Sitting of 3 December 2001

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

    Holidays (Disabled People)
    Mr. Gordon Marsden: What discussions she has had with (a) the English Tourism Council and (b) other bodies on marketing and expanding opportunities for domestic holidays for people with disabilities. [16983]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Dr. Kim Howells): Widening access to tourism for people with disabilities is a key commitment for the Government and the English Tourism Council. My Department has regular discussions with the ETC and other relevant bodies on that topic. The ETC currently has no marketing role, but that is under review. There is much more that we can do to co-ordinate private and public sector funds that are currently spent on marketing tourism in England.
    Mr. Marsden: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. Given that today is the International Day for Disabled
    2
    People, does he agree that we have an appropriate opportunity to review what marketing bodies, under whatever heading, can do specifically to market holidays for disabled people? ETC research has shown that 2.7 million people in this country would take such holidays, the majority of them domestic. Will he consider with other Departments the possibility of ring-fenced budgets specifically for such marketing, as well as other initiatives targeted on the community of people with disabilities?
    Dr. Howells: The burden of marketing in this country lies with the private sector—with those who own attractions and with the resorts themselves. I hope that it will remain so, as I do not want politicians to try to second-guess how best to market resorts and so on. However, I agree with my hon. Friend that much more needs to be done to encourage those who are registered as disabled to take holidays in this country. I understand that 9.5 million people are registered as disabled; far too few have the opportunity to take holidays in Great Britain.
    Mr. Andrew Mitchell: When considering those important matters in relation to disabled people, will the Minister bear in mind the excellence in that respect of Birmingham's bid to host the national stadium? Does he agree that Wembley has blown it through its own actions and that it is now right, not least because of the facilities for disabled people, that Birmingham should be the location of the national stadium?
    Dr. Howells: That was a good try, but that is a matter for the Football Association.

    Lottery Funding (South Yorkshire)
    Caroline Flint: What progress has been made in ensuring an increased share of successful bids for national lottery money in south Yorkshire. [16984]
    The Minister for Sport (Mr. Richard Caborn): Our data show that since the National Lottery Act 1998 and the revised policy directions issued to distributors that same year, the proportion of all lottery awards going to south Yorkshire has increased by 19 per cent.
    Caroline Flint: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply, but I have a question about common sense in the assessment of applications for lottery funds. I do not know whether he has had a chance to investigate an application to the better play programme from St. Alban's school in Denaby Main in my constituency to have an underground spring diverted from the sports field to be used for a range of play and sports activities. The application was turned down
    "because it would not extend the choice and control children have over their play or maximise the range of play opportunities".
    What choice or control can children have when their playing field is waterlogged?
    Mr. Caborn: As my hon. Friend knows, we received a letter from her constituency office on 22 or 23 November and officials are looking into the case. We want to reduce bureaucracy wherever we can. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced on 27 June to the lotteries monitoring panel that we were refocusing lottery funding on some of the poorer areas of the United Kingdom. I shall look into the case that my hon. Friend raises. The issue is one that we want to resolve quickly.

    BBC (Political Impartiality)
    Mr. Andrew RobathanWhen she last met the chairman of the governors of the BBC to discuss political impartiality in the corporation's broadcasts. [169851
    The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Tessa Jowell): I have met with the chairman of the governors of the BBC, but not to discuss political impartiality in the corporation's broadcasts—nor would it be appropriate for me to do so. That is a matter for the BBC governors.
    Mr. Robathan: Notwithstanding the chairman's many attributes, including his success in making squillions while working for Goldman Sachs, does the Secretary of State agree that someone who was an adviser to Harold Wilson and James Callaghan and who is famously alleged to have wept when Neil Kinnock was defeated in the 1992 general election is bound to see the world and politics with an inherent bias—through, dare one say, rose or red-tinted spectacles? Would she be happy if the Director-General of the BBC, the chairman, the political editor and the editor of the "Today" programme were all paid-up members, or well-known donors, or active supporters of the Conservative party?
    Tessa Jowell: The new chairman of the BBC was selected for the first time by the open Nolan principle. An advertisement was placed, applications were invited and the candidates were interviewed; a recommendation was made to me, then the Prime Minister, and was submitted to the Queen. That is how openness in public appointments and public confidence are maintained under a Labour Government. That is in stark contrast to the way
    4
    in which Marmaduke Hussey, a recent chairman of the BBC, was appointed. He recorded that the telephone conversation went as follows:
    "Oh, Dukey, it's Douglas Hurd here, with a very odd question to ask you. Would you like to be chairman of the BBC?…The only problem is that I must have the answer by…Saturday."
    We believe in openness; Gavyn Davies is an excellent candidate.
    Mr. Tam Dalyell: May I remind my right hon. Friend of the time long, long ago when there were wiser Tories in the leadership? When Reggie Bevins was Postmaster-General responsible for the BBC, he was goaded into saying, "I'll do something about 'That was the week that was'". The next morning, he arrived in his office and there was a little note saying, "Oh no you won't. Harold"—Macmillan.
    Tessa Jowell: It is important to ensure that history does not repeat itself. Secretaries of State and Ministers do well to keep out of aspects of the governance of the BBC that are well protected by the BBC charter and the BBC governors.
    Mr. Nigel Waterson: Will the Secretary of State explain why, of all broadcasters, the BBC should be exempt from the supervision of Ofcom? Why should it remain the judge and jury on its own impartiality and coverage of politics in this country?
    Tessa Jowell: My hon. Friend the Minister with responsibility for broadcasting will deal with that matter later during Question Time. However, there is a common misunderstanding of the matter. When, subject to parliamentary approval, Ofcom is established, a common set of principles will apply to all broadcasters, including the BBC, other public service broadcasters and broadcasters in the commercial sector. We have made it clear that there will be a level playing field for regulatory expectations of the BBC and other broadcasters. The BBC wants that and, in fairness, so should the rest of the broadcasting market.
    Mr. Stephen Pound: Bearing in mind the earlier question about the national stadium, could I ask the Minister for Sport whether, like millions of Londoners, he has been following the correspondence in the Evening Standard on the possibility of having a national stadium at Northolt—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman cannot go back to the national stadium.

    Sports Clubs (North-East)
    Mr. Kevan Jones: What assistance is being given to local sports clubs in the north-east. [16986]
    The Minister for Sport (Mr. Richard Caborn): Sport England's north-east regional office is working closely with sports clubs and a wide range of other partners in the region to deliver Sport England's national programmes. Additionally, to date voluntary sports clubs in the region

    5
    have benefited from 83 awards from the lottery sports fund worth £9.3 million, and 277 grants worth £833,000 have been made under the awards for all programme.
    Mr. Jones: I thank my right hon. Friend for his reply which, I know, will be welcomed in the north-east. However, I wish to raise the plight of the Hermitage school in Chester-le-Street in my constituency. A month ago, its community sports facilities were ravaged by fire, and it is in the process of making a sports lottery bid. However, it has been told by Sport England that it cannot use £0.5 million of insurance money as match funding for the project. Will my right hon. Friend look at the project to see what can be done to help re-establish community sports facilities again at that school?
    Mr. Caborn: I understand the problem that my hon. Friend has set before the House. As for lottery funds and insurance, insurance is paid to rebuild facilities; if there is an enhancement of the facilities, that would qualify for lottery money. The school would therefore have to revisit its application and, in doing so, I hope that it will get some sort of support.
    Mr. John Greenway: How much longer will sports clubs in the north-east have to wait to get help with their rates bills, which are growing year after year? The promise of help was made by the Chancellor back in March. Friday's long-awaited further announcement promises yet more consultation, dither and delay. When will those clubs have a reduction in their tax bills and will local authorities be reimbursed for the cost?
    Mr. Caborn: We move from rates to tax. A consultation document on tax is out for consultation at present. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions will make a statement to the House about the rate rebate structure, which I know has been a matter of concern to many sports clubs. I hope that in the not-too-distant future, we will be able to deal with the taxation problem in the light of the consultation document and the pre-Budget statement, and that the restructuring of local government finance will enable us to address the issue of mandatory rate relief for sports clubs.
    Mr. Stephen Hepburn: Is my right hon. Friend aware that one of the fastest-growing community sports in the north-east is mini-football? Will he join me in thanking all the volunteers and parents who, every week, organise thousands of youngsters from seven to 12 years old in organised leagues? Will my right hon. Friend give his support to the two local sports clubs in my constituency, at Perth green and Monkton stadium, which are bidding for centre of excellence status?
    Mr. Caborn: Certainly. There are many good things going on in the north-east, and mini-football is one which I personally support. There is a good development at Durham university led by Peter Warburton, the director of sports. It is probably the best example of the development of multi-sports clubs around an academic institution. Hon. Members and anyone outside the House who wants to see the development of sport from the grass roots to excellence should look at Durham university,
    6
    with which our director of Sport England in the north-east is working closely. That example should be followed in many other areas.

    Tourism
    Mr. Chris Pond: What action she has taken to help the tourism industry in the United Kingdom since 11 September. [16988]
    The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Tessa Jowell): I have asked the British Tourist Authority to redeploy funds to help the recovery of inbound tourism. In response, the BTA has announced a new £5 million international marketing campaign for 2002, which will focus on Britain's key strengths. I have also agreed that the London Tourist Board can switch £500,000 from overseas marketing and promotion to domestic or near-European marketing.
    Mr. Pond: I thank my right hon. Friend for that encouraging reply. She will know that, as the place where Dickens lived and Pocahontas died, Gravesend is something of a tourism hot-spot nowadays. Is she aware that in the past few days we have heard news that the historic ferry service in Gravesend is to be saved? Does she agree that tourism has a vital role to play in economic regeneration and the creation of employment? Can she give an assurance that she will continue to focus her Department's attention on giving every support possible to that vital part of our economy, to ensure that we can continue to build prosperity in areas such as mine?
    Tessa Jowell: I congratulate my hon. Friend on the efforts that he has made on behalf of his constituency. Gravesend recently won an award for town centre regeneration. He is right about the role of tourism in promoting economic growth. One of the areas in which new jobs are increasing fastest is the hospitality sector; about one in 14 people work in tourism. The Government must ensure that all possible help is provided to ensure raised standards and therefore better value for tourists across the sector, and investment in skills to improve the quality of service and recruitment to a vital industry.
    Nick Harvey: I welcome the money to which the Secretary of State referred. Does she agree that in today's advertising market £5 million does not go very far, in the light of the trouble that the tourism industry has had this year? If the review to which the Minister with responsibility for tourism referred decides that the English Tourism Council should have a marketing budget restored to it, will the Secretary of State take steps to ensure that it has similar sums at its disposal to those available in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland? The English Tourism Council is getting 22p a head, compared with £5.08 in Scotland, £5.31 in Wales and £8.18 in Northern Ireland. Given the problems that the tourism industry has had this year, does the right hon. Lady recognise the urgent need to get money through to the ETC now?
    Tessa Jowell: First, on the question of the money spent on marketing in England, as opposed to Scotland and Wales, the yield in terms of overseas visitor income is by far the greatest in England. The hon. Gentleman made a crucial point about the importance of a sustained

    7
    marketing campaign. The British Tourist Authority has had £14 million extra to spend on tourism and the results of that money post foot and mouth were beginning to show in August, when the number of in-bound tourists from the United States was about the same as it was last August. Obviously, the transatlantic tourism industry has suffered a devastating blow since 11 September, but I can assure the hon. Gentleman that I and my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary are working closely with the tourism bodies and the industry generally in order to take all necessary steps to assist its speedy recovery.
    Ms Claire Ward: Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the key attractions for tourism is the British film industry, especially with the current success of "Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone", which was filmed in various locations around the country, including my constituency? Will she take this opportunity to give her support to the British film industry and do all that she can to promote it, to ensure that we reap the benefits not only from that industry, but from the associated tourism?
    Tessa Jowell: My hon. Friend is absolutely right about the importance and potential of the film industry's role in promoting tourism. Everybody is basking in the success of "Harry Potter". My hon. Friend the Minister with responsibility for tourism was last week in America and Canada, where precisely the same point was made about the attraction of the British film industry to visiting American tourists.
    Miss Anne McIntosh: The Secretary of State referred to redeploying money that had already been allocated. Does she agree that the tourism industry is very much in need of help, but her Government have increased the regulatory burden on businesses? Will she endeavour to avoid duplication by the various agencies that are spending the taxpayers' money to which she referred—the regional development boards, the regional tourism boards and local authorities—and when will she establish the marketing role that she envisages for the English Tourism Council?
    Tessa Jowell: The answer to the first three questions is yes, yes and yes. We are in discussion with the industry about the ways in which deregulation might be extended. What is absolutely clear is that any further Government investment and any deregulation have to be matched by improved value for the tourist. On the hon. Lady's last point, we are in discussion with the English Tourism Council. We have asked it to take on a short-term responsibility to assist in the marketing of England. Those discussions are under way, but the longer-term role of the ETC is a matter for longer reflection in conjunction with the British Tourist Authority.

    Ofcom
    Mr. Derek Wyatt: What role Ofcom will play in the governance of the BBC. [16989]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Dr. Kim Howells): In relation to the BBC, Ofcom will set and monitor standards and quantifiable quotas and targets, much as it will do for
    8
    all public sector broadcasters. The BBC governors will remain responsible for regulating the impartiality requirements and for the delivery of the corporation's overall remit.
    Mr. Wyatt: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. What we do not understand, at least on this side of the House, is that if the BBC takes a position in ITV Digital and continues with the most successful website in the world, those activities will cover the whole of broadcasting in broadband, so why should the governors retain a specific interest on their own? Surely, we want a level playing field and Ofcom should provide it.
    Dr. Howells: My hon. Friend makes a good point. As a former distinguished England winger, he is used to taking positions on sides—usually offside, as I remember. I do not disagree with him; indeed, Ofcom will have an important part to play in the commercial activities that the BBC undertakes. Streaming images across the internet is an expensive, highly competitive business. I expect Ofcom, as well as the competition authorities, to play a large part in determining the future shape of such a service.
    Michael Fabricant: That was a charming answer from a charming Minister, but he did not answer the point that the hon. Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey (Mr. Wyatt) made. Either the Government trust the BBC and distrust the commercial sector or Ofcom should have the same powers over the BBC as it has over the commercial sector. What is the reason for the imbalance?
    Dr. Howells: The spectrum of public service broadcasters ranges from the BBC to Channel 5, which is mainly a commercial operation but has a small public service responsibility. It is difficult to assume that regulation should be the same for a broadcaster with a small public service remit as for that with an entirely public service remit.
    I shall reiterate the earlier comments of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. Parts of the BBC's remit will be profoundly affected by Ofcom's regulatory activities in future. However, we must maintain a clear perspective. Throughout the world, the BBC is considered the best single broadcaster, which makes the best programmes. We either want such a public service broadcaster or we turn it over to the market. If the Conservative party supports that, that is fair enough.
    Mr. Peter Kilfoyle: While my hon. Friend is considering Ofcom and the way in which it will affect the BBC, will he also urge it to consider the governance of ITV, given the comments of Jon Snow on the appalling deterioration in the quality and quantity of the current affairs and news coverage on offer in the independent sector?
    Dr. Howells: Loth though I am to disagree with my hon. Friend, who has long been a good ally, it would be a sad day when the House attempted to determine the content of television. Most politicians never watch it. They pontificate about it endlessly, but they are lucky if they turn on "Newsnight" last thing at night before they crash out. I do not believe that we are the best judges of

    9
    what constitutes proper television. Although I regard Jon Snow highly, neither he nor anyone else has a monopoly on wisdom. Broadcasters should determine the content of television. We have a good broadcasting system, we make good news programmes and we have a good news service. Long may that continue.
    Mr. Tim Yeo: It is clear that the Minister is dithering about how far Ofcom should regulate the BBC. His explanation of why it should not totally regulate it is inadequate and based on groundless assertions. The same dithering was apparent last week when the Government published their consultation paper on media ownership and failed to take the opportunity to relax Britain's outdated media ownership rules. Are the Government also dithering about the date for digital switchover?
    Dr. Howells: Certainly not; we are consulting about important issues. Parties on both sides of the House should ensure that our conclusions are sound. There will be a long debate on the matter because the communications Bill will be one of the most important that we shall consider. We need to hear the views of industry and everyone involved in broadcasting before we make a decision that we could otherwise regret later.
    Mr. Yeo: That was a long way of saying yes, the Government are dithering. Does the Minister understand that, of the thousands of television sets that will be bought this Christmas, more than nine out of 10 will be analogue sets? Does he realise that refusing to give a lead on the crucial issue of digital switchover means that families up and down Britain will be in the dark about whether they are spending their precious money on obsolete equipment?
    Dr. Howells: I realise that the Conservatives have been out of power for well over four years, and that they probably do not know what is going on. They do not seem to read the newspapers or follow the news. We have been taking a strong lead on digital switchover. We have declared that it will take place and we are trying, with the co-operation of the industry, to ensure that it is done properly and as swiftly as possible. What we are not going to do is disfranchise large numbers of people. The only party that has ever dithered on this issue is the party that was originally afraid to tackle it: the Conservative party. We will drive forward this project, and we will be the first country in the world to have properly digitised television broadcasting.

    Museums and Galleries (Entry Charges)
    Mr. Brian Sedgemore: How many national museums have free entry. [16990]
    The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Tessa Jowell): Seventeen museums and galleries sponsored by my Department now offer free admission to their main sites and to 16 of their branches. This policy took effect on Saturday 1 December. It represents the delivery of a key element of our manifesto commitment, and I would like to take this opportunity to place on record the Government's tribute to my predecessor,
    10
    my right hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith), who devised this policy and steered it through, but moved on—or was moved on—just before it was fully implemented. This policy is his triumph.
    Mr. Sedgemore: Does my right hon. Friend accept that if the abolition of museum charges means that new Labour is to shed its artistic philistinism in favour of cultural renaissance, we shall all be very pleased? Will she give us an assurance that this change is not temporary, just for one or two Parliaments, but permanent, and that the funding for it will be in place? Will she also tell us what she is going to do about the museums at the universities?
    Tessa Jowell: This commitment is intended to last. It is important for a range of reasons, and one of the most important has been borne out by the fact that across London, where there are many large museums and galleries, there have been enormous increases in the numbers of visitors. Twice the usual number are visiting the Victoria and Albert museum; five times the usual number are going to the museum of London. This is promoting access to anyone who wants to go and enjoy the great cultural treasures of our country. That pleasure belongs to everybody, and this policy makes it possible for it to be enjoyed by everybody.
    Mrs. Betty Williams: How many (a) children and (b) pensioners made free entry visits to national museums and galleries during the last summer school holidays. [16991]
    The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Tessa Jowell): The free entry for children visiting museums and galleries took effect from April 1999. During the last summer holidays, more than 1.2 million children and 600,000 people aged 60 and over visited those museums and galleries sponsored by my Department.
    Mrs. Williams: Does my right hon. Friend agree that those figures demonstrate the interest shown by young and old people in the cultural assets of the nation, and that they are a foretaste of the future in which a large number of museums and galleries will be free for all? Is not that thanks to this Labour Government?
    Tessa Jowell: I thank my hon. Friend and wholeheartedly agree with her. Her point is well underlined by the further increase in the number of children visiting museums and galleries this weekend with their families, because their parents are now able to enjoy entry free of charge.
    Mr. Barry Gardiner: I am not sure whether I ought to declare an interest. I suspect that a fair number of those 1.2 million visits were made by my four children, many times over, to different galleries.
    This is one of the greatest achievements, and I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the impetus provided by her Department. Will she continue to bear it in mind

    11
    that Labour is about delivering not just galleries and museums but British culture as a whole to the many, not the few?
    Tessa Jowell: I thank my hon. Friend. It should be remembered that, whereas under Labour attendance at museums and galleries by children, older people and, now, families has increased, under the Conservative Government—who reintroduced charges—family attendance fell. We believe in access for all to the excellence that belongs to the nation, not privilege for a few, which was the message and the practice of the Conservative Government.

    Music (Licensed Premises)
    Mr. Kelvin Hopkins: When she will introduce legislation to abolish the restrictions on the numbers of musicians permitted to play together in licensed premises. [16995]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Dr. Kim Howells): We intend to present a Bill to reform and modernise the alcohol and public entertainment licensing laws as soon as parliamentary time permits. However, there is no current restriction on the number of musicians who may play together in licensed premises if the licensee has first obtained an appropriate public entertainment licence. I am aware that obtaining such licences can be a prohibitively expensive business in some local authority areas, because of the attitude of those authorities.
    Mr. Hopkins: Many thousands of part-time and professional musicians who wish to play and entertain in pubs and restaurants, and millions who wish to listen to them, find that that is not possible because of the current restriction—the two-in-a-bar rule. Is it not nonsensical that a quiet jazz piano trio or a string quartet may not play in such premises, while a loud karaoke machine or discotheque may operate in them?
    Dr. Howells: I entirely agree. We want to make licensing a much simpler, less bureaucratic and cheaper process, so that there is no deterrent to seeking the appropriate licences. It is obvious that the legislation badly needs to be updated: it dates back to the mid-1960s, when I suppose an acoustic-guitar folk trio made a good deal less noise than one person with a loud amplifier.
    Mr. Crispin Blunt: If the legislation needs updating so badly, and given that legislation modernising licensing laws was promised to the electorate in the Labour party manifesto, why did that proposed legislation not appear in the Queen's Speech?
    Dr. Howells: Because this Government were elected to improve public services. Those were the Government's priorities, as we made very clear, and they are the priorities that we have stuck to in our legislative programme. We hope very much that there will be space for a Bill allowing us to make these reforms, and that it will be announced in the next Queen's Speech.
    Mr. Tony Banks: Are we not living in a much nicer world when we can listen to music rather than having to face the music, as we have to here from time to time?
    12
    Will my hon. Friend look again at the restrictions on buskers on the underground and at British Rail stations? They add to the enjoyment and gaiety of life, but so often they are moved on. Can we not view the situation in a proper way, so that the buskers can earn their living and we can all enjoy their performances?
    Dr. Howells: I do not believe that that would be part of a reform of licensing Bill, but it is an interesting thought. Some extremely dreary public places are enlivened by the activities of buskers.
    Mr. David Heath: Is it not ridiculous that, in the unlikely event of Michael Jackson and Madonna teaming up to do a gig down the local pub, they could so, yet three people singing Somerset folk songs would not be able to do so? Does the Minister not recognise that live music in pubs and inns has the potential to make a major contribution to tourism in rural areas, which we have already said we want to promote?
    Dr. Howells: We are straying into very dangerous territory. For a simple urban boy such as me, the idea of listening to three Somerset folk singers sounds like hell. Having said that, the hon. Gentleman is right: music does enliven many pubs and restaurants. It should thrive. Silly rules are preventing it from doing so.

    Lottery Funding (Coalfield Communities)
    Mr. Chris Bryant: What recent assessment her Department has made of the ability of former coalfield communities to attract lottery grants. [16996]
    The Minister for Sport (Mr. Richard Caborn): My Department published the report entitled "Fair Distribution of Lottery Funding to Coalfields and Other Areas" on 6 November 2001. It shows that, following the National Lottery Act 1998, revised policy directions and recent coalfield initiatives by the Government and distributors, the coalfields share of lottery money has increased from 45 per cent. of the average per capita to 60 per cent. We hope to see further improvements and shall continue to monitor awards in coalfield areas closely.
    Mr. Bryant: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer, but the fact that the share is only 60 per cent. of the average per capita shows that there is still a significant amount of work to do to ensure that people from former coalfield communities have an equal opportunity to obtain funding for projects that they support. Is not the system still too complicated? It does not feel as though it is geared towards ordinary people. Will he assure the House that everything will be done to ensure that organisations such as Ferndale boys club, Abergorki hall and Parc and Dare theatre in my constituency have an opportunity to obtain the support that they need to have a chance of success? Will he take the opportunity to congratulate the Cory junior band on receiving a grant recently to buy new musical instruments?
    Mr. Caborn: I am advised by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport that that is an extremely good band. Our congratulations

    13
    go to it on achieving that award. I hope that what my hon. Friend has said will start to happen, and that the procedures are being modified, refined and made simpler. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport will make an announcement before the recess about fair distribution and targeting funds to more deprived communities. Again, I hope that that is another move in the right direction to ensure that the lottery is distributed fairly and simply.
    Dr. Julian Lewis: Would more lottery funds be available to former coalfield communities if the Government had not insisted on raiding those funds to finance health service and other activities that should be paid for out of central Government funds?
    Mr. Caborn: I do not accept that. There has always been a strong voluntary sector in many areas of our public services. Indeed, they bring a quality that would not be provided just by the state. I think that that has been universally accepted throughout the country.

    European City of Culture
    Kevin Brennan: What progress she has made towards appointing the advisory group on choosing the European City of Culture 2008; and if she will make a statement. [16997]
    The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Tessa Jowell): We are giving careful consideration to nominations and applications received for membership of the advisory panel, together with names identified from the Department for Culture, Media and Sport and the Cabinet Office public appointments databases. We expect to make an announcement about the membership of the panel early next year.
    Kevin Brennan: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. Will she acknowledge the growing recognition of Cardiff in Europe and beyond as a capital city capable of hosting major sporting events such as the rugby world cup, the Network Q UK rally, even the English FA cup final, and political events such as the European intergovernmental conference and the next Labour party spring conference? Will she acknowledge that Cardiff is capable of holding those major events and now could be the right time to give it a chance to host a major cultural event and be the European City of Culture?
    Tessa Jowell: I certainly recognise my hon. Friend's passionate advocacy of Cardiff.

    Obesity
    Mr. David Kidney: What contribution her Department makes to promoting a reduction in levels of obesity. [16998]
    The Minister for Sport (Mr. Richard Caborn): My Department accepts that physical activity has an important role to play in combating the prevalence of obesity. We are committed to increasing the number and quantity of opportunities for participation in sport and physical
    14
    activity by all sectors of the community and to working closely with other Departments to help achieve those objectives.
    Mr. Kidney: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. Does he accept that, perhaps with the exception of hon. Members, the country is getting fatter and that that is unhealthy? On a serious note, does he accept the Department's responsibility for promoting the health benefits of physical activity, and does he agree that that should include providing an attractive range of activities for young people and older people at convenient places and prices?
    Mr. Caborn: I do. As someone who ran a local 10 km run yesterday—I did not quite beat the 60-minute target, but I made it in 60 minutes and 10 seconds—I fully agree with my hon. Friend's comments. My Department has established a monthly ministerial meeting of Ministers from the Department of Health, the Department for Education and Skills and the Home Office to consider sports issues and how to deliver other Departments' agendas. I believe that we can make an impact on the issue, and my hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that sport has a very important role to play in addressing it. The education White Paper's commitment to two hours per week of PE and sport for every child in primary school and right through secondary school is another major step in that direction.
    Bob Russell: Will the Minister confirm, however, that 75 per cent. of our young people do not have two hours of physical eduction per week within the school curriculum, and that the White Paper does not properly address that issue? If those two hours are not brought within the curriculum, obesity levels will increase, not decline.
    Mr. Caborn: As the hon. Gentleman will know, and as the Prime Minister has said, the Government are mindful of the need to try to ensure two hours a week of physical education in primary and secondary school. Indeed, a couple of weeks ago, at a meeting with various people in education, the Prime Minister specifically made the point that it is a matter not only of incorporating that time in the curriculum, which could be done in many ways, but of ensuring that we rebuild out-of-school activities and the linkages to clubs. It is a very important objective that I as the Minister for Sport plan to accomplish with my colleagues in education and health.
    James Purnell: Does the Minister agree that cricket is a particularly good way of tackling obesity, particularly now that it is a much more physical game than it was? Is he aware that Staley cricket club in my constituency, which provides exceptional out-of-school activities for dozens of young people, is under threat because of local property redevelopment? Will he join me in urging the council, the Cricket Foundation and local businesses to do everything that they can to preserve the future of Staley cricket club, so that it can continue to tackle obesity in my constituency?
    Mr. Caborn: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend's comments. I cannot become involved in specific planning applications, but I understand his concern and hope that

    15
    the matter will be viewed in a very positive light. Indeed, in 1997, we changed the planning rules to ensure that the number of closures of public sector sports facilities decreased considerably from the appalling number that we inherited from the previous Administration. If we are to address some of the issues of obesity raised in the White Paper, it is very important that we increase the number of sports facilities. Consequently, £600 million is to be invested in new sports facilities across the country under the new opportunities fund for PE and sport.

    Sports Tourism
    Mr. Brian Jenkins: What assessment she has made of the state of sports tourism in this country; and what proposals she has to increase it. [16999]
    The Minister for Sport (Mr. Richard Caborn): Sports tourism is estimated to be worth around £2.5 billion annually. This year, for the first time, the Office for National Statistics is researching sports tourism to provide a clearer picture of its value. The British Tourist Authority's sports tourism team works hard to promote sports tourism. Sport, and particularly the Commonwealth games, forms a cornerstone of the BTA's 2002 marketing campaign.
    Mr. Jenkins: I welcome that answer, but will my right hon. Friend explain why so many people in sport do not believe that the Government have taken it seriously enough to expand the industry? It seems that the Government think of sport as a game of football or cricket and do not recognise its wealth creation and revenue generation impact as an industry for this country. What proposals does he have to ensure that people understand that the Government recognise sport as an industry?
    Mr. Caborn: I could not agree more. For the six months for which I have held this job I have consistently said that sport is not just an end in itself but a means to many ends. It is about social inclusion, wealth creation and regeneration, which I will be speaking about tomorrow. It is a tremendous medium through which we can affect many parts of our country's life and, indeed, deliver many of our Departments' programmes. We discussed a health initiative on an earlier question.
    The people involved in the BTA advertising campaign include David Beckham, Michael Owen, Judi Dench, Steven Redgrave, Tim Henman, Nasser Hussain and Jamie Oliver. That shows that there is support across the board for such development.

    The hon. Member for Middlesbrough, representing the Church Commissioners, was asked—

    Church Estate (London)
    Mr. Chris Bryant: What recent valuation the Church Commissioners have made of the value of their property portfolio in London. [17017]
    Mr. Stuart Bell (Second Church Estates Commissioner, representing the Church Commissioners): The latest published valuations as at 31 December 2000 are in the commissioners last annual report, a copy of which is in the House of Commons Library.
    Mr. Bryant: Does No. 1 Millbank still belong to the Church Commissioners? If so, would not it make more sense, considering the fact that many Members of Parliament still do not have a full office, to sell the building to the Parliamentary Estate?
    Mr. Bell: It is an excellent building and would certainly command a great deal of money on the open market. Let me help my hon. Friend by saying that part of No. 1 Millbank has already been let to Members of the other place.
    Simon Hughes: Will the hon. Gentleman give a more specific answer on the value of the assets in London? We do not all have the annual report to hand. [Interruption.] I challenge anyone to produce a copy. How does the Church, with all its wealth, justify its decision that means that there will be far fewer affordable homes for tenants to rent and many more market-value properties? How does that square with the relief of poverty and the social obligations of the Church? Can an explanation be placed in the Library for what appears to be a completely unjust and unfair decision?
    Mr. Bell: That seemed to be at least four questions in one. If the hon. Gentleman looks at the annual report, he will find a full valuation of our property portfolios—agricultural, residential and commercial—and the percentages for our various values and where we have invested. He will also find a list of the 20 most important values at the back of the report.
    The hon. Gentleman referred to Octavia Hill estates. I am sure that he will be interested to learn that the Church Commissioners are forgoing £51 million in income over 15 years by not charging full market rents where they are free to do so.

    Employment Rights (Clergy)
    Laura Moffatt: If he will make a statement on progress on the financial implications of the Department of Trade and Industry discussion paper on extending employment rights under the Employment Relations Act 1999 to members of the clergy. [17018]
    Mr. Stuart Bell (Second Church Estates Commissioner, representing the Church Commissioners): It is always a pleasure to respond on behalf of other Departments. In the case of the DTI, however, the discussion paper is still awaited.
    Laura Moffatt: I understand why my hon. Friend finds it difficult to answer on behalf of the DTI, but many of my hon. Friends are very concerned about the issue. We strive to achieve good employment relations on behalf of many workers and see no reason why the clergy should

    17
    be left out. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is time to get on with the report and to respond quickly on behalf of those workers?
    Mr. Bell: I certainly encourage questions on that subject on the Floor of the House and I am glad to see that many of my hon. Friends have raised the issue before. The Archbishops Council has set up a group that is exploring what can and should be done to give clergy the rights they could and should expect if they were employees, and I will draw my hon. Friend's question to the council's attention.

    Poverty
    Norman Baker: What provision he makes within Church accounts for the relief of poverty. [17019]
    Mr. Stuart Bell (Second Church Estates Commissioner, representing the Church Commissioners): May I welcome the hon. Gentleman back to Church Commissioners Question Time and congratulate him on his post-election appointment to the Front Bench?
    In 2000, the Church Commissioners made £17.5 million available in grants for parish ministry support, of which £14.9 million was targeted on the neediest dioceses.
    Norman Baker: I am interested in that answer. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman feels that the Church Commissioners could navigate their way through the eye of a needle, but when we have so many poor and homeless people I wonder whether the Church ought not to divest some of its assets—such as No. 1 Millbank, which is a prime piece of property, bang in the middle of London and worth a great deal of money—sell some of the bishops' palaces, and pay less attention to wine cellars and more to scripture.
    Mr. Bell: I am intrigued by the hon. Gentleman's mixed metaphor about navigating through the eye of a needle, but he will be pleased to learn that, in addition to the amount I mentioned, the commissioners are making an additional one-off sum, totalling £10 million, available to the Archbishops Council for distribution to dioceses in 2002–04. The money will be offered to all dioceses, with a bias towards the poorest.
    As No. I Millbank seems to be the topic of the day, I can tell hon. Members that the renovation of the building has been completed and the commissioners will move back on 7 December.
    Caroline Flint: One aspect of alleviating poverty is the provision of good child care and family support. What is the Church doing to support child care partnerships, and is it putting money into community activities to develop child care for the lowest-income families?
    Mr. Bell: Each diocese has a child protection policy that is based on a national Church policy and expertise to advise parishes and deal with difficult cases. The dioceses have recently received extensive advice about the new Criminal Records Bureau, including how to process
    18
    disclosures through the dioceses, so that there is a competent risk assessment. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that issue on the Floor of the House.

    House of Lords (Reform)
    Michael Fabricant: What responses the Church Commissioners have (a) received and (b) made in respect of the Government's Command Paper, "The House of Lords—Completing the Reform"; and if he will make a statement. [17020]
    Mr. Stuart Bell (Second Church Estates Commissioner, representing the Church Commissioners): If I may make a statement first, I should say that the Church of England believes that there ought to be a minimum of 20 bishops in a reformed House of Lords in order to offer effective parliamentary service.
    In relation to (a) and (b) of the hon. Gentleman's question, the Church has received the Government's Command Paper and is of course giving it careful consideration along the lines of my statement.
    Michael Fabricant: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for making that statement. He will understand that in Lichfield, as in the rest of the country, there is considerable concern about the Command Paper, over and above the fact that its proposals hardly constitute democratic reform of the House of Lords. Does he share my concern about paragraph 83, which suggests that the Church of England's representation should be reduced to 16? He said in his statement that he would like it to be increased to at least 20, but will that definitely include the Lord Bishop of Lichfield?
    Mr. Bell: I would hesitate to intrude on the work of the appointment secretary of a future Archbishop, but I am sure that the Bishop of Lichfield will not be far behind. We have 26 bishops in the upper House at the moment. The number may be reduced, but we are also keen to see the representation of other denominations and faiths strengthened in the upper House.
    Mr. Peter Pike: Is not my hon. Friend's last point the most important one? if the Church of England is to have representation in the other House, other Christian churches and other faiths should have equal representation in 2001 and in the years ahead, rather than the situation that has existed for many years.
    Mr. Bell: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that point. It is especially important, following recent tragic events, that forums are developed in which complex and sensitive matters to do with relations between faith communities and their place in modern society can be aired and debated in a measured and well-informed manner. My hon. Friend's suggestion is in line with that supposition.

    Clergy Pay
    Mr. Lindsay Hoyle: What recent representations the commissioners have received from trade unions on clergy pay. [17021]
    Mr. Stuart Bell (Second Church Estates Commissioner, representing the Church Commissioners): The Church's representatives regularly meet representatives of the Manufacturing, Science and Finance union.
    Mr. Hoyle: I am sure that my hon. Friend is aware of the report commissioned by the MSF into the poverty
    20
    suffered by the clergy. One in 10 of the clergy live in poverty: what are the Church Commissioners going to do about it?
    Mr. Bell: I am sure that my hon. Friend will be pleased to know that the clergy stipends review group has made several recommendations, including increasing the clergy stipend from the current amount of £16,910 to £20,000. Those recommendations are out for consultation in the wider Church and my hon. Friend's point will be taken into account.

Points of Order
3.31 pm
Mr. Gerald Kaufman: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I ask for your guidance, assistance and, indeed—as a Back Bencher—even your protection.
In the business statement last Thursday, my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House announced as business for today:
"Opposition Day…until 7 o'clock on a subject on which we have yet to be notified. Followed by a debate entitled 'The Government's Mismanagement of Wembley Stadium, Pickett's Lock and the Dome', also on an Opposition motion."—[Official Report, 29 November 2001; Vol. 375, c. 1103.]
That having been announced by the Leader of the House, you may recall, Mr. Speaker, that I wrote to you asking if I could catch your eye during the debate on Wembley stadium, Picketts Lock and the dome. Then, no doubt like a considerable number of hon. Members on both sides of the House, I began to prepare for that debate.
I walked into the House today and picked up the Order Paper so as to ascertain the exact terms of the Opposition motion on that matter only to discover that there was no Opposition motion on it. I therefore made inquiries and found that the Opposition had been in a state of flux over the matter before and since last Thursday, and that they did not in fact decide the issue that they wanted to raise today until six minutes before the House rose on Friday.
I ask for your guidance, Mr. Speaker, because it is my understanding that the business of the House must be as announced by the Leader of the House unless the Leader of the House makes an additional, further, later business statement. Indeed, I held a discussion with my right hon. Friend about the business that he had announced for the following week in which he said that he would have to make a business statement—
Mr. Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman's point of order is a bit long. Perhaps he would like to come to a conclusion.
Mr. Kaufman: I would love to come to a conclusion, Mr. Speaker, but this is a point of order and, that being so, I regard it as my duty to provide the information appropriate for you to be able to give a measured reply. There has—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I have a measured reply.
Mr. Kaufman: In that case, sir, you cannot object to a measured point of order.
There was no further business statement today, Mr. Speaker. Now, I do not ask you, sir, to try to bring some order to the rabble on the Opposition Benches—that would be beyond both the United Nations and the SAS—but I ask you to tell us what is the position of Back-Bench Members of the House who come to take part in a debate that has already been announced, when the Opposition are in such a state of ungovernable confusion that the business is changed with no notification.
Mr. Eric Forth: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am sure you will agree that it is essential for the proper working of the House
22
that we have a sensible balance between spontaneity and predictability. I am sure you will further agree that, from time to time, that balance comes under pressure; but I hope that in considering this issue—as you ever do, Mr. Speaker—you and other right hon. and hon. Members will realise that, perhaps in the Opposition's genuine effort to make the proceedings of the House as current, contemporaneous and spontaneous as possible, the Government may be taken by surprise every now and then.
I will certainly want to reflect, along with my colleagues, on the point that the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) makes because there is some substance in what he says, but I know that you will be generous enough, Mr. Speaker—I hope that House will be, too—to accept that it is not necessarily a bad thing if we err on the side of spontaneity at the cost of predictability every now and then.
Mr. Paul Tyler: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I will hear the hon. Gentleman and then I will reply to the original point of order—otherwise I might forget it.
Mr. Tyler: You will have noted, Mr. Speaker, that the Conservative party's replacement motion refers to events on Tuesday and Wednesday last week. The right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) claims spontaneity and topicality, but there is clearly a very curious use of the word "spontaneity" if it took from the middle of the afternoon on Tuesday or Wednesday until six minutes before 3 o'clock on Friday to decide on the motion. If Conservative Members really wanted a topical motion, they should have chosen one on the crisis in the middle east.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker:Order. I believe that it is for the general convenience of Members and assists in the orderly dispatch of our business if, in normal circumstances, Members who wish to table motions to which amendments may be expected do so, to use a familiar Scottish expression, timeously. I believe that that should be the general practice of the House, applicable to Government and Opposition alike. As hon. Members will know, I have selected a manuscript amendment to the second Opposition motion today.
Mr. Stephen Pound rose—
Mr. Speaker: I hope that it is not further to that matter.
Mr. Pound: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. [Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. We have heard enough on that point of order.
Michael Fabricant rose—
Mr. Speaker: Is it is a new point of order?
Michael Fabricant: Not exactly.
Miss Ann Widdecombe rose—
Mr. Speaker: I am sure that the right hon. Lady wants to continue the argument.
Miss Widdecombe: Very loosely. Mr. Speaker, will you confirm that it is not without precedent for Government and Opposition occasionally to change the business at the last moment, that you and I can recall an occasion when an amendment was withdrawn just minutes before a debate under the last Government and that, therefore, such things are not unprecedented?
Mr. Speaker: It happens, but no one should make a habit of it.
Mrs. Angela Browning: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Notwithstanding your good advice to the House on this matter, will you confirm that no rule of the House has been broken by the official Opposition?
Mr. Speaker: Of course.
Mr. Barry Gardiner: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it not a serious discourtesy to you and other hon. Members, who spend many hours preparing for such debates, for Her Majesty's loyal Opposition to chop and change their minds like a butterfly with a frontal lobotomy?
Mr. Speaker: That is not a point of order.
Michael Fabricant: Would it be of benefit to the House, Mr. Speaker—to older right hon. Members as well as to young whippersnappers—to note that page 918 of the Order Paper shows that the speeches that they have prepared can be used on Tuesday 11 December?
Mr. Speaker: Order.

Opposition Day
[6TH ALLOTTED DAY]
Opposition Day

  Dissemination of Information
  3.40 pm
  Mr. Tim Collins: I beg to move,
  That this House condemns the repeated instances of inadequate or incomplete records of meetings and conversations involving Ministers since 1997; deplores the culture of secrecy and inefficiency evident in the Government's failure to answer Parliamentary Questions or correspondence adequately and promptly; deprecates the pursuit of cynical news management strategies in all Departments, but notably in the Department of Transport, Local Government and the Regions; and urges the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions to change his approach to informing this House and the public.
  Let me make it clear at the outset that the Opposition have no criticism whatever of a certain absence on the Government Front Bench. I refer, of course, to the Deputy Prime Minister, who is not present today to defend the record of the Cabinet Office or of the Government's policies with regard to the civil service, for the perfectly legitimate reason that the right hon. Gentleman is on an official trip overseas which was arranged several days ago, and he graciously wrote to me about it some time ago. However, we find it simply breathtaking that the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions should have refused point blank to come to the Chamber to debate a motion that is specifically and personally critical of him. In all the annals of arrogance for which the Government and that Secretary of State have become notorious, this utter display of contempt for Parliament bulks large.
  We gather that the Secretary of State's more pressing engagement was a minibus tour of a new bridge on Tyneside. We learned on "The World at One" today—
  Mr. Mike Hall: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it in order for the hon. Gentleman to refer to the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions as being in contempt of this Parliament?
  Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is making a case during debate. It is up to any other Member to rebut that case.
  Mr. Collins: I am grateful, Mr. Speaker. The hon. Member for Weaver Vale (Mr. Hall) may have assumed that his intervention would find favour with the Government Whips Office and with No. 10 Downing street. I am sorry to say that he has further shattered what little political career he had.
  We learned today on "The World at One" from the BBC's much respected political editor, Andrew Marr, that the Secretary of State's behaviour on this matter has once again produced a lot of irritation in Downing street.
  Mr. Chris Pond: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Collins: Before I give way; to the hon. Gentleman, who I know has aspirations regarding ministerial office,

  25
  I warn him not to try to defend the Secretary of State, because were he so to do he might find himself in trouble with No. 10. However, I am happy to give way to allow him to bury his career further if he wishes.
  Mr. Pond: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. Certain others of us in the House listened to "The World at One". Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would like to read into the record what was actually said by the BBC's political correspondent, which did not match what he has just told the House?
  Mr. Collins: Not only did I hear "The World at One", but, as the hon. Gentleman will have noticed, I appeared on it, so I am probably more in touch with what happened on it than he is.
  I simply say to the Secretary of State, who might actually read our proceedings some time this week—as that seems to be the only contribution that he will make to them—that it is here, not in Tyneside, that he should be building bridges. He needs to build a bridge with No. 10 Downing street. I will have a little more to say about his behaviour later.
  I have a declaration, not so much of interest but of past form. For two years, ending a decade ago, I was a special adviser in what were then the Department of the Environment and the Department of Employment. At that time, the only civil servant who answered to me was a secretary. For clarification, I should explain that that was a typing secretary, not a permanent secretary.
  In the 1992 election, I served as the press secretary to the then Prime Minister, as an employee of the Conservative party, not as a civil servant. [Interruption.] The Minister for Transport, the right hon. Member for Warley (Mr. Spellar), says that that was a great success. Yes, it was. In the 1992 election, the then Prime Minister secured not only more votes than any political leader in British history but 35 per cent. more votes than the right hon. Gentleman's leader got in June. So yes, it was rather successful, and I thank the Minister for allowing me to put that on the record.
  In those days, John Major invariably had a career civil servant as his press secretary outside general elections, and the utter political neutrality of the holders of those posts is demonstrated by the fact that two of them are now working as very senior and diligent servants of the present Administration. Indeed, one of them—Mr. Gus O'Donnell—is so highly regarded that the Chancellor and the Prime Minister recently became involved in a spat over who was to have his services.
  I should also make it clear that I was briefly a member of the Prime Minister's policy unit in Downing street. I do not believe that it was a case of post hoc, ergo propter hoc, but John Major resigned at the time to contest the leadership of the Conservative party. I immediately left my post to serve once more as his press secretary. Again for the benefit of the Minister for Transport, we won that particular campaign, for which I took unpaid leave for two weeks. [Interruption.]
  Mr. Speaker: Order. Hon. Gentlemen should not shout.
  Mr. Collins: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
  26
  My reason for pointing that out is to make it clear that there was a time when there were clear dividing lines between what civil servants and political appointees could do. The Conservative party has always had a much clearer understanding than the Labour party of the difference between exercising a proper electoral mandate and riding roughshod over all rules of propriety. That issue is at the heart of the debate.
  The motion is in part about the Government's general failure to discharge their duties of accountability towards Parliament and in part about the specific problems that relate to the conduct of the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions. Some of us do not know whether he has refused to come here today because he is too big headed, or because he knows that every time he comes before Parliament these days a serious allegation is made about the accuracy of his remarks. Perhaps he has concluded that he is physically incapable of providing the full facts to the House and that the only way he can avoid being caught out is to go into hiding. We look forward to the success of the media search parties in flushing him out.
  The motion starts by reminding us that last week's extraordinary saga of the censored minutes of a meeting featuring the Secretary of State and the chairman of Railtrack was not the first time that records have been inadequate, or perhaps even doctored, under this Administration since 1997. Let me take the House back to the days of the Ecclestone affair, which led the Prime Minister to race on to our televisions to tell us all that he is
  "a pretty straightforward kind of guy".
  I refer to that seminal tome "Servants of the People", the true story of new Labour, which I am sure has been on the reading lists of all my hon. Friends. Page 93 of that wonderful volume refers to the time in October 1997 when the tycoon Mr. Ecclestone was ushered into Downing street. Mr. Rawnsley refers to two errors that he believes the Prime Minister committed. He says:
  "Blair's first error was to have granted a privileged audience to a man who had given £1 million to his party and at a time, it would subsequently emerge, when the party was soliciting for more. The second mistake was to keep no formal minute of the meeting."
  A pattern begins to emerge.
  The Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport reported only a few days ago on the conduct of the former Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport as it related to the wonderful triumph of the Government's policy on Wembley stadium and Picketts Lock. I did, of course, alert the office of the right hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) that I would make a brief reference to this matter. On the £20 million agreement between the then Secretary of State and the Football Association, under which the FA was to return the sum to the Government, the Select Committee concluded:
  "This agreement—which after two years has yet to result in a single signed legal document, let alone a single penny being paid over—represents a scandalously inept treatment of public money."
  Indeed, we are told that agreement was reached by a handshake in the absence of any note or minute by an official. Again, a pattern begins to emerge.
  The pattern is also evident in the minutes of the meeting between the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions and the chairman of Railtrack. We have been told that officials were instructed

  27
  at a particularly sensitive part of the meeting to put down their pens and not record what occurred. It is important to state for the record that the other party to that meeting, the chairman of Railtrack, cannot recall requesting that a part of the meeting should not be recorded. He also denies having said what Ministers subsequently alleged was said.
  I have spoken about the matter to many Privy Councillors on both sides of the House who have served as Ministers for a cumulative period of decades. They tell me that they cannot recall any instance of officials being instructed not to record a particularly sensitive part of a meeting. It simply beggars belief that the Secretary of State should rely for his defence, his credibility and his reputation for probity on the belief that his officials could be instructed to fail to do their duty in the normal manner.
  Mrs. Louise Ellman: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Collins: Of course; I shall be delighted to learn whether the hon. Lady defends the Secretary of State or comes in on the side of Downing street.
  Mrs. Ellman: Has the hon. Gentleman considered the fact that, had Mr. Robinson said what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State says he said—in other words, that Railtrack would be in serious trouble if the Government did not provide a letter of comfort or additional funding—Mr. Robinson would have been in breach of his fiduciary duties under company law? Does that not give him an excellent motive to disclaim what he said during that meeting?
  Mr. Collins: I am a little surprised to hear the hon. Lady say that. Like me, she regularly uses the west coast main line, so she will know that far from having improved on that line since the Secretary of State acted, things have become a great deal worse. On her specific point, if it is her contention that she has evidence that leads her to believe that she is justified in making a serious allegation about a board director of a FTSE-100 company deliberately behaving as she describes, I challenge her to repeat her remarks outside the House, where she does not have legal protection for doing so. We look forward to finding out whether she is willing to do that.
  I was speaking about the state of the railways under the current Administration. That is at the heart of our concerns. The incompetence, lack of probity and lack of candour of the current Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions is not of interest solely to people in the Westminster village: it has serious implications for the state of our railways, their safety and their reliability. We learned last week that since the right hon. Gentleman acted, in his own words, "against Railtrack"—[Interruption.[
  Mr. Speaker: Order. There is far too much noise in the Chamber. The House should come to order.
  David Maclean: Deliberate wrecking.
  Mr. Collins: My right hon. Friend says that deliberate wrecking is going on. There has certainly been deliberate wrecking of the railway industry by the Labour party. I shall provide the proof.
  28
  In the two months since the Secretary of State acted "against Railtrack"—a significant choice of words by the right hon. Gentleman—and since he destroyed Railtrack and took responsibility for the network away from the company, what has occurred but a 45 per cent. increase in train delays caused by track and signal failures? The Rail Passengers Council describes that rise as particularly "alarming" because it came after a period of several months of improvement in performance. A leap from 3,300 hours per week total train delays attributed to infrastructure faults to 4,800 hours per week was reported last week. That sharp and alarming increase is occasioned by the fact that the morale of those working for Railtrack has been devastated by the Government's actions. It is specifically caused by the fact that many senior employees of Railtrack are considering their future: 70 key employees have already left.
  In their 10-year transport plan, the Government said that they would rely heavily on private sector investment to improve rail infrastructure, as people of all parties want. However, they should recognise that they have devastated their reputation and the prospects of investment in the rail industry in the eyes of investors around the world. In a letter to the United States embassy in London, quoted in The Sunday Times yesterday, the Minnesota State Board of Investment expresses
  "outrage at recent actions by the UK government."
  It adds:
  "This action displays a remarkable lack of judgment and foresight on the part of the UK government."
  That is part of a pattern. Again and again the Government claim that they are taking action to improve the railways, but they are in fact making matters far worse. Several of my right hon. and hon. Friends, including the shadow Chief Whip, many Government Members and our constituents depend on the west coast main line.
  What has been the result of the Government's action on Railtrack? Phase two of that project has been cancelled and phase one postponed for at least a year. The prospect of getting a quality service—
  Mrs. Ellman Mrs. Ellman rose—
  Mr. Collins: I am not going to give way to the hon. Lady again. Perhaps she should go off and use the west coast main line; she could go up to her constituency, where she might be in a better position.
  Mr. Stephen Pound: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Those of us who are desperately trying to come to terms with the organisation of the House are rather confused by the way the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Collins) is moving away from the subject. Could you advise the House, Mr. Speaker, whether the subject being debated is the west coast main line or the dissemination of information?
  Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Collins) is in order; if he were out of order, I would have informed him.
  Mr. Collins: I am grateful, Mr. Speaker. The motion, for Government Members who seem to need the benefit

  29
  of the Government's literacy hour, refers to the conduct of the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions.
  We have serious concerns about the lack of clarity on rail safety provisions. My right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) has been extremely successful in setting out a problematic lack of clarity about who is responsible for rail safety matters; again, that is a failure by the Secretary of State.
  Norman Baker: Whatever the Government's failings in dealing with the rail crisis, is not the root cause the botched privatisation by the Conservative party?
  Mr. Collins: It is always a pleasure to hear from people who declare themselves to be the effective Opposition. On this subject, they invariably come to the defence of the Government; the hon. Gentleman has done it again. For the record, there were only two years in the 20th century in which nobody died on Britain's railways. Both occurred when Britain's railways were run by the private sector; one was before the first world war, the other was 1998. Although the railway safety record was certainly not good enough in the Railtrack years, it was a great deal better than it was in the state socialist era to which the hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker) and his colleagues would like to return us. However, I am delighted that he intervened because—
  Mr. Lindsay Hoyle: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The hon. Gentleman is misleading the House. There has not been a year without a death on the railways.
  Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale would not mislead the House. The hon. Member for Chorley (Mr. Hoyle) should withdraw his remark.
  Mr. Hoyle: The hon. Gentleman made a statement that was not factual, Mr. Speaker.
  Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale might say that he is not deliberately misleading the House. Is that what the hon. Member for Chorley is suggesting?
  Mr. Hoyle: I am indeed. I take that advice, Mr. Speaker.
  Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman should withdraw his earlier remark.
  Mr. Hoyle: I withdraw. The hon. Gentleman may not have deliberately misled the House, but the statement was inaccurate.
  Mr. Speaker: Withdraw the remark; that is the best thing.
  Mr. Hoyle: It is still not factual.
  Mr. Speaker: Facts are something that I have no control over.
  30

  The title of the motion is about information, and we should not concentrate our remarks solely on Railtrack, as seems to be happening.
  Mr. Collins: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The next part of my speech relates precisely to the Government's failure properly to report to the House and provide it with information on its proceedings. Indeed, there have been increasing delays in responses to parliamentary correspondence and parliamentary questions, as was established by the diligent research of my hon. Friend the Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns).
  Chris Grayling: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is tremendously important for the House to understand that there has been a consistent pattern of behaviour by the Department and the Secretary of State? They say one thing then, a few weeks later, admit that something different is true—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. I have given as strong a hint as possible to the hon. Gentleman, who should move on from that subject.
  Mr. Collins: Not only did my hon. Friend the Member for West Chelmsford make progress in establishing those delays, but there was devastating and, indeed, unprecedented criticism of Ministers by the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration following investigations instigated by my hon. Friend the Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan), who managed to establish that the Government were withholding information from the House without any justification under the procedures or codes which should apply. My hon. Friend rightly pointed out that there is no precedent for the parliamentary ombudsman to be as critical as he was of the present Foreign Secretary, the former Home Secretary, for the Government's point-blank refusal to release information in the way set out under their own ministerial codes, as well as under the motions passed by the House.
  Yet again, Mr. Speaker, as you will have noted over the weekend, there was a further repetition of the constant pattern under the present Administration of serious announcements being made outside the House, rather than in the Chamber. In an interview in The Observer, the Home Secretary pretty much published the entire contents of his proposed White Paper on the police, some days before he is due to bring the matter before the House.
  The Government's dissemination of information has been hugely criticised by senior and entirely independent figures. I know that Labour Members are unlikely to be interested in the views of the chairman of Railtrack, but they might be interested to know that Jonathan Baume, the general secretary of the First Division Association of civil servants—a trade union; I can already see ears pricking up with excitement on the Government Benches—has called on Jo Moore, the well-known special adviser and side-kick of the Secretary of State to
  "stand to one side and let the professionals get on with the job".
  It is our contention that problems will continue to occur constantly with the running of the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions until Ms Moore and the Secretary of State have stood aside.
  Mr. Bill Rammell rose—
  Mr. Collins: I will give way to the hon. Gentleman in a moment. Before that, I shall give him an opportunity to

  31
  reflect on what he intended to say. The strategic communications unit at No. 10, and a chap called Alastair Campbell, whom the hon. Gentleman may know is a little bit influential in his party, reprimanded the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions for "contaminating"—that was the word—the pre-Budget statement by the way in which the Department reported the minutes of the famous meeting with the chairman of Railtrack. I look forward to the intervention from the hon. Member for Harlow (Mr. Rammell). Will he come in on the side of the Secretary of State or of Mr. Campbell?
  Mr. Rammell: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. Did he read the letter in The Guardian on 10 October from a former Government press officer who related his experience under the last Conservative Government at the time of the Dunblane tragedy? He was instructed to release any bad news that day, as it would be buried in the following day's news coverage of events. Does not that demonstrate that instead of a serious concern for the conduct of government, we are hearing nothing but a hypocritical rant from the Opposition?
  Mr. Collins: The hon. Gentleman may be relieved to know that it was indeed one of the rare occasions when I read The Guardian letters page. He will recall that the person involved was an anonymous figure. In the two months that have passed since then, and despite frequent inquiries, we have never established even which Department that person allegedly worked in, let alone the substance behind the serious allegations that he made. We wait to hear what will happen.
  We know that the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, whose conduct is rightly the subject of criticism in the motion, is in some difficulty. The headline in The Independent today states: "Blair 'growing worried' by Byers' performance". The Prime Minister has nothing to worry about with respect to the Secretary of State's performance in the House today, as he is not delivering a performance in the House today. We learn that Minister after Minister, official after official, Labour Back Bencher after Labour Back Bencher wants Ms Moore to go, wants the Secretary of State to accept that he is responsible for her conduct, and is deeply unhappy about the way his Department has provided information to the House and to the public.
  Mr. John Redwood: Does my hon. Friend think that the worry of No. 10 is not just the botched news handling, but the fact that the Government announced in the pre-Budget statement £1 billion extra for health, and said nothing about the £2 billion-plus extra that they will have to provide for the railways, because they have made such a mess of it? Did not the Secretary of State overshadow the pre-Budget statement by raiding the till, as well as by his botched news handling?
  Mr. Collins: I agree entirely with my right hon. Friend. The escalating costs of the Government's decision on the matter are not the least reason for our grave concerns about them.
  The Secretary of State has one group of wholly loyal. absolutely staunch and unequivocal friends in the House. I refer, of course, to the party which is, in every sense,
  32
  to our left—the Liberal Democrats. Many of us were highly amused—no doubt you were, too, Mr. Speaker—to read at the weekend that the Liberal Democrats were to call for the departure of Ms Jo Moore over the matters set out in the motion. Having read about that, I looked up the parliamentary record. What did the Liberal Democrats do when we last debated in the House a motion calling for the dismissal of Ms Moore, on 23 October? Very heroically, they abstained. What did they do when the House debated on 13 November a motion deploring the Secretary of State's conduct? They rode to his rescue and voted with the Government to save his neck. What did they do when the House of Lords last week inflicted the first defeat of this Parliament on the Government's Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Bill? They voted differently in the other place—they did not vote in the same way in this place—again in order to try to save the Government's neck, but they failed. What are they doing today? What does their proposed amendment to today's motion seek to do? It would accept the first 60 per cent. of the Conservative motion without alteration, but delete all references to the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions and all criticism of the Secretary of State.
  Mr. Peter Kilfoyle: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Collins: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman in a moment. I am sure that he is as affectionate towards the Liberal Democrats as I am, but I should like to finish my point.
  The Liberal Democrats call themselves the effective Opposition. In our crueller moments, we might wonder when their leader will get 45 minutes with the President of the United States. Perhaps we should not hold our breath in that connection, but we notice that if a party wants to be an effective Opposition it helps if it opposes the Government. I shall give way on that note.
  Mr. Kilfoyle: I do not want to intrude on a personal battle between the Opposition parties about which of them is pre-eminent.
  The hon. Gentleman has made much of what he sees as some sort of grand conspiracy in the Government, in which people are being told to be less than truthful on occasions. Will he remind me of the circumstances surrounding a previous Government with regard to the Peter Wright "Spycatcher" case? The then Government's representative was, by his own admission, economical with the truth. Was he economical with the truth at the order of No. 10, by his own volition or at the instigation of special advisers who were working in the Government at the time?
  Mr. Collins: The person to whom the hon. Gentleman refers was, of course, a career civil servant, so I do not think he is making the point that he thinks he is making.
  Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, as he has just pointed out to the House very effectively the record of the Liberal party on this matter. Bearing in mind its votes in the past, can he explain why the leader of that party said last week on radio that both the Secretary of State and Ms Jo Moore should resign or be sacked?
  Mr. Collins: Like my hon. Friend, I am somewhat puzzled. Perhaps the Liberal Democrats will change their

  33
  attitude and vote with the official Opposition tonight. Given the nature of the amendment that they have tabled, however, I rather doubt that they will do so.
  The final point that I want to make in response to the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Kilfoyle) is that I do not accuse the Government of running a grand conspiracy, as I think he called it. Our charge is that they are not capable of making the trains run on time, let alone of running a grand conspiracy. They are utterly hopeless at everything.
  This is a Secretary of State who has twisted and evaded, and rewritten the truth and hidden the facts time and again. He is someone who has moved at a snail's pace to answer questions, improve transport and raise safety standards on the railways. As long as the Prime Minister ignores all considerations of honesty and honour and keeps this man in office, this Secretary of State will, like a snail, produce a trail of slime leading across Downing street and right up to the door of No. 10.
  Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman should withdraw that remark.
  Mr. Collins: Naturally, I withdraw it, Mr. Speaker.
  In their conduct of parliamentary business, their approach to parliamentary questions, their honesty and candour towards their public and their determination to hang on to Jo Moore, this Administration in general and this Secretary of State in particular have been condemned by the civil service unions, the City, Select Committees and their own Back Benchers; and tonight, they should be condemned by the whole House of Commons, so that at the next election they will be condemned and booted out by the people.
  Mr. Speaker: I have selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister, and I now call the Minister of State, Cabinet Office to move it.
  4.9 pm
  The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Mrs. Barbara Roche): I beg to move, To leave out from "House" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
  "deplores the attempt by HM Opposition to draw attention away from their lack of coherent policies on public service improvement; welcomes the Government's determination to uphold the highest standards of integrity and honesty in public life; acknowledges that the Government has been open about the standards Ministers, Civil Servants and Special Advisers are expected to uphold; welcomes the publication of the new Ministerial code including the requirements on greater transparency never seen before, attaching the highest importance to the prompt and efficient handling of Parliamentary Questions and correspondence; and commends the professionalism and integrity with which the Government continues to conduct departmental business in the best traditions of public service.".
  That was a fascinating beginning. I had not expected to hear an edition of "What the Papers Say" so early. However, the Government welcome the opportunity to debate the important issue of accountability. It is sad that the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Collins) disregarded the title of the motion.
  34
  When I saw the title, I wondered why the subject had been chosen. Again, the hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) gave the game away. He said in an interview in last week's New Statesman:
  "Last time round we hadn't learned how to engage in opposition. We were too inclined to spot an opportunity for grabbing a headline and too exposed to having to reverse the decision later."
  That sums up Conservative Members' approach this afternoon. They will repeat it time and again. That is why they altered the subject of the debate, which was raised in points of order with you, Mr. Speaker.
  The motion deals with accountability, which is vital in our parliamentary democracy. [Interruption.] The shadow Leader of the House mocks, but I believe that parliamentary democracy is important. [Interruption.] Am I the only one who believes in it? I am surprised at that attitude. I have known the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner) for a long time. We were at university together and I remember his record there.
  The line of parliamentary accountability runs from Members of Parliament to the Government. Ministers are accountable to Parliament for their decisions and actions; Parliament ensures that we are accountable to the British people. The ministerial code includes a clear statement by the Prime Minister of his strong personal commitment to the bond of trust between the British people and their Government. [Interruption.] Again. Conservative Members laugh. The ministerial code is vital and I shall show what we mean by accountability.
  The Prime Minister stated in the code that we must be clear about the way in which Ministers should account and be held accountable to Parliament and the public. The code sets out those responsibilities clearly and builds on a resolution on Ministers' responsibilities that the House passed in 1997. I am surprised that Opposition Members have ignored it and believed it to be unimportant.
  The Government's record on statements compares favourably with that of our Conservative predecessors. One hundred and five statements were made in 1997–98, compared with 98 in the post-election Session in 1987–88. On average, the Government made a statement almost every other day in the 1998–99 Session. We will take no lessons from the Opposition on Ministers accountability to Parliament.
  Mr. Redwood: Why do so many Secretaries of State refuse to answer the simplest factual questions? For example, I asked the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government, and the Regions for the proportion of freight that went by rail and the proportion that travelled by road in May 1993, May 1997 and May 2001. The answer was that the figures were not available. Can we genuinely believe that?
  Mrs. Roche: As the Speaker and the Table Office would tell the right hon. Gentleman, he should persist. When I was elected as a Member of Parliament in 1992, I frequently received inadequate replies. The right hon. Gentleman, as an experienced former Minister, knows that if the figures do not appear in the precise form that he requested, they are not available. Perhaps he should reconsider his method of asking the question.
  Mr. Eric Forth: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You very wisely advised the House

  35
  last week that if hon. Members did not receive a satisfactory answer from the Government, they should persist and ask the question in a more simple, straightforward and factual way. I would have thought that my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) had just given an example of the most succinct, factual and simple question possible. Does it puzzle you, as it puzzles me, Mr. Speaker, that we have yet to receive an answer from the Government?
  Mr. Speaker: I could not express an opinion on those matters.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mrs. Roche: I shall give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton and Shepherd's Bush (Mr. Soley).
  Mr. Clive Soley: There is a factual answer to the right hon. Gentleman's question. In 1993, the Conservative Government did not collect those figures.
  Mrs. Roche: I am grateful—[Interruption.]
  Mr. Speaker: Order. Hon. Members should not get so excited.
  Mrs. Roche: These university reunions always get people going, Mr. Speaker.
  I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his intervention. The point that he made shows that it is important for Members of Parliament not only to read the answers that they get, but to understand them as well.
  The introduction of Westminster Hall means that Back Benchers and Select Committees set the agenda. This has improved accountability and is part of the modernisation programme. Select Committees' powers to hold the Government to account have been vastly increased. Before, they had three prime-time debates on the estimates, and those remain. Instead of six Wednesday morning debates, the Liaison Committee now sets the business for two Thursdays out of every three in Westminster Hall.
  On parliamentary questions, in a normal Session, some 400,000 questions are answered, and that is certainly evidence of our accountability to Parliament.
  Dr. John Pugh: Given the Minister's enthusiasm for accountability and for Select Committees, and given the manifest involvement of the Treasury in all aspects of transport policy, does she think that the non-appearance of Treasury Ministers in front of the Select Committee is helping accountability?
  Mrs. Roche: Treasury Ministers are accountable to Parliament and to the Select Committees on matters for which they are responsible. If we were to take the hon. Gentleman's question to its logical conclusion, Treasury Ministers would have no time to run the affairs of Her Majesty's Treasury because they would be dealing with every other Department's business.
  36
  What is the Tories' attitude to the House and to accountability? Let us look more closely at the views of the shadow Leader of the House, the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth). We all had the opportunity to read his memorandum of 14 September this year to his Conservative colleagues. From it we discovered how deep his respect for Parliament really ran. He urged his party to frustrate the workings of the House with "trench warfare". What respect is he showing for Parliament and the House by writing in those terms? I am really shocked. [Interruption.] I am trying to keep a straight face, but it is very difficult.
  Given the right hon. Gentleman's views on private Members' business, it seems that his elevation to the Front Bench has not appeased what I can only describe as his bizarre lust for blocking sensible pieces of legislation on the ground that they ought to be Government Bills. The right hon. Gentleman presents himself as a doughty defender of the legislature over the Executive, and is keen to defend Back Benchers' rights, just so long as they do not do anything as foolish as to propose any legislation. I remember, for example, the great dismay in the Jewish community when he wrecked a very sensible private Member's Bill that would have meant that Jewish women trapped in religious marriages could have escaped from them. His actions caused great offence.
  Mr. McLoughlin: Will the Minister give way?
  Mrs. Roche: Of course I shall give way to the Conservative Deputy Chief Whip. How wonderful to have an all-speaking, all-dancing Deputy Chief Whip!
  Mr. McLoughlin: I am grateful for the compliment. Will the Minister now assure us that the Government will not block any private Members' Bills in future?
  Mrs. Roche: We will conduct our legislative programme in the normal way. We will also ensure that we give private Members' legislation every consideration. It is very important that we do so.
  Dr. Julian Lewis rose—
  Mrs. Roche: Another old university friend! How could I resist?
  Dr. Lewis: Lest the Minister think the relationship too cosy, may I remind her that during the Government's first year in office I came second in the ballot for private Members' Bills, and introduced a Bill to improve conditions for people who suffer catastrophic mental breakdowns and need institutional care? The Government wasted five hours of precious parliamentary time talking the Bill out. Let us keep a sense of reality in regard to the Minister's claims for the Government's attitude.
  Mrs. Roche rose—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. I remind the House that we are not discussing private Members' Bills; we are discussing information. Perhaps we should return to the terms of the motion.
  Mrs. Roche: Of course the hon. Gentleman's Bill was important, and I am sure that the Government listened to what he had to say, but it is also right for other legislation to be discussed properly.

  37
  We should consider other actions that were taken during the Conservative years. In July 1996, following a discussion at a policy unit seminar chaired by the then Deputy Prime Minister—now Lord Heseltine—permanent civil servants were asked to find
  "panels of people associated with the public services who could be vigorous and attractive proponents of our policies".
  That is best remembered as "recruitment of cheerleaders". I will take no more lectures from the Conservative party on cynical news management.
  Subsequently, the then Cabinet Secretary said that such action was not appropriate for civil servants, and the request was withdrawn.
  Mr. Collins: The Minister, quite properly, compares her party's record with that of the Government whom I supported. Will she now tell us on how many occasions during the 18 years of Conservative government the parliamentary ombudsman found that the Government had refused point-blank to publish answers to parliamentary questions, despite being asked to do so by the ombudsman? The Minister knows why I ask the question: I do so because that has happened under the present Government in the last couple of months.
  Mrs. Roche: I cannot give the hon. Gentleman a reply off the top of my head, but I am sure that he will obtain one if he consults the Library.
  Shona McIsaac: If we are talking about accountability on the part of Governments, including the last Government, we should bear in mind that some of the biggest scandals and cover-ups, some of the greatest secrecy, were perpetrated by the Conservatives. They covered up the BSE scandal, and the export of arms to Iraq. [Interruption.]
  Mrs. Roche: It is no use the Conservatives trying to drown out my hon. Friend's excellent remarks. She is absolutely right. The Conservatives can try to dish it out, but they certainly cannot take it: that is their great problem.
  Mrs. Ann Winterton: Will the Minister give way?
  Mrs. Roche: Of course, but then I must make progress.
  Mrs. Winterton: As the Minister believes in open government, will she encourage this Government to hold a full, independent public inquiry into the foot and mouth epidemic?
  Mrs. Roche: As the hon. Lady will know, two inquiries are in progress and public consultations are taking place.
  Mr. Kilfoyle: Before my hon. Friend leaves the question of how the last Conservative Government disported themselves, does she recall that I tabled more than 800 questions in a very short period to elicit information from them on who sat on quangos, how much they were paid and how they were appointed? Does she recall that on many occasions the then Ministers refused point-blank to answer? It was down to me to find
  38

  whatever methods I could to elicit that information. Is that not the standard that epitomised the previous Government?
  Mrs. Roche: It is. I take as my text not only what my hon. Friend has said, but what the hon. Member for Rochford and Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) said; from the quotation, I think it was in business questions:
  "May we have a debate next week on the growing practice among Ministers of leaving long delays in answering straightforward and uncomplicated priority written questions?"—[Official Report, 7 March 1996; Vol. 273, c. 460.]
  He said that about his own Government. Again, we have that difference between what the Conservatives say and what they did in government.
  The Government attach the highest importance to the duty of Ministers and civil servants to be as open as possible with Parliament and the public. What I really found unacceptable in the speech by the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale was the attack on our civil service: it was an underlying current throughout. I regard our civil service as the best in the world. On the civil service's behalf, I resent attacks on it.
  Mr. Collins: Will the Minister give way?
  Mrs. Roche: I want to make some progress. I have been generous with interventions.
  There is a recognition within Departments that communication has a vital role to play. The Cabinet Secretary, Sir Richard Wilson, has said:
  "Communication is something we used to tack on at the end of the policy process. In the future it must run alongside it. It is not about spin or…control. It is about making sure that the public understands how policies and services will be delivered and how they will affect them."
  The Government are committed to maintaining a non-political permanent civil service. They have given a commitment to legislation for the civil service. The legislation will include a limit on the number of special advisers. It is no wonder that that was never contemplated during the Tory years when we consider how many former Conservative specialist advisers are now on the Conservative Front-Bench team.
  The Government are putting in hand arrangements for wide consultation in advance of the introduction of the legislation. In the meantime, a clear published framework for civil service activity in the form of the civil service code and other key guidance documents set out for Parliament and the public the framework within which the civil service operates.
  Mention is made in the motion of correspondence, although it did not feature greatly in the speech by the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale. The Government attach the highest importance to the prompt and efficient handling of hon. Members' correspondence.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mrs. Roche: I shall not give way. I want to make some progress.
  All Departments report regularly on their performance on replying to correspondence from hon. Members. The overall volume of correspondence has gone up year on year since 1996. Although the volume has increased, the overall record on replying has improved.

  39
  All Departments set a target for answering correspondence. The most recently published figures show that during 2000 around 8,000 more letters were replied to within the target times set by Departments than in 1999, an improvement in overall performance of 4 per cent.
  Mr. Andrew Turner: Will my long-standing acquaintance and friend give way?
  Mrs. Roche: As one can take knowing someone for a long time only so far, the answer is no.
  At the beginning of his speech, the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale rightly raised the issue of his past form. As he said, he was the Conservatives' director of communications from 1992 to 1995, after which he became a special adviser. Very fortunately for Labour Members, he is also no stranger to spin. Although he has just quoted The Guardian, he has been described by The Observer as the
  "brains behind Back to Basics",
  and by The Independent as the
  "spin doctor of back to basics".
  For those who do not recall it, back to basics was the rather ill-fated attempt of the previous Tory Government to persuade the British people to vote for them. I should like to place on record my gratitude, and that of my right hon. and hon. Friends, for that fine service to our country, if not to the Conservative party.
  The hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale will also recall that, in 1993, before he became a Member of Parliament, the Home Affairs Committee decided to hold an inquiry—which hon. Members will recall—into the very important subject of party political funding. He described the decision to look into that matter as "an impertinence". I think that, at that stage, he was at Conservative central office. The point is that someone who now poses as the shadow Minister responsible for the Cabinet Office believes that it is impertinent for a Select Committee to examine an issue of such great importance for parliamentary democracy and accountability. It is amazing that he has had the gall to come here today.
  Mr. Turner: Will the hon. Lady give way?
  Mrs. Roche: No, I shall not.
  In all fairness to the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale, I should say that we do not disagree on everything. During the 1995 Conservative leadership campaign, he briefed that the leadership campaign team of the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) looked like escapees from "Ward 9 at Broadmoor".
  Mr. Turner: Will the hon. Lady give way?
  Mrs. Roche: No, I cannot.
  Mr. Turner: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I believe that the motion and the Government amendment to it are on public information—[Interruption.] The speech that my hon. Friend the Member for Westmorlandand
  40
  Lonsdale (Mr. Collins) made was interrupted no fewer than three times on points of order. The Minister is referring to matters that were funded privately and had nothing, so far as I know, to do with public information. Is she in order?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Michael Lord): If the Minister had not been in order I would have stopped her. The hon. Gentleman's point is a matter more for debate than for the occupant of the Chair.
  Mrs. Roche: I am of course tempted to give other examples—[HON. MEMBERS: "Go on."] My problem is that, although some of my right hon. and hon. Friends press me to do so, I am kinder than they are—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] It may get me into dreadful trouble, but I cannot give more examples. The record and the previous convictions—or the lack of them—in this sphere of accountability speak for themselves.
  In this debate, we are faced yet again with the sight of Conservative Members trying to persuade people that they have changed. Today, they have moved a motion on accountability, correspondence, record keeping, and all sorts of things, but did any of those things feature significantly in the opening speech of the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale? Of course they did not.
  The British people know which party tried to destroy the national health service and which party genuinely believes that it should be publicly funded and free at the point of use. Conservative Members do not want to debate those issues. Everybody knows who gave us boom and bust, two massive recessions, record unemployment and bankruptcies, and that after nearly five years of Labour government, we now have the lowest unemployment, interest rates and inflation for a generation.
  The people know which party gave us the poll tax and tried to destroy local government, and which party has devolved more and more power from the centre.
  The hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale had the cheek to talk about the state of our railways. I am always amazed when Conservative Members talk in that way. They know why the railways are in the state that they are in. They know that the Conservative Government took a national rail system with assets built up over half a century and rushed through a botched privatisation before the 1997 election with poorly drafted and ill-conceived legislation. They were a dreadful Government—that much is obvious—but we also know, after five years, that they are a dreadful Opposition.
  Once again, I have some sympathy there. We know, from our own experience in the party of which I have the honour to be a member, that it takes a long time to understand the ways of opposition and become effective at it. I wish the Conservatives very many years in which to become more effective.

  The true test of accountability in any democracy is the judgment of the electorate. The British people have made their judgment on the Conservative party in two successive general elections, as well as the recent Ipswich by-election.
  The Conservatives could have chosen to debate issues of the utmost concern to the British public and the electorate, but instead they chose to table a motion that is ill conceived and without merit. I invite the House to reject it completely.
  4.37 pm
  Mr. Paul Tyler: I am delighted that this debate is ranging more widely than some previous debates on the narrow issue of what a particular individual did on a particular day. That will make for much healthier debate. I acknowledge that the Conservatives have both a right and a duty, as we have, to hold the Government to account. If we feel that the mechanisms of government are not helping us in that task, we have a right to draw attention to that.
  Indeed, it is right that, for once, we are discussing the wood rather than simply the tree. Far too often over recent weeks too much attention has been paid to the activities of one special adviser—who I would suggest is a rather insignificant tree—and not enough to the wood, which is the arrogance of office of a Government who seem to think that media manipulation, the politicisation of the civil service and disdain for Parliament are more important than our being able to hold them to account. That individual may have been an objectionable symptom of the wider disease, but we should be conscious that there is a disease and it needs to be treated. Ministers, not civil servants, are accountable to the House, and we must hold them to account.
  I am sorry that the Deputy Prime Minister is not here, because I want to cite what may seem a trivial example of how senior Ministers treat the House with appropriate respect or otherwise. I hope that the Minister will report back to him. In early October I wanted to ask a question on the co-ordination of rural policy. I went to the Table Office and was advised that the Cabinet Office was responsible for that, so I tabled an oral question to the Deputy Prime Minister.
  Lo and behold, within a matter of days, the question was transferred to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, which immediately meant that I did not get an opportunity to put a supplementary question to the Deputy Prime Minister. As we all know, he has a great deal of expertise and experience in matters rural. I was surprised when the answer from DEFRA explained that the co-ordination of rural policy was—guess what—undertaken by the Cabinet Office. So, I brought the matter to the attention of the Speaker, who responded:
  "In the circumstances he"—
  that is, me—
  "describes, where the line of ministerial responsibility is not clear cut, I deprecate the transfer of a question tabled for oral answer, which has the effect of depriving the Member of the opportunity to…put a supplementary question to the Deputy Prime Minister."—[Official Report, 8 November 2001; Vol. 374, c. 379–80.]
  Most of us would take that as a clear statement of the Speaker's view that that should not happen in the future.
  Lo and behold, within a matter of days, I received an extraordinary letter from the Deputy Prime Minister. It made me so angry that it went straight in the bin and, indeed, it has tea stains on it. [Interruption.] Perhaps it should have been teeth marks. The Deputy Prime Minister stated:
  "I have…seen the Speaker's ruling"
  and he went on to disagree with that ruling. That is the way in which a most senior member of this Administration treats not just the House collectively but the Speaker, who represents this House.
  42
  A moment ago, the Minister was eloquent on the subject of accountability. The Government are accountable to the House and the Speaker is our representative. He is the guardian of the House in relation to all matters on which we hold the Government to account. If the Deputy Prime Minister, no less, does not even take the trouble to come to the House to argue the case with the Speaker—I do not mind if he does not come to argue the case with me—how can the Minister claim that the Government hold themselves accountable to the House of Commons?
  That is clearly nonsense, but it is the ethos under which the Government have operated in recent months. That is why the examples that have been brought to the attention of the House and of the public are occurring. It is not because one individual has stepped out of line, but because one individual has stood the line precisely where the Government thought that he—or, in this case, she—should stand. If Ministers want to challenge the House, and the Speaker of the House, they should have the guts to come here in person. Perhaps the letter was drafted by a political adviser.
  Reference has already been made this afternoon to the attitude of the Conservative Opposition, and they cannot escape some criticism. [Interruption.] The reference to the infamous trench warfare memorandum from the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) did not do it justice. [Interruption.] It is true that he suggested trench warfare—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We must not have such a level of conversation in the Chamber when an hon. Member is addressing it.
  Mr. Tyler: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because the memo deserves the widest possible audience. I am sorry that its author is not in his usual place, because he suggests that legislation should move on to the other place "imperfectly scrutinised" by this House. That is saying that the House should not do its job properly.
  The memo also contained a lovely little passage about what the right hon. Gentleman thought his colleagues were capable of. He said:
  "The responsibilities which involve a lot of travel and time away from Westminster should be allocated to colleagues who are likely to be here very little anyway"—
  there are very few of them here this afternoon, even though this is their debate—
  "and ideally not to those who could contribute significantly to Chamber or Committee work."
  If that is the attitude of the Conservative party, is it any wonder that the electorate also think that the House is not performing effectively in scrutinising legislation and the actions of the Executive?
  My hon. Friends, especially the hon. Members for Winchester (Mr. Oaten), for Bath (Mr. Foster) and for Lewes (Norman Baker), have spent much time since Parliament came back in October trying to obtain the best possible information from Ministers, precisely within the terms of this debate. What is so extraordinary is that, despite the code of practice on access to Government information, we find it more difficult to extract information now than before the code was introduced in 1997. It is a cumbersome suit of armour to protect Ministers from the light of day and from the scrutiny of questions from Members of Parliament.

  43
  It appears impossible to discover, for example, information about the role, responsibilities and redeployment of Mr. Alun Evans. Questions tabled by several Members—the hon. Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay) as well as my parliamentary colleagues—have failed to produce evidence of precisely why that gentleman, who held a highly respected and responsible position in the civil service, was moved to a different Department. There was no explanation and no adequate reference to particular papers, minutes of meetings or their content. Who was responsible for deciding whether he should be moved? It is impossible for us to obtain such information through parliamentary questions.
  I have in my hand a copy of the code, although I shall not refer to it in great detail because several hon. Members want to speak. However, what is clever and obvious about it is that there are so many steps along the way before one reaches someone outside the Government—in the case of the parliamentary ombudsman—that most people would never get that far when seeking information. Questions as to how or why information is withheld or made available cannot be left to incestuous, introverted and internal Whitehall inquiries.
  Mr. Redwood: The Liberals claim to be not the poodles but the scriptwriters of the Government's policy on railways, favouring as they do a not-for-profit company. As the Government are unable or unwilling to tell us how much public money such a company would need to be able to make a successful bid and then to run the railways, would the Liberals care to tell us or are they equally unwilling to give us any information on that crucial matter?
  Mr. Tyler: I am flattered by the right hon. Gentleman's obvious respect for our ability to extract information from the Government. What I can tell him is that he voted for the Railways Act 1993 that set out the terms on which the administration of the rail track company was to be undertaken. I can also tell him that the administration is costing him, me and our fellow taxpayers £500,000 a week. The terms for which he voted made it certain that the administrators, Messrs Ernst and Young—he probably thinks that they are more expert in such matters than anybody in the House—have now come up with—
  Mr. Redwood rose—
  Mr. Tyler: The right hon. Gentleman should let me finish the answer to his first question before he intervenes again.
  The administrators have come up with the extraordinary answer that their only responsibility is to the members and creditors of Railtrack, not to the travelling public—not to us as taxpayers and not to the House. The terms of the legislation for which the right hon. Gentleman voted are causing the incredible and impossible situation that we all face. In the past, the right hon. Gentleman has expressed great interest in saving taxpayers' money, but we as taxpayers will be suffering as a direct result of his
  44
  Government's incompetence, not only in the way that they privatised the industry but in enacting unworkable legislation.
  Mr. Redwood: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Tyler: I have already given way and I want to make progress. The right hon. Gentleman will have an opportunity to speak later.
  Under the code of conduct for special advisers, they are supposed to record all contacts with the media. That was not true only on 11 September—there were cases before and since that date. However, if those contacts are recorded, we want to know who checks that they are accurate and how we can find out whether they took place. Indeed, we want to know whether records have been kept at all. My hon. Friend the Member for Winchester faced blank obstruction from Ministers when he sought information on those matters, which should be open and above board. Why was the code introduced if the information is not available to Members of Parliament?
  Last week, there was an extraordinary situation when Mr. Jonathan Baume of the First Division Association was questioned on the "Today" programme. He said that there had been selective leaking of last week's information—as hon. Members will recall the minutes of the meeting were issued just as the Chancellor was getting up to make his autumn statement. However, Mr. Baume—a civil servant of great experience who represents his civil service colleagues in the First Division Association—said that the leaking was done at a political level. How can we find out who is responsible for what and who is accountable to the House when there appears to be a civil war between the professional civil servants on the one hand and the special advisers and their ministerial masters on the other? Surely some degree of codification must be established.
  Of course, we have been promised that the Freedom of Information Act 2000 will be fully implemented. The House was assured that, by now, we would be well on the way to full implementation, yet we are told that, as with the trains under Railtrack, it has got stuck up a siding somewhere, and we do not know whether it will come this year, next year, sometime or never. Indeed, the notice board in the station says that it might come in 2005, but—who knows—it might be cancelled altogether.
  The right of access, on which the debate rightly concentrates, is stalled somewhere in the system, but, worse than that, the Minister referred to the civil service Bill, which was promised in the 1997 manifesto. Indeed, it was an integral part of the agreement between my party and the then Labour Opposition that should have been introduced in the 1997 Parliament.
  Mr. McLoughlinI am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for saying that. It is first time that I have heard that that Bill was part of the agreement between the Liberal Democrats and the Government. Will he tell us the timetable for any other undertakings? If he believes in open government, perhaps the British people should know what under-the-table deal was done when the Government had the majority that they then had.
  Mr. Tyler: The hon. Gentleman's memory has clearly collapsed because the agreement—it was known as the

  45
  Cook-Maclennan agreement—was published in full in March 1997 and was given a great deal of coverage. My hon. Friends are nodding wisely. It is unfortunate that the hon. Gentleman clearly slept through the whole of the last Parliament because many items, including devolution for Scotland and Wales, were undertaken during that time and were very much part of that agreement.
  We are now told that the civil service Bill, to which the Minister referred, is not likely to appear for years. Why? We are told that it is very difficult to get legislation through the House. We believe that such legislation should be introduced as quickly as possible, and I am sure that Conservative Members would welcome it equally sincerely.
  The Chairman of the Select Committee on Public Administration, the hon. Member for Cannock Chase (Tony Wright) said just a few weeks ago that there is a "creeping politicisation" of Whitehall. The only way to reverse that is by ensuring transparency and honesty and by codifying the proper roles and responsibilities of the professional civil service, and that involves legislation. There is nothing new about politicisation or media manipulation, but perhaps they have been used slightly more successfully in the past.
  Mr. Bernard Ingham, as he then was, indulged in some very splendid spinning. Hon. Members on both sides of the House will be interested to hear that, when I referred to that on the "Today" programme, that gentleman, now Sir Bernard Ingham, indulged in some correspondence with me, denying that he had actually undertaken any negative spinning involving members of the Government. Indeed, he said that he was coming to their aid and defending them. He said:
  "I did not, as you assert, attack them. I was trying to defend them from Lobby demands for their sacking after some rather extraordinary behaviour on their part. I sought to do so by referring to their natures. I was successful in my efforts, even though those efforts have been consistently misrepresented."
  In fact, as has been said in British Journalism Review, Mr. John Biffen, whom, as hon. Members will recall, the then Prime Minister's spokesman called a "semi-detached member of the Government", was hung out to dry,
  "to twist in the wind for another year, before eventually being cut down and deposited on the Back Benches two days after the 1987 General Election".
  All I can say is that, if it was not spinning that damaged those gentlemen, I cannot imagine what that spin doctor would have done if he had really wanted to attack the two people involved.
  There has been a change, and let us give credit to the Government. The same secrecy does not now surround the spin doctors. We tend to know, in a matter of hours, who is spinning against whom. In those days, the master spinner himself was cloaked in anonymity—well, for a few hours any way. At least now, such information comes out remarkably quickly because it seems that, as soon as a spin doctor indulges in anything of that sort, someone in another part of Whitehall, or in the Labour party, quickly jumps up to say, "It wasn't me, guy," and tells us where the origin lies. That is a step forward in the circumstances.
  I congratulate the Government on the fact that the transparent spinning against one another in the Labour party and the Government at least offers us an occasional vignette of the civil war that is going on.
  46
  I also congratulate the Conservative party. What other great political party would have decided to pick on the rail industry over recent weeks to indulge in endless debates in the House? It is very public spirited—every time the words "rail" and "Conservative" appear in the public prints, the public remember that it was the Conservatives who did it.
  As transport spokesman for my party, I spent hours, as did my hon. Friend the Member for North Devon (Nick Harvey), pointing out the mess we would get into if the then Government insisted on privatising the railways. We told the Labour party, then in opposition, that if we two parties stood shoulder to shoulder and told the public and the institutions that if British Rail was privatised by the Conservative party, we would try and make sure in the next Parliament that it was brought back under public control, that there would be a bond payment and no profit to anyone who bought shares, the railway industry would not be privatised. It could not have been. No institution would have dared to do that when a Conservative defeat was in prospect.
  I am delighted that the Conservative party refers constantly to the incompetent way in which it ruined one of our great national industries. It was confirmed again on "Today". I am not sorry to keep giving a plug to Sue MacGregor, for she is a good friend of mine, and I think that before she goes she should be congratulated on the work that she has done. On "Today" this morning, a spokesman for Stagecoach—one of the companies that has rolled with the cash of privatization—said that everybody agrees that the way in which privatisation has gone through was a mistake. I hope that the Conservatives will tell us later that they, too, feel that it was a dreadful mistake.
  In the mean time, we who are responsible to the public for what is going on, must take notice of the fact that today we are told that Railtrack investors will have to go to law to get the documentation that they require to establish what the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions has been doing. We cannot do that. We Members of Parliament—the High Court of Parliament, as it were—are having such difficulty in getting information out of Ministers who say that they are accountable to us that it seems as if the lawyers will be the only people to obtain it.
  Miss Anne McIntosh: I am a little confused. The hon. Gentleman seems to be saying that the railways—the way in which the Government have handled the industry and the lack of communication about it—is a legitimate argument for debate, but earlier he said that it was not. Which is it?
  Mr. Tyler: I have never said that it was not a legitimate argument for debate. I have simply said that the accountability of the Government to this House, not just of the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, is what we are discussing. I have not suggested that the activities—in this field or any other—of the Secretary of State, the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions or the right hon. Gentleman's special adviser are improper. What is improper is if the House starts passing motions demanding the sacking of a civil servant or special adviser. We demand the sacking of Ministers. We have done that in the past—they are responsible to us.

  47
  I have the quotation that the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Collins) was shouting about earlier in his statement, and it does not say what he says it does.
  Mr. Collins: Can the hon. Gentleman confirm that the leader of the Liberal Democrats did not call for the dismissal of Ms Jo Moore in his appearance on "Today" a few days ago?
  Mr. Tyler: No, he did not, and I have the quotation here. My right hon. Friend the Member for Ross, Skye and Inverness, West (Mr. Kennedy) said that that individual
  "should look in the mirror and consider her position".
  She should resign.
  It is wrong for the House to regard a civil servant or special adviser as in some way employed by us. Indeed, the employment tribunal would be a wonderful spectacle if we were to succeed in sacking somebody. The hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale has not been here very long, so perhaps he does not know that it is Ministers who are responsible to the House. That is why my right hon. Friend also said that he felt that the Secretary of State's position had been corroded by what had happened in recent weeks. I am glad to put that on the record, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will correct his statement.
  There have also been episodes in recent weeks of briefing against other public servants within the Department. However, we should be concerned not just with that Department and those individuals. Indeed, I submit that we should be grateful to Ms Jo Moore because she has exposed a degree of cynical manipulation of the media and political pressure on career civil servants. In the process there has been a deliberate attempt to avoid parliamentary accountability. That is the arrogance of office, and that is what concerns us.
  In any other great national institution in this country, that individual would have resigned in such circumstances. The climate and atmosphere of irresponsibility mean that the Government have to consider changing course and making themselves truly accountable to Parliament, and through Parliament to the people.
  5 pm
  Mrs. Louise Ellman: Shortly after the last general election the public were told that the Conservative party, which had suffered yet another traumatic loss, was going to have a long, deep look at itself and consider changing its policies to make itself more electable. I can only imagine that one of those changes of policy must be a recanting of its record on producing information to the House and the public. One of the indictments of the last Conservative Government was the way in which they acted in secrecy. They attempted to hide information from the House and tried to stop and limit their accountability to the public for what they did.
  It seems that in initiating a debate on public information and accountability, the Conservatives have forgotten the arms to Iraq scandal and the Scott report, when wilful action was taken to deceive the public on matters of grave
  48
  national security and grave public concern. They have forgotten that as the Government who set up the quango state, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Kilfoyle) referred, they deliberately put into the hands of unelected and unaccountable people more responsibility and funding than remain in local government. In setting up numerous agencies and instructing them to deal with things on their own, and by preventing Ministers from being responsible to Parliament for the work of those agencies, the Conservatives again blocked public access to important information on matters that affected them.
  Since then, a number of things have changed. I am pleased that this Government have widened access to information for the House and the public by changing the rules on agencies. The Conservative Government's rule, under which Ministers were not accountable to Parliament for the work of agencies, has been rescinded. I remember the great concern when the Conservatives cut welfare benefits. Local authorities made representations to the Government and were told that the Minister of the day did not have to answer those queries in the House because the Benefits Agency was in charge and it did not have to report to Parliament. The Government have changed that and similar practices.
  Chris Grayling: The hon. Lady will remember sitting with me in the Transport Committee when time after time we asked the Secretary of State straightforward questions and time after time he declined to answer them. Surely nothing in history, and no changes by the Government to the way in which information is disseminated by agencies, can justify a Secretary of State sitting in front of Members of Parliament and refusing to answer straightforward questions, or at best giving evasive answers to them.
  Mrs. Ellman: The hon. Gentleman gives his interpretation of events in the important Transport Committee meeting. I will refer to some of those matters in relation to public information later in my comments.
  One major problem that we face is the privatisation of the rail industry by the Conservatives, which other hon. Members have mentioned. When the Conservatives set upon privatisation as a matter of policy, they deliberately erected a barrier between public representatives and the provision of and accountability for public services.
  Mr. Mark Francois: The hon. Lady replied to a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling) about what a Minister did or did not say in a Select Committee. On the subject of accountability to the House, will she at least give credit where it is due and accept that the Conservative party set up Select Committees in 1979 so that Ministers could be held to account on specialist parts of their brief?
  Mrs. Ellman: It was of course the House of Commons that set up those Committees, but I give great credit to the Conservative Members of the day who supported, and indeed suggested, the initiative.
  Mr. Soley: It was indeed a Conservative Member, Norman St. John-Stevas, who took the initiative, but he disappeared from Government fairly quickly afterwards, largely because many Conservative Members did not like

  49
  the way in which Select Committees worked. The Conservatives also set up evidence-taking Committees, which was also St. John-Stevas's idea, but promptly stopped using them because they found them a great embarrassment. Now we use them regularly for Bills, and I hope that we will continue to do so.
  Mrs. Ellman: I thank my hon. Friend for his comments. As I said, I believe that Select Committees are an extremely important part of our democracy, and I would like to see them strengthened and their remit widened. That is important for accountability and openness.
  Mr. Redwood: The hon. Lady criticised the Conservative party for privatising the railways. Is she aware that the Government's policy is to re-privatise them by selling them back to a private sector company? Is it also her understanding that the Government want to privatise the tube, splitting track from trains, and air traffic services? Why is she so strongly against privatisation?
  Mrs. Ellman: As I understand the situation, a decision about the successor to Railtrack has not been made. The matter is still being considered by the administrators and a final decision will be made by the Secretary of State. One proposal is for a company limited by guarantee, which despite being private would not issue shares or dividends to outside members, thereby preventing conflict between shareholders and the public. Such a structure could well operate in the public interest, and I have experience of such companies doing so very effectively. We do know that the privatised rail system set up by the Conservatives was inadequate; it failed to deliver, and it has cost the taxpayer a great deal of money with no great result.
  Under Conservative-inspired privatisation, regulation is one of the few forms of accountability and means of providing information to the House and the public. When we considered what had happened to the utilities, particularly water, while the Conservatives were in power, we saw that the situation was unacceptable. There was increasing public uproar as the fat cats of the privatised water industry gained more and more finance while the public received an inadequate service. I am pleased to say that this Government have improved the situation, and regulation in the water industry appears to be effective, although we need constantly to monitor its progress.
  I cannot say, however, that regulation of privatised rail services has been equally effective. I was extremely concerned to receive only today a letter from the Rail Regulator, Mr. Tom Winsor, informing me—as he had informed the press over the weekend—that he was unable to investigate Virgin for increasing rail fares on the west coast main line. My complaints to Mr. Winsor go back 18 months and refer to an increase of 100 per cent. in rail fares from Liverpool to London as a result of Virgin arbitrarily deciding to redefine peak time. Now, people who travel from Liverpool to London have to pay at least £153; they cannot arrive before the afternoon without paying that fare, which is entirely unacceptable.
  It is equally unacceptable that it has taken Mr. Winsor 18 months to decide that he is unable to conduct an investigation into Virgin's abuse of its monopoly on the west coast main line. That is indicative either of a weak
  50
  regulator or of insufficiently strong regulation that needs to be revised in the interests of the travelling public. I intend to pursue that matter both directly with Ministers in the Chamber and in the Select Committee. It is clear that rail privatisation has been unsatisfactory and has not served the public.
  Chris Grayling: I thank the hon. Lady for giving way to me a second time, and I look forward to interesting discussions with her and other members of the Transport Committee on our recommendations on regulation. Does she agree that the structure and nature of regulation of the rail industry was reshaped by the Labour Government; and that despite the praise she pours on to the regulation of other industries and the Government's approach to them, when the crunch came in the rail industry, the Secretary of State felt the need to threaten to bypass the regulator to get things done?
  Mrs. Ellman: In terms of general regulation, I agree that rail industry regulation is not satisfactory. I intend to press for improvements, because the interests of the travelling public are not well served by the current structure. When looking to the future of Railtrack, Ministers should consider the functions and responsibilities of the Rail Regulator and the Strategic Rail Authority. The system has failed, as well as the management of Railtrack as an individual company.
  I shall now speak about some of the issues mentioned by the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Collins) and to the reference in the motion to the conduct of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions. I refer in particular to the contentious note and minutes of the 25 July meeting between the Secretary of State and his officials and John Robinson, chairman of Railtrack.
  It is important to remember that the note and the minutes were made accessible to public view solely because the Transport Committee requested that they be made available. When answering the Committee's queries, the Secretary of State said that it was most unusual, if not unprecedented, for notes and minutes of that sort to be made available, but added that to assist the Committee, and if that was what the Committee wanted, he would make them public. That is another illustration of the Committee's importance and underlines the significance of having Select Committees that are open and determined and that want to act in the public interest.
  The note and minutes of that important meeting fall into two parts. It is clear that the uncontested part of the note reinforces the indictment made against Railtrack's management by many sources. According to the note, Mr. Robinson said that
  "He was trying to build a better relationship with the Rail Regulator"—
  presumably something was wrong. He said that
  "He was taking personal control of the West Coast Main Line upgrade"—
  presumably because Railtrack had failed. In evidence to the Transport Committee, it was made clear that because Railtrack had failed to modernise the west coast main line, Railtrack and Virgin were already discussing compensation of at least £300 million. Moreover, we now learn that Virgin intended to increase its fares by a further

  51
  33 per cent. as part of the compensation deal because Railtrack failed to deliver. The undisputed part of the note recorded that the chairman of Railtrack said:
  "In all of this his aim was to follow on the key things Railtrack needed to do to run a safe, reliable railway".
  Presumably, Railtrack was not doing so before. The note also stated that the chairman said:
  "Turning things round was not a question of more investment, but rather running the company properly."
  That echoes Mr. Winsor's evidence to the Select Committee, in which he spoke about Railtrack's incompetence and its disregard for its customers.
  In the now published and undisputed part of the minutes, the indictment of Railtrack's management grows increasingly clear and severe, but what about the important part of the note, now a public document, which is disputed? It concerns what the Secretary of State says John Robinson, the chairman of Railtrack, said and what Mr. Robinson says he did not say. The only responsible conclusion to be drawn from the minutes is that it has not been proved that the Secretary of State is right. He says that the chairman of Railtrack stated that he needed a letter of comfort for his bank before he could obtain bank resources and needed extra funding from the Government; otherwise he would not be able to say that Railtrack was a going concern at the meeting at which he was to give an interim statement on 8 November. Those details were not recorded at the request of the chairman of Railtrack, but, according to the Secretary of State, that is what he said. The fact that the chairman of Railtrack said that he did not say those things cannot be proved or disproved.
  The notes do not prove that the Secretary of State was right, nor do they prove that he was wrong. We must look at people's motives either for agreeing or trying to dispute what they said. Ministers and Secretaries of State are accountable to the House of Commons, so we can ask those questions of the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions and it is right that we should do so, but Mr. Robinson is the chairman of a private company, so we cannot ask him directly what he said. He is responsible to his private board and shareholders, who are supposed to call him to account, but have Railtrack's minutes been disclosed? Do we know what its chairman reported to his board or shareholders following his meeting with the Secretary of State or, perhaps even more critically, following further discussions with the Secretary of State and his officials? We do not know that, so we cannot challenge or question it.
  Dr. Pugh rose—
  Mrs. Theresa May rose—
  Mrs. Ellman: I shall give way in a moment.
  We are dealing with two separate things: a Secretary of State is responsible to the public and the House, but a chairman of a privatised company, responsible for a public service, answers not to elected Members of Parliament but to a private board that does not have to disclose its minutes and is not subject to public questioning in a place such as the House of Commons.
  Mrs. May: I am sure that the hon. Lady is aware that the chairman of Railtrack has made his notes of the
  52
  25 July meeting available to the Financial Services Authority in connection with its investigation into the matter, whereas the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions has so far not passed on the papers requested by the FSA. Does she agree that, if the Government are as interested in public information as she claims, those papers should be sent to the FSA forthwith?
  Mrs. Ellman: My point concerns disclosure and responsibility on the part of the chairman of a private company that is running a public service. I am not aware of the chairman of Railtrack making publicly available the minutes of his board meeting on 25 July or, even more significantly, about what happened following 25 July.
  It is not clear whether the chairman of Railtrack met his fiduciary duties in relation to his shareholders and his board, in terms of his understanding of the possible critical financial situation of Railtrack as a going concern? We do not have that information. I am not certain that the public are entitled to have such information. We are dealing with a private company, and we see the conflict when a private company is running a major public service, yet is not responsible to the public.
  I give way to the hon. Member for Southport (Dr. Pugh).
  Dr. Pugh: The point that I intended to make was made by the hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May).
  Mrs. Ellman: Railtrack has featured large in the debate, because it represents the failure of privatisation and the problems of public accountability for a public service when it is run by a privatised company. The Government have done much to restore confidence in the public services.
  All of us should take note of two things, the first of which is the importance of public services being run by publicly accountable bodies. Until we have that, it will not be possible for the House or the public at large to know that services are being run properly or to have the answers that they require and, indeed, deserve. Secondly, the House must register the importance of Select Committees. The work of the Transport Committee in particular is proving increasingly important in the matter of Railtrack. If it were not for the questions asked by the Committee, the notes would not have been requested and would not have been made available.
  It is incumbent on all elected Members to recognise the importance of Select Committees in accessing and making available public information in the public interest. I hope that no Government, including the present Government, will be tempted to curtail the activities of Select Committees. Their powers should be extended, as it is the Select Committees above all that represent the people of this country and allow democratic accountability to be far more stringently applied than is possible on the Floor of the House.
  5.22 pm
  Mr. John Redwood: I have declared my interest in the register.
  The Government treat public information as though it were private property, and are grasping in the way that they hold it to them and will not release it. They are rather like Scrooge with public information, before he

  53
  underwent his remarkable conversion and discovered that Christmas could be fun and one should be generous. My worry is that the Government, having launched their new code, and having penned an amazing amendment to the motion about how much they believe in openness, are not about to convert as Scrooge did, just before Christmas. However, I shall be delighted to give way to the Minister if he wishes to answer the many questions that I tabled concerning the conduct of his Department, and in particular the conduct of its railway policy.
  Trying to get to the bottom of what has happened, what is going on and the Government's estimate of what will happen next, I have discovered a series of roadblocks and railblocks placed in my way, which I shall share with the House as we are debating how impossible it is to get information out of this miserable Government, while they pretend to be very much in favour of openness and full disclosure. In their amendment to the motion, they have the brazen cheek to refer to
  "the publication of the new Ministerial code including the requirements on greater transparency never seen before".
  That takes the breath away. When will we see and benefit from the greater transparency in which they proudly say they believe?
  Let us start with an easy question for the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions. I asked the Secretary of State recently
  "what proportion of freight went by (a) road and (b) rail in May (i) 1993"—
  there has been quite enough time to collect those figures—
  "(ii) 1997"—
  a good long time to collect those—
  "and (iii) 2001"—
  a little closer to the present, but several months ago. The question was a very simple and factual one. Why did I ask it? I have a hunch that the proportion of freight travelling by rail rose after privatisation. Indeed, in support of that view, I have the testimony, in general terms, of the Deputy Prime Minister, who expressed that view when he was Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, as well as the testimonies of Ministers in the Department. Thus, we know from statements made by the Deputy Prime Minister and one of the junior Transport Ministers that they have studied the issue and must have the figures. Yet, I was told in reply:
  "The figures are not available in the form requested."—[Official Report, 4 July 2001; Vol. 371, c. 156W.]—
  greater openness, "never seen before". I rest my case on that point. The Minister does not jump up to help the House or to explain whether the Deputy Prime Minister knew what he was talking about when he said that the proportion of rail freight had risen sharply under privatisation.
  I then started to ask a few more difficult questions about what the Government were doing and why they were digging a huge hole for the railways by forcing them into administration. I asked the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions when bids would close for the assets and liabilities of Railtrack plc in administration. I have read in the newspapers that the Government have an estimate—presumably, this information comes from good sources that are close to them—of when Railtrack will come out of administration.
  54
  In order to come out of administration, however, the administrator must first invite bids. Of course, the Government must know when the bidding process will take place. They will have to supply an enormous amount of information for the sale memorandum. We have read in the papers and have heard in a statement made in the House that they are interested in proposing a particular model company that they want to bid. Presumably, therefore, they take an interest in when bidding might open and close. However, this was the answer that I received:
  "This is a matter for the administrator."—[Official Report, 22 November 2001; Vol. 375, c. 389W.]
  Again, we are reminded of greater openness never seen before.
  I then asked the Secretary of State for his estimate of
  "the gross assets to be transferred to the new Railtrack company and…the debt to be set against those assets."
  Again, the Department presumably investigated the issue with great thoroughness and with the aid of all the accountancy and legal advice that it received at our expense before deciding to petition the court for an administration order. The Minister for Transport, who is now sitting on the Front Bench, gave this answer:
  "I refer the right hon. Member to the answer given to him by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on 31 October 2001, Official Report, column 671W."—[Official Report, 6 November 2001; Vol. 374, c. 134W.]
  I referred to that previous answer, which contained some interesting things but nothing about the Government's estimate of the gross assets to be transferred or the debt to be set against them.
  If the Government are serious about getting on with the task of getting Railtrack out of administration and back to work properly, they need to tell potential bidders when the bidding will take place and what they are bidding for. Why cannot the Government come clean with the travelling public and the taxpayer and tell us what is on offer, when the bids will open and when they will close? I and my constituents are impatient to see the railway back on the road to recovery. We know that that means getting it out of administration as quickly as possible and getting it back into private hands, which is the Government's policy.
  How disappointed Labour Back Benchers will be when they realise the full horror of what the Government have done in collapsing the railway into administration and learn that they are spending a fortune and will be force feeding a large number of advisers large fees for the hard work that they will definitely have to do with the muddle that has been created, after which they will re-privatise the railway. The Minister shakes his head, but he will not spring up and say that that is not his policy, as he knows full well that he has no authority from the Prime Minister or the Chancellor—of course, they have different views on most subjects these days, but they agree on this one—to say that the Government will renationalise the railways.
  The Government have no wish to stand behind the safety and track problems and the huge cash drain that the railway would be if it were returned to nationalised control. They should be more honest and open with their Back Benchers, who will be bitterly disappointed when they discover that what is happening is a recipe not for nationalisation but for a very expensive re-privatisation,

  55
  with the Government holding out the hope of an extraordinary type of company that will need massive sums if it is to have any chance of getting off the ground.
  I went on to ask the Secretary of State
  "what advice the Government had sought about the timing of an announcement to the stock exchange of the changed plans for Railtrack plc."
  The answer stated:
  "In reaching his decision on 5 October…the Secretary of State had regard to the responsibilities and duties that Railtrack Group plc has as a stock exchange quoted company."—[Official Report, 23 November 2001; Vol. 375, c. 494W.]
  I asked what advice the Government had sought, not whether the Secretary of State had considered it properly. I did not ask about his decision. I expected the answer to identify the advisers and, even better, the cost of the process. Instead, I received an answer to a completely different question. Another example of greater openness never seen before.
  I asked the Secretary of State what action he had taken on the plan to cuts costs at Railtrack plc that the board drew up before the company was put into administration. I had heard a rumour, perhaps in the press, that the Government had been keen to abort the decision of Railtrack's board before it went into receivership to cut costs by reducing staff. I could understand the Labour party wanting to make such a decision. However, the answer stated:
  "The running of the company during administration is a matter for the Administrator."—[Official Report, 22 November 2001; Vol. 375, c. 389W.]
  Again, that is not a specific answer to the question.
  I should still like to know what happened to the outgoing board's plans to reduce costs. Why did the Government decide that there was no need to reduce cost? The rail industry is experiencing a horrendous loss of cash in the hands of the administrator, and is propped up by a reluctant Government, if we are to believe what we read about the Treasury's attitudes.
  I asked the Secretary of State
  "what his estimate is of the fees of the administrator for Railtrack plc".
  One would think that one of the first questions that the Secretary of State and the Treasury would ask during the many months of deliberation about whether to place Railtrack in administration would be about the costs, specifically those of accountants, lawyers and administrators, of undergoing the gruelling and difficult process. If we believe, as we must, the Government's answer, we have to believe:
  "It is not possible at this stage to make an accurate estimate."
  We are therefore invited to believe that the Government have bought a pig in a poke. They have bought something undesirable and they have no idea of its cost.
  Before a policy was agreed in government in my day, we held bilateral meetings with the Treasury, which always argued about our estimates of the cost. A compromise was struck or, in some cases, the policy was vetoed if the Treasury decided that it was too dear. Yet it seems that it is not possible to tell us how much money the taxpayer will spend on administration—greater openness never seen before.
  56
  I asked the Secretary of State
  "what the…daily rate of (a) loss"—
  profit before tax—
  "and (b) cash outflow at Railtrack plc in administration has been since 5 October."
  Again, one would think that the Treasury and the Department would monitor that question day by day as it is such a large item in the public budget.
  In the pre-Budget statement, the Chancellor claimed enormous credit from Labour Back Benchers for announcing £1,000 million extra for the national health service. That is not a large sum, given the size of its budget. He did not mention the more than £2,000 million extra that, according to the Government's figures, will be needed for Railtrack in administration until March 2001, let alone the sum that may be needed in 2001–02. Money will be required to continue paying for losses, start paying for investment, which cannot be delayed for ever, and to get the company out of administration. It will also be needed to pay all the fees, and, if the Government have their way, the huge sum needed to capitalise the not-for-profit company that they believe the private sector will finance in the future. That is breathtaking.
  Again, I received an extraordinary answer to my question. It stated:
  "This is a matter for the Administrator. The premature release of unaudited financial information may prejudice the Administrator's…release of commercially sensitive information".
  I could understand that answer if Railtrack was a public limited company that had to report to its shareholders in the normal way. I should not have dreamed of asking the question in that case because such companies are answerable to the markets, their shareholders and their customers and they have to report according to a defined cycle.
  However, the House of Commons made its reputation and built its strength on making the Executive answerable for the amount of money that they spend and how such spending is financed. How, then, can a company as huge as Railtrack be in administration, losing hundreds of millions of pounds as the months go by—on the Government's forecast, possibly losing or absorbing £3.5 billion in the year to March 2001—when we believe that the Government budgeted only £900 million for Railtrack if it had stayed a fully fledged, private sector, public limited company? That represents a massive change in the Government's figures. Greater openness, never seen before.
  I then asked the Secretary of State what money was available for the successor company to Railtrack in 2001–02, 2002–03 and 2003–04 from Government sources and from Strategic Rail Authority sources. I knew that I had to specify both sources, otherwise the Government would play tricks with the answer. The Minister replied:
  "I refer the right hon. Member to the reply given by…the Secretary of State to the hon. Member for Preston (Mr. Hendrick) on 23 October 2001, Official Report, column 195W."—[Official Report, 21 November 2001; Vol. 375, c. 277–78W.]
  I re-read the reply given to the hon. Member for Preston (Mr. Hendrick)—indeed, I had the pleasure of making a speech on the subject of that reply on the day it was hurried out to the media to try to deal with some media management problem that the Government were having. It is a very full answer, untypically for the Government, but, once again, it has nothing to do with the question that

  57
  I tabled. There are no figures in the reply to the hon. Member for Preston on how much money is available for the successor company in the years specified.
  My question to the Secretary of State was not a scholarship question. It was more a GCSE question, by public expenditure standards. I was simply asking how much money was available for a very big chunk of our rail industry in the next three years. We know that the Government budget in three-year dollops, and we know that the Chancellor has just produced a pre-Budget statement, so presumably he has put all these figures to bed. Why, therefore, is this a state secret? Why cannot we prise these figures from the Government? Why cannot we know how much money is going to be spent?
  Labour Members might welcome such information and say that it is great that so much money is to be poured into the railways. Or they might be critical and say that it is not quite enough for the west coast main line, or whatever is their preferred tipple in railway investment terms. My Conservative colleagues might share my view that the figure might be rather too big, and that there might be better ways of running the company and spending the money. To receive absolutely no reply on the matter is a disgrace.
  This is also a matter of great public interest. I am not making a party political point here; I am interested in this because if we are going to get the company out of administration quickly, any bona fide bidder is going to want this information. It must have been agreed with the Treasury in the run-up to the pre-Budget statement. Should not it be published now so that people can consider, on the basis of the money available for the next three years, whether they think that they have a chance of putting in a sensible bid for the railway, or whether they think that the money is too little and that there is no point in bidding?
  Would not it also help Labour Members—who still favour that extraordinary animal, the company limited by guarantee that neither makes profits nor pays dividends—if they knew how much this company was going to get in the form of public subsidy, when they were deciding whether to go on the board, and going to the City to raise the billions that the company will need? That information could be crucial to getting the company going.
  Mrs. Ellman: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that a company limited by guarantee does indeed make profits, but instead of distributing those profits to outside shareholders it reinvests them in the business of the company? Does he accept that that is the strength of a company limited by guarantee?
  Mr. Redwood: That might be true or it might not be true. In the original version, I think that the Minister was calling it a not-for-profit company, and I assumed that it would follow the long tradition of such Labour adventures, and that the Government would run it rather like they ran the dome—very successfully not for profit, if I remember rightly. They ran the dome at a thumping loss, and there is a grave danger that they would do the same with a company limited by guarantee in the railway industry.
  The Minister subsequently amplified his answer, and said that the intention would be to run the company for profit and to plough the profits back to build a stronger
  58
  balance sheet out of retained profit. That is still a return to the equity holder. It is just the same as any other private sector company trying to build capital value and asset value. A company in the private sector can always decide whether to distribute some or none of its profits, and makes half-yearly or annual decisions on that issue. Some companies in the private sector choose not to distribute anything, because they take the view that they can reinvest at such a good rate of return that it would be in the interest of their shareholders to do so.
  Any company limited by guarantee would be wise to try to budget for a profit and to build up reserves. What the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs. Ellman) does not seem to understand—the Government clearly do not—is that there is a cost to capital involved. That cannot be avoided. The Government are trying to design a body that gets practically all its money by borrowing rather than by raising equity from private shareholders. The short-term effect of that will be dearer capital, not cheaper capital.
  The current price of raising bond money for a vehicle like this would be 6, 7 or 8 per cent. The price of raising equity money would probably be 4 per cent. In the early years, adopting the Government's preferred route rather than the more normal route—involving a balance of "for profit" and "for dividend" shareholders, as well as some bondholders—would probably double the cashflow cost.
  The hon. Lady must also understand this. If the Government want a grade A credit rating—as they said they did in response to a rare question that received an answer—they must realise that the cost will be enormous. They must now tell us how much money they will put on the balance sheet of the not-for-profit, or not-for-dividend, company to give it a chance of gaining a grade A credit rating.
  Such ratings do not grow on trees. People do not suddenly say, "Here is Railtrack, in administration, with junk-bond status. Now it is to be transferred lock, stock and barrel to a company limited by guarantee. Whoopee! It has a triple-A rating! Aren't we lucky!" The bunch of assets and liabilities remains the same, and unless the Government inject an extremely large sum into its "not-for-dividend, not-for-profit, like the Dome" company, no one will touch it with a bargepole. It will still be given a junk-bond rating, and raising the capital will be very dear.
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien: As you see, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I found my right hon. Friend's analysis so compelling I had to move to my present place in order to intervene.
  The most important consideration is, surely, the time cost. For such a rating to be given by the agencies, at least a three-year—perhaps a five-year—track record will be required. As well as the cost of the money itself, there will be a time element. The Government will have to underpin that by ensuring that there is no potential loss during the period involved.
  Mr. Redwood rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) has been keeping well within the rules; I know he will appreciate that this is not a debate about Railtrack.
  Mr. Redwood: I am grateful for your guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but it so happens that I want to

  59
  proceed to the subject of information relating to timing, which is relevant to my hon. Friend's query and, indeed, probably what he had in mind.
  I asked the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions for his estimate of the time that Railtrack would remain in administration. The longer it stays in administration, of course, the worse its track record will be—so far we have seen mounting losses, worse delays and cancelled or delayed investment—which will make it even more difficult for money to be raised on any sensible basis for any company that the Government may wish to create after Railtrack ceases to be in administration.
  One would have thought that the Government would have an estimate of the time that Railtrack would remain in administration. I have read estimates in the newspapers, and I have not seen Ministers rushing to deny them. Those estimates looked as if they had come from Government sources, but apparently not: when I asked my question in the House of Commons, which should always be first to hear interesting news, I was told that it was a matter for the administrator. So, no go there. What remarkable openness—never seen before.
  Miss McIntosh: My right hon. Friend speaks of estimates. Will he take this opportunity to ask whether it is true that this is one Department that does not expect to reach the total of its estimated expenditure?
  Mr. Redwood: I did not know that, and it is very interesting. My hon. Friend's intervention demonstrates the expertise she has gained from her excellent work on the Select Committee on Transport, Local Government and the Regions, to which I pay tribute.
  Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: While we are on the subject of railway administration, may I mention that I tabled a written question to the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions about routine track and signal maintenance? The answer I received was that that was the responsibility not of the Government, but of the administrator. Does my right hon. Friend find it worrying that the Government are not concerned about safety in this context?
  Mr. Redwood: I do indeed—and that is another point I was coming to. Having been thwarted after tabling so many written questions to the Secretary of State, I wrote a letter asking him to set out the position on safety. I think the Government have a clear moral and political obligation to accept ultimate responsibility, now that they have taken the law into their own hands and persuaded the court to put the railways into administration.
  Labour, in opposition and subsequently in government, was always ready to rush to attack the privatised industry whenever a dreadful tragedy occurred. We all hate dreadful tragedies, and we all want the railways to be as safe as possible. I have never believed that company directors deliberately create unsafe companies—they know that that would be morally wrong and inhuman, as well as being bad for business—but the Labour party has sometimes appeared to allege that privatised companies somehow cannot be safe.
  60
  Now the Government have their way temporarily. The body is in administration; effectively it is operating under a lot of guidance, control and influence from the Secretary of State. Surely there is a moral and political obligation, if not a legal one—given the way in which the body is currently drawn up—for the Government to reassure us all that railway safety will be paramount, crucial and that no corners will be cut during administration.
  Mr. Hugo Swire: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, by that very act, the Government have so undermined the morale of those working in the industry that it could have ramifications in the run-up to Christmas, which is a particularly busy time for the railways?
  Mr. Redwood: That is absolutely right. For that reason, we need more information about safety and morale. The terrible figures that are coming out of the railways show how much damage has been done to morale. That is not surprising when the shareholding of small shareholders and employees has been wiped out, and when many of the senior management have left because they have found it insufferable to work under those conditions. I believe that more senior management will leave, for understandable reasons.
  Finally—there were many more examples, but I have taken just a selection for the purposes of this debate—I asked the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what his estimate was of the cash needs of Railtrack in administration. I was told that any estimate of the cash needs would be "purely speculative". There we have it—the Government do not have a clue; or can it be that they are trying to withhold information from the House because it is deeply embarrassing? Surely not, so it must be that they do not have a clue; yet we have read in the newspapers that the industry has already gobbled up £800 million in administration—guaranteed by the Government, drawn down, presumably completely spent and used up—and that the cash requirement up to the end of March could be £3.5 billion.
  Can the Government in this debate give an estimate of how big a financial black hole they have dug for themselves just up to March next year? It is not asking much. Surely they have to tell the administrator how much money will be available; surely he has to tell them what he thinks he may need. Huge sums of public money are involved, far bigger than the Government's increase in health expenditure. Should not the House of Commons be told?
  I have asked today and in questions for a timetable setting out when the bidding will take place and when we can expect the railway to return to a life that may get it back to normal. I have asked the Government to set out their policy towards the railways. Again, answers came there none. I have asked them to set out how much money is available; there have been no answers. I have asked them to say who is allowed to bid; they have not told us. I have asked them to give a proper report on the progress of the company limited by guarantee; there has been one written answer with a few sketchy ideas, and since then a stony silence.
  If the Government are serious about getting Railtrack out of administration within the next six months, surely the company limited by guarantee should be up and

  61
  running. Can we hear more about that today? Can we have some information about how the Secretary of State can both be presiding over the whole process and working with one of the bidding companies? Is he going to get that company off the ground? How much money has he got from the taxpayer, promised by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, to try to make it work? Can he give us a few more figures on the balance sheet of that incredible company, which the Government think will answer their prayers but which will be very difficult to get up and running?
  Some Labour Members seem to think that the railway industry that is now in administration is on a magical mystery tour that will end up in a cost-free nationalisation. The truth is that it is on a misery tour where the reality is declining services, cancelled trains, delayed trains, cancelled investment, delayed investment, hopes shattered, share price bombed out, employees robbed and shareholders about to sue the Government. What do we get from the Government? We do not even get any straight answers to simple factual questions. It is time they owned up and told us the truth.
  5.49 pm
  Mr. Clive Soley: If the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) had seriously wanted answers to those questions, rather than putting out another spin of his own, he would have put in for a debate on the railways. [HON. MEMBERS: "We have already done that."] Opposition Members have not done that. The motion covers a bit of Railtrack, Government management of news—spinning—the civil service, political advisers, parliamentary and Government standards, reform and modernisation of Parliament and how to use Parliament. It does not offer a serious debate about the future of the railways.
  It is not for me to advise Conservative Members on their general election strategy; as a Labour Member, I think that they were remarkably successful in managing their strategy in the previous two general elections and I wish them great success in the future. However, if they think that this argument about Railtrack is going to help them with the public, they are so fundamentally wrong that it is not true. The reality is that two railways issues impact on the British public: that it is an expensive, slow, uncertain and uncomfortable way of reaching a destination; and that it was privatised by Conservative Members. That is what the public know and what they will remember.
  If Conservative Members want to make any political progress at all—although when I listen to this type of debate I sometimes think that they do not—they will have to start by recognising that they got it very badly wrong on railways and try to move on to a new agenda.
  Mr. Kelvin Hopkins: My hon. Friend has made my point for me. Nevertheless, does he agree that this constant bluster from Conservative Members is simply a grotesque attempt to shift the blame from them to us for the mess that they created?
  Mr. Soley: My hon. Friend has made the point more briefly than I did.
  There are, as I indicated, several important issues wrapped up in the Opposition motion—several of which have been identified by the hon. Member for North
  62
  Cornwall (Mr. Tyler)—that cross party lines and are relevant to the debate. The first issue is parliamentary reform, which is in some respects what the Opposition seem to be talking about. The right hon. Member for Wokingham and other hon. Members have described what they regard as a lack of opportunity to hold Ministers to account. As the hon. Member for North Cornwall knows, the Modernisation Committee—which the Government established as soon as they won in 1997—has attempted to move the agenda forward to increase the House's effectiveness. However, we have almost always found ourselves fighting Conservative Members to make those changes.
  Westminster Hall is the first example of that conflict. I take some pride in Westminster Hall, especially because I was, I think, the first person to present to the Modernisation Committee a paper suggesting that we establish a second Chamber. Conservative Members opposed the proposal. Given that even I was not sure that Westminster Hall would work as well as it has, I suppose that that opposition was fair enough. The point, however, is that that Chamber has increased the number of opportunities to hold Ministers to account. Although I—like the majority of hon. Members on both sides of the House, as I understand it—think that Westminster Hall is a remarkable success, I suspect that the majority of Ministers do not like it that much, because they are expected to go there far more often than they were ever expected to reply to debates and answer questions in this Chamber.
  Westminster Hall was a major achievement that was won in the face of early opposition from many Conservative Members who have now come round to seeing it as a good thing. If we tried to abolish Westminster Hall, which I am happy to say that we would not attempt to do, the outcry from Conservative Members who opposed it only a few years ago would be enormous.
  In an intervention on my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs. Ellman), the hon. Member for Rayleigh (Mr. Francois) said that a previous Conservative Government were the first to establish Select Committees. They were not the first Government to do that, as the House had Select Committees in the 19th century and, I think, in the early part of the 20th century. Nevertheless, those Committees lapsed. However, when the current Select Committee system became increasingly successful, Norman St. John-Stevas—who, on the Conservative side, deserves much of the credit for establishing it—fairly quickly found himself outside the Cabinet. I do not know whether Select Committees were the reason for his removal, but I do know that he was the author of the Special Standing Committee concept which enables the House to take evidence before legislating. Consequently, in the early 1980s, several Bills were considered in Special Standing Committees. However, as those Committees were an embarrassment to the then Government, that Government stopped using them. From 1983, I think, to about 1997, only one or two Special Standing Committees were convened; now, however, it is fairly common practice to hold them. They not only take evidence from the public but give the public an opportunity to influence legislation. Conservative Members had the opportunity to do all that from the early 1980s onwards but they did not take it.
  I am sorry that the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Collins) has left the Chamber, although I am sure that he has done so for good reason, because

  63
  I want to take up one of the points that he made in his speech. He said that he was a political adviser to the previous Conservative Prime Minister, John Major, and he went on to complain about the way in which the current Government manipulate the news. As the Opposition motion states, he does not approve of the Government's "news management" strategy. The hon. Gentleman, however, presumably was the political adviser advising John Major when he—rightly, but secretly, without telling the House and denying the fact—opened talks with Sinn Fein.
  In their own terms, the then Government's reason for deciding on secrecy were good enough: it was their dependence on the votes of Unionist Members to stay in power. It was a political decision. From the speech of the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale, however, 1 presume that he told John Major, "We must open up this debate and tell the television channels in time for the 6 and 10 o'clock news that we are having secret talks with Sinn Fein." Of course the hon. Gentleman said no such thing. When I hear Conservative Members talk about news management, I realise why the previous Conservative Government got into so much difficulty on double standards.
  Mr. Swire: If the talks to which the hon. Gentleman has referred were secret, how could the then Prime Minister tell the House about them either before or while they were being held?
  Mr. Soley: That is my point. The then Prime Minister kept them secret because he needed the political support of Unionist Members. In reality, however, an awful lot of hon. Members and people in the media knew that those talks were being held. Indeed, the vast majority of hon. Members supported those discussions. However, Conservative Members could not go public on the talks because their Government depended on the Unionist votes.
  Conservative Members sometimes talk as though spin has just been invented, but that is not so. Occasionally, both the media and politicians spin, as I shall describe later. First, however, I should remind Conservative Members of Bernard Ingham, of whom we were reminded by the hon. Member for North Cornwall. Bernard Ingham was a civil servant, but he was referred to as Margaret Thatcher's "handbag" by the media, many hon. Members and many members of the public because he was occasionally known to go round duffing up the Opposition. On one occasion, I wandered by mistake into one of his press briefings and heard him lambasting the Labour party. He saw such activity as a perfectly normal part of his role.
  Mr. Tyler: I think, in all fairness, that we should point out that Bernard Ingham duffed up Conservative Members rather more effectively than he did Opposition Members.
  Mr. Soley: There is a lot of truth in that. The hon. Gentleman has also given the example of Bernard Ingham describing one Cabinet Minister, John Biffen, as "semi-detached", not long after which he was out of the Cabinet.
  64
  The relationship between Margaret Thatcher and Bernard Ingham was very close, very important to the success of that Conservative Government and very effective. What they did, however, was to manipulate the news in a big way. When they chose to do so, they would also undermine Conservative Members. They also continued the policy which has been operated under various Governments of trying to present the news in the best possible manner for themselves. That is why I should like to have a bit more common sense in the debate.
  Today and in previous debates, various hon. Members have mentioned Jo Moore. I think that the hon. Member for North Cornwall was right to say that much more is being made of that matter than need be. I should tell the House—I do not know whether it is a declaration of interest—that Jo Moore worked for me on one occasion, when I was the shadow housing Minister. She is a very capable press and media officer. That does not justify her comments on that occasion, as they were by any standard gross and incredibly insensitive. As many hon. Members know, the incident has probably also ruined her career—[Interruption.] It is true.
  As Opposition Members have said, one could fire someone who has acted in that manner. However, one would probably run into trouble with an industrial tribunal if one were to fire her on that basis. What Opposition Members are really asking us to do is to lean on such people to resign, but the reality is that the Minister, not the civil servant, is accountable.
  We try to maintain a rather artificial distinction between civil servants and political advisers. In the United States, all such people are political appointees. I do not want to go down that road, but it is impossible to maintain an absolute distinction. A couple of years ago, as chairman of the parliamentary Labour party, I went to a meeting in Paris with the French and British Foreign Secretaries and various officials. The French Socialist party members, civil servants and advisers all entertained us at lunch in the French Foreign Office. They all talked about foreign policy issues, regardless of their different roles. I am not saying that the French system is better than ours, but it is more honest. There is a role for political advisers.
  I suspect that Jo Moore got into so much trouble because of the constant tug of war between civil servants and political advisers. The Conservative party in government had the same problem. Political advisers feel that they are being kept out of the Government machine but they want to be in there to protect their Minister for a policy or a position that is dependent on a political party. Unless we recognise that, the tensions will continue. We need a slightly more relaxed attitude to get the balance right. Political advisers should not need to have battles with civil servants about their level of involvement or information. There is no simple answer, but the French way seems to have more common sense to it than ours.
  Mr. Clifton-Brown: The hon. Gentleman is trying to excuse the Government's spinning by comparison with the Conservative Government, but it is incontrovertible that the Labour Government make numerous announcements to the press before making them to Parliament. For example, today an important announcement on the abolition of the

  65
  rough sleepers unit was made by the Prime Minister to the press. Does the hon. Gentleman approve of that, or is it bad for Parliament and bad for democracy?
  Mr. Soley: It is not as black and white as the hon. Gentleman suggests, but there is certainly a problem that we need to work on. I am saying not that the Government are wholly innocent but that if every single item has to be announced in the House, the Government, of whatever party, will spend all their time on announcements here. One needs to decide what to announce here and what to announce outside.
  Mrs. May: The hon. Gentleman says that the issue of announcements being made to the House or to the press is not black and white. Does he think it right that advisers at the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions made available to the press the minutes of the meeting on 25 July between the chairman of Railtrack and the Secretary of State nearly two hours before they were made available to the Select Committee?
  Mr. Soley: I would normally expect papers to be made available to the Select Committee, but not necessarily first.
  Mr. Clifton-Brown: Why not?
  Mr. Soley: Because it depends on what the papers are and what the decision is. The primary issue is whether we feel that the papers should be made available to the public, after which there is a decision about whether that is done through Parliament or through a public statement. It might be perfectly in order to choose the latter. As I understand it, the Speaker normally expects major statements—not all statements—to be made in the House first. If every announcement had to be made here, the Government would never issue a press release on anything. It is not clear cut. One has to draw a line.
  Mr. Mark Hendrick: Does my hon. Friend agree that it seems somewhat strange for the Opposition to complain on the one hand that everything is being covered up and kept from them and on the other that the Government are too keen to give information to the press and the public?
  Mr. Soley: Indeed. There is a constant tug of war. We are being asked to give more and more information. That is right. We should have open government. I am surprised that we have not made more progress with the Freedom of Information Bill, but the motion does not mention that. The motion is a mess, frankly. There is a case for giving the public more information, but how we do it depends on the nature of the information and the situation at the time. There is a difficult judgment for the Speaker on whether it should have been given to the House first.
  I have dealt with the press over many years and recently wrote a book on the subject. We need to step back from the argument about news management and take a long, hard look at it. Spinning has gone on since time immemorial. Let us be honest: no one is going to say, "Here's a bad story about me. I want to issue it now to get maximum publicity." If any politician or party wants to kid anyone that they do anything other than try to manage the news, no one will believe them. It is not an
  66
  unreasonable thing to do. No private organisations, including businesses, voluntary groups and charities with the holiest of reputations, will give maximum exposure to anything that is embarrassing to them.
  We should all recognise—[Interruption.] Do not worry. I have sent that pager message back marked "Not known at this address".
  The hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale says that we should stop news management and simply issue the stories as they emerge. Can anyone imagine people in the Tory party eagerly issuing a story that humiliates them in time for the evening television news and the next day's press? Of course not, although at certain points over the past few years, it seemed that they were indeed doing that—but I always put it down to political incompetence rather than moral purity.
  Any organisation will try to present itself in the best light. We must be as honest as possible about the news and recognise that it is important not to lie—and there are even exceptions to that, as we all know: at times, in war or on crucial economic issues, politicians find themselves in the difficult position of having to cover something up in order to prevent a worse disaster. The use of troops is perhaps the time-honoured example.
  Mr. Eric Pickles: If the messenger who is spinning the news becomes the issue—as someone very distinguished put it a year ago—is it time for that messenger to go?
  Mr. Soley: It can be, although I would not want to say so categorically. Bernard Ingham was the equivalent of Alastair Campbell, and the two were both effective at operating the relationship between the media and politics for their respective political parties. We should be honest and say that we know that it happens.
  The second issue concerns the media, members of which often talk as though it is only the politicians who spin. The reality is that the media spin too. All Members of Parliament will know that journalists often say, "Do not use that story first" and then give a reason why it should not be used yet. Or a journalist might suggest developing another part of the argument first. We know that that happens. What matters in the end is that the relationship between the media and politics is robust enough to withstand the rows and disagreements, and for the media to expose what the politicians are trying to hide. However, no one should believe that either side is pure, in some moral sense. Indeed, it was the late Enoch Powell who said that for politicians to complain about the press was like sailors complaining about the sea. That is equally true the other way round, and the media and politicians should recognise the need to co-operate on stories at times, as well trying to conceal them from each other. I could give several examples, but I shall move on.
  The motion also mentions the way in which we use Parliament. During both the Falklands war and the Gulf war, I cannot remember how many debates we had, but the number was minimal. During the present situation in Afghanistan, we have had on average a debate a fortnight. We never had that under the previous Government, and it is one of several areas in which we have been much more open.
  The Conservatives have also laid themselves wide open in tabling a motion on standards in Government and in Parliament. My advice is that they should acknowledge

  67
  that many members of the Conservative party in Parliament got things badly wrong, in terms of honesty and integrity, in the last 10 years of their time in government. Many people would say that John Major was a good man, but he could not prevent his Back Benchers taking cash for questions. However, the motion suggests that standards have deteriorated. Whatever else the British public believe, they do not believe that standards have deteriorated. There are no stories about cash for questions any more. Instead, we have codes of conduct for Ministers and the party funding regulations, which have dramatically limited how parties can collect and spend money in a way not seen since the first legislation to restrict parties' spending in the 19th century.
  The legislation on party funding causes problems for all of us. It is difficult to find people to be the local party secretary, because they discover that it is a criminal offence not to reveal certain information about how much money the party receives. We have never asked voluntary organisations to bear that burden before, but that is what political parties now have to do. That is a huge jump forward for political accountability and integrity, and the public know that. No party will be wholly clean, because people slip up and a few are just dishonest. They are in a minority, however, and we should keep it that way. In any case, for the Conservative party to table a motion that suggests that standards have deteriorated is plain wrong.
  The motion is a mess and tries to cover too many issues. We are using Parliament better to hold Ministers to account, but we still have not got it right. The standard of integrity for MPs is better than it was and is still improving. The Conservatives know that they must never again get into the mess they got into in the 1990s. However, we still have not resolved the problem of the relationships between political parties and civil servants. We expect our Ministers to have political advisers—they are necessary in a complex modern Parliament—but at the same time, they must be accommodated in the system, not in a way that makes them civil servants but that recognises the importance of their job.
  The Government are broadly on the right track in terms of restoring honesty and integrity to Parliament and to public life generally. We are also reforming Parliament and making Ministers and the Government more accountable. The debate on spin between media and politicians is alive and well, as it will probably still be in 100 years time. We should exercise some common sense about the issues, instead of trying to focus on one aspect. It is a complex area, but the standards being set now are an improvement and the Conservatives would do well to remember that. If they really want to vote on this weird motion, they can do so, but they will not win the vote and even if they did, I doubt that they would know what it meant anyway.
  6.16 pm
  Miss Anne McIntosh: In so far as the motion relates to transport, I wish to declare my interest in Railtrack, First Group, Eurotunnel and the RAC. I am delighted that we are discussing the Government's record on compiling and disseminating information, especially against the background of the claim by the hon. Member for Ealing, Acton and Shepherd's Bush (Mr. Soley) that
  68
  they were re-elected on a platform of open government. However, the freedom of information legislation has been famously delayed.
  We cannot even get the Government, or individual Ministers, to answer straight questions with a straight answer on the Floor of the House, by written answer or in Select Committee proceedings, which the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs. Ellman) mentioned. I shall share some gems with the House. I tabled a question on 16 November, which was finally answered on 22 November, about the Strategic Rail Authority's recommendation to grant a 20-year franchise to GNER on the east coast route. The Secretary of State decided on a two-year extension to the current franchise, but by that time the two bidders, GNER and Virgin, had spent £4 million each on the bid for the renewed franchise. I asked the Secretary of State why he had rejected the SRA' s advice but answer came there none.
  I was referred to the answer given to my hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May), which claimed that the date of the draft legislation directing the Secretary of State to overrule the Rail Regulator and give powers of direction could not be released. The written answer claimed that it was not in the public interest to disclose internal departmental communications which were, in effect, draft orders due to come before the House. Since when was draft legislation considered an internal communication, especially when it was intended to block the interim review application from being considered and applied for by the rail regulator?
  In his evidence to the Select Committee on 7 November, the Rail Regulator referred to his shock. He said:
  "Mr. Byers said that they had thought of that"—
  that Railtrack would apply for an interim review—
  "and that if such an application were made, he"—
  the Secretary of State—
  "had the necessary authority immediately to introduce emergency legislation to entitle the Secretary of State to give instructions to the Regulator. After pausing to consider whether I had really heard what I had just heard, I asked whether that would be to over-rule me in an interim review or in relation to all my functions. Mr. Byers said that it would cover everything but that its first use would be in relation to an interim review which the Government did not want to proceed … I added that taking me under political control would go entirely against the grain of the major theme of the Government's policy position in the General Election campaign, which was about getting private sector capital into the provision of public services. I told them that such a step would do considerable harm to the ability of the Government to get companies to put money into public projects."
  The significance of the date of the draft orders should not be overlooked. The date may have been as early as July, August or September this year, so it could be proved that the Secretary of State allowed the market in Railtrack shares to continue long after he first considered putting the company into administration.
  In defence of the Secretary of State, however, he is not alone. I have written to Mr. Speaker to seek his guidance about correspondence that I sent to the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs on behalf of my constituents and to which she has not yet replied. That correspondence dates back to June, July, August and September of this year. Indeed, the failure of the right hon. Lady to reply has become the subject of a

  69
  "Dear Colleague" letter of 14 November, in which she gives an explanation, in effect, and almost apologises although she does not actually excuse her Department.
  I shall not refer to the letter as right hon. and hon. Members will have already received it. However, another letter has come into my possession—I am not entirely sure whence it came. It is a "Dear John" letter—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"]—not to my husband John, or even to my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) who is in the Chamber this evening; it is a "Dear John" letter from "Dear Tony". Yes, indeed. I have a letter from the Prime Minister to the Deputy Prime Minister in which he writes:
  "The way we as a Government deal with communications from the public reflects our attitude towards those contacting us. I regard the letters, telephone calls and e-mails that we receive as being extremely important. They give a useful insight into the way the public thinks. Too often correspondence is seen as the poor relation and although over the last few years we have made good progress in the way Departments handle all forms of correspondence, I believe there is still more that can be done.
  Staff in all Departments continue to do a fantastic job coping with the vast amount of correspondence received each year. Ministers too need to ensure that they are doing their bit by supporting staff, being clear about their requirements and making certain that they sign off letters on time."
  What a pity that the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs could not heed that advice.
  I return to the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions—caught in a minibus in Tyneside, thus preventing his attendance in the House—and support the call made by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside. In fact, we requested that the minutes of the meeting held between the Secretary of State and the chairman of Railtrack be made public—or at least be passed to members of the Select Committee. What a tortuous exchange that was. We could not even get the Secretary of State to say whether, yes, he would release the minutes or, no, he would not. In fact, he said, in effect, "If it would be helpful, I would wish to be helpful".
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead pointed out, the timing of the release of the minutes is not without significance. I was phoned by the Clerk of the Select Committee—the first time I can recall that happening—who told me that the papers were on the Board. That was at 5 o'clock last Tuesday, when the Secretary of State—
  Dr. Pugh: Will the hon. Lady give way?
  Miss McIntosh: I hope to finish my remarks soon, in order to give the hon. Gentleman time to make his speech.
  The event that I described is not normal practice. I realised only subsequently that the press and media—indeed, only certain chosen members of the press corps—were given an advance copy at 3.35 pm, just as the Chancellor of the Exchequer was rising to his feet to give his pre-Budget report. If that is not an example of cynical news management, I do not know what is.
  Like the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside, I attach great importance and value to the work of the Select Committee and to my membership of it, under the august and robust chairmanship of the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody). It shows gross discourtesy and a lack of respect for the Committee that the press were given the minutes before—about an hour
  70
  and a half before—they were received by members of the Committee. The minutes did not even give a full account; not for the first time the discrepancy between the minutes and the Railtrack chairman's recollection of the meeting was revealed.
  The Select Committee invited the Treasury team to give evidence on aspects of the rail franchise renewals procedure, especially the public sector borrowing requirement, on which only a Treasury Minister is accountable. Even the Leader of the House had to admit that no Treasury Minister had appeared before a Transport Select Committee since 1999. Treasury Ministers still refuse to attend the Committee.
  Furthermore, why has the Secretary of State blocked the publication of any figures showing the increasing delays on the rail network since Railtrack went into administration? Could it be because such figures reveal a 45 per cent. increase in delays? Again, the culture of secrecy prevails over the spirit of openness.
  We still await details as to what shape the son of Railtrack will take. That is a matter of great urgency. It is of such importance that I have received a letter from the chief executive of GNER, who states:
  "Clearly there is a difficult balance to be struck between wanting to get the right solution for Railtrack and not rushing into a fudge. On the other hand, if it drags on for ages it will be disastrous for the railway industry in terms of falling morale."
  The evidence of that falling morale is there for all to see.
  I commend and support the motion. I hope that the House will draw its own conclusions: as well as the pursuit of a cynical news management strategy, there is a culture of secrecy and inefficiency, all of which I deplore.
  6.27 pm
  Dr. John Pugh: My contribution will be brief and, I hope, constructive, with a positive suggestion at the end.
  I approached the discussion of recent events in relation to transport with a relatively open mind. I have no hidden agenda. I am certainly no lover of Railtrack whose demise I regard as inevitable. It was a flawed project: massive public investment can never be coupled with private profit.
  Furthermore, I have no difficulty with the Secretary of State's proposal for a not-for-profit company. Like the right hon. Gentleman and all hon. Members, my feelings are with the travelling public—not only because of correspondence from my constituents, but because I was turfed off a train at 6 o'clock this morning due to poor maintenance. It is probably unfair to mention the company and perhaps I should not refer to Arriva, but I was badly served—as much as anything else by the outcome of privatisation.
  I believed that the Select Committee on Transport, Local Government and the Regions provided a substantial counterweight to an overweening, over-dominant Executive; and that the model it offered for holding the Executive to account was so powerful and rigorous that it would be marketed to local authorities in the form of scrutiny committees that they would all be empowered to establish. I came to the debate with those thoughts: I had no prior agenda. However, I have had to change my mind and have come to share some of the concerns that have been voiced by Opposition Members.

  71
  I have listened while Ministers, the Strategic Rail Authority and the Rail Regulator gave their accounts of the uproar that surrounded the demise of Railtrack. I have listened to the accusations of bullying, and it is as though people have had to be separated after rowing in a school yard. As a former school teacher, I am sensitive to the fact that there is more than one side to the story in any accusation of bullying.
  I do not side with Mr. Winsor or with the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, but there is a flaw in the Secretary of State's approach. Whenever and wherever he has endeavoured to prove his side of the story, he has failed to do so. In the latest episode, the minutes released last Tuesday were supposed to bear out the Government's view, but, at the critical moment, the pens were put down and the evidence is simply not there. In the bits of paper that really count, there are no notes on the items that we wish to investigate.
  To persist with the analogy, it is as though the bully had offered to get a note from his mum as verification, but had returned without it. In those circumstances, in a school or elsewhere, we know that something is afoot. Regrettably, that is what I have had to conclude. Often in cases of bullying, where people are not completely open and frank, someone else is behind the story that people need to investigate, and I have come to the conclusion that it is the Treasury in this case. The Treasury has been deeply implicated at operational level in all the major decisions surrounding the railways.
  Mrs. Ellman: Will the hon. Gentleman clarify his definition of a bully? Is the Secretary of State, who is acting in the public interest a bully; or is Railtrack, which is gobbling up public funds and facing a deficit of £3.5 billion, the real bully?
  Dr. Pugh: I do not want to enter into a discussion on whether bullying has taken place in this case. All I can say is that, if there is a bully, it is probably not the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions; it is probably the Treasury. I have served on the Transport Committee and listened to what people say, and the experience of everyone in the industry—the witnesses who gave evidence to the Select Committee, Bob Kiley and all the seasoned commentators—clearly shows that the Treasury's hand is behind almost the entire plot, but Treasury Ministers will not allow their role to be scrutinised. That strikes me as like turning the Select Committee into a charade.
  Every intelligent political observer in the land knows the extent of Treasury policy involvement in all the key Departments, and it is disingenuous of Treasury Ministers not to appear before the Select Committee. If they cannot and will not appear before the Transport Committee, given the manifest evidence of their involvement in railway affairs, the outlook for Select Committees is grim. If their policy involvement is as pervasive as I believe it to be—not only in the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, but in the Department of Trade and Industry and the Department of Health—Ministers who give evidence to Select Committees are like a kind human shield for the Chancellor, and Select Committees are doomed to interview a selection of monkeys while the organ grinder grinds on.
  72
  A Treasury that calls the shots but lets others take the flak represents not only bad news for Ministers' careers, but an appalling abuse of parliamentary government. The Minister turns around to talk to one of his hon. Friends, but one of the things that he could do to reassure the Opposition more than anything else would be to say that the Government have changed their mind, that they have been convinced by the arguments and that Treasury Ministers will soon appear before the Select Committee.
  6.33 pm
  Mrs. Theresa May: I am pleased to respond to this interesting debate. The fact that I am doing so reflects the importance that the official Opposition attach to the issue of access to Government information and, in particular, to the behaviour of the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions in refusing to provide information to Members, in making disputed statements to the House and, of course, in presiding over chaos and increased delays on the railways. I am here; where is he? [HON. MEMBERS: "Where is he?"] All I can say is that it is a very long minibus trip to see a bridge on Tyneside, North. The answer is that he is not here because he is frit. He does not want to come to the House.
  "The first right of a citizen in any mature democracy should be the right to information. It is time to sweep away the cobwebs of secrecy which hang over far too much government activity".
  Those are not my words, but those used by the Prime Minister in the John Smith memorial lecture in 1996.
  Today we have debated how far this Labour Government have departed from that ideal. Let me make it clear to the Minister of State, Cabinet Office, who opened the debate for the Government, that this is not an attack on civil servants, and her claim that my hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Collins) made such an attack in his excellent speech was entirely unjustified. Perhaps she would now like to apologise for making that claim. She is not willing to do so.
  We know where responsibility lies; it lies not with civil servants, but with Ministers. Ministers refuse to answer questions, and the Secretary of State who has made disputed statements in the House has refused to come to the House tonight to explain himself. It is little wonder that he is frightened to do so, given that virtually every time he makes a statement on Railtrack in the House it is disputed afterwards.
  I am not surprised that he is frightened to come to the House, given the views of his hon. Friends. He cannot rely on Labour Back Benchers any longer. The hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs. Ellman) talked about the meeting between the Secretary of State and the chairman of Railtrack on 25 July and explained that the official minutes did not tell her whether or not she could believe the Secretary of State.
  Mrs. Ellman: Does the hon. Lady recall the fact that I added to that comment by saying that the minutes did not prove whether the chairman of Railtrack was correct? Indeed, I suggested that although the Secretary of State was accountable to the House, the chairman of Railtrack was not and that because of his fiduciary duty he might have had a motive in not telling the truth.
  Mrs. May: I have a little tip for the hon. Lady for when she intervenes in future: it is the phrase, "If you are in a hole, stop digging."

  73
  The Secretary of State cannot rely on his Cabinet colleagues. I was interested to see that, when he responds to debates on this matter, he does not have a single member of the Cabinet alongside him, whereas a member of the Cabinet is supporting the Minister for Transport in this debate. It is also interesting that, on 22 November, The Guardian—[Interruption.] Mention of that newspaper excites Labour Members, but it stated:
  "Relations between the Chancellor… and the transport secretary… were strained last night when it emerged that the Treasury had embarked on a constitutional conflict with parliament by refusing point blank to answer MPs' questions about rail funding."
  Was it not also interesting that when the Chancellor of the Exchequer listed the brilliant spending Ministers in this Government in an article in The Times on 22 November one name was missing? Whose? It was that of the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions.
  The Secretary of State cannot rely even on the Prime Minister to support him because, as we learned from The Times last week:
  "Downing Street has issued an official reprimand to… the Transport Department for 'contaminating' the autumn Pre-Budget Statement on Tuesday by sparking a fresh row over spin-doctors."
  Little wonder that the rest of the Government are distancing themselves from the Secretary of State, given his treatment of hon. Members, as shown in the examples given by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood). My right hon. Friend has been doing the House an excellent service in assiduously trying to wheedle the truth out of Ministers and has been blocked at every turn, as has my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh), whose telling questions on the Select Committee have revealed the extent of the Secretary of State's weasel words.
  We are talking about a Government who in their ministerial code say:
  "Ministers should be as open as possible with Parliament and the public".
  On 27 November, I asked the Secretary of State
  "on what date he instructed parliamentary drafters to draft.. the Railway Administration Order Rules 2001 and…the legislation to give him power to direct the Rail Regulator"?
  I was told:
  "Details of internal communications are exempt from disclosure under section 2 of Part II of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information."—[Official Report, 27 November 2001; Vol. 375, c. 746W.]
  That part of the code relates to information whose disclosure would harm the frankness and candour of internal discussion. How on earth does giving a date harm the candour and frankness of internal discussion?
  Such a refusal to give details on such a question is what made the parliamentary ombudsman take the Home Office to task in his report. As my hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale pointed out, that was the first time that a Department had refused to respond to the actions required by the parliamentary ombudsman. The ministerial code means nothing to the Government and their Ministers.
  Let us look at the minute of the meeting of 25 July between the Secretary of State and the chairman of Railtrack. It was requested by members of the Select Committee, who were not the first Members of this House to do so. I tabled a question asking for the note and was
  74
  told that it could not be disclosed. Then—what a surprise!—the Secretary of State indicated that he might be helpful to the Select Committee, although he was helpful to four selected newspapers before he was helpful to the Committee. The selective briefing of a note did not substantiate the Secretary of State's claims in the House.
  The Minister for Transport, who will respond to this debate, was present at the meeting of 25 July. The Secretary of State said in this House that the chairman of Railtrack said at the meeting that
  "unless extra financial assistance from the Government was provided, on 8 November, when Railtrack was due to give its interim results, it would be unable to make the critical statement that it was `a going concern'."—[Official Report, 5 November 2001; Vol. 374, c.19.]
  Does the Minister agree that that was said by the chairman of Railtrack at that meeting?
  The Minister for Transport(Mr. John Spellar): Yes.
  Mrs. May: Will the Minister put it on the record, rather than saying so from a sedentary position?
  Mr. Spellar rose—
  Chris Grayling: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mrs. May: Yes.
  Chris Grayling: Is my hon. Friend aware that the Minister accepted at the Select Committee meeting that no such request for financial assistance had been made? I am a little confused by the Minister's response.
  Mrs. May: I think that we are all confused by the Minister's response, given that the official minute does not substantiate the Secretary of State's claim, as the Minister has just reiterated. Indeed, the chairman of Railtrack has disputed what the Secretary of State said. He disputed it publicly on "Today" on Radio 4.
  This is not simply about what the Secretary of State has said to Members. This is an important matter because of its impact on the railways and the travelling public; and it is important because as a result of what the Secretary of State has done, the Government may face legal action. The Railtrack shareholders action group has today written to the Secretary of State and the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions requesting certain documents. The group has said that it has been hampered in its ability to obtain all the relevant facts, most notably by the Secretary of State's inconsistent account of events. [Interruption.]
  Madam Deputy Speaker(Sylvia Heal): Order.
  Mrs. May: There was inconsistency regarding the project Renewco and the minutes of the meeting on 25 July. There is inconsistency between the evidence given by the Secretary of State to the Select Committee that Railtrack was in financial meltdown and that given by Railtrack's directors that the company was solvent prior to the Secretary of State's actions.
  We have seen inconsistency from the Secretary of State at every turn. It is important because it may land the Government in legal action; it is important because

  75
  of how much it will cost the taxpayer, which the Government simply do not know; and it is important because of the impact that the Secretary of State's shoddy handling of this sorry saga is having on the railways and on rail passengers. There has been a 45 per cent. increase in delays since administration. Phase 2 west coast main line upgrade—forget it. Special purpose vehicle for improvements to South Central—abandoned. The travelling public know the misery of the railways under the thin controller that is the Secretary of State.
  Since Railtrack was put into administration on 7 October, the Secretary of State has made disputed statements to the House, his memory of events has been found wanting, there have been indications that he may have misled the House, he has blocked questions from Members of Parliament, he has threatened the Rail Regulator, jeopardised future private sector investment in the railway, presided over increased train delays, contaminated the Chancellor's autumn statement and been reprimanded by No. 10 Downing street—and he does not even have the guts to come to the House and explain himself.
  It is time for the Secretary of State to come clean. His cunning plan has failed. The railways are in a mess. The public are waiting—they are waiting for answers, they are waiting for their trains and they are waiting for the Secretary of State to go.
  6.45 pm
  The Minister for Transport (Mr. John Spellar): It was deja vu all over again tonight. In our last debate, I said that history repeats itself—in the first debate as tragedy and in the second as farce. Today was unmitigated tedium. I have had to sit here suffering it—Conservative Members did not even bother to stay. Even when the winding-up speeches started, they managed only a dozen on the Back Benches. At one stage, only two Conservative Members were here, but we will come back to that in a minute. They could not keep the crowd, even when their own were speaking. Old Trafford on a Saturday does not compare with the numbers streaming away from the debate.
  We must look at what this is about. It is about the sort of game playing that was revealed by the memorandum of the shadow Leader of the House, the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth). It bears further consideration. He gave some thoughts of the Conservative party's possible approaches to the new Parliament, saying:
  "I believe that we should Consider dividing the Parliamentary party into four or five groups each with a mixture of experienced and new Members."
  Tonight we have had the experienced, the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood), and the new, the hon. Member for Rayleigh (Mr. Francois). That was the lot, but at least the Conservatives achieved their objective of getting the right balance.
  Mr. Redwood: Instead of giving us this childish drivel, will the Minister answer the questions that we have asked in the debate? Will he tell the travelling public how much money is available, when Railtrack will come out of administration and who can bid?
  Mr. Spellar: I know that it is childish drivel, but the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst wrote it. He continues:
  "The group would undertake to cover all the business from 2.30 to after 10.00pm including as many divisions as necessary. Colleagues could arrange to 'trade' days"—
  the trading mechanism obviously broke down today—
  "and a full turnout would be mounted once a month".
  Mrs. May: The Minister is very keen to talk about matters for which he does not have responsibility. As Minister for Transport, he has responsibility for the running of the railways now that Railtrack is in administration. Will he answer the question? How long will Railtrack be in administration, and how much will it cost the taxpayer?
  Mr. Spellar: Had the Conservative party wanted a debate on the railways and Railtrack, it would have tabled a motion to that effect, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton and Shepherd's Bush (Mr. Soley) said in response to the right hon. Member for Wokingham. How the right hon. Gentleman must suffer, seeing the mess that Conservative Front Benchers are making—how he must grieve. That was the issue that he tried to raise, but that is not what we have had from the Opposition. Instead, we have had endless trivia and dross. [Interruption.]
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The House must come to order.
  Mr. Spellar: The key point about this evening's debate—
  Miss McIntosh: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Does the statement made by Mr. Speaker last week extend to the right of the Opposition to have an answer to the questions put in the course of a debate? This goes to the heart of Mr. Speaker's statement.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: The Minister must relate his remarks to the motion on the Order Paper.
  Mr. Spellar: I am also responding to the debate—or rather the lack of it. I have to confess that I am not responsible for the fact that we are being subjected to such a load of political trivia and nitpicking from the Opposition. It is interesting that Opposition Members are getting up to defend the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst—who, heaven help us, is the MP for the area where my London house is—when he does not want to explain things himself. His memorandum and the motion demonstrate a degree of disregard and contempt for the Commons.
  Chris Grayling: While the right hon. Gentleman is on the subject of contempt for the Commons, will he explain why last week, as a member of a Select Committee, I received the papers on the minute of the meeting of 25 July, to which hon. Members have referred, after it had been distributed to members of the national media?
  Mr. Spellar: I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman attacks the civil service for distributing material that had to go out on that day. Given the likelihood of it being

  77
  leaked, it also had to be distributed appropriately to the press. If Opposition Members want to claim that they never leak Select Committee documents to the press, I will be interested to hear them make that argument stand up.
  The memorandum from the shadow Leader of the House went on to mention other actions that the Conservatives would have to take. It stated:
  "The responsibilities which involve…travel and time away from Westminster should be allocated to colleagues who are likely to be here very little anyway, and ideally not to those who could contribute significantly to Chamber or Committee work."
  Obviously quite a few Conservative Members must be part of that category because very few bothered to turn up for the debate. The shadow Leader of the House, the shadow Chief Whip and the shadow deputy Chief Whip had to bomb around and intervene because they could not find Back Benchers to do the job. That is the state to which the modern Conservative party has sunk, and I will return to that when I comment on the role of the Liberal Democrats.
  The hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Collins) began with some confessions, and he asked for several other offences to be taken into consideration. He was not entirely forthcoming about his complete role. He was press secretary to John Major in 1992, director of communications for the Conservative party from 1992 to 1995, a member of the Prime Minister's policy unit at Downing street in 1995 and media consultant to the Conservative party chairman from 1995 to 1997. Those were, of course, periods of immense success for the Conservative party. I gather that they will be published under "Tim Collins: The Golden Years".
  Mr. Collins: Does the right hon. Gentleman expect his leader, the Prime Minister, ever to secure as many votes as John Major did when I was his press secretary, because in two elections so far he has not come within 35 per cent. of doing so?
  Mr. Spellar: As I have said before, and may even say in my rousing peroration, in two general elections—
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Will all hon. Members who contribute to the debate relate their remarks to the motion? That includes interventions.
  Mr. Spellar: I am of course dealing with the issues that the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale thought pertinent to raise in his introductory remarks, one of which was his history.
  During the Wirral, South by-election, the then chairman of the Tory party said:
  "Mr. Collins's job is to harry and harass Labour"—
  the Tories do not want to hear this—
  "at every turn to ensure that it does not inflict such a humiliating defeat that voters go to the polls in the general election with a stirring victory for Labour still fresh in their"—
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind the Minister and all hon. Members to concentrate their remarks on the subject of the debate.
  Mr. Spellar: I take your point, Madam Deputy Speaker. I merely point out that there was a 17.2 per cent. swing to Labour in that election.
  78
  The hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) made a fairly lengthy contribution in which he talked about openness and accuracy. We presume that he was not referring to Liberal "Focus" leaflets.
  Another person who made an appearance during the debate was Mr. Bernard Ingham, now Sir Bernard Ingham, whose actions Conservative Members defended. In a previous debate on the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) drew attention to the fact that
  "Bernard Ingham ordered Colette Bowe, chief of information at the Department of Trade and Industry, to leak the letter to the detriment of Michael Heseltine. She was a conscientious civil servant and she refused to do that. Ingham said to her:
  'You'll… well do what you're… well told.'
  The letter was leaked and when Ingham was asked about his conduct, he said in a speech to the Independent Broadcasting Association:
  'I must tell you that I—and I am sure my colleagues—have never regarded the Official Secrets Act as a constraint on my operations. Indeed, I regard myself as licensed to break that law as and when I judge necessary; and I suppose it is necessary to break it every other minute of every working day, though I confess the issue is so academic that I have not bothered to seek counsel's advice."'—[Official Report, 23 October 2001; Vol. 373, c. 175.]
  That was how Bernard Ingham saw his role.
  The right hon. Member for Wokingham attempted to move the debate on to the railways but, surprisingly enough, that was not the subject of the motion. However, it is interesting, in the Holmesian sense of the dogs that did not bark, that no Conservative Member supported Railtrack. No one said what a good company it was or that privatisation was a tremendous and enormously successful wheeze, and that they could not understand how everything had gone wrong because John Major made such an impressive job of it. Equally, no one got up to say that Railtrack's management were doing such a good job that they could not understand why anyone thought it necessary to take action. No one mentioned that.
  Chris Grayling: May I take the liberty of bringing the Minister closer to the subject of the debate? Will he explain why the evidence given to the Select Committee by the Secretary of State was directly contradicted by the permanent secretary in a letter to Sir Alastair Morton on 8 October?
  Mr. Spellar: This is extraordinary. I talk about the political and constitutional issues, and the Conservatives say, "Why aren't you talking about the railway?", so I talk about the railway, and now they do not want to talk about it. It is clear that none of them wanted to talk about compensation, although in previous debates they were up and down asking about it. Now that I have asked what we are compensating for, who are we supposed to be compensating and for how much, they have gone remarkably quiet. They are all shtoom on the issue of compensation. It is clear that they have not got a clue about what they should do or what their policy should be.

  79
  It is in the public domain that I do not have much time for the Liberal Democrats, but their claim to be the Opposition party has, by default—
  Michael Fabricant: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. We still have not had a ruling on Mr. Speaker's ruling on whether a Minister ought to reply to a question that is in order rather than evade it.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: I refer the hon. Gentleman to my earlier comments.
  Mr. Spellar: Once again, the Tories have shown themselves to be bankrupt of ideas and bankrupt of argument. If ever—heaven forbid—they were let loose on the public finances, they would also once again bankrupt the country. It is clear how they managed to double the national debt in five short years. They are seriously fiscally incontinent and have no clue about how to run the country. That, more than any other reason, is why they will stay on the Opposition Benches for a long time to come and why we will get on with government. As I said in previous debates, the electorate have decided that the Tories are unfit for government. Tonight. the Tories have once again shown that they are not even fit for Opposition.
  Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:—
  The House divided: Ayes 157, Noes 279.

  Division No. 95]

  [6.59 pm

  AYES

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  Conway, Derek

  Amess, David

  Curry, Rt Hon David

  Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

  Bacon, Richard

  Djanogly, Jonathan

  Baldry, Tony

  Duncan, Peter (Galloway)

  Barker, Gregory

  Evans, Nigel

  Baron, John

  Fabricant, Michael

  Beith, Rt Hon A J

  Fallon, Michael

  Bercow, John

  Field, Mark (Cities of London)

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Flook, Adrian

  Blunt, Crispin

  Forth, Rt Hon Eric

  Boswell, Tim

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

  Francois, Mark

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

  Gale, Roger

  Brady, Graham

  Garnier, Edward

  Brake, Tom

  Gibb, Nick

  Brazier, Julian

  Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

  Breed, Colin

  Goodman, Paul

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Grayling, Chris

  Burstow, Paul

  Green, Damian (Ashford)

  Burt, Alistair

  Greenway, John

  Butterfill, John

  Gummer, Rt Hon John

  Calton, Mrs Patsy

  Hague, Rt Hon William

  Cameron, David

  Harris, Dr Evan (Oxford W)

  Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies(NE Fife)

  Harvey, Nick

  Hawkins, Nick

  Cash, William

  Hayes, John

  Chidgey, David

  Heald, Oliver

  Chope, Christopher

  Heath, David

  Clappison, James

  Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth(Rushcliffe)

  Hendry, Charles

  Hoban, Mark

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

  Collins, Tim

  Holmes, Paul

  80

  Horam, John

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Rosindell, Andrew

  Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

  Ruffley, David

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Jack, Rt Hon Michael

  Sanders, Adrian

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Johnson, Boris (Henley)

  Selous, Andrew

  Keetch, Paul

  Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

  Kennedy, Rt Hon Charles

  Shepherd, Richard

  (Ross Skye & Inverness W)

  Simmonds, Mark

  Key, Robert

  Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

  Laing, Mrs Eleanor

  Spelman, Mrs Caroline

  Lamb, Norman

  Spicer, Sir Michael

  Lansley, Andrew

  Spink, Bob

  Laws, David

  Spring, Richard

  Leigh, Edward

  Streeter, Gary

  Letwin, Oliver

  Stunell, Andrew

  Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

  Swire, Hugo

  Liddell-Grainger, Ian

  Syms, Robert

  Lidington, David

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Loughton, Tim

  Taylor, Ian (Esher& Walton)

  Luff, Peter

  Taylor, John (Solihull)

  Mclntosh, Miss Anne

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  Taylor, Dr Richard (Wyre F)

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Malins, Humfrey

  Thurso, John

  Maples, John

  Tonge, Dr Jenny

  Maude, Rt Hon Francis

  Trend, Michael

  May, Mrs Theresa

  Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

  Mercer, Patrick

  Tyler, Paul

  Mitchell, Andrew (Sutton Coldfield)

  Tyrie, Andrew

  Moss, Malcolm

  Waterson, Nigel

  Murrison, Dr Andrew

  Watkinson, Angela

  Norman, Archie

  Webb, Steve

  Oaten, Mark

  Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

  O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

  Wiggin, Bill

  Osborne, George (Tatton)

  Willetts, David

  Page, Richard

  Wilshire, David

  Paice, James

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Pickles, Eric

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

  Prisk, Mark

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Pugh, Dr John

  Younger-Ross, Richard

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Rendel, David

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Robathan, Andrew

  Mr. John Randall and

  Robertson, Hugh (Faversham)

  Mr. Laurence Robertson

  NOES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Ainger, Nick

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'tryNE)

  Brennan, Kevin

  Allen, Graham

  Brown, Rt Hon Gordon(Dunfermline E)

  Anderson, Rt Hon Donald(Swansea E)

  Brown, Rt Hon Nicholas(Newcastle E & Wallsend)

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

  Atherton, Ms Candy

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Austin, John

  Bryant, Chris

  Bailey, Adrian

  Buck, Ms Karen

  Baird, Vera

  Burden, Richard

  Banks, Tony

  Bumham, Andy

  Barron, Kevin

  Cairns, David

  Bayley, Hugh

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Beard, Nigel

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Begg, Miss Anne

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Bell, Stuart

  Casale, Roger

  Benton, Joe

  Caton, Martin

  Berry, Roger

  Cawsey, Ian

  Best, Harold

  Challen, Colin

  Betts, Clive

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Blackman, Liz

  Chaytor, David

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

  Blizzard, Bob

  Clark, Dr Lynda(Edinburgh Pentlands)

  Blunkett, Rt Hon David

  Borrow, David

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Bradley, Rt Hon Keith (Withington)

  Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

  81

  Clelland, David

  Hughes, Kevin (DoncasterN)

  Coaker, Vernon

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Hurst, Alan

  Coleman, Iain

  Hutton, Rt Hon John

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Iddon, Dr Brian

  Corston, Jean

  Illsley, Eric

  Cousins, Jim

  Ingram, Rt Hon Adam

  Crausby, David

  Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead)

  Cruddas, Jon

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Jamieson, David

  Cummings, John

  Jenkins, Brian

  Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack(Copeland)

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

  Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

  Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  Dalyell, Tam

  Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

  Davidson, Ian

  Kemp, Fraser

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Khabra, Piara S

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

  Kidney, David

  Dawson, Hilton

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Denham, Rt Hon John

  King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

  Dhanda, Parmjit

  King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

  Dismore, Andrew

  Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

  Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

  Kumar, Dr Ashok

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Ladyman, Dr Stephen

  Doran, Frank

  Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

  Dowd, Jim

  Laxton, Bob

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Lepper, David

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Leslie, Christopher

  Edwards, Huw

  Uddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen

  Efford, Clive

  Linton, Martin

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Love, Andrew

  Farrelly, Paul

  Lucas, Ian

  Field, Rt Hon Frank (Birkenhead)

  Luke, Iain

  Fisher, Mark

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  McCartney, Rt Hon Ian

  Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Rint, Caroline

  MacDonald, Calum

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  MacDougall, John

  Foster, Michael (Worcester)

  McFall, John

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

  Mclsaac, Shona

  Francis, Dr Hywel

  McNulty, Tony

  Gapes, Mike

  MacShane, Denis

  Gardiner, Barry

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Gerrard, Neil

  McWalter, Tony

  Gibson, Dr Ian

  McWilliam, John

  Gilroy, Linda

  Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter

  Godsiff, Roger

  Mann, John

  Goggins, Paul

  Marris, Rob

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Marshall-Andrews, Robert

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Martlew, Eric

  Hain, Rt Hon Peter

  Michael, Rt Hon Alun

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  Miliband, David

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  Miller, Andrew

  Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

  Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

  Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

  Moffatt, Laura

  Hanson, David

  Mole, Chris

  Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Havard, Dai

  Moran, Margaret

  Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

  Moriey, Elliot

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Mountford, Kali

  Hendrick, Mark

  Mudie, George

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Mullin, Chris

  Heppell, John

  Munn, Ms Meg

  Heyes, David

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Hill, Keith

  Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

  Hinchliffe, David

  Naysmith, Dr Doug

  Hoey, Kate

  O'Brien, Mike (N Walks)

  Hope, Phil

  O'Neill, Martin

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Organ, Diana

  Howarth, Rt Hon Alan (Newport E)

  Palmer, Dr Nick

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Perham, Linda

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  Pickthall, Colin

  Hughes, Bevertey (Stretford)

  Pike, Peter

  82

  Plaskitt, James

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Pollard, Kerry

  Stevenson, George

  Pond, Chris

  Stewart, David (Inverness E)

  Pound, Stephen

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  Powell, Sir Raymond

  Stoate, Dr Howard

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Stringer, Graham

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  Purchase, Ken

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Pumell, James

  Tami, Mark

  Quin, Rt Hon Joyce

  Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Taylor, David (NWLeics)

  Rapson, Syd

  Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

  Raynsford, Rt Hon Nick

  Tipping, Paddy

  Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

  Todd, Mark

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

  Touhig, Don

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Trickett, Jon

  Rooney, Terry

  Truswell, Paul

  Ross Ernie

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Roy, Frank

  Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

  Ruane, Chris

  Turner, Neil (Wigan)

  Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Ryan, Joan

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Salter, Martin

  Ward, Ms Claire

  Savidge, Malcolm

  Wareing, Robert N

  Sawford, Phil

  Watson, Tom

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Watts, David

  White Brian

  Shaw, Jonathan

  Whitehead, Dr Alan

  Sheerman, Barry

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Sheridan, Jim

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan(Swansea W)

  Shipley, Ms Debra

  Simon, Siôn

  Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Wood, Mike

  Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

  Worthington, Tony

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

  Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

  Wright, Tony (Cannock)

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Wyatt, Derek

  Soley, Clive

  Southworth, Helen

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Spellar, Rt Hon John

  Mr. Ian Pearson and Mr. Phil Woolas.

  Starkey, Dr Phyllis

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 31 (Questions on amendments)—
  The House divided: Ayes 263, Noes 160.

  Division No. 96]

  [7.12 pm

  AYES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Blizzard, Bob

  Ainger, Nick

  Borrow, David

  Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

  Bradley, Rt Hon Keith (Withington)

  Allen, Graham

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Anderson, Rt Hon Donald

  Bradshaw, Ben

  (Swansea E)

  Brennan, Kevin

  Anderson. Janet (Rossendale)

  Brown, Rt Hon Gordon

  Atherton, Ms Candy

  (Dunfermline E)

  Austin, John

  Brown, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Bailey, Adrian

  (Newcastle E & Wallsend)

  Baird, Vera

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Banks, Tony

  Bryant, Chris

  Barron, Kevin

  Burden, Richard

  Bayley, Hugh

  Bumham, Andy

  Begg, Miss Anne

  Cairns, David

  Bell, Stuart

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Benton, Joe

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Berry, Roger

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Best, Harold

  Casale, Roger

  Betts, Clive

  Caton, Martin

  Blackman, Liz

  Cawsey, Ian

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Challen, Colin

  83

  Chaytor, David

  Hurst, Alan

  Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

  Hutton, Rt Hon John

  Clark, Dr Lynda

  Iddon, Dr Brian

  (Edinburgh Pentlands)

  Illsley, Eric

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Ingram, Rt Hon Adam

  Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbiidge)

  Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead)

  Clelland, David

  Jamieson, David

  Coaker, Vernon

  Jenkins, Brian

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

  Corston, Jean

  Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Cousins, Jim

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  Crausby, David

  Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

  Cruddas, Jon

  Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

  Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

  Kemp, Fraser

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Khabra, Piara S

  Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack

  Kidney, David

  (Copeland)

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

  King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

  Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

  King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

  Dalyell, Tarn

  Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Kumar, Dr Ashok

  Davidson, Ian

  Ladyman, Dr Stephen

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Lammy, David

  Dawson, Hilton

  Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

  Denham, Rt Hon John

  Laxton, Bob

  Dhanda, Parmjit

  Lepper, David

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Leslie, Christopher

  Doran, Frank

  Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen

  Dowd, Jim

  Linton, Martin

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Love, Andrew

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Lucas, Ian

  Edwards, Huw

  Luke, Iain

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Farrelly, Paul

  McCartney, Rt Hon Ian

  Field, Rt Hon Frank (Birkenhead)

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Fisher, Mark

  MacDonald, Calum

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  MacDougall, John

  Frtzsimons, Mrs Lorna

  McFall, John

  Flint, Caroline

  Mclsaac, Shona

  Foster, Michael (Worcester)

  McNulty, Tony

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

  MacShane, Denis

  Francis, Dr Hywel

  McWilliam, John

  Gardiner, Barry

  Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter

  Gerrard, Neil

  Mann, John

  Gibson, Dr Ian

  Marris, Rob

  Gilroy, Linda

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Godsiff, Roger

  Marshall-Andrews, Robert

  Goggins, Paul

  Martlew, Eric

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  Michael, Rt Hon Alun

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Miliband, David

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Miller, Andrew

  Hain, Rt Hon Peter

  Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  Moffatt, Laura

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  Mole, Chris

  Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

  Moran, Margaret

  Hanson, David

  Moriey, Elliot

  Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

  Morris, Rt Hon Estelle

  Havard, Dai

  Mountford, Kali

  Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

  Mudie, George

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Mullin, Chris

  Hendrick, Mark

  Munn, Ms Meg

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Heppell, John

  Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

  Heyes, David

  Naysmith, Dr Doug

  Hill, Keith

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  Hoey, Kate

  O'Neill, Martin

  Hope, Phil

  Organ, Diana

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Palmer, Dr Nick

  Howarth, Rt Hon Alan (Newport E)

  Picking, Anne

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Pickthall, Colin

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  Pike, Peter

  Hughes, Beverley (Stretford)

  Plaskitt, James

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Pollard, Kerry

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Pond, Chris

  84

  Pope, Greg

  Stevenson, George

  Pound, Stephen

  Stewart, David (Inverness E)

  Powell, Sir Raymond

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Stoate, Dr Howard

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Stringer, Graham

  Purchase, Ken

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  Pumell, James

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Quin, Rt Hon Joyce

  Tami, Mark

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

  Rapson, Syd

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

  Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'tryNW)

  Tipping, Paddy

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Todd, Mark

  Rooney, Terry

  Touhig, Don

  Ross, Ernie

  Truswell, Paul

  Roy, Frank

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Ruane, Chris

  Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

  Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

  Turner, Neil (Wigan)

  Ryan, Joan

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Salter, Martin

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Savidge, Malcolm

  Ward, Ms Claire

  Sawford, Phil

  Wareing, Robert N

  Shaw, Jonathan

  Watts, David

  Sheerman, Barry

  Whitehead Dr Alan

  Sheridan, Jim

  Wicks Malcolm

  Shipley, Ms Debra

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan

  Simon, Siôn

  (Swansea W)

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

  Wood, Mike

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  Worthington, Tony

  Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

  Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Wright, Tony (Cannock)

  Soley, Clive

  Wyatt, Derek

  Southworth, Helen

  Spellar, Rt Hon John

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Starkey, Dr Phyllis

  Mr. Ian Pearson and

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Mr. Phil Woolas.

  NOES

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  Curry, Rt Hon David

  Amess, David

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

  Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Djanogly, Jonathan

  Bacon, Richard

  Duncan, Peter (Galloway)

  Baldry, Tony

  Evans, Nigel

  Barker, Gregory

  Fabricant, Michael

  Baron, John

  Fallon, Michael

  Beith, Rt Hon A J

  Field, Mark (Cities of London)

  Bercow, John

  Flook, Adrian

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Forth, Rt Hon Eric

  Blunt, Crispin

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Boswell, Tim

  Francois, Mark

  Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

  Gale, Roger

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

  Garnier, Edward

  Brady, Graham

  Gibb, Nick

  Brake, Tom

  Gidley, Sandra

  Brazier, Julian

  Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

  Breed, Colin

  Goodman, Paul

  Burstow, Paul

  Grayling, Chris

  Burt, Alistair

  Green, Damian (Ashtord)

  Butterfill, John

  Greenway, John

  Carton, Mrs Patsy

  Gummer, Rt Hon John

  Cameron, David

  Hague, Rt Hon William

  Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies

  Harris, Dr Evan (Oxford W)

  (NE Fife)

  Harvey, Nick

  Cash, William

  Hawkins, Nick

  Chidgey, David

  Hayes, John

  Chope, Christopher

  Heald, Oliver

  Clappison, James

  Heath, David

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth

  Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

  (Rushdiffe)

  Hendry, Charles

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Hoban, Mark

  Collins, Tim

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

  Conway, Derek

  Holmes, Paul

  85

  Horam, John

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Rosindell, Andrew

  Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

  Ruffley, David

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Jack, Rt Hon Michael

  Sanders, Adrian

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Johnson, Boris (Henley)

  Selous, Andrew

  Keetch, Paul

  Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

  Kennedy, Rt Hon Charles

  Shepherd, Richard

  (Ross Skye & Inverness W)

  Simmonds, Mark

  Key, Robert

  Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Smith, Sir Robert (WAb'd'ns)

  Laing, Mrs Eleanor

  Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

  Lamb, Norman

  Spelman, Mrs Caroline

  Lansley, Andrew

  Spicer, Sir Michael

  Laws, David

  Spink, Bob

  Leigh, Edward

  Spring, Richard

  Letwin, Oliver

  Streeter, Gary

  Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

  Stunell, Andrew

  Liddell-Grainger, Ian

  Swire, Hugo

  Lidington, David

  Syms, Robert

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Loughton, Tim

  Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

  Luff Peter

  Taylor, John (Solihull)

  Mclntosh, Miss Anne

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  Taylor, Dr Richard (Wyre F)

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Thurso, John

  Malins, Humfrey

  Tonge, Dr Jenny

  Maples, John

  Trend, Michael

  Maude, Rt Hon Francis

  Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

  May, Mrs Theresa

  Tyler, Paul

  Mercer, Patrick

  Tyrie, Andrew

  Mitchell, Andrew (Sutton Coldfield)

  Waterson, Nigel

  Moore, Michael

  Watkinson, Angela

  Moss, Malcolm

  Webb, Steve

  Murrison, Dr Andrew

  Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

  Oaten, Mark

  Wiggin, Bill

  O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

  Willetts, David

  Osbome, George (Tatton)

  Wilshire, David

  Page, Richard

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Paice, James

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

  Pickles, Eric

  Yeo, Tim

  Prisk, Mark

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Pugh, Dr John

  Younger-Ross, Richard

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Rendel, David

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Robathan, Andrew

  Mr. John Randall and

  Robertson, Hugh (Faversham)

  Mr. Laurence Robertson.

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That this House deplores the attempt by HM Opposition to draw attention away from their lack of coherent policies on public service improvement; welcomes the Government's determination to uphold the highest standards of integrity and honesty in public life; acknowledges that the Government has been open about the standards Ministers, Civil Servants and Special Advisers are expected to uphold; welcomes the publication of the new Ministerial code including the requirements on greater transparency never seen before, attaching the highest importance to the prompt and efficient handling of Parliamentary Questions and correspondence; and commends the professionalism and integrity with which the Government continues to conduct departmental business in the best traditions of public service.

  Public Services
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Sylvia Heal): We now come to the funding of public services. I must announce that the Speaker has selected the manuscript amendment, which is available to Members in the Vote Office.
  7.23 pm
  Mr. Michael Howard: I beg to move,
  That this House notes that the Chancellor of the Exchequer's statement to the House of 27th November has been contradicted in whole or in part by the Secretary of State for Health, the Chairman of the Labour Party and Mr. Derek Wanless; further notes that the Chancellor of the Exchequer refused to endorse the statement made to the House by the Prime Minister on 28th November; and condemns the total confusion over funding the public services which these contradictions have caused among users and providers of these services.
  Last Tuesday was a black day for Britain's public services and was especially black for health care in Britain. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, in one breath, called for a debate on health care funding, then announced the result of that debate. It is no wonder that on Friday The Guardian reported one Minister as saying:
  "Gordon's idea of a debate is Gordon and a mirror".
  The conclusion of that one-man debate is that
  "a publicly funded national health service is best for Britain".
  The Chancellor arrived at that conclusion not because of any evidence but in the teeth of all the evidence, and did so despite the fact that the Prime Minister said less than two months ago that the barriers between public and private are coming down all over the world. The Chancellor arrived at his conclusion despite the fact that all the countries that provide their people with better health care than we do do not have such a system and despite the fact that the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development said only last week in its economic survey of the United Kingdom:
  "Overall, the current plans to provide services privately in sectors such as health and education are limited. Such services are provided on a much larger scale privately in many OECD countries and greater ambition in this respect would raise competition and performance in these sectors."
  The way in which the Chancellor reached his conclusions speaks volumes; it was the most bare-faced exercise in deception since he was deceived by the Prime Minister over sun-dried tomatoes in Granita all those years ago.
  The Chancellor relied on the Wanless report. He said:
  "So having examined whether a publicly funded national health service is sustainable… Mr. Wanless's view is that the principle of an NHS publicly funded through taxation… remains both the fairest and most efficient system for this country."—[Official Report, 27 November 2001; Vol. 375, c. 838–]
  At all times last Tuesday the Chancellor gave the impression that Mr. Wanless had carried out an objective and authoritative inquiry into the best way to fund health care in this country. Of course, that was a million miles from the truth. First, the Chancellor fixed the terms of reference that he set Mr. Wanless so that Mr. Wanless could consider only a publicly funded health care model.
  The terms of reference asked Mr. Wanless to
  "identify the key factors which will determine the financial and other resources required to ensure that the NHS can provide a publicly funded service."

  87
  Far from asking Mr. Wanless to look at different methods, the Chancellor told him not to do that; he asked a Labour question and he got a Labour answer.
  Phil Hope: I have a simple question for the right hon. and learned Gentleman. Will the Opposition match Labour's commitment to spending on the NHS and do they support an NHS based on clinical need, not on the ability to pay—his policy, which was leaked to the press?
  Mr. Howard: The hon. Gentleman has asked an interesting question—[Interruption.] Yes, I will answer it. The hon. Gentleman asked whether I would match Labour's spending commitment on the NHS. We do not know what that commitment is—[Interruption.] I am coming directly to the hon. Gentleman's question, which I shall answer in detail; he just needs to be patient for a moment and he will have a comprehensive answer.
  The references in the Wanless report to different systems of financing health care are all expressed in terms of their effect on the economy, itself a reflection on those terms of reference. They state that the report should allow the Chancellor
  "to consider the possible implications of this analysis for the Government's wider fiscal and economic strategies in the medium term and to inform decisions in the next public spending review in 2002".
  Most telling of all, the Chancellor's cover was blown within hours by Mr. Wanless himself. On Thursday, Mr. Wanless said:
  "I've not sought to bury anything for good. It would be quite presumptuous and premature for anybody to think they could do that. When the figures are available about what resources are likely to be required that's the time at which people will be looking at the financial options … Issues about precisely how they should be financed are … not for decision now."
  The Chancellor's own carefully picked appointee has given him the lie and directly contradicted him. When Mr. Wanless says that it would be premature and presumptuous of anybody to think that they could bury anything for good, who does the Chancellor think he had in mind? Who could he possibly be referring to but the Chancellor himself? The Chancellor's elaborate attempt to fix that exercise has collapsed about his ears.
  It was not just the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions who "contaminated" the pre-Budget report last week; the Chancellor did so himself. His attempt to hoodwink everyone—the House, the nation, even the Prime Minister—has spectacularly imploded. It is not surprising that the Downing street spin machine swung into action.
  Mr. John McFall: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Howard: In a moment.
  The spin machine claimed that "everything's up for grabs"; that the Government were prepared to "think the unthinkable"; that Downing street is "less protective" than the Treasury; and that there are "no holds barred", but it was too late. On Tuesday the Chancellor had indeed barred the holds. He had boxed everyone in and slammed
  88
  the door on the debate for which he himself had called. He has robbed our country of the opportunity for the better health care that we so desperately need.
  I give way to the Chairman of the Select Committee on the Treasury.
  Mr. McFall: The right hon. and learned Gentleman uses the word "hoodwink" freely. So that we can get it straight and so that he does not hoodwink anyone, will he reflect on his party's manifesto, which stated that the Conservatives would provide a fully comprehensive NHS, free at the point of use? Does he intend to hoodwink people and deny that now?
  Mr. Howard: We certainly will provide an NHS that is fully comprehensive, and we will spell out our detailed proposals long before the next general election.
  Kali Mountford: Is it still the policy of the right hon. and learned Gentleman's party to charge for some GP services? If so, which services does he intend to charge for?
  Mr. Howard: The hon. Lady will have to wait some time before she gets an answer to that question, but she will get it long before the next general election, when the British people will see exactly what we propose.
  Mr. McFall: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I asked the shadow Chancellor a question, and I am dismayed that he did not answer the second part, about whether the health service would be free at the point of use. Can you come to my aid and ensure that he answers it?
  Madam Deputy Speaker: That is a point of debate, rather than a point of order.
  Mr. Howard: I want the Chancellor to answer some questions when he replies to the debate. I want him to confirm whether, as has been widely reported, the Health Secretary was told of the Chancellor's intentions only on Monday last week, 24 hours before his statement. The Health Secretary is reported to be "furious". [HON. MEMBERS: "Where is he?"] Surely my hon. Friends would not expect the Health Secretary to come and support the Chancellor. We are told, for good measure, that the Prime Minister is also angry, on behalf of the Health Secretary.
  One of the most astonishing things about last week was that the Chancellor was disappointed by the coverage that his announcement received in the press on Wednesday. So what did he do? He cleared his diary and rushed down to Wapping to see The Sun. He told The Sun:
  "I am going to insist any additional resources must be matched by reforms so that we get the best value for money. There is not to be one penny more until we get the changes".
  That must have caused the Secretary of State for Health some alarm. After all, only 48 hours earlier he had been promised an extra £1 billion next year. No mention was made of any conditions. On Tuesday the Chancellor promises £1 billion, and on Thursday he says that the NHS must reform first. This is my first challenge to the Chancellor tonight: what exactly does he have in mind? When does he expect those reforms to be in place? What criteria will he use to decide whether to release the money? When will he make that decision, and when will he announce it?

  89
  I can tell the Secretary of State for Health that he need not worry too much. The Chancellor has told The Sun exactly the same thing before. He wrote an article for The Sun on 15 July 1998, in which he stated:
  "We are determined you get value for every penny we spend to give you the public services you want … Unless standards and targets are met, they will lose money. It's payment by results."
  Nothing happened, however. Nothing happened in 1998, in 1999, last year or this year. The money has continued to pour in and, as the Government admit, much of it has been wasted.
  Mrs. Anne Campbell: As he is speaking of interviews, does the right hon. and learned Gentleman stand by his remarks in the Financial Times last week, that the NHS is a Stalinist creation?
  Mr. Howard: The NHS is indeed a Stalinist creation. [Interruption.] Yes, it is. That is the age in which it was born, and it does much more to hinder and hamper the efforts of those who work in it—who work heroically despite it—than it does to help them.
  Let us see how the evolving saga develops. After 18 years in opposition to consider these matters and after four years in government, what do the Government do? They set up a new committee. Once the Prime Minister got to know the terms of reference of the Wanless committee—he clearly did not know about them until they were produced in the House last Tuesday—he thought that he had better remind people of his own committee, the Adair Turner committee. So important was the Turner committee that the Prime Minister appeared to have forgotten all about it. The Chancellor certainly made no mention of it in his statement last Tuesday, yet on Friday night he was hurriedly dispatched to give an interview to "News at 10", giving the impression that it was an entirely new committee.
  It is worth reminding people of the Turner committee. It was set up in October. [Interruption.] Labour Members should be listening to what their Prime Minister's committee—
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order.
  Mr. Keith Simpson: Mr. McNulty!
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The word "Order" applies to both sides of the House.
  Mr. Howard: I am interested that the hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. McNulty), from his usual sedentary position, says that it is not worth reminding people of the Turner committee, but it is his Prime Minister's committee, not mine. The Prime Minister set it up. It was set up in October and asked to do what was described as "blue sky" thinking, looking
  "not less than five years and probably 10 to 15 years out".
  However, we were told that its conclusions would never be made public. The outcome, Downing street said, would be "private, for private thinking".
  My second challenge to the Chancellor is this: is that still the position, or have the Government changed their mind on that as well? Will we ever be told theconclusions of the Turner committee? If so, when? The Wanless committee is supposed to study the amount of money
  90
  needed for health care. The Turner committee is supposed to examine the way in which health care is managed. It does not seem to have occurred to the Prime Minister and the Chancellor that there may be some connection between the two—between the way in which health care is financed and the way in which it is provided.
  What health care in this country needs is not more committees; it needs radical reform so that the dedicated doctors and nurses working in it can be helped, and not hampered by the structure in which they work. It needs action to ensure that the money wasted on the NHS—between £7 billion and £10 billion, according to reports this weekend—is no longer wasted. It needs to be able to put an end to the state of affairs in which people die in our country from illnesses that they would survive in other countries. It needs extra resources, in addition to those that can be provided out of general taxation.
  That is what happens in every other country with health care better than ours. It is what the OECD recommends, and what would offer the best prospect of bringing better health care to Britain. That is why today my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition and the shadow Health Secretary are in Stockholm, as part of a series of visits to learn from other health care systems in Europe and beyond. Our party has put health care reform at the very top of our agenda.
  Let no one be in any doubt about how badly we need better health care. Even the Prime Minister was unable last week to dispute the claims of his party chairman that far from improving, the national health service has gone backwards since 1997. Even Mr. Wanless says in his report:
  "Across a range of health outcome indicators, the picture which emerges is one of generally poor outcomes in the UK relative to comparator countries, with significant gaps between the UK and the best performers for key outcome measures."
  Even Sir Stephen Robson, a recent permanent secretary in the Treasury and someone who has worked very closely with the Chancellor, says:
  "Don't have breast cancer or lung cancer, don't want to go to accident and emergency, don't want to have a non-urgent operation in the UK—you'd be better off in continental Europe."
  This Government have made promise after promise on the health service. They have broken their promises, they are beginning to be rumbled, they have no idea what to do about it and the result is blind panic.
  So, is it any wonder that the Chancellor and the Prime Minister are at sixes and sevens? Last Wednesday, the Prime Minister could not have been clearer. When asked whether it was still Government policy to raise health spending to the EU average by 2005, he replied, "Of course it is." The following day, the Leader of the House announced that he wanted to clarify that statement. We were told that when the Prime Minister had said 2005, he meant to say 2006. Conveniently, that means that he will have to be held to account after, rather than before, the likely date of the next general election.
  Then the Chancellor got in on the act. In his interview with The Sun, he refused to explain what the Prime Minister actually meant. He refused to say whether the promise applied to EU spending at the time mentioned in

  91
  the Prime Minister's original promise or in 2005, so the Prime Minister's official spokesman was brought in. When he was asked to shed light on this appalling mess, he said:
  "the Prime Minister's words at PMQs this afternoon spoke for themselves".
  Unfortunately for him, the Prime Minister took a different view. Yesterday, he decided to downgrade what had been a firm commitment to the status of a mere aspiration "in broad terms"—the Chancellor smiles about that, as he has had his way—and the Secretary of State for Health yesterday described it as an aim.
  My third challenge for the Chancellor is this: will he now clarify matters? [Interruption.] Is it a firm commitment or a vague aspiration? Does it relate to European health spending in 2000, 2001, 2005 or 2006? Does it relate to averages including or excluding Britain? Are those averages weighted for population differences, or is Germany being given the same weight as Luxembourg? [Interruption.] And when will it be achieved: 2005, 2006, some time or never? [Interruption.]
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. It is clear that the right hon. and learned Gentleman is not prepared to give way at this point.
  Mr. Howard: This is not some arcane, theoretical dispute, but a matter that is vital for the lives of every person in this country. The Chancellor must make the Government's position clear once and for all.
  The confusion does not end there. The Secretary of State for Health and the chairman of the Labour party are reported to have called for a hypothecated health tax. They are said to have the support of the Home Secretary and the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. The right hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson) has asked the Government to consider compulsory social insurance or a ring-fenced health tax. He said:
  "These systems must all be properly examined."
  So, my fourth challenge to the Chancellor is this: does he agree with his Cabinet colleagues and the right hon. Member for Hartlepool, or with the Treasury aide who described the idea of a hypothecated health tax as foolish? The Chancellor has called for a consensus, but he cannot achieve it even in his own Cabinet.
  If the Government, blinded by their prejudices against the private sector, refuse to put patients first, the Opposition will do so. We genuinely recognise that, in the words of the Prime Minister,
  "round the world, the barriers between public and private are coming down".
  Our overriding objective is to improve the quality of health care in Britain. We are not so arrogant as to believe that we can achieve better health care for the British people without learning from countries that have already achieved better health care for their people. We are not so dogmatic as to arrive at our opinions before embarking on our review and we are not so blinkered as to set the terms of reference, as the Chancellor did, so as to make the conclusions inevitable.
  The Government have demonstrated in the past few days that we will never get the health care that we need so long as they remain in power. We must show that we will do better, and that is exactly what we intend to do.
  7.45 pm
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Gordon Brown): I beg to move, as a manuscript amendment, in line 1, leave out from "House" to end and add
  "welcomes the Pre-Budget Report with its emphasis on delivering high quality public services accessible to all in society as part of the Government's wider agenda to match resources with modernisation to progress reform; particularly welcomes Mr Derek Wanless's interim report "Securing our Future Health: Taking a Long-Term View", the first comprehensive look at the long term funding needs of the Health Service; notes Mr Wanless's conclusion that there is no evidence that any alternative financing method to the UK's would deliver a given quality of healthcare more equitably and at a lower cost to the economy; and reaffirms its support as stated by the Prime Minister and the Chancellor for future increases in public funding and NHS reform to ensure a comprehensive high quality service available on the basis of clinical need and not ability to pay."
  I shall answer all the detailed points that have been made and take interventions from the Opposition during my speech.
  Mr. Howard rose—
  Hon. Members: Give way!
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The House must come to order.
  Mr. Brown: Before giving way, I want to set down our argument as a Government.
  Mr. Howard: Will the Chancellor give way?
  Mr. Brown: I have said that I shall give way during my speech, but I want to set down my argument.
  First, we believe in a health service that is free at the point of need; the question that we must ask ourselves this evening is this: do the Opposition? Secondly, we believe in a health service that is principally funded from tax revenue—[Interruption.] Oh, indeed. The question is, do the Opposition? Thirdly, we believe in more investment in the health service, but the question is, do the Opposition? Fourthly, we believe in a continuing programme of reform in the health service, but do the Opposition still believe in the health service at all?
  My hon. Friend the Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall), the Chairman of the Select Committee on the Treasury, asked the shadow Chancellor a very interesting question at the beginning of the debate. He asked whether the Opposition still believed in a comprehensive health service that was free at the point of use. At the general election, all Opposition Members had no doubt about the answer to that question. Individually, like us and the Liberals, they stood for election on a manifesto—I quote the Conservative one—that referred to
  "a comprehensive health service free to all its users."
  Why could not the shadow Chancellor repeat that commitment this evening?
  I shall tell the House why the right hon. and learned Gentleman could not do so, as I have in front of me the memorandum written by the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Mr. Flight) to the shadow Chancellor on 12 November. It is marked "Private and Confidential". I am sure that the Opposition now wish that it had been kept private and confidential. Let me refer to what the Flight memorandum, as we will now call it, said. [Interruption.] It answers the very big question about why

  93
  the shadow Chancellor could not say that he supported a free health service at the point of need. I think that Opposition Members should listen, because this will feature in every constituency in the country.
  Mr. Paul Goodman: Will the Chancellor give way?
  Mr. Brown: I shall be very happy to give way after making this point. The memorandum said:
  "we remain vulnerable to the irritating attack that we are the Party who will be cutting back on healthcare expenditure to reduce taxation.
  We need to resolve and agree how we are going to break out of this, well ahead of the next General Election, or we will have the same problems of emasculation in this territory, that we had this summer. I believe most of our colleagues are looking to the Treasury Team to address this territory, but clearly the key is the fleshing out of the broad policy guidelines which IDS has set out in relation to healthcare."
  What is that broad policy guideline? The memorandum continues:
  "Quite logically, we will, therefore, be looking to lower the taxes on people at the same time, enabling them to have more of their own money to spend on better and more efficient healthcare … Put more simply, what Iain has already said in principle, with regard to healthcare, should have the corollary of reducing taxation to leave people with more of the income … to spend on the provision of improved healthcare."
  [Interruption.] Conservative Members should listen. We have reached the main point because the memorandum also states:
  "The reforms, which we will be proposing, will end the NHS monopoly and will entail those who can afford it making some payment for healthcare services."
  That is not simply a suggestion or idea. The deputy Treasury spokesman wrote that. [Interruption.] Conservative Members will have to face up to that in every constituency. I repeat:
  "The reforms which we will be proposing … will entail … some payment for healthcare services."
  The memorandum also states that solving problems will require
  "a degree of charging for healthcare service."
  [Interruption.] The shadow Chancellor already regrets the debate. Should not we be told whether the charges are for visits to general practitioners or to hospitals? Are they for operations? Are they for medical drugs that are currently free? What proportion of people would be expected to pay the charges? What services would the rest obtain? Who would be exempted? What would happen to the terminally ill, cancer patients and old age pensioners?
  If Conservative Members call for a debate in the House about the future funding of public services, they have a duty to tell us—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Oh yes they do.Every Conservative Member stood on a manifesto—[Interruption.] They cannot get away from it. They stood on a manifesto that stated that there would be a comprehensive health service that was free to all at the
  94
  point of need. Yet the deputy Treasury spokesman says not that there might be charges, but that there will be charges.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Brown: I shall give way to the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr. Goodman) if he tells me how he will justify a policy of charging to his constituents.
  Mr. Goodman: Will the Chancellor confirm or deny that the Secretary of State for Health received only 24 hours notice of his plans last week? [Interruption.]
  Mr. Brown: Madam Deputy Speaker—[Interruption.]
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The House must come to order. An intervention has been made and the Chancellor is responding to it.
  Mr. Brown: The Secretary of State for Health received full notice of our decisions, but the hon. Member for Wycombe refused to say whether he supports charges.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Brown: I shall give way in a minute. First, let us consider another piece of evidence. Nicky Campbell asked the Leader of the Opposition in an interview on Radio 5 on 22 June whether his health plans would involve people paying for treatment. The right hon. Gentleman replied: "Absolutely." Conservative Members cannot answer questions about their manifesto because they are planning charges for the health service.
  Chris Grayling: Will the Chancellor confirm or deny plans to raise the upper earnings limit on national insurance contributions to pay for health care?
  Mr. Brown: We gave our promises on taxation at the general election.
  Matthew Taylor: Will the Chancellor clarify early in the debate whether the Prime Minister was right to say that the point of the Chancellor's statement last week was to ensure the fulfilment of the Prime Minister's commitment 18 months ago to raise spending on the health service to the EU average by 2005? Was the Prime Minister right?
  Mr. Brown: Of course that is our policy. That is exactly what the Prime Minister said on Wednesday. The day before, I said that we wanted a substantially increased proportion of the national income to be used for health expenditure.
  I shall explain what has happened in the past few years. As a proportion of national income, health expenditure increased from 6.9 per cent. That would not have happened under the Tories when the average was 6.2 per cent. Under us, it increased to 7.2 per cent. The Tories would not have done that. It will go up to 7.4 per cent., 7.6 per cent. and 7.8 per cent. Again, the Tories would not have done that. The Government are keeping their promises.

  95
  I want to explain to Conservative Members why charging is wrong. The debate must focus on that central point.
  Mr. Roger Gale rose—
  Mr. Brown: I shall give way in a minute. [Interruption.]
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. If hon. Members want to make a contribution, that is no way to go about it.
  Mr. Brown: The shadow Chancellor refuses to tell us whether he supports charges. However, I have a copy of his election literature. He issued a leaflet, in which one item is entitled "The Future of the NHS". What did he say in it? I shall give way so that he can tell us.
  Mr. Howard: The Chancellor is right; we had no such proposals at the last election. However, he has overlooked the fact that his party won the election. The Labour party is responsible for funding the NHS for the next four years. When will he grow up, accept his responsibilities, do what he promised at the outset of his speech and answer the questions that I asked him?
  Mr. Brown: I know why the shadow Chancellor is rattled. He cannot tell us whether he will support charges for the NHS in this Parliament. What did he say at the general election? The leaflet states:
  "But there will be no charges".
  It goes on:
  "Do not believe the lies which are being spread by our opponents.
  Conservatives will retain a free and comprehensive national health service".
  He was right then and he is wrong now because a free NHS is the right policy for this country on the ground of equity. It means that everybody, irrespective of income, gets the health care that they need. It is right because comprehensive care means that people are not discouraged from using health care services through lack of income. It is right because it is an efficient system, which avoids the form filling and bureaucracy that a charging system would entail.
  Mr. Gale rose—
  Mr. Michael Jack rose—
  Mr. Brown: I shall give way in a minute. Conservative Members are making a historic decision this evening. They tell us that they are no longer prepared to commit themselves to the principle on which the NHS was built 50 years ago. At the general election, they said that they supported a comprehensive service that was free at the point of need. They no longer support it and they will have to answer to their constituents for that.
  Mr. Gale: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Brown: In a minute.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Once again, I call the House to order. The Chancellor of the Exchequer is on his feet.
  Mr. Gale: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. You quite rightly admonished me earlier for
  96
  making an intervention from a sedentary position. You said that I had to ask the Chancellor whether he would give way. Since then, I have tried to persuade the right hon. Gentleman to give way. [Interruption.]
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. That is not a point of order for the Chair. It is up to a Minister whether he or she decides to give way.
  Mr. Brown: I want to make some progress.
  Mr. Howard: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Brown: I will give way in a minute, but I want to develop my argument because the issue is not simply that the Conservatives are prepared to contemplate charges for the first time in their history. It is also that they are prepared to abandon a tax revenue-based national health service. The reason that the Flight memorandum says all that is because of the commitments that the shadow Chancellor has made in another direction. He will have to think before he gets to his feet again, because of the speeches that he has been making from 1997 onwards. Those speeches explain why the Conservatives have to cut public expenditure.
  Mr. Jack: Will the Chancellor give way?
  Mr. Brown: I will give way in a minute.
  Mr. John Bercow: This is a very long minute.
  Mr. Brown: The Conservative party does not like—[Interruption.] I will give way to the right hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Jack: The Chancellor has made some comments about charging. Will he explain why he condones and supports the charging of elderly people for many aspects of their social care?
  Mr. Brown: The right hon. Gentleman knows that we are operating rules that have been operated by both political parties over the last few years. He also knows that we are now talking about charges for a visit to a GP. [Interruption.] The Conservatives do not like hearing about this, but it is about time they faced up to it.
  Mr. Howard: Will the Chancellor give way?
  Mr. Brown: I will give way in a minute. [Interruption.]
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Can we please let this debate proceed with some degree of decorum?
  Mr. Brown: The health spokesman of the Conservative party has said:
  "I think my commitment to the NHS is clear. We have said we will maintain a fully comprehensive NHS, free at the point of use, in our manifesto. I have said it since I can ever remember being in politics, and that's something that will go on."

  97
  How can the shadow Chancellor say that once the election is over, the promises will go?
  Mr. Howard: The Chancellor was waxing eloquent a few moments ago about how effective, efficient and equitable the national health service is. Is he proud of a service that tells one of my constituents, who is 83 years old and suffering from Parkinson's disease, that he has to wait 83 weeks to see a consultant neurologist? Is that the national health service of which the Chancellor is proud?
  Mr. Brown: I am proud of the fact that the national health service does not charge people for treatment in the way that the right hon. Gentleman wants to do. Under his proposals, the constituent whom he mentioned would have to pay. [Interruption.]
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. This debate will proceed, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer and other right hon. and hon. Members will be heard, but not all together.
  Mr. Brown: Let us be clear why the Conservatives cannot commit themselves to a health service that is free at the point of use, and why they have abandoned that principle. The reason is that the shadow Chancellor has been going round the country for years making promises about cutting public expenditure.
  Mr. Crispin Blunt: Will the Chancellor give way?
  Mr. Brown: I have given way quite enough.
  The shadow Chancellor has said that we are spending too much money. His whole point is that we are spending too much money—this year, next year, last year. In other words, he is saying that spending should be cut. That is the shadow Chancellor's position. Why? I shall read out this quote, so that people can understand where the Conservative party is coming from:
  "With trend economic growth of 2 plus per cent. and real spending growth held to I per cent., we would have cut the Government's share of spending to below 37 per cent. I believe we might have done even better."
  That was the shadow Chancellor's programme for the last Parliament, which would have meant public spending cuts of £10 billion a year. In 1997, in a speech that now influences the whole thinking of the shadow Cabinet, he said:
  "Our aim should be to reduce the proportion of national output taken by the state towards 35 per cent."
  [Interruption.] Perhaps the shadow Chancellor denies that he made that speech.
  Mr. Howard indicated dissent.
  Mr. Brown: No, he does not. In the speech, he went on to say:
  "I believe that 35 per cent. is a realistic and attainable goal."
  What would 35 per cent. mean? It would mean £50 billion of cuts in public expenditure. It makes the Letwin manifesto at the last election look moderate. It is the most extreme proposal for cuts in public expenditure that could be made. What would it mean for the future of
  98
  the national health service in this country? Could the income of the national health service rise by 6 per cent. a year in real terms under that policy? The answer is no.
  Mr. Howard: Will the Chancellor give way?
  Mr. Brown: I will give way in a minute.
  Could the national health service get £5 billion extra a year under the shadow Chancellor's proposals? The answer is no. Why cannot he now commit himself to a free national health service? Because he plans to cut public spending to 35 per cent. of national income—a £50 billion cut—and I say to hon. Members that this is the trouble with having a shadow Chancellor who has a record.
  Mr. Howard: Instead of taking us on this trip down memory lane, will the Chancellor now keep the promise that he made at the beginning of his speech and answer in detail all the questions that I put to him in my speech?
  Mr. Brown: The problem is that all the questions are now for the Conservatives.
  Mr. Goodman: On a point of order. Madam Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for the Chancellor to say at the beginning of his speech that he will answer the points made, then, halfway through the speech, to refuse to do so? [Interruption.]
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. That is not a point of order for the Chair.
  Mr. Brown: I must explain that I have had to follow this line of questioning because the Conservatives seem to have concluded that the reason they lost the last election was that they were not extreme enough. They seem to have concluded that, if only they had told the electorate that they would abolish the national health service, people would have rushed towards them. They now seem to be planning a pledge card for the next election, which would offer five pledges: charges for GP visits; charges for hospital visits; charges for operations; cutting national health service expenditure; and ending the national health service entirely. That is what the Flight memorandum says. That is what the shadow Chancellor means when he refuses to rule out charges. It is also what he means by his proposal to cut public expenditure to 35 per cent.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Brown: I will give way once more, then I will finish my remarks.
  Mr. Steve Webb: Will the Chancellor clarify the Treasury's position on hypothecation? I understand that the Treasury is concerned that revenues might rise or fall with the cycle. I wonder whether the Chancellor has had the opportunity to see my article, published this morning in the Institute for Public Policy Research journal, which shows how that problem could be dealt with. [Interruption.]
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I have certainly not seen the hon. Gentleman's article—neither can I hear his comments.
  Mr. Brown: I have been too busy reading the shadow Chancellor's speeches to read the hon. Gentleman's article, but I assure him that I will do so.

  99
  Opposition Members know perfectly well that we have embarked on a programme of NHS reform. Seventy-five per cent. of the money is going back to primary care trusts; we are renegotiating contracts for doctors, including consultants, and nurses; and there is a programme of reform at the centre, where we are devolving power to the localities.
  Mr. Howard: Centralising.
  Mr. Brown: Ah! The shadow Chancellor now draws me into a discussion of his view of the national health service as a Stalinist creation. I believe that a Conservative party that holds that it can describe the health service not just as centralist but as a Stalinist creation is making a very big mistake. The shadow Chancellor is saying that when the service was created it was wrong, at that time. That is what he is saying: it is a Stalinist creation, and therefore it was wrong even in 1948. The Conservative party is now abandoning a consensus that was accepted by Sir Winston Churchill, Harold Macmillan and Lady Thatcher, all of whom believed that we should not abandon the national health service.
  The debate on hypothecation will continue, but I think all parties—and the shadow Chancellor, representing the last Government, took the same view—would not want to make the funding of the NHS dependent on, or hostage to, the economic cycle. They would not want one tax relating to changes in behaviour to make the service a victim of a situation that it should not have to live through, when what we want is sustainable, long-term funding.
  That is what tonight's debate is about. We believe in a national health service that is free at the point of use; it is clear that the Opposition now do not. We believe in a tax-funded national health service; it is clear that the Opposition want a system of private health insurance. We believe in more investment in the NHS; the Opposition want to cut investment.
  I say this of the shadow Chancellor: he got every major decision wrong in his past career in politics. [Interruption.] Oh, yes. He was the brains behind the poll tax. He defended the Conservative Government when the interest rate was 15 per cent. He is the man who said that a minimum wage would cost a million jobs—and it created a million jobs. He is the Minister who said that we were the worst-placed country to deal with the economic difficulties around the world—and people know that this year we have been the best-placed country to do that.
  The shadow Chancellor has also got it wrong on the national health service. He will live to regret a debate in which he has refused to rule out charging in the service. Labour wants to build the national health service; it is clear that the Conservatives want to destroy it. Tonight, Members should vote to build it.
  Mr. Keith Simpson: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Will we, at some stage during the debate, hear a speech from the Chancellor about the Government's policy?
  Madam Deputy Speaker: That is not a point of order for the Chair.
  8.13 pm
  Matthew Taylor: At this point, we should remember where the debate started back in 1997, when the Conservatives, after years of under-investment, left the NHS in truly dire straits. We now know why: it was because they believe the NHS to be a Stalinist institution.
  Do the Conservatives not realise that Stalin killed millions of people, whereas the NHS and its staff strain every sinew to save millions of people? NHS staff—doctors, nurses, ancillaries and the rest—would be appalled to hear first the so-called leader of that party and then the shadow Chancellor argue that theirs is a Stalinist organisation. How far from the truth could that be? How can people now believe that the Conservative party is committed to maintaining a national health service that is free at the point of use, and serving every person in the country?
  Back in 1997, Labour argued that it had 24 hours to save the NHS. That may be the case at the next election: it was made plain this evening that a Conservative Government, if elected, would abolish the national health service as we know it. Whatever else Labour may have done, however, it failed to save the NHS in 24 hours, or even in a number of years. Its commitment to stick to Conservative spending plans, without even the annual review that the Conservatives would have delivered, led to a fall in the proportion of national wealth spent on the NHS during its early years in office. As a result, doctors and nurses were not trained—which resulted in the Government's current problem.
  The error was repeated at the last general election, which the Government fought on the basis that the NHS had effectively been rescued, and that their spending plans would deliver the goods. They have had to admit that they got that wrong too. The Liberal Democrats argued throughout that it would only be possible to find the investment needed for the NHS if the Government faced head-on the raising of taxes that was necessary to increase the proportion of gross domestic product spent on the service.
  Let us not give the Government too much credit for their change of mind. We welcome it, but we should recall the blistering attacks launched by both the Prime Minister and the Chancellor on any Members—including those on their own side—who argued that, in the long run, the NHS could secure the investment it needed only if the Government were prepared to invest a higher proportion of GDP, and that that meant facing the tax issue, if the economy was to be managed properly.
  In July 1997, just after the general election, the former leader of the Liberal Democrats asked:
  "If I were to say to the Prime Minister that one of his Health Ministers has now announced that his Government will spend £350 million less next winter on the health service than the outgoing Conservative Government would have done, would he be surprised?"
  All that the Prime Minister could say was:
  "As I have already said, we have inherited the spending plans of the previous Administration."—[Official Report, 30 July 1997; Vol.299, c. 334.1

  101
  Any Government inherit the spending plans of their predecessors, but not many choose to implement them. That mistake has haunted the present Government to this day.
  Chris Grayling: Is it the policy of the hon. Gentleman's party to support the principle of raising health care spending by the state to the European average? If so, does his party support the substantial tax increases that would, it appears, be required?
  Matthew Taylor: The hon. Gentleman may have been diverted from this during the election campaign, but our manifesto made both those promises.
  More recently, the Government proved still to be making the same mistakes. [Interruption.] I gave the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling) as clear an answer as anyone could give: my answers were yes and yes. I know that Conservative Members find it difficult to give any answers themselves, but they should at least understand when someone else is giving an answer—although I suppose that lack of use of the "yes" bit of the brain, or come to that the "no" bit, and limiting oneself to the "don't know" bit, makes it hard to give or indeed receive a straight answer.
  Chris Grayling: Will the hon. Gentleman give way again, very briefly?
  Matthew Taylor: I will in due course.
  The error to which I referred, however, did not occur just in 1997; it rolled forward. In April 2000 the present leader of the Liberal Democrats, at a time when the Chancellor was delivering a cut in income tax, challenged the Prime Minister thus:
  "Does it remain the Prime Minister's intention over five years to get health spending in the country up to European levels? If so, does he believe that a tax cut in April will assist that process?"—[Official Report, 1 March 2000; Vol. 345, c. 418.]
  We now know what the answer was. No, it would not assist the process. The Chancellor, having cut income tax in April 2000, now tells us that we may need to face tax increases.
  Things did not change in the election of June 2001 either. Labour consistently denied that more money needed to be raised through tax; indeed, the Chancellor could not have been more explicit. That raises a serious question about the honesty of the Government and their approach to the wider electorate. It seems hard to believe that things have changed so dramatically between the election in June and the pre-Budget statement at the end of November. The Chancellor says that it is not due to the change in economic circumstances, so what exactly is it due to? The wheels have come off new Labour's bandwagon and they are all going in entirely different directions.
  On spending, 18 months ago, the Prime Minister jumped the Chancellor on the "Frost" programme. The Prime Minister promised:
  "We will bring it up to the European average",
  but immediately the Chancellor worked to obfuscate: it was aims, targets, ambitions, never a commitment. Again, in the pre-Budget report last week, he hinted, flirted but remained no more than a tease.
  102
  Again, it took the Prime Minister to let the cat out of the bag. Last Wednesday, at Prime Minister's questions, my right hon. Friend the Member for Ross, Skye and Inverness, West (Mr. Kennedy), the leader of the Liberal Democrats, asked the key question, which incidentally the leader of the Conservative party failed even to spot. My right hon. Friend said:
  "The Prime Minister committed himself to raising health expenditure in our country to the European Union average by 2005. Is that still the policy of his Government?"
  The Prime Minister said:
  "Of course it is. That is precisely the point of the Chancellor's announcement yesterday."—[Official Report, 28 November 2001; Vol. 375, c. 964.]
  Ever since, the policy of the Government has been in total confusion. It seemed for five days that that had been precisely not the point of the Chancellor's speech. He rushed to The Sun, which said:
  "the Chancellor refused to say if the promise applied to EU spending at the time of Mr. Blair's promise—or to the levels which will be reached in 2005."
  Perhaps the Chancellor can clarify that.
  By Sunday, the Prime Minister had buckled under the force of his Chancellor's will. The Independent on Sunday reported:
  "I am not deciding spending levels now"—
  not quite what we thought he said at Prime Minister's questions—
  "Mr. Blair said, making it clear he was talking generally … his commitment to match European health spending—originally made 18 months ago and repeated in the Commons on Wednesday—was only a `broad' aim."
  At today's lobby briefing, the Prime Minister's spokesman went out of his way to say that the Prime Minister had said that it was only the Government's aim. I quote from the e-mail briefing that we received:
  "We are not going to slap on a particular figure when we have a CSR review and we have the Wanless report."
  He said that those were important processes that had to be completed before the Government could tie themselves to a figure. He added:
  "It is our aim to bring our spending up to the European average by 2005/6."
  Now we know how to get a statement from the Chancellor. When it becomes the Prime Minister's aim, when he backtracks, the Chancellor comes charging forward and says, "No, this is our committed policy." If only the Prime Minister 18 months ago had not committed himself to it on the Frost programme; we would probably have heard it previously from the Chancellor.
  Chris Ruane: The hon. Gentleman criticises, carps and calls for honesty from the Chancellor. The Liberal Democrats call for an increase in spending on education, health, transport, the environment and small businesses. Can we have a little honesty from them? By how much would they put up taxes to achieve their aims?
  Matthew Taylor: It was all set out in our manifesto. Incidentally, the Institute for Fiscal Studies, the BBC economics department and others all concluded that our figures added up. Clearly, the Chancellor's did not, because he has had to do a complete U-turn in only six or seven months following the general election.

  103
  That said, the House may now have the vague impression that the Government's position is clear. The Chancellor has said, "Yes, it is our commitment to meet the EU target by 2005", and that is welcome news. I think that it means some increase in spending for the NHS. Unfortunately, the Treasury is redefining the EU target. Perhaps that is why the Chancellor now feels able to make that commitment.
  The King's Fund and the Institute for Fiscal Studies both believe that the position is clear: there is a substantial gap, even on the Government's present spending plans. The size of the countries should be taken into account. Luxembourg, one of the smallest, does not spend so much, but then perhaps it is not overly reliant on the immediate health services in Luxembourg itself. If the reasonable view is taken that the larger countries count for more, on an independent basis, the Institute for Fiscal Studies, the King's Fund and others all conclude that the Government will fall substantially short of their target.
  The Government now use an average that includes the United Kingdom. That helps to bring the figure down as UK spending is low in any case, but the humdinger is that every country across the European Union faces similar pressures to those that have caused so much difficulty in the NHS: the increase in demand, the development of technology, the need to pay doctors and nurses a reasonable wage. Across the world, other workers are benefiting from growth in the economies through the wage packet. Doctors and nurses obviously need the same, but the Chancellor is off the hook in one bound because the target is to meet not the EU average, but the EU average as it used to be. It is not to bring us up to the European Union, but to allow us permanently to fall ever further behind.
  Chris Grayling: May I seek the hon. Gentleman's clarification on an important point? He said that his party was committed to raising health care spending in this country to the European average; he gave the answer, "Yes" a moment ago. Did his proposals at the general election raise sufficient money to do that? If not, where will the money come from to fill the gap? What extra taxation does his party want to raise to meet that target?
  Matthew Taylor: The hon. Gentleman is drawing me down the line of an alternative Budget presentation with the full details. We published such a Budget at the last general election. I shall not deliver it now but, if he is interested, we will continue to deliver our alternative spending plans at each and every Budget, which is more than his Front-Bench team has ever done. We have a clear commitment from the shadow Chancellor not to do it in March.
  Mr. David Laws: What conclusions does my hon. Friend draw about the Conservative party's commitment to the NHS, given its statements in the debate today and given the fact that barely 10 Conservative Members have bothered to turn up for their own Opposition day debate?
  Matthew Taylor: The shadow Chancellor spelt it out: the NHS is a Stalinist institution. We do not need to ask
  104
  ourselves; he is more than happy to tell us. He believes that those who can afford to should pay towards their health care. That is the difference that he, together with his leader, has brought to the Front-Bench team. Even the old policy that they defend the NHS in theory if not in practice is now abandoned. Theory and practice have come together: they do not believe in the NHS.
  Dr. Jenny Tonge: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Matthew Taylor: Will my hon. Friend give me a moment, because I want to turn to other areas where the Government are unravelling?
  Who runs the NHS? Early last year, cracks were already appearing between the Chancellor and the Secretary of State for Health. On 27 November 2000, just about a year ago, BBC Online said:
  "Early press reports suggested that Health Secretary Alan Milburn had some sympathy with the proposals"
  for a hypothecated health tax.
  On 27 November, The Times said:
  Alan Milburn, the Health Secretary, last night signalled that he would risk the wrath of the Treasury by backing proposals to ring-fence half of all income tax revenue for the NHS."
  On 28 November, The Guardian said:
  "Earmarked taxes are seen by some, including Home office minister Charles Clarke, as the best means of improving the popularity of direct taxes with voters. However, the Treasury dismissed suggestions that as much as half of all income tax should be earmarked for an NHS tax."
  We do not need to read into those reports a division between the Treasury and the Secretary of State for Health and his friends, we can see the result of that division—the Secretary of State is no longer in charge of the NHS and health decisions.
  The Chancellor commissioned the Wanless report, effectively taking over direct control of long-term NHS policy making. Now that that report has been published, we have learned—first in The Mail on Sunday, on 12 December, and now essentially directly from the Chancellor's own lips—that:
  "Referring to Cabinet splits, Mr. Clarke launched into a bizarre defence of his close ally Alan Milburn. 'Obviously it's unacceptable to say 'Alan Milburn is a bastard" he said."
  I do not know who is supposed to have said that he is, but presumably that person is not far from us now, on the other side of the House. Meanwhile, another Minister said:
  "Everyone agrees Gordon is a brilliant Chancellor but his treatment of the rest of us is unacceptable".
  So who is in charge of the NHS? Today we have received an answer: the Chancellor is in charge of it. In reply to a report in The Mail on Sunday that sources close to the Prime Minister said that he was completely taken by surprise when the Chancellor told hon. Members that he had ruled out any major change in the way in which the NHS is run or funded, and that the Secretary of State for Health had been told only at the weekend of the outcome of the Wanless report, all the Chancellor could say was that the Secretary of State had received full notice. Is that all that the Prime Minister has received too?
  It is not only the Prime Minister and other Cabinet members who are subject to the will of the Chancellor. There is a peculiarity in what the Chancellor had to say

  105
  about Mr. Wanless—whose name came up surprisingly often in the Chancellor's statement, when it was, "Mr. Wanless this", and "Mr. Wanless that". I guess that the Chancellor might be thinking of putting Mr. Wanless in charge of the NHS. From his point of view, it would be better to have him in charge than the Secretary of State for Health, and it would certainly be better than having the Prime Minister in charge. However, the Chancellor and Mr. Wanless seem to have had a falling out.
  Last week, the Chancellor told us:
  "having examined whether a publicly funded NHS is itself a pressure on costs and thus whether it is sustainable, Mr. Wanless's view is that the principle of an NHS publicly funded through taxation, available on the basis of clinical need and not on ability to pay, remains both the fairest and most efficient system for this country."—[Official Report, 27 November 2001; Vol. 375, c. 838.]
  That may be the Chancellor's view, and it is my view, but Mr. Wanless has suggested that it may not be his view. He said:
  "I have not sought to bury anything for good. It would be quite presumptuous and premature to do that."
  So who is in charge? Is it Wanless, the Prime Minister or the Secretary of State for Health? No, once again, it is the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
  The Observer had the most bizarre story of all. Presumably briefed by Labour party insiders—it is quite a friend of the Government, although not always a secure one, and tends to have knowledge of what is said in the inner circles—it said:
  "Planning for last week's remarkable announcement on tax—which has set many Cabinet members against one another—has been two years in the making, meticulously pored over, refined and planned during hours and hours of meetings at the Treasury and Downing Street."
  They have to be kidding. If the outcome of two years of meticulous planning and co-ordination between No. 10 Downing street and the Treasury is the total mess that we have seen in the past five days, God help us if they ever stop planning.
  Roger Casale: Does the hon. Gentleman welcome the announcement of a great national debate on the future of public expenditure and public services? If so, will Liberal Democrat Members rise to the challenge of that debate, or will they continue as he has started by talking about the personalities in various Departments? Does he agree that the reason why we are able to have a debate on the future of public expenditure at all, not to mention the public expenditure increases that the Government are delivering, is that the Government have shown competent stewardship of the economy and that, despite a world recession, growth next year is forecast to remain the same as it has been this year?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Michael Lord): Order. That was almost a speech.
  Matthew Taylor: Liberal Democrat Members do indeed welcome such a debate; after all, we pioneered it and for several years suffered a lot of abuse from the Chancellor and the Prime Minister for daring to suggest that what the Chancellor now says is right might have been right even then, just a few years ago.
  Dr. Tonge: Does my hon. Friend agree that the standard of debate that we have had so far today,
  106
  and the shadow Chancellor's remarks on the Stalinist creation called the national health service, are an insult to anyone who has ever worked in the health service?
  Matthew Taylor: I am amazed by Conservative Members. If there is an issue that will crucify them at the ballot box, it is their decision not to support the NHS; not to support the principles of care free at the point of delivery for all who need it; their description of those who work in the NHS—doctors and nurses—as working for a Stalinist organisation; and the extremism that has been let in. The extremism that has crept in explains why so many able Conservatives refuse to serve in this appalling Front-Bench team that suggests that it might yet form an alternative Government.
  The shadow Home Secretary had it right: not only have the Conservatives not yet won people's trust but they have a very long way to go. At present, all they are doing is going down, down, down. That is what they will find when they go to the ballot box. However, the Government cannot hide behind the Opposition's weakness. We will be there, testing and pushing them, and leading the debate, as we have done since 1997. By the Chancellor's own admission, he got it wrong, we got it right.
  8.35 pm
  Derek Twigg: I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Chancellor on an excellent speech. It is interesting to examine how what the Conservatives say about health care and privatisation changes. The shadow Health Secretary has said some interesting things. In The Times on 6 August, he said that his party had to have the courage to
  "top up state spending with private income of one form or another."
  He said that his party's
  "failure of nerve in the last Parliament"
  meant they had not come up with a "credible alternative narrative" for health care—whatever that means.
  Why did the Tories have a failure of nerve? Was it because they were not prepared to be honest about their plans to privatise the health service?
  Chris Ruane: Trojan horse.
  Derek Twigg: Indeed.
  It is also reported that the shadow Health Secretary
  "believes the party must consider proposals that would allow patients to buy themselves better healthcare".
  What does that mean? I have no idea. He said that the funding gap comes from Britain's inability to
  "top up state spending with private income."
  He also said that the party should consider
  "employer contribution schemes, tax breaks on private health insurance, or a state-supported savings system."
  It would be interesting to know where the Conservatives expect the money to come from.
  The shadow Chancellor talks about the Stalinist NHS. Does not that undermine any claim that the Conservatives make that they support the NHS? They did not believe in it in the first place. They did not want it. They would like it to disappear, to be replaced by a privatised health

  107
  service. They are not prepared to have that debate, though, so they hide behind some interesting words.
  Does the Conservative party favour the system in the USA, where 44 million people have none or no adequate health care insurance and everyone else finds that their premiums are rocketing? Even in some European countries, France for instance, people are put off going to see their doctor because of the rising charges.
  It is interesting to hear what the Conservatives say about expanding demand for private health insurance. Where are the resources to come from to meet that increased private sector demand? Where are the nurses and doctors to come from to meet this so-called expansion of private health care? Presumably, they will come from the NHS, which is currently increasing the number of doctors and nurses—and we certainly need more.
  The Conservatives want tax incentives for people to buy private health care. Where will they find the money to fund that? Their proposals make it clear what they want in the long run: a privatised or at the very least part-privatised health service. Where does that leave areas such as Halton, the 18th most deprived borough in England and Wales, with the country's highest lung cancer rate, the most renal problems and one of the highest levels of coronary heart disease?
  People in Halton rely on the NHS and not many can afford private health care. They would be on the bottom rung, with a second-hand privatised system. They would be ignored by the Tories and would not be looked after as they have been by the NHS and Labour Governments.
  Chris Grayling: Like the hon. Gentleman, I see the frustration of my constituents at the current state of health care. Does he agree that we should look to the rest of Europe, which has much better health care with a much more diverse system of funding? It works better, so should not we learn some lessons from that?
  Derek Twigg: I am fascinated by the Conservatives sudden conversion to Europe. The difference between us is simple: I believe in a publicly funded health service. With the investment that we will make, we will see further and bigger improvements over the next few years and we will provide the service that his and my constituents want to see. Privatisation would mean that places such as Halton would be at the bottom of the heap in terms of health care. I am not prepared to let that happen.
  David Taylor: My hon. Friend is rightly coruscating about the overt privatisation plans of the present Opposition. Does he agree that one blemish on our health record so far is our too ready acceptance of the private finance initiative—part of the leaden legacy left to us by the Conservatives—which has been prohibitive in cost, flawed in concept and intolerable in consequence for the taxpayers, patients and NHS staff in the UK?
  Derek Twigg: My hon. Friend has strong views on that point, but many new hospitals have been built under that initiative that otherwise would not have been built. It is
  108
  not perfect and it has flaws, but if the Tories ever got back in it would be a minor issue, because we would then see the wholesale privatisation of the health service.
  David Taylor: It has more flaws than Canary wharf.
  Derek Twigg: The Tory party certainly has more flaws than Canary wharf.
  The Conservative party manifesto said that the party was
  "committed to a comprehensive NHS free to all its users."
  I did not hear that from the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) tonight. In fact, I heard the opposite. The manifesto continued:
  "There is no question of anyone being forced to take out private insurance."
  Again, I heard no reassuring noises on that point. The manifesto, in the section entitled "staying healthy", said:
  "Common sense means ending political interference in medical judgments and giving choice to patients".
  The first bullet point then states:
  "Increase funding for NHS".
  We heard no figures for that today, because the Tories do not really mean that they would do that. They mean privatisation.
  If the Tories ever got back into power, I would really worry about how people in some of the poorest constituencies would be treated by the health service. What would happen to the handicapped, the mentally ill and those with long-term debilitating illnesses? Unfortunately, that applies to many thousands of people in my constituency, but they would not be looked after under the Conservatives' proposals for privatisation. I could not let my constituents—the people I grew up with—be treated so abominably. Under the American system, 44 million people have no or inadequate health insurance. That is the sort of system that the Tories would introduce in this country.
  What should be happening because of the improvements in health care? The Tories talk about a Stalinist system and centralisation. However, over the next three years 75 per cent. of NHS funding will be administered through primary care trusts. In areas such as mine that will mean more local accountability for decisions about how money is spent. In Widnes, which forms a large part of my constituency, after 10 years of trying—because primary care services have been poor for more than 50 years—we will get a primary care resource centre, which will mean more doctors, nurses and specialist staff to treat people on their doorstep in their local community. That is about to come to fruition, under a Labour Government. The Tories did nothing about the problem when they were in power.
  The motion covers other public services than health. Significant improvements have been made in public services in Halton over the past four years. For example, standards have risen in schools; class sizes have been reduced; and more and more teachers are in post. The number of nursery places has increased. More funding has gone to schools than for many, many years. Two weeks ago, when I visited a school in my constituency, a senior head teacher told me that there had never been so much money going into schools.
  That would never have happened under the Tories, because they would have made sure that we went back to the old way, with grammar schools in a two-tier system.

  109
  Under the Labour Government, funding has gone into schools—specifically in working-class areas where that investment is needed.
  I also want to talk about the transport system in my constituency. We have wanted a second Mersey crossing for many, many years, but we got no help from the previous Government. Last year, my hon. Friend the Member for Weaver Vale (Mr. Hall) and I explained to the then Transport Minister that, to get that project under way, we needed money for a feasibility study. We received £600,000 from the Minister towards that study. That help from the Government is for an authority which has to maintain the largest single-span structure of any local authority in the country.
  Previously, we unfortunately had a Tory county council in Cheshire. Under that council and the Tory Government, hardly any money was put towards maintaining one of the most important road bridges and its approaches from the M56, M62 and M57: barely £600,000 was allocated in 1997. What is the council receiving this year? It is receiving £6 million this year alone. The amount will increase next year to ensure that the bridge can be maintained in proper order so that it is not a danger and so that traffic can flow more freely. That is the sort of commitment that we are seeing in my constituency.
  Furthermore, for the first time, there have been real improvements in bus services, in local transport and in providing access. For disabled people and those with long-term debilitating diseases, there will be investment in community transport schemes. That, too, has happened under a Labour Government; it was not funded under a Tory Government. I can point to tangible examples in my constituency that show not only the Labour Government's commitment to funding public services, but that the way that they have funded those services is bringing about real improvements.
  When we consider Tory policy, we recall that the hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) did a runner during the general election. He disappeared after talking about the cuts and the black hole in Tory funding of public services. We know about that £16 billion black hole.
  Mr. Peter Duncan: Have waiting lists in the hon. Gentleman's constituency increased or decreased since 1997?
  Derek Twigg: They have gone down in the North Cheshire health authority, which covers my constituency. The authority has met its target. The funding increase to the health authority since 1997 was about 70 per cent. Furthermore, to deal with the health inequalities in my constituency, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health gave the health authority £1.2 million towards health improvement. As part of that, an important health study is taking place in my constituency in order to determine the factors that have led to the poor health that has existed for many generations. That shows the Labour Government making a difference to people's lives. That is happening in my constituency.
  The Tories cannot make their figures stand up. Despite the sweet words we have heard this evening and the evasive answers to questions about whether they will privatise the health service—we all know that is what they want to do—they cannot make the figures add up. I repeat that if people vote Tory at the next election, we shall see
  110
  a privatised health service—as the Liberal Democrats and my hon. Friends have pointed out. That is the dividing line between us.
  The debate is about having a publicly funded NHS with a planned stream of funding over the next few years or the alternative of going down the Tories privatised NHS where we will not know what the funding will be from one year to the next.
  Mr. Bercow: The hon. Gentleman talks helpfully about the importance of planning in health service expenditure, so he will of course recognise the need for specificity. What assessment has he made of the prognosis of the King's Fund for the average European Union level of public expenditure on health by the end of this Parliament? Does he intend that it be equalled by the United Kingdom?
  Derek Twigg: Let me put it simply: on the ground, in my constituency, when I talk to GPs, NHS staff and others, they recognise the Government's commitment to ensuring the success of the health service and to extra funding. There may be disagreements as to how the money is spent, but the increased expenditure under the Labour Government will far outweigh what we saw under the Conservatives. The choice is between a privatised health service or a properly publicly funded NHS.
  8.49 pm
  Sir George Young: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Halton (Derek Twigg). I hope to reply to some of the thoughtful questions that he posed about how we can improve the service for some of his constituents. However, he made a mistake towards the end of his speech by polarising the issue between a wholly privatised system and carrying on with the current system, and I hope to say a few words about that in a moment.
  The debate was opened with a quality speech from my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard), who posed four questions in his normal consensual way. It was sad that, after speaking for 30 minutes, the Chancellor did not give us any answers. Indeed, he seemed to be growing increasingly agitated as time wore on. I hope that the Chief Secretary will answer those four question when he replies to the debate.
  Last Tuesday, the Chancellor announced the beginning of a debate on health, and at Prime Minister's questions the next day the Prime Minister also referred to a debate on health. I welcome that and think it important that the Government do not foreclose all the options before the debate has got under way. I hope that they will not impugn the motives of those who believe that the time has come for some lateral thinking about how we fund the health service. I am not sure that the Chancellor understands how difficult the position is for the NHS in many constituencies.
  I want to make two brief points—one about funding and the other about social services, a close partner of the NHS. On the first, the key question that needs to be addressed is how do we adhere to the principles behind the NHS—free at the point of use and available on the basis of need—while enabling the country and the NHS to perform much better than it does at the moment? I want

  111
  to develop briefly the analogy with pensions and find out whether the approach that has successfully been adopted can be applied to health.
  When the welfare state was founded just after the second world war, broadly the same approach was adopted to pensions and health. On pensions, there was to be a compulsory contributory scheme, leading to a state retirement pension, which was designed to address poverty in old age and reduce dependence on means-tested benefits. It was not to be a funded scheme, but a pay-as-you-go scheme, with today's contributions paying today's pensions. The NHS was born with the same overall philosophy—a state scheme aimed at embracing everyone, designed to address ill health and paid for out of compulsory taxation.
  With pensions, the Beveridge vision was never achieved. There was increasing reliance on supplementary benefit, income support and pensioner credits to tackle poverty and no Government were ever able to get the state retirement pension up to the level that would take people out of poverty. Over time, the emphasis began to switch to private provision, based on the workplace. Although the Opposition can claim much of the credit for what I call that mixed economy in pensions, a key player was actually Barbara Castle—as good a socialist as one could come across—whose pension Bill in the mid-1970s contained the architecture for the scheme that we now have.
  Over the years, more emphasis has been placed, by Governments of both parties, on good employers having in place a quality pension scheme that complements, reinforces and works alongside the state retirement scheme—an ideal third way. No one has ever asserted that that is socially divisive. The trade unions support good private pension schemes, and this country's pensions are now on a sound financial footing. We lead Europe in funded pensions, given that most other European Union countries have schemes that will need an increase in taxation or contributions.
  The question I pose this evening is whether a comparable model might not be looked at for health, against the background of the pressures on funding and delivery that confront the NHS as a monopoly provider. Should not one encourage employment-based insurance schemes to complement the NHS? They could be called, "NHS at work" if it helps Labour Members. It is indeed the case that many firms have private health insurance schemes, but, typically, they cover only senior employees. I believe we should move towards a system whereby not just all the employees within firms are covered, but their families as well. Such an approach would be welcomed by those who represent the work force. It would be in the interests of employers in improving the quality of care that employees and their families receive. I believe that the NHS should welcome it, as the growth of an independent sector of medicine would relieve it of much of the pressure that confronts it at the moment. I think that the Government should welcome it, as it would increase the percentage spend up to European levels. I do not think that anyone could argue that such an approach was socially divisive; rather, it would be an extension of good employment practice, as has already happened with decent pensions.
  112
  There are, of course, cost issues for employers, although the bulk purchase of health cover can bring premiums right down to three rather than four figures a year. It could be phased in and the cost could be reduced by cutting employers national insurance contributions. I hope that the debate launched by the Government will permit us to explore that option.
  My second point is about joined-up government. The debate launched by the Government is about the NHS, but we should not forget its partner, social services. Right hon. and hon. Members may have seen the letter in The Times today by Councillor Sir Jeremy Beecham, chairman of the Local Government Association, in which he says:
  "The Chancellor's announcement of £1 billion extra to be invested in the NHS, on top of the current record levels of increase, will be widely welcomed. By an ironical coincidence £1 billion is the sum which local council social services departments are spending on social care over and above the Government's Standard Spending Assessment for social services.
  The work of social services departments with the elderly and with children complements mainline government programmes in health, education and in combating child poverty. It is currently under-funded and many councils face the prospect of cuts in this key area of social provision."
  Certainly, many of the problems confronting the NHS in my constituency in Hampshire are due in no small part to the underfunding of social services. There is no point in providing more money for the NHS if it cannot be spent, because the revenue support grant is squeezing local authorities and social services. Let me say in passing, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack) pointed out, that social services are extensively charged for.
  Nine per cent. of all acute beds in the south-east—1,370 beds, or three district general hospitals—are blocked by delayed transfers of care. Some 23 per cent. of those patients are awaiting public funding. In my constituency, 83 beds are blocked in the Winchester and Eastleigh Healthcare NHS Trust.
  The Government will say, with some justification, that they have twice in the past 12 months allocated extra sums—cash for change and winter pressure money. Hampshire received £1.9 million last year and £2.4 million in September this year. Of course, that money is welcome, but this simply is not joined-up government. It shows how inadequate the social services standard spending assessments are for local government. This is a one-off sum—local authorities do not how much they will get or when they will get it, but the revenue consequences for social services continue year after year. There is a strategic problem of loss of beds in residential and nursing homes, aggravated by measures introduced by the Government.
  Mr. Jim Cunningham: When the right hon. Gentleman was in government, does he recall the representations that were made about changes to the formula that would have meant extra provision for social services and the fact that his Government refused to make those changes?
  Sir George Young: I regard that as a spent conviction. Yes, I remember receiving an unending series of deputations. Any Member of this House with any ingenuity can develop a case showing that his local

  113
  authority has had a raw deal under the revenue support grant system. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman did not lack ingenuity in making his case, and I hope that he was listened to sympathetically.
  Let me return to the strategic problems of social services. There is a net loss of beds in residential and nursing homes, which has a direct impact on the performance of the NHS. The net loss of beds in Hampshire in the past three years has been 62, 277 and 279, with 400 likely this year. So the debate that has been launched must embrace both the NHS and social services.
  I hope that the Government's response to the two strategic issues that I have outlined is not to turn their back on the development of a complementary scheme alongside the NHS. I am slightly worried that the Government see a frantic programme of administrative reform of the NHS as an adequate substitute for the more thorough debate that I outlined. The problems are not likely to be put right by a further round of turbulent administrative reform.
  The problems that confront the NHS are pay awards and other costs rising faster than the inflation uplift; the formula for distributing funds around the country, which is hopelessly flawed; staff recruitment and retention, which leads to the excessive use of agency staff; and delayed transfers of care, which mean that hospitals have to treat more people than they should. The real debate on the NHS should focus on those problems and the broader issues of funding. There is an appetite outside the House for a proper debate on how we fund the NHS and health in this country. I hope that the Government are listening.
  9 pm
  Mr. Frank Field: My hon. Friend the Member for Halton (Derek Twigg) reminded the House that although many of us want to concentrate on the health service, the debate is on the funding of public services. Like him, I have just finished visiting all the reception classes in my constituency. Their one message is, as he said, that schools have never had so much money to spend in the way in which they wish to spend it. The extent to which we freed up the ability of schools to make decisions is a lesson that we can learn in the health debate, because we have not given that freedom to our local hospitals.
  I hope that my hon. Friend will forgive me if, like other hon. Members, I concentrate on the national health service. I also hope that the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young) will forgive me for suggesting later in my short contribution that his comparison between the way in which pensions have developed in this country and the way in which health might develop is, I fear, flawed.
  Within the space of a week, we heard two towering performances by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He is one of the great princes of the platform. He is also one of those politicians who rarely uses his skills, and does so only if he wishes to present a message and, as is often the case, to reposition his party. During the past week, we saw the Chancellor use those considerable skills to reposition the governing party with regard to its views on taxation. Although that debate holds great promise, it also holds great dangers, both for the NHS and for Labour as a governing party. Like all hon. Members, I want more to be spent on health and, certainly like all Labour Members, I want more to be spent through the NHS. I shall dwell on the dangers later in my contribution.
  114
  I did not share the euphoria with which some of my Labour colleagues greeted the announcement that we were going to increase direct taxation. I remember fighting, and losing, elections in which we wanted to increase direct taxation. We won in 1997 for a number of reasons: for instance, the Tory Government had been in office for far too long and we had a leader in my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister who was, and still is, a winner.
  We also won because we made two specific pledges on taxation. We said that in the first stage we would keep to Tory spending plans for the first two years and would not increase direct taxation. Those are the achievements of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Without my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and those two pledges by the Chancellor, I do not believe that we would have won in 1997 or obtained the majority that we did in the last general election.
  Dr. Evan Harris: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Field: As the hon. Gentleman has stopped squirming, I will certainly give way.
  Dr. Harris: The right hon. Gentleman's contribution is thoughtful, but he is basing his comments on two assumptions: first, that it was necessary to make such pledges to beat the Conservative party in 1997 and 2001, and secondly, that there is an implied commitment to put up direct taxes. Is not the problem that the Government hint that they will put up taxes, but the only ones that they will not raise are fair, direct, income-related taxes? The fear is that they will put up unfair, indirect, stealth taxes instead.
  Mr. Field: The Chancellor has made it clear that we will, if need be, increase direct taxation. If the hon. Gentleman has not learned that, he has not been paying much attention to the debate over the past seven days.
  It is important for Labour Members to read carefully what our electorate tell pollsters, and what they tell us during election campaigns. Voters in Birkenhead, as elsewhere, love the game that they play with pollsters. When they know that there is no possibility of a party that will increase direct taxation being elected, they tell pollsters that they would love to have a party that will increase direct taxation. The response from voters to a Government who feel it necessary directly to increase the contribution to the NHS will be totally different. My experience during the election was that most people feel that they already pay a very large part of their income in tax; some believe that it is far too much, and many do not believe that they get value for money.
  It is against that background that we come to a debate about protecting and enhancing the position of the NHS. There is a real danger of some Members in the House reading too simply the messages about Europe. Opposition Front Benchers read the position wrongly in looking to advances in Europe to support their argument that we can increase choice by increasing the numbers of people in this country using private medical care. There is one significant difference between this country and most countries in Europe: in Europe there is an abundance of doctors and nurses, and in this country there is a shortage.
  If one suggests that more people in this country should go private, the resources—apart from the consultants, doctors and nurses who might work extra overtime to

  115
  meet that demand—can come only from the NHS itself. One would be moving the demand around. That is different from the situation in most European countries, where people have paid handsomely in the past for a very large number and an easy supply of doctors and nurses, and where such a policy might be pursued.
  As the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire seemed to imply, there is no major difference between the role that pensions play in Europe and the role that the health service plays in this country. In Europe, it is impossible for Governments to cut back on state pensions. In post-war settlements, pensions have played a part that they do not play in this country. That is why the finances of those countries in the everyone will experience such difficulties in the decade ahead. Germany, France and Italy are planning levels of expenditure for public pensions which are not sustainable, yet when any of those Governments try to cut provision, people move into the streets and the Government quickly withdraw.
  That is totally different from the position in this country, where people do not get het up about whether they are to have a private pension, a company pension or a state pension. In this country, the part of the post-war settlement which voters care about is the national health service, and they will vote for parties that support their views on the NHS. The live rail that kills politicians in Europe is pensions, and the live rail that has in the past killed politicians in this country, and might again, is the NHS. Politicians grapple with the NHS with an ever-present sense of danger. Although there is considerable desire for the NHS to be reformed and services to be made more adequate, there is not yet agreement among the electorate on what the level of expenditure should be, or on what steps need to be taken to ensure that the sort of freedom that is beginning to operate in our classrooms begins to operate in our hospitals.
  Although the Opposition were rather foolish to describe the NHS as they have this evening, it is fair to say that it is our last nationalised industry and the only one that this country has ever cared about. We face not only the question of funding, but the question of how to use that funding to change a centralised, centrally directed, ration book-type health scheme into a system that far more effectively reflects consumer preferences, in a way that we experience in almost every other part of our lives. If people find that difficult to envisage at the moment, the electorate will teach us the lesson very soon.
  My final point follows on from the theme that I have been presenting. The age in which we can have unhypothecated tax increases and easily win elections is over. That is not to say that I do not welcome the debate, or that I do not have views on ways in which additional funds for the NHS can be raised, but if Labour Members think that voters will agree to increases in direct taxation proposed under the banner of the NHS without those increases being directly linked to increases in the size of the health budget, we have another think coming.
  We already have a form of hypothecated tax in this country. I implore the Government, when they are giving serious consideration to the alternatives in an open debate on how to raise the necessary revenue, to think carefully about using the national insurance base as the means by
  116
  which additional funds are raised. However, Labour Members have been peddling three fallacies about that way of proceeding.
  Those who read the Prime Minister's interview in The Independent on Sunday will know that he warned of real dangers in using the national insurance base as the means of funding future increases in the NHS. There are employers and employees contributions, and our experience in Europe tells us what increasing employers' national insurance contributions does. However, it is possible to have increases only in employees contributions. Reading the Prime Minister's interview, I was reminded of the statement supposedly made by Sidney Webb when, after the fall of the Labour Government in 1931, the coalition Government led by the Tories immediately came off the gold standard. He said, "Nobody told us we could come off the gold standard." My message to the Government tonight is simple: it is possible to increase only employees national insurance contributions if one decides to adopt the route of having an hypothecated tax for the NHS.
  Secondly, it is argued that we should not adopt that course because national insurance contributions would be cyclical. One only has to say it to see the fallacy. Income tax is cyclical and there is no evidence in the figures that are produced that national insurance contributions are more cyclical than revenues from income tax. In fact, if the cyclical argument is to be deployed against using national insurance contributions to raise additional funds for the NHS, the Chancellor's suggestion this evening is also faulty. Direct taxation is not more buoyant than national insurance contributions.
  The third reason why I want us to adopt that approach is that although MPs might think that national insurance contributions and income tax are the same thing, our constituents and the electorate do not. One of the reasons why the Conservatives got away for so long with being regarded as a tax-cutting party is that they reduced income tax while more than making up for it by increasing national insurance contributions, and most people in this country did not regard increases in national insurance contributions as increases in direct taxation.
  The Labour party has crossed an important threshold. If we are ready to contemplate raising direct taxation, if necessary, to finance the increase in funds needed to secure the future of the NHS, I hope that we will do so carefully and mindfully. I hope that we do not believe our rhetoric about all the things that the Opposition are supposed to be concerned about, or that voters are keen on increasing taxes. We have been in a dreamland where, thanks to a buoyant economy and the skill of the Chancellor, there has been a surplus in the budget. That surplus is about to disappear during this Parliament and, when it does, choices will have to be made and we will have to defend to our constituents the need to increase revenue—I believe that we will have to do so—to finance the NHS and secure its future. Voters may tell pollsters one thing about paying increased taxes when they know that they will never have to do so but, in that difficult terrain, may behave differently when faced with those increases.
  On the difficult journey on which we are now embarking, I hope that the Government will not dismiss out of hand a hypothecated approach to our financing. As I said earlier, the age of being able to shove up direct taxes and think that people will vote for us is over. Now,

  117
  we have to negotiate, increase by increase, with the voters; we could not have a better subject on which to begin those negotiations than the NHS.
  9.16 pm
  Mr. Andrew Mitchell: It is always an enormous pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field), and never more so than tonight; he makes a thoughtful contribution to welfare and social affairs issues. He spoke about the two towering performances that the Chancellor has already given this week; I hope that that did not include the one that he gave tonight. I hope that the whole House agrees that the speeches of the right hon. Member for Birkenhead and my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young) elevated a debate which sank following the scintillating performance of my right hon. and learned Friend the shadow Chancellor.
  The right hon. Member for Birkenhead made two points on which I should like to comment. First, he is right that the lack of doctors and nurses is at the root of our problems; we need to recruit far more of them to the health service, and I shall return to that later. Secondly, to paraphrase the right hon. Gentleman, he said that politicians tamper with the NHS, a much-loved British institution, at their peril. I profoundly disagree that the time is not right for a proper elevated debate on the future of the NHS; the system simply is not working at the moment, another point to which I shall return to later.
  Mr. Frank Field: I was not saying that we should not have that debate or that big changes were not necessary. All that I was saying was that there might be huge political costs if we get it wrong.
  Mr. Mitchell: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for that clarification. It is vital that we take a serious look at the state of the NHS because it is not delivering for our constituents. I very much hope that that debate will not be characterised by comments such as those by the Chancellor, in which he referred to the Tories wanting £50 billion-worth of cuts, or those from the Liberal Democrat spokesman, who said that the Conservatives do not support the NHS and, indeed, that there are no charges on the health service, when significant taxation goes into it.
  We must elevate the debate above such comments, which were epitomised by the hon. Member for Halton (Derek Twigg), who stated as an article of faith that the Tories want to privatise the health service; quite simply, we do not. The interesting analogy that my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire drew with the pensions regime is worthy of greater comment than the right hon. Member for Birkenhead suggested. I hope that that too will inform public debate on those matters.
  Tonight's debate is timely, as the subject is of immense concern to our constituents. I declare an indirect interest, in that my wife is a doctor in general practice, so I take a particular interest in these matters at home, as well as in the House. I have been away in the real world for the past four years, and on returning to the House of Commons to represent my constituents in Sutton Coldfield, I am astonished at the massive increase in complaints about the quality of the health service that make up my postbag. Complaints about and problems with the NHS are by far the most important element of the post that I receive every day, and I am sure that my experience is not unique in the House.
  118
  In a wealthy society, which ours undoubtedly is, it is a basic requirement that our constituents should be able to receive health care of the quality that their counterparts in continental Europe receive. That is not the case at present. I was astonished to see in a French newspaper the headline, "Les anglais exportent les malades". It may be acceptable at the margins for sick people from Britain to go overseas for treatment, but it is not acceptable as a policy that our sick should have to go overseas to Europe to be cured. Were we to behave in that way in any other aspect of life, it would be entirely unacceptable.
  The Government's response to tonight's debate and over the past week or so has been cynical. At times it has been irrelevant, and at other times, downright misleading. We were told last week that it was important to decentralise the NHS, so that decision making takes place more at local level, yet only a few days before the House debated a Bill that does exactly the opposite. Under the Bill, which was ill thought out, 58 powers for the Secretary of State were added or reinforced. He will determine the funding of every primary care trust in the country. A chief executive quoted in the Government's own report said that he thought that the changes were the most ill-conceived set of changes in a decade, and wondered whether the intention was to torpedo the NHS plan.
  If we have learned anything over the past 30 years, it is that administrative reform—tinkering reform—is not the answer to the problems of our health service. Since Sir Keith Joseph started, we have seen all sorts of reforms. I have sat on Committees that considered Bills introducing such reform. It simply does not work, as everyone seems to realise, apart from the Government.
  Mr. Oliver Heald: Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the saddest aspects is the Government's paucity of ambition? In Berlin recently, I was speaking to the Herr Professor Doktor who runs one of the hospitals there. I asked what the waiting list was. He said, "We do have a few troubles. Sometimes we can't get the patients in the same day. They have to wait till tomorrow." I explained to him that our NHS plan has an ambition that in eight years, nobody should have to wait for more than three months. He was horrified. Does not that anecdote reflect the paucity of ambition of the Government?
  Mr. Mitchell: My hon. Friend makes an extremely good point. He emphasises that in this country we have too few doctors and nurses, as I observed earlier. The problem is getting worse. In Birmingham last year, we had seven vacancies for general practice. This year we have 65—a massive increase.
  I said earlier that the Government's approach was cynical. We have heard in the debate about the way in which the Wanless report has been misrepresented, and how its terms of reference made its conclusions inevitable. I should like the Government to publish the terms of reference of the Adair Turner report. We are told that it will not be published. However, the House should hear what Mr. Adair Turner is being asked to do and how that fits into the NHS 10-year plan.
  On Tuesday, we heard the Chancellor promising £1 billion more for the NHS, which we welcomed. The following day, after some contrary comment in The Sun,

  119
  he made a handbrake turn to Wapping to explain that that was not his plan at all, and that there would be no new money until there was structural reform. Only a couple of weeks ago, the Prime Minister said in answer to a question at Prime Minister's questions that when the Tories left office, there were no new hospitals being built. That was completely untrue, as a parliamentary question answered the following week made clear. We also saw the cynicism of saying that there were 24 hours to save the national health service in 1997. No wonder the public are deeply cynical about politicians—a view that will not have been enhanced by Labour's contribution to this debate.
  Last week, a clear commitment was made to improve spending on health by bringing it up to the European average, but yesterday, the article in The Independent on Sunday that has been mentioned by other hon. Members said that that was only a target in broad terms.
  Roger Casale: Does the hon. Gentleman welcome the announcement of a debate about the future of public expenditure, and does he expect that the Conservatives will come out of it in the same way that they are entering it—by pledging cuts to public expenditure and threatening privatisation of the health service?
  Mr. Mitchell: Of course I welcome a debate on public expenditure. That is why I am speaking now. However, the reality is that, under this Government, waiting lists have not decreased, but increased. Waiting lists for in-patients have increased by 63 per cent. since 1997. It is no good blaming the last Conservative Government for that. The current Government have had four and a half years to make an impact after having promised to do so, but have failed to achieve that.
  I recently tabled a parliamentary question on in-patient and out-patient waiting lists in the local hospital in my constituency, the Good Hope hospital. I discovered that, in March 1997, five of my constituents were waiting more than 12 months for in-patient treatment, while there are now 152 waiting. When the Conservatives left government in 1997, 18 out-patients of the hospital were waiting more than 26 weeks, but there are now 135 such patients. When we left government, there were 287 out-patients waiting more than 13 weeks—a very high figure—but today there are 750. Throughout Birmingham, we have seen the proportion of patients waiting more than 12 months increase since the last election from 0.1 to 2 per cent. That is an enormous increase and we would have expected more contrition from the Government and more about how they would do better than were contained in the crass allegations made over the Dispatch Box by the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
  To add insult to injury for the hard-working doctors and nurses and other dedicated staff in the Good Hope hospital in my constituency, they were recently marked down in terms of the number of stars that were awarded for service to my constituents. When we investigated the reason for that marking down, we discovered on careful analysis that it was done because of lack of beds and trolley waits. However, the reason for those waits had nothing to do with the excellent and dedicated staff in my constituency, but related to bed blocking in Birmingham and the failure of social services. As I said, the result
  120
  was to add insult to injury, especially as the hospital had managed through its own endeavours to free up some funds to help with an innovative scheme to address the problem.
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) started an important debate when he said that the Conservative Government had delivered on low tax and that it was now up to the Conservative party to deliver on policies for our public services. I strongly agree with what he had to say. It is very encouraging that my party is considering systems in other countries. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition is in Stockholm today and we are considering a range of different systems throughout the world.
  The issue that we are addressing is how to deliver to our fellow citizens the quality of health care that they have a right to expect. I do not believe that the Labour party can achieve that, as it is wedded to a model of delivery that does not work. It is right that we should be committed to a service that is provided on the basis of clinical need and regardless of ability to pay. On the current system, it is absolutely clear that although Labour has pumped in money just as we did, outcomes have continued to deteriorate. It will discover that public disillusionment will grow as more taxes are spent and as health care of a standard that our constituents are entitled to expect continues to elude them.
  The Government should encourage the private sector. My right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire made a most interesting point about workplace insurance schemes being provided for families. I believe that that is part of the solution in terms of getting more capacity and funding into the health service in the medium term.
  I should like to end on a different matter: the benefit to the public services of private finance initiatives or public-private partnership projects—a most important policy that has been seamless between the previous Conservative Government and the current Government.
  It is a great thing that the PPP provides for developments in infrastructure that otherwise would not happen for many years. I have written to the Secretary of State for Education and Skills to support an excellent PPP scheme that will benefit the Arthur Terry school in my constituency by replacing old school buildings.
  The Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions has, however, fundamentally undermined the PPP system. I am not especially interested in whether he has to resign because of his stewardship of Railtrack, but I care about the damage that he has inflicted on PPP. He simply does not understand it. I hope that the Chief Secretary to the Treasury understands that the actions of the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions will increase the costs of PPP schemes. Capital providers will not put up the money when such uncertainty exists. No amount of equity risk premium will compensate for that. For a few cheap cheers from Labour Back Benchers, he has inflicted massive, definitive damage on a good policy that enhances public service delivery.
  Morale is falling throughout the NHS. Too many changes have taken place. In the west midlands, 37 per cent. of junior doctors break the working hours limit,

  121
  primary care lists are closing and the Government have introduced a Bill that will do nothing to help because it is bureaucratic, centralised, rushed and wasteful.
  9.31 pm
  Mr. John Bercow: The debate has been stimulating and revealing in equal measure. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) opened it in characteristically incisive fashion. He made a series of specific and detailed points, which collectively constituted a penetrating critique of the Government's position. He also posed several challenges. I shall revert to the failure to respond to them shortly and with appropriate relish
  Before I do that, I shall refer to some other important contributions. My right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young) made a typically measured, thoughtful and open-minded speech. He made an important analogy with the pensions industry. We should not skate over that; it cannot readily be dismissed.
  The hon. Member for Truro and St. Austell (Matthew Taylor), who is a worthy sparring partner, disappointed me. I hope that he will not lose too much sleep over that. He drily and unimaginatively supported the retention of the status quo. New Liberal, old policy.
  The hon. Member for Halton (Derek Twigg) said that he supported the average EU expenditure on health. However, when challenged to specify the amount of money that would be spent on health by the end of the Parliament, he was unable to answer. If I may so describe him, he was a horse that fell at the first hurdle.
  The right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) made a characteristically effective contribution. He fired a shot across the bows of the Treasury Bench and warned of the dangers of willy-nilly increases in taxation. He is always polite, sometimes speaks in code and is invariably challenging to the Government. His strictures on the ration book state were welcome and timely. It is time that they were heeded.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Mitchell) rightly denounced the Government for their cynical approach. He highlighted increasing problems with the provision of health care, excoriated the Government's reactionary attitude to the private finance initiative and demanded a proper, constructive and detailed debate on the inadequacies of the national health service.
  Roger Casale: The Conservative party's attitude to public expenditure in general and the health service in particular proved to be the Achilles heel of the previous shadow Chancellor, the right hon. Member for Kensington and Chelsea (Mr. Portillo). As the hon. Gentleman is so close to the current shadow Chancellor, will he help him by ruling out once and for all the introduction of medical charges for NHS patients by the Tories?
  Mr. Bercow: That contribution was as backward looking as it was ill targeted. I have learned my lesson; giving way to the hon. Gentleman is rarely worth the expenditure of time that it entails. He made a mess of his first effort; he would be unwise to make a second attempt.
  In the course of my right hon. and learned Friend's contribution, he posed a series of questions to the Chancellor. Those questions fell into four categories and,
  122
  if the Chancellor was able to add them up, there were 16 specific questions. In the category of questions on reform, my right hon. and learned Friend asked what the Chancellor had in mind, when the reforms would be implemented, what the criteria for the allocation of funds for expenditure by health authorities would be, and when the decisions would be made on those allocation criteria. Answers to those four questions came there none.
  We move on to the second category of questions, which might neatly be encapsulated by the term "Adair", on the subject of the Adair Turner committee and, presumably, the potential report resulting therefrom. My right hon. and learned Friend pointed out that the Government had previously said that the deliberations and any ensuing report would be private. Was that, he inquired, still the case, or had the Government changed their mind? Would we be told what the conclusions of that committee were and, if so, when? Answers to those questions came there none.
  We move on to the third category, relating to the absurd position at the heart of the Government of total inconsistency, confusion and argument on the subject of meeting the European average level of public expenditure on the health service. My right hon. and learned Friend asked the Chancellor whether he would clarify the Government's position. Was the objective a firm commitment, he asked, or did it amount merely to a vague aspiration? Would the spending on the average level in the European Union be based on the average level in 2000, 2001, 2005 or 2006? Would that average be based on the inclusion of the United Kingdom in the measurement, or would it exclude us? Would the assessment be based on weighted populations or merely on crude numbers? When would there be a delivery on the pledge? Would it be in 2005, in 2006, at some unspecified date in the future or—more likely—never? The Chancellor turns away now, just as he ducked my right hon. and learned Friend's questions earlier.
  I shall remind the House of a trait that now bedevils the Chancellor. It is becoming monotonous, predictable, see-through and progressively more ineffectual every time he unwittingly or wittingly deploys it. In the opening sentence of the right hon. Gentleman's speech, he said—I repeat this for the elucidation of the House—that he would answer every single point that had been raised by my right hon. and learned Friend.
  Derek Twigg: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Bercow: No, I will not.
  I am very worried about the Chancellor of the Exchequer, because the shadow Chancellor put 16 specific detailed questions to him in a 20-minute speech, and in the course of a 25-minute speech, the Chancellor, having said in sentence one that he would answer all of them, conspicuously failed to answer any.
  Derek Twigg: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Speaker: Order.
  Mr. Bercow; Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I do not think that I need any protection from the hon. Member for Halton, but I am nevertheless grateful for your ministrations.

  123
  I simply say to the Chancellor that every time he says that he will deal with the points, he fails to do so. In four and a half years of observing and listening to the Chancellor, I have never heard a worse speech from him, either in the House or outside it. We know that the Government are in total disarray on hypothecation, on social insurance, and on specificity about the means by which the health service is to be funded. On the one hand, we have the position of the Chancellor—
  Derek Twigg: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Speaker: Order. I do not think that the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) wishes to give way.
  Mr. Bercow: I am very happy to deal with the organ grinder, Mr. Speaker, but I am not all that interested in the monkey.

  The reality is that the Chancellor is opposed by his right hon. Friend—I use the word "friend" distinctly loosely in this context—the Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson). He is also opposed by the Secretary of State for Health. Can he look for friendship to the Leader of the House, who somewhat undermined his position at business questions last Thursday? That seems unlikely, given that the two of them have barely been able to stand the sight of each other for the past 20 years.
  Does the Chancellor have the support of his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry? Apparently, she is ditching him too, because she supports some form of hypothecation. Then we come to the Chancellor's colleague, the chairman of the Labour party and Minister without Portfolio, the right hon. Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Clarke). The right hon. Gentleman has already stitched up the Chancellor in Scotland by getting rid of his candidate for the position of First Minister. He has undermined him on other subjects too: he is second-guessing him on the euro, for instance, and he does not agree with him about this.
  The Chancellor must really ask how many friends he has, and the answer seems to be not very many. If someone is rude to his friends, intimidates them, belittles them, ignores them, does not answer them and makes announcements on their behalf without even telling them until the last minute, is it any wonder that he will ultimately be disliked, vilified and plotted against? That is what is happening to the Chancellor.
  If the Chancellor is the sort of Minister who offers a prescription before giving a diagnosis, it is a very good job that he opted to come into politics rather than becoming a general practitioner in our national health service. He specialises in not answering questions. Is it any wonder that productivity growth in British manufacturing is so bad, when the Chancellor's productivity in answering questions is even worse?
  What does the Chancellor make of existing public expenditure on the national health service? He likes to see himself as the all-powerful figure, the dominant creature in the Government, dictating the course of events, in control of the show. I remind the House that, since 1997, the Government have been responsible for the failure to spend more than £5,000 million that the Chancellor and
  124
  his right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary have allocated to spending Departments, but which they have not had the wit, competence or sagacity to spend. [Interruption.]
  It is no good the Chancellor chuntering from a sedentary position in evident disapproval of what I am saying, when he has failed to do anything about that consistent underspend. The underspend in the NHS means that 70,000 heart bypass operations that would otherwise have been performed have not been performed. What has the Chancellor to say about the £10 billion a year that is being improperly spent in the health service—wasted on fraud, used in the context of bed-blocking, and devoted to sick pay, hospital-acquired infections and the rest?
  Despite all that, the Chancellor has the sheer audacity to come to the House and defend his position on the ground of equity. He talks about an equitable national health service, which I interpret as meaning "fair". Does the Chancellor think it fair that people in this country are sicker than they were before? We Conservatives do not. Does he think it fair that more people are having to wait longer than ever before in Labour Britain? If he does, we do not. Does he think it fair that people are dying earlier in this country than they are, on average, in its European counterparts? We do not consider that fair or acceptable. Survival rates in this country for leukaemia, prostate cancer and breast cancer are all pitifully inadequate in comparison with those in the European Union
  Finally, we turn to the interesting issue of private expenditure. I leave the Government and the House to reflect on it. The Government are condemning the use of private funds, yet it is happening all over the country. A private trust recently raised no less than £14 million to assist in the rebuilding of one orthopaedic hospital trust: £2 million was spent on the orthotic unit, £4 million on the creation of a muscular-skeletal disorders research building, £6 million as a contribution to a £25 million private finance initiative project, and up to £750,000 on a hydrotherapy pool. I suggest that the Chancellor use the pool; it will not improve his expertise in health policy, but it might do something to improve his temper.
  Where is that hospital? It is in the Oxford, East constituency. It is the Nuffield Orthopaedic Centre NHS trust, in the constituency of the Chief Secretary to the Treasury. I am not going to accuse him of hypocrisy because you, Mr. Speaker, would rule me out of order. I say simply that it is two-faced. It is an example of double standards. It reflects the difference between what the right hon. Gentleman wants to saddle the rest of the country with and what he is pleased to accept in respect of his constituents.
  The British public are fed up with the clashing egos, the competing ambitions, the corrosive tensions at the heart of the Government. They are not interested in the Chancellor's ambitions. They do not like the unedifying spectacle. What they want is a decent health service, reliable provision, policies that translate care from a word to a deed for the majority of hard-working, long-suffering people in this country. The Chancellor's policy will not deliver. We are determined to produce a coherent, credible, costed and attractive policy that will deliver. [HON. MEMBERS: "When?"] Members will hear of that policy in readiness for the next general election.
  9.45 pm
  The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Andrew Smith): I have been here throughout the debate and heard the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) as well

  125
  as the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard). The hon. Member for Buckingham has a thing or two to learn about monkeys and organ grinders. Never could we have heard a better example of someone's eloquence outrunning his judgment than in the hon. Gentleman's speech.
  The hon. Gentleman refers to the fund raising for the Nuffield orthopaedic hospital in my constituency. I am proud of that fund-raising effort. I commend the energy and support that Lord Tebbit has put into that out of personal commitment. I would not seek to use that for political purposes, here or anywhere else. [Interruption.]
  Mr. Speaker: Order. We must be able to hear the Minister.
  Mr. Smith rose—[Interruption.]
  Mr. Speaker: Order. We must have some calmness.
  Mr. Smith: There are two striking things about this debate. The first is that the shadow Chancellor described our national health service, a proud creation of this country and something of which we are all proud, as a Stalinist creation. The second is that he refused conspicuously when challenged by my hon. Friend the Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall) and others to rule out charging. He gave the game away as to what the Tory agenda is. It is an agenda of privatisation and of charging for the health service.
  It is clear where the dividing lines are in the debate. Where we will invest in the NHS, reform it and work with staff to raise its performance, the Conservative Front-Bench team will not commit to NHS investment, it has no ideas for NHS reform and, as it toys with half-baked ideas for private insurance, it would destroy the principles of the NHS, just as the Conservatives opposed its foundation.
  As my right hon. and hon. Friends have pointed out, a key principle is at stake. We believe in an NHS free at the point of need, so that patients receive care on the basis of clinical need and not ability to pay. I believe that that principle is strongly supported by the British people. After all, it is about fairness. In walking away from it, as my hon. Friend the Member for Halton (Derek Twigg) pointed out speaking on behalf of his constituents, the Conservative leadership would threaten millions of people with insecurity, with costs that they cannot afford, and with health care being unavailable when they need it most. In promoting their private health agenda for what they describe as the Stalinist NHS, Conservative Members would land a body blow on NHS staff, whose skills and dedication we depend on for better health care. Conservative Members will rue the day that their leaders set off down that road—just as they already regret initiating this debate in which only two Tory Back Benchers spoke after the shadow Chancellor, who could not get out of the Chamber fast enough. They have not one thought-out policy to offer.
  I shall reply to some of the speeches. If I followed him correctly, the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young) was urging a supplementary social insurance model. I took his comments in the spirit in which they were made, which was certainly not the spirit of the shadow Chancellor. I think that the right hon.
  126
  Gentleman believes in a national health service that is free at the point of need, as he promised in his manifesto. He is nodding his agreement. He clearly disagrees with the shadow Chancellor and recognises that charges would be a disaster.
  The danger of such schemes is not only that employers and employees have to pay more, but that, as has happened in France, they often increasingly require top-up contributions. Moreover, the administrative burden of such schemes frequently grows—as it did in Germany, where the Government were forced to intervene when administrative charges exceeded 4.8 per cent. of health spending, compared with the 3.8 per cent. of health spending to which we keep administrative charges in the cost-effective NHS.
  Mr. Edward Davey: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Smith: No; if I may, I shall reply to the debate.
  In a characteristically thoughtful speech, my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) pointed out that, in contrast to most European countries, the key issue for the United Kingdom is that, without a surplus of nurses and doctors, expansion of the private sector would be at the expense of the NHS and those who depend on it. He also pointed out the ever-present danger for politicians of grappling with what he called the "live rail" of the NHS. Today, the shadow Chancellor jumped down on the tracks and grabbed that live rail when he threatened the British people with charges.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead also urged that the NHS be funded only with national insurance contributions levied on employees. I am sure that he will understand it if I say that I shall take that as a Budget representation.
  The hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Mitchell) said that a lot of things are wrong with the NHS, but, although I listened carefully to his speech, he made not one positive suggestion about what to do about them. He said that there are not enough nurses and doctors, but the Government have already recruited an extra 17,000 nurses and an extra 6,700 doctors. Moreover, what was the position before we entered office? Furthermore, with the funding that we are making available, which would not be made available if Conservative Members were in government, we are bringing forward 20,000 extra nurses and 10,000 extra doctors. We shall achieve that because we are increasing the resources and share of GDP provided to the national health service, not introducing charges or cutting public spending to 35 per cent. of GDP as advocated by the shadow Chancellor.
  We believe in the NHS and are ambitious for what it can and must achieve. Moreover, as the interim Wanless report points out, United Kingdom health outcomes have not been good enough, public expectations are increasing, and over a long period we have not invested enough to get the health services that the British people want. As my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer spelled out in the pre-Budget report, we need to spend a higher proportion of national income on health, coupled with reform to improve delivery. If hon. Members accept that, they will accept that the money can come from only three main sources: general taxation, social insurance, or private payments.

  127
  We say that it is right that it should come principally from general taxation. We say that because, as the Wanless report states:
  "The main disadvantage of a predominantly social insurance based model is that the revenue base is more concentrated, falling on employment to a greater extent than in countries with a higher proportion of general taxation funding. As a result, many countries such as France with a tradition of social insurance, have been shifting the balance in their funding towards general taxation."
  On private funding, Wanless said:
  "Private funding mechanisms tend to be inequitable, regressive … have weak incentives for cost control, high administration costs and can deter appropriate use."
  That is the future to which the shadow Chancellor wants to condemn the people of this country with his proposals for charges. I have heard no argument from Conservative Members that calls those conclusions into question.
  Mr. Edward Davey: Given that Ministers have been so against charges in the NHS tonight, will the right hon. Gentleman commit the Government to ending charges for eye tests and dental check-ups?
  Mr. Smith: It was this Government who ended charges for eye tests for people over 60. If it were not for our commitment to resourcing public services, which would never have been possible with Liberal Democrat policies, that would not have happened. Of course we reject charging for clinical services.
  As we have seen in the months since the general election, it is our party and our Government who are reaffirming a commitment to the principles of the national health service, hugely increasing health spending and matching that expenditure with reform, putting 75 per cent. of the funding through the primary care trust, devolving responsibility and empowering front-line staff.
  The Conservative party, having promised that no one would be forced to take out private insurance, now wants to introduce charging for health care services but will not say who will be charged how much for what.
  Mr. Bercow: The Chief Secretary has already gone one better than the Chancellor: he has so far provided half an answer to one of the 16 questions put by my right hon. and learned Friend. In the remaining three minutes, will he answer some of the other 15 and a half?
  Mr. Smith: There is a lot to debate as we decide how to develop the NHS, but that contribution is barely worthy of our attention.
  The public want a publicly funded, comprehensive, high-quality service, available on the basis of clinical need, not ability to pay. One thing is clear: the shadow Chancellor did his party, and indeed many decent Conservative voters, a great disservice last week and again tonight, when he derided this as a Labour question. The truth is that it used to be a Conservative question, too, and perhaps still is for those of his more moderate colleagues who are able to resist the ever increasing power of the fundamentalists in their constituency associations.
  The shadow Chancellor and the Leader of the Opposition have confirmed that they are more extreme than ever. Their abandonment of a one nation health service is a final nail in the coffin of one nation Conservatism.
  128
  We are determined to secure comprehensive, high-quality services available on the basis of clinical need, not ability to pay. That is not just a Labour question: it is the British people's question. It is in applying the best values and instincts of the British people for fairness and mutual support that we, and not the Conservative party, will provide the answer: a properly resourced national health service that delivers for all the people.
  Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question—
  The House divided: Ayes 169, Noes 297

  Division No. 97]

  [9.59pm

  AYES

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

  Allan, Richard

  Greenway, John

  Amess, David

  Gummer, Rt Hon John

  Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

  Hague, Rt Hon William

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Hammond, Philip

  Bacon, Richard

  Harris, Dr Evan (Oxford W)

  Baldry, Tony

  Harvey, Nick

  Barker, Gregory

  Hawkins, Nick

  Baron, John

  Hayes, John

  Beith, Rt Hon A J

  Heald, Oliver

  Bercow, John

  Heath, David

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

  Blunt, Crispin

  Hendry, Charles

  Boswell, Tim

  Hoban, Mark

  Bottomiey, Peter (Worthing W)

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

  Holmes, Paul

  Brady, Graham

  Horam, John

  Breed, Colin

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Brooke, Mrs Annette L

  Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

  Burstow, Paul

  Jack, Rt Hon Michael

  Burt, Alistair

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Butterfill, John

  Johnson, Boris (Henley)

  Calton, Mrs Patsy

  Keetch, Paul

  Cameron, David

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

  Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)

  Key, Robert

  Carmichael, Alistair

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Cash, William

  Knight, Rt Hon Greg (E Yorkshire)

  Chidgey, David

  Laing, Mrs Eleanor

  Chope, Christopher

  Lamb, Norman

  Clappison, James

  Lansley, Andrew

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth

  Laws, David

  (Rushcliffe)

  Leigh, Edward

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Letwin, Oliver

  Collins, Tim

  Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

  Conway, Derek

  Liddell-Grainger, Ian

  Cotter, Brian

  Lidington, David

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

  Loughton, Tim

  Djanogly, Jonathan

  Luff, Peter

  Duncan, Peter (Galloway)

  Mclntosh, Miss Anne

  Evans, Nigel

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  Fabricant, Michael

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Fallon, Michael

  Malins, Humfrey

  Field, Mark (Cities of London)

  Maples, John

  Flight, Howard

  Maude, Rt Hon Francis

  Flook, Adrian

  May, Mrs Theresa

  Forth, Rt Hon Eric

  Mercer, Patrick

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Mitchell, Andrew (Sutton Coldfield)

  Francois, Mark

  Moore, Michael

  Gale, Roger

  Moss, Malcolm

  Garnier, Edward

  Murrison, Dr Andrew

  Gibb, Nick

  Norman, Archie

  Gidley, Sandra

  Oaten, Mark

  Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

  O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

  Goodman, Paul

  Osbome, George (Tatton)

  Grayling, Chris

  Page, Richard

  Green, Damian (Ashford)

  Paice, James

  129

  Pickles, Eric

  Syms, Robert

  Prisk, Mark

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Pugh, Dr John

  Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Taylor, John (Solihull)

  Rendel, David

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Robathan, Andrew

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Robertson, Hugh (Faversham)

  Thurso, John

  Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

  Tonge, Dr Jenny

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Trend, Michael

  Rosindell, Andrew

  Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

  Ruffley, David

  Tyler, Paul

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Tyrie, Andrew

  Sanders, Adrian

  Waterson, Nigel

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Watkinson, Angela

  Selous, Andrew

  Webb, Steve

  Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

  Whittingdale, John

  Shepherd, Richard

  Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

  Simmonds, Mark

  Wiggin, Bill

  Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

  Willis, Phil

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

  Wilshire, David

  Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Soames, Nicholas

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

  Spelman, Mrs Caroline

  Yeo, Tim

  Spicer, Sir Michael

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Spink, Bob

  Younger-Ross, Richard

  Spring, Richard

  Streeter, Gary

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Stunell, Andrew

  Mr. John Randall and

  Swire, Hugo

  Mr. Julian Brazier.

  NOES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Cawsey, Ian

  Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

  Challen, Colin

  Allen, Graham

  Chaytor, David

  Anderson, Rt Hon Donald

  Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

  (Swansea E)

  Clark, Dr Lynda

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

  (Edinburgh Pentlands)

  Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Atherton, Ms Candy

  Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

  Austin, John

  Clelland, David

  Bailey, Adrian

  Clwyd, Ann

  Baird, Vera

  Coaker, Vernon

  Banks, Tony

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Barron, Kevin

  Coleman, Iain

  Bayley, Hugh

  Cook, Rt Hon Robin (Livingston)

  Beard, Nigel

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Begg, Miss Anne

  Corston, Jean

  Bell, Stuart

  Cousins, Jim

  Benton, Joe

  Crausby, David

  Berry, Roger

  Cruddas, Jon

  Best, Harold

  Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

  Betts, Clive

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Blackman, Liz

  Cummings, John

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack (Copeland)

  Blizzard, Bob

  Blunkett, Rt Hon David

  Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

  Borrow, David

  Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

  Bradley, Rt Hon Keith (Withington)

  Dalyell, Tam

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Davidson, Ian

  Brennan, Kevin

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Brown, Rt Hon Gordon

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

  (Dunfermline E)

  Dawson, Hilton

  Brown, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Denham, Rt Hon John

  (Newcastle E & Wallsend)

  Dhanda, Parmjit

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Dismore, Andrew

  Bryant, Chris

  Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

  Buck, Ms Karen

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Burden, Richard

  Doran, Frank

  Burnham, Andy

  Dowd, Jim

  Cairns, David

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Edwards, Huw

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Efford, Clive

  Casale, Roger

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Caton, Martin

  Farrelly, Paul

  130

  Field, Rt Hon Frank (Birkenhead)

  Levitt, Tom

  Fisher, Mark

  Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  Linton, Martin

  Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

  Love, Andrew

  Flint, Caroline

  Lucas, Ian

  Foster, Michael (Worcester)

  Luke, Iain

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Foulkes, George

  McCartney, Rt Hon Ian

  Francis, Dr Hywel

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Gapes, Mike

  MacDonald, Calum

  Gardiner, Barry

  McDonnell, John

  Gerrard, Neil

  MacDougall, John

  Gibson, Dr Ian

  McFall, John

  Gilroy, Linda

  McIsaac, Shona

  Godsiff, Roger

  McNulty, Tony

  Goggins, Paul

  MacShane, Denis

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  McWalter, Tony

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  McWilliam, John

  Hain, Rt Hon Peter

  Mallaber, Judy

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  Mann, John

  Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

  Marris, Rob

  Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Hanson, David

  Marshall-Andrews, Robert

  Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

  Martlew, Eric

  Havard, Dai

  Michael, Rt Hon Alun

  Healey, John

  Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

  Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

  Miliband, David

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Miller, Andrew

  Hendrick, Mark

  Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Moffatt, Laura

  Heppell, John

  Mole, Chris

  Heyes, David

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Hill, Keith

  Moran, Margaret

  Hinchliffe, David

  Morley, Elliot

  Hoey, Kate

  Morris, Rt Hon Estelle

  Hope, Phil

  Mountford, Kali

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Mudie, George

  Howarth, Rt Hon Alan (Newport E)

  Mullin, Chris

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Munn, Ms Meg

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Hughes, Beverley (Stretford)

  Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Naysmith, Dr Doug

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  Hurst, Alan

  O'Neill, Martin

  Hutton, Rt Hon John

  Organ, Diana

  Iddon, Dr Brian

  Palmer, Dr Nick

  Illsley, Eric

  Pearson, Ian

  Ingram, Rt Hon Adam

  Perham, Linda

  Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead)

  Picking, Anne

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Pickthall, Colin

  Jamieson, David

  Pike, Peter

  Jenkins, Brian

  Pollard, Kerry

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Pond, Chris

  Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

  Pope, Greg

  Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Pound, Stephen

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  Powell, Sir Raymond

  Jowell, Rt Hon Tessa

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

  Purchase, Ken

  Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

  Purnell, James

  Kemp, Fraser

  Quin, Rt Hon Joyce

  Khabra, Piara S

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Kidney, David

  Rapson, Syd

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Raynsford, Rt Hon Nick

  King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

  Reid, Alan (Argyll & Bute)

  King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

  Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Kumar, Dr Ashok

  Rooney, Terry

  Ladyman, Dr Stephen

  Ross, Ernie

  Lammy, David

  Roy, Frank

  Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

  Ruane, Chris

  Laxton, Bob

  Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

  Lepper, David

  Ryan, Joan

  Leslie, Christopher

  Salter, Martin

  131

  Savidge, Malcolm

  Tipping, Paddy

  Sawford, Phil

  Todd, Mark

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Touhig, Don

  Shaw, Jonathan

  Trickett, Jon

  Sheerman, Barry

  Truswell, Paul

  Sheridan, Jim

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Shipley, Ms Debra

  Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

  Short, Rt Hon Clare

  Turner, Neil (Wigan)

  Simon, Siôn

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

  Ward, Ms Claire

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  Wareing, Robert N

  Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

  Watson, Tom

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Watts, David

  Soley Clive

  White, Brian

  Southworth, Helen

  Whitehead, Dr Alan

  Spellar, Rt Hon John

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Starkey, Dr Phyllis

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan

  Steinberg, Gerry

  (Swansea W)

  Stevenson, George

  Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

  Stewart, David (Inverness E)

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster c)

  Wood, Mike

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  Woodward, Shaun

  Stoate, Dr Howard

  Woolas, Phil

  Stringer, Graham

  Worthington, Tony

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

  Tami, Mark

  Wright, Tony (Cannock)

  Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

  Wyatt, Derek

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Taylor, Dr Richard (Wyre F)

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

  Mr. Gerry Sutcliffe and

  Timms, Stephen

  Mr. Nick Ainger.

  Question accordingly negatived
  Question That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith pursuant to standing Order No.31 (Question on amendments):—
  The House divided: Ayes 292, Noes 167

  Division No.98]

  [10.15pm

  AYES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Brown, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

  (Newcastle E & Wallsend)

  Allen, Graham

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Anderson, Rt Hon Donald

  Bryant, Chris

  (Swansea E)

  Buck, Ms Karen

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

  Burden, Richard

  Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

  Burnham, Andy

  Atherton, Ms Candy

  Cairns, David

  Austin, John

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Bailey, Adrian

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Baird, Vera

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Banks, Tony

  Casale, Roger

  Barron, Kevin

  Caton, Martin

  Bayley, Hugh

  Cawsey, Ian

  Beard, Nigel

  Challen, Colin

  Begg, Miss Anne

  Chaytor, David

  Bell, Stuart

  Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

  Benton, Joe

  Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

  Berry, Roger

  Best, Harold

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Betts, Clive

  Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

  Blackman, Liz

  Clelland, David

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Clwyd, Ann

  Blizzard, Bob

  Coaker, Vernon

  Blunkett, Rt Hon David

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Borrow, David

  Coleman, Iain

  Bradley, Rt Hon Keith (Withington)

  Cook, Rt Hon Robin (Livingston)

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Corston, Jean

  Brennan, Kevin

  Cousins, Jim

  Brown, Rt Hon Gordon

  Crausby, David

  (Dunfermline E)

  Cruddas, Jon

  132

  Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

  Jamieson, David

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Jenkins, Brian

  Cummings, John

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack (Copeland)

  Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

  Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Dalyell, Tam

  Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

  Davidson, Ian

  Kemp, Fraser

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Khabra, Piara S

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

  Kidney, David

  Dawson, Hilton

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Denham, Rt Hon John

  King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

  Dhanda, Parmjit

  King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

  Dismore, Andrew

  Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Kumar, Dr Ashok

  Doran, Frank

  Ladyman, Dr Stephen

  Dowd, Jim

  Lammy, David

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

  Edwards, Huw

  Laxton, Bob

  Efford, Clive

  Lepper, David

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Leslie, Christopher

  Farrelly, Paul

  Levitt, Tom

  Field, Rt Hon Frank (Birkenhead)

  Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen

  Fisher, Mark

  Linton, Martin

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  Love, Andrew

  Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

  Lucas, Ian

  Flint, Caroline

  Luke, Iain

  Foster, Michael (Worcester)

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

  McCartney, Rt Hon Ian

  Foulkes, George

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Francis, Dr Hywel

  McDonnell, John

  Gapes, Mike

  MacDougall, John

  Gardiner, Barry

  McFall, John

  Gerrard, Neil

  McIsaac, Shona

  Gibson, Dr Ian

  McNulty, Tony

  Gilroy, Linda

  MacShane, Denis

  Godsiff, Roger

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Goggins, Paul

  McWalter, Tony

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  McWilliam, John

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Mallaber, Judy

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter

  Hain, Rt Hon Peter

  Mann, John

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  Marris, Rob

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

  Marshall-Andrews, Robert

  Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

  Martlew, Eric

  Hanson, David

  Michael, Rt Hon Alun

  Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

  Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

  Havard, Dai

  Miliband, David

  Healey, John

  Miller, Andrew

  Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

  Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Moffatt, Laura

  Hendrick, Mark

  Mole, Chris

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Heppell, John

  Moran, Margaret

  Heyes, David

  Morley, Elliot

  Hill, Keith

  Morris, Rt Hon Estelle

  Hinchliffe, David

  Mountford, Kali

  Hoey, Kate

  Mudie, George

  Hope, Phil

  Mullin, Chris

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Munn, Ms Meg

  Howarth, Rt Hon Alan (Newport E)

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

  Howells, Dr Kim

  Naysmith, Dr Doug

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  Hughes, Beveriey (Stretford)

  O'Neill, Martin

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Organ, Diana

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Palmer, Dr Nick

  Hurst, Alan

  Pearson, Ian

  Hutton, Rt Hon John

  Perham, Linda

  Iddon, Dr Brian

  Picking, Anne

  Illsley, Eric

  Pickthall, Colin

  Ingram, Rt Hon Adam

  Pike, Peter

  Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead)

  Pollard, Kerry

  133

  Pond, Chris

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  Pope, Greg

  Stoate, Dr Howard

  Pound, Stephen

  Stringer, Graham

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Tami, Mark

  Purchase, Ken

  Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

  Purnell, James

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Quin, Rt Hon Joyce

  Taylor, Dr Richard (Wyre F)

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

  Rapson, Syd

  Timms, Stephen

  Raynsford, Rt Hon Nick

  Tipping, Paddy

  Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

  Todd, Mark

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

  Touhig, Don

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Trickett, Jon

  Rooney, Terry

  Truswell, Paul

  Ross, Ernie

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Roy, Frank

  Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

  Ruane, Chris

  Turner, Neil (Wigan)

  Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Ryan, Joan

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Salter, Martin

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Savidge, Malcolm

  Ward, Ms Claire

  Sawford, Phil

  Wareing, Robert N

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Watson, Tom

  Shaw, Jonathan

  Watts, David

  Sheerman, Barry

  White, Brian

  Sheridan, Jim

  Whitehead, Dr Alan

  Shipley, Ms Debra

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Short, Rt Hon Clare

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

  Simon, Siôn

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

  Wood, Mike

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  Woodward, Shaun

  Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

  Woolas, Phil

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Worthington, Tony

  Soley, Clive

  Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

  Southworth, Helen

  Wright, Tony (Cannock)

  Spellar, Rt Hon John

  Wyatt, Derek

  Starkey, Dr Phyllis

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Stevenson, George

  Mr. Gerry Sutcliffe and

  Stewart, David (Inverness E)

  Mr. Nick Ainger.

  NOES

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  Clappison, James

  Allan, Richard

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Amess, David

  Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Conway, Derek

  Bacon, Richard

  Cotter, Brian

  Baldry, Tony

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  Barker, Gregory

  Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

  Baron, John

  Djanogly, Jonathan

  Beith, Rt Hon A J

  Duncan, Peter (Galloway)

  Bercow, John

  Evans, Nigel

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Fabricant, Michael

  Blunt, Crispin

  Fallon, Michael

  Boswell, Tim

  Field, Mark (Cities of London)

  Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

  Flight, Howard

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

  Flook, Adrian

  Brady, Graham

  Forth, Rt Hon Eric

  Brazier, Julian

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Breed, Colin

  Francois, Mark

  Brooke, Mrs Annette L

  Gale, Roger

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Garnier, Edward

  Burstow, Paul

  Gibb, Nick

  Burt, Alistair

  Gidley, Sandra

  Butterfill, John

  Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

  Carton, Mrs Patsy

  Goodman, Paul

  Cameron, David

  Grayling, Chris

  Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)

  Green, Damian (Ashford)

  Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

  Carmichael, Alistair

  Greenway, John

  Cash, William

  Gummer, Rt Hon John

  Chope, Christopher

  Hague, Rt Hon William

  134

  Hammond, Philip

  Prisk, Mark

  Harris, Dr Evan (Oxford W)

  Pugh, Dr John

  Harvey, Nick

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Hawkins, Nick

  Rendel, David

  Hayes, John

  Robathan, Andrew

  Heald, Oliver

  Robertson, Hugh (Faversham)

  Heath, David

  Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

  Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Hendry, Charles

  Rosindell, Andrew

  Hoban, Mark

  Ruffley, David

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Holmes, Paul

  Sanders, Adrian

  Horam, John

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Selous, Andrew

  Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

  Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

  Shepherd, Richard

  Jack, Rt Hon Michael

  Simmonds, Mark

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

  Johnson, Boris (Henley)

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

  Keetch, Paul

  Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

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

  Soames, Nicholas

  Spelman, Mrs Caroline

  Key, Robert

  Spicer, Sir Michael

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Spink, Bob

  Knight, Rt Hon Greg (E Yorkshire)

  Spring, Richard

  Laing, Mrs Eleanor

  Streeter, Gary

  Lamb, Norman

  Stunell, Andrew

  Lansley, Andrew

  Swire, Hugo

  Laws, David

  Syms, Robert

  Leigh, Edward

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Letwin, Oliver

  Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

  Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

  Taylor, John (Solihull)

  Liddell-Grainger, Ian

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Lidington, David

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Thurso, John

  Loughton, Tim

  Tonge, Dr Jenny

  Luff, Peter

  Trend, Michael

  McIntosh, Miss Anne

  Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  Tyler, Paul

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Tyrie, Andrew

  Malins, Hurnfrey

  Waterson, Nigel

  Maples, John

  Watkinson, Angela

  Maude, Rt Hon Francis

  Webb, Steve

  May, Mrs Theresa

  Whittingdale, John

  Mercer, Patrick

  Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

  Mitchell, Andrew (Sutton Coldfield)

  Wiggin, Bill

  Moore, Michael

  Willetts, David

  Moss, Malcolm

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Murrison, Dr Andrew

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

  Norman, Archie

  Yeo, Tim

  Oaten, Mark

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

  Younger-Ross, Richard

  Osborne, George (Tatton)

  Page, Richard

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Paice, James

  Mr. David Wilshire and

  Pickles, Eric

  Mr. John Randall.

  Question accordingly agreed to
  MR. SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to
  Resolved,
  That this House deplores the attempt by HM Opposition to draw attention away from their lack of coherent policies on public service improvement; welcomes the Government's determination to uphold the highest standards of integrity and honesty in public life; acknowledges that the Government has been open about the standards Ministers, Civil Servants and Special Advisers are expected to uphold; welcomes the publication of the new Ministerial code including the requirements on greater transparency never seen before, attaching the highest importance to the prompt and efficient

  135
  handling of Parliamentary Questions and correspondence; and commends the professionalism and integrity with which the Government continues to conduct departmental business in the best traditions of public service.

  LAND REGISTRATION BILL [LORDS]
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 90(6) (Second reading committees),
  That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  Question agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee, pursuant to Standing Order No. 63 (Committal of Bills).

  LAND REGISTRATION BILL [LORDS] [WAYS AND MEANS]
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 52 (Money resolutions and ways and means resolutions in connection with bills),
  That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Land Registration Bill [Lords], it is expedient to authorise the charging of fees in respect of dealings with the Land Registry—[Mr. Kemp.]
  Question agreed to.

  LAND REGISTRATION BILL [LORDS] [MONEY]
  Queen's recommendation having been signified—
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 52 (Money resolutions and ways and means resolutions in connectionith bills),
  That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Land Registration Bill [Lords], it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any expenses of the Chief Land Registrar or the Lord Chancellor attributable to the Act—[Mr. Kemp.]
  Question agreed to.

  EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 119(9) (European Standing Committees),

  SECURITY OF ENERGY SUPPLY
  That this House takes note of European Union documents nos. 5619/01, the Commission Green Paper, Towards a European Strategy for the Security of Energy Supply, and 7218/01, relating to common rules for the internal market in electricity and natural gas; and supports the Government's welcome of both these documents as the Green Paper provides analysis of the energy supply situation and the proposed Directive and Regulation would increase competition in the internal energy market and facilitate cross-border trading in electricity and thereby contribute to security of supply—[Mr. Kemp.]
  Question agreed to

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

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT
  That the draft The Local Government Commission for England (Transfer of Functions) Order 2001, which was laid before this House on 14th November, be approved—[Mr. Kemp.]
  Question agreed to.
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

  TERRORISM
  That the draft Terrorism Act 2000 (Enforcement of External Orders) Order 2001, which was laid before this House on 14th November, be approved—[Mr. Kemp.]
  Question agreed to.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
  Motion made,
  That,
  (1) At the sittings on Tuesday 11 th, Wednesday 12th and Thursday 13th December, the Speaker shall not adjourn the House until any Lords Messages relating to the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Bill have been received; and
  (2) At the sitting on Thursday 13th December, the Speaker shall not adjourn the House until he shall have reported the Royal Assent to any Act agreed upon by both Houses
  Hon. Members: Object

  ADJOURNMENT (CHRISTMAS)
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 25 (Periodic adjournments),
  That this House, at its rising on Wednesday 19th December, do adjourn till Tuesday 8th January 2002—[Mr. Kemp.]
  Question agreed to.

  EDUCATION AND SKILLS
  Ordered,
  That Bob Spink be discharged from the Education and Skills Committee and Mr. Mark Simmonds be added to the Committee.—[Mr. John Mc William, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]

  SECTION 5 OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES (AMENDMENT) ACT 1993
  Ordered,
  That, for the purposes of its approval under section 5 of the European Communities (Amendment) Act 1993, the Pre-Budget Report 2001 shall be treated as if it were an instrument subject to the provisions of Standing Order No. 118 (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation)—[Mr. Kemp.]

  Belmont Primary School
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Kemp.]
  10.31 pm
  Dr. Ashok Kumar: I am grateful—[Interruption.]
  Mr. Speaker: Order. Do not stand in front of an hon. Member who is addressing the House.
  Dr. Kumar: This debate is about an Ofsted inspection of a primary school in my constituency. It is not about challenging the bulk of the findings of Ofsted's inspection of Belmont school, nor about education policy. I fully support the Government's aim of raising standards through monitoring and inspection of schools and helping those that need improvement. The debate is about what I, the head, the teaching staff and the governors of the school believe is an inherent flaw in Ofsted's inspection structure—a flaw that was inserted by the legislation that gave birth to Ofsted.
  Belmont primary school is overseen by Redcar and Cleveland local education authority. It has 362 pupils on its roll and a well-respected head teacher, Colin Linthwaite. At the time of the inspection, a high percentage of the school's pupils came from outside its designated catchment zone; the figure has now reached 47 per cent. It is an improving school with continuing good results at key stages 1 and 2. I cannot stress too much that the school is one that I know personally as a Member of Parliament: I have visited it many times and I know that it possesses the indefinable but unmistakeable air of a happy school.
  Belmont primary school was visited by Ofsted in March 2000. It was not a happy inspection. Before it started, there were concerns that the registered inspector had not made contact with the school until prompted to do so by the head. There was also concern about the fact that the contractor and quality manager of West Yorkshire Inspection and Consultancy Services took part in all the pre-inspection meetings. At those meetings, I am told, he was seen to be taking on a greater role than his duties as quality assurance manager warranted. It then became known that the contractor and quality assurance manager was married to the registered inspector; Mr. and Mrs. Charlton were husband and wife.
  At first, it was thought that they would overcome the possible conflict of interest by acting professionally but, in the view of many in the school community, that did not happen. Comments by the contractor and quality assurance manager contributed to heightened anxiety among staff and the head. For example, there were comments on the accuracy of financial information submitted about the school—clearly a serious issue. Only later, after the head asked for the figures to be checked by the local education authority auditor, did the contractor accept that there were no problems.
  Such incidents led the school community to feel that the team came with a pre-determined agenda. Things did not get much better during the inspection itself. On one occasion, a class was interrupted so that feedback could be given—an incident felt by many staff to be unprofessional and inconsiderate. Only later was the head
  138
  told that, in fact, it was not an observed lesson. If it was not, why was the detailed feedback based, one must assume, on a short viewing by an inspector? Some classroom visits were very brief indeed, many less than half an hour. A number of members of staff felt intimidated; one was observed in the morning in class, then interviewed during dinner time, to the extent of an inspector waiting for her outside a toilet, then twice after school.
  During the inspection, Mr. Linthwaite raised the issue of the quality of school statistical information that was requested. He pointed out that it was skewed by reorganisation and that the Goldstein report, commissioned by Ofsted, stated that inspectors should not look simply at figures in the abstract, but seek to quantify their social and demographic background. Knowledge of the report was denied both by the inspector and the contractor and quality assurance manager. When pressed on that, I am told that the contractor said that his wife's judgment should not be questioned; he spoke about his wife, not the inspector.
  After the inspection, the head teacher was told that the school had serious weaknesses. It was also made clear that the school community could not challenge the judgments. The attitude of the contractor and quality assurance manager were perceived as hostile. On one occasion, a feedback meeting involving the governing body was subjected to what can only be described as a unilateral attempt to suspend the meeting by the contractor and the quality assurance manager. Those present felt that he was attempting to avoid detailed questions being put to his wife; the incident was a telling symptom of the problem.
  The final report and the oral feedback did not mention strengths in many areas of the school's curriculum, nor did they focus on its capacity to improve. Negative comments were made in the inspection report about staff turnover, which did not acknowledge that some staff had left because they had been promoted elsewhere; others had retired on the ground of ill health; and that the school had a legacy of problems with falling rolls. Finally, sweeping statements were made about unsatisfactory teaching despite the fact that 83 per cent. of the teaching was seen as
  "satisfactory, good or very good".
  The school community was unhappy about those issues. It accepted that there was room for improvement and that no one is perfect, but was concerned that the report was biased and concentrated on negatives. That view was rooted in the perceived conflict of interest between the contractor and the quality assurance manager and the registered inspector, which centred on the fact that they were husband and wife. At that point, the school community began to consider resolving those issues through the Ofsted complaints procedure. The head teacher, obviously worried and concerned, came to see me at this point, and I urged him to press his complaints through the Ofsted procedure. Accordingly, the head wrote to Ofsted to raise the concerns on which I have elaborated.
  The letter of complaint was initially sent on by Ofsted to the contractor, asking him to organise a response from his wife. Given that the nub of the complaint was the relationship between the two, that was seen as perverse

  139
  by many in the school community. The official reply from Ofsted dismissed those concerns and stated in a letter to Mr. Linthwaite on 9 June 2000 that
  "Mr. and Mrs. Charlton were professional people with extensive inspection experience"
  and that in its view, the independence of the inspection was not compromised. As that response came from the people involved, it was hardly surprising. The famous phrase, "They would say that, wouldn't they?" springs to mind
  On the other issues of substance in the complaint about inspection procedure, Ofsted argued that it recognised Mr. Linthwaite's concerns but could not act on them. It stated:
  "Where there are conflicting accounts of events from both parties, OFSTED is unable to determine what actually happened."
  It continued:
  "It is because OFSTED attached equal weight to both versions... it is unable to come to a definitive view."
  If that principle were applied throughout the judiciary, it would make every judge redundant overnight.
  The reply led the head to take the matter to the second stage of the complaints procedure. He wrote to the Ofsted complaints adjudicator, making the same points and posing the issue of the long delay in the response to other detailed matters of concern. The adjudicator, Mrs. Elaine Rassaby, was, by contrast, far more thorough and critical of Ofsted.
  In an adjudication dated 4 March this year, Mrs. Rassaby agreed with Mr. Linthwaite on a number of issues. She felt that the comments made by Ofsted about the relationship between the registered inspector and the contractor and quality assurance manager was, to say the least, unhelpful. She stated that Mr. Linthwaite had not been given a full substantive response by Ofsted. In her view, by basing its reply to Mr. Linthwaite solely on the registered inspector's response to the complaint, it had prevented objective assessment of the substance of the complaint; and the comment that the inspector and contractor were
  "professional people with extensive inspection experience"
  was merely an observation. It was, in the adjudicator's opinion, inappropriate and irrelevant to the substance of the complaint.
  The adjudicator recognised Mr. Linthwaite's concerns about the relationship, and his view that the relationship denied him fair consideration of his complaints by the contractor. However, she also thought that the existence of the complaints procedure in itself would serve to prevent collusion between any two parties, by an act of commission or omission. In her final recommendation she stated first, that Ofsted should apologise to Mr. Linthwaite, and secondly, that account should be taken of her concerns that Ofsted's response was based on the views of the inspector. Finally, the adjudicator declared that the comments that Mr. and Mrs. Charlton' s professional experience and history should be enough were dismissive and inappropriate.
  Ofsted's response came in May 2001. Barry King, from the office of the chief inspector of schools, replied in a detailed and thoughtful nine-page letter to Mr. Linthwaite. Many issues were dealt with and some resolved. On some
  140
  Issues—the conduct of the inspector and the contractor in pre-inspection meetings; the conduct and attitude of the inspection staff; and the contractor's attempt to close a feedback meeting with the governors—Mr. Linthwaite's complaints were upheld.
  However, the crucial issue of the relationship and potential conflict of interest between the contractor and the inspector was ignored. Mr. King stated that Ofsted's view was simply that there
  "is no requirement for the contractor to be independent of the Registered Inspector, and indeed the contractor and the Registered Inspector may be one and the same person."
  He went on to say again that any suspicion of collusion could be dealt with through the complaints procedure. I must say that that reply contained no thought about the fact that the simplest way of removing the suspicion of collusion would be to issue a direction to split the responsibilities so that no such conflict of interest could occur.
  Mr. Linthwaite came to see me, seeking to take a complaint to the parliamentary ombudsman. I was happy for that to happen, as I was convinced of the rightness of his case, but I had an uneasy feeling about the outcome on the basis of the comments of the inspector of schools. The ombudsman replied on 3 October. He felt that he was constrained by the rules governing his own responsibilities from taking the matter any further. However, in his letter to me, he stated:
  "I see the strength of Mr. Linthwaite's argument that a complaints procedure that requires a complaint about a registered inspector first to be put to the contractor for the inspection who may even be the same person as the registered inspector cannot be seen to be fair and impartial"
  I believe that that is a telling comment from a person at the head of the final stage of any grievance procedure affecting the citizens of this country. He went on to argue that while he recognised the concerns, the following stages of the Ofsted complaints procedure should ensure that justice was done—but why not consider a direction that simply removes the problem in the first place: the separation by Ofsted of the role of the contractor from that of the registered inspector?
  I urge my hon. Friend the Minister to consider the case for that change. One school has been affected by the issue, but there may be others. I do not intend to pass judgment on the outcome of the inspection. Some issues of injustice have been noted by Ofsted and they have been taken up with the West Yorkshire inspection and consultancy services. In that sense, the issue of the outcome of the inspection is finished. The action plan proposed by the school and the local education authority has worked and the school is once again going forward confidently and successfully, but the central area of concern remains: the perceived issue of a compromised process. Quite simply, making a statutory split between the contractor and inspector would allow the inspection process to go forward confidently and without the perceived taint of conflict of interest that was so evident at Belmont school.
  I believe that the relevant legislation—the School Inspections Act 1996 and the Education (School Inspection) Regulations 1997—need amending, and that a simple statutory instrument could achieve that and would not be objected to by any Member of Parliament. Such a measure could prevent the issue from arising again, perhaps in a form that threatens the cohesion of a school

  141
  so badly that it becomes a failing school through a self-fulfilling prophesy. No one wants that to happen and the remedy is in the Minister's hands. I thank the House for listening
  10.48 pm
  The Minister for School Standards (Mr. Stephen Timms): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough, South and Cleveland, East (Dr. Kumar) on securing this Adjournment debate, which deals with an issue that is clearly of close personal interest to him, as well as to a significant number of those whom he represents. I commend him for the very measured way in which he presented his case to the House and for the very supportive role that he has played throughout, which includes the fact that he alerted me to his concerns ahead of the debate.
  I was very pleased that my hon. Friend acknowledged the important role that school inspections play in the drive for higher standards. It is vital that Ofsted is able to do the job that we all want it to do: inspecting, reporting and providing expert advice that is underpinned by the evidence of its inspections.
  It is also important that Ofsted has the full confidence of those it serves and that it is properly responsive and accountable to them. It is always worrying when teachers or others feel that they have not had a fair deal from an inspection, or that the conduct or reporting of an inspection did not meet the high standards expected.
  Ofsted is a separate, non-ministerial department and, like other such departments, it is required to have procedures for handling complaints when they arise. It is important to recognise from the outset that Ofsted is the regulator of the contracted-out school inspection system. It is independent of contractors and those whom they employ, such as the team who inspected Belmont primary school.
  To put this evening's debate in context, between 1 September 2000 and 31 August 2001 Ofsted dealt with 188 complaints of which four were upheld and 24 partially upheld. Out of a total of 4,448 inspections, that suggests a relatively high satisfaction rate or at least a low rate of complaint. Nevertheless, it is important that those who complain receive a fair and effective response.
  As my hon. Friend said, Belmont primary school was inspected in March 2000. It was not a happy inspection. We have heard this evening that several complaints were made about various aspects of it. They have been carefully investigated through Ofsted' s internal complaints process and, more recently, by its independent adjudicator.
  That the process took some 13 months is, of course, worrying and Her Majesty's chief inspector, Mike Tomlinson, openly acknowledged that and offered his sincere apologies for the unacceptably long delay.
  Although the delay was unacceptable, it was also uncharacteristic. The average time that Ofsted takes to investigate and respond to complaints is around 30 days, and 95 per cent. of complaints are tackled in the three-month target period. The case that we are considering is clearly exceptional.
  Ofsted has acknowledged the problems and taken action to ensure that that sort of delay is not repeated. Procedures have been modified, and some changes have been made to the organisation. Ofsted has recently put a
  142
  new look complaints section on its website. Early in the new year, it intends to publish revised complaints procedures which reflect some of the lessons that have been learned from the case.
  As my hon. Friend said at the close of his remarks, he initiated the debate partly to ensure that others do not suffer similar problems. I hope that he will welcome the changes. He drew our attention to the quality of Ofsted's initial response to the various complaints. It was perceived as dismissive and inadequate. That perception was at least partly confirmed by the independent complaints adjudicator, Elaine Rassaby, when she examined the case. In the adjudication sent on 4 March 2001, she suggested, among other recommendations, that Ofsted should reconsider the original complaint in the light of all the available evidence.
  Ofsted did that, and wrote substantively to Mr. Linthwaite on 11 May 2001. As my hon. Friend pointed out, it was a comprehensive nine-page reply. Ofsted acknowledges that its initial response in June 2000 was somewhat mechanistic and not as thorough as it might have been. Consequently, some aspects of the complaints that were initially rejected were later upheld.
  The case demonstrates the value of the Ofsted complaints adjudicator as an independent reviewer at the end of the internal complaints process. My hon. Friend acknowledged that Elaine Rassaby's intervention was helpful to his constituents. The debate provides an opportunity to pay tribute to her for her work as adjudicator since July 1998. She reaches the end of her term at the end of the month. She has successfully established and developed the post and hands it on to her successor in good shape. Her successor is likely to be in post in January and, for the first time, will be appointed by the Secretary of State rather than Ofsted, in line with Elaine Rassaby' s proposal, and for three years rather than one. That will enhance the independence of the post.
  On the specifics of this case and, in particular, the concern at the heart of my hon. Friend's speech that the husband-wife relationship between contractor and registered inspector prevented fair consideration of the complaints, Elaine Rassaby expressed the view that this concern was properly addressed by Ofsted's complaints procedures. Those allow dissatisfied complainants to refer their concerns to Ofsted and finally to the Ofsted complaints adjudicator. My hon. Friend noted that the parliamentary ombudsman also felt that the ability to refer complaints to Ofsted should ensure that justice is done.
  My hon. Friend suggested that it would be helpful to ensure a clearer separation of functions between inspection contractors and registered inspectors. The role of contractors is defined by Ofsted and is a contractual matter rather than being set out in legislation, so such a provision would not require a statutory instrument or other measure of that kind. So my hon. Friend's suggestion is, in the first instance at least, a matter for Her Majesty's chief inspector, Mike Tomlinson. I know that members of his staff are paying attention to this debate and will report back to him on its content. Having listened to my hon. Friend's concerns, I want to make it clear that I will also ask the chief inspector to consider my hon. Friend's suggestion and write to him directly with a response to it.
  On inspection judgments, it is important to note that complaints which questioned the objectivity and rigour of the inspection were not upheld. The judgment that a

  143
  school has serious weaknesses is not taken lightly. It is arrived at as a corporate decision, after extensive consideration of evidence gathered both before and during the inspection from a variety of sources, including discussions with the head teacher, staff and governors. It was Ofsted's view, following careful scrutiny, that the key judgment of the inspection team—that the school had serious weaknesses—was secure and supported by the evidence that had been gathered.
  My hon. Friend noted early in this debate that the school had been told that it could not challenge the inspection judgments. Ofsted's view is that when complaints are upheld which have a bearing on the judgments in an inspection report, Ofsted's procedures allow for action to be taken. For example, an addendum may be added to a report and, in extreme cases, the report may be withdrawn, reissued or even declared null and void.
  There is, however, no formal appeals system against inspection reports and judgments; nor is it our view that such a system would be appropriate. The then Education and Employment Select Committee, in its detailed examination of the work of Ofsted in 1999, considered this matter and reached the same conclusion that we did. Such a system could undermine the inspection process and lead to lengthy disputes between schools and Ofsted, which would then distract staff and governors from the priority task of developing and improving educational provision at the school.
  This last point leads me to something that is easily lost in the discussion. 1 am talking, of course, about the impact of inspection on children and their educational opportunities. As I have already mentioned, the inspection of Belmont in March 2000 found that the school had serious weaknesses. As a result of that judgment, challenge and support mechanisms were triggered to help the school to tackle its weaknesses and to develop plans for improvement.
  I was particularly encouraged to learn that evidence gathered during a monitoring visit to Belmont in July this year showed that the school was making good progress in
  144
  addressing its key action points. I understand that the visit by HMI found improvement on all five issues raised in the original inspection, that progress was not just satisfactory but good on every one of the five and that the HMI visit uncovered no unsatisfactory teaching at all in any of the lessons that were viewed. My hon. Friend has confirmed that optimistic picture this evening, and I know that those improvements will be appreciated by the children and their parents. They are also a tribute to the staff at the school.
  On the evidence before us, it is clear that mistakes were made in this case. Apologies have been offered and procedures re-examined and improved in the light of this case, and I think that that is right. Ofsted has an important job to do and high standards are expected of it.
  Inspection is, above all else, about helping schools to improve. It encourages schools to build on their strengths and to address their weaknesses. The judgment that a school has serious weaknesses is intended to spur that school into improving the education that it provides, with education authority support.
  The news that Belmont is making such good progress is heartening. I know that a great deal of hard work will have been put into achieving that. The school can expect a further inspection next year, because schools identified as having serious weaknesses are reinspected after about two years. I trust that Belmont will then be able to shed the "school with serious weaknesses" label, move on to be recognised as achieving continuous improvement, and play its full part in achieving our aim—and my hon. Friend's aim—of making a first-class education available to every child.
  I hope that my hon. Friend will feel that lessons have been learned from this episode. I am grateful to him for drawing the matter to our attention and for the work he has done in following it for nearly two years. I also hope that he and Belmont parents, pupils and staff can now look forward to making further progress in the months ahead.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at one minute past Eleven o'clock.

DEFENCE

  Suez Campaign Medal
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what representations he has had in the last five years regarding the issue of a medal for those who saw active service in Egypt between 1951 and 1954. [18178]

  Dr. Moonie
  Within the last five years, the Ministry of Defence has received a number of representations from hon. Members and the general public on the subject of a retrospective campaign medal for service in the Canal Zone during the period 1951 to 1954. From available records it has been determined that the Ministry of Defence has received at least two parliamentary questions for oral response, 16 parliamentary questions for written response (including this one), 340 letters from MPs on behalf of constituents and recorded as ministerial correspondence, seven early-day motions, two Adjournment debates, nine letters to a Defence Minister from other than an MP, which were answered direct by him or on his behalf by his office and 300 letters from members of the public which were variously addressed to the Prime Minister, a Defence Minister, or to Her Majesty the Queen and were answered by an official on behalf of the Ministry of Defence. It should be noted that a number of MPs have written to the Ministry of Defence on this subject on more than one occasion and a small number of veterans have written many times.

  Rotorcraft Procurement
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on his plans for the support, amphibious and battlefield rotorcraft procurement. [18755]

  Dr. Moonie
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) on 8 November 2001,Official Report, column 378W.

  Parliamentary Ombudsman
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many formal notices his Department has received in the last year from the Parliamentary Ombudsman expressing an intention to carry out an investigation; and in respect of each notice how long it took to respond. [18769]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 27 November 2001]: Information on the outcome of statutory investigations which were concluded during 2000–01 are set out in the Parliamentary Ombudsman's Annual Report for 2000–01, copies of which are available in the Library of the House, or on the Parliamentary Ombudsman's website at www.ombudsman.org.uk/pca/document/par01/index.htm

  Between 1 April 2001 and 31 October 2001, the Ministry of Defence (MOD) has received one new statutory statement of complaint from the Parliamentary
  2W
  Ombudsman. The MOD responded to this case within the time scale requested by the ombudsman. The time taken to respond was 24 working days.

  A formal notice regarding a matter in the War Pensions Agency was sent to the then Department of Social Security in March 2001. Following transfer of responsibility for the War Pensions Agency, the MOD will be responsible for responding to any observations the ombudsman makes in his report.

  Defence Aviation Repair Agency
  Mr. John Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to introduce further measures to monitor DARA's ability to control the agency's progress in improving turnaround times. [19184]

  Mr. Ingram
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Mr. Bryant) on 23 October 2001,Official Report, column 110W. There are currently no plans to introduce further measures to monitor DARA's performance.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) how many and what proportion of letters received by his Department between 20 June and 20 July were replied to(a) in under 15, (b) in under 20, (c) in under 30, (d) in under 40 and (e) in over 40 working days; [18586]

  (2) how many letters his Department received from hon. and right hon. Members between 20 June and 20 July. [18566]

  Dr. Moonie
  The Ministry of Defence does not record centrally the total number of letters it receives. However, between 20 June and 20 July 2001, the Department received 478 pieces of correspondence from hon. and right hon. Members, Members of the European Parliament, Members of the devolved legislatures and Peers, which received substantive replies from Ministers as follows:

  Number of working days

  Number of pieces of correspondence

  Percentage replied to

  Within 15

  426

  89

  Within 20

  453

  95

  Within 30

  460

  96

  Within 40

  468

  98

  Over 40

  10

  2

  Ministers also received 662 pieces of correspondence for answer from members of the public during this period.

  Service Families Taskforce
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement about the work of the Services Families Taskforce. [19815]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Service Families Taskforce was set up in 1999 to deal with service family issues that were outside the control of the Ministry of Defence (MOD). It is headed by a Ministerial Group which last met on 15 November. I also meet with representatives of service families twice a year to discuss areas of concern. The
  3W
  Service Families Taskforce has been involved in a wide range of issues since its conception. The main areas of progress over the last year are:

  (a) The MOD is being consulted by the Department of Health in the drafting of new Adoption legislation to ensure that service families will not be disadvantaged.

  (b) We have resolved the problems that some service families had encountered, as a result of the payment of local overseas allowance, in claiming working families tax credit on return to the UK from an overseas posting.

  (c) We have resolved the problems that some service spouses had encountered, due to the interpretation of residency status, in claiming Child Support Agency payments when on an overseas posting.

  (d) Discussions are taking place with the Department for Education and Skills, and with local education authorities, to see what measures can be taken to improve the schools admissions process for service families.

  (e) Discussions are taking place with the NHS Waiting and Booking Team on the problems service families face when transferring between NHS trust areas.

  (f) Discussions are taking place with the Department for Work and Pensions to identify any problems service families have faced in the claiming of benefits while on overseas postings.

  (g) Since 1 April 2001 service spouses have been able to open Stakeholder pensions while on an overseas posting.

  Cluster Bombs
  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether he has been informed by his United States counterpart of the locations in which cluster bombs have been used by US armed forces in Afghanistan. [18506]

  Mr. Ingram
  We are aware of the targets struck by US cluster bombs in Afghanistan.

  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what recent discussions he has had with the US Defence Secretary over the use of cluster bombs. [18353]

  Mr. Hoon
  [holding answer 27 November 2001]: I speak to the US Defence Secretary regularly on a number of issues.

  Gibraltar
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the closest operational NATO(a) air base and (b) port available to UK forces to Gibraltar is; and if he will make a statement. [17983]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 26 November 2001]: The closest Allied air base to Gibraltar that would be available to UK Gibraltar-based aircraft is Beja in Portugal. The closest Allied port available to UK Gibraltar-based forces is Lisbon, although Portimao, also in Portugal, could be used for smaller ships.
  4W
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what additional operational restrictions are imposed on(a) Royal Navy and RFA Ships, (b) RAF Aircraft and (c) UK troop deployments (i) on visits to and (ii) returning from Gibraltar; and if he will make a statement. [17980]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 26 November 2001]: There are restrictions on the direct transit of Royal Navy and FRA ships from Gibraltar to a Spanish port or from a Spanish port to Gibraltar. RAF aircraft on visits to and from Gibraltar are not permitted to over-fly Spanish territory with Gibraltar as the destination or as the airport of departure. UK troops on duty are not allowed across the border from Gibraltar to Spain.

  Depleted Uranium
  Chris Ruane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many(a) armour piercing and (b) hard target penetrator warheads containing depleted uranium have been tested in Wales in each of the last 10 years. [17485]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 27 November 2001]: No depleted uranium rounds have been tested in Wales in each of the last 10 years.

  War Pensions Agency
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if the recommendations of the War Pensions Agency's 1999 DMA study were implemented in 2000–01. [19120]

  Dr. Moonie
  Following the recommendations of the 1999 Decision Making Appeals Study the War Pensions Agency worked with ex-Service organisations and the Lord Chancellor's Department to improve war pension appeal legislation and processes, and within the Ministry of Defence to improve the process and time scale for delivery of service documentation.

  Once these improvements were achieved, the recommendations from the study were piloted during 1999–2000 and fully implemented across the Agency during 2000–01.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if the recommendations of the 1999 War Pensions Agency Prior Options Review relating to the regulations of the War Pensioners Welfare Service and the partnership opportunities associated with the management of Ilford Park Polish Home were implemented by 31 March. [19117]

  Dr. Moonie
  A review of the objectives of the War Pensioners Welfare Service was undertaken and a report on its findings was widely circulated to the ex-service community in February 2001 inviting comment. The review's recommendations on how welfare services can be developed have received widespread support. As at 28 November 2001, 16 recommendations have been fully implemented, the remainder will be implemented during 2001–02.

  The potential for establishing a partnership with a suitable organisation to provide day-to-day management of Ilford Park Polish Home was reviewed and a report produced in July 2000. The report identified key issues to be addressed and the position is being kept under review.
  5W
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if the service performance standards published in the War Pensions Agency's Service First Charter were achieved in 2000–01. [19121]

  Dr. Moonie
  During 2000–01, the War Pensions Agency achieved all of the standards set out in their Service First Charter. All of the WPA's claims and appeals average clearance time targets were achieved.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if the War Pensions Agency met its target to generate efficiency during 2000–01 to absorb the effect of pay and price pressures. [19119]

  Dr. Moonie
  During 2000–01, the War Pensions Agency delivered efficiencies necessary to absorb the effect of pay and price pressures. By adopting a sharply focused and integrated approach to human resources and expenditure management, the agency has been able to implement additional measures to enable operation within its running cost allocation.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many armed forces personnel have applied to the War Pensions Agency for a war pension; and if he will make a statement. [19771]

  Dr. Moonie
  A claim for war disablement pension may only be made after discharge from the armed forces. 10,799 claims were received by the War Pensions Agency during the year April 2000 to March 2001; 5,866 claims have been received in the period April 2001 to October 2001.

  Unallocated Funds
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will estimate the total unallocated funds within his departmental expenditure limit(a) at the start of the financial year and (b) to date; and what was the month seven forecast on outturn underspend against his departmental expenditure limit in (i) real and (ii) percentage terms. [19439]

  Mr. Hoon
  The allocation of the Ministry of Defence's departmental expenditure limit at the start of the year is set out in "The Government's Expenditure Plans 2001–02 to 2003–04—Ministry of Defence" (Cm 5109). Revised allocations are reported to Parliament in Supplementary Estimates. Outturn against six month forecast for each request for resources will be published on 4 December in the winter Supplementary Estimates Summary Request for Supply as usual.

  Benchmark Capabilities
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to reassess the benchmark of capabilities set out in the Strategic Defence Review; what the timescale is for this re-assessment; and if he will make a statement. [19770]

  Mr. Hoon
  The Strategic Defence Review (SDR) left the armed forces well placed to participate in the campaign against international terrorism, but we need to look more closely at asymmetric threats of the kind that we saw on 11 September and ensure that we have the right concepts, forces and capabilities to deal with them.
  6W
  I expect to be in a position to publish some conclusions from this work in the spring or early summer of next year.

  Afghanistan
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the proposed supporting role of the Territorial Army in Afghanistan. [18639]

  Mr. Ingram
  I refer the hon. Member to theanswer I gave on 13 November 2001,Official Report, columns 630–31W.

  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the decision process for determining which line infantry battalions should be put on increased alert for deployment in Afghanistan. [19586]

  Mr. Hoon
  The infantry battalions originally placed at a reduced notice to move for a possible deployment to Afghanistan were selected from those within the Joint Rapid Reaction Force and reflected their place in the operational and training cycle and their suitability for the possible operations envisaged.

  Transferred Employees
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the number of cases that have occurred whereby workers have transferred from an external employer to his Department; and in particular where this has involved(a) dismissal and (b) re-employment. [19466]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 30 November 2001]: This information is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Major Projects Report
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the capability shortfalls in the areas highlighted by the major projects report 2001, page 13, section 1.25; what steps are being taken to rectify the shortfalls; when he expects the shortfall to be overcome in each area; and if he will make a statement. [18930]

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

  Personnel (Credit Ratings)
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what steps are being taken to ensure that service personnel are not(a) given a poor credit risk rating and (b) denied credit as an effect of their membership of the services; and if he will make a statement. [18929]

  Mr. Ingram
  The granting of credit to an individual is a decision for the credit companies to make. The Ministry of Defence (MOD) has held talks with the British Banking Association, the Council of Mortgage Lenders and the Finance Leasing Authority which have assured us that their members do not deny credit to service personnel because of their membership of the armed forces; their credit worthiness is assessed in the same way as for their civilian counterparts. Although some companies will not lend to service personnel who are overseas, there are sufficient companies (including NAAFI) who will do so
  7W
  in order to provide the armed forces with adequate choice. While some service personnel may experience difficulties, I am not aware that obtaining credit represents a significant problem for the armed forces more widely. There is no intention, nor would it be appropriate, for the MOD to involve itself in the decisions taken by private companies on the credit worthiness of armed forces personnel.

  Army Recruiters
  Patrick Mercer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what guidance he has given to the MOD on the employment of soldiers on regimental duty to act as recruiters. [20630]

  Mr. Ingram
  Only Senior Non-Commissioned Officers appointed to specialist recruiting roles and who have attended the Regular Recruiters Course, run by the Army School of Recruiting, are termed recruiters. While serving with the Recruiting Group of the Army Training and Recruiting Agency they are not serving at Regimental Duty. Officers and Warrant Officers serving at Regimental Duty and who will conduct duties in support of recruiting operations as Team Leaders, undertake specific courses in support of their duties. Others who will serve as members of recruiting teams are given a one-day briefing prior to their deployment. Soldiers involved in the Satisfied Soldier Scheme are briefed by recruiting staff at the local Careers Office where they are deployed.

  Honorary Medals
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what estimate he has made of the cost of issuing the Queen's Golden Jubilee medal to holders of the George cross and Victoria cross; and if he will make a statement. [19840]

  Dr. Moonie
  It is estimated that the cost to the Ministry of Defence of issuing the Golden Jubilee medal to holders of the Victoria cross and George cross would be in the order of £1,000.00.

  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the convention under which holders of VC and GC decorations are awarded honorary medals. [19839]

  Dr. Moonie
  The United Kingdom honours system does not include the concept of honorary medals.

PRIME MINISTER

  Correspondence
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Prime Minister (1) how many letters he received from right hon. and hon. Members between 20 June and 20 July; [18575]

  (2) how many and what proportion of letters received by him between 20 June and 20 July were replied to (a) in under 15, (b) in under 20, (c) in under 30, (d) in under 40 and (e) in over 40 working days. [18591]

  The Prime Minister
  The information is not available in the manner requested. Between 20 June and 20 July 2001 I received approximately 250 letters from Members of Parliament including invitations and requests concerning constituency matters which were dealt with as appropriate.
  8W
  I receive about 500,000 items of post per year, and my office works hard to deal with them as efficiently as possible.

  General Service Medals
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Prime Minister when he expects the Committee on the Grant of Honours, Decorations and Medals to put forward its recommendations in respect of general service medals for those who served during the Suez canal emergency 1951–54. [20008]

  The Prime Minister
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer that I gave the hon. Member for Castle Point (Bob Spink) on 29 November 2001,Official Report, column 1057W.

  Intelligence Services Commissioner
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Prime Minister (1) if he will make a statement on the circumstances in which the Intelligence Services Commissioner could uphold a complaint to the Investigatory Powers Tribunal; [18538]

  (2) what mechanism exists to ensure that the operation of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 is (a) achieving its desired ends and (b) being used in a manner consistent with the safeguards contained in the Act. [18525]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 27 November 2001]: The Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 ensures that there is independent judicial oversight of the powers in the Act. The Act requires the Interception of Communications and Intelligence Services Commissioners to report annually to the Prime Minister on any matters relating to the carrying out of their functions. These reports, excluding, after consultation with the Commissioners, confidential material, are laid before Parliament. Similarly, the Police Act 1997 requires the Chief Surveillance Commissioner to make an annual report to the Prime Minister which is laid before Parliament.

  The Act also requires the Secretary of State to issue codes of practice relating to the performance of the powers and duties under this Act and to which users of the powers must have regard.

  The Investigatory Powers Tribunal investigates complaints in relation to any proceedings incompatible with rights conferred by the ECHR and which concern the use of investigatory powers under the Act. It also considers any complaint by a person who believes that he has been subject to any use of these investigatory powers. The tribunal would determine whether the complainant was subject to such powers and, if so, whether their use was in contravention of the provisions in the Act. The Intelligence Services Commissioner's role in this respect is to provide assistance but only as required by the tribunal.

  Cuba
  Mr. Davidson
  To ask the Prime Minister what recent discussions he has had with the US President on the US blockade of Cuba. [20246]

  The Prime Minister
  I have not recently discussed the US blockade of Cuba with the US President.
  9W

CHURCH COMMISSIONERS

  Internet Access (Clergy)
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the hon. Member for Middlesbrough, representing the Church Commissioners, if he will increase stipends to take account of the additional costs to the clergy of going on-line. [17022]

  Mr. Bell
  Any additional costs relating to the use of computer and e-mail equipment in the course of clergy duties should be reimbursed through expenses.

  Child Care
  Caroline Flint
  To ask the hon. Member for Middlesbrough, representing the Church Commissioners, what resources have been provided to assist the development of child care provision in communities in the past 12 months. [17023]

  Mr. Bell
  None. The Commissioners' primary legal responsibility is the financial support of the parish ministry of the Church of England.

  Vandalism
  David Taylor
  To ask the hon. Member for Middlesbrough, representing the Church Commissioners, what recent discussions he has had with Church leaders in relation to the vulnerability of churches to vandalism. [17024]

  Mr. Bell
  I have had no discussions with Church leaders on this matter as it lies outside the Church Commissioners' and my own area of responsibility.

  In the Church of England, the responsibility for the security of churches and churchyards lies with the individual parish authorities, although the care of individual monuments in churchyards is generally a matter for the family concerned. Advice is available from church insurers, Diocesan Advisory Committees for the Care of Churches and, nationally, from the Council for the Care of Churches. The National Churchwatch scheme also offers seminars on security in churches and the personal safety of those using them.

  The view of both the Church authorities and insurers is that the best safeguard for a church against theft and vandalism is for it to be kept open and in regular use. However, the duty to care for and protect our churches should not solely concern the church authorities but the whole community. Realistic prevention lies in good citizenship not taller walls.

  Poverty
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the hon. Member for Middlesbrough, representing the Church Commissioners, if he will make a statement on levels of poverty among clergy with particular reference to those clergy who are(a) retired and (b) about to retire. [17025]

  Mr. Bell
  Clergy in office are provided with a house and paid a stipend. On retirement, a full service pension from the Church for 37 years' service amounts to two thirds of the National Minimum Stipend and a lump sum of three times the pension. Clergy are responsible for their 10W
  own housing in retirement but are given assistance through a retirement housing scheme. Clergy also receive a state pension.

  The Clergy Stipends Review Group has recently published a report "Generosity and Sacrifice", which looked at the issue of stipends and pensions. The Group noted that if stipends levels are no better than adequate, the current quantum of pension is not over generous in relation to stipends or in absolute terms. It felt, however, that a number of details of the provision of the pension and stipend scheme were in need of reconsideration. The General Synod at its November sessions agreed that the report should be sent to dioceses for consultation. The responses to that consultation are likely to be considered by General Synod at the end of next year.

  Church Repairs (VAT)
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the hon. Member for Middlesbrough, representing the Church Commissioners, what recent discussions he has had with the Chancellor on the reduction of VAT on church repairs. [17026]

  Mr. Bell
  I have not discussed the matter further with my right hon. Friend the Chancellor recently because we are waiting for the imminent announcement by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport of the details of the VAT reimbursement scheme and how it will operate. The Church has a number of concerns about the funding of the scheme which have yet to be clarified and we will be studying the details of the scheme very closely once these are published.

  Ms Walley
  To ask the hon. Member for Middlesbrough, representing the Church Commissioners, what guidance has been issued in respect of value added tax concessions and listed church buildings. [18455]

  Mr. Bell
  The Department for Culture, Media and Sport will, I understand, shortly announce the details of the Listed Places of Worship Grants Scheme. The Church of England and other faith groups represented by the Churches Main Committee look forward to the implementation of the Scheme and will want to study the criteria and other aspects of the Scheme following publication.

  Bishop of Chichester (Palace)
  Norman Baker
  To ask the hon. Member for Middlesbrough, representing the Church Commissioners, how much is being spent on the refurbishment of the Bishop of Chichester's palace; for what reason rooms hitherto publicly accessible in the palace are being converted into private rooms; and if he will make a statement. [18368]

  Mr. Bell
  The refurbishment is in fact on-going works, which are partly alterations and partly maintenance and redecoration.

  The alterations are due to the need to improve the office accommodation. This has been re-located from the first floor to a more accessible site on the ground floor and there are consequential changes flowing from that move. The cost of these alterations is approximately £65,000.

  It should be noted that Bishop Kemp's episcopacy lasted 27 years and was unusually long. This resulted in a large number of maintenance and redecoration items

  11W
  being deferred to this scheme of works. The total maintenance cost will be approximately £40,000 and this will cover general maintenance, decorations and safety related items such as upgrading the electrical installation.

  VAT will be additional, although it will not apply to the alterations as the building is listed. The house is a Grade 1 listed building and the quality of work needs to reflect the special status of the building.

  The question also refers to publicly accessible rooms. Bishop Kemp did not use the Tudor room and so it was used occasionally for external functions; for example, an art exhibition was held there once a year. The Tudor room is to resume its original function as the main room for receiving visitors but it will continue to be available to the public by appointment. It is envisaged that the room will also be available for seminars.

SOLICITOR-GENERAL

  Euratom Treaty
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Solicitor-General what steps Her Majesty's Government intend to take in respect of the reply by the European Commission on 3 September to written question number E-1828/OIEN rejecting the judgment of the British court case, dated 29 March on whether the Euratom Treaty covered military nuclear activities. [17940]

  Mr. Hoon
  I have been asked to reply.

  An Appeal Court hearing is due to take place shortly in respect of this case (Regina v. Environment Agency ex parte Marchiori). The Government note the Commission's views, but their position remains that the Euratom treaty does not apply to military activities.

WALES

  Fair Trade
  Mr. Weir
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what fairly traded products, other than tea and coffee, have been purchased by his Department in each of the last five years; and what was their value. [17557]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  My Department has very limited requirements for goods which are subject to fair trade schemes and since coming into existence on 1 July 1999 has not purchased any.

  Mr. Weir
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the value of fairly traded(a) tea and (b) coffee used in his Department in each of the last five years. [17556]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  My Department has purchased no fairly traded tea or coffee. It has fewer than 50 staff and does not provide snack or canteen facilities.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many letters his Department received from right hon. and hon. Members between 20 June and 20 July. [18571]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  I received three letters from Members of Parliament in this period.
  12W
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many and what proportion of letters received by his Department between 20 June and 20 July were replied to(a) in under 15, (b) in under 20, (c) in under 30, (d) in under 40 and (e) in over 40 working days. [18595]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  The information is set out in the table:

  Days

  Correspondence answered

  Under 15

  10

  16–19

  0

  20–29

  3

  30–39

  1

  40 or more

  1

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Plastic Baton Rounds
  Mrs. Humble
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will publish the phase II report by the steering group appointed to lead the research programme aimed at finding an acceptable, effective and less potentially lethal alternative to the plastic baton round. [20400]

  Jane Kennedy
  After consultation with ministerial colleagues in the Home Office and the Ministry of Defence, I have today placed in the Library of the House a copy of the second report compiled by the steering group. The group was set up to take forward two recommendations in the Patten report.

  This report concludes the second phase of a four-phase research programme. It is the most comprehensive analysis of the issues yet published. It reflects both the commitment and the urgency with which Government are progressing the programme aimed both at finding an acceptable, effective and less potentially lethal alternative to the plastic baton round and a broader range of public order equipment.

  The report clearly sets out the priorities in this wide-ranging programme and the timetable for the next phase. It includes work seeking less lethal options as an alternative to the police use of firearms, and the Government are grateful to the Association of Chief Police Officers for its leading role in this area.

  In publishing the report, I am inviting comments on it from interested parties. We shall work closely with the Northern Ireland Policing Board in taking the programme forward.

  Murder Campaigns
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what(a) ethnic and (b) religious murder campaigns have taken place in Northern Ireland since 1971. [11058]

  Jane Kennedy
  Paramilitaries from both communities in Northern Ireland do carry out acts of violence and intimidation not only against the other community but also against individuals and groups within their own
  13W
  community. Police investigations of such offences are often hampered when victims generally decline to make a formal complaint.

  It is therefore important that members of communities, within which these attacks are taking place, notify the police if they have any relevant information. They may do so in strict confidence using the Crimestoppers line.

  The Government regularly keep themselves apprised of these acts of paramilitary intimidation and support any measures taken by the police to bring these to an end. These on-going acts of intimidation are symptomatic of the situation prevailing within Northern Ireland.

  The Government have a duty to protect the whole community from the threat of violence from whatever quarter and in whatever form. The Government utterly condemn any form of intimidation by groups on either side of the community.

  Aylesbury Vale district council

  £

  Nature of funding

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  Revenue support grant (£ million)

  3.075

  2.802

  2.468

  3.058

  Income from national non-domestic rates (£ million)

  4.969

  5.382

  6.012

  6.026

  Housing investment programme (£ million)

  889

  1.033

  2.968

  15.512

  Management and maintenance allowance (housing revenue account subsidy)

  2,3753.11

  2,3765.08

  2,3792.24

  2,3796.44

  Capital receipts initiative (£ million)

  1.413

  1.247

  n/a

  n/a

  Cash incentive scheme (£ million)

  0.1

  0

  n/a

  n/a

  1£0.995 million Housing Investment Programme and £4.517 million Major Repairs Allowance

  2Management and Maintenance allowance allocations are a more reliable indicator than the amount of subsidy paid which is demand lead and fluctuates according to the number of dwellings in the HRA and the number of tenants entitled to housing benefit

  3Per dwelling

  Buckinghamshire county council

  £ million

  Nature of funding

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  Revenue support grant

  102.324

  101.353

  95.891

  111.397

  Income from national non-domestic rates

  96.628

  105.481

  119.63

  117.618

  Rural bus challenge grant1

  0.100

  0.985

  0

  n/a

  Rural bus subsidy grant2

  0.265

  0.561

  0.489

  0.716

  Transport supplementary grant

  1.954

  1.381

  0.066

  7.5

  Transport annual capital guidelines

  1.954

  1.381

  0.216

  0

  Transport supplementary credit approval

  0.946

  1.615

  6.029

  13.035

  1 Rural Bus Challenge figures represent awards—actual spend profiles for the schemes awarded funding may cover more than one year. 2001–02 awards will be announced shortly

  2 RBSG figures represent Grant totals actually paid to the authority. 2001–02 figure represents allocation

  Channel Tunnel
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 17 July 2001,Official Report, column 97W, on the channel tunnel, whether the draft directives and guidance published on 13 July retain the specific goal to increase freight traffic by 80 per cent. [12976]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Yes.

  London Underground
  Ms Bridget Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many delays have been caused by signal failures on the Jubilee line since January; and what is the total length of time, in hours, lost as a result. [15571]
  14W

TRANSPORT, LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND THE REGIONS

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will make a statement on the allocation of central Government funds to(a) Aylesbury Vale district council and (b) Buckinghamshire county council in each of the last four years. [14215]

  Dr. Whitehead
  Full details of all central Government allocations to county and district councils could be provided only at disproportionate cost. The principal kinds of funding that this Department has provided to Aylesbury Vale district council and Buckinghamshire county council between 1998–99 and 2001–02 are shown in the tables. These include grants and borrowing approvals for revenue and capital expenditure.

  Mr. Jamieson
  Detailed in-year operational information of this nature is a matter for London Underground and I understand that information is not collated in exactly the form requested. However, London Underground advise that, between 7 January and 13 October (the latest date for which figures have been collated), signal failures caused 75 delays of 15 minutes or more on the Jubilee line. The total initial delay resulting from these incidents was 51 hours.

  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 23 November 2001,Official Report, column 493W, on London Underground, for what reason the final assessment will be completed under Treasury Investment Appraisal guidelines; if it is his policy to ask Ernst and Young to conduct Monte Carlo simulations as

  15W
  an element of their robustness assessment; if the final agreement with Ernst and Young specified an end date of 17 December; and if he will make a statement. [19870]

  Mr. Jamieson
  London Underground—a publicly owned company—is negotiating contracts to put in place the Government's plans for modernising the Tube. It is clearly appropriate for London Underground to evaluate these contracts in line with Treasury Investment Appraisal guidelines. The answer given to the hon. Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) on 23 November 2001,Official Report, column 493W, made clear the terms of reference for Ernst and Young's review of London Underground's value for money evaluation of the contracts for the Tube modernisation plans.

  Aviation Industry
  Alistair Burt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what plans he has to increase support for the airline industry; and if he will make a statement. [15666]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Government have underwritten, on a temporary basis, third party war risk insurance for UK airlines and service providers to the aviation industry and are considering further support for UK airlines, consistent with European Commission guidelines.

  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what plans he has to give financial aid to compensate(a) airlines and (b) airports for the four day period after 11 September when US airspace was closed. [18454]

  Mr. Byers
  The Government have underwritten, on a temporary basis, third party war risk insurance for UK airlines and service providers to the aviation industry and are considering whether further support should be made available within European Commission guidelines. The Commission guidelines permit financial aid to be made available only to airlines.

  Channel Tunnel Rail Link
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (1) how much Government(a) expenditure and (b) investment there has been on (i) research for and (ii) building urban re-development projects associated with the Channel Tunnel Rail Link (A) in total and (B) in each year since the project was first proposed; [15743]

  (2)how much Government (a) expenditure and (b) investment there has been on (i) research for and (ii) building the Channel Tunnel Rail Link (A) in total and (B) in each year since the project was first proposed; [15742]

  (3)how much Government (a) expenditure and (b) investment there has been on (i) research for and (ii) building development projects associated with the Channel Tunnel Rail Link (A) in total and (B) in each year since the project was first proposed. [15744]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The following information is as much as can be provided without incurring disproportionate cost.
  16W
  Government expenditure on building the Channel Tunnel Rail Link:

  Government expenditure associated with the Channel Tunnel Rail Link

  Year

  £000

  Building

  1995–96

  0

  1996–97

  0

  1997–98

  0

  1998–99

  0

  1999–2000

  0

  2000–01

  8,550

  2001–02

  1112,562

  Total

  121,112

  Research

  1995–96

  28

  1996–97

  10

  1997–98

  0

  1998–99

  128

  1999–2000

  554

  2000–01

  22

  2001–02

  1104

  Total

  846

  Building development projects

  1996–2000

  3,180

  2000–01

  14,680

  2001–02

  119,947

  Total

  37,807

  1To date

  Correspondence
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many letters his Department received from right hon. and hon. Members between 20 June and 20 July. [18559]

  Dr. Whitehead
  Information on the volume of correspondence from Members of Parliament received by Ministers, agency chief executives, Departments and agencies, and performance in handling them is published annually by the Cabinet Office. The most recent report, covering 2000, was announced by the then Minister for the Cabinet Office on 6 April 2001,Official Report, column 325W.

  Between 20 June and 20 July, this Department received 839 letters from right hon. and hon. Members.

  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many and what proportion of letters received by his Department between 20 June and 20 July were replied to(a) in under 15, (b) in under 20, (c) in under 30, (d) in under 40 and (e) in over 40 working days. [18579]

  Dr. Whitehead
  The information is not available in the form requested. The information we have is as follows:

  Ministerial letters1

  From MPs

  From others

  Number of cases

  839

  1,178

  Answered within 15 days

  Number

  696

  1,001

  Percentage

  83

  85

  17W

  Ministerial letters1

  From MPs

  From others

  Answered within 20 days

  Number

  751

  1,079

  Percentage

  90

  92

  Answered within 25 days

  Number

  784

  1,118

  Percentage

  93

  95

  1 20 June to 20 July

  Non-ministerial litters1,2

  Number

  Percentage

  Cases received

  186,689

  —

  Answered within 15 days

  178,661

  96

  1 July to September

  2 This figure represents the total volume of non-ministerial correspondence received by the Department between 1 July and 30 September. The centre of the Department collects this data on a quarterly basis to monitor performance against our Service First target of replying to correspondence within 15 working days

  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (1) when he will reply to the letter to him dated 20 September from the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton with regard to Mr. James Hamlett; [20366]

  (2) when he intends to reply to the letter to him dated 20 September from the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton with regard to Mr. James Hamlett. [16246]

  Mr. Spellar
  I replied to my right hon. Friend's letter on Thursday 29 November.

  Rail Regulator
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (1) when he last met the Rail Regulator since 5 October; and if he will make a statement; [17115]

  (2) when he last met the Rail Regulator. [18943]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Secretary of State last met Tom Winsor on 5 October.

  London-Norwich Rail Line
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what rail improvement projects are included in the Railtrack Network Management Statement on the London to Norwich line; and by when they will be completed. [18423]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The 2001 Network Management Statement includes the installation on this route of the Train Protection Warning System as part of the national programme. I understand that planned work on signal fitments is due to be completed by 31 March 2003.

  Vehicle Design Standards
  Mr. Lazarowicz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will take steps to limit vehicle performance by the introduction of mandatory design standards for vehicles. [18853]
  18W
  Mr. Jamieson
  There is already a requirement in Great Britain to limit the performance of the heavier goods and passenger vehicles by fitting top-speed limiters. This requirement applies to vehicles having a maximum gross weight exceeding 7.5 tonnes. The relevant legislation is contained in Regulations 36A and 36B of the Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations 1986. The Government are currently arguing the United Kingdom's corner with our European partners on a European Commission proposal to extend the requirement for top-speed limiters to goods vehicles exceeding 3.5 tonnes in maximum gross weight, and to vehicles used for the carriage of passengers comprising more than eight seats in addition to the driver.

  RenewCo
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what advice the ONS gave his Department on the treatment of RenewCo in the national accounts. [18773]

  Mr. Byers
  [holding answer 27 November 2001]: The Office for National Statistics informed the Treasury that the RenewCo proposals would be classified as public sector borrowing.

  Rent Restructuring
  Mr. Coleman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what further plans he has to consult tenants regarding the introduction of rent restructuring from April 2002; and if he will make a statement. [19040]

  Ms Keeble
  A number of tenants organisations responded to the consultation on the Housing Green Paper last year, and to the consultation this year on proposals to change Housing Revenue Account subsidy to take account of rent restructuring. We are pressing ahead with rent restructuring from April 2002. We will monitor the impact and maintain a dialogue with all interested parties, including tenants groups, about the issues arising on the implementation of the policy as it develops. It would be for local authorities and registered social landlords to consult their tenants about the rents they propose to set from April 2002.

  Best Value
  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (1) what assessment he has made of the relative success of best value performance indicators which depend on the measurement of(a) inputs, (b) outputs and (c) outcomes; [19275]

  (2) which of the best value performance indicators (a) apply to the Council of the Isles of Scilly and (b) do not apply because of (i) its size, (ii) its geographical location and (iii) other reasons; [19372]

  (3) which of the best value performance indicators measure (a) inputs, (b) outputs and (c) outcomes; [19274]

  (4) what assessment he has made of the applicability of best value indicators to local authorities, with particular reference to size of authority. [19285]
  19W
  Dr. Whitehead
  The Best Value Performance Indicators have been designed to provide a rounded view of local government's performance. They reflect the resources devoted to the different services, the efficiency with which those resources are used, the quality of the services and service users' experience. They therefore include a mix of indicators which measure inputs, outputs and outcomes; the intention is to rely increasingly on outcome indicators whenever these can be clearly identified. The number of indicators against which an authority is required to report depends on the nature of an authority and the number of services it delivers. For 2001–02 unitary and metropolitan authorities are required to report performance on up to 123 indicators while for district councils the maximum number of indicators is 68. These will be reduced for 2002–03.

  The Best Value Performance Indicators provide valuable information about the performance of individual authorities and enable local people to view the performance of their own authority alongside that of similar authorities. They will also track performance changes over time. Once best value performance plans are published in 2002 it will be possible to assess change over the two years that best value has been in place.

  The Council of the Isles of Scilly is required to report on those services which it provides to local people. I understand that the Council has agreed to design a set of indicators appropriate to its circumstances, and will need to discuss these with the District Auditor.

  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what timetable he has set for implementing the results of his review of the operation of best value for local government. [19273]

  Dr. Whitehead
  The Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions announced on 1 October a three month review of the best value regime for local authorities aimed at improving the quality of services. A review group, under the chairmanship of the Minister for Local Government and the Regions, has been set up to take this work forward. The review group has been asked to report to the Secretary of State by the end of this year. The Secretary of State will consider its report early in the new year and respond to its recommendations. The timetable for implementing any measures announced in his response will depend on their nature, but the intention is to act as quickly as possible ahead of the 2002–03 financial year.

  Mr. Moss
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what was the estimated cost in the latest available year of the best value regime to(a) central Government Departments, (b) local government, (c) fire authorities and (d) non-department public bodies and executive agencies. [19892]

  Dr. Whitehead
  (a) For the financial year 2001–02, £1,751,000 has been allocated for administrative costs associated with best value in central Government.

  (b) £52 million has been allocated in 2001–02 by DTLR to cover the cost of best value audit and inspection in England. £21.7 million of this will be paid as grant to the Audit Commission and the remainder has been distributed through the Revenue Support Grant to cover the cost of audit fees charged to local authorities. No
  20W
  reliable estimates exist as to the other administrative costs incurred by authorities in complying with their duty under the Local Government Act 1999.

  (c) Fire authorities precept from county councils and are thus included in the figures.

  (d) The Audit Commission is the only NDPB with a formal role in best value. Their costs are met by DTLR as indicated.

  Light Rail Schemes
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what the average cost is in(a) overall terms and (b) cost per mile of light rail schemes (i) under consideration by the Government and (ii) in development. [19347]

  Ms Keeble
  The capital costs of light rail lines will depend on a significant number of factors. These include land prices, whether the route is segregated or contains street running sections, the degree of double tracking along a section of route, whether there is a need for major works such as tunnels or bridges as well as the extent of wider impacts such as utility diversions. Cost figures will also include vehicles. An average cost figure per kilometre across all schemes is therefore not particularly meaningful. The table sets out a very crude calculation of the capital cost per kilometre of light rail schemes that are currently under development using the latest figures for the overall capital costs of the relevant scheme divided by the length of the route. The figures are given in cash terms.

  £ million

  Scheme

  Overall capital cost

  Capital cost per km

  Sunderland Extension to Tyne and Wear Metro1

  100

  5.41

  Nottingham Express Transit2

  149

  13.8

  Manchester Metrolink phase 33

  513

  8.9

  Leeds Supertram: three lines3

  484

  17.3

  South Hampshire Light Rail3

  190

  13.3

  Merseytram

  215

  11.3

  Stockport extension to Manchester Metrolink

  61.5

  7.24

  Midland Metro extensions to Birmingham centre and Wednesbury to Brierly Hill

  165

  11.1

  Bristol and South Glos. light rail

  190

  11.2

  1 Due to open March 2002

  2 Due to open in 2003

  3 Construction to start in 2003

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 23 November 2001,Official Report, column 498W, on light rail and tram schemes, which other schemes could open before 2006. [19132]

  Ms Keeble
  In view of the need to obtain powers under the Transport and Works Act, to carry out a tendering process and to construct the new lines, we do not currently expect lines other than those identified in my previous reply to be open by 2006

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what the average estimated length of time is from first submission of a proposal to the Department to completion of a new light rail project independent of an existing system. [19351]
  21W
  Ms Keeble
  Light rail systems typically take many years of planning and promoters are encouraged to discuss their ideas with the Department at an early stage. Accordingly, it is hard to identify precisely first submission of a proposal. The table shows the period between funding being approved and the opening of schemes in operation.

  Scheme

  Year of firm funding approval

  Year opened

  Croydon

  1997

  2000

  Midland Metro

  1995

  1999

  South Yorkshire Supertram

  1990

  1994–95

  Manchester Metrolink line 1

  1989

  1992

  Railtrack
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will make a statement on Railtrack's cashflow position. [18937]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The cashflow of Railtrack plc is being managed by the administrator, to ensure the continued operations of the company, drawing down from the loan agreement that was put in place at the time of the administration, as necessary.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if Railtrack will be permitted to raise investment funding from any other source apart from the Government during the administration period. [18934]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Under paragraph 8.1.10 of the loan agreement, made available to the administrator, the administrator has the power to raise or borrow money.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what public subsidy to Railtrack in administration has been requested by the administrator for the period 7 October to the end of the 2001–02 financial year. [18953]

  Mr. Jamieson
  There is no public subsidy being provided to Railtrack in administration. Funding for Railtrack plc in administration is being provided through a commercial loan agreement, copies of which are in the House Library.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what estimates the Railtrack administrator has made of the final cost of completing the west coast main line modernisation. [19001]

  Mr. Jamieson
  A number of options for taking the project forward are currently under discussion. Until these discussions have been concluded, and final outputs agreed, an estimated cost of completion will not be known.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what was the most recent estimate by Railtrack of the total cost of the west coast main line modernisation prior to administration. [18954]
  22W
  Mr. Jamieson
  Railtrack's 2001 Network Management Statement, published in May, estimated the cost of the project at £6.3 billion.

  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what procedures the Government are putting in place to ensure that routine(a) track and (b) signal maintenance is carried on a scheduled basis during the period of administration. [19850]

  Mr. Jamieson
  This is a matter for the administrator. The Government will continue to provide the administrator with sufficient funding to ensure the rail network operates on a "business as usual" basis during the administration period.

  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 23 November 2001,Official Report, column 496W, on Railtrack, what his Department's assessment of the value of the assets of Railtrack plc was as at 5 October. [19780]

  Mr. Byers
  The Department assessed the cash-flows that the assets would generate, and concluded that they would be insufficient to cover Railtrack's debt liability payments.

  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 21 November 2001,Official Report, column 277W, on Railtrack, what his Department's estimate of the cash needs of Railtrack plc in administration is in addition to the £3.5 billion already identified. [19910]

  Mr. Byers
  The cash needs of Railtrack plc in administration will depend on how long it remains in administration.

  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what is the credit rating of Railtrack bonds. [19425]

  Mr. Spellar
  Railtrack bonds currently have a long term credit rating of BB+ from Standard & Poor's and Baal from Moody's Investors Service.

  Peter Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 26 November 2001,Official Report, column 606W, on Railtrack, how many Railtrack shares were held by (a) individual and (b) institutional investors at flotation and in each subsequent year. [19841]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The number1 of shares in Railtrack Group plc held by individual and institutional investors at flotation on 20 May 1996 and in each subsequent year—as detailed in the Annual Report and Accounts—is shown in the table.

  Million

  Individual

  Institutional

  20 May 1996

  290

  210

  24 April 1997

  170

  325

  5 May 1998

  150

  355

  30 April 1999

  115

  390

  5 May 2000

  90

  420

  1 May 2001

  90

  430

  1 Figures rounded to the nearest 5 million

  23W
  Peter Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what the average Railtrack shareholding of individual investors was in each year since flotation. [19842]

  Mr. Jamieson
  This information is not available to the Department.

  Peter Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions in(a) cash and (b) percentage terms, what profit including

  Value of share at sale

  Sale price minus flotation price (£)

  Dividends received before date of sale (£)

  Cross cash return on flotation price (£)

  Gross percentage return on flotation price

  Highest value on 23 November 1998 = £17.68

  13.88

  0.60

  14.48

  381

  Lowest value on 20 September 2001 = £2.52

  -1.28

  1.40

  0.12

  3

  Average value between 20 May 1996 and 5 October 2001 = £9.15

  5.35

  11.13

  6.48

  171

  1 Shares were traded at the average daily share price several times, all falling in the 2000–01 financial year. Dividend payments therefore assume that the share was sold in 2000–01.

  The returns do not take account of any tax liabilities or transaction charges paid by individual investors.

  Peter Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what proportion of Railtrack shares were held by institutional investors on(a) 1 May and (b) the first of each month up to 1 October. [19494]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The proportion of shares in Railtrack Group plc held by institutional investors on 1 May 2001—as detailed in the Annual Report and Accounts—was 83 per cent. Information on the proportion held on the first of each month up to 1 October is not available to the Department.

  Airtrack
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what his policy is on the Airtrack proposal. [19337]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Strategic Rail Authority is sponsoring a demand study to establish numbers of air passengers and domestic (non-airport) users who might use an Airtrack service. Work on this is well advanced, and in the new year we hope to take a view on the next stage of development of the Airtrack proposal.

  We are proposing to issue a consultation paper on airport policy in general early in the new year, and this will include consideration of public transport access to airports.

  Speeding
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions when he intends to publish revised guidance to highways authorities on speed policy. [19272]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Transport Act 2000 committed the Government to consider the development of a rural road hierarchy for speed management purposes. I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Hyndburn (Mr. Pope) on 28 November 2001,Official Report, columns 942–43W.
  24W
  dividends received a Railtrack investor would have made in selling a single share bought at flotation when its value was at (i) its highest, (ii) its lowest and (iii) its average level. [19496]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The gross returns on a single share bought at flotation for £3.80 and sold at the highest ever, lowest ever and average closing price of Railtrack shares are provided in the table.

  In addition, the first year report executive summary on the cost recovery system for traffic safety cameras was published on 13 August. Copies were placed in the Libraries of the House.

  Local Authority Websites
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (1) what action his Department recently has taken to promote good practice in the creation and development of local authority websites; [19061]

  (2) what measures he has taken to ensure that local authority websites are accessible to those with a range of disabilities; and which organisations have been consulted. [19062]

  Dr. Whitehead
  We have made available £350 million of funding as part of our drive to ensure that all local authorities achieve 100 per cent. electronic service delivery capability by 2005. In 2001–02 this funding is being used to support 24 local authority pathfinders (with a further pathfinder being funded under the Invest to Save Budget) in a programme of innovation and shared learning. Many of the pathfinders are developing interactive websites, which other councils can then use as a model to create their own.

  We are also in the process of developing guidance for local authorities on how they design their websites. This guidance will cover accessibility for people with disabilities, and we will consult widely when the draft document is published next year.

  Energy Saving
  Ms Shipley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what recent measures he has taken to ensure that buildings insulation targets are met. [19106]

  Dr. Whitehead
  The Building (Amendment) Regulations 2001 were laid before Parliament on 11 October 2001, and come into force on 1 April 2002. Their supporting approved documents published on 31 October give guidance on the building insulation
  25W
  targets that are to be met. These significantly increase the building insulation standards that apply whenever building work is carried out.

  Special Advisers
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will list the special advisers in his Department. [19344]

  Dr. Whitehead
  The Department's special advisers are:

  Dan Corry

  Michael Dugher Jo Moore.

  Departmental Expenditure

  Departmental Expenditure
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions when he expects to spend the £920 million that was allocated to his Department for 2000–01 but not spent. [19527]

  Dr. Whitehead
  The 2000–01 underspend on the DETR Main Programmes Departmental Expenditure Limit became available for use in following years in accordance with the end-year flexibility arrangements (the set of rules by which Departments are allowed to carry forward unspent budget from one year to the next). The entitlement generated from 2000–01 and previous years was announced in Table 6 of Public Expenditure 2000–2001 Provisional Outturn (Cm 5243). £516 million end-year flexibility take up is being sought in the Winter Supplementary Estimates for the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions; £93 million has been transferred to the Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (as part of machinery of government changes) and further take-up will be sought in the spring Supplementary Estimates. Any unused end-year flexibility will be carried forward into future years.

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will estimate the total unallocated funds within his departmental expenditure limit(a) at the start of the financial year and (b) to date; and what was the month seven forecast on outturn underspend against his departmental expenditure limit in (i) real and (ii) percentage terms. [19442]

  Dr. Whitehead
  The Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions Departmental Annual Report for 2001 (Cm 5105) contains the Departmental Unallocated Provision (DUP) set for the present financial year in table A6a. Draw-down of the DUP has been reported to Parliament in the Winter Supplementary Estimates for the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions presented on 29 November. Outturn against six month forecast for each Request for Resources will be published in the Winter Supplementary Estimates Summary Request for Supply as usual.

  Train Operating Companies
  Peter Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what estimate he has made of the revenue lost(a) to each of the train operating companies and (b) in total in each of
  26W
  the last five years resulting from shortages of (i) booking office staff, (ii) ticket machines and (iii) on-board conductors to collect fares. [19554]

  Mr. Jamieson
  No such estimate has been made. This is a matter for the train operating companies.

  Portable Buildings
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions in relation to Statutory Instrument 2718 and the accompanying guidelines, what discussions his Department has had with all other Government Departments on the number of portable buildings they use which will have to be disposed of after five years; and what the estimated cost to public funds of disposing and replacing these units will be. [19878]

  Ms Keeble
  Statutory Instrument 2718 is The Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (Amendment) (England) Order 2001. This order amends the planning guidelines relating to telecommunications masts, and has no relevance to portable buildings. There have thus been no such discussions with other Government Departments, or estimates made, in relation to this Statutory Instrument.

  However, the hon. Member did raise the issue of portable buildings in the debate in the Second Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation on 21 November 2001 which considered the Prayer against both Statutory Instrument 2718 and Statutory Instrument 3335, The Building (Amendment) Regulations 2001. The Approved Document to Part L2 of the Building Regulations, which Statutory Instrument 3335 amended, gives guidance on how portable buildings may meet the requirements of Part L2 of the Regulations under the heading "Buildings constructed from sub-assemblies".

  There is nothing in the guidance in the Approved Document that indicates that portable buildings will have to be disposed of after five years. It indicates that there are no restrictions at all on portable buildings that are moved from one place to another on the same site. With regard to buildings moved from one site to another the guidance is that a building constructed from external fabric sub-assemblies obtained from other premises or from a stock manufactured before 31 December 2001, would normally be considered to meet the requirement if the fabric thermal resistance or the prospective annual energy use will be no worse than the relevant performance standards given in the 1995 edition of Approved Document L.

  It would thus have been inappropriate to have discussions, in relation to this Statutory Instrument and its supporting Approved Documents, with other Government Departments on the number of portable buildings they use which will have to be disposed of after five years, and what the estimated cost to public funds of disposing and replacing these units will be.

  Bus Safety
  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what criteria determine the number of passengers permitted to stand on a scheduled bus; and how many people standing are permitted on an(a) 48 seater and (b) 53 seater bus. [19754]
  27W
  Mr. Jamieson
  Every public service vehicle must have a Certificate of Initial Fitness on which is specified the maximum number of seated and standing passengers.

  The Public Service Vehicles (Carrying Capacity) Regulations 1984 prohibit the carriage of any standing passengers on:

  (a) a vehicle with a seating capacity of less than 13 passengers;

  (b) a vehicle with a gangway any part of the height of which is less than 1.77 metre;

  (c) a half decked vehicle.

  Where a vehicle is permitted to carry standing passengers the criteria used to establish the number is as follows: the total number of standing passengers carried on a single deck vehicle or the lower deck of a double-decked vehicle shall not exceed the number obtained by dividing by 1,900 the total floor area of that deck (in square centimetres) available to standing passengers. The floor area for calculation shall not include:

  (a) any space occupied by a seat or within 225mm of the front of a seat required for the accommodation of seated passengers;

  (b) any area which is within 225mm of the top of a step;

  (c) any step and any space within 225mm of an entrance or exit other than a Secondary Emergency Exit or an exit required by Regulation 21(11) of the Public Service Vehicles (Conditions of Fitness, Equipment, Use and Certification) Regulations 1981. The space being measured from the outside edge of the vehicle and having the same width as the opening;

  (d) any space forward of a transverse plane that touches the rear of the driver's seat when it is located in its rearmost position;

  (e) any space on the higher level of a split level floor which is within 225mm of the edge of any unprotected step in the change of levels;

  (f) any space which does not have access to a gangway as specified in sub-paragraph (g);

  (g) any part of a gangway which is not at least 450mm wide at all levels;

  (h) any space in which it is not possible to inscribe a square having 355mm sides.

  The number of standing and seated passengers is required to be marked on the vehicle but the operator can, if he so wishes, use a lower number than that established by the above procedure.

  It is not possible to give a general answer to the cases of a 48 seat vehicle and 53 seat vehicle as the above criteria may be different for each design.

  Illegal Meat Imports
  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what discussions he has had with other Government Departments on the(a) level of illegal meat imports to the UK and (b) effectiveness of port controls and enforcement measures, in respect of his own Department's responsibility in overseeing local authority ports and airports. [19546]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Local authority ownership of certain ports and airports does not result in any DTLR responsibility in relation to meat imports. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs leads the Government's work in this area. Officials from my Department take part in discussions with DEFRA as necessary.

  Holiday Accommodation
  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what was the total number of dwellings in each local authority in England and Wales in the last four years for which figures are available for which a business rate was payable in respect of their use as holiday accommodation. [19431]

  Dr. Whitehead
  The number of premises in England which are subject to non-domestic rates and let as self-catering holiday homes in the last four years is as follows:

  Year

  Number

  1998–99

  14,607

  1999–2000

  14,589

  2000–01

  15,145

  2001–02

  15,398

  While most of these premises are homes, the figures do include accommodation units that are purpose built for holiday letting and could not be used as homes. It is not possible to segregate these two types of property. The figures do not include premises where it is not intended that the property is let as holiday accommodation for more than 140 days in a year as these are subject to council tax and not to non-domestic rates.

  I will write separately to the hon. Member with equivalent figures for each local authority in England.

  The rating of holiday accommodation in Wales is a matter for the National Assembly for Wales.

  Council Tax
  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what level of total council tax discount was made in each local authority in England and Wales for the last five years for which figures are available in respect of(a) furnished second residences privately owned for recreational investment or other private purposes, (b) all categories of privately owned empty properties, whether furnished or substantially unfurnished, (c) properties available to the armed forces or visiting forces accommodation, (d) halls of residence and (e) other categories subject to a 50 per cent. discount; and what was the total amount. [19432]

  Dr. Whitehead
  The information is not available in the breakdown requested, and reliable estimates are not available for individual local authorities.

  The council tax bill for a dwelling that is no-one's main home, or where all the occupants are disregarded for council tax purposes is currently reduced by 50 per cent. in each local authority in England. In 2001–02 in England 588,942 properties were entitled to a 50 per cent. discount, at a total estimated cost of £220 million. Of this total, it is estimated that £80 million relates to second homes, £125 million relates to empty homes and £15 million relates to dwellings where all the occupants are disregarded.
  29W
  In addition, the following classes of dwellings prescribed in legislation are exempt from council tax:

  Class A
  Exemption for: Empty and substantially unfurnished dwellings where works are required, under way or recently completed (valid for up to 12 months)

  Class B
  Exemption for: Empty dwellings owned by charities

  Class C
  Exemption for: Dwellings left empty and substantially unfurnished (valid for up to 6 months)

  Class D
  Exemption for: Dwellings left empty by prisoners

  Class E
  Exemption for: Dwellings left empty by patients in hospitals and care homes

  Class F
  Exemption for: Dwellings left empty by deceased persons

  Class G
  Exemption for: Dwellings where occupation is prohibited by public law

  Class H
  Exemption for: Empty clergy dwellings

  Class I
  Exemption for: Dwellings left empty by people receiving care

  Class J
  Exemption for: Dwellings left empty by people providing care

  Class K
  Exemption for: Dwellings left empty by students

  Class L
  Exemption for: Repossessed dwellings

  Class M
  Exemption for: Halls of residence

  Class N
  Exemption for: Dwellings occupied only by students or school leavers

  Class O
  Exemption for: Armed forces' accommodation

  Class P
  Exemption for: Visiting forces' accommodation

  Class Q
  Exemption for: Dwellings left empty by bankrupts

  Class R
  Exemption for: Empty caravan pitches and boat moorings

  Class S
  Exemption for: Dwellings occupied by minors only

  Class T
  Exemption for: Empty annexes which cannot be let separately

  Class U
  Exemption for: Dwellings occupied only by persons who are severely mentally impaired

  Class W
  Exemption for: Annexes occupied by dependent relatives.

  In 2001–02, 646,128 properties in England were exempt from paying council tax at a total estimated cost of £480 million. Of this total, we estimate that £50 million relates to accommodation for armed forces or visiting forces, and £15 million relates to halls of residence.
  30W
  "Council Tax: A consultation paper on proposed changes for second homes and long term empty homes" was published by DTLR on 23 November 2001. This paper invites views on a range of proposed changes to council tax discounts and exemptions in England, and includes questions on how best to define second homes and long-term empty homes.

  Operation of the council tax system in Wales is a devolved matter for the National Assembly for Wales.

  Mr. Moss
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will make a statement on the anticipated average percentage change in Band D council tax in England in 2002–03. [19889]

  Dr. Whitehead
  Decisions on council tax are for local authorities to take, after consulting with their local electorate and taxpayers.

  Mr. Moss
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what assessment he has made of the likely use of his reserve powers to regulate council tax set by English local authorities in 2002–03. [19890]

  Dr. Whitehead
  Decisions on council tax are for local authorities to take, after consulting with their local electorate and taxpayers. This Government do not operate a system of crude and universal pre-announced capping.

  Mr. Moss
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will make a statement on the circumstances in which the Government would use their reserve powers to regulate the Greater London Authority council tax precept. [19891]

  Dr. Whitehead
  Decisions on the GLA council tax precept are for the GLA to take, after consulting with their local electorate and taxpayers. This Government do not operate a system of crude and universal pre-announced capping.

  Mr. Moss
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what impact the heightened state of alert against terrorism will have on the level of council tax in English local authorities in the context of increased civil defence and emergency planning expenditure; and if he will make a statement. [19596]

  Dr. Whitehead
  Decisions on council tax levels are a matter for local authorities after consulting with their local electorate and taxpayers. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer last week made available an additional £30 million towards the extra security pressures on police authorities in England and Wales for 2001–02.

  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what action the Government are taking in respect of the charging of council tax on empty homes. [19603]

  Dr. Whitehead
  "Council Tax: A consultation paper on proposed changes for second homes and long term empty homes" was published by DTLR on Friday 23 November.

  Copies of this consultation paper have been placed in the House of Commons Library and can be found at www.local.dtlr.gov.uk/finance/ctax/2homes

  Right to Buy
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will curtail the right to buy in areas covered by urban regeneration initiatives. [19719]

  Ms Keeble
  No. As we said last year in our Housing Green Paper "Quality and Choice: a decent home for all", we do not intend to make any further significant changes to the right to buy scheme.

  Road Schemes
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will list the road schemes costing more than £5 million initiated in England and Wales since 1997 which are complete. [19755]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The following information covers England only. The provision of road schemes within Wales is a matter for the National Assembly for Wales.

  The following road schemes in England costing more than £5 million have been completed as a result of decisions made since 1997 to begin construction on them:

  Trunk Roads

  A1 Tempsford Junction Improvements

  A50 Derby Southern Bypass (Contract B)

  M60 Denton-Middleton Contract 3

  Local Roads

  A6002/A6007 Coventry Lane Imp.

  Seaham Town Centre Link

  Bridgwater Northern Distributor Road.

  Further trunk and local roads are currently under construction and will be opening over the course of the next two years and many more will follow as schemes accepted as part of local transport settlements or which have been added to the Government's targeted programme of improvements complete their statutory procedures.

  A41
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (1) what assessment he has made of the Highways Agency's plans to cut back vegetation obscuring vision at the A41 roundabout at High Street and Stocklake, Aylesbury; [19706]

  (2) when he expects the Highways Agency to replace missing signposts at the (a) A41 Henley roundabout at the left turn into Haydon Road and Weedon Road, Aylesbury, and (b) A41 High Street, Aylesbury, by Vale Park. [19705]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I have asked the Chief Executive of the Highways Agency, Tim Matthews, to write to the hon. Member about these operational issues affecting the A41 trunk road.

  Letter from Tim Matthews to Mr. David Lidington, dated 3 December 2001:
  The Transport Minister, David Jamieson, has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Questions about the A41 in Aylesbury.
  The signs situated at the left turn into Haydon Road and Weedon Road at the Henley Roundabout, Aylesbury and the High Street, Aylesbury, by Vale Park were subject to vandalism and in one case
  32W
  accidental collision. I am pleased to inform you that replacement signs are currently being manufactured and will be erected by mid December.
  Work to cut back vegetation on roundabouts is undertaken as a matter of routine during the winter pruning maintenance period between now and March. Where there is a particular safety concern immediate action is taken. The roundabout on the A41 at High Street and Stocklake, Aylesbury was not considered to be a cause for concern in terms of safety. However, the roundabout has been inspected again and there is now ivy growing over a directional sign, which will be removed as a matter of urgency.
  I hope this reply is helpful.

  Fire Authorities (Radio Systems)
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what advice his Department issues to fire authorities on the need to ensure interoperability of radio systems with other emergency services. [19704]

  Dr. Whitehead
  There is existing Home Office guidance on inter-agency communications at the scene of operational incidents.

  The fire service in England and Wales is currently procuring replacement wide area radio systems. The agreed operational requirement is that replacement systems must support effective inter-working between neighbouring fire brigades and must also provide an effective and continuing interface with the police and with the emergency ambulance service.

  Roads (SSAs)
  Mr. Sanders
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will list the changes made to the(a) measurements and (b) methodology used for determining the length of roads as used for the purposes of standard spending assessments for local authorities since 1997. [19547]

  Dr. Whitehead
  In calculating Standard Spending Assessments (SSAs) for 1996–97 to 2001–02 the lengths of roads used have been estimated from local authority returns, to the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (DTLR). Over this period DTLR (or its predecessor Departments) has made no change to the method of determining the lengths of minor roads. The Department does not hold central information on whether individual authorities have changed the basis they use for recording these lengths. Starting with the calculation of 2001–02 SSAs DTLR' s Transport Statistics Roads Division (TSR) have used Geographical Information System (GIS) data to make comparisons between data from local authorities and their own major road network data, ironing out differences between the two, such as the elimination of the double-counting of dual carriageways by some authorities. This exercise has now been completed in time for the 2002–03 SSAs and the major road length estimates for this settlement are based on these data. No announcement has yet been made regarding the basis for minor road lengths to be used in 2002–03 SSAs. This will form part of the forthcoming consultation announcement on the provisional local government finance settlement.

  Mr. Sanders
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will publish the total mileage of roads for each local authority
  33W
  used for the purposes of calculating standard spending assessments for each year since 1997 including the figures for 2001–02. [19548]

  Dr. Whitehead
  The total length of roads, in kilometres, comprising of principal and minor roads, used to calculate SSAs for each local authority for the years 1996–97 to 2002–02 has been placed in the House of Commons Library.

  Road Safety (Horses)
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will make a statement on road safety and horses; and whether he plans regulating changes on this subject. [20109]

  Mr. Jamieson
  We have no plans for regulations affecting the safety of horseriders. We are, however, concerned that road users should understand their vulnerability and give them due consideration on the road. We are considering publicity to increase public awareness of the need to be careful around horses.

  Air Traffic
  Sandra Osborne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what his estimate is of the downturn in transatlantic air traffic in the period between September 2001 and September 2002. [17668]

  Mr. Jamieson
  [holding answer 30 November 2001]: UK and US airlines have reduced capacity on some transatlantic routes since 11 September. Scheduled UK and US carriers have filed proposals with my Department which indicate plans to operate 0.7 per cent. fewer frequencies in summer 2002 compared with 2001.

  Radioactive Material
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many crashes occurred involving(a) road vehicles, (b) aircraft and (c) trains carrying radioactive material in the UK in each year from 1997 to date. [20169]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Information on accidents and incidents involving the transport of radioactive material in the UK is published annually. The reports covering events in each year have been placed in the House Library.

  Rural White Paper
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, pursuant to the answer to the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) of 27 November 2001,Official Report, columns 859–60W, on the rural White Paper, if the £239 million allocated for rural bus service improvements includes the £15 million in the parish transport fund. [20139]

  Ms Keeble
  The £239 million allocated for rural transport over the next three years includes the Countryside Agency's £15 million parish transport fund.

  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, pursuant to the answer to the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) of 27 November 2001,Official Report, columns 859–60W, on
  34W
  the rural White Paper, which changes ensure the revised PPG13 will develop the role of market towns as hubs for jobs and services. [20144]

  Ms Keeble
  Our new planning policy guidance for transport (PPG13) sets out how local authorities in rural areas should plan for new development to be primarily sited at the most accessible locations in the local area. In remote locations, well away from large urban areas most development, including for jobs and services, should be located at local service centres. These centres will include market towns and are expected to be the focal points for services in the countryside. Local service centres should be designated in the development plans prepared by local authorities. These plans form the framework within which decisions on proposals for development are taken.

  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, pursuant to the answer to the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) of 27 November 2001,Official Report, columns 859–60W, on the rural White Paper, if he will list (a) the organisations which received funds and (b) the amount that they received to fund improvements for rural bus services in 2001–02; and what proportion of the fund has been allocated to improve rural bus services in 2002–03. [20027]

  Ms Keeble
  Local authorities have received the following amounts in rural bus grant to date in 2001–02 through the rural bus subsidy grant and rural bus challenge schemes.

  Local Authority

  Payments to date (£)

  Bath & NE Somerset

  71,492

  Bedfordshire

  512,742

  Blackburn with Darwen

  19,933

  Bracknell Forest

  20,450

  Bristol

  5,410

  Buckinghamshire

  286,599

  Cambridgeshire

  706,378

  Cheshire

  313,006

  Cornwall

  623,684

  Cumbria

  1,196,144

  Darlington

  43,219

  Derbyshire

  364,752

  Devon

  990,684

  Dorset

  717,498

  Durham

  540,339

  East Riding

  619,349

  East Sussex

  966,752

  Essex

  1,440,828

  Gloucestershire

  698,377

  Greater Manchester

  67,585

  Halton

  6,479

  Hampshire

  1,320,239

  Hartlepool

  15,081

  Herefordshire

  508,519

  Hertfordshire

  484,304

  Isle of Wight

  81,351

  Kent

  851,887

  Lancashire

  780,725

  Leicestershire

  776,664

  Lincolnshire

  1,067,597

  Medway

  78,189

  Merseyside

  42,636

  Middlesbrough

  5,895

  Milton Keynes

  166,120

  NE Lincolnshire

  38,124

  Norfolk

  1,500,147

  North Lincolnshire

  344,434

  North Somerset

  67,858

  North Yorkshire

  1,213,987

  35W

  Local Authority

  Payments to date (£)

  Northamptonshire

  701,499

  Northumberland

  779.618

  Nottinghamshire

  652,363

  Oxfordshire

  828,512

  Peterborough

  73,518

  Plymouth

  4,983

  Redcar & Cleveland

  48,857

  Rutland

  54,657

  Shropshire

  801,616

  Somerset

  519,856

  South Gloucestershire

  171,095

  South Yorkshire

  608,689

  Staffordshire

  807,230

  Stockton-on-Tees

  29,280

  Stoke-on-Trent

  4,836

  Suffolk

  1,253,255

  Surrey

  949,883

  Swindon

  49,848

  Telford and The Wrekin

  67,518

  Thurrock

  116,499

  Torbay

  117,725

  Tyne and Wear

  693,737

  Warrington

  53,313

  Warwickshire

  668,483

  West Berkshire

  118,806

  West Midlands

  44,335

  West Sussex

  517,826

  West Yorkshire

  705,668

  Wiltshire

  1,160,774

  Windsor & Maidenhead

  45,214

  Wokingham

  69,216

  Worcestershire

  1,102,672

  York

  65,444

  Total

  33,442,284

  A total of £68 million will be available for rural bus grants in 2002–03. Allocations of rural bus subsidy grant to local authorities for 2002–03 and the decisions on the 2001 rural bus challenge competition will be announced shortly.

  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, pursuant to the answer to the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew), of 27 November 2001,Official Report, columns 859–60W, on the rural White Paper, what the criteria are for mandatory 50 per cent. rate relief for non-agricultural enterprises on farms; and if he will make a statement. [20142]

  Dr. Whitehead
  Under the Rating (Former Agricultural Premises and Rural Shops) Act 2001, 50 per cent. mandatory rate relief is available to any rateable non-domestic property with a rateable value of no more than £6,000. This is provided that it consists wholly or mainly of land or buildings which were subject to the agricultural exemption from rates for at least 183 days during the one year period immediately preceding the date on which the rate relief scheme came into effect. The scheme came into effect in England on 15 August 2001. It has yet to be commenced in Wales, which is a matter for the National Assembly for Wales. The scheme will run for five years from commencement, when it will be reviewed and can be extended by Order. If the scheme is extended, each property will be eligible for relief up to five years from when it first received the relief.

  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, pursuant to the answer to the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew), of 27 November 2001,Official Report, columns 859–60W,
  36W
  on the rural White Paper, what changes have been made to ensure the revised PPG7 will develop farm diversification. [20148]

  Ms Keeble
  We revised our planning policies for the countryside (PPG7) to reflect the importance this Government attach to effective planning for sustainable farm diversification projects. Local planning authorities are expected to be supportive of well-conceived farm diversification schemes for business purposes that are consistent in their scale with their rural location.

  PPG7 should be taken into account by local authorities in preparing their development plans which form the framework within which decisions on proposals for development are taken. The guidance may also be material to decisions on individual planning applications and appeals.

  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, pursuant to the answer to the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew), of 27 November 2001,Official Report, columns 859–60W, on the rural White Paper, how many new affordable homes in rural settlements were occupied in 2001–02. [20033]

  Ms Keeble
  Information is not available in the form requested.

  New affordable homes in rural settlements in England with a population of 3,000 or less are funded by the Housing Corporation and local authorities or through the planning system without public subsidy.

  From 1 April to 31 October 2001, 379 affordable homes in rural settlements were approved, and 270 were completed, under the Housing Corporation's Approved Development Programme. Local authorities approved 142 units and completed 82 units in the same period.

  Flood Defence Levy
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will base SSA in respect of the flood defence levy on actual payments requested in 2002–03. [19485]

  Dr. Whitehead
  An authority's SSA for flood defence is based on expenditure, including levies, from past years. This is subject to scaling back to match the agreed national SSA total for flood defence.

  The Government have announced that although we review local government finance, we will not be making any changes to the SSA methodology until 2003–04. We will, however, be consulting soon on options arising from the separate DEFRA-led review of financial and administrative arrangements for flood defence, which may affect SSAs from that date.

  Homelessness
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what measures there are to provide accommodation for elderly people who are homeless. [19359]

  Ms Keeble
  Under the homelessness legislation (Part 7 of the Housing Act 1996), local housing authorities must ensure that suitable accommodation becomes available for all applicants who are eligible for assistance,
  37W
  unintentionally homeless and who fall within a priority need group. The priority need groups include a person who is vulnerable as a result of old age or with whom such a person resides or might reasonably be expected to reside.

  The Housing Corporation, through the approved development programme, currently funds registered social landlords to provide accommodation for elderly people who are homeless. A continued commitment to this client group is recognised in the Housing Corporation's National Investment Strategy for 2003–04.

  Planning
  Mr. Wyatt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if consultation draft PPG25 will apply planning applications originally submitted before its introduction. [20509]

  Ms Keeble
  The draft of PPG25 ("Development and Flood Risk") was superseded by the final version when it was published in July 2001. All planning policy guidance notes are material considerations, to be taken into account by local authorities where relevant to their decisions on planning applications during the period they are in force.

  Low-carbon Transport
  Mr. Lepper
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will make a statement on the Government's proposed action to deliver a low-carbon transport system. [20744]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I have today, together with the Minister of State Department for Trade and Industry, the Financial Secretary to the Treasury and the Minister of State Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, published a draft Government strategy on "Powering Future Vehicles", for consultation. This draft strategy sets out how Government propose to lead, encourage and facilitate the shift to a low-carbon transport system. This marks the start of a consultation, which will last three months. In the spring the Government will publish a final Powering Future Vehicles strategy. I have placed copies of this document in the Library.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Sport (Rural Areas)
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will make a statement on the provision of opportunities for sporting activities in rural areas. [16993]

  Mr. Caborn
  The Government are fully committed to providing a wide range of opportunities for sporting activities in all areas of the country, including rural areas. A number of initiatives including School Sports Co-ordinators, Spaces for Sport and the Arts, and the New Opportunities Fund (NOF) PE and School Sport Programme, will help to improve provision in rural areas.

  Digital Services (Wales)
  Mr. Simon Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will make a statement on the regulation of digital services in Wales. [17000]
  38W
  Dr. Howells
  The Independent Television Commission are responsible for the regulation of all digital television services in Wales except for BBC licence funded services and S4C.

  Digital Boxes
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will make available digital set top boxes free of charge to(a) pensioners and (b) others on low incomes. [17001]

  Dr. Howells
  My Department has no plans to make available digital set top boxes free of charge. However, the Government are committed to ensuring that terrestrial analogue broadcasting signals are maintained until switching to digital is an affordable option for the vast majority of people. As a target indicator of affordability, 95 per cent. of consumers should have access to digital equipment.

  Supporters Direct Scheme
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will make a statement on funding available to sports clubs through the Supporters Direct scheme. [17002]

  Mr. Caborn
  Supporters Direct was established to assist groups of supporters wishing to get involved in the responsible running of football clubs. It provides legal and other advice, and limited financial help with administrative costs, to groups wishing to form club-based supporters' trusts.

  Swimming Pool (Upminster)
  Angela Watkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will make a statement on the plans for a new swimming pool at Central park, Harold Hill, Upminster, sponsored by Sport England. [17003]

  Mr. Caborn
  Sport England provided a lottery grant of £4.2 million towards the costs of developing the new swimming facilities in Central park, Harold Hill, Upminster in December 1999 which included a six lane, 25m pool. The total project costs at the time of the award were estimated to be approximately £8.3 million.

  Public Libraries
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will make a statement on the standard of public library provision. [17005]

  Tessa Jowell
  The Government have encouraged better planning, accountability and performance in public library services through the introduction of Annual Library Plans (ALPs) in 1998 and standards of service on 1 April this year. The authority's performance against the Library Standards will be monitored, by the Department, through ALPs. Additionally, to help libraries provide a better service, £170 million of lottery money is being made available to libraries through the People's Network programme to upgrade their ICT infrastructure, create innovative digital content and train library staff in the use of ICT.

  New Millennium Experience Company
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will make a statement about the cost of running the New Millennium Experience Company since 1 January and its future plans. [17006]

  Tessa Jowell
  The New Millennium Experience Company (NMEC) has incurred wind-down costs of £8.81 million in the period 1 January to 31 October 2001. NMEC is engaged in a wide range of tasks necessary to prepare the company for solvent liquidation including closing out and finalising all aspects of the company's financial affairs. It is intended that a liquidator will be appointed around the end of this year.

  Eden Centre (Cornwall)
  Linda Gilroy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what assessment she has made of the performance of the Eden centre in Cornwall. [17007]

  Tessa Jowell
  This is a matter for the Millennium Commission. I will write to my hon. Friend in my capacity as Chair of the Commission, and place copies of my reply in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Gambling
  Mr. Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will make a statement on gambling legislation. [17008]

  Dr. Howells
  We are now considering all the comments which we have received since July on the report of the independent Gambling Review Body. We shall announce our conclusions early next year.

  Mr. Denis Murphy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what(a) evidence and (b) advice the Gambling Review Body considered before including Recommendation 70 in its recent report.[19952]

  Mr. Caborn
  Annex B to the report of the Gambling Review Body summarises the information and evidence on which it based its recommendations.

  Sports (Yorkshire and the Humber)
  Kali Mountford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will make a statement on her plans to develop grassroots sports in Yorkshire and the Humber. [17009]

  Mr. Caborn
  The Government are committed to the development of sport and increasing opportunities for participation throughout the country. The strategy for sport—A Sporting Future for All—and the Government's Plan for Sport set out an action plan on how we intend to achieve those objectives. Responsibility for developing grass roots sport at the regional level rests with a number of organisations including Sport England, local authorities, local education authorities, schools, sports governing bodies, sports clubs, volunteers, and in order to ensure the best use of resources it is essential that all these interests work in partnership.

  In the Yorkshire Region Sport England and the Regional Sports Board are working closely together to produce a new strategic plan for sport in the region.
  40W
  All of the programmes for providing better sports facilities and improving sports provision are being implemented in the Region including Lottery funding, where over £130 million has been committed to the region, the School Sport Co-ordinators programme and specialist sports colleges while the Spaces for Sport and Arts, NOF Round three and NOF Green Spaces programmes will all be injecting significant new resources into facilities which will be available to schools and the wider community.

  For the future I have made it clear that I wish to see a strengthened regional structure for the delivery of sport in the regions which involves local decision making and strong partnerships with all the key local interests. I will be discussing these issues with the Sport England Council and its new Chief Executive when he is in post.

  Sports Participation (Young People)
  Judy Mallaber
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what action she is taking to encourage and assist participation in sports by young people. [17010]

  Tessa Jowell
  The Government have initiated a variety of programmes to encourage and assist participation in sports by young people—notably £120 million over four years to establish a network of 1,000 School Sport Co-ordinators in secondary schools across England and £581 million of lottery money in England, from the New Opportunities Fund 3rd round, to help build and refurbish school sport facilities across England.

  Mr. Hepburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will make a statement on how she encourages sport among young people in the community. [17015]

  Mr. Caborn
  The Government have set up and are running a number of programmes to encourage sports among young people in the community. The Space for Sports and Arts is a joint initiative between DCMS, DfEE, Sport England, Arts Council of England and the New Opportunities Fund which has allocated £130 million to 65 LEAs to develop new sports and arts facilities on primary school sites. These will be used by young people and will also be available for community use. £581 million New Opportunities Fund money will be invested in strengthening the foundation of sport across England by building and refurbishing PE and sports facilities in schools. These will be made available to the wider community. On 11 January 2001 the Government announced an investment of £7 million over two years to train up to 60,000 young people and adult volunteers for sport. The scheme, 'Leadership and Volunteering in Community Sport,' will foster leadership skills and self-confidence in young people and contribute significantly to their personal development and employability.

  Regional Theatres
  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what action her Department is taking to support regional theatres(a) in the United Kingdom and (b) in London. [17011]

  Tessa Jowell
  Theatre funding is a matter for the Arts Council of England and the Regional Arts Boards. The Arts Council has already announced significant additional
  41W
  funding for theatre in England from 2002–03 which will see the budget for theatre rise from its current level of £45 million to £70 million by the end of the current planning cycle (2003–04). The theatre budget for London will increase from £8,620,514 in 2000–01 to £14,574,655 in 2003–04, or by 69 per cent.

  Mr. Levitt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what support her Department is giving to regional theatres in the east midlands. [20994]

  Mr. Caborn
  Funding for theatre remains a matter for the Arts Council of England and the Regional Arts Boards. In March this year, the Arts Council announced a significant increase in funding for theatre in 2002–03 and 2003–04, including a 62 per cent. increase for subsidised theatre throughout the east midlands by the end of the period.

  Sports Facilities (Havering)
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will make a statement on her support for sports facilities in the London borough of Havering. [17012]

  Mr. Caborn
  It is the Government's aim to ensure maximum participation in sport from all members of all communities.

  In order to improve sports facilities in the London borough of Havering, the Lottery Sports Fund has awarded grants totalling over £4.6 million to 11 projects with a total project cost of over £8.9 million.

  Tourism (Balance of Trade)
  Mr. Hendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what the balance of trade is on tourism. [17013]

  Dr. Howells
  The latest estimate of balance of payments deficit from tourism (seasonally adjusted figures) in the year to September 2001 is £13.7 billion. Earnings and overseas expenditure in the years to September 2000 and 2001 are summarised in the following table.

  Balance of expenditure by overseas visitors to the UK and UK residents abroad

  £ billion

  12 months ending:

  September 2000

  September 2001

  Visitors to the UK

  12.8

  11.8

  UK residents

  23.8

  25.5

  Balance (deficit)

  -11.0

  -13.7

  Source:

  Derived from International Passenger Survey

  BBC (Digital Services)
  Miss Begg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will make a statement on her recent decision on the BBC's new digital services. [17014]

  Tessa Jowell
  On 13 September, at the Royal Television Society Convention in Cambridge, I announced my decision on the BBC's proposals for new digital television and radio services.
  42W
  I gave approval to the following new services:
  two new television channels for children—one aimed at children aged six to 13, another for the under six-year-olds;
  BBC4—a television service intended to create a forum for debate and aimed at anyone interested in culture, arts and ideas that will replace BBC Knowledge;
  five new digital radio services aimed separately at a young specialist audience (Network X), an Asian audience (Asian Network), and sports lovers (Five Live Sports Plus) as well as an archive music channel (Network Y) and an archive voice channel (Network Z) plus an extension of the BBC World Service to the UK.

  I have set strict conditions for each service covering commitments to high quality, interactivity and the use of home-grown talent and productions. I have also set general conditions including one which requires the BBC to draw up and publish a plan for promoting digital television and radio services by the end of 2001.

  I assessed each of the proposals against the published DCMS guidelines for BBC public service approvals and invited comments from the broadcasting and communications industry, the Independent Television Commission, the Radio Authority and consumer groups. I concluded that each approved service is distinctive and that its likely impact on the market is proportionate to its public value.

  I did not give approval to BBC3, a television service aimed at 16 to 34-year-olds, which was a proposed replacement for BBC Choice. I was not convinced that the proposals were truly distinctive in an already crowded market, and have invited the BBC to put forward fresh proposals.

  I will be reviewing all the new services in 2004 as part of the review of the Charter and-Agreement and licence fee funding.

  Football Association
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what recent discussions she has had with the Football Association; and what matters were discussed. [17016]

  Mr. Caborn
  With my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, I had a meeting with the chairman and chief executive of the Football Association on 25 September. We discussed a range of football issues.

  Channel 5
  Mr. Carmichael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what plans she has for expanding the coverage of Channel 5 to all areas of Great Britain. [17004]

  Dr. Howells
  There are no such plans, because the provision of digital terrestrial television now has priority for the use of scarce spectrum. Channel 5 services are carried free-to-view on all digital platforms. The Government's aim is to make the main analogue channels universally available in digital across the UK, at least matching the existing analogue coverage of 99.4 per cent. of the population.

  National Lottery
  Brian Cotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (1) what guidance she gives to Camelot on the designation of Lottery outlets; [19109]

  (2) what representations she has received from retailers in each of the last five years with regard to the allocation of lottery outlets; and what appeals procedure exists for retailers who have been rejected as lottery providers. [19110]

  Mr. Caborn
  There have been a number of representations from retailers during this period about decisions by Camelot Group plc not to install a terminal on their premises. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has issued no guidance to Camelot on this matter. However, its licence from the National Lottery Commission requires Camelot to provide a terminal for each postcode district within which there are at least 2,000 residents, and to make available for public inspection its criteria for selecting and de-selecting retailers. It is for Camelot to exercise its commercial judgment in applying these criteria, and there is no separate appeals procedure.

  Film Industry
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will list the films which were made in the UK; and how many shot footage in the Teesside region in the last five years. [19069]

  Mr. Caborn
  The British Film Institute's Film and Television Handbook lists the films produced in the UK in a number of different categories, some of which were only partly shot in the UK. The lists have been copied for the last five years and I am arranging for copies to be placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

  The Northern Screen Commission advises that the following films contain footage filmed in the Teesside region:

  Elizabeth: 1997

  Shopping: 1997

  Like Father: 1998

  Billy Elliott: 1999.

  Harry Potter and the Philospher's Stone: 2000

  £

  Local authority

  Project

  Sport England funding

  Other agencies funding

  Total

  Barrow

  School holiday provision

  4,000

  —

  4,000

  Barrow

  Disability sports development worker

  93,215

  —

  93,215

  Barrow

  Active living for all men's worker

  49,386

  52,500

  101,886

  Barrow

  Active living for all women's worker

  13,489

  67,500

  80,989

  Barrow

  Active living all for older people's worker

  35,986

  45,000

  80,986

  Total

  196,076

  165,000

  361,076

  Copeland

  Health communities worker

  7,500

  77,629

  85,129

  Departmental Expenditure Limit
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will estimate the total unallocated funds within her departmental expenditure limit(a) at the start of the financial year and (b) to date; and what was the month seven forecast on outturn underspend against her departmental expenditure limit in (i) real and (ii) percentage terms. [19437]

  Mr. Caborn
  The Department's Unallocated Provision (DUP) for the present financial year is set out in the detailed allocations table on page 223 of the Department for Culture, Media and Sport Annual Report for 2000–01 (Cm 5114). There has been no draw-down of the Department's DUP to date. Outturn against the six month forecast for each Request for Resources will be published in the Winter Supplementary Estimates Summary Request for Supply as usual.

  Derek Casey
  Nick Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how the amount paid to Sport England's former chief executive, Derek Casey, upon the termination of his contract, was determined; what the amount was; what conditions were placed upon the payment; what form the payment took; for what reasons the amount was not disclosed earlier; what part(a) her Department and (b) Sport England played in arriving at the amount and nature of the payment; and if she will make a statement. [19518]

  Mr. Caborn
  Full details of the severance package for the former Chief Executive of Sport England and of the process by which it was agreed will be included in the Sport England accounts which will be laid before the House as soon as possible.

  Sports Action Zone (West Cumbria)
  Dr. Jack Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what projects the Sports Action Zone in West Cumbria has initiated in(a) Allerdale, (b) Barrow and (c) Copeland; what sum of money is involved in each case in each borough; and if she will make a statement. [18966]

  Mr. Caborn
  [holding answer 30 November 2001]: Details of projects initiated by the West Cumbria Sports Action Zone are as follows:
  45W

  £

  Local authority

  Project

  Sport England funding

  Other agencies funding

  Total

  Total

  7,500

  77,629

  85,129

  Allerdale/Copeland

  Sport for health manager

  30,000

  40,000

  70,000

  Total

  30,000

  40,000

  70,000

  Overall total

  233,576

  282,629

  516,205

  Dr. Jack Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport when the Needs Assessment and Action Plan for the West Cumbria Sports Action Zone will be published; and if she will make a statement. [18965]

  Mr. Caborn
  [holding answer 30 November 2001]: The Needs Assessment and Action Plan for the West Cumbria Sports Action Zone will be published in mid-December.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (1) how many and what proportion of letters received by her Department between 20 June and 20 July were replied to(a) in under 15, (b) in under 20, (c) in under 30, (d) in under 40 and (e) in over 40 working days; [18593]

  (2) how many letters her Department received from hon. and right hon. Members between 20 June and 20 July. [18573]

  Mr. Caborn
  Information on the volume of correspondence from Members of Parliament received by Departments and agencies and performance in handling them is published annually by the Cabinet Office. The most recent report, covering 2000, was announced by the then Minister for the Cabinet Office on 6 April 2001,Official Report, column 325W. Between 20 June and 20 July 2001 Ministers received 1,091 letters—298 of which were from hon. and right hon. Members. 78 per cent. of the replies to these were issued within the Department's target of 18 working days. It is not possible to break this down any further without incurring disproportionate costs.

  Sport Skills
  Mrs. Helen Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will make a statement on her proposals to enable talented, young sports students to develop their skills. [20992]

  Mr. Caborn
  My Department's financial assistance to support and develop talented young athletes is channelled through two lottery funded initiatives administered by Sport England—the World Class Potential Programme and the World Class Start Programme.

  My officials and I are also discussing with the private sector the potential for commercial sponsorship to assist with talent development.

  Sports Projects
  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what major sports projects in 2002 her Department is promoting in London. [17813]
  46W
  Mr. Caborn
  Next year, the country joins Her Majesty the Queen in celebrating her Golden Jubilee. As part of these celebrations in the London region, there is a nine day festival of sport planned from 6 July to 14 July.

  This will involve on the weekends of 6 and 7 July and 13 and 14 July, the London Heathrow Youth Games preliminaries and finals. The London Youth Games began in the Queen's Silver Jubilee Year and will therefore be in its 25 year in 2002.

  On 11 July there will be the Mini Youth Games for primary aged children.

  Both events involve 32 London boroughs and the Corporation of London.

  On 8, 9 and possibly 10 July there will be the Active Sports Talent Camps which are specifically linked to the Manchester Commonwealth Games under the Spirit of Friendship' banner. This will incorporate training and coaching clinics for those young people who show potential for 1 of 9 sports. The sports involved are: athletics, basketball, girl's football, hockey, netball, rugby league, rugby union (boys and girls), swimming and tennis.

  School Sports
  Jeff Ennis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what plans she has to apply the money for the new opportunities fund investment in school sports. [17249]

  Mr. Caborn
  Plans for the new opportunities for PE and Sport in Schools programme are set out in the new opportunities fund's recently published document "Building for Tomorrow"—copies of which I am placing in the Libraries of both Houses. The programme will provide PE and sports facilities for young people and the community in general and is intended to have a long-term impact on key issues facing local communities such as education, health, crime and drugs use.

  Royal Palaces
  Andrew Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, pursuant to her answer of 13 November 2001,Official Report, column 634W, on royal palaces, which persons residing in royal palaces have council tax charged against that accommodation they occupy; and if this tax is paid by (a) the royal household and (b) the occupant. [18375]

  Mr. Caborn
  Council tax is paid by all of the 244 residents residing in royal palaces listed in my hon. Friend's answer of 13 November 2001,Official Report, column 634W. The grant in aid for property services is only responsible for council tax on vacant properties.
  47W
  Andrew Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, pursuant to her answer of 13 November 2001,Official Report, column 634W, on royal palaces, which members of the royal family occupy accommodation in the royal palaces other than Her Majesty the Queen and Prince Philip and Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother. [18376]

  Mr. Caborn
  The other members of the royal family who occupy self-contained residential accommodation in the royal palaces are:

  The Prince of Wales

  The Princess Royal

  The Princess Margaret

  The Duke and Duchess of Gloucester

  The Duke and Duchess of Kent Princess Alexandra

  Prince and Princess Michael of Kent.

  Andrew Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, pursuant to her answer of 13 November 2001,Official Report, column 634W, on royal palaces, which persons residing in royal palaces occupy accommodation that is separate hereditaments for council tax purposes. [18377]

  Mr. Caborn
  The 244 residents with self-contained residential accommodation in royal palaces are liable to pay separate council tax.

  Andrew Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, pursuant to her answer of 13 November 2001,Official Report, column 634W, on royal palaces, if she will list the commercial occupants of the royal palaces. [18379]

  Mr. Caborn
  The commercial lettings outside the security cordon are mainly arranged by estate agents. These properties are marketed in the same way as other properties included in the letting portfolios of these agents. It would be inappropriate to list the individuals concerned. None of them has any connection with the Royal Household or the Royal Family.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Brazilian Mahogany
  Mr. Blizzard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps she is taking to support the Brazilian Government's moratorium on trade in mahogany. [17837]

  Nigel Griffiths
  Brazilian mahogany (Swietenia macrophylla) is listed in appendix III of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES). Its import into the United Kingdom is covered by annex C of EU regulation 338/97 and must be accompanied by an export permit or certificate of origin issued by the Brazilian Government's CITES management authority.

  Omega, Warrington
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps she is taking to assist the development of the Omega site in Warrington; and if she will make a statement. [17906]
  48W
  Alan Johnson
  [holding answer 26 November 2001]: The Omega site in Warrington is identified in the NWDA regional strategy as one of the 11 strategic sites for investment in the North-west.

  English Partnerships and Warrington borough council are taking forward the development of this site. The North-West development agency has contributed £25,000 towards the Omega partnership, which was formed to co-ordinate and oversee all aspects of the project.

  Economic Development (Lancashire)
  Geraldine Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment he has made of(a) the number of jobs created, (b) the number of jobs created to be taken up by residents of communities in need and (c) the estimated cost per job created as part of the (i) Luneside East, (ii) Lancaster West Business Park, (iii) Heysham Business Park, (iv) Kingsway, (v) Mellishaw North and (vi) Luneside West developments included in the bid for an economic development zone by Lancaster City Council. [18253]

  Alan Johnson
  [holding answer 26 November 2001]: Lancaster's bid for economic development zone status is currently being assessed, along with those of other EDZ contenders, by independent consultants appointed by the Government office for the north-west.

  Geraldine Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations she has received from the North-West development agency in relation to the bid put forward by Lancaster city council for an economic development zone. [18251]

  Alan Johnson
  [holding answer 26 November 2001]: None.

  Lune Industrial Estate
  Geraldine Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations she has received from the North-West development agency on access to the Lune industrial estate. [18250]

  Alan Johnson
  [holding answer 26 November 2001]: No representations have been received from the North-West development agency on access on the Lune industrial estate.

  Postal Services
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what discussions she has had with Consignia on the proposal to charge customers for post and delivery before 9.30 am. [17421]

  Mr. Alexander
  [holding answer 26 November 2001]: The Department has regular discussions with Consignia about a range of strategic issues facing the company. However, ideas about altering charging or delivery arrangements are operational issues for the company provided that it remains within the terms of the licence issued to it by the Postal Services Commission.

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on the proposed abolition of the second postal delivery. [17419]
  49W
  Mr. Alexander
  [holding answer 26 November 2001]: Consignia's proposals in relation to second delivery are operational issues for the company provided that it remains within the terms of the licence issued to it by the Postal Services Commission.

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what discussions she has had with the management of Consignia on charging for the second postal delivery. [17420]

  Mr. Alexander
  [holding answer 26 November 2001]: The Department has regular discussions with Consignia about a range of strategic issues facing the company. Consignia's proposals in relation to the second postal delivery are operational issues for the company provided that it remains within the terms of the licence issued to it by the Postal Services Commission.

  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what recent discussions she has had with Consignia; and if she raised the issue of industrial relations. [19470]

  Mr. Alexander
  [holding answer 30 November 2001]: The Department has regular discussions with Consignia about a range of strategic issues facing the company. The handling of industrial relations and the resolution of any disputes are issues for the management of the company and the unions. The Government have encouraged the management and unions to work in partnership to implement the recommendations in the Sawyer report published in July 2001. Progress has been encouraging but a lot more still needs to be done.

  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on the Government's policy on the ending of the second post, with special reference to rural areas. [19471]

  Mr. Alexander
  [holding answer 30 November 2001]: Consignia's proposals in relation to the second delivery are operational issues for the company, subject to the regulatory powers and duties of the Postal Services Commission in respect of service standards.

  Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many formal notices her Department has received in the last year from the parliamentary ombudsman expressing an intention to carry out an investigation; and in respect of each notice how long it took to respond. [18770]

  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 27 November 2001]: The Department has received two formal inquiries from the ombudsman in the last year (ie from 23 November 2000). In the first case, a full response was sent 26 days from the date of the inquiry, and in the second case 35 days from the date of the inquiry.

  Employment Tribunals
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many applications to employment tribunals were(a) upheld, (b) dismissed and (c) withdrawn in the last year for which information is available. [19761]
  50W
  Alan Johnson
  The following is the information.

  outcome of employment tribunal cases disposed of in 2000–01

  Number of cases

  ACAS conciliated settlements

  33,169

  Withdrawn

  27,502

  Successful at hearing

  13,640

  Dismissed at hearing (out of scope)

  1,884

  Dismissed at hearing (other)

  9,582

  Disposed of otherwise

  7,161

  Total

  92,938

  Source:

  Employment Tribunals Service

  A claim may be brought under more than one jurisdiction or subsequently amended/clarified in the course of proceedings, but will only be counted once in the above table (against the main jurisdiction).

  Transatlantic Radio Signal (Centenary)
  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what discussions she has had with her counterparts in Canada and the US in respect of arrangements to celebrate the centenary of the successful transmission of a transatlantic radio signal. [19573]

  Mr. Alexander
  My officials in the Department and the Radiocommunications Agency have had extensive' discussions with Canadian Government officials about arrangements for the celebration of the centenary. At the end of September, a senior official represented the agency and contributed to the Wireless Vision Congress at St. John's Newfoundland which was part of the Canadian celebrations of the centenary. There have been no discussions with the US Government on this issue.

  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what arrangements her Department has made to support the celebration of the centenary of the first transatlantic radio signal. [19572]

  Mr. Alexander
  I am due to host a reception at the Radiocommunications Agency on 12 December to mark this important achievement. There will be a link-up from the reception to agency officials who will be in Poldhu, where the agency has donated radio equipment to the Poldhu amateur radio club to commemorate the centenary. The agency has also produced a souvenir booklet, "Wireless over the Waves", which has achieved a wide circulation and is on its website.

  Recruitment Industry
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what criteria were used to select the Recruitment and Employment Confederation as the main negotiator for the UK employment industry. [19855]

  Alan Johnson
  I have met the Recruitment and Employment Confederation, which is the main representative body in the private recruitment industry, to discuss the draft conduct of employment agencies and employment businesses regulations and other issues relating to the private recruitment industry. My officials and I have also discussed these matters with a number of other representative bodies in the industry and individual recruitment companies.
  51W
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the average cost is for an information technology staffing agency to provide an IT professional to a client. [19868]

  Alan Johnson
  I have no estimate of the average cost to an information technology recruitment agency of providing an IT professional.

  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what percentage of temporary information technology staff operate through personal service companies. [19865]

  Alan Johnson
  I have no estimate of the percentage of information technology temporary staff who operate through personal service companies.

  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what evidence she has received that demonstrates that the quarantine period proposed in the draft of the conduct of employment agencies and employment business regulations 2001 has been set at an appropriate timescale for recruitment of information technology personnel. [19862]

  Alan Johnson
  The principles underlying our proposals on the quarantine periods to apply to the payment of transfer fees are in line with suggestions made by the Recruitment and Employment Confederation, the private recruitment industry's principal trade association.

  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she has completed a regulatory impact assessment on the proposed draft of the conduct of employment agencies and employment business regulations 2001; and if she will make a statement. [19860]

  Alan Johnson
  A regulatory impact assessment on the proposed new Employment Agency regulations has been produced and published on my Department's website.

  Our objective in overhauling the existing regulations, which date from 1976, is simpler, clearer regulations, which are relevant to the market of today and of the future. The proposed new regulations are in many cases updated versions of existing requirements. They are designed to benefit recruitment agencies, those employed through them and hirers. They will remove unnecessary restrictions on agencies operations and the services they offer, while protecting the interests of work seekers and vulnerable groups.

  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she is planning to undertake further consultation on the draft of the conduct of employment agencies and employment business regulations 2001. [19854]

  Alan Johnson
  I will be consulting further on the main changes we propose to the draft conduct regulations.

  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) how many IT agencies operate in the UK; and what percentage of these have a turnover in excess of £2 million per annum; [19866]

  (2) what information she has collated on the number of IT staffing agencies which are privately owned and managed small and medium-sized enterprises and if she will make a statement. [19867]
  52W
  Alan Johnson
  I do not have full details on the information requested, but the Association of Technology Staffing Companies, the body representing the IT staffing companies, estimates that there are some 2,000 companies in the sector with a total annual turnover of almost £2 billion.

  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what recent discussions she has had with(a) representative organisations and (b) individual companies in the recruitment industry. [19858]

  Alan Johnson
  In recent months I have met a number of representative bodies and individual companies from the private recruitment industry to discuss the draft conduct of employment agencies and employment businesses regulations and other issues.

  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) if she will list the(a) companies, (b) organisations and (c) individuals who have been invited to discuss the proposed draft of the conduct of employment agencies and employment business regulations 2001; [19852]

  .(2) if she will publish the names of the (a) individuals and (b) organisations who have commented on the proposed draft of the conduct of employment agencies and employment business regulations 2001. [19857]

  Alan Johnson
  A list of the respondents to the last consultation exercise on the proposed draft conduct of employment agencies and employment businesses regulations has been placed in the Libraries of the House. I have also held discussions with a number of these.

  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she has received representations from the IT industry about the proposed draft of the conduct of employment agencies and employment business regulations 2001; and if she will make a statement. [19859]

  Alan Johnson
  I received representations on the draft conduct of employment agencies and employment businesses regulations from the representative bodies, individual recruitment companies and workers within the IT industry.

  Our draft conduct regulations are designed to benefit recruitment agencies, employment businesses, their clients and those seeking employment through them. They will remove unnecessary restrictions on organisations in the recruitment industry, including the IT sector, and the services they can offer, while protecting the interests of work seekers and vulnerable groups. I recognise that the IT sector plays an increasingly important role in the recruitment industry.

  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) what specific concerns prompted the review of the Employment Agencies Act 1973; [19853]

  (2) if she will she make a statement on the aspects of the Employment Agencies Act 1973 which triggered a revision of the present legislation. [19863]

  Alan Johnson
  I have no plans to review the Employment Agencies Act 1973 at the present time. The Government consider that the existing Conduct of Employment Agencies and Employment Businesses Regulations 1976 do not meet the Better Regulation Taskforce's five central principles of good regulation:
  53W
  transparency, accountability, targeting, consistency and proportionality. Our objective in overhauling the existing legislative framework governing agency conduct, which dates from 1976, is simpler, clearer, regulations, which are relevant to the labour market of today and of the future.

  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what studies have been conducted into the number of temporary employees who have taken up permanent employment in the(a) nursing, (b) secretarial, (c) information technology and (d) transport industries in the last 12 months. [19861]

  Alan Johnson
  The Recruitment and Employment Confederation estimates that about one fifth of temporary workers transfer to permanent employment each year. However, I have no breakdown by specific sectors.

  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when she last met the Association of Technology Staffing Companies; and if she will make a statement. [19864]

  Alan Johnson
  Although I have met a number of bodies representing the various sectors within the private recruitment industry over recent years, I have not yet had the opportunity to meet representatives of the Association of Technology Staffing Companies (ATSCo). However, my officials have had a number of productive meetings with the ATSCo over the past year.

  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry by what date she expects to lay the draft of the conduct of employment agencies and employment business regulations 2001. [19856]

  Alan Johnson
  I expect to lay the draft conduct regulations before Parliament early in the new year.

  Galileo Project
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if the next stage of funding for the Galileo project was discussed at the November European Space Agency ministerial meeting; what commitments were made by each member state; and if she will make a statement. [19085]

  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 29 November 2001]: Yes. A declaration for subscription to the next phase of the Galileo programme was opened at the Ministerial Council. A majority of ESA member states subscribed. The UK indicated that it would want to await the outcome of the EU Transport Council before finalising its position.

  My Department is working closely with the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions and others within Whitehall to examine the economic case for providing further funding to the Galileo project, if it goes ahead.

  Age Discrimination
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will consult on(a) employment and (b) goods and services in age discrimination legislation. [18837]
  54W
  Alan Johnson
  The forthcoming consultation on age discrimination legislation will focus on employment and vocational training. This is our priority, and will implement the EU employment directive. Those responding to the consultation are free, of course, to raise related matters, including the question of extending provision to goods and services.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many letters her Department received from hon. and right hon. Members between 20 June and 20 July. [18570]

  Ms Hewitt
  My Department received 936 letters from hon. and right hon. Members between 20 June and 20 July.

  Railtrack
  Mr. Swire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what her policy is on the proposed takeover of Railtrack by WestLB. [17285]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Government welcome the interest shown in the role of the network operator by third parties. However, ultimately it is for the administrator to formulate a proposal for a transfer scheme and put it to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions for approval.

TREASURY

  Pre-Budget Report
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish disaggregated figures for the(a) Customs and Excise duties and (b) other taxes and royalties shown on lines 8 and 10 of table B8, page 174, of the pre-Budget report 2001. [20129]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  More detailed figures for tax receipts in 2000–01 and 2001–02 are shown in table C7, page 192, of the Budget 2001 and in table B11, page 184, of the 2001 pre-Budget report.

  Financial Services Authority
  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer for what reason the FSA took two months to issue a public statement after being informed on 24 September of a previously undisclosed letter dated 1 April 1999 from Mr. Christopher Headdon, then Actuary to Equitable Life, to Irish European Reinsurance Company. [19887]

  Ruth Kelly
  I understand that the FSA disclosed the existence of the letter at the earliest point that it was appropriate to do so. The letter was relevant to commercial negotiations which have only just been concluded and the FSA press statement of 26 November reported the outcome of those discussions as soon as practicable following the conclusion of the negotiations.
  55W
  Mr. Russell Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he has received a copy of the report requested in the letter of 16 October from the Economic Secretary to Sir Howard Davies; and if he will publish it. [20817]

  Ruth Kelly
  The FSA sent the report to the Treasury on 20 November 2001. I have today forwarded the report to Lord Penrose as further input to his Inquiry. I have also asked the FSA to make the report publicly available. Copies of my letter to Lord Penrose and the report itself have been deposited in the Library of the House.

  London Underground
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what involvement officials from HM Treasury have had in the value for money assessment of the public-private partnership for the London Underground; if he will place in the Library the assessment he has received from the Office for National Statistics concerning the accounting treatment for the PPP for the London Underground; and if he will make a statement. [19519]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  The value for money assessment of the London Underground PPP will be carried out by London Transport in line with the relevant guidance produced by HM Treasury and the Treasury Taskforce. London Transport is also working to ensure that when it evaluates final PPP bids it addresses the issues raised by the National Audit Office in its report 'The financial analysis for the London Underground Public Private Partnerships'.

  The Office for National Statistics has made no assessment of the accounting treatment of the PPP.

  Treasury Investment Appraisal Guidance
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what changes he plans to make to Treasury investment appraisal guidance; and if he will make a statement. [19521]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  A review of the Capital Appraisal process, including the detailed guidance issued by the Treasury on investment appraisal, was announced at the time of the pre-Budget report last year. When the review concludes I will decide whether any changes need to be made to the current guidance.

  Cross-border Bank Transfers
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the average charge for a cross-border bank transfer of 100 euros(a) in the Euro zone and (b) involving a UK bank; and if he will make a statement. [19587]

  Ruth Kelly
  The Treasury has made no assessment of charges for cross-border credit transfers either(a) in the Euro zone, or (b) involving a UK bank.

  Capital Assets
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 20 November 2001,Official Report, column 270W, on capital assets, (1) if he will place in the Library the classification of each asset
  56W
  reverting to the public sector for PPP contracts signed in the last 12 months; and what was their aggregate value; [19185]

  (2)what proportion of PPP contracts by value in 2000–01 were classified as (a) finance leases and (b) operating leases; and if he will make a statement; [19188]

  (3)if he will place in the Library the aggregate value of capital assets expected to revert to public sector ownership in each of the next 25 years; and if he will make a statement. [19186]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  This information is not held centrally. Information on the assets held by each department and major PPP projects is available in departmental resource account.

  Regional Investment
  Adam Price
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the expenditure was(a) under the single regeneration budget, and its equivalents, (b) under the housing capital programmes outside the SRB, (c) under the European regional development fund and the European social fund, (d) by specialised economic regeneration agencies, (e) by TECs, skills and learning councils and on education and training by the Employment Service and the further education funding councils, (f) by the DTI on regional policies including regional selective assistance, (g) by the enterprise boards and (h) under specialist regeneration activities including employment zones and new deal in communities in each of the last 10 years for each of the nations of Great Britain. [18522]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  Spending in devolved areas is a matter for the devolved Administrations to determine within their overall departmental expenditure limits, announced following Spending Review 2000. Information on receipts from European Community institutions analysed by fund and by Department is published in table 14d of the departmental report of the Chancellor's Departments (Cm 5116). Information on the programmes of UK Government Departments is published in the relevant Department's departmental report.

  Adam Price
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to allow regional development agencies to issue regional bonds as a regional investment facility. [18514]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  There are no such plans. However, Regional Venture Capital Funds will shortly be up and running across the country. These will provide at least £270 million of investment in the regions and are supported by up to £80 million of Government resources.

  Asian Community Events
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many Asian community events he has attended within the last 12 months. [15914]

  Ruth Kelly
  Over the last 12 months, Treasury Ministers have attended numerous meetings at which members of the Asian business, faith and other communities have been present, including the Bradford Mela (Peel Park, Bradford, 1 July 2001), Diwali celebrations in Southend-on-Sea (5 November 2001) and 16th Anniversary Asian Traders Dinner (London, 13 November 2001).

  Residents (Tyne and Wear)
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the numbers of residents of each authority in Tyne and Wear in each year since 1991(a) in total and (b) the percentage in the age ranges (i) 0 to 4, (ii) 4 to 14 and (iii) 14 to 24 years. [19491]

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

  Letter from John Pullinger to Mr. Jim Cousins, dated 30 November 2001:
  The National Statistician has been asked to reply to your recent question concerning the number of residents in each local authority in Tyne and Wear in each year since 1991. I am replying in his absence. (19491).
  The information for the total number of residents and the percentage in the age ranges 0–4, 5–14 and 15–24 in the local authorities in Tyne and Wear is in the attached table.

  Estimated resident population mid-1991 to mid-2000 for districts within Tyne and Wear metropolitan county

  Total persons

  Percentage of persons aged

  Year/district

  (thousands)

  0–4

  5–14

  15–24

  1991

  Gateshead

  203.1

  6.2

  11.8

  13.8

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  278.2

  6.4

  11.3

  17.0

  North Tyneside

  195.5

  6.2

  12.3

  12.6

  South Tyneside

  157.2

  6.7

  12.6

  12.7

  Sunderland

  296.4

  7.0

  13.4

  14.7

  1992

  Gateshead

  203.1

  6.3

  12.0

  13.2

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  281.7

  6.4

  11.6

  16.4

  North Tyneside

  195.2

  6.2

  12.4

  12.2

  South Tyneside

  157.3

  6.6

  13.0

  12.3

  Sunderland

  297.1

  7.0

  13.6

  14.2

  1993

  Gateshead

  202.9

  6.3

  12.2

  12.8

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  285.3

  6.4

  11.9

  15.8

  North Tyneside

  194.8

  6.2

  12.6

  12.0

  South Tyneside

  157.2

  6.5

  13.3

  11.9

  Sunderland

  297.8

  6.9

  13.8

  13.7

  1994

  Gateshead

  202.4

  6.2

  12.2

  12.4

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  283.6

  6.4

  12.0

  16.2

  North Tyneside

  194.1

  6.1

  12.6

  11.6

  South Tyneside

  156.7

  6.5

  13.4

  11.5

  Sunderland

  297.2

  6.7

  13.8

  13.7

  1995

  Gateshead

  201.8

  6.1

  12.2

  12.0

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  283.1

  6.4

  12.2

  16.5

  North Tyneside

  193.9

  6.0

  12.5

  11.4

  South Tyneside

  156.3

  6.3

  13.5

  11.3

  Sunderland

  295.8

  6.6

  13.8

  13.7

  1996

  Gateshead

  201.0

  6.0

  12.3

  11.4

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  282.3

  6.1

  12.4

  16.7

  North Tyneside

  193.6

  5.9

  12.4

  11.1

  South Tyneside

  156.1

  6.1

  13.6

  10.9

  Sunderland

  294.3

  6.3

  13.8

  13.6

  1997

  Gateshead

  200.2

  5.9

  12.4

  10.9

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  279.5

  6.0

  12.6

  17.0

  North Tyneside

  193.3

  5.7

  12.4

  10.7

  South Tyneside

  155.4

  6.0

  13.7

  10.6

  Sunderland

  293.0

  6.1

  13.9

  13.6

  1998

  58W

  Estimated resident population mid-1991 to mid-2000 for districts within Tyne and Wear metropolitan county

  Total persons

  Percentage of persons aged

  Year/district

  (thousands)

  0–4

  5–14

  15–24

  Gateshead

  198.9

  5.8

  12.4

  10.6

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  276.1

  5.8

  12.7

  17.2

  North Tyneside

  194.0

  5.7

  12.4

  10.4

  South Tyneside

  154.6

  5.8

  13.8

  10.3

  Sunderland

  292.3

  5.9

  13.8

  13.7

  1999

  Gateshead

  198.1

  5.7

  12.3

  10.4

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  273.0

  5.6

  12.5

  18.4

  North Tyneside

  193.2

  5.6

  12.3

  10.1

  South Tyneside

  153.5

  5.6

  13.7

  10.6

  Sunderland

  290.7

  5.7

  13.8

  14.1

  2000

  Gateshead

  196.9

  5.5

  12.3

  10.5

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  270.5

  5.3

  12.4

  18.6

  North Tyneside

  194.1

  5.6

  12.1

  10.2

  South Tyneside

  152.7

  5.5

  13.5

  10.9

  Sunderland

  289.5

  5.6

  13.6

  14.1

  Source:

  Office for National Statistics

  Teenage Pregnancy
  Richard Burden
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many girls resident in Birmingham, Northfield registered(a) the conception and (b) the birth of a child before the age of 16 years in each year since 1997 [19390]

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

  Letter from Len Cook to Mr. Richard Burden, dated 30 November 2001:
  As National Statistician I am replying to your recent question on the number of girls resident in Birmingham, Northfield that registered the conception and birth of a child before the age of 16 years, in each year since 1997 (19389).
  There is no requirement to register conceptions in England and Wales. Estimates are however produced by the Office for National Statistics, based on registrations of births and notifications of abortions performed under the Abortion Act (1967). The available figures for estimated conceptions and registered livebirths under 16 for residents of Northfield Parliamentary Constituency since 1997 are given in the table:

  Number of conceptions and livebirths under age 16. Residents of Birmingham Northfield Parliamentary Constituency. 1997–2000

  Conceptions under 16

  Livebirths under 16

  1997

  19

  4

  1998

  29

  1

  1999

  21

  5

  2000

  1—

  6

  1 Figures not yet available

  Source:

  Office for National Statistics

  House Sales
  David Wright
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the average cost of charges to(a) sell and (b) buy a house has been in each of the last five years broken down by region. [18911]
  59W
  Ruth Kelly
  The information requested falls within the responsibility of the National Statistician. I have asked him to reply.

  Letter from Len Cook to Mr. David Wright, dated 30 November 2001:
  As National Statistician I have been asked to reply to your recent question on the average cost of charges when buying and selling a house in each of the last five years broken down by region (18911).
  Available estimates are of average weekly expenditure on fees for moving house and are shown in the attached table. They are from the Family Expenditure Survey and are for the United Kingdom. Two figures are shown for each year, the first averaged over all households and the second averaged just over the households who had any expenditure on moving house fees.
  Like all estimates from sample surveys these figures are subject to sampling variability. This is particularly high for an item such as moving house fees because the sample of households who incur such expenditure is small and the amounts they spend cover a wide range. For this reason it is not possible to give reliable breakdowns by region or for buying and selling separately.

  Household on professional fees for buying and selling a house

  United Kingdom 1995–96 to 1999–2000

  £per year

  Expenditure on professional fees for moving house

  Financial year

  Averaged over all households

  Averaged over households with any expend

  Average annual household expenditure

  1995–96

  48

  1,250

  1996–97

  60

  1,230

  1997–98

  73

  1,260

  1998–99

  59

  1,220

  1999–2000

  75

  1,300

  Source:

  ONS, Family Expenditure Surveys 1995–96, 1996–97, 1997–98, 1998–99 and 1999–2000

  Crown copyright 2001.

  Census
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he expects all 2001 Census forms to be(a) processed and (b) analysed. [19879]

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

  Letter from John Pullinger to Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown, dated 30 November 2001:
  The National Statistician and Registrar General for England and Wales has been asked to reply to your recent question on when all 2001 Census forms are expected to be (a) processed and (b) analysed. I am replying in his absence (19879)
  The processing of the 2001 Census is being carried out in two main phases. Our main contractors Lockheed Martin are scheduled to capture, code and deliver data on an area-by-area basis over the period September 2001 to April 2002.
  On delivery to ONS, the data for each area is then subject to a complex set of 'downstream' computing and manual activities, which ultimately create a full and final database of Census records from which all national and local area Census outputs can be generated, and which is expected to be completed by the end of June 2002.
  60W
  The 2001 mid-year national and local authority population estimates based on the final Census area counts are scheduled to be published in August 2002, and the first key analyses from the census itself to be released by the end of December 2002. Further, more detailed, analyses will continue throughout 2003.

  Export Credit Guarantees Department
  Mrs. Lawrence
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he will proceed with the second stage of the independent review of the implementation of the recommendations made by KPMG in December 1999 on the adequacy of the(a) risk management system and (b) processes of the Export Credit Guarantees Department. [20818]

  Mr. Boateng
  My predecessor announced to the House on 30 November 2000 that KPMG would carry out a post-implementation review of ECGD's progress in addressing the recommendations made by KPMG in December 1999. The first stage of that review was completed last January, and was reported to the House on 31 January. I am pleased to announce that the second stage has now commenced. The review is expected to take between four and six weeks, and I will place a copy of KPMG's report in the Library of the House.

  Public Service Pensions
  Barbara Follett
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to increase public service pensions from April 2002. [20816]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  Legislation governing public service pensions requires public service pensions to be increased annually by the same percentage as state earnings-related pensions (additional pensions). My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions announced on 28 November 2001,Official Report, column 894W that benefits such as additional pensions will be increased by 1.7 per cent., in line with the annual increase in the Retail Prices Index up to September 2001. Public service pensions will therefore be increased by 1.7 per cent. from 8 April 2002, except those which have been in payment for less than a year, which will receive a pro-rata increase.

  Tax Credits
  Mr. Blunt
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer which tax credits he defines as public expenditure. [19838]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  The Treasury's calculation of net taxes and social security contributions treats all tax credits as reductions in tax collected since the working families and business tax credits appear as reductions in their tax bills.

  The Treasury's calculation of public sector receipts, drawn from ONS's national accounts treats some tax credits as public expenditure—mostly WFTC and DPTC.

  Council Tax Payers
  Mr. Sanders
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many council tax payers there were in each year since 1997; and what his estimate is of this figure for the 2001–02 financial year. [19646]

  Dr. Whitehead
  I have been asked to reply.
  61W
  We do not collect information on the number of council tax payers in England. Figures for the number of properties in England subject to a council tax charge for each financial year from 1996–97 are given in the table.

  Total number of dwellings subject to a council tax charge from November 1995

  Number of chargeable dwellings as at:

  In respect of financial year:

  Total

  Percentage increase over previous year

  1 November 1995

  1996–97

  19,755,865

  —

  1 November 1996

  1997–98

  19,933,603

  0.9

  3 November 1997

  1998–99

  20,055,311

  0.6

  3 November 1998

  1999–2000

  20,233,435

  0.9

  3 November 1999

  2000–01

  20,374,128

  0.7

  1 November 2000

  2001–02

  20,585,744

  1.0

  1 November 20011

  2002–03

  20,717,285

  0.6

  1 Estimate

  Mortality Ratios
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the standard mortality ratios for each(a) parliamentary constituency in Scotland and the north-eastern Government office region of England and

  Standardised mortality ratios1 for selected causes, for wards in Newcastle upon Tyne metropolitan county district Years of registration of death 1991–93

  All causes

  Respiratory disease2

  Coronary heart disease2

  Stroke2

  Cancers2

  Ward

  Males

  Females

  Males

  Females

  Males

  Females

  Males

  Females

  Males

  Females

  Benwell

  141.5

  148.6

  183.9

  182.3

  137.6

  147.9

  160.8

  171.6

  139.9

  122.1

  Blacklaw

  124.4

  126.2

  84.7

  104.2

  128.4

  128.0

  182.5

  86.3

  164.0

  109.4

  Byker

  129.5

  123.5

  136.9

  113.7

  120.1

  105.8

  146.9

  95.5

  158.2

  149.3

  Castle

  83.2

  99.3

  101.1

  68.8

  66.8

  78.4

  52.9

  121.0

  104.5

  118.9

  Dene

  90.0

  76.3

  50.4

  51.7

  114.7

  89.9

  74.0

  49.4

  94.4

  92.4

  Denton

  109.4

  109.4

  101.8

  93.4

  128.1

  121.4

  159.2

  81.5

  119.2

  118.2

  Elswick

  173.2

  122.3

  209.4

  125.4

  126.7

  111.9

  156.6

  105.6

  183.3

  138.8

  Fawdon

  109.5

  93.9

  99.6

  80.6

  119.3

  130.1

  86.6

  67.6

  125.8

  95.7

  Fenham

  100.9

  98.0

  124.1

  61.0

  105.3

  89.3

  96.7

  81.7

  126.8

  117.7

  Grange

  130.3

  116.3

  119.8

  114.7

  96.3

  102.8

  147.6

  116.1

  148.4

  116.7

  Heaton

  99.1

  96.6

  85.2

  86.3

  105.9

  97.4

  58.8

  95.8

  114.0

  118.1

  Jesmond

  132.9

  104.0

  112.8

  92.2

  96.1

  139.4

  130.5

  109.4

  101.8

  98.4

  Kenton

  122.5

  109.3

  109.0

  117.9

  88.6

  139.7

  122.7

  143.4

  116.0

  114.0

  Lemington

  131.5

  124.5

  125.0

  55.0

  109.8

  93.6

  153.0

  211.18

  100.8

  115.0

  Monkchester

  161.6

  139.1

  144.5

  197.3

  163.0

  166.8

  123.0

  122.1

  162.1

  172.2

  Moorside

  124.2

  97.0

  66.3

  85.3

  133.6

  88.7

  115.4

  112.8

  129.3

  101.5

  Newburn

  129.7

  103.4

  104.0

  128.5

  139.5

  116.9

  114.0

  64.5

  128.3

  131.5

  Sandyford

  120.0

  106.7

  81.7

  85.9

  102.6

  118.0

  160.2

  114.5

  103.6

  144.7

  Scotswood

  128.2

  97.4

  90.8

  144.0

  107.4

  110.6

  104.2

  65.8

  155.2

  95.4

  South Gosforth

  106.0

  104.2

  57.9

  87.0

  111.6

  102.3

  99.0

  113.3

  95.0

  117.9

  Walker

  151.4

  130.7

  189.1

  126.9

  122.8

  138.0

  133.4

  106.4

  184.2

  131.2

  Walkergate

  145.8

  117.6

  144.3

  133.7

  148.5

  114.8

  142.5

  131.5

  141.5

  118.2

  West City

  171.4

  151.4

  190.6

  151.0

  165.4

  126.5

  178.6

  140.7

  185.8

  130.6

  Westerhope

  94.4

  98.1

  71.6

  70.5

  93.1

  109.6

  153.3

  96.9

  101.0

  120.3

  Wingrove

  117.6

  107.5

  119.0

  94.6

  124.7

  104.9

  106.5

  81.7

  106.4

  132.9

  Woolsington

  109.7

  99.3

  71.0

  41.5

  136.6

  122.3

  39.0

  114.6

  126.2

  87.4

  1 Standardised to the population of England and Wales

  2 International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision codes:

  Respiratory disease—460–519

  Coronary heart disease—410–414

  Stroke—30–438

  Cancer—140–208

  62W
  (b) electoral ward in the City of Newcastle upon Tyne, for all causes, and for (i) respiratory disease, (ii) coronary disease, (iii) stroke and (iv)cancer. [19487]

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

  Letter from John Pullinger to Mr. Jim Cousins, dated 30 November 2001:
  The National Statistician has been asked to reply to your recent question asking for the standardised mortality ratios (SMRs) for (a) each parliamentary constituency in Scotland and the North Eastern Government Office Region of England and (b) each replying in his absence (19487)
  Figures for Scotland are the responsibility of the Scottish Executive.
  SMRs for electoral wards and parliamentary constituencies can be calculated only on the basis of ward populations from the 1991 Census. This pre-dates the creation of Government Office Regions. Hence the available data on parliamentary constituencies does not match Government Office Regions.
  The attached table shows SMRs for all causes of death, and for (i) respiratory disease, (ii) coronary disease, (iii) stroke and (iv) cancer for each ward (as constituted at the time of the 1991 Census) in Newcastle upon Tyne District Metropolitan County District, in the years 1991–1993, based on populations from the 1991 Census.

  Economic Activity and Employment Rates
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate(a) the economy activity rate and (b) the employment rate of those aged over 21 years and up to pensionable age in each region and nation of the UK for each year since 1996, broken down by age and sex. [19488]

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

  Letter from John Pullinger to Mr. Jim Cousins, dated 30 November 2001:
  The National Statistician has been asked to reply to your recent question on economic activity and employment rates. I am replying in his absence (19488).
  The Labour Force Survey (LFS) provides estimates of economic activity and employment rates for people aged 16 and over. The economic activity rate is the number of people who are economically active as a percentage of the relevant population. The employment rate is the number of people in employment as a percentage of the relevant economically active population. The latest available LFS estimates are for summer (June to August) 2001.
  These estimates are available through the House of Commons Library.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many letters his Department received from right hon. and hon. Members between 20 June and 20 July. [18562]

  Mr. Boateng
  663 letters were received.

  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many and what proportion of letters received by his Department between 20 June and 20 July were replied to(a) in under 15, (b) in under 20, (c) in under 30, (d) in under 40 and (e) in over 40 working days. [18582]

  Mr. Boateng
  A sample of the 663 letters received in the period concerned indicates that 69 per cent. were answered within 15 days, 87 per cent. within 20 days, 96 per cent. within 30 days and 98 per cent. within 40 days.

  Landfill
  John Mann
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what effects the proposed changes in the landfill tax credit scheme will have on parish council-led regeneration projects. [19342]

  Mr. Boateng
  There are at present no proposals to change the scheme. The Government are attracted to replacing all or part of the scheme with a public spending programme to direct resources towards Government priorities on sustainable waste management. The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) is aiming to issue a consultation paper by the end of this year.

  Smuggling
  Ms Stuart
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what further steps are being taken to reduce the levels of illegal imports of(a) beer and (b) alcohol. [19450]
  64W
  Mr. Boateng
  As part of the pre-Budget Report the Government announced on 27 November that Customs activity this year to tackle cross-channel passenger smuggling of alcohol and tobacco has had a profound impact. Revenue losses from this form of smuggling have been reduced by 76 per cent. compared to last year, with cross-channel passenger smuggling of beer almost eliminated and cross-channel passenger smuggling of wine and spirits more than halved.

  Building on these successes, and those of its wider efforts to tackle tobacco smuggling, the Government published alongside the PBR a paper "Tackling Indirect Tax Fraud" which sets out the strategic principles that underlie the Government's approach to tackling fraud and outlines the steps being taken to tackle other forms of fraud and smuggling in the alcohol sector.

  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what discussions he has had with Commissioner Bolkestein regarding distortions to the working of the Single Market caused by the level of UK excise duty rates; [19368]

  (2) what discussions he has had with Commissioner Bolkestein regarding HM Customs and Excise policy of policing at ports of entry; [19369]

  (3) if he has been able to reach agreement with Commissioner Bolkestein regarding the confiscation of vehicles and goods from suspected smugglers before conviction. [19370]

  Mr. Boateng
  I met Commissioner Bolkestein on 20 November and explained that the Government are totally committed both to the principle that EU citizens should be able to engage in cross border shopping for their own use in other member states and to tackling criminal smuggling. The Government are confident that the approach of UK Customs to tackling those individuals who seek to break the law by smuggling alcohol and tobacco into the UK is fully consistent with our EU obligations and that once the European Commission is fully informed of the situation, they too will be satisfied.

  Vehicle Seizures
  Sue Doughty
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what records HM Customs and Excise are required to keep of the number of private cars seized by them; and what plans he has to change that requirement. [19396]

  Mr. Boateng
  Customs collate centrally and publish annual statistics on the number of vehicles seized across the UK. At a local level, Customs maintain specific records of all vehicles seized to deal with appeals and court cases as well as for intelligence gathering.

  Sue Doughty
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much compensation was paid in each year since 1995 to drivers and their families from costs arising from cars wrongly impounded by Her Majesty's Customs and Excise, including(a) consequential costs arising from loss of use of a car, (b) loss of items in the car, (c) loss of earnings and (d) travel costs incurred in collecting the car from Her Majesty's Customs and Excise. [19401]

  Mr. Boateng
  Information in this form is not centrally collated by Customs.
  65W
  Sue Doughty
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what procedures are in place for the audit and reporting of(a) the number of private cars impounded by HM Customs and Excise at Channel ports, (b) personal possessions contained in private cars impounded by HM Customs and Excise at Channel ports and (c) disposal of tax discs in cars disposed of by HM Customs and Excise. [19402]

  Mr. Boateng
  At a local level, Customs maintain specific records of all vehicles seized to deal with appeals and court cases as well as for intelligence gathering. Personal possessions are returned to the owner either at the time of seizure, or can be collected within 30 days. Tax discs are an integral part of a vehicle to legalise road use and are retained. Local managers carry out assurance checks on all information held, and all Customs procedures are subject to internal audit and scrutiny by the National Audit Office.

  Sue Doughty
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much revenue from the disposal of private cars and personal possessions in those cars was retained by Her Majesty's Customs and Excise in each of the last five years. [19400]

  Mr. Boateng
  None. All moneys relating to the sale of seized vehicles are returned to the Exchequer.

  Sue Doughty
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what procedures are in place for(a) handling tax discs and (b) disposal of personal possessions in private cars which have been disposed of by Her Majesty's Customs and Excise at channel ports. [19398]

  Mr. Boateng
  Once a vehicle has been forfeited to the Crown, Customs dispose of the vehicle in the most cost-effective way. If Customs choose to sell the vehicle at auction then the tax disc is sold as part of the vehicle. If the vehicle is crushed, Customs return the tax disc to the DVLA and the Exchequer is refunded.

  In the great majority of cases any personal possessions in private vehicles are taken by the individual at the time of seizure. However, Customs allow at least 30 days for the collection of personal possessions before they are disposed of.

  Sue Doughty
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many private cars were impounded by HM Customs and Excise at channel ports in each year since 1995; and how many have been released to their owners by HM Customs and Excise following appeals by the car owners. [19397]

  Mr. Boateng
  Customs' centrally held information on the numbers of private vehicles seized does not distinguish the location at which seizure took place, nor is the number of vehicles restored on successful appeal centrally collated.

  For the number of vehicles seized across the whole of the UK from 1994–95 to 1997–98, I refer the hon. Member to the answer given on 18 June 1998, Official Report, column 274W. For the number of vehicles seized across the UK in 1998–99, 1999–2000 I refer the hon. Member to the answer given on 15 January 2001, Official Report, column 125W. Figures for the number of vehicles seized by Customs across the UK during 2000–01 are contained in the Government's response to the independent report by John Rogues into "The Collection
  66W
  of Excise Duties in HM Customs and Excise" (House of Commons command 5329, July 2001), a copy of which was placed in the Library on 19 July 2001.

  Sue Doughty
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much revenue was raised from the disposal of personal possessions in private cars disposed of by Her Majesty's Customs and Excise in each of the last five years. [19399]

  Mr. Boateng
  In the great majority of cases any personal possessions in private vehicles are taken by the individual at the time of seizure. However, Customs allow at least 30 days for the collection of personal possessions before they are disposed of. In the rare event that personal possessions are not claimed within a reasonable period, Customs dispose of them. It is not normally Customs practice to sell such items.

  Scout Uniforms (VAT)
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the imposition of VAT on certain scout uniforms. [19338]

  Mr. Boateng
  VAT reliefs for young children's clothing and footwear apply also to items of scout uniform.

  Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 20 November 2001,Official Report, column 272W, on Equitable Life, if he will inform the hon. Member for Christchurch as soon as the response has been sent to the Parliamentary Ombudsman. [18661]

  Ruth Kelly
  [holding answer 27 November 2001]: The response was sent to the Parliamentary Ombudsman on 30 November.

  Financial Services Authority
  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what guidelines the FSA has issued to companies about reinsurance practices following the disclosure of Irish European Reinsurance Company's involvement with(a) Independent Insurance and (b) Equitable Life. [19633]

  Ruth Kelly
  The FSA's Interim Prudential Sourcebook for Insurance Companies already makes provisions covering reinsurance practices. In particular, it requires insurance companies to prepare their accounts following the insurance accounting guideline contained in the ABI Statement Of Recommended Practice. This covers the treatment of reinsurance contracts in some detail, and requires that the accounts should properly reflect the economic substance of any transaction.

  The Interim Prudential Sourcebook also requires companies to have appropriate procedures for assessing the creditworthiness of counterparties, including in particular reinsurers.

  In addition, the FSA has placed a responsibility on all firms to be "open and honest" with the regulator and, for certain firms covered by schemes of operation, there will be a specific requirement to disclose reinsurance arrangements and to notify the FSA of a material change to these.
  67W
  The FSA intends to review the use of financial reinsurance within the insurance market and the extent of the industry's reliance on it.

  Customs and Excise
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he intends to publish the next departmental report and expenditure plans for HM Customs and Excise. [20201]

  Mr. Boateng
  In April 2002.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he intends to publish the annual report 2000–01 for HM Customs and Excise. [20202]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Customs hope to publish the annual report for Customs and Excise in late January 2002.

  Equitable Life
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 19 November 2001,Official Report, column 135W, on Equitable Life, if he will give the total cost of the review; what is the sum of the costs which have already been recovered by way of fees imposed by (a) the PIA and (b) the Treasury; and what the total is of the remaining costs to be recovered by the FSA by way of fees. [20286]

  Ruth Kelly
  The FSA has informed me that its total costs in preparing the review were around £4 million, of which £1.3 million was incurred in the FSA's financial year ending 31 March 2001. These costs will have been recovered by £1.07 million of fees charged on behalf of the insurance directorate and £0.23 million on behalf of the PIA. The balance of £2.7 million will be recovered by subsequent fees.

  Aggregates Levy
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he plans to publish draft regulations to implement the aggregates levy. [20196]

  Mr. Boateng
  Customs are in intensive discussions with representative industry bodies about detailed implementation of the levy and aim to issue draft regulations reflecting those discussions by the end of December.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the rate of aggregates levy(a) imposed and (b) planned by each member state of the European Union. [20198]

  Mr. Boateng
  The aggregates levy is designed to address the environmental effects of aggregate extraction in the UK. Aggregate taxes in other EU member states are a matter for the individual states themselves.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the likely differential impact of the aggregates levy on each of the regions of the United Kingdom. [20197]

  Mr. Boateng
  A regulatory impact assessment for the aggregates levy was published at the time of Budget 2000. It is available from the Customs and Excise website.
  68W
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if imported concrete products will be subject to the aggregates levy. [20199]

  Mr. Boateng
  No concrete products are subject to the aggregates levy.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what arrangement he plans under the aggregates levy for bad debt relief. [20195]

  Mr. Boateng
  Primary legislation gives the Commissioners of Customs and Excise the power to make regulations relating to bad debt relief. Customs are in intensive discussions with representative industry bodies about this subject and aim to issue draft regulations reflecting those discussions by the end of December.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how he plans to regulate the relationship between the aggregates levy and existing contracts for aggregates. [20188]

  Mr. Boateng
  Appropriate provision has been made in section 43 of the Finance Act 2001.

EDUCATION AND SKILLS

  Public Service Agreements
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will make a statement on the public service agreement targets for a 1 per cent. reduction in unit spending per full-time equivalent(a) higher and (b) further education student in 1999–2000 over 1998–99. [14052]

  Margaret Hodge
  Between 1989 and 1997, publicly planned funding per full-time equivalent higher education student fell by over 36 per cent. from just under £7,600 to just over £4,800. Lord Dearing' s national committee of inquiry into higher education concluded in 1997 that higher education institutions could not absorb the reduction planned by the previous Government of over 6 per cent. He proposed that higher education institutions should be asked to deliver no more than a 1 per cent. reduction in costs and the Government accepted his recommendations.

  In practice, the actual reduction in unit of funding per student in 1999–2000 was 0.3 per cent.

  Last November, the Government announced cash increases in publicly planned funding of £412 million, £268 million and £298 million over the three years to 2003–04. This means that for the first time in over a decade there will be a real-terms increase in the unit of funding per full-time equivalent student of 0.7 per cent. in 2001–02, with fully funded increases in student numbers over the following two years.

  The current PSA target for higher education is that while maintaining standards we will increase participation towards 50 per cent. of those aged 18 to 30 by the end of the decade.

  It is too early to comment on the achievement of the PSA target for further education. Data for 1999–2000 are not yet available. However, while there was a real-terms per capita funding cut of 5.8 per cent. between 1995–96 and 1998–99, under the current Government's spending

  69W
  plans funding to the sector has increased overall. The Government have announced year-on-year increases of £527 million and £237 million in 2001–02 and 2002–03 in publicly planned further education funding allocated to the Learning and Skills Council.

  Women Role Models
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what steps have been taken to provide female students at all levels with women role models who have succeeded in traditionally male dominated fields. [16265]

  Margaret Hodge
  A number of steps have been taken, both by my Department and other Government Departments, as well as by institutions in the education sector, to provide both women and men with role models to encourage them to learn, train and work in non-traditional fields.

  For example, as a result of a very successful pilot programme offering girls work experience in non-traditional work areas such as construction, engineering, IT and telecommunications, my Department is taking forward taster days for girls and is currently working with the national education business partnership network on a roll-out of the programme for girls at key stage 4.

  The science and engineering ambassadors scheme is being launched in January 2002 as part of Science Year and has been jointly developed by DfES/DTI. It will give more young people the opportunity to interact with female role models who are practising scientists and engineers. The DTI, through the work programme of its promoting SET (science, engineering and technology) for women unit and engineering policy unit enables organisations such as the SETpoints, the careers education and business partnerships, Let's Twist at Bradford college and the WISE campaign to run events with women scientists and engineers, produce posters and magazines such as SPARK that promote positive images of women in non-traditional careers. Science Year is particularly targeting some of its resources and publicity at girls. For example, television advertisements and a careers video have featured girls and women. The faces of modern science photographic project includes a large number of role models for all under-represented groups and will result in the production of a book for use by careers advisers and ConneXions officers.

  Many colleges and training providers are actively engaged in programmes to attract more women into male dominated fields and a number of initiatives funded by the European Social Fund involve the use of women role models. WISE, mentioned above, the Association for Women in Science and Engineering, the Women's Engineering Society and the British Council are all proactively using women role models from within industry as a mechanism for encouraging other women to study in non-traditional fields.

  We are also encouraging men to undertake work in areas where they are under-represented, such as child care. The second phase of our national recruitment campaign, "Do Something You Love for a Living" is actively promoting the recruitment of men and people from ethnic minority backgrounds into the work force while placing a heavy emphasis on training and qualifications. We
  70W
  featured a male nursery nurse in one of our advertisements and screened this at times when there was likely to be a large male audience. Men are also featured in the campaign booklet and accompanying case studies and research into the effectiveness of the campaign showed that the advert featuring the man was the best-recalled one. Aside from raising the status of working in the sector, the focus on training and qualifications should encourage more men to respond to the campaign.

  Supply Teachers
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many registered supply teachers there are in England and Wales. [17118]

  Mr. Timms
  We do not keep a central register of supply teachers.

  There were 19,600 short-term supply teachers (on contracts of less than one month) employed for the whole day in the English maintained schools sector on the 18 January 2001, the date of the annual census of teachers in service, approximately 4.6 per cent. of all teachers employed in the maintained schools sector.

  Hardship Funds
  Alistair Burt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how much was allocated for hardship funds for universities in the United Kingdom, broken down by university, in(a)2000–01 and (b)2001–02. [17288]

  Margaret Hodge
  [holding answer 22 November 2001]: The Government have provided £93 million for higher education students through the access and hardship funds in 2001–02, over four times the amount in 1997–98. The funds are used to provide hardship payments and access bursaries, as well as fee waivers for part-time students on benefit and low incomes, and opportunity bursaries for young disadvantaged students through the excellence challenge programme.

  The following table shows amounts allocated by the Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE) for students in hardship in 2000–01 and 2001–02. In 2001–02, the funding allocated includes access bursaries for students with children. Access and hardship funds for institutions in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland are a matter for the National Assembly for Wales, the Scottish Executive and the Northern Ireland Executive respectively.

  Final allocations for universities in England in 2000–01 and 2001–02

  Universities

  12000–01

  2001–02

  Anglia Polytechnic University

  691,486

  854,662

  Aston University

  276,030

  278,577

  University of Bath

  267,498

  271,888

  Birbeck College

  111,608

  121,252

  University of Birmingham

  875,448

  901,753

  Bournemouth University

  384,087

  445,844

  University of Bradford

  385,141

  417,907

  University of Brighton

  583,768

  755,668

  University of Bristol

  541,065

  541,229

  Brunei University

  588,193

  647,004

  University of Cambridge

  531,125

  578,031

  University of Central England

  778,045

  872,064

  University of Central Lancashire

  979,553

  1,489,797

  City University

  261,495

  267,026

  Coventry University

  606,472

  644,015

  71W

  Final allocations for universities in England in 2000–01 and 2001–02

  Universities

  12000–01

  2001–02

  De Montfort University

  1,249,159

  1,415,411

  University of Derby

  765,302

  942,961

  University of Durham

  521,220

  555,678

  University of East Anglia

  405,690

  465,111

  University of East London

  736,867

  1,120,286

  University of Essex

  227,538

  257,669

  University of Exeter

  444,830

  480,717

  Goldsmiths College

  353,339

  457,685

  University of Greenwich

  751,574

  1,017,097

  University of Hertfordshire

  727,393

  947,762

  University of Huddersfield

  678,624

  751,882

  University of Hull

  593,822

  679,622

  Imperial College

  452,918

  423,603

  Keele University

  309,558

  335,842

  University of Kent at Canterbury

  336,590

  415,866

  King's College London

  636,907

  650,510

  Kingston University

  570,969

  643,022

  Lancaster University

  425,412

  445,961

  University of Leeds

  874,808

  1,086,166

  Leeds Metropolitan University

  830,705

  934,475

  University of Leicester

  455,502

  450,902

  University of Lincoln

  577,290

  727,194

  University of Liverpool

  627,509

  646,298

  Liverpool John Moores University

  847,622

  996,410

  London Guildhall University

  667,305

  951,555

  Loughborough University

  474,876

  466,898

  University of Luton

  462,662

  544,196

  University of Manchester

  902,642

  899,678

  UMIST

  261,519

  250,127

  Manchester Metropolitan University

  1,388,324

  1,610,662

  Middlesex University

  1,082,189

  1,475,900

  University of Newcastle upon Tyne

  598,166

  587,039

  University of North London

  872,810

  1,214,406

  University of Northumbria at Newcastle

  798,650

  923,715

  University of Nottingham

  568,494

  551,515

  Nottingham Trent University

  984,801

  1,081,621

  Open University

  1,042,445

  993,033

  University of Oxford

  625,931

  579,448

  Oxford Brookes University

  488,594

  562,141

  University of Plymouth

  901,311

  1,143,584

  University of Portsmouth

  706,458

  818,947

  Queen Mary, University of London

  439,926

  464,513

  University of Reading

  423,670

  453,033

  Royal Holloway, University of London

  245,889

  236,960

  University of Salford

  820,310

  946,017

  University of Sheffield

  812,753

  954,623

  Sheffield Hallam University

  1,123,355

  1,328,270

  University of Southampton

  672,875

  697,594

  South Bank University

  875,250

  1,338,506

  Staffordshire University

  825,018

  944,026

  University of Sunderland

  747,135

  898,232

  University of Surrey

  220,311

  212,410

  University of Surrey Roehampton

  418,472

  540,877

  University of Sussex

  388,644

  474,880

  University of Teesside

  521,456

  652,280

  Thames Valley University

  734,478

  1,022,286

  University College London

  660,411

  655,840

  University of Warwick

  487,581

  516,493

  University of West of England, Bristol

  901,535

  1,033,502

  University of Westminster

  729,804

  978,103

  University of Wolverhampton

  1,042,587

  1,353,182

  University of York

  388,130

  429,327

  General college

  2000–01

  2001–02

  Bath Spa University College

  209,428

  309,506

  Bolton Institute of Higher Education

  409,387

  537,382

  Buckinghamshire Chilterns University College

  311,510

  356,388

  Canterbury Christ Church University College

  328,053

  429,332

  Cheltenham and Gloucester College of HE

  371,907

  446,249

  Chester College of Higher Education

  168,486

  204,287

  University College Chichester

  239,544

  318,550

  Edge Hill College of Higher Education

  336,041

  418,087

  King Alfred's College, Winchester

  199,854

  223,519

  72W

  General college

  2000–01

  2001–02

  Liverpool Hope

  329,629

  419,066

  University College Northampton

  486,555

  550,760

  College of Ripon and York St. John

  192,368

  220,291

  St Mary's College

  127,618

  137,086

  Southampton Institute

  753,050

  794,565

  University College Worcester

  229,879

  294,181

  Specialist Colleges

  Bishop Grosseteste College

  54,511

  58,845

  Arts Institute at Bournemouth

  20

  116,650

  Bretton Hall

  179,843

  30

  Institute of Cancer Research

  0

  3,840

  Central School of Speech and Drama

  42,087

  47,328

  Conservatoire of Dance and Drama

  0

  14,294

  Cranfield University

  136,777

  131,722

  Cumbria College of Art and Design

  66,612

  73,901

  Dartingdon College of Arts

  34,911

  46,442

  Institute of Education

  113,454

  144,679

  Falmouth College of Arts

  84,247

  110,769

  Harper Adams University College

  57,639

  55,565

  Homerton College, Cambridge

  68,431

  40

  Kent Institute of Art and Design

  118,665

  123,269

  University of London (Institutes and Activities)

  30,489

  26,175

  London Business School

  23,633

  21,270

  London School of Economics and Political Science

  145,905

  140,045

  London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine

  18,905

  17,633

  The London Institute

  663,760

  884,242

  Newman College

  83,473

  111,666

  Northern School of Contemporary Dance

  11,273

  12,756

  Norwich School of Art and Design

  56,324

  70,196

  School of Oriental and African Studies

  132,870

  183,514

  School of Pharmacy

  28,502

  28,442

  Ravensboume College

  40,536

  54,936

  RCN Institute

  20,476

  25,783

  Rose Bruford College

  32,505

  36,185

  Royal Academy of Music

  45,736

  43,772

  Royal Agricultural College

  0

  18,042

  Royal College of Art

  159,848

  143,863

  Royal College of Music

  44,979

  40,481

  Royal Northern College of Music

  26,067

  25,260

  Royal Veterinary College

  31,414

  38,232

  St George's Hospital Medical School

  47,852

  73,960

  College of St. Mark and St. John

  193,382

  269,175

  St. Martin's College

  305,004

  440.093

  The Surrey Institute of Art and Design University College

  135,961

  150,707

  Trinity and All Saints

  200,478

  210,760

  Trinity College of Music

  23,800

  24,030

  Wimbledon School of Art

  34,239

  44,376

  Writtle College

  92,300

  97,560

  Total

  56,849,126

  66,643,000

  1 In addition to the allocations listed in 2000–01, the Government made available a total of £14.8 million for mature student bursaries. HEFCE is not able to provide a breakdown of the bursary allocations.

  2 Arts Institute at Bournemouth, Institute of Cancer Research, Conservatoire of Dance and Drama and Royal Agricultural College are all showing not to have an allocation in 2000–01, as these institutions were not funded by HEFCE at that time.

  3 Bretton has no allocation in 2001–02 as it has now merged with Leeds Metropolitan University.

  4 Homerton College received an allocation in 2000–01, but for 2001–02 their allocation was added to the University of Cambridge's total.

  Further Education Funding
  Alistair Burt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and skills what the operating costs were of(a) The Further Education and Funding Council and (b) The training and enterprise councils in relation to their functions in administering the funding of further education in (i) 1999–2000 and (ii) 1998–1999. [17295]
  73W
  Margaret Hodge
  [holding answer 22 November 2001]: The total Further Education Funding Council (FEFC) cost of administration taken from its published accounts was £23.3 million in 1998–99 and £25.5 million in 1999–2000.

  There were no specific grants paid to TECs by the DfES for further education and it is not possible to identify how much was spent by them on this particular activity.

  The Learning and Skills Council has taken over the functions previously carried out by the FEFC, much of what was done by TECs, as well as various activities carried out by the Department for Education and Employment and Government offices. It has also taken on additional activities such as greater involvement and intervention at local level to raise basic skills, and managing a 9 per cent. real terms increase in the overall programme budget allocated to post-16 education and training compared to plans for 2000–01. In spite of this, its overall operating costs (its administration budget this year is £188 million) are significantly lower than the £270 million—£280 million which was estimated to have been spent by its predecessors.

  Higher Education
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many, and what percentage of, pupils entered higher education at age 18 from the Isle of Wight in(a) 1996, (b) 1997, (c) 1998, (d) 1999 and (e) 2000. [17676]

  Margaret Hodge
  The available data are shown in the table.

  Students aged 18 from the Isle of Wight local education authority entering higher education courses1 at HE institutions2 in the UK

  Academic year

  Entrants

  As proportion of 18-year-old population (%)

  1996–97

  153

  12

  1997–98

  165

  12

  1998–99

  166

  11

  1999–2000

  142

  10

  2000–01

  186

  13

  1 Full-time and part-time undergraduate courses, as at December 1.

  2 Data on the home LEA of students who enter HE courses at FE institutions is not available centrally, so these students have been excluded from the answer.

  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills, pursuant to her answer of 8 November 2001,Official Report, column 511W, on higher education, if she will break down the data given to (a) teaching staff, (b) research staff and (c) combined teaching and research staff. [18333]

  Margaret Hodge
  The data are shown in the table.

  Academic staff in UK higher education institutions

  Teaching staff

  Research staff

  Combined teaching and research

  1995–96

  Full-time

  9,000

  33,210

  69,250

  Part-time

  4,060

  4,130

  6,930

  Total

  13,060

  37,340

  76,180

  74W

  Academic staff in UK higher education institutions

  Teaching staff

  Research staff

  Combined teaching and research

  1996–97

  Full-time

  8,210

  33,350

  69,220

  Part-time

  4,790

  4,360

  7,650

  Total

  13,000

  37,700

  76,870

  1997–98

  Full-time

  7,530

  33,800

  69,160

  Part-time

  5,330

  4,030

  8,230

  Total

  12,860

  37,830

  77,390

  1998–99

  Full-time

  6,400

  34,560

  71,420

  Part-time

  5,550

  4,400

  8,740

  Total

  11,950

  38,960

  80,160

  1999–2000

  Full-time

  6,860

  35,080

  71,860

  Part-time

  5,990

  6,310

  9,660

  Total

  12,850

  41,390

  81,510

  Source:

  Higher Education Statistics Agency's Staff Record. Numbers have been rounded to the nearest 10.

  School Trips (Risk Assessment)
  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills (1) what duty is placed on(a) schools and (b) local education authorities to undertake a risk assessment when organising school visits by bus; [17872]

  (2) what guidance she gives to local education authorities about ensuring the safety of pupils on school visits. [17873]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  The Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999 require schools and local education authorities, as employers, to assess the risks of all types of school visit.

  My Department issued 'Health and Safety of Pupils on Educational Visits: a Good Practice Guide' for schools in England in 1998. Supplementary advice will become available in December.

  National Curriculum Tests
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if the results of individual primary schools in national curriculum tests for(a) reading and (b) mathematics at age seven years are available centrally to her Department. [18261]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  Yes. For pupils aged seven (key stage 1), my Department collects individual pupil level data, by school and local education authority, for task and test results in English and mathematics and teacher assessment results in English, mathematics and science. In English, the task and test results are split into reading task, reading test, writing task and spelling. These results are aggregated at national level and published together with the key stage 2 and 3 results in a statistical release.

  Streaming
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills (1) what recent assessment she has made of the continental European system of advancement from year to year based on academic performance rather than age; [18262]

  (2) what assessment she has made of the relative efficiency of teaching classes grouped by (a) age and (b) ability. [18263]

  Mr. Timms
  The Government support a flexible approach to pupil grouping, including setting by ability where appropriate. The White Paper "Schools—achieving success" emphasises the need to increase opportunities for all pupils to progress in line with their abilities. There will be more flexibility in future for younger gifted pupils to learn alongside older pupils.

  School Sport
  Ms Shipley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what plans she has to promote sport and PE in schools. [18337]

  Mr. Timms
  I refer my hon. Friend to the replies I gave on 26 October 2001,Official Report, column 459W and 22 November 2001, Official Report, column 451W respectively. The number of school sport co-ordinators has now increased to 372.

  Nursery Places
  Mr. Reed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what level of funding has been made available to Leicestershire to provide free nursery places to three-year-olds; and what assessment she has made of the total cost of providing free nursery places for all three-year-olds in Leicestershire by 2004. [18498]

  Margaret Hodge
  In 2001–02 £3.1 million has been made available to provide 2,638 free nursery education places for three-year-olds in Leicestershire. This level of funding could increase before the end of 2001–02 if Leicestershire receives additional funding in the spring term as a result of its recent bid for additional places.

  No assessment has yet been made of the total cost of providing free nursery education places for all three-year-olds in Leicestershire by September 2004. This will be dependent on the demand for places and also the level of provision that the local education authority decides to make available for three-year-olds from its own resources.

  Early Years Development Partnerships
  Mr. Reed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what guidance her Department gives to local education authorities on their relationship with early year development partnerships. [18499]

  Margaret Hodge
  Strategic guidance is issued to local education authorities and early years development and child care partnerships every two years. This includes guidance on the relationship between the two.
  76W
  The strategic guidance is supported by implementation guidance issued annually which sets out the operational framework in which the local education authority and early years development and child care partnership should work over the coming year.

  Mr. Reed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what guidance her Department gives to local education authorities about providing additional funding to early year development partnerships to provide free nursery places for all three-year-olds. [18500]

  Margaret Hodge
  The Department for Education and Skills does not provide guidance to local education authorities on providing additional funding to their early years development and child care partnerships for free nursery education places for three-year-olds. Such spending priorities are determined locally and are at the discretion of the local authority.

  In 2001–02 £3.1 million has been made available to provide 2,638 free nursery education places for threeyear-olds in Leicestershire. This level of funding could increase before the end of 2001–02, if Leicestershire receives additional funding in the spring term as a result of its recent bid for additional places.

  Teacher Vacancies
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the source was of the figures she used which illustrate the gap between the supply and demand of teachers in her speech on the social market function. [18345]

  Mr. Timms
  The graph on page 11 of my social market foundation pamphlet shows two columns for 2001. The lower figure of 410,000 is the number of teachers in post. The higher figure, of some 435,000, includes vacancies and occasional teachers covering for other teachers. The figures are drawn from the publication "Statistical First Release on Teachers in Service and Teacher Vacancies"—the latest edition is for April 2001, and this is in the House of Commons Library and on the DfES website. The final column for 2006 is a projection based on recent trends.

  Andrew Selous
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many teacher vacancies there were in Bedfordshire in October(a) 1997 and (b) 2001. [19736]

  Mr. Timms
  The information is not available for the dates requested. Full-time teacher vacancies in maintained nursery, primary, secondary and special schools reported by the Bedfordshire local authority were as follows:

  Date

  Vacancies

  January 1998

  26

  January 2001

  76

  School Finance
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many Government initiatives offer additional funding which require schools to lodge specific applications. [19404]
  77W
  Mr. Timms
  Schools are required to lodge specific applications for the following initiatives, which attract addition al funding:

  Teachers' Threshold Grant

  Teachers' Performance Pay Progression Grant

  Welcome Back Bonuses

  Golden Hellos

  Grammar School/Non-selective School Partnerships

  Training Schools

  Specialist Schools

  Grant Maintained School Transitional Grant for Insurance

  Capital funding for Voluntary Aided Schools.

  Most other additional funding is allocated and paid to local education authorities through the standards fund: they must devolve around 75 per cent. of the grant to their schools to spend according to their own needs and priorities. It is for authorities and schools to agree the particular arrangements for allocating the grant to schools. Almost all standards fund grants are allocated to LEAs on a formula basis and the Government expect LEAs to devolve grants to schools by a fair formula, in which case schools should not have to apply for grant.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what proportion of total school spending in England and Wales is spent on schemes and improvements instigated by her Department. [19343]

  Mr. Timms
  The table shows the total national SSA allocation and total national grant funding for schools in England in 2001–02.

  £ million

  National SSA Allocation: 2001–02

  Total SSA

  122,512.900

  National Grant Funding for Schools: 2001–02

  Standards Fund revenue

  1,524.810

  School Standards Grant

  600.306

  Education Budget Support Grant

  52.000

  Education Action Zones

  58.400

  Teachers Pay Reform Grant

  2—

  Transitional Funding (former GM Schools)

  9.600

  Capital

  1,818.404

  Total

  4,063.520

  1 Including support for Early Years, Youth Service and other non-school spending by local education authorities

  2 The figures will not be known for a while, but Threshold costs for each academic year are expected to be in the region of £450 million

  Schools and local education authorities have the freedom to decide how to spend their education budget support grant and school standards grant. Schools also have considerable freedom over the use of their standards fund allocations.

  Funding for schools in Wales is the responsibility of the National Assembly for Wales.
  78W
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what proportion of total school spending in England and Wales is allocated to teacher salaries and related costs. [19379]

  Mr. Timms
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is responsible for England only. The latest available data are for the financial year 1999–2000. The proportion of total spending on teacher salaries and related costs in pre-primary and primary schools is 62 per cent., and 66 per cent. for secondary schools.

  Teacher Housing
  Mr. Goodman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what recent discussions she has had with local authorities on teacher housing; and if she will make a statement. [18886]

  Mr. Timms
  Officials and Ministers are in regular contact with local education authorities on a range of issues concerning teachers including housing. Policy on key worker housing is a matter for the Department for Transport Local Government and the Regions (DTLR). Officials and Ministers in this Department work closely with DTLR colleagues to deliver programme such as the starter home initiative which will provide over 3,500 teachers with help to buy their first home.

  Autistic Spectrum Disorders
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what plans she has to increase funding allocated to deal with children diagnosed with difficulties in the autistic spectrum disorders. [18910]

  Mr. Timms
  Funding is not made available for specific categories of special educational need. Rather, funding is allocated and distributed via local education authorities (LEAs), which have a duty to provide appropriately for all children in their area. This includes the duty to identify children's individual special educational needs and to deliver the most appropriate provision to meet those needs.

  More than £23 billion is available annually for the education of school children, including children with special educational needs. Over £1 billion of this is used by LEAs to provide additional support for children with special educational needs.

  We have also made £91 million of supported expenditure available for special educational needs in next year's standards fund (2002–03). This is five times the amount available in 1997–98. The fund can be used for a range of activities, including training for staff in special educational needs, improvements in speech and language therapy provision for children with communication difficulties and the greater inclusion of children with SEN in the mainstream. This latter includes early intervention for pupils with SEN, training on child development and behaviour management, and improved links between special and mainstream schools.

  Domestic Violence
  Ms Shipley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what guidance she provides to schools to help education professionals identify students affected by the impact of domestic violence. [19099]
  79W
  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  Children who experience or witness domestic violence can suffer in many ways, and the education service has a significant role to play in identifying these and children who are at risk of harm, or who are in need. We issued guidance to all schools about their role in identifying the needs of children affected by a range of difficulties, including domestic violence, in 1995.

  My officials are in the process of reviewing and updating that guidance to reflect the guidance in "Working together to Safeguard Children", the Government's most recent guide to inter-agency working to safeguard and promote the welfare of children. Among other things, this stresses that everyone working with children should be alert to the frequent interrelationship between domestic violence and the abuse and neglect of children. These messages will be reflected in the updated guidance to schools that my Department will issue next year.

  Ms Shipley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what support she offers to education professionals to help them deal with the impact of domestic violence on their students. [19100]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  My Department's guidance to schools about their role in protecting children strongly advises that all schools should have an appropriately trained designated teacher who is known to all staff. Designated teachers provide support and guidance on child protection issues to other education staff. They also liaise with other agencies, including social services and the police, to safeguard the best interests of children.

  In addition, from next September schools will introduce the new curriculum subject "Personal, Social and Health Education and Citizenship". Within this subject there is scope to discuss domestic violence in a safe environment, including how families deal with it and where to go for help.

  Education Action Zones
  John Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what information she has on which schools, in education action zones in which McDonald's has been a partner, have used that company's schools resource packs. [19107]

  Mr. Timms
  We hold no information on which schools in education action zones have used McDonald's schools resource packs.

  John Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills in which education action zones McDonald's has been a partner. [19108]

  Mr. Timms
  Two education action zones (EAZs), Weston and Ellesmere Port, have franchisees of McDonald's as partners on their zones' action forum.

  The EAZs listed have McDonald's as a sponsor and contributor for cash and in-kind donations:
  80W

  Statutory EAZs

  Herefordshire EAZ

  Newcastle EAZ

  North East Lincolnshire—Grimsby EAZ

  Plymouth EAZ

  South Tyneside EAZ

  Breightmet and Tonge (Bolton) EAZ

  Bridgwater EAZ

  Dingle, Granby and Toxteth EAZ

  Downham and Bellingham EAZ

  Dudley EAZ

  East Manchester EAZ

  Gillingham EAZ

  North Stockton EAZ

  North West Shropshire EAZ

  Preston EAZ

  Speke Garston EAZ

  Excellence in Cities (EiC) Action Zones

  Barking Gateway to Excellence EiC Action Zone

  Liverpool—EXCITE EiC Action Zone

  Liverpool—North Deanery EiC Action Zone

  Willington—North Tyneside EiC Action Zone.

  Student Loans
  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what facility exists to pay off the outstanding balance on a student loan. [19811]

  Margaret Hodge
  Borrowers can pay off the outstanding balance on their student loans direct to the Student Loans Company at any time. Borrowers who wish to do so are advised to contact the SLC to arrange the most appropriate way to make the payments.

  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what plans she has to require the Student Loans Company to issue regular statements to individuals about the outstanding balance, repayments made and the projected term of the loan. [19813]

  Margaret Hodge
  Borrowers under the pre-1998 scheme (mortgage style loans) receive annual statements from the Student Loans Company. They sign a loan agreement which sets out the repayment terms—five years for less than five loans and seven years for five or more loans.

  For borrowers under the new income-contingent loans scheme, repayment is collected by their employers through deductions from their earnings, in line with tax and national insurance contributions. These borrowers will get a statement from the SLC after the end of the tax year, once the SLC has received details of their repayments from the Inland Revenue.

  Self-employed borrowers would receive their statements after the end of the tax year as long as they made their self-assessment returns to the Inland Revenue on time.

  Loan repayments under the income contingent scheme rise or fall with earnings. They do not, therefore, have a projected repayment term.
  81W
  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what plans she has to improve the information available by the Student Loans Company about the balance on an individual's outstanding loan. [19814]

  Margaret Hodge
  Borrowers under the pre-1998 scheme (mortgage style loans) can contact the Student Loans Company at any time to obtain information on their outstanding loan.

  For borrowers under the new income-contingent loan scheme, repayments are collected by their employers, through deductions from their earnings, in line with tax and national insurance contributions.

  These borrowers will get a statement from the SLC after the end of the tax year. This will happen after the SLC has received details of their repayments from the Inland Revenue.

  Self-employed borrowers would receive their statements after the end of the tax year as long as they make their self-assessment returns to the Inland Revenue on time.

  My officials are currently working with the SLC to find better ways of providing account updates for income contingent loan borrowers, in particular to ensure that repayments are stopped as soon as the loan is repaid.

  Mr. Hendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many student loans have been issued; and what is the total value of student loans issued, broken down by each LEA area. [20193]

  Margaret Hodge
  In academic year 2000–01, there were 648,500 loans to the value of £1,920.8 million issued to students normally domiciled in England and Wales. Information broken down by LEA area is not held centrally, but we are asking the Student Loans Company to write to the hon. Gentleman further on this.

  Education Initiatives
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills (1) how many statutory(a) plans and (b) reports (i) primary and (ii) secondary schools complete annually; [19403]

  (2) how many new education initiatives that require action by head teachers have been launched by her Department in the current financial year.[19708]

  Mr. Timms
  Primary and secondary schools are statutorily required to produce each year a report from the governing body for parents, a report for parents on their children's achievements, and an annual budget plan. Since the start of April 2001, the Department for Education and Skills has sent primary schools 20 documents for action of which nine were new, and secondary schools 22 documents for action of which nine were new.

  Sex Discrimination (Single-faith Schools)
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will ensure that existing sex discrimination legislation is enforced in respect of single-faith schools. [19630]

  Mr. Timms
  All schools in the maintained sector are already required to comply with existing sex discrimination legislation.

  Departmental Underspend
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills when she expects to spend the £1.44 billion that was allocated to her Department for 2000–01 but not spent. [19528]

  Estelle Morris
  Of the £1.44 billion available in end-year flexibility from the former Department for Education and Employment, my Department has so far drawn down £584 million to spend this year and transferred £326 million to the Department for Work and Pensions. The remaining funds have been allocated and will be drawn down when needed.

  "Curriculum Online"
  Mr. Damian Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills when she will publish the Government's conclusions following the consultation paper, "Curriculum Online"; and if she will make a statement. [19609]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  The consultation paper "Curriculum Online" closed on 1 July; we received 159 responses, which have now been analysed. We are considering the responses and are currently making arrangements for publication shortly.

  In summary, the responses demonstrated widespread support for the Government's vision of a service to provide teachers with easy online access to a consistent, coherent and comprehensive set of digital learning materials to support teaching across the curriculum.

  Departmental Expenditure Limit
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will estimate the total unallocated funds within her departmental expenditure limit(a) at the start of the financial year and (b) to date; and what was the month seven forecast on outturn underspend against her departmental expenditure limit in (i) real and (ii) percentage terms. [19436]

  Estelle Morris
  The Department for Education and Employment annual report for 2000–01 (Cm 5102) contains the departmental unallocated provision (DUP) set for the present financial year in table 4.2, under the line entitled "Emergency Reserve".

  There has been no draw down of the Department's DUP to date. Outturn against six-month forecast for each request for resources will be published in the winter supplementary estimates summary request for supply as usual.

  University Resources
  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what plans she has to include university interaction with the community when assessing the allocation of resources to universities. [19459]

  Margaret Hodge
  The higher education reach-out to business and the community fund and its successor, the higher education innovation fund, have given higher education institutions (HEIs) the opportunity to apply for funding for interaction with the community.
  83W
  Furthermore, the higher education active community fund of £27 million will be distributed over three years to HEIs to support volunteering among students and staff. Volunteering helps HEIs to build bridges with their communities; it helps students to gain workplace experience and staff to develop their careers; and it helps voluntary sector organisations gain access to higher level skills and knowledge. The HE active community fund will assist in the creation of 14,000 new volunteering opportunities for HE students and staff.

  Additionally, higher education institutions are receiving £57 million of widening participation funding over three years from the Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE) as part of the Government's excellence challenge policy. This money helps institutions to reach out to more young people from communities who do not have a tradition of entering higher education.

  Student Drop-outs
  Mr. Damian Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the first year student drop-out rate was in new universities in(a) 1997, (b) 1998, (c) 1999 and (d) 2000. [19615]

  Margaret Hodge
  [holding answer 30 November 2001]: The available information on non-continuation rates is contained in "Performance Indicators in Higher Education", published by the Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE). The figures show, for each individual HE institution in the UK, the proportion of entrants to full-time first degree courses who do not continue in higher education beyond the first year. HEFCE also calculates a sector-wide non-continuation rate, but nothing is published for all new universities in aggregate. Copies of the HEFCE publications covering students starting courses in 1996–97 and 1997–98 are available in the House Library; prior to 1996–97, non-continuation rates were not published for individual HEIs.

  Primary Schools
  Mr. Letwin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will allow the redesignation of primary schools as three to 11 year-old schools at the request of local education authorities. [20150]

  Mr. Timms
  Where a local education authority wishes to alter the age range of a community primary school, by a year or more, it must publish notices to do so after consulting all interested parties, in particular the local early years development and child care partnership. If there are no objections and the proposals are not linked to others to be decided by the local school organisation committee, the local education authority may determine to implement them. In other cases it will be for the school organisation committee, or, where the school organisation committee does not reach a unanimous view, the Schools 84W
  Adjudicator, to decide whether the change can be made. In the case of voluntary or foundation schools it is for the governing body to publish proposals, but the decision-making procedure is otherwise the same. The Secretary of State no longer decides such proposals.

  Higher Education Review
  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the terms of reference are for the higher education review. [20194]

  Margaret Hodge
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State set out the scope of the current review of higher education in her speech at the London Guildhall university on 22 October 2001.

  The review will cover the key areas that form the overall mission of the higher education sector, looking to the longer-term structure of incentives required to ensure that each is resourced and supported. The areas being considered in the review are:

  Widening participation

  World-class research

  Linking universities with industry and communities

  Teaching excellence

  Management and leadership.

  Class Sizes
  Patrick Mercer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what initiatives her Department has in place to reduce class sizes in English secondary schools. [20626]

  Mr. Timms
  The average size of a secondary class taught by one teacher in England in January 2001 was 22.0. The January 2001 figure also shows that the secondary pupil/teacher ratio improved for the first time in 10 years and now stands at 17.1. The improvement reflects increased Government spending on schools.

  Teachers' Pensions
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she intends to make provision for increases in employers' contributions to teachers' pension costs in 2002–03 in her support to education authorities. [19486]

  Mr. Timms
  In 2002–03 education standard spending will increase by over£1.3 billion, a 6 per cent. rise on this year's figures. The 6 per cent. increase is enough to cover all the cost pressures on local education authorities next year, including the rise in employers' contributions to teachers' pensions.

  Specialist Schools
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how much was raised in sponsorship by each specialist school since its year of designation. [19240]

  Mr. Timms
  There are no specific requirements for specialist schools to raise sponsorship after designation and we do not keep any records about this.
  85W
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what is the average(a) pupil-teacher ratio in secondary schools in England and (b) pupil-teacher ratio for specialist schools.[19241]

  Mr. Timms
  The pupil-teacher ratio in maintained secondary schools as at January 2001 was 17.1.

  The equivalent figure for maintained secondary specialist schools was 16.9.

  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will make a statement on the various means of selection used by those specialist schools which select a proportion of their intake; and what advice has been given by her Department on the means of selection which may be used. [19242]

  Mr. Timms
  We do not hold information on the means of selection. Admission arrangements are set locally by a school's admission authority (local education authorities for community and controlled schools, and the governing

  Specialist schools: selection by aptitude

  Specialism

  School

  LEA

  Percentage

  Technology

  Archbishop Blanch School

  Liverpool

  5.6

  Technology

  Archbishop Temple School

  Lancashire

  10.0

  Language

  Bohunt School

  Hampshire

  10.0

  Arts

  Brentwood Ursuline Convent School

  Essex

  10.0

  Technology

  Chaucer Technology School

  Kent

  Up to 100

  Arts

  Chestnut Grove School

  Wandsworth

  16.0

  Technology

  Cornwallis School

  Kent

  10.0

  Technology

  Deacon's School

  Peterborough, City

  15.0

  Technology

  George Spencer GM School

  Nottinghamshire

  10.0

  Technology

  Heathside School

  Surrey

  4.0

  Language

  Hockerill Anglo European School

  Hertfordshire

  10.0

  Arts

  Intake High School

  Leeds

  10.0

  Technology

  Lodge Park School

  Northamptonshire

  10.0

  Technology

  Lynn Grove VA High School

  Norfolk

  15.0

  Technology

  Mill Hill County High School

  Barnet, London borough of

  10.0

  Technology

  Ninestiles School

  Birmingham

  10.0

  Sports

  Oakbank School

  Bradford

  10.0

  Sports

  Oldfield School

  Bath and North East Somerset

  10.0

  Technology

  Philip Morant School

  Essex

  15.0

  Technology

  Sandwich Technology School

  Kent

  10.0

  Technology

  Small Heath School

  Birmingham

  10.0

  Technology

  St. Margaret's C of E High School

  Liverpool

  15.0

  Technology

  St. Martin's School

  Essex

  10.0

  Arts

  St. Marylebone School (The)

  Westminster

  10.0

  Sports

  Wye Valley School (The)

  Buckinghamshire

  10.0

  Notes:

  This information was taken from progress reports submitted by 403 schools in December 2000. Progress reports for schools operational as of September 2000 are currently being received but the information from these has not yet been collated.

  The 1998 School Standards and Framework Act provides for schools with a specialism to select up to 10 per cent. of their intake on the basis of aptitude for a specialist subject prescribed in regulations. Prior to the 1998 Act schools had greater discretion over aptitude selection and this accounts for the percentages above 10 per cent.

  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many specialist schools(a) allow primary schools to use their facilities and (b) provide specialist teaching in neighbouring primary schools. [19245]

  Mr. Timms
  We do not hold collective records of specialist school involvement with primary schools under these headings. However, all specialist schools have arrangements with primary schools whereby the latter benefit from use of the specialist school's facilities or staff time or both.
  86W
  body for aided and foundation schools), and this includes deciding how children will be tested for their aptitude for a particular subject. My Department's code of practice on school admissions (1999) advises that:
  "tests used to identify whether a pupil has aptitude for a particular subject should be objective, have a distinctive subject focus, should not discriminate against applicants on the grounds of gender, ethnic origin, disability or family background, and that they must test for the subject aptitude concerned, not for any other aptitude or for ability".

  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will list those specialist schools which select a proportion of their pupils by aptitude for their specialist subjects; and what percentage of pupils is so selected in each school. [19243]

  Mr. Timms
  The latest available information is for school year 1999–2000. For that year, specialist schools which had selected a proportion of their pupils by aptitude for a subject or subjects relevant to their specialist designation, together with the percentage of pupils selected in each school, is shown in the table.

  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many specialist schools allow their local community to have free use of the specialist facilities. [19244]

  Mr. Timms
  We expect every specialist school to have arrangements whereby some members of the local community benefit from the use of some of the school's facilities. We do not collect data on the ways in which this expectation is realised.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many letters her Department received from hon. and right hon. Members between 20 June and 20 July. [18560]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  Information on the volume of correspondence from Members of Parliament received by ministerial agency chief executives and Departments and agencies, and performance in handling them, is published annually by the Cabinet Office. The most recent report, covering the year 2000, was announced by the then Minister for the Cabinet Office on 6 April 2001,Official Report, column 325W. Between 20 June and 20 July 2001, the volume of correspondence received by my Department and percentage of replies within the set target was:
  Total volume of ministerial correspondence received: 1,783
  Percentage of replies sent within the target: 71 per cent.

  Recruitment and Retention Fund
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills for what reason the recruitment and retention fund is limited to two financial years. [19340]

  Mr. Timms
  Funding of £35 million for the recruitment and retention fund was made available in April and we said that there would be at least that available next year. No decisions have been made concerning the future of the fund.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what criteria were used to allocate the recruitment and retention fund. [19377]

  Mr. Timms
  The fund was allocated on the basis of vacancy data from the annual census of vacancies conducted each January averaged over the three years 1998–2000.

  Terrorism
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how much she forecasts will be spent in the current financial year by her Department as a direct result of measures associated with the current action against terrorism. [10951]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  The additional costs forecast to be incurred by the Department for Education and Skills on enhanced security measures in the current financial year, as a direct result of measures associated with the current action against terrorism, is£233,783. That figure includes £100,000 for IT network resilience.

SOLICITOR-GENERAL

  Correspondence
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Solicitor-General how many letters her Department received from hon. and right hon. Members between 20 June and 20 July. [18590]

  The Solicitor-General
  Information on the volume of correspondence from Members of Parliament received by ministerial agency chief executives, and Departments and agencies, and performance in handling them is published 88W
  annually by the Cabinet Office. The most recent report, covering 2000, was announced by the then Minister for the Cabinet Office, on 6 April 2001, Official Report, columns 325–27W. Between 20 June and 20 June 2001 a total of 22 letters were received by my Department from hon. and right hon. Members.

  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Solicitor-General how many and what proportion of letters received by her Department between 20 June and 20 July were replied to(a) in under 15, (b) in under 20, (c) in under 30, (d) in under 40 and (e) in over 40 working days. [18576]

  The Solicitor-General
  Of the 22 letters received by my Department from hon. and right hon. Members between 20 June and 20 July, 95 per cent. were replied to in under 15 working days and 100 per cent. were replied to in under 20 working days.

  During June and July some 212 letters were received from members of the public and of these 70 per cent. received replies within the target of 20 working days.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Zimbabwe
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations(a) his Department and (b) international organisations to which the UK belongs, have made to the Government of Zimbabwe on the approval of a Public Order and Security Bill and the operation of free media. [18090]

  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with the Government of Zimbabwe regarding the proposed introduction of a new Public Order and Security Bill in Zimbabwe. [18878]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  [holding answer 28 November 2001]: The Government of Zimbabwe have said that they plan to table a Public Order and Security Bill, to replace the Law and Order (Maintenance) Act, introduced in 1960. The Bill itself has not yet come before the Zimbabwe Parliament. Discussion at this stage would thus be premature. The early indications are that, if enacted, the Act could have a profoundly negative impact on freedom of expression in Zimbabwe.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many letters his Department received from hon. and right hon. Members between 20 June and 20 July. [18561]

  Mr. Straw
  My Department received 1,349 letters from hon. and right hon. Members between 20 June and 20 July 2001.

  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many and what proportion of letters received by his Department between 20 June and 20 July were replied to(a) in under 15, (b) in under 20, (c) in under 30, (d) in under 40 and (e) in over 40 working days. [18581]

  Mr. Straw
  Of the 1,349 letters received from hon. and right hon. Members between 20 June and 20 July:
  89W

  (a) 72 per cent. were replied to in under 15 days;

  (b) 79 per cent. were replied to in under 20 days;

  (c) 81 per cent. were replied to in under 30 days;

  (d) 82 per cent. were replied to in under 40 days;

  (e) 18 per cent. were replied to in over 40 days.

  Joint Entry Clearance Unit
  Mr. Carmichael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps he has taken(a) to assess the extent of and (b) to raise awareness of institutional racism with entry clearance officers working for the Joint Entry Clearance Unit. [17988]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  All correspondence to the Joint Entry Clearance Unit is monitored for allegations of racism. The work of entry clearance officers is scrutinised by the independent monitor, who reports to Parliament on the quality of the decision making process. The Parliamentary Ombudsman can investigate allegations of maladministration, including racism. He has received one such complaint this year, which was unfounded.

  All entry clearance staff are trained in race awareness.

  Sudan
  Mr. Dawson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with the Government of Sudan about the recent bombing of civilian and humanitarian facilities in Malualkon, Bahr E1 Ghazal; and if he will make a statement. [20203]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  We are aware of recent aerial bombing incidents in Bahr E1 Ghazal which affected humanitarian operations there. The UN have made strong protests to the Sudanese Government about these incidents. We regularly call on the Government of Sudan, both bilaterally and within the framework of the EU Sudan dialogue, to stop the indiscriminate aerial bombardment of civilian and humanitarian targets. We have urged both sides to stop immediately hostilities in order to create an environment conducive to negotiations and to engage in a continuous and sustained negotiation towards a just and lasting political settlement.

  Royal Visits
  Andrew Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs on how many occasions in the past five years members of the Royal Family, other than Her Majesty the Queen, Prince Philip and Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother, have been accommodated(a) in the residences of United Kingdom representatives overseas and (b) at public expense when primarily involved on private visits overseas. [18378]

  Mr. Straw
  Members of the Royal Family on private visits overseas may be accommodated at the residences of UK representatives overseas, particularly if security questions are involved, but no consolidated record is kept.

  The FCO does not pay hotel and other bills when members of the Royal Family travel privately.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Correspondence
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development (1) how many letters her Department received from right hon. and hon. Members between 20 June and 20 July; [18564]

  (2) how many and what proportion of letters received by her Department between 20 June and 20 July were replied to (a) in under 15, (b) in under 20, (c) in under 30, (d) in under 40 and (e) in over 40 working days. [18584]

  Clare Short
  We received 139 letters from right hon. and hon. Members between 20 June and 20 July. Of these, 98 were answered in less than 15 days, 17 in less than 20 days and two in over 40 days. Twenty two letters did not require a response.

  Tuvalu
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assistance her Department is making available to the people of Tuvalu. [19251]

  Clare Short
  DFID does not provide bilateral assistance to Tuvalu. My Department administers a regional programme in the Pacific totalling some £4 million per year, which is inclusive of the poorest Pacific island countries. We work closely with key regional partners including the Form Secretariat, Secretariat of the Pacific Community (SPC) and South Pacific Applied Geoscience Commission (SOPAC). Given the regional nature of the programme, it is not possible to determine exactly how much of this assistance goes directly to Tuvalu. DFID also contributes to the multilateral programmes maintained by the Asian Development Bank, World bank, the EU and the UN from which Tuvalu benefits.

  Animal Health Research
  Mr. Letwin
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement about the future of the Centre for Tropical Veterinary Medicine at the University of Edinburgh. [20178]

  Clare Short
  My Department has contracted the Centre for Tropical Veterinary Medicine at the university of Edinburgh to manage our animal health research programme.

  We have no responsibility for the future of the centre.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Correspondence
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the President of the Council (1) how many letters he received from right hon. and hon. Members between 20 June and 20 July; [18568]

  (2) how many and what proportion of letters received by his Department between 20 June and 20 July were replied to (a) in under 15, (b) in under 20, (c) in under 30, (d) in under 40 and (e) in over 40 working days. [18588]
  91W
  Mr. Robin Cook
  I received 21 letters from hon. and right hon. Members during this period.

  Of the total replied to, the information requested is as follows:

  (a) 18 (86 per cent.)

  (b) 1 (4 per cent.)

  (c) 2 (10 per cent.)

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

  Correspondence
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many and what proportion of letters received by his Department between 20 June and 20 July were replied to(a) in under 15, (b) in under 20, (c) in under 30, (d) in under 40 and (e) in over 40 working days. [18592]

  Mr. Leslie
  Information on the volume of correspondence from Members of Parliament, received by agency chief executives and Departments and agencies, and performance in handling them, is published annually by the Cabinet Office. The most recent report, covering the year 2000 was announced by the then Minister for the Cabinet Office on 6 April 2001,Official Report, column 325W.

  Within the period 20 June and 20 July 2001 the Cabinet Office received 54 letters from hon. and right hon. Members. Out of these, 20 letters were transferred to other Government Departments or required no response. Of the remaining 34 letters left for the Cabinet Office to reply, (a) 27 (80 per cent.) were replied to within the 15 working day target, (b) a further five (94 per cent.) letters were replied to within 20 working days and (c) the remaining two (100 per cent.) letters were replied to within 30 working days. For (d) and (e) the Cabinet Office have a 100 per cent. success rate as all letters were replied to within 30 working days.

  Information on the volume of other correspondence, including letters from members of the public was published as part of the six service standards for central Government. The report, covering the financial year 2000, is referred to in my answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, Central (Geraint Davies) on 19 July 2001, Official Report, column 454–56W, and a copy is available in the Libraries of the House. These types of correspondence are not collected in the format requested and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many letters his Department received from hon. and right hon. Members between 20 June and 20 July. [18574]

  Mr. Leslie
  Information on the volume of correspondence from Members of Parliament received by ministerial agency chief executives, and Departments and agencies, and performance in handling them, is published annually by the Cabinet Office. The most recent report, covering 2000, was announced by the then Minister for the Cabinet Office on 6 April 2001,Official Report, column 325W. Between 20 June and 20 July the Cabinet Office received 54 letters from right hon. and hon. Members: to the Department replied to 80 per cent. within the 15 working day target.

  Islamic Society of Britain
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what inquiries he made about the credentials, impartiality and political record of the Islamic Society of Britain before signing its Pledge to Muslims on religious tolerance. [14843]

  Mr. Leslie
  Officials made appropriate inquiries before the Government signed the pledge on religious tolerance.

  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister (1) if he will state what steps were taken by the Cabinet Secretary to check the credentials, impartiality and political record of the Islamic Society of Britain before signing its Pledge to Muslims on religious tolerance; [14781]

  (2) if he will make a statement on the decision by the Cabinet Secretary to sign the Pledge to Muslims on religious tolerance organised by the Islamic Society of Britain. [14780]

  Mr. Leslie
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on 29 November 2001,Official Report, columns 1056–57W.

  Unallocated Funds
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will estimate the total unallocated funds within his departmental expenditure limit(a) at the start of the financial year and (b) to date; and what was the month seven forecast on outturn underspend against his departmental expenditure limit in (i) real and (ii) percentage terms. [19435]

  Mr. Leslie
  The Cabinet Office departmental annual report for 2001 (Cm 5119) contains the Cabinet Office Departmental Unallocated Provision (DUP) set for the present financial year in Table 6 on page 87. Draw-down of the DUP was reported to Parliament in June 2001 in the Cabinet Office Summer Supplementary Estimate (Cm 5215).

  Outturn against the six month forecast for each Request for Resources will be published in the Winter Supplementary Estimates Summary Request for Supply as usual.

SCOTLAND

  Correspondence
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many letters her Department received from right hon. and hon. Members between 20 June and 20 July. [18569]

  Mrs. Liddell
  Information on the volume of correspondence from Members of Parliament received by ministerial agency chief executives, and Departments and agencies and performance in handling them is published annually by the Cabinet Office. The most recent report, covering 2000, was announced by the then Minister for the Cabinet Office on 6 April 2001,Official Report, column 325W. Between 20 June and 20 July, the volume of correspondence and percentage of replies within the set target was: nine letters and 66.67 per cent. on target.
  93W
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many and what proportion of letters received by her Department between 20 June and 20 July were replied to(a) in under 15, (b) in under 20, (c) in under 30, (d) in under 40 and (e) in over 40 working days. [18597]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The information is as follows:

  (a) 103 letters or 83.7 per cent. replied to in under 15 working days;

  (b) 112 letters or 91 per cent. replied to in under 20 working days;

  (c) 122 letters or 99.2 per cent. replied to in under 30 working days;

  (d) 122 letters or 99.2 per cent. replied to in under 40 working days; and

  (e) one letter or 0.8 per cent. replied to in over 40 working days

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what percentage of parliamentary questions replied to by the Scotland Office were the subject of a holding answer in the last three Sessions of Parliament. [20009]

  Mrs. Liddell
  Approximately 25 per cent. in each of the Sessions December 2000-May 2001; November 1999-November 2000; and November 1998-November 1999.

  West Coast Main Line
  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what discussions she has had with Railtrack, since 5 October, concerning the timing of upgrades to the west coast main line. [19984]

  Mrs. Liddell
  I hope to meet with Railtrack senior management shortly to discuss a range of matters.

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

  Genetically Modified Fish
  Mr. Alan Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment she has made of the views expressed by the Director General of the UN Food and Agriculture Organisation, on 7 March 2000, in relation to genetic modification of aquatic species and the safety of genetically modified organisms. [6639]

  Mr. Meacher
  The views of the Director General on genetically modified organisms are expressed in the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation report on the State of the World's Fisheries published in 2000. The Director General's statement says:"We have no problem with genetically modified organisms (GMOs) as long as they are proved to be safe to human beings and have no negative impact on the environment. That is a very clear position."

  In assessing this statement I agree that safety for human health and the environment is paramount. This is the rationale behind the European Regulatory regime, which prohibits releases of genetically modified organisms into the environment. Directive 90/220 requires that anyone wanting to release genetically modified organisms in any country in the EU must have prior approval subject to a detailed risk assessment.
  94W
  However this does not mean that there are no problems with the marketing and use of GMOs. In addition to the safety aspects, there are other issues of concern including public acceptance, ethics, liability and socio-economic impacts.

  In relation to genetic modification of aquatic species, such as fish, I refer to my recent statements on this topic on 19 November 2001, Official Report, column 77W and on 20 November 2001, Official Report, column 198W.

  White Goods Disposal
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs on what grounds a local authority can refuse to take away used white goods where no other form of waste disposal exists. [17888]

  Mr. Meacher
  Waste collection authorities can refuse to take away only those used white goods that are classified as 'commercial' waste. They may arrange to collect and dispose of such waste, if approached by commercial traders, but they are not obliged to. Waste collection authorities have a statutory duty to arrange for the collection of household waste. However, they are entitled to impose a charge for collection for certain items, set out in Schedule 2 to the Controlled Waste Regulations 1992.

  Waste disposal authorities have a statutory duty, under section 51(1) of the Environmental Protection Act 1990, to provide reasonably accessible sites where householders can dispose of their waste free of charge but they may restrict the availability of specified sites to specified descriptions of waste.

  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what representations her Department has received from(a) retailers, (b) local authorities and (c) environmental groups regarding EC Regulation 2037/2000 and its implementation in the UK. [17891]

  Mr. Meacher
  My Department has received a number of representations from retailers, local authorities and environmental groups concerning EC Regulation 2037/2000. More recently we have received representations regarding the collection and disposal of domestic fridges and freezers from retailers and local authorities, in particular through a number of stakeholder meetings, hosted by DEFRA and DTI.

  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what steps have been taken to ensure that there are alternative recycling routes for used fridges and freezers. [17900]

  Mr. Meacher
  The Department, and the DTI, have hosted a number of stakeholder meetings to discuss the maintenance of existing systems for householders wishing to dispose of old fridges and freezers. Local authorities have statutory duties to accept and collect household waste, including bulky waste.

  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many used fridges and freezers have been taken back for recycling by UK retailers in 2001 prior to 17 November. [17893]
  95W
  Mr. Meacher
  My Department does not hold this information. We would estimate that 1.3 million fridges and freezers have been taken back by UK retailers in 2001 prior to 17 November. However, we do not know what proportion was recycled.

  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what plans there are to build a recycling plant capable of removing CFCs from fridges and freezers under EC regulation 2037/2000. [17892]

  Mr. Meacher
  I understand that a number of commercial companies intend to invest in plant in the UK.

  Mrs. Brooke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what progress is being made in respect of(a) finalising measures to manage waste refrigeration equipment and (b) announcing assistance and advice for local councils consequent upon the impact of EC regulation 2037/2000. [18556]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 28 November 2001]: The Department has written to all local authorities in England informing them of the requirements regarding the recycling/disposal of fridges under the regulation. A further letter will be issued shortly to remind local authorities of their obligations to receive and collect waste refrigeration equipment from householders. Guidance on storage of waste refrigeration equipment has been issued in draft. An announcement, on financial assistance for local authorities, will be made shortly.

  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what guidance has been issued to local authorities informing them of their obligation to meet EC regulation 2037/2000 when storing and recycling used goods. [17889]

  Mr. Meacher
  The Department wrote to all local authorities in England informing them of the provisions of the regulation. A further letter will be issued to remind local authorities of their obligations to receive and collect waste refrigeration equipment from householders. Guidance on storage of waste refrigeration equipment has been issued in draft and will be finalised shortly.

  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what measures her Department is taking to ensure that the UK conforms to EC regulation 2037/2000. [17895]

  Mr. Meacher
  My Department and the DTI have published three guidance booklets covering the requirements of EC regulation 2037/2000. More recently both Departments have hosted a number of stakeholder meetings to discuss the management of waste refrigeration units. My Department has been liaising with the Environment Agency to develop guidance on the standards for extracting CFCs form insulation foam in fridges, and on the storage of waste fridges and freezers, pending treatment. Draft guidance on these issues has been issued and will be finalised shortly. A statutory instrument to assign regulatory functions and to set out offences penalties has been drafted and is expected to come into force in the new year.

  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what guidance she has issued on the safe disposal of goods containing CFCs as required by EC regulation 2037/2000. [17901]
  96W
  Mr. Meacher
  My Department has already issued draft guidance on the extraction of CFCs from fridges and freezers, and draft guidance on the storage of waste refrigeration equipment, prior to CFC extraction. These will be issued in final form shortly. Information for householders on safe disposal of fridges and freezers will also be issued.

  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what discussions her Department has had with European recycling plants in preparation for the implementation of EC regulation 2037/2000 on 1 January 2002. [17894]

  Mr. Meacher
  Officials from the Department have had a number of meetings with representatives from a recycling company in Germany. Representatives of the German industry more recently attended the stakeholder meetings hosted by DEFRA and have been consulted on draft guidance and standards for CFC removal.

  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what advice she has issued to local authorities on the maximum charges that can be levied on consumers for collecting bulky appliances from private residences. [17890]

  Mr. Meacher
  No advice has been issued to waste collection authorities on the maximum charges that can be levied on consumers for the collection of bulky appliances from private residences. Charges are to be set to recover a local authority's costs but not to make a profit and are a matter for the authority concerned.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what funding is being made available for local authorities to re-process end-of-life refrigerators under the Draft Environmental Protection (Control of Ozone Depleting Substances) Regulations 2001. [18173]

  Mr. Meacher
  An announcement on financial assistance for local authorities will be made shortly.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment she has made of the storage facilities that local authorities, as waste disposal authorities, will need in order to re-process end-of-life refrigerators under the Draft Environmental Protection (Control of Ozone Depleting Substances) Regulations 2001. [18172]

  Mr. Meacher
  Local authorities will need to store waste refrigeration units until suitable processing facilities come on-line. The number that will require storage prior to recycling is dependent on the construction of suitable facilities for the recovery of ozone depleting substances. Some of these could be operational as early as spring 2002. Guidance on the storage of waste refrigeration units has been issued in draft and will be finalised shortly.

  Critical Sewers
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what guidance she gives to water companies on the expected asset life of critical sewers; and what action she will take to ensure that critical sewers are replaced before they fail completely. [18081]
  97W
  Mr. Meacher
  In 1998 in "Raising the Quality" the then Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions gave guidance that water and sewerage companies should maintain their assets in a way which will deliver a high standard of serviceability to customers and the environment. Ofwat has identified this as an area for companies to include in their draft business plans for the 2004 periodic review of prices. The water industry, Ofwat and the Environment Agency are working together on the assessment of future capital maintenance needs, for the review. Asset lives are a factor in this.

  Nuclear Risk Assessment (France)
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment she has made of the dangers of a civil emergency arising out of nuclear contamination consequent upon a nuclear accident in France; and if she will make a statement. [18198]

  Mr. Meacher
  No specific assessment of the risk of nuclear contamination as a result of an accident in France has been made. However, the UK has arrangements in place for co-ordinating the response to any overseas nuclear accident that may occur. These arrangements include a bilateral agreement with France and were fully tested in May 2001 as part of a joint international exercise based upon a nuclear accident at Gravelines nuclear power station, situated on the French coast. Further tests and exercises are conducted on a regular basis throughout the year to consider various nuclear accident conditions.

  Energy Efficiency
  Linda Gilroy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs pursuant to her answer of 26 October 2001,Official Report, column 409W, on energy efficiency, (1) what analysis of overall percentage improvements in domestic energy efficiency is required before figures for those overall percentage improvements can be published; and when she intends to publish the figures; [18732]

  (2) what the closing date was for the energy conservation authorities to report their energy efficiency improvements to 31 March. [18731]

  Mr. Meacher
  Energy conservation authorities were asked to submit their fifth annual progress reports to 31 March 2001 to their region's Government office, by 31 August this year. While many met the deadline, a large number did not.

  Before publishing the overall reported percentage improvement, we check that each report has been completed fully and accurately, going back to the authority with questions if necessary. Until we have done this for all authorities—around 350—and provided written feedback to each on this year's performance, we are not in a position to publish the reported percentage improvement.

  We have nearly completed our analysis and expect to publish this information early next year.

  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what proportion of her Department's budget is spent on promoting energy saving. [17430]
  98W
  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 27 November 2001]: The Department is responsible for energy efficiency. The latest complete figures available relate to the predecessor Department (DETR) in the financial year 2000–01. The funding made available to support and promote energy efficiency in 2000–01 totalled about £163.5 million, 6 per cent. of that Department's programme expenditure.

  The major elements of expenditure were on the energy efficiency best practice programme, support for the Energy Saving Trust and the home energy efficiency scheme.

  DEFRA funding in this financial year for energy efficiency is likely to be in the region of £220 million. This includes £50 million for the work of the Carbon Trust.

  Packaging
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what progress has been made in encouraging companies to reduce packaging. [19054]

  Mr. Meacher
  The EC Directive on Packaging and Packaging Waste—94/62/EC—was implemented in Great Britain by the Producer Responsibility Obligations (Packaging Waste) Regulations 1997 (as amended).

  The regulations require businesses who deal with packaging to recover and recycle specified tonnages of packaging waste, calculated by the amount of packaging handled by the business. Businesses can reduce their obligation by using less and reusing packaging whenever possible. By increasing the amount reused producers are able to reduce the tonnages of packaging waste they are required to recover and so lessen their costs of compliance.

  The recovery and recycling targets for 2001 under the packaging regulations are 56 per cent. for recovery and 18 per cent. for material-specific recycling of packaging waste. Data received to date suggest that, if businesses meet their obligations, these targets should be met.

  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on the timetable to publish the implementation of European Commission packaging directives. [19050]

  Mr. Meacher
  The EC Directive on Packaging and Packaging Waste—94/62/EC—came into force in 1994. The Directive was implemented in Great Britain by the Producer Responsibility Obligations (Packaging Waste) Regulations 1997.

  We are currently awaiting a proposal from the European Commission for revised targets to be met in 2006.

  Waterways
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when she will publish the report of the freight study group on the potential usage of the waterway system for the carriage of freight. [19530]

  Mr. Meacher
  The report of the Freight Study Group is expected early in the new year.
  99W
  Mr. Kidey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what arrangements her Department has for co-ordinating policy relating to canals with the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions. [19531]

  Mr. Meacher
  We recognise the need for close liaison between DEFRA and DTLR on issues of common interest relating to canals. As a consequence the Freight Study Group will report to both Departments, and respective Ministers received a joint briefing recently from the chairman of the Freight Study Group.

  River Quality
  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, pursuant to her answer of 23 November 2001,Official Report, column 517W, on river quality, what chemical levels of (a) biochemical oxygen demand and (b) concentrations of dissolved (i) oxygen and (ii) ammonia are deemed to be (A) good, (B) fair, (C) poor and (D) bad in the Environment Agency's general quality assessment scheme for rivers. [19237]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 30 November 2001]: The Environment Agency's General Quality Assessment (GQA) scheme assigns stretches of rivers and canals to one of six quality grades (ranging from A for water of very good quality to F for water which is of bad quality) based on the monitoring results for biochemical oxygen demand and concentrations of dissolved oxygen and ammonia. The overall grade is that of the poorest of the three determinants. The grade classes are expressed as percentiles as set out in the table.

  Standards for the chemical GQA

  GQA grade

  Dissolved oxygen (% saturation) 10-percentile

  Biochemical oxygen demand (mg/l) 90-percentile

  Ammonia (ntgN/l) 90-percentile

  A (very good)

  80

  2.5

  0.25

  B(good)

  70

  4

  0.6

  C (fairly good)

  60

  6

  1.3

  D (fair)

  50

  8

  2.5

  E (poor)

  20

  15

  9.0

  F (bad)

  less than 20

  —

  —

  Correspondence
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many and what proportion of letters received by her Department between 20 June and 20 July were replied to(a) in under 15, (b) in under 20, (c) in under 30, (d) in under 40 and (e) in over 40 working days. [18577]

  Mr. Morley
  Information on the volume of correspondence from Members of Parliament received by ministerial agency chief executives, and departments and agencies and performance in handling them is published annually by the Cabinet Office. The most recent report covering 2000, was announced by the then Minister for the Cabinet Office on 6 April 2001,Official Report,
  100W
  column 325W. Between 20 June and 20 July 2001, the volume of correspondence and percentage of replies within the set target was:

  Letters received: 718

  8 per cent. received replies within 15 working days;

  7 per cent. received replies within 20 working days;

  13 per cent. received replies within 30 working days;

  3 per cent. received replies within 40 working days;

  17 per cent. received replies over 40 working days.

  The Department keeps a central log of ministerial cases only and so this figure does not include letters received in this period that were dealt with by officials.

  We are working hard to ensure the Department' s record is improved and the targets met. The Department has suffered severe disruption due to allocating top priority to defeating the foot and mouth epidemic. I accept this is not an adequate excuse for not giving hon. Members good service and now that normality is returning to the Department one of our urgent priorities is to rectify any weakness in our service delivery.

  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many letters her Department received from hon. and right hon. Members between 20 June and 20 July. [18589]

  Mr. Morley
  Information on the volume of correspondence from Members of Parliament received by ministerial agency chief executives, and Departments and agencies and performance in handling them is published annually by the Cabinet Office. The most recent report covering 2000, was announced by the then Minister for the Cabinet Office on 6 April 2001,Official Report, column 325W. Between 20 June and 20 July 2001, the number of letters received was 718. The Department keeps a central log of ministerial cases only and so this figures does not include letters received in this period that was dealt with by officials.

  Mr. Peter Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when she will reply to the letter of 12 September from the hon. Member for Hexham regarding assistance to Tyredale council to promote tourism. [20028]

  Alun Michael
  A response to the hon. Member's letter of 12 September has been sent today.

  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what recent assessment she has made of the efficiency and promptness of her Department's staff in responding to correspondence received from hon. Members; and if she will make a statement. [20025]

  Mr. Morley
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State wrote to all Members on 14 November setting out her assessment of the current problems faced by the correspondence section. The Department suffered severe disruption due to allocating top priority to defeating the foot and mouth epidemic. On top of this the sheer volume of correspondence received since the creation of DEFRA has had a severe impact on the section. I accept this is not an adequate excuse for not giving hon. Members good service, and now that normality is returning to the Department one of our urgent priorities is to rectify any weakness in our service delivery.
  101W
  The size of the section has increased threefold and the management strengthened; our IT systems are in the process of being improved, and new guidance and training is being rolled out throughout the Department. We hope that this will bear fruit in the very near future.

  Rural White Paper
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, pursuant to her answer to the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) of 27 November 2001,Official Report, columns 859–60W, on the rural White Paper, if she will make a statement on clarifying guidance on best and most versatile land. [20151]

  Alun Michael
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Minister for Housing, Planning and Construction on 21 March 2001,Official Report, columns 253–55W. This included an amendment to guidance in Planning Policy Guidance note 7 (PPG7), "The Countryside—Environmental Quality and Economic and Social Development", on best and most versatile agricultural land. Decisions about the development or protection of such land are for local planning authorities to take in accordance with that guidance. The guidance is on DTLR's website at www.planning.dtlr.gov.uk/policy.htm.

  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, pursuant to her answer to the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) of 27 November 2001,Official Report, columns 859–60W, on the rural White Paper, what proportion has been allocated and which organisations have received funding from the community service grants schemes in 2001–02. [20140]

  Alun Michael
  The Countryside Agency has allocated £1.5 million for expenditure on Community Service grants for this financial year.

  I have today deposited in the Library of the House a list of organisations that have received funding under the scheme.

  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, pursuant to her answer to the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) of 27 November 2001,Official Report, columns 859–60W, on the rural White Paper, if she will outline the work done to date on the Countryside Agency's policy-maker's checklist and the extent of consultation during this process. [20155]

  Alun Michael
  The Policy Makers' Rural Proofing Checklist was published by the Countryside Agency on 24 April 2001. It followed consultation by the Countryside Agency with Government Departments and a number of other interested organisations, including the Local Government Association, the Country Land and Business Association and the Council for Protection of Rural England. The Checklist is available on the Countryside Agency's website at: www.countryside.gov.uk

  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, pursuant to her answer to the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) of 27 November 2001,Official Report, columns 859–60W,
  102W
  on the rural White Paper, how many communities have received support from the parish plans fund in 2001–02; and what amount they have received. [20141]

  Alun Michael
  To date 243 parish and town councils have registered an interest to produce a plan. 72 have been made a formal offer of grant and 44 parishes have received funding. A list of those parishes has been deposited in the Library of the House today.

  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, pursuant to her answer to the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew), 27 November 2001,Official Report, columns 859–60W, on the rural White Paper, when the consultation paper on quality parish and town councils will be published. [20152]

  Alun Michael
  The consultation paper on quality town and parish councils was published on 7 November 2001. Copies of the consultation paper were placed in the Vote Office and I wrote to each Member of Parliament enclosing a copy of the consultation paper.

  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, pursuant to her answer to the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) of 27 November 2001,Official Report, columns 859–60W, on the rural White Paper, which market towns have received funding from the regeneration programme in 2001–02. [20143]

  Alun Michael
  Regional development agencies and their partners have agreed 112 towns for inclusion in the market towns initiative and most of these will have received some degree of support in 2001–02 depending on the stage they have reached in the consultation, planning and implementation process. The agreed list of 112 market towns has been deposited in the Library of the House today.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many asylum applications have been granted in each of the past two years in Northern Ireland; and how many applications await adjudication; [18859]

  (2) how many asylum seekers have sought refuge in Northern Ireland in the last two years broken down by (a) gender, (b) adult/child status, (c) country of origin and (d) country from which they entered the UK. [18858]

  Angela Eagle
  Information on asylum applications and decisions in Northern Ireland is unavailable. Asylum applications data are not available at regional level except by port of application. Corresponding information on initial decisions relating to regional applications is also unavailable. The requested information could be obtained only at disproportionate cost by examination of individual case records.

  Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Bill
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will estimate the number of
  103W
  suspected terrorists who he expects to be detained under the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Bill; and if he will make a statement. [18850]

  Mr. Blunkett
  It would not be right for me to provide estimates at this stage but as the Prime Minister stated during oral questions on 14 November 2001,Official Report, column 854, our assessment is that the power will be required
  "only in a small number of cases".

  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will place in the Library copies of legal advice, received by his Department, which relates to the obligation to respect private lives of individuals and the provisions specified in clauses 17 to 19 of the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Bill.[17194]

  Mr. Blunkett
  No. Such advice falls within the category described in Part II, section 4(d) of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information and will not be disclosed.

  Suspicious Financial Transactions
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many referrals relating to suspicious financial transactions have been referred to NCIS in each of the last three years; and how many prosecutions have resulted. [17916]

  Mr. Blunkett
  [holding answer 27 November 2001]: I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for Truro and St. Austell (Matthew Taylor) on 23 October 2001, Official Report, column 203W.

  public Service Agreements
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on progress towards the public service agreement target for increasing the numbers of asylum decisions.[16923]

  Angela Eagle
  Increasing the number of asylum decisions was a public service agreement (PSA) target in the years 1999–2000 and 2000–01 but is not a PSA target in 2001–02. Outturn in 2000–01 was 132,840 against a target in the range 130,000 to 150,000.

  Correspondence
  Derek Conway
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will instruct the Integrated Casework Directorate of the Immigration and Nationality Department to acknowledge the letters from the hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup dated 13 August, 2 October and 26 October concerning Yuliya Smirnova, his reference S.1042831. [16837]

  Angela Eagle
  My officials wrote to the hon. Member on 22 November. I am sorry for the delay in replying. The Integrated Casework Directorate (ICD) stopped automatically sending acknowledgements of receipt of Members' representations addressed to the Immigration and Nationality Directorate (IND) Board about 12 months ago. However, it is LCD's policy to acknowledge the receipt of applications and other casework-related correspondence where an acknowledgement is requested.
  104W

  Muslim Fundamentalism
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the level of support for Muslim fundamentalism within the United Kingdom. [16409]

  Angela Eagle
  The total Muslim population in the United Kingdom is estimated to be between one and one and a half million. The number of people supporting what might be described as a "Muslim fundamentalist" view is impossible to assess, as it will depend on precisely how the term is interpreted. But support within the Muslim community for what might be regarded as extreme Islamist views is commonly judged to be small.

  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment his Department has made of the continuing threat of Muslim fundamentalist terrorism in Britain after the destruction of the bin Laden organisation in Afghanistan. [17029]

  Mr. Blunkett
  There have been a number of public threats made by bin Laden and his supporters against Western interests since 11 September.

  While we do not comment on intelligence, we believe the overall level of threat to the United Kingdom has remained at the heightened level identified immediately post 11 September. We believe that attacks against the United States remain bin Laden's priority. We do of course keep these issues under review.

  European Arrest Warrant
  Mr. Letwin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the Government's policy on protection of the principle of speciality in the Council Framework Decision on the European arrest warrant; and if he will make a statement. [20147]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  The United Kingdom (UK) does not intend, generally, to apply the dual criminality test to requests made to the UK authorities under the provisions of a European arrest warrant, and therefore would not, generally, expect to apply the rule of specialty in a case where a person is surrendered by the UK to another European Union member state.

  Mr. Letwin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if it is his intention to apply the dual criminality test to offences listed under Article 2.4 in the Belgian Presidency's draft text of the Framework Decision on a European arrest warrant; and if he will make a statement. [20149]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  Draft Article 2.4 of the Framework Decision allows the executing member state to decide whether to apply the dual criminality test, and this point will be finalised in the legislation necessary to implement the Framework Decision.

  The Government will reflect on this, in particular, whether it should retain the dual criminality test for abortion and euthanasia.

  Mr. Letwin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make it his policy to include in the Framework Decision on the European arrest warrant power for a person who is due to be extradited to oppose their
  105W
  extradition on the grounds that their human rights under the ECHR would not be protected by the requesting country; and if he will make a statement. [20154]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  The Framework Decision is intended to create a system enabling faster procedures for surrender of a fugitive as between European Union member states. Protection for the individual is provided in the domestic incorporation of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) in the issuing state's criminal justice system, rather than before courts in the United Kingdom (UK). This is the principle of mutual recognition on the basis of which we would similarly expect our EU partners to return those we want to bring to our courts to stand trial.

  The question of compatibility with ECHR rights will be addressed again by the Government as part of the legislative process to implement the Framework Decision. It is conceivable that there may be a wholly exceptional case in which the UK courts may judge that there is a risk of treatment, on return of a fugitive to an EU member state, that is incompatible with the ECHR. Under those circumstances, the District Judge could refuse to execute a request for a European arrest warrant.

  Kainos Wings
  Mr. Damian Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what guidance he has given the Prison Service regarding the closure of Kainos wings; and if he will make a statement. [19608]

  Beverley Hughes
  None. The closure of the Kainos wings is properly within the discretion of the Prison Service Management Board.

  Sense in Sentencing
  Ms Shipley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many responses his Department has received following its consultation, Sense in Sentencing; and if he will list those who have responded. [18511]

  Beverley Hughes
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given by my hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Home Department, on 21 November 2001,Official Report, column 355W, which gave details of the level of response to the consultation on the Halliday report, `Making Punishments Work'. Those who have responded will be listed in the summary of responses to be published at the end of January 2002.

  Young Offenders Institutions
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the number of(a) mentally and (b) personality disordered prisoners now held in young offenders institutions. [16313]

  Beverley Hughes
  The table shows the principal findings for young people aged 16 to 20 in a survey of the prevalence of mental ill health in the prison population of England and Wales carried out in 1997 by the Office for National Statistics. The report of this survey, `Psychiatric Morbidity among Prisoners' was published in 1998. A second report, 'Psychiatric Morbidity among Young Offenders in England and Wales', which contains further analysis of the data from the survey, was published in 2000.
  106W

  Percentage

  Remanded young men

  Sentenced young men

  Sentenced young women

  Functional psychosis in the past year1

  8

  10

  29

  Neurotic disorder in past week3

  52

  41

  67

  Hazardous drinking in year before imprisonment

  62

  70

  51

  Drug dependence in year before imprisonment

  57

  52

  58

  Personality disorder1

  84

  88

  284

  1 From clinical interview

  2 Probable diagnosis identified during lay interview

  3 From lay interview

  Immigration Hotline
  Mr. Ian Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will improve the quality of service of the hon. Members' hotline for immigration matters. [18272]

  Angela Eagle
  The hotline was set up to deal with representations in general non-asylum cases which involve urgent or compelling compassionate circumstances. It currently deals with about 500 calls a week.

  The number of operators has recently been increased to 10 to offer a rapid response to hon. Members.

  Drug Treatment and Testing Orders
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the cost to public funds in(a) 2000–01 and (b) 2001–02 of drug treatment and testing orders. [17330]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave him on 28 November 2001,Official Report, column 956W.

  Terrorism Act
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many persons have been arrested under the Terrorism Act 2000 since its enactment in connection with(a) Northern Ireland-related terrorism and (b) international terrorism; how many of each have been subject to extended detention; on how many occasions an extension order was refused; and how many individuals in each category have been (i) charged under the Act, (ii) charged with other offences and (iii) subject to other procedures. [17764]

  Mr. Blunkett
  The Terrorism Act 2000 came into force on 19 February 2001. I refer my hon. Friend to the following table.

  Great Britain

  Northern Ireland

  S41 arrests/detentions

  Irish terrorism

  14

  93

  International terrorism

  71

  0

  Total

  85

  93

  Extensions of detention

  Irish-related cases

  11

  8

  International related cases

  11

  0

  Applications refused

  0

  1

  Charges

  107W

  Great Britain

  Northern Ireland

  Terrorist related offences

  15

  11

  Other offences

  12

  17

  Immigration procedures

  13

  0

  Dual Nationals
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will take powers to collect statistics relating to the number of UK citizens with dual nationality with(a) Pakistan, (b) Bangladesh and (c) India. [17359]

  Angela Eagle
  Information that is currently collected relates to the number of persons granted British citizenship; the number of persons who were granted British citizenship in the United Kingdom in 2000 whose previous nationality was Pakistani, Bangladeshi or Indian is given in the table.

  Previous nationality1

  Grants of British citizenship in 2000

  Pakistani

  8,631

  Bangladeshi

  5,380

  Indian

  8,135

  1 Nationality possessed (or main nationality in cases of dual nationality) immediately before acquiring British citizenship

  It would not be possible or viable for the Home Office to collect information on the number of United Kingdom citizens with dual nationality as part of the process of applying for citizenship, since it would not be possible to determine the number of persons who renounced or retained their previous nationality.

  At present there are no plans to collect the information requested.

  Passports
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what additional steps he is taking to make UK passports more difficult to(a) forge and (b) alter; and if he will make a statement. [17416]

  Angela Eagle
  The Government take very seriously the security and integrity of the United Kingdom passport. The United Kingdom Passport Service works very closely with the Immigration Service and other agencies to monitor the incidence of attempted forgery and manipulation of United Kingdom passports

  The new digital British passport which the United Kingdom Passport Service has been using since October 1998 contains advanced security features to prevent forgery and alteration. These include a digital image of the holder's portrait and signature on the personal identification page of the passport which has been moved from the back cover to the last page of the passport. Both of these changes are designed to increase protection against portrait substitution.

  The personal identification page is also protected by a clear plastic laminate which incorporates a holographic device, and a series of laser perforations. In seeking to fully protect the passport special attention has also been paid to the component materials, and special printing techniques have been applied to the page designs.
  108W
  The design of the passport and the special security features incorporated within that design are kept under constant review.

  Asian Community Functions
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the Asian community functions(a) he and (b) his Ministers have attended since 7 June. [18744]

  Mr. Blunkett
  I attended the Asian community 30th Anniversary of Gujurat Samachar (Asian Voice) event on 31 October, which took place at the HoC. I also visited the Industry Road Mosque in Sheffield on 5 October. In addition I and several of my Ministers have had a large number of meetings with representatives of the Asian faiths as well as chairing meetings of the Race Relations Forum and speaking at the Ethnic Minority Network Conference organised by my Department. Ministers within my Department who have attended specific functions are as follows.
  10 October: Keith Bradley Asian Community Celebratory Event in Manchester
  29 September: John Denham Forum Against Islamophobia and Racism (FAIR) in London.

  Heather Arnold
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will determine the parole application of Heather Arnold. [13921]

  Beverley Hughes
  The Parole Board has considered Mrs. Arnold's case and has made a recommendation. In line with normal practice, the Secretary of State will need to consider whether the Parole Board's recommendation may be accepted. The Secretary of State will make a decision on this case as soon as possible.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Community Legal Service
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what(a) number and (b) percentage of advice providers listed in the Community Legal Service Directory have failed to make a positive commitment in writing to the aims and objectives of the Community Legal Service and to commit to making a Quality Mark application by the deadline of October; and if she will break these figures down (i) with reference to type of advice provided, (ii) with reference to client group and (iii) excluding legal firms. [18846]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  There are 9,878 organisations listed in the current Community Legal Service Directory (3rd Edition) and 7,112 (72 per cent.) have either made an application or have obtained the Quality Mark. Of the remaining 2,766 (28 per cent.), most have made a formal commitment in writing to apply for the Quality Mark by October 2001 but a small number have not applied. The organisations who failed to meet the October deadline may write to the Legal Services Commission setting out the reasons why they were unable to apply by that date and consideration will be given as to whether or not to accept the application.
  109W
  The Legal Services Commission is working with the London Learning and Skills Council to help support small and ethnic groups achieve the Quality Mark. A pilot is being run in two London boroughs and includes disability groups.

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department when she intends to remove advice providers without Quality Marks from the Community Legal Service directory; and what target she has set for the(a) number and (b) percentage of advice providers who should have a Quality Mark by this date. [18845]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  Those organisations which have not applied for a Quality Mark will not appear in the next edition of the Community Legal Service Directory, which is to be published in April 2002 (4th Edition). The deadline for applications was the end of October 2001. Organisations which have failed to meet this deadline may write to the Legal Services Commission setting out the reasons why they were unable to apply by that date and consideration will be given as to whether or not to accept the application. There are currently 502 Quality Mark holders at the General Help and General Help including casework levels, and over 1,700 organisations that have applied for the Quality Mark at General Help and General Help including casework level. The target for the number of advice providers to April 2002 is 1,250 at the General Help and General Help including casework levels.

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what estimate she has made of the(a) cost and (b) burden to an advice provider of applying for a Quality Mark; and what plans she has to offer small voluntary organisations help to meet these costs and burdens. [18843]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The Legal Services Commission is working with the Learning and Skills Council to assess the resource implications for an advice provider in applying for a Quality Mark. This work is due to be completed in April 2002 and will feed into the Legal Services Commission's Quality Mark support strategy. The Legal Services Commission has commenced a number of initiatives that have the potential to provide information about the needs of advice providers and identify barriers to accessing the Quality Mark. A number of the projects are targeted at smaller organisations including Black Minority Ethnic groups and refugee support groups.

  CAFCASS
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (1) what steps she has taken by the Children and Family Courts Advisory and Support Service to negotiate with NAGALRO and guardians ad litem following the judgment of Mr. Justice Scott Baker on 14 September; [16465]

  (2) what plans she has to review the operations of CAFCASS following the judgment of Mr. Justice Scott Baker on 14 September; and if he will make a statement; [16466]
  110W
  (3) how many guardians ad litem in the UK have resigned since the establishment of CAFCASS; what impact this has had on waiting lists for children seeking (a) support, (b) welfare and (c) help; and if she will make a statement. [16467]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The Lord Chancellor issued a statutory direction to CAFCASS on 3 October instructing them to begin consultation about the issue of the self-employed guardians' contracts. This consultation is under way, and CAFCASS have written to all self-employed guardians. The discussions with NAGALRO will be chaired by an independent person, and the responses of the guardians to consultation will also be assessed independently.

  The information we have received from CAFCASS shows that of 716 self-employed guardians, 28 have withdrawn their services altogether, and a further 90 are not accepting new cases. 175 previously self-employed guardians have accepted contracts as employed guardians. The remainder of the guardians, employed or self-employed, continue to work normally, as do the other employees of CAFCASS. In addition CAFCASS has advertised for and identified 197 people eligible for appointment as guardians.

  At the week ending 16 November, guardians were working on 11,930 cases nationally. A further 282 cases were allocated that week. The number of unallocated cases was 177. In the hon. Member's South West Region there were 848 active cases. A further 26 cases were allocated that week and six cases awaited allocation.

  CAFCASS is subject to independent inspection by HM Magistrates' Court Service Inspectorate. The Inspectorate will complete its first inspection next year. Its preliminary view, based on the initial visits it has carried out so far, is that:
  "CAFCASS … has generally continued to deliver a service to children, families and courts to at least the same quantity and quality standards as in the previous services prior to CAFCASS being established in April 2001. In addition, there has been a significant investment in IT that is beginning to pay dividends".

  The Lord Chancellor and I are monitoring the situation closely. I am having weekly meetings with the Chairman of CAFCASS, and am also receiving weekly reports from him. We value extremely highly the work of all the guardians and other staff of CAFCASS, whether they are employed or self-employed, and I hope that all sides can now move on to develop the child-focused service that we all want to see.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many letters her Department received from right hon. and hon. Members between 20 June and 20 July. [18565]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  Information on the volume of correspondence from Members of Parliament received by ministerial agency chief executives, and Departments and agencies and performance in handling them is published annually by the Cabinet Office. The most recent report, covering 2000, was announced by the then Minister for the Cabinet Office on 6 April 2001,Official Report, column 325W. Between 20 June and 20 July 2001, 149 letters were received directly by the Lord

  111W
  Chancellor's Department; however, 27 of these letters were transferred to other Government Departments, and 19 were transferred to agencies of the Lord Chancellor's Department. Of the 103 letters dealt with by the Lord Chancellor's Department 65 per cent. were replied to within the 20 day departmental target.

  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many and what proportion of letters received by his Department between 20 June and 20 July were replied to(a) in under 15, (b) in under 20, (c) in under 30, (d) in under 40 and (e) in over 40 working days. [18585]

  Mr. Wills
  For general correspondence received at LCDHQ 320 letters were received within the period. 282 (88.1 per cent.) were responded to in under 15 days, 303 (94.7 per cent.) were responded to in under 20 days, 317 (99.1 per cent.) were responded to in under 30 days, 319 (99.7 per cent.) were responded to in under 40 days, one (0.3 per cent.) responded to in over 40 days.

  For the Court Service, 565 letters were received within the period. 542 (97.4 per cent.) were responded to in under 15 days, 563 (99.11 per cent.) were responded to in under 20 days, 565 (100 per cent.) were responded to in under 30 days, nil under 40 days, nil over 40 days.

  For the Public Guardianship Office, 6,103 letters were received in June. 5,686 (93.2 per cent.) were responded to in under 15 working days. In July 5,063 letters were received, (93.4 per cent.) were responded to under 15 working days.

  Further information about PGO response times is not available.

  Ministerial Visits (North-East)
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many times since November 2000 Ministers from the Lord Chancellor's Department have visited(a) the Teesside area and (b) Middlesbrough, South and Cleveland, East constituency to meet locally based businesses. [19074]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  Since November 2000, Ministers from the Lord Chancellor's Department have not met any locally based businesses from either(a) the Teesside area or (b) Middlesbrough, South and Cleveland, East constituency.

  Parliamentary Ombudsman
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, pursuant to her answer of 28 November 2001,Offical Report, column 1005W on the Parliamentary Ombudsman, what the circumstances were of the cases which gave rise to (a) a period of 91 working days and (b) a period of 55 days being taken by the Court Service to respond. [20185]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The information given was in calendar days rather than working days as had been requested. Those cases were dealt within 64 and 38 working days. I attach a copy of the amended statistical table.(a) The case of Lavender was sent to the Court Service on 7 August. The PCA asked for comments by 17 September. A reply was sent to the PCA on 6 November. There was a delay of 34 working days. The
  112W
  delay was due to the file being mislaid. The PCA was kept informed of the progress in locating the file at all times. (b) The case of Glasser was sent to the Court Service on 6 July. The PCA asked for comments by 23 August. A reply was sent to the PCA on 5 September. There was a delay of eight working days. A meeting has been arranged between the Court Service and the PCA to address the problems that occurred in these matters and to avoid any future difficulties.

  Formal notices issued by Parliamentary Ombudsman: 1 April to 31 October 2001

  Department

  Number received

  Number responded to

  Working days to respond to each notice

  Lord Chancellor's Department1

  2

  2

  16, 17

  Court Service

  10

  10

  8, 9, 24, 12,

  17, 17, 24,

  33, 38, 64

  Public Guardianship Office

  2

  1

  26

  HM Land Registry

  1

  1

  19

  Northern Ireland Court Service

  0

  0

  —

  Public Record Office

  0

  0

  —

  1 Letter of 27 February 2001 not received until 30 April 2001

  Parking (Royal Family)
  Andrew Mackinlay
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what special arrangements(a) the Royal family and (b) spouses of the Royal family have for parking in London when not on official business. [18374]

  Mr. Wills
  Subject to security considerations, there are no special parking arrangements for members of the Royal family, including spouses, when not on official business.

  Referral Fees
  Mr. Burnett
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what assessment he has made of the proposal by the Law Society to enable solicitors to pay referral fees. [R] [19557]

  Mr. Wills
  While the Lord Chancellor has noted the consultation document "Solicitors Introduction and Referral Code" issued by the Law Society in January 2001, he has yet to see any firm proposals from the Law Society. The Lord Chancellor will consult the designated judges on any application that requires his approval under the provisions of Schedule 4 of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990. He will also consider whether to consult with the Legal Services Consultative Panel and the Director General of Fair Trading.

  Employment Tribunals (North Wales)
  Gareth Thomas
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what plans he has to provide a permanent location for Employment Tribunals in North Wales. [18868]

  Alan Johnson
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Employment Tribunals Service is actively seeking to establish a permanent location for hearings in North Wales as soon as possible.
  113W

WORK AND PENSIONS

  Incapacity Benefit
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will list the proportion of total claims for incapacity benefit paid in respect of the main relevant medical conditions. [11322]

  Malcolm Wicks
  [holding answer 31 October 2001]: The information requested has been placed in the Library.

  Ageism
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) if he will make a statement on recent measures he has introduced to tackle age discrimination; [19362]

  (2) what measures there are to get more people in their 50s and 60s into work. [19366]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  This Government recognise the importance of tackling age discrimination in the workplace. We have already provided voluntary guidance to help employers. By 2006, we will legislate against age discrimination in the workplace. This timescale will allow us to consult extensively with employers, individuals, and expert groups on age positive practices, and on all aspects of the legislation.

  We are committed to employment opportunity for all, regardless of age. For those over 50, there is a comprehensive range of back to work programmes, including new deal 50 plus, new deal 25 plus and the new deal for disabled people. Government support has ensured that the employment rate for the over 50s has increased each year for the last four years. Through new deal 50 plus alone, which was launched in April 2000, more than 51,000 people have been helped into work.

  The Department also leads with its AgePositive campaign, which is vigorously promoting the business benefits of employing an age diverse workforce. The campaign focuses on the Code of Practice on Age Diversity in Employment and a wide range of research and promotional activities. On 3 December we launched a new AgePositive website and a range of new research studies.

  Benefits (Birmingham, Northfield)
  Richard Burden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) how many people in Birmingham, Northfield claim(a) both disability living allowance and income support and (b) a disability premium as part of their income support applicable amount; [19384]

  (2) how many over 60-year-olds in Birmingham, Northfield have the (a) disability and (b) higher pensioner premium added to their income support applicable amount; [19385]

  (3) how many single parent families in Birmingham, Northfield are in receipt of (a) working families tax credit and (b) income support. [19388]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The information is in the table.
  114W

  Benefit recipients in Birmingham, Northfield constituency

  Thousand

  Income support (IS) recipients receiving disability living allowance

  1.1

  IS recipients with a disability premium

  2.8

  Pensioners receiving MIG with a disability premium

  0.8

  Pensioners receiving MIG with a higher pensioner premium

  1.9

  Lone parents receiving IS

  1.8

  Lone parents receiving working families tax credit

  1.3

  Notes:

  1. All figures are for May 2001.

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

  3. Figures are rounded to the nearest hundred.

  4. IS recipients with DLA are cases where DLA is paid to the benefit recipient. Cases where DLA is paid to the partner only are not included.

  5. Disability premiums are classed as severe disability premium, disability premium and enhanced disability premium.

  6. Pensioners are cases where the benefit recipient and/or partner are aged 60 or over.

  7. IS lone parents are single parents aged under 60 who do not receive a disability premium.

  Sources:

  Income Support Quarterly Statistical Enquiry August 2001.

  Working Families' Tax Credit Statistics Quarterly Enquiry May 2001.

  Richard Burden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many benefit claimants in Birmingham, Northfield are not in receipt of income support but are in receipt of(a) housing benefit and (b) council tax benefit. [19386]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The available information is in the table.

  Total housing benefit and council tax benefit case load in the Birmingham city council area where the recipient is not in receipt of income support or jobseeker's allowance1

  Local authority

  Number of cases

  Birmingham

  Total housing benefit cases not in receipt of income support/jobseeker's allowance1

  23,390

  Total council tax benefit cases not in receipt of income support/jobseeker's allowance1

  34,400

  1 Income based

  Notes:

  1. The data refer to benefit claims, which may be a single person or a couple

  2. The figures have been rounded to the nearest 10 cases

  3. The table also includes people not receiving jobseeker's allowance (income based), due to insufficient data we are unable to exclude these cases

  4. Figures are only available by local authority area

  Source:

  Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit Management Information System Quarterly 100 per cent. case load stock-count taken in May 2001

  Richard Burden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many pensioners in Birmingham, Northfield claim the minimum income guarantee. [19387]

  Mr. McCartney
  As at May 2001 there were 3,000 minimum income guarantee recipients in the Birmingham, Northfield constituency.

  Richard Burden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many households in Birmingham, Northfield have children in receipt of free school meals. [19383]

  Mr. Timms
  I have been asked to reply.
  115W
  Information on free school meals is not available in the form requested.

  The number of children known to be eligible for free school meals in maintained nursery, maintained primary, maintained secondary and special schools in the parliamentary constituency of Birmingham, Northfield as at January 2000 was 4,305.

  War Pensions Agency
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what additional cost savings measures referred to on page 75 of the 2001 departmental report were taken to enable the War Pensions Agency to operate within its running cost allocation in 2000–01. [19118]

  Dr. Moonie
  I have been asked to reply.

  During 2000–01, the War Pensions Agency adopted a carefully controlled expenditure regime ensuring that proper financial procedures were embedded within the
  116W
  Agency. Monthly reviews of expenditure were undertaken and closely scrutinised to enable the agency to operate within the running cost allocation for 2000–01.

  The 2000–01 programme of work was regularly reviewed and the impacts of any proposed changes to the agency's capacity to deliver the programme were considered. Links were also ensured between the agency's work programme, investment appraisal procedures and appropriate approval routes for change initiatives.

  Benefit Reductions
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what reductions are applied to a liable person's liability to pay(a) rent and (b) council tax during a period of in-patient hospital treatment. [19116]

  Ms Keeble
  I have been asked to reply.

  Liability to pay rent would not normally be reduced during a period of in-patient hospital treatment, unless the landlord specifically agreed to this. Nor does any general reduction from council tax apply in such circumstances. However, if a person moves permanently into a hospital, his or her previous home will be exempt from council tax if it is unoccupied.

HEALTH

  Health Authority Modernisation
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will place a copy of each health authority's local modernisation review for 2002–03 in the Library as soon as they are received. [14713]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 14 November 2001]: The purpose of the local modernisation reviews (LMR) is to engage local partners, frontline staff, and patients' representatives in reviewing what needs to be done to deliver national health service priorities locally. The outputs from this year's LMR will inform the annual planning round and the development of the 2002–03 "Service and Financial Frameworks" (SaFFs). These frameworks set out the levels of NHS activity and resources allocated to achieve the local health system's contribution to national targets for the coming year. NHS organisations will sign accountability agreements in relation to delivering their contribution to the 2002–03 SaFF.

  LMRs are local planning exercises. The Department itself does not receive copies of these documents. We are unable, therefore, to place copies of LMRs in the Library. External scrutiny to the LMR process has been secured through local peer review and involvement by lay members of the local modernisation boards.

  Hearing Aids
  Mr. Heath
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) from what date East Somerset health trust will be included in the modernising NHS hearing aid services project; [15596]

  (2) which NHS health trusts will be part of the modernising NHS hearing aid services project for 2002–03. [15597]

  Jacqui Smith
  There are currently 20 national health service trusts taking part in the modernising NHS hearing aid services project, as listed in the table.

  It is too early to say when a specific trust might be involved in the project. Evaluation of the project by the Institute of Hearing Research is on-going. Subject to favourable evaluation, the Department, on advice from the project's implementation team, will make decisions about how best to spread the modernised services. Trusts would be invited to be part of the project on the basis of geographical spread, preparedness to modernise, and the commitment of the local health community to the aims of the project.
  118W

  NHS trust

  Start year

  Addenbrookes NHS Trust

  2000–01

  James Paget Healthcare NHS Trust

  2000–01

  Royal National Throat, Nose and Ear Hospital

  2000–01

  Whipps Cross University Hospital NHS Trust

  2000–01

  Bradford Hospitals NHS Trust

  2000–01

  Leeds Teaching NHS Trust

  2000–01

  City Hospitals Sunderland NHS Trust

  2001–02

  Trafford Healthcare NHS Trust

  2000–01

  Morecambe Bay Hospitals NHS Trust

  2001–02

  Royal United Hospital Bath NHS Trust

  2000–01

  United Bristol Healthcare NHS Trust (children)

  2001–02

  Royal Cornwall Hospitals NHS Trust

  2001–02

  East Berkshire Community Health NHS Trust

  2000–01

  Royal Berkshire and Battle Hospitals NHS Trust

  2000–01

  Winchester and Eastleigh Healthcare NHS Trust

  2000–01

  Queens Medical Centre University NHS Trust Nottingham

  2000–01

  The Kings Mill Centre for Healthcare Services NHS Trust

  2001–02

  Sheffield Children's Hospital NHS Trust (children)

  2000–01

  University Hospital Birmingham NHS Trust

  2000–01

  Royal Shrewsbury and Princess Royal Hospitals NHS Trust

  2000–01

  Religious Circumcision
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many NHS trusts make provision for religious circumcision. [15468]

  Jacqui Smith
  In 1999–2000 205 national health service hospitals in England recorded a total of 21,763 inpatient episodes where the main operation was circumcision. It is not possible to determine whether the procedure was carried out for religious reasons.

  Associate Specialists
  Alistair Burt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to ensure that associate specialists in the UK obtain equal treatment to those from the EU(a) in gaining entry to the Specialist Register and (b) in the appointment of consultant posts. [16198]

  Mr. Hutton
  Standards for entry to the specialist register in the United Kingdom are the same for all doctors working in the European Economic Area as all doctors have to have completed a period of training recognised by the competent authority. Appointment to consultant posts in the UK is governed by the National Health Service (Appointment of Consultants) Regulations 1996, which apply equally to all EEA doctors.

  Statins
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what his policy is on the prescribing of statins; and if he will make a statement. [15792]

  Jacqui Smith
  The National Service Framework for Coronary Heart Disease, revised in the Chief Medical Officer's Update in February 2001, sets out the policy for the prescribing of statins. The first priority is to ensure that people with established CHD are treated with statins to lower their cholesterol level either below 5.0 mmol/1 or to reduce total serum cholesterol by 20–25 per cent., whichever would result in the lowest level. (The equivalent figures for LDL cholesterol would be 3.0 mrno1/1 or by a 30 per cent. reduction, whichever
  119W
  results in the lowest level.) The next step is the treatment of those without diagnosed CHD but whose risk of a cardiac event is greater than 30 per cent. over 10 years.

  This is consistent with the guidance already issued to the national health service by the Standing Medical Advisory Committee and with the Joint British Society Guidelines published in the British Medical Journal.

  Health Service Staff (Leicestershire)
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many(a) doctors and (b) nurses were employed in the national health service in Leicestershire in (i) 1997 and (ii) 2001. [15751]

  Jacqui Smith
  The number of doctors and nurses employed in the area covered by Leicestershire health authority in 1997 and 2000 (the latest year available) are given in the table. Data relating to 2001 will not be available until February 2002.

  National health service hospital and community health services and general and personal medical services: All doctors and nursing staff within Leicestershire health authority area are as at 30 September each year

  Headcount

  1997

  2000

  All staff

  9,540

  9,930

  All practitioners (excluding GP retainers)1,2

  560

  540

  of which:

  UPEs3

  500

  500

  HCHS medical and dental staff4

  1,120

  1,260

  Total nursing staff

  7,870

  8,140

  of which:

  Qualified staff

  5,260

  5,740

  Qualified (HCHS) nursing, midwifery and health visiting staff

  4,950

  5,420

  Practice nurses

  300

  330

  Unqualified (HCHS) nursing, midwifery and health visiting staff

  2,610

  2,400

  1 All practitioners (excluding GP retainers) include unrestricted principals and equivalents (UPEs), restricted principals, assistants, GP registrars, salaried doctors (Para. 52 SFA) and PMS others

  2 As at 30 September 2000 there were eight GP retainers within Leicestershire HA

  3 UPEs include GMS unrestricted principals, PMS contracted GPs and PMS salaried GPs

  4 Excludes hospital medical practitioners and medical clinical assistants, most of whom are also GPs working part-time in hospitals

  Notes:

  1. Figures are rounded to the nearest 10

  2. Due to rounding totals may not equal the sum of component parts

  3. Figures exclude learners and agency staff

  4. In 1997, Leicestershire HA comprised of the following organisations: Leicestershire HA, Leicester General Hospital NHS Trust, Leicester Royal Infirmary NHS Trust, Glenfield Hospital NHS Trust, Leicestershire Mental Health Service NHS Trust, Leicestershire Ambulance and Paramedics Services NHS Trust and Fosse Health, Leicestershire Community NHS Trust

  5. In 2000 following mergers, Leicestershire HA comprised of the following organisations: Leicestershire HA, Leicestershire and Rutland Healthcare NHS Trust and University Hospitals of Leicester NHS Trust

  6. Practitioner figures were collected as at 1 October in 1997

  Sources:

  Department of Health non-medical work force census

  Department of Health medical and dental work force census

  Department of Health general and personal medical services statistics
  120W

  Nurses' Allowance
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will make a statement on the(a) purpose and (b) aims of the cost of living allowance for nurses; [16131]

  (2) which counties in the (a) south west, (b) south east and (c) eastern parts of England benefit from the cost of living allowance for nurses; [16133]

  (3) if accommodation and the cost of living for nurses in Essex is being considered as part of his active review of the cost of living for nurses' allowance; and if he will extend the scheme to Essex; [16130]

  (4) if he will make a statement on the reason for the exclusion of Essex in the counties to receive the cost of living allowance for nurses; [16132]

  (5) when his Department's review of the cost of living allowances for nurses in the south of England will be complete. [16134]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 20 November 2001]: Cost of living supplements for qualified nurses and some allied health professionals were introduced in April 2001 as part of a wide ranging strategy to address the low national health service participation rates of these particular staff groups and the associated recruitment and retention difficulties in parts of England.

  For 2001–02, eligible staff working in London and in the following health authority areas are entitled to these supplements:

  South west

  Avon HA

  Wiltshire HA

  South east

  Berkshire HA

  Buckinghamshire HA

  East Surrey HA

  North and Mid Hampshire HA

  Oxfordshire HA

  Isle of Wight, Portsmouth and South East Hampshire HA (excluding staff working in the Isle of Wight)

  Southampton and South West Hampshire HA

  West Surrey HA

  West Sussex HA

  Eastern

  Bedfordshire HA

  Cambridgeshire HA

  East and North Hertfordshire HA

  West Hertfordshire HA.

  Geographic coverage has been determined by reference to the Market Forces Factor, which is an up to date and objective measure of external labour market pressures on NHS employers. The health authorities in Essex do not meet the current eligibility criteria.

  We have not yet finalised decisions on the geographic scope of cost of living supplements for 2002–03. These decisions will be informed by the latest market forces factor data.

  We intend to monitor the impact of cost of living supplements more fully before considering options for any significant changes to the structure or scope of the

  121W
  scheme. It is too early to judge the impact of these payments at present but we hope to be able to reach a more considered assessment during 2002–03. As part of this ongoing review, we shall take into account any alternative proposals put to us for assessing the geographic coverage of the scheme.

  Blood (Cancer Patients)
  Mr. Havard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what specific blood substitute therapies will be made available for treating cancer patients with anaemia-related fatigue following the adoption of additional screening; [16348]

  (2) if he will introduce into the NHS those (a) blood transfusion and (b) blood substitute regimes for cancer patients used in overseas hospitals treating NHS patients which are more effective and efficient than UK practices. [16350]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 20 November 2001]: There are a number of erthropietin drugs licensed to shorten the period of anaemia in patients receiving platinum-containing chemotherapy. These are available for clinicians to prescribe when it is clinically beneficial.

  The National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) helps clarify, both for patients and professionals, which drugs are clinically effective and cost-effective. NICE helps the national health service to focus its increasing resources on those treatments that will best improve peoples' health. Criteria have been established by the Department, the National Assembly for Wales and NICE to help determine which interventions are referred to NICE. They have been applied consistently for all NICE guidance to date and are available on the NICE website.

  Anti-TNF Drug Treatment
  Martin Linton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if NICE will issue interim guidance to health authorities on anti-TNF drug treatment for rheumatoid arthritis. [16684]

  Jacqui Smith
  No. The National Institute for Clinical Excellence is proceeding with its appraisal of anti-TNF drugs for rheumatoid arthritis and it is anticipated that guidance will be published in March 2002.

  Head Injury Patients
  Mr. Berry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to commission further research on provision of services for patients with head injuries. [17263]

  Jacqui Smith
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave him on 12 November 2001,Official Report, column 549W.

  Acquired Brain Injury
  Mr. Berry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what joint working arrangements are in place with other Government Departments regarding the provision of rehabilitation services for people with acquired brain injury. [17260]

  Jacqui Smith
  Getting people back to functional independence following illness or injury is a high priority for the national health service. This year, the Department 122W
  is planning job retention and rehabilitation pilots, together with the Department for Education and Skills and the Department for Work and Pensions. £12 million has been invested in the pilots which aim to test the relative effectiveness of different employment and health strategies in helping people with prolonged illness or disability, including head injury, remain in their jobs.

  Mr. Berry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to improve the provision of rehabilitation services for people with acquired brain injury. [17261]

  Jacqui Smith
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave him on 7 November 2001,Official Report, column 282W.

  Cancer
  Mr. Bailey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what measures he is taking to improve the five year survival rates for(a) lung, (b) breast and (c) prostate and (d) colon cancer sufferers in the Sandwell health authority. [15894]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 22 November 2001]: The NHS Cancer Plan published in September 2000 identifies two important areas where cancer prevention activity should be focused. Changes in lifestyle related to smoking and diet can significantly reduce chances of getting cancer. With this in mind the NHS Cancer Plan sets out a clear agenda for improving cancer prevention:

  In Sandwell, cancer networks have been putting together three year service delivery plans to specify how they are going to meet the range of targets outlined in the NHS Cancer Plan.

  Those plans include how they are going to improve overall survival rates including smoking cessation initiatives, extended cancer screening and extension of fruit pilots. The health authority is also currently achieving high standards for urgent referral of patients with suspected cancer. In addition there are a raft of plans in the pan-Birmingham network which are addressing survival rates for all cancers, in which Sandwell health authority is included.

  Years of Life Lost
  Ms Buck
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to review the use of the Years of Life Lost formula for allocating health service resources; and if he will make a statement. [17779]

  Mr. Hutton
  The Advisory Committee on Resource Allocation has reviewed the Years of Life Lost index and this will be reflected in 2002–03 health authority allocations which will be announced shortly.

  MacFarlane Trust
  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many HIV sufferers have received compensation under the MacFarlane Trust since its establishment. [17380]

  Ms Blears
  Since its establishment, the MacFarlane Trust has made special payments to 1,240 registrants with haemophilia and HIV and 62 others, who are either infected partners or infected children.

  Local Bodies
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list those local bodies which were set up under legislation which is the responsibility of his Department since May 1997.[17593]

  Mr. Hutton
  481 primary care groups were established as sub committees of health authorities in 1999. PCG, both individually or together with other PCGs, can become primary care trusts. The first 17 PCTs began operating on 1 April 2000. There are currently 164 PCTs in operation and more are being established to become operational on 1 April 2002. A full list of these organisations has been placed in the Library.

  Nurses
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimates have been made of the number of NHS employed nurses who work as agency staff during their holidays to supplement their income in(a) England and (b) the Isle of Wight; and what steps are taken to ensure that leave is taken. [17685]

  Mr. Hutton
  The information requested is not collected centrally.

  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the average annual cost of an(a) A, (b) D and
  (c) F grade NHS employed nurse is; and what the equivalent cost of an agency nurse at each grade is. [17680]

  Mr. Hutton
  Information about the estimated annual costs of an A, D and F grade nurse employed in the National Health Service is shown in the table.

  £

  2001 average cost

  Grade A

  115,500

  Grade D

  122,300

  Grade F

  128,300

  1 To the nearest £100

  Sources:

  Department of Health's August 2000 NHS staff earnings survey, pay Advance Letters and paybill figures.

  The equivalent cost of an agency nurse at each grade is not centrally available.

  Primary Care Groups
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the cost of establishing primary care groups has been. [17681]

  Mr. Hutton
  The establishment of primary care groups was funded using moneys released by the abolition of general practitioner fundholding. The previous Government had set aside an annual budget of £180 million to run fundholding. We have used those moneys both to set up primary care groups and to improve services to patients. Approximately £150 million additional moneys was used following the establishment of primary care groups.

  Waiting Lists
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the in-patient waiting list was, expressed per 124W
  1,000 of weighted population for the Isle of Wight in March (a) 1997, (b) 1998, (c) 1999, (d) 2000 and (e) 2001. [17686]

  Jacqui Smith
  The information requested is in the table.

  As at March

  Size of in-patient waiting list

  Weighted population

  In-patient waiting list per 1,000 head of weighted population

  1997

  4,229

  143,959

  29.4

  1998

  3.864

  136,022

  28.4

  1999

  3,552

  134,882

  26.3

  2000

  3,522

  137,041

  25.7

  2001

  3,392

  136,786

  24.8

  Notes:

  1. In April 2001, Isle of Wight health authority merged to form Isle of Wight, Portsmouth and South East Hampshire HA.

  2. The data provided refers to the old HA.

  3. Population is weighted for age, additional need (over and above that accounted for by age) and variations in the unavoidable cost of providing health care (market forces factor etc.)

  4. Populations for 1997, 1998 and 1999 are not directly comparable to those for 2000 and 2001 as unified allocations covering hospital and community health services (HCHS), prescribing and GP infrastructure are included from 2000 onwards.

  Source:

  QF01 waiting times returns/FD Resource Allocation 2 population data

  social Services
  Mr. Mark Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he will publish his final guidance for local authorities on charging for social services. [17673]

  Jacqui Smith
  We published final guidance for local councils on charging for non-residential social services on 23 November. The guidance is available on the Department's website at www.doh.gov/scg/homecarecharges.

  General Practitioners
  Andy Burnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what percentage of general practitioner practices in the(a) Leigh constituency, (b) Wigan borough and (c) Greater Manchester are below minimum standards. [16886]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 26 November 2001]: The information requested is not available centrally. However, at the last inspection visit, all practices in the Wigan and Leigh areas met the minimum standards.

  IT Expenditure
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer, of 20 November 2001,Official Report, column 243W, on expenditure on IT, if he will publish such information as he has on expenditure. [18234]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 26 November 2001]: The figures for information technology management are not separately collected across the Directorates. The figures for the Information Policy Unit from its establishment in January 1999 are: 1999–2000—£2.98 million; 2000–01££2.91 million; 2001–02—£2.09 million. These resources are from The Departmental Vote.

  Multiple Sclerosis
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what his policy is on the use of interferon beta and glatiramer in the treatment of multiple sclerosis; and if he will make a statement. [17248]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 26 November 2001]: We are currently holding discussions with the manufacturers to consider a range of options under which drugs for multiple sclerosis might be made available under the national health service. One option is a 'risk-sharing' scheme which will evaluate their clinical and cost effectiveness, and until these discussions are concluded we cannot provide the information requested.

  Dentists
  Mr. Djanogly
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the number of dentists providing NHS treatment in Huntingdon; and if he will make a statement. [17480]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 26 November 2001]: A monthly assessment of the number of national health service dentists in the Huntingdon area is made by Cambridgeshire health authority. This information is made available to members of the public on the NHS Direct website.

  In the Huntingdonshire Primary Care Trust area there are 56 general dental practitioners providing NHS treatment. Sixteen of these are currently accepting new NHS dental patients.

  In addition, a daily dental service is provided for people in the Huntingdon area who need urgent treatment and are not registered with a dentist.

  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proportion of the adult population in(a) England, (b) Cornwall and (c) the United Kingdom were registered with NHS dentists in (i) 1997–98, (ii) 1998–99, (iii) 1999–2000 and (iv) 2000–01. [19947]

  Ms Blears
  The percentage of adults registered with a general dental service (GDS) dentist per head of population is shown in the table for England, Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly health authority and the United Kingdom for 30 September in each of the years 1997–98 to 2000–01.

  The registration rates for September 1997 are not comparable with the later figures as they reflect a 24 month registration period, the later figures reflect a 15 month registration period.

  The registration rates for 1999–2000 and 2000–01 are affected by the number of patients now seen in the Cornwall personal dental services (PDS) schemes. During 2000–01 some 13,000 individual adult patients were seen via these PDS schemes, which corresponds to about 3 per cent. of the local population.

  General dental service: Percentage of adult registrations1 per population2 1997–98 to 2000–01

  September each year

  England

  Cornwall and the Isles of Stilly HA

  United Kingdom

  1997–983

  351

  348

  351

  1998–99

  44

  39

  44

  126W

  General dental service: Percentage of adult registrations1 per population2, 1997–98 to 2000–01

  September each year

  England

  Cornwall and the Isles of Stilly HA

  United Kingdom

  1999–2000

  43

  37

  44

  2000–01

  43

  37

  44

  1. Based on the number of adult registrations at 30 September for each financial year.

  2. ONS mid year adult population estimates used to calculate percentage of adult patients registered.

  3. Registration rates reflect a 24 month registration period rather than 15 months which is the basis of the later figures.

  Labels and Leaflets
  Nick Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what recent representations he has received from the pharmaceutical industry about compliance with the Labels and Leaflets Directive (Directive 92/27/EEC); [15659]

  (2) what steps his Department takes to ensure that patients receive the information required by the Labels and Leaflets Directive (Directive 92/27/EEC) when a prescription medicine is dispensed; [15657]

  (3) if he will list the information that is required to be provided to a patient about a prescription medicine when it is dispensed and the form in which that information should be provided; [15660]

  (4) what guidance (a) his Department and (b) its agencies have issued to pharmacists to ensure that they comply with the Labels and Leaflets Directive (Directive 92/27/EEC) when dispensing a prescription medicine; [15658]

  (5) what steps he will take to ensure that patients receive the information that is required by the Labels and Leaflets Directive (92/27/EEC) when prescription medicines are dispensed. [18392]

  Ms Blears
  The Directive was incorporated into United Kingdom law by the Medicines (Marketing Authorisations Etc) Regulations 1994. It is an offence for any person in the course of business to sell or supply a medicine to which the Directive relates without the approved leaflet and appropriate label. Neither the Department nor its agencies have issued guidance to pharmacists.

  The information required to be provided to a patient about a prescription medicine when it is dispensed, and the form in which the information should be provided, is set out in the Medicines for Human Use (Marketing Authorisations Etc) Regulations 1994 and Directive 92/27/EEC—copies of which are available in the Library.

  We receive representations about compliance with the Directive from time to time from the pharmaceutical industry and others.

  Smear Tests
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the average turnaround time is for cervical smear tests within the NHS in the last 12 months for which figures are available. [18372]
  127W
  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 29 November 2001]: Guidance from the national health service cervical screening programme states that women should have to wait no longer than six weeks for the written results of their cervical smear test. Results are sent either by the health authority or by the general practitioner according to local practice. Two thirds of health authorities currently send the results directly.

  Information on waiting times for screening test results is only available for those areas where the result letters are sent to women by the health authorities. In 2000–01, 60 per cent. of women in these health authorities received their written cervical screening test result within six weeks. 91 per cent. received their written result within 10 weeks1. Where the six week target is not achieved, we look to the relevant health authority to address reasons for this.

  1 Statistical Bulletin: Cervical Screening Programme, England: 2000–01

  Bed Blocking
  Mr. Hoban
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many beds were unavailable in the Isle of Wight, Portsmouth and South East Hampshire Health Authority to incoming patients as a result of their occupation by(a) delayed discharge patients who were awaiting social

  Health authority

  Practice budgets as notified to PPA (£)

  Forecast Outturn (£)

  Forecast Overspend (percentage)

  Bradford

  QDD

  49,491,460

  53,637,712

  8.38

  Calderdale and Kirklees

  QDT

  63,994,855

  67,020,545

  4.73

  County Durham

  QDE

  70,200,309

  72,227,760

  2.89

  East Riding

  QDF

  65,741,920

  68,719,434

  4.53

  Gateshead and South Tyneside

  QDG

  39,769,623

  41,583,981

  4.56

  Leeds

  QDH

  82,995,925

  88,023,114

  6.06

  Newcastle and North Tyneside

  QDJ

  51,552,434

  54,302,659

  5.33

  North Cumbria

  QDK

  36,045,994

  38,620,593

  7.14

  North Yorkshire

  QDR

  75,304,849

  79,101,136

  5.04

  Northumberland

  QDM

  35,127,268

  36,691,539

  4.45

  Sunderland

  QDN

  33,763,329

  35,766,265

  5.93

  Tees

  QDP

  65,515,468

  68,419,994

  4.43

  Wakefield

  QDQ

  35,466,500

  38,028,472

  7.22

  Barnsley

  QCG

  28,065,208

  30,244,835

  7.77

  Doncaster

  QCK

  36,099,848

  38,073,186

  5.47

  Leicestershire

  QCL

  93,929,875

  98,508,149

  4.87

  Lincolnshire

  QCM

  74,145,519

  81,394,561

  9.78

  North Derbyshire

  QCH

  37,487,465

  40,913,705

  9.14

  North Nottinghamshire

  QCN

  42,114,993

  45,242,065

  7.43

  Nottingham

  QCP

  60,499,404

  65,661,240

  8.53

  Rotherham

  QCQ

  26,979,488

  30,045,053

  11.36

  Sheffield

  QCR

  53,708,543

  58,723,274

  9.34

  South Humber

  QDL

  34,371,750

  36,546,887

  6.33

  Southern Derbyshire

  QCJ

  55,418,649

  58,837,770

  6.17

  Bedfordshire

  QA6

  54,371,270

  57,519,263

  5.79

  Cambridge and Huntingdon

  QER

  71,093,206

  74,858,157

  5.30

  Hertfordshire

  QEX

  99,093,919

  106,869,997

  7.85

  Norfolk

  QET

  88,487,524

  93,431,112

  5.59

  North Essex

  QAX

  90,240,070

  96,245,777

  6.66

  South Essex

  QAY

  69,799,277

  75,654,699

  8.39

  Suffolk

  QCF

  72,658,297

  78,804,162

  8.46

  Barking and Havering

  QAP

  38,981,289

  40,330,199

  3.46

  Barnet, Enfield and Haringey

  QEW

  78,202,699

  81,639,119

  4.39

  Bexley, Bromley and Greenwich

  QEY

  71,043,576

  73,959,182

  4.10

  Brent and Harrow

  QAR

  46,755,854

  49,904,010

  6.73

  Camden and Islington

  QAT

  33,999,268

  35,027,373

  3.02

  Croydon

  QAD

  28,546,850

  29,999,322

  5.09

  Ealing, Hammersmith and Hounslow

  QAV

  62,062,477

  64.367,616

  3.71

  East London and City

  QAW

  59,104,397

  61,817,578

  4.59

  Hillingdon

  QA2

  23,197,100

  23,594,295

  1.71

  Kensington, Chelsea and Westminster

  QA3

  29,092,369

  30,390,325

  4.46

  128W
  services funding and (b) delayed discharge patients who had fully funded social service packages arranged, in each quarter in (i) 2000 and (ii) 2001. [19195]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 29 November 2001]: The information requested is not available centrally.

  Dentistry (Fareham)
  Mr. Hoban
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many dentists accepted NHS patients in Fareham in(a) 1995, (b) 1996, (c) 1997, (d) 1998, (e) 1999 and (f) 2000. [19198]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 29 November 2001]: The information requested is not available centrally.

  Prescription Pricing Authority
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health for each health authority area, what was the September forecast by the Prescription Pricing Authority, indicating projected overspending or underspending during the present financial year. [19318]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 29 November 2001]: The table sets out the prescribing budgets notified to the Prescription Pricing Authority by each health authority. They are practice level prescribing budgets and do not include any contingency reserves held by the health authority.
  129W

  Health authority

  Practice budgets as notified to PPA (£)

  Forecast Outturn (£)

  Forecast Overspend (percentage)

  Kingston and Richmond

  QAG

  30,014,716

  30,449,072

  1.45

  Lambeth, Southwark and Lewisham

  QAH

  67,128,321

  70,605,392

  5.18

  Merton, Sutton and Wandsworth

  QAJ

  55,463,897

  58,118,247

  4.79

  Redbridge and Waltham Forest

  QA5

  42,510,877

  43,711,911

  2.83

  Berkshire

  QA7

  70,559,047

  75,659,464

  7.23

  Buckinghamshire

  QA8

  62,211,041

  66,528,772

  6.94

  East Kent

  QAE

  71,881,294

  75,407,428

  4.91

  East Surrey

  QAK

  42,347,787

  42,327,096

  -0.05

  East Sussex, Brighton and Hove

  QAM

  86,909,580

  92,331,262

  6.24

  Isle of Wight and Portsmouth and South East Hants

  QEV

  70,249,164

  75,014,698

  6.78

  North and Mid Hampshire

  QD1

  47,210,615

  51,029,798

  8.09

  Northamptonshire

  QCC

  55,279,066

  57,467,162

  3.96

  Oxfordshire

  QCE

  54,188,718

  57,464,495

  6.05

  Southampton and South West Hants

  QD3

  56,973,211

  59,875,104

  5.09

  West Kent

  QAF

  96,076,221

  105,083,957

  9.38

  West Surrey

  QAL

  61,468,564

  65,429,413

  6.44

  West Sussex

  QAN

  84,286,628

  88,822,453

  5.38

  Avon

  QD8

  92,983,094

  97,867,484

  5.25

  Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly

  QDV

  59,619,660

  62,634,738

  5.06

  Dorset

  QDW

  75,175,594

  75,847,283

  0.89

  Gloucestershire

  QDY

  57,403,791

  58,919,964

  2.64

  North and East Devon

  QDX

  51,958,609

  53,644,999

  3.25

  Somerset

  QD5

  50,470,846

  53,522,847

  6.05

  South and West Devon

  QD6

  66,432,177

  70,965,510

  6.82

  Wiltshire

  QD7

  59,094,411

  62,774,744

  6.23

  Birmingham

  QD9

  103,723,220

  109,457,523

  5.53

  Coventry

  QEA

  32,740,237

  35,548,591

  8.58

  Dudley

  QEC

  31,604,000

  33,745,605

  6.78

  Herefordshire

  QED

  16,650,484

  17,623,361

  5.84

  North Staffordshire

  QEH

  50,863,793

  54,359,854

  6.87

  Sandwell

  QEE

  34,093,938

  34,940,247

  2.48

  Shropshire

  QEF

  49,115,312

  51,879,277

  5.63

  Solihull

  QEG

  23,226,544

  23,653,585

  1.84

  South Staffordshire

  QEJ

  62,472,831

  61,613,956

  -1.37

  Walsall

  QEK

  29,181,052

  29,868,607

  2.36

  Warwickshire

  QEL

  51,744,497

  56,531,625

  9.25

  Wolverhampton

  QEM

  23,711,980

  28,056,977

  18.32

  Worcestershire

  QEN

  53,137,664

  56,426,316

  6.19

  Bury and Rochdale

  QCT

  43,736,081

  47,138,170

  7.78

  East Lancashire

  QCX

  58,318,642

  65,201,689

  11.80

  Liverpool

  QC2

  52,164,069

  61,443,559

  17.79

  Manchester

  QC3

  53,996,448

  58,456,213

  8.26

  Morecambe Bay

  QC4

  38,391,129

  40,220,526

  4.77

  North Cheshire

  QCV

  35,905,320

  39,047,301

  8.75

  North West Lancashire

  QCY

  61,236,621

  63,259,424

  3.30

  Salford and Trafford

  QC6

  55,963,487

  59,628,307

  6.55

  Sefton

  QC7

  32,205,042

  35,608,958

  10.57

  South Cheshire

  QCW

  75,908,512

  83,049,782

  9.41

  South Lancashire

  QC1

  35,242,497

  36,561,473

  3.74

  St. Helens and Knowsley

  QC5

  43,837,225

  46,927,531

  7.05

  Stockport

  QC8

  35,366,700

  36,965,543

  4.52

  West Pennine

  QC9

  49,785,950

  53,164,840

  6.79

  Wigan and Bolton

  QDA

  64,247,917

  71,330,199

  11.02

  Wirral

  QDC

  No Data

  44,758,134

  —

  Health Care (Performance)
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will place in the Library a copy of the NHS South East Regional Office's Atlas of NHS and Social Care Performance. [19319]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 29 November 2001]: A copy of volume I Maps and volume II Ranked Bar Charts and Source Data will be placed in the Library.

  Acute Beds
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many acute beds there are per 1,000 residents
  130W
  in (a) the Buckinghamshire Health Authority area and (b) England. [19315]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 29 November 2001]: The information requested is shown in the table.

  Number of acute beds per 1,000 population in the Buckinghamshire health authority area and England 2000–01

  Total acute beds:

  located in Buckinghamshire HA area

  for England

  Available acute beds

  1,189

  107,956

  Population

  692,891

  49,997,089

  Acute beds/1,000 population

  1.72

  2.16

  Source:KH03

  Accident and Emergency Departments
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many patients admitted to hospital in October via an accident and emergency department had to wait more than four hours for a bed; and what proportion that figure represents of all patients so admitted to hospital during October. [19321]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 29 November 2001]: The latest figures are for quarter one (April to June 2001). In quarter one, 531,063 patients were admitted to hospital via accident and emergency departments.

  Of these, 66,383 (12 per cent.) had to wait more than four hours for a bed.

  Children (Local Authority Care)
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the average time during which looked after children were held in care under the responsibility of local authorities in the last 12 months; and if he will make a statement on the trend. [19203]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 29 November 2001]: The table provides figures on the average number of care days per child, together with the number of children looked after at any time in the year, and the total number of care days provided, for looked after children in years ending 31 March 1996 and 31 March 2000. The figures are broken down according to legal status.

  The figures show that the average number of days in care per child in a year has increased.

  Long-term trends show that although the total number who are looked after at any time in the year has been increasing in recent years, annual totals for the number who started to be looked after and the number who ceased to be looked after in the previous 12 months have both been slightly decreasing over the same period.

  At the beginning of 2001 the Department commissioned the Thomas Coram Research Unit (Institute of Education, University of London) to conduct a tightly focused research study into the reasons that lie behind this increase in the number of children looked after by local authorities.

  The research is designed to assess, among other things, the extent to which drug taking, alcoholism, violence and mental health problems within the family may have been significant factors underlying decisions made by Courts and local authorities to look after children.

  Number of children looked after at any time during the year, and the number of days of care provided during years ending
  31 March 1996 and 2000, England

  1996

  2000

  1995–20001

  Total

  Number of looked after children in year

  79,400

  81,500

  3

  Care days provided (thousand)

  18,227

  20,820

  14

  Average number of days per child

  229

  255

  11

  Full care orders and interim care orders

  Number of looked after children in year

  35,500

  43,700

  23

  Care days provided (thousand)

  10,494

  13.094

  25

  Average number of days per child

  296

  300

  1

  Section 20 of Children Act 1989

  Number of looked after children in year

  43,600

  37,700

  -13

  132W

  Number of children looked after at any time during the year, and the number of days of care provided during years ending 31 March 1996 and 2000, England

  1996

  2000

  1995–20001

  Care days provided (thousand)

  7,140

  6,977

  -2

  Average number of days per child

  164

  185

  13

  Other legal statuses

  Number of looked after children in year

  7,100

  8,300

  16

  Care days provided (thousand)

  592

  749

  27

  Average number of days per child

  83

  91

  9

  1 Percentage increase

  Notes:

  1. Table excludes children looked after under a series of short term placements

  2. A child may appear in more than one legal status category in the year, hence sub-totals do not add up to total of all children

  Source:

  DH annual statistical return SSDA 903

  Adoption
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health on what basis he judges whether local authority social services departments are adequately providing services related to adoption and adoption support; and whether he proposes to compile performance tables as a result of the Adoption and Children Bill. [19220]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 29 November 2001]: At present the social services inspectorate inspects services using standards. In November 2000 the social services inspectorate produced an inspection report "Adopting Changes: Survey and Inspection of Local Councils' Adoption Services", a copy of which is available in the Library. The report provides comprehensive and up-to-date information about the current position, examples of good practice and a checklist for councils to use to review their services.

  One of the 50 personal social services performance assessment framework indicators directly relates to adoption (the percentage of children looked after adopted during the year, indicator reference C23).

  The social services inspectorate assesses each council's performance every year, taking into account evidence from indicators, inspections and other sources. Assessment of adoption services is included as part of this overall assessment. Next year, the overall assessment will be published in the form of a star rating for each council. We are currently developing additional monitoring mechanisms including collecting information on the types of adoption support services made available by councils at present. This is intended to help councils benchmark their services against those of other councils. In addition, the adoption and permanence task force has published an audit tool (available at www.doh.gov.uk/adoption) to help councils review their adoption support services and identify possible areas for development.

  These mechanisms will be developed further to monitor the implementation of the Adoption and Children Bill.

  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what organisations he has met this year to discuss the Adoption and Children Bill. [19297]
  133W
  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 29 November 2001]: I have met the British Agencies for Adoption and Fostering, the Associate Parliamentary Group for Looked After Children, and the All Party Parliamentary Group on Adoption. As a member of the Special Standing Committee, I have also heard the views of a wide range of key stakeholders in adoption.

  Departmental officials have met with a group convened by the British Agencies for Adoption and Fostering on several occasions this year to discuss the Bill. The membership of this group encompasses a wide range of organisations which represent children, adopted adults, adoptive families and birth families. These include the British Agencies for Adoption and Fostering, the Local Government Association, the National Organisation for Counselling Adoptees and Parents, the Catholic Children's Society (Westminster), After Adoption, the Adoption Forum, Adoption UK, the Family Rights Group and the Law Society.

  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the likely cost of implementation of the Adoption and Children Bill to(a) local authorities, (b) voluntary adoption agencies and (c) adopting parents. [19209]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 29 November 2001]: The main financial implications of the Adoption and Children Bill for local authorities lie in the provisions on adoption support, the independent review mechanism, access to information, special guardianship, the Adoption and Children Act Register and the new system of placement for adoption. In each case, any additional costs will be proportionate to the improvements in the level of service provided to people affected by adoption.

  Voluntary adoption agencies will principally be affected by the provisions in the Bill on the Adoption and Children Act Register, the independent review mechanism and consistent access to information. The regulatory impact assessment describes the expected impact of the Bill on voluntary adoption agencies in more detail. This is not expected to be significant. The Bill will not create any additional costs for adoptive parents and in practice will ensure that many more adoptive families get the financial and other support they need.

  We have already made available an extra £66.5 million for adoption over three years. The resources required to implement the Adoption and Children Bill will also be addressed as part of the forthcoming spending review.

  Attendance Allowance
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on what powers local authorities have to treat attendance allowance as a means-tested benefit for the purpose of social care charges. [19903]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 30 November 2001]: Councils have discretion under the Health and Social Security Adjudications Act 1983 to decide whether to take Attendance Allowance into account when assessing ability to pay charges for home care and other nonresidential social services. Statutory guidance issued to councils on 23 November 2001 expects councils which take attendance allowance into account to undertake a specific assessment of a person's disability-related expenditure, to ensure that any charge is reasonable. This
  134W
  guidance will be implemented by no later than 1 October 2002 for people receiving more than 10 hours home care weekly and no later than 1 April 2003 for all other service users.

  Nurses (Portsmouth)
  Mr. Hoban
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many additional nurses can be employed by the Portsmouth hospitals NHS trust as a consequence of the recent award of additional funds to the trust; and what impact he expects this to have on accident and emergency waiting times. [19479]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 30 November 2001]: The allocation to Portsmouth hospitals national health service trust to fund additional nursing posts in accident and emergency and support the development of the emergency care strategy is £18,321 this year and £75,117 for 2002–03.

  Information on how the extra resources are to be used and the expected benefits for accident and emergency services is available from the chairman of the trust.

  Waiting Times (Cosham)
  Mr. Hoban
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many patients were waiting for treatment more than four hours from arrival at the Queen Alexandra hospital at Cosham at the end of each quarter in(a) 2000 and (b) 2001. [19478]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 30 November 2001]: The information requested is not available centrally.

  Accident and Emergency Units (Portsmouth)
  Mr. Hoban
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many nurses were employed in the accident and emergency units run by the Portsmouth hospitals NHS trust at the end of each quarter of(a) 2000 and (b) 2001. [19476]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 30 November 2001]: The information requested is not available centrally.

  Social Care Charges
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the ability of a local authority to impose social care charges upon an individual living at home who is receiving prescribed medical treatment. [19902]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 30 November 2001]: Local councils have discretion whether to charge for home care or other non-residential social services for a person living at home. Services for which the national health service has underlying responsibility, are free at the point of use, except where there are specific charging powers, such as those for NHS prescriptions.

  Health Authority Funding
  Mr. Hoban
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the per capita funding by each health authority in England in(a) 1995, (b) 1996, (c) 1997, (d) 1998, (e) 1999 and (f) 2000. [19475]
  135W
  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 30 November 2001]: Allocations per weighted head of population for each health authority in England for the financial years 1996–97 to 2000–01 are shown in table 1.

  Table 1

  £

  Health authority

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–20001

  2000–01

  Avon

  430

  435

  466

  622

  681

  Barking and Havering

  425

  453

  468

  623

  694

  Barnet

  446

  460

  491

  644

  691

  Barnsley

  414

  431

  440

  612

  669

  Bedfordshire

  402

  426

  448

  606

  663

  Berkshire

  410

  415

  446

  606

  666

  Bexley and Greenwich

  435

  470

  493

  662

  729

  Birmingham

  443

  450

  464

  632

  693

  Bradford

  429

  440

  450

  621

  684

  Brent and Harrow

  445

  463

  496

  649

  704

  Bromley

  406

  443

  471

  626

  688

  Buckinghamshire

  409

  428

  460

  613

  668

  Bury and Rochdale

  420

  438

  449

  622

  687

  Calderdale and Kirklees

  430

  445

  459

  631

  687

  Cambridge and Huntingdon2

  415

  425

  454

  321

  n/a

  Cambridgeshire2

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  671

  Camden and Islington

  4S6

  479

  500

  651

  710

  Cornwall and Isles of Scilly

  424

  445

  465

  643

  701

  County Durham

  419

  435

  448

  613

  674

  Coventry

  425

  437

  448

  607

  669

  Croydon

  417

  434

  464

  621

  681

  Doncaster

  416

  434

  447

  629

  688

  Dorset

  431

  447

  477

  643

  701

  Dudley

  419

  437

  459

  622

  677

  Ealing, Hammersmith and Hounslow

  440

  453

  479

  625

  688

  East and North Hertfordshire

  427

  437

  471

  624

  679

  East Kent

  403

  431

  463

  640

  705

  East Lancashire

  429

  442

  451

  624

  683

  East London and the City

  439

  433

  445

  603

  666

  East Norfolk2

  421

  440

  461

  633

  n/a

  East Riding

  426

  439

  454

  626

  689

  East Surrey

  432

  448

  483

  641

  703

  East Sussex, Brighton and Hove

  404

  446

  469

  642

  705

  Enfield and Haringey

  430

  447

  471

  633

  691

  Gateshead and South Tyneside

  433

  448

  460

  625

  682

  Gloucestershire

  445

  450

  479

  652

  708

  Herefordshire

  435

  451

  466

  628

  685

  Hillingdon

  438

  440

  464

  631

  684

  Isle of Wight

  435

  479

  504

  674

  736

  Kensington, Chelsea and Westminster

  427

  428

  443

  576

  637

  Kingston and Richmond

  448

  469

  496

  644

  706

  Lambeth, Southwark and Lewisham

  425

  445

  466

  628

  705

  Leeds

  428

  444

  457

  632

  694

  Leicestershire

  414

  432

  448

  613

  670

  Lincolnshire

  431

  448

  463

  632

  681

  Liverpool

  433

  448

  465

  644

  702

  Manchester

  459

  469

  473

  645

  704

  Merton, Sutton and Wandsworth

  439

  457

  487

  643

  700

  Morecambe Bay

  444

  466

  485

  656

  710

  Newcastle and North Tyneside

  441

  452

  462

  634

  696

  Norfolk2

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  688

  North and East Devon

  435

  454

  474

  640

  697

  North and Mid Hampshire

  426

  452

  480

  638

  693

  North Cheshire

  459

  470

  482

  639

  694

  North Cumbria

  429

  443

  463

  630

  691

  North Derbyshire

  422

  445

  465

  626

  684

  North Essex

  399

  426

  453

  624

  687

  North Nottinghamshire

  423

  439

  452

  621

  672

  North Staffordshire

  418

  439

  451

  614

  678

  North West Anglia2

  419

  432

  451

  616

  n/a

  North West Lancashire

  415

  434

  447

  626

  688

  North Yorkshire

  422

  440

  464

  626

  684

  Northamptonshire

  428

  438

  466

  638

  694

  Northumberland

  422

  443

  461

  629

  687

  Nottingham

  414

  432

  447

  614

  673

  Oxfordshire

  403

  424

  454

  610

  672

  136W
  Prior to 1 April 1996 allocations were made to regional health authorities. Allocations per weighted head of population for each regional health authority in 1995–96 are shown in table 2.
  137W

  Table 1

  £

  Health authority

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–20001

  2000–01

  Portsmouth and South East Hampshire

  417

  440

  468

  627

  688

  Redbridge and Waltham Forest

  420

  457

  484

  658

  714

  Rotherham

  419

  439

  450

  626

  682

  Salford and Trafford

  436

  444

  459

  644

  701

  Sandwell

  431

  444

  460

  622

  684

  Sefton

  428

  441

  468

  637

  709

  Sheffield

  441

  458

  471

  640

  698

  Shropshire

  418

  438

  458

  626

  678

  Solihull

  433

  451

  472

  636

  690

  Somerset

  423

  443

  467

  634

  691

  South and West Devon

  431

  448

  469

  641

  698

  South Cheshire

  426

  443

  465

  631

  694

  South Derbyshire

  433

  445

  459

  615

  677

  South Essex

  392

  423

  450

  607

  677

  South Humber

  435

  457

  477

  650

  701

  South Lancashire

  434

  461

  479

  643

  702

  South Staffordshire

  433

  450

  466

  633

  686

  Southampton and South West Hamptonshire

  405

  431

  464

  629

  688

  St. Helens and Knowsley

  422

  431

  451

  627

  684

  Stockport

  415

  425

  447

  631

  691

  Suffolk

  427

  444

  476

  638

  694

  Sunderland

  423

  440

  450

  625

  682

  Tees

  427

  432

  451

  624

  682

  Wakefield

  439

  457

  471

  632

  693

  Walsall

  417

  433

  446

  623

  679

  Warwickshire

  443

  464

  481

  645

  699

  West Hertfordshire

  432

  447

  476

  638

  691

  West Kent

  409

  439

  472

  632

  694

  West Pennine

  419

  434

  446

  618

  676

  West Surrey

  439

  450

  489

  643

  706

  West Sussex

  406

  427

  463

  624

  684

  Wigan and Bolton

  410

  427

  441

  608

  667

  Wiltshire

  444

  449

  481

  639

  702

  Wirral

  424

  433

  457

  642

  710

  Wolverhampton

  422

  440

  456

  622

  677

  Worcestershire

  428

  454

  475

  639

  692

  England

  426

  443

  464

  629

  688

  1 Allocations for 1999–2000 onwards are not comparable with those for 1996–97 to 1998–99 which cover hospital and community health services (HCHS) only. 1999–2000 was the first year of unified allocations which cover HCHS, prescribing and discretionary general medical services

  2 Cambridge and Huntingdon, East Norfolk and North West Anglia health authorities merged on 1 April 1999 to form Cambridgeshire health authority and Norfolk health authority

  Table 2

  £

  Regional health authority

  Allocation per weighted head of population

  Northern and Yorkshire

  476

  Trent

  469

  Anglia and Oxford

  460

  North Thames

  478

  South Thames

  464

  South and West

  472

  West Midlands

  479

  North West

  469

  England

  471

  Acute Beds (Portsmouth)
  Mr. Hoban
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many acute beds the Portsmouth Hospitals NHS Trust had at(a) the most recent date for which figures are available, (b) 31 December 2000, (c) 31 December 1999 and (d) 31 December 1998; and how many of those beds were occupied by delayed discharges (i) awaiting social services funding and (ii) with social services funding. [19477]
  138W
  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 30 November 2001]: The latest available figures are for the financial year 2000–01. Portsmouth Hospitals National Health Service Trust had 1011 average daily number of acute beds in wards open overnight. A count of beds as at 31 December 1998, 1999 and 2000 is not available centrally.

  The specific information requested on the delayed discharges affecting these beds is not available centrally. Information on delayed discharges in the Portsmouth area has been placed in the Library.

  Motor Racing (Tobacco Sponsorship)
  Mr. Barron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the Government's policy is on the European Commission's draft proposals relating to tobacco sponsorship of Formula 1 motor racing. [20166]

  Jacqui Smith
  The current text of the European Commission's proposals for a directive on tobacco advertising and sponsorship includes a provision prohibiting the sponsorship of events taking place in
  139W
  several member states or having similar cross-border effects if such sponsorship is with the aim of promoting a tobacco product.

  The current text provides for implementation up to two years after a directive is adopted. The date for adoption is at present uncertain.

  In 1998 we agreed with our European partners that global sporting events should have until 1 October 2006 to phase out tobacco sponsorship, provided first that they do not sign new contracts with tobacco companies and secondly that they phase out the current sponsorship that they receive. This remains our view.

  NICE Review
  Mr. Barron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what progress has been made towards establishing the review of NICE; when the review will commence; who will conduct the review; what the terms of reference are; what arrangements there will be for consulting interested parties; and when he expects the review to be concluded. [20161]

  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether he intends to conduct a fundamental review of NICE; and if he will make a statement. [20287]

  Jacqui Smith
  The report of the Bristol Royal Infirmary Inquiry makes some far-reaching recommendations on the National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE). We are therefore considering how these will affect the review of NICE. We will also need to take into account the recent announcement that the Health Select Committee is to hold a short inquiry into the progress NICE has made in achieving the key goals envisaged in A First Class Service.

  Non-tobacco Goods
  Mr. Barron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimates he has made of the value of the UK market for non-tobacco goods which share tobacco branding. [20164]

  Jacqui Smith
  We have not made any such assessment.

  Bristol Royal Infirmary Inquiry
  Mr. Barron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he will publish the Government's response to the Bristol Royal Infirmary Inquiry; and if he will make a statement. [20163]

  Jacqui Smith
  The Government's response to the Bristol Royal Infirmary Inquiry will be published shortly.

  NHS Direct
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to the answer of the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew), 27 November Ref 19267 2001,Official Report, Columns 859–60W, how many inquiries have been received by NHS Direct since its inception; what proportion of those inquiries come from rural areas; and what proportion of those inquiries required (a) a visit to the doctor and (b) treatment in a hospital. [20032]
  140W
  Ms Blears
  Since NHS Direct was launched in March 1998 it has handled over 8,000,000 calls. This calendar year alone it has handled over 4,500,000 calls, averaging 90,000–100,000 calls a week. NHS Direct call volume data are collected as a figure for the total population area covered by a particular site and not by rural/urban split. Out of the 4,500,000 calls made to NHS Direct this calendar year, 38 per cent. of callers were advised to see their general practitioner, and 11 per cent. advised to visit a hospital.

  NHS Direct has not been set up to merely reduce demand on other health services. It is about making sure that patients get to the right service at the right time, and giving people reassuring clinical advice so that they can look after themselves if that is the appropriate thing to do.

  Preserved Rights
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much money has been allocated to local authorities in England for 2002–03 in relation to the transfer of responsibility for preserved rights cases from 8 April 2002; of that sum, how much relates(a) to the sum that is transferred from the Department for Work and Pensions relating to what would have been paid through income support and (b) to the costs of the shortfall between the preserved rights income support rates and existing care homes as stated in the draft guidance to local authorities regarding the abolition of preserved rights; on what basis the sum allocated to cover the shortfall referred to in (b) has been allocated between local authorities; and whether the basis for the sum allocated to cover the shortfall referred to in (b) reflects the variations in shortfall between local authorities. [17250]

  Jacqui Smith
  Local authorities in England will receive additional funding of £614 million in 2002–03 because of the transfer to them from 8 April next year of responsibility for people with preserved rights. Of this sum, £528 million is a transfer from the Department for Work and Pensions. It represents the difference between what the DWP estimate they would have spent on income support, attendance allowance and disability living allowance on preserved rights residents under the current arrangements and what they estimate will be spent on Income Support for such residents under the new system. The remaining £86 million is intended to meet the cost to authorities of carrying out care assessments and the estimated shortfall between preserved rights income support rates and the care home fees of the residents concerned. We shall announce as part of the Local Government Finance Settlement how we intend to allocate these resources between individual local authorities.

  Older People
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he is taking to implement the National Service Framework for Older People, with particular reference to Standard Six on falls and osteoporosis. [20183]

  Jacqui Smith
  The National Service Framework for Older People sets a standard and associated milestones for the development and introduction of integrated falls services across all health and social care systems by April 2005. Annual milestones are set from April 2003. Early planning and supporting work has begun on implementation and the National Institute for Clinical
  141W
  Excellence has been asked to develop clinical guidelines for the assessment and prevention of falls including recurrent falls in older people, with an associated clinical audit dataset, database and methodology.

  Carers
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assistance he plans to give to people who take the responsibility of looking after elderly family members and are not able to work. [19358]

  Jacqui Smith
  Through the National Strategy for Carers, we are making resources available to help carers. We introduced the Carers Grant in 1999, the sole purpose of which is to enable local councils to enhance provision of community care and children's services and in particular to enable carers to take a break from their caring role. To reach the NHS Plan target of ensuring that 75,000 more carers receive a break by 2004, the Carers Grant will increase from £70 million this year to £100 million in financial year 2003–04.

  The Carers and Disabled Children Act 2000, which came into force in April, gives local councils further duties and powers to help carers.

  In addition, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions announced a package of measures last Autumn that will provide over £500 million extra support for carers over three years, from which more than 300,000 carers could benefit financially.

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assistance he will give pensioners to help with the costs of long-term care. [19354]

  Jacqui Smith
  The NHS Plan announced that an additional £1.4 billion a year would be made available for improving services and standards of care for older people by 2003–04. Over £400 million of the £1.4 billion represents funds for a range of reforms to the long-term care system which we have introduced. These reforms will assist pensioners with the costs of long-term care and many of them have already been enacted. Free nursing care in nursing homes for current self-funders was introduced from October, as has a system of deferred payments to avoid people having to sell their homes when they first enter residential care. Since April the value of a property has been disregarded for 12 weeks when undertaking the residential care means test.

  Care for the Elderly
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the costs of home care for the elderly and what choice old people have in what service they receive. [19357]
  142W
  Jacqui Smith
  Councils have discretion under the Health and Social Services and Social Security Adjudications Act 1983 whether to charge for home care or other non-residential social services. The Department issued statutory guidance, "Fairer Charging Policies for Home Care and other non-residential Social Services", to councils on 23 November 2001.

  The Department published for consultation draft National Minimum Standards for Domiciliary Care on 31 October 2001. Standards 7 and 9 concern the need to respect service users' choices.

  Local "Better Care, Higher Standards" charters for long-term care are expected to set out the ways in which individuals' views about their care will be sought and respected.

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on(a) primary and (b) intermediate care for the aged. [19356]

  Jacqui Smith
  Older people can expect the same rights of access to primary care as any other patient group. In addition, in recognition of the specific health needs of older people, patients over 75 are entitled to an annual health check from their general practitioners on request and, since 2000, all people aged 65 and over have been offered free immunisation against influenza.

  The NHS Plan makes clear that intermediate care is a priority service for older people. This was reinforced in the National Service Framework for Older People. Intermediate care has an important role to play in tackling delayed transfers of care. A recent survey indicates that good progress is being made towards meeting the NHS Plan targets for intermediate care—by 2004 an extra 5,000 intermediate care beds and 1,700 supported places, together benefiting an additional 150,000 older people.

  CT/MRI Scanners
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the allocation of the next 50 CT and MRI scanners; and if he will state(a) when allocations will be announced and (b) what consultations will be held with health authorities on this distribution. [19907]

  Jacqui Smith
  The allocation of the 50 CT and 50 MRI scanners outlined in the NHS Cancer Plan is likely to be announced in the summer of 2002. Criteria for their distribution have yet to be decided. These scanners are due for installation in 2003–04.

  Databases of current equipment and regional provision as well as local information, such as the cancer networks facilities and equipment strategies, will be used to help formulate criteria for allocation. When allocations are considered they will be discussed with the new strategic health authorities before they are finalised with individual NHS trusts.

  Young Carers
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what measures he is taking to ensure that the current information campaign for carers' rights will include young carers. [19987]

  Jacqui Smith
  Information for carers has been made accessible through telephone helplines, publications by the Government and voluntary organisations, carers centres and on-line services such as the Government carers website.

  We are committed to addressing the needs of young carers as set out in both the Quality Protects programme launched in 1998 and the National Strategy for Carers published in 1999. The views and comments of young carers are taken into consideration when developing policy for the Quality Protects programme.

  We currently fund the Children's Society to take forward "The Young Carers Initiative" which involves consulting directly with young carers about their views and needs. The information obtained from the consultation will be used as a basis for producing a practice guide and resource pack. These packs will
  144W
  contain information on how best to deliver the needs of young carers and to encourage better partnership working within agencies.

  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what measures he is taking to ensure the needs of young carers will be targeted as part of his Department's funding of mental health services. [19986]

  Jacqui Smith
  A target has been set for mental health services that by March 2002 all regular carers of people on enhanced Care Programme Approach (CPA), including young carers, will have their own written support plans which will address their caring, physical and own mental health needs. These support plans will be implemented by October 2002.

  Diabetes
  Mr. Woodward
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he will publish the Diabetes National Service Framework; and if he will make a statement. [19560]

  Jacqui Smith
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Ms King) on 15 October 2001,Official Report, column 1046W.

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

The Lord Chancellor: Leave of Absence
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Irvine of Lairg): My Lords, before Business begins, I take the opportunity to inform the House that I am to undertake a programme of official engagements in Birmingham on Friday 7th December, when the House will sit. These will include launching a community legal service partnership and then a new mediation scheme in Birmingham, as well as meeting the local judiciary. Accordingly, I trust that the House will grant me leave of absence.

Energy-saving Materials: VAT
2.36 p.m.
Lord Ezraasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will apply a reduced rate of VAT to energy-saving materials sold direct to the public, in line with the reduced rate which applies when they are sold through professional installers.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the Government wish to introduce a reduced VAT rate on the DIY installation of energy-saving materials, and have pressed the European Commission to bring forward early legislative proposals to allow such a change to be introduced under EC VAT law. That request is due to be considered as part of the EC review of VAT reduced rates currently scheduled for 2002–03.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, I want to declare an interest as president of the National Home Improvement Council and to express my appreciation to the Minister for the positive message that he gave us.
Is he aware that in support of the Government's intention it is estimated that approximately 17.5 million homes in this country have inadequate loft insulation and if that were remedied approximately 7.5 million tonnes of CO2 would not be emitted?
I believe that in those circumstances what the Government are trying to do is right and I hope that they will be fully supported by other EU countries.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, for his comments. He is right that there are potential huge savings from energy efficiency at home. It seems to us
574
absurd that professionally installed energy-saving materials should benefit from a reduced VAT rate while those installed by householders should not.
Lord Saatchi: My Lords, I, too, am grateful to the Minister for that reply. Could not the Government save a great deal of energy by generating fewer press releases on the subject of energy saving by cutting down on emissions of hot air? Would not that help to reduce global warming?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, some hot air saves energy and some hot air, particularly in your Lordships' House, seems to create unnecessary energy. The amount of money spent on press releases must be minimal compared with, for example, the £600 million which is being spent on the Home Energy Efficiency Scheme. That scheme is on track to meet its target of 600,000 low-income householders over the next three years. If we are talking about the publicity side of the issue, the valuable work of the Energy Saving Trust, which receives £22 million of government money a year, should not be overlooked. I do not believe that press releases are that important in the circumstances.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, I believe that the promotion which the Government are giving to the important issue of energy efficiency is worth while. Is the Minister aware that last month B&Q, which is the leading retailer in home improvement equipment, remitted VAT on loft insulation material during Energy Saving Week and that it doubled its sales? That shows that the public are keen to improve their energy efficiency.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, it is not true that the company remitted VAT. It cut its prices by the equivalent of what the VAT would have cost its customers. It sounds as though it was a worth while marketing initiative.

Police Officers: Retention
2.40 p.m.
Lord Janner of Braunstone Lord Janner of Braunstone asked Her Majesty's Government:
What steps they are taking to retain experienced police officers.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Rooker): My Lords, we have asked the police negotiating board to explore and agree flexible arrangements which will give managers in the police service the scope to retain officers who are entitled to retire with maximum pension benefits where they wish to do so. We have asked the board to reach agreement in principle on a suitable way forward by the end of this month.
Capita, the company concerned with the consultancy work, has been commissioned to complete a report into ways of retaining suitable, experienced officers in the police service who have completed 30 years' service and can retire with

575
maximum pension benefits. A copy of its report will be placed in the Library once Ministers have had a chance to consider the findings.
Lord Janner of Braunstone: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that positive and helpful Answer. Does he agree that it is grotesque to force people out of the police service after 30 years' work when they are at the height of their talents and usefulness, especially at the moment when so many officers are having to undertake security duties as a result of the tragedy of September 11th, leaving fewer officers to do their normal work?
In the circumstances, has the Minister had consultations with the Inland Revenue to discuss how it can and should change the tax arrangements so as not to tax the commuted pensions for people who stay on beyond 30 years?
Lord Rooker: My noble friend is right to raise this issue. On the one hand, Capita has proposed a scheme which we have asked the Police Negotiating Board to look into; on the other hand, there is the issue of whether we look at the skills and experience of officers or look at their operational performance. The consensus is that, after 30 years, it is their skills and experience that we wish to retain. My noble friend's point about the Inland Revenue is important and we are in discussions with that body. It is important to protect the tax-free status of the lump sum. If we do not make any changes, the tax-free status of that lump sum in the pension would be at risk, and that would not serve anyone's purpose.
Baroness Harris of Richmond: My Lords, will the proposals being made impact on police pensions? I declare an interest as a former chair of a police authority. Do the Government have any plans to bring forward improvements to police pensions? The situation must be looked at very carefully because police authorities now have to pay up to 16 per cent of their revenue for police pensions. This simply cannot go on.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, police pensions are funded in a similar way to one or two other bodies—for example, the fire service. Clearly there is a considerable case for a funded scheme, but no final decisions have been made on that issue. A funded scheme would not be regarded as an easy option. Pension arrangements take a large slice of the finance available. I hope—I cannot be certain—that a police reform Bill will be introduced in this Session. A White Paper will precede the Bill, but all of these issues may not be covered in it because the negotiations being undertaken by the Police Negotiating Board will not be completed until the end of this month. But certainly it is to be hoped that in the early part of next year we will have a way forward.
Lord Condon: My Lords, can the Minister confirm that an unusually large number of police officers will
576
be eligible to retire from the service over the next few years as a result of previous recruitment peaks and troughs? Can he further confirm that this challenge will require innovative thinking and projects from Her Majesty's Government, police authorities and the police service if they are to meet this potential exodus?
Lord Rooker: My Lords, the noble Lord is right. This is also an issue for one or two other public services. No one should be surprised about the age profile of their workforce. However, given the force's recruitment plans and projections of wastage, we expect police strength to reach at least 128,000 officers by March 2002, with record numbers by 2003. That is built into the fact that many police officers will be reaching their 30 years' service. This brings me back to the original Question of my noble friend Lord Janner. We have to consider how we can retain the skills and experience of such officers in a way that is useful for them, advantageous to them and advantageous to the public.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, clearly many factors come into play in deciding whether or not a police officer should retire and whether he is suitable to stay on. Does the Minister agree that it is absurd—although, perhaps, not unusual—that the primary deciding factor is a question of fiscal regulation in relation to pensions, which, of course, is ultimately set through the Inland Revenue and back to the Treasury? Can the Minister inform the House of the discussions that are going on within the Treasury to try to resolve this particular difficulty?
Lord Rooker: My Lords, the noble Lord is right about the issue but I cannot answer the latter part of his question. We want the Police Negotiating Board to produce an agreed proposal by the end of the month. Obviously it will be to everyone's advantage if it is agreed. I imagine that part of that would include discussions with the Revenue to ensure that it does not have a negative effect. On the one hand, we hope to have successful negotiations; on the other hand, the Inland Revenue has strict rules right across the pension field. Pensions are pensions; they are not saving schemes as such. That is an important aspect. However, pension arrangements in the police service are quite different from other schemes in terms of age structure and the point at which officers leave.
I still owe the noble Lord a letter in reply to some very sensible questions he asked about the information that is available about the police. The age profile of police is not well known across the forces. We know how many years an officer has served when he leaves the service, but we do not necessarily have detailed information about his age at that point in time. The noble Lord has asked sensible questions and I shall give him answers in due course.
Lord Taylor of Blackburn: My Lords, will the White Paper which is to be produced during this Session address the situation that many police forces find themselves in at the moment, whereby an officer who

577
has completed 30 years' service, who has good experience and is capable of carrying on in a civilian capacity, finds it difficult to do so because of regulations in respect of the creation of civilian jobs for former policemen?
Lord Rooker: My Lords, it is true that officers can be re-employed as civilians, in which case they are paid their salary and full pension. However, leaving a job one week and going back to the same employer the next week in a different status and with a tax-free lump sum can present a problem. Obviously that is open to abuse—not in the police force but in other areas—and that is why we need an arrangement that does not have a negative effect on other parts of the public service or on the police officers concerned.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, can the Minister assure the House that in the review currently being undertaken an open mind will be kept as to the rank at which those who would otherwise retire after 30 years may stay on? This will avoid the rigidities in the West Midlands force where officers so doing are automatically reduced to the rank of constable.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, the implication in the noble Lord's question is right. The compulsory retirement age for constables and sergeants is 55; ACPO ranks have a compulsory retirement age of 65. One imagines that their skills and experience are still valuable but that they are operationally less valuable. I do not wish to cast aspersions because of the nature of the membership of the House. However, it is a fact that rigidity will always cause problems because each individual is different. A set of rules is in place but it is undoubtedly the case that certain police officers who at 55 years of age now work as constables could carry on at a higher level. It seems barmy that senior officers are reduced to the rank of constable in order to continue their service. That is the kind of issue that Capita will need to examine; namely, to consider a scheme in which the skills and experience of officers who have completed 30 years' service can be used to best effect. We need to secure an agreement that will take this matter forward to everyone's advantage.
Baroness Greengross: My Lords, does the Minister agree that one of the best ways of retaining skills and experience in many professions and other areas of work is to allow people to approach retirement more flexibly by continuing to work on a part-time basis? Can the Minister tell the House whether the Inland Revenue will soon finish its investigations into flexible retirement arrangements? Could more flexible schemes be put in place more widely than is presently the case?
Lord Rooker: My Lords, I cannot give the noble Baroness a detailed response. Obviously, discussions on the report published last year by the Performance and Innovation Unit on winning the generation game are important. I believe that over 3 million people in this country over the age of 50 but below retirement
578
age are economically inactive. A whole series of barriers force many such people to remain economically inactive. We need to remove as many of those barriers as possible. To that end, I am very much in favour of flexible retirement age schemes. I myself have reached the beginning of the flexible retirement age.

Broadband Services
2.51 p.m.
Lord St John of Bletso Lord St John of Bletso asked Her Majesty's Government:
What action they are taking to promote broadband access so as to ensure that the United Kingdom meets its targets to be the leader for e-commerce in Europe by 2002 and for all citizens to be online by 2005.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Sainsbury of Turville): My Lords, the Government's policies to open up broadband competition mean that 66 per cent of UK households can access broadband services, whether through telephone wires, cable modems or wireless technologies. The challenge now is for industry to get the pricing, marketing and content right. The Government have set out today how they will help by further intensifying competition, driving up demand, stimulating the production of new broadband content and facilitating broadband rollout in rural areas.
Lord St John of Bletso: My Lords, I should declare a non-financial interest as chairman of Citizens Online. I thank the Minister for his extremely encouraging reply and I welcome the Government's initiatives announced today. However, does he agree that broadband access through ADSL technology provides only a short-term solution? If the Government are truly committed to providing universal access to all by 2005, as well as promoting the United Kingdom as the e-commerce centre of Europe, will they consider promoting fibre optic access to all households throughout Britain, both in rural and urban areas, as well as to businesses? Have the Government plans to invest any of the £22 billion they received from the sale of the 3G licences last year in providing incentives to telecommunications companies to create such a network?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, we do not have any plans to do that. At present, around 60 to 65 per cent of the population has access to affordable broadband technology. A further announcement we have made today is that we intend to encourage the use of satellite broadband in rural areas as well as other incentives to stimulate take-up. However, as I hope I made clear in my original Answer, the main problem lies in stimulating demand for the services, which are now being provided extensively across the country.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that it was not possible to find out what is in the report

579
of the Broadband Stakeholders' Group, which was published today, or the Minister's comments on the report's recommendations, which I understand will be made available this afternoon? Can he say whether the new report addresses the question of higher investment in public sector broadband content and applications, as was recommended in the September report of the stakeholder group? In particular, does the Minister agree that if the Government demonstrated their enthusiasm for such technologies for their own use, greater take-up by businesses would be stimulated? Finally, does the Minister further agree that it would be a good idea to extend the international benchmarking scheme already being undertaken to take in the benchmarking of regulatory frameworks in order to check whether our industry is in any way being disadvantaged by the harsher regime being operated in this country?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, the noble Lord has made a good point as regards supply. Indeed, one of the four government objectives which have been announced today is the need to address the question of using broadband to deliver key public services such as Culture Online. We shall use that extensively and take the lead from the Government's stated position on that point.
On the noble Lord's point about regulation, I agree that it is a good subject for benchmarking. However, what should be benchmarked is the extent to which regulation enables the broadband market to be opened up to as many suppliers as possible. On that basis, on the figures that I have seen we do extremely well when comparing benchmark targets with other countries.
The Earl of Northesk: My Lords, how does the figure of 66 per cent access given by the noble Lord in his original Answer translate in terms of the actual take-up of broadband? Are the Government optimistic that the United Kingdom will not be close to or at the bottom of the league table of member states when the Commission makes its announcement later this month in respect of possible infringement procedures?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, the issue at which the Commission is looking is the unbundling of the local network. On that basis, we have done rather well. We have unbundled it. However, it is clearly a disappointment that, following the unbundling, there has not been a huge take-up by the telecommunications industry. But that is not in any way an infringement of the legislation we have introduced to make that possible.
Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that we would be able to stimulate more interest in and demand for broadband access if prices were lower than is presently the case? What plans do the Government have to get the prices down?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, there is no question that lower prices on broadband stimulate
580
demand. However, it is also important to realise that the relationship of the broadband price must be set against Internet connection charges. In this country we have a low Internet connection charge. Because of that we have achieved a high penetration of Internet access. Other countries do better on broadband, but that is because in order to secure a lower Internet connection charge, it is necessary to go directly to broadband. When looking at the issue, while undoubtedly we would like to see lower prices for broadband, we must accept that those charges form a part of the total pricing structure.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that his noble friend Lord McIntosh of Haringey responded to a very similar Question on 28th March this year? His noble friend then said that the delay over the unbundling of the local loop was not due to BT or Oftel and certainly not to the Government. He said that it was due to commercial interests. Can the Minister tell the House what are those commercial interests and whose position they represent?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, as always, my noble friend was entirely right in his response to the Question. It is the case that local loop unbundling can be put into the entire range of exchanges which now have ADSL. The alternative is for companies to use the wholesale ADSL service which is provided by BT at £30 per month. On that basis, a commercial decision must be taken as to whether expensive equipment should be put into local exchanges as an alternative to using the wholesale ADSL service from BT. Many companies in the telecommunications industry feel that this is not the time to make large capital investments in activities which they can buy in from elsewhere. Furthermore, it may well be that the possibility of competition has had the effect of ensuring that the price which BT offers for wholesale ADSL services has already done the job.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, will my noble friend bear in mind that there is the possibility of a quite civilised and tranquil existence outside the realms of e-commerce?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, when answering questions on ADSL, one is very aware of that.
The Earl of Northesk: My Lords, I apologise for coming back to the noble Lord once more, but I wonder whether he could address the first point that I put to him in my question. How does the figure of 66 per cent access translate into the actual take-up of broadband services?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, about 1 per cent of people with telephone lines use ADSL or broadband services. That figure is towards the bottom end of the international league. While Germany does very well as far as concerns broadband, if one takes broadband and the Internet together the UK does better. One must take into account the total picture.

World Trade Organisation: Doha Conference
3 p.m.
Baroness Whitaker Baroness Whitaker asked Her Majesty's Government:
What was the outcome in relation to international development of the Doha World Trade Organisation meeting.
The Minister for Trade (Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean): My Lords, the ministerial declaration launched a development-focused trade round which we believe offers the best route for the developing world to escape from poverty. In addition, the WTO ministerial conference agreed a decision on implementation-related issues and concerns to address many of the matters raised by developing countries over the operation of existing WTO agreements, and a declaration on the TRIPS agreement and public health which clarifies the action which WTO members can take to secure access to essential medicines during public health crises.
Baroness Whitaker: My Lords, I thank my nolble friend for that positive Answer; indeed, I congratulate her on the part played by the Government in securing a fairly good round at WTO. In connection with intellectual property and health, does the Minister agree that it is rather regrettable that the declaration which would prevent poorer countries being deprived of access to cheaper medicines is political rather than legally binding?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for her kind congratulations, but I regret that I cannot agree with the purport of her question. The declaration on TRIPS and public health was a breakthrough. Skilful negotiation has ensured that we have found a way to balance the incentives for research and development to protect the health of future generations and the public health of the present generation. I draw to the attention of my noble friend the observation of Oxfam on 15th November 2001 that the declaration was,
"a big step forward in the battle for affordable medicine".
The Lord Bishop of Hereford: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the first priority in any new round of WTO talks must be the welfare of the poorest nations of the world, perhaps an increase in their trade and certainly an improvement in the fairness of the terms of that trade, but that in aggregate an increase in trade, especially of unnecessary freight and food miles, will have a serious impact on the environment and climate change and therefore is to be resisted? Does the noble Baroness also agree that imports of primary products into this country from low-wage economies and those with low standards of animal welfare will further damage the interests of UK farmers? How do
582
the Government believe it is possible—if it is—to reconcile this complex conflict of interests, and where do their real priorities lie?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, as I indicated, together with their colleagues in the WTO the Government believed that it was very important in this trade round to emphasise that it was concerned with development. That was where we concentrated most of our fire. Before we went to Doha I invited every one of the Commonwealth high commissioners to see me. If we are successful in the negotiations that flow from Doha we hope to be able to lift some 300 million people out of poverty as a result of halving the tariffs in trade around the world and, consequently, approximately 150 billion dollars should go to developing countries. The right reverend Prelate raises a huge number of other issues. This agreement covers so many different issues that all of us must prioritise what comes first. We must balance what is important to the United Kingdom, including our agricultural community, and developing countries. We hope to discuss that as the development round continues.
Lord Barnett: My Lords, has my noble friend seen some of the evidence submitted to your Lordships' Committee on Economic Affairs on the question of globalisation which was discussed at great length in Doha? That evidence shows that while globalisation generally has been of considerable importance to developing countries the very poorest have not been helped that much. What do Her Majesty's Government have in mind to help?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, of the 142 countries which were able to reach agreement in Doha approximately two-thirds were developing countries. Of the 38 countries which have applied to join the WTO, the majority are developing or least developed countries. I suggest to your Lordships that the least developed and developing countries believe that there are benefits to be gained from joining the World Trade Organisation. In addition, the United Kingdom has increased the capacity that it has resourced for developing countries to argue for what they believe to be important in the WTO. My right honourable friend Clare Short was able to make that announcement which was of very great importance to us before we went to Doha.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, does the Minister recall that when she made a Statement to the House on 15th November I observed that on an earlier occasion Commissioner Lamy had defended farm subsidies and asked whether there was any truth in the suggestion that the French had signed the declaration only after they had been given assurances that it would not prejudice the outcome of the farm trade talks? Is the noble Baroness now in a position to give me an answer to that question? Can she tell the House whether there was any understanding, either formal or informal, with the French about agricultural subsidies?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I cannot claim to have been at every single point where people may have had discussions in the corridors, or to know exactly what was said by every person who took part in the negotiations, but I can tell the noble Baroness that the agricultural section of the WTO declaration of Doha commits members,
"to comprehensive negotiations aimed at: substantial improvements in market access; reductions of, with a view to phasing out, all forms of export subsidies; and substantial reductions in trade-distorting domestic support".
I believe that that is a considerable step forward. I am delighted that we have been able to agree it, although I freely acknowledge that the agreement came more readily from some than others.

Dignity at Work Bill [H.L.]
3.7 p.m.
Baroness Gibson of Market Rasen: My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to provide for a right of dignity at work for employees, and for connected purposes. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time.—(Baroness Gibson of Market Rasen.)
On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

Homelessness Bill
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Williams of Mostyn): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the order of commitment of 12th November be discharged and that the Bill be committed to a Grand Committee.—(Lord Williams of Mostyn.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Bill
3.8 p.m.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Rooker.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[THE PRINCIPAL DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
Clause 110 [Implementation of the third pillar]:
Lord Wallace of Saltairemoved Amendment No. 126B:
Page 65, line 41, after "may" insert "not"
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 126B is very much concerned with the incorporation into the Bill of procedures for the first pillar of the European Union
584
which are now undertaken by the third pillar. I had the honour to chair a Select Committee of this House which was concerned with scrutiny of the third pillar of the European Union. That committee was very conscious of the extent to which parliamentary scrutiny of third pillar issues was deficient. As the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee rightly observed, there are significant differences between the legislative process under the first and third pillars. The third pillar is a process,
"which is more akin to the negotiation of treaties than to a conventional legislative process".
During many discussions in that committee about third pillar issues, we identified a number of instances when it was not at all clear how far Her Majesty's Government were committed to different elements under the third pillar. There is a British opt-out from the Schengen side of the European Union. But having opted out, Her Majesty's Government have opted in again. So, whereas Clause 110 sets out to give substantial powers to the Government to accept items of what is in itself a highly ambitious agenda under the Tampere European Council's five-year programme for expanding the area of justice, freedom and security within the European Union, we are therefore concerned that we should circumscribe this power as much as possible.
The purpose of the amendment is, therefore, to limit the amount of jurisdiction given to the Government. It sets out to add the word "not" after "may". Amendment No. 126C would insert "except"; and Amendment No. 126D would add a sunset clause, thereby limiting the amount of time during which the Government could adopt into British law specifically those elements that are part of the framework decision on counter-terrorism. Thus we could avoid giving the Government a general authority to accept into British law under secondary legislation a whole range of other items on the extensive Tampere agenda.
We accept that the 1994 and 1995 supplementary convention on extradition is likely to be dealt with under separate legislation; so, in some ways, that part of our amendment is of less immediate relevance than the rest. The elements on which we insist—and on which we hope the Government will yield some distance—are that the authority given to the Government under the clause should be limited to matters which are necessary to deal with current events and which come under the framework decision on counter-terrorism, and that the provision should be time-limited.
Those are the essentials of our amendments. We very much hope that the Government will come some way towards meeting our concerns. If those concerns are met, we shall be able to accept Clause 110. If they cannot, we on these Benches will have to consider our approach to the acceptance of the clause as a whole. I beg to move.
Lord Williamson of Horton: I share some of the concern expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, about the potentially wide scope of elements of the Bill to be brought into effect in the United

585
Kingdom, not by primary legislation, but by secondary legislation—that is to say, by regulation. Although there may be some excellent decisions to be taken under the third pillar, we must recognise that the clause goes very far. It goes far into the future, by including obligations,
"created or arising by or under the third pillar (whether before or after the passing of this Act".
It also goes potentially far up the scale of penalties. Although there are strict conditions, certain offences punishable by imprisonment,
"for a term of any length",
can he created. We must look to see whether we can limit this power, either by specific provision such as that suggested in the amendment, or at least by imposing a strict time limit.
I want to emphasise the point that we are dealing with intergovernmental provisions, not with Community provisions, in consequence of which a large part of the legislation will not be scrutinised by the European Parliament. It will not be scrutinised by any parliament at all until it arrives here in the form of a statutory instrument. Some of the material we are discussing is important for individual liberties. So I have some concerns. I hope that the Government will be able to reassure us, at least to some degree, on these points.
3.15 p.m.
The Earl of Onslow: This is the most depressing piece of legislation that I have seen for a long time. I find it extraordinary that the Government cannot understand, or appear to fail to understand, anything about the basis and the roots of our historic British constitution. They fail to understand that the British people owe their allegiance to the Crown in Parliament. That is the only way in which laws should be made.
The reference to the third pillar goes very wide of that concept. The clause allows Ministers to make laws, agreed in secret in Brussels, which would have a very wide effect. To introduce them by the back door, through rushed legislation, is an abuse of Parliament, an abuse of privilege and an abuse of executive power. The idea that by bringing in as yet unapproved European legislation by statutory instrument to try to stop a brace of Arabs flying some hijacked aeroplanes into some skyscrapers in New York fails every test of logic that has been given.
It is an incredible achievement for the Government, in their failure to understand British constitutional history and the checks and balances for which our ancestors fought, to fail even to get the Liberal Democrats—who are Euro-creeps par excellence—to agree with them on this issue. I was mildly ill mannered to the Liberal Democrats in our debate last week. On this occasion they must be congratulated on going back to the roots of their Whig forebears.
Everyone has said that this part of the Bill is a disgrace. If we in Parliament do not protect the rights and privileges of Parliament, the rights and privileges
586
of free-born Englishmen, and the rights of privileges of our descendants, which were fought for by our ancestors, it will be an appalling failure of duty.
Viscount Bledisloe: I have put my name to the Motion to leave Clause 110 out of the Bill. But it may be convenient for me to speak at this stage rather than in the clause stand part debate.
I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, although I thought that he put the case somewhat too moderately. The powers given by Clause 110 are, first, an unprecedented use of subordinate legislation. Secondly, they are largely irrelevant to the fight against terrorism, and, thirdly, they are—I shall not be quite so emotive as the noble Earl, Lord Onslow—a very serious invasion of the individual's rights and liberties.
The clause gives the Government power not only to enact by subordinate legislation a series of offences, but also to give powers to European policemen to authorise searches. They would give power to enact the European arrest warrant—which every Member who has spoken in debates on the Bill, apart from the Minister himself, regards as a very serious matter.
The Government will tell us that they have already said they will not introduce the arrest warrant under these procedures. But that is merely an example of what they could have done under these powers. It is only by the pure coincidence that it happens to be already on the stocks that they have given this one-off undertaking.
To see that what is proposed is an unprecedented use of subordinate legislation, one has only to look at the report of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. The committee states that,
"there is no precedent for the grant of powers to amend United Kingdom law by order in such important and sensitive areas"—
namely, in the areas of crime and civil rights—
"and the seeking of such powers in an emergency bill which is expected to pass through all its stages in both Houses of Parliament within some three weeks is truly innovative".
For a moderate and controlled body such as the Delegated Powers Committee to describe something as "truly innovative" is rather like Sir Humphrey Appleby describing something as "courageous"—it means that it is total folly.
Secondly, it is clear that the provision is largely unrelated to terrorism. Clause 110(5)(d) enables the Government to create a criminal offence, unless it is punishable by more than two years. There is not much terrorism that is punishable by less than two years. That is an attempt to smuggle measures through on the bandwagon of the emotion of September 11th.
Lord Elton: The noble Viscount has referred to the restriction in subsection (5). Has his eye been drawn to subjection (6), which limits even that narrow restriction that he has just referred to?
Viscount Bledisloe: The noble Lord is right. There are two powers: one to deal with certain specific offences that are related to terrorism and have the

587
potential to attract large criminal sentences; and a more general provision in relation to anything that the European Union wants under the third pillar, unless in general it attracts a sentence of more than two years or, in a magistrates' court, more than three months. What on earth have offences that attract such sentences to do with terrorism?
This is a serious invasion. The European warrant is a good example. If it is passed, it will change the entire principle of extradition. Some aspects of it may be very good, but changes to our centuries-old system of extradition to allow anyone to be removed to any country on the mere say-so of a judge of that court should not be made by subordinate legislation. Such proposals need to be thought through carefully.
The Government may say that it is all right because everything goes to the European Union Committee for scrutiny before any decision is taken by Parliament. The arrest warrant is a good example of what really happens. The proposal came from Europe so rapidly that the Select Committee had the opportunity for only one meeting. It put in a lot of reservations. We shall see in the next three days whether any of those will have any effect. The whole thing has been rushed through. Scrutiny committees cannot be an alternative to proper legislative debate and amendment.
The Government may also say that there is no advantage in having primary legislation because once we have signed up to a proposal in Europe we are stuck with it anyhow and we have to enact it. The answer to that is twofold. First, when it is enacted, even after it has been blessed in Brussels—if that is the right verb—we still have a chance to see how it is going to be implemented and to put in such controls as we can. Secondly, and much more importantly, if the Government know that they have to come to Parliament with proper legislation, they will be much more cautious about what they agree to in Brussels.
In my view, the right thing to do would be to strike out the clause completely, but I would be perfectly happy with Amendment No. 126D if the Government were prepared to accept it.
Lord Waddington: I want to draw attention to an intervention by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, during my Second Reading speech. The Committee will be relieved to hear that I do not have the slightest intention of repeating all that I said then, although I have fundamental objections to the clause. The noble Earl took me somewhat by surprise when he rightly pointed out that if, as a result of second stage reform, your Lordships' House were to lose the right to reject an affirmative order that came before us, we could be in the absurd position of being unable to stop a regulation that created a new criminal offence carrying unlimited imprisonment.
That shows the potency of the powers that the Government are seeking. It is extraordinary that they should be seeking the power to create new criminal offences, which may have nothing to do with terrorism, with unlimited imprisonment. I do not
588
believe that the Minister, who is a reasonable enough chap, would insist on the Government taking such powers in a Bill that is supposed to be a proper reaction to the terrible events of 11th September. I see that the noble Lord, Lord Brennan, is in his place. I hope that he may intervene this afternoon. He made the telling point the other day that, by this clause, the Government are taking power to remake our criminal law. Article 31(1) of Title 6 says:
"Common action on judicial co-operation in criminal matters shall include …
progressively adopting measures establishing minimal rules relating to the constituent elements of criminal acts and to penalties in the fields of organised crime, terrorism and illicit drug trafficking".
I cannot believe that the Government really wish to take power to change our criminal laws in that way by delegated legislation and to do so in a Bill against terrorism. Those powers go much further than can possibly be argued to be necessary to meet the threat with which we have been faced since September 11th. I support the amendment, although I feel that the only correct approach is to remove from the Bill a clause that cannot seriously be said to be a necessary reaction to the threat from international terrorism.
3.30 p.m.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: Like the previous speakers, I would like Clauses 110 and 111 removed from the Bill. That would be the only satisfactory safeguard. Nevertheless, the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, is to be congratulated on giving us an alternative to discuss.
It is surely a disgrace that such provisions should reach this House without having had any scrutiny in the elected House. We should begin to wonder what the House of Commons is about when it allows such serious provisions to be put into an emergency powers Bill without scrutiny in Committee, on Report or at Third Reading. The Commons should have discussed these matters properly.
If these provisions had been brought forward by a Tory government, there would have been hell to pay from the very people who are now proposing this legislation. For example, they would have been described as being Right-wing extremists, or even as fascists. Nevertheless, the Bill is proposed by a Labour Government.
The provision goes extremely wide. The noble Lord, Lord Waddington, has just mentioned some of the problems that will arise and some of the powers which will be given to government to agree, behind closed doors in Europe—powers given to Ministers other than have been elected by the British people. When those proposals come back to Parliament, it will not be possible to amend them in either House because our power of amendment is to be removed. They will therefore have to go through exactly as negotiated by British Ministers with other Ministers who, I repeat, have not been elected by the British people. That is quite unprecedented in matters of this kind.

589
The Government say, "We have done this on the environment and in other areas". But we are talking about people's rights and freedoms, which have to be protected through the law. We are here giving powers to Ministers to alter the law without primary legislation having gone through both Houses. It simply cannot be accepted.
The Daily Telegraph summed up the position reasonably well in a leading article on 30th November. It stated:
"The proposed law allowing EU justice and crime measures to he put through Parliament by ministerial order, rather than by primary legislation, should be fought tooth and nail. It is hard to know the possible consequences, but they could certainly include a Greek court, for example, being empowered to demand that a British subject living in Britain should be arrested and brought before it, without any chance to resist the demand in a British court. It is proposed, too, that police should be able to obtain information about any suspected criminal—not only terrorists—from public bodies such as the NHS or the BBC. The possibilities for abuse of such powers are extremely worrying".
That sums up the position extremely well. I hope that the amendments will be put to the vote and, if they are, that the Committee will support them unreservedly.
Lord Gard-Jones: I do not know whether I qualify for the description of the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, of a Euro-creep. Certainly those of us who have put in some hours in the salt mines are well cured of Euro enthusiasm.
I should like to make two general points, which I believe focus specifically on the clause before us. First, we should remind ourselves that in the European Union we are slightly making it up as we go along. It is a unique constitutional experiment and we will make mistakes. One of the areas where we are lagging behind, if we believe in intergovernmentalism, as I believe most Members of your Lordships' House do, is in ensuring that national parliaments are grafted into the procedure. At the moment that is an astonishing weakness in the structures, and one which I hope the British Government will address at the next intergovernmental council.
Secondly, we still stick to the arcane Ponsonby rules and pretend that many of the items issuing from the European Union are of foreign treaty, whereas in effect they are a kind of hybrid. They are not a foreign treaty; they are regulations which produce laws in this country. My view is that the provision the Government are seeking to bring forward is deeply damaging to those of us who hope and seek to make the European Union work. It is simply not presentable.
I am prepared to argue to most of my fellow citizens that British sovereignty does not hinge on the whitefish regime and indeed that British sovereignty is better exercised in trade matters, in co-operation with our partners in the European Union. I do not think that I, or many of my fellow citizens, believe that matters like foreign policy, home affairs and defence are not matters of national sovereignty. I have been happy to argue to Euro-sceptics anywhere in the United
590
Kingdom that intergovernmental matters are matters which are decided in Parliament by the British Parliament.
What this clause damagingly seeks to do is bring to Parliament by secondary legislation measures which, as my noble friend Lord Waddington pointed out, go to the heart of our criminal procedure in Britain, without any proper debate in the British Parliament. That could be deeply damaging to those of us who seek to promote the European cause.
I very much hope that the noble Lord, Lord Rooker—who is indeed a reasonable man—will take these concerns, expressed by Euro-enthusiasts and Euro-sceptics alike, to heart and withdraw the clause. That would be my preference. If not, I shall have no hesitation in supporting the amendment that has been proposed.
Lord Moran: I warmly support the Government in bringing forward emergency legislation on international terrorism at this time. As was pointed out earlier by this House, it should apply to all international terrorism, not merely with the IRA and the Loyalist terrorists exempted. However, I think that Clauses 110 and 111 have no place in this Bill.
When I first looked at this matter, I was very struck by the seventh report of the Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform, to which my noble friend Lord Bledisloe referred. It is a very sober and judicial committee. It does not become excited and get carried away, as some of us may do. I noted that what it said, however, was very strong. The Select Committee pointed out that the Bill conferred a very wide power to implement, by secondary legislation, measures adopted under the third pillar. It said that it is,
"still a dramatically wide power to rewrite the Statute Book in the criminal justice context",
and that:
"The fundamental issue is whether this procedure, which currently applies to economic and regulatory measures, should also apply to the most sensitive areas of policing and criminal justice, with the potential to impinge on individual rights and liberties".
It pointed out that Justice had serious concerns about the delegated power proposal. It said, as my noble friend pointed out, that there is no precedent for the grant of powers to amend United Kingdom law by order in such important and sensitive areas.
So strongly did the Select Committee feel that, over the page, it said it all again: that this was,
"by far the most sweeping general provision for the creation of offences by secondary legislation that we know of",
and that the clauses raised issues of great significance. I think that we should pay very careful attention to those words. The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, said that the other place had not scrutinised the measure. That is true; none the less in fairness I should point out that

591
the Home Affairs Committee of another place considered the matter and concluded at page 17 of its first report:
"We view with concern the broad power to implement justice and home affairs measures under the third pillar of the Treaty of European Union—whether concerned with terrorism or not—by means of secondary rather than primary legislation".
The whole case against the inclusion of Clauses 110 and 111 was made in a notable speech at Second Reading by the noble Lord, Lord Waddington. The case that he put then was overwhelming. We in this Chamber are being asked to agree a procedure under which not only the measures agreed in the European Union after September 11th, but all that went before and all that will happen in the future, will be settled by secondary legislation by the executive without any scrutiny by either House of Parliament except the affirmative procedure which, of course, is very much weaker than proper discussion. Neither this Chamber nor the other place will have any opportunity to discuss and consider properly these measures which will have great consequences for individuals who may find themselves hauled off abroad in connection with offences which are not offences in this country. I very much hope that the Government will think again and either accept the Liberal Democrat amendment or, even better, strike out the two clauses altogether.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: The noble Lord, Lord Moran, reminded the Committee of what the Delegated Powers Committee said. I am a member of that committee, and I am glad that he has done so. I refer to page 24 of our seventh report where an extract from a memorandum by Justice is printed which reminds us that the power we are talking about,
"will apply even where the measures implemented are contrary to existing primary legislation: Ministers will be able to repeal existing primary legislation by means of secondary legislation".
That is the extent of the power we are talking about: it seems a fairly extraordinary proposal.
I was interested to note that the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, introduced the amendment we are discussing. He is the chairman of the committee which has the job of scrutinising third pillar recommendations. When I served on that committee—I expect that a number of Members of the Committee are present or past members—I remember the difficulty involved in carrying out any scrutiny at all of these issues. It has been explained that that is due to recommendations arrived at by negotiation. Ministers negotiate intergovernmentally and, as they are all answerable to their own parliaments, what they decide goes straight back to their own parliaments in the relevant member states. I think that the noble Lord will agree that very often the committee is, as it were, chasing the issue which is under discussion at the Council of Ministers. Before it has time to catch up, suddenly it is a fait accompli and will simply whistle through both Houses as an order. That is completely undemocratic. There is no scrutiny at all. It is, in fact, a constitutional monstrosity and simply cannot be allowed.
592
At Second Reading the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, made extremely friendly noises about the committee's recommendations. I had expected to hear before today's debate that he had accepted what the committee said. I am disappointed that that has not occurred. If he intends to accept what the committee said, we shall have wasted our time. But if that does not happen, I hope that we shall vote on the matter, either today or certainly on Report.
Lord Condon: I thank the Government for bringing forward this important Bill, but I share the reservations raised in connection with Clause 110. As a relatively new Member here, I should find it difficult to persuade colleagues and members of the public how Clause 110 as currently drafted takes forward the fight against terrorism. I hope that the Minister will concede that the clause could be better drafted. Like other speakers, I support the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Wallace.
Lord Maclennan of Rogart: The absence of necessity for Clause 110 must lead one to hope that the Government will not press it. Unlike the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, I am glad that the Minister has not intervened too early for it has allowed a wide spectrum of views to be expressed and many arguments to be deployed which have wisely pointed to the exceedingly large number of disadvantages in what is proposed.
There is one issue that I have not heard explicitly raised; that is, the position of Scotland. The Executive of Scotland is responsible for some of the matters that are covered by the issues in Clause 110. I should be interested to know whether conversations have taken place on that matter between the Minister for Justice and Deputy First Minster, Mr Jim Wallace, and Home Office Ministers. I find it hard to believe that Scotland, which has cherished the independence of its legislative process for criminal law, should have conceded the acceptability of this measure. In 200 years of close union it has not been thought necessary to provide for a measure of this kind in Scotland.
Although we are moving—some of us are happy to see this—towards ever-closer union within the European Union, that does not underwrite a mode of democratic procedure in the slightest degree comparable with what is proposed here. There is no analogy between the third pillar and matters handled under the first pillar by a wholly different legislative process. The very fact that this is a third pillar matter underwrites the wisdom of making these distinctions at earlier Heads of Government conferences. I hope that the Minister will not force the Committee to rely upon my noble friend's excellent amendment but will simply indicate that this is a misconception and one which either now or at a later date the Government will withdraw.
3.45 p.m.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: Will the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, who undertook continually to discuss the Bill with the Scots Parliament, indicate whether he

593
is discussing this particular issue? I intended to comment on that matter as the Scots Parliament will have to implement all this by secondary legislation, as will Westminster if the Bill is passed, and I am perfectly certain that it will not want to do that.
Baroness Strange: I support the Bill almost entirely, but in this instance I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, and my noble friends Lord Williamson, Lord Bledisloe and Lord Moran, that the whole Bill is a bit like the man boarding an aeroplane who is having his heavy luggage weighed and is asked by the staff, "Have you left this luggage unattended? Have you packed it all yourself? Have you packed anything that was given to you by anyone else?" The man replies, perfectly truthfully, "No". However, he then proceeds to take a whole lot of hand luggage with him about which he has said nothing. It seems to me that these clauses constitute part of the hand luggage.
Lord Elton: I like that analogy. I am tempted to intervene in a debate in which the case has conclusively been made for one reason only; namely, that I was the Minister who took the then Police and Criminal Evidence Bill through the Chamber in, I think, 1984. I remained interested and closely concerned with criminal justice thereafter. I am aware of the immensely intricate structure of which our criminal justice system consists and of the difficulty of amending it in one place without affecting it deleteriously in another.
Members of the Committee are well aware of what the third pillar is and they understand the difference between primary and secondary legislation. However, for those who are following this matter from outside, I believe it is worth saying that primary legislation is debated in both Houses, and in this House every part of it is discussed and can be altered. Secondary legislation can be discussed in both Houses but cannot be altered at all; it can only be accepted or refused.
The possibility of something being generated in negotiation with our European partners into a shape which can amend our criminal justice system in one place without having deleterious effects in another and of our being aware of any deleterious effects that there might be without extensive debate in this House of the type to which we are accustomed seems to me remote in the extreme. I regard this proposal as exceedingly dangerous. I greatly support the Liberal Democrat Front Bench on this occasion and, indeed, shall support my noble friends when we come to debate the Question of whether this clause should stand part.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: I begin with something of an apology for not having been in my place at the start of this debate. I shall trim my remarks accordingly. I have tabled a modest amendment, which at least has the merit that its meaning can be understood at first reading. That is quite a rare feature of amendments.
The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, raised the interesting notion of what the reaction would have been had the present Opposition been in government and produced legislation of this kind. I believe that
594
there would have been a volcanic reaction against it. Compared with that, what is being said very reasonably from this side of the Chamber is most restrained.
I have come to believe, first, that all governments increasingly tend to identify their own convenience with the national interest. Secondly, governments, although not themselves intrinsically stupid, tend to find it easier to do stupid rather than sensible things. It is in the power of Ministers this afternoon to rebut both those propositions. They can accept one or more of the amendments that have been tabled; they can announce that they have decided to reject both these objectionable clauses; or, alternatively, they can come forward with something better of their own. If they do not, I believe that they will be admitting the reasonableness of the two propositions which I have put forward, and I hope that they will decorate themselves with them.
We are exceedingly fortunate to have the guidance of the Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform. On the off-chance—the awfulpossibility—that not all Ministers or their advisers have read every word of what is an extremely weighty report, I venture to quote a number of sentences from it.
First, on page 4, there is a clear statement that,
"the power is still a dramatically wide power to rewrite the Statute Book in the criminal justice context".
I cannot help feeling that, however devoted the Government may be to every line of the Bill—I include in particular the Home Secretary, who is disappointingly inflexible in some of the statements that he has made—they cannot be entirely happy to have a committee such as the Delegated Powers Select Committee making that type of comment about legislation for which the Home Secretary is personally responsible.
There is a quotation from page 5 of the report which I believe should be written into the record of this debate:
"Such measures"—
that is, measures now in contemplation at the European Union level—
"would obviously go much wider than the ambit of anti-terrorism legislation … But there is no precedent for the grant of powers to amend United Kingdom law by order in such important and sensitive areas, and the seeking of such powers in an emergency bill which is expected to pass through all its stages in both Houses of Parliament within some three weeks is truly innovative".
Again, that is a statement which I believe Ministers will ignore at their peril. If they do riot observe its meaning and withdraw in the face of it, I believe that they will be left with a great deal of which they will be thoroughly ashamed in the future.
The committee's conclusion in paragraph 13 is that it is,
"of the view that the powers to implement by secondary legislation proposals under the third pillar should not be granted except to allow the implementation of a measure which the Government can demonstrate is a key element in its emergency proposals and yet not of such importance as to warrant primary legislation".

595
I hope that Ministers have already read those quotations and have them in mind. If they do not, I have at least refreshed their memories. If they do, I hope that they will apply their minds to giving a lucid, clear and potent answer to what the Select Committee has said. To my mind, it is totally and wholly unanswerable.
In conclusion, I welcome something which does not always happen to me; that is, to have an opportunity to echo with warm agreement what was said by the Leader of my own party in another place. I also agree very warmly with what was said recently by my honourable friend Mr Oliver Letwin. He stated:
"We have a case, therefore, against including clauses 109 and 110—at least as they are currently drafted—in emergency legislation, and a material case against them in any event. The whole point of the third pillar of the EU is that it gives member states an opportunity to continue to control the vital question of how they are governed from the point of view of their criminal law … we want these clauses to be restricted to the very narrow extradition proceedings to which the UK is already committed, and thereafter to lapse, so that we can return, as we believe that we should, to implementing EU third-pillar decisions in primary legislation".—[Official Report, Commons, 19/11/01; cols. 42–43.]
The Government asked Parliament and the nation to pass this measure with quite exceptional speed. On the whole, most of us went along with that very willingly. I believe that it would be intolerable, and those of us who were perfectly happy to do so would feel badly let down, if the Government, in the name of convenience only, were simply to extend slightly the boundaries of their previous intention because of some definition difficulties or whatever. It would be monstrous. Any trust which other parties may have in them currently would be very seriously diminished.
4 p.m.
Lord Chalfont: I shall be brief because having listened to the debate this afternoon, I find that I have nothing new to say. However, it is worth making a few remarks, if only to bring home to the Government the almost universal strength of feeling about Clauses 110 and 111.
Generally speaking, I am in favour of the proposed legislation and want to see the Bill on the statute book as quickly as possible. The Government are right to introduce emergency legislation to deal with terrorism, but I am not persuaded that these clauses are necessary to prosecute the fight against international terrorism, as the noble Lord, Lord Moran, said. On the contrary, I believe that they carry with them grave dangers to our constitution, as the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, said, although I would not attempt to emulate his celebrated impression of Sir Laurence Olivier in putting forward that proposal.
Shorn of its formal drafting language, the Bill is asking us to approve a situation in which it will be possible for the government of the day, of whichever political persuasion, to implement without primary legislation decisions on matters of British law, together with any consequential criminal penalties, which have been arrived at in negotiation between Ministers in
596
Brussels. As other Members of the Committee have said, that would place an unacceptable instrument of power in the hands of the executive.
It is not just a matter of crime and terrorism. The proposal means that any measure agreed under the so-called third pillar by European Ministers can become the law of this country without any of the checks and balances by which Parliament can call the executive to account. Parliament has already been dangerously marginalised and emasculated. Day after day one sees evidence of the fact that Parliament is no longer taken seriously by the executive. It is ignored and is often placed second in the considerations of the executive in putting forward and seeking agreement to it policies.
The implications of these two clauses need to be studied at great length and depth by both Houses of Parliament before they can be contemplated. I want to make the point forcefully that it is not acceptable that a constitutional change of this magnitude should be slipped into a Bill that is supposed to be an emergency measure designed to fight international terrorism. It is a sleight of hand and one that the Minister will now realise has no support in this Chamber and almost universal opposition elsewhere. If the amendment is pressed to a Division, I shall support it, but in the long run, the best thing for the sake of Parliament and the country as a whole would be to remove the clause altogether.
Lord Kingsland: I am in the happy position of agreeing with everything that every Member of the Committee has said, so I can be exceedingly telegraphic.
Intergovernmentalism is an admirable principle, but in practice it works very badly. The legislature under the third pillar consists of three ingredients. First, there are the senior officials who prepare measures; secondly, there are the ambassadors who convene to discuss them; and, finally, there are the Ministers in the Council of Ministers who determine them. All three layers meet in secret. There is no involvement of the European institutions, including the European Parliament, on the one hand, or of national parliaments on the other.
In Clauses 110 and 111, the Government could be described as approaching the implementation of these measures in two ways. The first is to say that they are guilty of a disingenuous act of cynicism in trying to evade parliamentary scrutiny. That has been the theme and tenor of so many speeches this afternoon. The second reason may be that the Government have concluded that whether decisions made by the Council of Ministers at the third pillar are implemented by delegated or primary legislation matters not a jot. Once the framework decision is taken, the nature of the obligation on the member state is so strict and severe that the room for national parliamentary manoeuvre is zero.
Rather than, for example, providing for the European arrest warrant under Clauses 110 and 111, the Government have offered the option of having the matter scrutinised with the full panoply of a Bill. But

597
what difference will that make? Once a third pillar decision has been taken in secret by the Council of Ministers, what difference will it make if the matter is dealt with by primary rather than delegated legislation?
My noble friend Lord Garel-Jones, in his interesting intervention, said that the original idea behind inter-governmentalism was to replace the European institutions with the national Parliaments. But what has happened is that the European institutions have been displaced but the national parliaments have no role whatsoever. The only meaningful role that the national parliament can have in this matter must be before the decision is taken by those three layers. What role have your Lordships or those in the other place had in that decision? We have had virtually none.
Your Lordships' House should be involved much earlier in the scrutiny of third pillar matters—much earlier than at the Committee stage of a Bill. We should devise a procedure whereby we send a Minister to negotiate only when he is absolutely clear about the limits of his or her discretion. Those limits will determine the limits of our ability to make changes to what has been decided in Brussels when we implement the law.
That matter goes beyond the specifics of the Bill into the formidable territory of the relationship between our Parliament and the European institutions in the years to come. I shall be interested in the Minister's reply.
The Earl of Onslow: Before the Minister replies, would she care to look behind her to see whether she has any support?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: The noble Earl, Lord Onslow, is always extremely kind.
Several Members of the Committee, in discussing Clause 110, have reflected on the report of the Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform. On Second Reading my noble friend Lord Rooker said that he was examining the four recommendations and that we would do our best to meet the spirit of those recommendations. I believe that he went on to say that the four recommendations were reasonable and that if we could not meet them we would need good reasons for not doing so.
The Government are still reflecting not only on what was said by the Select Committee but on what is being said today. No Member of this Committee has listened to what has been said without realising that there is a formidable power of argument that has considerable concerns about these clauses. We undertake that we shall consider carefully everything that is said, not only in the report but in Committee today.
The noble Earl, Lord Onslow, is right that history is important, but so is the future. The noble Earl used characteristically colourful language to remind us of the events of September 11th. However, we need to reflect on the power of international terrorists to wreak appalling ends on innocent people.
598
The noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, also accused the Government of using what he called a bandwagon of emotion about September 11th to "smuggle in"—I quote his words—the measures. That was unfortunate phraseology and I hope that he will reflect on his remarks. The Government do not believe that September 11th can be so easily put to one side. It was not a blip in the history of terrorism. As many Members of the Committee said, what happened on September 11th was a real change in the way international terrorists work. As we know, there is organised terrorism in the world, and it can be horribly—devastatingly—effective. It crosses international barriers and it tries to exploit any loophole that it can find in the workings of our international institutions. In the Bill we seek to stop terrorists having the chance to exploit those loopholes and to put positive powers in the hands of those who really are in a position to challenge the terrorists.
I turn to the amendments.
Viscount Bledisloe: Before the Minister leaves that point, and in light of the criticisms that she has made of my language, will she explain how a power to create criminal offences and a punishment of less than two years is going to assist in the fight against international terrorism?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: I was going to explain why the measures are in the Bill. The point about terrorist offences not being covered by offences involving sentences of two years is something of a false analogy. There is a two-year limitation because that is what the power in the European Communities Act 1972 for the first pillar—the enabling provision—states. Subsection (7) contains the power to create offences with longer sentences.
I shall explain why the measures are in the Bill. That will enable us to discuss the amendments. Amendments Nos. 126B and 126C, which are Liberal Democrat amendments, would, taken separately, negate the entire purpose of Clause 110. There may be a problem with the double negative, but I suspect that that is just a drafting problem.
Amendment No. 126D, which is also a Liberal Democrat amendment, would limit the enabling powers that will be conferred by Clause 110 to the implementation of just a small part of the EU's action plan against terrorism. The EU's framework decision on combating terrorism will create common definitions of terrorist offences and impose common penalties across the EU. That is to be welcomed, but it is only a very small part of the EU's fight against terrorism. The EU is taking action to tackle terrorism across the board through rapid and effective judicial co-operation and swift action to freeze the assets of terrorists and by allowing our law enforcement agencies to work together in joint investigative teams.
I am grateful to Members of the Committee for recognising our commitment to implement the 1995 and 1996 extradition conventions by the end of this year. I hope that they also recognise the importance of

599
the other measures that have been taken through the EU on anti-terrorism, including the framework decision on combating terrorism.
I turn to Amendment No. 126E, which is in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Peyton. That amendment would restrict the relevant powers to measures that deal specifically with terrorism. However, for practical purposes it is not possible to separate out terrorism from other forms of serious crime. The point is well illustrated by the draft framework decision on asset freezing. That would allow mutual recognition of freezing orders concerning serious crimes, including terrorism, drug trafficking and money laundering. It cannot have escaped the attention of any Member of the Committee—we have discussed this in the House—that drug trafficking has been connected, as a source of finance, with the terrorist organisation in Afghanistan. It is enormously difficult—I should say that it is impossible—to separate the two matters in the way the noble Lord proposes.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Waddington: Surely it is possible to separate xenophobia and terrorism? If the Minister reads Title VI as a whole and the whole of Article 29, that should make it clear that the power to legislate by delegated legislation includes a power to deal with, for instance, xenophobia. What on earth has that got to do with the present emergency or with terrorism?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: The amendment involves separating out terrorism. My sole point is that it is enormously difficult to separate out issues such as drug trafficking or trafficking in human beings. We have discussed that many times in the House. I thought that most of us were united in the view that such criminal activity, as it relates to terrorism, becomes part and parcel of terrorist activity itself.
Lord Waddington: Yes, but surely not part and parcel of xenophobia. Why do the Government have to take in the Bill the power to legislate through delegated legislation to deal with xenophobia?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: I shall take further advice on the point involving xenophobia, which clearly considerably exercises the noble Lord, Lord Waddington. However, I do not think that that point undermines the main thrust of my argument about other terrorist activities.
Our efforts in relation to trafficking in drugs or individuals—I was discussing those examples—could be vital in securing terrorist assets, which would otherwise be dissipated or destroyed. The amendment would restrict regulations under the new clause—
Lord Goodhart: So far as freezing the assets of terrorists is concerned, is it really likely that anything will be added to the provisions that are already in Part 2?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: The point that I am trying to make—clearly not as successfully as I had thought—is that Amendment No. 126E seeks to limit this part of the Bill solely to terrorism. The Government do not believe that it is possible to define terrorism in a way that would distinguish it from activities related to it. I have referred in particular to the crimes of trafficking in drugs or people because we know that they are connected with terrorism. The Government do not believe that it is possible to separate out those matters in the way the amendment proposes.
The Earl of Onslow: Is the Minister therefore saying that terrorism means any crime? That is what she seems to be saying. If one cannot separate terrorism from anything, "terrorism" could mean anything that the Government want it to mean. I do not think that that is a very good idea.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: I did not hear the first part of the noble Earl's point.
The Earl of Onslow: As I understood the Minister, she said that one cannot separate terrorism and define it. Ergo, that means that we are taking powers to deal with any crime. That is the logic of what she said. I thought that we were trying to define matters involving terrorism as closely as we could because, in relation to terrorism, some of us will reluctantly go along with emergency legislation. However, we will not go along with general broad-sweep definitions or her argument that she cannot define terrorism and that it has to include other matters.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My point is that other crimes fund terrorism. To try to separate out terrorism in the way the amendment proposes is not a practical option. That is a relatively simple point. The noble Earl may disagree with me, and I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, does. But the Government's view is that it is not possible to separate out the matters in a practical sense because the other crimes are the source of revenue for terrorists.
Lord Waddington: Is the Minister seriously saying that it is necessary to take power to change our criminal law in almost any respect in order to further the fight against terrorism? I do not have a fixation about xenophobia; I was using that as an extreme example. Does she realise that, in effect, the Government are taking power to change our criminal law in virtually any respect? Why is it necessary to change our criminal law in any respect in order to further the fight against terrorism? That is the simple question.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: I do not believe that that is so. I believe that it is important to try to close the loopholes in the definition of "terrorism". We want to take these powers in order to frustrate the terrorist. We are listening carefully to what is being said, but at the moment I hope that I am doing my duty

601
to the Committee by explaining why the Bill is framed as it is. Your Lordships may disagree with that but we shall consider what has been said.
From all sides of the Committee, the arguments have been put carefully, but now I have to try to explain why the Bill is framed as it is. Your Lordships believe—at least the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, does—that it is right for terrorism to be dealt with separately. The Government's belief is that that is not a practical option because of the close links, acknowledged by your Lordships, between some kinds of criminal activity and terrorism.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: I would never join in any accusation of the noble Baroness failing to do her best to help your Lordships' House. I tabled my simple amendment confident in the knowledge that the Government, in introducing an anti-terrorism Bill, knew what they were talking about. If we need a definition of "terrorism" before any amendment similar to my amendment becomes acceptable, I cannot believe that it is beyond the power of the Government to take the matter away and say that they will introduce a new amendment on terrorism that will include those activities that can be taken as within the curtilage of terrorism. If they produced something like that I would be content. However, I find it difficult to accept that the Government are incapable of defining a word that is in the title of the Bill.
Lord Marsh: On a slightly different point, many noble Lords are now familiar with the issues that those who moved the amendment genuinely want decided and to which they would like answers. The generosity of the Minister in giving way is producing a strong desire in some noble Lords for her to take the opportunity to divulge at least five or six paragraphs of answer to the questions that are now familiar to many of us.
Lord Garel-Jones: Before the Minister replies, perhaps I may add to what the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, said. By definition, a terrorist is willing to commit any criminal offence. Therefore, we are being asked to allow a system whereby, through the European Union, the whole of our criminal law will be subject to change by secondary legislation, which is simply not acceptable. I am trying to be helpful to the Minister. The only way to answer this matter is for a British government—this problem has faced successive governments—to bring forward proposals that will graft national parliaments on to these secret discussions, as they are now described. That is the point raised by my noble friend Lord Kingsland. That and nothing but that will satisfy Parliament.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: I look forward to dealing with the matters in relation to Parliament, which I shall do once I have had an opportunity to answer the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Peyton. I hope that I shall not trespass much longer on the patience of the noble Lord, Lord Marsh.
602
The Government always believe that they are putting forward the best legislation to meet their purposes at the time. Sometimes governments are accused of arrogance and of not listening to what is said. I hope that I have not displayed such arrogance; I hope that I have listened carefully, as has my noble friend Lord Rooker, to what has been said. I shall take on board the remarks that have been made in Committee. I do not believe that I can say fairer than that.
I remind noble Lords that the situation is difficult. Terrorists have rewritten the rule book and we have to consider how to respond. I hesitate to return to the amendment, but it would restrict the regulations under the new clause to dealing with the orders freezing international terrorist drug money. In practice it is not particularly easy—in fact it is almost impossible—to distinguish such drug money from other forms of drug money and the result will be confusion and delay. I recognise that that is not necessarily the view of the noble Lord, Lord Peyton. My noble friend and I shall reflect upon what has been said, although most of the arguments of your Lordships have concerned the powers and the role of Parliament. I shall now turn to that subject.
Considerable concerns have been expressed in Committee about the assault, as some noble Lords see it, on Parliament by the executive. This power is no different from the power that has existed for the past 30 years under Section 2(2) of the European Communities Act 1972 relating to the implementation of European Community obligations. As your Lordships know, that power allows for the implementation of agreement in areas of great importance; for example, in employment and social policy, in agriculture, and in competition issues. It also allows for the creation of new criminal offences and has done so on over 100 occasions.
In framing the legislation as the Government have in the Bill we have deliberately sought to allow the maximum parliamentary oversight by stating that all the secondary legislation under the enabling power will be subject to affirmative resolution. There will be an opportunity for parliamentary debate on every occasion. Many of the changes will be small, technical tweaks, if I may so describe them, to existing legislation, although others will naturally be much more substantial.
That is in contrast to Section 2(2) of the European Communities Act which allows the Government to choose to use negative or affirmative resolutions. As your Lordships know, the JHA Council can agree police and judicial co-operation measures only by unanimity. Therefore, a United Kingdom Minister must agree the policy or the framework. All measures agreed by the JHA Council are then subject to the full scrutiny of both Houses while they are negotiated. Effective parliamentary oversight of JHA Council measures is dealt with through that scrutiny process, as I believe was acknowledged during the debate on the European arrest warrant.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: I am most grateful to the noble Baroness for giving way. She may wish to reconsider the statement that all matters under the JHA Council are decided by unanimity. We shall come to this in the next group of amendments. If what has been agreed at Nice comes to pass, whether it is ratified or not, the requirement for unanimity will be deleted from nearly all of Article 24 of the treaty on European union. I put it to the noble Baroness that these are difficult areas. What she has said may no longer be the case under the Nice agreement.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: We still have to complete our consideration of the Nice Bill, and ratification, as the noble Lord knows. I am sorry if there was a slip. I meant to say that as regards framework and policy arrangements there is unanimity. I apologise for that slip.
Perhaps I may return to the point I was making. During the debate on the European arrest warrant on 19th November, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scott of Foscote, commented that,
"the Government will be under an obligation … to bring into effect legislation which corresponds to the decision which they will … have agreed [and] scope for manoeuvre will not be broad".— [Official Report. 19/11/01; col. 950.]
One or two Members of the Committee made some reference to what I might describe as the quality of justice in other member states, particularly those reflected in some recent newspaper articles. All EU members are mature democracies and if we are to work together effectively to tackle serious cross-border crime, we have to have confidence in the legal systems of our partners. But where necessary, minimum standards or conditions for mutual recognition will be specified. That is something which can be addressed, we believe, in the implementation stage of the relevant instrument.
There was a discussion about an alternative which might have been corpus juris, a body of harmonised EU law. But I do not believe that that would in any way attract the support of your Lordships' House.
There are a number of issues surrounding the concept of dual criminality. The fact is that that does allow for a degree of delay, obfuscation and confusion, which can be of crucial benefit to a terrorist. It allows those who wish to do harm to our societies more time to carry out their intentions. More importantly, it denies justice to the victims of terrorism. It is for that reason that we do not believe that it is any longer appropriate.
Perhaps I may answer the point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy of Lour, as regards Scotland. We have discussed the matter with the Scottish Executive at official level. The Home Secretary has also discussed the matter with Mr Jim Wallace. The Bill allows for the Scottish Executive to pass its own regulations under this power in relation to devolved issues.
I believe that the Committee wishes to be in a position to toughen up EU-level action against terrorism. I do not believe that there is any difference
604
in the Committee on that issue. We all believe that we need to take action against serious crime that is inextricably linked to terrorism, however we define that linkage. The Government have pushed forward the most effective measures possible in what are, I agree, very tight deadlines. But I assure the Committee that it is not the Government trying to attack the powers and privileges of Parliament, but recognising the realities of terrorism and crime in the 21st century. All police and judicial co-operation will be under some unanimity even post-Nice.
We have to reflect very carefully on what has been said this afternoon. I opened my remarks by reflecting on what my noble friend said at Second Reading. I am neither in a position now to withdraw the clause nor to accept the amendment. But my noble friend and I are in a position, as I have said, to reflect not only on what has been said today but to reflect as well on what was said in the Select Committee. On that basis I hope that the Committee will be content not to press this matter to a Division today.
Lord Elton: Before the noble Baroness sits down—I am sorry to test her patience further—perhaps I may point out that in paragraph 7 of Select Committee report it is put forward, as I understand it, that at present on the agenda, or already under consideration for the procedure which we are now discussing, is a measure for the,
"mutual recognition of pre-trial decisions, meaning that domestic courts would be bound by judicial decisions in other member states relating to matters such as evidence and the seizure of assets".
When the noble Baroness is reflecting, will she consider whether it is not possible to disentangle that kind of thing from the great matrix of interlinking with terrorism which the noble Baroness said that she could not escape for any criminal activity?
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: While the noble Baroness is reflecting on that point, she has just said that all matters under police and judicial co-operation in criminal matters will be subject to some form of unanimity. The amendments passed at Nice under Article 24 of the TEU make it clear that they apply also to the provisions under Title 6. What the noble Baroness has said may not be factually accurate if the Nice provisions come into force.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: I shall write to the noble Lord. I understood that it was civil judicial co-operation that would be subject to qualified majority voting. If I have misunderstood I shall write to the noble Lord. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Elton, for the way in which he put his points about paragraph 7 of the report. We shall certainly look very closely at the points the noble Lord has raised.
Lord Kingsland: The noble Baroness said that once decisions had been taken under the third pillar council by unanimity, the room for maneouvre for a member state would be very narrow and confined to technical matters. I therefore understood that the noble

605
Baroness meant that, further, it did not really matter whether implementation took place by affirmative resolution or by primary legislation. Would that be a right conclusion to draw?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: I was quoting and I am sorry if that was not clear. I was quoting what was said during the debate on the European arrest warrant on 19th November by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scott of Foscote. I understand that affirmative procedures are very different from primary procedures and that is the purport of much of the concern that has emanated from the Committee today. They are very different matters and I would not seek in any way to pretend otherwise.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: I was criticised in this debate for the moderation of my speech in moving the amendment. I plead in mitigation that I arrived by plane from Washington this morning and that I was not entirely wide awake.
Perhaps I may add that one of the points that most cheered me in the United States was the vigour of the debate there on how far the United States should compromise its civil liberties in the war on terrorism. Many supporters of the current Republican administration are themselves questioning the proposals that the administration are putting forward. I was most struck by two articles by William Safire, Ronald Reagan's speechwriter, vigorously attacking the powers which the Bush administration now wish to take. I note the silence on the Government's Back Benches on this clause. That speaks volumes in itself for the lack of enthusiasm on those Benches for these powers.
Yesterday lunchtime I was taken to the new memorial to F D Roosevelt, which has some wonderful quotations from his wartime speeches on the importance of maintaining one's commitment to civil liberties when one is defending civilisation. That is part of the context which we are now discussing.
Perhaps I may make three points about this clause. First, the Tampere European Council, in November 1999, agreed on a very ambitious five-year programme of measures in justice and home affairs to create an area of freedom, security and justice. As the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, and others have pointed out, that covers a very wide range of issues. Some of them are certainly to do with terrorism. Others concern immigration, asylum-seeking and a whole host of other matters. Some of them are terrorism-related, but not all crime falls into that category and not all serious crime is related to terrorism. Some of it is simply serious crime.
So far the Government have been inadequate in explaining to the Committee and to the public how important is this five-year programme. We are being asked to accept that we shall be taken further down this road, again without adequate explanation of its full implications.
Secondly, the noble Baroness says that this is no different from what has happened in the first pillar. But the whole point about there being a second and a
606
third pillar is that there is a great difference. Indeed, both the previous and the present government have insisted on maintaining that difference. Part of the difference is that at European level there should be no parliamentary scrutiny and no judicial review of the second and third pillar. Therefore, in compensation for that, it is all the more important that there should be adequate parliamentary scrutiny and judicial review at the national level.
Should the Government propose to move these things to the first pillar, some scrutiny would be achieved. Matters of civil liberties, which are sufficiently close to the heart of democratic government and to the rule of law, are, as a noble Lord from the Conservative Benches said, slightly more important than the white fish authority.
That is indeed my third point. These issues are peculiarly sensitive to democratic governments. Therefore, they merit more, not less, thorough consideration than the regulation of economic transactions, which is the stuff of first pillar legislation.
I am unaware of any national parliament within the EU being asked to consider that such general powers are necessary to the current legislation. It is wholly inappropriate to take this occasion to ask for general powers in the third pillar. At most, we should be willing to grant a carefully circumscribed and time-limited power.
We do not intend to press the amendment to a vote at this stage. However, if the Government refuse to accept its substance, we on these Benches will decide whether to press it again on Report or to vote for the removal of the whole of Clause 110. From what we have heard today it is clear that the Government will lose that clause unless they are willing to make substantial concessions. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 126C to 126E not moved.]
4.45 p.m.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch Lord Pearson of Rannoch moved Amendment No. 126EA:
Page 66, line 9, at end insert—
"( ) The powers conferred by subsection (1) do not include power to make any provision about the European Council Framework Decision on the European arrest warrant."
The noble Lord said: I start by apologising to Members of the Committee that this is a manuscript amendment, which was tabled only this morning. However, I hope that I shall be able to persuade the Committee that the situation surrounding the proposed framework decision on the European arrest warrant has become so serious as to justify what might otherwise be judged to be somewhat precipitate action.
Most Members of the Committee will be aware that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scott of Foscote, chairman of your Lordships' Sub-committee E, led tin important debate on the proposed EU arrest w arrant on 19th November after the sub-committee had been forced to consider it in unacceptable haste. As I

607
understand it, the noble Lord, Lord Rooker—the Minister—has not yet been able to answer in writing the several questions which were put to him by noble Lords from all sides of the House, and indeed questions which he could not answer that evening either.
Indeed, I think that it is fair to say that universal concern was expressed at the proposal, which the Minister was unable to allay. I also understand that your Lordships' Select Committee has not lifted the scrutiny reserve on this proposal. Until it is lifted, the Government should not agree it in Brussels. That is still the nature of the agreement between the Government and both Houses of Parliament.
Notwithstanding that, I understand that the Government support the proposal. They appear to be preparing to vote in favour of it on 6th and 7th December in Brussels; that is to say, on Thursday and Friday of this very week. This is therefore the last chance that your Lordships' House will have to express an opinion on the proposal; hence the urgency of the situation.
I know that the Government have said that they will bring the decision for primary legislation in January. As we heard in the previous debate, and as the Minister admitted on 19th November, the Government's room for manoeuvre in that primary legislation will be so limited as to be non-existent once they have agreed the framework decision in Brussels on Thursday and Friday of this week.
It is, alas, also true that the Government do not have to listen to your Lordships' House today. They can also ignore your Lordships' scrutiny reserve. They can just proceed to agree to the proposal in Brussels under their treaty-making powers. But let us hope that your Lordships' deliberations today may have some effect on their actions later this week.
Any noble Lord who wants to appreciate the full gravity of what is proposed should read the debate on 19th November in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scott of Foscote. Many noble Lords, far better qualified than I to decide such weighty legal matters, contributed to that debate.
Perhaps I may remind Members of the Committee of the salient features of the proposed European arrest warrant. It is a proposal which has been maturing in Brussels for years but was somehow accepted by the Council of Ministers in the wake of the events of 11th September when presumably it was posed as an anti-terrorist measures. However, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scott of Foscote, said, it is hard to see that it has much or anything to do with terrorism. The warrant could be served for any offence punishable in the issuing member state by a prison sentence of at least 12 months.
Article 2 of the framework decision also contains a list of 24 crimes which do not have to be a crime in the country where the arrested person lives. Most of these crimes are already crimes here, but some are not, or at least require much clearer definition. For instance, there is the crime of "swindling" or the crime of
608
"forgery of administrative documents and trafficking therein". I have put down Written Questions about the meaning of both those terms and have yet to receive a reply. I have to pray in aid the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scott of Foscote, who did not think that they were crimes in this country.
But perhaps the crime in this category which has attracted the most public disquiet is the crime of "racism and xenophobia". In our debate on 19th November the Minister was unable to define the crime of xenophobia. He has since told me a Written Answer that the crime of "xenophobia" will be what the member state which issues the arrest warrant decides it is. That situation will in fact apply to all the crimes listed in Article 2 of the framework decision.
During our debate on 19th November my noble friend Lord Lamont asked whether one could be arrested on an EU arrest warrant for a crime which one was alleged to have committed in this country, as defined by the issuing member state, even if the crime was not one in this country. That question took even the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scott, somewhat by surprise. It clearly floored the Minister. However, it has become clear from careful study of Article 2 paragraph 3 of the framework decision that my noble friend Lord Lamont had put his finger on one of the worst aspects of this proposal. British subjects and residents will indeed be able to be arrested and extradited for interrogation and trial on the say so of a magistrate in any of the other member states for doing something which is not necessarily a crime here.
I fear that that is not all. British subjects extradited for interrogation and trial in another member state will not be protected by the ancient safeguards of habeas corpus and trial by jury because they will come under the Napoleonic code with its system of instructing and visiting judges and so on.
Furthermore, the three other normal safeguards, which at the moment protect British subjects and others on our soil from inappropriate extradition, are to be swept away by European arrest warrants. They will not apply when a European arrest warrant is made. Those safeguards are, first, that a British court will no longer have to be satisfied that there is "sufficient proof" against a person to justify his extradition; secondly, no longer will he have to be guilty of what we in this country regard as a crime; and, thirdly, the Home Secretary will no longer be able to exercise his discretion as to whether extradition is appropriate in all the circumstances of the case. None of the three existing safeguards will exist under the proposed arrest warrant procedure. The say-so of the other member states' magistrates will be enough and the person will have to be extradited within 30 days.
I apologise once again to the Committee that it should be someone of my limited legal knowledge who introduces the amendment today. I hope that my well-known Euroscepticism will not detract from your Lordships' objective consideration of the amendment. I believe that the situation is as I have represented it.
The Government still have time to refuse to agree to the proposal. It must be agreed by unanimity on Thursday arid Friday of this week in Brussels. I should be most interested to hear the views of other Members of the Committee and to know whether they support the amendment. I hope that they will join me in asking the Government to resist this frightening proposal in Brussels this week.
Lord Waddington: We should be indebted to my noble friend Lord Pearson of Rannoch for explaining in detail the gravity of the proposal relating to the European arrest warrant. I do not want to go over the ground which he has covered and it is not my intention to use this opportunity to go into the merits of the proposal in detail. I want to underline to the Committee that if the power in Clause 110 is wide enough to allow the implementation by secondary legislation of a proposal such as this, it must be too wide.
That is the point on which we should continue to focus our attention. We spoke previously of the power being wide enough to allow the creation of any offence in this country. We are now dealing with another classic example of the width of the power. Although the Government have said that they intend to use primary legislation in order to implement the draft framework decision, no one can deny that Clause 110 is so widely drawn that if the Government wanted they could implement this framework decision by secondary legislation. And if the Government had their way, we could not have any real say on it in this Chamber and certainly could not veto it.
No one can deny that the proposal intimately affects the freedom and liberty of the subject. The measure would allow a British citizen to be removed from this country on the say-so of a foreign judge to face trial abroad for an offence unknown to British law. If that kind of new proposal can be implemented by the powers in Clause 110, there is something seriously wrong with the clause.
Lord Elton:. Perhaps, before my noble friend sits down, he can say whether the alleged offence—in fact, the non-offence—could have been committed in this country.
Lord Waddington: I was not going to grapple with that problem. My noble friend is probably right, but I do not have to make that point in order to emphasise the gravity of the proposal.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: In answer to my noble friend Lord Elton, I hoped that I had made the position clear. Yes, the crime could have been committed in this country if the offence is listed in Article 2 of the proposed framework decision. The list includes the crime of racism, xenophobia, swindling, forgery and trafficking in administrative documents, trafficking and counterfeiting the euro, but not the pound or the Danish krona. So one certainly can be
610
arrested for a crime which one is alleged to have committed on these shores, even though it is not a crime in this country.
Lord Elton: I am not drawn to do any of those things, but it seems to me extraordinary that it is proposed—
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: It is the turn of these Benches!
Lord Elton: I am so sorry, I thought I was continuing where I had left off. I shall give way.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: Do continue.
Lord Elton: I merely wanted to make the predictable point that it is beyond belief that for doing something which is not a crime in this country and which I did not know was a crime in Greece, I could be indicted by magistrates in Greece to appear before them without the protection of the British legal procedures. If that really is meant, it is the end of a long and honourable chapter in British history and one which, I should have thought, we should defend to the last.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: Perhaps I may continue along the same lines. Twelve plane spotters are at present incarcerated in Greece for something which, in our opinion, would not be a crime but presumably is in Greece. If those plane spotters were returned to this country at the present time, they would be safe from extradition and prosecution. But once the European extradition warrant is in place they will not he safe because the Greek Government, or the judicial authorities, will be able to say to us, "We suspect that the people you think are plane spotters are rather more than that and we want you to extradite them to us to be tried on the basis of the evidence we have received". It is a serious matter.
However, the problem goes deeper than the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, mentioned. He listed a number of items, including racism and xenophobia. The legislation will be serious for individuals and the newspapers of this country. I see in the Telegraph of Thursday 29th November—I am sorry to keep quoting it, but it provides good information—the heading,
"EU considers plans to outlaw racism".
And there is another thing the EU wants to do; namely, to make Holocaust denial or trivialisation of Nazi atrocities a crime also.
I do not want to deny the Holocaust because I was around at the time. I saw the pictures of Belsen and other camps. However, it has never been a crime for people to be able to express a different opinion, particularly in this country. I see no reason why people should not be able to continue to do so in this country, even though other countries may have a guilty conscience about what they did during the last war.
Therefore, the provision could go much wider. I do not know what the owners and the editor of the Sun will think of a proposal which could limit their right of

611
comment and speech. I do not know whether Mr Murdoch has been to see the Prime Minister, to whom he has open access, to warn him of the problems which could arise from the European arrest warrant.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: Perhaps I may help the noble Lord. Following our debate on 19th November, I understand that representatives of the Sun approached Downing Street. They were assured that anything they did would not be caught by these provisions. It is partly for that reason that I have brought the matter urgently before the Committee. It is clear that if the editor and proprietor of the Sun continue to write the kind of articles they have been known to write on occasion in the past and publish it in Germany, they could be caught under the general provisions of the decision. However, if they were to be accused of xenophobia, they would be caught under the second paragraph for publishing the newspaper in this country.
5 p.m.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: I am obliged to the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, for that information. He appears to suggest that the Prime Minister is able to give assurances to the owner of the Sun and other newspapers and periodicals that he is unable to give to Parliament—or at least not yet. Whether we shall receive such assurances this afternoon is another matter. It is very interesting to learn that at least Mr Murdoch has been concerned about the Sun. Mr Murdoch also owns The Times which is sometimes fairly forthright. Perhaps it will no longer be possible to call that newspaper "The Thunderer" when this legislation is passed.
I should like to raise one other very important point. When a person in this country is arrested for an offence that is not particularly serious but could attract a gaol sentence of up to one or two years there is a presumption of bail. That is not necessarily the case in all other countries. Therefore, a person might be arrested here under a European arrest warrant. I understand that the arrest would be made by police officers from another country who would certainly be accompanied by our own police officers. The individual could be extradited and taken to another country in the EU. If there was no presumption of bail in that country he could be incarcerated for weeks or months before being tried for the offence. We are considering a very serious situation. The people of this country have not caught up with what can happen to them under this legislation. I hope that the media understand what is going on and will give the people a wake-up call. I believe that if people are to be taken abroad and incarcerated for weeks on end without bail the Government will face very serious trouble—perhaps even rioting in the streets.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: Is the Minister able to provide any reassurance that at the meeting on 6th December irrevocable decisions will not be taken, which will be the subject of secondary, not primary,
612
legislation, on the proposal of the EU to turn Europol into an intelligence-gathering and co-ordinating agency? I have asked several times but still have not received an answer—which I was promised by the Minister Mr Ainsworth nearly three weeks ago—whether the proposal that an organisation should handle extremely delicate intelligence, which at present it is not in any way fitted to use, will proceed because it is all part of the fight against terrorism.
There is a very great difference between countries exchanging bilaterally delicate information about terrorism, as no doubt we are doing with many countries at the moment, and placing it in an organisation which is amateur, has a record of leaks and corruption, has set itself up out of the blue and is not accountable to us. It was set up by an EU committee, to which it is solely responsible, to handle terrorist intelligence from all over Europe. As far as concerns intelligence, I do not know how that will affect our relations with the Americans or even our bilateral relations, which are equally important. I still have not been told whether that was done after consultation with the intelligence committee, or whether there was consultation with anyone at all. I should like to be reassured that that will not pass into the equivalent of law by a decision on 6th December as part of the framework decision on terrorism and that it will come back to Parliament to be considered and dealt with by primary legislation. I have raised this question twice, if not three times, on the Floor of the House.
Lord Chalfont: I return briefly to the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, which is the essence of what we should be discussing in this Committee. We are dealing with an amendment to one specific clause of the Bill. One has heard some terrifying adumbrations from the noble Lords, Lord Pearson and Lord Stoddart. If it is true that the possibilities which they have outlined may come about because of the provisions of Clauses 110 and 111, it is vitally important that the Bill does not leave this House at least in the form in which it is at present drafted. Is the Minister able to provide clarification and give the Committee a clear assurance that Clause 110 does not cover the issues raised by the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch? If that can be said unequivocally the position is different.
Lord Kingsland: I entirely endorse the observations of my noble friend Lord Pearson about the threats posed by the decision in draft form if agreed to without change. In her reply will the Minister explain, in terms, in relation to each of my noble friend's concerns, whether or not the Government are to take a stand on them?
Lord Mayhew of Twysden: Before the Minister rises to reply—I suspect that the Committee is anxious that she should do so fairly soon—perhaps I may revert to another question put by my noble friend Lord Waddington in the previous debate. The Government are insistent that every part of this Bill derives from the

613
desire to combat terrorism. How does it come about that the powers to implement by order anything which emerges from Brussels in a way with which we are now familiar shall be limited only to those offences which carry a maximum penalty of less than two years' imprisonment? If the Government are concerned to hammer international terrorism, what is the rationale for that?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: To deal with the last point raised by the noble and learned Lord, I thought that I had dealt with it when I gave my earlier answer. We shall consider the points that have been raised. If there is anything further to be said about the "two-year" point, the Committee can rest assured that we shall do so.
The noble Lord, Lord Pearson, directs our attention to the European arrest warrant, which I assure the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, is not covered by Clause 110. I understand the concern.
Lord Waddington: Did I understand the noble Baroness correctly? Is the Minister saying that the European arrest warrant could not be implemented by Clause 110—in other words, by delegated legislation? I am assured that it could be. The fact that the Government have said that they are minded to use primary legislation is a different matter entirely. Surely, she must concede that Clause 110 is written so widely that, had the Government wished to implement the European arrest warrant by secondary legislation, they could have done so.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: I could have saved the noble Lord the point. It could be. However, the Government have made clear—I make it clear again—that it is not their intention to do so. The Government intend to bring forward legislation under an extradition Bill. I believe that my noble friend Lord Rooker has already made that clear; and I make it clear to the Committee now.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: But the reason why the Government are, as it were, using a two-pronged attack and producing the arrest warrant in advance, is that they have to reach a decision in Brussels on Thursday and Friday of this week. If they did not have to reach such a decision in a few days' time, they could have brought this proposal in under the provisions of Clause 110, to he considered along with the remainder of the Bill. Had that been the case, I would not have had to table the amendment and raise the issue in such a hurry.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: We have already planned to introduce an extradition Bill. It is the Government's view that that Bill would provide the more coherent and sensible way of bringing forward the provision. I should have thought that that would be a point that Members of the Committee would welcome since it will offer, quite rightly, an opportunity to discuss this as a matter of primary legislation.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: I cannot let the Minister get away with that. On the evening of 19th November, her colleague on the Front Bench agreed that once the Government have given way on this matter and gone along with it on Thursday and Friday of this week in Brussels, no room for manoeuvre will be left—notwithstanding the forthcoming extradition Bill. It will have been done unless we stop it tonight.
Lord Elton: Perhaps I may intervene on a brief point. The noble Baroness is saying that the power will not be used. I liken that to a grandfather giving his grandson a motor car on the understanding that the car will not be used to break the speed limit.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: Presumably if the noble Lord were to take away the car key, that might be the case. I am saying to Members of the Committee that we have given an undertaking to bring forward this legislation through the extradition Bill. I cannot add to what has been said by my noble friend Lord Rooker, who I believe has already made this point very clearly to noble Lords.
The European arrest warrant is, as the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, has pointed out, still under discussion. Indeed, I understand that a Select Committee in another place is discussing the matter even as we are discussing it in our Committee. We do not want to take a final view as regards how it will be implemented until those negotiations are complete.
I turn now to the point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Park, as regards intelligence. I am sorry if the noble Baroness has not received a satisfactory response. I believe that when I have replied to her on rather different matters—that is, with regard to intelligence matters in a European context; and it is in that context that the noble Baroness has voiced her concerns—I have assured her both on the military side—which is not the point exercising the noble Baroness here, although the same argument holds good—that we shall not part with any intelligence gathered from United Kingdom sources unless we are satisfied that proper protection is provided for such intelligence.
I understand that the noble Baroness has had her doubts on this point. When she raised them on the last occasion that this discussion was held—I hope that noble Lords will forgive me for digressing, but that was in a different context; that is, with regard to the European Communities (Amendment) Bill currently under consideration in the House—I invited the noble Baroness to put before me any concerns she may have had. She had indicated that she could give examples of her concerns, in particular with regard to the way in which intelligence matters were dealt with. I can give her an assurance that we would not part with intelligence unless we were absolutely certain that it would be treated properly. The noble Baroness knows the seriousness with which Her Majesty's Government treat such matters. To that end, I am happy to repeat that assurance now.

615
If the noble Baroness would like to discuss these matters in more detail with me, I shall be happy to meet her. I give way.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: Perhaps I may clarify a point. The noble Baroness has generously suggested that we meet for discussions. However, she is referring to a different issue regarding the mechanisms covering the control and destruction of chemical weapons. The issue I am seeking to raise tonight is that of the question whether, on Thursday and Friday, we shall be irrevocably committed to allowing Europol, which it was originally intended should be set up to deal with crime, to establish a terrorism centre, using and operating intelligence. That, I repeat, is a completely different issue and one that I raised some three weeks ago with the Minister, Mr Ainsworth. It is to that request that I have not received an answer.
When I have asked the noble Baroness a direct question, she has in every respect responded with a full answer. I merely point out that I am still anxious to know what consultations took place with whom before this was agreed in principle in Brussels, and whether it will be confirmed on Thursday and Friday.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: I am sorry to say that I cannot answer the question put by the noble Baroness in the terms she has posed it. It is a straightforward and clear-cut question and I do not know the answer. I shall do my best to secure the information for the noble Baroness as quickly as possible. I recognise the urgency of the point that she has made.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: I am slightly disappointed not to have heard a point of view from the Liberal Democrat Benches. Given their excellent contributions to previous amendments, I cannot believe that they would wish to disagree with the amendment. I repeat that I have moved it only because we do not have time for the European arrest warrant to go through the process that will follow our general deliberations on Clause 110 of the Bill. I regret that it only remains for me to thank all noble Lords who have expressed their support for the amendment and to test the opinion of the Committee.
5.16 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 126EA) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 100; Not-Contents, 124.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Ampthill, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Anelay of St Johns, B.

Bridgeman, V.

Astor of Hever, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L

Biffen, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Blatch, B.

Burnham, L.

Boardman, L.

Buscombe, B.

616

Byford, B.

Mayhew of Twysden, L.

Caithness, E.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Monro of Langholm, L.

Cavendish of Furness, L.

Montrose, D. [Teller]

Chalfont, L.

Moran, L.

Chorley, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Clark of Kempston, L.

Murton of Lindisfame, L.

Cope of Berkeley, L.

Noakes, B.

Crickhowell, L.

Northbrook, L.

Cumberlege, B.

Northesk, E.

Dixon-Smith, L.

O'Cathain, B.

Donaldson of Lymington, L.

Onslow, E.

Eden of Winton, L.

Palmer, L.

Elton, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Ferrers, E.

Pearson of Rannoch, L. [Teller]

Finlay of Llandaff, B.

Perry of Southwark, B.

Fookes, B.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Fowler, L.

Platt of Writtle, B.

Freeman, L.

Prior, L.

Geddes, L.

Rawlings, B.

Gray of Contin, L.

Reay, L.

Hanham, B.

Renton, L.

Harris of High Cross, L.

Rotherwick, L.

Hayhoe, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Henley, L.

Seccombe, B.

Hogg, B.

Sharples, B.

Holderness, L.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Home, E.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Howe of Aberavon, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Howe of Idlicote, B.

Slim, V.

Howell of Guildford, L.

Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.

Hylton, L.

Stewartby, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Jopling, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Kingsland, L.

Strange, B.

Laird, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Lang of Monkton, L.

Taylor of Warwick, L.

Lindsay, E.

Thomas of Swynnerton, L.

Listowel, E.

Trefgarne, L.

Lucas, L.

Trumpington, B.

Luke, L.

Waddington, L.

Lyell, L.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Mar, C.

Warnock, B.

Marlesford, L.

Wilcox, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Desai, L.

Ahmed, L.

Dixon, L.

Amos, B.

Donoughue, L.

Andrews, B.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Eatwell, L.

Ashton of Upholland, B.

Elder, L.

Bach, L.

Elis-Thomas, L.

Barnett, L.

Evans of Parkside, L.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Evans of Watford, L.

Berkeley, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Bernstein of Craigweil, L.

Faulkner of Worcester, L.

Borrie, L.

Filkin, L.

Brennan, L.

Fyfe of Fairfield, L.

Brett, L.

Gale, B.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

Gibson of Market Rasen, B.

Brookman, L.

Gladwin of Clee, L.

Campbell-Savours, L.

Golding, B.

Carter, L.[Teller]

Goldsmith, L.

Castle of Blackburn, B.

Goudie, B.

Christopher, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Clarke of Hampstead, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Gregson, L.

Cohen of Pimlico, B.

Grocott, L.

Corbett of Castle Vale, L.

Hardy of Wath, L.

Crawley, B.

Harris of Haringey, L.

David, B.

Harrison, L.

Davies of Coity, L.

Haskel, L.

Davies of Oldham, L.

Hayman, B.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

617

Hogg of Cumbernauld, L.

Northfield, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Patel of Blackburn, L.

Howarth of Breckland, B.

Pendry, L.

Howells of St. Davids, B.

Peston, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Hoyle, L.

Radice, L.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Randall of St. Budeaux, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L. (Lord Chancellor)

Rea, L.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Janner of Braunstone, L.

Richard, L.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Richardson of Calow, B.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Rogers of Riverside, L.

Jones, L.

Rooker, L.

Layard, L.

Sainsbury of Turville, L.

Lipsey, L.

Sawyer, L.

Lockwood, B.

Scotland of Asthal, B.

Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

Sheppard of Liverpool, L.

Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

Simon, V.

McIntosh of Haringey, L. [Teller]

Smith of Gilmorehill, B.

Strabolgi, L.

McIntosh of Hudnall, B.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B

Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Marsh, L

Tenby, V.

Mason of Barnsley, L

Thornton, B.

Massey of Darwen, B.

Turner of Camden, B.

Walker of Doncaster, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Warner, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Whitaker, B.

Mitchell, L.

Whitty, L.

Morgan, L.

Wilkins, B.

Morris of Aberavon, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Morris of Manchester, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L. (Lord Privy Seal)

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Nicol, B.

Woolmer of Leeds, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
5.26 p.m.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch Lord Pearson of Rannoch moved Amendment No. 126EB:
Page 66, line 21, at beginning insert "following its ratification,"
The noble Lord said: I apologise again for tabling another manuscript amendment. Amendment No. 126EB is a probing amendment. Clause 110 of the Bill seeks to import Title VI of the Treaty on European Union—sometimes known as Maastricht—the Protocol on the Schengen acquis and Article 24 of the Treaty on European Union into British law, by regulation, subject to the affirmative procedures.
Clause 110(3) states:
"a reference to a provision of the Treaty on European Union includes a reference to that provision as amended by any provision of—

(a) the Treaty signed at Amsterdam on 2nd October 1997, or

(b) the Treaty signed at Nice on 26th February 2001".

In other words, the wording on the face of the Bill does not appear to require that the Treaty of Nice should be ratified by all the member states. It appears to be enough that we—
Lord Goodhart: In that case, can the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, explain how the Treaty on European Union could be amended by a treaty that has not yet been ratified? Is not this a wholly pointless amendment?
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: I am grateful to the noble Lord, but I hope not. The words in the Bill state that these provisions can be imported in accordance with the treaty "signed" at Nice on 26th February, We all know that the Treaty of Amsterdam has been ratified. I have checked this matter with the legal authorities in the House this morning. They think that this is a matter that should be brought to the attention of the Committee in this way. That is why I am doing so.
There could be a very important distinction. If the Irish people do not change their minds, it is possible that the Nice Treaty will not be ratified. In those circumstances, will we still be bound by the provisions of the treaty because we have signed it?
The answer could have far reaching implications. For instance, Article 24 of the Treaty on European Union, which is imported by the clause, stands to be changed from unanimity to majority voting under Nice, but not under Amsterdam. There are several additions to Article 24 which appear to remove the veto from large areas, both under the common foreign and security policy in Title V and police and judicial co-operation in criminal matters under Title Vi. Article 24 affects both areas and may go even wider.
It is worth looking briefly at what are the new provisions brought in by Nice to Article 24. Article 24 is to be found in Title V—the common foreign and security policy—and clearly feeds through into Title VI. It is worth placing on record what Article 24 used to say, and what it says now—the differences can easily be found in Volume 2 of the British Management Data Foundation analysis—so that we know exactly what is proposed by the new Article 24.
Article 24.1 states:
"When it is necessary to conclude an agreement with one or more States … in implementation of this Title [Title V] the Council"—
it used to say "acting unanimously"; those words have now been taken out—
"may authorise the Presidency, assisted by the Commission as appropriate, to open negotiations to that effect. Such agreements shall be concluded by the Council"—
again, it used to say "acting unanimously", but those words have been taken out—
"on a recommendation from the Presidency".
It is true that in Article 24 unanimity is retained when an agreement covers an issue for which unanimity is required for the adoption of "internal decisions", whatever they may be. But in paragraph 3 of Article 24 it is perfectly clear that when the agreement,
"is envisaged in order to implement a joint action or common position, the Council shall act by a qualified majority in accordance with Article 23(2)".
Again, in paragraph 4:
"The provisions of this article shall also apply to matters falling under Title VI".

619
That is what brings it within the purview of what we are debating. Those words were there previously; but the new part reads as follows:
"When the agreement covers an issue for which a qualified majority is required for the adoption of internal decisions or measures, the Council shall act by a qualified majority"—
that is new—
"in accordance with Article 34(3)".
I do not want to trouble the Committee with any more than that. I suspect that we could have a whole day's debate as to where these sorts of changes to the treaties as introduced at Nice could eventually lead us. Indeed, in relation to the next amendment we shall touch briefly on whether they might give rise to tax raising powers for the Community. In the meantime, I should be grateful for the Government's reply as to whether what we have signed at Nice will be binding even if the treaty is not eventually ratified, and what effect the new Article 24 may have on the whole ambit of what we are discussing. I beg to move.
5.30 p.m.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: As I understand it, the noble Lord has tabled the amendment in order to prevent the power being used to implement any measures agreed as a result of changes arising from the Treaty of Nice, before that treaty has been ratified.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart. The amendment is redundant as the subsection of the clause that relates to Nice will not come into force until the Treaty of Nice has been ratified. That means that it must be ratified by all member states, including Ireland. We have gone over this matter a number of times in relation to the Nice treaty. I have been able to assure the noble Lord that, unless and until all member states ratify that treaty, it will not come into force. So none of the areas where the Nice treaty seeks to move from unanimous voting to qualified majority voting will be enacted until the Nice Bill is ratified. I should point out that we still have to finish our parliamentary processes in terms of consideration of the Nice treaty. We have finished the Committee stage, but we have still to debate the Bill on Report and at Third Reading. I assure the noble Lord that what the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, said—namely, that the amendment is surplus to requirements for the purpose that he seeks—is the right judgment. It is not necessary.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: I am grateful to the Minister. As I said, I should not have troubled the Committee unless I had received legal advice to the effect that what is actually said on the treaty might be what it means. If it is not, and if ratification is necessary before the new Article 24 comes into being, I am relieved. If that happens, it will still leave us with the enormous extension of qualified majority voting that is inherent in new Article 24.
Lord Elton: Before the noble Lord withdraws his amendment, I believe that this is a matter of drafting. But he is right: the strict meaning of the subsection is:
"In subsection (2) a reference to a provision of the Treaty on European Union includes a reference to that provision as amended by any provision of … the Treaty signed at Nice".
The treaty may not be ratified, but it has been signed. I have looked, therefore, for a commencement clause and to see whether there was anything to give force to the Minister's statement—and the supporting statement of the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart—that this provision would not come into effect until the ratification of the treaty. It may be there in the Bill, but I could not find it. Therefore, in logic—the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, sadly shakes his head. He is a lawyer and these things run in his blood; whereas, for me, they have to be dug out of the vegetable patch, which is a very painful process. What the Bill says is what my noble friend said that it says. No one can contradict that, unless there is anything else in the Bill that says it means something else.
Lord Donaldson of Lymington: I come as a complete outsider to this particular aspect of the Bill, and merely as a somewhat experienced interpreter of statutes. What the Bill says is that subsection (2), which defines "the third pillar", includes a reference to the Treaty on European Union,
"as amended by … the Treaty signed at Amsterdam … [and] … the Treaty signed at Nice".
If the treaty that has only just been signed at Nice has no power to amend—I give way to the noble Lord.
Lord Elton: I humbly accept the point.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: I am not quite sure where that leaves us, but I am absolutely sure that I should withdraw the amendment. I am grateful for the Committee's patience. When I have read the contribution of the noble and learned Lord, I have no doubt that I shall be satisfied as well. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch Lord Pearson of Rannoch moved Amendment No. 126EC:
Page 66, line 26, leave out paragraph (a)
The noble Lord said: This is another very brief probing amendment. If we were to remove paragraph (a) from subsection (5), as the amendment suggests, it would appear to have the effect of allowing the imposition or increase of taxation under subsection (1) of Clause 110. I am sure that no Members of the Committee would want to pass tax powers to the European Union in that way. But my question to the Minister is: why is Clause 110(5)(a) on the face of the Bill at all, unless without it the power to tax might have been created by Clause 110?
I think it unlikely that we are dealing merely with some superfluous drafting inserted by the Treasury to irritate the Foreign Office, or vice versa. In speaking to

621
the previous amendment I referred to the possible far-reaching effect of importing Article 24 of the TEU as amended at Nice into British law by regulation. I have no doubt that importing the rest of Title V, Title VI and the Schengen acquis into the Bill also have very far-reaching effects, but they are difficult to understand in the huge thicket of bureaucratic language and obfuscation with which we are always faced in these treaties.
My question to the Minister is simple. Will she explain clearly how the possibility arises that in the absence of Clause 110(5)(a) these tax powers might arise? Will she please take us through the thicket—if not now, perhaps in correspondence and before we come to the next stage of the Bill—through the intertwining clauses, of the treaty and explain to us how that might be? I beg to move.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My answer to the noble Lord is alarmingly simple. It is to make it absolutely clear that there are no tax-raising powers in the clause. The noble Lord says that he wanted to be led through the thicket. Knowing the noble Lord's robustly and clearly expressed views on all things to do with European institutions—although, as the noble Lord makes clear to us on a number of occasions, not to do with European countries—when I saw that the noble Lord proposed to delete the power to prevent the imposing or increasing of taxation I was very surprised indeed.
I assure the noble Lord that there is no nefarious or hidden purpose. Clause 110(5)(a) follows the position on Section 2(2) of the 1972 Act. I am assured that there is a precedent for such clarity. It is for the purposes of clarity. If the noble Lord had not seen the provision written clearly in the Bill, I am sure he would have told us that it should be there. I assure him that the position is entirely in line with what I believe to be his position on the Bill.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: I am grateful to hear that this is a piece of unusual superfluous drafting. I repeat that I know of nothing in Title V, Title VI or the Schengen acquis which might give rise to a tax-raising power. I still remain very suspicious of the matter especially under Article 24 of the Treaty on European Union. But time will tell and for this evening I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 110 agreed to.
Clause 111 agreed to.
Clause 112 [Use of noxious substances to cause harm and intimidate]:
Lord Rooker Lord Rooker moved Amendment No. 126F:
Page 68, line 21, leave out "involves" and insert "causes"
The noble Lord said: Amendments Nos. 126F arid 126G are necessary to clarify that for an offence to be committed under this clause the use of a noxious substance must directly cause serious violence to a person or serious damage to property. This is unclear from the Bill as drafted. Amendment No. 126H
622
clarifies that in order for a threat to use noxious substances to be an offence under these new provisions, it must be shown that if the threat were carried out it would constitute an offence under Clause 112(1).
The fear induced by a threat that a noxious substance is likely to be used to cause harm is just as great as that induced by a threat that such a substance will be used for those purposes. Amendment No. 126J acknowledges this by lowering the threshold for the offence of threatening to use a noxious substance to cause harm and intimidate. This also brings the offence into line with the hoaxing offences in Clause 113.
Amendment No. 126K corrects a drafting error. Amendments Nos. 126L, 126M and 126N are designed to clarify the scope of the new hoaxing offence set out in Clause 113. In order for an offence to have been committed under these provisions the hoaxer's act must be in the UK. However, the effect of the hoax may be felt anywhere in the world. It is important to clarify this point. While we are convinced of the necessity of this offence, we do not consider it appropriate to make it extra-territorial.
Amendment No. 126P brings into line the threshold of the offence of communicating false information about noxious substances with those of placing or sending hoaxes. This is important to ensure consistency. I hope that the amendments will find favour with the Committee. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Rooker Lord Rooker moved Amendments Nos. 126G to 126K:
Page 68, line 22, leave out "involves" and insert "causes"
Page 68, line 31, leave out "falling within" and insert "which constitutes an offence under"
Page 68, line 34, leave out "will" and insert "is likely to"
Page 68, line 44, after "Kingdom," insert "of'
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 112, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 113 [Hoaxes involving noxious substances or things]:
Lord Rooker Lord Rooker moved Amendments Nos. 126L to 126P:
Page 69, line 3, leave out "whatever"
Page 69, line 6, leave out "any person" and insert "a person anywhere in the world"
Page 69, line 10, leave out "any person" and insert "a person anywhere in the world"
Page 69, line 11, leave out from "thing" to "and" in line 12 and insert "is likely to be present (whether at the time the information is communicated or later) in any place"
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 113, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 114 and 115 agreed to.
Clause 116 [Information about acts of terrorism]:
[Amendments Nos. 126Q and 126R not moved.]
Lord Kingslandmoved Amendment No. 127:
Page 70, line 28, after "he" insert "believes that he"
The noble Lord said: The clause creates a criminal offence for failure to report suspicions or knowledge that would assist in investigations into terrorist activity. There is a defence of reasonable excuse.
The clause puts a positive obligation on any person to assist investigations. With a few narrow exceptions, there is, at present, no obligation to volunteer information that would assist in an investigation into criminal proceedings. Compulsion occurs negatively when there is contempt of court for failing to answer when summoned by the court to give evidence. In some areas there is an immense reluctance to volunteer information, sometimes from fear of retaliation but, commonly, from a wish not to get involved.
The media have recently reported witnesses in a murder trial who admitted to hearing screams and ignoring them. There was general frustration at the lack of public assistance in the investigations into the murder of Damilola Taylor. This situation can be contrasted with France which has a criminal offence of failing to assist a person in danger. The provision in the clause is a significant development in our jurisdiction which, broadly speaking, is to be welcomed.
However, some clarification is needed. What will constitute reasonable excuse? Will the protections against self-incrimination apply? How will vulnerable persons or frightened witnesses who claim, but cannot evidence credible reason for, fear of retaliation or intimidation be dealt with? Will the burden be on the defendant to prove that he did have a reasonable excuse or, if he raises the defence, will it be for the prosecution to disprove it? I beg to move.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Goodhart: Amendment No. 128 is grouped with this amendment and raises a short point. It is a basic principle of criminal trials that the burden of proof rests on the prosecution; and the presumption of innocence is a basic rule not only of the European Convention on Human Rights but, going back much further in time, of the common law. That does not mean that the prosecution has to disprove any possible offence before it can obtain a conviction.
The courts have developed the principle of what is known as the evidentiary burden of proof, which means that when legislation provides for a specific defence it is not inconsistent that the defendant may be required to provide evidence that supports that particular claimed defence. When such evidence is produced, showing that there are grounds for believing that there may be a reasonable excuse, for example, the burden is shifted back to the prosecution to disprove the alleged facts on which that defence is based.
We had a lengthy discussion on that during the passage of the Terrorism Act 2000. The Government accepted the principle that, when a specific defence was created under that Act, the burden resting on the defendant should be the evidentiary test.
624
Section 118(5) of the Terrorism Act provides that most special defences under the Act are subject to the evidentiary rather than the absolute burden. The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that the special defence under the new Section 38B(4) to be inserted into the Terrorism Act is subject to the evidentiary burden of proof.
As the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, has said, Section 38B makes a failure to disclose information about terrorism a criminal offence. Subsection (4) of that section provides a defence of having a reasonable excuse for not disclosing that information. I suggest that that special defence should be subject to the evidentiary rather than the absolute burden, so that if the defendant claims an excuse and gives evidence of facts that, if true, would amount to a reasonable excuse, it is for the prosecution to disprove that, not for the defendant to prove it. My amendment would achieve that.
There is a curiosity about the existing Section 118(5) of the Terrorism Act. It does not apply to the specific defence of reasonable excuse under Section 39(5)(b) of that Act, but it applies to the same defence under Section 58(3). The general principle should apply that the specific defence under new Section 38B(4) should require the defendant to satisfy only the evidentiary burden and thereafter the burden of proof should go back to the prosecution.
The Earl of Onslow: If somebody knows or has a suspicion that another person is going to plant a bomb and try to blow up a lot of people, it is reasonable for them to be prosecuted afterwards if they said or did nothing about it. However, we should consider the Northern Ireland situation, where many members of the Roman Catholic and nationalist community often refuse to give evidence or help to the Royal Ulster Constabulary. I hope that we are not creating an offence that would be observed at that level. Would an excuse be, "I am terribly sorry, but I know that if I had come plodding along to the police force I would have had my kneecaps blown off, or possibly been assassinated, and I was too frightened to give evidence"? The idea has slightly wider ramifications, even though in principle it is an extremely good one.
Lord Renton: Subsection (4) imposes an objective test to decide whether there is a defence. There are infrequent occasions in our criminal law when a subjective test is available. The Committee will have to consider carefully whether my noble friend's suggestion that a subjective test should apply in these circumstances is the best way of dealing with the matter. I am trying to keep an open mind on the subject at the moment, but it is important to point out that there is a difference between an objective test and a subjective test in deciding on liability.
Lord Rooker: I am minded to take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Renton, about keeping an open mind on these issues. It deserves constant repetition. We will listen to what is said in Committee.

625
Clause 116 makes it an offence to fail to disclose information about terrorism and terrorists. Such information would include anything that a person knows or believes might help prevent someone else carrying out an act of terrorism or would help bring terrorists to justice. The offence will cover all forms of terrorism and will apply to a person even if he was outside the United Kingdom at the time that he became aware of the information.
The conditions and threat from terrorism have changed. The view of the police, which we share, is that the inclusion of such an offence can play an important role in countering terrorism and bringing terrorists to justice by reminding the public of their obligation to help protect their fellow citizens. It will be a defence for a person to prove that he had reasonable excuse for not disclosing the information. I am not in court, but if a person could prove the circumstances that the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, described, that would have to be taken on board.
However, Amendment No. 127 would widen the defence so far that it would be extremely difficult for the police to consider prosecuting successfully. We are aware of the difficulty of proving whether someone believes something. We should avoid trying to get windows into people's minds, because it is very difficult to do. It will be a defence for a person to prove that he had a reasonable excuse for not disclosing the information.
Amendment No. 128 would make it exceptionally difficult to prosecute in such cases. It is difficult to prove whether a person had knowledge of an offence. We believe that the amendment would lead to a reluctance on the part of the prosecuting authorities to proceed in such cases. It would also undermine the intention of the policy to keep the public mind on the duty to protect their fellow citizens. There is an important public policy objective in ensuring that the duty covers all forms of terrorism and reminds people of their obligations to their neighbours and fellow citizens. Some people will be under acute threat not to give information to the authorities for all kinds of reasons. It is not the easiest thing in the world to contemplate ever doing. We have to look at each case on its merits.
We are keeping the debates and amendments under constant attention and review because of the shortness of time between stages to see whether any changes should be made. I am not flagging up any particular change in this case, but I want to make it clear to the Committee that we are listening to what is said. I hope that my comments are enough to encourage noble Lords not to press their amendments. I am not promising to come back with anything on Report, but we are not closing the book when the debate finishes; we are looking at amendments to see whether they have merit that may not have been raised or thought of when they were moved.
Lord Goodhart: Does the Minister accept that if the burden of proving reasonable excuse is left as an absolute burden on the defendant, there is a serious risk that it would be inconsistent with the presumption
626
of evidence and therefore a breach of Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights, as applied by the Human Rights Act 1998?
6 p.m.
Lord Rooker: It is because of such questions that I am not closing down the debate. It will be considered.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: As an ordinary listener to the discussion, could I ask the Minister this question? If a person says, "I do not have this information. I do not believe that I have any information to help you", and he is prosecuted, does saying that he does not have the information provide an excuse under this clause? He may in fact not have any information.
Lord Rooker: The beginning of what will be the new Section 38B says,
"This section applies where a person has information".
If the person does not have the information, then the section will not apply.
Lord Kingsland: During the passage of the Terrorism Bill, which then became the Terrorism Act 2000, the Government gave assurances to Parliament that they saw the reasonable excuse defence as an important safeguard for journalists concerned about the protection of sources. We would welcome the Government's repetition of such assurances in respect of all relevant disclosure offences.
I entirely understand why the Minister would like to reflect on that and on the other matters to which he referred in his reply. It would, therefore, be appropriate for me to withdraw this amendment, in the hope that he will come back with something more concrete on Report. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 128 nor moved.]
Clause 116 agreed to.
Clauses 117 to 119 agreed to.
Lord Goodhartmoved Amendment No. 129:
After Clause 119, insert the following new clause—
"EXTRATERRITORIAL JURISDICTION

(1) In section 59(4) of the Terrorism Act 2000 (c. 11) (inciting terrorism overseas), after "person" insert "who incites or the person".

(2) In section 62(2) of the Terrorism Act 2000 (c. 11) (terrorist bombing: jurisdiction) after paragraph (c) insert—

"(d) murder;

(e) an offence under section 18 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 (c. 100) (wounding with intent);

(f) an offence under section 23 or 24 of that Act (poison);

(g) an offence under section 28 or 29 of that Act (explosions); and

(h) an offence under section 1(2) of the Criminal Damage Act 1971 (c. 48) (endangering life by damaging property).""

627
The noble Lord said: The purpose of this amendment is to extend the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom courts over terrorist offences so as to make them, at least so far as the law applicable in this country is concerned, crimes over which there is universal jurisdiction. It would mean that the United Kingdom courts could try someone charged with terrorist offences wherever those offences were committed, whoever committed them, and whoever was the victim.
For centuries, piracy has been a crime of universal jurisdiction under international law, applied by the domestic courts of the United Kingdom, though that law has now been codified in the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea of 1982.
A number of other crimes are now subject to universal jurisdiction under various conventions. For example, the destruction of aircraft is a universal crime under the Montreal Convention of 1979, which has been implemented in the United Kingdom law by the Aviation Security Act 1982. It would apply to what happened on 11th September, so that anyone who had assisted in that crime would be the subject of universal jurisdiction.
War crimes which are crimes under international law are triable by the courts of any state. Hostage-taking for terrorist purposes has been made a crime of universal jurisdiction in the United Kingdom by the Taking of Hostages Act 1982, which implements a convention entered into in 1979.
Torture was made a crime of universal jurisdiction under the 1985 convention, which was implemented by the Criminal Justice Act 1988. It will be remembered that that particular convention and its implementation played a crucial part in the Pinochet trial.
Section 62(2) of the Terrorism Act 2000 makes terrorist offences of bombing, or the use of biological or chemical weapons, offences of universal jurisdiction. But the United Kingdom courts do not have a general universal jurisdiction over terrorist offences. I suggest that the law should make serious terrorist offences crimes of universal jurisdiction. Many of them now are, but not all of them.
I agree that at present most of the cases of universal jurisdiction arise under international conventions. As yet, there is no general convention on terrorism. That may take years to achieve. I suggest that this country should not wait but should take the lead and, for this purpose, should make terrorism the equivalent of piracy.
The purpose of this amendment is that, first, it makes incitement to terrorism a crime of universal jurisdiction by making it apply to cases where the person inciting the crime is outside the United Kingdom and not just the person inside it, as now. Secondly, it extends the list of offences of universal jurisdiction under Section 62(2) of the Terrorism Act to cover not only those crimes which are now covered but other offences listed under Section 59(2) of that Act—for example, murder.
628
I believe that the creation of universal jurisdiction would make it easier to prosecute cases which might otherwise lead to detention without trial under Part 4 of the present Bill.
I accept that in many cases of offences committed abroad there will be evidential problems which may make it impossible to have a prosecution in the United Kingdom. Nevertheless, I believe that there will be some cases in which a prosecution in this country would be possible: cases where the defendant cannot be extradited because, if he is extradited, he would be likely to suffer death, torture or inhuman treatment.
I therefore believe that serious terrorist offences should be treated as the modern equivalent of piracy and—translating the old saying from Latin—should be treated as offences against the human race, and that the United Kingdom courts should accept universal jurisdiction.
The Earl of Onslow: Can the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, help me on this? If I am right, if the Royal Navy caught somebody acting as a pirate he was hanged, whether or not he was a British subject. Is the noble Lord suggesting that if an act of terrorism is carried out by, say, a Kashmiri terrorist—which is what the Indians would call him but what the Kashmiris would call a freedom fighter—he should be subject to trial by British courts if he happens to come on a Cook's tour to the Lake District, or comes within our jurisdiction?
I ask that question solely as a seeker after knowledge and for no other reason.
Lord Goodhart: In the case of the scenario suggested it is extremely unlikely that any prosecution would be launched. There may be many cases, however, where somebody guilty of serious terrorist offences and present in this country—not necessarily for the purposes of seeking asylum—could be subjected to arrest. Extradition would be the primary remedy. However, there are many cases where there may be no effective court system in the country from which they come, for instance in Somalia, or, alternatively, where a trial cannot be held because of problems under Article 3 of the European convention. In those circumstances it is desirable that the English courts should have a reserve power.
The Earl of Onslow: May I get this absolutely clear? The noble Lord is therefore saying that someone who is accused by the Indians of terrorism in Kashmir could be tried in the English courts?
Lord Goodhart: Yes. It would, of course, be necessary to provide evidence to justify that prosecution.
Lord Hylton: In principle I am sympathetic to this amendment, even though I believe that some much more eminent legal authorities argue against it on the grounds of the difficulties of producing evidence. I recall very clearly that that was said precisely when it was suggested that British courts should have

629
jurisdiction over paedophile offences committed by British subjects in overseas countries. Nevertheless, that measure was eventually enacted after much argument. I understand that there has already been one successful prosecution. Therefore, I am doubtful whether the evidential argument is sufficient to dispose of the principle, at least, behind the amendment.
Lord Rooker: I noted that the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, did not refer to the other amendments in the group. I shall make passing reference to them as the thrust of the package of amendments is exactly the same. The comments of the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, and the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, show how incredibly complicated the proposal is from a practical point of view. Although we in Britain are pathfinders in many areas, I ask the Committee to think twice about the proposal.
The amendment addresses real concerns. However, there are limits to the ability of our courts and our police to take on cases which occur overseas. Amendment No. 129 to Section 59 of the Terrorism Act would give our courts jurisdiction in a case where, for example, a person in Afghanistan incites a person in the Middle East to commit an act of terrorism against the United States. It is hard to see any justification for the involvement of the UK's legal system in such a case. We should not assert criminal jurisdiction as an act of condemnation but only where it is justifiable in principle and in practice. In our view the existing Section 59 goes as far as we reasonably can: it allows prosecution of cases where the person who does the inciting is in the UK, even if he is inciting someone abroad to commit a terrorist act abroad.
Similar considerations apply as regards the changes sought by Amendment No. 129 to Section 62(2) of the Terrorism Act. That seeks to add certain offences to the list of terrorist offences for which the UK has universal jurisdiction. We do not take universal jurisdiction except in the most exceptional cases. The existing list of offences is derived from the Terrorism Conventions on Bombing and Finance. We do not think that it is justifiable to assume universal jurisdiction for these additional offences, which are not so clearly terrorist offences, as those on the existing list.
Before anyone interjects, I should say I am aware that the mere use of those words will be held against me—as has already been the case—when we try to make the connection between what are in common parlance non-terrorist offences as opposed to terrorist offences. As I read out the words, I thought, "Wow!", so I may as well get that matter out of the way now.
I refer to the novel point which I believe the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, mentioned; namely, that in legislating the matter we are discussing we shall probably lock up fewer people under the terms of Part 4. That is a novel way to get round the difficulties of Part 4 but we think that it goes a step too far. Under Part 4 our prime objective is to prosecute the people concerned. Failing that, our second objective is to remove them from the country. Our two objectives are to prosecute or to remove the people concerned. Only
630
in the event of our not being able to remove them shall we seek detention. I hope that I have given enough of a flavour of how complicated and difficult the innovative proposal would be to persuade the Committee not to pursue the matter.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Goodhart: I am grateful to the Minister for those comments. The argument would have had more force if we had not already accepted jurisdiction over a considerable part of the terrorist spectrum. To take the example of the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, of a Kashmiri terrorist, the United Kingdom courts could now take jurisdiction to try a terrorist there who had allegedly blown up a vehicle containing, let us say, members of the Indian Army by placing a bomb or a large mine under the road on which they were driving. However, the English courts could not accept jurisdiction if the Kashmiri militants had shot exactly the same people rather than blowing them up. That shows that there is now an illogical patchwork of cases. However, I entirely accept that this is a somewhat novel concept that goes outside the scope of the Bill. Having raised it, it is not my intention to bring it back again and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 120 [Crown Court judges: Northern Ireland]:
Lord Rooker Lord Rooker moved Amendment No. 130:
Page 72, line 10, at end insert—
"(2A) In paragraph 20 of that Schedule (powers of Secretary of State), in sub-paragraphs (2) and (3)(a) for "county court judge" substitute "Crown Court judge"."
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 130, I wish to speak also to Amendment No. 131. The amendments correct a drafting error. They reverse subsections (3) and (4) of Clause 120. Without these amendments, subsection (4) of Clause 120 does not work. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Rooker Lord Rooker moved Amendment No. 131:
Page 72, line 13, leave out subsection (4).
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 120, as amended, agreed to.
Lord Goodhart Lord Goodhart moved Amendment No. 131A:
After Clause 120, insert the following new clause—
"DURATION OF THIS PART

(1) Sections 110, 111 and 116 shall cease to have effect at the end of the period of 2 years beginning with the day on which this Act is passed.

(2) Subject to subsection (1), this Part (except for sections 115 and 120) shall cease to have effect at the end of the period of 5 years beginning with the day on which this Act is passed."

The noble Lord said: This is a sunset clause applying to Part 13 specifically. It is grouped with other sunset clauses standing in the names of my noble friends arid myself that apply separately to Parts 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11 of the Bill. It is also grouped with single portmanteau sunset clauses which appear in

631
Amendment No. 185A in the name of the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, and Amendment No. 185B in the name of the Conservative Front Bench.
We debated a sunset clause on Part 4 on Thursday so I can be brief on this amendment. There is a significant difference between Part 4 and the other parts as the Government have accepted that Part 4 needs a sunset clause, although, in their view, the sun ought to set much later than in the amendments which we propose. We say, however, that the whole of the Bill except Part 12 requires reconsideration by new primary legislation. Part 4 has, of course, already been debated but there are many other parts which are seriously controversial and, we believe, should be reviewed within two years. I refer to Parts 3, 5, 10, 11 and 13. Other parts are less controversial and can be left for five years. But in view of the fact that the Bill is being rushed through without proper opportunity for consultation or debate, the remaining parts should, we believe, be reviewed even if they are not obviously controversial.
Amendment No. 185B mirrors almost exactly an amendment tabled in the other place by my honourable friends and by the Conservatives. We should be happy to support that amendment as an alternative to a series of separate amendments dealing with the various parts of the Bill separately. I beg to move.
Viscount Bledisloe: As the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, said, we are now faced with a series of sunset clauses. The two Opposition Front Benches have devised separate sunset periods for each section of the Bill. With my far more modest resources, I merely propose a single sunset date for the whole Bill. I have no preference between the two methods. I am simply strongly of the belief that some form of sunsetting is necessary.
During the debate on the subject of the arrest warrant, I ventured to suggest that almost all knee-jerk legislation turns out to have unforeseen and undesirable consequences. For that reason, such legislation should be passed only in cases where it is really needed. It is accepted that this is such a case—at least, much of the Bill is really needed. However, in my view it is absolutely vital that, at some reasonably early stage, the provisions of the Bill are reconsidered properly by Parliament in order to see how the legislation has worked, or, more probably, not worked. We should revisit the legislation and enact at leisure what we are currently enacting at too fast a pace. I shall support any of the sunset clauses that anyone is minded to move. I do not care how they are done provided that we have them.
The Earl of Onslow: I was having a quick cup of tea with the noble Lord, Lord Desai, and it appears that the most perfect example of rushed legislation was the Indian Independence Act, agreed in June 1947. It involved the partition of the Punjab with 2 million dead. Indian independence took place in August 1947. I accept that this legislation will not have quite the
632
same consequences. Equally, I accept that that was a tiny piece of showing off of some arcane information which I had just picked up and wanted to share with the Committee.
I also suggest that the Government want a sunset clause which is not quite in the land of the midnight sun but which nearly is. I should like to ensure that it is a December sunset clause and not a June in Lapland sunset clause. Therefore, from my point of view, the quicker such a clause is introduced, the better.
Lord Dixon-Smith: Because of the way the amendments are grouped, I now find myself in the slightly embarrassing position of putting before the House an amendment that places me in exactly the same situation as I accused the Government of being in with regard to the Bill. We are considering this overriding sunset clause which we drafted and which is similar, as the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, said, to one that was tabled in another place. We seek to insert this new clause at the end of the Bill. That appears to be the proper place to consider this subject seriously—that is, when we have finished our consideration of the Bill and are fully aware of what we, as a House, are prepared to accept.
Therefore, I do not intend to go into the detail of our sunset clause at this stage. That will probably come as a great relief to the Committee. But I believe that we are all agreed that it is necessary to sunset the Bill. That principle is already accepted by the Home Secretary, although he has agreed to it only in relation to parts of the Bill. I believe that the sunset clause is rather too long for most of us to tolerate in relation to some parts of the Bill. That said, this amendment is before us today, and I consider it to be absolutely appropriate that we indicate our complete support for the principle which the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, has put to the Committee. Having done that, I can now sit down happily and easily.
Lord Rooker: I hope that it will be acceptable if I address the general point of sunsetting rather than each of its details. I shall deal with the general principle as opposed to the specifics of the sunset clause. Such a clause would have the effect of time-limiting virtually all the provisions of the Bill and would do so in a manner that would commit Home Secretaries to return to Parliament again and again with new legislation. That would occur even in circumstances where it was clearly necessary for the provisions of the Bill to continue.
Part 12 of the Bill, which deals with bribery and corruption, escapes that fate, although not in the noble Viscount's amendment. Clearly, noble Lords believe that some offences have a long-term application. Therefore, why does the proposed measure not apply also to Part 9, which concerns aviation security? Do we not want to retain power to remove unauthorised intruders from our airfields? Some areas are distant from the main thrust but they are all related. Some contain loopholes which, through slipshod legislation in Parliament's overall processes, have been allowed to be absent from the statute book.

633
Do we not want to ensure that our civil nuclear sites, for example, are secure and safe from terrorist attack in the year 2007? We cannot suggest that aiding and abetting people to make nuclear weapons will not be a threat to our security in three or five years' time. Are noble Lords saying that they are happy for those who work with the ebola virus to be checked between now and 2007 but not after that date? What will change? We shall need to control how pathogens and toxins are stored and check those who work with such substances.
Having given some examples—I do not want to be too belligerent—I fully admit that, as we prepared the Bill, we trawled Whitehall. There is no secret about that. We trawled the departments because the terrorist threat has changed since September 11th. There is no question that the terrorists have rewritten the rule hook. We conducted a stocktake throughout the whole of Whitehall, asking ourselves where the gaps were in each department. We asked departments to identify any gaps, hearing in mind that our position is different following the events of September 11th. We found some of our laws wanting and admitted that some gaps had been present for a long time. We are seeking to close the loopholes and fill the gaps. Frankly, there is no good cause for giving future Home Secretaries extra work when the matter can be dealt with now.
Parts of the Bill bring in powers where the balance between the liberties of the individual and the security of the majority is fine. All the evidence shows that the general public want action. They certainly do not want more difficulties. They want to know that we have taken all possible and reasonable—some people outside would even be happy with unreasonable precautions. We must take action, and we have sought knowingly to close the loopholes and fill the gaps. We do not want to say that such measures will not be needed in three or five years' time. I do not put forward my argument from the point of view that the legislation is processing in a normal way through the House; it is not.
Viscount Bledisloe: Does the Minister not recognise that there is a different point to this argument? Many of us accept that many of the aims of the Bill are well intentioned and desirable. Our objection or concern is that, because they are being legislated for at such a frenetic pace, there is no time for people to identify, discover and remedy the unforeseen and undesirable consequences. We are not saying that in time—whatever the sunset period is—similar provisions may not be desirable. We are saying that the topic will need to be revisited in order to ensure that we get the matter right then, having probably got it, at least, partially, wrong because of our current haste. The objects are not wrong but the methods of carrying them out will probably prove to be less than perfect.
Lord Rooker: Perhaps I may say that, as the noble Viscount rose to his feet, that was the very point that I was making. I had moved away from the particular and was saying that we were conscious that the Bill was
634
not going through the House in the normal manner. I was uttering those very words as the noble Viscount rose. I take the point that is being made; it is not being ignored.
I leave aside the sunset provision that we have already put into the Bill and the review of the asylum and immigration powers that will take place after 15 months. At the beginning of our debate last Thursday, I mentioned, as recorded at col. 459 of Hansard, possible ways in which we could float ideas about how the whole Bill—I repeat, the whole Bill, with no exceptions—might, after a reasonable period, be reconsidered by this House and the other place, taking into account the results of that review. I know that it is not a sunset, but it starts to make the point in a parliamentary way on a matter that has been legitimately raised, which is the speed of the passage of the Bill through both Houses, and this House in particular. Some people might say that eight days is not unreasonable, but that it is unreasonable to have no gap between the stages. I accept that. One day does not count as it leaves no time for mature consideration of the issues that have been raised. I accept that we are working at break-neck speed. That is why I raised the issue last Thursday. I am happy to make proposals to test the water. There may be wholesale condemnation and Members of the Committee may say that they do not want a review by Privy Counsellors from both Houses and a debate on their report. Your Lordships may prefer sunset clauses and primary legislation in three or five years' time, which I shall be happy to debate as an alternative.
All the parts of this Bill that end up in the Terrorism Act 2000 will be reviewed annually by statutory requirement on the Home Secretary to lay a report on the operation of that Act at least once every 12 months. That review will be conducted by a Member of this Chamber. We are not convinced of the need for sunset clauses on what I would call the bread-and-butter precautionary anti-terrorist measures in this Bill. But we are mindful, because of the speed of the Bill's passage, of the points that have been made to see whether we can find a review mechanism so that this House and the other place can review the operation of the whole Act within a reasonable period. I suggested 15 months as the point at which the detention powers should be reviewed. I could go on to refer to every amendment, but that would not be acceptable to the Committee.
There is a general point at issue. We do not accept the point about sunset clauses but are always looking for alternatives and think that we have a possibility on which we should be interested to hear the views of Members of the Committee.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Dixon-Smith: I was seeking not to prolong the debate earlier, but perhaps I should have explained my amendment a little more. The Minister keeps implying that sunset clauses will require primary legislation when the sun sets on that particular part of the Bill. I should point out to him that our sunset clause

635
provides that the legislation can be rolled forward by order. That follows case precedent for other such legislation.
Lord Goodhart: I am sorry to intervene, but I do not agree with the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith. The matter was dealt with by my honourable friends in the other place. The power to take the matter forward by order would be exercisable only during the period prior to the sunset clause. Once the sunset clause comes into operation, there must be new primary legislation.
Lord Dixon-Smith: We should not fall out on this. I thought that we had made the wording clear. If I am wrong, I stand corrected.
Lord Renton: I wonder whether I may intervene belatedly. This group of amendments is the most important of all and much detail has been put into each amendment. We have had a reply from the Minister, who is open minded to a limited extent. However, I should like to suggest to the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, to my noble friends on the Front Bench and to the Minister that this is a matter of such fundamental importance that we should not attempt to reach a decision this evening but that there should be discussions behind the scenes between the Committee and Report stages to try to reach a sensible agreement as to how the Bill should be dealt with in future. Obviously there must be a time limitation on the Bill because so many clauses change our law drastically in ways which, in the normal course of events, we should not have countenanced. I hope that rather than reaching compromise decisions at this stage, the opportunity will be provided for everyone concerned to reach agreement at Report stage, if possible, on the best way of dealing with the matter.
The Earl of Onslow: I was extraordinarily cheered by what the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, said. It appears that there is not quite as much disagreement on this issue as on others. The Minister says that we cannot have a sunset clause on everything and that the provisions have to go on a bit longer. But there seems to be an element of God and Abraham bargaining over a Sodom and Gomorrah with the 99 just men, which eventually comes down to five, and then there are none, so the bargain goes out of the window.
There is no difference between the approach of my noble friend and that of the Minister. I should have thought that with a decent amount of haggling, we could almost produce a point of agreement. I do not expect the Minister to say, "Yes, I agree", because he is not a Cabinet Minister, but I should have thought it possible for him to say, "I think that there is something in that and I shall see what I can do".
Lord Donaldson of Lymington: I rise to support the noble Lord, Lord Renton, and to make a constructive suggestion. There should be what one might describe as a Viscount Bledisloe clause. It need not be agreed
636
tonight, but on a future occasion a decision on the specified period could be made. It may be slightly novel to suggest that it could go on until an exception arises. A compromise should be built in, which I hope is not the result of haggling, providing for a review of all these provisions and a report to both Houses. To the extent to which each House accepts the review, or any part of it, the Act will continue in force. If the review were entirely favourable, which is highly improbable, we would be left with only a small number of areas to be dealt with by primary legislation, or perhaps by some special arrangement, which could be written in under the exception. It would be a pity to throw the whole thing out and it would be equally a pity if both Houses did not have an opportunity to consider the matter fully the day after tomorrow—I mean that metaphorically—when we have seen how the measure works in practice.
Lord Rooker: I am extremely grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson, because his suggestion may give us a lifeboat in the sense of marrying up what I—I hate to use the word—proposed last Thursday, coupled with the desire for some parliamentary effort or control. I shall take the remarks of the noble Lord to be a positive affirmation that there is a way forward. I shall ask my colleagues—I was going to say elders and betters, which they usually are anyway—to pursue this matter through the usual channels.
Lord Goodhart: I am grateful to all those Members of the Committee who spoke in this short debate. It is not my intention to press the amendment to a vote. There will clearly have to be further discussion of the matter and co-ordination between these Benches and the Conservative Benches over the form of what I hope will be an agreed amendment on Report, when we shall obviously have time to consider the matter.
The Minister has not entirely grasped the amendment's purpose. It is certainly not our view that those parts of the Bill that are accepted in principle—those on pathogens or aviation security—should be scrapped as a result of the review. We envisage that in such cases the principle will be agreed. If the arrangements prove to be working perfectly satisfactorily within, for example, a five-year period, any primary legislation would be very brief indeed.
The problem in those parts of the Bill that are generally accepted is that the detail may give rise to difficulties. Even if the substance is accepted, we may need to look again at the detail. For example, we shall later today come to a number of amendments—on the face of them, they are rather impressive—relating to Part 7. There may be similar cases in which there has not been time to work out which amendments are needed before the Bill is enacted. Even the relatively non-controversial parts should be reviewed. In that regard, the case is even stronger in relation to those parts that are controversial. Unless the Government agree to the amendments, it will plainly be necessary, we believe, to examine the matter again when we have seen how the arrangements operate.

637
The matter will clearly be considered on Report. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.45 p.m.
Clause 44 [Transfer of biological agents and toxins]:
Lord Howell of Guildford Lord Howell of Guildford moved Amendment No. 132:
Page 21, line 37, leave out "believe" and insert "suspect".
The noble Lord said: We come to that part of the Bill concerned with "Weapons of Mass Destruction"—nuclear, biological and chemical weapons and other hideous weapons that science is developing. Unanimity of purpose and of principle is probably greatest in relation to these provisions. They will do most to head off another horror such as September 11th, if there are further horrors and tragedies—pray Heaven that there are not. I confess, in moving the amendment and those grouped with it, to some amazement that it is not already the law of the land—or of international law—that the handling and movement of fissile materials is criminal and illegal in all senses. The provisions are clearly needed as part of the search for gaps that went on in Whitehall—that was referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, as the precursor to the preparation for this Bill.
Amendment No. 132 does not appear in my name on the Marshalled List. Perhaps that is just as well—looking closely at the Bill and the amendment, my conclusion is that the wording in neither will do. The purpose behind the amendment, which my noble friends tabled, was to strengthen the provisions in Clause 44 and to bring about a situation in which the suspect, offender or person involved would have to be absolutely sure that the "biological agent or toxin" being handled or transferred was for,
"prophylactic, protective or other peaceful purposes".
To achieve that, the amendment should have proposed to omit the phrase, "has reason to believe" but it should not have proposed to replace that with "suspects". The difficulty arises because of the speed with which we have had to table amendments and the double negative in the provision. If the phrase "has reason to believe" were left out, it would be possible to demand of the person involved that he knew that the poisonous substances really were for reputable and acceptable purposes, and not for any darker purposes. That is the purpose of Amendment No. 132. However, I make it clear that I think neither the amendment nor the Bill is right. I look forward to the Minister's comments.
Amendment No. 137 would in effect strengthen the Bill's provisions. As it is currently drafted, the Bill appears to suggest that if armed conflict is afoot—as we have seen in recent weeks, we are not even sure about how to define "armed conflict", let alone "war" in modern conditions—producing nuclear weapons can be proceeded with without fear of prosecution. That is a loose and very grim prospect. During a war or conflict, one of the many terrorist networks that we now know exist around the globe or a rogue state could
638
be involved in such an arrangement, and people on UK soil could be involved. Our view is that it would clearly be right to exempt those working in the legitimate service of our own government—that is why we propose to insert,
"by, or on behalf of, the Government of the United Kingdom".
However, we do not think that the exemption should go beyond that—it should be confined to the United Kingdom.
I want to discuss two further amendments in this group—my noble friend may discuss the fifth amendment in the group, on which I shall not comment. Amendment No. 141 is a technical legal amendment, which is intended to ensure that documents and information that are "subject to legal privilege" cannot be recovered by virtue of a search warrant that is granted under the clause. I understand—others will undoubtedly understand better—that the law is eager to protect and preserve the relationship between a solicitor and his or her client. The Bill should state that a search warrant that is granted under Clause 52 will not extend to the disclosure of information that is subject to legal privilege. Although the amendment appears in this group, it does not follow the group's main theme.
Finally, Amendment No. 142 involves the question of someone who actively connives in the commission of an offence by a company that is involved in the handling and transfer of poisonous weapons of mass destruction, nuclear materials and so on. The Bill implies that anyone who is a director—presumably executive or non-executive—could be swept up in the matter, find himself exposed to criminal charges and suffer a heavy prison sentence. The amendment would in a sense slightly weaken the Bill's proposals by urging that neglect should not be enough to criminalise a company director or other officer. I beg to move.
Lord Goodhart: We on these Benches have some sympathy with Amendment No. 132. It involves a lowering of the standard because the clause will come into operation if someone suspects, rather than believes, that there may be misuse of pathogens. In our view, that lowering of the standard increases the protection of the public without interfering with any significant civil rights or liberties. In those circumstances, we believe that it is a good idea.
Lord Monson: I echo the puzzlement expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, not for the first time, about the grouping of some of the amendments today. I support all the amendments spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Howell, but in particular Amendment No. 142, which more logically should have been grouped with Amendment No. 149. I do not believe that people should be sent to prison for two years merely for making an honest mistake.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: Like the noble Lord, Lord Howell, I shall deal with these amendments sequentially. I fully accept that the intention of the noble Lord in moving Amendment No. 132 was to strengthen the provisions of the Bill. I recognise that he was trying to be helpful in so doing.

639
However, I believe that the intention has been to reduce the level of knowledge of the use to which a biological agent or toxin will be put before an act becomes an offence. While that may arguably catch more acts within the scope of the offences, "belief" is a tighter term which it is more practical to apply in a court of law than the term "suspicion".
The noble Lord has told us that he is not happy with either term. However, "belief" appears elsewhere in the Bill, notably in Clause 116, which has just been accepted, and it was not challenged. I have to confess to a small amount of perplexity in relation to this matter. I believe that the term "suspicion" is used elsewhere in the Bill and I am not entirely sure whether the two terms are interchangeable in the way in which their use is indicated. Perhaps the noble Lord and I should consider the matter.
Amendment No. 137 would limit the armed conflict exemption in Clause 49 to acts done by or on behalf of Her Majesty's Government. Superficially such an amendment may have some attraction, especially if the intention is to prevent someone who is ill-disposed towards this country charged with committing an offence under Clause 48 from claiming that the existence of an armed conflict exempts him or her from application of that clause.
In our view, the amendment would also have the effect of excluding UK citizens from giving what would otherwise be perfectly legitimate assistance to allies that are nuclear weapons states where that assistance was not being given via Her Majesty's Government. We would not want to put obstacles in the way of key allies seeking to fulfil their defence requirements, especially at a time when so much would, by the nature of events, be at stake.
Perhaps I can give a couple of examples of what would trouble us were this amendment to go forward. Under the exception, allied personnel would not be permitted to load, to remove or to maintain allied nuclear weapons stored in the United Kingdom. Specific authorisations from the Secretary of State would be required for those activities. While those actions may be considered to be covered under the status of forces agreement, in our view that would not be legally watertight and, therefore, could not be relied upon. Furthermore, allied nuclear missile submarines would not be permitted, under the exception, to visit a UK naval facility or another port. Specific authorisation would be required. In the light of that explanation I hope that the noble Lord will reconsider the amendment.
The noble Lord did not address Amendment No. 140 tabled by his noble friends. I do not know whether he wants me to address that amendment. It is grouped with the others.
The Duke of Montrose: Perhaps the Minister will forgive my confusion over how to deal with this amendment. I want to speak to Amendment No. 140 but as it concerns Clause 53 I was not sure how it fitted into this group. Perhaps it would be helpful to the
640
Committee if I speak to it now. This is a probing amendment. Clause 53 endeavours to give justices of the peace in Scotland powers that I believe should properly be exercised by a sheriff. I do not believe that a requirement for a sheriff to do the job would cause any particular delay. In relation to Amendment No. 145A, I believe that the Minister has accepted that argument in relation to search warrants. That was my reason for tabling this amendment.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: I thank the noble Duke for putting forward the argument behind Amendment No. 140. This amendment seeks to change the definition of the relevant authority for the purpose of obtaining a warrant in Scotland. The formulation used in the Bill mirrors that used in the Chemical Weapons Act 1996. The Scottish authorities were consulted over its use in this Bill and they said that they were content with the formulation in the Bill.
The wording in the amendment mirrors that used in the Biological Weapons Act 1974, which pre-dates the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995, mentioned in Clause 53(1)(b). I believe that the formulation used in the Bill is a more up-to-date formulation. It is acceptable to the Scottish authorities. I hope that the noble Duke will feel able to accept my assurances on that.
Amendment No. 141 deals with legal privilege. We agree with the noble Lord, Lord Howell of Guildford, that legal privilege should not be affected by these powers. In fact, the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 and the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001 already provide that constables may not seize items subject to legal privilege and that if any such item is seized it should be returned. However, the noble Lord, Lord Howell, has raised an interesting point. I cannot accept his amendment as drafted, but the Government intend to make it absolutely clear that both constables and other authorised officers under this clause will be constrained by the provisions of the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001. We intend to do so under the order-making power in Clause 121 ("Consequential and supplementary provision").
In Amendment No. 142 the noble Lord, Lord Howell, sought to allow a defence of neglect of duty on the part of a corporate office holder. This defence is now allowed in other instances where serious offences are involved, including under the Terrorism Act 2000. The language used in the Bill has the equivalent effect for bodies corporate that,
"knowing or having reason to believe".
has in relation to an individual. That formulation is used in connection with the primary offences set out in Clause 48, where your Lordships have not chosen to dispute it. It would be inconsistent for a private individual to be more widely culpable than an individual who happens to be a corporate office holder. Therefore, I hope that the noble Lord will not press the amendment on a defence that would not be available to an individual.
7 p.m.
Lord Howell of Guildford: I am grateful to the noble Baroness. It is rather a ragbag of amendments grouped together covering a wide range of issues. The noble Baroness has very kindly covered them all including the amendment spoken to by my noble friend the Duke of Montrose.
As regards Amendment No. 132, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for what she said about the strength or otherwise of the clause and the degree of protection it provides in dealing with potential offenders. I had to read the clause several times in order to understand how we were seeking to express our aim to strengthen matters. I am grateful to the noble Baroness for indicating that she would like to give the amendment further thought. In the light of those remarks I shall withdraw the amendment.
As regards Amendment No. 137, the noble Baroness indicated that there would be some practical problems relating to allies handling nuclear materials on UK soil and all kinds of legislative complications that would ensue. I accept that problems would arise. There must continue to be some worries whether the words "armed conflict" are just too loose and whether we could provide some tightening of the wording. However, in the light of what the noble Baroness said, I shall not move that amendment.
My noble friend informs me that he is grateful for the noble Baroness's response on the Scottish issue and for the assurances that have been given. However, he feels that the matter is not yet clear. It may be that we shall wish to return to it at a later stage.
Amendment No. 141 concerns the privacy issue, which is very important. I was glad to receive the assurance of the noble Baroness that the issue concerns the Government and that it is addressed through the mechanism of Clause 121. I shall not move that amendment.
Amendment No. 142 concerns the position of company directors. I accept what the noble Baroness has said that the conditions apply in other legislation, particularly under the Terrorism Act 2000. One hopes that the conditions are applied sensibly and sensitively in an undoubtedly difficult area. Again, in the light of the assurances, I shall not move that amendment either.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 44 agreed to.
Clause 45 [Extraterritorial application of biological weapons offences]:
[Amendment Nos. 133 and 134 not moved.]
Clause 45 agreed to.
Clauses 46 and 47 agreed to.
Clause 48 [Use etc. of nuclear weapons]:
The Earl of Onslow The Earl of Onslow moved Amendment No. 134A:
Page 24, line 5, leave out subsection (1).
The noble Earl said: When I read this clause I simply did not believe my eyes! The idea that it has been perfectly legal to cause a nuclear weapon to explode ever since they were invented strikes me as totally
642
hysterical. They have them in council house fireworks parties for 5th November. So too is the idea that if I have a five kilotonne nuclear bomb in the back of my car and I am driving down Camden High Street and I am stopped by "Plod" who says, "'Alto, 'alto, 'allo, what have you got in there? Is it an atomic bomb?" to which I reply, "Yes, officer, it is an atomic bomb, but you know that it is perfectly legal to have one, I cannot be arrested. However, if I had a .22 starting pistol that would have been a very different matter altogether and I could have been arrested and locked up.
The point of this amendment, apart from giving hours of harmless amusement, is to find out why such possession has not been made a criminal offence before. There are two small points. Clause 48(1)(b) refers to a person who,
"develops or produces, or participates".
Presumably, if a British scientist is recruited by the French or American nuclear authority, he will not be prosecuted. Presumably, it would mean that if the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury, with his great knowledge of science, was likely to be recruited by the Iraqi atomic energy authority when he leaves government, he would not be allowed to do so.
What I am trying to get at is the total joy of finding in an Act of Parliament that a person knowingly causing a nuclear weapon explosion is guilty of an offence. There is a slight seriousness underneath this. Who is allowed to help with nuclear research, under what circumstances and where? Is this clause simply clarifying what has been the law or is it new legislation'? I beg to move.
Lord McNally: Our Amendment No. 135 is put forward with the same probing inquisitiveness as that shown by the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, but with a slightly different emphasis. My colleagues are worried that legislation at the moment does riot include so-called "dirty bombs". This amendment is intended to bring them within the ambit of the Act.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: I thought that we would have some fun with this amendment, not least because the noble Earl rushed along the corridor the other evening, waved the Bill under my nose, and said "Would you believe it?". As drafted, this amendment would delete the substantive offences from the nuclear weapons clauses in the Bill. That would clearly destroy the purpose of both this clause and Clauses 49 to 56, which refer to it.
The noble Earl will not be surprised to know that I cannot accept his amendment. I understand that he is concerned that causing a nuclear explosion is not currently an offence. He is right. It is not in and of itself an offence so to do. But while it is not a specific offence, it would fall foul of a number of existing provisions—including the endangering of life and damage to property—as well as of Section 2 of the Explosive Substances Act 1885, which carries a maximum penalty of life imprisonment .
Therefore, I strongly advise the noble Earl that, should he come across a nuclear device in his drive one morning, he should not pop it into the back of his car

643
and drive around with it because he might find himself in considerable difficulty. It is very hard to imagine a nuclear explosion that would not cause danger to life or indeed to property. I do not believe that even the noble Earl's powers of persuasion would see him through that predicament.
Similarly, many of the offences relating to production, development, possession and transfer would be covered under existing legislation. I do not believe that the noble Earl should be too worried about this matter although he is quite right because there is no offence.
The noble Earl also asked about United Kingdom scientists working for what I can only describe as "friendly" countries. We would be able to authorise a specific scientist to work for an ally. Indeed, from my previous incarnation in the Ministry of Defence I am aware of a number of occasions when scientists have moved between the countries of NATO allies. I am sure that that is very much what the noble Earl would expect.
Making the acts set out in Clause 48 illegal in their own right is an important part of our efforts to strengthen the existing legislation although the noble Earl obviously believes that it is comic that we should have to do so. There is a very important role to play in the strengthening exercise. There is no doubt that we regard these offences particularly seriously and that we consider life imprisonment to be a suitable penalty for those found guilty of them. It will help to ensure that terrorists cannot use any expertise to which they may have access to develop nuclear devices or to threaten to use them, if they succeed in making one. Now that the noble Earl has had his bit of fun, I hope that he will not press his amendment.
I turn to the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord McNally. The amendment seeks to widen the definition of a nuclear weapon to include the so-called radiological or—as he termed it—"dirty" bomb, which is the way that it is often described. There has been a great deal of speculation about such devices. For obvious security reasons I shall not detail how they are made or what effects they have, but I sympathise with the noble Lord's intention in tabling the amendment.
The Government do not want to see terrorists seeking to acquire or use such devices any more than does the noble Lord. However, we are confident that other provisions in the Bill, such as those relating to noxious substances in Clause 112, together with other existing legislation such as the Terrorism Act 2000 and the Nuclear Material (Offences) Act 1983, provide sufficient legal sanctions against such activities. We do not, therefore, think that making specific provision of the kind suggested in the amendment is necessary.
One further point is that the Government do not think that it is desirable to blur, even for the limited purposes of this part of the Bill, the clearly understood character of a "nuclear weapon". We do not believe that it would be helpful to lump together that and radiological weapons or to treat as of equal
644
significance devices based on conventional explosives and those relying on a nuclear chain reaction leading to an atomic detonation, which are of a special, indeed unique, nature.
I hope that the noble Lord feels that I have given him enough indication of why we do not support his amendment. Although we have a great deal of sympathy for it, we believe that it is covered elsewhere in the Bill. To cover it in the way that he suggests would actually lead to more confusion and difficulty about the way in which we define what is nuclear. I hope that the noble Lord will feel that he does not need to press his amendment.
Lord McNally: Although the section gives cause for merriment, does the Minister not agree that one of the changes in mindset that we must take on board after 11th September is to contemplate what was previously the unthinkable? Before 11th September the idea of suicide pilots flying jumbo jets into skyscrapers would have been thought of as a scenario for Hollywood movies. References to nuclear weapons and dirty bombs might seem to be part of "James Bond" or "Dr Strangelove". But the truth, as can be seen from some of the intelligence discovered, is that there are people trying to develop weapons along those lines. I suspect that, both in legislation and the whole mindset of our approach to terrorism, we shall have to take on board thinking the unthinkable in order to be ahead of the terrorists rather than simply reacting to them. But I understand the Minister's point.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: I agree. I hope that much of what I have said today on previous amendments indicates my own belief that we are in a very different position post-September 11th to that which we were in before.
My point about the noble Lord's amendment is that we do not want in any way to muddy the terms and definitions of what is understood internationally as "a nuclear weapon". In particular, we do not want to do that in terms of the non-proliferation treaty. I hope that the noble Lord will accept my assurances that it is covered in a different part of the Bill and that we have enormous sympathy with his point. We just believe that it is better dealt with in a different way.
Tabled in this group is Amendment No. 138 standing in my name. Perhaps that is to be addressed separately.
7.15 p.m.
Lord Howell of Guildford: Amendment No. 138 is in the same group as Amendment No. 134A moved by my noble friend Lord Onslow. The amendment concerns the defences in Clause 50 against prosecution for offences under Clause 48.
It might be called—rather boldly from a spokesman from these Benches—the Matrix Churchill amendment. Its purpose is to give an additional defence to those in Clause 50. The defence is,
"for the accused to show that he reasonably believed he was acting for, or with the authority of, the Government of the United Kingdom".

645
I realise that in the twilight world of intelligence, which I certainly do not want the noble Baroness to comment on, people who might have been acting with the authority of the state are disowned. That may be the end of the matter. Nothing can be done for them. But in the open world we know, and as the Matrix Churchill case showed, an accused may think that he or she was acting with government authority. We think that the additional defence would be prudent here. Just as someone who does not know that he is dealing with nuclear material has a defence under the clause, so should someone who has reason to think that he is acting for or with the authority of the Government. That is the purpose behind the amendment. I should be grateful for the comments of the noble Baroness.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: As the noble Lord says, the amendment has the effect of providing a further defence to a person accused of offences under Clause 48; namely, that he or she reasonably believed that he or she was acting for, or with the authority of, Her Majesty's Government.
The Government do not believe that that would be a helpful change. It blurs what we believe is a clear distinction between what has been authorised and what has not been authorised. If a person intends to conduct such activities and wants to stay on the right side of the law, he or she really should take legal advice and, if necessary, apply to the Secretary of State for an authorisation. The Secretary of State could then grant an authorisation if he thought that doing so was in the national interest.
It seems to the Government to be unhelpful to widen the field of those acts. Clause 48 would not make an offence by adding this subjective test in the way that the noble Lord suggests. I understand that there may be some difficulties about how the authorisation process works. It will work in a similar way to authorisations for military action and the way that those are given. Obviously, we do not want to discuss those in detail on the Floor of the House. However, I can tell the noble Lord that it is a question of the chains of command that are in place in whatever service one is operating and ultimately it is a matter of ministerial consent that is necessary in order for this to have proper legal backing.
The Earl of Onslow: The noble Baroness had a much easier task with the amendment than she did with Clauses 110 and 111. On this particular clause, even I do not think that there should be a sunset clause; that after two years we should all be allowed to use nuclear weapons. Anyway, I thank her for joining in what I must admit has been an awfully good joke and doing it with such charm. I thank her also for answering the questions which arose out of this little divertimento. I therefore beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 135 and 136 not moved.]
Clause 48 agreed to.
Clause 49 [Exceptions]:
[Amendment No. 137 not moved.]
Clause 49 agreed to.
Clause 50 [Defences]:
[Amendment No. 138 not moved.]
Clause 50 agreed to.
Clause 51 [Assisting or inducing certain weapons-related acts overseas]:
[Amendment No. 139 not moved.]
Clause 51 agreed to.
Clause 52 agreed to.
Clause 53 [Powers of entry]:
[Amendments Nos. 140 and 141 not moved.]
Clause 53 agreed to.
Clause 54 agreed to.
Clause 55 [Offences]:
[Amendment No. 142 not moved.]
Clause 55 agreed to.
Clause 56 to 58 agreed to.
[Amendment No. 142A not moved.]
Clause 59 [Pathogens and toxins in relation to which requirements under Part 7 apply]:
[Amendment No. 143 not moved.]
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff Baroness Finlay of Llandaff moved, in substitution for Amendment No. 143A, Amendment No. 143AA:
Page 29, line 25, at end insert—
"( ) Schedule 5 organisms and toxins may only be knowingly received by, used on or stored on appropriately accredited or licensed medical or veterinary diagnostic or research premises."
The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 143AA, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 143AB, 143BA, 143BB and 144A in that order. The Explanatory Notes state that the managers of laboratories and other premises holding stocks of specified disease-causing micro-organisms, as in Schedule 5, should be required to notify their holdings and to comply with any reasonable security requirements which the police may impose. In order to ensure such security, it is also sensible that on request they furnish the police with details of people who have access to dangerous substances held there.
Perhaps I may preface my remarks by informing the Committee that police security checks are already being conducted on some of the laboratories which hold organisms and toxins identified in Schedule 5. Those visits are proving helpful to staff by providing advice on security and crime prevention.
The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that the vital diagnostic and research work of the nation's medical and veterinary laboratories is not seriously impeded by the legislation. The current wording of Clause 59(5) states that a substance is not to be regarded as dangerous if,
"it satisfies prescribed conditions; or … it is kept or used in prescribed circumstances".
But those prescribed conditions and circumstances are not defined.
Some of the nasty micro-organisms identified in Schedule 5 are often found to be infections contracted by travellers abroad and identified when they return to this country ill. Therefore, clinical specimens from such patients are handled by routine NHS laboratories, many but not all of which are accredited.
When an organism in the schedule is identified, the specimen should then be sent on to a specialist reference laboratory and it is essential that only a credited laboratory may receive, store or use such organisms. The laboratory must ensure precise identification of the type and sub-type of the organism. In order to do that detailed analysis, the laboratories are required to hold a stock of reference cultures of the organisms and those are held securely.
Although laboratories should be fully accredited, that is currently a voluntary procedure and some are not. It seems essential that non-accredited laboratories which may detect the micro-organism listed in Schedule 5 do not then continue to handle it; nor do they invite such specimens from other laboratories. Hence the tabling of Amendment No. 143AA, to insert that:
"Schedule 5 organisms and toxins may only be knowingly received by, used on or stored on appropriately accredited or licensed medical or veterinary diagnostic or research premises".
Of course, once the organism is being identified the laboratory is holding it but is not yet knowingly holding it. Hence the tabling of Amendments Nos. 142AB and 143BA.
The next problem for laboratory staff is Clause 62. The problem is that several of the reference cultures are held in hospitals which by their very nature are public buildings. It is impossible for the management of such a hospital to list all the people who will enter the building or site of which the premises form part as the whole population is potentially involved. Unfortunately, in some buildings it is not even possible to ensure that subsection (1)(c) could be enforced, since the corridor through the laboratory area is a fire exit, so it cannot be locked off from the remainder of the building. Even the Public Health Laboratory's headquarters has many international professional visitors to it and even though they are not given access to the secure section, they pass through many parts of the building. The requirements in paragraphs (c) and (d) do not seem to be reasonable to attempt to enforce. Hence the tabling of Amendment No. 143BB to omit paragraphs (c) and (d) from subsection (1) of Clause 62.
The other problem is that laboratory staff are poorly paid yet highly skilled. These laboratories are therefore staffed below establishment because they cannot recruit. The pressure of normal operational work means that staff on the lower gradings are being brought in at short notice, either from agencies or from job centres. The requirement to give 30 days' notice of the persons entering the premises becomes unworkable. Taking the example of an epidemic, the epidemic would be well and truly over by the time the staff could start work or police time would otherwise
648
be taken up continually issuing exemptions for the new members of staff who are taken on. Hence the suggestion that the wording be amended to ensure that the 30-day rule does not apply to laboratories where diagnostic and diagnostic reference work is conducted, as outlined in Amendment No. 144A. I beg to move.
Baroness Buscombe: I rise simply to speak in support of what the noble Baroness has had to say. Her amendments appear eminently sensible.
Lord McNally: Speaking for Members on these Benches, this appears to be the kind of amendment made in Committee from an expert source which the Government would do well to heed.
7.30 p.m.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: Before I make my general comments on the amendment, it would be wise to acknowledge the noble Baroness's great expertise in the field. I sense the sympathy of the Committee for that expertise and detailed knowledge. We are most grateful for the way in which the amendments have been tabled because they have opened up an interesting issue.
Amendment No. 143AA would prohibit anyone from knowingly holding Schedule 5 organisms on any premises which were not appropriately accredited or licensed. As we understand the position, the problem with that is that the Bill does not set up any arrangements for accreditation of licensing. We have opted instead for an approach which deals specifically with the problem of the potential use of these substances for terrorist purposes. The Bill therefore focuses on making sure that the right security measures have been taken.
The Bill does that not by a licensing procedure, but by ensuring that the police have access to all necessary information in order that the right precautions can be taken. We have not thought it necessary to set up a licensing system in order to do that. Indeed, any such system could well overlap with the employee safety controls already administered through the Health and Safety Executive.
The effect of the amendment as it stands would be to end all work on substances named in Schedule 5 in this country. I am sure that that is not what the noble Baroness intended and that is not what the Government want to bring about. As a result, we cannot advise the Committee to accept it.
I turn to Amendments Nos. 143AB and 143BA. I fully understand the reason behind them and the reason for tabling them. It would seem to us to he entirely unreasonable if a person were prosecuted for failing to supply information relating to a holding of dangerous substances which he or she did not know about. But we are also clear that the amendments are unnecessary. Clause 68 provides that,
"An occupier who fails without reasonable excuse to comply with any duty or direction imposed on him by or under this Part is guilty of an offence".

649
This means that a person who genuinely could not have been expected to know that he or she held the substances in question will not be liable to prosecution The Government prefer this approach to that of the noble Baroness because her amendments would let off the hook a person who claimed that, out of sheer negligence, he or she had not taken the trouble to find out what dangerous substances were held in the laboratory. I hope that the existence of the "reasonable excuse" provision reassures the noble Baroness that these provisions will operate completely fairly.
Amendment No. 143BB concerns the information which the police may require about people who have access to dangerous substances, or areas in which dangerous substances are kept. The amendment would give the police power to require lists of people who had access to dangerous substances themselves, or to specified parts of premises where dangerous substances were kept. I am glad that we agree on that. But it would remove the power to ask for a list of people who had access to the premises as a whole or to any building or site of which the premises formed part. We believe that the police may need that power in some circumstances.
If the area within the premises where the dangerous substances are kept cannot be made totally secure, access to the premises as a whole will need to be very carefully controlled. If the premises themselves cannot be made secure, access will also need to be controlled very carefully. It may be necessary to treat a wider area—a building or even a site within which the premises are situated—as a single secure area on the basis that once someone has access to that secure area it may not be possible in practice to stop him from getting access to the premises themselves. It is for that reason that we believe the police should have the power to obtain details of everyone having access to the premises, or, where necessary, a building or site of which the premises form part; otherwise, the intention behind these provisions could easily be thwarted. I hope that for those reasons the amendment will not be pressed.
Amendment No. 144A relates to the situation in which the police have asked for and received details of people who have access to particular premises where dangerous substances are kept. If the manager of the premises wishes to admit someone else, his details must also be notified to the police and he will not to be allowed access for 30 days unless the police clear the application earlier than that. This amendment would apply only to premises where diagnostic and diagnostic reference work was conducted and would mean that a person, once notified to the police, could have access to such premises immediately. We cannot agree to this amendment. However, I hope that I shall be able to allay the concerns which lie behind it. If we agreed to it, it would mean that a potential terrorist could have access to dangerous disease stocks without the police having had time to check on his background. That would frustrate the whole intention of the clause, which is precisely to ensure that in high risk situations there is time for a police check to be completed. The fact that the amendment would apply only to laboratories where diagnostic and diagnostic reference work was conducted would not remove the risk because there could be no
650
guarantee that a laboratory where that work was being conducted did not hold stocks of substances which could be amenable to use by terrorists.
While I must invite the Committee to reject the amendment, I recognise that there are concerns that some of the substances which this Bill would bring under control may not be harmful when used in minute quantities for diagnostic purposes. We intend to bring forward a statutory instrument, the terms of which we are currently discussing with representatives of the scientific community in great detail, which would exclude from the controls of the Bill any premises in which Schedule 5 dangerous substances are held only in a specified form or under specified conditions which mean that they pose no danger to human beings. This should ensure that many or most premises which use Schedule 5 substances only for diagnostic purposes should be exempt from the controls created by the Bill.
I apologise for the length of my response, but I believe that the seriousness of the matter raised by the amendments deserves a full reply. In view of that, I hope that the noble Baroness will take careful note of what has been said and will not press her amendments.
The Countess of Mar: I note what the Minister says. However, I am concerned about chlamydia psittaci. The noble Baroness has tabled an amendment to change the name of it. I understand that every bird in the land suffers from chlamydia psittaci. Is the Mayor of London required to report to the Secretary of State every single pigeon in Trafalgar Square? When I passed through the square today I could hardly put my feet down because of the pigeons. What is the position as far as concerns this disease in birds? I also understand that when the birds are stressed they expel large quantities of the bug.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: To assist the noble Countess, I believe that the issue she raises is covered by the next set of amendments, not this one.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff: I thank the noble Lord for his reply. I assure the Committee that there is an accreditation procedure in place for laboratories. Therefore, hospital laboratories which have opted into accreditation go through a standardised procedure which is linked to health and safety regulations. The premises on which these micro-organisms and toxins are held are locked—usually they are kept in refrigerated safes—to which only a small number of people have direct access. The problem is related to access to the building in which a safe may be held. That was the concern of laboratory staff. I am pleased to hear that a statutory instrument is now being drafted. I ask the Minister to reassure the Committee that the Public Health Laboratory Service and a selection of NHS laboratories are being consulted in the drafting of the statutory instrument to ensure that it is completely workable by those on the ground who conduct the diagnostic processes.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: We are consulting in detail with precisely those organisations, and it is our intention to work very closely with them.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff: I thank the noble Lord for his reply. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Whether Clause 59 shall stand part of the Bill?
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: Perhaps I may be allowed to put one question which I intended to link to Amendment No. 143 which was not moved. Is the security of pathogens and toxins a reserved matter, or is it devolved to Scotland? Depending on the answer to that question, who is the Secretary of State referred to in subsection (2) of the clause? Is it the same Secretary of State who is referred to in Clauses 60, 64 and 65? It may be that the list of substances which we are debating in this clause will be drawn up by the Home Secretary and he is the only one who will amend it. I do not know. It appears to me that in the other clauses the reference must be to the Secretary of State for Scotland, the Scottish Executive or the National Assembly for Wales. We are dealing with different matters linked to residents in houses who keep materials. I do not expect an answer now if it is a puzzle, but I believe that this needs to be clarified. It is not obvious to me how it will work in different parts of the United Kingdom. I hope that the Committee will forgive me for detaining it when Members want to eat.
Lord Rooker: I cannot answer the question whether this is a reserved or devolved matter. However, I have always been told that Secretaries of State are wholly interchangeable. Part 7 is concerned with terrorism which is not a devolved matter. For practical purposes the Secretary of State is the Home Secretary. My understanding has always been that there is only one Secretary of State who carries out that function. In relation to the particular part of the clause to which the noble Baroness refers, the reference is to the Home Secretary.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: I thank the noble Lord for his response. However, I have a slight problem in trying to decide how the Bill is going to work in Scotland. It seems unlikely that Scots residents will deal with the Home Secretary under Clauses 64 and 65. Can we be quite certain that all these points will be clarified?
I appreciate that Secretaries of State may be interchangeable, but which Secretary of State would be operational in each case? We need to know that in order to be sure that the provisions will work well.
Lord Rooker: We shall consider the issue.
Clause 59 agreed to.
Lord Carter: I beg to move that the House do now resume. In moving the Motion, I suggest that we do not return to this business until twenty minutes to nine.
652
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Magistrates' Courts
7.40 p.m.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury Lord Phillips of Sudbury rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will review the policy, procedures and responsibilities in relation to closure of magistrates' courts in England and Wales and the effect of such closures on local justice and on the communities which the courts serve.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, we have only one short hour in which to debate the matter of court closures. I am extremely grateful to all noble Lords who are taking part in the debate, as well as to many other noble Lords who have told me that they would have wished to make a contribution.
In discussing the closure of magistrates' courts, one is to a real degree considering the future of lay Justices of the Peace. From time immemorial, JPs have been the bulwark and personification of local justice in this country.
This debate is not a trip down memory lane, nor is it my intention to deny the past need for considerable court rationalisation. However, in many parts of the country today, the process has gone too far and has been captured by distorted priorities.
As we speak, some 435 magistrates' courts are still functioning in England and Wales, presided over by 30,500 Justices of the Peace, along with around 100 full-time stipendiaries, or district judges.
Magistrates' courts are closing at the rate of 5 per cent per year. At present, closures are contemplated in Warwickshire, Wiltshire, Surrey, Durham, Yorkshire, Thames Valley, Manchester, Mercia, the Midlands, Cornwall, Dorset and Greater London, as well as others. Tellingly, information on court closures prior to September 1995 is not available from the Lord Chancellor's Department or anywhere else.
A year ago, the Department for the Environment, Transport and the Regions and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food published their blueprint for the future of the countryside which recognised that,
"Market towns … [must be] the focus of a range of private and public services to which people need access".
They introduced what was called a "market town template", specifying the key facilities which towns of 10,000 to 25,000 inhabitants needed in order to satisfy public requirements. Among those is the presence of a magistrates' court. Yet, as we know, the vast majority of our towns are now without a court. Indeed, over the past three years, courts have closed in a whole range of market towns such as Ripon, Stowmarket, March, Lichfield, Windermere, Exmouth, Tiverton and Worcester, as well as over 45 others.
I was fortunate to be able to attend and speak at the annual meeting of the Chairmen of Magistrates' Benches held last September in Nottingham. I picked

653
up a strong sense of quiet anger and discontent. I was told about the record resignations from many Benches and the difficulty of persuading people of the highest calibre to come on to the Bench. In sum, JPs feel simultaneously that they are the Cinderellas of the judicial system and its packhorses, handling as they do over 90 per cent of all criminal cases, together with a great many civil ones.
In her response the Minister may be tempted to repeat what was said by the Lord Chancellor in answer to a Question I put to him last month. He stated that:
"Decisions concerning the number, location and future of magistrates' courts are for each magistrates' court committee to determine, in consultation with its local paying authority or authorities".—[Official Report, 12/11/01; col. WA51]
None the less, the fact remains that the purse strings for over 80 per cent of the funding are controlled from Whitehall and that a manipulation of capital grants and revenue funding stands behind the policy in favour of centralised court complexes. As Lord Justice Auld concluded in his recent report, the reality of court closures is that they are,
"driven by the Lord Chancellor's Department".
Typically, under such financial threats, MCCs have engaged in what is too often biased and partial consultation designed to reach the only conclusion apparently on offer from Whitehall. It is not by any means unknown that even where every person consulted rejects closure, it goes ahead nonetheless.
Often MCCs make no attempt to estimate the cost to the public—witnesses, families, the accused, applicants for licences and so forth—of getting to the nearest alternative court when one has closed. Furthermore, the so-called internal savings are often of relatively modest amounts. For example, in Haverhill, a town of 25,000 people, the savings made were under £12,000, while at Gillingham, in Dorset, where prospective closure is afoot, savings of around £6,400 are expected. That sum does not take into account any of the external public costs.
Another device used—I am tempted to call it—to terrify MCCs into doing central government bidding is the need, as it is now put, to become compliant with the Human Rights Act. The notion, for example, that a breach of Articles 3 or 8 contained in the Human Rights Act will be incurred if a prisoner has to be taken handcuffed through a public area on his way into court stretches my credulity at least.
A further argument for closure is that courts are being used for only a small percentage of the time. But if in fact the real costs of keeping open a part-time court are modest, while the overall costs—including costs to the public—are greater, then the bare financial case falls. I would argue that the policy in favour of mixed-use buildings should be one that is encouraged rather than, as is the case, discouraged. One can cite many examples, in particular in the past.
Today I mention Dorchester Magistrates' Court, which functions extremely well in County Hall in rooms used for many different purposes. Whitehall decries such flexibility. But I repeat, is it not rather a nonsense to close a court for its failure, for example, to
654
provide perfect disabled access, regardless of the fact that such a closure will result in those few disabled people who might have been moderately inconvenienced at the court having to travel many miles at great cost and difficulty, confronted by often non-existent public transport, to reach the alternative court? Incidentally, no account is taken of the increasing rates of lateness and non-appearance of both the accused and witnesses as a result of court closures.
Along with court closures disappears the local knowledge gathered by justices of the peace of the geography, sociology and concerns of their patch. Furthermore, local newspapers understandably will not send reporters out of their area to cover proceedings at centralised courts. The effect of that is a major loss of local case reporting. But local reportage fulfils two important functions: first, it acts as a real constraint on misbehaviour—publicity of one's wrongdoings in one's own backyard is a powerful deterrent; and, secondly, that of public education. That, too, is crucially important. A third function is that local magistrates were known locally and, in going about their daily round, personified the law.
A further side-effect of the closure of local courts is that JPs lose the cohesion and knowledge of each other enjoyed on a smaller Bench. It is not surprising that morale tends to diminish when magistrates find themselves subsumed into large, or sometimes huge, Benches. They feel cut off from local contact. Central administration then exerts tighter controls and direction on the lives of JPs. If one looks at the strategic review, for example, of the Greater London Magistrates' Courts Authority, a great deal of resentment has been recorded as regards the overbearing nature of the administrative and managerial overview. One is left with the sense that in some places the tail is wagging the dog.
The anonymisation of justice inherent in the large court option has the drawback that JPs themselves cease to be effective ambassadors for justice in areas now too big for them to enjoy any presence. As a result of the loss of a sense among local people that they own their local courts, the sense of justice administered by the people, of the people and for the people, is also lost. We also see a decline in esteem which can and usually does follow the loss of small courts in which the JPs would have been known and respected. That esteem not only adds to the satisfaction that they may draw from devoting so much time and effort to the public service, but encourages others to offer themselves for the Bench.
The 18 policy action teams established by the Prime Minister when he came to power in 1997 have coalesced around a single insight, which was given in PAT 10—namely, that self-help is the sine qua non to community revival. To re-engage the public in their own affairs; to recreate loyalties to local and national institutions; to help citizens to recover a sense of their own citizenship and of their real significance in that role; to revive the notion that everyone has something to contribute; and to recover community morale—all of these objectives are more or less dependent upon the

655
restoration of civic pride and autonomy. That is why the Government's market town template is right in identifying the crucial importance of local magistrates' courts. The Government now need to make sure that "rural proofing", as they call it, starts to bite—because it certainly has not yet.
I have said nothing about city court closures. Contemplate, for example, Bolton, a city of 267,000, which is about to lose its magistrates court if the plans go ahead. Or Salford, with a population of 225,000, which is in a similar predicament. Consider the situation in Yorkshire, where a whole swathe of courts throughout the county are in danger of closing.
Whatever else, I hope that the Government will agree with what Lord Chief Justice Bingham, as he then was, said in 1999. He praised lay justices as,
"a democratic jewel beyond price".
In focusing on local justice he said that lay Justices of the Peace are,
"alert to the needs and concerns of the communities they serve, enabling local issues to be determined locally by local people".
I hope that the Government will share that vision.
7.52 p.m.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, the whole House is indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, for raising this issue. We are indebted also to Gillian Tindall, herself a former magistrate, who has studied the history of magistrates over the past 200 years. She has concluded that local justice is a good thing and has been substantially improved. Today, local justices are well trained, drawn from the diverse groups which make up multi-cultural Britain, and are seldom corrupt—perhaps because of stringent selection by those whose impartiality has been proved beyond reproach.
But some principles over the centuries remain immutable. The idea of access to local justice is one. That means victims, witnesses, defendants and civil applicants being able to appear before tribunals with local knowledge and, above all, in courts which are both within reasonable travelling distance and where transport is readily available.
Those who practise in our courts know all too well of the delays which frequently occur, often necessitating a number of hearings in the same case. Many defendants are on social security; more are inadequate; and we have also difficult young people. There is a strong feeling in the judicial and social work fields that the increased number of warrants for nonattendance will, in the long term, result in an undermining of law and order, as many minor prosecutions are likely to be discontinued through sheer inability to execute those warrants.
A local court—and, indeed, a police station—serves, psychologically, to remind those inclined to criminal behaviour of the end game. It also offers a reassuring presence to the law-abiding public.
656
There are other causes for concern which have been well rehearsed by the Magistrates' Association. It fears that administrative expediency will be put before the administration of justice, and that there is a danger that budgetary considerations will take precedence.
It is vital, too, that the new justices' chief executives, who will be the administrative controllers for a magistrates' court committee, should be excluded from judicial functions—such as holding clerkships—and from any involvement in the recruitment, selection, appointment or training of lay justices. The judiciary and its legal advisers must be seen to be serving only society at large. There must be sufficient justices' clerks to support the magistracy. Fewer than 200 for more than 30,000 magistrates is totally unacceptable.
Lay justices deal with a fair spread of judicial work. Of course professional district judges will be needed in busy courthouses, but where the volume of work reduces, consideration should be given to transferring a district judge.
In general, lay magistrates have done well. There should be no risk of their being undermined. We have reason to be proud of the unique quality of the judicial system we have developed and we should strive to preserve it.
7.56 p.m.
Lord Stewartby: My Lords, I. too, thank the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, for introducing the debate. I should like to offer a few words in support of what he said because this is indeed a critical subject.
I have never participated in the affairs of magistrates' courts in any capacity, but my wife recently retired as deputy chairman of an inner London court after nearly 20 years. Through her, I have inevitably had contact with many justices in recent times.
Magistrates do invaluable work. The network of courts in which they work is essential to maintaining those legal processes which are so much a part of many local communities—although, unfortunately, there are fewer now than a few years ago.
Whether or not they are justified, many lay magistrates tend to feel that the Government have rather got it in for them. That is a most unfortunate impression. Being a justice these days is very hard work; there is much more training involved; and it is more difficult to combine the work with another job. But people give freely of their time and experience and it is an institution which we damage at our peril.
I wish to mention only one example of how closures can cause practical problems. Closure inevitably means that many people will have to travel to more distance courts, as has been mentioned already. The problem of travel is a very real one and cuts right across the whole concept of the provision of local justice.
This can be illustrated by our experience with the specialist courts. In London these courts are designated to deal with particular offences—for

657
example, with vehicle excise issues, with lorry bans and so on; and the means courts. which deal with fines. Practical experience has demonstrated that they create considerable travel problems, not only for defendants but for their families, those supporting them, witnesses and solicitors. It is a trend which is clearly much greater outside urban areas where distances are much longer.
I do not speak from any specialist knowledge, but I feel sufficiently strongly about the issue to offer support to the Motion tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Phillips. I hope that the Government will take heed and recognise the support for it in all parts of your Lordships' House.
8 p.m.
Viscount Tenby: My Lords, we are all grateful to the noble Lord. Lord Phillips of Sudbury, for raising this topic and for giving us the opportunity of speaking on it. It is a matter of great importance, however brief the time allotted for the debate.
Perhaps I may begin by declaring an interest as a magistrate who is now on the supplementary list, after over 20 years on the active list. It is dangerous to claim records in this House; however, I believe that I may possibly be the only Member of the House who has actually presided over the closure of a court and the subsequent amalgamation of two courts, as chairman of the parent Bench. So I can assure the House that the process is a painful and emotional one, producing many problems. With good will, however, and sensitivity— I emphasise that word—these can be overcome, as we happily discovered.
In my county of Hampshire there were some 17 courts 15 years ago, as against 10 today. I stress that those are approximate figures. I do not believe that the delivery of local justice has suffered as a result of the slimming down. Indeed, in some respects it has been enhanced. For example, the savings achieved have enabled the remaining courts to improve their facilities for clients.
I hasten to admit to the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, that in comparison with, say, Suffolk or Mid-Wales, Hampshire is blessed with a relatively good transport system and courts that are more or less evenly spaced geographically throughout the county. Given these conditions, it has been appropriate to rationalise and modernise. Some courts, representing a more gracious age, simply did not justify their continued existence by any measurable assessment. In my view, local justice does not—cannot—mean a local court in every large centre. It must, on the other hand, mean justice dispensed by local justices, who provide the local expertise arid knowledge which are surely the lynchpins of a system of which we are rightly proud.
Some rationalisation is valid. In the law, as in every other area, you simply not put your head in the sand indefinitely. However, there must come a time when enough is enough. In large rural areas which have been sorely wounded in other ways by so-called rationalisation, and where each closure of a village
658
school or a branch line puts the knife in deeper, there must be a powerful case for the retention of some courts as a social commitment to the community.
The Lord Chancellor's Department has set court utilisation targets. I believe that the basis is 75 per cent use of available time. I fully understand the need for that; but why cannot we go a stage further, certainly so far as establishment use is concerned? Think how many of our larger centres have not one court in them, but three—Crown, magistrates' and county. Is there no way in which spare capacity in any one of them cannot be utilised for the benefit of another—a possibility hinted at by Lord Justice Auld in his report? Without pre-judging the Government's response to the Auld report, due some time in the spring, I should be grateful if the Minister could give at least an indication of the Government's active sympathy in this regard.
Perhaps I may remind the House that it is the Magistrates' Courts Committee which, after due process—that is very important—closes a court. We all know that there are strings behind the committee, but it is not technically done by either the Lord Chancellor's Department or the Government. What members of the committee will have at the forefront of their minds is not just the question of money but the interests of the court's clients. Are the delays unacceptably long, and is justice thereby denied—to say nothing about the distress to witnesses, relatives and friends as a result? Is court security adequate? How good are the communication systems, such as video equipment for off-site interviews? How acceptable are the facilities for witnesses and attendees? And there are many other considerations, some not even affecting the court directly—for example, the logistics of presenting prisoners for a court hearing on the due date to a multiplicity of courts over a wide area.
The comfortable and assured days of Victorian England, during which the Bench reached its apogee, are no longer with us. The inexorable rise in crime, taken in conjunction with the rise of a highly mobile, instead of a largely static, population, and the increased use of information technology and modern communications systems mean that it is inevitable that magistrates' courts, like every other court, should wherever possible be responsive to modern need. We must, however, never sacrifice the concept of local justice—that is, justice administered by local justices who live among the people and who are aware of the diversity and nuances of English and Welsh local communities. Where closure threatens the social cohesion of these communities, we must surely, if we wish to retain the system, call a halt. After all, it is not unreasonable to assume, after such a long period of navel-gazing, that we have at last got it more or less right. I ask the Government: can we now, for everyone's sake, have a period of calm and stability?
8.4 p.m.
Lord Hooson: My Lords, I entirely support the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, in what he said. But I was astonished to see my name on the list of

659
speakers. It is due to a misapprehension. As my noble friend Lord Carlile and I come from the same area, we would say much the same thing and I understood that I was to speak only if he was not available.
8.5 p.m.
The Earl of Sandwich: My Lords, I can speak only for the county of Dorset, where I have had some direct experience, but I had not realised the depth of feeling in rural areas throughout the country about what appears to be the abandonment of an efficient traditional system of local justice.
The West Dorset Bench is being stretched beyond its natural limits. It used to centre on Bridport, Dorchester and Sherborne, but it has recently been amalgamated to cover all of Dorset except for Bournemouth, Poole and the surrounding area. It thus extends from Lyme Regis and Wareham to Wool, then north to the east of Blandford and on up to beyond Gillingham. One bench of magistrates therefore sits at five courts for all of that western area, now covering almost all of rural Dorset and over two-thirds of the physical boundary.
I do not know whether your Lordships have attempted to cross rural Dorset, but many do it not to enjoy the landscape but to avoid a miscarriage of justice or repair a broken home. Your Lordships have to imagine a one-parent family living in Sturminster Newton who may now have to go to Weymouth to seek redress or be called as a witness. That is because the axe has now fallen on Gillingham, which closed in October; and Sherborne may well be next. I recently received a letter on this subject from the law courts in Poole, which seem to be the ones to pronounce sentence on our local courts, all in the name of modernisation and efficiency.
The chairman of the West Dorset Bench has summarised some of the issues as follows:
"many … have to rely on public transport and then either cannot or will not make long journeys. Without the defendants in court we usually have to adjourn the case adding time and cost. Then when the case eventually gets to court, the delay may reduce the effectiveness of the justice we try to dispense. Any further closure of courts would exacerbate an already difficult situation and should, in our view, be resisted as a matter of principle".
Those are strong words.
I have sounded out other magistrates, one of whom has just resigned in protest from the Bench after 29 years—someone who has shown exceptional personal commitment. She feels that a system that has administered speedy local justice will eventually collapse under the present Government's policies.
It is, I believe, widely recognised that rural communities feel deserted by the law enforcement agencies, and closing rural courthouses is another way of adding to that abandonment. In Dorset, there have been more cancellations than usual this year, and cases are frequently shifted, affecting the availability of witnesses.
The removal of business altogether from the local courts, which is already happening and which inevitably places a question mark over their survival,
660
is being seen by some as a deliberate attempt in Whitehall to frustrate an ancient and well-tried system. I look forward to the Minister repudiating that.
In paragraph 27 of his recent review, Lord Justice Auld states:
"All other things being equal, it is clearly desirable for reasons of convenience that courts should be readily accessible to their local communities … decisions of closure should not be taken without assessment of their implications for all involved. It is not solely or even primarily a matter of the potential savings to the courts and their administration".
The Government's own press release on 8th October stated that the Government want,
"modern efficient courts that are in touch with the communities they serve".
I hope that they will think again about the direction of the present reforms in the light of their professed policies of local autonomy and devolution, and that they will consider the effect on local people in rural areas.
8.10 p.m.
Lord Carlile of Berriew: My Lords, I, too, thank my noble friend Lord Phillips of Sudbury for raising this important topic. When I wrote to the Minister about the subject I shall concentrate upon, I did not tell her that I should arrive mob-handed with my noble friend Lord Hooson. However, I hope that the noble Baroness will take note of the fact that two former Members for Montgomeryshire in another place are here to make our strongest representations to the Government for the failures of the Lord Chancellor's Department towards Montgomeryshire and local justice there.
On 24th August of this year, Lembit Öpik, who now represents Montgomeryshire in another place, wrote to the Lord Chancellor referring to assurances that had been given that a new court would be built in Newtown at government expense provided that the strategic plan was agreed by all concerned. In a letter from Mr McDiarmid dated 22nd August of this year, the Lord Chancellor's Department admitted in effect that that undertaking had been given at a meeting attended by Mr Öpik in the presence of the former Minister, Jane Kennedy, and an official, Mr Aldington.
Montgomeryshire has been let down. It is a community of half a million acres, geographically distinctive. The former court at Newtown is in a state of complete disrepair and is unusable. The Lord Chancellor's Department seems to refuse to put money into the old and historic court at Welshpool. I should have thought that the Welshpool court would fulfil the Lord Chancellor's ideal. It belongs to someone else; it can be rented by the day; it can be put into good order at low cost; and it can take all proceedings from the High Court to the magistrates' courts. Yet the department seems unable to take that on board.
We are driven at present to use the court at Llandrindod Wells. It is 27 miles and 365 winding bends from the old court at Newtown. It is 70 miles

661
from some parts of Montgomeryshire. There are no trains. The buses are slow and infrequent. Local solicitors tell me that court users have sometimes to hitchhike 50 or 60 miles in order to get to court. That situation is completely unsatisfactory. It divorces justice in Montgomeryshire from the local people. If someone steals from his local community he should be punished by and in his local community. That is not occurring any more.
We were told that the private finance initiative might produce the funding for a new court for Montgomeryshire. Yet we were told that it was a private finance initiative based on Gwent. Perhaps I may remind the Lord Chancellor's Department and, with great respect, the Minister that Newport is in Gwent but Newtown is nowhere near Gwent. There seems to be some geographical confusion in that august department of state. We were promised that there might be some prospects from the criminal justice reserve; but those hopes were dashed in November last.
So what will the Government do for the people of Montgomeryshire? Are we to assume that local justice in our area is now finished? The Government should he frank. Abandon vain promises. Tell us the truth. Having given the Minister notice of this point, I hope that she will be a little more encouraging than her department has been recently and will give us some prospects for the future.
If we are not to have a decent new courthouse in the future, perhaps the noble Baroness will reflect on this. Temporary arrangements could be made. Learning at the feet of my master, my noble friend Lord Hooson of Llanidloes I, too, appeared in magistrates' courts in Montgomery in a room where I can go dancing on new year's eve; in Llanidloes in a small building in the town; and in Machynlleth in a building which apparently is deemed no longer fit for use. There are plenty of premises which could be used temporarily. But those are dashed from us by the Lord Chancellor's Department which seems not to have the imagination even to make temporary arrangements for a community like Montgomeryshire.
I know that I speak on behalf of my noble friend Lord Hooson and my friend Lembit Öpik. Our appeal is that Montgomeryshire should at long last be given serious consideration. I appeal to the Minister. Treat seriously those of us who live in mid-Wales by telling us at the very least the Government's true intentions. We feel that we have been led up the garden path for far too long If the Minister reflects on Mr Öpik's letter, to which I referred earlier, I am sure she will agree.
8.15 p.m.
Viscount Simon: My Lords, we have to be realistic about some of the court closures that have taken place and ask whether a court sitting only twice a week or fort night can be a justifiable use of resources.
There has to be an understanding of what "local justice" means. People get very excited about the issue. What is important is that magistrates represent and
662
reflect the community in which they live and that people can be encouraged to come forward from all walks of life. It is particularly important that those who wish to serve the magistracy do not find themselves discriminated against in their professional and business careers.
JPs should welcome the Criminal Courts Review by Lord Justice Auld and the positive support for the system of lay justice. They also have the very clear support of my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor who has tried, on numerous occasions, to allay the fears that are genuinely felt by those who think there is an underlying threat to the lay system and that a hidden agenda exists to do away with it.
Given that support, I do not believe that magistrates should be demoralised by what is happening. But they need to be aware of and consulted about any changes. Recent research has shown respect for the office of JP and there is no doubt about public confidence. The magistrates' courts deal with over 90 per cent of the criminal jurisdiction in this country and the appeal rate from their decisions is minimal. So it follows that when a mistake occurs it makes the headlines and is big news.
Given the support enjoyed on so many fronts, magistrates should be arguing for increased jurisdiction in their courts and against the proposals in the Auld review that, when sitting in a newly created district division with a judge, they should take part only in the finding of fact and not in any sentencing process. It does not surprise me that many magistrates find this unacceptable and would not wish to sit in such a court. The proposals might therefore limit the availability of magistrates, making courts less representative of the community.
There is no reason why magistrates' powers should not be extended, as has happened in the Youth Court which can pass sentence of up to two years' custody. Magistrates are now trained and appraised—unlike, I believe, district judges—and the public should have every confidence in their abilities to make structured and reasoned decisions with the help of their legal advisers on matters of law. I also voice my support for the retention of local licensing jurisdiction by the magistracy where its impartial role is longstanding and of benefit to the local community.
However, change is necessary and modernisation of the system, including better use of information technology, is essential. It has taken so many years for the new IT for the courts, LIBRA, to appear that it is almost scandalous. I am led to understand that the benefits of the system will be enormous and that it is to be introduced shortly.
The public need access to an efficient court system, user friendly with all necessary facilities, better services for victims and witnesses and, through the introduction of information services, fewer delays.
8.18 p.m.
Baroness Sharpies: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, for initiating the debate.

663
I have never been a magistrate but, like the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, I am aware of JPs' concerns in Dorset, where I live. With the closure of Gillingham courthouse and the likely closures of those in Sherborne, Bridport, Wimborne and Wareham, how can people afford the cost and travelling time of three hours-plus to get from north Dorset to either Weymouth or Dorchester? It is a rural area with poor transport facilities. Without the support of witnesses coming to court to give evidence, the success of prosecutions will founder. Therefore, how will justice be served? Both witnesses and victims are under stress, so travelling far to a strange town will not be helpful.
I hope that when the Minister replies, she will be able to reassure us that the present rate of closures of courthouses will not continue until more thought has been given especially to rural areas.
8.20 p.m.
Lord Dholakia: My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Phillips of Sudbury for introducing this important debate. I was appointed as a magistrate in Mid-Sussex and continued serving there for about 18 years. I was appointed at a time when there were few members from ethnic minorities serving as magistrates in England and Wales. There is a genuine concern that magistrates' benches in all areas should be representative of the local community. An unrepresentative bench is unlikely to gain the confidence of those sections of society that are underrepresented or unrepresented.
However, there is some ambivalence about the precise role of the magistrate. There are essentially two concepts of the lay magistracy. Each of these has merit, but they are contradictory. On the one hand there is the commonly held belief that people who appear before the courts should, as far as possible, be tried by their peers—those with similar backgrounds to themselves—rather than by those with very different cultures and values who have very little understanding or appreciation of their way of life. We have to understand the community and all that goes with it. I recollect an incident quoted to me of a magistrate who thought that fruit machines were dispensers of soft drinks, because he had never been aware of the club culture.
The other view emphasises the professional tasks of the role and the qualities necessary for performing them. Very often, despite not having any legal knowledge or background, the magistrate is expected to be like a good professional judge.
The appointment of magistrates now combines the representative nature of the role and the professional qualities required to perform the duties. If that balance is tipped in one way or the other, we are likely to damage the lay magistracy and local justice, which for centuries has served us well.
Where in the world would we find lay magistrates who deal with 95 per cent of all prosecuted crimes? Many individuals have sought appointment because
664
they feel comfortable with a local jurisdiction and no national hierarchy, but that process is gradually being eroded.
The most common complaint that I receive is about the closure of local courts. Some years ago, the Mid-Sussex bench had two courts—one in East Grinstead and the other in Haywards Heath. The East Grinstead court was closed for economic reasons. Unfortunately, that meant that people in East Grinstead had to travel to Haywards Heath if they had to appear in court. There is no direct transport between the two places. People from East Grinstead have to come into London first to get to Haywards Heath. A distance of 15 miles requires a journey of one and a half to two hours.
One of the dangers at that time was that magistrates in Haywards Heath were remanding defendants on bail to appear in Haywards Heath court by 10 o'clock. There was no way in which a defendant could travel by public transport from East Grinstead and arrive there by 10 o'clock. We were assisting people in breach of their bail conditions.
I am told that Mid-Sussex is now to merge with Crawley. The two places could not be more different. Local knowledge in one town has no relevance to the other. What is the rationale behind the policy? The Magistrates' Association is happy to agree with appropriate measures that improve efficiency and redress delays, but it does not support moves that affect the essentially local nature of the service or impose on judicial independence. What consultation has taken place with the Magistrates' Association and how do the Government intend to safeguard the local nature of the service that the courts provide?
There is a tendency at the heart of this Government to centralise much of our democratic system. The resulting process fails to provide ownership. People seem powerless. Look at the last general election, when only 59 per cent of electors voted. The more that we centralise our functions away from local democratic processes, the more remote people feel. The analogy with the restructuring of our court system is no exception. Local justice requires that all magistrates' courts are accessible in terms of opening hours and travelling time to court users. Administrative expediency should not override that important element.
It is evident that there has been no effective consultation. Even at this late stage, before the Auld report is implemented, we need a clear understanding that there will be an agreed consultation process before a decision is taken to close a court. The Magistrates' Association supports the view that the justice system is now close to the point at which there will be no more efficiency savings to be made without seriously harming its essential nature.
8.24 p.m.
Lord Kingsland: My Lords, I add my congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, on introducing the debate, which has been of such high quality that I am left with nothing of any real substance to say; so I shall simply put a few questions to the Minister.

665
The noble Lord, Lord Phillips, said that Lord Justice Auld had commented that, although magistrates' committees were in principle independent and took their own decisions about closures, in fact closures were driven by the Lord Chancellor's Department. Does the noble Baroness agree with Lord Justice Auld? If not, could she tell your Lordships' House why Lord Justice Auld has got it wrong?
Secondly, one of the main reasons that the smaller rural courts in my county of Shropshire have been under threat is that they are told that they fail to comply with so-called human rights standards—the docks in the courts are insufficiently secure, there are not proper docking areas for police vans bringing prisoners, prisoners do not have sufficient privacy before they come into court and so on. The cost of putting those problems right can run into hundreds of thousands of pounds. From where do those human rights requirements derive? I can find no decision by the European Court of Human Rights stipulating those demands. It is curious that these concerns should have emerged so soon after the Human Rights Act 1998 came on to our statute books when those matters did not seem to be a problem in any respect before then.
My third question concerns those areas that have a mix of courts that are to be financed by PFI arrangements and courts that continue to be dealt with under the old financial scheme. Shropshire has recently amalgamated with Hereford and Worcester. Unlike Shropshire, Hereford and Worcester has concentrated its magistrates' courts into three areas, at least two of which will be financed by PFI.
There is real concern in Shropshire that, because the expenditure on PFI schemes is rather high—the courts are, after all, to be splendid creatures—one of the easiest ways of defraying the cost will be to close rural courts in Shropshire. Can the noble Baroness reassure me that that will not be the case; and that the Lord Chancellor's Department will consider the survival of the rural courts in Shropshire independently from the cost consequences of the construction of PFI courts in the southern part of the area?
Fourthly, will the Minister put some flesh on the much-repeated statement by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor that the principle of local justice locally delivered is as strong today as it has ever been? Will she assure your Lordships' House that, when any question of a court closure comes up and there is an appeal to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, his dictum will be given due weight in his decision?
Fifthly and finally, will the Minister reassure the House that, in assessing the costs and benefits of closure, the adverse consequences to society of victims and witnesses having to travel long distances, or perhaps choosing not to travel at all, and the implications for justice and good order, will be taken into account?
8.29 p.m.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Baroness Scotland of Asthal): My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, for introducing this timely debate. We have canvassed many issues. I may not be able to refer to every issue, but if there is any issue that I do not cover, I assure the noble Lords concerned that I shall write to them about it directly.
I did not quite recognise the somewhat gloomy picture painted by the noble Lord, Lord Phillips. He described an overbearing administration, terrified magistrates, discouraged into doing the Government's bidding—I took that to mean that the Government's bidding was somehow nefarious and not to be done—and Whitehall discouraging joint use.
I recognise better and commend the comments made by my noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis in his description of the challenges and how things have to be done. I say immediately to the noble Lord, Lord Stewartby, that we greatly value all the work undertaken by magistrates. I was very grateful for the comments made by the noble Viscount, Lord Tenby, and for his clarity in describing the work undertaken by the magistrates' court committee.
In relation to our policy on market towns and the decisions on location and the number of magistrates' courts, it really is for the local magistrates' court committee to decide. The table in the Rural White Paper is not intended as a blueprint for a market town of any size. It is meant to be merely an illustrative example of the facilities identified by various organisations in the East Midlands. The local magistrates' court committee and the local authority were consulted. The Government are committed to providing a fair, swift and effective system of justice, and this does not mean a magistrates' court in every town, but it is a decision that the magistrates' court committee must take.
I hope that it is clear that magistrates' courts are managed by locally based magistrates' court committees, as set out in the Justices of the Peace Act 1997. Each of these committees is solely responsible for the efficient and effective administration of the magistrates' courts in their area. I was grateful to the noble Viscount, Lord Tenby, who illustrated so clearly the function which is diligently carried out by magistrates in their area—quite often very successfully, harmoniously and sensitively, because they are the people who really understand their area, know how the courts will work and can best make that local judgment. It is for the magistrates' court committees, in consultation—I emphasise that word—with their relevant paying authority to determine how many courthouses, whether urban or rural, and what other accommodation are needed locally. In discharging their statutory responsibility, we expect magistrates' court committees to undertake regular reviews of their accommodation requirements. The strategic aims of the magistrates' court committee, the facilities needed and the results of user surveys are just some of the factors that the magistrates' court committees take into consideration when undertaking such reviews.

667
Magistrates' court committees have to achieve a balance between providing an efficient and effective service to their court users while maintaining secure, well-equipped court accommodation and ensuring full utilisation of the courthouse facilities. All magistrates' court users deserve an efficient service, delivered in well-equipped and secure buildings. Most of the magistrates' courts that have closed so far have been courts which magistrates' court committees no longer felt able to justify, because they lacked the necessary facilities. These are basic standards of accommodation which all court users expect from a modern 21st century service.
Improvements have to be balanced against other factors, such as local transport difficulties. That was rightly highlighted by a number of noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Carlile. The Government are particularly concerned to ensure the provision of courtrooms best suited to enable cases to be listed in a manner that will achieve our aim of reducing delay in the criminal justice system. Users want their case to be heard on the day it is listed.
Transferring their workload to better-equipped centres is one of the ways to modernise and improve the service overall that magistrates' court committees provide. They have the local knowledge and are best placed to make judgments about how to make the best use of all their resources—whether it is finance, staff or buildings. It is only in the event of a decision being challenged by the paying authority that the Lord Chancellor becomes involved.
A number of noble Lords have raised "local justice" as a term. One definition of "local" will not serve in every case. It means different things to different people, whether it be in the town, the village or the MCC area. For example, some may view local as centred on a particular courthouse or petty sessions area, whereas many interpret local as meaning the MCC area as a whole. Much may depend on the size of the MCC itself, but this is for the magistrates and others who form the local MCC to decide. They are also mindful of the Government's aim to reduce delay by providing the optimum number of courtrooms in their area, permitting flexible listing of cases.
I reassure the noble Lords, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, Lord Hooson and Lord Carlile, and the noble Viscount, Lord Tenby, that the Lord Chancellor is committed to making better use of the court estate. That includes magistrates' courts, Crown Courts and county courts. We agree that there is considerable scope for more joint use of courthouses, creating more "justice centres", where hearings of different types of cases can be conducted. Contrary to what the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, says, we have promoted this initiative. He painted a picture of our being almost discouraging and not interested in that. We have positively promoted this initiative as a way of going forward productively.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, perhaps I may distinguish between what I think the Minister is
668
talking about, which is a complex used for courts—magistrates' courts, Crown Courts and other courts—and what I am talking about, which is a courthouse that is also used, as in Dorchester, as a council chamber and for many other different purposes.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, we are not at odds. That is precisely what I am talking about. It is precisely what we have encouraged: the joint use of buildings. There are almost 45 instances of magistrates' courts and the court service sharing accommodation. In addition, there are almost 170 courtrooms throughout England and Wales being used by other agencies, such as the immigration appeal authorities, coroners' courts and the Tax Commissioners. It is very much what we want to see happening in the future.
This is not a court closure programme; but where, for example, two courthouses are close together and all the work can be accommodated in one of the courthouses, it makes good sense to have only one courthouse. In that way, we can maintain access to justice, release funds to improve facilities and improve the efficient use of our estate assets.
I should like to reassure the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, in relation to concerns regarding Montgomeryshire. The case for a new magistrates' court in Newtown and Carmarthen is accepted. Officials have been exploring ways of providing the new court. The current available funding option is through the private finance initiative procurement route. No capital funding is available at present for a project of this size but existing capital funding has been earmarked for smaller projects, which consist of security, health and safety, disability, and trying to address the backlog of maintenance work. Officials met the justices' chief executive of the Dyfed Powys Magistrates' Court Committee and elected authority members only last Wednesday, 28th November, to discuss ways of moving the procurement forward. Each of the authorities is to consult members to seek commitment to join the Gwent PFI project, and it is anticipated that a decision will be made by early January 2002. Potentially, if the local authorities agree to proceed, new buildings will become available in 2005.
Lord Carlile of Berriew: My Lords, when can we expect a new court in Montgomeryshire?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, the noble Lord will know that does not fall within the gift of my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor. It is a matter which will have to be defined in the usual way and as I have just described. I see the noble Lord shaking his head, but I must reiterate that this is a matter for the magistrates' court committee. For so long as it has the authority, it will have to be permitted to make the relevant decisions.
The Central Council of Magistrates' Courts Committees has published its revised Good Practice Guide on Courthouse Closure. The revised guide is very comprehensive and includes guidance on the impact of

669
new legislation such as the Human Rights Act, We believe that it will prove to be an invaluable reference document when considering courthouse closure and other accommodation issues and we do encourage magistrates' courts committees to follow the advice given in this guide.
By statute magistrates' courts committees are only required to consult with their paying authorities on proposals to close magistrates' courts. But in the spirit of good practice and as recommended by the central council's guidance, MCCs invariably consult much more widely than that. Consultees will typically include magistrates, staff, probation, CPS, MPs and other professional users.
Lord Pilkington of Oxenford: My Lords, I have not taken part in the debate and I apologise for intervening. I live in Somerset. There is enormous distress at—
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I emphasise that in relation to the extra distance court users may have to travel, the return costs of that travel and the time taken to complete the return journey, that issue is specifically one which MCCs are invited to take into account.
The Rural White Paper commits all major government departments to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Countryside Agency initiative of rural proofing all policy, and therefore to consider the impacts of those policies on rural areas both at the development and the implementation stage. We have requested MCCs to include rural proofing updates in their annual reports and indeed rural issues already feature in a number of factors that we expect MCCs to consider when proposing closures.
The public have a right to expect well equipped courts. It is part of the thrust of the Government's intention to help to modernise the criminal justice system. I refer to the private finance initiative where we have £70 million of credits allocated in each of the next three years. That is an important movement forwards.
I come to the questions asked by the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland. I have answered many of them in the round but time has now run out and I am unable to complete all that I wished to say this evening. However, I undertake to write to noble Lords in relation to specific issues.

Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Bill
8.43 p.m.
House again in Committee.
Schedule 5 [Pathogens and toxins]:
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff Baroness Finlay of Llandaff moved Amendment No. 143B:
Page 106, line 38, leave out "Chlamydophila" and insert "Chlamydia"
670
The noble Baroness said: Amendment No. 143B to Schedule 5 is simply a question of taxonomy. Under an amendment agreed on 26th November in the other place, the organism, Chlamydia psittaci was rescheduled as Chlamydophila psittaci. I believe that that was based on information from a paper in the International Journal of Systemic Bacteriology, following the molecular genetics of the organism. However, that recommended renaming—the paper's authors are from the US—has not come into use in the UK and the organism is not currently known as Chlamyclophila psittaci in the Public Health Laboratory Service and NHS laboratories To avoid confusion it would seem sensible to use the name that is commonly used. I venture to suggest that perhaps rather than simply reverse the previous amendment another way to handle the matter may be to use both the new and the old names in the text to ensure that laboratories know that the organism under either name is the organism in Schedule 5. I beg to move.
The Countess of Mar: I have a feeling that the noble friend of the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, has passed the buck. I asked a question on the previous amendment about pigeons and this particular bacterium. I understand that every pigeon is infected with Chlamydia or Chlamydophila psittaci. I quote from Clause 59(4)(b) of Part 7 which states:
"anything which is infected with or otherwise carries any such substance".
Is anything in that provision affected by the amendment we are discussing? I refer to every pigeon in Trafalgar Square. Is the Mayor of London required to report that? Is whoever is in charge of Railtrack required to report the fact when a dead pigeon which is infected with the bacterium is picked up?
Lord Rooker: I hope that I can satisfy both noble Baronesses. However, if I cannot do so, and there is any doubt about the matter we shall rectify the position.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff, said, the amendment would reverse the government amendment that was agreed in the Commons. All I can do is explain how that came about in terms of the scientific advice on which we acted in proposing the amendment in the other place. The list of substances in Schedule 5 is known as the Australia Group list. I hope that I shall not be asked why it is known as the Australia Group list. I am sure that the noble Baroness knows why that is, but I do not.
When the provisions of the Bill were first discussed with the scientific community, one researcher contacted the Home Office to say that the list had recently been amended as a result of a scientific reclassification of certain types of bacteria. The result was that the entry we originally had in the Bill would have included not only the rather nasty bacterium which can cause psittacosis in humans as well as caged birds, but also a less frightening cousin whose worst known effect is to cause conjunctivitis in domestic cats. As we did not think that the threat from terrorists spreading feline conjunctivitis was a pressing one, it

671
seemed to us that we would be justified in amending the list in Schedule 5 in order to focus on the bacterium which created a threat to human health and not impose unnecessary controls on researchers working on substances which were essentially harmless. There may still be debate on the matter in the scientific community. It is the kind of matter we must get right. I shall certainly take advice on the noble Baroness's suggestion.
On Second Reading—although I cannot find a reference to it in Hansard—someone mentioned that smallpox was not included in the list. However, I understand that it is, as smallpox is the variola virus. I am happy to put that point on the record. I do not know whether I have answered satisfactorily the noble Baroness but I am about to find out.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff: I thank the Minister for his reply. I could discuss ribosomal RNA but I do not wish to detain the Committee any longer. I propose that the suggestion I made earlier is implemented; that is, to use both names in the schedule. The concentration of ribosomal RNA and one of the genes within it determines under which sub-type one classifies the organism. It is the same organism; it is simply a question of the name which is used. I should be cautious as regards having a name in the Bill which is not the name that is in current use by the Public Health Laboratory Service, which is the main public health laboratory service for this country. I believe that we should respect the names that it currently uses. If the Minister has accepted—
Lord Rooker: I speak before the noble Baroness withdraws the amendment, as I cannot speak to it after she has done so. I shall take advice on her suggestion and come back to her.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff: I thank the Minister for his reply. In the light of that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 5 agreed to.
Clause 60 [Duty to notify Secretary of State before keeping or using any dangerous substance]:
[Amendment No. 143AB not moved.]
Clause 60 agreed to.
Clause 61 [Power to require information about security of dangerous substances]:
[Amendment No. 143BA not moved.]
Clause 61 agreed to.
Clause 62 [Power to require information about persons with access to dangerous substances]:
[Amendment No. 143BB not moved.]
Lord Dixon-Smith Lord Dixon-Smith moved Amendment No. 144:
Page 31, line 17, after "may" insert "reasonably".
672
The noble Lord said: This is a probing amendment. In this House we always have difficulties in relation to what is or is not "reasonable". Clause 62 provides that:
"A police officer of at least the rank of inspector may give to the occupier of any relevant premises"—
that is, somewhere that holds these nasty materials—
"a notice requiring him to give the chief officer of police a list or.
persons who have access, and so on. We have no difficulty with most of that until we reach Clause 62(7). That subsection states:
"Any list under this section must … identify the access which the person has, or is proposed to have … state the full name of that person, his date of birth, his address and his nationality".
If we are dealing with counter-terrorism, there is no difficulty with any of that because we are dealing with individuals and, indeed, that information must be known.
However, paragraph (7)(c) states,
"contain such other matters (if any) as may be prescribed".
The difficulty there which we have sought to resolve with this amendment by inserting the word "reasonably" is that "such other matters" might become unreasonable for some unfortunate reason. Such cases are not unknown because we are talking about human relations. For example, the head of a firm operating that type of business may have an argument on a Friday night with a local policeman of the rank of inspector or above. That may all sound highly improbable but, sadly, it is not unknown.
Therefore, we considered that it would be better if paragraph (c) included the word "reasonably" so that it read,
"contain such other matters … as may reasonably be prescribed".
That would keep the matters relevant to the issue and not simply create an administrative burden which otherwise might become unreasonable. At the end of the day, while we have every obligation to do everything that we possibly can to contain the appalling problems which terrorism can create, we also have an obligation to ensure that we do not create burdens such that business cannot function effectively and profitably. If it does not function profitably, it will not function at all. I beg to move.
Lord Rooker: I hope that I shall be able to persuade the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, that his proposed amendment would not in practice provide any additional safeguards against the possibility that the police might ask for information about people with access to dangerous pathogens beyond what is reasonable.
As the noble Lord said, Clause 62 states that the police may seek the name, address, date of birth and nationality of such people. They may also ask for additional information which may be prescribed. If it were prescribed, it would appear in regulations under the negative procedure. Therefore, it would be for Parliament to decide whether any information which it is proposed that the police should be empowered to ask for about such people were reasonable or not. If it were not considered reasonable, the regulations would

673
not pass. If it were possible that an unreasonable set of regulations could pass, their application could, of course, be challenged in the courts.
One other reason why we do not believe that we should agree to the amendment is that it would cast doubt on the validity of many other regulations where none should exist. A court might take a more limited view of what matters were reasonable than might the Secretary of State, who would have the benefit of advice from the police as to why they wanted additional information.
We have no current plans to bring forward any regulations under this subsection. The immediate question that comes to mind is: if we did have, what would it be? The answer is: information. Having taken advice during the day, I can tell the Committee that, if extra background information were required, we might, for example, seek details of the qualifications or, indeed, the place of training of the people working in the laboratories. However, we have no plans beyond those set out in the Bill. With that explanation, I hope that I have satisfied the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, and that he will withdraw his amendment.
Lord Elton: Before the noble Lord sits down, I believe that I heard him say that the reassurance that my noble friend sought was contained in the fact that any other requirement that was to be put on the list would have to be agreed through a statutory process. Can he show us where that requirement is set out in the Bill? It does not appear to be in this part, and I am not sufficiently familiar with the Bill to know where it is.
Lord Rooker: There is no way to prescribe other than by a statutory instrument. The police have powers on the face of the Bill, in primary legislation, under Clause 62(1). That measure has the force of law because it is set out in the Bill. If the list had to be added to, that would be defined in Clause 75, I believe. If something is prescribed, it is axiomatic that it is set out in regulations. The interpretation which is set out in Clause 75 provides a definition in line 19. It states,
"'prescribed' means prescribed in regulations made by the Secretary of State".
I hope that that answers the noble Lord, Lord Elton. The information for which the police can ask is clearly set out on the face of the Bill. The definition of "prescribed" clearly indicates that regulations have come before Parliament.
Lord Elton: I am most grateful. That is quite clear.
Lord Dixon-Smith: Like my noble friend Lord Elton, I am grateful to the Minister for his explanation. Unfortunately, I am not a government Minister and the noble Lord is. I hope that he will forgive me the irreverence, but I am less confident than he is that an unreasonable regulation under the negative procedure will never slip through the House. Not least of the problems that we have in relation to the Bill is the number of occasions on which it is dependent on regulations. We have constantly argued that the regulatory procedure suffers from the much
674
greater disadvantage of inadequate supervision. That said, I have listened to what the Minister had to say and I shall study it. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 144 A not moved.]
Clause 62 agreed to.
Clauses 63 and 64 agreed to.
9 p.m.
Clause 65 [Denial of access to dangerous substances]:
Lord Dixon-Smith Lord Dixon-Smith moved Amendment No. 145:
Page 32, line 12, at end insert "or the security of any country or territory outside the United Kingdom"
The noble Lord said: This amendment deals with a rather more serious matter. Clause 65 refers to "access to dangerous substances", and states that the
"Secretary of State may give directions to the occupier of any relevant premises requiring him to secure that the person identified in the directions … is not to have access"
and so on.
Again we are dealing with the problems of people who might be terrorists, associated with terrorist organisations, or who have behaved suspiciously in the past.
Clause 65(3) states:
"The Secretary of State may not give the directions unless he believes that they arc necessary in the interests of national security".
It is acknowledged and a fact of sad history that the United States is all too often a prime target for terrorist groups, particularly A1'Qaeda. That may continue to be so, and other countries may well become terrorist targets. We thought it desirable to add to the end of Clause 65(3) the words,
"or the security of any country or territory outside the United Kingdom".
That would permit the Secretary of State to make such a prohibition if he was concerned that somebody who was associated with a terrorist organisation that was involved with terrorist activity which would not affect this country, but which might affect some other part of the world. I ask the Minister to consider the position carefully. The amendment would do nothing to endanger the fundamentals of the Bill but would enhance the power of the Secretary of State to deal with such situations and, more importantly, it would give encouragement to our friends and neighbours that we were concerned not only with our own interests but with theirs. I beg to move.
Lord Rooker: We have a great deal or sympathy for this amendment and were it not for what I am about to say, we would have accepted it. I hope that I can show why it is not necessary. The purpose behind it will be covered.
The events since 11th September have drawn attention to the international nature of terrorism and the terrorist networks. It is conceivable that there may be someone in this country who is intent on terrorist activity in another country but who poses no

675
immediate terrorist threat here. In such circumstances, we would not expect the Secretary of State knowingly to allow that person to have access to substances that could be used to devastating effect by those intent on terror. That would not be in the interests of national security. Those who trade in terror pose a general risk to the security of the international community. The risk is a general one. Dangerous substances in the hands of one terrorist could well end up in the hands of others. Adding a specific reference to the security of other countries to the term "national security" would imply that the expression had more limited meaning in other statutes, which we must avoid.
I remind Members of the Committee of the words that were quoted last Thursday during our debates on Part 4 of the Bill on the case of Rehman which concerned the meaning of the phrase,
"the interests of national security"
in the Special Immigration Appeals Commission Act 1997, which came before the House on appeal earlier this year. In referring to the events of 11th September, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hoffmann, said that they are a reminder that
"in matters of national security, the cost of failure can be high. This seems to me to underline the need for the judicial arm of government to respect the decisions of Ministers of the Crown on the question of whether support for terrorist activities in a foreign country constitutes a threat to national security".—[Official Report, 29/11/01; col. 495.]
We should take it that the term "national security" in the context in which it is used in this Bill encompasses the concept of international security at the same time. That is the point behind the amendment, which is why we have sympathy with it. We want to avoid that specific use of words simply because of other Acts. The purpose behind the amendment is covered in the Bill.
Lord Dixon-Smith: I listened with interest to what the Minister said, for which I am grateful. Being a mere layman, I am not as confident as he is about the law and lawyers. I have found that one can ask for legal opinions until the one that one wants is received. That may sound cynical but it seems to be the position. I am willing to accept the Minister's assurance that national security includes international security. If it is the position that what Ministers say in the House has to be taken into account by a court of law, I am happy with that assurance.
Lord Donaldson of Lymington: Before the noble Lord sits down, perhaps I should say that while I understand that if one asks for enough legal opinions, one will get the one that one wants, that does not apply when one asks judges.
Will the Minister consider who told him that the words used in a later statute will alter the meaning of words used in an earlier one? That is a somewhat surprising proposition. I am very surprised that the addition of the words referred to in the amendment would imperil anything at all. They seem merely to make for clarity. A single judgment or speech by a
676
judicial Member of the House is an unsure basis on which to base a view of the law. Do not think that I am prejudiced. I was entitled to sit in this House but I preferred to continue to sit as Master of the Rolls.
Lord Rooker: What I have just heard from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson, has stopped me saying what I was going to say, which was very supportive of judges. I shall take early steps to draw the remarks of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson, to my right honourable friend the Home Secretary as there might be some doubt about the matter. At the moment, we are resting on the fact that the words
"in the interests of national security"
can be taken to apply to international security.
Lord Dixon-Smith: I am even more grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson of Lymington, for reasons that I do not need to explain. He has helped to clarify the situation. We may perhaps need to return to this matter on Report. I do not alter what I was in the process of saying. For the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 65 agreed to.
Clause 66 agreed to.
Clause 67 [Search warrants]:
Lord Bassam of Brighton Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendment No. 145A:
Page 32, line 31, after "IF' insert ", in England and Wales or Northern Ireland,".
The noble Lord said: The two amendments in the name of my noble friend Lord Rooker pick up the point underlying Amendments Nos. 146, 146A and 146B, which appear in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, and his colleagues. It is fair to pay some tribute to the noble Lord for alerting us to the sense of making the change for Scotland to Clause 67. Indeed, I invite the Committee to accept Amendment No. 146B, which is in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith. He has scored a direct hit with that amendment.
At present Clause 67(1) provides for a constable applying for a search warrant to a sheriff or justice of the peace—that is the effect of subsection (4). There is nothing intrinsically inappropriate in that and there are instances on the statute book and at common law where constables do apply in Scotland for search warrants. However, the more usual format now, apparently, in circumstances such as those contemplated in Clause 67, is for the Procurator Fiscal to apply to the sheriff for a warrant authorising a constable to enter premises and search for, seize and retain dangerous substances. That is the approach taken, for example, for comparable provisions in the Terrorism Act 2000 and in the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995.
Amendment No. 146AA achieves that for Scotland. Amendment No. 146B removes subsection (4), which will become redundant, and Amendment No. 145A

677
ensures that the current provisions in subsection (1) continue to apply to England, Wales and Northern Ireland.
I anticipate that the government amendments will meet precisely the point that the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, and his colleagues had intended in their amendments to Clause 67. I hope that in view of that, he will feel able to withdraw Amendments Nos. 146 and 146A and support the government amendments. I beg to move.
The Duke of Montrose: I want to say a few words about the amendments standing in the name of my noble friend Lord Dixon-Smith. Members of the Committee do not need reminding of the importance of constructing the legislation in a way that is compatible with the practice of Scottish law. The Minister took on the meat and substance of the amendments that were tabled by my noble friend, and I am grateful to hear that he is prepared to accept Amendment No. 146B—without that, there would have been an untidy element in the Bill. I have similar worries about the suitability to Scotland of Clauses 112 and 113. I mention that now but may return to it at a later date. We will not press our amendments.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments No. 146 and 146A not moved.]
Lord Bassam of Brighton Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendment No. 146AA:
Page 32, line 39, at end insert—
"(1A) If, in Scotland, on an application made by the procurator fiscal the sheriff is satisfied as mentioned in subsection (1), he may issue a warrant authorising a constable to enter the premises, if necessary by force, and to search them."
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Dixon-Smith Lord Dixon-Smith moved Amendment No. 146B:
Page 33, line 10. leave out subsection (4).
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 67, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 68 [Offences]:
Lord Hylton Lord Hylton moved Amendment No. 146C:
Page 33, line 21, leave out "five" and insert "three".
The noble Lord said: I accept that some of the penalties for offences that are connected with international terrorism may need to be strengthened over and above the levels in the Terrorism Act 2000 or in other existing laws. I also understand that the Government may have felt it necessary to send a strong signal to the courts about the seriousness of terrorist offences.
I invite the Committee to consider whether or not the Government may have overdone things by specifying penalties that are three times more severe than at present. That is the case in Clause 116 and possibly elsewhere. If the Government's position is that these offences are completely new, are they satisfied that they have selected the appropriate level
678
of punishment? Amendment No. 146C refers to imprisonment. Amendments Nos. 151) and I 59C, also in my name, refer to fines.
In regard to prisons, your Lordships know that some 23 local gaols are now overcrowded by 5,000 prisoners. That makes it difficult or almost impossible in some cases to organise constructive regimes. Therefore, on general penal grounds there are strong reasons not to increase the length of sentences, but to use fines and other punishments in combination to reduce the length of imprisonment. I look forward to hearing the views of the Government. I beg to move.
9.15 p.m.
Lord Rooker: I understand the position taken by the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, but we cannot accept his amendment. The offences include failure to notify the Secretary of State that dangerous substances are being held or used, failure to notify the Secretary of State about persons who have access to those substances, which are listed, or failure to comply with reasonable security instructions from the police.
This is part of the process of changing gear and upping our game. Therefore, we need to send out a strong signal that these are potentially serious offences which could put the lives of many people at risk. We are talking of a maximum penalty of five ears or a fine, although it could be both, but that would be a matter for the courts to judge on the merits of the individual case. We believe that we should give them a greater maximum with which to work. I hope that on reflection the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.
Lord Hylton: I take note of what the Minister has said about the seriousness of the offences. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 68 agreed to.
Clauses 69 to 71 agreed to.
Schedule 6 agreed to.
Clauses 72 to 76 agreed to.
[Amendment No. 146D not moved.]
Clause 77 agreed to.
Clause 78 [Regulation of security of civil nuclear industry]:
Baroness Miller of Hendon Baroness Miller of Hendon moved Amendment No. 147:
Page 38, line 43, leave out paragraph (d).
The noble Baroness said: In moving to Amendment No. 147, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 147A and to Amendment No. 147B, which is consequential on Amendment No. 147A. Amendment No. 147 can be explained simply and briefly. It seeks to leave out line 43 of Clause 78 which deals with the regulation of security of the civil nuclear industry. Line 43 permits the regulations to,
"create summary offences or offences triable either way".

679
We believe that to create criminal offences is an improper use of regulations. If criminal offences are to be created. they should be dealt with in primary legislation, which would provide the opportunity for proper scrutiny.
The offences in this clause are rightly considered serious; for example, those that are triable either way can attract up to two years' imprisonment or a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum, or both. The formation of such offences should be subjected to proper democratic examination. The Secretary of State has already been criticised for not allowing proper time for scrutinising this important piece of legislation and he certainly should not seek to compound that problem by using secondary legislation for matters that affect the liberty of people in this country.
I turn to Amendment No. 147A, which is a probing amendment. It seeks to clarify whether the reference in this clause to offences that are "triable either way" includes solemn proceedings in Scotland. In Scotland the accused person has no right to elect the forum in which the proceedings will be raised. That is determined by the prosecutor.
The Law Society of Scotland is aware that a reference to offences triable either way can be to the accused's right to elect trial by jury in England and Wales. It is unclear from the Bill whether offences under the solemn procedure could be created by virtue of these regulations. That is why we have tabled this probing amendment in order to clarify the position. Amendment No. 147B is consequential. I beg to move.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Ampthill): I must remind the Committee that if this amendment is agreed to I cannot call Amendment No. 147A.
Lord Elton: Subject to anything the Minister is about to say which might change my mind, I endorse every word that my noble friend said about the principal amendment in this group. I do not believe that it is for Ministers to make orders creating new offences which then go through this House as secondary legislation. My noble friend has said it very well, but I wish that I had said it, too.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: I propose to take together proposed Amendments Nos. 147, 147A and 147B, all of which deal with offences under the regulations to be made on the security of civil nuclear sites.
Clause 78 provides the power to make regulations on security in the civil nuclear industry. The aim of these regulations is to provide a strengthened and modernised regulatory regime to ensure the security of nuclear sites and nuclear material. This provides essential protection against risks from terrorists and proliferators.
To be effective, any regulatory regime needs to incorporate sanctions if the regime is breached. The effect of Amendment No. 147 is to remove the power
680
to make breach of the regulations an offence. However, such a power is essential and must remain part of this clause.
Concern has been raised that we are here talking of power taken to create offences by secondary legislation through the negative resolution procedure. We consider this sufficient since the proposed offences and their associated penalties in subsection (3) of the clause are broadly comparable to those which already apply in the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act for breaches of regulations made under that Act whose provisions on offences may be imported into the regulations under subsection (2)(g) as described elsewhere. They are therefore already established and are not novel.
Furthermore, the Select Committee on Delegated Powers, which has considered the power to create secondary legislation included in this Bill, has made no comment on this proposed power in its report
Amendments Nos. 147A and 147B concern the type of offences that can be created under the regulations to be made under this clause on security in the civil nuclear industry. At present, Clause 78 provides that regulations may create two categories of offence, namely, summary offences and offences triable either way. The noble Baroness has proposed adding to these a third category, a solemn offence which, in Scots law, is tried on indictment only.
The Government do not see any need to create offences under the regulations that would be triable only on indictment. As I have explained, it is important to have effective sanctions for breach of the regulations, but we are confident that the existing offences in this clause fully provide for that.
I am advised that it would be rare to create a new crime which could be tried only on indictment. The normal approach is to specify, as this clause does, that a crime is triable as a summary offence or either way. Where an offence can be tried either way, it is left open to the prosecutor to decide, in all the circumstances of each individual case, what the appropriate procedure would he. To accept this amendment would go against the usual approach. In the light of these explanations I hope that the noble Baroness will not press the amendments.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: I listened very carefully to what the Minister said. He will not be surprised to learn that I do not agree with him. I feel very passionately that criminal offences should not be made by secondary legislation. I understand what the Minister said about the Select Committee looking at the matter and being unable to find anything wrong. It would be totally impertinent of me, a mere Front Bencher, to say that I do not believe that to be correct. In fact I do not think that it is correct. However, the Select Committee has made its decision. I certainly would not dream of testing the opinion of the Committee. Looking around I do not see any of my noble friends here. Having said that, I shall read carefully what the Minister has said. My first thought

681
is that I do not agree with it. This is a serious matter that should be dealt with by proper primary legislation.
With regard to the Minister's comments on Amendment No. 147A, I did not propose that we should add the words "solemn proceedings". I said that the clause is not clear. I simply wanted to probe whether or riot the provisions would apply in Scotland as they do in England and Wales. If I did not make that clear to the noble Lord, I apologise. Perhaps I was not as clear as I should have liked. In the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 147A and 147B not moved.]
Lord Sainsbury of Turville Lord Sainsbury of Turville moved Amendment No. 147BA:
Page 39, line 9, leave out from "way" to "or" in line 10 and insert "—

(i) on conviction on indictment, with imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years or a fine (or both); and

(ii) on summary conviction, with imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months"

The noble Lord said: This group of amendments proposes three minor technical amendments to clauses in Part 8 of the Bill. These are needed to rectify minor drafting errors or to ensure consistency in the wording of the Bill as a whole. They have no implications for the policy intentions underlying the Bill.
The first proposed amendment relates to Clause 78. It makes clear the maximum penalties which may apply to offences created under the regulations that are triable either way. The maximum penalties will be different depending on whether the offences are tried in the magistrates' court or in the Crown Court.
The second proposed amendment concerns Clause 80. It ensures consistency in the language used in the provisions regarding extraterritorial jurisdiction in the civil nuclear security clauses and in similar clauses elsewhere in the Bill.
The third proposed amendment also concerns Clause 80. It corrects a small drafting error that occurred during the drafting of the Bill.
I am sorry to have to trouble Members of the Committee with these matters. Nevertheless, in the light of this explanation I hope that these amendments can be accepted.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 78, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 79 agreed to.
Clause 80 [Prohibition of disclosures in relation to nuclear security]:
Lord Sainsbury of Turville Lord Sainsbury of Turville moved Amendments Nos. 147C and 147D:
Page 40, line 32, after "Kingdom" insert ", but only if they are done"
Page 40, line 37, leave out from "in" to end of line 38 and insert "subsection (5) affects any criminal liability arising otherwise than under that subsection"
On Question, amendments agreed to.
682
On Question, Whether Clause 80, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord McNally: I want to be brief, to read something into the record and to get a ministerial response to a point that needs to be put and responded to. Clause 80 is headed "Prohibition of disclosures in relation to nuclear security". Earlier I made it clear that from these Benches we fully accept that there is a threat to the nuclear industry from terrorism with the potential use of nuclear technology for terrorist purposes. We need to make sure both in this clause and right through the Bill that we get the right balance between meeting that threat properly and with a sense of urgency, and protecting civil liberties and legitimate debate.
I shall read into the record a paragraph from a letter sent by Greenpeace to Members of another place which puts succinctly the argument about Clause 80. It states:
"It is of great concern to us that this Bill represents an unwarranted and unreasonable prohibition of the public's access to important information. With particular reference to Part 8—'Security of. Nuclear Industry'—it appears that the Bill will act to prohibit the legitimate disclosure of information regarding the Nuclear Industry, nuclear waste, and the transport of nuclear material. This Bill is likely to result in the criminalisation of groups and individuals that legitimately oppose the Nuclear industry. It will also prevent communities and individuals from being able to make informed decisions on how the Nuclear Industry affects their lives".
That is the charge which Greenpeace makes and it is the dilemma which faces us throughout. Are Ministers convinced, certainly as regards Clause 80, that they have struck the right balance between protecting our nuclear industry from terrorist threat and allowing the legitimate debate which depends on access to information about the role which the nuclear industry should play in our country.
9.30 p.m.
Lord Elton: As the Minister is not immediately rising to his feet, perhaps I may raise a more minor matter—I should have done so anyway—and one with which the Committee may be familiar. We have again the term "a United Kingdom person". I know what a United Kingdom national is; I know what a United Kingdom citizen is; and I know what a United Kingdom resident is. Is this a new term and a different interpretation? I do not doubt that if the Minister is in difficulty the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, will he able to help him. It is not a phrase with which I am familiar.
Lord Hylton: In support of what was said by the noble Lord, Lord McNally, it seems to me that there is some danger in connection, for example, with plants such as Sellafield and the long drawn-out controversy over MOX fuel. All have aroused fears, apprehensions and arguments in neighbouring countries, such as the Republic of Ireland. They may therefore be said to have international implications for us. In that context, I hope that there will be no suppression of reasonable and peaceful information.
Lord Donaldson of Lymington: I came across the answer to the noble Lord's question while browsing

683
through the Bill. The expression "a United Kingdom person" struck me, as it struck the noble Lord, as extraordinary. I am sure that the Minister is now being told where it appears. If one looked outside the clause where I met it, one would discover that one got there by steps; namely, that a United Kingdom person was defined as a British national and so forth. One has to lift one's eyes a little to see where the strange expression came from.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: The noble Lord, Lord McNally, questioned the justification for the clause. Perhaps I may deal with his concerns. There clearly is a balance to be drawn between the protection of sensitive information and people's legitimate comments and queries about the nuclear industry.
There is a need to strengthen the law in order to ensure full protection for sensitive information on the security of nuclear sites and nuclear material. While companies are required to protect that information under the nuclear security regulatory regime, those obligations apply only to companies and not to individuals.
It is important to ensure that there are fully effective sanctions against individuals. The consequences of illegitimate disclosure of sensitive information on the security of nuclear sites and material could be highly damaging and this strengthening of the law is essential.
Perhaps I may deal with the area of most sensitivity to organisations such as Greenpeace; namely, the consideration of the impact of the clause on the disclosure of information relating to the transport of nuclear material. This is one of its major concerns. To ensure the security of nuclear material in the course of transport it is essential to protect detailed information on routes, time schedules and the nature of the material being transported until the movements begin so that no forewarning is provided to potential attackers. Furthermore, the recommendations of the International Atomic Energy Agency—the relevant United Nations body—on the physical protection of nuclear material, which underpins the UK nuclear security regulatory system, include this requirement. The clause would prohibit only the intentional or reckless disclosure of information which could prejudice security and provides essential protection of nuclear material in the course of transport.
I make two further points. First, an offence would be committed only if there was a deliberate or reckless disclosure of information that could prejudice security. Whether an offence has been committed will depend on the facts of the case which will be for the courts to assess. Secondly, a great deal of information on nuclear transport has no implications for security. Information collected through observation from public places is essentially public information and is very unlikely to be able to prejudice security. The same applies to disclosure of information that is already in the public domain. Dissemination of that kind of information is highly unlikely to fall within this offence. I hope that that explanation satisfies the noble Lord's concern.
684
There have been comments during the debate about whether particular measures are necessary to fight terrorism. I believe that after the events of September 11th most people in this country do not want advance notice to be given on the movement of nuclear material around the country and the reckless disclosure of such information should be discouraged. It is on that basis that this clause is put forward.
A question was asked about what "United Kingdom person" means. That is defined in Clause 82(2):
"In this Part 'United Kingdom person' means a United Kingdom national, a Scottish partnership or a body incorporated under the law of any part of the United Kingdom".
Lord Dixon-Smith: Before the noble Lord sits down, I understand "United Kingdom national", but does that definition refer to someone who lives in the United Kingdom but who is not a UK citizen? I believe that such a person should be covered by the provision.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: In subsection (3) it is provided:
"For this purpose a United Kingdom national is an individual who is—

(a) a British citizen, a British Dependent Territories citizen, a British National (Overseas) or British Overseas citizen;

(b) a person who under the British Nationality Act 1981 … is a British subject; or

(c) a British protected person within the meaning of that Act".

Lord Elton: I presume that the last part includes citizens of Northern Ireland, which is not part of Great Britain.
Lord Donaldson of Lymington: Do not citizens of Northern Ireland carry British passports?
Lord Hylton: Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: A British citizen in this context would include someone from Northern Ireland.
Lord Dixon-Smith: We shall consider whether an amendment is required to include people who are normally resident in the United Kingdom but are not UK citizens.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: I shall check whether the explanation that I have given is correct. If not, I shall write to the noble Lord and correct the mistake.
Clause 80, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 81 [Prohibition of disclosures of uranium enrichment technology]:
Lord McNally moved Lord McNally moved Amendment No. 148:
Page 40, line 41. leave out paragraph (a).
The noble Lord said: We seek to leave out paragraph (a) of subsection (1) of Clause 81. Again, this is related to the continuing national debate as regards the future of the nuclear industry.

685
Subsection 11)(a) refers to the "enrichment of uranium". Greenpeace has stated that highly enriched uranium can be used in nuclear weapons. However, enriched uranium, covered in this clause, is the material used in the normal nuclear fuel employed in power stations. If subsection (1)(a) remains unamended, it would be impossible to discuss the process by which nuclear fuel is made, where it is made, or possibly the potential problems of using it.
In tabling the amendment, we seek to establish whether subsection (1)(a) constitutes a form of gagging clause" on any legitimate discussion of the peaceful uses of nuclear energy. I beg to move.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: With regard to Amendment No. 148. perhaps I may explain briefly the purpose of Clause 81. It provides the power to make regulations prohibiting the disclosure of uranium enrichment technology and to set out exceptions to the prohibitions. The clause is necessary because this technology is highly attractive to proliferators. While it is used in the civil nuclear industry to enrich uranium for use in fuel for power generation, it can be easily adapted for use in developing nuclear weapons.
The case for rigorously protecting the technology is therefore self-evident. Companies in the civil nuclear industry are already required to apply stringent controls under the civil nuclear security regulatory regime, but those requirements will not apply to individuals. We propose to make regulations to fill that gap.
However, when we draw up the regulations we shall ensure that we balance robust protection of this technology with the need not to prevent its communication in legitimate circumstances and the regulations will provide for appropriate defences. They will be subject to public consultation and, most important, they will require the consent of both Houses under the affirmative resolution procedure.
I hope that, with those assurances, the noble Lord will be willing to withdraw Amendment No. 148, which would rob the clause of most of its effect.
Lord McNally: We seem to have decoupled Amendment No. 148 from Amendment No. 149 in the groupings list. However, I am happy to withdraw Amendment No. 148.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 148A not moved.]
Clause 81 agreed to.
Clause 82 [Part 8.L: supplementary]:
[Amendment No. 149 not moved.]
Clause 82 agreed to.
[Amendment No. 149A not moved.]
Clause 83 agreed to.
Clause 84 [Trespass on aerodrome: penalty]:
Lord Hylton Lord Hylton moved Amendment No. 150:
Page 42, line 34, leave out "3" and insert "2"
686
The noble Lord said: The amendment provides an opportunity for me to ask the Minister whether he considers that the same considerations should apply to fines as to imprisonment. I beg to move.
9.45 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (Lord Falconer of Thoroton): The question went beyond me. Do I take the same provisions to apply to fines as to imprisonment? The reason we are increasing the level of fines from what it was prior to the passing of the Act to what is proposed in the Bill is that we do not think a level 1 fine adequately conveys the concerns that we have on the issue; it would not be proportionate to the offence; and it would be unlikely to act as a deterrent.
Trespassing on an aerodrome would involve a deliberate attempt to circumvent access controls and has safety and security implications. The proposed penalty of level 3 on the standard scale, currently £1,000—which is the effect of the change in the law proposed in the Bill—reflects the view that the offence is not as serious as unauthorised access in a restricted zone or on an aircraft, both of which attract a level 5 fine, currently £5,000.
The level 3 fine contained in the Bill would, we believe, be proportionate to the offence and the aim that it seeks to realise, the prevention of possible terrorism. It would act as a deterrent and would be consistent with the penalty for similar offences under Article 122 of the Air Navigation Order 2000—for example, endangering the safety of an aircraft, person or property, and drunkenness on board an aircraft.
I am not sure whether that answers the noble Lord's question, but it explains why we are increasing the fine from level 1 to level 3 for the specified offence. I hope that I have adequately answered the question. But if not, if the noble Lord asks a slightly longer question I shall try again.
Lord Hylton: I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for that reply. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 84 agreed to.
Clause 85 [Removal of an intruder]:
Viscount Astor Viscount Astor moved Amendment No. 150A:
Page 43, line 1, after "person" insert "(authorised in writing)"
The noble Viscount said: In moving. Amendment No. 150A, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 150B to 150G.
Amendments Nos. 150A and 150B seek to insert in Clause 85 the words "authorised in writing" after the words,
"the manager of an aerodrome or a person acting on his behalf".
I have looked at the Aviation and Maritime Security Act 1990. Section 21C of that Act creates an offence that a person shall not go on to an aerodrome and so on without the permission of the manager or someone acting on his behalf. The difference is that under the

687
1990 Act there is no power for anyone to use reasonable force. If we are going to give the power for someone to use reasonable force when acting on behalf of the manager of an aerodrome, that should be authorised in writing by someone rather than that person just being given a nod. I shall be interested in what the Minister has to say about that.
Moving to Clause 86, subsection (2) states that regulations "may" provide. We believe that regulations "should" provide, and therefore Amendment No. 150C seeks to remove the word "may" and insert the word "shall".
Amendment No. 150D seeks to remove paragraph (c) from subsection (3), which states that the regulations may "create a criminal offence". My purpose is to discover from the noble and learned Lord—I am sure that he will be able to tell me where this is in the Bill—whether the power to create a criminal offence under these regulations refers specifically to this clause or goes wider. Where do I find anything which can restrict that power to create a criminal offence? I am sure that it is in the Bill in some obvious place, but I should be grateful if the noble and learned Lord would point it out for me.
Paragraph (g) of subsection (3) states that the Secretary of State "may",
"make provision about removal from the list (which may include provision for appeal)".
If regulations are laid, it is important that there should be a provision for appeal. Therefore, Amendment No. 150E seeks to ensure that a provision for appeal "shall" be included. Amendment No. 150F seeks to delete from paragraph (i), relating to the conferring of functions on the Secretary of State, the words,
"or on a specified person".
I did not know quite what was meant by that reference. The definition seems rather wide. What do the Government mean? Who else could come under that provision? It seemed to me that it should be restricted to the Secretary of State.
My final amendment in this group is purely a probing amendment. Surely the regulations would fall automatically under a court, so there is no need to include the words,
"confer jurisdiction on a court".
I should be grateful for the noble and learned Lord's response. I beg to move.
Lord Rotherwick: I support my noble friend and have added my name to the amendment. In regard to Amendments Nos. 150A and 150B, I am concerned that the person referred to should be authorised in writing. Let us take the example of a police constable who makes an arrest. He does so with a warrant card, which he can show if the person asks the reason for his arrest. Interestingly, a policeman is not allowed to enter this Chamber before changing out of his uniform, his epaulettes, and his helmet or hat. He has no authority in this Chamber. If he were to attempt to arrest someone and the person queried his action, he would have no authority.
688
It seems sensible that if someone is doing something wrong and a person approaches him and says, "You are to come this way", and he questions that, the person approaching him must show some kind of authority. It seems sensible that he should have some form of authority, even if it is only a written authority.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: The first two amendments tabled by the noble Viscount relate to Clause 85, dealing with the removal of an intruder. The Bill states:
"A constable, the manager of an aerodrome or a person acting on his behalf may use reasonable force to remove a person who fails to comply with a request under subsection (1)(b)",
of the Aviation Security Act 1982. A request to leave, when not complied with, can then be dealt with by the constable or by someone acting on his behalf, using reasonable force to remove the person.
What the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, seeks—and what the noble Lord, Lord Rotherwick, suggested in support—is that the person who helps the constable or the manager of an aerodrome or who is acting on his behalf needs to be authorised to do so in writing. No limit is suggested on the number of persons who could be authorised in writing. So such written authority could plainly be given to all employees.
It is clear that an aerodrome manager or aircraft operator must have the power to remove unauthorised persons from their property. It is also right, given the nature of the business and of this particular power, that they should be able to remove such persons quickly.
To limit those authorised would be counter to those objectives. And to require written authority to be given to all appropriate staff would simply be an unnecessary bureaucratic exercise. One would end up with the need for speed, which would not necessarily be complied with if the authorisation had to be in writing. Equally, in order to comply with the provisions, an aerodrome manager could authorise all the staff to have that authority so as to comply with the proposed amendment. Yet that would simply be an unnecessary bureaucratic exercise.
I remind the Committee that the wording of the Bill is consistent with the equivalent provisions in the Channel Tunnel (Security) Order 1994 and the Aviation and Maritime Act 1990 in respect of the Channel Tunnel and maritime industries respectively. So, although this is a probing amendment, if one thinks about it, it is not a sensible one.
Viscount Astor: Before the noble and learned Lord leaves that point, does he accept that, as the Bill is drafted, someone acting on a person's behalf need not necessarily he a member of that person's staff? He could authorise anyone to act on his behalf whether or not an employee.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: Indeed, the wording of the legislation is in that exact form. In order to be prepared, he would simply authorise all his employees on the basis that they might be the class or category

689
most likely to be authorised. I am sure that the noble Viscount has in mind a practical rather than a bureaucratic provision.
Earl Attlee: Does the clause not go further than authorising? There is no requirement for authority. I could weigh in and help the manager of an aerodrome because I am acting on behalf of the manager. I would not necessarily be authorised. There need be no record of it.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: I have no doubt that the provision is a requirement. It is giving constables, managers of aerodromes or persons acting on their behalf specific powers. The noble Earl would not be acting pursuant to that power if he simply weighed in, as he said. He would not have, therefore, the protection of the statute.
The remaining amendments relate to the establishment and maintenance by regulation of a list or lists of companies approved by the Secretary of State to provide security services to the aviation industry. Amendment No. 150C replaces the word "may" with "shall" and obliges the person to produce the list. It is likely that such lists will be needed but details will need to be considered carefully before a final decision is made. That consideration would need to include full regulatory impact assessments. For that reason, we would not want the clause to be worded in such a way as to require the Secretary of State to maintain such lists.
With one exception, to which I shall come in a moment, the other amendments would dilute the effectiveness of the clause. Amendment No. 150D would mean that regulations could not create an offence of falsely claiming to be a listed person, as provided for in Clause 88 of the Bill, in respect of air cargo agents. That is the purpose of the provision and its omission would clearly be a serious weakness.
The noble Viscount, Lord Astor, asked in effect one question: why would the offence be restricted to matters referred to in Clause 86? New Section 20A(2) states:
"Regulations may provide for the Secretary of State to maintain a list of persons who are approved by him for the provision of a particular aviation security service".
New subsection (3) refers to "the regulations". That is a reference to the regulations in the previous subsection. Therefore the criminal offence could be only in the context of regulations passed for the purpose defined in new Section 20A(2).
We regard Amendment No. 150E as eminently sensible and entirely in line with our intention to provide for a right of appeal in the event of delisting. We shall accept Amendment No. 150E. I urge the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, to move that amendment and we shall agree to it. I congratulate him on bringing forward the amendment.
Amendment No. 150F limits the power in regulations to conferring functions only on the Secretary of State. The noble Viscount does not want there to be anyone else. With respect, we might well
690
need to appoint an independent person to hear an appeal against delisting. If the Secretary of State delisted someone, it would be sensible for there to be an independent person to hear such an appeal. This power would enable such an appointment to be made. We think that that is sensible.
Amendment No. 150G is related to Amendment No. 150D. The power would permit the granting of a forum to an aggrieved party other than judicial review and would therefore seem to us to be desirable.
In the light of what I have said, I hope that the noble Viscount will be willing to withdraw the amendment and will not move Amendments Nos. 150B, C, D, F and G, but that he will be persuaded to move Amendment No. 150E.
10 p.m.
Viscount Astor: I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for his reply. I think that this is the first time that I have ever received a compliment from him in the many debates that we have had on transport matters. Recently, I have received some far from complimentary responses from him, so I am enormously grateful to him and I shall do as he asks.
I hope that the noble and learned Lord saw the point of our first two amendments. We were concerned to probe the Government's understanding of who could act on behalf of an authorised person. This is the first time that a power to use reasonable force has been granted. No such power is included in the Aviation and Maritime Security Act 1990, although, as the noble and learned Lord said, there is such a provision for the Channel Tunnel.
The noble and learned Lord has given a clear response to my other amendments, for which I am enormously grateful. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 150B not moved.]
Clause 85 agreed to.
Clause 86 [Aviation security services]:
[Amendments Nos. 150C and 150D not moved.]
Viscount Astor Viscount Astor moved Amendment No. 150E:
Page 43, line 35, leave out "(which may include provision for appeal)" and insert "which shall include provision for appeal"
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 150F and 150G not moved.]
Clause 86, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 87 [Detention of aircraft]:
Viscount Astor Viscount Astor moved Amendment No. 151:
Page 44, line 30, leave out "is of the opinion'' and insert "ha reasonable grounds to believe"
The noble Viscount said: Detention of an aircraft is a fairly drastic action, as it could cause considerable financial loss to the airline involved. The power to do so is clearly necessary in the light of recent events, but in view of the serious impact that its exercise can have,

691
the power should be used only when there are reasonable grounds to believe that there is a threat to safety. Mere opinion is not enough.
Amendments Nos. 151A and 151B are also in this group. They go back to the Aviation Security Act 1982, into which the clause will add a new Section 20B. Clause 20(4) of that Act says:
"The powers conferred by subsection (3) above shall not include a power for an authorised person to use force for the purpose of entering an aircraft, building or works or entering upon any land".
The Bill creates a power for an authorised person to do that. I have no problem with that. An authorised person should have the power to do that. However, I am concerned by the provision in subsection (3)(b) for that authorised person to,
"arrange for another person to enter the aircraft"
and in paragraph (e) to,
"authorise the use of reasonable force by another person".
What is the Government's intention? I have no problem with giving an authorised person the power to use force, which they have not had before, but the Government have gone a long step further than that. That power must be defined or limited to a group of people who are authorised by the authorised person on a temporary basis. The idea that you could have another person enter and authorise reasonable force after that arrangement does seem to have the danger of giving considerable powers without any checks and balances.
This is largely a probing amendment and I shall listen carefully to the noble and learned Lord's response. I beg to move.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: I am grateful to the noble Lord for providing an opportunity to explain this important provision in the Bill.
The authorised persons referred to in the clause are highly trained and competent aviation security inspectors employed by the department. The power to give a detention direction would be exercised only in extreme circumstances, for example, where, in the professional judgment of an inspector, security had been so seriously compromised or a threat had been received of a sufficiently serious nature that detention of an aircraft or a class of aircraft was the only practicable option in order to prevent a potential terrorist attack.
The first amendment, which the noble Viscount acknowledged was probing, seeks to change the "opinion" provision to a "reasonable grounds" provision. An opinion involves making a judgment; it allows an individual to form a view on such reasons and grounds as seem appropriate. It is an estimation. This involves situations such as those where a threat has been made but cannot be substantiated as a fact; for example, whether a bomb really is on board an aircraft at a specific airport. It may be possible to determine this only after the aircraft has been detained for a thorough search.
692
The need for reasonable grounds involves actual knowledge of relevant facts which provide grounds for a relevant belief established by evidence. The amendment would seem to be based on the premise that opinion gives the inspector too wide a margin of discretion and that there is no need for his decision to be reasonable. However, the aircraft operator is protected by the available appeal mechanism and by judicial review. We believe that the safeguards within the clause and in public law therefore make the amendment unnecessary.
Furthermore, Section 18 of the Aviation Security Act 1982 deals with the service of enforcement notices when an inspector is of the opinion that there has been a failure to comply with the relevant direction. The new proposed power for detention of aircraft via direction mirrors this provision. Consistency would demand that similar wording is used unless a contrary argument exists.
As to the second series of points about arranging for other people to do particular things, I am sure that the noble Viscount will agree that, having taken the difficult decision to detain an aircraft, an authorised person needs to be able to call upon any help he may need, either to satisfy himself about the security of the aircraft or to remove any unauthorised person from it. Such an authorised person, as I have said, will be a well-trained professional aviation security inspector, but he will not be trained in the detention of suspects or in the use of reasonable force. Nor is he likely to be in a position to conduct a full search of the aircraft on his own. I should also remind Members of the Committee that this may be happening at an airport where there is no permanent police presence, nor any other authorised person. It is therefore clear that an authorised person, in order to carry out his duties effectively, may well need to summon assistance. To render him unable to do so—which, in effect, is what the proposed second series of amendments in this group would do—would be indefensible.
I hope that in the light of what I have said, the noble Viscount will withdraw his first amendment and not move his subsequent amendments.
Viscount Astor: Perhaps I may deal first with the second part of the noble and learned Lord's reply. What he has said, in effect, is that an authorised person at an airport can co-opt any fellow worker, or indeed anybody he finds available at an airport, if he thinks that he needs them to come and help enter an aircraft and use reasonable force. I believe that is what the noble and learned Lord is saying. It is not a question of a particular group of people being involved; it is a general power of co-option by an authorised person. I believe that I have the matter right. I am sure that the noble and learned Lord will correct me if I do not.
This is a wide power. I apologise to the noble and learned Lord as I see in the groupings list that the intention to oppose Clause 87 is grouped with the amendment we are discussing. I ask one question on that matter which the noble and learned Lord touched on when responding to Amendment No. 151. I hope that it will be convenient for him to refer to it again

693
now. I refer to the matter of appeals. I could not find easily a reference to an appeals process if an aircraft is detained. The stock answer is, of course, judicial review. However, we all know how long that takes and how expensive it is.
New Section 20B(5) contains a power for the Secretary of State to consider an objection. However, I cannot find reference to an appeals process should the owner or operator of an aircraft consider that the Secretary of State has for some reason detained his aircraft unnecessarily or wrongly. I should be grateful if the noble and learned Lord could tell me where I can find such a reference.
Lord McNally: Before the noble Viscount sits down, I should tell him that he has slightly worried me by his probing. I had been reassured that the "authorised person", when arranging for another person to enter an aircraft, or when arranging for reasonable force to be used by another person, would summon the police, the Army or someone to help. However, the noble Viscount seems to suggest that the authorised person could act like a sheriff organising a posse and could authorise almost anyone to act. The authorisation of the use of reasonable force by another person is rather worrying in its breadth of power. I hope that the Minister intends that that specialist and authorised person at the airport will call in only, as it were, equally specialised people to tackle these tasks.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: On the first point that was raised, I refer to subsections (4) and (5) of new Section 20B, which is headed, Detention direction. Subsection (4) states:
"The operator of an aircraft in respect of which a detention direction is given may object to the direction in writing to the Secretary of State".
Subsection (5) states:
"On receipt of an objection to a detention direction under subsection (4) the Secretary of State shall"
undertake certain courses of action. A process is gone through and then the Secretary of State will decide whether or not to confirm or, in effect, discharge the detention order that has been made. That is the appeals process to which I referred.
Viscount Astor: I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for those comments. I was aware of that provision. My point, which I perhaps did not make clear enough, was that should the Secretary of State not agree with the person who makes an objection, what happens then? Will the matter go straight to judicial review or can the relevant person apply to the courts either to try to overturn the Secretary of State's ruling or to force him to reconsider the matter?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: There is no procedure beyond the detention direction by the person referred to in new Section 20B(1), then the appeal to the Secretary of State. That process can be challenged by judicial review. As far as I am aware, there is no appeal beyond the Secretary of State. I am comforted by the fact that the officials in the Box nod. As regards the
694
point made by the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, which was picked up by the noble Lord, Lord McNally, in theory there is no limit to the person who can be authorised by the authorised person to enter the aircraft or to be "another person" within the meaning of subsection (3)(e), but in practice the authorised person would be most likely to call on airport or airline security staff, who would be the most appropriate people in the circumstances.
Viscount Astor: I am afraid that the noble Lord, Lord McNally, will be disappointed because the next time he goes to the airport he will not be grabbed by an authorised person who says, "Come and join in the fun". Of course, he may be the first person they pick and I may be proved entirely wrong. I am grateful for the explanation that the Minister has given. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 151A and 151B not moved.]
Clause 87 agreed to.
Clause 88 agreed to.
10.15 p.m.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton Lord Falconer of Thoroton moved Amendment No. 151BA:
After Clause 88, insert the following new clause—
"EXTENT OUTSIDE UNITED KINGDOM

(1) The powers in section 108(1) and (2) of the Civil Aviation Act 1982 (c. 16) (extension outside United Kingdom) apply to provisions of this Part which amend that Act.

(2) The powers in section 39(3) of the Aviation Security Act 1982 (c. 36) (extension outside United Kingdom) apply to provisions of this Part which amend that Act.".

The noble and learned Lord said: This is a technical amendment to make it clear that additions or amendments to existing legislation contained in Part 9 of the Bill are intended to be capable of being extended to the Channel Islands. The Aviation. Security Act 1982 and the Civil Aviation Act 1982 both include a permissive power to extend their provisions outside the UK. As originally drafted, Part 9 did not make it clear that additions or amendments to those Acts are similarly intended to be capable of being extended outside the UK.
It is not always necessary or appropriate for an amending enactment to make it clear that additions or amendments are intended to be capable of such extension. However, the islands of Jersey and Guernsey have specifically asked that such permissive power be included. Legal advice is that, in this instance, it would be wise to make clear such provision for extension. Although it has not specifically requested an extension, the Isle of Man has no objection to Part 9 of the Bill being capable of extension in those circumstances. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Dixon-Smith Lord Dixon-Smith moved Amendment No. 152:
After Clause 88, insert the following new clause—
"SECURITY OF PUBLIC TRANSPORT

(1) A person shall not—

(a) go onto a train or other vehicle used for the purpose of public transport except with the permission of the operator of such train or other vehicle or a person acting on behalf of that person and in accordance with any conditions subject to which that permission is for the time being granted, or

(b) remain on such train or other vehicle after being requested to leave by a constable.

(2) A person who contravenes subsection (1) without lawful authority or reasonable excuse is guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale.

(3) A constable or the operator of such train or other vehicle, using such force as is reasonable in the circumstances, may remove from such train or other vehicle a person who contravenes subsection (1)(b).".

The noble Lord said: It would be a gross oversimplification to suggest that the Bill seems to presuppose that terrorists would use only aircraft for major acts of terrorism. We know from experience that that is not so. One has only to look at some of the dreadful events in Israel to see that buses can be used. I cannot recall an occasion when a train has been used for an act of terrorism, but I suppose that it is not beyond the bounds of contemplation.
This putative new clause, which we have tabled as a probing amendment to explore the Government's reaction to that proposition, simply seeks to give a somewhat greater degree of security and control to the operators of trains and buses over who should or should not travel on them. It also seeks to give them the right to object to particular individuals if they are sufficiently worried that they may pose a security risk. It is a serious point, even if we have not expressed it very well. I shall be the first to say that we may not have done so. However, it seems to me that this issue merits a certain amount of consideration. I look forward very much to hearing what the Minister has to say on the matter. I beg to move.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: I agree in principle with much of what the noble Lord has said although I do not believe that he is putting forward his amendment as a serious attempt to deal with the problem. Much of what the amendment seeks to achieve is covered by existing legislation; for example, the Channel Tunnel (Security) Order 1994 provides similar powers in respect of a Channel Tunnel industry to those set out in his amendment. Section 129 of the Railways Act allows for by-laws to be made by operators covering the railway assets. In addition, powers exercisable by the police are also exercisable by the British Transport Police on board trains. So, in a situation when the police have power of arrest, the BTP will also have that power on board a train.
696
Even if one accepts that the suggested provisions in the amendment may be of use in dealing with people who board a bus or a train without permission, how is one to define "permission"? If it means not having a valid ticket, which seems to be the approach in the amendment, there are existing powers to deal with such issues under Section 5 of the Regulation of Railways Act 1889. Equally, powers exist to remove persons causing a nuisance and so on.
The most persuasive argument against the amendment is to ask what it adds to the cause of preventing terrorism. I believe that the perpetrators of the terrible atrocities of 11th September all had valid tickets. I do not think that the matter of buying tickets is at the heart of the issue. Much was made in the other place about the importance of restricting the content of the Bill to matters strictly related to the prevention of terrorism. Similar comments were made on Second Reading.
I understand that the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, does not intend to extend the various provisions on not travelling without a ticket. He was probing wider issues and I hope that I have dealt with them. If one analyses the form of the amendment, one can see that it is both unnecessary and outside the scope of the Bill. I hope that the noble Lord will be willing to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Dixon-Smith: I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for his explanation, which has helped. He is correct that we were concerned with the issue of terrorism. Although I cannot say that I am 100 per cent satisfied that existing law is totally adequate to deal with the situation, brutal experience suggests that the law has precious little to do with the prevention of terrorism if a sufficiently determined person wants to do something.
The important point is that the matter has been properly thought about. The noble and learned Lord has suggested that it has certainly been thought about even if not in sufficient detail absolutely to prevent such terrorism. Even when the Bill is enacted, there will still be an element of prayer in the prevention of terrorism. With that thought in mind, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 152ZA not moved.]
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.
House adjourned at twenty-five minutes past ten o'clock.

  1911 Census
  1911 Census
  Community Service and Probation Orders: Arrests for Breaches
  Community Service and Probation Orders: Arrests for Breaches
  Northern Ireland: Crowd Control Policing
  Northern Ireland: Crowd Control Policing
  Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission: Meetings with Ministers
  Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission: Meetings with Ministers
  Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission: Membership
  Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission: Membership
  Police Service of Northern Ireland: Recruitment
  Police Service of Northern Ireland: Recruitment
  Police Service of Northern Ireland: New Service Badge
  Police Service of Northern Ireland: New Service Badge
  House of Lords: Medical Services for Members
  House of Lords: Medical Services for Members
  Palace of Westminster: Acoustics
  Palace of Westminster: Acoustics
  Hong Kong: Anti-Discrimination Legislation
  Hong Kong: Anti-Discrimination Legislation
  Egypt: Representations about Nightclub Arrest
  Egypt: Representations about Nightclub Arrest
  British Overseas Territories Bill
  British Overseas Territories Bill
  Iran: Human Rights
  Iran: Human Rights
  Judicial Review
  Judicial Review
  FCO: Departmental Expenditure Limit and Administration Costs Limit
  FCO: Departmental Expenditure Limit and Administration Costs Limit
  Terrorism Act 2000: Extradition Warrants
  Terrorism Act 2000: Extradition Warrants
  Detention Centre Rules 2001
  Detention Centre Rules 2001
  United States National Missile Defence Policy
  United States National Missile Defence Policy
  Britannia Royal Naval College: Uniform Procurement
  Britannia Royal Naval College: Uniform Procurement
  War Pensions and Allowances
  War Pensions and Allowances
  European Parliamentary Elections 2004: Gibraltarians' Franchise
  European Parliamentary Elections 2004: Gibraltarians' Franchise
  ECHR: Report of Evaluation Group
  ECHR: Report of Evaluation Group
  Animal Disease Prevention: UK Veterinary Services
  Animal Disease Prevention: UK Veterinary Services
  Energy Crops
  Energy Crops
  DEFRA: Devon Foot and Mouth Inquiry
  DEFRA: Devon Foot and Mouth Inquiry
  Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000: Appeals Inspectors
  Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000: Appeals Inspectors
  Special Advisers
  Special Advisers
  Senior Civil Service: Diversity
  Senior Civil Service: Diversity
  Prime Minister's Office: Baroness Morgan of Huyton
  Prime Minister's Office: Baroness Morgan of Huyton
  Millennium Dome: Payments
  Millennium Dome: Payments
  Structure Planning
  Structure Planning
  Heathrow Airport: Flights from Inverness
  Heathrow Airport: Flights from Inverness
  Rent Restructuring
  Rent Restructuring
  Pupils: Reintegration
  Pupils: Reintegration
  School Sport Alliance
  School Sport Alliance
  Social Fund Computer System
  Social Fund Computer System
  Vaccine Damage: Disability Benefits
  Vaccine Damage: Disability Benefits
  London Heart Hospital
  London Heart Hospital
  NHS Hearing Aid Services
  NHS Hearing Aid Services
  Haemophilia Patients
  Haemophilia Patients
  Healthcare Professionals: Right of Appeal to Judicial Committee of the Privy Council
  Healthcare Professionals: Right of Appeal to Judicial Committee of the Privy Council
  Measles, Mumps and Rubella Immunisation
  Measles, Mumps and Rubella Immunisation
  Measles, Mumps and Rubella: Incidences
  Measles, Mumps and Rubella: Incidences
  Human Cloning
  Human Cloning
  Autism: Costs to Community
  Autism: Costs to Community
  Adverse Drug Reactions: Autism
  Adverse Drug Reactions: Autism
  Sexual Health and HIV Services
  Sexual Health and HIV Services
  Long-term Care Residents
  Long-term Care Residents
  Residential and Nursing Care: Funding
  Residential and Nursing Care: Funding
  Intermediate Care
  Intermediate Care
  National Institute for Clinical Excellence
  National Institute for Clinical Excellence
  Independent Healthcare Providers
  Independent Healthcare Providers
  NHS Information Network
  NHS Information Network
  Information Management and Technology: Health Authorities' Local Implementation Strategies
  Information Management and Technology: Health Authorities' Local Implementation Strategies
  Electronic Patient Record Level 3
  Electronic Patient Record Level 3
  Integrated Primary Care and Community Electronic Patient Records
  Integrated Primary Care and Community Electronic Patient Records
  Nursing Staff: Retirements
  Nursing Staff: Retirements
  Physical Activity
  Physical Activity
  Advisory Group on Teenage Pregnancy
  Advisory Group on Teenage Pregnancy