1 of the Capital Modernisation Fund, including £150 million funding for a joint project with the Department for the Environment Transport and the Regions to reduce vehicle crime and improve security on housing estates.

  It has also benefited from over £162 million investment from Round 2 of the Capital Modernisation Fund, including £25 million for the National Technical Assistance Centre to assist law enforcement agencies' ability to fight crime in the information age.

  £4 million investment has already been secured from Round 3 of the Capital Modernisation Fund for the development by the Youth Justice Board of two small mother and baby units for girls under 18 which will enable sentenced or remanded young mothers to remain with their young babies where appropriate. The first unit should open by early 2003. A further £18 million has been secured to fund the capital costs of the Youth Justice Board's expansion of the secure juvenile estate.

  I intend to announce details of further allocations to my Department from Round 3 of the Capital Modernisation Fund bidding process shortly.

  Corruption White Paper
  Mr. Pond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the Government's response to comments on the White Paper, "Raising Standards and Upholding Integrity: the Prevention of Corruption" (CM 4759). [158179]

  Mr. Straw
  The main proposals in the White Paper were to reform the law of corruption in the light of recommendations made by the Law Commission; to put beyond doubt that the crime of corrupting public officials extends to foreign public officials; to introduce a new offence of 'trading in influence'; and to take jurisdiction over United Kingdom nationals who commit bribery offences abroad.

  We received six comments on the White Paper, most of which were broadly favourable to our main proposals. The main points made by commentators, and the Government's reaction to them, are contained in a paper which I have today, placed in the Library.

  I have decided to make two changes to the scheme set out in the White Paper in the light of comments received. Firstly, the legislation will include proposals for a new offence of 'trading in influence' which will apply to both the public and the private sectors. As the extension of the offence to the private sector is a new proposal I shall listen most carefully to the arguments on both sides when the Bill comes before the House. Secondly, the legislation will extend not only to England and Wales but to Northern Ireland as well.

  I will bring forward legislation to implement the proposals at the earliest opportunity.

  Asylum and Immigration Act
  Mr. Miller
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to ensure that employers do not unlawfully discriminate when using the statutory defence against prosecution under section 8 of the Asylum and Immigration Act 1996. [158180]

  Mrs. Roche
  Section 8 of the Asylum and Immigration Act 1996 ("the 1996 Act") allows for the prosecution of employers who knowingly employ individuals without permission to work in the United Kingdom. A statutory defence against prosecution is available which requires that the employer obtain a copy of a document showing that the individual is entitled to take work.

  There were concerns that, in seeking to avail themselves of this defence, employers were unlawfully discriminating by making more checks on job applicants than the defence in Section 8 requires or by targeting checks on racial grounds. That is why we undertook, in the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999, to issue a Code of Practice to employers on how to avoid racial discrimination when seeking to apply the defence.

  In the light of that commitment the Government have prepared a Code of Practice that sets out the responsibilities of employers under the Race Relations Act 1976 and the 1996 Act and describes how employers can use the statutory defence in a way that avoids racial discrimination. In preparing the draft Code of Practice and summary, we consulted the Commission for Racial Equality, the Equality Commission for Northern Ireland and a number of other organisations.

  We propose that this Code of Practice should come into force on 2 May. We plan to distribute copies to interested organisations, together with a summary, which should ensure that all employers can easily understand their responsibilities in avoiding racial discrimination. A copy of the code of practice has been placed in the Library.

  Immigration Services
  Mr. Plaskitt
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the regulation of immigration advisers and immigration services providers. [158181]

  Mrs. Roche
  I announced on 6 March 2001,Official Report, column 121W, that the scheme for regulating immigration advisers under part V of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 would be brought into force on 30 April 2001. I have now signed a commencement order to that effect. From that date, it will be a criminal offence to provide immigration advice or immigration services in the course of a business in breach of the requirements of the Act.

  It has never been the Government's intention that Members of Parliament should be subject to the regulatory scheme. Our advice is that Members of both Houses of Parliament, Members of the European Parliament, Members of the devolved legislatures, local councillors, and their staff, are not subject to the regulatory scheme when providing immigration advice or services in connection with their parliamentary and constituency duties. Immigration advice and services given in other circumstances, however may be subject to the scheme.
  552W
  I have also signed two exemption orders under section 84 (4)(d) of the Act, which will come into effect on 30 April 2001.

  The Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 (part V exemption: educational institutions and health sector bodies) Order 2001 will exempt certain educational establishments and a number of public sector health bodies from the prohibition on giving immigration advice or services unless qualified. While there are some small differences between various parts of the United Kingdom, the main bodies exempted under the order are:

  Universities, colleges and other bodies authorised to award degrees

  Colleges of further education

  Finally registered independent schools

  The students' unions of all such bodies, as above

  National Heath Service Health Authorities, Trusts and Boards.

  The Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 (part V exemption: eligible voluntary bodies and relevant employers) Order 2001 will give a temporary exemption from the prohibition until the end of January 2002 to:

  voluntary bodies which, by 30 April 2001, have provided the Legal Services Commission with written confirmation of their firm intention to apply for the Community Legal Service Quality Mark (ie. have committed themselves to apply for the Quality Mark)

  employers and prospective employers of work permit holders.

  Although these orders exempt the bodies concerned from the general prohibition on giving immigration advice and services and the associated criminal sanctions for breaching the prohibition, the exempted organisations, nevertheless, have to comply with the Code of Standards published by the Immigration Services Commissioner.

  Home Detention Curfews
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list, for the period between the commencement of the Home Detention Curfew scheme and 31 March inclusive(a) the number of prisoners released on the scheme, (b) the number of prisoners convicted of each offence who were released on the scheme, with a breakdown of the offences committed, including offences committed by prisoners normally classified under the categories (i) other homicide and attempted homicide, (ii) other violence against the person, (iii) drug offences, (iv) assaults and (v) other offences, including a breakdown of the prisoners normally classified in the sub-category of other offences called other offences, (c) the average sentence (i) received and (ii) served, and the average period spent on the scheme, in respect of each offence, (d) the number of prisoners released on the scheme, with a breakdown of the offences committed who (i) breached the conditions of the curfew, (ii) disappeared and were recaptured, (iii) disappeared and remain unlawfully at large and (iv) had their licences revoked with reasons, (e) a breakdown of the offences committed by prisoners released on the scheme while on the scheme, including offences committed by prisoners who committed more than one offence and (f) a breakdown of the specific offences committed by prisoners released on the scheme who committed a further offence while on the scheme that was similar in character to that for which they were originally

  553W
  convicted, including offences committed by prisoners who committed more than one offence; and if he will make a statement. [157979]

  Mr. Boateng
  I will write to the hon. Member.

  Electoral Register
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer to the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe), of 11 December 2000,Official Report, column 59W, on the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000, when it is proposed that on-line access to the electoral register will be provided to registered political parties and the Electoral Commission to enable them to fulfil the requirements of Part IV of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000; and if he will make a statement about the progress being made in providing such access. [158035]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The project to provide such access has begun and bids to undertake the work have been invited. But it will take time to set up the necessary management mechanisms and put in place the technical requirements. We expect access to be available by 2003.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what action he is taking to ensure that registered political parties and the Electoral Commission are provided with updates of the electoral register to enable them to fulfil the requirements of Part IV of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000; [158005]

  (2) pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Mr. McCabe) of 26 March 2001, Official Report, column 496W, and to the oral statement of 4 April 2001, Official Report, column 422, on updates of the electoral register, when he will publish amendments to paragraph 47 of the Representation of the People (England and Wales) Regulations 2001 to provide for registered political parties and the Electoral Commission to receive copies of updates of the electoral register; when he proposes that the amendments will come into force; and in what form the updates will be provided; [157984]

  (3) pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Mr. McCabe) of 26 March 2001, Official Report, column 496W, and to the oral statement of 4 April 2001, Official Report, column 422, on updates of the electoral register, if he will instruct electoral registration officers to provide registered political parties and the Electoral Commission with updates of the electoral register to enable them to fulfil the requirements of Part IV of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000. [157985]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  We hope to publish, for consultation, draft regulations making further provision for the sale and supply of the electoral register towards the end of April. Subject to parliamentary approval, we anticipate that the regulations providing for the supply of updates of the full electoral register to registered political parties will come into force by the summer recess. The regulations will provide for updates to be supplied in data format unless the recipient requests otherwise.
  554W
  In the meantime, it is open to registered political parties to request a copy of each new revised version of the register as it is published or to make other appropriate arrangements to check whether a donor is registered at the time his or her donation is received by the party.

  As the supply of the register to registered parties is currently governed by regulation 47 of the Representation of the People (England and Wales) Regulations 2001, we cannot instruct electoral registration officers to undertake any actions that falls outwith that regulation.

  The supply of the electoral register to the Electoral Commission is governed by regulation 46 of the 2001 Regulation. Regulation 46 already provides for the Commission to receive copies of lists of amendments to the published registers.

  Firearms (Police)
  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will place in the Library a copy of the ACPO manual of guidance on police use of firearms which immediately preceded that issued in January. [157878]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The previous manual of guidance was, and must remain, confidential, because it contained numerous points of information which could have been valuable to criminals. The guidance has now been revised and has been placed in the Library, although some information must remain confidential for the reasons stated.

  Prisoner Activity
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the average amount of purposeful activity per week per prisoner in 2000–01; and if he will make a statement. [157982]

  Mr. Boateng
  The number of average weekly purposeful activity hours for the period April 2000 to the end of February 2001 was 23.7. The data for February included in these figures are provisional and subject to validation by prisons.

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the Audit Commission report, "Halfway Home: An Analysis of the Variation in the Cost of Supporting Asylum Seekers". [157981]

  Mrs. Roche
  Following the publication last year of the Audit Commission's Report, "Another Country" we requested that it undertake research into why some local authorities were able to live within the grant limits set for supporting asylum seekers, while others, in similar circumstances, could not. The report, "Half Way Home" is the result.

  We welcome this report and the sensible recommendations it makes about the way local authorities are reimbursed for supporting asylum seekers. We will discuss with the Local Government Association and the Association of London Government the best way of taking this forward, with a view to implementing a new grant scheme for this (2001–02) financial year.
  555W
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many and what percentage of asylum seekers from Zimbabwe who applied for asylum in(a) each of the last six months and (b) in total have received a positive initial decision on their application (i) in total and (ii) of those who have been sent to Oakington; and if he will make a statement. [157980]

  Mrs. Roche
  The number of asylum applications from nationals of Zimbabwe during the last six months is shown in the table.

  Month

  Asylum Applications1.2

  September 2000

  85

  October 2000

  90

  November 2000

  130

  December 2000

  145

  January 2001

  125

  February 2001

  125

  Total

  700

  1 Figures rounded to the nearest 5

  2 Provisional figures

  The number of initial decisions relating to applications of asylum from Zimbabwean nationals between September 2000 and February 2001 is only available for applicants dealt with at Oakington—the monthly breakdown is shown in the table. Information on the other Zimbabwean applications made in that period could be obtained only by examination of individual case records and is, therefore, available only at disproportionate cost.

  Months

  Total Principal Applicants (Zimbabweans)

  Number of Grants of Asylum

  Percentage of Grants from Total

  September 2000

  42

  0

  0

  October 2000

  54

  0

  0

  November 2000

  60

  4

  6.7

  December 2000

  59

  0

  0

  January 2001

  83

  1

  1.2

  February 2001

  89

  2

  2.2

  Total

  387

  7

  n/a

  Mr. Ennis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many asylum seekers have been housed in(a) England, (b) Barnsley and (c) Doncaster in the last 12 months. [157298]

  Mrs. Roche
  As at the end of February 2001, 21,4101 asylum seekers (including dependants) were allocated accommodation in the UK by the National Asylum Support Service. Of these, 1101 were allocated accommodation in Barnsley and 4001 were allocated accommodation in Doncaster.

  Information on the number of asylum supported by local authorities under the previous arrangements is not held centrally.

  1 Figures rounded to the nearest 10.

  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what limits he has placed on the period an asylum seeker can be held in prison. [157011]

  Mrs. Roche
  There is no time limit on the period an individual may be detained under the Immigration Act 1971. However, detention is used only sparingly and for the shortest period necessary.
  556W
  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many reports the Immigration and Nationality Directorate have received of asylum seekers convicted of offences while in the United Kingdom since 1999; and if he will make a statement. [157529]

  Mrs. Roche
  [holding answer 9 April 2001]: The Immigration and Nationality Directorate is not routinely informed of the immigration status of all third country nationals convicted of criminal offences in the United Kingdom. The number who were referred for court recommended deportation in 1999 was 350. In the first half of 2000, 320 persons were recommended for deportation by the courts. It is not recorded how many of these had claimed asylum.

  Details of the nationality or immigration status of a defendant charged or convicted with committing a criminal offence are not collected centrally on the Home Office Court Proceedings Database.

  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the cost of asylum support is, including unaccompanied minors(a) in the period 2000–01, (b) estimated for the current financial year 2001–02 and (c) estimated for the period 2002–03; and if he will make a statement. [157522]

  Mrs. Roche
  [holding answer 9 April 2001]: Estimated expenditure on asylum support, including unaccompanied asylum seeking minors in 2000–01 is £751 million (estimated final outturn). This is made up of:

  Grant payments to local authorities for Adult, Families and unaccompanied asylum seeking children—£575 million

  Support payments by the National Asylum Support Service—£115 million

  Payments to Department of Social Service (DSS) for supporting asylum seekers on benefit—£56 million

  Payments to the Scottish Executive for support to adults and families who applied before April 2000—£5 million.

  sThe budget of £702 million for 2000–01 was made up of an original sum of £604 million for asylum support costs together with transfers of £60 million from the Department of Health for the costs of unaccompanied asylum seeking children and £38 million from DSS for Housing Benefit costs. The additional £49 million expenditure was as a result of additional funds being provided to asylum support because of savings elsewhere in the Immigration and Nationality Directorate budget.

  Provisional estimates for asylum support costs for 2001–02 and 2002–03 were given in my reply of 24 July 2000, Official Report, column 450W, to the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington). This funding will be reviewed if needed.

  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many asylum seekers are(a) supported by NASS under the new support arrangements, (b) supported by local authorities under the previous support arrangements and (c) unaccompanied minors; and if he will make a statement. [157523]
  557W
  Mrs. Roche
  [holding answer 9 April 2001]: As at the end of February 2001, 11,630 asylum1 seekers (including dependants) were allocated subsistence only support by the National Asylum Support Service (NASS) and 21,4001.2 asylum seekers (including dependants) were allocated accommodation and subsistence support by NASS.

  Information on the number of asylum seekers being supported by local authorities under the previous support arrangements is not held centrally.

  As at the 26 January 2001 there were 5,5401 unaccompanied minors being supported in England by local authorities. The figures for unaccompanied minors being supported in Scotland and Wales are not held centrally.

  1 All figures are rounded to the nearest 10.

  2 A very small proportion of these cases may be allocated accommodation support only.

  Departmental Policies (Hampstead and Highgate)
  Ms Glenda Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the effects, with statistical information, on Hampstead and Highgate of his Department's policies since 2 May 1997. [158015]

  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 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 2000–01, is available in the Library. Information on recorded crime and policing is also published. 'Recorded Crime England and Wales, 12 months to September 2000' and 'Police Service Strength England and Wales, 30 September 2000' can be found in the Library. The recorded crime statistics include information on recorded crime by Basic Command Unit and Crime and Disorder partnerships.

  The impact of Home Office policies and actions is not normally examined by constituency and the statistics which the Department collects, such as recorded crime, cannot be matched in the way requested although set out below are examples relating to the Hampstead and Highgate constituency or the immediate locality:

  Closed Circuit Television (CCTV)

  London Borough of Camden, in partnership with the Metropolitan Police, were awarded £598,000 for a scheme extending the existing Camden Town Centre system with 17 new cameras and provision of a centralised control room. The scheme will encompass three London Underground stations in Camden Town, Chalk Farm and Mornington Crescent.

  Youth Offending

  Hampstead and Highgate is covered by the Camden Youth Offending Team (YOT). Multi-agency partnerships have been strengthened through the establishment of YOTs, involving staff from Social Services, Education, Police, Probation and Health Departments. Seven Youth Justice Board (YJB) Development Grants have been awarded to Camden YOT and Youth Service. The local authority continues to allocate over £300,000 per annum in grants to voluntary organisations, the YOT and other
  558W
  departments to develop preventative initiatives. Links are being developed between the YOT and the local minority ethnic communities.

  A youth inclusion programme has been established in Castlehaven Ward for over 50 young people most at risk of re-offending. This is being funded through YJB and local authority grants for 2 years. The YJB awarded Camden YOT £94,000 for 2000–01 to develop a range of new services including: substance misuse; new Referral Orders and accommodation advice and support. Conditional approval has been given by the YJB for a new Intensive Supervision and Surveillance Scheme (ISSP), between Camden, Islington, Hackney and Tower Hamlet YOTs, to prevent custody and reduce re-offending by the most persistent offenders. Camden YOT is involved with the Police, Housing and Youth Service in response to anti-social behaviour and other local crime issues.

  Camden is on course to achieve the multi-agency target of a 15 per cent. reduction in youth offending by March 2002. The YOT is working closely with the police and youth court to halve the time from arrest to sentence of persistent young offenders from 142 to 71 days. YOT preventative and early intervention referrals and services have increased significantly. These include: restorative conferences between victims and offenders; assessments and intervention in response to anti-social behaviour (to prevent the need for anti-social behaviour orders); assessments and enhanced services for looked after children at risk of re-offending; assessments and intervention for other high risk groups including young people involved in substance misuse and excluded from school.

  Contact time with young people on court orders has doubled to twice weekly for three months, in accordance with revised national standards. The YOT national assessment tool has been implemented in Camden, enabling analysis of risk factors that contribute to young people offending. A new information system has also been purchased for the YOT, to enhance quality of monitoring.

  More generally, all of the policies of the Home Office will impact on the residents of Hampstead and Highgate to a greater or lesser extent. For example:

  376 Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnerships have been established;

  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 103,495 at the end of January 2000 to 49,590 by the end of February 2001; andl

  good progress is being made in reducing the incidence of fire deaths in England and Wales. They have dropped from 605 in 1997 to 534 in 1999.

  Information on the Home Office and its policies is also published on its website "www.homeoffice.gov.uk".

  Borough By-elections
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received on the holding of a borough by-election on the same day as the county council election and general election; and if he will make a statement. [157869]
  559W
  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  None. Under existing legislation there is nothing to prevent a borough by-election from being held on the same day where the polls for the ordinary elections for county councils and a general election are being taken together. In that event, discretion on whether or not that casual election should also be combined with the other elections rests with the returning officers concerned.

  Police Numbers
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the cause was of each revision to the statistics on police numbers for 31 March 2000 published in November 2000; and what the impact of each revision was on the difference between total police numbers for 31 March 2000 published in(a) November 2000 and (b) the final figures published on 15 January 2001. [157121]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  No police strength figures were published in. November 2000. The figures for 31 March first appeared in the Home Office Statistical Bulletin 'Police Service Personnel England and Wales as at 31 March 2000' published on 30 August 2000. A correction to the 31 March 2000 figures was made in the next police strength Bulletin (concerned with figures for 30 September 2000), which was first published on 14 December 2000. This correction was made because it was discovered there had been some double counting of the number of secondments to central services. This originated from the National Criminal Intelligence Service return being completed incorrectly. The overall police strength figures were revised downwards by 248 from 124,418 to 124,170.

  The figures for 30 September 2000 which were published on 14 December 2000 were subsequently revised, and the Bulletin re-issued on 16 January 2001. There were no differences between the police figures for 31 March 2000 in these two Bulletins. The revisions made in the 16 January 2001 publication related to the figures for 30 September. There were two changes. First, the overall police strength figures were revised upwards by 451 officers because of undercounting by the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS). The number of officers seconded to Hertfordshire, Essex and Surrey had been deducted twice from the total number of officers.

  Secondly, the MPS figure on minority ethnic officers on 30 September was corrected from 1,227 to 1,013 because the higher figure had included in the minority ethnic group some 214 officers classified as 'White Irish' or 'Other White'.

  A further revision to the 30 September 2000 figures was made in the written answer given on 22 March 2001, Official Report, column 324W, to my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham (Mr. Pond) which concerned police strength numbers on 31 January 2001. This was due to a correction from Northumbria police who reduced their total number of officers by 67 from 3,885 to 3,818.

  Police Costs
  Mr. Hilary Benn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the cost of employing police officers as a percentage of the total force budget for each police force in England for each year since 1990. [156174]
  560W
  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The information requested is set out in the table which has been placed in the Library.

  Illegal Trafficking (Prostitution)
  Mr. Tynan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) arrests and (b) successful prosecutions there have been of individuals suspected of illegal trafficking in women and girls for the purpose of prostitution in the last 12 months. [157525]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  It is not possible to identify persons in the Home Office's Court Proceedings Database who are arrested or prosecuted for offences connected with illegal trafficking in women and girls for the purpose of prostitution.

  The available information relates to persons proceeded against and those convicted of certain offences of procuration as follows:

  Persons convicted of certain offences of procuration in England and Wales in 1999

  Proceeded against

  Convicted

  Procuring female for immoral purposes, or using drugs to obtain or facilitate sexual intercourse (Sexual Offences Act 1956, sections 2, 3, 4, 22 and 23)

  5

  1

  Detention of female in brothel or other premises (ibid, sections 24)

  —

  —

  Living on earnings of prostitution or exercising control over prostitute (ibid, sections 30 and 31)

  48

  37

  Information for 2000 is not yet available.

  Mr. Tynan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people have been deported from the United Kingdom due to their involvement in the illegal importation of women and girls from abroad for the purpose of sexual exploitation or prostitution in the last 12 months. [157526]

  Mrs. Roche
  The Immigration Service does not routinely receive statistics on prosecutions for non-immigration criminal offences, such as the involvement in the illegal importation of women and girls from abroad for the purpose of sexual exploitation or prostitution, therefore no correlation of these offences and the deportation of offenders can be made.

  Voluntary Search and Rescue
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what support his Department gives to local voluntary search and rescue organisations. [157439]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Local voluntary search and rescue organisations benefit from the support which the Home Office gives to the search and rescue community at the national level.

  The Home Office (HO) provides technical advice on radio communications and spectrum matters to the National Controlling Committee which meets under the auspices of Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO). The committee, among other activities, vets applications by local voluntary search and rescue organisations to use dedicated HO frequencies.
  561W
  It is anticipated that the work of this committee and HO support will be transferred during April 2001 to the United Kingdom Search and Rescue (SAR) Communications Working Group under the newly formed UK SAR Strategic Committee.

  Wrongful Convictions
  Mrs. Ellman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what progress he has made in providing support for people who have been wrongfully convicted. [157445]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The Home Office has set up a working party to look at what might be needed, in terms of advice and counselling, needed by those released after successful appeal against conviction. A report has been prepared by a consultant and recommendations will go to Ministers by the summer.

  Mrs. Ellman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people have been released on grounds of wrongful conviction in the past five years. [157446]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Provisional figures relating to prisoners whose appeal was upheld on release and who were discharged on appeal for the past five years are shown in the table.

  Provisional figures for this year from 1 January to 28 February, inclusive, show that of the 13,587 final discharges so far, 58 had their appeal upheld on release and 25 were discharged on appeal.

  Number of prisoners whose appeal was upheld on their final release from prison, and the number of prisoners who were discharged on appeal, for the past five years

  Year

  Appeal upheld on release

  Discharged on appeal

  1996

  222

  218

  1997

  231

  251

  1998

  404

  287

  1999

  473

  282

  2000

  405

  220

  Total

  1,735

  1,258

  Racism
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many complaints in relation to allegations of racism(a) were made, (b) were investigated by the police, (c) resulted in prosecutions and (d) resulted in successful prosecutions in (i) 1999 and (ii) 2000. [156076]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  [holding answer 29 March 2001]: Information recorded centrally shows that the number of racist incidents recorded by the police throughout England and Wales for the financial year 1998–99 was 23,049 and for 1999–2000 was 47,814. These are incidents recorded either under the Association of Chief Police Officers' definition of a racist incident
  "any incident in which it appears to the reporting or investigating officer that the complaint involves an element of racial motivation, or any incident which includes an allegation of racial motivation made by any person"
  562W
  which applied until February 1999 or under the new simplified definition of a racist incident proposed by the Lawrence Inquiry, adopted at that time ("any incident which is perceived to be racist by the victim or any other person"). Incidents included here are therefore wider than the normal definition of a crime in the Crime Statistics and include low level harassment.

  Information has been recorded centrally since 1999, relating to racially aggravated offences (the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 introduced a series of new racially aggravated offences from 30 September 1998), and published in 'Statistics on Race and the Criminal Justice System' on 18 January 2001 (a copy of which is in the Library). During the financial year 1999–2000 21,750 racially aggravated offences were recorded by police throughout England and Wales, of which 34 per cent. were detected by police. 3,815 racially aggravated offences were prosecuted at magistrates court. 1,073 (28 per cent.) resulted in convictions and 1,755 (46 per cent.) were either terminated early or acquitted and 990 (26 per cent.) cases were committed to he Crown Court for trial. A further 178 persons were tried at Crown Court, of whom approximately one half were convicted.

  In terms of figures relating to investigations by police of these offences and any details regarding prosecutions relating to racist incidents, data are unavailable.

  Police (Greater Manchester)
  Mr. Stunell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many vacancies there were for police officers in the Greater Manchester Constabulary in(a) 1992, (b) 1997 and (c) 2001. [156182]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The available information is set out in the table. It compares the actual number of officers in post with the police authority's budgeted provision. Information on budgeted figures has been provided, where available, by the Chief Constable.

  Greater Manchester Police

  Year

  Budgeted police numbers

  Actual police numbers1

  Vacancies

  31 March 1992

  7,057

  7,061

  0

  31 March 1997

  2n/a

  6,922

  n/k

  31 January 20013

  46,935

  6,867

  68

  1 Before 1 April 1955 actual police numbers were based on a headcount. Since April 1995 they have been counted on a full-time equivalent basis.

  2 The Greater Manchester Police budgeted figure for March 1997 was based on a headcount of 7,050. It is not therefore comparable to the actual figure which is based on full-time equivalents.

  3 Latest available published figures are currently those for 31 January 2001.

  4 The figures for January 2001 include the force's Crime Fighting Fund allocation.

  I understand from the Greater Manchester Police that the vacancies at 31 January 2001 have now been filled.

  Female Prisoners (Shackling)
  Jackie Ballard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement about the shackling of a female prisoner from Highpoint to a prison officer during medical treatment recently. [155152]
  563W
  Mr. Boateng
  I have written separately to the hon. Member on this issue.

  Pensioners (Home Security)
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many pensioner households have had Government funded and approved locks fitted to their homes; and if he will make a statement. [157587]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The "locks for pensioners" scheme that we are funding in conjunction with the Department for Environment, Transport and the Region's Home Energy Efficiency Scheme enables certain low income pensioners in high crime areas to have their house checked for security and if necessary to have additional security features such as door and window locks fitted. The scheme has been running in England for eight months and, by the end of March, almost 47,000 houses had been surveyed of which 22,441 were found to require security upgrades. So far, 21,715 of these have been referred to the registered installers and for 10,778 houses, the security upgrades are known to have been completed. The true figure will, however, be significantly higher as there can be a delay of several weeks between the work being completed and confirmation of this fact being received by the two organisations managing the scheme.

  The equivalent scheme started in Wales only in February and, as yet, there are no centrally held figures for the numbers of Welsh households that have had improved security fittings as a result.

  We have also funded a number of projects that provide security upgrades to burglary victims or other vulnerable people under our Reducing Burglary Initiative. We do not, however, have central records of the numbers fitted or whether the recipients were pensioners.

  Juries
  Mr. Hilary Benn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the progress of the review on whether deaf people should be allowed to serve on juries. [157232]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The Government are intending to publish a consultation paper on the implications of third party support for jurors, including the use of interpreters for deaf jurors, within the next few months.

  Domestic Violence
  Ms Moran
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimate he has made of the cost to public funds of dealing with domestic violence in the last 12 months. [157547]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  We have not, in the last 12 months, undertaken an assessment of the cost to public funds of dealing with domestic violence. We know that this cost is a significant one: the research study "Counting the costs; estimating the impact of domestic violence in the London Borough of Hackney" published by Crime Concern in 1998, estimated the total cost of providing services for the survivors of domestic violence in Greater London to be in the region of £278 million per annum. This gives a fair indication of the scale of the costs involved.
  564W
  The Government are determined to reduce all crimes of violence including domestic violence, which is a serious crime accounting for just under a quarter of all violent crime. Our strategy for doing so is set out in "fighting violent crime together: an action plan" which was published in January.

  Crime (Blyth Valley)
  Mr. Ronnie Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what measures he proposes to tackle crime in Blyth Valley. [157297]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The Government are committed to tackling crime effectively, not only by reacting properly when it occurs and having the appropriate measures in place to deal with the perpetrators, but by preventing it happening in the first instance.

  Recorded crime statistics published on 16 January 2001 showed that overall crime had fallen by 0.2 per cent. in England and Wales in the 12 months to September 2000. This compared with an overall fall in the Northumberland police area of 5.5 per cent.—the 10th consecutive year of crime reduction in that area. Data relating to the Blyth Valley Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnership showed lower than average rates of offences per 1,000 population in key areas, including violence against the person, robbery, domestic burglary and theft of and from a vehicle.

  We support the Partnership in its work to develop local strategies for reducing crime and disorder. Its local initiatives to bring about overall crime reduction and tackle drug-related crime, include targeted policing, Closed Circuit Television and Neighbourhood Warden schemes.

  We have recently announced £60 million funding over the next three years to support Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnerships and £300 million to tackle drug-related problems, £220 million of which will be directed through the 376 Partnerships, to deliver community-based strategies.

  Police Protection (Ministers)
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the total cost of police protection was for former Ministers who(a) are and (b) are no longer hon. Members for the latest 12 months for which figures are available. [157608]

  Mr. Straw
  We seek to ensure the most effective and efficient protective security arrangements for public figures in the light of the changing threat from terrorism and other continuing risks. It is not our policy to comment on the details of protection arrangements for individuals, as to do so could compromise their security.

  Departmental Policies (Amber Valley)
  Judy Mallaber
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will set out, with statistical information relating as directly as possible to the Amber Valley constituency, the effects on Amber Valley of his Department's policies and actions since 2 May 1997. [157132]

  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
  565W
  communities are properly balanced, and the protection and security of the public are maintained. Detailed information on the impact of 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 2000–01, is available in the Library. Information on recorded crime and policing is also published. "Recorded Crime England and Wales, 12 months to September 2000" and "Police Service Strength England and Wales, 30 September 2000" can be found in the Library. The recorded crime statistics include information on recorded crime by Basic Command Unit and Crime and Disorder partnerships.

  The impact of Home Office policies and actions is not normally examined by constituency and the statistics which the Department collects, such as recorded crime, cannot be matched in the way requested although set out are examples relating to the Amber Valley constituency or the immediate locality:

  Targeted Policing Initiative (TPI)

  Derby constabulary was awarded a total of £407,000 for two schemes under round 2 of the TPI.

  Derbyshire constabulary was awarded £317,000 for a force-wide project, which included; Mapping of the drug markets, identifying key targets and routes of supply, analysing information about the market and the production of an individual strategy for each market. The mapping of drug markets will allow for the creation of a dynamic approach to tackling the problem.

  Derbyshire police (with other forces) was awarded £90,000 for a force-wide project, which included; Distraction burglary—Undertake research into the distraction burglary problem: its true extent, how offenders target victims and how offenders can be deterred once they have selected a potential target.

  Closed Circuit Television (CCTV)

  Amber Valley borough council was awarded approximately £127,000 for a 10-camera scheme, expanding the existing system into areas of Amber Valley's four main town centres, Alfreton, Belper, Heanor and Ripley.

  Youth Offending

  Amber Valley is covered by the Derbyshire Youth Offending Team (YOT). The Derbyshire YOT is providing Appropriate Adult services for young people when interviewed by police and has dealt with 242 requests for their services between April and December 2000. The Derbyshire YOT is utilising the ASSET assessment system in order to ensure intervention work is effectively targeted at the personal, family, social, educational and health problems that contribute to the causes of a young person's offending behaviour. The health staff attached to the YOT are carrying out basic assessments of young offenders for substance misuse and, where appropriate, referring them on to specialist substance misuse services for young people.

  The police officers seconded to the Derbyshire and Derby City YOT have delivered 50 training sessions on the final warning scheme to over 1,200 police officers in order to ensure consistency of police assessment and referral to the YOTs. More than 12 community reparation schemes have been established throughout Derbyshire in order to allow the YOTs to deliver victim-offender
  566W
  mediation services. There is a wide range of activities available to meet the needs of the young person and provide opportunities for further development through accredited training and skills.

  Youth Service staff play a lead role in the development of preventative initiatives to support the action plans of local Crime and Disorder youth crime reduction strategies at local council level. Derbyshire Youth Offending Service was successful in being awarded "Summer Splash" funding in July 2000. The service worked with other providers front both voluntary agencies and the local district council to deliver a variety of activities in four wards of Bolsover. This resulted in a marked reduction of nuisance calls and offending in this area.

  More generally, all of the policies of the Home Office will impact on the residents of Amber Valley to a greater or lesser extent. For example:
  376 Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnerships have been established;
  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 103,495 at the end of January 2000 to 49,690 by the end of February 2001; and
  good progress is being made in reducing the incidence of fire deaths in England and Wales. They have dropped from 605 in 1997 to 534 in 1999

  Information on the Home Office and its policies is also published on its website www.homeoffice.gov.uk.

  Departmental Policies (Eccles)
  Mr. Ian Stewart
  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 Eccles constituency, the effects on Eccles of his Department's policies and actions since 2 May 1997. [157286]

  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 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 2000–01, is available in the Library. Information on recorded crime and policing is also published. "Recorded Crime England and Wales, 12 months to September 2000" and "Police Service Strength England and Wales, 30 September 2000" can be found in the Library. The recorded crime statistics include information on recorded crime by Basic Command Unit and Crime and Disorder partnerships.

  The impact of Home Office policies and actions is not normally examined by constituency and the statistics which the Department collects, such as recorded crime, cannot be matched in the way requested although set out are examples relating to the Eccles constituency or the immediate locality:

  Reducing Burglary Initiative

  Greater Manchester police in partnership with Salford city council were awarded approximately £253,000 for two schemes under round 2 of the Reducing Burglary Initiative.
  567W
  One scheme for Pendlebury, Swinton Town Center, Valley Estate and Swinton Park was awarded nearly £80,000. The main interventions proposed are target hardening; community mobilisation; targeted policing and property marking.

  One scheme covering Peel Green, Patricroft, Salford was awarded £173,000. The main interventions proposed are target hardening; a landlord accreditation service; community mobilisation and environmental resistance.

  Closed Circuit Television (CCTV)

  Salford city council has one scheme, potentially worth over £411,000, shortlisted for further consideration under round 2 of the CCTV Initiative. The scheme would cover parts of the Salford and Eccles constituencies.

  Youth Offending

  Eccles is covered by the Salford Youth Offending Team (YOT). While crime and fear of crime remain the most significant issue for communities, considerable progress has been made in the City during the past year, with the largest reduction of recorded crime within all of Greater Manchester. Total recorded crime reduced by 5.4 per cent, including a reduction in domestic burglary of 19 per cent., other burglary of 13 per cent. and a reduction in vehicle crime of 7 per cent. These figures indicate the success of a range of initiatives, such as the burglary reduction programmes. They reflect the determination of the partnership to continue in its multi-agency approach to the reduction of crime.

  The Salford Youth Inclusion Project (YIP) is located in Seedley/Langworthy. The project started in July 2000 and receives up to £75,000 a year under the Youth Inclusion Programme. The objectives of YIP, administered by the Youth Justice Board are to: reduce arrest rates in the target group by 60 per cent.; reduce recorded crime in the area by 30 per cent. and achieve at least 1–3 reduction in truancy and exclusions among the target young people. YIPs provide targeted assistance to a core group of 13 to 16-year-olds most at risk of offending and school exclusion.

  The Salford YIP is already working with 15–20 young people in this high-risk target group and over 60 young people more generally. The Salford YIP offers young people a robust assessment of their personal and training needs and an individually tailored package of assistance. This may include: mentoring; sports activity; arts and craft sessions themed around consequences of offending behaviour; education and training and pre-employment support and social skills development and health sessions.

  The Salford YIP has successfully supported three of the 10 young people identified at most risk, into employment. A further two have taken up part-time employment. Five of the eight most persistent truants in the area have returned to school and a further group of at risk young people have taken up volunteering opportunities, continued into further education or joined the Army Cadets.

  More generally, all of the policies of the Home Office will impact on the residents of Eccles to a greater or lesser extent. For example:
  376 Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnerships have been established;
  racial harassment and racially motivated crimes have been made criminal offences by the Crime and Disorder Act 1998;
  568W
  the asylum backlog has been cut from 103,495 at the end of January 2000 to 49,690 by the end of February 2001; and
  good progress is being made in reducing the incidence of fire deaths in England and Wales. They have dropped from 605 in 1997 to 534 in 1999.

  Information on the Home Office and its policies is also published on its website www.homeoffice.gov.uk.

  Stuart Howarth
  Mr. Woolas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will instruct the Prison Service authorities to move Stuart Howarth (Et 7916) to an open prison: and what representations he has received concerning the appropriateness of the prison location where he is serving his sentence. [157229]

  Mr. Boateng:
  No. The categorisation and allocation of prisoners is a matter for the Director General of the Prison Service. The Prison Service carries out the categorisation of prisoners according to a rigorous and objective assessment of the risk they present, and in accordance with established guidelines. These assessments are best carried out by those on the ground, but I can say that under the Prison Service Order on categorisation and allocation, a prisoner sentenced to more than 12 months for an offence of violence would not normally be regarded as suitable for category D (open conditions) on initial categorisation.

  Mr. Howarth was sentenced on 27 March 2001, and following receipt of the necessary reports from the police and probation services and others, he will be categorised according to the likelihood that he will seek to escape and the risk that he would pose should he do so. Mr. Howarth's custodial behaviour and the risk he poses to control will also be taken into consideration.

  Mr. Howarth's allocation to a prison establishment will depend on his security category, the need to make the best possible use of available spaces in training prisons, and his particular needs. I have not received any representations concerning the appropriateness of his current prison location. Furthermore, I understand from the governor of Manchester prison that Mr. Howarth has not made any representations locally about his location.

  Immigration Rules
  Mr. Wilkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on changes to the immigration rules to facilitate the entry into the UK of information technology and e-commerce specialists. [157695]

  Mrs. Roche
  The Government have made a number of changes in the immigration system in order to facilitate the entry into the United Kingdom of highly skilled people.

  The results of a fundamental review of the work permit system, operated by the Department for Education and Employment, were announced in the 2000 Budget statement and a range of measures have been introduced to streamline the system over the last year. This has led to a number of changes facilitating the entry of information technology and e-commerce specialists. For example, the skills shortages list, which makes it easier to obtain a permit where no European Economic Area (EEA) resident

  569W
  is available to fill a post, has been updated to include more information technology and e-commerce jobs. Additionally, to ensure that the system responds quickly to shortages, a sector panel for the Information Technology Communications and Electronics industry has been established. Also, to be eligible for a work permit, two years' post-graduate work experience is no longer needed, thereby enabling non-EEA students with specialist skills to work immediately after graduation in the UK.

  Other changes include a pilot scheme, launched by the Home Office in September 2000, to attract more business innovators to the UK. It is aimed at those entrepreneurs looking to develop business ideas in the service and technology sectors, especially e-commerce, even if they do not have substantial amounts of their own money to invest. 38 applications have so far been approved.

  We are also developing a scheme designed to allow individuals of outstanding ability to come to the UK to seek work. This will help the UK in competing for highly skilled workers.

  Security Service
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he has taken to recruit officers for the Security Service at universities other than Oxford, Cambridge and London. [157330]

  Mr. Straw
  The Security Service is committed to a policy of equal opportunity. The Service advertises in the national press and in media specifically offering employment opportunities for graduates from any higher education establishment, and not specific universities. Of those graduates recruited for the year 2000–01 as intelligence desk officers, at least 74 per cent. graduated from universities other than Oxford, Cambridge or London.

  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many members of each ethnic group are employed in senior grades of the Security Service; and what proportion each grade represents of the total. [157331]

  Mr. Straw
  Currently, all senior employees in the Security Service, equivalent to Senior Civil Service grades, are white. The number of such employees represents 1.4 per cent. of total staffing

  The Security Service has been working to raise its profile as an employer among under-represented groups, for example through the use of carefully targeted advertising. The Service is determined, through continuing recruitment campaigns, to have a work force that fully reflects the society that it defends.

  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proportion of employees in senior grades in the Security Service are women. [157332]

  Mr. Straw
  Currently, 13.8 per cent. of the senior grades in the Security Service, that is grades equivalent to Senior Civil Service grades, are women.

  Election Literature
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the total costs were of 570W
  (a) paper, (b) printing, (c) distribution and (d) circulating letters dated 14 February to acting returning officers for parliamentary constituencies in England and Wales, returning officers for local government areas in England and Wales and electoral registration officers for district and London boroughs in England and Wales in relation to leaflet ER3 published by the Communications Directorate of his Department in January; what the cost was of the destruction of the leaflet; and if he will make a statement. [157634]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  [holding answer 9 April 2001]: The leaflet "Make Your Voice Heard" informs the public of changes to the system of updating the electoral register allowed by the Representation of the People Act 2000 and implemented on 16 February 2001. The costs for production of this leaflet, which was changed due to an error in calculating the cut-off date for applying for registration on April's "rolling register", are (a) £15,627.50 for paper; (b) £23,905.38 for printing; and (c) £947.50 for distribution. The costs of informing electoral administrators about the availability of the leaflet were marginal as notification was sent by e-mail. The cost of re-cycling the leaflet is £200. The leaflet was re-issued and has been replaced by another which is not date specific.

  Tower Blocks
  Mr. Hilary Benn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the safety and security of residents in tower blocks. [156023]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  [pursuant to the reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North (Ms Buck) in response to a supplementary question to that asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, Central on 9 April 2001, Official Report, column 693]My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary recently met my hon. Friend and local people involved in tackling the problems of drug abuse. I understood that the Home Secretary visited the Regent's Park and Kensington, North constituency as I informed the House but I have now been told that the meeting was at the House of Commons. I do, however, continue to assure my hon. Friend that tackling crack and associated drugs is high on the Government's agenda. We cannot tolerate the behaviour experienced by the residents in her constituency, and we are committed to addressing it.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  School Discipline
  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what guidance he plans to issue on school discipline following the outcome of the Marjorie Evans case. [155231]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  I have been asked to reply.

  In Wales, that is a matter for the National Assembly for Wales.

  Employment Service
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what target levels have been set for the aims and objectives of the Employment Service in 2001–02. [156866]

  Mr. Blunkett
  The targets for the Employment Service, which I am announcing today, build on the success of the agency in delivering the Government's welfare to work policies, working in close partnership with employers and others. These targets pave the way for the new agency, Jobcentre Plus, whose pathfinder offices will begin work in October. They give stronger emphasis than ever before to helping individuals facing particular difficulty in the labour market to move from unemployment and economic inactivity into sustainable employment. The highest priority will be given to helping people who have been economically inactive for long periods, including lone parents, to find work, and to capitalise on the opportunities created by the new generation of New Deals. For the first time, the Employment Service will have a target to measure its success in helping long term unemployed people not only to find work but to remain in work. I will also be introducing, from October, two new targets: to support ES' s efforts to achieve parity of outcomes for ethnic minority clients by 2004, and to support the key role which ES will play in identifying and remedying shortfalls in the basic skills of unemployed people, to enhance their employability.

  I commend this package of targets. They are challenging for the Employment Service to deliver. I believe that the job entry targets are very stretching. I am looking for improved levels of customer service to jobseekers and employers, together with consolidation of the improved performance against the Jobseeker's Allowance Labour Market Activity target. These targets cover a full year, but I propose to carry out a comprehensive consultation and review later in the year that will inform the setting of targets for the new Agency for people of working age, called Jobcentre Plus, for 2002–03.

  The targets for the Employment Service for 2001–02 are:

  ES APA Text

  Vision and Purpose
  The Employment Service aims to make a major contribution to an efficient and flexible labour market, and to the Government's objectives of an increase in the effective supply of labour, and countering poverty and social exclusion by helping welfare recipients facing the most severe disadvantages to compete effectively for jobs. It does this by working closely with employers and with its private, voluntary and public sector partners to provide a quality service for all people without a job and to promote employment opportunities for all who can work. It aims to attract a diverse range of vacancies and to fill those vacancies quickly by matching the right people and skills with the right jobs. Its chief priority is to help individuals facing particular difficulty in the labour market to move from welfare and economic inactivity into sustainable employment. It does this through correct application of the Jobseeker's Allowance (JSA) regime, delivery of the New Deals, and provision of appropriate information, advice, training and support. The challenge and opportunity for the Employment Service, is to sustain continuous improvement in its services to jobseekers and employers and to make those services more accessible and relevant to customer needs, through effective use of modern technology and close working with a wide range of partners.
  572W
  Aim
  To help people without jobs to find work and employers to fill their vacancies.

  Objectives and Targets

  Objective A
  To help all people without jobs, and particularly those on welfare and at a disadvantage in the labour market, to find and keep work by providing appropriate information, advice, training and support and by encouraging employers to open up more opportunities to them.

  Targets

  A1: To help into work 70,000 people who are either jobless lone parents, participants in the New Deal for Partners, participants in the New Deal for Disabled People or other disabled people claiming 'inactive' benefits.

  A2: To help into work 410,000 participants in the JSA New Deals, New Deal 50+, Employment Zones, other disabled people not recorded in A1, and others at a particular disadvantage.

  A3: To help into work 720,000 welfare recipients and other disadvantaged people.

  A4: To help into work 1,225,000 jobless people.

  A5: For 75 per cent. of long-term claimants to be off benefit 13 weeks after starting a job into which they were placed by the Employment Service.

  Objective B
  To ensure that the rights and relevant labour market responsibilities of people on JSA and other benefits are fulfilled, while helping to combat fraud and abuse of the benefit system.

  Target
  B1: To ensure that the relevant labour market responsibilities of people on JSA are fulfilled in 90 per cent. of cases checked.

  Objective C
  To harness new technology, the pursuit of excellence and continuous improvement to deliver effective, efficient and accessible services to all people without jobs and to employers, in Jobcentres and increasingly through other locations and means of communication.

  Targets

  C1: To achieve a 92.5 per cent. customer service level for jobseekers.

  C2: To achieve an 82 per cent. customer service level for employers.

  Objective D
  To deliver services to all ES customers in a way which respects individual differences, helps to overcome disadvantages due to ethnicity, gender, age or disability and achieves the best possible outcome for each of them.

  Dl: From October: To achieve a proportion of new ethnic minority claimants who leave JSA for a job within 12 months, which is equal to the percentage of all white claimants leaving JSA for a job within 12 months (to work towards equality of outcomes by 2004.) (Target level to be announced.)

  D2: From October: To screen benefit claimants for basic skills requirement and where needed refer for appropriate training. (Exact target wording and level to be announced.)

  Milestone Target
  By 30 September 2001, for 95 per cent. of jobseekers claiming JSA to have been asked to identify their ethnicity and for this answer to be recorded.

  Target levels for the Employment Service in Scotland and Wales, derived from the GB wide targets, will be announced shortly.

  Teacher Vacancies (Hazel Grove)
  Mr. Stunell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many vacancies for teachers there were in the Hazel Grove constituency in(a) 1992, (b) 1997 and (c) 2001. [156176]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The information requested above is not held centrally. The number of vacancies for teachers in the maintained sector for Stockport LEA were as follows:

  January

  1992

  1997

  2000

  Maintained nursery, primary and secondary schools

  0

  1

  6

  Maintained special schools

  1—

  0

  1

  Total

  0

  1

  7

  Vacancy rate (percentage)

  0.0

  0.1

  0.3

  1 Not available

  The latest year for which published data are currently available is 2000.

  In 1992, vacancy figures were collected for the maintained nursery, primary and secondary sector only.

  The number of regular teachers (excluding short-term supply) in the maintained schools sector in England at January 2000 was 404,600, the highest for ten years and 6,900 higher than January 1998.

  There was a growth of 2,300 in the number of people recruited to train to be teachers between 1999–2000 and 2000–01, the first such increase since 1992–93.

  From April 2001 new graduate recruits can expect to earn £17,000 a year (up 6 per cent. from the previous year) and starting salaries in Inner London will rise to £20,000 (up 9 per cent. from the previous year).

  Sure Start
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many of the districts invited to develop programmes for the fourth wave of Sure Start programmes are districts which qualify for funding under the Neighbourhood Nurseries Initiative. [157116]

  Yvette Cooper
  [holding answer 9 April 2001]: All 66 fourth wave Sure Start districts will be able to apply for funding under the Neighbourhood Nurseries Initiative. All the fourth wave Sure Start districts have large proportions of their population living in wards which are among the most deprived 20 per cent. in England according to DETR's Index of Deprivation. Any area covered by wards in the most deprived 20 per cent. wards in England can apply for funding under the Neighbourhood Nurseries Initiative. Guidance on the two initiatives strongly encourages close and co-operative working between Sure Start programmes and Neighbourhood Nurseries.

  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment, pursuant to his answer of 28 March 2001,Official Report, columns 679–80W, on Sure Start (1) (a) if the information available on deprivation included statistics on the varying levels of
  574W
  deprivation within the borough of Warrington and (b) what assessment was made of health inequalities within Warrington when making a decision; [157176]

  (2) what information was available to him on levels of deprivation and health inequalities in the (a) Bewsey, (b) Orford, (c) Poplars, (d) Hulme and (e) Poulton North wards in Warrington prior to making a decision on the fourth wave of Sure Start. [157177]

  Yvette Cooper
  [holding answer 9 April 2001]: The Government identify Sure Start areas at the local authority district level using information from DETR's Index of Deprivation on levels of deprivation at the district level. Stakeholders in these districts are then invited to select a local catchment area for a Sure Start programme in that district based on their knowledge about local needs and levels of poverty and disadvantage and the Government's requirement that the area must
  "largely be covered by wards within the worst 20 per cent. of wards in England according to DETR's Index of Deprivation".

  The stakeholders would be able to look at more detailed sub-district information, including that on health inequalities, in deciding on the local catchment area.

  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list the Sure Start programmes identified to date, indicating the programmes which are located in areas which are among the 20 per cent. most disadvantaged areas as identified by the DETR index. [157117]

  Yvette Cooper
  [holding answer 9 April 2001]: The information requested is contained in tables, copies of which have been placed in the Libraries.

  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment, pursuant to his answer of 28 March 2001,Official Report, columns 679–80W, on Sure Start, if he will list those districts assessed for the fourth wave of Sure Start programmes; which indices were used to measure levels of deprivation in those areas; and if he will publish the results. [157175]

  Yvette Cooper
  [holding answer 9 April 2001]: The information requested is contained in tables, copies of which have been placed in the Libraries.

  Infant/Primary Schools
  Judy Mallaber
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list for each infant and primary school in Amber Valley the number of classes containing over 30 pupils on(a) 1 May 1997 and (b) the latest date for which figures are available. [157118]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The Government do not publish figures for individual schools. In the table are the figures for the Amber Valley constituency and Derbyshire LEA. These clearly show that a significant number of children in Derbyshire are benefiting from being in smaller primary classes as a result of the Government's investment in education.
  575W

  Number of classes with over 30 pupils—January 1997 and 2001

  1997

  2001

  Derbyshire

  KS1 classes

  408

  29

  All primary classes

  1,314

  613

  Derby

  KS1 classes

  1—

  3

  All primary classes

  1—

  191

  Amber Valley

  KS1 classes

  33

  5

  All primary classes

  22

  95

  1 Not applicable

  Notes:

  1. In April 1997 Derbyshire LEA divided into two separate authorities—Derbyshire and City of Derby

  2. Figures derived from returns made to the Department in January each year—Annual Schools Census

  British Sign Language
  Mr. Hilary Benn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what percentage of schools teaching deaf children offer British sign language as part of the curriculum. [157233]

  Jacqui Smith
  This information is not collected centrally.

  Stockholm European Council
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what studies have been made by institutions of the European Union concerning the demographic challenge referred to in paragraph 7 of the Presidency Conclusions of the Stockholm European Council. [157335]

  Ms Jowell
  I welcome the references in the Stockholm Conclusions to demography and active ageing, particularly the call at paragraph 9 for a joint report by 2002 covering this topic. I understand that European institutions have undertaken a range of studies, including a European Commission communication published in October 2000 and entitled "Communication on the future evolution of social protection from a long-term point of view: Safe and sustainable pensions". The Economic Policy Committee produced a report on a similar theme on 6 November 2000 entitled "Progress report to the ECOFIN Council on the impact of ageing populations on public pensions". A more technical overview is given by the Commission's Economic Paper 138, published in November 1999 by K. McMorrow and W. Roeger, entitled "The economic consequences of ageing populations" Further information on these and related documents can be found on the European Union's "Europa" website.

  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment where the new European Social Agenda, referred to in paragraph 25 of the Presidency Conclusions of the Stockholm European Council adopted at Nice was published; and what changes are envisaged in EU social policy in the next five years. [157337]

  Ms Jowell
  The new European Social Agenda was published as Annexe 1 to the Presidency Conclusions of the Nice European Council Meeting held on 7, 8 and 9 December 2000. This is easily accessible through 576W
  the European Union "Europa" website. A text of the European Social Agenda was deposited in the Libraries of both Houses on 19 December 2000.

  The European Social Agenda sets out a framework and proposals to modernise European social policy over the next five years. Many of the proposals will contribute directly to the Lisbon strategic goal of becoming "The most competitive and dynamic knowledge based economy in the world", for example commitments to increasing employability through lifelong learning, and addressing skills shortages, particularly in ICT.

  The initiative now lies with the Commission to bring forward individual proposals. The UK Government will continue to scrutinise each proposal as it is brought forward to ensure that it has a proper treaty base.

  School Standards and Framework Act
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if it is the policy of the Government that independent appeals tribunals under section 94(6) of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998 should inform appellants that their decisions are binding in law. [157459]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  [holding answer 9 April 2001]: Paragraph 15 of Schedule 24 to the School Standards and Framework Act 1998 specifies what information an appeal panel must give to appellants when informing them of the panel's decision on their appeal for a school place. It does not require appeal panels to inform appellants that its decision is binding on the admission authority whose decision is the subject of the appeal.

  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what assessment he has made of the compatibility of his powers to overrule an independent appeals panel under section 94(6) of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998 with the United Kingdom's obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights. [157460]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  [holding answer 9 April 2001]: Section 96 of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998 provides local education authorities with a power of last resort to direct the admission of children to a foundation school when those children have been refused admission to, or been excluded from, all schools within a reasonable distance. Upon a referral from the governing body concerned, section 97 of the 1998 Act empowers the Secretary of State to name an alternative school in the direction. The Colne Community School was the subject of the last direction proposed by the Essex local education authority and referred to the Secretary of State. In the event, a vacancy arose and the pupil was admitted without the need for a direction.

  The Court of Appeal has held, in R v. Richmond LBC ex parte JC, that the requirements of Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights are not engaged in admission appeals, because admission appeals are determinative only of parents' preferences as to the school at which they wish education to be provided for their child, rather than any civil right of the child.
  577W
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what the policy of the Government is concerning overcrowded schools, with particular reference to the Colne Community School, Essex. [157461]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  [holding answer 9 April 2001]: The School Standards and Framework Act 1998 requires each maintained school to have a 'standard number', which is the minimum number of pupils it must admit, if there is demand. This continues a principle established in the Education Reform Act 1988. Where an individual school chooses to have a higher 'admission number', that is the minimum number of pupils it must admit, where there is demand. Once an admission number has been set, the admission authority must respect that number, unless exceptional circumstances apply.

  The Colne Community School, like all other maintained schools, can refuse applications for places once the standard number, or higher admission number, has been reached. But the 1998 Act makes sensible provision for local education authorities to place children in schools which have reached their standard number, or higher admission number, if all other schools within a reasonable distance have refused the child a place or where the child has been excluded from all other schools within a reasonable distance. The alternative would mean the pupil attending a school beyond a reasonable distance.

  Administrative Burdens (Schools)
  Mr. Coaker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what steps he is taking to reduce administrative burdens in schools. [157775]

  Jacqui Smith
  The Government are fully committed to reducing administrative burdens in schools in order to allow teachers to concentrate on teaching and raising standards. Examples of our action to do so include:

  We have guaranteed to cut by a third the number of documents, and by a half the number of pages, that the Government send automatically to schools during this school year—in the first two terms of this school year, we will have halved the paperwork we sent to schools, compared with the first two terms last year.

  We have radically simplified this year's Standards Fund—we have replaced bidding, claiming and reporting with a single expenditure returns sheet; we have allowed schools to vire funds between almost all grant headings; we have allowed schools to carry funds over to the end of the school year; and we have introduced monitoring against existing targets.

  We have placed model schemes of work on the DfEE website to underpin all National Curriculum subjects at Key Stages 1–3—they are entirely voluntary and teachers may adopt them or adapt them as they wish. These have now been joined by over 1,000 useful lesson plans and resources in a further effort to reduce paperwork and make the necessary lesson preparation as straightforward as possible.

  We have developed new ICT resources, including the launch of:

  (a) EASEA—a full electronic in-tray and document archiving service for head teachers, teachers and governors that now has 7.000 registered users

  578W

  (b) TeacherNet—a single web page offering links to the full range of educational resources on the internet

  (c) an internet based "A-Z" of school leadership and management—an electronic encyclopaedia for heads with succinct, practical guidance on a wide range of topics, full search facilities, and links through to reference material on organisational and legal issues, and examples of good practice.

  We have harnessed DfEE and Cabinet Office resources to simplify some of the paperwork that schools complete—the first results of this joint project are set out in the "Making a Difference: Reducing School Paperwork" report. This shows potential savings for a typical school of over 200 hours every year—equivalent to more than a month's work for one person; and across the school system 4.5 million hours could be saved annually.

  We are reducing data collection and avoiding data request duplication. We have set up a high level group with head teacher representation to review all new and existing DfEE data collection. This approach has been extended to involve QCA, Ofsted and TTA. We are also developing a common set of data for schools that, from 2002, will be collected once only and shared electronically by all authorised parties and agencies.

  Teacher workload is being reduced with 44,000 FTE extra non-administrative support staff, including teaching assistants and learning mentors, since 1997. Within this, we have provided funding to recruit and train an additional 20,000 FTE teaching assistants between 1999 and 2002.

  We have introduced a £35 million Technology Package to enable schools to invest in new computers for management and administration, provide training and install software to introduce a seamless system that will save the average school five days work per year.

  We have reviewed Ofsted procedures. Ofsted inspections can be a source of pressure on teachers and we have taken steps to reduce that pressure through the reduced notice period; shorter 'light touch' inspections for the most effective schools; and extending the maximum interval between inspections to six years.

  We have provided specific help for small schools. In 2000, we set up two grants within the Standards Fund to assist small schools and we have now merged these into a single Small Schools Fund. The Fund provides support for small schools to help them with the extra difficulties that administration and collaboration present. The Fund is worth £80 million in 2001–02 and is guaranteed for at least three years.

  School Leavers
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many(a) male and (b) female 16-year-olds left school in the last six years without recognized qualifications. [157824]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The numbers of(a) male and (b) female pupils in England aged 16 who achieved no GCSE or GNVQ equivalent passes in the last six years are shown in the table.
  579W

  (a) Male

  (b) Female

  Total

  1994–95

  27,453

  19,153

  46,606

  1995–96

  27,142

  19,071

  46,213

  1996–97

  26,216

  18,738

  44,954

  1997–98

  22,539

  15,329

  37,868

  1998–99

  20,942

  14,094

  35,036

  1999–2000

  19,191

  13,114

  32,305

  Head Teachers (Coventry)
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how much money will be paid to head teachers in schools in Coventry, South as a part of the education funding announced in the budget. [157857]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  Schools will receive School Standards Grant (SSG) on the basis of the number of pupils on roll as at 18 January 2001. The following table shows the amounts individual schools will receive:

  Amount (£)

  Primary schools; middle deemed primary with no year 8 or 9 class; nursery schools; PRUs

  Fewer than 100.5 pupils

  7,000

  At least 100.5 but fewer than 200.5

  13,500

  At least 200.5 but fewer than 400.5

  24,000

  At least 400.5 but fewer than 600.5

  30,000

  600.5 or more

  48,000

  Secondary schools; middle deemed secondary; and middle deemed primary with year 8 or year 9 class

  Fewer than 600.5

  58,000

  At least 600.5

  70,000

  1200.5 or more

  82,000

  Special schools

  Fewer than 100.5

  20,000

  100.5 or more

  28,000

  Percentage

  Reading

  Writing

  Spelling

  English

  Mathematics

  Key Stage 1: Achieving level 2 or above

  79

  78

  64

  —

  87

  Key Stage 2: Achieving level 4 or above

  79

  50

  —

  72

  70

  Key Stage 3: Achieving level 5 or above

  —

  —

  —

  64

  59

  Teacher Support (Special Needs)
  Mr. Coaker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what steps he is taking to help teachers support pupils with social and emotional difficulties in schools; and if he will make a statement. [157906]

  Jacqui Smith
  Support is provided through the special educational needs component of the Standards Fund. In 2001–02, we are supporting expenditure to a total of £82 million on SEN. This includes support for the training and professional development of teachers and others dealing with pupils with SEN. It also covers support for work with pupils with emotional, behavioural and social development difficulties as part of activity designed to promote inclusion. Support is also provided through the National Healthy School Standard, which includes emotional health and wellbeing as one of its eight key themes.
  580W
  It is intended that maintained schools will receive these sums in their delegated budget shares by mid May.

  Also, schools will receive additional devolved capital funding, via a formula, based on a lump sum of £6,000 per school plus an amount based on the number of pupils in the school. In Coventry, South the nursery school will receive £7,168; primary schools will receive an average £10,639; secondary schools will receive an average £28,905 and special schools will receive an average £10,826.

  General Teaching Council
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans he has for the involvement of teachers employed by local education authorities in central support services, in membership and registration on, and the work of, the General Teaching Council. [157866]

  Jacqui Smith
  From 1 June, all qualified teachers employed to teach in maintained schools and non-maintained special schools will be required to register with the General Teaching Council (GTC). Those that are employed by local education authorities in their central support services, but who are not deployed to teach pupils in schools, may be eligible to register voluntarily. The GTC is an independent organisation and it is for the Council to decide whether or how to involve teachers and others in their work.

  Literacy and Numeracy (Camden)
  Ms Glenda Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list the data for the most recent figures which are available for(a) literacy and (b) numeracy in the London borough of Camden. [158017]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The table shows the percentage pupils reaching the expected level or above in the Key Stage 1, 2 and 3 tests in Camden in 2000.

  The Government will shortly be publishing good practice guidance on promoting children's mental health in early years and school settings. The guidance will offer pointers and examples of good practice in the area of early identification and intervention for children and young people experiencing mental health problems in pre-school and school settings.

  Departmental Policies (Amber Valley)
  Judy Mallaber
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will set out, with statistical information relating as directly as possible to the Amber Valley constituency, the effects on Amber Valley of his Department's policies and actions since 2 May 1997. [157127]

  Mr. Wills
  Details of the effects of a range of the Department's policies on the Amber Valley constituency and Derbyshire LEA have been placed in the Library.

  Departmental Policies (Eccles)
  Mr. Ian Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will set out, including statistical information relating as directly as possible to the Eccles constituency, the effects on Eccles of his Department's policies and actions since 2 May 1997. [157285]

  Mr. Wills
  Details of the effects of a range of the Department's policies on the Eccles constituency and Salford LEA have been placed in the Library.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Legal Aid
  Mr. Stinchcombe
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how much was spent on(a) criminal and (b) civil legal aid in (i) 1998–99, (ii) 1999–2000 and (iii) 2000–01; and what the projected figure is for 2001–02. [R] [157429]

  Mr. Lock
  I shall reply to my hon. Friend as soon as possible.

  Mr. Stinchcombe
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what research his Department has(a) commissioned and (b) evaluated on the impact of the Legal Services Commission on people excluded from civil legal aid as a result of the Access to Justice Act 1999. [R] [157434]

  Mr. Lock
  The Lord Chancellor's Department has commissioned a joint research project involving the universities of Nottingham, Oxford and Surrey. This will be the first major comparative evaluation of the effects of conditional fees on personal injury litigation and will report towards the end of this year. The research will contribute to a better understanding of the range of methods available for supporting litigation where risks are substantially removed from the claimant. It will also inform us how the legal services conditional fee market is operating and developing. The researchers will create a database that can be used in conjunction with data collected in future for the purposes of policy evaluation and for future policy changes.

  Mr. Stinchcombe
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how much was spent on civil legal aid in relation to(a) social security, (b) employment, (c) landlord and tenant disputes, (d) immigration and nationality and (e) consumer issues in (i) 1998–99, (ii) 1999–2000 and (iii) 2000–01; what has been the change in the level of civil legal aid since the creation of the Community Legal Service, to civil legal aid in each of these areas; and what plans he has to increase the allocation of civil legal aid for these areas. [R] [157430]

  Mr. Lock
  This information is not available in the format requested and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Information is, however, available for expenditure on legal advice and assistance for 1998–99 and 1999–2000.

  £ million

  (a) Social security and welfare

  (i) 1998–99

  16.651

  (ii) 1999–2000

  14.903

  582W

  £ million

  (b) Employment

  (i) 1998–99

  2.038

  (ii) 1999–2000

  1.936

  (c) Landlord and tenant disputes

  (i) 1998–99

  14.580

  1999–2000

  13.262

  (d) Immigration and nationality

  (i) 1998–99

  >48.800

  (ii) 1999–2000

  46.167

  (e) Consumer issues

  (i) 1998–99

  2.697

  1999–2000

  2.518

  Information for 2000–01 is not yet available.

  Legal aid provision, whether under the previous or current legislation has never been allocated to specific case categories. Rather, the grant of legal aid has always depended on the merits of each individual application.

  Community Legal Service
  Mr. Stinchcombe
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what assessment he has made of the capacity of the community legal service to reduce(a) child poverty and (b) social exclusion; and how these policy aims were incorporated in the Legal Service Commission corporate plan for 2000 to 2004. [R][157433]

  Mr. Lock
  One of the key aims of the community legal service (CLS) is to help tackle social exclusion through improving access to legal advice, information and representation. This is reflected in the Lord Chancellor's Department's strategic objectives and public service agreement targets.

  In order to measure how effectively the CLS is tackling social exclusion through meeting previously unmet need for legal help and information, we have commissioned the legal services research centre to undertake a major long-term research project to measure and characterise levels of legal need in England and Wales. It will be known as the national periodic survey and will be based on a survey of 4,500 households, and it should provide a reliable source of information on how well the CLS is achieving its aims. The national periodic survey will be complemented by the local needs surveys carried out by the CLS partnerships.

  The Lord Chancellor's Department is also producing a paper in collaboration with the Law Centres Federation which will set out how the CLS is helping to tackle social exclusion and the future role it can play.

  The Legal Services Commission's corporate plan for 2000 to 2004, includes a section on the CLS. The opening part of the section is concerned with the overall purpose and objectives of the CLS and it refers to the key aim of helping to reduce social exclusion. The plan makes the link between the Lord Chancellor's Department's strategic objectives and the public service agreement targets and explains how the CLS will help to reduce social exclusion.
  583W
  There are no specific CLS initiatives or targets in relation to the category of child poverty, but this category is being taken forward under the overall heading of tackling social exclusion.

  Disability Discrimination Act (Claims)
  Mr. Hilary Benn
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many people have received legal aid in respect of claims under the Disability Discrimination Act 1995. [157234]

  Mr. Lock
  In the 11 months from 1 April 2000 to 28 February 2001, two certificates were issued for people to receive legal representation in court cases under the Disability Discrimination Act 1995. It is not possible to identify the number of people who have received other levels of publicly funded legal service under the Disability Discrimination Act, as no specific case category exists on the computer system that records these types of work.

  Immigration Adjudicators
  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many(a) full-time and (b) part-time immigration adjudicators are employed to hear immigration and asylum appeals. [157506]

  Jane Kennedy
  As of 1 April 2001 there are:

  (a) 76 full-time and

  (b) 323 part-time adjudicators.

  Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service
  Mr. Ian Stewart
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department when she will publish the framework document for the children and family court advisory and support service. [158232]

  Jane Kennedy
  The framework document for CAFCASS has been published today. Copies have been placed in the Library and sent to interested parties. Further copies are available from the Department on request.

  Law Centres
  Mr. Stinchcombe
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how much money was allocated to neighbourhood law centres in(a) 1997–98, (b) 1998–99 and (c) 1999–2000; and what plans he has to increase the budget allocation for such centres. [R] [157437]

  Mr. Lock
  The Legal Aid Board made grants to nine law centres. It made payments to these and other not-for-profit (NfP) organisations (including to law centres not funded by grants from the board) for civil legal aid work that they undertook. Total payments to law centres were:

  (a) in 1997–98, £4.439 million out of a total payment to NfPs of £12.927 million;

  (b) in 1998–99, £4.164 million out of a total payment to NfPs of £17.321 million; and

  (c) in 1999–2000, £4.044 million out of a total payment to NfPs of £18.478 million.

  Since January 2000, the Legal Services Commission (which has replaced the Legal Aid Board) has provided legal help services exclusively under contracts with providers able to meet the specified quality standards. The
  584W
  Lord Chancellor has directed the commission to spend at least £20 million on contracts with NfP organisations, including law centres and neighbourhood advice agencies. Contracts with NfP organisations let in the 15-month period January 2000-March 2001 had a value of £36,111,227.

  On 12 March 2001, the Legal Services Commission issued a consultation paper about future funding within the CLS for the nine law centres which it funds by grants. The paper set out proposals for translating current grant funding into contract funding. The Lord Chancellor has said that he expects these grants to be phased out by April 2002 and to be replaced by contracted funding targeted on eligible clients and priority needs. The Legal Services Commission is working with the Law Centres Federation and the law centres to effect this change.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Forestry Commission Research Agency
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what targets were set for the Forestry Commission Research Agency for 2000–01; and what targets have been set for 2001–02. [158233]

  Mr. Morley
  The targets for the Forestry Commission Research Agency in 2000–01 and 2001–02 are as follows:2000–01

  1. To achieve a customer satisfaction rating of at least 96 per cent.

  2. To increase the output of peer reviewed scientific papers submitted and subsequently accepted for publication by 10 per cent. on the 1998–99 actual.

  3. To have the work of Woodland Ecology Branch and the statisticians reviewed by visiting groups.

  4. To hold the weighted average cost of a researcher day to the same level as 1999–2000 in real terms.

  5. To achieve a 2 per cent. reduction in real terms in the cost of support services.

  6. To achieve 100 per cent. cost recovery including a return on capital employed of 6 per cent. in real terms.

  2001–02

  1. To achieve a satisfaction rating for FC customers of at least 96 per cent.

  2. To maintain the output of peer reviewed scientific papers submitted and subsequently accepted for publication at 2000–01 levels.

  3. To have the work of Pathology Branch and Environmental Research Branch reviewed by visiting groups.

  4. To hold the weighted average cost of a researcher day and support services at 2000–01 levels in real terms.

  5. To achieve at least 99 per cent. cost recovery including a return on capital employed of 6 per cent. in real terms.

  Copies of the Forest Research Agency's Corporate Plan for 2001–04, which contains more information about the Agency's targets, will be placed in the Library of the House when it is published in May.

  EU Enlargement
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement setting out the factors so far identified in the EU enlargement negotiations which could lead to a breaching of the current agricultural budgetary guideline. [157524]
  585W
  Ms Quin
  The financial perspective for 2000–06, agreed at the Berlin Council in March 1999, set aside up to 58 billion euro for spending in the new member states. This included 12.41 billion euro to extend CAP and rural development measures to the new member states. The Government's objective is to ensure that the financial perspective is respected.

  Foot and Mouth
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on what basis the level of compensation for the Animal Welfare Disposal scheme was set for(a) new season lambs and (b) ewes in lamb or with lamb. [156653]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 2 April 2001]: The welfare payment for breeding ewes was derived from the pre-FMD value of a breeding ewe with lambs at foot which are normally traded at a fixed price per life. The value for new season lambs that have already been weaned and are being fed concentrates for the early lighter lamb market is a percentage of the expected market value. The rates of payment announced will apply for two months and be reviewed before expiry of the period.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will estimate the impact on the value of(a) domestic and (b) overseas United Kingdom livestock trade in each of the next five years based on the assumption of endemic foot and mouth disease. [156917]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 5 April 2001]: No such estimate has been, or will be made. As my hon. Friend knows, the Government are committed to reduce and then completely eradicate the current foot and mouth disease outbreak thus ensuring that FMD does not become endemic in the UK.

  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will ensure that RSPCA officers are present during any cull of over 5,000 livestock. [157541]

  Mr. Morley
  The RSPCA have an open invitation to visit the major culling sites and they have already been to Great Orton several times.

  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will relax the rules regarding set-aside grasslands so that cattle from other farmers can be grazed on such grasslands where feed supplies are running short. [157371]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 6 April 2001]: A derogation from the arable area payment scheme to allow set-aside land to be used for grazing, where foot and mouth disease restrictions prevent movement of the animals, was announced on 16 March.

  Organic Farming Scheme
  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many farmers have made applications for funds from the organic farming scheme; and how many of those applications have been successful in each phase of the scheme since it began. [157161]
  586W
  Mr. Morley
  Between the organic farming scheme opening on 6 April 1999 and it closing for review on 30 November, 1,270 valid applications were received. Since the scheme re-opened on 2 January this year around 600 further valid applications have been received.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he will respond to the fax of 20 March from the hon. Member for North Essex concerning restrictions relating to the welfare, movement and sale of livestock belonging to Mr. P. Gladwin of Can House Farm, Great Wigborough, Essex. [157390]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 6 April 2001]: I replied to the fax from the hon. Member for North Essex on 4 April 2001.

  Fisheries
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will take steps to ensure that the English fishing fleet receives financial assistance equivalent to that provided by the Scottish Executive for the Scottish fishing industry. [157241]

  Mr. Morley
  The decision to provide additional assistance worth £11.5 million for the restructuring of the fishing industry and rejuvenation of ports in England was made after careful consideration of the difficulties the industry has been facing.

  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of the recent OECD report on transitional financial assistance to the fishing industry. [157237]

  Mr. Morley
  The report by OECD on the economic and policy implications of transition to responsible fisheries is a welcome examination of the challenges involved in adopting more sustainable fishing methods across the developed world. One finding is that direct financial assistance to fishing industries can be detrimental to long-term sustainability unless it is carefully targeted at restructuring and complementary to management controls. This is consistent with the UK Government's view and the £22.5 million package of aid for the English industry which I announced on 2 April is designed with long-term environmental and economic sustainability in mind.

  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make available transitional aid to allow the fishing industry the means to introduce conservation measures and meet short-term losses arising from their introduction. [157240]

  Mr. Morley
  Grant is available under the EU fisheries scheme FIFG for the adoption of conservation measures, for example, selective fishing gear and diversification away from pressure stocks. This is a priority area of the funding I announced on 2 April. It is, however, not appropriate to compensate fishermen for conserving stocks from which they will attain long-term benefit.

  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how much of the package of aid to the English fishing industry contained in the press release on this Department's website (Ref: 1219/01) is funding which has already been announced. [157881]
  587W
  Mr. Morley
  As explained in the press release, £11 million had already been committed to the FIFG grants scheme and I was launching the scheme in England. The £6 million funding for restructuring the industry and the £5.5 million DETR funding for rejuvenation of fishing ports were new announcements.

  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the criteria used for awarding the package of aid to the English fishing industry for decommissioning. [157880]

  Mr. Morley
  I will shortly be discussing with representatives of the industry how these restructuring funds should be used.

  Aquaculture
  Mr. Alan Simpson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of the compatibility of UK policies with the Code of Conduct drawn up by the Federation of European Aquaculture Producers for the development of sustainable aquaculture. [157269]

  Mr. Morley
  No formal assessment has been carried out, but the Government welcome the code as an initiative which promotes best practice which is consistent with statutory requirements.

  Mr. Alan Simpson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the research studies used by the Government to evaluate the potential impact of the introduction of new, non-indigenous species to aquatic aquaculture. [157268]

  Mr. Morley
  There has been no need to date to conduct research studies in order to operate the controls which the Government apply, under the Prohibition of Keeping or Release of Live Fish (Specified Species) Order 1998, to the introduction into the wild of non-native species of fish.

PRIME MINISTER

  Ministerial Code of Conduct
  Mr. Robathan
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his oral answer of 17 January 2001,Official Report, column 340, what advice he has received from the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards regarding his ministerial code of conduct. [146655]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 22 January 2001]: I have nothing to add to my answer of 17 January.

  Hollis Industries
  Mr. Lilley
  To ask the Prime Minister when No. 10 was advised that the inquiry into Hollis Industries contained evidence of £200,000 payable to the hon. Member for Coventry, North-West (Mr. Robinson). [157166]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 6 April 2001]: I refer the right hon. Member to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry's reply to the hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Baker) on 2 April 2001, Official Report, columns 5–6W, which sets out the facts relating to the conduct of the 1999 investigation into
  588W
  companies associated with my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, North-West (Mr. Robinson) (principally Hollis Industries plc).

  At no point were the contents of any papers or other documents obtained by the Department of Trade and Industry during the course of the investigation disclosed to No. 10.

  Foot and Mouth
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Prime Minister if he has approved the transport to and entombment of animals from foot and mouth infected counties in landfill sites in foot and mouth free counties. [157753]

  The Prime Minister
  The disease eradication effort is organised on the basis of infected and non-infected areas, not county boundaries. Except in a few cases at the beginning of the outbreak, the policy has been to dispose of slaughtered animals within their infected areas, not to transport animals and carcases from infected to non-infected areas.

  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his oral answer of 28 March 2001,Official Report, column 954, if he will provide a breakdown of the figure for sheep movements in February. [157512]

  The Prime Minister
  Sheep movements are not centrally recorded. We have refined the estimate which I provided on 28 March. We now estimate that around 2 million sheep movements took place in Great Britain in February, before movement restrictions were imposed. This is broken down as follows:980,000 movements to abattoirs; some 845,000 clean sheep and 135,000 ewes were slaughtered in February.
  700,000 movements through markets; based on an estimate provided by the Meat and Livestock Commission (MLC). This estimate does not include multiple movements through markets. Some animals will enter more than one market either because they are withdrawn, or not sold and taken home, or sold and re-sold (often as dealers split and mix loads of sheep from different sources so as to produce uniform consignments that meet specific buyers' requirements).
  100,000 movements; through private sales between farmers or between farmers and dealers, which do not figure in any of the above categories.
  30,000 movements leading to live export.

  Other movements, including a limited number of movements between holdings or back from winter grazings, brings the total to around 2 million.

  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list the changes in the handling of the foot and mouth outbreak which have resulted from his actions since he took personal charge of the matter. [157793]

  The Prime Minister
  The overriding priority since the outbreak was first discovered on 19 February has been to mobilise the resources and logistics required to control and eradicate the disease. This has been achieved by keeping the situation under constant review within Government, and by involving all Departments that have a positive role to play in the eradication strategy.

  Doctors and Dentists Pay Review Body
  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make an announcement regarding the Chair of the Doctors and Dentists Pay Review Body from 1 March. [158178]

  The Prime Minister
  I have appointed Mr. Michael Blair QC to be Chair of the Doctors and Dentists Pay Review Body from 1 March for a period of three years.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  RUC
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many applications for early retirement and severance from the RUC have been turned down by the Chief Constable in the past three years, broken down by(a) perceived community origin, (b) gender, (c) police division, (d) membership of specialist units and (e) rank; and what the reasons were for turning down applications.[153819]

  Mr. Ingram
  No eligible officer has been turned down for voluntary severance/early retirement in the past three years.

HEALTH

  Small Acute Hospitals
  Mr. Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent discussions he has had with the Royal College of Surgeons and the Royal College of Physicians regarding the clinical standards set in small acute hospitals. [156296]

  Mr. Denham
  Ministers regularly meet the Royal Colleges of Surgeons and Physicians. These colleges produce guidance on clinical standards in a wide variety of contexts. The NHS Plan sets out our intention to establish the Medical Education Standards Board to ensure that patient standards and the service needs of the NHS are fully aligned with the development of the curriculum and approval of training programmes.

  Transplant Centres
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he will announce his decision on the rationalisation of transplant centres. [156297]

  Mr. Denham
  Our decision will be announced in due course.

  Placebo Medicines and Surgery
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent investigations he has made into the outcomes of the use of placebo(a) medicines and (b) surgery. [156298]

  Mr. Hutton
  The Department, via the NHS Research and Development Health Technology Assessment Programme, funded a systematic review of the role of expectancies in the placebo effect and their use in the 590W
  delivery of health care. The review was published as a monograph in March 1999, and a copy has been placed in the Library.

  IVF Treatment
  Mr. Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many requests for IVF treatment were granted in the last year for which figures are available in(a) Darlington, (b) Southampton, Itchen, (c) Barrow and Furness, (d) Pontefract and Castleford, (e) Birmingham, Edgbaston and (f) Colchester constituencies. [156299]

  Yvette Cooper
  The information requested is not available centrally. Parliamentary constituency and health authority boundaries are not coterminous. The Department published a report of a baseline survey it undertook of infertility services in the National Health Service in 1997. Copies are available in the Library.

  Cancer
  Mr. St. Aubyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what targets he has set with respect to improving cancer treatment. [156301]

  Yvette Cooper
  The cancer plan sets out targets for waiting times standards so that by 2005 there will be a maximum two month wait from urgent general practitioner referral to treatment for all cancers. Linked to this is the extension of the cancer services collaborative from April; and the introduction of booked admissions for cancer patients by 2004.

  Mrs. Brinton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on his strategy to combat cancers in men. [156304]

  Yvette Cooper
  The cancer plan is a strategy to tackle all cancers in the whole population. The NHS prostate cancer programme sets out our aims to improve treatment and research in this area, which affects a significant number of men every year.

  Mr. Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what progress is being made in delivering improved cancer services. [156309]

  Yvette Cooper
  Cancer services are receiving record levels of investment For this financial year £255 million is available for the achievement of cancer targets and milestones. It will support the appointment of new consultants; implementation of the National Institute for Clinical Excellence guidance to end the postcode lottery of care; cutting waiting times for cancer and increasing National Health Service investment in specialist palliative care services.

  Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what progress is being made on reducing waiting times for cancer treatment. [156319]

  Yvette Cooper
  The National Health Service cancer plan published in September sets out new waiting time targets for cancer treatment which will be implemented over the next five years.

  Since April 1999 over 140,000 women with suspected breast cancer have benefited by being referred urgently by their GP and offered an appointment with a specialist

  591W
  within two weeks. During 2000 this two week standard was rolled out for all patients with suspected cancer requiring urgent specialist investigation.

  The cancer services collaborative (CSC) has demonstrated that by changing the way cancer services are provided, for example by pre-planning and pre-booking care, waiting times can be cut and a major impact can be made on cancer care. From 1 April 2001 the improvements in cancer care developed by the CSC are being rolled out to every cancer network in the country, supported by up to £15 million central funding to ensure the improvements are implemented throughout the country.

  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what factors underlay the Government's estimate of the number of lives that will be saved from the Government's 10-year cancer plan target; and if he will make a statement. [156564]

  Yvette Cooper
  The "Saving Lives: Our Healthier Nation" White Paper published in July 1999 included a target to reduce the death rate from cancer in people under 75 by at least a fifth. Based on the assumption of steady improvement towards the target and the population characteristics present in 1997, it was estimated that achievement of the target would be associated with up to 100,000 lives saved over the period 1997 to 2010. Independent expert advice at this time suggested that 40 per cent. of the target reduction could come from improvements or extensions to screening programmes and better treatment, and 60 per cent. of the target reduction could be achieved through primary prevention such as reductions in smoking and improvements in fruit and vegetable consumption.

  Health Inequalities (Halton)
  Mr. Derek Twigg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the allocation of resources to deal with health inequalities in Halton. [156302]

  Yvette Cooper
  The NHS plan says that by 2003, following review of the existing weighted capitation formula, reducing inequalities will be a key criterion for allocating NHS resources. While the review is undertaken, the "health inequalities" adjustment is being introduced for the year 2000–01 as a new non-recurrent allocation. North Cheshire health authority has received £1.15 million "health inequalities" adjustment, which will be used for the benefit of the residents of Halton and Warrington.

  NHS Plan (Birmingham)
  Mr. Burden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what progress is being made in implementing the NHS plan in Birmingham. [156303]

  Yvette Cooper
  The NHS plan is being integrated with the Birmingham health authority health improvement programme and service and financial framework programmes to ensure a coherent and consistent approach to delivering the plan.

  Additionally, the Secretary of State recently approved a major hospital development in South Birmingham and development of an ambulatory care and diagnostic centre on the City Hospital site.

  Bed Blocking (Essex)
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will investigate the causes and consequences of bed blocking in Essex. [156305]

  Mr. Denham
  The causes and consequences of delayed discharge are dealt with locally as part of the winter planning process. Considerable work has been undertaken on this issue by North and South Essex health authorities and local authorities.

  Primary Care Trusts
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent representations he has received from doctors regarding the operation of primary care groups. [156306]

  Mr. Denham
  We have regular meetings with a range of organisations and receive feedback from primary care professionals on the operation of primary care groups. Primary care groups continue to provide a strong framework for doctors and nurses to support each other, and enable practices to innovate while ensuring that the benefits of innovation deliver high quality services for the whole local population.

  Mr. Healey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the role of primary care trusts in relation to local mental health services. [156320]

  Mr. Hutton
  Where it is appropriate and a primary care trust (PCT) has the capacity to do so, it can directly provide mental health services to its population in a primary or community setting. Alternatively where it is appropriate for mental health services to be provided by another organisation such as a National Health Service mental health trust, the role of the PCT will be to commission the service from that trust.

  The decision as to which role a PCT will play is one for each local health system following consultation on any proposals to change the way services may be provided. These proposals would be as a result of the clinical needs of their patients as determined through the implementation of the National Service Framework for mental health services and the NHS plan.

  Mr. Bill O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action he is taking to increase the number of general practitioners to improve the services of primary care trusts; and if he will make a statement. [156300]

  Mr. Denham
  We have recently announced measures (including financial incentives) to encourage general practitioner recruitment and retention. The primary care workforce review, due to report shortly, is expected to include further recommendations on numbers of GPs and other staff and on ways of working to deliver the planned expansion of primary care.

  Care for the Elderly
  Mrs. Humble
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement about improving the standards of care for the elderly. [156307]

  Mr. Hutton
  We are determined that older people should receive higher standards of care from the NHS and social services. The National Service Framework for
  593W
  Older People, published on 27 March will deliver high quality health and social care, based on clinical and assessed need, not age. National minimum standards for care homes for older people, published on 2 March, will promote better quality care and help prevent abuse by grounding practice in the principles of dignity, choice, privacy and respect.

  Mr. Heppell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what progress has been made in making intermediate care available to ensure that elderly people remain independent for as long as possible. [156310]

  Mr. Hutton
  The Government are committed to promoting older people's independence. Additional money this winter was focused primarily on intermediate and transitional care. Recent intermediate care guidance and the National Service Framework for Older People emphasise the importance of establishing intermediate care as a mainstream service and a development priority. Targets have been set to ensure continued progress, backed by significant extra funding announced in the NHS Plan.

  Smoking
  Mr. Ernie Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what progress is being made in preventing young people from taking up smoking. [156308]

  Yvette Cooper
  The most recent survey results indicate that smoking prevalence among children aged 11–15 is now at 9 per cent., down from 13 per cent. in 1996. This is very encouraging, but we are determined to ensure that this downward trend continues, for example by banning tobacco advertising, which particularly appeals to young people.

  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what progress is being made in preventing young people from taking up smoking. [156293]

  Yvette Cooper
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Leicestershire (Mr. Taylor) on 10 April 2001,Official Report, column 842.

  Dr. Iddon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what progress his Department has made towards tackling smoking. [156321]

  Yvette Cooper
  We announced on 29 January 2001 a £3 million initiative to help co-ordinate locally all services for pregnant women who wish to give up smoking and on 14 March that we intend to amend the relevant regulations so as to allow doctors to prescribe any available nicotine replacement therapy as part of National Health Service treatment.

  The Tobacco Advertising and Promotion Bill published on 14 December 2000 will ensure that tobacco is no longer promoted through advertising, sponsorship or other promotional schemes.

  On 13 September 2000 we launched an enforcement protocol with local authorities to strengthen the enforcement of the existing legislation on under-age sales of cigarettes.

  Respite Care
  Mr. Fabricant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on his policy towards the provision of respite care. [156312]

  Mr. Hutton
  Respite care is important because it helps older people and disabled people to live in the community, and it allows informal or family carers to have a break from caring. The extra resources which the Government have provided for the National Health Service and for social services mean that more people can benefit from respite care, in a domiciliary setting, in a residential care home or nursing home, or in hospital.

  Waiting Lists (Southend Hospital)
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what progress has been made in reducing waiting lists in Southend Hospital. [156313]

  Mr. Denham
  Significant progress has been made in reducing the waiting lists at Southend Hospital NHS Trust and it is working with primary care organisations to examine options for modifying referral patterns to help with this. The latest figures show that total number of patients waiting are about 4 per cent. below the end-March 1997 level.

  Southend Hospital NHS Trust has made good progress with patients waiting over 12 months for treatment particularly in ophthalmology which contributed to over half of the waiting list last year.

  Private Residential Nursing Homes
  Mr. John Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to increase the use of private residential nursing homes by the NHS. [156314]

  Mr. Hutton
  We see an important role for the independent sector, working in partnership with the NHS and councils, in providing services and making best use of resources and facilities. A framework for closer partnership was set out in the Concordat between the National Health Service and the independent sector, "For the Benefit of Patents", signed on 31 October 2000. Intermediate care was one of three areas highlighted as a particular area for co-operation. Guidance issued earlier this year asked the NHS and councils to take into account the potential contribution of the voluntary and private sectors in providing intermediate care and, where appropriate, to develop services in partnership with independent providing. In order to help local health and social care partners to engage more effectively with the independent sector in the short term the Department has developed model contracts, available on the Department's website, as a basis for local contracts with independent providers.

  Nursing homes can also be an appropriate setting in which people receive continuing health care fully funded by the NHS. Currently 10 per cent. of residents are fully funded by the NHS. It is, however, for local agencies to decide on the best way of providing services to meet the needs of local people.

  Beta Interferon
  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the costs of beta interferon to the NHS relative to those borne in other countries. [156316]

  Mr. Denham
  The Department has made no detailed assessment of the costs of beta interferon treatment in other countries. Direct comparisons of prices of products of this type can be misleading because they are often supplied direct to hospitals, making published list prices less significant. Furthermore some countries include distribution costs and some aspects of care within the list price while others account for them separately.

  Pharmacists
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what progress he has made in improving the use of pharmacists within the NHS. [156317]

  Mr. Denham
  On 12 September 2000 we published "Pharmacy in the Future-Implementing the National Plan" (a copy of which is available in the Library). This set out our programme for pharmacy in the National Health Service, to make better use of the skills and expertise of pharmacists.

  We have since made good progress in implementing that programme. For example: on 18 October, we launched the first NHS Direct information points. 16 are located in community pharmacies; on 12 December, we launched the hospital medicines management performance framework, to make the best clinical and cost effective use of medicines and pharmacists' skills in hospitals; on 21 December we published the Health and Social Care Bill, which includes measures relating to the establishment of local pharmaceutical services and the extension of prescribing rights to now groups of health professionals, including pharmacists; and on 12 March we invited bids for the sites to take part in a national medicines management collaborative programme, a key step towards our target that by 2004 all primary care groups and trusts will have schemes so that people get more help from pharmacists in using their medicines.

  Paddington Regeneration Partnership
  Mr. Wilkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health which members of Kensington, Chelsea and Westminster health authority attended meetings of the Paddington Regeneration Partnership from its inception to 13 July 2000. [156318]

  Mr. Denham
  The Kensington, Chelsea and Westminster health authority representative on the Paddington Regeneration Partnership from June 1998 to the present time has been Mr. Paul Mason. Mr. Mason is an assistant director and therefore not a board member of Kensington, Chelsea and Westminster health authority. He did, however, act up to the post of board level director for six months of the period in question.

  Barnsley Health Authority
  Mr. Illsley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has received about the end of year 2000–01 financial status of Barnsley health authority. [156322]
  596W
  Yvette Cooper
  For the financial year-end 2000–01, Barnsley health authority is expected to show an operational financial balance (OFB) underspend of £500,000 against its revenue resource limit of £173,646,000. This has been agreed and accepted by the Trent regional office of the National Health Service Executive and will be carried forward to be used in the financial year 2001–02.

  Within the OFB surplus, there are a number of overspending budgets (including cost per case contracts, out of area placements for learning disability and continuing care), which are offset by underspending budgets, including community prescribing.

  In terms of cash control, the health authority has exactly met its revenue and capital cash limits for the year.

  Abattoirs
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the impact of the ban on pithing on the future of small abattoirs. [142890]

  Ms Stuart
  [holding answer 18 December 2000]: I am advised on questions of food safety by the Food Standards Agency (FSA). The ban on pithing is a requirement of a recent European Union decision on specified risk material, which introduced new EU-wide rules for the protection of both human and animal health from the risks of BSE.

  The FSA carried out a full public consultation on proposals to implement the pithing ban. All licensed red meat slaughterhouses were consulted. A number of the responses received raised concerns that many small abattoirs would be unable safely to slaughter animals without pithing unless structural changes to their premises were made and maintained that many of these would be unable to afford the costs of such changes.

  The FSA agrees that changes in structure or equipment, as well as in working practices, may be needed to enable abattoirs to comply with a pithing ban without putting worker safety at risk. However, the FSA considers that alternatives to pithing should be available at reasonable cost in most cases and therefore sees no fundamental reason why the need to make such changes should affect the future of small abattoirs. Nevertheless the FSA is monitoring the introduction of the pithing ban in small abattoirs in order to ensure that any significant problems are reported and investigated.

  HIV
  Mr. Ian Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when the Government will publish a national strategy on HIV for public consultation. [144508]

  Ms Stuart
  The incorporation of the HIV strategy within an integrated sexual health and HIV strategy was announced in May 2000. This work is well advanced and should be ready for publication shortly.

  Beef Imports
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if imported processed beef products are subject to the same checks for specified risk material contamination as imported carcase beef. [147856]
  597W
  Ms Stuart
  [holding answer 30 January 2001]: I am advised by the Food Standards Agency (FSA) that all checks for specified risk material (SRM) contamination rely on a careful visual inspection of carcase meat to ensure that the specified tissues have been fully removed. A visual check for SRM contamination is not possible once meat has been processed. Advice on the safety of imported beef and beef products was issued by the FSA on 22 December.

  Departmental Policies (Don Valley)
  Caroline Flint
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will set out, with statistical information relating as directly as possible to Don Valley constituency, the effects on Doncaster of his Department's policies and actions since 2 May 1997. [153520]

  Yvette Cooper
  Detailed information on the impact of Department of Health policies nationally is set out in the Department of Health Annual Reports. A copy of the most recent report "Department of Health—Government Expenditure Plans 2000/01" is available in the Library and on the Department of Health website at www.doh.gov.uk/dhreport.

  The impact of policies is not examined by constituency and statistics collected centrally by the Department are not collected on a constituency basis.

  My hon. Friend's constituency falls within the geographical area covered by Doncaster health authority and Doncaster metropolitan borough council (MBC) social services.

  Increases in allocations between 1996–97 and 2001–02 for Doncaster health authority are shown in the table.

  Increases in allocations between 1996–97 and 2001–02

  Increase

  £ million (cash)

  62.7

  £ million (real terms)

  40.5

  Percentage (cash)

  39.51

  Percentage (real terms)

  23.61

  Note:

  Increases for 1999–2000 onwards are for unified allocations which cover hospital and community health services, prescribing and discretionary family health services. Those for previous years cover hospital and community health services only.

  Doncaster health authority has also received additional funding for certain policies. This includes: £196,000 for accident and emergency modernisation between 1997–98 and 2000–01; A further £836,000 has been invested in an existing scheme to modernise the layout of the accident and emergency at Doncaster Royal Infirmary; £47,000, £130,000, £213,000 and £139,000 for improving cancer services (breast, colorectal, lung and cancer outpatients) in 1997–98, 1998–99, 1999–2000 and 2000–01 respectively; £5.004 million to reduce waiting lists and times between 1997–98 and 2000–01; £1.294 million to expand critical care services in 2000–01; £250,000 to deal with winter pressures and delayed discharges in 2000–01; £131,000 for heart disease services between 1997–98 and 2000–01; and £115,400 invested in dentistry between 1997–98 and 2000–01.
  598W

  Doncaster MBC's personal social services standard spending assessment (SSA) for 2001–02 compared with 1996–97

  Percentage increase

  £ million

  Real

  Cash

  1996–97

  40.283

  —

  —

  2001–02

  52.524

  15.5

  30.4

  In addition to the SSAs referred to, Doncaster MBC received additional funding in the form of a number of special and specific grants as set out in the table.

  £000

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  Special Transitional Grant

  2,159

  —

  —

  —

  Partnership grant2

  —

  1,528

  1,300

  Prevention grant2

  —

  112

  168

  1,768

  Carers grant3

  —

  113

  281

  390

  Children's grant3

  —

  396

  618

  1,566

  Mental Health Core Grant

  300

  337

  614

  4855

  Training Support Grant

  258

  240

  302

  4303

  1 The special transitional grant ended in 1998–99

  2 The partnership and prevention grants have been combined in 2001–02 and called the promoting independence grant

  3 The carers' and children's grants were introduced in 1999–2000

  4 Indicative allocation

  Departmental Policies (Lincoln)
  Gillian Merron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will set out, with statistical information relating as directly as possible to the Lincoln constituency, the effects on Lincoln of his Department's policies and actions since 2 May 1997. [152978]

  Yvette Cooper
  Detailed information on the impact of Department of Health policies nationally is set out in the Department of Health Annual Reports. A copy of the most recent report "Department of Health—Government Expenditure Plans 2000–01" is available in the House of Commons Library and on the Department of Health website at www.doh.gov.uk/dhreport.

  The impact of policies is not examined by constituency and statistics collected centrally by the Department are not collected on a constituency basis.

  My hon. Friend's constituency falls within the geographical area covered by Lincolnshire health authority and Lincolnshire county council social services.

  The increases in allocations between 1996–97 and 2001–02 for north Derbyshire health authority are set out in the table.

  Increases in allocations between 1996–97 and 2001–02

  Increase

  £ million (cash)

  119.8

  £ million (real terms)

  75.6

  Percentage (cash)

  37.16

  Percentage (real terms)

  21.53

  Note:

  Increases for 1999–2000 onwards are for unified allocations which cover hospital and community health services, prescribing and discretionary family health services. Those for previous years cover hospital and community health services only.

  Lincolnshire health authority has also received additional funding for certain policies. This includes: £233,000 for accident and emergency modernisation between 1997–98 and 2000–01; £107,000, £228,000,

  599W
  £244,000 and £208,000 for improving cancer services (breast, colorectal, lung and cancer outpatients) in 1997–98, 1998–99, 1999–2000 and 2000–01 respectively; £9.631 million to reduce waiting lists and times between 1997–98 and 2000–01; £1.662 million to expand critical care services in 2000–01; £622,000 to deal with winter pressures and delayed discharges in 2000–01; £238,000 for heart disease services between 1997–98 and 2000–01; £307,000 invested in dentistry between 1997–98 and 2000–01.

  In addition, my hon. Friend's constituents will benefit from Special Assistance Funding of £4.4 million invested in 1999–2001 in order to reconfigure and restructure services in Lincolnshire. Lincolnshire residents have also benefited from a £1.446 million major hospital redevelopment scheme at Pilgrim hospital, Boston.

  Lincolnshire county council's personal social services standard spending assessment (SSA) for 2001–02 compared with 1996–97 is set out in the table.

  Percentage increase

  £ million

  Real

  Cash

  1996–97

  73.704

  —

  —

  2001–02

  95.326

  14.5

  29.3

  In addition to the SSAs referred to Lincolnshire county council received additional funding in the form of a number of special and specific grants as set out in the table.

  £000

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  Special Transitional Grant1

  4,015

  —

  —

  —

  Partnership grant2

  —

  2,890

  2,478

  3,520

  Prevention grant2

  —

  237

  357

  3,520

  Carers grant3

  —

  245

  565

  793

  Children's grant3

  —

  566

  890

  2,163

  Mental Health Core grant

  539

  910

  1,051

  41,351

  Training Support Grant

  352

  859

  336

  4307

  1 The special transitional grant ended in 1998–99

  The partnership and prevention grants have been combined in 2001–02 and called the promoting independence grant

  3 The carers' and children's grants were introduced in 1999–2000

  4 Indicative allocation

  Departmental Policies (Stourbridge and Dudley)
  Ms Shipley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will set out, with statistical information relating as directly as possible to(a) Stourbridge and (b) Dudley metropolitan borough the effects on the area of his Department's policies and actions since 2 May 1997. [154729]

  Yvette Cooper
  [holding answer 20 March 2001]: Detailed information on the impact of Department of Health policies nationally is set out in the Department of Health Annual Reports. A copy of the most recent report "Department of Health—Government Expenditure Plans 2000/01" is available in the House of Commons Library and on the Department of Health website at www.doh.gov.uk/dhreport.

  The impact of policies are not examined by constituency and statistics collected centrally by the Department are not collected on a constituency basis.
  600W
  My hon. Friend's constituency falls within the geographical area covered by Dudley health authority and Dudley social services authority.

  Increases in allocations between 1996–97 and 2001–02 for Dudley health authority are shown in the table.

  Increases in allocations between 1996–97 and 2001–02

  Increase

  £ million (cash)

  57.6

  £ million (real terms)

  36.8

  Percentage (cash)

  38.52

  Percentage (real terms)

  22.73

  Note:

  Increases for 1999–2000 onwards are for unified allocations which cover hospital and community health services, prescribing and discretionary family health services. Those for previous years cover hospital and community health services only.

  Dudley health authority has also received additional funding for certain policies. This includes: £0.6 million for accident and emergency modernisation at Russells Hall Hospital, Dudley; £28,000, £57,000, £177,000 and £105,000 for improving cancer services (breast, colorectal, lung and cancer outpatients) in 1997–98, 1998–99, 1999–2000 and 2000–01 respectively; £3.86 million on action to reduce waiting lists and times; £0.32 million to expand critical care services in 2000–01; £2.6 million winter pressures in 2000–01; and £0.064 million for heart disease services 2000–01.

  In addition, my hon. Friend's constituents will benefit from the new £68 million major hospital development that is being developed at Dudley Group of Hospitals NHS Trust.

  Dudley's personal social services standard spending assessment for 2001–02 compared with 1996–97

  Percentage increase

  £ million

  Real

  Cash

  1996–97

  37,476

  —

  —

  2001–02

  53,637

  26.8

  43.1

  In addition to the SSAs referred to, Dudley local authority received additional funding in the form of a number of special and specific grants as set out in the table.

  £000

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  Special Transitional Grant1

  2,239

  —

  —

  —

  Partnership grant2

  —

  1,608

  1,364

  Prevention grant2

  —

  121

  179

  1,864

  Carers grant3

  —

  123

  291

  403

  Children's grant3

  —

  324

  507

  1,295

  Mental Health Core grant

  282

  476

  550

  733

  Training Support Grant

  233

  280

  309

  4291

  1 The special transitional grant ended in 1998–99

  2 The partnership and prevention grants have been combined in 2001–02 and called the promoting independence grant

  3 The children's and carers' grants were introduced in 1999–2000

  4 Indicative allocation

  Departmental Policies (Great Grimsby)
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will set out, with statistical information relating as directly as possible to the constituency, the effect on the Great Grimsby constituency of his Department's policies and actions since 2 May 1997. [156245]

  Yvette Cooper
  Detailed information on the impact of Department of Health policies nationally is set out in the Department of Health Annual Reports. A copy of the most recent report "Department of Health—Government Expenditure Plans 2000–01" is available in the House of Commons Library and on the Department of Health website at www.doh.gov.uk/dhreport.

  My hon. Friend's constituency falls within the geographical area covered by South Humber health authority and Lincolnshire county council social services.

  Increases in allocations between 1996–97 and 2001–02 for South Humberside health authority are shown in the table.

  Increases in allocations between 1996–97 and 2001–02

  Increase

  £ million (cash)

  56.6

  million (real terms)

  34.1

  Percentage (cash)

  34.01

  Percentage (real terms)

  18.74

  Note:

  Increases for 1999–2000 onwards are for unified allocations which cover hospital and community health services, prescribing and discretionary family health services. Those for previous years cover hospital and community health services only.

  South Humber health authority has also received additional funding for certain policies. This includes: £978,000 for accident and emergency modernisation between 1997–98 and 2001–02; £61,000, £107,000, £175,000 and £131,000 for improving cancer services (breast, colorectal, lung and cancer outpatients) in 1997–98, 1998–99, 1999–2000 and 2000–01 respectively; £4.306 million to reduce waiting lists and times between 1997–98 and 2000–01; £1.066 million to expand critical care services in 2000–01; £905,000 to deal with winter pressures and delayed discharges in 2000–01; £88,000 for heart disease services in 2000–01; £109,000 invested in dentistry between 1997–98 and 2000–01.

  Percentage increase

  £ million

  Real

  Cash

  1996–97

  73.704

  —

  —

  2001–02

  95.326

  14.5

  29.3

  In addition to the SSAs referred to, Lincolnshire county council received additional funding in the form of a number of special and specific grants as set out in the table.

  £000

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  Special Transitional Grant1

  4,015

  —

  —

  —

  Partnership grant2

  —

  2,890

  2,478

  Prevention grant2

  —

  237

  357

  3,520

  Carers grant3

  —

  245

  565

  793

  Children's grant3

  —

  566

  890

  2,163

  Mental Health Core grant

  539

  910

  1.051

  41,351

  Training Support Grant

  352

  359

  336

  4307

  602W

  1 The special transitional grant ended in 1998–99

  2 The partnership and prevention grants have been combined in 2001–02 and called the promoting independence grant

  3 The carers' and children's grants were introduced in 1999–2000

  4 Indicative allocation

  Department al Policies (Amber Valley)
  Judy Mallaber
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will set out, with statistical information relating as directly as possible to the Amber Valley constituency, the effects on Amber Valley of his Department's policies and actions since 2 May 1997. [157131]

  Yvette Cooper
  Detailed information on the impact of Department of Health policies nationally is set out in the Department of Health Annual Reports. A copy of the most recent report "Department of Health—Government Expenditure Plans 2000–01" is available in the House of Commons Library and on the Department of Health website at www.doh.gov.uk/dhreport.

  The impact of policies is not examined by constituency and statistics collected centrally by the Department are not collected on a constituency basis.

  My hon. Friend's constituency falls within the geographical area covered by Southern Derbyshire health authority and Derbyshire county council social services.

  Increases in allocations between 1996–97 and 2001–02 for Southern Derbyshire health authority are shown in the table.

  Increases in allocations between 1996–97 and 2001–02

  Increase

  £ million (cash)

  105.4

  £ million (real terms)

  66.9

  Percentage (cash)

  37.88

  Percentage (real terms)

  22.16

  Note:

  Increases for 1999–2000 onwards are for unified allocations which cover hospital and community health services, prescribing and discretionary family health services. Those for previous years cover hospital and community health services only.

  Southern Derbyshire health authority has also received additional funding for certain policies. This includes: £56,000, £150,000, £304,000 and £204,000 for improving cancer services (breast, colorectal, lung and cancer outpatients) in 1997–98, 1998–99, 1999–2000 and 2000–01 respectively; £7.898 million to reduce waiting lists and times between 1997–98 and 2000–01; £541,000 to expand critical care services in 2000–01; £265,000 to deal with winter pressures and delayed discharges in 2000–01; £192,000 for heart disease services between 1997–98 and 2000–01; £136,400 invested in dentistry between 1997–98 and 2000–01.

  In addition, my hon. Friend's constituents will benefit from a major hospital development scheme costing £177 million which will see acute hospital services centralised on the Derby City General Hospital site and the development of the Derbyshire Royal Infirmary as a community hospital. The development is being funded through the Private Finance Initiative.

  Southern Derbyshire also received £1.2 million of Special Assistance Funding for reconfiguration and restructuring of services in 1999–2000.
  603W
  Derbyshire county council's personal social services standard spending assessment (SSA) for 2001–02 compared with 1996–97 is set out in the table:

  Percentage increase

  £ million

  Real

  Cash

  1996–97

  118.872

  —

  —

  2001–02

  118.717

  -11.6

  -0.1

  Note:

  The SSA has decreased because of boundary changes resulting from local government re-organisation

  In addition to the SSAs referred to, Derbyshire county council received additional funding in the form of a number of special and specific grants as set out in the table.

  £000

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  Special Transitional Grant1

  5,063

  —

  —

  —

  Partnership Grant2

  —

  3,590

  3,315

  Prevention Grant2

  —

  268

  404

  4,350

  Carers Grant2

  —

  272

  628

  884

  Children's Grant3

  —

  604

  957

  2,476

  Mental Health Core Grant

  662

  1,117

  1,397

  41,735

  Training Support Grant

  450

  514

  658

  4534

  1 The special transitional grant ended in 1998–99

  2 The partnership and prevention grants have been combined in 2001–02 and called the promoting independence grant

  3 The carers' and children's grants were introduced in 1999–2000

  4 Indicative allocation

  GP Budgets
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the average GP budget was in(a) May 1997 and (b) in the most recent financial year for which figures are available in Shrewsbury and Atcham; and if he will make a statement. [156498]

  Yvette Cooper
  Information is not collected centrally in regard to individual general practitioner's budgets.

  Indeed, as independent contractors, GPs do not receive budgets as such. Also, because of variations such as list size, age of patients and environmental and health factors, as well as changes to the way in which moneys are allocated, it would be difficult to produce meaningful statistics for comparative purposes.

  "Feet First" Report
  Mr. Stunell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he will publish the review of the "Feet First" report; and if he will make a statement. [155579]

  Mr. Hutton
  "Meeting the Challenge: A Strategy for the Allied Health professions", published on 15 November 2000, raises the profile of chiropody and podiatry services alongside other health professions, and we have no current plans to publish the specific review of the "Feet First" report. Its impact has been to ensure that the significance of chiropody services informs policy development. For example, there is professional chiropody/podiatry involvement in the Expert Reference Group, and sub groups of the Diabetes National Standards Framework and the Department is also working with tie Society on the new Allied Health Professions consultant role and the workforce review. The review of evidence based literature 604W
  in Feet First Review has been made available to the Society of Chiropodists and Podiatrists for dissemination. There will be a ministerial meeting with the Society on 30 April.

  Royal Shrewsbury Hospital
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when it was originally planned that the cobalt radiotherapy unit would be phased out at the Royal Shrewsbury Hospital; when he expects the new linear accelerator unit to be treating patients at the hospital; and if he will make a statement. [156495]

  Yvette Cooper
  In August 2000 the Royal Shrewsbury Hospital National Health Service Trust's business case for the provision of a second linear accelerator service to replace the existing cobalt unit was approved.

  The new linear accelerator is expected to begin treating patients in spring 2002, forming part of the trust's plan to improve cancer services.

  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many patients(a) in May 1997 and (b) on the most recent date for which information is available were treated at the Royal Shrewsbury hospital in mixed sex wards; and if he will make a statement. [156500]

  Yvette Cooper
  Information on the number of patients treated in mixed sex wards is not collected centrally.

  We have set three specific objectives to eliminate mixed sex accommodation:
  ensuring that appropriate organisational arrangements are in place to secure good standards of privacy and dignity for hospital patients;
  achieving fully the patient's charter standard for segregated washing and toilet facilities across the National Health Service; and
  providing safe facilities for patients in hospital who are mentally ill which safeguard their privacy and dignity.

  The audit of single sex accommodation (30 September 2000) showed that the Royal Shrewsbury Hospital NHS Trust had achieved these three objectives.

  Meningitis C
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will estimate the number of people who have received vaccination against group C meningitis in Shrewsbury and Atcham in the last three years; and if he will make a statement. [156499]

  Yvette Cooper
  The new meningitis C vaccine became available in autumn 1999 and was introduced into the routine childhood immunisation programme given at age two, three and four months in November 1999. A 'catch-up' campaign to offer vaccine to all those under the age of 18 years not covered by the routine programme was also undertaken from that date.

  Information on the number of children immunised during the catch-up campaign will be available shortly and will be published in the Communicable Disease Surveillance Centre's "Communicable Disease Report". The most recent coverage figures by regional health authority for the routine meningitis C programme were

  605W
  published in the "Communicable Disease Report" (Vol.11, No. 12, 22 March 2001). In Shropshire health authority area—which includes Shrewsbury and Atcham—an estimated 1,780 children had received the vaccine through the routine programme due at two, three and four months by December 2000.

  Free Dental Treatment
  Mr. Blizzard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will introduce free dental treatment for all people over 75 years of age. [157157]

  Mr. Hutton
  We have no plans to introduce free dental treatment for all people over 75 years of age; we believe that it is a better use of limited resources to base help with charges for NHS dentistry on the individual's ability to pay, so ensuring help is focused on those who need it most. Pensioners who get Income Support pay nothing for their dental treatment and under the National Health Service low income scheme some are entitled to free treatment, while others, who are not entitled to full remission of charges, can get partial help.

  Average daily number of available beds in wards open overnight, NHS trusts within Northumberland health authority, 1997–98 to 1999–2000 1997–98

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  Northumberland Mental Health NHS Trust

  230

  211

  199

  Northgate and Prudhoe NHS Trust

  652

  534

  476

  Northumbria Healthcare NHS Trust

  —

  1,392

  1,379

  North Tyneside Healthcare NHS Trust

  523

  —

  —

  Cheviot and Wansbeck NHS Trust

  659

  —

  —

  Northumberland Community Health NHS Trust

  19

  —

  —

  Northumberland health authority area

  2,083

  2,137

  2,054

  Source:

  DH form KHO3

  Mr. Ronnie Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what has been the change in the number of beds in Northumberland district health authority in each year since 1997. [157295]

  Average daily number of available beds in wards open overnight, NHS trusts within Northumberland health authority

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  Northumberland Mental Health NHS Trust

  230

  211

  199

  Northgate and Prudhoe NHS Trust

  652

  534

  476

  Northumbria Healthcare NHS Trust

  —

  1,392

  1,379

  North Tyneside Healthcare NHS Trust

  523

  —

  —

  Cheviot and Wansbeck NHS Trust

  659

  —

  —

  Northumberland Community Health NHS Trust

  19

  —

  —

  Northumberland health authority area

  2,083

  2,137

  2,054

  Change in number of beds from previous year

  +54

  -83

  Source:

  DH form KHO3

  Premature Babies
  Mrs. Fitzsimons
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what measures are in place to prevent premature babies contracting respiratory infections which are common amongst such babies. [157231]

  Continence Pads
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidelines exist to prevent the repackaging of continence pads that have been opened after sterilisation. [R][156658]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 2 April 2001]: Continence pads are not required to be supplied sterile. Providing basic hygiene procedures are followed; for example, hand washing; patients' health should not be compromised from splitting bulk packs of continence pads.

  "Good Practice in Continence Services" introduced by PL/CMO/2000/2, was issued in April 2000.

  Bed Numbers (Northumberland)
  Mr. Ronnie Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many beds were available in the National Health Service in each year since 1997 in(a) Northumberland health authority and (b) Cheviot and Wansbeck Hospital. [157293]

  Mr. Hutton
  Information on bed numbers is collected annually from National Health Service trusts and not by individual hospital or health authority. The table shows the average daily number of available beds in NHS trusts within Northumberland health authority.

  Mr. Hutton
  The table shows the average daily number of available beds and the change in the number of beds in National Health Service trusts within Northumberland health authority area.

  Yvette Cooper
  Research indicates that pre-term babies are more susceptible to severe respiratory illness than healthy full term babies. The illness is often caused by respiratory syncytial virus (RSV), for which there is at present no active vaccine. However there is increasing use of an immune globulin, which can be given by
  607W
  injectioneach month, to try to prevent this illness in very vulnerable babies.

  Travel Grants (Australia)
  Mr. Grogan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many travel grants have been made to fund visits to Britain by former child migrants to Australia; [157236]

  (2) what the total cost is of travel grants made from the Special Travel Fund set up to finance a single visit to see family members in Britain by former child migrants to Australia. [157235]

  Mr. Hutton
  As at 31 March 2001, 126 former child migrants have travelled from Australia with assistance from the Government funded Chili Migrant Support Fund. The total cost of their travel/subsistence was £214,000.

  Fourth Transplant Unit
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list those(a) hon. Members and (b) others who have made representations to his Department seeking a delay in the announcement of the fourth transplant unit to remain in operation after 1 April 2002. [156683]

  Mr. Denham
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has received no representations from anyone seeking to delay the announcement of the site of the fourth national cardiothoracic transplant centre.

  Tuberculosis
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many cases of TB were reported in the UK in(a) 1999 and (b) 2000. [157871]

  Yvette Cooper
  The number of reported cases for all types of tuberculosis in the United Kingdom for 1999 was 6,701 and 7,264 (provisional) for 2000.

  This information is publicly available. Information for England and Wales is published on the PHLS website (www.phls.org.uk), Scotland publish their data in the Scottish Health Statistics booklet and Northern Ireland publish their data via their Communicable Disease Surveillance Centre.

  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many cases of drug resistant TB were reported in the UK in(a) 1999 and (b) 2000. [157870]

  Yvette Cooper
  The 1998 Public Health Laboratory Service tuberculosis survey found that there has been no increase in the proportion of strains of TB resistant to one or more of the standard anti-TB drugs since 1994. The United Kingdom has heightened its surveillance of drug and multi-drug resistant TB through a scheme co-ordinated by the PHLS, through the UK Mycobacterial Resistance Network or MYCOBNET.

  Information taken from MYCOBNET shows that 33 cases of drug resistant tuberculosis (ie resistant to standard antibiotic drugs) were reported in the UK in 1999 and 36 (provisional figure) in 2000. These figures show a slight decrease in the number from previous years, which have averaged at 49 cases per year since 1994.

  Bed Blocking and Surgery Cancellations
  Mr. Gale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the impact of closures within the private nursing home and residential care sector on bed blocking and cancellation of elective surgery in National Health Service hospitals. [156311]

  Mr. Hutton
  We are providing new intermediate care services, which will enable patients to move on from hospital with minimal delay and we provided last year, an extra 523 adult critical care beds to expand post operative capacity. The Department is working to develop a new concordat with the care home sector to maintain capacity and stability in the sector. These initiatives mean that delays in hospital discharge are beginning to reduce.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) when he will reply to the letter sent to him on 18 December by the hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire, reference Part 3 5120/99; [149116]

  (2) when the hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire will receive replies to his letters concerning a constituent, dated 13 November 2000, 18 December 2000, 13 February, 20 February and 21 February. [155604]

  Yvette Cooper
  I apologise for the delay in replying to my hon. Friend's correspondence and subsequent parliamentary questions. The reasons are that a number of sensitive issues have been raised which require thorough investigation to ensure a full explanation can be given. I have met my hon. Friend to discuss these issues further.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Wilkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he will give a substantive answer to the question tabled on 28 March by the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood on isolation wards for tuberculosis in NHS hospitals. [157958]

  Yvette Cooper
  I replied to the hon. Member's question, tabled for answer on 2 April, on 6 April.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Single Room Rent
  Ms Buck
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, (1) pursuant to his answer on 23 March 2001,Official Report, column 370W, what consideration was given to providing additional exemptions from the proposed new Younger Person's Rent regulations for (a) young pregnant women, (b) young people in receipt of the disability working allowance and incapacity benefit, (c) young people considered vulnerable under Part VII of the Housing Act 1996, (d) care leavers under the age of 25 years and (e) young people rehoused through resettlement programmes operated by the Rough Sleepers Unit and others; [156723]

  (2) pursuant to his answer of 23 March 2001, Official Report, column 370W, what consideration was given to including accommodation in which a small kitchen is provided within the definition of the proposed new Younger Person's Rent. [156724]
  609W
  Angela Eagle
  The existing exemptions from the single room rent will remain in force when the broader definition of the single room rent is implemented from July this year. We have no current plans to increase the number of exemptions. However, local authorities will have the discretion to provide additional support in individual cases where there is a shortfall in rent under the new arrangements for discretionary housing payments, which will also be implemented from July. The broader definition of the single room rent retains the use of a kitchen, but only where it is shared.

  Ms Buck
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) how many(a) young people have ceased to claim housing benefit for private sector accommodation since the introduction of the single room rent and (b) more young people are likely to claim housing benefit for private sector accommodation under the proposed new Younger Person's Rent regulations; [156708]

  (2), pursuant to his answer of 23 March 2001, Official Report, column 370W, how much has been saved in housing benefit payments since the introduction of the single room rent; and what costings his Department have undertaken in relation to the proposed new Younger Person's Rent regulations. [156720]

  Angela Eagle
  It is not possible to quantify accurately the numbers of people who move on or off Housing Benefit solely because of changes to the benefit rules. There are many other factors including employment conditions which will influence whether a person claims benefit.

  However, our approximate estimate is that about 25,000 fewer people are receiving Housing Benefit than if the single room rent had not been introduced. This represents an estimated reduction in Housing Benefit expenditure of £65 million a year.

  Around 5,000 young people are expected to flow back on to Housing Benefit each year following the introduction of the broader definition of the single room rent in July this year. The estimated additional cost in 2001–02 is £20 million.

  Ms Buck
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his answer of 23 March 2001,Official Report, column 370W, what assessment has been made of (a) the likely impact of the proposed younger person's rent regulations in areas where there is a shortage of shared accommodation available to young people, (b) the number of additional units of accommodation that may become available in England as a result of the proposed younger person's rent regulations and (c) the likely impact of the proposed new younger person's rent regulations on shortfalls faced by young people between rent due and Housing Benefit paid. [156721]

  Angela Eagle
  Our objectives for the single room rent are to ensure that young people have access to accommodation so that they can concentrate on finding work, balanced against our aim of making sure that the benefit system does not provide out of work young adults with better housing than their working peers could afford.

  We made these objectives clear in our Housing Green Paper, "Quality and Choice: A decent home for all" on which we consulted widely in order to assess the potential impact of our proposals. We received representations
  610W
  from a number of different organisations concerning the operation of the single room rent rules and these were taken into consideration. The new rules from July this year are designed to better reflect what the market generally has to offer on a national basis.

  Local authorities will have the discretion to provide additional support in individual cases where there is a shortfall in rent under the new arrangements for discretionary housing payments, which will also be implemented from July.

  Ms Buck
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what assessment he has made of(a) changes in the behaviour of young people following the introduction of the single room rent; and (b) the likely impact of the proposed new younger person's rent on the behaviour of young people; and what plans he has to monitor the behaviour of young people under the proposed new younger person's rent. [156709]

  (2) pursuant to his answer on 23 March 2001, Official Report, column 370W, on single room rent, what plans his Department has to commission research into the impact of the proposed new Younger Person's Rent regulations. [156707]

  Angela Eagle
  In 1997, together with the Department of the Environment Transport and Regions (DETR) we commissioned the London Research Centre to explore the role of Housing Benefit in the private rented sector. The report entitled "Housing Benefit and the Private Rented Sector" was published by DETR in 1999.

  The report concluded that the single room rent restriction was causing difficulties for some young people under 25 in accessing and retaining accommodation. Our broadening of the definition of the single room rent from July this year will better reflect what the market has to offer. This is designed to ease the problem faced by young people in obtaining accommodation, so that they can concentrate their efforts on finding work.

  We are currently considering the possibility of research examining the impact of broadening the single room rent and will reach a decision in due course.

  Ms Buck
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his answer of 23 March 2001,Official Report, column 370W, on single room rent, how many exceptional hardship payments have been awarded to young people subject to the single room rent in each of the last three years. [156710]

  Angela Eagle
  The information requested is not available.

  Ms Buck
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his answer of 23 March 2001,Official Report, column 370W, what assessment has been made of (a) the number of young people who will be unable to find accommodation matching the definition in the proposed new Younger Person's Rent regulations, and (b) the number of young people who will be forced to move away from their local authority area to find accommodation matching the definition in the proposed new Younger Person's Rent regulations. [156722]

  Angela Eagle
  The information required to make such assessments is not available. The Rent Service has confirmed that, in general, the market is active in
  611W
  providing shared accommodation to young people within the broader definition of the single room rent we are introducing from July this year. We do not hold information about an individual's accommodation unless they make a claim to benefit. This information would not identify whether an individual had previously been seeking accommodation in their own or other localities.

  Ms Buck
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, (1) pursuant to his answer of 23 March 2001,Official Report, column 370W, what consideration was given to consulting more widely than the local authority associations on the proposed new Younger Person's Rent regulations; [156715]

  (2) pursuant to his answer of 23 March 2001, Official Report, column 370W, what advice his Department sought from the Rent Service in relation to the proposed new Younger Person's Rent regulations; and if he will place this advice in the Library; [156719]

  (3) pursuant to his answer of 23 March 2001, Official Report, column 370W, if correspondence from his Department to the Social Security Advisory Committee concerned possible consultations on the proposed new Younger Person's Rent regulations; and if he will place a copy of that correspondence in the Library; [156717]

  (4) pursuant to his answer of 23 March 2001, Official Report, column 370W, what representations the Social Security Advisory Committee have received on the proposed new Younger Person's Rent regulations; [156716]

  (5) what recent representations his Department has received in relation to review of the definition of the single room rent; [156706]

  (6) pursuant to his answer of 23 March 2001, Official Report, column 370W, what consultations have taken place between his Department and Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions in relation to the proposed new Younger Person's Rent regulations. [156718]

  Angela Eagle
  In order to implement these changes as early and simply as possible, we have decided to retain the term "Single Room Rent". This will avoid, among other things, costly changes to computer software for local authorities and rent officers. Our objectives for the single room rent are to ensure that young people have access to accommodation so that they can concentrate on finding work, balanced against our aim of making sure that the benefit system does not provide out of work young adults with better housing than their working peers could afford. We made these objectives clear, including the option of broadening the definition of the single room rent, in our Housing Green Paper "Quality and Choice: A decent home for all" on which we consulted widely. Our response to the consultation said that we will proceed with broadening the definition so as to enable young people to access and maintain accommodation and to encourage landlords to rent to young people.

  In addition to consulting the Local Authority Associations the draft legislation was seen by the Social Security Advisory Committee. I will arrange for a copy of the relevant correspondence to the Committee to be placed in the Library. The Committee did not request the formal referral of the regulations.
  612W
  The Committee may report on proposals for regulations to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State following public consultation exercises, but it is otherwise not under any duty to routinely inform my right hon. Friend of representations it may receive from time to time. In response to inquiries, officials have been informed that the Committee received one representation, from Shelter.

  In developing the proposal to broaden the definition of the single room rent we did not seek comprehensive written advice, but we had detailed discussions with officials from the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, the Scottish Executive and the National Assembly for Wales, as well as the Rent Service and rent officers from Scotland and Wales. The new definition takes account of these discussions and is based on a sample analysis of rental data which shows that most young people tend to share accommodation. Comments on the draft legislation were sought from these interested parties. We have received further recent representations on our proposal from Barnardos, the Association of Housing Advisory services and the National Private Landlord and Tenant Working Group.

  Winter Fuel Payments
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what delays there have been in the payment of the 2000–01 Winter Fuel Payment. [157057]

  Mr. Rooker
  Over 11 million Winter Fuel Payments have been made so far. For both automatically processed cases and claims, payments were made before Christmas where entitlements were established by 9 November 2000.

  We continue to process claims received after 9 November 2000. The timing of payments made depends on when people choose to send in their claims and whether they are completed correctly.

  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will estimate the monetary value of unclaimed Winter Fuel Payments by men aged 60–64 for the(a) 1997–98, (b) 1998–99 and (c) 1999–2000 winters. [157054]

  Mr. Rooker
  It is not possible to provide a reliable estimate of the monetary value of unclaimed Winter Fuel Payments by men aged 60–64 in respect of winters 1997–98; 1998–99 and 1999–2000.

  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will estimate the monetary value of unclaimed 2000–01 Winter Fuel Payments by newly eligible men by 30 March. [157056]

  Mr. Rooker
  It is not possible to provide a reliable estimate of the monetary value of unclaimed Winter Fuel Payments by newly eligible men in respect of winter 2000–01.

  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will estimate the number of men aged 60–64 who made an(a) successful and (b) unsuccessful claim for the (i) 1997–98, (ii) 1998–99 and (iii) 1999–2000 Winter Fuel Payment. [157053]

  Mr. Rooker
  The administration of benefits is a matter for the Chief Executive of the Benefits Agency, Alexis Cleveland. She will write to the hon. Member.
  613W
  Letter from Alexis Cleveland to Mr. Steve Webb, dated 9 April 2001:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question asking if he will estimate the number of men aged 60–64 that made an (a) successful and (b) unsuccessful claim for the 1997/98, 1998/99, 1999/00 winter fuel payment.
  As of 3 April 2001, 1,046,020 claims for Winter Fuel Payments in respect of retrospective year's 1997–98, 1998–99 and 1999–2000 had been processed for males. Information relating solely to men aged 60–64 cannot be provided.
  The decisions made following the ruling by the European Court of Justice meant that the majority of people newly eligible would be men aged 60–64. However, people over state pension age but who had not received a Winter Fuel Payment before because they were not getting a qualifying benefit were also brought into the scheme.
  Current records show that we have received over 1 million claims in respect of past winters from men of which around 85,000 were unsuccessful, in the first instance. If a customer feels that the decision on their claim is incorrect they can ask for it to be looked at again. We do not hold statistics on successful claims following such reconsiderations.
  I hope this is helpful.

  Mr. Simon Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what the average length of time is from the receipt of application for back-dated winter fuel allowance to be paid. [156343]

  Mr. Rooker
  This is a matter for Alexis Cleveland, the Chief Executive of the Benefits Agency. She will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Alexis Cleveland to Mr. Simon Thomas, dated 10 April 2001:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question asking what the average length of time is from the receipt of application for backdated winter fuel allowance to be paid.
  The average length of time taken to process a backdated claim from date of receipt to date of payment is not available. However, I can inform you that over 90% of claims for the financial years 1997/98, 1998/99 and 1999/00 have been processed without the need for further investigation. In these circumstances claims are paid within five weeks of receiving the application form.
  The remaining claims require further investigation and inevitably take longer to clear. Where only minimal investigation is required, claims may still be paid in five weeks.
  I hope this is helpful.

  Pensions
  Mr. Davidson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what progress is being made in reforming the regulations in the social security system governing capital limits for pensioners. [156573]

  Mr. Rooker
  This month, the lower capital limit in the income related benefits, such as Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit, for those over 60 increases from £3,000 to £6,000. In addition, the upper limit of £8,000 in the Minimum Income Guarantee (MIG) and Jobseeker's Allowance for those over 60 rises to £12,000. These changes to capital limits will better reward savers with low incomes and will benefit around half a million pensioners by £5 a week, on average.
  614W
  Under the proposals for the Pension Credit, the capital rules will be abolished and instead income from capital will be considered.

  Benefit Regulation Circulars
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit regulations and operations and adjudications circulars have been issued in each year since 1992. [152441]

  Angela Eagle
  The information is in the table.

  The numbers of Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit regulations and operations and adjudications circulars identified as being issued since 1992

  Regulations

  Circulars

  1992

  12

  35

  1993

  12

  46

  1994

  10

  34

  1995

  13

  58

  1996

  16

  57

  1997

  19

  83

  1998

  15

  89

  1999

  15

  81

  2000

  23

  73

  2001

  7

  22

  Notes:

  1. The Statutory Instruments counted are those which contain one or more regulations on the subject of Housing Benefit, Council Tax Benefit and/or Community Charge Benefit.

  2. Statutory Instruments including only orders and schemes are not included in the list.

  Departmental Employees (Scotland)
  Mr. Swinney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people were employed in each pay grade and what the average salary per grade was for(a) full-time and (b) part-time employees working for his Department in (i) Scotland and (ii) the UK in the (A) 1998–99, (B) 1999–2000 and (C) 2000–01 financial years. [155086]

  Mr. Rooker
  [holding answer 23 March 2001]: The information has been placed in the Library. Staff employed by the Department in Scotland provide services for claimants in all parts of the UK—for example, Glasgow Benefit Centre provides a service for customers in specified parts of London. Similarly, claimants in Scotland are supported by services provided by staff located outside Scotland—for example, the Child Benefit Directorate in the North-East of England serves the whole of the UK.

  Regulations
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list each change to Social Security regulations since May 1997. [151451]

  Mr. Rooker
  The information has been placed in the Library.

  There were 241 Regulations changed in the period May 1992 to April 1997.

  Minimum Income Guarantee
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to the oral statement of 2 April 2001,
  615W
  Official Report, column 11, by the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker), on the take up of the Minimum Income Guarantee, for what reason he described the figure extrapolated by his Department from its survey of take-up as a hocus-pocus figure. [157148]

  Mr. Rooker
  [holding answer 6 April 2001]: In my answer to the hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) I described the figure as legitimate. However, as the survey states,
  "care should be taken in interpreting the take-up statistics".

  The figure is only a projection of potential pensioners not taking-up their entitlement to the Minimum Income Guarantee (MIG). We have taken note of the survey, and gone one step further—we have contacted over 2 million real, identifiable, pensioners in writing as part of this Government's national MIG take-up campaign and so far 930,000 have responded. We have identified from the responses two main reasons for unsuccessful claims—too much income and/or too much capital. More pensioners will become entitled to MIG with this April's increases in the capital limits and with the introduction of Pension Credit we will abolish the capital limits and for the first time reward those with savings income.

  Means-tested Benefits
  Mrs. Lait
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his answer of 2 April 2001,Official Report, column 17, on means-tested benefits, to what the figure of 9 per cent. refers; what proportion of middle income pensioners are on means-tested benefits; and what will be the proportion from 2003. [157543]

  Mr. Rooker
  The 9 per cent. figure represents overall current spending on income-related benefits as a proportion of total benefit expenditure, for people aged 60 and over, the same as it was in 1997. In 1998–99 30 per cent. of pensioner benefit units in the middle four income deciles were in receipt of Income Related Benefits after Housing Costs have been taken into account, for the middle two income deciles the figure was 28 per cent. By way of comparison the figures for 1996–97 were 32 per cent. and 30 per cent. respectively. The corresponding information for 2003 is not available.

  Disability Living Allowance
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his answer of 20 March 2001,Official Report, column 204W, how many applications for Disability Living Allowance were received in each quarter of the last

  Average number of days to process initial claims, reviews, reconsiderations1, supersessions1 and appeals in each quarter from March 1998

  Year to date2

  Initial claims

  Reviews3

  Reconsiderations

  Supersessions

  Appeals

  March 1998

  37.2

  52.3

  —

  —

  33.2

  June 1998

  31.5

  47.0

  —

  —

  32.2

  September 1998

  32.4

  49.0

  —

  —

  34.6

  December 1998

  33.9

  49.5

  —

  —

  35.1

  March 1999

  35.0

  49.7

  —

  —

  36.1

  June 1999

  37.5

  54.8

  —

  —

  40.7

  September 1999

  38.7

  57.3

  —

  —

  46.4

  December 1999

  40.0

  —

  34.4

  42.0

  47.0

  March 2000

  42.6

  —

  55.4

  67.5

  52.7

  616W
  three years; how many of these were (a) successful, (b) unsuccessful, (c) subject to review, (d) successful at review, (e) unsuccessful at review, (f) subject to reconsideration, (g) successful at reconsideration, (h) unsuccessful at reconsideration, (i) subject to supersession, (j) successful at supersession, (k) unsuccessful at supersession, (l) subject to appeal, (m) successful at appeal and (n) unsuccessful at appeal; what the average number of days taken was to process applications; and how many decisions had not been reached at the end of each quarter for (i) first claim, (ii) renewal, (iii) review, (iv) reconsideration, (v) supersession and (iv) appeal stages. [157424]

  Mr. Bayley
  Available information is in the tables.

  Initial claims for Disability Living Allowance in each quarter from March 1998 and whether successful

  Initial decisions

  Quarter ending

  Claims received

  Successful

  Unsuccessful

  March 1998

  97,387

  47,792

  57,148

  June 1998

  96,125

  42,954

  51,796

  September 1998

  103,061

  43,899

  51,754

  December 1998

  96,022

  44,157

  52,083

  March 1999

  103,069

  44,587

  52,564

  June 1999

  98,997

  45,757

  53,746

  September 1999

  97,542

  46,974

  52,716

  December 1999

  91,311

  39,053

  38,248

  March 2000

  104,749

  49,257

  45,680

  June 2000

  104,079

  51,718

  50,554

  September 2000

  100,670

  57,283

  57,814

  December 2000

  96,333

  48,358

  46,708

  Source:

  DSS Information Centre: 100 per cent. data

  Initial claims for Disability Living Allowance which were successful on review, reconsideration1 or appeal in each quarter from February 1998

  Quarter ending

  In time review

  Reconsideration

  Appeal

  February 1998

  8,500

  —

  3,300

  May 1998

  6,900

  —

  3,400

  August 1998

  6,700

  —

  4,200

  November 1998

  6,600

  —

  3,900

  February 1999

  6,700

  —

  3,800

  May 1999

  5,900

  —

  4,100

  August 1999

  6,800

  —

  4,600

  November 1999

  6,000

  400

  3,700

  February 2000

  2,800

  2,600

  3,500

  May 2000

  900

  3,800

  4,100

  Aug 2000

  —

  4,300

  4,400

  1 Reconsiderations replaced in-time reviews under the new system of decision making and appeals which was introduced in October 1999

  Source:

  DSS Information Centre: 5 per cent. data
  617W

  Average number of days to process initial claims, reviews, reconsiderations1, supersessions1 and appeals in each quarter from March 1998

  Year to date2

  Initial claims

  Reviews3

  Reconsiderations

  Supersessions

  Appeals

  June 2000

  50.9

  —

  59.8

  70.3

  67.2

  September 2000

  49.1

  —

  52.3

  64.6

  63.5

  December 2000

  47.8

  —

  49.3

  61.4

  59.4

  1 Reconsiderations and supersessions replaced reviews under the new system of decision making and appeals which was introduced in October 1999

  2 Figures relate to the period starting on April 1

  3 Includes both 'in time' and 'out of time' reviews

  Source:

  BA Disability and Carer Benefits Directorate

  Decisions not reached at end of quarter

  Quarter ending

  Initial claims

  Renewals

  Reviews1

  Reconsiderations

  Supersessions

  Appeals

  March 1998

  35,907

  21,838

  49,406

  —

  —

  4,503

  June 1998

  36,696

  26,683

  52,502

  —

  —

  4,812

  September 1998

  43,501

  26,507

  53,873

  —

  —

  4,835

  December 1998

  42,813

  23,268

  50,417

  —

  —

  3,064

  March 1999

  47,950

  25,579

  55,520

  —

  —

  4,342

  June 1999

  46,842

  29,098

  62,765

  —

  —

  6,012

  September 1999

  44,211

  27,145

  61,407

  —

  —

  6,502

  December 1999

  57,457

  39,491

  —

  28,352

  24,058

  11,964

  March 2000

  67,257

  46,338

  —

  23,495

  43,190

  19,869

  June 2000

  68,309

  37,178

  —

  17,733

  35,977

  23,634

  September 2000

  53,084

  24,737

  —

  14,736

  25,531

  20,413

  December 2000

  53,643

  23,419

  —

  11,047

  23,393

  11,086

  1 Includes both 'in time' and 'out of time' reviews

  Source:

  Disability and Carer Benefits Directorate

  The number of people who receive Disability Living Allowance continues to increase. Significant backlogs of work accrued in the processing of these benefits last year, because of the growing caseload and introduction of a new system of decision making and appeals. The Benefits Agency tackled the backlog as a priority and it has now been substantially cleared. The continuing high level of appeals outstanding reflects the increase in the numbers received following the introduction of the new procedures.

  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many complaints have been received about the Benefits Agency regarding claims to Disability Living Allowance for each month since May 1997. [155416]

  Mr. Bayley
  The administration of Disability Living Allowance is a matter for Alexis Cleveland, Chief Executive of the Benefits Agency. She will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Alexis Cleveland to Mr. David Willetts, dated 10 April 2001:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question asking how many complaints have been received about the Benefits Agency regarding claims to Disability Living Allowance for each month since May 1997.

  Information is not available for the period prior to April 1998. From April 1998, the number of complaints made in respect of Disability Living Allowance by letter, telephone or in person is in the table.

  1998

  1999

  2000

  April

  176

  505

  1,141

  May

  158

  679

  1,262

  June

  258

  909

  1,569

  July

  264

  972

  1,370

  618W

  1998

  1999

  2000

  August

  508

  801

  1,169

  September

  455

  1,004

  912

  October

  461

  807

  950

  November

  563

  886

  773

  December

  270

  962

  530

  January

  337

  886

  791

  February

  419

  961

  614

  March

  407

  1,284

  1—

  1Figures for March 2001 are not yet available

  It should be noted that while the statistics show the number of all types of complaints about the standard of service received, they also include cases in which dissatisfaction has been expressed with the outcome of benefit decisions which must be pursued through the decision making and appeals process.

  There was a steady increase in the figures throughout the period up to June 2000. This can be attributed to an increase in work on hand before and after the introduction of new decision making and appeals procedures. It is well-documented that changes to Disability Living Allowance procedures introduced in October 1999 led initially to a significant increase in the time taken to process each case. This created a temporary backlog of work, which resulted in an increase in the number of complaints. The backlog was tackled as a priority and has now been cleared with the result that the level of complaints have steadily decreased each month since July 2000.

  I hope this information is helpful.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will give a breakdown in number and relevant percentage of the DLA decisions on(a) the number of claims received in (i) 1999 and (ii) 2000, (b) the number which went to appeal in (i) 1999 and (ii) 2000, and the number which were turned down, (c) the number which went to tribunal in (i) 1999 and (ii) 2000 and in each year how many were turned down and (d) the

  619W
  average time it took for a decision to be taken (i) initially, (ii) on appeal and (iii) on further appeal to the tribunal in (A) 1999 and (B) 2000. [157983]

  Mr. Bayley
  The available information is in the tables.

  Disability Living Allowance claim, review and appeal decisions

  1999

  2000

  Claims received

  390,919

  405,831

  Reviews1

  Number received

  307,903

  263,840

  All decisions

  278,365

  303,874

  Successful2

  91,994

  122,632

  Successful as percentage of all decisions

  33

  40

  Appeals3

  Number received

  49,166

  104,578

  All decisions

  49,857

  57,522

  Successful2

  24,051

  27,159

  Successful as percentage of all decisions

  48

  47

  1 Figures include reconsiderations and supersessions under the new system of decision making and appeals introduced in October 1999.

  2 Figures relate both to cases where benefit is awarded and cases where the value of an award is increased.

  2 Figures relate to cases at appeal tribunals.

  Source:

  DSS Information Centre: 100 per cent. data.

  Average clearance times for Disability Living Allowance claims in days

  Year1

  Type of decision

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  New Claims (normal rules)

  35.00

  42.60

  46.80

  Reviews

  49.70

  64.30

  —

  Reconsiderations2

  —

  55.40

  46.70

  Supersessions2

  —

  67.50

  58.20

  Appeals

  36.10

  52.70

  55.60

  1 The BA does not routinely collate figures by calendar year.

  2 Reconsiderations and supersessions were introduced in October 1999 under a new system of decision making and appeals.

  Source:

  BA Disability and Carer Benefits Directorate.

  Foot and Mouth
  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will review Social Fund adequacy and availability for those affected by foot and mouth disease. [157594]

  Angela Eagle
  I refer my hon. Friend to the written answer from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster, Central (Ms Winterton) on 30 March 2001,Official Report, column 795W.

  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make it his policy(a) to review eligibility for Working Families Tax Credit and other benefits to take account of short-term drops in income as a result of the foot and mouth outbreak and (b) to make representation to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to disregard as income on savings any compensation payments paid by the Ministry of Agriculture Fisheries and Food whose purpose is to finance restocking of farms. [157837]

  Dawn Primarolo
  I have been asked to reply.
  620W
  A new leaflet, WK11 "Foot and Mouth—Financial help you may get if your employment has been disrupted" has been produced to explain the financial help available to people, via the benefit and tax credit systems, whose employment or business is disrupted because of the foot and mouth outbreak. The leaflet is now available on the DSS website and stocks are being issued to local Benefits Agency offices, local authorities and other agencies in affected areas.

  Compensation for the loss of a farmer's stock is treated as a business asset and will be disregarded when estimating income from personal capital.

  Porton Down
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many former service personnel and members of their families have made appeals to the pensions appeal tribunals since 1 January 1999 regarding claims for disablement arising out of experiments at the Chemical Defence Establishment at Porton Down; and how many such appeals have been(a) approved and (b) rejected. [157303]

  Mr. Bayley
  The information is not available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Prisoners of War
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many applications for compensation by former POWs held in Japan have yet to be processed. [157518]

  Mr. Bayley
  [holding answer 9 April 2001]: As at 6 April 2001, 18,302 payments have been issued and 5,629 applications are awaiting determination.

  Departmental Policies (Ribble Valley)
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will set out, with statistical information relating as directly as possible to the Ribble Valley constituency, the effects on Ribble Valley of his Department's policies and actions since 2 May 1997. [157844]

  Mr. Rooker
  The Department's policies and initiatives have made a significant contribution to the Government's overall objectives of:Eradicating child poverty in 20 years, and halving it within 10;
  Promoting work as the best form of welfare for people of working age while protecting the position of those in greatest need; and,
  Combating poverty and promoting security and independence in retirement for today's and tomorrow's pensioners.

  These goals are being pursued nationwide and our achievements are set out in our annual "Opportunity for all" reports. Our second report, "Opportunity for all—One year on: making a difference" (CM4865, September 2000) sets out what progress has been made in the past year, as well as highlighting what more needs to be done. Nationwide statistical information is necessarily more complete than data at a local authority level, but the following provides a comparative guide to the effect of the Department's policies and actions in Ribble Valley since May 1997.
  621W
  Measures in our five Budgets so far will lift over 1.2 million children nationally out of poverty. These include record increases to Child Benefit, the introduction of the Working Families Tax Credit, increases in the income-related benefits, the minimum wage and tax changes.

  Child Benefit will be worth £15.50 a week for the eldest child and £10.35 a week for other children from April 2001: nationally about 7 million families receive Child Benefit, and in Ribble Valley 11,475 families benefit.

  We now have the lowest unemployment rate in 25 years. The New Deals have helped lone parents, the young unemployed, the long-term unemployed, the over 50s and partners of the unemployed to move from benefit into work. In the period since May 1997 the number of people claiming Jobseeker's Allowance nationally has reduced from 1,562,400 to 960,600; in Ribble Valley the number has reduced from 1,200 to under 500. Since May 1997 the number of lone parents who claim Income Support has decreased from 1,013,500 to 894,100 nationally; in Ribble Valley the number has increased from 500 to 600.

  Older people are disproportionately affected by fuel poverty. So we have introduced Winter Fuel Payments to help with their heaviest fuel bill. This winter, the payment is £200 for households who qualify. Around 19,500 older people in Ribble Valley have received a Winter Fuel Payment for this winter (2000–01).

  To demonstrate our commitment to combating pensioner poverty, this year we will spend £4.5 billion extra in real terms on pensioners. Some 18,800 pensioners in Ribble Valley will benefit from the substantial increases in the basic State Pension this April and next; this year's increase is £5 a week for single pensioners and £8 for couples. In addition we have introduced free TV licences for the over 75s of whom we estimate there are about 7,500 in Ribble Valley. 2,100 pensioner families in Ribble Valley are receiving the Minimum Income Guarantee, which we introduced in April 1999 to help our poorest pensioners. From April they will be at least £15 a week, or £800 a year, better off in real terms as a result of Government measures since 1997.

  Other reforms in the pipeline include: the new Pension Credit in 2003 designed to ensure that pensioners benefit from their savings; the launch of Stakeholder Pensions in April this year; and the introduction of the State Second Pension in April 2002 both of which will help provide greater security for tomorrow's pensioners.

  Departmental Policies (Tiverton and Honiton)
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will set out, with statistical information relating as directly as possible to the Tiverton and Honiton constituency, the effects on Tiverton and Honiton of his Department's policies and actions since 2 May 1997. [157810]
  622W
  Mr. Rooker
  The Department's policies and initiatives have made a significant contribution to the Government's overall objectives of:Eradicating child poverty in 20 years, and halving it within 10;
  Promoting work as the best form of welfare for people of working age while protecting the position of those in greatest need; and
  Combating poverty and promoting security and independence in retirement for today's and tomorrow's pensioners.

  These goals are being pursued nationwide and our achievements are set out in our annual "Opportunity for all" reports. Our second report, "Opportunity for all—One year on: making a difference" (CM4865, September 2000), sets out what progress has been made in the past year, as well as highlighting what more needs to be done. Nationwide statistical information is necessarily more complete than data at a local authority level, but the following provides a comparative guide to the effect of the Department's policies and actions in Tiverton and Honiton since May 1997.

  Measures in our five Budgets so far will lift over 1.2 million children nationally out of poverty. These include record increases to Child Benefit, the introduction of the Working Families Tax Credit, increases in the income-related benefits, the minimum wage and tax changes.

  Child Benefit will be worth £15.50 a week for the eldest child and £10.35 a week for other children from April 2001: nationally about 7 million families receive Child Benefit, and in Tiverton and Honiton 11,845 families benefit.

  We now have the lowest unemployment rate in 25 years. The New Deals have helped lone parents, the young unemployed the long-term unemployed, the over 50s and partners of the unemployed to move from benefit into work. In the period since May 1997 the number of people claiming Jobseeker's Allowance nationally has reduced from 1,562,400 to 960,600; in Tiverton and Honiton the number has reduced from 1,500 to 700. Since May 1997 the number of lone parents who claim Income Support has decreased from 1,013,500 to 894,100 nationally and in Tiverton and Honiton from 1,100 to 800.

  Older people are disproportionately affected by fuel poverty. So we have introduced Winter Fuel Payments to help with their heaviest fuel bill. This winter, the payment is £200 for households who qualify. Around 24,200 older people in Tiverton and Honiton have received a Winter Fuel Payment for this winter (2000–01).

  To demonstrate our commitment to combating pensioner poverty, this year we will spend £4.5 billion extra in real terms on pensioners. Some 22,500 pensioners in Tiverton and Honiton will benefit from the substantial increases in the basic State pension this April and next; this year's increase is £5 a week for single pensioners and £8 for couples. In addition we have introduced free TV licences for the over 75s of whom we estimate there are about 9,900 in Tiverton and Honiton. 2,600 pensioner families in Tiverton and Honiton are receiving the Minimum Income Guarantee, which we introduced in April 1999 to help our poorest pensioners. From April they will be at least £15 a week, or £800 a year, better off in real terms as a result of Government measures since 1997.
  623W
  Other reforms in the pipeline include: the new Pension Credit in 2003 designed to ensure that pensioners benefit from their savings; the launch of Stakeholder Pensions in April this year; and the introduction of the State Second Pension in April 2002 both of which will help provide greater security for tomorrow's pensioners.

  Home Visits
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his answer of 4 April 2001,Official Report, column 204W, on home visits, if he will provide information on a comparable basis on the numbers of home visits in each of the last five years. [157584]

  Angela Eagle
  [holding answer 9 April 2001]: Information is available from April 1996. The number of visits made is as follows:

  Year

  Number of visits

  1996–97

  785,126

  1997–98

  483,692

  1998–99

  475,550

  1999–2000

  1,976,296

  Income Support
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will estimate the amount by which the reduction in Social Security spending in London was attributable to changes in the number of(a) people unemployed and (b) lone parents on Income Support in each year since 1996. [157141]

  Mr. Bayley
  [holding answer 9 April 2001]: The estimated reductions in Social Security spending in London each year compared to a baseline of 1996–97 expenditure are shown in the table.

  Estimated amount of reduction in Social Security spending attributable to changes in caseload (London)

  £ million

  Year

  Jobseeker's Allowance

  Is Lone Parents

  1997/98

  190

  10

  1998/99

  270

  50

  1999/2000

  350

  70

  2000/01

  460

  90

  Notes:

  1. Figures are based on a 5 per cent. sample from the Jobseeker's Allowance and Income Support quarterly statistical inquiries and are therefore subject to a degree of sampling error.

  2. Figures rounded to the nearest £10 million.

  3. November 1996 is the base quarter.

  4. November 2000 quarterly expenditure has been used as a proxy for the February 2001 quarter, as data are not yet available for this quarter.

  Occupational Pensions
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many occupational pension schemes were(a) opened, (b) closed and (c) wound-up in each year between 1979 and 2000. [157073]

  Mr. Rooker
  [holding answer 9 April 2001]: The information requested is in the table.
  624W
  Significant fluctuations in the number of occupational pension schemes opened, closed and wound up in any particular year largely take place in years when alterations were made to the pensions regulatory regime. For example, the Social Security Act 1986, which came into force in 1988, permitted contracting-out of the State Earnings Related Pension Scheme on a money purchase basis for the first time; the Pensions Act 1995, which came into force in 1997, contained measures to increase security for members of occupational pension schemes.

  It is important to note that the increases and decreases in these figures do not necessarily reflect large alterations in the overall coverage of occupational pension schemes. For example, most of the schemes registered in the late 1980's and the vast majority of the schemes wound-up in the late 1990's were small schemes with few members.

  Occupational pension schemes opened, closed and wound up in each year between 1979 and 2000

  Year

  Number of schemes first registered in that year1

  Number of occupational schemes with a frozen or closed status and a date of change within a particular year2

  Number of schemes that wound up in that year3

  1979

  4,766

  401

  10

  1980

  4,683

  400

  13

  1981

  4,628

  350

  18

  1982

  5,717

  452

  22

  1983

  6,768

  546

  28

  1984

  8,608

  698

  36

  1985

  10,959

  770

  37

  1986

  11,020

  780

  51

  1987

  12,415

  879

  66

  1988

  22,268

  1,686

  93

  1989

  11,493

  747

  133

  1990

  7,801

  477

  208

  1991

  12,367

  636

  640

  1992

  8,140

  414

  722

  1993

  6,602

  332

  924

  1994

  7,529

  258

  1,199

  1995

  6,603

  190

  1,624

  1996

  8,339

  175

  3,009

  1997

  6,195

  181

  25,294

  1998

  5,007

  148

  6,580

  1999

  3,559

  62

  7,859

  2000

  2,757

  44

  4,677

  1 Figures are based on registrable date which is the closest available information to indicate the start date of the scheme

  2 Figures may not be entirely accurate as there may be many schemes on the Registry's database that were once closed to new members but have now completed their winding-up

  3 Figures are based on the wound-up date of occupational pension schemes. Many of these schemes will have begun the wind-up process in an earlier year

  Source:

  The Pensions Schemes Registry

  H. J. Wilson
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he will make a far east prisoner of war compensation payment to Gnr. H. J. Wilson, 118 Field Regiment RA, number 2558494. [157876]

  Mr. Bayley
  The administration of the ex-gratia payment scheme for former far east prisoners of war is a matter for the Acting Chief Executive of the War Pensions Agency, Alan Burnham. He will write to the hon. Member.
  625W
  Letter from Alan Burnham to Mr. Laurence Robertson, dated 10 April 2001:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question about Gnr. H. J. Wilson, 118 Field Regiment RA, number 2558494 and his entitlement to the Government's ex-gratia payment to surviving members of the British Groups who were held prisoner by the Japanese during the Second World War.
  I can confirm that a request for a claim form was received by the Agency on 6 April 2001 and a form was sent to Gnr. Wilson the same day. Once the completed form is returned, his application will be considered straight away.
  I hope this information is helpful.

  Departmental Policies (Hampstead and Highgate)
  Ms Glenda Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people in Hampstead and Highgate will benefit from the latest rise in Child Benefit. [158011]

  Angela Eagle
  The information as requested is not available.

  However, the latest information shows there are 8,565 families with 14,964 children in the Hampstead and Highgate parliamentary constituency receiving Child Benefit.

  Since 1997 the rate of Child Benefit for the first child has increased by 26 per cent. in real terms. The rates from April 2001 are £15.50 for the first child and £10.35 for all other children.

  Notes:

  1. Figures are based on the November 2000 100 per cent. extract of the Child Benefit computer system.

  2. Cases are allocated to each parliamentary constituency by matching the postcode against the relevant version of the ONS Postcode Directory. Constituency boundaries are represented as at May 1997.

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people in Hampstead and Highgate are benefiting from the Disability Income Guarantee. [158018]

  Mr. Bayley
  It is estimated that in 2001–02 approximately 500 cases will benefit from the Disability Income Guarantee in the Hampstead and Highgate constituency.

  Notes:

  1. The figures are based on data taken from November 2000 5 per cent. scans of the Income Support and Disability Living Allowance computer systems.

  2. Due to the small sample sizes involved these figures are subject to a high degree of sampling error and should be used only as a guide.

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on the effects, with statistical information, on Hampstead and Highgate of his Department's policies since 2 May 1997. [158016]
  626W
  Mr. Rooker
  The Department's policies and initiatives have made a significant contribution to the Government's overall objectives of:Eradicating child poverty in 20 years, and halving it within 10;
  promoting work as the best form of welfare for people of working age while protecting the position of those in greatest need; and,
  combating poverty and promoting security and independence in retirement for today's and tomorrow's pensioners.

  These goals are being pursued nationwide and our achievements are set out in our annual "Opportunity for all" reports. Our second report, "Opportunity for all—One year on: making a difference" (CM4865, September 2000) sets out what progress has been made in the past year, as well as highlighting what more needs to be done. Nationwide statistical information is necessarily more complete than data at a local authority level, but the following provides a comparative guide to the effect of the Department's policies and actions in Hampstead and Highgate since May 1997.

  Measures in our five Budgets so far will lift over 1.2 million children nationally out of poverty. These include record increases to Child Benefit, the introduction of the Working Families Tax Credit, increases in the income-related benefits, the minimum wage and tax changes.

  Child Benefit will be worth £15.50 a week for the eldest child and £10.35 a week for other children from April 2001: nationally about 7 million families receive Child Benefit, and in Hampstead and Highgate 8,565 families benefit.

  We now have the lowest unemployment rate in 25 years. The New Deals have helped lone parents, the young unemployed, the long-term unemployed, the over 50s and partners of the unemployed to move from benefit into work. In the period since May 1997 the number of people claiming Jobseeker's Allowance nationally has reduced from 1,562,400 to 960,600; in Hampstead and Highgate the number has reduced from 4,600 to 2,500. Since May 1997 the number of lone parents who claim Income Support has decreased from 1,013,500 to 894,100 nationally and in Hampstead and Highgate from 2,500 to 2,100.

  Older people are disproportionately affected by fuel poverty. So we have introduced Winter Fuel Payments to help with their heaviest fuel bill. This winter, the payment is £200 for households who qualify. Around 13,700 older people in Hampstead and Highgate have received a Winter Fuel Payment for this winter (2000–2001).

  To demonstrate our commitment to combating pensioner poverty, this year we will spend £4.5 billion extra in real terms on pensioners. Some 12,100 pensioners in Hampstead and Highgate will benefit from the substantial increases in the basic State pension this April and next; this year's increase is £5 a week for single pensioners and £8 for couples. In addition we have introduced free TV licences for the over 75s of whom we estimate there are about 6,000 in Hampstead and Highgate. 3,000 pensioner families in Hampstead and Highgate are receiving the Minimum Income Guarantee, which we introduced in April 1999 to help our poorest pensioners. From April they will be at least £15 a week, or £800 a year, better off in real terms as a result of Government measures since 1997.
  627W
  Other reforms in the pipeline include: the new Pension Credit in 2003 designed to ensure that pensioners benefit from their savings; the launch of Stakeholder Pensions in April this year; and the introduction of the State Second Pension in April 2002 both of which will help provide greater security for tomorrow's pensioners.

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people in Hampstead and Highgate will benefit from the increase in Minimum Income Guarantee. [158010]

  Mr. Rooker
  We estimate that over 2 million pensioners in Great Britain as a whole will benefit from this April's increases to the Minimum Income Guarantee rates and capital limits. As well as those pensioners who might be newly entitled in Hampstead and Highgate, some 3,000 pensioners who are currently entitled will benefit from the increase.

  Benefits Agency
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, (1) pursuant to his answer of 5 April 2001,Official Report, column 260W, what is the average amount of time decision makers have been employed in the Benefits Agency prior to being appointed to that position; [158007]

  (2) how many decisions made by decision makers in the Benefits Agency have been reversed in (a) 1998, (b) 1999 and (c) 2000; [157993]

  (3) pursuant to his answer of 5 April 2001, Official Report, column 260W, how many decision makers in the Benefits Agency earn annually (a) between £10 and £12,000, (b) £12 to £15,000, (c) £15 to £18,000, (d) £18 to £25,000 and (e) more than £25,000; [158009]

  (4) pursuant to his answer of 5 April 2001, Official Report, column 260W, what the procedure is whereby hon. Members may establish direct contact on behalf of constituents with a particular decision maker. [157977]

  Angela Eagle
  Staff are not employed specifically as decision makers and are not separately identifiable. It is not therefore possible to establish how long staff have been employed in the Benefits Agency prior to undertaking work which involves an element of decision making or the number of decision makers in the pay ranges specified.

  Following the introduction of the decision making and appeals (DMA) provisions during the period July to November 1999 the Benefits Agency has collected data about the numbers of decisions across the major benefits that are revised internally following reconsideration. From the introduction of the DMA provisions until the end of March 2000, approximately 38,000 decisions were revised. From April 2000 to the end of February 2001 approximately 102,000 decisions were revised. This includes decisions that were revised following a request from the customer and those decisions that were revised on the instigation of the decision maker.

  There is no formal procedure in place specifically for hon. Members to establish direct contact with an individual decision maker.
  628W
  Individual decision makers will provide their name and a contact telephone number to customers when asked to do so. They will also include their name and contact number when issuing individual letters to customers. However, individual decision makers' names are not identified on Agency computer generated decision notices.

  As the customer's representative, an hon. Member would be able to approach the individual decision maker, in the same way as any other representative, if they were of the view that it was appropriate to do so. However, as I stated in my written answer on 5 April 2001, Official Report, column 260W the accepted procedure has been for hon. Members to contact the Local Office Manager where a reply is required.

CABINET OFFICE

  People's Panel Support Group
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office if she will list the members of the People's Panel Support Group, indicating those who are civil servants. [158006]

  Marjorie Mowlam
  There are 19 members of the People's Panel Support Group. One is from the Thomas Coram Research Institute, one from the Local Government Association, one from the National Consumer Council and two from MORI, who administer the panel.

  Among civil servants, there are up to five representatives from different parts of the Cabinet Office, two from the Department of Health, one from the Home Office, one from the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, one from the Department for Education and Employment, one from the Employment Service, two from the Scottish Executive and one from the Office of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister for Northern Ireland.

  Membership of the group is liable to change as individuals change jobs or responsibilities.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what are the terms of reference of the People's Panel Support Group. [158008]

  Marjorie Mowlam
  The terms of reference for the People's Panel Support Group are"to advise the Modernising Public Services group [in the Cabinet Office] on issues relating to the use and development of the People's Panel".

  Press Advisers
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office since 1996 which personal press advisers to Cabinet Ministers have been funded(a) in whole and (b) in part from public funds; for which Cabinet members they worked; how much they were paid; what staffing, accommodation and access to official information was provided for them; and if she will make a statement. [157310]
  629W
  Mr. Stringer
  Departmental press officers are appointed to serve Ministers and the Department in which they work. They are not appointed as personal press officers. Some special advisers advise on media related issues. Questions about them are a matter for the individual Ministers concerned.

  Civil Service (Equal Pay)
  Barbara Follett
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office if she will list the measures the Government have taken to ensure equal pay within the Civil Service since May 1997. [157693]

  Mr. Stringer
  Guidance was issued by the Cabinet Office to all Departments and agencies in October 1998 in order to raise awareness of the implications of equal pay legislation. The guidance was subsequently incorporated into the Civil Service Management Code which requires Departments and agencies to undertake periodic equal pay reviews.

  The Modernising Government White Paper published in March 1999 set out the Government's plans to modernise the public services including their pay systems. The Civil Service response to the White Paper was set out

  Expenditure broken down to show amounts spent on television, newspaper and radio advertising

  £

  Campaign

  Television

  Newspaper

  Radio

  Total

  1996–97

  Chartermark Awards

  —

  3,822

  —

  3,822

  Open Government

  —

  66,110

  —

  66,110

  Nolan Committee

  —

  20,721

  —

  20,721

  Chartermark

  —

  56,450

  —

  56,450

  Total

  —

  147,103

  —

  147,103

  1997–98

  Standards in Public Life

  —

  34,767

  —

  34,767

  Total

  —

  34,767

  —

  34,767

  1998–99

  Party Political Funding

  —

  1,371

  —

  1,371

  Commissioner for Public Appointments

  —

  7,139

  —

  7,139

  Total

  —

  8,510

  —

  8,150

  1999–2000

  Action 2000 Public Awareness

  920,069

  807,828

  155,469

  3,343,856

  Civil Service Pension Scheme

  —

  771

  —

  771

  Total

  920,069

  808,599

  155,469

  3,344,627

  2000–01 to date

  Fuel Crisis Information

  —

  8,340

  —

  8,340

  UK-Online

  —

  99,470

  —

  99,470

  Total

  —

  107,810

  —

  107,810

  Note:

  All figures exclude VAT

  Information on other departmental promotional campaigns is not held centrally and could be produced only at disproportionate cost.
  630W
  in Sir Richard Wilson's report to the Prime Minister of December 1999. The report requires all Departments and agencies to review their pay and performance management systems.

  In addition, virtually all Civil Service posts are underpinned by an analytical job evaluation system designed and tested to be free of any inherent gender bias. The main Civil Service job evaluation system was updated and equality tested before being issued to Departments and agencies in June 1999.

  Promotional Campaigns
  Mr. Lansley
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office if she will list the television, newspaper and radio advertising and other promotional campaigns conducted by(a) her Department, (b) its agencies and (c) its departmental public bodies, in each of the past five years, showing for each the expenditure incurred by her Department; and if she will make a statement. [153417]

  Mr. Stringer
  The information requested on television, newspaper and radio advertising undertaken by the Department is as follows:

  The figures provided do not cover recruitment advertising.

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

Royal Assent
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Irvine of Lairg): My Lords, I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified her Royal Assent to the following Acts and Measure:

Vehicles (Crime) Act,

Criminal Defence Service (Advice and Assistance) Act,

Election Publications Act,

Regulatory Reform Act,

Elections Act,

Kent County Council Act,

Medway Council Act,

Churchwardens Measure.

Housing Benefit Fraud
11.7 a.m.
Lord Campbell of Croy Lord Campbell of Croy asked Her Majesty's Government:
What progress has been made in reducing fraud in the system of housing benefit.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Social Security (Baroness Hollis of Heigham): My Lords, the administration of housing benefit is the responsibility of individual local authorities. We are working with them to ensure that housing benefit is administered securely and to drive out fraud and error.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for that reply. As a simple way of reducing this kind of fraud has been used effectively by some local authorities, involving unidentifiable envelopes—a move recently discussed in this House—are the Government encouraging other local authorities to adopt it? Furthermore, can the noble Baroness confirm that housing benefit fraud is still costing this country a huge amount of money?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I shall respond first to the noble Lord's second point. We estimate that housing fraud and error—incorrect
1058
payments—are running at around £840 million. That is detected fraud, but of course there may well be other fraudulent claims that we are not yet catching. This year we are introducing for the first time a housing benefit accuracy review, as a result of which we hope to have more reliable figures.
As regards the noble Lord's question about unidentifiable envelopes—a matter which he has pursued in the past, most helpfully—I am happy to tell the House that something in the order of 350 out of 409 local authorities now take part in the "do not redirect" scheme for envelopes. As a result, those giros being paid direct to landlords on behalf of their tenants are no longer sent to landlords once their tenants have moved on. That was one of the main sources of fraud.
Lord Astor of Hever: My Lords, following the pilot projects testing different housing benefit application forms, can the Minister tell the House whether this has led to a common, baseline form, which should help to reduce the incidence of fraud?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: No, my Lords, at present local authorities are still using different types of form even though this is a nationally administered benefit. However, we are introducing an important development by ensuring that local authorities have access to more information. Around 400 local authorities now have access to essential DSS benefit information and, following the passing into law of the Social Security Fraud Bill, they will, where authorised, have access to information from banks and so forth. On that basis, we shall be in a position to look again at the forms to see whether more common literature can be produced.
Earl Russell: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the accuracy of housing benefit administration could be improved if information given to the local authority could be passed on direct to the Benefits Agency and vice versa? Would this help in the effort to decrease the incidence both of fraud and error?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, the noble Earl is absolutely right and I am sure that it would help in the fight against fraud and error. The difficulty with housing benefit is that it is a very high value benefit. In London in particular, housing benefit can be worth three times as much as, say, income support. Thus we have an extremely complicated benefit to administer as well as one that is attractive to defraud. In London, the benefit is administered by staff with a high turnover, matched by tenants who are highly mobile. That provides a recipe—if I may put it in those terms—for complex administration and an attractive capacity to defraud. However, the entire thrust of our reforms. including the measures contained in the Social Security Fraud Bill, is to provide a single, secure base providing common information. As a result, we shall ensure that people are neither paid inaccurately nor can they claim fraudulently.

Unemployment
11.11 a.m.
Earl Russell Earl Russell asked Her Majesty's Government:
What proportion of the reduction in the claimant count for unemployment since 1997 is the result of people entering employment.
The Minister of State, Department for Education and Employment (Baroness Blackstone): My Lords, changes in the stock of employment result from huge flows of people both into and out of employment, unemployment and inactivity. Since 1997, while unemployment is down by over 500,000, employment has risen by over 1 million. Employment has increased by more than the fall in unemployment because some job growth has been absorbed by people joining the labour force, for example, women returners, young people leaving education and returners from early retirement.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. Is she also in a position to assist the House by giving further figures for those who have left the claimant count because, for reasons of age, they are no longer required actively to seek work? Other reasons may be that they have moved on to incapacity benefit or they have been excluded from the claimant count due to benefit sanctions.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I cannot give the House those statistics. I shall be very happy to write to the noble Earl and set out the statistics for him in full.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, can the Minister give the House an indication of when the Government propose to use, on a consistent basis, the ILO figures for unemployment—which are their preferred way of expressing unemployment—instead of continuing to use the claimant count, which was a statistical device employed by the previous administration in order to hide the true figures of unemployment?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, the Government use both the claimant count and ILO figures. We do so in the monthly announcements about the levels of employment and unemployment. The numbers of unemployed on the claimant count now stand at 3.4 per cent. That is the lowest level since 1975. However, as I said, we do not look only at the claimant count. The numbers of ILO unemployed—that is, those seeking and available for work—have fallen by more than 500,000 since May 1997. That is the lowest figure for 20 years and now stands at 5.2 per cent. It is perhaps important to note that long-term youth claimant unemployment—those who have been unemployed for six months or more—has been virtually eradicated. It has fallen by approximately 75 per cent since May 1997 and is at its lowest level for 25 years. That is a pretty good record.
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, does the Minister agree that part of the confusion in the supplementary
1060
question of the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, arises from the fact that we still publish these two different indices? Is it not time that we abandoned the claimant count, which was systematically manipulated by the previous government and is less and less representative of what is happening in the labour market?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, it is true that employment and unemployment statistics lost credibility under the previous government as a result of the constant changes that were made in order to try to bring down the figures of unemployed people, which were at about 3 million in the early 1990s. However, we believe that it is legitimate to use the claimant count alongside the ILO figures because it indicates how many people are claiming benefit and how the numbers of those claiming benefit have either increased or decreased, which is important for the public and Parliament to know.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, if the Government are so vocal about the claimant count being discreditable, why do they still continue to produce it after four years.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I have just answered that question. I do not need to repeat my answer.
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, is not the real triumph for Britain's restructuring the fact that since the war some 4 million jobs in the eight basic industries have been lost and that nearly all those jobs have been recreated in modern form?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, in my answer I should like to comment on what has happened since the Government came to power in 1997. There has been an increase in the overall number of jobs of 300,000—a very substantial increase—and some jobs have, of course, been lost. So restructuring is taking place. That will always be the case in a stable and flexible economy. It is important that we now have stability, a reasonable level of growth, low inflation and low unemployment figures.

Armed Forces: Application of War Crimes Statute
11.16 a.m.
Lord Campbell of Alloway Lord Campbell of Alloway asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they agree with the Chief of the Defence Staff, Admiral Sir Michael Boyce, that junior ranks acting on orders believed to be proper are liable to be impleaded to stand trial for war crimes; and, if so, whether in the exercise of the treaty-making power of the Crown, a declaration (under Article 124) excluding

1061
application of Article 8 to the Armed Forces should be made on ratification of the International Criminal Court statute.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Scotland of Asthal): My Lords, the United Kingdom does not intend to make a declaration under Article 124 of the Rome Statute. This question was debated by the House during the Report stage of the passage of the International Criminal Court Bill, and the will of the House was not to make such a declaration.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. As Article 8 incorporates convention provisions for war crimes on which servicemen can be tried in our courts and the ICC, will the Government give an undertaking to entertain further consultations and representations from the Armed Forces before declining—as apparently they now propose to do—to exercise the discretion to opt out? Are not these provisions—which have not been revised for more than 50 years and which are apt to apply to armed operations such as peacekeeping, whether or not under the aegis of NATO or the United Nations—ripe for redefinition and review?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, it is not right that these offences should be redefined. The noble Lord will know that the Rome Statute, to which we agreed, enumerates in Article 8 war crimes which, as the noble Lord rightly said, have been part of international law for some considerable time. These issues were debated in full, both in Committee and on Report, during the Bill's passage through this House. There has been the fullest consultation with the Ministry of Defence. My clearest instructions are that it is more than content that the current position protects our Armed Forces.
At the moment, the UK troops operating in Bosnia and Kosovo are already within the jurisdiction of the international criminal tribunal for the former Yugoslavia. They are currently subject to these rules but that has not impeded their legitimate operations. Without the benefit of the complementarity produced by the ICC giving primacy to this jurisdiction, our courts are not in the position that they will be once the ICC Bill becomes law.
Lord Shore of Stepney: My Lords, my noble friend will remember that many anxieties were expressed at Third Reading about some of the provisions in the convention and in the Bill. Worries have been articulated in very serious places, as it were, in the Armed Forces since. Has any progress been made in the use of the ability to make declarations and reservations under Article 50, which was referred to by my noble and learned friend the Attorney-General in replying to the debate? Progress in that regard might go some way to alleviating such concerns.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, the Government listened with great care to the concerns
1062
expressed. We believe that the Bill addresses those concerns forcefully, cogently and comprehensively. The Bill is now in the process of completing its passage through the other place. The noble Lord is right to say that the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General indicated that additional matters would be met later. But that would not be an appropriate way in which to express our adherence to Article 8.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, does the Minister agree that Article 8 is very much at the heart of the International Criminal Court legislation and that any lead by the United Kingdom to reduce its application to the Armed Forces would deeply weaken the Bill in its application to other countries where the behaviour of the armed forces is perhaps less exemplary? At a time when, for example, rape has been used as a deliberate weapon of war, it is surely appropriate that the International Criminal Court should be upheld, and in particular that Article 8 should be upheld.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I respectfully agree with the noble Baroness. She is right. Our Armed Forces have a very proud and long history of proper adherence to international law and practice. We need feel no shadow of shame for them. We have a proud tradition. We have complied with international conventions. It is right that we should seek to form an example now and comply with a commitment that we have made, validly, to the international community.
Lord Lamont of Lerwick: My Lords, will the Minister explain why the Government are absolutely confident that 100 different countries, let us say, which will exclude the United States but may Include Zimbabwe and Iran, will, on a system of one country one vote, select 18 judges of adequate competence and impartiality? The Minister referred to proceedings in another place. Has she noted the opinion of Mr Martin Bell—who is presumably thoroughly impartial in this matter and has observed atrocities at first hand—that the system of Yugoslav war tribunals has defects, that it has not worked impartially and that it has resulted in some wrongful convictions?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, we do not accept that assessment. Mr Bell is entitled to his view and it is right that he should express it, but we do not agree with him. We have a clear intention to be party to the discussions about the appointment of judges. That is one of the reasons why we wish to be within the first 60 countries to give effect to the statute. That will give us an opportunity to make our voice heard and to have British judges at the court. That is a safeguard that we should seek for our armed servicemen and women who go into battle on occasion with great fortitude on our behalf.
Viscount Slim: My Lords, coming down to the practical application of the legislation at the fighting level, is the Minister aware that there is still disquiet among field commanders? We really should do

1063
everything possible to retain the necessary military ethos and culture and not destroy command and control in battle and within the Ministry of Defence. Is the Minister aware that the message I am receiving regarding the disquiet among field commanders is different from the platitudes given out by the Ministry of Defence?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I hear what the noble Viscount says. Of course I agree with him that command and control and the retention of command and control is of importance. I can reassure the noble Viscount that the rules that have applied to the way in which our commanders have carried out their duties in the past will not be materially changed by our adherence to, compliance with, and ratification of the ICC. The noble Viscount will know from his long and distinguished history that our Armed Forces are already subject to international conventions. They are bound by them and they have honoured them. The noble Viscount will know that we need have no moment of shame for the way in which our Armed Forces will discharge their duty. They will do it properly, and with courage.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, will the Minister allow that there is no question of being ashamed of our Armed Forces? There is no criticism of our Armed Forces. Will she accept that that is not the gist of the Question? Nor, indeed, is rape as a weapon of war. Will the Minister accept that that, too, is wholly wide of the Question? What is relevant to the Question is the view of the field commanders as expressed in the Sunday Telegraph—
Noble Lords: Oh!
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, they were quoted in the Sunday Telegraph—and there is no reason for any great expression of mirth or wonder. There is no question of laughing this off. Will the Minister accept the concern that has been expressed by the noble Viscount, Lord Slim, that these matters ought to be addressed?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, as I said, these matters have been addressed. I entirely accept that there has been selective reporting of the evidence given by Admiral Sir Michael Boyce. But it is important to remember that the Chief of the Defence Staff was very clear. He said, for instance:
"I am as confident as I can be at the moment that we are taking what actions we need to in the light of legislative Bills coming forward to have exemptions where appropriate. Three or four years ago we were not well set up"—
the noble Lord will know that that was under a different administration. He went on to say:
"There is nothing in the pipeline that I am aware of at the moment which gives me cause for concern".
He was also asked directly about the ICC Bill.
1064
I should like to put this matter to rest. The field commanders may have expressed some concerns. Those concerns, we respectfully suggest, have been dealt with comprehensively. It is quite wrong to try to fan a comment taken out of context into something which causes difficulty. It does not.
The Earl of Northesk: My Lords, to pursue the matter a little more widely, can the Minister explain why the Government seem so reluctant to accept that this issue will have—some argue that it is already having—an adverse effect on recruitment, discipline and morale among our Armed Forces?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I know that many would prefer us to deal not with facts but with speculation and rumour. The facts do not bear out the noble Earl's comment. We are having increasing success in recruitment. We hope that adherence to proper rules of international law will enhance the opportunity to attract those of the right mind.
Lord Archer of Sandwell: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the effective functioning of the International Criminal Court is infinitely more likely to protect British subjects and British forces than it is to threaten them?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I respectfully agree with my noble and learned friend. It is right that we shall have, once the Bill comes into force, the opportunity for issues to be dealt with by our courts and our judges. That is the best form of security that our armed servicemen and women could possibly have.

Government Policy Announcements
11.29 a.m.
Viscount Goschen Viscount Goschen asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they consider that the use of unattributed briefings to the media represents an appropriate mechanism for announcing Government policy.
The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Lord Falconer of Thoroton): My Lords, when Parliament is in Session, Ministers will want to bear in mind the desire of Parliament that the most important announcements of government policy should be made, in the first instance, in Parliament. This is the approach that is set out in paragraph 27 of the Ministerial Code.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, in that case, I am sure that the noble and learned Lord will be in a position to give the House a categoric assurance that the Prime Minister did not authorise, or know of, the disclosure to the Sun newspaper of his decision to postpone the date of the local elections before he came to Parliament to make the announcement. I am equally sure that the noble and learned Lord will also be in a position to give

1065
the House a categoric assurance that the Home Secretary did not know of, or authorise, the disclosure of the Home Office sections of the Queen's Speech to The Times newspaper of 27th November last, before Her Majesty came to Parliament to open it and deliver her speech.
In the light of the Answer that the noble and learned Lord has given to the House, can he explain why Ministers do not follow the guidance that he has so eloquently put forward? Is it simply for reasons of political expediency, or do they feel that Ministers no longer have to answer first to Parliament?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, of course Ministers have to answer first to Parliament. As far as concerns the noble Viscount's first point regarding the delay in the date of the local elections, I can do no better than to quote what Mr Trevor Kavanagh said in the New Stalestnan yesterday. When the allegation was made that he was told first, he denied this and said:
"People have got a bee in their bonnet about these two stories … Sometimes, when you get written about, you realise new things about journalists. You get the most amazing theories emerging which have absolutely no basis whatsoever in truth".
Perhaps the noble Viscount should not believe everything that he reads in newspaper reports.
I do not know anything about the allegation made regarding November of last year. It simply appeared in newspapers and is something that the noble Viscount believes in relation to the same issue. I wish that the party opposite would stop focusing on the trivia of politics and start focusing on issues such as foot and mouth and improving our tourism industry.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, in the light of the Question, can the Minister say why Mr Blunkett and Mr Milburn chose Fulham football ground, with the permission of Mr Al Fayed, to announce the publication of a White Paper on disability—an event to which the noble Lord, Lord Rix, was invited—but tabled only a Written Answer to Parliament on the matter?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, the Government ensure at all times that Parliament has the first opportunity to question the Government in relation to matters.
Lord Tomlinson: My Lords, does my noble and learned friend agree that the rather synthetic fuss that we are seeing created about alleged leaks to the Sun newspaper has far more to do with an Opposition running completely scared of a general election—whenever the date may be—than it has with anything to do with the sanctity of Parliament?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I do not know whether the Opposition is running scared of a general election. However, what I do know about members of the Opposition is that they never focus on
1066
the matters that concern the country. Instead, they focus only on the things that concern the small world in which they live.
Lord Crickhowell: My Lords, if what the noble and learned Lord has said about it all being a question for the press is correct, why has the practice of making announcements outside Parliament been condemned by successive Speakers in another place?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, the point I was trying to make is that all of the questions, especially the one tabled by the noble Viscount, Lord Goschen, are based on the proposition that the press was briefed first, with the authority of the Prime Minister. The person who is alleged to have done that—or to whom it was done—was Kavanagh. That has proved to be wrong.
Earl Russell: My Lords, is the Minister aware that one of the most powerful denunciations of unattributable briefings was in a speech, much beloved of the late Mr Michael Foot, that was delivered in another place in 1576? Is the noble and learned Lord further aware that attempts to stop unattributable briefings have continued unabated since then; that they have not yet succeeded; and that they are, therefore, unlikely to succeed now?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I believe that the noble Earl's reference to the 16th century relates to a previous government. I am not able to tell the House what the hue of that government was; indeed, I did not know that the lobbies existed at that time. However, I should make one point. This Government started the practice of on-the-record lobby briefings. I do not remember the previous government doing so, neither do I recall the Leader of the Opposition having on-the-record lobby briefings.
Lord Waddington: My Lords, will the noble and learned Lord please address his mind again to the Question posed by my noble friend Lord Crickhowell, which I repeat: was the former Speaker of the House of Commons dealing with trivia when she condemned the Government time after time for making announcements to the media before making them to Parliament?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I cannot comment on what the Speaker said in another place. However, I can comment on the Question that I have been asked by the noble Viscount, Lord Goschen; namely, whether what Mr Kavanagh said to the New Statesman was based on a false factual premise.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, will the noble and learned Lord accept that this House presumes that he has better access to the Prime Minister than he does to Mr Trevor Kavanagh? Should not that question be addressed to the Prime Minister? Did such a leak take place, or did it not? It is a perfectly legitimate,

1067
straightforward question to which this House would like a yes or no answer from the noble and learned Lord.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, the House has had a straightforward answer. The noble Viscount's material is based upon what the Sun newspaper reported. The author of this story has made it quite clear that it did not come about in the way implied by the noble Viscount.
Lord Brookman: My Lords, as we have had several references to what has been said in the other place, does my noble and learned friend the Minister agree that Dennis Skinner's comment about how to handle the Conservatives with the use of the Army after Labour wins the next election was a good one?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I believe that the Prime Minister replied that there were certain things that even the Army could not help with.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, is not the noble and learned Lord rather consulting the voice of convenience when he opts to take no notice of what has been said in the other place, when obviously he is not unaware of it? Does he agree that this comparatively modern—at least, post-Goebbels—art of trimming information, timing it, and directing it with some skill, is not really the most respectable of human activities?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I keep returning to the point that this is all based upon what people read in press reports. The example that we have before us is one that does not appear to be correct.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, can the noble and learned Lord tell the House what appearance has to do with the issue? The Minister has been asked whether or not the Prime Minister had done such a thing, and his reply was that the Sun newspaper had said that he had not. Is that not an extraordinary way to conduct government?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, it was a reference to the evidence upon which the noble Viscount relies.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, since the Labour Government came into office, does the noble and learned Lord agree that the executive is strengthening, Parliament is weakening and the axis for decision making is moving to Brussels?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: No, my Lords.
Baroness Noakes: My Lords, does the noble and learned Lord agree that information from unattributable press briefings is better than no information at all in relation to the Dome?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, there has been a mass of information relating to the Dome.

Armed Forces (Peacekeeping Provisions) Bill [H.L.]
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to make new provision about the application of the law of murder, manslaughter and culpable homicide to members of the Armed Forces on duty in peacekeeping or ancillary operations; and for connected purposes. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time.—(Lord Campbell of Alloway.)
On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Bill [H.L.]
11.38 a.m.
Report received.
Clause 1 [Commonhold land]:
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1 , line 10, at end insert ("or a term of years absolute in the land with not less than 200 years unexpired is registered as a leasehold estate in commonhold land).
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I can give the House a lot of numbers for the sake of the record while some noble Lords leave the Chamber in order to find other things to do with their morning. In moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 5 and 6, 8, 17 to 19, 21 to 31, 37 and 38 and 40, all of which stand in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Goodhart.
Perhaps I may begin by apologising to the House for the absence of my noble friend Lord Goodhart who is currently abroad. I cannot begin to do justice to the amendments that he tabled in the expectation that he would be here to move them at this stage. In the best traditions of this House, my noble friend has not merely retabled amendments to which he spoke in Committee; he has responded to the debate. I wish that my thinking and my technical ability were as good as those of my noble friend. However, I shall do my best to propose the amendments.
It was not until just before I entered the Chamber that it occurred to me that I have just a little more in common with the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher, than I had ever realised. Missing my noble friend I realised that she was quite right to say that "every woman needs a Willy".
Before I discuss the substance of the amendments, which, as I say, reflect the debate at the previous stage—therefore, I believe that my comment is apposite—I should say that we on these Benches continue to be concerned that the Government are pressing forward with a Bill which many of us believe has little or almost no prospect of completing its passage in this Parliament. It deals with matters of substance which seem far from being satisfactorily resolved.
First, we. consider commonhold and, later, leasehold reform where there is much concern that the amendments do not go far enough to achieve what the supporters of reform seek. As regards commonhold, it is a serious matter to introduce a new form of tenure. It is imperative that it is introduced correctly. It is not like leasehold where there is scope to tweak and adjust at future stages. A new form of tenure needs to be right from the very start. It would appear from the later amendment to provide for an ombudsman scheme that the Government are not confident that their commonhold measures amount to a robust set of provisions.
I turn to the large group of amendments we are discussing. They all allow commonhold leases to be created with terms of 200 years or more. That would allow new build commonholds to be created as part of mixed use buildings with the commonhold association granted a long term over the residuary parts. Because the interest created is a leasehold, positive covenants—on which we spent a little time at the previous stage—would be enforceable both by and against the commonhold association. The amendments are also designed to meet the criticism that leaseholders would be an anomaly in a commonhold development by, as it were, interposing the commonhold association. I beg to move.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I support the noble Baroness. The amendment concerns a fundamental point that we shall deal with in some detail later; that is, whether one can have leasehold mixed with commonhold. The Government have adopted an intransigent position against that principle but I do not fully understand on what basis they can substantiate that. I have considered our earlier discussions and it seems that it is possible to have leaseholds within commonhold units. The noble Baroness tackles the matter from one angle. I and the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, will tackle it from a different angle on another amendment. We and the noble Baroness seek to make the system of tenure work.
The Government have proposed a new system of tenure which is radically different from anything we have experienced in this country but their ambition and their horizon are extremely limited. They have set themselves a minimalist target of allowing the system to be adopted for residential units in new developments. They do not want to take it any further than that and it is not compulsory for new developments. I fear that commonhold, which has many attractions, will never be a success without positive support from the Government. I do not believe that the Government are giving that support in the Bill as it stands. I believe that the noble Baroness is trying to enlarge the remit of commonhold, as I shall try to do in a moment. For that reason I support the amendment.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I do not wish to speak to the amendment but I seek clarification. I have received from the Lord
1070
Chancellor's Department the list of amendments and comments on them. However, the text does not state to which amendments it relates. Will the Minister match the text to the amendments as they are discussed? I agree with some of the amendments but disagree with others. However, unless I know to which amendment the text relates, I shall find it difficult to speak to them.
Lord Kingsland: My Lords, I simply add that I agree entirely with what the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and my noble friend Lord Caithness have just said.
11.45 a.m.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Lord Bach): My Lords, I shall deal first, although, I suspect, not entirely satisfactorily from her point of view, with the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes. No department knows the final arrangement of the amendments until the Marshalled List is published. It was published yesterday morning. In an attempt to be helpful to noble Lords who have taken an interest in the Bill, we tried to issue some of the briefings on the amendments to be discussed early on so that they would have a chance to look through them. The text does not state to which of the amendments on the Marshalled List it relates, for which I apologise. I may not be able to help the noble Baroness as much as she would like. However, I shall do my best.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, underrates herself considerably. The amendments have a touch of the "Goodhart" about them. They are well drawn and we thought that the pen of the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, had been at work. It is no fault of the noble Lord that he cannot be here today. He did not want the Report stage to be held today but there was nothing we could do about that. We shall miss his comments on the amendments. I believe that those on all sides of the House would agree that he is the acknowledged master on the Bill. But, having said that, we must do our]best without him.
This is a large grouping of amendments but, as the noble Baroness made clear, the point behind them is a simple one. My reply will not be much longer than her remarks in moving Amendment No. 1. Before dealing with the substantive amendments, it may be helpful if I concentrate on the fundamental principles of the commonhold scheme as we see them. With the advice—this is an important point—of those who have assisted us in developing the Bill, we have reached two distinct conclusions. They may not be agreed by those on all sides of the House.
First, there is little interest in the possibility of residential commonhold based on leasehold. It would introduce a complex structure because it would be necessary to resolve the inevitable conflicts that would exist between the terms of the lease and the documents governing the commonhold. Yet the main attraction of commonhold is the simplification that it brings to land tenure. It is a form of tenure that is to be free from the problems of leasehold.

1071
I turn to the second general point. The weakness of leasehold is that it can invariably be forfeited for breach of covenant. The commonhold might not even be held under a head lease but might be held by way of an underlease. The commonhold would then be at risk of termination because the head lease was forfeited, even though the members of the commonhold were not in breach of the terms of the lease which they themselves held. Nor is it a viable option to remove the landlord's right of forfeiture to overcome this difficulty. Such a right—whether we like it or not—is a property right and, if there is to be compliance with the European Convention on Human Rights—I refer to Article 1 of the First Protocol: Protection of Property—it cannot be taken away without the compensation not just of one landlord but of each and every landlord, whether immediate or of some superior lease to the commonhold.
Many of the amendments in the group are consequential, arising from the need to ensure that whenever freehold is mentioned in an exclusive way, the leasehold scheme introduced by the amendments is also permitted. I shall not deal with all the amendments, but I shall make some specific points. Amendment No. 1 would allow for the setting up of the leasehold commonhold provided that the underlying lease had at least 200 years to run. I have already spoken about the dangers inherent in basing commonhold on a lease, which might be forfeited. I emphasise "might", because I am not saying that that would happen or would be likely to happen, only that it could happen.
There is also the problem of overlaying layers of rights and responsibilities. Would the terms of the underlying lease trump those of the commonhold community statement and the memorandum and articles? What criteria would leaseholders use to decide whether there was any advantage to be had from converting to commonhold if they were in blocks based on underlying leases that ran for more than 200 years, given what I have already said about risks?
Amendment No. 13 would amend Schedule 2 to restrict the rule against flying commonholds to freehold schemes. I understand the point which the noble Baroness is making. If a non-grounded commonhold is derived from a lease rather than being freehold land, it is not open to the same difficulties as a flying freehold, as provision could be made for positive obligations to run with the commonhold as a whole and with the property below it, in the same way as if the commonhold were a single flat. However, that brings into sharp focus the reduced nature of the interest that the unit holders in such a commonhold would have compared with the present structure of the Bill. Instead of a freehold unit, they would have a piece of a lease.
Perhaps more basically, while the noble Baroness has taken great pains to follow through the basic idea in various parts of the Bill, it is rather less clear that she has considered, still less provided for, the possible ramifications in property law, which I know that she
1072
knows well from practice. If nothing else, the amendments would be likely to require a number of consequential amendments to other legislation.
More worryingly, it might be argued that if commonhold is not simply to be a form of freehold ownership, but also a form of leasehold ownership, it will be neither, but will be a new third tenure. What consequential amendments across the field of property law might that require? There would at least have to be a very wide power to rewrite areas of property law by secondary legislation. One looks in vain for that in the amendments, although I do not criticise them for that. If the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, were here, I would take some pleasure in asking him about that, particularly given his important membership of the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee, which has strong views on excessive regulations.
Much of the rest of the group is consequential on the original proposition that there should be leasehold commonhold. That is the basis on which the noble Baroness has moved the amendment. I have to say, with regret, that we are firmly opposed to that principle. We think that it is too risky a scheme for residential property.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, the Minister issues a challenge to my noble friend Lord Goodhart to set about writing the consequential amendments required to other legislation. If I were the Minister, I would not be too confident that my noble friend will not take up the challenge.
The Minister said that the Government wished to introduce a form of tenure free from the problems of leasehold. We support that, but a great deal of concern has been expressed that commonhold will not be as attractive—panacea may be too strong a word—as we all wish because of the constraints contained in the Bill, so it might not supersede leaseholds over the years. Those who want an end to leasehold are disappointed by the provisions. We wanted to extend opportunities. However, I note what the Minister has said and I have no doubt that my noble friend will read his comments carefully. For the sake of his health, I shall advise him not to spend too much time amending the rest of the statute book over the Easter break. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 2 and 3 not moved.]
Clause 2 [Application]:
[Amendments Nos. 4 and 5 not moved.]
Schedule 1 [Application for registration: documents]:
[Amendment No. 6 not moved.]
Clause 3 [Consent]:
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 2, line 15, at beginning insert ("Subject to subsection (1A),").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 10 and 15. The group also includes Amendments Nos. 9, 11, 12 and 14.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the noble Baroness lost me then. I thought that she was

1073
regrouping some of the amendments, but she then mentioned all the amendments listed in the grouping. Will she clarify that, please?
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I shall speak to Amendments Nos. 7, 10 and 15. There are other amendments in the group. I was simply giving the numbers for the record.
Amendment No. 7 is a paving amendment for Amendment No. 10, which deals with the consent required for commonhold and the question of 100 per cent provision, on which we spent a good deal of time in Committee.
The 100 per cent provision in the amendment would not apply if flat owners representing up to 20 per cent of the flats were to withhold their consent. The lease of their flats would remain outside the commonhold system, but they would have the right to opt into the commonhold association at any time on the payment of a price to reflect the value of the reversion and the value of membership of the commonhold association. When the lea se expired, if there had not been an opt-in, the commonhold association could sell the property as a commonhold unit and keep the proceeds.
I hope that most of our arguments are clear from the amendments, but I shall say a few words about paragraph 6 of the proposed schedule, which fleshes out the provisions that would apply to what my noble friend has chosen to call non-consenting parties. The paragraph would exclude the right to an extended lease in order to put pressure on tenants to convert to commonhold. However, it would be right to recognise that that right to an extension was held before the conversion to commonhold, so in valuing the reversion, regard should be had to the right to extend the lease.
Many of us feel that if commonhold is to succeed, it should not be sabotaged by what may be no more than one perverse leaseholder in a block. A great deal of concern has been expressed about that and other attempts will he made on Report to address the issue.
We heard in Committee of the Government's view that it would not be right to impose commonhold unless everyone involved agreed. It has been pointed out to us that one might make an analogy with company law. Under companies legislation, it is permissible to make what one might call a "compulsory acquisition" of the shares of up to 10 per cent of non-assenting shareholders. That is a very close analogy.
Also available is the commonly used provision of a special resolution to amend the articles of association of a company. That requires only a 75 per cent majority. I believe that that, too, provides a very close analogy in that a company's articles of association are its basic constitution and also comprise a contract between the shareholders.
I turn totally Amendment No. 10. The noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, has tabled amendments in this group on the same subject—that is, flying commonholds. Amendment No. 10 would ban flying commonholds
1074
applying only to freehold land. We see no reason why there should not be a flying leasehold commonhold. I beg to move.
Noon
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendment No. 14 standing in my name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel. Before I do so, I want to say that I agree with much of what the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, said with regard to her amendment.
As I mentioned earlier, we are trying to achieve a situation whereby leaseholders may transfer to commonhold. That is not being encouraged by the Government. As the law stands, it can be done only with the agreement of 100 per cent of the tenants. We know that that is patently unrealistic. There is no serious chance that the tenants in a decent block of flats, or, indeed, in a building with perhaps more than two occupiers, will be able to move from a leasehold to a commonhold situation.
Like the noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, the noble Lord, Lord Williams, and I have considered what was said in Committee and have come forward with a variation on what we proposed on that occasion. Your Lordships may be surprised by some of the percentages that we have used. Noble Lords will recall that in Committee we used the figure of 80 per cent. We have reduced that to 50 per cent and the reason is very simple: it is to form a seamless transition from the right to manage to the enfranchisement to the commonhold.
In Committee on 20th February, the noble Lord, Lord Bach, said:
"It may be that relatively few leaseholders will wish to take the final step of converting to commonhold once they see the extent to which Part II of the Bill will satisfy their needs, and how very far towards the ideal of commonhold that will get them".—[Official Report, 20/2/01; col. CWH 11.]
When we discussed Part II, I bore those comments in mind but I am not satisfied by what the noble Lord said. I do not believe that it will satisfy the aspirations of many people. Although I hoped that it might, I am certainly not convinced at present. That was one reason why we considered it important to put forward this amendment.
Perhaps I may take up the challenge which the noble Lord, Lord Bach, has again thrown at us with regard to the difficulty of management. I do not see a difficulty. There will be no greater difficulty in managing a commonhold which has leaseholds within it than there is at present under a partly enfranchised block. The leaseholders who remain will actively consent to do so, and the commonhold will still be subject to democratic control.
Indeed, with regard to the human rights issue, a fundamental principle in making conversions operate is the existence of long leaseholds within a commonhold. The objectors will retain the Landlord and Tenant Act rights but will not have a vote in the commonhold association, just as a non-shareholder of a management company does not have a vote in running that company.

1075
I do not see any great difficulties in that regard. I can envisage the situation of a leasehold block in which the agreed percentage of tenants wish to move to commonhold but in which those who do not want to move will remain in the same position. In order to protect the interests of those tenants, we have added another subsection—subsection (3)—to our amendment. If more than 10 per cent of the leaseholders object to the conversion, they can take the whole proposal to a tribunal court. The tribunal can then look at both sides of the argument.
I hope that the Government will appreciate that we have made every effort to meet the concerns that they put forward in Committee and to meet the legitimate aspirations of those who wish to make commonhold a success.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, before the noble Earl sits down, does he have in mind the lands tribunal or some other type of tribunal?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, it would be the appropriate tribunal. We shall discuss tribunals later, but I believe that the best tribunal in this regard is the right one.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I support the noble Earl in his Amendment No. 14. When we were in Committee, I never quite understood the Government's position on existing builds. It appeared that at times my noble friend was saying that the Government did not expect many applications for commonhold in existing builds; at other times, my noble friend seemed to make it perfectly clear that the commonhold arrangement was for new builds.
If that is the case, and if the Government are to set their face against existing properties moving into commonhold, why are there provisions in the Bill which allow for the conversion of existing properties into commonhold? If, on the other hand, the Government have not set their face against the conversion of existing properties into commonhold, may we please have sensible arrangements by which that could be achieved? It simply cannot be achieved with 100 per cent agreement.
Therefore, the noble Earl and I have tried to put forward an amendment which would allow the Government to make a firm statement that they would like to see existing properties converted into commonhold. Not only that; we also propose a way of doing so which would not leave other leaseholders at a disadvantage. It would allow people who wanted to go into commonhold to do so, subject to a majority vote. Those who did not want to go into commonhold would be able to remain as leaseholders in a commonhold association. It is perfectly simple. Neither we nor our advisers can foresee any problems in that.
Therefore, perhaps I may say to my noble friend that there lies the dilemma for the Government. I put it in a form that I am sure my noble friend will relish—
1076
it is a challenge. Will my noble friend make it absolutely clear what are the Government's intentions in respect of the conversion of existing properties as opposed to new builds?
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, first, I support the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, who said that a situation should never arise in which only one person would be able to prevent a move to commonhold. I then go on to support the amendment in the names of my noble friend Lord Caithness and the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel.
I believe that the Government are overlooking entirely the fact that people approach commonhold differently according to their age. Many older people in blocks of flats will say, "I can't go through all the bother. I don't really want to be involved". However, I believe that younger people, who should be entitled to be part of a commonhold as early as possible in their lives because that is a much better position for them to be in, would be disadvantaged simply because many people would not be bothered with such a change. Therefore, I support the amendments as put forward.
Baroness Maddock: My Lords, I add my voice to the voices of those who have already spoken for reasons that noble Lords have already given. Why is a significant aspect of the Bill devoted to enabling people to move from leasehold to commonhold if that process will be so difficult that it may be almost impossible to make the move? If that is the case, we are wasting much time—indeed, we have already done so. The Government must respond to that point.
People were under the impression after the introduction of the Bill that they would be able to escape—I hope that I can put it like that—from what they saw as the chains of the old-fashioned way in which we run leasehold in this country. They are bitterly disappointed. We are still getting correspondence from people who cannot understand why the Government have adopted their approach. In relation to the amendments moved by my noble friend Lady Hamwee, my noble friend Lord Goodhart tried to help the Government to find a solution to the problem.
The arrangement that I have described is wanted by people from all sides, not simply by one little group. The Government should take that on board. Many experts think that the Bill should contain a means of enabling people to move to commonhold without the 100 per cent arrangement. The position is not as difficult as the Government keep saying it is. The Government should look carefully at what people have said. The view that I described has come from all sides.
Lord Kingsland: My Lords, my amendments—Amendments Nos. 9 and 12—mirror those that I tabled in Committee. I have nothing to add to what I said then.
12.15 p.m.
Lord Bach: My Lords, I shall start on a conciliatory note. That may not be where I end, but it is at least where I shall begin.
One amendment in this group has not been spoken to; namely, government Amendment No. 11. I shall move it in due course but speak to it now. Amendment No. 11 follows the logic of the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, which we accepted in Committee. That amendment swept away mention of those with interests in the land to become commonhold land. Those whose consent is now required are registered proprietors of an estate, registered proprietors of charges, registered cautioners and any others to be specified in regulations. That being the case, the words removed by that amendment are not required and so are being removed.
I turn to the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland. In his traditional and very helpful way, when he spoke to Amendment No. 9, he in effect employed the same arguments that he used in Committee. He will not be completely surprised if I employ the same arguments back at him.
Amendment No. 9 would introduce into Clause 3, which deals with consents to commonhold registration, a "surface area" exception, under which, if the aggregate of all those whose consent were to be required but who failed to give it did not exceed 20 per cent, their consents should not be required. Another amendment would add to the list of matters for which regulations could make provision. It would relate to the way in which the surface area was to be calculated and it would enable a court to determine issues about whether consent was required. The effect would be uncertainty. It is not clear what the purpose of the amendment is other than to apply a somewhat arbitrary rule to the giving of consent. As I shall explain—I know that this will be a disappointment to noble Lords—we are not prepared to accept any rule other than the 100 per cent rule.
The amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, ask us to say that might is right and that the loudest voice wins. I hope that noble Lords will forgive me if I use the same analogy that I used in Committee. That involved the case of a freeholder who owns a substantial country house in 4 acres of attractive parkland. His substantial country house is divided into leasehold flats, the aggregate floor area of which is certainly less than 20 per cent of 4 acres and the surface area, if calculated by aggregating the surfaces of floor, walls and ceilings, would still fall far short of 20 per cent of 4 acres. In Committee I asked, can the freeholder dispense with their consents, deprive them of their leases and take them into a commonhold without so much as a by your leave? If that example is objected to, we may consider another example. A freeholder may live in the main part of the house and may have let one wing as leasehold flats, the surface area of which amounts to less than 20 per cent of the total of the house. Can the leaseholder be dragged into commonhold? Will such people find themselves suddenly faced with a part, however small, of the
1078
upkeep of the park and stables as common parts, because their consent was not required to register and the landlord has effectively extinguished their leases and substituted a CCS in the construction of which they had no part?
No doubt the noble Lord might respond by saying that it is just such problems that the regulations that are proposed in the amendments would overcome, and should the regulations fail to overcome them effectively, the courts could pick up the pieces.
Our fundamental objection in this regard involves our firmly held intention of requiring 100 per cent of all those whose interests would be affected by the registration of a commonhold to consent. The amendment would add layers of uncertainty to what is otherwise a clear and straightforward process. It does nothing to address what one would do with the 20 per cent dissenters.
I now turn to what I may call the main amendment in this group; namely, Amendment No. 14, which was spoken to by the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, and supported nobly by my noble friend Lord Williams of Elvel, who, almost in a sporting way, set me a challenge regarding our intentions. I believe that he slightly misquoted me; he did not use my exact words. Perhaps a better way to put it is to say that he slightly misunderstood me.
It is not our intention that there should never be opportunities for existing buildings to be converted to commonhold. I make that absolutely clear. We see no reason why in practice small blocks of flats, for example, with four—or perhaps slightly more—leaseholders might not all agree to join a commonhold. We agree in practice that large blocks of existing leasehold flats are not likely, with the 100 per cent rule, to convert to commonhold. I do not think that that amounts to a surprise announcement it is basically what I said in Committee. There is no reason why smaller blocks should not convert. We hope that new residential developments will adopt commonhold as the form of land tenure that residents require. We do not say that that will not happen but we are realistic and believe that it may happen only in small blocks of flats.
I shall deal as best I can with Amendment No. 14. Of course we understand why it was tabled but we believe that it and the basis on which it has been argued are mistaken. We have no interest in standing in the way of those who wish to convert existing leasehold blocks to commonhold blocks. However, we are strongly opposed to the prospect of converting, in the name of commonhold, to something that is not commonhold. As I said in Committee, although we have set a high hurdle which not all may clear, we believe that we are right because, by going through substantially the same processes as would be required to convert to commonhold, it will be possible, using the radical provisions of the leasehold part of the Bill, to get to substantially the same position.
Perhaps I may explain the Government's position in a little more detail by going through the noble Earl's amendment bit by bit. He wishes to allow conversion

1079
from leasehold to commonhold with existing leaseholders. He wishes the commonhold association to be the unit-holder, presumably in commonhold terms, and thus to he the freeholder landlord of the continuing, or as we think of them, anomalous leaseholders. He wants existing rights under the lease to remain and he also wants to maintain the rights of mortgagees.
We believe that to do as the noble Earl asks in a commonhold context would lead to something which is not commonhold, at least not in our terms. But more than that, it would create serious and ongoing problems for all those associated with the project. In the first place, those undertaking the conversion process must be the registered proprietors of the freehold of the land to be converted, and so must either have obtained the consent of the freeholder or bought out his interest. In the latter case, they will have an RTE company.
However, the commonhold association is the holder of the common parts, not a freeholder of units. To achieve what is asked for in this amendment would require significant change to the purposes of the commonhold association to enable it to own and manage the continuing leasehold units. Again, problems would arise from a complex structure that combined commonhold and leasehold.
The amendments want the terms of the lease to continue. How will the decision be made between the commonhold community statement and the lease where the two are in disagreement? Will the leaseholders also be subject to the commonhold community statement? If not, will there be two potentially quite different regimes running in the one block? How will service charges be set for the leaseholders? Will they have access to all or, indeed, any new facilities provided by the commonhold association and if so, on what terms will they have such access?
There then comes the alteration in the plan put forward by the noble Earl that conversion can take place without a majority or if the 50 per cent means 51 per cent, then with only a very bare majority. We believe that that is an extremely thin foundation on which to found such a monstrous edifice, if I may use that expression.
Of course, I am sure that if we were to strain to do so, we might be able to produce regulations of truly fantastic complexity. That could be done. But I must ask the noble Earl why he wants to vitiate the commonhold concept when it is not necessary. If there are those in existing long leasehold buildings who do not want to convert from their current long leases to some other position in the midst of a converting majority, the leasehold part of this Bill, Part II, sets out how they can do that. Those who do wish to take greater control can buy out the freeholder, set up their RTE company, which will look very much, in some ways, like a commonhold association for all practical purposes, and grant themselves 999-year leases on new
1080
terms if they wish; thus, in effect, owning their property in perpetuity while those who do not wish to be involved can stay with their old leases.
We believe that that is the position which, in the end, the noble Earl's amendment seeks to reach. If that is so, we invite him to withdraw it because, if it is passed, it would undermine a number of the underlying principles of commonhold without providing any practical benefit. The RTE company is a purpose-built vehicle for those who wish to have mixed types of tenure in a single block. Commonhold is based on the concept—this is crucial to our case—of parity between unit-holders. We believe that that would be undermined and whatever emerged would not be commonhold.
When moving Amendment No. 7, the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, said that she was dealing with the problem of 100 per cent conversion. She takes a different line. Where the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, would leave the anomalous leaseholders within the commonhold as lessees of units, the noble Baroness would leave them as tenants of the commonhold association but outside the commonhold, if we understand her right, for their flats will explicitly not be units and if not units, surely not common parts.
The argument could be made that that gets round our objection based on the concept of parity between unit-holders. I see that that comment is agreed to on the Liberal Democrat Benches. But we believe that it begs some of the same questions, and some others. If the anomalous leaseholders' flats are not part of the commonhold, what will be the nature of their rights in relation to the common parts and how will their service charges be assessed as against a general commonhold assessment to be paid by the unit-holders? Will they in any way contribute to a reserve fund and if not, will they benefit from any reserve fund set aside from commonhold assessments?
All that would have to be dealt with by regulation-making powers shortly set out at the end of the proposed new schedule, which is one of the amendments spoken to. That is a very simple power to cover questions which we think are of great complexity. There might well have to be an element of a Henry VIII power if there were to be anything like certainty of covering all the modifications necessary; and it is by no means clear that that power does enough. Even if we were to assume that it did, I ask the same rhetorical question as I asked of the noble Earl: should we really stand to gain?
I am sorry that I have taken some time, but we accept that this is an important group of amendments and I hope it is understood that I am not doing this on any party basis. I conclude by quoting to the House the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, when he tackled this problem of 100 per cent conversion. He dealt with it both on Second Reading and in Committee. I shall not quote from him on both occasions, but on Second Reading he said:
"Commonhold overcomes the technical difficulties of freehold flat ownership and it gives the unit-holder an interest which potentially will last for as long as the building itself. One criticism of the scheme which has been voiced in some quarters is that the

1081
conversion of an existing block of flats to commonhold requires the unanimous consent of the interested parties. As a result, most commonholds are likely to be established in new blocks developed as commonholds. It may be difficult to secure the consent to convert of all t Le lessees in existing blocks of flats, in particular if these are blocks of any size".
He went on to say:
"I have some sympathy with that view. It is arguable that, where a substantial majority are in favour of conversion, they should be able to convert. However, serious legal and managerial problems would arise in a block which was part commonhold and part leasehold. Complex legislation would be required to deal with such problems. Ultimately, I should like to see the possibility of effecting conversion without complete unanimity, but I should prefer to see commonhold start on a straightforward basis before we encounter the more difficult issues. That should be a matter for future legislation rather than the present Bill".—[Official Report, 29/1/01; cols. 462–631
In the Government's view, that comment, coming as it does from someone who really, on the whole, does not want to see 100 per cent, shows how necessary it is to get this Bill through as it stands at present.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, as he concentrated a lot on my amendment, perhaps I may take up one or two points before the noble Baroness decides what to do with the main amendment.
The Minister quoted again the remark which he made in Committee. He described what my noble friend Lord Kingsland, the noble Lord, Lord Williams, and I are asking for as saying that might is right and that the loudest voice wins. Surely that is exactly what is happening in Part II. That is the whole essence—the loudest voice does win. We are merely trying to give to those who have the loudest voice in Part II the same commonhold benefits as for those who occupy a new development.
The noble Lord said that what we propose is not commonhold in our terms. Of course it is not; it is a radical shift. The whole purpose of the amendment is to have a strict definition of "commonhold" for a new development and a slightly different definition of "commonhold" where one is moving from an existing building and converting into commonhold. There has to be a difference between the two. The Government have taken what I believe the noble Lord called a high fence jump. I am trying to lower that fence.
I still do not fully appreciate the difficulties of management to which the noble Lord alluded. The problems that he put to the House are no different from those one has with a mixed block of leases or from those which a manager now has to face with a wide variety of leases: long-term, medium-term and short-term and, as regards service charges, in dealing with those who are tenants by right.
I am not entirely convinced. I am grateful for the courteous and full way in which the Minister responded to the group of amendments. I shall read what he said. At this stage, I am by no means convinced that he is totally right and I am totally wrong.
12.30 p.m.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I am sure that my noble friend would not want me to retract on his behalf, because he would not do so himself, the concerns to which the noble Lord alluded. I believe that those concerns are about how this is to be done. Perhaps I may restate his view and mine. It is not satisfactory to have a position where one or two individuals can block the conversion to commonhold.
I have one or two drafting concerns about the amendment tabled in the names of the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, and the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel. However, we share the same concerns and goals. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, is right. We either have to restrict commonhold to new build and accept that as the case—and as regards this point the Government seemed to be admitting the limited nature of conversion in a way which we have not heard before—or we make conversion realistic.
In his amendment, my noble friend attempted, imaginatively and effectively, to address the technical problems about which we have heard. The Minister spoke of the need for regulations of fantastic complexity. I suspect that regulations might have to be of considerable length, but they would be towards the simpler rather than the complex end of the spectrum. Length and complexity are not necessarily the same thing.
If we ever reach Third Reading of the Bill I am sure that this will be a matter to which we would wish to return. Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 8 to 10 not moved.]
Lord Bach Lord Bach moved Amendment No. 11:
Page 2, line 27, leave out from ("consent") to ("successors") in line 28 and insert ("to bind").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 12 not moved.]
Lord Kingsland Lord Kingsland moved Amendment No.13:
After Clause 3, insert the following new clause—
FLYING COMMONHOLD
(" .—(1) Commonhold land may consist of, or include, a building, or part of a building, which is above or below other land.
(2) Where subsection (1) applies, a positive covenant relating to the commonhold or the other land entered into between the commonhold association and the registered proprietor of an estate in the whole or part of the other land shall be enforceable by and against their successors in title and persons deriving title under them if the covenant so provides.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 13 was also moved in Committee when I spoke to it at some length. I shall therefore restrict my remarks simply to saying that the amendment would encourage developers of mixed-use buildings to consider using commonhold. Many are reluctant to promote the whole building as commonhold because of their preoccupation with the fact that that might be regarded as limiting the investment value of the commercial element.
Permitting flying commonholds would enable the residential elements to be sold on a commonhold basis and the commercial elements retained on a freehold/ leasehold basis. I beg to move.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I am reminded that the word used by the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, in Committee was "telegraphic". At that stage the amendment was moved by my noble friend Lord Goodhart. For that reason, we support it.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, in commendably few words, the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, has raised an issue of great importance. It is of such great importance that I doubt whether it can be adequately dealt with in the context of the Bill. As he well knows, the problem is that in this country, and under English law, positive covenants do not run with freehold land after the first purchaser has sold on his interest. Any amendment of this kind, which would allow a commonhold to be developed on noncommonhold land would bring that problem into play. The second subsection of the first amendment would make it possible for covenants to be entered into between the commonhold association and the proprietor of what might be called the supporting land, which would be enforceable by and against the successors. Perhaps a little oddly, that would only be enforceable if the covenant so provided.
The Government recognise that for many years there has been a real problem with positive covenants. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor referred to it in his speech at Second Reading. The problem was first considered in 1965 when the Committee on Positive Covenants Affecting Land, chaired by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilberforce, who was in his place for this part of the Committee stage, reported to Parliament. This is not a problem which can be solved within the context of the Bill. It is under review by the Law Commission. It should be considered in the context of the Law Commission report. I assure the House, as I did in Committee, that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor is a strong supporter of the work of the Law Commission and is anxious for this part of its work to reach a speedy conclusion, to be consulted on as it would need to be, and to be brought, as appropriate, into legislation. However, that does not mean that I can support the amendment.
Lord Kingsland: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilberforce, drafted his report on the question of positive covenants in 1965. I am delighted to hear from the Minister that the pace is, indeed, quickening. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 14 and 15 not moved.]
Schedule 2 [Land which may not be commonhold land]:
[Amendments Nos. 16 and 17 not moved.]
Clause 6 [Registration in error]:
[Amendments Nos. 18 and 19 not moved.]
Lord Kingsland Lord Kingsland moved Amendment No. 20:
Page 3, line 24, leave out subsection (2) and insert—
("(2) The register may be rectified by the Registrar if—
(a) he is satisfied that that the error is a minor matter: or
(b) if all relevant parties consent to the rectification.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, as your Lordships are aware, the Chief Land Registrar already has wide powers to rectify errors. The amendment would ensure that minor or uncontested errors are resolved quickly. If the registrar does not consider a matter to be minor, or if the parties do not agree, it is appropriate to refer the question to the courts to decide. I beg to move.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, we believed the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, to be right on this matter at the last stage, and we believe that he still is. The argument put forward by the Minister was dealt with admirably briefly.
Lord Bach: My Lords, I well remember the noble Lord moving the amendment in Committee, along with another amendment at that time. I attempted to answer both. I believe that the reply was satisfactory as regards the other amendment but not as regards this one. I am not surprised to see it back again today. It has been moved in the utterly reasonable way in which it was last time. On the face of it, but only on the face of it, it seems a reasonable amendment. Perhaps I may take up a little of the House's time—I am afraid rather more than the noble Lord did in moving it—and try to make a good case as to why the amendment is mistaken.
The amendment would weaken a control which we believe would help to prevent fraudulent or reckless applications for the registration of commonhold. Under the clause as it exists now, the three circumstances in Clause 6(1) which would trigger the use of the court to make a declaration are, first, that the application did not accord with Clause 2; secondly, that the certificate to be given by the directors of the commonhold association was incorrect; or, thirdly, that the registration itself contravened some provision of Part I of the Bill. None of these is a trivial matter and, on the whole, we believe that none of them is likely to happen accidentally.
For that reason, we have specified that it should not be possible to rectify the register but that the court should be invited to declare that the estate should not have been registered as commonhold, with all that follows from that. The amendment would allow rectification if either the registrar were to be satisfied that the matter was a minor one or that the affected parties consented. In our view, that weakens the protection against possible malpractice or serious carelessness. The circumstances will not be trivial and the parties, if they have got so far as to formulate an application that would deal with those circumstances, are unlikely to consent.

1085
The existing powers of rectification by the registrar under Section 82 of the Land Registration Act 1925 would be available in a limited range of circumstances for commonhold. Those would include cases where land is not capable of being commonhold land under Schedule 2. In those instances, there would have been an error or omission in the register. These can be dealt with by the existing powers of rectification in the Land Registration Act and there is no need to amend them.
In the cases where there are minor mistakes in the certificate—for example, a clerical error as to name, date or spelling—they can be corrected by the registry under rule 13 of the land registration rules. Those powers will still apply to commonhold. I believe that they are known collectively as the "slip rules".
However, where land has been properly registered by the registry in reliance on the certificate under paragraph 7 of Schedule 1, there is no basis for rectification under Section 82, even if the certificate is later found to he inaccurate. If the certificate is inaccurate in that it states that the memorandum and articles and/or the commonhold community statement satisfy the requirement of the Act but in fact they do not, there is no basis for rectification under the 1925 Act. The registry will not know that it has completed registration on the basis of an inaccurate certificate until it receives an application for registration of an amended memorandum and articles or commonhold community statement, or the court orders that the land shall cease to be commonhold land.
In those cases, the inaccuracy goes to the creation of the commonhold association. If the association does not comply with the formalities so as to exist as a commonhold association, the land cannot be commonhold land. If the land ceases to be commonhold land, the registry will need direction from the court as to how the property interests should be divided between the various owners.
Those cases raise issues of company matters as well as distribution of property interests and are therefore outside the scope of the land registrar's powers of rectification. If the land ceases to be commonhold land and the property interests need to be reallocated, there will be registration against the proprietor in possession of the land. That can be done only within Section 82(3) of the 1925 Act when it is ordered by the court. We believe that those are powerful reasons why it is appropriate that rectification for the matters set out in Clause 6(1) of this Bill should be referred to the court. We believe that the land registry agrees with us.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, before the noble Lord, Lord Bach, sits down, perhaps I may say that his response will repay reading carefully. If a matter requires rectification and the parties are all in agreement, does that fall within the existing rules to which he referred?
Lord Bach: My Lords, perhaps not at the present time. I may have an answer for the noble Baroness but
1086
I do not want to make one up. Having used sporting metaphors previously, perhaps I may write to her with a correct answer to that "bouncer".
Lord Kingsland: My Lords, I should be grateful if the Minister would be kind enough to send me a copy of the letter he proposes to send to the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee—unless the noble Baroness were to object. In that case, I should understand.
I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, that what the noble Lord said in response to my amendment would repay reading. He spoke at considerable length with much cogency and, if I may add, great feeling. In those circumstances and at this stage I am extremely happy to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 21 and 22 not moved.]
Clause 7 [Registration without unit-holders]:
[Amendments Nos. 23 to 30 not moved.]
[Amendment No. 31 not moved.]
Clause 10 [Extinguished lease: liability]:
12.45
Lord Kingsland Lord Kingsland moved Amendment No. 32:
Leave out Clause 10 and insert the following new Clause—
EXTINGUISHED LEASE: LIABILITY
(" . The superior leaseholder shall be liable for loss suffered by a person who holds an inferior lease which is extinguished by virtue of section 7(3)(d) or 9(3)(f).").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Clause 10 in its original form is inappropriate where, as proposed under Clause 3, the consent to an application does not have to be unanimous. It would be illogical and unfair if a lease were extinguished but the superior leaseholder could nevertheless escape liability for loss just because he was among a dissenting minority.
If the unit-holder had the necessary leasing power, he might mitigate his liability by granting a new lease in place of one that had been extinguished. I beg to move.
Lord Bach: My Lords, Clause 10 attempts to ensure that where a leaseholder whose consent is required to a conversion to commonhold gives it, and as a result an inferior leaseholder loses his rights because his lease is extinguished, the inferior leaseholder should be compensated by the superior leaseholder for his loss. He will, after all, have considered the upshot of his decision to consent. The inferior leaseholder—who by definition will not have a registered interest because, if he did, his consent would have been required—will have no choice in the mater. He should under Clause 10 be compensated.
The noble Lord's new clause presumably follows his earlier amendment which dispenses with the need for consent of any aggregate of those with interests amounting to less than 20 per cent of the surface area. No doubt he wishes to be sure that inferior leaseholders holding from superior leaseholders who

1087
fall among his up-to-20-per-cent of non-consenters will be protected. However, if his intention is that a non-consenting leaseholder who is "strong-armed-into commonhold should still be responsible for the losses of inferior leaseholders, there is a danger of an argument against it under the Human Rights Act. Certainly it seems wrong to us, but we are insisting and continuing to insist on 100 per cent consents. With that in mind, we do not believe that the noble Lord's scenario should arise.
The practical effect of the noble Lord's amendment is to retain Clause 10(2) as far as the end of subsection (2)(a) but to do away with the rest of the clause. This means that the clause will no longer state when it applies and the definition of the term "superior leaseholder" will not appear in Clause 10. We believe that both changes are of doubtful benefit. Further, it will mean the disappearance of the proposition that no compensation is due from the superior leaseholder to a sub-leaseholder whose consent (the subleaseholder's) to conversion is required. We believe that that is an oddity. If the intention is to ensure that a leaseholder whose lease is extinguished is always compensated by his landlord for any loss that he suffers, it does not in practical terms achieve that any more effectively than the present Clause 10. A sub-leaseholder whose consent is required will be in a position to ensure that he is properly compensated in return for giving that consent because that sub-leaseholder will not consent or agree to be part of the commonhold except on terms that give him that very compensation. It is for those reasons that we invite the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Kingsland: My Lords, the noble Lord has explained that this amendment to Clause 10 is intimately associated with a series of amendments made to Clause 3. In view of the noble Lord's reaction to the earlier amendments to Clause 3, all I can do is thank him for his response and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 11 [Definition]:
The Earl of Caithness The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 33:
page 6, line 17, leave out ("may") and insert ("must").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 33 I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 34 to 36, 59 and 60. I make no apology for rerunning the principle behind these amendments which we argued at some length in Committee. I believe that it is extremely important to the smooth running and implementation of the Bill. I hope that these amendments will receive a more favourable reply from the Minister than my previous amendment. Rather than widening the scope of the Bill, this amendment tries to improve its implementation on the ground.
The key purpose of the amendments is to make absolutely certain that it is the commonhold association, not the unit-holder, which is responsible for the repair, maintenance and insurance of the
1088
structure of the building. The existing provisions of the Bill make the balance of the structure which is not maintained or insured by the unit-holder the responsibility of the commonhold association. I and the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, who has also put his name to this amendment, believe that that could pose a major risk to the community as a whole and the individual unit-holder. It would be very easy for this to go wrong in practice.
I am grateful to the Minister for sending me the commonhold community statement, the latest draft of which, dated 15th March, spells out in more detail some of the matters to which I refer. In clause 28 on page 14, under "Repair and Maintenance of the Common Parts", it is stated:
"The Commonhold Association shall be responsible for the repair and maintenance of the Common Parts in accordance with any specifications and standards which may be set".
and so on. The words "common parts" become key.
To go back to clause 24, under "Repair and Maintenance of the Common Units", it is provided that,
"Each Unit-Holder shall be responsible for the repair and maintenance of the interior of his Commonhold Unit".
I stress the words "the interior of" because they are in italics in the copy before me. I understand that the words in italics can be changed. We seek to avoid any possibility of change when it comes to the repair and maintenance of the structure of the building.
What does "interior" mean? For that we have to go back to the beginning of the document and look at the definition of "common parts". That expression is not defined in the draft statement. Clause 4 states:
"Definition of the Common Parts (in words) including:
(a) a description of the Common Parts (including any structures. fittings. apparatus or appurtenances excluded from the Commonhold Units)".
When one comes to repair and maintenance, the position is unsatisfactory and not sufficiently clear. Perhaps I may give the example of a floor between two units. Who is responsible for the load-bearing capacity of the floor? It may be that the unit-holder is responsible for both the plaster to the ceiling and the paintwork or wallpaper up to it and the unit-holder above is responsible for the timber floorboards. But we need to be absolutely clear that it is the commonhold association that is responsible for the structure of the floor.
Similarly, if one has a main supporting wall in the middle of a number of units one must be absolutely clear that it is the commonhold association that is responsible for the maintenance of that wall, not the unit-holder. It would be all too easy for the unit-holder to become responsible.
If we turn to clause 5 of the draft commonhold community statement, there is provision for a plan to show each commonhold unit and the common parts attached. The plan is pictorial evidence of what should be clearly stated. Most plans will be coloured or the area of the unit will be in coloured edging. What happens if the lawyer or agent makes a mistake and includes in the coloured area, or that area within the

1089
area edged red, a main supporting wall? That will, therefore, be the unit-holder's responsibility. What happens when a dispute arises upon it?
These are just some of the problems that can be faced unless we get this absolutely clear now. I have had far too much experience of blocks of flats where the position has riot been clear in existing leases. Here we have an opportunity to get it absolutely right at day one. I commend the amendment to the House. I beg to move.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I very much hope that the Government will accept this amendment because it follows their own logic. I am all in favour of the Government following their own logic, if possible. The noble Earl makes his case on detail; I simply make mine on the principle that the commonhold association should be responsible for all the things outlined in the amendment. There is no great difficulty. "May" should become "must". I very much hope that when my noble friend finishes his conversation he will be able to respond favourably.
1 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am grateful to both the noble Earl and my noble friend for the way that they have introduced these amendments. I certainly sympathise with their desire that there should be precision in the definition of what is a commonhold unit and what is a common part. It is true that the Bill as drafted provides that within a given property there must be more than one commonhold unit and everything else that is not part of the commonhold units is the common parts. We certainly agree that in most cases outside walls, load-bearing interior walls and the structural part of a floor will be common parts, but they will not be in commonhold houses. There is perhaps a drafting difficulty here. We believe that the right solution is to allow the commonhold community statement to specify in a particular case what is and what is not a common part because the amendments before us would lead to an odd state of affairs. They would require a commonhold community statement in defining a unit, to do things which may or may not be necessary or desirable in a particular case.
Clause 11(3)(b) allows the definition of a unit to include excluded structures, if appropriate. They could be balconies in flats or shared heating ducts. As the Bill is currently drafted, they could be treated as common parts even though they are accessible only in or through a unit. The amendment requires the definition to exclude structures and so on. That may not be appropriate in a commonhold detached house.
Clause 11(3)(c) allows that the structures delineated in an area might be excluded, but the amendment would require them to be. So if the amendment were to be accepted the wall around the garden of a detached house would be a common part as a structure delineating the garden, which in our definition and in commonsense terms, would be part of the unit.
1090
Clause 11(3)(d) allows the definition to refer to a unit as being made up of two or more areas of land whether or not contiguous. I do not believe that it makes sense to require the definition to do that because most units will simply be dwellings without extras to define. With Clause 11 one has to read Clause 24 which contains a neat and tidy definition of common parts. Common parts are anything not defined as a unit in the commonhold community statement.
Amendment No. 59 would define them by reference to the structural parts of the commonhold and areas used in common. Amendment No. 60 sets about defining the structures that one would expect to be common parts.
Even if that were an exhaustive and sufficiently precise list of structures in relation to any particular type of commonhold structure—and I very much doubt whether that is the case—it certainly is not enough to cover everything because anything might be part of a commonhold. We can expect developers to develop detached, semi-detached or indeed terraced houses. The definition proposed by the amendment simply will not do. The definition process for ci unit in Clause 11 allows for the definition of the structures mentioned by the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, on a case-by-case or even on a building-by-building basis in any commonhold. The definition of common parts, as presently drafted, does the rest.
The noble Earl has referred in detail to the current draft of the commonhold community statement. His comments are very helpful and valuable. As we finalise that statement I have no doubt that the points he has made will be taken into account. But the fundamental difficulty with all the amendments is that it is a onesize-fits-all approach, which does not allow for flexibility. We have to provide flexibility by allowing it to take place within the context of the commonhold community statement.
The noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, has not spoken to his Amendments Nos. 61 to 63 so he will forgive me if I do not respond to them.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, for his full reply, but I fear that he is still going to cause problems through the lack of clarity. I understand his point as regards flexibility, but that will cause all sorts of problems for the unit holders and the Commonhold Association in the future. Within our amendments we have designed some flexibility. I refer the noble Lord to Amendment No. 60, paragraph (e) of which states,
"such other areas not forming part of the commonhold unit".
That provides the necessary flexibility, but on a much more limited scale. I ask the noble Lord to think again on this matter. When one produces a new system of tenure such as commonhold, it is absolutely vital that one reduces the amount of flexibility as regards repair, maintenance and insurance. It has to be crystal clear to everybody who is responsible for what. I repeat that too often in the past there has not been such clarity from day one and we are now sorting out problems as

1091
regards leases which are up to 50 years old, or even older in some cases. All those who were parties to the original agreement are no longer alive. We have to interpret what is written and in many cases it is contradictory and difficult to interpret. That leads to excessive service charges sometimes being put on the leaseholder, but here it would be on the unit-holder. Conversely, it leads to the commonhold association not being responsible for enough or too much. I hope that the noble Lord will look at this again. At the end of the day, I do not believe that there is very much between us because we are both trying to achieve the same thing, but it is critical that we get it right. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 34 to 36 not moved.]
Clause 12 [Unit-holder]:
[Amendments Nos. 37 and 38 not moved.]
Clause 14 [Use and maintenance]:
Lord Kingsland Lord Kingsland moved Amendment No. 39:
Page 7, line 24, leave out ("and maintenance") and insert (", maintenance and improvement").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I return to a matter which I raised in Grand Committee. One of the most serious problems with leasehold management occurs when the lease makes no provision for improvements to the building. The effect is to prevent the cost of improvements being recovered through the service charge, with adverse implications for the fabric of the building. I note with pleasure that Schedule 9 includes amendments to the existing legislation to add the expression "improvements" to the standard definition of the service charge. There should be similar provisions in commonhold leglisation.
The expression I used in my amendment in Grand Committee was "upgrading" rather than "improvement". However, from the debate that took place there was a sense that upgrading was too uncertain a concept and open to misinterpretation. I therefore suggest to your Lordships today at Report stage the expression "improvement" in order to maintain the parallel with leasehold legislation. I beg to move.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, we still have difficulty in supporting this amendment despite the change in terminology. I still regard "improvement" as a wide concept. At the earlier stage I thought that upgrading meant that there needed to be a new kitchen installed every 10 years. I am not sure what "improvement" means either. In the context I am unhappy to support the duty.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, for abandoning the phrase "regularly upgrade". We did not understand what "regularly" or "upgrade" meant, and I do not believe that there is any case law to suggest what either means. In one sense it is certainly an
1092
improvement on his wording to use the word "improvements". But there is not really a good parallel with Schedule 9. Not only is Schedule 9 to the Bill concerned with the leasehold part; it is also concerned with service charges. Clearly, it is right that service charges should reflect the cost of improvements where those take place. However, I do not understand Schedule 9 to mean that improvements are imposed on anyone, or that improvements where they take place can only be reflected in the service charges.
In the commonhold part of the Bill, "improvements" is not usually a term of occupation of residential premises. Since the tenure here is a freehold, provided that unit-holders fulfil their bare duties, it would not be helpful to require more of them. If they want to make improvements by agreement they can do so. Everyone has an interest in ensuring that the premises are maintained. That is why the Bill is drafted as it is. The redraft does not add significantly to the Bill and is subject to the same shortcomings as the previous amendment.
In practice, the word "improvements" is not objectively definable. It is not a well-accepted term, unlike the terms in the earlier clauses on which there is a good deal of existing law. I do not accept the analogy; and I cannot accept the amendment.
Lord Kingsland: My Lords, the Minister says that the expression "improvements" is not an accepted term, yet it clearly appears in Schedule 9 to the Bill. Schedule 9, paragraph 2(2) states that,
"after 'repairs' insert 'or improvements'".
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for giving way. Yes, I should not have said that it was not an accepted term. I hope that I have set out why that is not a good analogy with his amendment. If I withdraw my accusation that it is not an accepted term, that means that I need to think about the relationship between Part I and Schedule 9 to the Bill. I shall undertake to do so.
Lord Kingsland: My Lords, it was certainly not my intention to score a point off the Minister, whether cheap or otherwise.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I did not say "cheap".
Lord Kingsland: My Lords, I did not say that the Minister said that. I just wanted to reassure the noble Lord about my intentions. However, a building is a building is a building. The fact that "improvements" applies to leasehold property is because the Government have clearly thought about the matter and recognised that the object of our leasehold legislation should be to maintain the fabric of our buildings. If that is the objective under the leasehold regime, why should that objective not equally apply to the commonhold regime?
I understood that one of the matters that the Government were seeking to achieve in the commonhold regime was an improvement in the fabric

1093
of our buildings. Introducing obligations about improvements therefore would achieve that objective successfully. I hope the Minister will reconsider the matter between now and Third Reading and return with a government amendment which reflects my intentions. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
1.15 p.m.
Clause 15 [Transfer]:
[Amendment No. 40 not moved.]
The Earl of Caithness The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 41:
Page 7, line 42, at end insert—
("( ) Notwithstanding other remedies which may be available to the commonhold association, outstanding debts and arrears due to the commonhold association must be paid by the vendor on transfer of the unit.").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, Amendment No. 41 moves on to the subject of debt, which was discussed at some length in Grand Committee. The Minister will recognise that we have moved considerably to meet some of his concerns and criticisms of the previous amendment.
At that stage the Minister raised particularly two points: first, that we threatened inadvertently to do away with the other remedies available to recover outstanding debts; and, secondly, the valid point that the amendment did not say by whom the debt should be paid. The amendment makes it absolutely clear that the commonhold association can pursue other remedies. The amendment does not prevent them from so doing. But, on the transfer of a unit, the outstanding debts and arrears due to the commonhold association must be paid by the vendor. Having gone so far to meet the noble Lord, I hope that he will come a short way to meet us and accept the amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, as the noble Earl said, in Grand Committee we gave long consideration to the question of smooth transfer to commonhold. One of the problems we came up against was that the debts that were outstanding, as the Bill is presently drafted, need not be paid by the vendor to the new commonhold association. In Grand Committee all noble Lords agreed that it is vitally important that the transfer should be as smooth and as free from aggravation as possible. The noble Earl's important amendment makes sure that this is done without any undue complications.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, with regard to Amendment. No. 41, I take the point that from the drafting it was not clear who could take action in the events referred to; nor whether, if outstanding debts and arrears were not paid on the transfer, it would be invalidated. Perhaps the Minister will deal with those matters when he replies.
1094
I turn to Amendment No. 68 which relates to Clause 30. It seeks to provide that a commonhold community statement can require a unit-holder to grant a charge as security for sums owing to the commonhold association. Clause 30(8) provides that,
"A commonhold community statement may not provide for the transfer or loss of an interest in land".
That prevents forfeiture.
In Committee, the Government said that it would be possible for there to be a charging order. I am obliged to a member of the Leasehold Reform Professional Committee for this point. We referred to that organisation in Committee as comprising professionals who are entirely professional, coming to the matter without any political baggage. The point is that if there is to be no right of forfeiture, a provision is needed that sums owing to the commonhold association should be secured by a continuing charge in its favour. In our amendment we have provided for a first or a later charge.
Of course, it could be said that if it is not a first charge the association would be prejudiced by ranking behind other charges and would not have protection if there was no equity in the property. But we believe that the power to lend on the security of the first or other charge should be deemed to extend to lending on the security of the commonhold land, where the only prior charge is in favour of the association.
Is it right that a lender who has a charge is to be satisfied in priority to the rights of the commonhold association? I do not believe that what we propose would be unfair to a secured lender. It would expect its borrower's liability to pay rates, service charges and the normal outgoings of the property to be serviced out of the borrower's income in priority to capital repayments. We do not think that the proposal for a charge to secure the position of the commonhold association is offensive in the way that was suggested at the Committee stage.
Lord Kingsland: My Lords, we support Amendment No. 41 tabled by my noble friend Lord Caithness and the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel. Although standard conveyancing practice would mean that a solicitor would advise a purchasing client not to complete a sale until any outstanding debts or arrears were discharged, that should be set out explicitly in the legislation. As I recall, in Grand Committee the Minister was somewhat reluctant to accept the amendment because it was not clear from the original drafting on whom the duty to pay the debts and arrears fell. The revised amendment makes it clear that that is the responsibility of the vendor.
I turn to Amendment No. 67 standing in my name. There is no provision elsewhere in the Bill to ensure that the commonhold association is not bound to bear its own costs if it is forced to pursue one of the unit-holders for payment. It is surely unfair that the commonhold community as a whole should have to pay the extra costs involved when one of its number refuses to meet its obligations. When the point was raised in Grand Committee the Minister said that the

1095
amendment was unnecessary because Clause 36(2)(b) enables regulations to require compensation to be paid in the event of a failure to comply with a duty under the commonhold community statement. But that is not the same thing as enabling the recovery of costs.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I acknowledge at once that Amendment No. 41 avoids some of the difficulties that we identified with the comparable amendment in Committee. However, I still have to doubt whether it is enforceable and whether it is not addressing an issue—a perfectly real issue—that is beyond the scope of the Bill, which is the whole history of debt collection, going back, as I said in Committee, to the time of cave dwellers.
The sale of a unit will take place under the terms of an enforceable contract between the parties. The purchaser will have completed and paid up; the transfer will take place; and then what will happen? It is not being suggested that the commonhold association will be able to intervene. The new unit-holder will have an enforceable right to move in. It may be that he will find in due course that the outgoing unit-holder has been less than candid in response to his solicitor's inquiries and it will be up to him to chase that up. Provided that the commonhold association has a judgment for the debt, it will be able to proceed to recover the outstanding sum in a number of ways. That could well include a charging order. We take the view that a commonhold association that is on the ball will be able and wish to take action such as a charging order.
We have thought hard about this issue since the debate in Committee, but we are afraid of setting up a special debt collection process in the commonhold context, and in the commonhold context alone. Forfeiture is widely abused and it is a much hated form of action for debt, however well intentioned it was when it was introduced. The Government do not wish to be party to some other equally well-intentioned short cut to debt collection which might have a similarly disreputable future.
I have been asked whether, in view of the change in the amendment since the Committee stage, I would be willing to consider the matter again. Certainly, I shall consider whether there is any possibility of ensuring that the vendor pays the arrears on the transfer of the unit, which I think is what is behind the amendment. But it will be clear that I see difficulties in setting up a new system specifically for commonhold.
I turn to Amendment No. 67 standing in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland. My answer to him is the same as it was in Committee, although my reference was to Clause 36(2)(d) rather than to Clause 36(2)(b). Subsection (2)(d) provides that where work is carried on in consequence of the failure to perform a duty, the costs of that work may be recovered. As I argued in Committee, the calculation and collection of the interest would be work and therefore Amendment No. 67 is not necessary.
1096
Amendment No. 68 revives the same difficulty we had with the amendment tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, in Committee. It would allow a CCS to require a unit-holder to grant a first or other charge in favour of the commonhold association as security for any sums owing. That narrows down the possibilities open to the commonhold association when pursuing debts. A charging order is one possibility, but only one of many. I am not convinced that, in so far as we are providing a freehold interest in a unit, it is appropriate to hedge the enjoyment of that interest around with special powers. If, in due course, a dispute has reached the stage where the defaulter owes compensation, costs and interest to the CA, it is surely time for the courts to be involved and, armed with an appropriate order, the whole range of debt collecting machinery will be open to the CA.
With some qualification in what I have said to the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, I am sorry that I am not able to accept the amendments.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, I am not sure whether I entirely followed him. He suggested that Amendment No. 68 would outlaw other remedies. The amendment states that a commonhold community statement "may" require the granting of a charge. I know that the Government tend to use "may" and "shall" often as if they are synonymous. They are not synonymous in our mind.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, we do not try to use them as synonymous, but I accept that legislation often uses "may" and "shall" in what we might call counter-intuitive ways.
I should have responded more fully to the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, about a first charge for arrears. We have been considering the point and we still have the same problem with it. The provision might make mortgage lenders reluctant to lend a high proportion of the value of the unit, they might demand high protection payments or they might be reluctant to lend at all. That is not an overwhelming argument against a first charge for arrears, which I shall certainly be willing to consider, but it is an argument that ought to have some weight.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I am grateful that the Minister has agreed to consider the matter further because I really do believe that we have a problem here. My noble friend Lord Kingsland, the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, and I have been trying to solve a problem that causes a great deal of aggravation at the moment. Not to include in the Bill a provision that would prevent a commonhold association from being penalised by one of the unit holders who is causing problems for the association and for every other unit holder by non-payment of service or other charges, would be a missed opportunity.
The noble Baroness has approached this from one angle with her amendment; I have tried it from another. I do not see the problems envisaged by the Minister should the proposed paragraph set out in

1097
Amendment No. 41 be included. I do not think that the use of such powers would lead to a disreputable future for commonhold associations. Indeed, such powers will be used very infrequently. We know that there will not he a great deal of commonhold because the Government have set their face against transfer from existing units other than with 100 per cent agreement. This will affect only new developments, most of which will be in our major cities; indeed, the vast majority of commonhold will take place in London. However, the end result is that there will be little commonhold and therefore the number of times that this power is likely to be used would be limited.
I am grateful to the Minister for saying that he will look at this again. I hope that we can find a practical method by which to tackle this curse for management on the transfer of units to the benefit of all. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
1.30 p.m.
Clause 17 [Leasing: residential]:
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 42:
Page 8, line 20, leave out subsections (1) and (2) and insert—
("( ) No term of years absolute may be created in a residential commonhold unit— (a) for a term exceeding 7 years: (b) in considerations of the payment of a premium or other lump sum: (c) which does not comply with such other conditions as may be prescribed.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, my noble friend moved this amendment at the previous stage. Clause 17 provides that,
"It shall not be possible to create a term of years absolute in a residential commonhold unit",
without satisfying prescribed conditions. Our amendment does not provide for a complete bar, but that no terns may be created in such a unit for a period exceeding seven years or for a payment of a premium or lump sum, and no term may be created that does not comply with other prescribed conditions.
In Grand Committee, my noble friend referred to the need for commercial certainty and pointed out that the issues here are fundamental to the viability of commonhold schemes. They should not be left wholly to regulation. It is important that unit-holders are given adequate flexibility as regards the way in which they deal with the unit. To put a complete bar on leasing simply is not reasonable. My noble friend pointed out that the period of seven years is recognised in other legislation as the point at which maintenance and repair responsibilities, for example, shift from landlord to tenant. That was why he proposed the period.
I regard this proposal not as a technicality but as a point of some considerable importance. I have made the point before but I do not apologise for making it again: the invigoration of the private sector rented market is something we believe to be extremely important. To prevent groups from coming into this
1098
market—given that commonhold will apply only to new developments—would be a great shame, as well as presenting problems for those who cannot or do not wish to purchase long leaseholds or commonholds, but do wish to rent in that market. In a Bill which seeks to extend tenure, I find it ironic that provisions have been made which may in fact restrict the tenures of property which may be available to be taken up in the future.
In Grand Committee the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, said that it was government policy that residential commonhold units should not be let for long, unbroken periods. That is not what this amendment seeks to do. The Minister spoke of the need for flexibility, but I have to say that conferring flexibility which allows the Government to decide what is policy from year to year in this context would be unfair and quite wrong. He also spoke of the need to react to the market, saying that if, through a change in circumstances, it becomes necessary to alter the regulations, then they would be altered. That does not provide the level of certainty that one would expect to see in the property market. I beg to move.
Lord Kingsland: My Lords, I have tabled three amendments in this grouping. So far as concerns Amendment No. 43, I shall not weary noble Lords again with a speech of the kind that I made in Grand Committee. I simply submit that the restrictions set down in Clause 17 could adversely affect the marketability of residential units and that if restrictions are truly desirable, they could be better provided for in the constitution of the commonhold association. Amendment No. 44 is consequential on Amendment No. 43 and thus I shall not need to add anything to my comments.
However, I shall comment briefly on Amendment No. 46. The Government have still not explained the purpose of subsections (3) to (5) and I submit that their implications have not been sufficiently thought through. For example, as the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, pointed out in Grand Committee, the common way to create a short-term tenancy is by contract rather than by the grant of a lease. Why should such an everyday transaction need the joinder or consent by unanimous resolution of the commonhold association? Moreover, if subsection (3) is not complied with, so that an interest is not created, may the grantee have some other kind of right, such as a licence, or a mere equity, or rights by estoppel?
Lord Bach: Perhaps I may take first the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, but not Amendment No. 46, to which I shall need an answer which I do not have to hand; he has raised a serious issue here. I shall speak now to the first two amendments, which of course in themselves are major issues—before the noble Lord rises to his feet to press that point.
The Government have no wish to interfere unreasonably with the use to which unit holders can put their units, but we are concerned to ensure that long leasehold cannot be reintroduced by the back door. We believe that, unless we impose the

1099
restrictions that these amendments would sweep away, those who invest in commonhold will be tempted to sell long leases at a premium and we shall be back where we started. That is why—to use the same shorthand as used by the noble Lord—we cannot accept his first two amendments.
So far as concerns the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, she wishes to put on to the face of the Bill the terms on which the Government intend to allow letting. In spite of the powerful arguments put forward by the noble Baroness, we still believe that it would be better for these terms to be set out in regulations. Of course, the word "flexibility" is trotted out on these occasions when the Government seek to do something by regulation; and the word "consistency"—although I do not think that it was the exact word used by the noble Baroness—is trotted out by those who want to see it on the face of the Bill. It is a regular and proper subject of debate depending upon which side of the fence one falls on a particular occasion.
Our original intention, as anyone who has looked at the consultation papers will know, was to impose very tight controls on the letting of residential units. However, it was impressed upon us from a number of quarters that overtight regulation would tend to make commonhold developments unpopular because "buyto-let" would be next to impossible. We were told that a significant part of the market in properties for flats was for buy-to-let. We have taken notice of that advice and decided to take it.
I am glad that, in one sense, the amendment proposed by the noble Baroness sets out the terms at which we have arrived, except that we would rather introduce them by way of regulation than on the face of the Bill. The phrase we were "reacting to the market" was, by implication, criticised, but that is what we have to do in this case. We want to be in a position to adapt to the market in due course—for instance, if a different term of years, not the seven that we intend, should prove to be more attractive to developers and purchasers. It is for that reason that we believe that setting the terms by regulation is the right mechanism. We are grateful for the implicit acceptance of our reasoning for the restrictions and the terms that we are suggesting.
We shall not come running back to Parliament every two months on the basis of the regulations. The Chief Whip confirms what I have said, in quite straightforward terms that even I understood. We would not be allowed to do such a thing. The noble Baroness can perhaps be content that we will not take one view of the market and come rushing back, and then, two months later, take another view of the market and come rushing back. If we decide in due course that the figures are wrong, then, after due consideration, we shall attempt to find space in the parliamentary calendar to come back and lay statutory instruments. That will be much easier, if we found that we were wrong—or, indeed, that the noble
1100
Baroness was wrong—than introducing legislation in order to change the number of years. We think that, on balance, we are right in this instance.
As to Clause 17 making it clear that leases will be possible, what will go into the regulations will be the details which will allow the letting details to follow the market. We are worried about the re-emergence of long leasehold and we believe that we have the balance of advantage here.
In speaking to Amendment No. 46, the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, made a point which I am not able to answer satisfactorily at present. If I may, I shall write to the noble Lord and others who are interested in this subject with a full answer.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, will a draft of these regulations be available before the next stage of the Bill? As he knows, it is not possible to amend a statutory instrument; therefore, the legislation will be the only opportunity we may have to affect—other than by persuasion—matters such as the term, which will be the subject of the regulations.
Lord Bach: My Lords, I think I can say with a fair degree of confidence that the answer to the noble Baroness's question is yes.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 43 not moved.]
Clause 18 [Leasing: non-residential]:
[Amendment No. 44 not moved.]
Clause 20 [Other transactions]:
1.45 p.m.
Lord Bach Lord Bach moved Amendment No. 45:
Page 9. line 28, alter ("in") insert ("the whole or part on.
The noble Lord said: This group of amendments involves a number of government and opposition amendments. I hope that some of the opposition amendments will be covered by what I say as I move the government amendments. I shall move the government amendments and then, if I may, sit down and respond to the opposition amendments at the end.
In moving Amendment No. 45, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 48 to 50, 52, 54 to 58 and 98. This group of government amendments arises from what we consider to have been fair and just criticism of the Bill: that it was both restrictive of the rights of unit-holders to create interests in their units, and that it was, if I may say so, slightly hard to follow. These amendments to Clauses 20 and 21 are designed to overcome those problems.
Amendment No. 45 paves the way for the main liberalisation of these clauses by making it possible to create an interest over part of a unit. So, for example, a unit-holder who has, as part of his commonhold unit,

1101
a garage that he does not use, may let it to another, a course of action which is forbidden under the Bill as it stands.
Amendment No. 48 would ensure that it is possible for a unit-holder to let his unit, under an allowable lease,. without the commonhold association being required to consent. Amendment No. 49 is another reference to the fact that it will now be possible to allow the creation of an interest in a part-unit.
Amendment No. 50 seeks to change the basis on which the commonhold association can vote to be a party to the creation of an interest, or can give its consent to such a creation, from the Bill's definition of unanimity to what is, in effect, a special resolution.
Amendment No. 52 is a consequential tidying-up amendment to ensure that throughout Clause 20 the term "interest" is not taken to include charge or interest arising by virtue of a charge. This is because the clause differentiates between interests and charges. It will be possible to create an interest in a part-unit but not a charge, which must be over the whole unit.
Amendment No. 54 confirms that it will not be possible to create a charge over a part-unit. This amendment removes the prohibition which has existed in the Bill on the creation of interests in part-units. It has been the policy of successive governments in the preparation of commonhold schemes that charging part-units should not be allowed. We agree. The risk to the integrity of the commonhold and the considerable confusion that would follow on an attempt by a creditor to foreclose on a part of a unit is out of all proportion to the relatively small inconvenience of not being able to charge a part of a unit.
Amendment No. 55 seeks to introduce three new subsections. Subsection (1A) ensures that, when charged, land becomes commonhold land; any existing charge which could not be created by virtue of Clause 21(1)—that is to say, a charge over part of the land—is extinguished. New subsection (1B) gives power to the regulation to forbid the creation of prescribed kinds of interests over part-units, and new subsection (1C) does for existing interests what new subsection (1A) does for existing charges.
Amendment No. 56 seeks to ensure that, as the words "interests or" have been removed from Clause 21(1), and that, as reference to forbidden interests has been moved to new subsection (1B), it is still clear that a document: which purports to create an interest forbidden by the new subsection (1B) is of no effect. Amendment. No. 57 tidies up Clause 21(3) to ensure that it takes in the new subsections introduced by one of the amendments. Amendment No. 58 seeks to reinforce the point that, for these purposes, the term "interest" does not include charges.
The final government amendment, Amendment No. 98, seeks to tidy up a slip in logic. The wording as it stands suggests that the voting provisions in Part I of the Bill in some sense depend on the passing of a resolution by the commonhold association. Of course, they do not. They do, however, refer to the passing of resolutions, and that is what the amendment achieves.
We hope that we have covered what the Opposition's Amendments Nos. 47 to 51 were tabled to achieve. I shall hear in due course whether we have covered them satisfactorily or at all. I look forward to hearing the Opposition's amendments in this group spoken to before I respond. I beg to move.
Lord Kingsland: My Lords, first, perhaps I may proffer the noble Lord the Minister an apology. When I spoke to Amendment No. 46 during debate on the previous grouping, I was in fact speaking to Amendment No. 47—hence the noble Lord's wholly justifiable confusion. Rather than repeat what I said a few minutes ago, perhaps I may invite the noble Lord to address himself to what I said previously.
The government amendments in part meet my concerns. As I recall, my amendments in Grand Committee sought to enable the creation of an interest or charge over part of a unit so long as that is permitted by the commonhold community statement. The amendment in the name of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor will permit the creation of a charge over part of a unit but not an interest. I believe that that is the distinction. I prefer my solution, but I readily recognise that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor and the noble Lord the Minister have gone some way to meeting my concern.
My Amendment No. 65 is similar to an amendment which I tabled but did not move in Grand Committee, so perhaps I may say something about it now. Subsections (3) and (4) of Clause 27 provide for the extinguishment of existing charges over commonhold land in so far as they relate to the common part. There is no provision to compensate a chargee for his loss. It might have been felt unnecessary if consent to an application to register a freehold estate in commonhold land had to be 100 per cent, including that of all proprietors of charges.
Such a provision does, however, seem necessary if consent is less than 100 per cent, as proposed in the relevant amendment; or if, in some cases, consent is deemed to have been given under Clause 3(2)(e), or if consent is dispensed under Clause 3(2)(f).
It would seem only just and consistent with Article 1 of the first protocol of the European Convention on Human Rights—the article that deals with the peaceful enjoyment of property—that a chargee can get fair compensation or adequate substituted security before his charge over common parts is extinguished.
Amendment No. 66 is rather like Amendment No. 42 tabled by my noble friend Lady Gardner of Parkes, which was not moved in Grand Committee. The requirement of unanimity here seems unnecessarily restrictive. The amendment presupposes that the commonhold association is a company limited by guarantee as in the Bill. If it were not, and members' voting rights were varied, the majority of 80 per cent should be of the total vote whether or not actually cast.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, our amendment in this grouping is Amendment No. 51. The amendment returns to the degree of support required for an interest

1103
in a commonhold unit to be created. We suggest again that a special resolution should be adequate to enable the commonhold association to give consent to the creation of the interest or to be a party to the creation of the interest. I shall read what the noble Lord has said in seeking, in part at any rate, to satisfy the arguments that we set out at the previous stage. I confess that I cannot immediately work out whether that is so. We tabled the amendment again, acknowledging that the Government's requirement of "unanimity" is not unanimity in the normal sense of the term, but unanimity in the sense that no one actually votes against. In another situation it would be regarded as "nem con". The noble Lord said that this was a tough but fair target. We know that the Government are tough but tender in places. I am not sure whether they are sufficiently tender. I shall look again at the noble Lord's comments in relation to this issue.
Lord Bach: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, for pointing out the difference between Amendment No. 46 and Amendment No. 47. Amendment No. 46—about which I shall not now write to him, if he will forgive me—was a consequential amendment to the other two that he moved in the previous group.
As to Amendment No. 47, I accept that my remarks may not satisfy the noble Lord entirely. In speaking against that amendment, and so far as concerns Amendments Nos. 51, 53, 65 and 66, I hope that our amendments will have gone some way towards satisfying the proposers of the other amendments.
We believe that Amendments Nos. 47 and 51 would achieve what the government amendments were tabled to do. The Government have recognised that the restrictions on the creation of interests in commonhold units were unnecessarily stringent. We have tabled amendments to lift the restrictions. The Government have also addressed the resolution needed to create interests and have replaced unanimity with a 75 per cent resolution in favour. We believe that that has the same effect as the amendment proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee.
We presume that Amendment No. 53—which would allow the creation of interests in part units, subject to provisions of the CCS—is intended to relax the absolute prohibition on interests and charges on part units. Government Amendment No. 54, to which I have spoken, has the effect of allowing interests except prescribed interests on part units following a resolution in favour by the commonhold association. It is still our intention that charges over part units should not be possible. However, I hope that the reduction in restrictions on interests in part units will encourage the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, not to press his Amendment No. 53.
As they relate to charges, perhaps I may deal also with Amendments Nos. 65 and 66 to Clauses 27 and 28. Amendment No. 65 would introduce a further layer of complexity which we do not believe is required. Because of the provision in Clause 3,
1104
chargees must have consented to the registration of the land as commonhold land before registration can take place. By what process they are persuaded to consent and with what compensation or substitute security is a matter between them and the developer under Clauses 7 and 9, and in the case of added land under Clause 29 between them and the commonhold association.
We believe that the necessary negotiations required to arrive at a consent and the arrangements ultimately arrived at are not a matter for the Bill. We have the Human Rights Act and the ECHR at the forefront of our minds in preparing regulations and would not seek to deem consent to be given in circumstances where that would lead to the extinguishment of deemed consent as interest without any compensation.
As for Amendment No. 66, unanimity for our purposes does not in fact mean that all those who are entitled to vote must vote in favour. It means that all those entitled to vote must be given the opportunity to vote by whatever means the memorandum and articles provide. Thereafter, unanimity is represented by a vote in favour by all those who then choose to vote. We believe that this is a better solution for most purposes than the setting of particular limits. First, it deals with those who cannot be found. Notice will go to the last known address on the CA's register for everyone entitled to vote. It is the unit-holder's business to keep that up to date. If he or she loses touch and fails to receive the notice, the failure will not hamstring the commonhold. The same considerations apply if he or she receives the notice but chooses not to vote by post or to appoint a proxy.
However, because borrowing on the security of the common parts is potentially a serious step, carrying as it does the risk of losing the land on which the loan is secured, all those who take sufficient interest to vote should be persuaded of its wisdom. That is why we have devised the scheme that we now have. The setting of a limit of 80 per cent is prone to all the difficulties to which high absolute limits are prey. Those who are lost to the system, or who abstain, effectively vote against the proposition, and that might well serve to hamper the management of the commonhold. It is perfectly possible that all of the 75 per cent who do vote in such a ballot might be in favour, but the proportion of nonvoters would just stymie the process.
We hope and believe that the scheme we have put forward contains sufficient safeguards and yet allows the important decisions to be taken by the people who are active and interested in their community. No one is disenfranchised by the scheme. Those who lose touch, or choose not to vote, are either not interested or content to leave matters to others. We believe that that is reasonable, but that their views should not impact unduly on the active management of the commonhold. As I said, we hope that by moving our amendments we have gone at least part of the way towards meeting the criticisms—some of which were justified—about Clauses 20 and 21. I commend Amendment No. 45 to the House.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 46 and 47 not moved.]
2 p.m.
Lord Bach Lord Bach moved Amendments Nos. 48 to 50:
Page 9. line 32, after ("interest") insert ("other than a term of years absolute'').
Page 9, line 32. after ("in") insert ("the whole or part of").
Page 9, line 37, leave out from ("only") to end of line and insert ("if—

(a) the association passes a resolution to take the action, and

(b) at least 75 per cent. of those who vote on the resolution vote in favour.").

On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendment No. 51 not moved.]
Lord Bach Lord Bach moved Amendment No. 52:
Page 9, line 40, leave out ("subsection (3)") and insert ("this section").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 21 [Part-units]:
[Amendment No. 53 not moved.]
Lord Bach moved Lord Bach moved Amendments Nos. 54 to 58:
Page 10. line 1, leave out ("an interest or charge in or") and insert ("a charge").
Page 10, line 3, at end insert—
("(1 A) Where—

(a) land becomes commonhold land or is added to a commonhold unit, and

(b) immediately before that event there is a charge over the land which could not be created after registration by reason of subsection (1),

the charge shall be extinguished by virtue of this subsection to the extent that it could not be created after the event mentioned in paragraph (a).
(1B) Regulations may provide that—

(a) it shall not be possible to create an interest of a prescribed kind in part only of a commonhold unit;

(b) it shall not be possible to create an interest of a prescribed kind in part only of a commonhold unit unless prescribed conditions are satisfied.

(1C) Regulations under subsection (1B) may provide for extinguishment of an interest in land to such extent as the regulations may specify where—

(a) the land becomes commonhold land or is added to a commonhold unit, and

(b) the interest is of a kind which could not be created after that event by reason of the regulations.").

Page 10, line 5, at end insert ("or regulations under subsection (1B).").
Page 10, line 6, leave out ("and") and insert ("to").
Page 10, line 6, at end insert—
("( ) In this section "interest" does not include—

(a) a charge, or

(b) an interest which arises by virtue of a charge.").

On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 24 [Definition]:
[Amendments Nos. 59 to 63 not moved.]
Clause 25 [Use and maintenance]:
[Amendment No. 64 not moved.]
Clause 27 [Charges: general prohibition]:
[Amendment No. 65 not moved.]
Clause 28 [New legal mortgages]:
[Amendment No. 66 not moved.]
Clause 30 [Form and content: general]:
[Amendments Nos. 67 to 69 not moved.]
Clause 31 [Regulations]:
[Amendment No. 70 not moved.]
Clause 32 [Amendment]:
[Amendments Nos. 71 to 77 not moved.]
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Dean of Harptree): My Lords, I call Amendment No. 78, standing in the name of the Lord Chancellor.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, this is an error on the Marshalled List. Amendment No. 78 was tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland.
[Amendment No. 78 not moved.]
Clause 33 [Constitution]:
Lord Kingsland Lord Kingsland moved Amendment No. 79:
Page 14. line 30, leave out ("is") and insert ("shall be").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 80 to 88. The issues that underlie these amendments were fully debated in Grand Committee. I do not propose, therefore, to elaborate again on all the issues at this stage. Suffice it to say that there are two matters of fundamental importance for consideration. The first is a proposition by the Opposition that a company by guarantee is not as appropriate a vehicle for the commonhold management system as a company by shares. Secondly, we propose that the memorandum of association and the articles of association in this company ought to be on the face of the Bill. That is what Amendments Nos. 86 and 87 seek to achieve.
I accept that some of the detail in the amendments—indeed, perhaps all of the detail—may be controversial, either for the Government or for other noble Lords. However, the main objective is to get what would otherwise be determined by regulation on to the face of the Bill so that your Lordships can play a part in amending the new schedule at the next legislative stage.
In my submission, it is not satisfactory for the Government simply to say that these matters will be dealt with by regulation. I am aware that the Government have, helpfully, provided your Lordships with certain drafts; but those drafts have been provided on a take-it-or-leave-it basis. I submit that those drafts deal with matters of such importance to the individual unit-holder that he is entitled to see what he is letting himself in for on the face of the Bill. That is why I have tabled these amendments. I beg to move.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I was hoping that the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, would justify the provisions of the proposed memorandum and articles of association as they differ in a number of respects from the Government's drafts, not just in the sense that the company concerned would be limited by shares rather than by guarantee. I have some queries.

1107
As the noble Lord has not dealt with the detail, perhaps it would be inappropriate for me to detain your Lordships longer. However, I shall put my next point in the form of a question rather than a complaint. How are the Government consulting on the draft documentation which they have circulated on the memorandum and articles of association and the commonhold community statement?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I was prepared to give an exegesis of a company limited by shares as opposed to a company limited by guarantee and of the memorandum and articles of association. However, in view of the admirable self-restraint of the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, I shall deprive myself of that opportunity. I shall simply—
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I hope that he will not deprive us.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I do not think that I can attack what has not been defended.
Lord Kingsland: My Lords, as I explained to the noble Lord in Grand Committee, the object is to persuade him and the Government to agree to allow the draft on to the face of the Bill so that at the next stage we and other noble Lords, including perhaps even the opposition, can table amendments to it.
Other noble Lords could equally have done the same thing to the Government's drafts, or indeed the Government could have done the same thing to their own drafts. They could have tabled those drafts as a schedule to the Bill and then allowed noble Lords to amend those drafts. But the Government have not yet taken that initiative. I know that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, was something of a legend when he was in opposition for adopting such a technique. Here we are. The boot is now on the other foot. Perhaps the noble Lord will accept my Amendment No. 79 and those grouped with it so that at a later stage your Lordships will have an opportunity to get into the detail. However, there is not much point in getting into the detail of the matter until it has some formal status in relation to the Bill.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, with the leave of the House, why did not the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, table the drafts as proposed by the Government? That would have enabled us to debate the detail of what is being proposed. Someone has gone to a great deal of trouble to write a different form of memorandum and articles of association. We are deprived of the arguments of the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, in supporting the provisions that he is putting forward. I do not disagree with his point of principle that we should have a proper debate on these important
1108
documents that will be fundamental to the successful operation of commonhold. However, I am not sure that we can do so on the basis of this amendment.
Lord Kingsland: My Lords, if the noble Baroness is attracted by the idea of having the Government's drafts on the face of the Bill, I invite her to pursue that line.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, am I allowed in on this discussion? I thought that I was paying the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, the compliment of taking seriously the points that he made. I take it that the real thrust of his argument is, first, that a commonhold association should be a company limited by shares rather than a company limited by guarantee, and, secondly, that the memorandum and articles of association should be on the face of the Bill rather than in regulations. I take those points seriously and I propose to respond to them.
What I do not propose—despite the invitation of the noble Earl, Lord Caithness—is to point out some of the inconsistencies in the way in which the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, seeks to achieve those aims, either in his amendments, which refer to the nature of the company, or in his draft memorandum and articles of association. The memorandum and articles appear to apply to some kind of a tenancy company rather than to a commonhold association, with a flat management company or a general commercial company rather than something specifically designed for a commonhold association.
The noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, reminds me that I used to do the same thing when I was in opposition in order to secure debate. I used to put down the Government's draft regulations as a schedule and then amend my own amendment to show what they ought to say. I assure the noble Lord that that caused terrible trouble to the Government Front Bench.
Lord Kingsland: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for graciously giving way again. I did not want to put the Government to the trouble of going through both stages, so I have simply presented the amendments that I would have tabled to the regulations if the Government had tabled them as a schedule to the Bill.
2.15 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, let us concentrate on the two points of substance in what the noble Lord says. The first is the issue of a company limited by guarantee as opposed to one limited by shares. There is a subordinate issue of whether it is a private company. One of the amendments would take out, "private", but the memorandum and articles include the word. I am not sure which of the two the noble Lord is referring to.
The point about a company limited by guarantee is that its members are by definition the owners of commonhold units within the commonhold

1109
association. That membership has to be transferred with ownership of the unit. Shares are by definition transferable and saleable. With a company limited by shares, the membership of the commonhold association might no longer map against the occupation of the commonhold units. That is not what was intended by commonhold and cannot be defensible.
The second issue is the memorandum and articles. The noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, appears to be cross-referring to the Companies (Tables A to F) Regulations 1985. The draft model that we have produced is free-standing, because we recognise that commonhold associations will involve the participation of lay people, who may not have easy access to those regulations and their interpretation. We wanted to avoid the difficulties caused by the need to read across to other legislative documents if we could.
Whatever the differences and defects, the draft of the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, does not take into account the nature of commonhold as a community enterprise. It would be wholly inappropriate for a company limited by guarantee. For those reasons, I hope that the noble Lord will not press the amendments.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the Minister said that shares could be transferred or sold to those outside the association, with the result that the shareholders would not correspond to the unit-holders. Would it not be easy to insert a clause to ensure that shares did not go to those who were not members of the association?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, what would the advantage be? The shares would not be readily convertible assets and it would simply be a form of guarantee by another name.
Lord Kingsland: My Lords, I thank the Minister very much for his response. I am not surprised by what he has said. I regret that he has not felt able to accept the insertion of the articles and the memorandum into the Bill so that he could amend them on Third Reading and I could have second thoughts about some of the provisions.
I urge the Minister to think again about replacing the model of the company limited by guarantee, because, as I said at some length in Grand Committee, it would be much easier for a company limited by shares rather than by guarantee to raise the money necessary to undertake its obligations. The company would also be better able to reflect differences in scale of ownership or contribution in a commonhold property. Those are the two main reasons why I proposed the other model. I shall reflect on what the Minister has said. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 80 to 84 not moved.]
Schedule 3 [Commonhold association]:
[Amendments Nos. 85 to 88 not moved.]
Clause 34 [Duty to manage]:
Lord Bach Lord Bach moved Amendment No. 89:
Page 15, line 6, after ("unit-holder") insert ("(the "defaulter")").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I shall speak also to government Amendments Nos. 91, 93, 102 and 130. Amendments Nos. 89 and 91 arise from an amendment tabled by my noble friend Lord Brennan in Committee. He wished to ensure that when the directors of a commonhold association decided to exercise their discretion in such a way as not to take action against a particular unit holder, they should have considered and concluded that there would be no significant loss or disadvantage to other unit holders.
In order to achieve that in practice, we have, by Amendment No. 89, inserted a description of the unit-holder against whom the directors do not proceed and have called him the "defaulter". Then, in Amendment No. 91, we have inserted a form of words to ensure that there should be no significant risk of loss or disadvantage to any but the defaulter.
The next two government amendments—namely, Amendments Nos. 93 and 130—fill a gap which we believe we left inadvertently at earlier stages of the Bill. Our intention has always been to provide in the Bill as wide as possible a range of possibilities for alternative dispute resolution, or ADR. Among them, we had intended to include the possibility of an ombudsman scheme. Unfortunately, it has been suggested to us that the terms of Clause 36 were not drawn widely enough to include the possibility of setting up or approving an ombudsman scheme. Therefore, we have introduced these amendments in order to ensure that we do not miss this opportunity.
Amendment No. 93 simply adds the possibility of an ombudsman scheme to the list of other ADR possibilities set out in Clause 34(3)(b). Amendment No. 130 adds a new clause at the end of the section on the operation of commonhold. It gives the Lord Chancellor the power to make regulations which might require commonhold associations to belong to an approved ombudsman scheme. It also sets out what the basic characteristics of such a scheme might be. It allows for both the CA and the unit-holder to have access to the scheme and also provides for a unit-holder to enforce against a CA which does not honour the regulations requiring membership.
In Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, suggested that there should be greater certainty in Clause 36(3) about the provision for calculation of the amount of compensation to be paid and for the payment of interest in the event of late payment. We agree with him, and we hope that our Amendment No. 102 achieves that aim. We are grateful to the noble Lord for having pointed that out to us.
I shall now sit down so that the opposition amendments in this group can be spoken to.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, it may be helpful if I raise a question at this point in relation to Amendment

1111
No. 91, which, as the Minister reminded us, is an amendment to Clause 34(3)(a). It provides that the directors need not take action if they believe that inaction would be best in achieving harmonious relationships between the unit-holders.
In debate in Committee, I raised the question of the directors' normal fiduciary duties. I have received from the noble Lord a long and helpful exposition citing a great deal of case law. However, I regret that I am still left with questions. He says that,
"many commonhold association directors will not be familiar with company law and Clause 34(3)(a) will draw their attention to their capacity for inaction".
Certainly, it will be the case that many commonhold associations will not be familiar with company law. However, I suggest that they will have to become familiar with company law and that the occasional signpost in the Bill will not be adequate.
It still appears as though Clause 34(3)(a) is intended to override the Companies Act. It would allow the directors to exercise their discretion as to what they do, how they do it, and whether they refrain from exercising their powers. It seems that there is nothing in the Government's argument deployed on the previous occasion, today or in the letter to which I referred regarding the promotion of harmonious relationships which would not apply if the Companies Act applied without this provision. I hope that the Minister can assist me a little further in that regard.
To summarise, will the Minister confirm that Clause 34(3)(a) will not override the Companies Act and that the normal provisions allowing discretion will still apply?
Lord Kingsland: My Lords, towards the end of his intervention, the Minister said that he agreed with one of my amendments but I cannot remember which one.
Lord Bach: My Lords, I referred to our Amendment No. 102, which deals with the point that the noble Lord raised in Committee.
Lord Kingsland: My Lords, if I inadvertently do not give the Minister credit for that in my response, I hope that he will forgive me.
On Amendments Nos. 89 to 97, Clause 34 will impose a duty to manage on a commonhold association. The Minister pointed out that subsection (3) allows the directors of the association to decide not to act against failure by a unit-holder to do something if they think that that would maintain a harmonious relationship between unit-holders. The amendments of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor add a refinement to the clause's original conception so that the directors of a commonhold association do not have to take enforcement action so long as that does not cause significant loss to anyone else.
Amendment No. 93 adds referral to an ombudsman to the list of possible forms of dispute resolution. My Amendment No. 95 would disqualify a director from taking part in the decision about whether or not to act
1112
if he organisation she were the defaulter. Amendment No. 96 has a similar effect and would permit no action if that would be in the best interests of the commonhold association. It would continue to allow the directors not to act against every trivial infringement if that would maintain harmony in the community. The requirement to exercise that discretion in the best interests of the community offers a protection against directors who do not take enforcement action against their friends when it would be to the benefit of the whole community if they were to act. I entirely accept the Minister's contention that the amendments of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor are helpful and we shall support them.
Amendment No. 99 would remove the requirement that the regulations should make provision for a tenant of a let unit to enforce a duty against another tenant unit-holder or the association itself. Although there is logic in allowing those who live in the units a right to seek enforcement of obligations against others, we believe as a matter of principle that enforcement should remain between unit-owners and the association and that subsection (2)(g) should be deleted for that reason. The problems that that provision seeks to overcome can be dealt with by using other legislation or via the provisions of the tenancy agreement. That provision grants tenants of rented units greater rights than they would enjoy elsewhere. Allowing the tenant to offset money paid to the association from that owed to the landlord enables the tenant to protect his own position if the landlord is in default while ensuring that the overall effect does not lead to him being double charged.
Amendments Nos. 99 to 103 relate to Clause 36. On Amendment No. 99, our view is that enforcement should be between only the unit-holders and the association. I have already emphasised that point in another context. Tenants should not be directly liable to the association so should not have rights except against their landlord. Tenants of a freehold would not have rights except in tort against neighbouring freeholders, so exactly the same should apply in the case of commonholders.
In respect of Amendment No. 100, in our view, compulsory ADR leads both to delay and possible prejudice. Although Clause 19(3)(a) states that regulations may make a similar provision, there is no reason for that not to be on the face of the Bill. As regards Amendment No. 102, compensation does involve property rights and the court is the proper forum to determine those. I suggest that there will be human rights implications if no court is involved.
Finally, in relation to Amendment No. 103, provision for charging the interest of the unit-holder is essential to prevent default. Otherwise, the association has no effective sanction. Relying on obtaining a judgment and subsequently enforcing it by a charging order is, in our view, too slow, too costly and too cumbersome. There may also be no equity left in the property at that stage. An express costs sanction is an essential deterrent to prevent unit-holders defaulting

1113
and the way to avoid prejudice to other unit-holders, particularly where the amounts involved may be under the small claims limit.
2.30 p.m.
Lord Bach: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness and to the noble Lord for their comments on this group of amendments. Amendments Nos. 92 and 100 address alternative dispute resolution. Amendment No. 92 would weaken the duty on the directors of the commonhold association to have regard to alternative dispute resolution by substituting the word "may" in Clause 34(3)(b) for the word "shall". Amendment No. 100 would prevent regulations from specifying a particular form of ADR which must be used before legal proceedings are brought. We believe that as commonhold will be based on community living, the potential acrimony and financial cost of legal proceedings should be avoided except as a last resort.
Amendment No. 90 would leave out the paragraph which gives commonhold association directors the discretion not to proceed against defaulters. Clause 34(3)(a) is designed to be a safety valve. If the directors of the association, acting, of course, with the best interests of that association in mind, as they are bound to do by virtue of their office, genuinely believe that inaction in the face of a complaint is more likely than not to establish or maintain good relations between the unit-holders, this permits them to exercise some discretion. They may legitimately refuse to take formal action against a unit-holder who, for example, hangs out his washing on a Sunday afternoon in contravention of the commonhold community statement, thinking instead that a quiet informal word on a meeting in the lift or over coffee would be far more conducive to good relations than the issue of the notice they would be entitled to serve.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, asked a fair question. I am grateful that she received my letter. No doubt she researched the same cases that I did, or that were researched for me, in terms of what was a very long letter. We do not believe that we are overriding any of the Companies Act duties. We believe that we are merely pointing out the desirability in this—I stress the next word—community context of those duties being exercised in a particular way, as long as that is consistent with Companies Act duties.
Undoubtedly, company law allows directors to exercise their discretion acting bona fide in the best interests of the company to choose whether or not and in what manner to exercise their powers. However, many commonhold association directors will not be familiar with company law—a point which, as the noble Baroness reminded me, we made in Committee—and Clause 34(3)(a) will draw their attention to their capacity for inaction. The clause is intended to stress the need for directors to have particular regard to the unique characteristics of the company as a commonhold association responsible for managing and enforcing the rights and responsibilities of unit-holders.
1114
Amendment No. 95 would disqualify a director from acting in his own cause. Amendment No. 96, tabled in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, would require the directors to act in the best interests of the company as a whole. A director is under a duty both to act always for the good of the company and also to ensure that he never places himself in a position where he has a conflict of interest. If such a conflict arises, he has a duty to inform his fellow board members that he has a conflict and they will decide.
The general principle is that he does not place himself in such a conflict. Provisions in the Companies Act from Section 317 onwards deal with specific conflicts of interest. They do not apply in this case. Any breach of those sections in the Companies Act would enable the company to avoid agreements reached. There are criminal penalties, both for the director and the company. As I said, the direct or has to tell his fellow directors of conflict and they may decide whether or not he should vote.
That provision is contained within the articles of the company under table A. It has been adapted in our present draft form of articles. Those duties arise from the law governing companies, and we have taken care to import into this Bill those useful checks and balances by making the structure of the vehicle which owns and manages the common parts a private company limited by guarantee. We do not think, therefore, that the amendment tabled by the noble Lord is necessary. The duties of the directors are just as they are in any such company.
In the second case the duty of the directors is again as under the Companies Act, always to act in the best interests of the company. There is nothing to he gained and there would be potential for confusion if that duty appears, expressed differently, in a multiplicity of places on the statute book. We have decided to opt for a Companies Act vehicle for the commonhold association. We do not think that that was a capricious choice. It was taken in the knowledge that we imported with it many useful concepts which fitted well with our policy intentions.
I turn briefly to Amendments Nos. 97 and 99. Amendment No. 97 would leave out subsection (4) which allows a tenant of a unit to be treated in the same way as a unit-holder for the purpose of Clause 34. Amendment No. 99 would remove the subsection in Clause 36 which would allow a tenant of a unit-holder to enforce a term of the commonhold community statement, the M&As, or some term of the Act against others in the commonhold. That provision was included to balance the fact that a tenant would be subject to the terms and conditions of the commonhold community statement, at least as part of his lease or other agreement. Clause 19 allows such obligations to be imposed. We think that it is wrong to deny the tenant the protections available in the same document by failing to apply Clause 36(2)(g).
Perhaps I may say a little more about Amendment No. 99. It may well be that a tenant of a freehold house would have no or limited rights to enforce any covenants or other rights and obligations affecting the

1115
house against his neighbours. But the difference is that such a tenant is not living in the community context as a tenant of a commonhold. The community context is one of the most important differences in principle between commonhold and what might be called regular freehold.
Amendment No. 101 duplicates the provisions of Clause 19(3)(a) which provides that any sums paid by the tenant to the commonhold association in default of the unit-owner may be set against sums owed by the tenant or, indeed, under Clause 19(3)(b) may be recovered from the unit-holder.
Finally, Amendment No. 103 would provide for charging a defaulter's interest in his unit to secure payment of compensation, costs and interest. We have said before that that narrows down the possibilities open to a commonhold association when pursuing debts. A charging order is only one possibility among many. Insofar as we are providing a freehold interest in a unit, we are not convinced that it is appropriate to hedge around the enjoyment of that interest with special powers. If in due time a dispute has reached a stage when the defaulter owes compensation, costs and interests to the association, surely then it is time for the courts to be involved. Armed with an appropriate order, a whole range of debt-collecting machinery would be open to the commonhold association. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 90 not moved.]
Lord Bach Lord Bach moved Amendment No. 91:
Page 15, line 10, after ("unit-holders,") insert ("and that it will not cause any unit-holder (other than the defaulter) significant loss or significant disadvantage.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 92 not moved.]
Lord Bach Lord Bach moved Amendment No. 93:
Page 15, line 12, after ("procedures") insert ("(including referral under a scheme approved under section (Ombudsman))").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 94 to 97 not moved.]
Clause 35 [Voting]:
Lord Bach Lord Bach moved Amendment No. 98:
Page 15. line 17. leave out ("depends on") and insert ("refers to").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 36 [Enforcement and compensation]:
[Amendments Nos. 99 to 101 not moved.]
Lord Bach Lord Bach moved Amendment No. 102:
Page 16, line 14. leave out ("may") and insert ("shall").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 103 not moved.]
Clause 37 [Commonhold assessment]:
Lord Kingsland Lord Kingsland moved Amendment No. 104:
Page 16, line 22, after ("to") insert ("prepare an annual statement of projected expenses which the association might reasonably expect to incur and").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 104, I shall speak also to the other amendments in the group which stand in my name. Noble Lords who were present in Grand Committee will recall the issues raised by the amendment, which is similar to the one tabled at that time. In my submission, the Government are wrong to suggest that a breakdown of expenses is implied in the provision for an estimate of total income. A mere estimate of total income is uninformative. What is useful to a unit holder is a breakdown of expenses. I do not understand why there should be any extra burden in producing such a breakdown. By contrast, it would be a significant benefit to unit holders.
Amendments Nos. 105 and 106 and 108 to 110 provide for two situations. The first is that in which the expenses are not shared by a rigid percentage split; for example, in a block of six units, only two unit holders have access to a garden and they may share the costs of the garden 50:50 but pay a smaller proportion, say, one-sixth, of other expenses. The amendments are also intended to deal with a situation in which units are added or removed from the commonhold.
Amendments Nos. 116 to 125 deal with similar problems in relation to the reserve funds. I beg to move.
2.45 p.m.
Lord Bach: My Lords, there are some government amendments in this group, and perhaps I may deal first with Amendments Nos. 107 and 118. At Committee stage the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, made the eminently practical suggestion that if a notice was to be given to a unit-holder specifying how much he had been assessed to pay into a reserve fund, that notice should also tell him when the money was due to be paid. We are grateful to the noble Baroness for that suggestion, and our Amendment No. 107 does that. So obviously sensible is the suggestion that Amendment No. 118 extends it to cover notices relating to commonhold assessments under Clause 37. I hope the noble Baroness agrees that it is also right to do that.
I deal next with government Amendments Nos. 111, 112, 114 and 117. These four amendments tidy up an inconsistency in the current draft of the Bill between Clauses 37 and 38. These amendments ensure that Clause 38 makes as clear as Clause 37 that it is the directors of a commonhold association who must fulfil the duties provided for in the clause.
I turn to the amendments spoken to with such care by the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland. I deal first with Amendments Nos. 106, 110, 116 and 124. To us they appear to do nothing other than change our formulation "percentage of any estimate" to "proportion of any estimate", and at present we see no advantage in that. As to Amendment No. 104, which we debated in Committee, our view now, as then, is

1117
that our formulation does the job adequately. Members of a commonhold association are concerned about what they are likely to owe. We do not believe that it would be possible for the directors of a commonhold association to produce their estimate of the income required without producing an estimate of expenses, but from the point of view of the unit-holders the important thing is the estimate of how much will he required to keep the whole thing afloat, and that is what we have provide for.
Amendment No. 105 would change our quite specific requirement for the CCS to say what percentage of the total each unit-holder is responsible for paying to the much less direct provision of the formula on which that percentage is based. We do not believe there is any reason why such a formula might not be included if a commonhold association wished it, but the essential point for the unit-holder is "How much do I owe?". The direct method of stating a percentage, which can simply be divided into the figure that we still expect to be available if the noble Lord's previous amendment is withdrawn, will provide that sum quickly and with the maximum of simplicity.
The noble Lord's Amendment No. 108 would require the commonhold association to recalculate assessments on the change in the number of units. We believe that the Bill does that already. We see the point that the noble Lord makes, but we hope to convince him that the job is already done. Any new units in a commonhold must appear as amendments to the CCS, and Clause 37(1)(c) requires the CCS to specify the percentage allocation to each unit. That means that, however many units there are from time to time, the allocation of the assessment must be made between all of them, always bearing in mind that it is possible to allocate nought per cent, if appropriate. That is my short explanation to the noble Lord.
Amendment No. 109 would remove the subsection requiring the allocation of percentages to equal 100. Odd though it seems—I recall the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, referring in Committee to the well known case involving a broom cupboard—we are assured that it is not unusual for figures in excess of 100 per cent to crop up in some leasehold situations. We believe that this is a useful reminder that regular attention should be given to recalculation. One can imagine reasons, other than an increase or decrease in the number of units, which may alter the levels of assessment set, and regular consideration will ensure that the burdens are evenly shared.
Amendments Nos. 115 and 115A would do for reserve funds what the noble Lord's Amendment No. 104 did for assessments. I employ the same arguments against them. We hope that Amendment No. 119 is adequately covered by government Amendment No. 118. Amendment No. 120 would provide for the payment of interest on the late payment of levies. That is already provided for by Clause 36(2)(b) which provides that where a duty is not complied with, regulations may make provision for the payment of compensation. The payment of levies is a duty and thus failure can already be dealt with.
1118
Amendment No. 121 is the counterpoint to Amendment No. 108. Amendment No. 122 changes the reference about payment of allocated levies from subsection (2)(c) to subsection (2)(b). Our reference makes it clear that the unit-holder is responsible for making payment. We believe that by using the reference we do, it is plain that the allocation and payment are inextricably bound up with each other. Although the noble Lord's amendment would do no violence to that policy, it would nonetheless lessen the immediacy of that link. Amendment No. 123 is the counterpart of Amendment No. 109.
Finally, I turn to Amendment No. 125 which is substantial. It would require reserve funds to be held as trust accounts. We believe that that is not necessary. The circumstances under which that regime was set up were such that the payers of the levies did not have any direct control over the fund because it was held by a landlord or his agent and felt to be at risk. The circumstances of commonhold could not be further from that position. The fund will be an asset of the commonhold association, which is wholly owned and controlled by those paying the levies. The position as regards the tax payable, referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, in Committee, would be a matter of advice to each commonhold association on the merits of its own position.
If the members of a company choose to elect or sack the directors, they and only they in this instance, have control. Because it is a Companies Act company, those directors, whether or not they are also unit-holders, have a fiduciary duty to the commonhold association. Of course, that would not stop the utterly unscrupulous director or other company official from stealing if they were sufficiently motivated, but neither would trust account status. Therefore, we believe that it would be a somewhat unnecessary complication and we cannot agree with Amendment No. 125.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, perhaps I may thank him for including his comments about the date. I shall not question him about the powers of the commonhold because I spoke to someone in the noble Lord's department who convinced me that these amendments were not necessary.
When a decision is taken by the commonhold to allow, for example, each unit to put in its own air conditioning or sun blinds, it is clearcut that when such permission is given it is entirely at the expense of the unit-holder. But what happens afterwards? Is there some way by which the commnhold has the right to write in that the maintenance of the items would continue to be the responsibility of those who elected to instal them rather than of the commonhold? Is that already covered or is it something that we should look at again?
Lord Bach: My Lords, I believe that it is already covered. If the noble Baroness would allow me. I shall write to her with an answer to the specific issues which

1119
she has raised. I shall make sure that other noble Lords have that answer. That is a safer way of answering the question.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I should also like to question the Minister before he sits down. He made reference to Clause 37(1)(c) and said that the commonhold community statement would reflect any additions or alterations to a property. That means that there could well be a succession of commonhold community statements. Does the Minister believe that that should be brought to everyone's attention by including on the face of the Bill something along the lines that when an alteration is made which affects the service charges then a new commonhold community statement must be prepared? It was certainly a matter that I had not picked up until the noble Lord mentioned it. But I can very well see a situation where people are proceeding on an old commonhold community statement that is wrong.
Lord Bach: My Lords, on the face of it that is an excellent point. Can we consider the matter and bring it back at the next stage with, it is to be hoped, something positive?
Lord Kingsland: My Lords. I thank the Minister particularly for pointing out the effect that Clause 37(1)(c) might have on two of my amendments. I shall go away and reflect on his potentially helpful observation.
I take the Minister back to Amendment No. 204. The noble Lord's position is that the amendment is unnecessary because, in order to reach an annual estimated income, an exercise would need to be undertaken involving subtracting expenses from revenues. Therefore, a commonhold association, in doing its sums every year within the framework of the commonhold community statements, would inevitably have to gather all the information that I expressly seek in my amendment.
If that is the Minister's position, would he agree to give the unit-holders access to those financial documents which lie behind the calculation of income? If the Minister tells me that these documents are necessary to determine what the income is, I should be surprised if he sees any harm in their becoming documents available to all the unit-holders. Perhaps I may pause there for his reaction.
Lord Bach: My Lords, my immediate inclination is to say, yes, there seems to be no reason why all those who belong to the commonhold association should not see such documents.
Lord Kingsland: My Lords, that was a helpful response.
Finally, perhaps I may take the Minister to Amendment No. 125. During the Standing Committee stage in the House of Commons, the then Minister of Housing suggested in relation to the provisions of Section 42 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987, that,
1120
without a trust fund arrangement, receipts would be taxable. Can the Minister confirm that he does not believe that a trust fund arrangement is necessary in the context of these provisions because principal sums put into reserve would not be taxable?
Lord Bach: My Lords, it is very tempting to confirm that matter. It would be very easy to do so within an hour of the House rising for the Easter Recess. I shall not confirm the matter without checking it out. The noble Lord will understand why I say that.
Lord Kingsland: My Lords, I understand why the Minister reacted the way he did. Perhaps, on mature reflection, he would be kind enough to drop me a line. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 105 and 106 not moved.]
Lord Bach Lord Bach moved Amendment No. 107:
Page 16, line 34, at end insert ("and the date on which each payment is due.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 108 to 110 not moved.]
Clause 38 [Reserve fund]:
Lord Bach Lord Bach moved Amendments Nos. 111 and 112:
Page 16. line 42. after ("the") insert ("directors of the").
Page 17, line 1. after ("the") insert ("directors of the").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
3 p.m.
The Earl of Caithness The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 113:
Page 17, line 3, at end insert ("owned by the commonhold association').
The noble Earl said: My Lords, as the Minister will realise, I degrouped this amendment from the previous grouping and did not speak to it as it covers a very different point from that on which he was answering my noble friend Lord Kingsland.
When the Minister responded favourably to my noble friend Lady Gardner of Parkes by bringing forward Amendment No. 107, he said that he had done so for the purpose of clarity. I have tabled Amendment No. 113 for exactly the same purpose. The amendment seeks to make it certain that the reserve fund is not used to support unit-holders other than those units that are owned by the commonhold association. The Minister will recall the debate we had on this subject in Grand Committee when he made the valid point that there could be a situation in which there was a warden or someone like that in the unit owned by the commonhold association. I hope that I have responded to that point by limiting the amendment so that funds that are held in the reserve fund can be used only on units that are owned by the commonhold association; otherwise, all those funds have to be used on the main structure and common parts of the

1121
building. The unit-holders are therefore separate and have their own responsibilities and liabilities. I beg to move.
Lord Bach: My Lords, the noble Earl's amendment would restrict the building up of a reserve fund by a commonhold association for the maintenance of units to units owned by the commonhold association. We see what the noble Earl is getting at but his amendment would not allow a commonhold association to maintain a unit of which it was a tenant. We prefer not to restrict the use of such funds, given that the control of those funds is in the hands of the members of the company. That is why we cannot at present accept the amendment.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the Minister's reply disappoints me because I thought that we were getting somewhere. As the Bill stands, the commonhold association is required to establish and maintain one or more funds to finance the repair and maintenance of commonhold units. I put it to the Minister that that as it stands is ambiguous. The maintenance and repair of commonhold units could include items that are legitimately the repair and maintenance responsibility of the unit-holders. That is what I am trying to get away from. It comes back to the theme that I was addressing earlier. We must make it absolutely clear that these funds are not to be used for the responsibilities and liabilities of the unit-holders.
I take the Minister's point about the commonhold association tenanting a unit. That is acceptable, but it must not go further than that. No unit-holder must be under the impression that there will be a reserve fund to bail him out of his responsibilities. That is what I am trying to achieve. Surely it is not beyond the wit of us to devise something that makes the Bill clearer.
Lord Bach: My Lords, I shall certainly reflect carefully on what the noble Earl has said with a view to seeing whether before the next stage we cannot find a way of dealing with his sensible point.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord. I just wonder whether he might want to say anything more before I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Bach: My Lords, the noble Earl has anticipated that I would have a little more to say. I am advised that there may be a further possibility of having an emergency fund for the repair of units whose state is causing danger. Of course it is necessary to remember that it is the unit-holder's money, however it is held.
On reflection, I rather wish that I had not risen to my feet again. I stand by what I said to him earlier in our exchange.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, on the face of it, I agree with the noble Lord. We could be opening a huge Pandora's Box here, but I shall not expand on that.
1122
I am most grateful to the Minister for saying that he will take this away and look at it again. I would be happy to meet with him to discuss the matter in detail between now and the next stage, should that come about. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Bach Lord Bach moved Amendment No. 114:
Page 17, line 7. after ("the") insert ("directors of the").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 115, 115A and 116 not moved.]
Lord Bach Lord Bach moved Amendments Nos. 117 and 118:
Page 17, line 14, after ("the") insert ("directors of the").
Page 17, line 15, at end insert ("and the date on which each payment is due.").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 119 to 125 not moved.]
Clause 39 [Rectification of documents]:
Lord Kingsland Lord Kingsland moved Amendment No. 126:
Page 17, line 34. after ("unit-holder") insert ("or the commonhold association").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is the shortest of points. The amendment seeks to permit the commonhold association to obtain rectification of a mistake in documentation. I beg to move.
Lord Bach: My Lords, the commonhold association, if it finds that its documents are non-compliant, can arrange for them to be amended and re-registered. It does not need a declaration from the court to tell it so. This clause is designed to give unit-holders whose lives are, to a great extent, governed by these documents an opportunity, where they find that the documents are non-compliant and that the commonhold association is not willing to act, to force them to do so.
We do not think that the amendment is appropriate because under Clause 39(3) the Bill empowers the court to require the directors to undertake specific tasks. We do not think that it would be wise for directors to have to apply to the court to undertake those tasks which in any event the directors should themselves be undertaking. For those reasons, I invite the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Kingsland: My Lords, I am most grateful to the Minister for that response. I shall reflect on what he has said and see whether it will be necessary to return to the matter at the next stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 40 [Enlargement]:
[Amendments Nos. 127 to 129 not moved.]
Lord Bach Lord Bach moved Amendment No. 130:
After Clause 40, insert the following new clause£
OMBUDSMAN
(" .—(1) Regulations may provide that a commonhold association shall be a member of an approved ombudsman scheme.
(2) An "approved ombudsman scheme" is a scheme which is approved by the Lord Chancellor and which—

(a) provides for the appointment of one or more persons as ombudsman,

(b) provides for a person to be appointed as ombudsman only if the Lord Chancellor approves the appointment in advance,

(c) enables a unit-holder to refer to the ombudsman a dispute between the unit-holder and a commonhold association which is a member of the scheme,

(d) enables a commonhold association which is a member of the scheme to refer to the ombudsman a dispute between the association and a unit-holder,

(e) requires the ombudsman to investigate and determine a dispute referred to him,

(f) requires a commonhold association which is a member of the scheme to cooperate with the ombudsman in investigating or determining a dispute, and

(g) requires a commonhold association which is a member of the scheme to comply with any decision of the ombudsman (including any decision requiring the payment of money).

(3) In addition to the matters specified in subsection (2) an approved ombudsman scheme—

(a) may contain other provision, and

(b) shall contain such provision, or provision of such a kind, as may be prescribed.

(4) If a commonhold association fails to comply with regulations under subsection (1) a unit-holder may apply to the High Court for an order requiring the directors of the commonhold association to ensure that the association complies with the regulations.
(5) A reference in this section to a unit-holder includes a reference to a tenant of a unit.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 131:
Before Clause 41. insert the following new clause—
WINDING-UP RESOLUTION
(" .—(1) A winding-up resolution in respect of a commonhold association shall be of no effect unless—

(a) the resolution is preceded by a declaration of solvency,

(b) the commonhold association passes a termination-statement resolution before it passes the winding-up resolution, and

(c) each resolution is passed with at least 80 per cent. of the members of the association voting in favour.

(2) In this Part—

"declaration of solvency" means a directors' statutory declaration made in accordance with section 89 of the Insolvency Act 1986,

"termination-statement resolution" means a resolution approving the terms of a termination statement (within the meaning of section 44), and

"winding-up" resolution means a resolution for voluntary winding-up within the meaning of section 84 of that Act.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving government Amendment No. 131, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 132 to 173—I hope that the House will allow me not to read them out separately—along with Amendments Nos. 193, 205, 208 and 209.
All of these amendments relate to the voluntary winding up of a commonhold association while solvent and its eventual termination. It was pointed out to us after Second Reading by an organisation of insolvency practitioners that, in some circumstances, where a commonhold association was dilatory in making progress with the various applications involved, it was possible that it might terminate by default under the terms of the Bill as it now stands. This raft of amendments is designed to overcome that possibility. In essence, tasks which were to have been carried out by the commonhold association will now be the duty of the liquidator, and the commonhold association must have passed a termination-statement resolution at the outset.
Amendment No. 131 seeks to insert a new clause before Clause 41 setting out the criteria which a commonhold association must meet before a winding-up resolution can be of effect. There must be a formal declaration of solvency by the directors, a termination-statement resolution must have been passed, and each of the resolutions must have had at least 80 per cent of the members of the commonhold association voting in favour.
Amendments Nos. 132 and 141 require the addition of the mention of the termination-statement resolution as a prerequisite for further action. Amendments Nos. 133 and 142 define the section of the Insolvency Act under which the liquidator is to be appointed. Amendments Nos. 134, 143 and 147 move the responsibility for carrying such a liquidation forward on to the liquidator from the directors. Amendments Nos. 136 and 148 make it possible for a unit-holder or some specified other person to make the necessary application if the liquidator fails to do so, and Amendment No. 137 removes subsections (3) and (4), which define the terms used, from Clause 41. The relevant terms have been defined in the new clause inserted before Clause 41 by Amendment No. 131.
Amendment No. 149 seeks to remove subsection (4) of Clause 42 as this is an unnecessary requirement now that, under Clause 42(1), a termination statement must be approved by a resolution with the support of 80 per cent of the members of the commonhold association at the outset.
Amendment No. 165 is required as a consequence of the change made to Clause 41 by Amendment No. 132. As a result of that amendment, the liquidator will have an approved termination statement.
Amendment No. 167 seeks to make the necessary consequential changes to Clause 45(3)(a) as the result of the requirement to have approved the termination statement by the commonhold association membership.
Amendment No. 170 seeks to introduce a new subsection which defines that the liquidator under this clause is to be one appointed under Section 91 of the

1125
Insolvency Act 1986. It also states that where the members' voluntary winding-up order converts to a creditors' winding-up order, the liquidator is to be appointed in accordance with Section 100 of the Insolvency Act 1986.
Amendment No. 172 seeks to specify that the application of Clause 46 is to a situation where a termination application has been made under Clause 41; and Amendment No. 173 seeks to introduce a new subsection which applies the clause additionally to applications made under Clause 42.
Amendment No. 193 seeks to leave out Clause 52—I notice that the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, has put his name to this amendment, although, in his case, it is a part of his wider cull of Clauses 41 to 54 en bloc—the effect of which was to ensure that the process for winding-up a commonhold association could be completed where the commonhold association was dilatory in making its formal application to the registrar. The earlier amendments require the making of a termination application a duty imposed either on the liquidator alone or concurrently with the directors. As the liquidator will control the application to the registrar, the clause is no longer required.
Amendments Nos. 208, 209 and 210 are the final three government amendments in this group. They make the necessary consequential amendments to Clause 67, which lists the terms used in this part of the Bill and indicates where they are defined in the Bill.
Amendment No. 205 seeks to amend Schedule 5 and to make a consequential amendment to Section 84 of the Insolvency Act 1986, which refers to voluntary winding up, to ensure that for commonhold purposes the new provision of the Bill has effect.
In the same group are Amendments Nos. 177, 178 and 180. These three amendments apply to Clause 48 and the making of succession orders. It is an important plank of the winding-up process as it relates to insolvent commonholds that the first aim will be to ensure that unit-holders who are blameless will not be deprived of their homes. To achieve this, it will be possible for a court considering making a winding-up order to make another order, called a succession order, effectively bringing into existence a new commonhold association to take forward the continuing existence, carving out the insolvent association, which will remain responsible for the liabilities it accrued and which led to the insolvency.
Amendment No. 177 provides for the court to hear an application for the making of a succession order. This amends the current provision which provided for the court to make a succession order but was silent, in its first part, about the making of the application.
Amendment No. 178 makes a consequential amendment as the result of the amendment to subsection (1) of this clause in that it refers back to the new mention of the application; and Amendment No. 180 inserts a new subsection which provides that the court shall make the succession order unless it thinks that it is inappropriate to do so. The appropriateness or otherwise of making such an order will be a matter of fact in each case, but courts will no doubt take into
1126
account such matters as the extent to which the insolvency was the result of neglect or dishonesty and how far those factors spread among the unit-holders.
Finally, within this group of government amendments, Amendments Nos. 189 to 191 are designed to ensure that the registrar has all the information he needs when dealing with the commonhold which is wound up and where no succession order has been made.
Amendment No. 189 requires the liquidator to notify the registrar of any directions under the Insolvency Act and to tell him of specific notices and applications as set out in the amendment. Amendment No. 190 requires him to supply copies of those documents to the registrar in support of his notification.
Amendment No. 191 requires the registrar to act,
"as soon as is reasonably practicable",
to ensure that the land for which the terminated commonhold association was responsible is no longer registered as commonhold land, reverting to its original plain freehold status. I shall respond to the Opposition's amendments in this group in due course. I beg to move.
3.15 p.m.
Lord Bridges: My Lords, it would help me in understanding this clause if the noble Lord would kindly explain the circumstances in which he thinks it might be necessary to wind up a commonhold association if insolvency is ruled out. I find it a little difficult to understand why these very careful provisions should be necessary unless we can see that a circumstance is likely to occur which makes it desirable.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, insolvency is not ruled out. The most important single thing that the amendments do is to provide that, if winding up is necessary and if insolvency is necessary, those holders of commonhold units who are blameless are not affected.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 41 [100 per cent. agreement]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendments Nos. 132 to 134:
Page 19. line 8, after ("resolution") insert ("and a termination-statement resolution").
Page 19, line 10, at end insert ("under section 91 of the Insolvency Act 1986.").
Page 19, line 11, leave out ("commonhold association may") and insert ("liquidator shall").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendment No. 135 not moved.]
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Murton of Lindisfarne): My Lords, in calling Amendment No. 136, I should point out that there is an error in the amendment as printed on Marshalled List. It reads:
"If the liquidator fails to make a termination application within the period specified in subsection (3) a termination application may be made".
The reference should be to subsection (2).
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 136:
Page 19, line 13, at end insert—
("( ) If the liquidator fails to make a termination application within the period specified in subsection (2) a termination application may be made by—

(a) a unit-holder, or

(b) a person falling within a class prescribed for the purposes of this subsection.").

On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 137:
Page 19, line 14, leave out subsections (3) and (4).
On Question, amendment agreed to
[Amendments Nos. 138 to 140 not moved.]
Clause 42 [80 per cent. agreement]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendments Nos. 141 to 143:
Page 19, line 19, after ("resolution") insert ("and a termination-statement resolution").
Page 19. line 21, at end insert ("under section 91 of the Insolvency Act 1986.").
Page 19, line 22, leave out ("commonhold association may") and insert ("liquidator shall").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendments No. 144 to 146 not moved.]
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendments No. 147 and 148:
Page 19. line 28. leave out ("commonhold association may") and insert ("liquidator shall").
Page 19, line 30, at end insert—("( ) If the liquidator fails to make an application under subsection (2) or (3) within the period specified in that subsection an application of the same kind may be made by—

(a) a unit-holder. or

(b) a person falling within a class prescribed for the purposes of this subsection.").

On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 149:
Page 19, line 31, leave out subsection (4).
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 150 to 152 not moved.]
Clause 43 [Termination application]:
[Amendments Nos. 153 to 155 not moved.]
Clause 44 [Termination statement]:
[Amendments Nos. 156 to 163 not moved.]
Clause 45 [The liquidator]:
[Amendment No. 164 not moved.]
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 165:
Page 20, leave out lines 23 and 24 and insert—
("(3) In the case of a termination application made under section 41 the liquidator shall either—").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 166 not moved.]
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 167:
Page 20, line 25, leave out ("statement") and insert ("termination statement submitted with the termination application").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 168 and 169 not moved.]
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 170:
Page 20, line 34, at end insert—
("( ) In this section a reference to the liquidator is a reference—

(a) to the person who is appointed as liquidator under section 91 of the Insolvency Act 1986, or

(b) in the case of a members' voluntary winding up which becomes a creditors' voluntary winding up by virtue of sections 95 and 96 of that Act, to the person acting as liquidator in accordance with section 100 of that Act.").

On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 171 not moved.]
Clause 46 [Termination]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendments Nos. 172 and 173:
Page 20, line 35. at end insert ("a termination application is made under section 41 and—").
Page 20, line 39, at end insert—
("( ) This section also applies where a termination application is made under section 42.").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 174 and 175 not moved.]
Clause 47 [Introduction]:
[Amendment No. 176 not moved.]
Clause 48 [Succession order]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendments Nos. 177 and 178:
Page 21, leave out lines 17 to 20 and insert—
("(1) At the hearing of the winding-up petition an application may be made to the court for an order under this section (a "succession order") in relation to the insolvent commonhold association.
(2) An application under subsection (1) may be made only by—").
Page 21. line 25, leave out ("(2)") and insert ("(1)").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendment No. 179 not moved.]
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 180:
Page 21, line 30, at end insert—
("( ) The court shall grant an application under subsection (1) unless it thinks that the circumstances of the insolvent commonhold association make a succession order inappropriate.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 181 not moved.]
Clause 49 [Assets and liabilities]:
[Amendments Nos. 182 to 186 not moved.]
Clause 50 [Transfer of responsibility]:
[Amendments Nos. 187 and 188 not moved.]
Clause 51 [Termination of commonhold]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendments Nos. 189 to 191:
Page 22. line 26, after ("powers),") insert—

("(ba) any notice given to the court and the registrar of companies in accordance with section 172(8) of that Act (liquidator vacating office after final meeting),

(bb) any notice given to the Secretary of State under section 174(3) of that Act (completion of winding-up),

(bc) any application made to the registrar of companies under section 202(2) of that Act (insufficient assets: early dissolution),

(bd) any notice given to the registrar of companies under section 205(1)(b) of that Act (completion of winding-up),").

Page 22, line 28, at end insert—
("( ) Notification under subsection (2)(b) to (bd) must be accompanied by a copy of the directions, notice or application concerned.").
Page 22, line 29, after ("shall") insert—

("(a) make such arrangements as appear to him to be appropriate for ensuring that the freehold estate in land in respect of which a commonhold association exercises functions ceases to be registered as a freehold estate in commonhold land as soon as is reasonably practicable after the receives notification under subsection (2)(ba ) to (bd), and

(b)")

On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendment No. 192 not moved.]
Clause: 52 [Winding-up without termination application]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 193:
Leave out Clause 52.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 194 and 195 not moved.]
Clause 53 [Termination by court]:
[Amendment No. 196 not moved.]
Clause 54 [Release of reserve fund]:
[Amendment No. 197 not moved.]
Clause 58 [Compulsory purchase]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendments Nos. 198 and 199:
Page 25, line 16, at end insert—
("(1B) But subsection (1) does not apply to a transfer if the Registrar is satisfied that the compulsory purchaser has indicated a desire for the land transferred to continue to be commonhold land.").
Page 25, line 22. leave out ("subsection (1)") and insert ("subsections (1) and (1B)").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendment No. 200 not moved.]
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 201:
Page 25, line 31, leave out from ("means") to end of line 32 and insert ("—

(a) a person acquiring land in respect of which he is authorised to exercise a power of compulsory purchase by virtue of an enactment, and

(b) a person acquiring land which he is obliged to acquire by virtue of a prescribed enactment or in prescribed circumstances.").

On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 61 [Orders and regulations]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 202:
Page 26, line 4, leave out ("58(3)") and insert ("58").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I should point out at this stage that I moved Amendment No. 198 formally by mistake. I do not know whether the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, wishes to challenge that amendment; indeed, he is fully entitled to do so. I apologise for the situation. I believe that the noble Lord will have to raise the matter on Third Reading. I think it is due to the Greek calends!
Lord Kingsland: My Lords, I am sure that the noble Lord does not need me to persuade him of the force of the amendment. No doubt the noble Lord will incorporate it in the next draft of the Bill.
Lord Kingsland Lord Kingsland moved Amendment No. 203:
Page 26, line 14, at end insert—
("( ) A copy of any regulations made under this Part shall be sent free of charge to each commonhold association and published in electronic format on the Internet before, or within 7 days of, the regulations come into force.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is the shortest of short points. In our view public access to the information is appropriate and should ideally be provided by post but also perhaps by the Internet. I beg to move.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, this point was raised at the previous stage by my noble friend Lord Goodhart. We have an amendment which is grouped with the one we are discussing that noble Lords may think is rather more old-fashioned as it is confined to "snail" mail rather than electronic communication. If the Minister does not accept one of the two amendments, or some variation of them, will the Government consider some form of guidance to commonhold associations written in plain and accessible English? Earlier we touched on the fact that many directors of commonhold associations will not be accustomed to holding a directorship. At the previous stage my noble friend was concerned to ensure that regulations were not simply readily available but actually proffered. The general point is to offer information and assistance to those who are unaccustomed to the post.
Lord Bach: My Lords, we dealt with this matter in passing in Committee. I said then,
"We are prepared to consider this amendment and will make inquiries between now and Report, at which time I will come back with a more definite answer".
I am glad that I added,
"It may not be a positive answer".—[Official Report, 27/2/01; col. CWH 97.]
I am afraid that it will not be positive today.
These amendments would result in commonhold associations being provided at public expense, with documents published for sale by the Stationery Office. Having considered the cost to the taxpayer of providing such material free of charge to companies who levy commonhold assessments on their unit-holders for the express purpose of, among other things, covering the costs of managing the commonhold, we are not prepared to accept the amendments. We do not think that there is any justification for having such a requirement on the face of the Bill, even if, in due course, we elect to take up some of the suggestions. That is rather a grumpy response to well-meaning amendments. However, we shall provide plain English guides to the documents.
Lord Kingsland: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord for his response despite the fact that it was unsympathetic. I hope that whoever is responsible for drawing up the regulations—whichever government ultimately are in power—will reflect on the amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and myself and will ensure that commonhold associations are properly informed about their rights and responsibilities. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 204 not moved.]
Baroness Gardner of Parkes Baroness Gardner of Parkes moved Amendment No. 204A:
After Clause 65. insert the following new clause—
REPORT ON USE OF COMMONHOLD
(" .—(1) The Lord Chancellor shall lay a report before both Houses of Parliament not more than two years after the commencement of this Part of this Act of the number of registrations of commonhold land, together with a commentary on the market response to the provisions of this Part.
(2) The report shall include a statement of opinion by the Lord Chancellor as to whether he believes that the take-up of commonhold in the market is satisfactory.
(3) If the Lord Chancellor's report states that he does not believe that the take-up of commonhold is satisfactory. he may lay a draft order which shall require all new developments of blocks of flats and all conversions of buildings to self-contained flats for residential use to be registered as freehold estates in commonhold land.
(4) Any draft order laid in accordance with subsection (3) shall not come into force until approved by an affirmative resolution of both Houses of Parliament.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this is a self-explanatory new clause. I have tabled the amendment because I consider that the whole process of commonhold in the Bill is completely negative. There
1132
will be no incentive whatever for people to become involved in it. In Grand Committee I tabled an amendment to make it compulsory, but even I thought that was a bit extreme. I should at least have limited the number of years.
Since then I have tried to approach the issue from another angle. On Amendment No. 203 a few moments ago, the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, said that many directors of commonhold will be inexperienced. I do not think that there will be many directors of commonhold, because I do not think that there will be many commonholds.
If the Government are not prepared to look at the carrot or the stick, both of which we discussed in Committee, we might try the alternative approach of at least giving the Government a set procedure to review the system after the law has been operational for two years. That is when we will see clearly whether we have any commonhold.
I know how difficult it is for any government to find time for major Bills, so I cannot see primary legislation being used to change the system. The amendment would provide an opportunity to insist on the development of commonhold for at least a limited period. Under subsection (4), that could be done only by affirmative resolution. It would be a simple way of reviewing and redetermining whether we really wanted commonhold. The Bill does not indicate that there is any real wish for it. We have gone to a great deal of trouble and talked a lot about commonhold. Unless it is really going to happen, we are just fooling ourselves. I beg to move.
3.30 p.m.
Baroness Maddock: My Lords, I support the thrust of the amendment. In Grand Committee we talked about whether the proposal would ever get off the ground and what house builders were doing. I have a letter from the Minister on the issue, but it is not entirely satisfactory, because the Government have not really pushed the issue even with the building trade. If they are not doing that, the idea will be a bit of a damp squib, as the noble Baroness has said. It is important to return to it to see whether what we are saying is true.
However, I would not go quite as far as the noble Baroness. It is probably not appropriate to give the Lord Chancellor as much power as she suggests. Some of my colleagues on the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee would agree with me on that.
Nevertheless, I support the thrust of the amendment. I expect the Government to come back today or at a later stage with a little more detail on how they think that commonhold will be taken up. There is a lot of evidence that it will not be taken up and that builders and property developers are not very interested.
Lord Bach: My Lords, the Government are not nearly as pessimistic about the possibilities of commonhold as are the two noble Baronesses who

1133
have spoken. It will take a little time, but we think that it will be a success. The important thing is to get the Bill through so that commonhold can be set up. I am grateful to noble Lords on all sides for the assistance that they have given to the Bill.
The noble Baroness, Lady Gardner, is much too polite to call the amendment a sunset clause, but that is what it is. She has proposed a mechanism—which is not as draconian as her previous proposal, but perhaps that is only a matter of degree—whereby the future development of leasehold flats might be forbidden. This time, the Government would have a one-off opportunity to assess the take-up of commonhold two years after the enactment of Part 1. If the Lord Chancellor deemed take-up to be unsatisfactory, he could lay an affirmative resolution order to require new developments or conversions to be commonhold. I look forward to seeking what the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee would have to say about giving such power to my noble and learned friend. I believe that such a power to change the law of the land in one fell swoop would be greater than that ever held by anyone in his position. However, I understand the noble Baroness's intention in proposing the amendment.
We remain convinced that the development of commonholcl which we offer provides a real alternative to leasehold. However, we do not take the view that we can simply cut off the possibility of leasehold development if that is what developers and the market still want. We cannot buck the market in that way, at least until it is quite certain that there will be no significant unforeseen problems with this new system of land tenure. In spite of the temptation that noble Lords from all sides have put in our way, we still believe that that is the right and responsible approach.
Finally, if in due course it appears appropriate to accelerate the end of leasehold, no doubt it will be possible to do so. We do not believe that it would be appropriate to seek to achieve it in the sort of timescale proposed in the noble Baroness's amendment. However, once this Bill becomes an Act, we shall keep the whole issue under review, as I am sure governments of any hue would, in order to ensure that our long-term aim is achieved. Therefore, I hope that the noble Baroness will withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply, which is not quite as miserable as I had feared. However, it was still not too good. The noble Lord may say that we are pessimistic. Generally I look upon myself as an optimist, but not in this context. I believe that commonhold is most valuable. I have lived with it, experienced it and seen how good it is. However, it will take a little time to convince developers in this country that that is so.
In Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Selsdon, said that the Government would do things via an incentive. I remember very clearly the time when incentives—probably far too many—were given for building hotel rooms in London. Suddenly, all developers decided
1134
that nothing would be nicer than to build many more hotel rooms. Therefore, even a slight tweak on the incentive side may help to bring in commonhold.
I fear that unless something such as an incentive is forthcoming, as we have said today, the provision will apply more to new build than to anything else. The point has been raised again and again that it will be difficult to convert existing leaseholds. Therefore, we are talking about new build and I believe that the Government should consider seriously some form of incentive. Meanwhile, I thank the Minister for his reply, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 5 [Commonhold: consequential amendments]:
Lord Bach Lord Bach moved Amendment No. 205:
Page 76. line 23, at end insert—
("Insolvency Act 1986 (c. 45)
.At the end of section 84 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (Voluntary winding-up) there shall be added—
"(4) This section has effect subject to section (Winding-up resolution) of the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2001."
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Bach Lord Bach moved Amendment No. 206:
Page 76, line 46, at end insert—
("Housing Act 1996 (c. 52)
.After section 94( 1 )(b) of the Housing Act 1996 1 provision of advice) there shall be added—
"or
(c) any aspect of the law of commonhold land. so far as relating to residential matters."").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, on the subject of incentives, we believe that this government amendment provides a small but important incentive. Section 94 of the Housing Act 1996 made provision for an independent advisory service. That led to the recreation on a new and permanent basis of the Leasehold Enfranchisement Advisory Service, known as LEASE. It began life in January 1994 and was partly funded by government and partly by the private sector. The remit of LEASE, which has been extended over the years, covers not only enfranchisement issues but also aspects of the law of landlord and tenant as it relates to residential tenancies more generally.
Your Lordships will know that my noble friend Lord Richard is the very distinguished chairman of LEASE. Over a long period, its officers have been most helpful in the preparation of this Bill. We are told that they are already being approached for advice about commonhold, despite it being at an early stage. I hope that that encourages some noble Lords. There appears to be no advantage in reinventing a wheel when the one in existence works as well as does LEASE. Therefore, we are pleased to propose this amendment in order to recognise the operation of the real world.
The amendment will add to Section 94 of the Housing Act 1996, extending the scope of Section 94(1) so that it covers the provision by LEASE of

1135
advice about the law relating to commonhold land as well as the aspects of law relating to residential tenancies, presently covered in that section.
We are very conscious of the comments that the noble Lord, Lord Selsdon, made in Committee and of those made today by the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, about the need to sell, if I may use that expression, commonhold. We are actively thinking of ways in which to do that. The amendment is a small but important measure along the way. I beg to move.
Baroness Maddock: My Lords, I am happy to support the amendment. We are being positive towards the end of our deliberations!
During the passage of the Housing Act 1996 I had something to do with these provisions. It would be remiss of me if I did not say how glad I was about the proposal. It is important for people to get proper advice. On previous occasions we have discussed the resources that may be available. I hope that the Government will ensure that there are sufficient resources to provide such advice. That issue came up in 1996 and it has arisen during the passage of this Bill.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 66 [Interpretation]:
Lord Kingsland Lord Kingsland moved Amendment No. 207:
Page 28. line 15, after ("reinstating") insert ("where practicable").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the amendment qualifies the duty to use the proceeds of insurance for rebuilding or reinstating, and it would apply only when that is practicable. As noble Lords are aware, in some cases it is not practicable to build or reinstate. In such circumstances, an absolute duty to use the funds for that purpose could present an obstacle. I beg to move.
Lord Bach: My Lords, the amendment would add to the clause that defines a duty to ensure by comprehending the use of the proceeds of insurance for the purpose of rebuilding or reinstating the qualification, where practicable. That is an example of attempting to qualify in an unquantifiable way a fairly straightforward requirement in the Bill. As such, I am afraid that we cannot accept it.
Lord Kingsland: My Lords, I hear what the Minister says. It may not be possible to reinstate a destroyed property; my point is as simple as that. Has the Minister nothing to add to his observations?
Lord Bach: My Lords, I add—it is only courteous to do so—that I appreciate that my reply was very short and that we shall of course consider what the noble Lord said.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, before the Minister concludes, what would happen if the commonhold had fallen off the edge of a cliff? That has happened recently.
Lord Bach: Goodness, my Lords! I have been rather taken by surprise by the concept of a commonhold falling off the edge of a cliff. I know that that happens—the matter was raised in Committee. I need a bit of time to consider my response.
Lord Kingsland: My Lords, we have been talking about flying freeholds this afternoon; it is but a short step to a flying commonhold.
In the circumstances, it would be prudent if I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 67 [Index of defined expressions]:
Lord Bach Lord Bach moved Amendments Nos. 208 to 210:

Page 28, line 31, at end insert—

("Declaration of solvency

Section (Winding-up resolution)")

Page 29, line 8, at end insert—

("Termination-statement resolution

Section (Winding-up resolution)")

Page 29, line 12, leave out ("41") and insert ("(Winding-up resolution)").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Bach: My Lords, although I know that it will be of some upset to quite a number of noble Lords, I beg to move that consideration on Report be now adjourned.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

National Australia Group Europe Bill [H.L.]
The Examiner's certificate that the further Standing Orders had been complied with was ordered to lie on the Table and the Bill was committed to an Unopposed Bill Committee.
House adjourned for the Easter Recess at a quarter before four o'clock until Monday, 23rd April.

  EU and US: Transfer of Data
  EU and US: Transfer of Data
  Hunting Bills
  Hunting Bills
  Abnormal Loads: Communication with Escort
  Abnormal Loads: Communication with Escort
  Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act
  Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act
  Asylum Seekers: Exceptional Leave to Remain
  Asylum Seekers: Exceptional Leave to Remain
  Immigration Advice: Regulation
  Immigration Advice: Regulation
  Capital Modernisation Fund
  Capital Modernisation Fund
  Corruption White Paper
  Corruption White Paper
  Asylum and Immigration Act: Employers' Responsibilities
  Asylum and Immigration Act: Employers' Responsibilities
  Afghanistan
  Afghanistan
  British Association for Shooting and Conservation
  British Association for Shooting and Conservation
  Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service
  Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service
  Cluster Bombs
  Cluster Bombs
  MoD Police and Other Police Forces: Co-ordination
  MoD Police and Other Police Forces: Co-ordination
  Tri-service Discipline: Proposed Legislation
  Tri-service Discipline: Proposed Legislation
  MoD Police: Additional Powers
  MoD Police: Additional Powers
  Logistic Vehicle Procurement for the Army
  Logistic Vehicle Procurement for the Army
  Meat Imports from South Africa
  Meat Imports from South Africa
  French Ban on UK Beef Imports
  French Ban on UK Beef Imports
  Forestry Commission Research Agency
  Forestry Commission Research Agency
  Rail Industry Organisations
  Rail Industry Organisations
  Lifeboat Accidents
  Lifeboat Accidents
  Lifeboat Launching Equipment
  Lifeboat Launching Equipment
  Royal Navy Officers: Merchant Navy Master's Certificate
  Royal Navy Officers: Merchant Navy Master's Certificate
  Aviation Health Working Group
  Aviation Health Working Group
  Accessible Public Transport: EC Directive
  Accessible Public Transport: EC Directive
  Transport Council, 5 April
  Transport Council, 5 April
  Wincanton Bypass
  Wincanton Bypass
  Road Vehicles (Display of Registration Marks) Regulations
  Road Vehicles (Display of Registration Marks) Regulations
  Foot and Mouth Disease: Cancellation of Events
  Foot and Mouth Disease: Cancellation of Events
  NHS Commissioning Arrangements
  NHS Commissioning Arrangements
  Young Unemployed People Setting Up a Business
  Young Unemployed People Setting Up a Business
  New Deal: Training and Self-employment
  New Deal: Training and Self-employment
  Four year-olds: Free Nursery Education in Rural Areas
  Four year-olds: Free Nursery Education in Rural Areas
  Winter Fuel Payments: Severely Disabled People
  Winter Fuel Payments: Severely Disabled People
  Distance Selling Regulations: Compliance by Web Retailers
  Distance Selling Regulations: Compliance by Web Retailers
  Hazardous Waste Imports for Kiln Burning
  Hazardous Waste Imports for Kiln Burning
  Cemfuel
  Cemfuel
  SSSIs: Dependency on Grazing
  SSSIs: Dependency on Grazing
  Streetworks: Highway Authority Charging Powers
  Streetworks: Highway Authority Charging Powers
  Local Authority Publicity
  Local Authority Publicity
  Traveline Public Transport Information Service
  Traveline Public Transport Information Service
  Private Aerodromes: Airspace Safety
  Private Aerodromes: Airspace Safety
  Railway Deaths by Electrocution
  Railway Deaths by Electrocution
  NHS Trusts: Digital Hearing Aid Contract Access
  NHS Trusts: Digital Hearing Aid Contract Access
  Medical Devices Agency: Key Targets
  Medical Devices Agency: Key Targets
  Drug-related Deaths: Response to Report
  Drug-related Deaths: Response to Report
  Haemophilia: Proposed National Blood Distribution Framework
  Haemophilia: Proposed National Blood Distribution Framework
  World Trade Organisation: Sustainability Policy
  World Trade Organisation: Sustainability Policy
  Hydro-electric Power
  Hydro-electric Power
  Third Generation Wireless Telegraphy Act Licences
  Third Generation Wireless Telegraphy Act Licences
  Public Expenditure in England, Scotland and Wales
  Public Expenditure in England, Scotland and Wales
  Heathrow: Stop and Search Statistics
  Heathrow: Stop and Search Statistics
  Customs and Excise: Equality and Diversity Training
  Customs and Excise: Equality and Diversity Training
  European Convention on Cybercrime: Provision against Racism
  European Convention on Cybercrime: Provision against Racism
  Cruelty to Animals: Prosecutions
  Cruelty to Animals: Prosecutions
  Airwave Police Radio Communications Systems
  Airwave Police Radio Communications Systems
  Police Officers: IT Training
  Police Officers: IT Training
  Independent Police Complaints Commission
  Independent Police Complaints Commission
  Countryside Access: Departmental Website as Information Source
  Countryside Access: Departmental Website as Information Source
  Voluntary Bodies Working with Victims and Offenders: Funding
  Voluntary Bodies Working with Victims and Offenders: Funding
  Freedom of Information Act 2000: Implementation
  Freedom of Information Act 2000: Implementation
  Immigration and Nationality Enforcement Manual: Disclosure
  Immigration and Nationality Enforcement Manual: Disclosure
  Standford Hill Prison: Board of Visitors
  Standford Hill Prison: Board of Visitors
  Prison Service: Intrusive Surveillance
  Prison Service: Intrusive Surveillance
  National Technical Assistance Centre
  National Technical Assistance Centre
  Ascitic Mice: Monoclonal Antibody Production Procedures Licensing
  Ascitic Mice: Monoclonal Antibody Production Procedures Licensing
  Race Relations Act 1976: Immigration Functions Authorisations
  Race Relations Act 1976: Immigration Functions Authorisations
  Passport and Records Agency
  Passport and Records Agency
  Review of Crime Statistics: Recommendations
  Review of Crime Statistics: Recommendations
  Criminal Records Bureau Disclosures: Fees
  Criminal Records Bureau Disclosures: Fees
  Baton Round Equipment
  Baton Round Equipment
  Advocates Prosecuting Cases for the Government: Panel
  Advocates Prosecuting Cases for the Government: Panel
  Special Advisers: Expression of Political Views
  Special Advisers: Expression of Political Views
  e-commerce: Regulatory Framework
  e-commerce: Regulatory Framework
  Civil Service Legislation
  Civil Service Legislation
  Non-departmental Public Bodies: Chairmen's Remuneration
  Non-departmental Public Bodies: Chairmen's Remuneration
  Northern Ireland: Racially Motivated Crime
  Northern Ireland: Racially Motivated Crime
  Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission
  Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission
  Irish Human Rights Commission
  Irish Human Rights Commission
  Strategic Communications Unit and Government Communications and Information Service
  Strategic Communications Unit and Government Communications and Information Service
  Lightening Burdens on Business: European Commission Proposals
  Lightening Burdens on Business: European Commission Proposals
  Millennium Dome: Sale
  Millennium Dome: Sale
  NMEC: £47 Million Grant
  NMEC: £47 Million Grant
  Community Legal Service
  Community Legal Service
  Foot and Mouth Disease: Extra Veterinary Staff
  Foot and Mouth Disease: Extra Veterinary Staff
  Foot and Mouth Disease: Cumbria
  Foot and Mouth Disease: Cumbria
  Foot and Mouth Disease: Livestock Welfare Disposal Scheme
  Foot and Mouth Disease: Livestock Welfare Disposal Scheme
  State Veterinary Service: Staffing
  State Veterinary Service: Staffing
  Foot and Mouth Outbreak, South Africa
  Foot and Mouth Outbreak, South Africa