Sitting of 4 December 2001

Preamble
[SIR MICHAEL LORD in the Chair]

Teaching Profession
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned. —[Mr. Heppell.]
9.30 am
Chris Grayling: I called the debate for one simple reason. During the past few months I have spoken to teachers at all levels—from secondary heads to supply teachers—and without exception they have given me the same message: there is a mounting crisis in our schools. The Government seem not to realise that many teachers are at the end of their tether, and they need someone to speak up for them. I cannot make the Government change what they are doing—nor, it seems, can the teachers—but I can explain in straightforward terms what, according to teachers, is going wrong.
Before telling the Minister about the problems that the Government need to get to grips with, I pay tribute to those heads and teachers who are battling to keep their schools going, and who are delivering better results despite the problems that they face. They deserve the thanks of everyone in the House and in the country. It is to be regretted that, at times, my party has not enjoyed the best of relations with the teaching profession. Today, without qualification, I offer teachers thanks for keeping things going when so many of them are frustrated by the conditions in which they work.
At the heart of the problem is a Government who came to office promising to modernise Britain, but who, as far as I can see, have found a way to modernise only socialism. Today's Labour Ministers have lost none of their predecessors' instinct to run every aspect of our lives. If something is not working, their solution is to regulate and micromanage. Extra money has to be spent on special initiatives decided in, and controlled from, Whitehall. To ensure progress, every organisation is required to produce long and complex reports and plans that no one ever reads. In Labour Britain, no one is free to deploy resources according to local needs and realities; instead, they must follow the diktat of the departmental textbook. Nowhere is that more true than in our schools, and it has to stop.
Having served on the governing body of a small first school, I have seen at first hand the endless flow of paperwork from Whitehall. On giving up my governorship 18 months ago, I never imagined that matters would get worse, but only last week the chairman of the governors and the head of a primary school in my constituency told me that this autumn they have had to deal with six new Government initiatives, and that four or five more have to be responded to by January. Yesterday, I was told that 20 new documents requiring action by primary schools have been sent out since 1 April.
Because the governing body consists of volunteers, most of that work lands on the desk of the head teacher. She told me with some frustration that she now has little
2WH
or no opportunity to do what she really wants to do: spend time in the school helping her staff to educate the children. Under this Government, our head teachers—by definition, our best teachers—are being turned into a generation of pen pushers.
It is not only head teachers who are frustrated by the weight of paperwork on their desks. Last year, one local head told me that he recently lost two good young members of staff because they
"wanted to get a life".
In a letter to the minister written earlier this year, a local
Union official said that
"the majority of young colleagues who leave teaching cite the difficulty of having a life outside of the job— and the workload associated with it."
One of the most consistent messages from the teaching profession is that teachers do not feel free to do the job that they are qualified to do. Teachers say that Whitehall seems to want to tell them what to do step by step. There is no need to take my word for it. Last week, one head—not from my constituency—told me that the Government are over-interventionist, our children are over-measured, there is initiative overload, and the Government do not wait long enough to see what works. She described the Government's education policy in a manner that I believe constitutes unparliamentary language, and went on to say that
"the government has taken the joy and inspiration out of teaching."
The mood of intervention that seems to permeate the Department for Education and Skills has been most visible in the Government's approach to the pre-school sector. In the past few weeks, I have visited several pre-school groups in my constituency and been shown the increasingly complex bureaucratic framework within which they are being asked to work. It features complex curriculums, onerous qualification requirements for half the staff of a small playgroup, and huge amounts of paperwork that must be completed by people who are either volunteers or low-paid part-time workers. As a result, many groups will close and those that remain will struggle to attract people.
There is real concern in schools about the consequences of the Government's plans to bring in more classroom assistants and to develop their role. If the purpose of the exercise is indeed to strengthen the adult support offered to young children, that is desirable, but some people doubt that. In the letter to the Minister that I quoted a moment ago, my local union leader wrote:
"We welcome the greater consideration given to the training, development and career development of support colleagues; they do an impressive job, often for salary returns little better than the basic minimum wage. We are concerned, however, that their role is to go beyond their traditional and appropriate one, and they are to be encouraged to 'look after' pupils whilst teachers are freed to prepare work.
He continued:
"It is very sad that the government department responsible for education singularly fails to understand the basic process of teaching and learning—not only does the approach suggested misunderstand the nature of the educative process, it also runs counter to other directives on appropriate and adequate supervision."
Local teachers have expressed similar fears to me.
Patrick Mercer: I raised a similar issue with a head in my constituency who felt that the role of teaching assistants as set out by the Secretary of State reflected a fundamental misunderstanding of the role of teachers in classrooms. He said that the right hon. Lady's vision of the role of teaching assistants meant that teachers could give out work at the beginning of the class, then put their feet up or leave the room; yet the interactive nature of teaching these days means that classroom assistants must work together with teachers.
Chris Grayling: I agree. The anxieties expressed by members of the teaching profession about a potentially good initiative that might prove to be totally inappropriate leave the Government with considerable food for thought and the challenge of ensuring that they get it right.
The fears that my hon. Friend and I have described were echoed in the conclusion of the letter. It says:
"There is disenchantment among young teachers that must be addressed. We ignore that disenchantment at our peril."
A recent piece of research undertaken at Liverpool university throws further light on the problem. It states:
"The resignation rate from schools is rising sharply".
It says that on an annualised basis, the resignation rate from schools over the past summer was just under 16 per cent., up by 4 per cent. since 1999, and that the biggest factor behind those resignations was work load. Around half the teachers leaving the profession were doing so without any particular immediate plans. More worrying still, the research reveals that the age profile of the teaching profession is rising; it is not renewing itself. There are far more teachers in their 40s than in the early stages of their career. That risks storing up enormous problems for the future.
In my county, Surrey, and in many other parts of the country, disillusionment with teaching shows in what has become a recruitment crisis. There are simply not enough teachers coming on to the job market to meet the needs of our schools, and many who are currently in teaching jobs are leaving the profession. During last week's Education questions, the Secretary of State emphatically denied that there was an exodus from the profession, especially by young teachers. However, when I talk to head teachers I hear a very different story. In the past few days my colleagues and I have spoken to most of the head teachers in our county. They say that not only do local schools face severe recruitment difficulties, but that during the past year around half have lost staff from the profession, many of whom were younger, newly qualified teachers.
The Government continue to claim that talk of a recruitment and retention crisis in schools is scaremongering, and that most posts were filled during the summer. That may be numerically true, but the reality is rather different. Most heads say that the quality of new, British-trained teachers is good, but that there are too few of them. One head told me that the closest response to one advertisement that he had placed came from Romania and the next closest was from Papua New Guinea. Another said that he had filled places with teachers from Africa and that a huge amount of management time was needed to bring them up to the standard necessary to do the job properly for his pupils. Another said that although he had filled
4WH
18 vacancies, only nine of the teachers were up to the job, adding that he had had no choice. Other heads said that many applicants have little or no experience of the national curriculum and the learning frameworks that the Government have established in this country. More than half of Surrey schools say that they have staff teaching subjects for which they are not qualified, and I suspect that that pattern is repeated in many other parts of the country.
Where vacancies persist, cover is provided by supply teachers or by shuffling staff internally, but more than half the heads to whom we spoke said that they were concerned about the worsening quality of the supply teachers to whom they have access, because there are not enough good supply teachers to go around. Those who manage to cover vacancies internally say that that places huge pressures on other staff, taking precious time for lesson preparation which must then be done outside school hours.
The cost of recruitment is also enormous. One head told me during the summer that he had spent more than £35,000 on agency fees in his attempts to recruit staff. Others have had to pay for visits overseas to find teachers.
Angela Watkinson: A school in my constituency of which I am a governor had to advertise several times and incur the associated expense. The head teacher, accompanied by several other head teachers, went to Australia to carry out block recruiting and interviewing. Does my hon. Friend agree that appointments made in that way are unlikely to be long term and that people coming halfway across the world are likely to do so because they want only to visit Europe, so the problem is likely to recur in six months or two years? It is unlikely that heads will achieve adequate staffing with such recruitment methods.
Chris Grayling: My hon. Friend makes an apposite point, which is reflected in the fact that many head teachers are happy to conduct telephone interviews with teachers from overseas and some do not even meet such staff before they arrive to work. Perhaps the greatest burden is on the time of head teachers. Many say that they have done little except tackle recruitment problems for the past few months and that the strain has been enormous.
Before the Minister adopts the classic Government defence position and says that it was all the fault of the Tories, I shall quote a letter that I received in the summer from the head of a community college in Sussex who was complaining about the lack of applicants for jobs. He said:
"The situation is a clear contrast to the situation five years ago, when we were disappointed if we received less than twenty applications for any post, and averaged over fifty."
Today, most schools feel lucky if they receive more than one application for a post.
I expect that the Minister will laud the importance of the Government's recruitment and retention fund. While welcome, the extra cash has, however, been erratically divided and is too little to have a long-term impact. Surrey, for example, received £650,000, which is considerably less than many other problematic areas whose problems are often less severe. However, it

5WH
allowed many heads to pay for advertising and other recruitment costs, which is welcome. More worrying is the fact that many have had to use the cash to pay extra to secure new recruits. They face being left with financial problems when the cash runs out, but they say that they have no choice.
Funding for Government initiatives is another area of concern for heads and one that is causing mounting frustration. Instead of simply providing more cash for schools, the Government have ensured that a significant part of the additional funding provided is ring-fenced and time limited. The Department decides how much is provided and what it is spent on. That is classic micromanagement of the sort that Ministers seem so determined to pursue. Heads in my constituency tell me that they spend an inordinate amount of time trying to match specific pots of money allocated to them under the standards fund to potential needs so that the money can all be used, but they say that the specific allocations rarely meet the needs of the school. Why is it not possible simply to give schools the extra cash and the freedom to spend it on the things that they know they need, rather than the things that the Department says they need? Schools have little discretionary money after teaching and other fixed costs are paid for, so it is madness for the Government to spend so much time trying to manage the small remaining amount of school expenditure.
Another problem is that funding is now provided on a time-limited basis. The best example is that of threshold pay. The Government initially allocated £400 million in their first grant to schools to meet the cost of threshold pay; now they say that next year's grant will be £250 million, and they have made no specific commitment for subsequent years. They say that funding will be increased to meet the scheme's requirements, but I am not altogether convinced, nor are many of the heads to whom I have spoken. They want reassurance that 100 per cent. of the cost of threshold pay will be put into school budgets in future. Otherwise, many will be faced with having to ration threshold pay by limiting it to fewer staff than are entitled to it. Many feel that they face that choice today, as few have the budgetary freedom to absorb the extra costs if the Government do not pay.
It is not just frustration with bureaucracy and overwork that is driving teachers to despair and, too often, out of the profession; there is real anger in many schools that teachers have no sanction against unruly and antisocial behaviour in the classroom. Every week, dozens of teachers are assaulted in the classroom. A couple of weeks ago, The Guardian reported the case of a music teacher in north London who was headbutted twice, kicked in the testicles, and smashed on the head with an iron bin by a pupil in his classroom. He had to be operated on and could not eat solid food for a fortnight. A recent survey by Warwick university reported that 80 per cent. of teachers believe that pupil behaviour has worsened during their time as teachers. The research undertaken by Liverpool university to which I have already referred found that pupil behaviour is the second most common reason given by teachers for leaving the profession. The attacker of that north London teacher had already been involved in several violent incidents but had not been excluded. Hundreds of other troublesome and disruptive pupils
6WH
have also escaped action in recent years, while others have escaped on appeal after an exclusion decision: in answer to a written question in the summer, the Department told me that approximately one third of exclusion orders are overturned. I know of cases in which pupils excluded from school for dealing in drugs have been reinstated on appeal. What message of support does that send to teachers and heads in such schools?
To some extent, the Government have seen the error of their ways, but instead of totally reversing their recent policy, they have apparently only declared a moratorium on the exclusion process. Can the Minister clarify whether the Government will allow exclusions to return to the levels of five years ago? The current position, in which teachers are under the spotlight for their conduct, is absurd. They frequently end up in court charged with assault after losing their temper with pupils, whereas pupils can get away with almost anything. Is it any wonder that teachers feel betrayed and abandoned, and that so many leave in frustration because they feel powerless to prevent antisocial behaviour in their classrooms? One head said to me:
"Too many parents seem to want to pursue minor incidents until they are in front of the courts."
Another, expressing his staff's frustration, said:
"None of our parents ever seem to be willing to admit that their children could have done anything wrong."
The teacher assaulted in that school in north London said:
"Middle-class theories about being nice and letting children work through their anger in these kinds of situations don't work. They need to have boundaries. This inclusion idea is potentially good, but is only half worked out. I want the issue of staff in inner-city schools addressed. We have to realise that we are breeding a whole generation of children that are growing up with no values."
Mr. David Rendel: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, because discipline in schools and dealing with unruly pupils is an important subject. However, to rely solely on exclusion and getting those pupils out of schools is not sufficient, although I suspect that that is what happened under the last Conservative Government. It simply means that those kids are on the street, growing up without the values that he mentioned, and that they might end up causing far greater problems to society. If he wants to rely on exclusion, he must also ensure that his party puts the relevant money into other forms of education and providing somewhere else for those young people to go, so that they might be made into better citizens than his solution, putting them out on the streets, would make them.
Chris Grayling: There is no question of simply relying on exclusion, but not having exclusion as a weapon creates a vacuum in schools that exacerbates the problems for teachers. As the hon. Gentleman knows, in the last couple of years my party has advocated the creation of stronger units to deal with problem pupils. We need a very wide-ranging approach to policy on tackling the problem, but see no signs of that coming from the Government.
The Minister for School Standards (Mr. Stephen Timms): The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. From September, for the first time we will be able

7WH
to offer full-time education to anybody who is excluded from school. I am sure that he and the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Rendel) will welcome that helpful move. Under the Conservative Government, children who had been excluded were often given only a couple of hours teaching a week, which led to all sorts of problems elsewhere in the community.
Chris Grayling: I welcome any steps in that direction, but it is fair to say that in far too many cases troublesome pupils are kept within the schools, thus exacerbating the problems and undermining the authority of the heads and the teachers. Heads and teachers feel that they have absolutely no sanction against pupils in their classrooms who are disrupting the life of the school. That problem must be solved.
Mr. Ian Liddell-Grainger: That is an interesting point, because in my part of Somerset, which is extremely rural, we cannot exclude disruptive pupils because there is nowhere for them to go. Our problem is that there is currently no funding to enable them to be taught within the class system. I shall be interested to hear whether the Minister agrees with me funding is essential if the system is to be made to work. My question is, where will the funding come from?
Chris Grayling: It is partly a matter of delivering funding to the right places. It is clearly wrong that in a county such as Somerset there is no alternative to inclusion. However, funding is not the whole of the issue. It is about the Government sending signals, providing a legislative framework, and giving teachers protection against false allegations by pupils. All those things will help to rebuild the confidence of the teaching profession.
Even in high-cost counties such as Surrey, the twin issues of classroom behaviour and overbearing bureaucracy dominate concern about the profession, despite the real problems caused by high housing costs and disparities between pay in London and areas just outside. Those issues must be tackled as part of the Government's solutions to the problems, but doing so will not on its own deal with the teaching crisis in our schools.
I end with some messages for Ministers. Start by taking a year out. Do not introduce any new initiatives for the next 12 months, and give what has already been done time to bed down. Look at what can be done to scrap the burden of regulation on schools. Let me offer some ideas. Why not rationalise all the reports that teachers have to produce for schools, the Government and local education authorities into a single annual report from the head and the governing bodies? Is not one fat document a year enough for any school? Limit the number of consultation documents sent to governors—they do not meet that often and they cannot cope. If anyone thinks that they can cope, they should attend a few governors meetings to find out.
Stop trying to micromanage school budgets; instead, give them new money and tell them that they are expected to do certain things with it, but leave it to the schools to deal with how and when those things are done. If a school has done those things successfully, let
8WH
it use the money for the things it really needs. Give heads and governors back the full right to exclude pupils in the interests of their staff and other pupils, and give teachers more protection against false allegations. Above all, apply common sense. Mothers do not need to do courses lasting a year or more to be qualified to work a couple mornings a week in a local playgroup. If many young teachers are leaving the profession saying that they want to get a life, not everything can be right in the teaching profession. Do not believe only the statistics; when so many heads say that something is wrong, it just might be true.
My local unions concluded their letter to the Minister with these words:
"We look to the Government to do something to restore teacher morale and make a start to address the underlying causes of our current staffing crisis"
I could not have put it better myself.
9.54 am
Mr. Gareth R. Thomas: I congratulate the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling) on securing this debate and I join him in paying tribute to the hard work of teachers. Briefly, I want to focus on a number of specific issues facing teachers in my constituency. In particular, I would like to warn my hon. Friend on the Government Front Bench of an impending bid, from my constituency, for additional funding.
I pay tribute to two particularly hard-working and experienced teachers, Jane Bester and Wyn Churchill, who mentored me throughout my brief teaching career before I entered the House.
I am lucky in Harrow, West to have successful schools, which are products of a strong comprehensive school system and ethos. There is a strong partnership between those comprehensive schools and the local education authority. Harrow LEA has just had a positive Ofsted report, but it is not complacent; the report was not perfect, but extremely positive. Schools in Harrow, West have strong leadership, generally supportive parents and, above all, good teachers. All the high schools, in partnership with the LEA, have decided to apply for specialist school status. I flag up the bids by Nower Hill high school and by my old school, Hatch End, which has bid for arts specialist school status and is awaiting with interest the Department's decision on whether it will be given. It is keen to hammer home the message of successful delivery of arts provision and did so to the then Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, at the beginning of the May general election campaign.
I share the concern of the teaching profession on issues such as the retention of teachers. I do not dismiss the issue of the recruitment of teachers—much progress has been made on that and the effort must continue. However, retention requires proper financial stability in schools, and not an on-going fear of redundancy. When I was first elected to the House, the then Liberal-controlled Harrow council cut school budgets by 2 per cent. It took two to three years for the effect of those cuts to be felt in all schools; many teaching posts were axed and additional pressures were consequently put on teachers.

9WH
Additional money that the Government have advanced to schools has been welcome. All schools in my constituency have been able to appoint additional classroom assistants, and that has also been welcome. Additional resources have been put into either recruitment of additional teachers where necessary, or into the delivery of classroom material. One school has received its first lick of paint inside the building for more than 15 years. That is proof of the benefit of additional money from the Government and of the financial pressures that existed under the Conservative Administration.
I accept the concern about work load, which the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell also acknowledged. From my time teaching, I remember that work load understandably concerned teachers. I remember the frustration of the numerous reports that one had to produce and the considerable paperwork that had to be tackled to deal with children with special educational needs. Those factors still exist, but I welcome the fact that the Government have set up a working party with teaching representatives to consider those issues. I look forward to the Minister rolling out information about what that working party has produced.
The retention of teachers after they have been working for two or three years is important, and especially in London. Many head teachers tell me that house prices in London are a problem. After working for several years and establishing themselves in the community, teachers may want to move on to the house-price ladder. They will experience difficulties in securing a mortgage, and I would encourage my hon. Friend the Minister to remember that. As a London Member, he is aware of the pressures of house prices. I hope that his Department will review that closely.
I shall focus on teachers' working environments. In my constituency, the Rooks Heath high school and the Roxeth Manor first and middle schools are based in buildings that are more than 50 years old, which is inappropriate for any modern school and the community. The head teacher, teachers and governors have worked with the local authority to assess what a 21st-century school needs. Schools need an injection of capital investment way beyond that available via traditional capital routes, or the council's resources. The council—in partnership with Rooks Heath and Canons high school in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. McNulty)—is preparing a PFI bid for submission to the Minister's Department shortly before Christmas. The bid includes 14 schools in the Canons and Rooks Heath clusters. Those schools are targeted for support because they have the highest levels of deprivation in Harrow.
Politicians, teachers and head teachers in Harrow are frustrated that the borough is perceived as an affluent leafy metropolitan suburb with low levels of deprivation. In truth, Harrow has pockets of high deprivation, which are served by Canons high and Rooks Heath. Those schools have the highest number of pupils entitled to free school meals, pupils with special educational needs and pupils with English as an additional language, and rank highly on other indices of social deprivation.
The PFI funding for the Rooks Heath and Canons clusters will tie in with the Government's agenda as published in the schools White Paper. The funding will
10WH
be focused on how schools can continue to raise attainment in the transition years from primary to high school. It will also develop the 14–19 curriculum by providing additional vocational and traditional academic study routes, which will be delivered in schools with the further education sector's and other partners' support. It will ensure that outdated music, arts and leisure facilities on both of the sites to which I have referred will be modernised, and that investment in classroom information technology and in teaching and learning facilities will be provided.
I urge the Minister to consider the Harrow bid sympathetically so that the borough may tackle the problems of teaching in old buildings that have lacked investment during the past 50 years. The bid would bring important community benefits. I look forward to hearing about further moves to assist the retention of teaching staff, particularly in London, to reduce the work load on teachers. As I stressed, I look forward above all to hearing, in future no doubt, that the Minister and his Department will support the PFI bid from Harrow to tackle some of the problems in my constituency.
10.5 am
Patrick Mercer: I am grateful for the opportunity to speak this morning, and I thank hon. Members for the contributions that I have heard so far.
I come to the debate with no experience of teaching other than that of being a student many years ago. However, my experience as a newly arrived Member has taken me to the core of the teaching difficulties and strengths in my constituency, from Newark in the south to Retford in the north. The challenges that face teachers in my constituency are broadly the same, but I shall concentrate this morning on the difficulties in the Bassetlaw area, to the north of my constituency, where I live. I am sure that the hon. Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker) is familiar with many of the problems and will reflect on them when he speaks in due course.
I remember that when I was at school there was always a leavening or sprinkling of mini-skirted female teachers, and young men out on the field who taught us rugby, cricket or whatever. They were perhaps much more able than the older generation of teachers to sympathise and empathise with the students. Clearly, the older teachers were there to provide maturity, gravitas and judgment, but the younger teachers were terribly important—particularly the female ones, I might add. Going round the various schools recently, I was struck more than anything by the fact that those young teachers are no longer to be found. From the top to the bottom of my constituency, I do not see them.
If we consider the Retford area, the reason becomes fairly clear. There are three secondary schools in Retford—King Edward VI school, the Elizabethan school and Ordsall Hall school—all of which provide excellent services to the best of their capabilities to the students. However, there is overcapacity: there are more places available than students to be taught, with the result that teachers face a difficulty with regard to where skills are concentrated.

Slightly further south is the excellent Tuxford comprehensive school, which offers a much better performance at sixth-form level than any of the three

11WH
schools in Retford because of its concentration of teachers. I am not criticising the schools in Retford, but things are difficult for them. As a result, if a student from Retford wishes to study, say, a combination of geography, German and economics, they cannot be taught only in Retford; they have to move between one or two sites in Retford and down as far as Tuxford, which is about seven miles away. Bus services do not exist, and youngsters frequently have to use taxis to get to and from the sites.
The frustrations felt by teachers are considerable. Many of their school sites are in a poor state of repair and under-resourced in terms of facilities. In addition, there are difficulties in trying to find a student coming from or going to Retford who is persistently late and whose lessons are persistently curtailed, because of the travelling and the conditions involved. All that builds up to a great level of frustration for the teachers, who are trying to teach these young people.
This morning, I spoke to the head of the sixth form at Tuxford comprehensive school, who gave me a good understanding of the situation facing the teachers there. Among the staff, there is only one young teacher, a 23-year-old. That excellent young man has a very good background with his postgraduate certification of education and is making a first-class start at the school. However, he complains, exactly as my hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling) said, about the business of getting a life—we seem to come across that phrase all the time. As far as that young man is concerned, 5 o'clock is knocking-off time, when he should be able to get on and do other things, but he is faced with a work load of marking or bureaucracy that takes him away from what he believes are his core skills: teaching, inspiring and leading young people of north-east Nottinghamshire. He told me that last night he spent time filling in the same form for the Department for Education and Skills, the local education authority and the Teacher Training Agency, which all sought the same answers. If they had been on the same form, he would have lost two thirds of his work load last night.
That 23-year-old is being paid about £22,000 a year, which is similar in Newark to a junior manager's wage at the British Sugar plant or to a skilled ball-bearing maker's at NSK-RHP. Comparisons are invidious, but that young man has trained hard, is highly motivated and believes that his pay does not match his contemporaries' pay. There is no doubt that the pay is better after five or seven years, but as the teacher from Tuxford told me, about one third of young teachers in north-east Nottinghamshire leave at the end of their first year. Approximately half the remaining two thirds leave within five or seven years.
That teacher made a point that I have observed on the ground and that was raised this morning: there seems to be a gap between a smattering of people in their early 20s and mature teachers in their late 30s and early 40s. The recruiting difficulty faced by schools in Nottinghamshire can be contained at the moment, but in 10 years or less, difficulties will begin to bite. Tuxford school recently advertised for a humanities teacher, for which there were nine applications; five years ago, the same advertisement attracted 72 applications.
12WH
Conditions at Tuxford school have improved, and we are delivering a better service. Results are better, but young people still do not want to teach in the scattered rural community that I have the privilege to represent. Teachers have been damned left, right and centre, but standards continue to improve. At Tuxford school, GCSE results have improved by 9 per cent. since last year despite the fact that it is overcrowded, classes are much larger, facilities are poor, there is no gymnasium, and water pours in through the roofs. All that is being assessed, and I do not suggest for a moment that the state of education in my constituency is parlous. None the less, it is not an attractive proposition for a young teacher to endeavour to teach in such conditions.
Our teachers provide the future lifeblood of our nation. Our children are our most important investment. We must set teachers free so that they can teach, inspire and follow the vocation that most of them have sought.
10.13 am
Mr. David Rendel: I congratulate the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling) on obtaining the debate on an important subject which I am delighted that we have the opportunity to discuss today. Much is still going wrong in schools. I listened carefully to the hon. Member for Newark (Patrick Mercer), but many of his criticisms about the current situation could have been made about the last Conservative Government: during their tenure, bureaucracy in schools increased and there was a lack of funding for buildings, which he mentioned. Water came through the roofs, and there was a gradual deterioration in teacher morale, which I accept has not become any better under this Government. However, it is difficult to see how those criticisms would be overcome by the £20 billion cut in Government services that we were promised by the leader of the Conservative party during his leadership election. Although I accept the criticisms, the Conservative party is not offering any sincere answers.
If, as they say, the Government are serious about education being a top priority—it should be for economic reasons, but also for social and democratic reasons—the state of the teaching profession will inevitably be a key measure of the success or failure of their policy. Flowery rhetoric and warm words will count for little if there are no qualified and well-motivated teachers in classrooms who want to, and actually do, teach children. The Government's failure on that basic score tarnishes their education record. The much-delayed Education Bill, which will be discussed in the Chamber this afternoon, is 200 pages long and has 211 clauses but it contains nothing to solve the problem of teacher shortages.
The problem is severe; there is an alarming crisis in recruitment and retention. The chief inspector of schools in England said that the shortages are at their worst level for decades, and the figures for teacher vacancies make grim reading. It is a game of two halves: there is a problem in recruitment and in retention. According to a survey conducted by the National Union of Teachers, of every 100 final-year trainee teachers, 40 will not enter the classroom and a further 18 will leave the profession within three years. According to departmental statistics—the Government's own

13WH
Figures—primary vacancies have doubled and secondary vacancies have trebled under the Government. In each of the past three years, about 30 per cent. of newly qualified teachers were not in post by March of the next year.
I welcome the fact that the numbers of posts have increased, but that is the Government's constant reply to our complaints about the number of vacancies. What is the point of going for an increasing number of posts, claiming that they will reduce class sizes, if the Government do not manage to get teachers into the classrooms to fill those posts? Not enough teachers are being recruited, which means that there is a 51 per cent. increase in the number of supply teachers or instructors, with more children being taught by unqualified teachers.
As this is science year, we should remind ourselves of the acute crisis in the core subjects of science and maths. Official statistics for January 2001 show that vacancies for maths teachers have increased sevenfold over five years. Three years ago, according to the Open university centre for mathematics education, about one in 10 secondary maths teachers had no subject qualification beyond A-level. Now, 45 per cent. of staff teaching the subject to 11 to 14-year-olds have limited knowledge of maths and little or no training in teaching that subject.
The House of Lords Science and Technology Committee report "Science in Schools" found that the proportion of those beginning the postgraduate certificate in education with third-class degrees or lower was markedly higher in maths and science than in arts subjects: it is 37.7 per cent. in physics, 36.5 per cent. in maths, 33.8 per cent. in chemistry and 15.2 per cent. in biology. That compares with 7.4 per cent. in geography, 6.9 per cent. in English and 5.3 per cent. in history. Many of those who are going into teaching the vital subjects of maths and science have worse degrees than those going into arts subjects.
The second half of the game is retention: why are so many of our teachers leaving the profession? In April, the NUT produced a research study on the reasons why teachers are leaving the profession. As many as 82 per cent. of respondents said that the pressures of the work load were an important factor in their decision to leave teaching, and 49 per cent. mentioned the lack of time available for fulfilling their duties and professional development, and not being able to balance competing demands of work and home. About 56 per cent. felt undervalued and undermined by negative publicity and constant criticism. Stoked by Government and press criticism, teaching is nowadays perceived as a low-status profession.
About 22 per cent. of teachers mentioned the perceived unfairness of recent recruitment initiatives, which benefited new recruits but not the profession as a whole. What does that do for retention? Performance-related pay is also seen by many as divisive. Some 27 per cent. expressed frustration at the lack of resources, and particularly at the state of the school buildings and classrooms in which they had to work. Give people unpleasant places in which to work and they will not want to stay there. About 20 per cent. mentioned their feeling that the classroom has now become a place for targets, not children. We face a crisis in recruitment and retention in teaching, which is being underpinned by a perceived lack of status of the profession and a justified sense that we are failing to value our public servants.
14WH
What has been the Government's response? We have seen expensive and headline-catching initiatives, but a failure to tackle key issues. On fast track, £9.2 million was poured into private sector companies to recruit only 111 teachers. Targets for advanced skills teachers were hopelessly missed and, most staggeringly, the Government have reduced the number of training places for postgraduates from 19,169 in 1997–98 to 16,611 in 2000–01. It now appears that the undergraduate route is being allowed to wither on the vine, with a 25 per cent. drop in recruits since 1997. A recent report by the Institute for Public Policy Research said that
"the current three year expenditure plan could generate up to an extra 70,000 jobs by 2004—in stark comparison with Labour's manifesto pledge of an extra 10,000 teachers."
What can we do to overcome the problems? We should never forget that the recruitment and retention of teachers is not in the main about financial incentives and reward. People do not go into teaching to make money—if we tried to tell a teacher that, they would laugh in our face—or to be very important people. They go into teaching because they want to teach. They want to pass on to the next generation their knowledge and understanding. The Government must take note of the widespread feeling in the profession that teachers are being undervalued and talked down by politicians. I must also say that Chris Woodhead has much to answer for.
As a young man, I was lucky enough to do a year's teaching. It taught me a lot. For one thing, I realised that I would never make a teacher. It is much too difficult a profession. It taught me also that teachers get far the most out of their pupils by being lavish with praise when they get things right, and stinting with criticism when they get things wrong. Pupils in our country are no different from the pupils whom I taught in Cameroon and Uganda years ago. They are most effective when they are encouraged to repeat the things that they do well and least effective when they face carping criticism for the things that they try to improve on.
In education as in social services and the national health service, the Government have tended to pursue a naming-and-shaming policy instead of what should be a value-and-encourage approach. We must restore the ideals and status of public service if we are to improve services significantly. The currency must be more than just funding, important as it is. It must include trust in our teachers to do a good job without the burden of restriction on everything that they do, and trust that they will strive for improved standards even without the burden of highly misleading league tables. If the Government constantly send a message to teachers that they do not trust them to do a good job, they will not, and the Government will get the teachers that they deserve.
10.25 am
Mr. Mark Hoban: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling) on securing the debate. Since my election to Parliament, I have enjoyed visiting schools in my constituency. Let me place on record the dedication and commitment of teachers and the leadership of head teachers who are doing a good job in difficult circumstances. The message that I am always left with

15WH
after a meeting with teachers or a visit to a school is the problem that they face with recruitment and retention of teachers.
Last week, a head teacher told me that a newly qualified teacher is usually at school for 10 hours a day, works at home until 9 or 10 o'clock in the evening and gives up a day at the weekend. If teachers are under such pressure, it is not surprising that they cite work load as a reason for leaving the profession. That head teacher spends two days a week trying to resolve recruitment issues and has been doing so for nearly a year; that time could be better spent elsewhere. He is seeking three teachers in key subjects. When I asked him what would happen if he did not find them, he said that he would have to rejig the timetable and existing teachers would have to pick up more classes. They would lose some of their non-contact time and would have to spend longer preparing for lessons and marking work. I cannot imagine that having a favourable effect on their morale, so the recruitment and retention crisis will deepen.
When the head teacher advertised for a physical education teacher, there were six applicants: four from Australia, one from New Zealand and one from Zimbabwe. Previously, he would have expected several applicants from the UK. Other head teachers in my constituency have commented that, whereas a few years ago they would have expected five or six teachers to apply for a job, they are now lucky if they get one or two. The head teacher whom I mentioned received £20,000 from the Government to help with recruitment and retention. He refers to it as "the Chancellor's gift." It was not much of a gift, though: with 50 teachers at the school, it amounted to £400 per teacher. In summary, teachers face the following problems: a heavy work load, fewer teachers, more work given to fewer staff, fewer applicants for jobs and paltry support from the Government.
The problem is reflected across Hampshire, where there were 57 vacancies in 1998, 93 in 1999, 142 in 2000, and 175 this year. The Minister could respond by saying that there are now more teaching positions, so let us consider the rate of vacancies: 0.7 per cent. in 1998, 1.2 per cent. in 1999, 1.8 per cent. in 2000, and 2.2 per cent. this year. The number of vacancies is increasing faster than the number of teaching posts, demonstrating that there is a problem of recruitment and retention in the teaching profession and that the Government are trying to ignore it.
In their White Paper "Schools: Achieving Success", the Government set out their objective for a fivefold increase in special schools. However, as the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Rendel) indicated, the number of teaching vacancies in those schools is also increasing, as are teaching vacancies in subjects that the Government want to encourage, such as maths, information and communications technology, physical education and modern languages. I do not believe that they will achieve their objective of a fivefold increase in the number of special schools by 2005.
The other dimension is that the problem of teacher recruitment is affecting pupils. This morning, Mike Tomlinson said that one reason why improvements in numeracy and literacy had stalled this year was the disruption caused by teacher shortages. When we
16WH
discuss the problems of the teaching profession, we must not forget the needs of pupils whose education is being impaired because of the Government's failure to tackle the recruitment and retention crisis facing teachers.
10.30 am
Mr. Ian Liddell-Grainger: I also congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling) on securing this debate. I intend to talk about my constituency in rural Somerset. One of the big problems in recruiting and retaining teachers is the sheer scale and the size of the place. Some people who attend schools in Minehead have to leave home before 7 o'clock in the morning. They cannot get in if there is snow or ice, or flooding, as there was last year. Therefore, much of the work load of teachers involves trying to keep children up to date and up to speed with what they should be doing.
The worst and the best schools in Somerset are both in my constituency. When one looks at the reasons for that difference, and talks to the two head teachers, one discovers that the best school has no great problems recruiting teachers, but the worst school simply cannot get staff. The ethos is that a school that is achieving will get the staff it needs, but schools that are not achieving will never be able to catch up. At the moment, the worst school is short of seven teachers.
The other problem that we face in rural Somerset relates to class sizes. A school with two teachers that is on the borderline of being eligible for a third teacher will not get one, so it will have to double its classes. In other words, class sizes in rural Somerset are growing because many schools are getting bigger. For example, the middle school in Minehead was built for 500 pupils and because of the vagaries of the area it now has 750 pupils. Nothing can be done about that. The size of the classes means that the school cannot recruit the extra teachers that it needs.
There are also problems involving special needs. Many children in Somerset have special needs and although that is the case in most parts of this country, schools in rural Somerset cannot get special needs teachers to be at the school when they are required because they have to cover such a vast area. The best we can get is a couple of hours a week from the special needs teacher, and on some days one person may have to look after a class of 20 special needs children. That is obviously wrong. We cannot retain special needs teachers because when they have worked in Somerset for a short period they tend to go to Bristol or Exeter or one of the other larger towns where they do not face quite the same problems of movement and of scale.
Another problem was that the local college could not get sufficient resources from Government so we had to raise the £50,000 required for TEC status. An area with the smallest district council in the United Kingdom, with a total budget of just over £4 million, had to raise £50,000. We raised £65,000 from local businesses—and the biggest business is tiny—because people felt that education was not working for their children and other children in their community. That demonstrates the problem that we face.
We also have the problems of transport and travelling. As I said, some children have to travel two and a half hours to get to school and the problem is

17WH
getting worse. It is all very well for the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Rendel) to go on about this, but his party is in charge of Somerset and much of what has been going on is due to the inability of his party to grasp what education really means to the children and the people of Somerset.
10.33 am
Mrs. Eleanor Laing: I join other hon. Members in congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling) on securing this morning's debate. Today, Parliament is rather dominated by education and that is a good thing. We cannot get enough of the subject. The more we discuss it and thrash out the problems and ideas that are before us, the better chance there is—I hope—that the Government will begin to get their policies somewhere near correct. Every child has only one chance of getting a good education and if that chance is lost, it is lost forever. That is why the subject is most important, and it is good that we are discussing it all day.
My hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell made an excellent introductory speech, having researched many of the problems in his constituency and his county. Many of those problems also occur in other parts of the country, and it has been interesting to hear about the contrast between different areas.
Surprisingly, I agree with the hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Thomas) who highlighted the difficulties caused by house prices and living costs for young teachers in Harrow and London. That problem is reflected in my constituency, which is just outside London. Teachers there do not get a London allowance, but house prices are just as high as in his constituency. The Government's plans to overcome that problem will not work, and it will be interesting to hear the Minister's reply.
My hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Patrick Mercer) highlighted a variety of problems including that of overseas recruitment. It is good that people from other countries want to come to the UK to teach. It adds to the wealth of knowledge and experience that is being brought into our schools, but the cost of recruiting overseas teachers is enormous. Indeed, the cost of recruitment is often ignored—it can cost more than £10,000 to recruit a senior teacher to a school in south-east England. That money is lost if the teacher leaves the school after a year or two, and the recruitment cost must be borne again. It is a bad investment that does not work, as money that should be used elsewhere in teaching goes down the drain. In some areas, the problem of recruitment and retention is worse than what we have heard today.
The hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Rendel) waxed lyrical about the NUT survey, and I am glad that he did because it means that I do not have to do so. He did not mention that 9 per cent. of those surveyed said that teaching is better in Scotland. I shall say no more, but as one who was educated in Scotland I am prejudiced. I admit that that experience was some time ago, but I am glad to know that some people still think that education is better in Scotland.
Mr. Rendel: Who is in charge there?
Mrs. Laing: I do not think that it is better because of who is in charge. That is another matter and one that is not for this morning's debate.
The other matters that are addressed in the NUT survey are quite enlightening, and I am grateful to the hon. Member for Newbury for going through them in such detail. One important point on which I agree with him is that people do not go into the teaching profession in order to make money, but because they have more altruistic goals in mind. Most people become teachers because they want to teach. Simplifying the problem in terms of finance does not help to solve it. As he said, it is the morale of teachers that matters. However, I would not suggest that in order to improve morale no teacher should ever be criticised. As with any other profession, there are excellent teachers, good teachers and some not good teachers. In order to give children the education that they deserve, we must find the teachers who are not performing well and help them to improve.
I did not think that I would ever find myself saying four times in two minutes that I agreed with the hon. Member for Newbury, but I agree with him that it does not help the situation when the media use isolated incidents to vilify the teaching profession. The profession does not deserve that. Nor do the many thousands of excellent teachers who are out there working hard and doing a good job. We must make sure that, while we criticise those who are not doing well, we also praise those who are doing well.
In some schools in my constituency I have seen enormous differences made because of the personality, approach, energy and enthusiasm of the head or particular teachers. One person can make a huge difference to the lives of many young people. We have to give teachers the chance to make that difference.
My hon. Friend the Member for Fareham (Mr. Hoban) emphasised the increasing rate of teacher vacancies. It bothers me enormously to hear the Secretary of State and other Ministers give us endless statistics about the numbers being recruitment and the rate of recruitment in an attempt to pulling the wool over the eyes of those who study the statistics —[Interruption.]—I sense some dissension among Labour Members, but it is no good simply looking at the numbers and saying that more people are going into teacher training and more teachers are being employed in schools. If teachers are not being retained, if they are unable to develop their own professional ability, if they are not teaching the subjects for which they are qualified, at the level for which they are qualified, the numbers become meaningless. Merely putting a teacher in front of a class does not mean that the class is being taught properly. If the teacher is not sufficiently senior to be teaching at that particular level or is qualified in chemistry but teaching physics, that might solve the Government's problem with statistics, because it looks good in statistical terms, but the parents and children involved know that it is not nearly good enough.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Mr. Liddell-Grainger) highlighted the disproportionate effect of teacher shortages on the worse performing schools. That is one of the biggest problems which has not been properly discussed. Perhaps the Minister intends to address it in the next few minutes.

19WH
In my constituency, where I have made a study of the subject for some time, the better schools have minor problems in recruiting and retaining teachers. The worse schools have an enormous problem. The result is a downward spiral of educational achievement in some schools in some areas. The better schools are managing to keep their heads above water and provide a decent education, but the worst schools are being affected disproportionately. I sincerely hope that the Minister has taken the problem on board and he will find some way of addressing it.
I have a few straightforward questions for the Minister. First, does he recognise that there is a crisis in teacher recruitment and retention? I asked that question of the former Secretary of State for Education a few months ago in respect of my county, Essex, and he said that there was no problem and no crisis. I can tell the Minister that parents and teachers in my constituency were furious at that. They know that that there is an enormous problem that is becoming a crisis. If the Government do not even recognise that there is a crisis, there is no hope of solving it. If the Government do recognise it, we have some hope and perhaps we can work together to try and solve the problem.
Secondly, does the Minister appreciate the burden placed on teachers by bureaucracy and interference? It has been mentioned frequently this morning and it also emerges from the NUT survey. That is the direct responsibility of the Government and local education authority as they produce the bureaucracy and send out circulars telling teachers what to do. The Government could take direct action to improve matters.
Thirdly, does the Minister recognise that teachers are demoralised? The discipline problem is not just that pupils are not properly disciplined, but that teachers are being disciplined unreasonably for exerting a little discipline on pupils. If a teacher puts a hand on a pupil's shoulder, the parents can accuse that teacher of assault.
I shall not discuss the distressing details of a particular case, but I could tell the Minister in private. A very good, young teacher was lost to the profession for ever because of the unreasonable behaviour of a parent on behalf of a badly behaved child. The child gets away with it, but the teacher is disciplined and lost to the profession. I shall not extrapolate on the basis of a single incident, but others have mentioned similar concerns this morning.
Fourthly, does the Minister recognise that recruitment drives will never work unless we solve the problem of retention? I say "we", but only the Minister can solve it.
Fifthly, does the Minister acknowledge that many of these issues are within Government control and that he has the power to take action to overcome these problems? Will he undertake to do so?
10.46 am
The Minister for School Standards (Mr. Stephen Timms): I congratulate the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling) on initiating our debate on this important subject and I thank other hon. Members for their contributions. I agree with the hon. Member
20WH
for Epping Forest (Mrs. Laing) that we need a debate on the teaching profession. It is also important to debate education in the wider community.
I also agree with the hon. Lady about the importance of celebrating the achievements of our teachers, particularly today, the day on which the results of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development programme for international student assessments have been announced. They show good levels of achievement by UK students in international comparisons with 32 countries. The UK performance was significantly above the OECD average in reading, maths and scientific literacy. The UK did well in comparison with other G8 countries. To develop a point mentioned by the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Rendel), the UK came fourth out of 32 on the scientific literacy scale, and was significantly outperformed only by Korea. Even our lower-achieving pupils do relatively well by international comparative standards. The UK achieves high levels of performance without excessive disparities, and gender differences are also less than the OECD average. The OECD published that welcome information this morning. It reflects the achievements of the UK teaching profession, so I greatly welcome it.
The terms of the wider debate about the teaching profession were clearly laid out in the speech of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to the Social Market Foundation on 12 November. The key question was how to encourage the best people to train as teachers. How can we ensure that as many as possible enter the classroom; and once they are there, how can we keep them fulfilled in their work and highly motivated to develop long-term careers in a fully modernised teaching profession? As we speak, children are being taught in 24,000 schools across the country. Hon. Members will recall that 20 years ago hundreds of children would have been sitting at home, and early in the summer it was predicted that that might be the case this term, but the children are sitting in their classes today. In view of some of the overstatements that have been made today, it is important to remind hon. Members that forecasts of disruption to schools this term have proved ill-founded.
My second observation, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Thomas) was right to draw attention, is that, thanks to extra investment in the fabric of our schools, classes offer better learning environments than they did a few years ago. In 1996–97, less than £700 million a year was being invested in school buildings; by next year, £3.5 billion—a fivefold increase—will be invested. I draw the attention of the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell to the fact that in Surrey capital investment has risen from £8 million in 1996–97 to nearly £22 million this year. Indeed, there has been a huge boost across the country, with far-reaching and welcome implications.
My third observation is that the overwhelming majority of staff are very skilled professionals with a strong commitment to delivering the best possible outcomes for the children. The continuing improvement in GCSE and A-level results across the country is proof of that, as is this morning's data from the OECD. The hon. Member for Newark (Patrick Mercer) was right to make the important point that schools' achievements have been good in that respect. Evidence of that

21WH
improvement is provided by the annual report of the chief inspector of schools, Mike Tomlinson, on the progress of literacy and numeracy strategies, to which the hon. Gentleman also referred. This morning, Mike Tomlinson said that
"the overall quality of teaching continues to improve".
In our debate on the state of the teaching profession, it is important to pay tribute to that improvement. In last year's report, Mike Tomlinson pointed out that his inspectors deemed 95 per cent. of lessons in that year satisfactory or better, whereas in 1995 only 80 per cent. were deemed satisfactory. He said that
"the quality of teaching has improved. It is now good in more than six in ten lessons and unsatisfactory in only one in 20."
So there has been good progress on quality as well.
My fourth observation is that even during a time of economic prosperity, with an extremely well managed economy, many employment opportunities and unemployment at its lowest level for 30 years, teaching has become an increasingly attractive career option. In the past couple of years, the Teacher Training Agency has received an unprecedented number of inquiries about careers in teaching. After eight successive years of decline, we have witnessed two successive years of rising teacher training recruitment levels. The number of people following alternative routes to qualified teacher status—those who enter teaching later in their careers—has also increased sharply in the past couple of years.
The fifth observation is one that I make absolutely no bones about. Despite the above points, and to pick up on a comment from the hon. Member for Epping Forest, many teachers and head teachers feel overworked, undervalued and under pressure. As has been noted, many head teachers in various parts of the country had to work through the summer to recruit the staff necessary to ensure normal operation of schools this term. It is a great tribute to them that they succeeded in that task, but a vast amount of work was required. Far from denying that such problems exist, as my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West pointed out, we commissioned PricewaterhouseCoopers to conduct an independent investigation into teachers' work load. That study is nearing completion and the steering group, which includes the teaching unions, will meet tomorrow to sign it off.
We know that the review will confirm the extent to which teacher work loads have risen. The interim report said that
"teachers and headteachers work more intensive weeks than other comparable managers and professionals".
It also confirms that we all expect our teachers to do too much clerical and administrative work for too much of their time. I quote:
"Teachers in many schools perceive a lack of control and ownership over their work, undertaking tasks—particularly documentation—which they do not believe are necessary to support learning, or which could be done by support staff rather than by teachers or more efficiently using Information and Communications Technology."
We acknowledge those concerns and we are determined to tackle them head-on. The consultants paint a picture of teachers who are pulled in too many directions and do
22WH
not feel that they have the support that they need. By contrast, our vision for the future of the teaching profession is the one that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State described to the Social Market Foundation. The pamphlet that she published to coincide with that clearly sets out the demand pressures and supply constraints that have led to the current perception of the extent of teacher shortages: for example, we now need to recruit to initial teacher training some 10 per cent. of all new graduates—40 per cent. in the case of maths graduates, as the hon. Member for Newbury said. Those are very challenging proportions.
The difficulties do not lie only in teacher supply. Historically, the teaching profession has not been helped sufficiently to modernise the availability and use of support staff, nor the technology to support them.
Mr. Gareth R. Thomas: Given that the bid from my borough to which I referred will provide much-needed investment in ICT equipment, and given that hon. Friends have told me that the Minister has a growing reputation as a shrewd and considered judge of funding applications, would he consider offering or agreeing to meet a delegation from my authority when the bid has been submitted?
Mr. Timms: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's generous remarks, and note the sincerity with which they are offered. It would of course be for my noble Friend the Under-Secretary of State to receive any such delegation, but I am sure that she would give careful consideration to doing so.
The school work force must be remodelled as part of the modernisation of the teaching profession. Measures to assist that will be my right hon. Friend's top priority in the current spending review, which concludes next July. The Education Bill, which we will debate in the House this afternoon, will make an important contribution. It will give teachers greater scope to exercise their informed professional judgment than has been the case in the past. It is no part of our project to supplant teachers with unqualified staff. On the contrary, teachers will have higher status, more responsibility to do what they are uniquely qualified to do, and the space to realise the ideals that brought them into teaching in the first place.
We will support teachers with better technology. We are already investing £1.8 billion in improving schools' IT between 1998 and 2004. Learning will be supported by a wider range of staff, including more teaching assistants to help teachers with classroom responsibilities—but certainly not to supplant them. Teaching assistants play an important part in our plans and they too will need support and development opportunities to allow them to maximise their contribution. We will support more bursars and recruit more administrative staff to free teachers and head teachers from more of the paperwork that is not central to the jobs that we want them to do. The first step on that path will be to refer the final report on teacher work load, by PricewaterhouseCoopers to the School Teachers' Pay Review Body for recommendations next spring.

23WH
A few weeks ago, I attended the national teaching awards at the Theatre Royal in Drury lane. It was a great evening, full of accounts of inspiring teachers. One of the pupils nominating her English teacher, who went on to be the winner of this year's outstanding new teacher award, said that the teacher
"doesn't only treat you like a student she is paid to teach, but as an individual. She realises each student's potential and pushes him or her towards it with enthusiasm. She has always made me feel supported and not scared to ask for help—"
for fear being humiliated —
"because she always listens to you. She has a way of communicating with students and parents like no other teacher I know."
I meet many teachers around the country and recognise in remarkably many the qualities praised in that testimonial. Joy and inspiration are there in abundance.

Foot and Mouth
11 am
John Mann: Unlike a majority of Members in the Chamber today, I was a mere candidate at the height of the foot and mouth crisis, and I lived on one of the largest beef farms in the country when the crisis broke out. I lived within 20 m of some of the finest livestock in the country on an estate that had a large number of both sheep and cattle. It is in a county that, to date and thankfully, has not been affected by a direct outbreak of the disease. The pressures on the farming community were near at hand and apparent, and I pay tribute to the prompt action taken by those in that community, not least in my immediate locality, who acted promptly and wisely to minimise the effects, on Government instructions and at the appropriate time.
In my constituency, it would be inaccurate to describe farming as the only sector affected by foot and mouth. Mine is a farming community that has declined steadily over the years under successive Governments. It would be honest and accurate to say that the community has been critical of all Governments during the past 10 to 20 years, and that applies particularly to tenant farmers, who form a very small section of the economy.
Half the land mass of my constituency is forested, which is unusual in England. Tourism is fundamental to the future growth of our economy and I want to speak about the impact on tourism, which is why I asked for this Adjournment debate. Next week, I shall give evidence to an inquiry at Finningley into an international airport and I shall try to persuade the inspector of the tourist potential of an area that has Sherwood forest in its midst. The area that suffered greatly because of foot and mouth.
In many rural communities, tourism forms the basis of the local economy and generates almost twice the revenue of livestock farming. In 1999, the total value of rural tourism was £12 billion. It supports an estimated 380,000 jobs and 25,000 small businesses. In spite of that, tourism is relatively weak because seasonal fluctuations in demand make the sector vulnerable to the impact of major issues such as foot and mouth.
When the first case of foot and mouth was confirmed, various measures were taken with the aim of ensuring that tourists did not contribute to the spread of the disease. Those measures included closure of footpaths, rights of way and heritage sites. Many land-owning organisations such as the Forestry Commission and the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds announced that they would shut their land as a precautionary measure. In my constituency, Hodsock priory had to shut down at the height of the tourist season while Clumber park, which is a major tourist attraction in the north midlands, also had to close.
Several hon. Members in the Chamber take an interest in angling. The angling tradition in mining communities is deep, longstanding and current. Perhaps the greatest impact on daily life for the ordinary person was the fact that anglers had to go elsewhere for their sport because the canal was closed.
Many local education authorities advised schools not to organise visits to areas where outside spaces were closed either as a preventative measure, as in

25WH
Nottinghamshire, or because of infection. At Edwinstowe, which is two miles from my constituency, a major educational facility for children at local schools was closed for a long time.
There was bound to be an impact on tourism once public authorities communicated through the media their decision that the public interest was best served by considering the countryside to be closed for business. I want to concentrate on the impact on one section of the tourist industry, the Youth Hostels Association, which has a particular resonance in certain parts of the country and is especially important for my constituents.
In the three or four years when I worked towards becoming a Member of Parliament, I hoped that one of the first things that I could propose would be a new youth hostel in Clumber park to link with the youth hostel in Edwinstowe. That would create a proper tourist route, increase the number of beds available and put my area on the tourist map for overseas visitors. That has proved to be impossible, although such ideas are fundamental to regenerating the local economy. The potential for tourism in my area is as great as anywhere in the United Kingdom.
The decision to close the countryside resulted in a dramatic reduction in the number of guests at youth hostels. The YHA was formed in 1930 as a charity, and it is now a worldwide organisation. Its aim when it was formed, to which it remains true today, was:
"To help all, especially young people of limited means, to a greater knowledge, love and care of the countryside, particularly by providing hostels or other simple accommodation for them in their travels, and thus to promote their health, rest and education."
It operates 230 youth hostels in England and Wales, which are mainly situated in rural locations, and it has 300,000 members.
I shall declare an interest: I have been a member of the YHA for 25 years. I was introduced to it by my father, who was in turn introduced to it by a teacher when he lived in one of the most deprived parts of Edinburgh. He was encouraged to leave the tenement blocks and go cycling in the Scottish borders at the weekend using youth hostels. Opening the eyes of those who live in inner cities remains the key social import of the organisation beyond the business of being in tourism, although that is also important.
The organisation has been transformed. I recall, from first using youth hostels as a young boy, one at Thirlmere in the Lake district with a reputation for its austere warden, 1945-esque blankets and the duties that each person staying there had to carry out in the wooden hut and the freezing cold. It was known for Spartan conditions, creaking bunk beds and large dormitories. It was also known for its regime—in by 10.30 and lights out by 11 o'clock. I can tell people of that generation or older that the organisation has been transformed to meet today's expectations, standards and qualities. The youth of today regard it as on a par with their expectations, not as something left over from yesteryear. That point must be made, because many have a vague memory but would not recognise the organisation today.
During the eight months to the end of October, the Youth Hostels Association lost 19 per cent. of its business across the network, and 24 per cent. in its rural
26WH
parts. In the worst affected areas—the Lake district, Yorkshire dales and north-east—business losses have totalled 40–50 per cent. Although there was significant business recovery in the south towards the end of the summer, there is currently no prospect of replacing those losses.
Mr. John Burnett: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way, because I do not wish his point about recovery in the south to remain unchallenged. Does he accept from me as a south-west Member of Parliament that although there was some recovery in coastal areas, inland tourism in the south-west—especially in my county, Devon, and in next-door Cornwall—was very adversely affected and has a very low cash flow?
John Mann: I would not dispute that for one second. The YHA's southern recovery is explained by its significant number of London youth hostels. They remain the cash cow of the organisation. In spite of that, and in spite of the fact that the London tourist industry was strong towards the end of the summer, there has been a loss this year of £5 million from an annual income of £30 million.
The organisation has no significant reserves with which to meet such setbacks, apart from its properties. In the short term, it has had to borrow from the banks to meet cash flow requirements. Crucially, in the medium term, it expects to have to close and sell a significant number of hostels to survive and undertake essential investment for the future.
Investment is essential for any enterprise, and as the YHA is well run, that means continuing to maintain and upgrade the quality of hostels—bedrooms, showers, windows, roofs and information technology—and broadening its appeal to a wider section of society. Of the YHA's current guests, 35 per cent. are school and youth groups, 30 per cent. are from overseas—often young backpackers—25 per cent. are individuals, couples or friends, and 10 per cent. are families.
I want to single out one group that uses youth hostels or, rather, would have used them this summer but could not; it has used them in the past, and wishes to do so in the future. It is the Acorn youth trust, based in Bassetlaw. It has financial backing through the single regeneration budget scheme for coalfields, and deals with at-risk young people in the ex-mining villages of Carlton in Lindrick and Langold. I say "at-risk" because those villages, especially the Wimpy estate in Carlton in Lindrick, are notorious across the north of England for involvement in heroin and for the amount of drug dealing going on in the streets.
The youth workers are working with those at-risk young people, aged 11 to 15—particularly younger teenagers—who could make decisions to get into the drug culture and become drug addicts. Many times in villages, I have sat with parents whose children have become heroin addicts and part of the consequent crime and disorder problems.
The primary focus of the trust is to take young people to youth hostels, such as those at Edwinstowe, Matlock and Llangollen. My great fear is that its ability to do that will be impaired by the financial crisis of the YHA. Last weekend, the trust took a group of people to the

27WH
Edwinstowe youth hostel. Young people must raise the finances, however minimal, to attend such weekends; they are not charity, or a handout, but an award for the enterprise of young people.
Young people must take on responsibilities in the youth hostel, and the structure and nature of the hostel enforces that notion. The ideas of governance and how one lives are, for many, sadly lacking in their domestic lives. Cooking is another skill. Such young people, when given a pound, would normally eat burgers and chips. However, in the controlled and guided environment of the youth hostel, they have no choice but to learn cooking skills and learn about healthy living and eating. Such concepts are not directly available to them anywhere else, but have the most powerful impact. That opens young people's eyes to a world beyond the deprived village, street or house in which they live. Such educational work—through youth groups or schools—is crucial.
The YHA has a recovery plan and has not sat on its hands waiting to be bailed out. It has had to increase its borrowing and has already borrowed —3.3 million. It has also enhanced its short-term marketing initiatives, particularly those aimed at spring 2002 in conjunction with the Government's campaign for the countryside. It has started the hostel review, identifying asset sales, to raise the £5 million that it has lost. It has highlighted that issue in national and local media. I am pleased to say that it has also intensified applications for public funds to assist hostel investment and outreach work.
To date, funds made available by the Government have had some, though limited, benefit. Business Links initially declared the organisation ineligible for the £15,000 available to small businesses for the loss that it has suffered because of foot and mouth. Some 93 hostels have lost more than 60 per cent. of their business for two consecutive months, and many are being closed as a result of the crisis. I am pleased that the Government have changed that policy so that the organisation is now eligible, but I trust that the funds have not dried up. Can the Minister confirm whether the £500,000 that could be available to the YHA is, in fact, still available?
The hypothetical rates liability is £1.02 million, but as a charitable organisation, the organisation receives 80 per cent. mandatory rate relief and, in some cases, a further 20 per cent. discretionary relief. Its annual rates bill is £117,000 so it can expect only £75,000 through the hardship relief scheme. Significant money went to farming-based charities but the YHA was, unfortunately, declared ineligible. The rural taskforce has recommended that the scheme should be extended to environmental and recreational charities, such as the YHA.
The Minister for Rural Affairs(Alun Michael): I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. I want to make it clear that the match funding scheme for charities, to which he referred, was intended to help individuals, under particular stress in communities, who were involved in farming-related and non-farming-related activities. Initially, there was concern that it was only farmers and their families who were helped, but the scheme was widened by organisations such as the Addington Fund, which made a tremendous
28WH
contribution to helping people who were under immense pressure during the main period of the foot and mouth outbreak.
John Mann: I thank my right hon. Friend.
Let me stress the assistance that the Youth Hostel Association needs. It will continue to make applications to the community fund and the heritage lottery fund. However, it is crucial that the re-launching of the visiting the countryside campaign, including encouraging people to stay at youth hostels, is a major factor in Government action over the next year.
Matched funds, through the foot and mouth appeal, which has raised £239,000, could make a significant contribution to relieving the plight of the YHA. I ask the Minister to respond specifically to the question of match funding, based on the appeal to its members. The Government could ask regional development agencies to give priority to reinvestment in organisations, such as the Youth Hostel Association, that are involved with environmental and social tourism.
There should be some form of economic regeneration for constituencies like mine—which on any indicator is one of the more deprived, and which, according to my fact-finding, is one of the areas less well funded from the available pots of money. Assistance from the European regional development fund would also be of great help. I know that in Nottinghamshire there is significant money in that fund, which lies intact without a penny having been spent from it over the past two years.
I would like to see special attention given to those youth hostels in rural areas that contribute to over 50 per cent. of the bed stock, or in places where there is one village shop. One of the critical social factors—well beyond young people from my constituency visiting—is the fact that, for village pubs and shops, an influx of perhaps 60 or 70 people a night is a major contribution to their sustainability. That is particularly so where the youth hostel is the key provider of local beds, which is often the case, or where there is one village shop struggling to survive, so the custom from the YHA's clientele is vital for its survival.
I would also like some ingenuity from the Government in the ways in which public funds can be used for to help young people at risk, such as those in my constituency. The Government should invest in the future by providing more funding so that such young people can utilise the youth hostels, both in the next year and on a planned basis in the future.
Mr. Tom Levitt: I thank my hon. Friend for giving way while he is making such a powerful case about youth hostels, which I hope to add to later, if I catch your eye, Mr. Gale.
My hon. Friend will be aware that early-day motion 256 has already received over 80 sponsors, and I hope that he will urge every hon. Member to sign that EDM to show support for the youth hostel movement.
John Mann: I will, and I believe that more signatures are going in today to support that early-day motion.
My right hon. Friend the Minister and I have discussed this matter before on a number of occasions, and I think that we can picture the Black Sail youth hostel in the Lake

29WH
district. I can tell those who have not been there that it is one of the best sites in this country. From the doorway, one can see on the right Red Pike and Pillar, which is part of the Wasdale horseshoe—unquestionably the greatest walking range in England, and one of the greatest walking ranges in Britain, and a ferocious sight from that aspect. To the left is Green gable and further to the left is Great gable—in Wainwright's words, the greatest of British mountains.
The Youth Hostel Association was formed to allow young people such as those in my constituency who have never seen such sights, who have been stuck in the cash-boot, burger-and-chips economy of deprivation, drugs and social risk, to experience the countryside and have their eyes opened to that greater world. For that reason, the YHA is a special case and urgently needs support and assistance from this Government, of all Governments, and from all parties, at its most crucial moment of need. I implore the Minister to help, because the organisation needs that assistance now. People at risk in communities throughout the country will be the losers if we do not tackle the problem in the very near future.
11.25 am
Mr. David Curry: Although the first outbreaks of foot and mouth disease in my constituency did not occur until April—the election had been called before the first outbreak occurred—a large part of North Yorkshire was already frozen because of outbreaks elsewhere, in Wensleydale, and in Cumbria. Businesses have lost in every season this year. North Yorkshire is still not a free county, but I hope that in a week or so, certainly before Christmas, it will have that status, access will be largely, but not entirely, opened up and businesses can begin to look forward to next year without the catastrophe that overwhelmed them this year.
The business crisis has been widespread. Foot and mouth disease is thought of first as an agricultural and livestock problem, but the ripples go extensively through businesses. The hon. Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann) spoke eloquently about the youth hostel movement, which takes about £2 million a year. Just before the outbreak, I opened a refurbished youth hostel in my constituency, which promptly became non-functioning because of the lack of visitors. Tourism is often thought of as bed and breakfast, but many retired people who may have a spare room take visitors and do bed and breakfast; their life does not revolve around it. However, the people who run pubs and hotels are often wholly dependent upon free movement and on people being able to visit. There is no purpose in going to areas such as Grassington, for example, other than to gain access to the countryside of Wharfedale and Malhamdale. If people cannot gain access to the countryside, they do not go; businesses have had only 10, 12 or 15 per cent. of their visitors the previous year. It will be interesting to know whether the Christmas bookings are better, because people expect the countryside to be freer.
There are outdoor education and trekking centres in my constituency. Some people had just set up a business, and bought ponies and hired staff, and their business simply failed. I mentioned pubs and the hotels; the country shows at Pateley Bridge, Kilnsey and Malham
30WH
were a complete wipeout, and the Masham sheep fair, perhaps most poignantly of all, this year had a competition for fake sheep. There were pens on Masham marketplace and people competed to make sheep out of wire, wool and so on—they were very imaginative—as they could not show the real thing. My neighbour had a high-quality entry, which she kept in her garage. I communed with it for some weeks when the wool was being stuck to the exhibit.
Many businesses have turned to making plaques for a living, which are awarded to for fell racing, or at country show events. Business is down catastrophically, even miles away from the infected areas; the National Trust and some public and semi-public bodies have suffered too. In towns such as Settle, where the epidemic started, there have been ramifications for almost every business that one can mention. Hotels and pubs in Horton in Ribblesdale—the epicentre of the epidemic—and in Malham and Grassington have all been affected. Businesses usually hope to make some fat over the summer and have a good autumn half-term holiday, which is the last real attempt to make money before the winter weather sets in. However, they have not been able to put by any stores, so the crisis will come this winter.
The crisis in businesses in my constituency, especially in tourism, is associated not only with the outbreak of foot and mouth disease. During the fuel crisis, travellers searched desperately to find a pump open in the Yorkshire dales. The serious problems caused by flooding also had an impact on tourism, and the persistently high level of the pound has made it much cheaper for many people to go abroad for their holidays than to spend them in the United Kingdom.
Those factors were present before the outbreak of foot and mouth disease. The Government's business rate relief and various funds provided some help. Regional development agencies have channelled funds, although there have been common complaints throughout the UK about the sheer bureaucracy of the processes that must be gone through before the money can be accessed. For many businesses whose desperate need was survival, the requirement to propose a business plan for future development was three or four steps beyond the crisis.
Mr. Burnett: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman, who accurately and compellingly describes the parlous conditions faced by many country businesses as winter approaches. Does he agree that it would be extremely unwise and unfair for the Inland Revenue and Customs and Excise to demand payment of deferred corporation tax, income tax and value added tax?
Mr. Curry: The hon. Gentleman has uncannily anticipated the point that I was about to make. However, repetition is no sin in politics, so I will not hesitate to make that point in a moment.
Charitable giving has been important. Craven had a target to raise £1 million to help affected businesses. The Minister also referred to various other charitable funds. There is a hardy resilience among my constituents, but it is astonishing that Government agencies are calling in the debts just as the crisis begins to bite in winter.
Alun Michael: The hon. Gentleman's intervention gives me an opportunity to nail a lie. There is no change

31WH
in the approach of Inland Revenue departments to those who are affected by foot and mouth disease. We have given an undertaking to continue to be sympathetic when we consider each request for help and support. The joint helpline is still open seven days a week to provide that assistance. There have been a couple of reports that debts would suddenly be called in. I am satisfied from my own inquiries that those are rural myths. Treasury colleagues assure me that they intend to be as helpful as possible to businesses that are going through the difficulties to which the right hon. Gentleman rightly referred.
Mr. Curry: We have dispatched urban myths that were invented by a previous Secretary of State, we have had the rural myths, and we can now concentrate on the difficult business realities. The Minister's remarks are useful, and I will invite businesses in my constituency to let me know immediately if they receive a demand from the Inland Revenue or other agencies. I am sure that the Minister would want me to contact him instantly with that evidence, so that he can tell whoever has issued a demand to stop. Lord Montgomery says in his autobiography that his mother would sometimes say to the nanny, "Go and find what Bernard is doing and tell him to stop it." That may not be a bad motto for the agencies.
Alun Michael: It would be unrealistic to suggest that the Inland Revenue should not talk to people about how, as business gets back to normal, they may deal with payments over time. I do not want to suggest that the Revenue should not talk to anyone, and Ministers have made it clear that, while the current situation remains, they will be sympathetic and pursue the line that I described.
Mr. Curry: The Minister will know that businesses do not expect gifts from Government. Businesses know that the money must be repaid, so the importance is in the tone and nature of approach and making it clear at the beginning that this is not a demand for payment, but an exploration of how the two sides can co-operate on a problem that everyone recognises. That is the key. There is a case for extending the business rate relief, simply because winter is such a difficult period, and the Minister will no doubt examine that as he collects his thoughts. We also need a full response to the Haskins report, which was generally sensible and solid. He is a bit the Lord High Everything Else of the Government, but on this occasion he has done a reasonable task. The Government made an immediate response, but more detail is required.
Above all, businesses need not money but some certainty. Hon. Members should imagine that they are a business. They have just suffered a catastrophic year and are being told by everyone that they should modernise, advertise their services and improve their facilities to attract new visitors. They must invest to do that; they cannot just sit and wait for it to happen. They also know that if there is one more outbreak of foot and mouth disease£we should not forget that the Government expect a tail to the epidemic—a whole chunk of countryside could be frozen again and such investment would be useless.
32WH
Businesses cannot choose not to make the investment, because they cannot just sit there and do nothing. Equally, if we do have an outbreak, there must be a response. It would be enormously helpful if the Government outlined the approach that they would take to isolate any outbreak and ensure that the repercussions would not plunge scores, or perhaps hundreds, of businesses into the same situation as earlier this year. That is particularly important, as the Government will shortly pass the Animal Health Bill, which will give them the legal means to compensate for animals slaughtered following vaccination as part of the programme for controlling foot and mouth. I do not prescribe a solution, but the Government must understand the great apprehension across the countryside that we are not yet done with foot and mouth and that it could come back and kill any recovery.
I will make one point to the Minister with which he will be painfully familiar. I mentioned country shows and the importance of attracting tourists. If the 21-day rule restricting movement persists, it will have an immediate and deleterious impact on the ability of traditional country shows to go ahead. Animals must be brought to and taken away from such shows and play an important part in them. If that 21-day rule is applied rigidly, it will be the death knell of many traditional country shows. They attract all sorts of people: those who make umbrellas, products from rocks and wheat, shoes and riding kit. Animals, although key, are not the only element, and an enormous number of businesses gain much of their lifeblood from attendance.
Mr. Burnett: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way, and I do not want to tax his patience, but I must say that I agree wholeheartedly. I was speaking at the Okehampton livestock show dinner last Saturday evening, and that point was made to me. Does he agree that it would be wise for the Government to exempt livestock shows from the proposed cooling-off period?
Mr. Curry: It is inevitable that in the period in which we are relaxing from foot and mouth disease, a licensing arrangement for movement will continue to be in place. I do not expect the Government to lift all restrictions, but it would be sensible to examine the particular conditions of animals to decide whether they could be moved relatively short distances to local shows and back again without falling foul of the measure.
The hon. Gentleman will also know that we are hoping to get an announcement that auction marts will start again quite shortly. They also have an important role to play in the countryside, not least because they are the most important rural instrument for combating social exclusion among members of the agricultural community stuck on the top of a hill—one of the few occasions that they actually get down and meet fellow human beings is at the auction mart.
The epidemic has shown how interdependent agriculture and tourism are, but how exposed the countryside is to those two industries, and how inadequate the wider economic base in the countryside often is. We agree that we need better quality and more diverse facilities and Haskins has spelt that out pretty starkly. I applaud the efforts to bring regeneration into

33WH
some of the market towns, which we all agree are important. I will assume that the hon. Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr. Burnett) agrees with Haskins before he intervenes again to tell me that he agrees. So many market towns have centres characterised by charity shops and financial services organisations because much of the traditional fabric of retailing has gone.
The regional development agencies are now talking about how to develop business. In the rural areas, it is important that food clusters—businesses dependent on agriculture, but spreading out to processing, going up market, trying to get higher quality food and dealing with the local supermarket, which is often regarded psychologically as a difficult thing to do—be given broad encouragement.
Let me make yet another plea about telecommunications equipment in the countryside. If somebody has a small business at the top of the dale it is prohibitively expensive to get in there the sort of wires and communications that would enable them to deal competitively with people who have access to higher technological products such as ISDN. Hundreds of thousands of pounds is needed to install such equipment. If we really want to wire up the countryside, to ensure that people can promote high value added businesses from the countryside, that question must addressed urgently.
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Bassetlaw for the opportunity to participate in this debate. I know that the Minister understands the problems because a short while ago I led a delegation from North Yorkshire spelling them out to him, but as I said before, repetition is always a virtue in politics provided it is not taken to extremes, and that is why I intend to stop now.
11.42 am
Mr. Martin Salter: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann) on securing this debate. He described himself as a mere candidate for Parliament when foot and mouth first broke out. If he makes one or two more powerful speeches like that on behalf of the Youth Hostels Association and other affected country businesses, he will never be called a mere MP. So, more power to his vocal cords, if nothing else. This debate is timely, particularly as the Government have called for a full debate on the future of the rural economy. I shall be interested in the Minister's response.
It is worth us bearing in mind the devastating impact of foot and mouth on the country as a whole—and I speak as an urban MP who very much enjoys country sports, fishing, walking, rambling and the rest. I note the words on 18 April of the former Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, my right hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East and Wallsend (Mr. Brown):
"Foot and mouth disease has been an enormous blow to the farming community. Nationwide it has had a profound, disturbing and painful impact which is fully recognised at the heart of Government. It represents the biggest peacetime challenge of recent times requiring a major logistical and scientific response. There are no easy options, only stark choices."
Those were wise words in the light of what has occurred since.
34WH
The impact on the countryside, and particularly the agricultural community, was quite devastating. The first signs of the outbreak occurred in Essex in February. The origins were traced to a farm at Heddon-on-the-Wall, Northumberland, which is considered to be the most likely source. From there it spread to seven farms in Tyne and Wear. One sent a sheep to Hexham market, from where the disease spread to other parts of the country. The initial rapid spread was almost impossible to detect and for something like three weeks no one was really aware of the virulent disease. However, foot and mouth disease affected only a small proportion—less than 2.5 per cent—of the UK total of 55 million cattle, sheep and pigs that make up the national herd. More than 1,600 vets—with other professionals and 2,000 military personnel—were working at public expense to deal with the outbreak.
The Government strategy was clearly based on the best scientific advice. Many veterinary and other experts worked to contain the outbreak. The Government sought stringent disinfection and precautionary measures to contain the disease within affected areas. They sought to restrict movement countrywide by identifying areas with a heightened risk. They embarked on a policy to cull all animals on infected farms, within 24 hours of the disease being notified, to prevent the further release of the virus into the air. Unfortunately, they were not always successful in meeting that target. To remove the risk of developing and spreading the disease, they attempted to cull all animals in neighbouring farms within 48 hours of the first report.
For all the criticism of the Government's actions, the strategy worked. Britain is now free of foot and mouth disease, though there may be a sting in the tail. The farming community has been keen to berate Ministers and Parliament in general, but eradicating the disease should be a cause for celebration and, in respect of compensation paid to farmers, a cause for gratitude. I hope that we shall hear the farming community express some gratitude later.
The impacts of foot and mouth on agriculture have been overemphasised. Not only the farming community has been affected by this devastating disease. The Minister will be only too aware of correspondence with me about Mr. Harrison, a man in my constituency who ran Trail Breaks—a small organisation that staged cycle cross events in the countryside, but was unable to operate because of restrictions on access.
I recently met the Berkshire branch of the Country Landowners Association. The right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) spoke about other industries that we might not readily associate with foot and mouth disease—industries that make plaques for the walls of tourist attractions, for example. The Country Landowners Association told me that some of its members—people who produce rambling books or guides—experienced a huge downturn in their orders. Bed and breakfasts in the countryside and country clothing stores are other examples.
My own sport of angling is also relevant. Fishing tackle shops are often located in urban centres. Because they were not in designated areas, they were ineligible to claim relief and support. Gun shops, country sport suppliers and youth hostels could also be mentioned. I was proud to add my signature to early-day motion 256 and I certainly associate myself with all the

35WH
comments made by my hon. Friends about the work of the YHA and the need for the Government to consider it a special case. We must ensure that that worthwhile organisation continues.
Having given the Government a fair wind on how they sought to tackle the outbreak, I have to say that the tight drawing of boundaries within which businesses could apply for support was a mistake. The vast majority of people who go fishing in the countryside will visit tackle shops in places like Reading, Swindon and elsewhere. It is a shame that such shops were ineligible for support. However, I dissociate myself from today's announcements by the UK rural business campaign, which is seeking to take class action for compensation against the Government.
The Government cannot be seen as a financial comfort blanket for every business affected by foot and mouth or any other external force. The queue for Government compensation is long. It starts with Railtrack shareholders, for whom I have little sympathy. It includes passengers whose lives were ruined by Railtrack's incompetence, for whom I have immense sympathy. It also includes Equitable Life policyholders, and airline industry employees, who have suffered terribly from the downturn following the appalling events of 11 September. Many people have their hands out for Government support, but the UK rural business campaign will get precious little support in this House. One has to question— [Interruption.]
Mr. RogerGale (in the Chair): Order. This is a Chamber, not a Committee Room. Hon. Members must not deal with post in here.
Mr. Salter: I thought that I had done something wrong.
One has to question the intelligence of employing a firm of lobbyists—Lehmann Communications—to organise a briefing for Members at 11 am on a Monday. I would not pay good money for that. The campaign's press release about the class action includes one comment from the Conservative shadow Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, who is seeking to make political points. The UK rural business campaign represents a class action all right—an upper class action. It should not unduly trouble the Minister.
It is worth considering expenditure on support systems. The DEFRA figures show that compensation—the Government are ambivalent about the word "compensation", but use it in their announcements—for farmers totals £1.2 billion. However, about £54 million is available via the business recovery fund. That represents an imbalance between support offered to farmers and to other businesses, whether in rural or urban environments, that have been equally badly hit.
Having successfully achieved foot-and-mouth-free status in the UK, the Government must urgently attend to businesses that are falling through the cracks in the system. No system devised in a hurry will be perfect, but rural businesses, the tourist trade, and the YHA should not go out of business because of our failure to address their concerns, which are as legitimate and important as those of farmers.
11.53 am
Annabelle Ewing: I congratulate the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann) on securing the debate. Fortunately, the foot and mouth outbreak did not reach as far as my constituency in Scotland. None the less, the outbreak had a devastating impact on access. Tourism is vital to my constituency and its economy because one of its attractions is the beautiful mountainous countryside. Hotels experienced a dramatic drop in business, which impacted on all sectors of the economy. There was no meaningful support for business in Scotland because a large proportion of the budget was allocated to survival workshops, which did not find favour with business men and women throughout my constituency. Farmers in Perthshire suffered because of the restrictions on exports and movements of livestock. Progress has finally been made on export movements, despite the fact that Scotland has been foot and mouth free for some time. However, farmers in areas such as the borders cannot get export licences because of administrative delays and bungling.
One may ask why a Scottish Member is speaking in a debate on agriculture, which has been devolved to the Scottish Parliament. For some reason, representation of Scottish agriculture has been ceded to Westminster. The president of the Scottish National Farmers Union, Jim Walker, gave evidence to the Rural Development Committee of the Scottish Parliament on 18 September. To summarise, he expressed extreme concern about the inability of the UK Government and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to lobby effectively on Scotland's behalf with respect to foot and mouth and agriculture in general. A concordat between the Scottish Executive and the UK Government gives jurisdiction over Scottish agriculture to the UK Secretary of State. Has the Minister's Department received any representations from Scottish Executive Ministers about amending the concordat to ensure effective representation for Scottish agriculture in Brussels?
11.55 am
Mr. Tom Levitt: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann) on securing this important debate. As I mentioned in an intervention, I am the author of early-day motion 256 in support of the YHA in its present straits. Like my hon. Friend, I am a lifelong member of the YHA and, as the Member of Parliament for High Peak, I have seven youth hostels in my constituency, which may be a record. I wish to describe my own experiences with the YHA, in order to stress the importance of the movement.
As a young boy, I went with my youth club to Malham and Linton—which I believe is in the constituency of the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry)—in the Yorkshire dales. Those were the first youth hostels that I visited. Later, I went to the Isle of Man, Wales and the Lake district. As a teenager, I found independence by taking my first solo holidays in the Cotswolds and on the Isle of Arran, courtesy of the YHA. I discovered a love of inter-tidal ecology at the YHA field centre at Borth. Years later, I went back to the facility as a teacher. For four years, as a student, I spent all my summers and Easter vacations working for the YHA on the Isle of Wight and in London as a

37WH
warden. During that time, perhaps more than at any other stage of my life, I met people from different walks of life, countries and backgrounds who became friends for life. It was a wonderful kaleidoscope, not just of young people, as indicated by the YHA's name, but of people of every age group.
The YHA is a truly phenomenal organisation, which spreads around the world and has a great tradition. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw said, the YHA was formed 70 years ago at about the same time as the Ramblers Association, the Workers Educational Association and the co-operative movement. Many of the same people were involved in those campaigns and issues. The YHA is a major player in providing not only holidays but important learning experiences, covering social skills and development right through to biology and geography at degree level through its field courses. The organisation has moved with the times, contrary to the image that it might have. Some hostels now offer family rooms and wine with meals and do not insist on lights out by 11 o'clock. They are broadening their base and attractions and doing wonderful things for vulnerable people.
The past year has been a complete catastrophe for the youth hostels movement. The way in which the hostels were hit was disastrous in many cases. In my constituency, field centres were closed, staff were laid off, casual staff who would normally work for the summer were not employed, as the 22 million visitors a year to the Peak district reduced considerably, especially in the most rural areas and among those who might otherwise have used youth hostels.
The movement has a modernisation programme to bring its buildings up to scratch for the 21st century. That includes new facilities and making the hostels accessible to a wider range of people. All those investment programmes are in jeopardy. The only way that the YHA can obtain capital is by selling its capital assets—the youth hostels. In order to raise funds, the association would have to eat away at its own foundations.
As the YHA is a major player and the major not-for-profit player in the rural economy, and because it does not have the cash assets that, for example, a hotel chain may have stored away and deals with introducing young people to unique experiences that they would not otherwise have, I hope that the Minister will take away from this debate the message of early-day motion 256. I hope that he will do whatever can be done to help the Youth Hostels Association at its moment of need.
12.1 pm
Brian Cotter: I thank the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann) for securing this debate. He does so as the foot and mouth crisis has dropped from the media's attention following 11 September and other events. Nevertheless, long after the worse cases have disappeared, the disease will continue to affect tourism and related industries. Last Thursday, the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs gave an interview to the Financial Times in which she warned against farmers believing that the devastating crisis was totally over. The rural communities face not only continuing economic fallout in the immediate aftermath of the disease but the possibility that a further outbreak may occur.
38WH
The debate has been primarily about economic aspects other than farming, so I shall leave farming to one side because time is short. The British Tourist Authority estimates that the combined effects of foot and mouth and the events of 11 September could result in the loss of £2.5 billion-worth of inbound tourism this year. Thousands of rural tea shops, pubs, museums and guest houses have seen their profits slashed as visitors have chosen to stay away from the countryside. I am glad to say that in my constituency, which is a seaside resort, we have benefited. Now that people have seen the joys of Weston-super-Mare, they will be returning in their droves in future.
Farming and tourism are not the only sectors that have been affected—so have many other businesses such as marquee hirers and camping equipment suppliers.The important point made by the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) that the effects are going to be felt through the winter, spring and even into the summer. Indeed, one of the main recommendations of the rural taskforce report, which was published on 18 October, was to
"help ensure the survival of rural businesses through the coming winter months, when incomes and reserves are likely to be at their lowest ebb".
Yet any farmer or rural business owner hoping for the Chancellor to throw them a much-needed lifeline during last Tuesday's pre-Budget report would have been gravely disappointed. Was the announcement that foot and mouth disease had resulted in a £2.5 billion bill supposed to make struggling farms and businesses feel a bit better? Were they supposed to feel grateful for and satisfied with the little that they had been given?
The truth is that many support schemes introduced by the Government have not fully met businesses' needs. Many businesses have been unable to claim support under the hardship rate relief scheme, for example, as they do not fall within designated rural areas. That important issue has affected parts of my constituency and others, and includes businesses located in small rural market towns, which have seen their trade drop as a result of outbreaks nearby.
Alun Michael: It is worth making the point that businesses outside the designated areas where the Government have given additional support to the local authorities can apply for business rate relief. We have sought to mitigate the impact, particularly on rural local authorities, which bore an especially heavy burden as a result of trying to help businesses in their areas.
Brian Cotter: I thank the Minister for that intervention. Hopefully, it will help to highlight the fact that there is some support for businesses outside the 37 designated areas, although we might say not enough.
Alun Michael: The hon. Gentleman misses the point. The help is for the local authorities, which can provide help for businesses. We have sought to mitigate what would otherwise have been a very unfair burden on rural local authorities, because the heaviest demands fall on them.
Brian Cotter: My comment related to other factors. For example, Lord Haskins's report called for a £40 million support scheme, yet the Government came

39WH
up with £24 million. When we go into the scheme in depth—I am taking time away from what I was going to say—we find points that need to be raised.
The small loans guarantee scheme was held up as a major part of the recovery package and has been extended, but the scheme needs to be properly used. As at 18 October, a little while back, only 18 new loans had been taken up, which is of great concern. The business recovery fund, which was administered by regional development agencies and local business links to provide grants to suffering businesses, allowed an element of flexibility. Delivery at local level meant that local needs and circumstances could be taken into consideration, and small businesses had the opportunity to talk them through with advisers. However, that has caused its own problems, with discrepancies across the regions in the way in which the process has been delivered through the RDAs.
The criticism most frequently aimed at that form of relief is that the application process is far too cumbersome and takes far too long to process. As of 3 October, the south-west RDA had approved 775 applications, but 3,001 were still being processed. A further criticism is that the scheme does not cater for the short-term cashflow needs of small firms. EU state aid rules come into play.
The rural taskforce report reflects that view:
"Whilst some have argued that assistance should be targeted primarily on helping businesses to change and adapt, many small businesses have made the straightforward plea that their priority is cash to survive through the winter. Tourism businesses are likely to recover provided visitors return in spring: the risk is that many may not survive until then."
Will the Minister, as a priority, respond formally to that report, to which there has not been such a response? Will he make changes to the business recovery fund to speed things up? Will he assure us that any funds given to RDAs can be retained? The hon. Member for Bassetlaw and others referred to the Youth Hostels Association. I am sure that, as a former chair of the YHA, the Minister will have great sympathy.
12.9 pm
Mr. Keith Simpson: I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann) on obtaining the debate. How shrewd he was in applying for a debate on the financial impact of the foot and mouth crisis in the countryside and then sneaking in a speech largely about youth hostels. I do not mean that in any way as a criticism. He enhanced the prospects of his debate being secured, and I congratulate him on that. I first used a youth hostel many years ago, during the premiership of Harold Wilson, whom some Government supporters might not remember was a Labour Prime Minister—unless he has been airbrushed out of history.
Like a number of hon. Members, I want to broaden the discussion. In the past 10 months, some of us in this Chamber have attended numerous debates and statements on foot and mouth. I initiated such a debate in this Chamber on 27 March, and on 21 November my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) secured a debate on farming in the north-west. Several
40WH
Members have talked about the need to strike a balance in today's debate between farming, rural businesses and the wider countryside, and it is true that this is not an either/or situation. In all the debates that I have attended, most hon. Members have recognised that the countryside must be viewed as a coherent whole. Certainly in my constituency, the countryside is entirely interdependent. Farming—we should refer to it as the food industry—small businesses, shops, garages, pubs, restaurants, country sports, and the holiday homes to which many hon. Members have referred all form part of the wider aspect of tourism. Moreover, there is the future of the environment—a subject on which we have not had time to touch.
Some hon. Members seem to believe that even farming is largely marginal. They turn to statistics that show that, according to every conceivable criterion, farming has declined in the past 20 or 30 years. However, on looking at the facts a little more closely, one comes up with some interesting propositions. For every person employed directly in farming in Norfolk in 1967, four were employed indirectly. Today, for every person directly employed, 14 are indirectly employed. The distinction between farming as it was narrowly defined and its broader aspects is therefore very strong. Any downturn in farming has a major impact on the countryside. Although this is perhaps not the time for such a debate, we should recall a point that was dramatically made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry): if we remove the farming community and the animals from the countryside, it will change dramatically in many areas.
It is worth flagging up the fact, as several hon. Members have, that farming is experiencing one of the worst recessions of the past 70 years. There are many reasons for that, in addition to the impact of foot and mouth. In 2000, farming income fell by 27 per cent. Such a fall had a knock-on effect for many of the small businesses in the wider farming community to which hon. Members have referred.
Last week, the Chancellor of the Exchequer said that the total cost of the foot and mouth epidemic has risen to £2.7 billion. The overwhelming majority of such costs relate to compensation paid directly to affected farmers, to cleaning up and to eradicating foot and mouth. A much smaller sum has been given over to rural businesses. By any means, £2.7 billion is a large amount of money, but I should point out one problem to the Minister. Although some have been compensated directly, many others in the farming community and in rural businesses who were indirectly affected, but who none the less suffered a major loss of income, have been unable to get any recompense. Indeed, many farmers and small rural businesses have said that it would have been better if their areas had been directly affected by foot and mouth, and if they had been closed down, because that way they would have received compensation. The indirect impact is enormous.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon made the wise point that, ironically, the crisis will occur during the winter. Many rural businesses that build up a cash reserve in the spring, summer and autumn are now in serious trouble, as the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Brian Cotter), who represents a seaside resort, knows. When the Minister considers

41WH
ways in which he can help the countryside, I urge him to tell the Treasury that the crisis has not gone because foot and mouth appears to be under control.
I welcome the Minister's statement on the Inland Revenue's action on VAT, which should make certain that small businesses in the countryside are given as big a breather as possible in which to recover. We are not discussing a free holiday that will go on for ever, but given the crisis, an early attempt by the Treasury to collect money owed would result in many businesses going bankrupt before they had had a chance to recover in the spring.

A report by Dun and Bradstreet in June 2001 showed that the number of UK businesses being liquidated or going bankrupt between April and June rose by 15 per cent. on the previous quarter. According to the Countryside Agency, the tourist industry could lose between £1 billion and £2.3 billion in 2001. That sum of money almost equals the total amount that the Treasury has paid out on foot and mouth. We are discussing a massive hidden cost to both the countryside and the tourist industry.
Mr. Salter: I agree with the thrust of the hon. Gentleman's argument, but will he clarify whether, as Opposition spokesman on these matters, he supports the class action being waged by the UK rural business campaign and its demand for £5.1 billion in compensation from the Government?
Mr. Simpson: That organisation has every right to seek legal compensation. Along with many in the countryside community and consumers, I do not follow the supposedly clear-cut audit trail of how the Government dealt with the crisis. Many Members, including my right hon. Friend the Member for South-West Norfolk (Mrs. Shephard) and myself, who were in the crisis areas and saw MAFF's reaction to swine fever know that there was no stately process in which a crisis was dealt with by following established procedures. There was crisis management on the scale of the retreat from Dunkirk rather than a well-organised drill parade. Several organisations will seek compensation, and the law will decide the matter.
Does the Minister agree that to revitalise the countryside—we must look to the future—the Government must do three major things? First, they must restore the public's confidence that the food that they eat is healthy. Secondly, they must restore the public's confidence in both the viability of the farming community and in the assertion that our food industry will not be exported. Thirdly, the public's confidence in the Government must be restored. Even when one takes account of the problems of MAFF and DEFRA—I know that many officials and vets worked hard—there was chaos and confusion. We do not yet have any form of analysis on the outbreak of foot and mouth or what went wrong in dealing with it. As many hon. Members have said, internal, non-public inquiries are frankly insufficient.
Foot and mouth disease must be eradicated and policies and procedures must be put in place to deal with any further outbreaks. If we do not learn that lesson, we will back here having the same debate in two years' time.
Finally, we must ensure that bureaucratic barriers to rural businesses are removed. Many small businesses have to go through a paper chase—an obstacle course—
42WH
to get help of one kind or another. If the Government can simplify that, they will go a long way to meeting the needs of the countryside as it recovers from foot and mouth.
12.20 pm
The Minister for Rural Affairs (Alun Michael): If, as he suggests, the hon. Member for Mid-Norfolk (Mr. Simpson) desires to increase confidence in the Government, he and his colleagues could help by supporting the steps that we are taking to deal with the enormous problems arising from foot and mouth disease, as well as the disease itself, and by being as positive as many of the organisations that represent farmers and the tourism industry, with which we are working closely.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann) on securing the debate. He is one of the increasing number of Labour Members of Parliament who represent rural constituencies. His speech was well informed and passionate, and it was matched by many excellent contributions. The debate may have been too short, given people's obvious interest in the topic.
In the brief time available to me, I want to concentrate on the issues that my hon. Friend raised, especially those relating to tourism and the YHA. In focusing on the financial impact of foot and mouth disease, we must emphasise that that discussion takes place against the background of its impact on individuals, families and communities. The pre-Budget report given by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor shows that the national economic impact was much less than we had feared. Although that does not diminish the severe local impact in many areas—notably parts of Cumbria, Devon and North Yorkshire—the debate should be placed in that context.
To some extent, people are helping themselves. On Saturday, I was privileged to take part in a conference called by the Bishop of Hereford, in which many people, especially farmers, talked about—
Mr. Burnett: Will the Minister give way?
Alun Michael: I will not, if the hon. Gentleman will forgive me. He has intervened several times, and many hon. Members made considered comments to which I want to respond.
The bishop's conference was positive, because it was about people saying what they were doing to rebuild their businesses and to succeed in the long-term future. I have also been handed a copy of a report from a conference called "Winning Ways" organised by the National Farmers Union and the Country Landowners Association in the west midlands, which makes a positive contribution to facing up to the challenges that lie ahead.
The crisis is one partly of farming and partly of tourism, and I do not want to play down either. Hon. Members have rightly stressed the balance between the two. However, in financial terms, net of compensation, tourism suffered even worse than farming. One of the few benefits of the crisis is that it has driven home the interdependence of rural economies and communities. Visitors come to see the landscape, much of which is

43WH
maintained by farmers. If they stay away, the village shop and the village pub risk closure. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw said, youth hostellers contribute to the viability of both those institutions.
In recent months, the interdependence between tourism and agriculture has been reflected more than previously in the remarks of farmers, who say that they understand it much more now than they did before. The activities of the rural taskforce, which I have chaired since June, has been conducted in an atmosphere of working together in the long-term interests of rural communities. We will respond to the points made by the rural taskforce and in the Haskins report, including the issue of rate relief, which was raised during the debate.
Let us be clear about what the Government have done to help. We sought to control the disease as quickly and effectively as we could. It is too soon to claim complete success, but there have been no cases since 30 September, which is encouraging. Crucially, we have sought to get visitors back to the countryside. I think that the YHA itself has said that getting people back, and getting business back to normal, is needed more than anything else. Ever since I took up my role in June, that has been my top priority. I have been to places such as the Lake district with representatives of rural tourism, including from the YHA, to try to get that message across.
The clear views of Lord Haskins and the rural taskforce are that, although businesses need help through the winter, trade is likely to pick up, and businesses to recover, come the spring. If there is time, I will return to general issues of business support but I first want to spend a few minutes on the points about the YHA that formed such an important part of my hon. Friend's introduction.
I was pleased to hear him place such importance on the contribution that a youth hostel can make to the local economy, and to hear him balance that with the contribution made to those who stay there, especially those who are deprived in various ways or come from inner-urban communities. I do not have a pecuniary or personal interest to declare, but I have used hostels with my family and as a youth leader, and I endorse my hon. Friend's comments. I sought to bring a youth hostel to my Cardiff constituency as part of the exercise in joining up town and country. As a result, I was for some years an honorary vice-president of the YHA. I resigned in order to avoid a conflict of interest when I took up my present post.
Since September, I have received about 200 letters from hon. Members explaining their concern about the future of the Youth Hostels Association. I have no doubt that the problems are serious. It was the national organisation worst affected by footpath closures
44WH
because so many of its hostels are in places where people mainly go to walk. Some hostels such as Black Sail, which a group of Members visited a few years ago, can only be reached on foot.
The YHA's estimated loss of £5 million on an annual turnover of £30 million is a measure of the impact on it. That is a serious blow, especially in view of its continuing need to invest in upgrading hostels to meet modern expectations. Like me, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport has had close contact with the YHA since early in the outbreak. We have been able to offer it limited help and advised it on how to access existing funds.?
We have visited hostels to publicise footpath opening. We have also changed the rules of the business recovery fund, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw said, so that individual hostels can apply to regional development authorities for help, a point that I drew to the attention of RDAs when we made the announcement. There have been discussions between RDAs and the YHA and a number of applications are in process. Some have already succeeded.
We are involving the YHA closely in our plans to encourage visitors back to the countryside as part of our effort to work with the tourism industry as a whole. This is not simply the Ministry making announcements, but an exercise in working together. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will reopen one of the YHA's flagship hostels after renovation: Hartington Hall, a beautiful 17th-century building in the White Peak. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport and I plan to visit more hostels and will at least contribute through our bed night fees, if nothing else.
Set against a loss of £5 million, that is, of course, modest. The YHA is still at real risk of having to sell hostels to make ends meet. We are carefully examining the rural taskforce's recommendations that we should find further ways of helping. The matter is not straightforward, as earlier discussions about compensation made clear. Many industries would like compensation for loss of income. Compensation has been paid only for the loss of animals that were culled in the attempt to eradicate FMD. I cannot make promises, but I hope that the YHA will not take precipitate action. None of us wants the association to sell hostels and we shall keep talking to it about how to work together to avoid the need for such a consequence.
Several points were made during the debate about help for businesses. For example, the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) referred, during a thoughtful contribution, to the imagination with which many businesses and communities responded to—
Mr. Win Griffiths (in the Chair): Order. We now come to the debate on rhizomania in East Anglia.

Rhizomania (East Anglia)
12.30 pm
Mrs. Gillian Shephard: I am grateful for the opportunity to raise this matter. Rhizomania and its associated problems do not occupy the forefront of every Member's mind. The Minister must be wondering what he has done wrong to have to be in the Chamber for so long today to listen to debates on disease problems facing the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.
The Minister for Rural Affairs(Alun Michael): Westminster Hall debates often provide an excellent opportunity to educate Ministers as well as other Members and it is a pleasure to respond to the right hon. Lady. I have had to become engaged with an issue that had not previously come to my attention, as she rightly suggested. However, the result is that I understand precisely why she raised the matter today.
Mrs. Shephard: I thank the Minister and I hope that he feels the same at the end of my contribution.
The position produced by DEFRA's consultation proposals is causing extreme concern among farmers and growers in East Anglia. The Minister, who will be an assiduous reader of Farmers Weekly, will know that that is causing concern across the board in the agricultural community. I hope that we shall have a positive response from the Minister today.
I shall give an explanation of rhizomania. It is a highly damaging disease of sugar beet, which reduces crop yields and persists in the soil for many years. Since the first discovered outbreak in the country in Suffolk in 1987, the United Kingdom has enforced a statutory containment policy authorised by a protected zone status for the whole country, supported by the European Commission and the plant health division of the former Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, now DEFRA. The policy of a combination of protected zone status and containment has worked well, thanks to a highly responsible attitude on the part of the industry. In sharp contrast with other parts of Europe where the disease is more or less endemic, less than 0.1 per cent. of UK arable beet land has become infected by rhizomania. In France, more than 50 per cent. is affected and in Holland the infection rate is well over 90 per cent.
Since 1987, there have been 211 outbreaks of the disease: 200 in Norfolk and Suffolk, and many of them in my constituency. After the first outbreak, we had a rash of outbreaks in South-West Norfolk, which made us feel like the rhizomania capital of the UK. Of those outbreaks, 68 have occurred this year. That may have caused anxiety among Ministers, but most of us realise that the high incidence of outbreaks this year is due to the exceptionally late crop planting because of bad weather in the spring. This year, by any standards, is atypical.
The low level of infection in the United Kingdom has not happened by accident. The first outbreaks in Norfolk and Suffolk, as I remember only too well, were accompanied by draconian containment measures. They caused hardship not only for all those involved in the sugar beet industry—farmers, growers, hauliers, processsors and so on—but because of the requirements
46WH
for care over soil movements by potato and carrot growers, nurserymen and strawberry growers. At that time, MAFF Ministers kept in close touch with farmers and growers in the industries affected industries and, over time, adjusted and adapted containment policies to ease, where possible, conditions that made economic survival difficult for sugar beet people and others. Because of the hardship and the realisation of everyone concerned that the consequences of rhizomania were grave for the whole industry, since 1987, as the Minister knows much effort has been put into the development of disease-resistant beet varieties that are commercially attractive. It is universally recognised that that is the only proper and viable way forward.
For years, MAFF's plant health division—now under DEFRA—has worked with British Sugar and the National Farmers Union on plant development. So far, one variety, called "concept", has been produced that is economical viable and climate tolerant. Comparable varieties should be available to farmers in two to three years' time. As far as the industry was aware, Ministers supported that on-going work and its timetable, and they were amazed to hear, through the consultation document that DEFRA recently issued on the future of protected zones, that Ministers intended to ditch the policy of containment, apparently in response to demands from the European Commission. On 30 November, Farmers Weekly asked:
"Why is DEFRA surrendering in the war against the sugar beet disease rhizomania? Instead of fighting on to defend the UK's rhizomania-free status it has decided to concede the title. The decision will prove a disaster, not just for sugar beet growers throughout the UK, but for many other producers. It is difficult to over-estimate the key contribution sugar beet has made to the profitability of many arable units."
Farmers and growers would heartily agree. The Minister and his Government are presiding over the worst crisis in agriculture since the first world war. In Norfolk, where 30 per cent. of the UK sugar beet crop is grown, 10,000 jobs depend on beet production and processing alone. In August, Larking Gowen, a Norwich-based firm of accountants, produced a report of Norfolk farm incomes in the year 2000. It makes gloomy reading and points out that farm incomes fell by 50 per cent. against the previous year. The average profits of the surveyed farms were substantially less than a farm employee's wages. Tenant farmers were found to be working to pay the rent, while living off capital. Farm incomes are at their lowest for 60 years; the strong pound, world commodity prices and the effects of swine fever, foot and mouth, BSE and bad weather conditions have taken their toll.
In that sea of problems, sugar beet has, in many cases, been the lifebelt keeping farmers afloat. The industry is still reeling from the implications of the Government's "everything but arms" initiative. Now, they have signalled their intention to deal the industry another body blow by abandoning the containment policy, which has been a success and is affording the necessary time to the industry to develop a proper long-term solution. The industry wants to know why that is happening, and I hope that we will get answers today.
According to the DEFRA consultation document, the UK's protected zone status for rhizomania comes to an end in March 2002. Decisions are therefore needed to
"continue, modify or end this status."

47WH
If those are the choices, the Minister must explain why he does not propose to continue the status in the consultation document, but only to modify or end it. Why has he prejudged the issue? Why does he not put to the industry all the choices that his document lays out?
The document claims that there are doubts in Europe over whether the UK is meeting the legal requirements for protected zone status. That is not borne out by my most recent information from the Commission, which I will come to in a moment. His other claim, that there is
"a reluctance in the industry to use the new varieties until they perform as well … as susceptible varieties"
can be totally countered by the self-evident fact that he is not willing to allow the industry the two or three years needed to complete its work and perfect those varieties. The real reason, as is becoming usual with this Government, is that they are not willing to devote resources to agriculture. I hope that the Minister will come clean on that matter.
For information, I will briefly lay out the consultation proposals as they stand. They are: first, to maintain a protective zone in the UK outside Norfolk and Suffolk; secondly, to drop protective zone status for the whole country; and thirdly, to retain protective zone status for selective non-beet-growing areas, such as Scotland, Northern Ireland, Wales and certain parts of England, to provide
"a benefit for growers and exporters of seed potatoes."
I hope that the Minister is aware that his decision to exclude the proposition that protective status should continue, has caused extreme disquiet in the industry. Meetings held by the NFU in Norfolk, Suffolk and Cambridgeshire over the past few days have produced very little support for the strategy. As the regional NFU director, Sandra Nichols is reported in the Eastern Daily Press as saying,
"We feel the industry has been short-changed, because this option does not form part of the consultation process."
The premise for the Minister's stance—that there are doubts in Europe that the UK is meeting the legal requirements for protective zone status—was comprehensively countered at a meeting between Robert Sturdy MEP and the EU Agriculture Commissioner's chef de cabinet last week. Mr. Sturdy was told firmly that Europe
"has no interest in pressing for a change to the country's disease status."
Alun Michael: Will the right hon. Lady tell us where and when that meeting took place?
Mrs. Shephard: I certainly will. Speaking to the Eastern Daily Press on 1 December, 2001—and I can give the Minister the full report—Mr. Sturdy said,
"I understood that the industry is pushing at an open door. If Britain wants to continue with the existing arrangements, Europe is not very concerned. That is what I have been told."
I would be very happy to give the Minister the full cutting so that he can take up the matter.
Alun Michael: We have seen the cutting and made inquiries about it. We are reliably informed that the meeting did not take place as described in the cutting.
Mrs. Shephard: It is up to the Minister to convince us of that. Mr. Sturdy is a perfectly honourable man, he took the trouble to have the meeting and he has asked farmers and growers to write directly to the Commission. It will be interesting to see the nature of the replies that they receive, given the information that he has given to them.
Mr. Keith Simpson: There is of course a reverse side to that and it would interesting if the Minister could categorically say that the Commission had asked the UK Government to come forward with these proposals.
Mrs. Shephard: No doubt the Minister will come to that in his remarks, but perhaps at the same time he should dispel any doubts that might have been caused by a letter from DEFRA to those invited to the rhizomania technical review meeting on 28 November. The letter quite clearly stated:
"the decision not to continue with the whole protective zone is based on the legal position."
In other words, the decision has been taken, so why are we having the consultation anyway? I expect that the Minister will want to clarify that.
I turn now to the proposal that a protective zone should be maintained in the UK, outside Norfolk and Suffolk. I point out in passing that proposition No. 3—that there should be protected zone status for Scotland, Northern Ireland, Wales and parts of England that are important for growing and exporting seed potatoes—rings a bit hollow in East Anglia, which is also important for growing and exporting seed potatoes.
I wonder whether the Minister knows how the potato industry works in East Anglia. I wonder whether he knows about the importance of field vegetables, or of the investment made in recent years by farmers in irrigation schemes to grow potatoes and field vegetables. Does he realise that his proposal would result in enormous extra costs for those farmers and possibly in the failure of their businesses?
What advice does he have for such farmers about the arrangements that they should make if they grow potatoes and other vegetables in Norfolk and Suffolk that then have to be taken to Cambridgeshire for processing? That movement is far from uncommon. Three quarters of Norfolk's total potato production is moved across the county border for packing and processing. If we accept the proposition to exclude Norfolk and Suffolk from the protection zone, how will that arrangement be policed? Will teams, or swarms, of DEFRA inspectors examine the loads of vegetables that travel across the border? What will be the costs to producers? That has not been thought through.
What would happen to the valuable seed potato export business of, for example, Mr. Tony Bambridge, who farms in Marsham in the constituency of my

49WH
hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Norfolk (Mr. Simpson)? Mr. Bambridge ships seed potatoes worth £150,000 to the Canaries and Europe. He said:
"If we lost our protected one status in these two counties we'll lose the export business to the Canaries."
He added that the Canaries, which take about 120 tonnes of locally grown seed would refuse further orders, because they will not accept seed from non-protected zones. What advice does the Minister have for Mr. Bambridge? Has he taken into account the proposals' effect on the rural economy, which has been devastated over the past five years?
We heard in the previous debate about the close relationship between farming and the rural economy. We heard an interesting illustration of the interrelationship in Norfolk, in which we were told that for every one job directly concerned with agriculture, there were 14 others in the broader rural community. Nowhere can that be more true than in sugar beet, and the production of potatoes and field vegetables. The processing, packing, haulage, labelling and marketing of those products account for a huge sector of the rural economy in East Anglia. There is fear that if we simply ditch the current protected zone status without carefully considering the implications, it will threaten that rural economy further.
I am sure that the Minister is aware of my next point, but I will rehearse it because it will be good to have it on the record. Many farmers have diversified into vegetable production, which is the kind of change that the Government claim to support. At least one of the propositions would pull the rug from under that diversification yet again. The Minister will say, correctly, that he is consulting on the proposals and that the consultation will last until 14 January. I hope that he will say also that DEFRA will be required to define its stance at a meeting well before 14 January—in other words, next week.
What stance will DEFRA take in advance of the consultation's completion? I do not know, but the Minister today has the chance to explain it and allay the industry's fears. As a member of a listening Government, will he undertake not only to listen but to hear what farmers and growers are saying? Will he place what he hears into the wider context of the despair and frustration felt by all in agriculture and in the broader rural community at the lack of understanding? Will he listen, hear and change his stance? We await his response.
12.49 pm
The Minister for Rural Affairs(Alun Michael): I congratulate the right hon. Member for South-West Norfolk (Mrs. Shephard) on initiating our debate on a difficult and intractable problem that seriously affects farmers in her constituency. She has left me little time to reply, but I shall do my best.
I acknowledge the experience, both from her ministerial and her constituency work, that the right hon. Lady brings to the debate. She has considerable knowledge of the sugar industry, but she is wrong to suggest that the industry should have been surprised by the terms of our consultation. This is a good example of the value of Westminster Hall debates. Rhizomania
50WH
means little to most people, but it has the potential to do harm to an important section of the farming industry. It requires sensible and constructive debate.
The right hon. Lady will appreciate that the topic falls outside my portfolio, but I have discussed it in detail with my colleague, Lord Whitty, the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, who has personally engaged with the issue and wants to make progress. We appreciate that farmers in particular areas, such as the right hon. Lady's part of the country, are adversely affected, but we must face up to realities.
One view, expressed last week in Farmers Weekly, is that we should vigorously defend the country's rhizo-free status. That is everyone's sincere desire, but how can we realistically argue for such status when we are clearly not rhizo-free? The right hon. Lady referred to an article in the Eastern Daily Press, which suggested that Europe was not worried about this country's disease status. We were concerned about those remarks. Firstly, plant health falls under DG Sanco and is therefore the responsibility of Commissioner David Byrne. Officials here spoke to Commission staff, who confirmed that no such meeting occurred and that no such statement about the protection zone has been made.
I must make it clear that we are not ditching anything. The protection zone can be proposed only by the Commission, which is not prepared to do so because of the lack of support by other member states. I can provide the details. Our consultation was a response to that clear position.
The right hon. Lady made passing reference to the "everything but arms" initiative, but it was not our initiative. Only last week Lord Whitty was congratulated by farmers on the good result in Europe to protect the sugar beet sector.
Mrs. Shephard: Will the Minister give way?
Alun Michael: The right hon. Lady has left me little time to respond to a long debate.
Mrs. Shephard: I gave way twice.
Alun Michael: Very well, but it will diminish the reply even further.
Mrs. Shephard: Several points could be made. First, I doubt whether the Government would have done anything about "everything but arms", were it not for the intervention of the official Opposition. Secondly, does the Minister agree that the right way forward for the sugar beet industry is to develop disease-free varieties? Will his proposals afford the industry enough time to complete that necessary work?
Alun Michael: The right hon. Lady's signature on the early-day motion proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Peter Bradley) demonstrates some support on the Opposition side for our approach. However, she diminishes her case by seeking to make it partisan, just as she diminishes the time available for my reply.
The problem is at its greatest in Norfolk and Suffolk, but we need to take into account the needs of growers in the rest of the country. That is evident in the options on

51WH
which DEFRA is currently consulting the industry. DEFRA set out the position as realistically as possible in a consultation document published last month. We need to engage the industry on how best to move forward. I hope that that debate will help the industry to respond. Lord Whitty and our officials will work with the industry to develop the best possible strategy.
We would be more than happy to listen to alternatives to the three suggested options, but the right hon. Lady well knows that the debate on how to deal with rhizomania has gone on for years. No one has yet come forward with a magic wand. The Government's role, as it was when the right hon. Lady was a Minister, is to help an industry that rightly prides itself on its efficiency and competitiveness to deal with a serious problem that has dogged it for years.
The solution is neither simple nor a matter for the Government alone, and the industry must continue to be proactive in coping with the problem. There is no quick fix. The suggestion that the UK has a chance of defending its rhizo-free status does not move the debate forward, because it cannot seriously be suggested that that is a realistic option. All protected zones are subject to annual reports that suggest their continuation, and those reports are reviewed to see whether the status is justified. Our status is due to expire at the end of March 2002, so we are reviewing future options.
Areas in which the disease is established—where it is known to occur and where official eradication measures have proved ineffective for at least two successive years—cannot be recognised as protected zones. Rhizomania must be considered to be established in the UK, especially in Norfolk and Suffolk. We fought hard for the last two extensions of the whole zone, and several member states have made it clear that they will not accept any further extension. It is a non-starter to try to negotiate that, which will not come as news to the industry.
The European Commission and most member states have long challenged the validity of the UK's claim to meet the criteria for protected zone status. Nevertheless, officials successfully argued for several extensions between 1993 and now. The last extension was in 1999, and the industry was warned that no further extension would be considered acceptable. That uncomfortable position was made clear in meetings with the industry, which representatives of the National Farmers Union and British Sugar attended, and it was reinforced in subsequent correspondence.
If an outcome is desirable but not achievable, it does no one any favours to ignore reality. That is why Lord Whitty made it clear that standing still is not an option. The ideal way forward would be to develop an eradication programme to combat this degenerative disease. The argument is that if the disease can be
52WH
isolated, which it can, it should be possible to eradicate it. However, neither the Government nor the industry have yet identified a way to do so without restrictions that would totally disrupt the industry. For some years, the industry and the Government have worked together to manage the disease, and they were doing so when the right hon. Lady was a Minister. She acknowledged that in a 1994 MAFF news release when she said that MAFF's policy was to contain the spread of rhizomania in Britain as far as was practical and reasonable.
That was an accurate and reasonable statement. Even then, the right hon. Lady was not talking confidently about eradication. There is no easy solution. The problem is that the disease is difficult to eradicate, and the immediate challenge is to limit its spread while making progress on other fronts, such as the development and introduction of disease-resistant strains. Given the long period—10 to 15 years—over which the disease develops before symptoms appear, any extension of the disease over the next two or three years will be the result of existing infections rather than any newly introduced infection.
That is why we have proposed three options, of which the right hon. Lady is aware, to maintain a protected zone for the UK outside Norfolk and Suffolk. The first option would end the regulated pest status for rhizomania in Norfolk and Suffolk, which would release some 3,000 growers from regulatory control. The second option would drop the protected zone status for the whole country, which would end official involvement in the disease. Statutory notices would be lifted from the 209 growers who have rhizomania outbreaks on their land. The third option would be to retain protected zone status for selected non-beet—growing areas. Certain areas would retain protected zone status to provide safeguards for exports. Some surveillance would continue to be required in those areas to ensure that rhizomania remained absent and that any growers with outbreaks of the disease on their land would remain subject to statutory notice.
There is no doubt that the industry and Government will have to co-operate and work hard, but neither officials nor the industry have yet found some magic that will change the whole situation. The industry's challenge is to respond as positively and constructively as possible to the consultation document. My ministerial colleagues and I have indicated our willingness to listen to any suggestions. Lord Whitty will certainly fight the UK case in Brussels, but he must show that the industry and the Government have a sensible, united approach that reflects the facts. Everyone must accept that the status quo is not an option. I urge the right hon. Lady to seek to persuade people in her constituency—I have no doubts about the importance of the topic and the effect that it will have on them —
Mr. Win Griffiths (in the Chair): Order. We now come to a debate on house improvement grants.

House Improvement Grants
1 pm
Mr. Austin Mitchell: It is with pleasure that I initiate the Adjournment debate on house improvement grants in North East Lincolnshire. It is a major issue that has repercussions in other areas but is a particular problem for us. I, my hon. Friend the Member for Cleethorpes (Shona McIsaac), with whom I work closely, and councillors have all had representations from people living in unhealthy conditions in damp, substandard accommodation. They live on benefits and are therefore entitled to home improvement grants. People over 60 and vulnerable people—those who belong to excluded groups and whom the Government have a policy to help—who have applied for improvement grants have been told that nothing is available. Indeed, a constituent in despair about his treatment and place on the list told me that he would be dead by the time he got a house improvement grant, if he got one at all. That is not fair or reasonable.
There is a lot of older housing stock in North East Lincolnshire.
Shona McIsaac: Much of the older stock in my hon. Friend's constituency and in mine is leasehold property that the freeholders have done little to improve. Many leases are expiring, and the result is that the condition of properties in our towns is particularly poor.
Mr. Mitchell: I thank my hon. Friend for that apposite and true comment. That is another subject on which we have stuck together and argued as one. The original leaseholders, many of them members of aristocratic families, often sold leaseholds to companies that use them to extract profit. Those companies do not put anything back. They demand high prices for the sale of the leasehold but have done nothing about the state of the property. That adds to the problem.
The basic problem is that we have so much older housing. We have lots of terraced housing, which was built in the late 19th or early 20th century when Grimsby was a boom town and fishing was expanding rapidly. Some of it was renovated 30 years ago with the help of improvement grants. At that time, under Labour—and the Conservatives, to a lesser degree—the hills were alive with the sound of hammers, as housing was improved everywhere, particularly in Grimsby. However, that only gave it another 30 years of life—that was the intention—and that time is up. That housing stock now needs further improvement to maintain its condition, and many houses were not improved at that time. Deteriorating older housing is a huge problem.
We have a further local problem. North East Lincolnshire council is doing its best in spite of horrendous financial difficulties, which have been caused by the fact that the Government have not been as generous to and supportive of local government as they should be—particularly towards Labour local authorities, of course. I believe that local authorities, which are on the front line in dealings with the electorate and in the battle against exclusion, have been badly treated. Funding has been increased, but new duties have been piled on, including expensive obligations such
54WH
as best value. As a result, North East Lincolnshire council has been plunged into a financial crisis of a scale that it never faced under the Tories. We have had to envisage and carry through cuts that were never imposed on us by a Conservative Government.
Leisure services have practically gone. The national fishing heritage centre, of which we are inordinately proud in Grimsby, has had to close for the winter. It is ludicrous for a prize-winning national museum to be closed because there is not enough money to keep it going.
We have had a mass shedding of both officers and employees. The council house renovation programme has been too slow and had too little money in the face of declining stock. It is a horrendous problem and it has affected what the council can do in respect of grants. It is not their fault. It is the Government's fault for not allocating sufficient money to local authorities. Councils carry the can while the Government, with a hypocrisy that has to be seen to be believed—I know that there will be no such hypocrisy from my hon. Friend the Minister today since she knows local government well—tell them, as Lord Falconer did, that they have to provide the service but there is no need for the Government to provide the money for it. Now that is hypocrisy and it is impossible. It is the kind of double-talk that damages relations between central and local government, and particularly damages relations with the electorate.
Another problem is the economic difficulties that the area faces. My area is one of economic disadvantage and has high unemployment. We have less public spending per head—£1,000 a year less than Scotland—yet our unemployment problem is worse.
Shona McIsaac: I do not know whether my hon. Friend noticed in the pre-Budget statement last week that the most disadvantaged wards in this country would be exempted from stamp duty and property transfer. Five of those wards are in our constituencies: two in mine and three in my hon. Friend's. Croft Baker park, north-east marsh and the south wards are the very places where housing stock exists, and the Government have therefore recognised the poverty and the disadvantage of our area in the pre-Budget statement. Yet we cannot seem to translate that into helping our residents with home improvement grants.
Mr. Mitchell: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that valid interjection. The Government are doing their best but the concession on stamp duty is not much use to wards like those in our constituencies where house values are so low. We have higher unemployment, dependency and deprivation, and we need help.
Renovating the housing stock is a key part of local renovation. It stimulates the local economy, provides jobs and work, stimulates materials supply and improves people's conditions, particularly single parent families and the old. It must also produce savings in health because a drier and efficiently heated house is a healthier house, so it must cut spending on health and social services. It needs to be a priority, and it is barmy not to give it a higher priority than we have done. I am ashamed that the Government have been less generous than the Conservatives were in that respect.
There is a real problem when it comes to house improvement grants. We have a priority list. To be on that list, people must be living in a house that is unfit and

55WH
needs substantial renovation. They must also be on means-tested benefits, because grants are not handed out promiscuously as they were in the 1970s and 1980s. They are targeted to those on means-tested benefits.
There are 1,150 people on the waiting list; the total cost of renovating their premises at £8,000 a house would be £9.5 million and no funds have been allocated. There are 40 new inquiries a year; last year there were 106 new allocations on the waiting list. I understand from North East Lincolnshire that four people have been on that list since September 1992. No wonder they are beginning to feel that they will be dead before anything is done. It takes 3.6 years, not to get the improvements, but just to get on to the waiting list. What can I say to people who have been waiting since 1992? What prospect can I hold out to them that something will be done?
Demand is rising as stock deteriorates. Word is getting around that no money is available and people are not applying, but as the waiting list increases, less money is allocated. Capital spending guidance on house improvements is £1.6 million when the need is £9.5 million. The allocation for home improvements to those on the list was £160,000, but the demand is for £9.5 million. We need £4.15 million for those in unfit housing and on benefit. We need £2.8 million for those aged over 60 and in an unfit house—a fate that should not be inflicted on old people in North East Lincolnshire or anywhere else. For those aged over 60, on means-tested benefits and in an unfit house, £1.7million is needed to renovate the houses. Those figures do not include disabled facility grants or inquiries from the over-60s, which would cost another £4.6 million. Money is rightly allocated for disabled facility grants—it is ring-fenced—but the demand for those grants is £850,000 above the allocation.
North East Lincolnshire cannot afford to supplement the cases that it accepts because, like most authorities, it does not have the money. Some disabled people are living in conditions that need to be improved but that is not being done, and demand is growing rapidly as the population ages. Even the Member of Parliament is ageing, but the population is ageing even more. About 12 per cent. of our privately owned stock of houses are simply unfit and the total sum needed is £56 million. Too little is being done about that huge problem. The question is what the Government are going to do about it. More money is needed. It is hypocritical to say that North East Lincolnshire can squeeze more spending from its budget—it cannot. It is no use considering equity withdrawal plans, as they are not relevant in an area with low, static house prices and deteriorating stock. Discussion about new initiatives in low-cost loans are not relevant either, as people in the area are too poor to take up such loans, and house values are too low.
It is good to have energy-efficiency measures, but they should be part of home improvement. Energy-efficiency measures cannot be carried out without a home improvement grant and they add £1,100 per property, so another cost is incurred. The only hope of dealing with
56WH
all those costs is a greater Government allocation to the area. Money should be allocated, tied to improvement grants and dedicated to regenerating the local economy.
The Government are doing very well on our two priorities of education and health; a lot more has been spent and there have been improvements, as most people perceive. However, there is no united policy on housing, which is also a problem sector. There are lots of bitty initiatives but no pulling together, and housing, especially the crucial matter of improving the existing housing stock, is not given priority. It affects not only health but education and the ability to study. The appalling conditions and damp in which some people live make it impossible to study or perhaps even to go to school, which may result in exclusions.
The next comprehensive spending review must give greater priority to housing. There should be four priority areas, not just two, and the last one should be transport. We need a big allocation, but most importantly we need action now. The Government have a major responsibility for the depressing situation in North East Lincolnshire and they must help us. They must stop the double-talk about how it is a local council responsibility and they have allocated enough money—they have not. The Government must help us to cut through all the complexities and give our constituents, who are central to us and to North East Lincolnshire, the good housing conditions in which they deserve to live.
1.15 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions(Ms Sally Keeble): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) on securing the debate and on the way in which he has represented the interests of North East Lincolnshire. I know that many hon. Members are deeply concerned about the plight of everyone in poor-quality housing, especially the elderly and vulnerable. I certainly share that concern.
All hon. Members present have seen the appalling housing conditions that some people have to tolerate. We find it staggering that such conditions still exist at the beginning of the 21st century and that old people who have served their country live in conditions that they find unacceptable, with leaking roofs and damp. A number of them own their homes, whereas others are leaseholders. My hon. Friend the Member for Cleethorpes (Shona McIsaac) has raised that issue separately, and we are all aware of particular problems in that part of the country.
I agree that quality of housing has a fundamental impact on quality of life and that it affects a range of other things that happen to a person. That is why the Government have made improving housing standards a priority. I shall briefly explain what we are doing, particularly about the private sector, because that is really what my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby talked about. I shall start with a few words about our policy in general and then deal with my hon. Friend's area.
Our overall objective is that everyone should have the opportunity to have a decent home. That covers all tenures. I am particularly concerned to ensure that we help the poorest private home owners, especially those

57WH
who are elderly. Helping people to stay in their own homes is not only economically sensible but, usually, what they want.
It is not true that we have a worse funding record than the Conservatives. When we came to power, we inherited spending plans that would have given us only £1.5 billion for capital investment in housing across all tenures in 1997. We recognised that that was not acceptable, and since then a number of different measures have increased financing. For 2003–04, capital investment will be more than £4 billion. This year, local authorities will receive about £2.3 billion.
I fully recognise, however, that even those sums of money mean that we shall have to make choices. The Government decided in the first instance to focus our attention on the social stock. It is unacceptable that public sector landlords should offer poor-quality accommodation, so we set a target of bringing all social housing up to a decent standard by 2010.
We made two important changes to the financial framework for local authorities. First, we earmarked the sum that each authority needed to keep its housing stock in good repair. This year's sum amounts to about £1.6 billion, which leaves £700 million for other capital spending. Secondly, we gave local authorities discretion over how to use the remaining £700 million. For some, the priority will be investment in new social housing; for others, the top priority will be private sector housing.
Let me now deal with the problems of North East Lincolnshire council. As I looked through all the information about my hon. Friend's area, I thought that there were three particular problems. The first is the scale of unfit private sector stock, which is 12 per cent.—the second highest figure in the region. Secondly, economic restructuring, especially in the port hinterland area, has adversely affected the income of owner-occupiers who are unable to deal with those problems, which is what one would expect to happen. I accept that in many instances the people concerned are elderly. My hon. Friend has previously discussed the housing problems of Grimsby's grannies, and he has discussed them again today. Thirdly, low demand and alternative housing opportunities are undermining the stability and level of investment in some older housing. The council does not believe that the situation is likely to improve, because existing permissions for new build will attract homebuyers away from urban centres, including the port hinterland.
As I mentioned earlier, North East Lincolnshire council has benefited from the national increase in funding, and I shall discuss the problems associated with that later in my speech. When we came to power, the previous Government's expenditure plans provided the council with a housing allocation of £2.37 million for 1997–98, which included £228,000 for the disabled facilities grant. Since then, the allocation has increased to £6.43 million for this year, which includes £333,000 for the disabled facilities grant. The disabled facilities grant has increased, and money provided for housing has risen by 171 per cent. since 1997–98. The council's 2001–02 allocation was up 48 per cent. on that of the previous year, which is more than the national average increase.
58WH
We shall shortly announce the allocation for 2002–03. Without giving too much away, I expect there to be good news for North East Lincolnshire for next year. My hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby suggests that there still will not be enough money to meet the needs of North East Lincolnshire. I am sure that if other hon. Members were here, they would make the same point about their constituencies, especially if they were in the north of Britain.
Local authorities must ensure that they use their resources to best effect. We would all like to allocate more resources, but we have tough choices to make in allocating resources nationally. Local authorities make similar choices at local level, and next year they will have greater discretion in those choices when the single capital pot comes into effect. They will be able to decide how to spend their money, which should enable them to make choices that more accurately reflect local need. I cannot make commitments today in advance of the spending review, but I assure my hon. Friends the Members for Great Grimsby and for Cleethorpes that the need for investment in poor-condition housing is being closely examined as part of the spending review.
That does not mean that we are doing nothing to help now. We are taking several initiatives to deal with the problems identified by my hon. Friend. We are reforming the rules governing how local authorities give grants to home owners. We shall place before the House a proposal for a regulatory reform order to sweep away most of the detailed rules surrounding grants. That will give local authorities, as part of their housing strategies, greater flexibility to help home owners with repairs. For instance, it will allow greater opportunities to offer preferential or interest-free loans. We shall issue guidance on the reforms, which will include detailed help with offering financial advice, loans regulations and, more generally, how the new powers can be used by local authorities. We are also addressing the problems of leaseholders, and my hon. Friend the Member for Cleethorpes is aware of that.
We are taking action to tackle fuel poverty through the home energy efficiency scheme. With a budget of more than £600 million, we expect to reach about 800,000 vulnerable households in England by 2004. Warm home grants of up to £2,000 for heating and insulation are available to the elderly arid families with children on benefits.
In some areas, where houses are beyond the point at which they can be repeatedly repaired or renovated, clearance may be the only practical option. We recognise the need to improve the operation of the compulsory purchase and compensation system. Last week we published a new compulsory purchase procedure manual to enable authorities to use their powers more effectively. In the longer term, we have also committed ourselves to streamlining and improving legislation governing compulsory purchase.
Finally, we have increased funding for home improvement agencies. Such agencies are small teams attached to local authorities. They visit the elderly and vulnerable and help them to apply for grants, so that they can continue to live in their own homes. I am pleased to note that there is a home improvement agency in North East Lincolnshire that receives, I believe, £30,000 from the Government.

59WH
However, there is also the question of the responsibilities of local authorities. My hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby said that he considered it inappropriate for central Government simply to pass the buck, as it were, but I do not see things that way. Central and local government are working together to meet the housing needs of his constituents. Given the needs and the increased resources that we have allocated, it is surprising that the current private sector programme in North East Lincolnshire is only about a quarter of that proposed by the council in its housing investment programme submission for the financial year 2001–02. It is also significantly less than what was achieved in the previous three financial years.
The plans that we have seen for North East Lincolnshire do not appear to account for all the housing resources that one might expect to be available. I have been unable to find out from the local authority why that is, but I shall certainly do so in the coming days. I shall write to my hon. Friend on the matter, so that he has all the information at the Department's disposal.
Mr. Mitchell: I accept that point, but there is a further problem. Housing associations, particularly those involved in the self-build scheme operated by Doorstep, are finding that house prices in North East Lincolnshire are too low to justify new social housing build. We are trapped in a vicious circle, but the fact remains that people often want to start out in, and go on living in, terraced housing. That is the point at issue in today's debate.
Ms Keeble: There is a clear need for a long-term private sector housing strategy, which, given the nature of the population as identified by my hon. Friend, must also include housing for older people. The strategy must
60WH
also be linked to wider regeneration plans. The Government sent that message in its feedback to the council, which took up the issue in its best value performance plan. The plan mentioned the need to look at an alternative to renovation, given the scale of the problem.
I urge my hon. Friend to talk to the council about how the process can be taken forward. The housing department in his area was recently reorganised and is now on a footing to make such progress. In the longer term, that is the most sustainable and viable way to tackle some of the deep-seated problems that he has identified. Several other local authorities have taken that route, which is the only real alternative to repeatedly patching up houses that are often deteriorating faster than they can be repaired.
Shona McIsaac: Given all the initiatives that my hon. Friend the Minister has mentioned, and given that 12 per cent. of the housing stock in our area is unfit for habitation, when will the stock be improved, so that we can tell the residents who visit us week after week when they will see a solution to their very serious problems?
Ms Keeble: I shall deal briefly with two issues, one of which is the disabled facilities grant to which my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby referred. As he knows, there remains the opportunity to apply for additional funds. Of course, top-up is needed, but the rule applies across the country and it should deal with some of the associated problems.
The best way to offer constituents concrete solutions is for central and local government to work together on a strategy to resolve the problems. That will have to take on board constituents' views to ensure that there is an agreed way forward for their homes. I urge my hon. Friends to do that, and thank them for raising the issues today.

Road Links and Hospital Reorganisation
1.30 pm
Dr. John Pugh: I am pleased to initiate the debate and to see that the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health, the hon. Member for Salford (Ms Blears), is the Minister who will reply. I have much respect for her, which increased recently when I discovered that she is a member of the parliamentary tap dancing team. I feel that democracy is in safe hands when Ministers are prepared to make fools of themselves by tap dancing. I applaud that.
I want to analyse a problem with local and national dimensions: the taking forward of hospital reorganisation proposals without much thought being given to the road and transport infrastructure surrounding them. That problem, with its national and local aspect, goes to the heart of joined-up government.
I understand, as does the Minister, the motives for hospital reorganisation. It seems transparent that part of the motivation is financial, which is nothing to be ashamed of. We want to make the best use of resources, and because of economies of scale, hospitals must be reorganised at times. I also understand the strong imperatives concerning clinical demands. Much research has shown that if units and services are concentrated, their success rates are substantially improved. I do not disagree with that, and I see why hospital organisation sometimes has to happen. If it did not, we would be a country of cottage hospitals and only a few main city hospitals.
The Minister, and anyone who studies the issue, will accept, however, that there is a downside. The moment that hospital reorganisation is mentioned, local loyalties come into play. People do not want their services moved from the place where they are used to finding them to another area. There can be suspicion about the motives that might lie behind the reorganisation enterprise. We should be aware that the sole independent Member of Parliament got elected because of misgivings about hospital reorganisation. I express no view on whether those are justified, but simply point out that it is a contentious matter.
Hospital reorganisation, if it involves centralising facilities, often makes individuals more remote from the services that they require and seek. Their travelling times are appreciably lengthened, and their anxiety about what might befall them if they have to make such a journey, especially in an emergency, increases. There are strong arguments to reassure those people. I am told by ambulance services, and I believe them, that when a person is in an emergency situation, the most important thing is the, immediate help that they receive, which is often delivered by paramedics. Once they have got hold of a person, he or she is, in a sense, in safe hands, and travelling distance is not as critical to survival as that first service.
The record of cottage hospitals is not unblemished. They are quaint, pleasant and supported by the local community, but they have not had the clinical outcomes and success rates that some bigger, more anonymous institutions have had. I also accept that, as medicine develops, there is a need for expensive resources not to be distributed everywhere but to be concentrated in the hands of those who genuinely know how to use them. Expertise and equipment must be concentrated.
62WH
I recognise that there is a counter-argument to mine. However, any case of this order is substantially weakened if routes, especially those for emergency services, are poor. The maternity service is not actually classified as an emergency service, but I imagine that if I were imminently expecting I would want to get to hospital as quickly as possible and by the shortest and most satisfactory route. Extending routes for such services gives rise to serious concerns.
Another set of anxieties relates to the fact that we have an increasingly ageing population. Evidently, many people in hospital will be of the older generation, but many of the visitors who come to give them the support that is necessary for their recovery also have to make the journey to the hospital. Those facilities, whether by public transport or other routes, are often poor. That is a problem not only in terms of difficulty and inconvenience but in a clinical sense. Without regular visits the patient can often lack the psychological support that is necessary for a complete and satisfactory recovery.
The Minister will probably readily assent to what I have said, because it is a sensible way of looking at things and I know that the Department of Health is mindful of all the factors surrounding any kind of hospital reorganisation, highlights them where necessary and does not shy away from them. However, it probably plays an insufficient role in relation to transport considerations.
I want to draw attention to an example in my constituency, which has undergone a process of hospital reorganisation. At one stage, there was a Southport and Formby district general hospital—one building serving one community. The Southport and Formby NHS trust was merged with the Ormskirk trust because they were thought, as individual trusts, to be too small and incapable of providing the full range of services. Southport is the larger town; Ormskirk is substantial, but more rurally placed in central Lancashire. Of course, Southport and Formby are on the coast.
A contentious review of facilities was carried out by Professor Shields, who suggested that paediatric and maternity services should go to Ormskirk and cardiac services to Southport. That is fine unless one has a baby that needs delivering in Southport or a heart attack in Ormskirk—and not only Ormskirk, as Professor Shields pointed out. Beyond Ormskirk, around Skelmersdale, there is an area served by the Ormskirk trust consisting of a highly deprived group of people who do not have their own transport and lack any easy means of getting to Southport should they wish to visit a cardiac patient there.
Understandably, there was a lot of local opposition to the proposals. The previous MPs for Southport, Matthew Banks and Ronnie Fearn, were from different political parties but unanimous in their opposition. The reorganisation was also opposed in part or in total by the hon. Members for Crosby (Mrs. Curtis-Thomas)—Formby is in her constituency—and for West Lancashire (Mr. Pickthall), who is similarly affected, and by Sefton and West Lancashire councils.
There was a whole tranche of opposition across the board, but a key theme was transport. I accept that it was not the only issue. For example, a section of opinion took the view that it was fundamentally wrong for

63WH
anybody born in Southport not to have the right for their children to be born in Southport, and others were worried about whether services would be enhanced or simply rearranged for purely financial reasons. The hospital trusts were firmly behind the proposals but they, every political representative in the area and Professor Shields, who wrote the report, recognised that transport was a core element in the problem. He stated almost at the beginning of the report:
"Although the hospitals are over 7 miles apart, public transport by bus is sparse, rail services between the hospitals is non-existent, and the connecting roads poor and frequently congested.
Transport is an issue. There is a road link and it would be silly if I did not own that there is, but it is a poor road designed for agriculture. Tractors often bar the way and in the summer it is flooded with holiday traffic of one sort or another. An ambulance going against the tide would have problems.
At the time of Shields, palliatives were suggested. Suggestions were made about a helicopter being used to take people over the congested road on bank holidays and so on. People talked blithely of a better bus system, but we have seen little evidence of that. The helicopter concept is a poor solution for overcoming transport difficulties because it is expensive and is not used in the winter or at night. Nor is it practicable for people with spinal injuries and injuries of that ilk.
The problem remains. One would like to think that an easy solution is on the horizon and I am soliciting the Minister's support for a move towards a solution. In the past, the routine might have been to go to the Department responsible for transport, point to the general need and stress what was required for it to be sorted out in Westminster. For sound democratic reasons, transport is not dealt with in that way today. Many roads have been de-trunked and that has led to road schemes having to be developed within local transport plans. In the case that we are considering, a local transport plan would be decided by Lancashire county council. I am not suggesting that the council does not want to build a road, but it is not its main priority at the moment. It is considering—I solicit the Minister's support for this—the possibility of an Ormskirk bypass, which would improve the problem for people travelling from Skelmersdale to Southport, but I emphasise that the problem is not such a priority for Lancashire as it is for the hospital system.
I shall not detain the Minister excessively, but I want to solicit support for her Department to make representations to various people, including the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, and the Government office for the north-west region. I implore her to use whatever persuasive skills she has with Lancashire county council. However, the Department of Health cannot justifiably walk away from the problem.
The Shields report said at paragraph 8.9.3 that accessibility of the appropriate hospital service would always remain a problem given the paucity of public transport and the congested and poor roads. I do not blame the Department of Health for congested and poor roads, but there is some mileage in the Department's putting its weight behind any proposal to improve the road structure.
64WH
I shall add a few strings to that bow. There is a sound regeneration case for a better road and there is a sound operational need case for the hospital to have a better road because junior doctors could use it in times of crisis.
This is a fundamental request to the Minister on a matter that is important to my constituents. Local people have spotted a loophole in current Government arrangements. No doubt, had I been an important member of a Government party in the past and the Department of Health had reconfigured the hospitals in my area, I would sidle up to people or talk confidingly to transport Ministers and something would happen. However, that method is susceptible to serious abuse or miscalculation of priorities. If, after consultation, the Department decrees a national arrangement, the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions should have input into what is done about transport. If the Minister responds positively to that request, she will go up further in my estimation.
1.45 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Ms Hazel Blears): I genuinely congratulate the hon. Member for Southport (Dr. Pugh) on securing the debate. He has highlighted the need for a coherent approach to transport and health. The link is not made often enough, yet transport in its widest sense has a huge impact on people's health and well-being. Apart from transport between hospitals, it is also relevant because of pollution and congestion, which we all face every day.
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his kind remarks about my extra-curricular activities. I understand that he has a degree in logic. That may not be as foolish as tap dancing, but I am sure that it is equally enjoyable.
The local and transport planners interact with the national health service in the design of new hospitals and the reconfiguration of existing facilities. The Government set the overall framework in which service enhancements and developments take place, and provide the crucial resources that the NHS needs to facilitate those changes. As the hon. Gentleman accepts, the NHS can never stand still. As technology develops and public expectations increase, services are in a constant state of flux.
People who work in the NHS feel that they are experiencing constant change. That is not necessarily a bad thing because we want to improve the quality of local services. The need to combine quality with access is a challenge, and it is difficult to strike the right balance. In an increasingly complex health system, having every service on everybody's doorstep is no longer a practical proposition. Equally, we must guard against the creation of a huge monolithic organisation, which would be in danger of losing its connection with the local community. It is a difficult balance to strike, but we try to do so all the time.
Local health planners—whether at regional office, trust, or in future, primary care trust level—must strike the right balance between the convenience of local services and the requirement to concentrate services for reasons of excellence, safety and quality. Many needs can and should be met locally. The NHS tends to concentrate on the hospital, the secondary centre or the

65WH
tertiary specialist centre. However, 90 per cent. of people's interaction with the NHS takes place at primary care level, and increasingly at intermediate care level, so that people can be cared for closer to home. The NHS should work in different ways and is doing so throughout the country as clinical networks provide services closer to people's homes. That may be a future direction for change.
We must take advantage of new technological developments and one of the most exciting is telemedicine. If hospitals are located in different sites and clinicians are treating people from different communities, it is more economical, gives higher quality and fulfils safety requirements for consultants to communicate directly with each other via telemedicine. I can tell the hon. Gentleman that telemedicine is being considered in his two local hospitals. A broadband microwave link has been established between the hospitals so that consultants on one site can assist with treatment at the other. I am told that there is a direct line of sight between the two units, which apparently makes this an ideal location for a pilot scheme to begin to get more people involved in that kind of telemedicine. This may well help. It will not reduce the need for people to travel, but perhaps not as many people will have to travel quite so often if they are able to use the new technology in this way. Clearly there are also worries about changes in configuring services where travelling does present difficulties.
Dr. Pugh: Clearly, in the case of surgical practice, telemedicine can be of some avail. However, in the maternity service, for example, even if a patient wants a medically assisted—not just midwife—delivery for their baby, telemedicine can play no part. They will essentially have to make the journey, and on a narrow and fairly unattractive road.
Ms Blears: I did not say for one moment that there are not certain specialties in which travelling is essential.
However, the requirements for people to travel all the time can be reduced as clinicians change the way in which they practice their specialties. I accept entirely that there are services where travel is a necessity and that people will worry about that. The right strategy is for the health service to work not just with local authorities that are responsible for developing unitary development plans, but with regional authorities that are responsible for transport links across the region. At national level, they can try to work with the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions to make sure that our national strategy takes health issues on board.
The Department of Health has a responsibility to work at all those levels to try to make sure that connections are made in a very practical way. We need to try to keep people out of hospital as much as we possibly can because that certainly obviates the need for them to travel. Much more emphasis on preventive work and on supporting people in their own homes is a top priority.
Equally, we need to get people out of hospital as quickly as we can. If people are subject to delayed discharge and remain in hospital in acute wards when they no longer need to, there are all the attendant problems that the hon. Gentleman has raised about
66WH
visitors having to travel in order to support them and to help with their recovery. If we can get people discharged from acute hospitals into intermediate care settings closer to home and then back into their own homes with support, the need for travel will be reduced quite dramatically.
As the hon. Gentleman will know we have allocated £300 million nationally to tackle the problem of delayed discharge and we hope that many more people will be cared for at home rather than lingering in an inappropriate acute hospital setting.
The hon. Gentleman also acknowledged the need for staff to travel as well as patients. The NHS employs over 1 million people. Its infrastructure of buildings is probably the most diverse in western Europe. It operates 24 hours a day, 365 days a year, and nurses doctors therapists and other health care professionals need to get to work and to leave work, often in the middle of the night when public transport may not be available. Road facilities are equally as important to staff.
Whenever we carry out major hospital reconfigurations or build new hospitals, we have to take into account travelling times by public transport and private transport and try to make sure that there is proper car parking, cycle parks and essential access to bus routes in local communities. Planning policy guidance 13 takes into account the need for good transport links in hospital development.
The difficulty is that we never start from a clean sheet and have to look at the situation we are faced with. The hon. Gentleman's constituency has two good local hospitals but pretty poor road links. I understand that the proposal to upgrade the A570 is in fact the number two priority on Lancashire county council's transport plan, and I hope that even if it is not the top priority, being second will mean some action fairly soon.
I am more than happy to say that transport is a key issue in hospital configuration. The Department of Health should be saying to all the parties involved that transport needs to be a priority if we are to make sure that the hospital services are safe and accessible for local people. I am happy to give the hon. Gentleman the assurance that my Department has no intention of walking away from the situation. We will try to do everything that we can to get the road improved. It is a matter for Lancashire county council, and it is committed to putting it high up its agenda.
The two hospitals have struggled for safety reasons with the new requirements from the royal colleges for accreditation of junior doctors. Professor Shields's report has done us a great service in trying to ensure that the two hospitals are configured in a way that provides a wide range of services but maximises the safety and training requirements for the doctors involved. He recommended protocols on accident and emergency services at both Ormskirk and Southport to ensure that paediatric emergencies could be coped with safely and properly.
Ambulance services in the area have had some recent investment. Mersey ambulances received more than £1 million and Lancashire ambulances £330,000 to try to improve their response rate times. They both meet the national standards for responding to emergencies within eight minutes in 75 per cent. of cases, and are doing an

67WH
excellent job. I am told that bus services have improved as well. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will know more than I do, but I am told that the service between Southport and Formby has been reinstated and that scheduled services between Skelmersdale, Ormskirk and Southport have improved. It was suggested that a shuttle bus should be provided, but that would cost about £100,000. The trusts decided that it was not economical but that they would try to improve the bus services between the two hospitals. I know the road myself, as I go to Southport regularly, and there can be a bottleneck in the centre of town. The road should be improved dramatically.
I understand that the ambulance trusts are taking advice on how to improve services by placing their ambulances at appropriate points across the community, rather than being always in ambulance bases. That, too, might limit travelling time. As the hon. Gentleman said, care in the ambulance can sometimes be the key to a good outcome for patients. We have invested in 12 lead ECG machines on ambulances, together with telemedicine links to the hospital, so that we can have immediate diagnoses of people, particularly with heart attacks, and improve survival rates.
The situation outlined by the hon. Gentleman is full of challenges. Professor Shields did his best in his report to reconcile a series of competing interests. What impressed me most about the report was that he went out to experience the transport problems and drove the road himself. Not every consultant or expert that we call in is prepared to test out the system personally. Professor Shields's recommendations were robust and based on real evidence of the situation in the community, and they appear to have the support of all the parties in the area, which is a difficult balance to achieve when people are worried about local hospital services.
Dr. Pugh: I should be wrong if I did not state my exact position. I was opposed to the reconfiguration in the form that it took for reasons other than those of transport, but I recognise that transport was the
68WH
problem that everybody, including Professor Shields, singled out as a fundamental flaw in the scheme. Professor Shields appears to say that the road should be built, but it is not within his remit to recommend that roads be built. The fact that he drove it and recorded that in his report shows that he expects not the Department of Health but someone to address the problem.
Ms Blears: I dispute the argument that Professor Shields decided that the road was a fundamental flaw. He decided that it was a substantial issue and problem. Nevertheless, his recommendations for reconfiguration took into account wider clinical and service quality issues, not only those of access. The hon. Gentleman, and most Members of Parliament, frequently face the difficulty of trying to reconcile such competing issues within their communities.
We can take several practical measures, as I have outlined. We can try to prevent people from having to go to hospital and get them out as quickly as possible after they have received appropriate care. We can try to care for people and ensure that diagnostic facilities, including test, X-ray and pathology services, are provided as close to home as possible so that the patient does not constantly have to travel to the service. That is fundamental.
If we are serious about designing a system around the needs of patients, we must examine those considerations rather than simply the bricks and mortar. We should consider the services and what suits patients and, if we use a little more imagination and creativity, we can design our services so that people are not faced with the difficult transport problems outlined by the hon. Gentleman. I am glad that he has brought them to our attention and I will do what I can in the Department of Health to try to ensure that the transport issues are addressed.
Once again, I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on raising those important matters on behalf of his constituents.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at one minute to Two o'clock.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Export Credits
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on the Government's policy on the provision of export credits for military equipment. [18608]

  Ms Hewitt
  Export credits for the sale of all goods and technology controlled for strategic reasons are subject to an export licence being issued by the Department of Trade and Industry's Export Control Organisation. All export licence applications are scrutinised rigorously and considered on a case-by-case basis against the Consolidated EU and national arms export licensing criteria.

  Export credit support for defence sales to 63 of the poorest developing countries is not generally available. New export credits extended by ECGD to these countries have been restricted to "productive expenditure" that would benefit economic and social development. The OECD Statement of Principles on Official Export Credit Support to Heavily Indebted Poor Countries limits the productive expenditure criteria to the 41 HIPC's.

  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what were the outstanding amounts of ECGD guarantees in respect of defence equipment broken down by country for the financial years(a) 1999–2000 and (b) 2000–01. [18750]

  Ms Hewitt
  The breakdown of the amount outstanding at the close of each of the financial years on ECGD guarantees for defence equipment and services was as follows:

  £ million

  Market

  Amount outstanding

  Financial year 1999–2000

  Algeria

  97.8

  Brazil

  27.8

  Brunei Darussalam

  441.0

  Chile

  18.9

  Egypt

  46.1

  Greece

  20.8

  India

  13.1

  Indonesia

  745.5

  Iran, Islamic Republic of

  1.3

  Italy

  4.2

  Jordan

  253.8

  Kenya

  16.7

  Korea, Republic of

  68.9

  Kuwait

  167.9

  Lithuania

  2.9

  Malaysia

  251.5

  Nigeria

  145.4

  Oman

  486.7

  Qatar

  151.4

  Saudi Arabia

  1,000.0

  Singapore

  6.3

  Spain

  38.1

  146W

  £ million

  Market

  Amount outstanding

  Sweden

  5.0

  Thailand

  20.0

  Turkey

  332.9

  United Arab Emirates

  2.2

  United States

  61.8

  Zimbabwe

  3.0

  £ million

  Market

  Amount outstanding

  Financial year 2000–01

  Algeria

  95.5

  Brazil

  22.3

  Brunei Darussalam

  344.1

  Chile

  17.6

  Egypt

  43.0

  Greece

  62.6

  India

  10.7

  Indonesia

  729.4

  Iran, Islamic Republic of

  1.3

  Italy

  4.2

  Jordan

  252.7

  Kenya

  10.8

  Korea, Republic of

  57.4

  Kuwait

  90.8

  Lithuania

  1.4

  Malaysia

  158.3

  Nigeria

  145.4

  Oman

  387.2

  Qatar

  91.8

  Saudi Arabia

  1,000.0

  Singapore

  4.3

  South Africa

  839.4

  Spain

  23.0

  Sweden

  5.0

  Thailand

  1.3

  Turkey

  285.7

  United Arab Emirates

  1.3

  United States

  59.0

  Zimbabwe

  0.9

  Note:

  Amount outstanding includes future maturities plus unrecovered claims.

  Small Businesses
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will respond to the recommendation of the National Audit Office (HC329) that small business panels should be set up to give feedback on regulatory proposals; and if she will make a statement. [20682]

  Nigel Griffiths
  I welcome the NAO report and its recommendations as they relate to the Small Business Service. The SBS is already taking action to meet the recommendations of the report as they relate to the SBS, including the use of small business panels such as focus group in order to consult small businesses on regulatory proposals.

  Maufacturing Industry
  Mr. Michael Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what estimate she has made of the number of people employed in manufacturing industry in(a) Worcestershire and (b) Herefordshire. [20654]
  147W
  Alan Johnson
  The DIES Labour Force Survey—August 2001 indicated that:

  (a) 67,000 people (23.7 per cent. of the labour force) were employed in the manufacturing sector in Worcestershire.

  (b) 15,000 people (18.9 per cent. of the labour force) were employed in the manufacturing sector in Herefordshire.

  Office of Science and Technology
  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) what role the Minister of Science will play in the new structures within her Department; [18278]

  (2) what plans she has to reconstruct the Office of Science and Technology, and if she will make a statement; [18275]

  (3) what role a Director General of Science, Technology and Innovation will play in directing blue skies research; and if she will make a statement; [18277]

  (4) what plans she has for the role of the Director General Research Councils. [18276]

  Ms Hewitt
  The responsibilities of the Office of Science and Technology (OST), which are cross-Government, will remain largely unchanged. The new Director General of Science, Technology and Innovation in the DTI will work closely with the Director General of Research Councils and with the Government's Chief Scientific Adviser and Head of the OST to integrate the Department's policy-making on science, technology and innovation with its productivity agenda.

  One of the new Director General of Science Technology and Innovation's key objectives will be to maximise the Government's significant investment in science by providing a stronger focus on technology transfer within my Department. He or she will be recruited from outside the Department and will work with the Minister for Science and Innovation in carrying out their functions.

  Departmental Review
  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when she will appoint the new Director of Science, Technology and Innovation. [18274]

  Ms Hewitt
  This post has been created as an outcome of the review of my Department, the conclusions of which I announced on 22 November 2001,Official Report, column 396W. The post will be filled by an external open competition. I would expect the appointment to be made in spring 2002.

  Research Councils
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when the outcome of the second stage of the Quinquennial Review of the six grant-awarding research councils will be announced; and what its principal conclusions are. [21320]

  Ms Hewitt
  I am pleased today to announce the outcome of the second stage of the Quinquennial Review of the six grant-awarding Research Councils. I shall be placing a copy of the stage 2 report in the Libraries of both Houses.
  148W
  Quinquennial reviews are conducted in two stages. I announced the outcome of stage 1 on 19 July. It concluded that the six grant-awarding Research Councils should continue to be executive non-departmental public bodies.

  I welcome the thrust of the stage 2 report and its recommendations and accept the review's main conclusions that:
  >the Research Council system is working reasonably well;
  to deal with the increasing pace of scientific change and complexity of national and international arrangements, the Councils need to be capable of acting and speaking as one, and of promoting new and increasingly multidisciplinary science;
  they also need to do business with their key stakeholders in more convergent ways and in line with modernising Government principles;
  there should be a new strategy group comprising the Council chief executives and the Director General of the Research Councils to achieve these aims, and to provide a framework for cross-Council working at all levels;
  with a clearer identity and mission, the Councils as a group will be able to develop closer links with the other major science funders, including the Funding Councils, Government Departments and the major charities;
  they will also be able to work more closely with other key stakeholders, including the universities and the business and public service organisations which use their research and trained people;
  to capitalise on these stronger relationships and closer working, and to ensure delivery of key objectives, the Research Councils and DTI need to develop a stronger strategic framework for science and a long term strategic 'road map' towards which the full range of players in science can direct their efforts.

  It will be for the Research Councils, working closely with my Department, to implement the review's detailed recommendations. Once this is completed, I am confident that the effectiveness of science budget expenditure will be enhanced.

  I am grateful to all those who contributed to this Quinquennial Review, in particular the members of the review steering group, working groups, and Research Council staff.

  UK Online Annual Report
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when she plans to publish the UK Online annual report 2001. [21323]

  Ms Hewitt
  The second UK online annual report has been published today, and copies have been placed in the House Libraries.

  Employment Agencies
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many employment agencies specialise in recruiting(a) nurses, (b) secretaries, (c) IT professionals and (d) generalists. [19869]

  Alan Johnson
  A detailed breakdown for the private recruitment industry by particular specialist areas is not available, since many agencies and employment businesses provide work-finding services for a number of occupations. However, we estimate that there are about 20,000 employment agencies establishments, of which around 900 are licensed nurse agencies and some 2,000 specialise in IT.

  Equal Pay
  Julie Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what information she has collated on the private sector companies that have carried out gender pay audits as recommended by the Code of Practice on Equal Pay 1997 to assess their compliance with the Equal Pay Act since 1997. [16140]

  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 21 November 2001]: The Equal Opportunities Commission (EOC) Code of Practice on Equal Pay aims to provide practical guidance and to recommend good practice to employers. There is no legal obligation on employers to carry out gender pay audits under the Equal Pay Act.

  Many employers have stated publicly that they have carried out, or are planning to carry out a pay review while others prefer to keep this information confidential. Information has not therefore been collated on private sector companies that have carried out gender pay audits.

  A programme of action is under way to promote the practice of pay reviews in line with the EOC code of practice. We are funding the EOC to prepare a model for voluntary pay reviews which will offer a technical example for employers in how to review the pay of their male and female employees. Extra funding has been made available to trade unions for training representatives in equal pay issues in the workplace. We plan to introduce annual awards for employers which will recognise excellence in addressing equal pay and related issues.

  Julie Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what her priorities are for inclusion in the European Community forthcoming draft directive on equal pay. [16135]

  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 21 November 2001]: No proposal to amend the Equal Pay Directive (75/117/EEC) has been made by the Commission nor are we aware that the Commission has laid down any firm timetable for doing so. If a proposal to amend the Equal Pay Directive is forthcoming, the Government will consider it very carefully, in the light of case law since the Directive came into force in 1975 and the results from the current process of amending the Equal Treatment Directive (76/207/EEC).

  Julie Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what progress has been made in revising the employment tribunal regulations concerning the hearing of equal pay cases, as outlined in the consultation document "Towards Equal Pay for Women". [16137]

  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 21 November 2001]: Two proposals outlined in the consultation document "Towards Equal Pay for Women" have been implemented already. These are: simplifying multiple cases by requiring just one application (IT1 form) and one response from the employer (IT3 form) which has been given effect in the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2001 that came into force in July 2001; and the Burden of Proof Regulations, which implement the Burden of Proof Directive 97/80/EC, which were laid 20 July and came into force on 12 October. The proposal to introduce a questionnaire procedure into the Equal Pay Act has been included in the Employment Bill that was introduced on 7 November 2001. The Government intend to implement those changes
  150W
  that can be done by tribunal regulations when the Employment Bill has received Royal Assent and others will be carried out when parliamentary time permits.

  Jodrell Bank
  Mr. George Osborne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the future funding of Jodrell Bank Observatory. [18446]

  Ms Hewitt
  Jodrell Bank Observatory is owned and operated by the University of Manchester, who are responsible for its funding and operation. It has successfully applied for and received a rolling grant from the Particle Physics and Astronomy Research Council (PPARC) for a number of years for astronomical research. That grant was last reassessed in September 2001, and PPARC awarded Jodrell Bank Observatory just over £2 million for the four years until September 2005. The grant will next come up for reassessment in September 2003. Jodrell Bank Observatory also co-ordinates the MERLIN network of radio telescopes, for which it receives a separate grant from PPARC of approximately £2.2 million per year. This grant is due to expire in 2003. It is currently being reassessed.

  Departmental Funding and Initiatives
  Mr. Reed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will list all(a) funding sources and (b) initiatives available from her Department to (i) the private sector, (ii) the voluntary sector and (iii) local authorities. [18487]

  Ms Hewitt
  Information on my Department's funding sources and initiatives can be found in table Cl and in the text of my Department's 2001 Expenditure Plans Report (Cm 5112), a copy of which is in the Library of the House. Departmental spending relating specifically to local authorities can be found in table B8 of this report.

  Many of the Department's programmes are not sector specific and we do not keep centrally information on involvement with particular sectors. This information cannot be obtained except at disproportionate cost. However, my Department does supply funding to the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux (NACAB) and Citizens Advice Scotland (CAS) to support the work of the Citizens Advice Service and its volunteers. This financial year my Department provided NACAB with £16.9 million grant in aid (£16.4 million for 2000–01) and CAS with £2.8 million (£2.225 million in 2000–01).

  Ilisu Dam
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what recent representations she has made to the Government of Turkey regarding the future of the Ilisu Dam. [19382]

  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 29 November 2001]: I have made no representations to the Government of Turkey regarding the future of the Ilisu Dam.

  Following Balfour Beatty's announcement that it had withdrawn from the project there is no longer an application for ECGD support and therefore no UK government involvement.
  151W

  Local Bodies
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will list those local bodies which were set up under legislation which is the responsibility of her Department since May 1997. [17608]

  Ms Hewitt
  The Department has established no local public spending bodies.

  Retail Motor Fuels Industry
  Mr. Whittingdale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what her policy is on the continuance of an independent retail motor fuels industry; and if she will make a statement. [18465]

  Ms Hewitt
  Consumers benefit from a continuing competitive market in motor fuels, in which independent retailers have a part to play.

  Motor Industry
  Mr. Whittingdale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many people are employed in the retail motor industry in the United Kingdom. [18464]

  Ms Hewitt
  Approximately 600,000 people are employed in the retail motor industry in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Whittingdale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the terms of reference and composition are of the Automotive Innovative Growth Team; and if she will make a statement. [18466]

  Ms Hewitt
  The Automotive Innovation and Growth Team (AIGT) was established in April 2001 under the chairmanship of Sir Ian Gibson. The remit of the AIGT is to:

  Understand and evaluate the factors that will drive the automotive sector globally, identifying the opportunities and threats to the UK as a market and supply base;

  Formulate a vision of what the industry in the UK could be in five to 15 years' time;

  Stimulate frank debate about where the UK's sources of competitive advantage lie and how best to exploit these to drive positive long-term changes;

  Develop, co-ordinate and promote a new strategy to ensure the long-term competitiveness of the automotive sector;

  Make recommendations to Government, industry and others for specific action including changes in both policies and processes.

  The Members of the AIGT Strategy Team are as follows:

  Chairman

  Sir Ian Gibson

  Members

  Mike Baunton, Perkins Engines

  Jonathan Browning, formerly of Jaguar

  Hugh Chambers, Prodrive

  Richard Clowes, GKN

  John Cushnaghan, Nissan

  152W

  Tod Evans, Peugeot

  Sir Ken Jackson, AEEU

  Professor Dan Jones, University of Cardiff Business School

  Mike O'Shea, DTI

  Graham Smith, Toyota

  Willy Rickett, Department of Transport Local Government and the Regions

  Philip Rutnam, HM Treasury

  Alex Stephenson, Advantage West Midlands.

  Further details of the AIGT's work can be found in the interim report published in October, copies of which have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  WTO Dispute Settlement Mechanism
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on the WTO dispute settlement mechanism. [17920]

  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 27 November 2001]: I have been asked to reply.

  The WTO dispute settlement understanding was a major achievement of the Uruguay round of trade negotiations.

  Experience has shown a need for some improvements to, and clarifications of, that understanding: I therefore welcome the agreement last month at Doha on negotiations to that end.

  World Trade Rules
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development, pursuant to her answer of 26 November 2001,Official Report, column 590W, on world trade rules, if she will set out the areas of (a) agreement and (b) disagreement she has had with the collective proposals put forward by NGOs in respect of world trade rules. [19876]

  Clare Short
  We agree that trade rules must help to eliminate poverty, and that poor countries need a fair and effective rules-based international trading system. We agree on the need for capacity building, and for an approach that recognises more explicitly that WTO members are at different stages of development. However, we disagree with some NGOs on some WTO issues. For example, we believe that the recent campaigning against the GATS has been very misleading. Our position on all these issues is set out in a series of Background Briefing Notes on Trade and Development which I am placing in the Library.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development (1) how many letters she has received in 2001 on third world debt from residents of the Buckingham constituency; [16905]

  (2) how many letters she has received in 2001 on overseas aid from residents of the Buckingham constituency. [16906]
  153W
  Clare Short
  So far in 2001 I have received four letters from residents of the Buckingham constituency through the hon. Member, three of which were on the subject of third world debt or overseas aid. I am unable to provide information on letters received independent of the hon. Member as details of such correspondents are not kept.

  Departmental Expenditure Limits
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development 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. [19445]

  Clare Short
  DFID' s Departmental Report for 2001 (CM 5111) contains the Departmental Unallocated Provision (DUP) set for the present financial year in Annexe 1, Table 2. 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.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Freedom of Information Act
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport on what date her Department established a working group of officials to prepare her Department for the implementation of the Freedom of Information Act 2000; and on what dates this committee has met since it was set up. [14767]

  Dr. Howells
  My Department is fully aware of its responsibilities under the forthcoming legislation, not only on its own account but also in respect of its sponsored bodies. No formal working group has been established but a number of responsible officials in DCMS meet as necessary, and will ensure that all appropriate action is taken to prepare both the Department and its NDPBs for implementation.

  We wrote to our NDPBs in June to ensure they were aware of the then timetable and will do so again shortly in respect of the changes announced by my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor on 13 November. Plans are currently being developed for training throughout the Department, the creation of written guidance and the development of a departmental publication scheme.

  Millennium Dome
  Nick Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many companies took part in the bidding process for the public relations contract with NMEC (New Millennium Experience Company) for the Millennium Dome; and who was on the panel for appointing the consultancy firm. [18659]

  Dr. Howells
  [holding answer 27 November 2001]: Cardew and Co. were appointed by the New Millennium Experience Company (NMEC) in September 2000, a time of very high press interest. NMEC needed the services
  154W
  of a press agency which had previous experience of corporate rescue situations and experience of complex financial matters. NMEC considered that Cardew and Co. met the requirements. The arrangements for the appointment were in line with NMEC's procurement rules covering the situation where insufficient time existed for a competitive process.

  Nick Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what is the value, per annum, of the contract held between the New Millennium Experience Company and Cardew Consultancy; what sum in total has been paid to Cardew Consultancy by the New Millennium Experience Company since Cardew were employed by NMEC; what period the present contract between the New Millennium Experience Company and Cardew runs for; what services Cardew presently provides for the New Millennium Experience Company; what assessment he has made of those services; and if she will make a statement. [18658]

  Dr. Howells
  [holding answer 27 November 2001]: The new Millennium Experience Company (NMEC) retains Cardew and Co. to provide external press support. Cardew and Co. are paid on an hourly rate, per job, when required. The total sum which has been paid since October 2000 is £339,655. Cardew and Co.'s contract will cease when NMEC has completed the solvent liquidation process. I have not made any assessment of the services provided by Cardews which is a matter for NMEC.

  Church Repairs
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what was the English Heritage budget for church repairs for each financial year from 1997–98 to 2003–04; and if she will make a statement. [19346]

  Dr. Howells
  English Heritage's budget for repairs to all listed places of worship for 1997–98 to 2003–04 is:

  £

  1997–98

  7,127,000

  1998–99

  9,550,000

  1999–2000

  10,169,000

  2000–01

  11,042,000

  2001–02

  9,049,000

  2002–03

  10,370,000

  2003–04

  12,220,000

  English Heritage's planned expenditure for 2002–03 and 2003–04 also includes grants to cathedrals, as the individual elements of their planned grants programme have yet to be finalised.

  My right hon. and noble Friend the Minister for the Arts today launched the Listed Places of Worship Grant Scheme, which will offset the cost of VAT on repairs and maintenance to listed buildings which are used as places of worship. The scheme has been welcomed by those responsible for these important parts of our heritage as it represents significant additional new funds.

  Channel 5
  Mr. Carmichael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport which areas of the country are able to access the transmission signal of Channel 5 via a
  155W
  terrestrial television; what plans she has to increase the coverage of Channel 5; and if she plans to upgrade the television transmitters unable to broadcast Channel 5's signal. [19620]

  Dr. Howells
  Analogue terrestrial Channel 5 services reach around 80 per cent. of the UK population and coverage details can be found on Channel 5's website at: www.channel5.co.uk. There are no plans to extend analogue Channel 5 services, as the provision of digital terrestrial television now has priority in the use of scarce spectrum. Channel 5 is carried on all digital platforms. Digital terrestrial coverage information is available on the Digital Television Group website at: www.dtg.org.uk. The Government's aim is to ensure that the main free-to-view analogue channels are available in digital form to those who can currently get these analogue channels.

  Parliamentary Ombudsman
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, pursuant to the answer of 28 November 2001, Ref. 18772, on the Parliamentary Ombudsman, on which date the notification was received; and on which date a response was made. [20098]

  Mr. Caborn
  In the case mentioned in my earlier reply, notification was received on 2 November 2000 and a response made on 12 December 2000.

  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport pursuant to the answer of 28 November 2001, Ref. 18772, on the Parliamentary Ombudsman, what formal notices(a) have been received and (b) have been responded to since 31 March. [20097]

  Mr. Caborn
  My Department has received no formal notices from the Ombudsman since 31 March 2001.

  Creative Partnerships
  Mr. Damian Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what assessment she has made of the effectiveness of Creative Partnerships; and if she will make a statement. [19614]

  Dr. Howells
  [holding answer 30 November 2001]: Creative Partnerships will be launched in April 2002, when funding of £40 million becomes available. This is a new initiative which will give young people opportunities to work alongside arts and cultural organisations and individuals to develop their artistic and creative skills. Alongside the initiative, the Arts Council of England will undertake an extensive evaluation and research programme.

  Deprivation Criteria (Sports Funding)
  Mr. Wyatt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will publish the constituency deprivation criteria for bids to the new opportunities fund for sport bids; and if she will make a statement. [20541]

  Mr. Caborn
  Under the new opportunities for PE and sport programme, the new opportunities fund has allocated funding to each local education authority (LEA) area. The allocations have been determined on the basis of the size of the school population and the number of people living in deprived wards in the area.
  156W
  It is for local partnerships, led by LEAs, to decide what the needs and priorities are in local areas, within the context of the new opportunities fund's programme guidance. A key criterion in the assessment of bids will be that projects meet the aim of promoting social inclusion.

  Government Indemnity Scheme
  Clive Efford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many indemnity undertakings were given under section 16 of the National Heritage Act 1986 for the six month period ended 30 September; and what the value was of(a) any contingent liabilities in respect of such undertakings given at any time under that section which remain outstanding as at 30 September, (b) non-statutory Government indemnities in respect of loans handled by the Government art collection which remain outstanding as at 30 September and (c) non-statutory undertakings to Her Majesty in respect of loans from the royal collection which remain outstanding as at 30 September. [21007]

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

  In the six month period ended 30 September, the following undertakings to indemnify were given under section 16 by the relevant Departments for objects on loan to national and non-national institutions:

  Number

  Department for Culture, Media and Sport

  601

  Scottish Executive Education Department

  238

  The National Assembly for Wales

  111

  The value of contingent liabilities in respect of undertakings given at any time under section 16 and which remained outstanding as at 30 September is:

  £

  Department for Culture. Media and Sport

  2,935,420,221

  Scottish Executive Education Department

  455,246,280

  The National Assembly for Wales

  50.621,348

  The value of non-statutory Government indemnities to cover loans handled by the Government Art Collection and which remained outstanding as at 30 September is:
  Value: £6,000,000.

  The value of non-statutory undertakings given to Her Majesty in respect of loans from the royal collection and which remained outstanding as at 30 September is:
  Value: £209,522,345.
  157W

SCOTLAND

  Drug Misuse
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if she will make a statement on drug misuse in Scotland. [17491]

  John Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what recent discussions she has had with the Home Office on drug-related matters. [17493]

  Mrs. Liddell
  We continue to work closely with the Scottish Executive and with the Home Office on the UK strategies to tackle drug misuse. In particular my hon. Friend the Minister of State is playing a direct role in the legislation currently before the House to strengthen court powers to confiscate assets of drug dealers and other criminals.

  Skye Toll Bridge
  Mr. Charles Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what recent representations she has received in respect of the Skye toll bridge. [17492]

  Mr. Foulkes
  I have received four representations on this issue since August 2001.

  Issues related to the Skye bridge project are a devolved matter for the Scottish Executive.

  Child Poverty
  Mr. Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if she will make a statement about the number of children living in poverty in Scotland since 1997. [17494]

  Mr. Foulkes
  We are making good progress on child poverty. Detailed information can be found in "Opportunity for All", published by the Government, and in the Scottish Executive's Annual Social Justice Report, a Scotland where everyone matters.

  Scotrail
  Mr. Francois
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when she will next meet officials from Railtrack to discuss Scotrail and Railtrack. [17495]

  Mrs. Liddell
  I hope to meet with Railtrack senior management shortly to discuss a range of matters.

  Scottish Parliament
  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations she has made to the Boundary Commission for Scotland on the distribution of seats for the Scottish Parliament. [17496]

  Mrs. Liddell
  None. However I wrote to Lady Cosgrove, Deputy Chairman of the Boundary Commission for Scotland, on 6 November to inform her that I would shortly be launching a consultation on the size of the Scottish Parliament.

  PIU Energy Review
  Anne Picking
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what discussions she has had with the coal industry in Scotland on the status of coal in the PIU energy review. [17497]
  158W
  Mr. Foulkes
  I represent the Scotland Office on the PIU Energy Review Advisory Group. I have met with a wide variety of individuals and organisations with an interest in energy issues, including representatives of the coal industry in Scotland, to discuss their views on the matters covered by the review.

  Manufacturing Industry
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if she will make a statement on the state of manufacturing industry in Scotland. [17498]

  Mrs. Liddell
  Manufacturing industry continues to be very important to the economy of Scotland employing some 300,000 in June 2001 and supporting a further 185,000 jobs in the Scottish economy. Manufacturing exports amounted to £19.3 billion in the year to 2001–02 according to Scottish Executive figures, an increase of 8.6 per cent. compared with the previous four quarters. The sound policies of economic management, which this Government are pursuing, continue to deliver the best platform for the manufacturing sector to deal with current difficult global trading conditions.

  Winter Fuel Payment
  Mr. Savidge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many pensioners in Scotland will receive the winter fuel payment in this financial year. [17499]

  Mr. Foulkes
  We expect almost one million people aged 60 and over to receive a winter fuel payment in Scotland this financial year. The estimated total expenditure in Scotland in this area is around £150 million.

  Drug Dealers (Confiscated Assets)
  Mr. MacDougall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps are being taken to confiscate the assets of drug dealers in Scotland. [17500]

  Mr. Foulkes
  My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department and I are working closely together on the Proceeds of Crime Bill. This legislation, which is currently before the House, will strengthen court powers to confiscate the assets of drug dealers and other criminals.

  Visit Scotland
  Pete Wishart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what recent discussions she has had with the Scottish Executive concerning the re-structuring of Visit Scotland. [17501]

  Mr. Foulkes
  I am in regular contact with ministerial colleagues in the Scottish Executive about a range of issues. The re-structuring of Visit Scotland is a matter for the Visit Scotland Board and the Scottish Executive.

  Tourism
  Rosemary McKenna
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if she will make a statement on her action to promote tourism in Scotland in co-ordination with other parts of the United Kingdom. [17502]

  Mrs. Liddell
  I am in regular contact with the British Tourist Authority and its partners to ensure that Scotland and the whole of the UK is promoted as a tourist
  159W
  destination. Tomorrow evening I shall be speaking at a BTA reception which has been organised to introduce Scottish MPs to the BTA and give them an opportunity to see how Scotland and their own areas are promoted by the BTA.

  I am also working closely with the BTA and Visit Scotland on my new initiative to make connections with friends of Scotland across the world.

  Afghanistan
  Mr. Tom Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what action she has taken to explain the Government's policy in relation to the war in Afghanistan to Scotland's Muslim community. [17503]

  Mrs. Liddell
  I visited the Islamic Centre and Glasgow Central Mosque on 9 November, where I spoke to over 100 people including around 30–10 leaders of the Muslim community from throughout Scotland.

  I made clear this Government's policy on the war against terrorism and offered our continued support to Scotland's Muslim community as respected members of our society.

  Scottish Regiments
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when she last met the Secretary of State for Defence to discuss plans for the future involvement of Scottish regiments in combating terrorism; and if she will make a statement. [17504]

  Mrs. Liddell
  Although I see my right hon. Friend on a regular basis I have not yet had the opportunity to discuss plans for the future involvement of Scottish regiments in combating terrorism. I hope to do so in the near future.

  National Minimum Wage (Uprating)
  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many people in Scotland benefit from the uprating of the national minimum wage. [17505]

  Mr. Foulkes
  The increase in the adult national minimum wage to £4.10 per hour and the youth rate to £3.50 from October 2001 is benefiting around 135,000 people across Scotland. The national minimum wage is having a direct and beneficial impact on the pay of the lowest paid workers in Scotland; is helping to close the gap between the highest and lowest earners; and is helping reduce the differential between men's and women's pay. This has been achieved without any discernible adverse impact on the economy.

  Barnett Formula (Teachers' Pay)
  Mr. Fallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what assessment she has made of the cost of teachers' pay in Scotland for the purposes of determining the funding allocation under the Barnett formula. [17506]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The Barnett Formula provided the Scottish Executive with a population-based share of increases in comparable spending of UK Government Departments in the 2000 Comprehensive Spending Review. Within its overall departmental expenditure limit 160W
  it is for the Scottish Executive to decide how to allocate its budget, including the funding of teachers' pay in Scotland.

  Economic Trends
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when she last met the chairman of Scottish Enterprise to discuss trends in the Scottish economy; and if she will make a statement. [17507]

  Mrs. Liddell
  I last met the Chairman of Scottish Enterprise on 27 November and we discussed a range of issues. While Scotland cannot remain immune to the effects of a global slowdown, the tough decisions that this Government have taken mean that the economic fundamentals in the UK and in Scotland remain sound. The Scottish economy, as part of the UK economy, is better placed than ever before to cope with the effects of a global downturn in demand.

  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what economic modelling has been undertaken to determine the prospects for the Scottish economy up to 2005. [17510]

  Mrs. Liddell
  Neither the Scotland Office, nor the Scottish Executive, publish forecasts for the Scottish economy. We do, however, monitor several independent forecasts on the Scottish economy.

  Former Miners (Compensation)
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when she next expects to meet the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to discuss compensation, on disability grounds, for former miners. [17508]

  Mrs. Liddell
  I have frequent discussions with my right. hon Friend. We are making good progress with the coal health compensation scheme in Scotland. So far the Government have paid out a total of £19 million in relation to respiratory diseases and £25.8 million in relation to Vibration White Finger.

  Employment Trends
  23. Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if she will make a statement on employment trends in Scotland since September. [17509]

  Mrs. Liddell
  Latest figures show that there are 2.381 million people in work in Scotland, a fall of 0.5 per cent. over the previous three months but a rise of 3,000 over the same period a year ago. The number of people out of work and claiming benefit rose by 800 in October, but remains at its lowest level for a quarter of a century.

  Rail Congestion
  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what action the Government are taking to reduce rail congestion in east central Scotland. [17511]

  Mr. Foulkes
  The Scottish Executive has taken a leading role in researching the potential for development of rail infrastructure in Scotland.
  161W
  I understand that they are to conduct a Central Belt railway capacity study, which aims to assess the likely costs and benefits of potential improvements to existing, and new, passenger services, and infrastructure enhancements in central Scotland.

  Barnett Formula
  Mrs. Lait
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was, in real terms and for each year since 1999(a) the annual charge to moneys paid into the Scottish Consolidated Fund as a result of the operation of the Barnett Formula and (b) the total annual sum received by the Scottish Executive from the Scottish Consolidated Fund. [12558]

  Mrs. Liddell
  Information on the grant paid to the Scottish Consolidated Fund since 1999 is published in the Scotland Office Estimates and the Scotland Office Departmental Report. The grant is a block grant and is not disaggregated or hypothecated.

  Mrs. Lait
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how much public money, in real terms, was received in each year since 1979 by the(a) Scottish Office,
  (b) Scotland Office and (c) Scottish Executive that was external to the block grant and Barnett Formula; and what was for each year (i) the single largest item of such expenditure and (ii) the total amount of such expenditure. [12557]

  Mrs. Liddell
  This information is not readily available. Moreover, coverage of the block grant arrangements has changed since 1979, which makes comparisons over this period difficult. However, information on Scottish public expenditure back to 1995–96 was published in chapter 8 of Public Expenditure Statistical Analyses in April 2001. Information for earlier years was published in previous editions of Public Expenditure Statistical Analyses.

  Mrs. Lait
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was, in real terms and for each year between 1979 and 1999(a) the annual change to the budget of the Scottish Office arising from the operation of the Barnett Formula and (b) the total annual expenditure of the Scottish Office. [12559]

  Mrs. Liddell
  This information is not readily available. Moreover, coverage of the block grant arrangements has changed since 1979, which makes comparisons over this period difficult.

  Community Banking
  Mr. Lazarowicz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what discussions she has had with the First Minister on the development of Community Banking in Scotland. [14526]

  Mrs. Liddell
  I have regular discussions with the First Minister on a wide range of issues.

  The first community banking agreement in the UK is being piloted between the community of Wester Hailes in Edinburgh and the Bank of Scotland. Funding for the scheme has been provided by the Bank of Scotland and the Scottish Executive through the West Edinburgh Pathfinder initiative.
  162W

  E-Business Access Programme
  Mr. Lazarowicz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many businesses in Scotland, broken down by sector, have benefited from the First Steps e-business access programme. [16559]

  Mrs. Liddell
  This is a matter for the Scottish Executive. However, I understand that the First Steps into E-Commerce workshop was delivered by Scottish Enterprise to almost 1,700 in Scotland between February 2000 and August 2001. The programme has since been redeveloped to address customer feedback. First Steps now consists of four separate workshops allowing companies to attend the most appropriate session's based on their current level of e-business adoption. Since 10 September 2001 almost 400 delegates have attended one of the four workshops in the First Steps workshop series. Scottish Enterprise do not hold details of company sector for past attendees. However they are looking at capturing that information for future events.

  Civil Aviation Industry
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, pursuant to her answer of 6 November 2001,Official Report, column 94, if she will make a statement on the outcome of her meeting with senior representatives of the Civil Aviation Industry. [17718]

  Mrs. Liddell
  [holding answer 23 November 2001]: The meeting which I hosted yesterday allowed the airlines, the airport operators, business representatives and development agencies, to express their views on the current climate for business for the aviation industry in Scotland and beyond, and also the best way in which the industry can go forward.

  It proved to be an extremely useful forum, which led to open and informative discussion from all those who were involved.

  We are reviewing all the issues raised and will take these forward.

  Sub-post Offices
  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many sub-post office closures have been reversed during the statutory period following closure in each year since 1990. [20699]

  Mr. Foulkes
  The Government are committed to maintaining a national network of post offices and foresees them helping customers to access a wide range of public services both electronically and over the counter. I am informed by Post Office Ltd. that historical data on the numbers of post office openings and closures are not maintained separately. During the period April 2000 to March 2001 the number of net post office closures in Scotland was 55. This is very close to the average for the UK during the same time period.

  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many sub-post offices have closed in(a) Scotland, (b) Dumfries and Galloway and (c) Galloway and Upper Nithsdale constituency in each year since 1990. [20700]
  163W
  Mr. Foulkes
  The Government are committed to maintaining a national network of post offices. It is especially keen to prevent all avoidable closures of rural post offices because they are the focal point for community life in rural areas. Various rate relief schemes apply to many rural post offices. The Government foresee post offices helping customers access a wide range of public services both electronically and over the counter. I understand that Post Office Ltd. do not keep records of the number of post office closures in each parliamentary constituency and consequently such information as the hon. Member requested cannot readily be compiled. During the period April 2000 to March 2001 the number of net post office closures in Scotland was 55. This is very close to the average for the UK during the same time period.

  Aggregates Tax
  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what assessment she has made of the impact the Scottish economy of the implementation of the aggregates tax. [20698]

  Mrs. Liddell
  All revenues from the aggregates levy will be recycled back to business via a cut in employers national insurance contributions and a new sustainability fund. Scotland stands to benefit from some £3 million raised by the aggregates levy, and it will be for the Scottish Executive to decide how to use this money.

  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many jobs in Scotland are dependent on the industries which will be subject to the imposition of the aggregates tax. [20697]

  Mrs. Liddell
  In 1999 there were 2,667 people employed in mineral extraction in Scotland. This information is taken from the National Statistics publication, Mineral Extraction in Great Britain (Business Monitor PA1007).

ADVOCATE-GENERAL

  Jandoo Report
  Mr. Lazarowicz
  To ask the Advocate-General what assessment she has made of the implications for her Department of the conclusions of the Jandoo report. [17515]

  The Advocate-General
  This is a matter for the Scottish Executive and not for my Department. I know that the Lord Advocate and the Minister for Justice and their officials are actively engaged in considering this.

PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL

  Appointments Commission (Chairman)
  48. Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the President of the Council how many days per month the chairman of the House of Lords Appointments Commission devotes to his duties. [17539]
  164W
  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  I understand that the Chairman of the House of Lords Appointments Commission has since his appointment on average devoted seven days a month to his duties. He was recruited on the basis that the time commitment for the Chairman was expected to settle down to around 8–10 days a year, although in the first few months, as the Commission established its working practices, it was expected to be more than this. The Chairman has waived his entitlement to remuneration from public funds.

  Life Peers (Compulsory Redundancy)
  Kevin Brennan
  To ask the President of the Council if he will take powers to provide for compulsory redundancy of life peers as part of his plans for the reform of the House of Lords; and if he will make a statement. [17543]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  The White Paper "The House of Lords—Completing the Reform" suggests that the Royal Commission recommendation that current life peers should retain their membership of the House of Lords for life be accepted. Life peers would, however, be enabled to retire if they wished and the Government have said that they welcome views on the possibility of some sort of winding-up and resettlement grant for those peers who choose to take advantage of this new facility.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards
  Mr. Heath
  To ask the President of the Council to ask the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire, representing the House of Commons Commission, if the House of Commons Commission has consulted the Select Committee on Standards and Privileges on the workload and future staffing requirements of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards. [17541]

  Mr. Kirkwood
  The Commission is in correspondence with the Chairman of the Committee on this subject.

  David Winnick
  To ask the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire, representing the House of Commons Commission, if he will make a statement on the duties of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards. [17538]

  Mr. Kirkwood
  The principal duties of the Commissioner are set out in Standing Order No. 150. In essence they are:Providing advice on a confidential basis to individual Members and to the Select Committee on Standards and Privileges about the interpretation of the Code of Conduct and about questions of propriety.
  Receiving and investigating complaints about the conduct of Members (whether related directly to alleged breaches of the Code or not) and reporting the results of investigations to the Committee.
  Maintaining and monitoring the operation of the Register of Members' interests.
  Preparing guidance and providing induction courses for new Members on matters of conduct, propriety and ethics.
  Monitoring the operation of the Code of Conduct and, where appropriate, proposing possible modifications of it to the Standards and Privileges Committee.
  165W
  Peter Bottomley
  To ask the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood), representing the House of Commons Commission, pursuant to the answers to the hon. Members for Lewes (Norman Baker) and for Walsall, North (David Winnick), of 23 November 2001,Official Report, column 484W, on the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, how many days a week the first Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards was paid for in each year of his term of office. [19818]

  Mr. Kirkwood
  The first Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards was paid throughout his appointment on the basis of working four days a week.

  Select Committee Witnesses
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the President of the Council if he will bring forward proposals to amend the rules governing the taking of evidence from witnesses in Select Committees. [17542]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  My right hon. Friend has no such proposals but would consider any suggestions made by interested parties, such as the Liaison Committee.

  Select Committees (Scrutiny)
  Ms Christine Russell
  To ask the President of the Council what plans he has to propose changes to the House's scrutiny of the Government and the working of Select Committees. [17544]

  Ms Buck
  To ask the President of the Council what proposals he has made to the Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons to improve the scrutiny of Government by Select Committees. [17545]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  My right hon. Friend confirmed on 6 November 2001,Official Report, column 197W, that he intends to present a strategy paper to the Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons in the very near future.

  Modernisation of the House
  Ms Coffey
  To ask the President of the Council if he will make a statement on recent progress on modernisation of the House. [17532]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  It is hoped that the Modernisation Committee will be able to bring forward its first report on the role of Select Committees early in the new year.

  I shall be putting proposals to the Modernisation Committee next week on the wider agenda of reform, including more effective scrutiny of legislation. The intention is that these proposals will be available to all Members in order that their views can inform the work of the Modernisation Committee in preparing recommendations for the House.

  Pre-legislative Scrutiny
  Mr. Lazarowicz
  To ask the President of the Council if he will bring forward proposals to extend pre-legislative scrutiny. [17536]
  166W
  Mr. Robin Cook
  We have increased the number of draft bills published and opened up the process of pre-legislative scrutiny. Pre-legislative scrutiny should improve legislation, but demands more effort from all those involved. I hope to see a steady increase in its use until it occurs with the majority of bills, but that will take time to develop.

  Members' Computer Equipment
  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the President of the Council what has been the average time taken to(a) deliver and (b) install standard computer equipment to hon. Members' offices in (i) the House of Commons and (ii) constituency offices; and if he will make a statement. [20696]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  The information the hon. Member has requested is not held in this form. It is being collated, and a substantive answer will be given as soon as possible.

HEALTH

  Elective Surgery
  Dr. Stoate
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what progress has been made towards setting up the fast-track elective surgery centres he announced in February; and if he will make a statement; [13490]

  (2) if he will set up a dedicated fast-track elective surgery centre in the North Kent area. [13491]

  Ms Blears
  We announced plans for 26 diagnostic and treatment centres (DTCs) in February. This put us well on course to exceed the target of 20 schemes developed by 2004 (with eight operational) which we set out in the NHS Plan. Work on the schemes is progressing and we are confident that at least eight of them will be receiving patients by 2004.

  We are now looking at ways to extend the DTC programme, including in the south-east, and if possible to bring it forward. We will consider suitable proposals which stand to benefit even more patients.

  Public Service Agreements
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if the Public Service Agreement target for March for the connection of GP surgeries using clinical computer systems to the NHSnet was met. [14906]

  Ms Blears
  The Public Service Agreement between the Department and Her Majesty's Treasury which formed part of the spending review 2000 did not include a specific target for connection of general practitioner surgeries to NHSnet.

  The Government's information management and technology strategy for the national health service, "Building the Information Core—Implementing the NHS Plan", published in January 2001 gave the target of 95 per cent. of GP practices in England to be connected to NHSnet by end of March 2001.

  At that date 93.6 per cent. of practices in England had an NHSnet connection; over 95 per cent. were connected by the end of May 2001, and at the end of October 2001, over 97 per cent.
  167W
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on progress towards meeting the Public Service Agreement target for the connection of GP surgeries which use clinical computer systems to the NHSnet by March 2002. [14905]

  Ms Blears
  The Public Service Agreement between the Department and Her Majesty's Treasury which formed part of the spending review 2000 did not include a specific target for connection of general practitioner surgeries to NHSnet.

  The Government's information management and technology strategy for the national health service, "Building the Information Core—Implementing the NHS Plan", published in January 2001 gave the target for all GP practices in England to be connected to NHSnet by March 2002.

  At the end of October 2001, over 97 per cent. of GP practices in England were connected to NHSnet. It is expected that by March 2002, nearly all GP practices will be connected.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on progress in meeting the Public Service Agreement target of savings from action on contractor fraud between 1999–2000 and 2001–02. [14930]

  Ms Blears
  The two Public Service Agreement targets for savings from action on contractor fraud are:

  (a)to recover £6 million lost to fraud by contractors, in pharmaceutical services, by the end of 2001–02, and

  (b)to prevent the loss of £9 million of national health service funds to contractor fraud, again in pharmaceutical services by the end of 2001–02.

  The NHS counter fraud service (NHSCFS) inherited these targets on its formation in late 1998. Among the wide range of activity undertaken in countering fraud in the NHS they have made excellent progress in achieving these PSA targets.

  The first target to recover £6 million lost to fraud by contactors in the pharmaceutical service has already been exceeded. The NHSCFS has, as at the end of October, agreed recoveries totalling £7.47 million.

  The second target was to prevent the loss of £9 million of NHS funds lost to contractor fraud in the pharmaceutical service. By mid January 2002 the NHSCFS will have hard figures for the loss to fraud in this area and for the losses that have been prevented as a result of the work that has taken place.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on progress in meeting the Public Service Agreement target of a 50 per cent. reduction in prescription charge evasion by 2002–03. [14899]

  Ms Blears
  On its formation in late 1998 the national health service Counter Fraud Service (NHSCFS) inherited the PSA target to reduce patient prescription charge fraud by 50 per cent. by 2002–03.

  The progress of the NHSCFS has made against the target has already shown a reduction in losses to fraud in this area of 41 per cent. (£48 million) by the end of 2000–01.
  168W

  Acupuncture
  Mr. Frank Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what additional funds are made available to general practitioners for the provision of acupuncture services as part of the treatments administered at their surgeries; [15118]

  (2) how many GPs in the NHS provide acupuncture for their patients within their practice. [15019]

  Ms Blears
  General practitioners are not required to provide acupuncture as part of either general or personal medical services. They are, however, able to provide acupuncture services under arrangements agreed local with the their health authority or primary care trust. They may also themselves treat patients in this way if they believe it is appropriate and they are qualified to do so. The Department does not, however, collect data on the provision of acupuncture services by general practitioners.

  Derriford Hospital
  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the(a) income and (b) number of patients treated by Derriford hospital, Plymouth, in the last financial year. [15289]

  Ms Blears
  The total income of Plymouth hospitals national health service trust in the financial year 2000–01 was £188,822,000. In the same year there were 35,494 non-elective and 52,912 elective finished consultant episodes and 307,101 outpatient attendances at the trust.

  Prescription Charging
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how the Prescription Pricing Authority monitors patient compliance with the prescription charging arrangements. [15325]

  Ms Blears
  The Compliance Unit of the Prescription Pricing Authority (PPA) is responsible for carrying out a number of checks on those patients who claim exemption from prescription charges on grounds such as age, certain medical conditions, low income or receipt of certain tax credits or benefits (such as income support). Appropriate organisations are contacted to confirm entitlement to exemption. Where the patient provides additional information to confirm their entitlement, no further action is taken. However, if it is found that a patient has incorrectly claimed exemption from prescription charges, the PPA recovers the outstanding charges and may impose a penalty charge.

  Benzodiazepines
  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many patients(a) have been prescribed benzodiazepines and (b) were considered to be clinically dependent upon them during each year since 1971; [15588]

  (2) what advice his Department issued with regard to the (a) daily dosage, (b) time limit of dosage, (c) possible

  169W
  side-effects and (d) tendency to addiction of those prescribed benzodiazepines during the last 25 years; and what assessment he has made of such advice issued by medical advisory bodies; [15586]

  (3) what recent assessment his Department has made of the impact on NHS patients of prescribing benzodiazepines; [15590]

  (4) what assessment he has made of the impact of medical practice to prescribe benzodiazepines to some patients with a spectrum of mental health disorders in respect of (a) recovery from illness, (b) worsening of illness, (c) onset of known side-effects and (d) addiction to these drugs; [15587]

  (5) how many (a) benzodiazepine doses have been administered and (b) prescriptions for benzodiazepines have been written for each year since 1971. [15591]

  Ms Blears
  The numbers of prescriptions for benzodiazepines from 1980 to 2000 are listed in the tables. However the number of prescriptions cannot be used to determine the number of patients receiving benzodiazepines. Information is not available on the number of patients considered to be clinically dependent upon benzodiazepines.

  Information on the daily dosage, time limit of dosage, possible side effects and tendency to addiction of benzodiazepines is present in the Summary of Product Characteristics, and the Patient Information Leaflet, which is produced by the manufacturer and approved by the Licensing Authority. The Committee of Safety of Medicines, and previously the Committee on the Review of Medicine have issued advice on all these aspects in relation to benzodiazepines use to healthcare professionals in the United Kingdom on a number of occasions in the drug safety bulletin "Current Problems in

  Number of prescriptions dispensed in the community for benzodiazepines: 1980–2000—England

  Prescriptions (thousand)

  1980

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  Temazepam

  1,014

  1,709

  2,431

  2,896

  3,378

  5,133

  5,802

  6,242

  6,129

  5,946

  5,985

  Diazepam

  7,300

  6,604

  5,812

  5,147

  4,449

  4,374

  4,217

  4,071

  3,622

  3,331

  3,147

  Nitrazepam

  7,362

  6,910

  6,596

  5,912

  5,368

  5,001

  4,657

  4,383

  3,850

  3,523

  3,188

  Lorazepam

  2,033

  2,487

  2,928

  2,957

  2,736

  2,590

  2,607

  2,395

  1,756

  1,452

  1,227

  Chloridiazepoxide

  1,834

  1,694

  1,516

  1,294

  1,112

  1,007

  893

  816

  697

  604

  548

  Oxazepam

  587

  675

  654

  612

  561

  609

  646

  621

  511

  406

  399

  Lormelazepam

  —

  32

  163

  346

  442

  122

  160

  191

  194

  169

  163

  Clonazepam

  40

  48

  55

  72

  77

  93

  99

  107

  111

  111

  127

  Loprazolam Mesylate

  —

  —

  —

  2

  50

  19

  71

  125

  127

  144

  160

  Clobazam

  275

  330

  381

  378

  396

  109

  42

  39

  48

  59

  53

  Triazolam

  402

  795

  855

  782

  906

  1,200

  1,468

  1,576

  1,635

  1,530

  1,513

  Alprazolam

  —

  —

  —

  127

  261

  63

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Bromazepam

  —

  —

  9

  76

  151

  32

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Clorazepate Dipotassium

  945

  930

  971

  971

  1,016

  216

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Flunitrazepam

  —

  —

  7

  86

  188

  54

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Flurazepam Hydrochloride

  1,885

  1,833

  1,860

  1,700

  1,628

  376

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Ketazolam

  37

  105

  135

  138

  118

  27

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Medazepam

  198

  176

  159

  140

  108

  25

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Prazepam

  —

  —

  12

  55

  55

  12

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Total

  23,912

  24,329

  24,544

  23,962

  22,999

  21,062

  20,662

  20,565

  18,680

  17,274

  16,510

  Annual change (percentage)

  —

  1.7

  0.9

  -2.4

  -4.0

  -8.4

  -1.9

  -0.5

  -9.2

  -7.5

  -4.4

  170W
  Pharmacovigilance" and in the British Medical Journal. These publications are listed and copies will be placed in the Library.

  Current Problems in Pharmacovigilance 1978—thrombophlebitis associated with diazepam.

  British Medical Journal, 1980: 910–912. Systematic review of benzodiazepines.

  Current Problems in Pharmacovigilance 1981—Unexpected severe psychotic effects with Halcion.

  Current Problems in Pharmacovigilance 1985—Respiratory depression and hypotension with Midazolam (Hypnovel).

  Current Problems in Pharmacovigilance 1988—Benzodiazepines, dependence and withdrawal symptoms.

  Current Problems in Pharmacovigilance 1995—Side effects may impair driving.

  Current Problems in Pharmacovigilance 1997—Avoid benzodiazepines during pregnancy and lactation as they may cause side effects in the exposed babies.

  Mental Health Foundation 1994 "Guidelines for the Prevention and Treatment of Benzodiazepine Dependence".

  Department of Health 1999 "Drug misuse and dependence-guidelines on clinical management".

  British National Formulary 2001.

  We are not aware of any audit of the impact of such advice.

  No recent assessment has been made of the impact on national health service patients of prescribing any particular group of psychiatric drugs. Volume of benzodiazepine prescribing in the community is monitored and the measure has been included as a high level performance indicator.

  No assessment has been made of the impact on medical practice of prescribing benzodiazepines, nor has any assessment been made of the impact of the information and advice provided on medical practice.

  The number of prescriptions dispensed in the community for benzodiazepines in England since 1980 is given in the tables. Data prior to 1980 are not available. Information about drugs prescribed and dispensed in hospitals is not available.

  171W

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  1995

  1996

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  Temazepam

  6,428

  6,914

  6,651

  6,345

  6,063

  5,540

  5,252

  5,043

  4,878

  4,697

  Diazepam

  3,254

  3,225

  3,220

  3,288

  3,411

  3,600

  3,798

  3,989

  4,108

  4,293

  Nitrazepam

  3,186

  3,074

  2,902

  2,721

  2,582

  2,539

  2,426

  2,333

  2,210

  2,095

  Lorazepam

  1,137

  1,018

  932

  867

  818

  785

  758

  743

  728

  715

  Chloridiazepoxide

  542

  503

  467

  449

  438

  428

  423

  414

  402

  384

  Oxazepam

  378

  352

  328

  311

  300

  304

  306

  300

  289

  272

  Lormelazepam

  181

  215

  218

  208

  201

  234

  249

  252

  246

  210

  Clonazepam

  137

  144

  152

  160

  168

  181

  196

  213

  231

  253

  Loprazolam Mesylate

  195

  239

  230

  219

  213

  221

  215

  211

  200

  191

  Clobazam

  66

  67

  67

  68

  70

  74

  74

  82

  85

  93

  Triazolam

  1,123

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Alprazolam

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Bromazepam

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Clorazepate Dipotassium

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Flunitrazepam

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Flurazepam Hydrochloride

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Ketazolam

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Medazepam

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Prazepam

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Total

  16,626

  15,751

  15,167

  14,638

  14,266

  13,905

  13,698

  13,580

  13,378

  13,204

  Annual change (percentage)

  —

  -5.3

  -3.7

  -3.5

  -2.5

  -2.5

  -1.5

  -0.9

  -1.5

  -1.3

  Notes:

  1. The prescription information was obtained from the Prescription Cost Analysis (PCA) system. Please note that the data up to 1990 are not strictly consistent with data from 1991 onwards. Figures for 1980–90 are based on fees and on a sample of 1 in 200 prescriptions dispensed by community pharmacists and appliance contractors only. Figures for 1991 onwards are based on items and cover all prescriptions dispensed by community pharmacists, appliance contractors dispensing doctors and prescriptions submitted by prescribing doctors for items personally administered. Also included are prescriptions written in Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland and the Isle of Man but dispensed in England. The data do not cover drugs dispensed in hospital or private prescriptions.

  2. Benzodiazepines are those drugs defined within the British National Formulary sections 4.1.1, "Hypnotics", 4.1.2. "Anxiolytics", and 4.8. "Antiepileptics".

  A and E
  Mr. Cameron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what were the average waiting times in each accident and emergency unit in Oxfordshire in each of the last five years. [16021]

  Ms Blears
  The information requested is not available centrally.

  Home Helps
  Chris Ruane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many local authority home helps there have been in each of the last 15 years. [16094]

  Jacqui Smith
  The number of home helps (excluding home help organisers) employed by local authorities in England in each of the last 15 years is in the table. Details of the number of contact hours of home help/home care and the households receiving this care are available in the publication "Community Care Statistics 2000: Home help/home care services for adults, England" available at www.doh.gov.uk/stats/hh2000.htm.

  Home helps at 30 September

  whole time equivalent

  Number

  19851

  51,959

  19861

  53,706

  19871

  56,336

  19881

  57,004

  19891

  56,613

  19901

  55,805

  19911

  54,708

  172W

  Home helps at 30 September

  whole time equivalent

  Number

  19921

  54,254

  1993

  50,744

  1994

  52,683

  1995

  49,811

  1996

  47,750

  1997

  46,316

  1998

  42,883

  1999

  39,774

  2000

  35,285

  1Figures prior to 1993 include family aides staff.

  Source:

  Department of Health staffing return SSDS001

  Depleted Uranium
  Mr. Russell Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the United Kingdom academic research groups with experience in reviewing the risks associated with depleted uranium. [16282]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 24 November 2001]: The Department knows of four academic groups which have been active in reviewing the risks from depleted uranium, the Royal Society Depleted Uranium Working Group, the British Geological Survey, the University of Bristol Department of Earth Sciences and the Southampton Oceanic Centre.

  Strokes (Risk)
  Mrs. Helen Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment his Department has made of the
  173W
  increased risk of strokes among members of (a) Asian and (b) African-Caribbean ethnic groups; and what plans he has to commission further research. [16691]

  Jacqui Smith
  The 1999 Health Survey for England commissioned by the Department investigated the health of minority ethnic groups. This found that after adjusting for age, rates of stroke among black Caribbean men were over two-thirds higher than in the general population. Indian men also had higher rates than the general population. Among women, Chines women had low rates of stroke, while all other groups did not differ significantly from the general population. Details of the survey can be found at: http//www.official-documents.co.uk/document/doh/ survey99/houses-00.htm.

  The Department has funded a number of literature reviews on ethnicity and health, carried out by the national health service Centre for Reviews and Dissemination (CRD), University of York. One of the reviews looked at stroke in south Asian and African-Caribbean groups. This concluded that south Asian and Afro-Caribbean populations experience significantly raised rates of cardiovascular disease. In particular south Asian groups are at higher risk of coronary heart disease, and AfroCaribbeans are at greater risk of stroke. The details of these reviews can be found on the CRD website at: http://wWw. york.ac.uk/inst/crd/welcome.htm.

  The Department is currently funding a study entitled `The South London Stroke Register: The Incidence, Outcome and Ethnic differences of aetiological subtypes of stroke'. This study will compare incidence of stroke between ethnic groups and compare survival, recurrence and functional status between subtypes and ethnic groups.

  The Department has no specific plans to commission further research in this area, but stroke will continue to be considered as one of the priorities within the developing research and development strategy that supports the National Service Framework for Older People.

  Ministerial Visit (Buckingham)
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to visit the Buckingham constituency to meet patients. [16903]

  Ms Blears
  Ministers have no plans to visit the Buckingham constituency at present.

  Ritalin
  Paul Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many prescriptions for Ritalin have been issued in each year since 1992. [16888]

  Jacqui Smith
  The information requested is in the table.

  Number of prescription items and net ingredient cost of methylphenidate hydrochloride dispensed in the community,1992 to 2000

  England

  Year

  Prescription items (Thousand)

  Net ingredient cost (£000)

  1992

  2.6

  16.5

  1993

  3.5

  25.7

  1994

  6.0

  52.3

  1995

  14.7

  253.0

  174W

  Number of prescription items and net ingredient cost of methylphenidate hydrochloride dispensed in the community,1992 to 2000

  England

  Year

  Prescription items (Thousand)

  Net ingredient cost (£000)

  1996

  47.9

  811.7

  1997

  92.1

  1,636.5

  1998

  126.6

  2,402.8

  1999

  158.0

  3,100.3

  2000

  186.2

  3,757.6

  Notes

  1. The data cover all prescriptions dispensed in the community, ie by community pharmacists and appliance contractors, dispensing doctors, and prescriptions submitted by prescribing doctors for items personally administered in England.

  2. The data do not cover drugs dispensed in hospital or private prescriptions.

  3. The net ingredient cost is the basic cost of a drug and does not take account of discounts, dispensing costs, fees or prescription charges income.

  Smoking Cessation
  Mr. Blizzard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the budget for smoking cessation services from April 2002. [17456]

  Jacqui Smith
  Decisions on the level of funding for smoking cessation services in 2002–03 form part of the work on health authority allocations. An announcement on health authority allocations for 2002–03 will be made shortly.

  The NHS Plan sets out the provision of a comprehensive smoking cessation service. The success of this programme will mean that by 2010, at least 1.5 million smokers will have given up smoking.

  Paul Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to support(a) smoking cessation campaigns and (b) campaigns to divert smokers into less dangerous ways of ingesting nicotine. [16891]

  Jacqui Smith
  We will continue to use publicity campaigns designed to persuade smokers to give up. This publicity forms part of a comprehensive strategy including national telephone helplines and local cessation support which can include the provision of nicotine replacement therapy where appropriate. Nicotine is an addictive substance and we have no plans to encourage its use other than in the controlled circumstances of smoking cessation.

  Patient Advocacy and Liaison Services
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the patient advocacy and liaison services that exist. [16846]

  Ms Blears
  A list of current patients advice and liaison services is as follows:
  175W
  Patient advice and liaison services—list of pathfinders as at
  22 November 2001

  Addenbrooke's NHS Trust

  Ashford and St. Peter's NHS Trust

  Ashford PCG

  Bans and the London NHS Trust

  Bassetlaw Hospital

  Bath and NE Somerset PCT

  Berkshire Healthcare NHS Trust

  Bexhill and Rother PCT

  Birmingham Specialist Community Trust

  Birmingham Women's Healthcare Trust

  Bishop Auckland General Hospital

  Blackburn, Hyndburn and Ribble Valley NHS Trust

  Bolton Hospitals NHS Trust

  Bootle and Litherland PCT

  Bournemouth PCT, Poole Bay PCT, Poole Central and North PCT
  and Dorset Ambulance Trust

  Brighton and Hove PCG

  Brighton Healthcare NHS Trust

  Buckinghamshire Mental Health Trust

  City Hospital Trust

  City Hospitals Sunderland NHS Trust

  Clatterbridge Centre for Oncology NHS Trust

  County Durham and Darlington Priority Services NHS Trust

  Craven PCG

  Crawley PCG

  Dartford, Gravesham and Swanky PCT

  Dartford, Gravesham NHS Trust

  Dewsbury Healthcare NHS Trust

  Doncaster and Bassetlaw Hospitals NHS Trust

  Easington PCG

  East Cheshire NHS Trust

  East Devon PCT

  East Gloucestershire Trust

  East Kent Hospitals Trust

  Eastbourne and County Healthcare NHS Trust

  Eastbourne Hospital NHS Trust

  Eastern Wakefield PCT

  Epping Forest PCT

  Exeter PCT

  Fenland PCT

  Frimley Park NHS Trust

  Gateshead Health NHS Trust Education Centre

  George Eliot Hospital and Warwickshire Ambulance Trust

  Gloucestershire Royal NHS Trust

  Greenwich Healthcare NHS Trust

  Guy's and St. Thomas' Hospital NHS Trust

  Hambleton and Richmondshire PCG

  Harrogate Health Care NHS Trust

  Hartlepool NHS PCT

  Hastings and Rother NHS Trust

  Heatherwood and Wrexham Park NHS Trust

  Herefordshire PCT

  176W

  High Weald PCG

  Hillingdon PCT

  Homerton Hospital NHS Trust

  Hull and East Yorkshire Community Health NE-IS Trust

  Hull and East Yorkshire Hospitals NHS Trust

  Ipswich Hospital NHS Trust

  Kettering General Hospital NHS Trust

  King's Healthcare NHS Trust

  Kingston Hospital NHS Trust

  Langbaurgh PCT

  Luton and Dunstable Hospital

  Maidstone and Tunbridge Wells

  Manchester Mental Health Partnership

  Mayday Healthcare NHS Trust

  Medway and Swale PCG

  Medway Maritime Hospital

  Mid Surrey, East Elmbridge and East Surrey PCGs

  Mid Sussex NHS Trust

  Middlesbrough and Eston NHS PCG

  Milton Keynes Central Hospital

  Newham PCT

  North Bristol Trust

  North Cheshire Hospitals NHS Trust

  North Durham Healthcare NHS

  Trust North East Lincolnshire PCT

  North East London Mental Health NHS Trust

  North Hampshire Hospital NHS Trust

  North Hants PCT

  North Middlesex Hospital NHS Trust

  North Tees and Hartlepool NHS Trust

  North Tees NHS PCT

  Northallerton Trust

  Northampton General Hospital NHS Trust

  Northern and Yorks Region Learning Alliance

  Northern General Hospital

  Northumberland Mental Health Trust

  Nottinghamshire Health Authority

  Nuffield Orthopaedic NHS Trust

  Ouse Valley PCG

  Oxford Learning Disabilities Trust

  Oxford Radcliffe Hospital NHS Trust

  Oxleas NHS Trust

  Peterborough Hospitals NHS Trust

  177W

  Pinderfields and Pontefract Hospitals NHS Trust

  Plymouth PCT

  Portsmouth Hospitals NHS Trust

  Preston Acute Hospital NHS Trust

  Princess Alexandra Hospital NHS Trust

  Priority Healthcare Wearside NHS Trust

  Queen Victoria Hospital NHS Trust

  Royal Berkshire and Battle Hospital NHS Trust

  Royal Cornwall Hospitals Trust

  Royal Devon and Exeter Trust

  Royal Hallamshire Hospital

  Royal Liverpool and Broadgreen University Hospital NHS Trust

  Royal Liverpool Children's Hospital NHS Trust

  Royal Surrey County NHS Trust

  Royal United Hospital Bath

  Rushmoor and Hart PCG

  Salisbury Healthcare Trust

  Scarborough and NE Yorkshire Healthcare NHS Trust

  Scarborough, Whitby and Ryedale PCG

  Selby and District A.V.S.

  Sheffield Health Authority

  Sheffield Teaching Hospitals

  Shropshire Hospitals

  Slough PCT

  Somerset Health Community PALS

  South Buckinghamshire Trust

  South Derbyshire Acute NHS Trust

  South Devon Healthcare Trust

  South Downs Health NHS Trust

  South Humber Health Authority

  South London and Maudsley Mental Health NHS Trust

  South Manchester University Hospital Trust

  South Stoke PCT

  South Tees Acute Hospitals NHS Trust

  South Tyneside Health Care Trust

  South Wiltshire PCT

  Southampton University Hospitals NHS Trust

  Southern Derbyshire Community and Mental Health Trust

  St. Catherine's Hospital

  St. George's Healthcare NHS Trust

  St. Helens and Knowsley NHS Trust

  St. Mary's House

  St. Richards Hospital, Chichester

  Stepping Hill Hospital

  Stockport NHS Trust

  Sunderland West NHS PCT

  Surrey and Sussex Healthcare NHS Trust

  Surrey Hants Borders Mental Health

  Surrey Oaklands NHS Trust

  Sussex Amoulance Service NHS Trust

  Swindon and Marlborough Trust

  Tees and NE Yorks NHS Trust

  Tees, East and North Yorkshire Ambulance Service

  Teeside and North Yorkshire Ambulance Service

  Thames Gateway NHS Trust

  The Newcastle upon Tyne Hospitals NHS Trust

  The Walton Centre

  Tower Hamlets PCT

  Trafford Healthcare NHS Trust

  United Bristol Hospitals Trust

  178W

  University College London Hospitals NHS Trust

  University Hospitals of Leicester NHS Trust

  Vale of Aylesbury PCT

  Wakefield and Pontefract Community Healthcare NHS Trust

  Wakefield West PCT

  Walsall Hospitals Trust

  West Hertfordshire NHS Trust

  West Kent Mental Health Trust

  West Norfolk PCT

  West Suffolk Hospitals NHS Trust

  West Sussex Partnership Trust

  West Yorkshire Metropolitan Ambulance Service NHS Trust

  Whittington Hospitals NHS Trust

  Winchester and Eastleigh Healthcare NHS Trust

  Worthing and Southlands Hospital NHS

  Wythenshawe Health Centre

  York Health Services NHS Trust

  Hyperbaric Disorders
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many English patients were treated in Scotland for hyperbaric disorders in each of the last five years. [16844]

  Jacqui Smith
  Information on English patients treated in Scotland for hyperbaric disorders is not collected centrally.

  Hospital Cleanliness Audit
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what was the score for each element in the external audit of cleanliness for each NHS hospital; [16841]

  (2) if he will publish the external audit of cleanliness for each NHS hospital in each of the 14 specified elements. [16843]

  Ms Blears
  On 31 October 2001, the Department published the results of the most recent assessments of cleanliness for national health service hospitals. These results reflect the overall standard of the patient environment. The publication of these results is in line with the commitment we gave in the NHS plan to place this information in the public domain.

  The score for each element of the external audit of cleanliness for NHS hospitals has been reported to the NHS trusts concerned. The scores must be interpreted in the context of the written recommendations of the patient environment action teams (PEATs). The publication of the score for each individual element alone will not provide a rounded assessment of standards within each hospital.

  NHS trusts are still working to complete the implementation of their 2001–02 patient environment action plans and we expect to see continued improvements throughout the coming months. NHS trusts must incorporate the recommendations of the PEATs within their existing patient environment action plans, as a means of delivering further improvements. These improvements will be reflected in raised scores for each element of the inspection process by April 2002.
  179W

  Glivec
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health pending the National Institute for Clinical Excellence's appraisal of Glivec for chronic myeloid leukaemia patients, what guidance he has given health authorities on prescribing Glivec(a) to those who have been on Novartis' extended access programme, (b) to those who are on the current trial of the drug and (c) to those who have been diagnosed with CML recently and fall under neither (a) or (b). [17160]

  Jacqui Smith
  A letter about the future provision of Glivec, agreed by Ministers and signed by both Neil McKay, the chief operating officer, and Professor Mike Richards, the national cancer director, was sent on 24 October to all national health service regional directors.

  Novartis, the manufacturers of Glivec, are making a limited free supply available for those patients on the Extended Access Programme (EAP). It will then be for health authorities and trust to discuss the funding of the treatment. However, as the letter of 24 October makes clear, there is no question of treatment being withdrawn from patients on funding grounds once EAP supplies end. Treatment should cease only on clinical grounds.

  Those patients involved in trials of Glivec will continue to have their treatments funded by Novartis.

  For new patients, as with all newly licensed treatments in advance of a NICE appraisal, the Department's advice is that funding authorities should consider the clinical evidence available for a specific treatment before making any decision.

  It is expected that the National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) will publish guidance on Glivec in August 2002.

  Emergency Admissions (North-west)
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what percentage change in emergency admissions has occurred in NHS trusts in the north-west between 2000 and 2001 to date; and if he will make a statement. [16895]

  Jacqui Smith
  In the first seven months of 2001, there was an increase of 0.3 per cent. in emergency admissions in national health service trusts in the north-west region compared with the same period in the previous year.

  Public Bodies
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will list those public bodies to which his Department appoints members and which are not listed in Public Bodies 2000; [17591]

  (2) if he will list those public bodies which are the responsibility of his Department and which are not listed in Public Bodies 2000. [17592]

  Ms Blears
  Public Bodies 2000 sets out the information on non-departmental public bodies (NDPBs), certain public corporations (including nationalised industries) and national health service bodies. There are four types of NDPB: executive NDPBs; advisory NDPBs; tribunal NDPBs; and boards of visitors to penal establishments. The next edition of Public Bodies will be published 180W
  around the end of the year. Information about task forces, annual reports and ad hoc advisory groups is set out in the annual report, published by the Cabinet Office. Copies of Public Bodies 2000 are in the Library and this publication may be accessed via the Cabinet Office's website (http:/www.official-documents.co.uk/document/ caboff/pb00.htm). Copies of the annual report on task forces and similar bodies have also been placed in the Library and the annual report is also being made available on the Cabinet Office's website.

  The following public bodies have been established since the publication of Public Bodies 2000. All the bodies listed are the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State who is responsible for all the public appointments made to their boards.

  Advisory NDPBs

  Advisory Committee on Tissue Banking

  Independent Advisory Group on Teenage Pregnancy

  Independent Review Panel on the Classification of Borderline
  Medicines

  Social Care Institute for Excellence

  Specialist Advisory Committee on Antimicrobial Resistance

  Executive NDPBs

  General Social Care Council

  >
  Tribunal NDPBs

  Prescription Price Control Tribunal

  Special Health Authorities

  Health Development Agency (replacing the Health Education
  Authority)

  National Care Standards Commission

  National Clinical Assessment Authority

  National Patient Safety Agency

  National Treatment Agency

  National Health Service Appointments Commission

  Retained Organs Commission.

  The Department is also responsible for local NHS trusts, health authorities, and primary care trusts, individual details of which are not listed in Public Bodies. Non-executive appointments to these bodies are now a matter for the NHS Appointments commission. Details of all these local NHS bodies as at 1 April 2000, including their non-executive members, are given in the Department of Health Public Appointments Annual Report, a copy of which is in the Library. A copy of the 2001 Public Appointments Annual Report, giving information as at 1 April 2001, will be sent to all hon. Members as soon as it is available. 14 NHS trusts and 25 primary care trusts have been established since 1 April 2001.

  Nurses
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much the health service spent on hiring agency nursing staff(a) in total and (b) broken down by NHS trust, in (i) 1995–96, (ii) 1996–97, (iii) 1997–98, (iv) 1998–99, (vi) 1999–2000 and (vi) 2000–01; and what the figures were at the latest date for which figures are available. [20184]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 3 December 2001]: The information requested has been placed in the Library.
  181W
  The tables contain data that outline the expenditure on non-national health service nursing, midwifery and health visiting staff (by NHS trust, health authority and primary care trust) in England, 1995–96 to 2000–01. The non-NHS staff figures include all nurses, midwives and health visiting staff not directly employed by the trusts. We are unable to disaggregate agency nurses. The 2000–01 figures are the latest available and are provisional.

  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many(a) NHS employed and (b) agency nurses were employed on the Isle of Wight in (i) 1997, (ii) 1998, (iii) 1999, (iv) 2000 and (v) 2001; [17682]

  (2) how much money was spent on agency nurses on the Isle of Wight in (a) 1997, (b) 1998, (c) 1999, (d) 2000 and (e) 2001. [17683]

  Ms Blears
  The number of national health service nurses employed by the Isle of Wight Healthcare NHS Trust is as follows:

  NHS hospital and community health services (HCHS) qualified nursing, midwifery and health visiting staff within the Isle of Wight health authority area as at 30 September each year

  Year

  Whole time equivalents

  1997

  570

  1998

  600

  1999

  630

  2000

  670

  Notes:

  1. Figures are rounded to the nearest 10

  2. Figures exclude learners and agency staff

  Source:

  Department of Health Non-Medical Workforce Census

  2001 data are not yet available.

  Information is not collected centrally on the numbers of agency nurses used or the cost incurred.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many nursing vacancies there are in the NHS in the Buckingham constituency. [17854]

  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many nursing vacancies there are in the NHS in Arundel and South Downs. [18319]

  Ms Blears
  The information is not available in the format requested.

  Private Hospitals
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what percentage of NHS in-patients were treated in private hospitals in(a) 1997, (b) 1998, (c) 1999, (d) 2000 and (e) 2001 on the Isle of Wight; and what was the respective yearly cost to the NHS of the treatment. [17684]

  Ms Blears
  The information requested is not available centrally.

  Tuberculosis
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people have been diagnosed with tuberculosis in the Buckingham constituency in each year since 1990. [17858]
  182W
  Ms Blears
  Information on statutory notifications of tuberculosis (excluding chemoprophylaxis) is available from the Public Health Laboratory Service.

  The Department collects information on tuberculosis as part of the hospital episode statistics (HES) system, which contains details of patients admitted to and treated in national health service hospitals in England. The numbers of patients in Buckinghamshire health authority are shown in the table.

  Number

  1990–91

  24

  1991–92

  44

  1992–93

  51

  1993–94

  34

  1994–95

  27

  1995–96

  21

  1996–97

  21

  1997–98

  20

  1998–99

  21

  1999–2000

  33

  2000–01

  26

  Notes:

  1. A finished consultant episode is defined as a period of patient care under one consultant in one health care provider.

  2. The figures do not represent the number of patients, as one person may have several episodes within a year.

  3. The main diagnosis is the first of seven diagnosis field in the HES data set, and provides the main reason why the patient was in hospital.

  4. The table uses ICD9 codes: 010–018 (1990–91 to 1994–95) and ICD10 codes A15–A19 (1995–96 to 2000–01).

  5. Data in this table are grossed for both coverage and unknown/invalid clinical data, except for 1998–99 to 2000–01 which are ungrossed.

  Source:

  Hospital Episodes Statistics (HES) Department of Health

  MMR Inoculations
  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what percentage of children aged(a) one to two, (b) two to three and (c) three to four years have been given MMR inoculations in the Arundel and South Downs constituency. [18615]

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what percentage of children aged(a) one to two, (b) two to three and (c) three to four years have been given MMR inoculations in the Buckingham constituency. [17860]

  Ms Blears
  The information available about children immunised against measles, mumps and rubella is contained in the Statistical Bulletin "NHS Immunisation Statistics, England: 2000–01". A copy of the bulletin is in the Library and can also be found on the Department of Health website www.doh.gov.uk/public/sb0121.htm.

  MRSA
  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is(a) the level in the last 12 months and (b) the trend of the incidence of MRSA; what the average incidence per trust area has been in the last five years; which six trust areas have the highest and at what level of incidence; what action is being taken to tackle MRSA (i) in the above average trusts and (ii) generally; and if he will make a statement. [18078]

  Mr. Hutton
  Information is not available in the format requested.
  183W
  The tables give aggregate data on trends and numbers of incidents of methicillin resistant staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) voluntarily submitted by national health service trusts for specialist microbiological tests since 1995. These data are currently available on a regional basis only. Data on staphylococcus aureus bacteraemias (blood infections) showing the proportion resistant to methicillin in England and Wales are published quarterly by the Public Health Laboratory Service in the Communicable Disease Report. Copies are available in the Library.

  More comprehensive information about bacteraemias, including MRSA, has been collected from all acute trusts since 1 April 2001 and this will be published showing individual trust data from 1 April 2002.

  Instructions to the NHS have been issued to ensure that hospital acquired infection is being tackled throughout the organisation. All acute trusts are required to adhere to national standards for infection control and to have specialist infection control teams whose primary responsibility is for all aspects of surveillance, prevention and control of hospital infection including MRSA.

  Evidence based, multi-professional guidelines on the general principles for preventing hospital acquired infection were developed with the support of the Department and were published in January this year.

  Incidents of MRSA between 1995–2000

  1995

  1996

  1997

  1998

  Anglia and Oxford

  142

  237

  297

  223

  North Thames

  566

  539

  544

  289

  North West

  65

  176

  259

  215

  Northern and Yorkshire

  90

  150

  224

  202

  South and West

  80

  206

  254

  101

  South Thames

  377

  421

  385

  220

  Trent

  52

  99

  123

  109

  West Midlands

  128

  121

  102

  69

  Wales

  116

  158

  176

  169

  Total

  1,616

  2,107

  2,364

  1,597

  1999

  2000

  Eastern

  80

  60

  London

  290

  170

  Northern and Yorkshire

  170

  70

  North West

  180

  90

  South East

  170

  100

  South West

  40

  10

  Trent

  100

  30

  West Midlands

  30

  50

  Wales

  130

  40

  Total

  1,190

  620

  Notes:

  For 1995 and 1996 and the first half of 1997 data have been amalgamated to the approximate boundaries of the new regional office areas. This allows for comparison with subsequent years.

  An incident is three or more patients infected or colonised by the same strain of MRSA in the same month from the same hospital.

  The criteria for submission of isolates of MRSA (and other isolates of staphylococcus aureus) to the PHLS for specialist tests have been revised twice since 1996 (in January 1998 and in January 2000).

  These revised criteria have led to a fall in the number of incidents of MRSA that were reported to the PHLS.
  184W

  Volunteers' Charter
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will establish a volunteers' charter to address the rights of volunteers. [20346]

  Jacqui Smith
  We already have in place an agreement to respect and promote the rights of volunteers under the Volunteering Code of Good Practice. This code forms part of the Compact agreement between all Government Departments and the voluntary sector. The code was launched in October 2001 and the Department is represented on the implementation group. This group recently met for the first time to agree on methods for the promotion of the principles and good practice set out in the code.

  Health Spending
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health on what basis his Department has calculated the European average for health spending as a percentage of GDP; and what are the relevant figures for each country. [20687]

  Mr. Hutton
  The European average is calculated using the arithmetic mean of the member countries health expenditure as a percentage of gross domestic product. The relevant figures are provided in the table for the most recent data available.

  Total expenditure on health

  1998

  Percentage gross domestic product

  Austria

  8

  Belgium

  8.6

  Denmark

  8.3

  Finland

  6.9

  France

  9.3

  Germany

  10.3

  Greece

  8.4

  Ireland

  6.8

  Italy

  7.7

  Luxembourg

  6

  Netherlands

  8.7

  Portugal

  7.7

  Spain

  7

  Sweden

  7.9

  United Kingdom

  6.8

  Source:

  Copyright OECD health data 2001

  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health on what figures for expenditure on health care in the UK from different sources his Department bases its figures for health spending as a percentage of GDP. [20688]

  Mr. Hutton
  Total expenditure on health care in the United Kingdom as a percentage of gross domestic product is based on the following.

  (i) UK gross NHS expenditure in cash terms—based on figures from the Department of Health and the devolved Administrations,

  (ii) Private health care expenditure—projections based on data published by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development and,

  (iii) Gross domestic product on a cash basis—provided by Her Majesty's Treasury.

  185W

  Registered General Practitioners (Criminal Convictions)
  Ian Lucas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will require registered practitioners in England and Wales to disclose any criminal conviction in any jurisdiction. [17397]

  Mr. Hutton
  Regulations under sections 29A, 29B and 43D of the National Health Service Act 1977 were made, and laid before the House, on 22 November 2001 that will require general medical services general practitioners in England to disclose all criminal convictions anywhere in the world.

  The regulations are:
  the National Health Service (General Medical Services) Amendment (no. 4) Regulations 2001 (S.I. 3742);
  the National Health Service (General Medical Services Supplementary List) Regulations 2001 (S.I. 3740).

  Similar measures will be introduced for doctors in personal medical services pilots shortly.

  General practitioners in Wales are a matter for the National Assembly for Wales.

WORK AND PENSIONS

  New Deal
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) what his estimate is of the number of people eligible for new deal 50 plus who are also entitled to claim the employment credit; [15837]

  (2) what his estimate is of the number of people eligible for new deal 50 plus. [15847]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  We estimate that over 3 million people are eligible for new deal 50 plus. Those who move into work and have an overall gross income of under £15,000 per annum, having been on an eligible benefit for six months or more, will be eligible for the employment credit. In the first 18 months of national operation over 51,000 people went back to work with the help of the employment credit.

  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) what campaigns have been undertaken to promote awareness of the new deal 50 plus among employers; [15844]

  (2) what campaigns have been undertaken to encourage greater participation in the new deal 50 plus. [15839]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  We are currently building on last autumn's successful new deal 50 plus TV advertising campaign with a regional and local marketing campaign. Provisions are made within local budgets for strategic and innovative campaigns, and activities include local/ regional press advertising, mailshots, and Jobsfairs.

  In addition, people who are over 50 and registered unemployed for six months or more will have new deal 50 plus drawn to their attention through their Jobcentre. New incapacity benefit claimants receive a mailshot about the programme when they become eligible.
  186W
  We are also developing proposals to increase the participation of employers on new deal 50 plus through the involvement of organisations from various employment sectors.

  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) how many new deal 50 plus participants are in receipt of the employment credit; and how many new credits have been recorded in each of the last 12 months; [15846]

  (2) if he will make a statement on progress with the new deal 50 plus; [15840]

  (3) how many people receive support from the new deal 50 plus; and how many starts to the scheme have been recorded in each of the last 12 months. [15841]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  The new deal 50 plus blend of personal advice, jobsearch help and in-work financial support has proved very successful at helping people over 50 move off benefits and back into work.

  Starts on the programme are currently measured by the number of people who have moved into work and claimed the programme's in-work financial support, the employment credit. In the first 18 months of its national operation over 51,000 people have returned to work with the help of the employment credit. Currently we estimate that over 30,000 people are in receipt of the credit. Many people will also have benefited from the advice and jobsearch help that is available through the programme, although numbers are not available at present.

  The numbers of employment credit starts for each of the last twelve months are in the table.

  Number

  October 2000

  3,285

  November 2000

  3,403

  December 2000

  2,664

  January 2001

  2,186

  February 2001

  2,717

  March 2001

  3,284

  April 2001

  2,605

  May 2001

  3,293

  June 2001

  3,203

  July 2001

  2,921

  August 2001

  3,163

  September 2001

  3,011

  Breast Feeding Mothers
  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what benefits and allowances are available to breast-feeding mothers; and what plans he has to introduce further measures targeted at this group. [11666]

  Malcolm Wicks
  There is a wide range of benefits which may be available to all new mothers including maternity benefit, child benefit and income support.

  We are improving maternity benefits as part of our drive to help women achieve a better balance between paid work and their family life. Statutory maternity pay and maternity allowance will be raised to £75 a week from April 2002. In 2003 the payments will be increased further to £100 a week and the payment period will be extended from 18 to 26 weeks.
  187W
  Sure Start maternity grants are also available to mothers, or their partners, who receive qualifying benefits. These grants are currently worth up to three times as much as the maternity payments they replaced and provide more help to the neediest families. We have announced a further increase in the grant from next April to £500 for each child.

  Since 1997 the rate of child benefit has increased by 26 per cent. in real terms. The current rates from April 2001 are £15.50 for the first child and £10.35 for all other children.

  Benefit Fraud
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions which report by the Benefit Fraud Inspectorate was(a) most satisfactory and (b) least satisfactory with respect to the Government's housing benefit policies. [11818]

  Malcolm Wicks
  It is not possible to identify individual local authorities in this way. Inspections have revealed that each authority has a mixture of strengths and weaknesses across a wide range of different administrative and counter-fraud activities. Inspections can vary in approach according to the circumstances of each local authority. The information available in the reports does not, therefore, enable such comparisons to be made.

  Housing Benefit
  Mr. Sanders
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what financial support is available to local authorities which experience a significant rise in housing benefit administrative costs as a consequence of large scale redundancies. [17868]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The amount of subsidy paid to each authority is calculated annually using a formula agreed in consultation with the local authority associations. The formula takes account of the caseload and complexity of housing benefit cases, with elements for accommodation and staffing costs. Once annual allocations have been set, they cannot be altered in-year. However, any changes in caseload would be reflected in the following year's allocation.

  Chris Ruane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions which 20 local authorities took the longest to pay housing benefit in the UK in the last three years; and what was the average lengths of time it took these local authorities to pay. [16102]

  Malcolm Wicks
  [holding answer 19 November 2001]: The information is not available.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) how many local authority housing benefit managers he has met since he took responsibility for housing benefit; [12944]

  (2) how many visits he has made to local authority housing benefit offices since he took responsibility for housing benefit. [12945]

  Malcolm Wicks
  [holding answer 14 November 2001]: Information is not available in the format requested. However, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and other Ministers meet periodically with housing benefit
  188W
  managers at conferences and on visits to individual local authorities. Such recent occasions have included question and answer sessions at conferences hosted by the Chartered Institute of Housing (June 2001) and the Institute of Ratings Revenue and Valuation (February and October 2001). Visits have also been made to the London Boroughs of Camden, Hackney and Croydon housing benefit departments. Further visits are being planned.

  Pensioners (Buckingham)
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what plans he has to visit the Buckingham constituency to meet pensioners. [18797]

  Mr. McCartney
  My right hon. Friend has no plans to visit the Buckinghamshire constituency in the near future, but we do meet pensioners regularly in the course of our duties.

  Severe Disability Allowance
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will set out from the first quarter of 1998–99 to the most recent figures available(a) how many people were awaiting an appeal for severe disability allowance at the end of each quarter, (b) the average time it took to process the appeal and (c) the average time it took to process the original claim. [16786]

  Maria Eagle
  The number of appeals outstanding for severe disablement allowance at the end of the first quarter of 1998–99 to the first quarter of 2001–02 are shown in table 1:

  Table 1

  Year/quarter

  Number of appeal outstanding at the end of each quarter

  1998–99

  1

  1,569

  2

  1,613

  3

  1,508

  4

  1,347

  1999–2000

  1

  761

  2

  932

  3

  623

  4

  711

  2000–01

  1

  775

  2

  855

  3

  735

  4

  712

  2001–02

  1

  716

  Note:

  All figures are provisional

  Source:

  100 per cent. download of the Generic Appeals Processing System.

  The average times in weeks from lodgement of a severe disablement allowance appeal with the Benefits Agency to the appeal being decided from the end of the first quarter of 1998–99 to the first quarter of 2001–02 is shown in table 2:
  189W

  Table 2

  Year/quarter

  lodgement of the appeal with the Benefits Agency to the appeal being received by the Appeals Service

  Time in weeks from: receipt of the appeal by the Appeals Service to the appeal being heard at tribunal for the first time

  the appeal being heard for the first time at tribunal to the appeal being decided'

  Overall "end-to-end" clearance time in weeks

  1998–99

  1

  11

  26

  26

  37

  2

  7

  26

  27

  34

  3

  7

  27

  30

  37

  4

  7

  25

  28

  35

  1999–2000

  1

  11

  31

  36

  47

  2

  12

  20

  26

  38

  3

  14

  23

  32

  46

  4

  13

  22

  33

  46

  2000–01

  1

  12

  16

  23

  35

  2

  13

  15

  21

  34

  3

  12

  16

  22

  34

  4

  11

  15

  21

  32

  2001–02

  1

  11

  15

  22

  32

  1Includes appeals, which have been adjourned.

  Note:

  All figures are provisional

  Source:

  100 per cent. download of the Generic Appeals Processing System.

  The average times in working days taken to process a severe disablement allowance claim for the period from the end of the first quarter of 1998–99 to the second quarter of 2001–02 is shown in table 3:

  Table 3

  Year/quarter

  Number of working days taken to process a claim for severe disablement allowance

  1998–99

  1

  64

  2

  57

  3

  58

  4

  56

  1999–2000

  1

  62

  2

  68

  3

  66

  4

  65

  2000–01

  1

  64

  2

  60

  Income support claimants with preserved rights in residential care/nursing homes as at May 1998

  All preserved rights cases

  Residential care

  Nursing homes

  Number (thousand)

  Percentage

  Number (thousand)

  Percentage

  Number (thousand)

  Percentage

  All cases

  103.7

  100.0

  59.3

  100.0

  35.1

  100.0

  Fees equal to or below IS

  57.8

  57.1

  38.6

  56.3

  19.2

  54.6

  Fees above IS

  45.9

  44.3

  30.0

  43.7

  15.9

  45.4

  of which above IS by:

  £0.01 to £14.441

  16.4

  15.8

  8.1

  11.9

  8.3

  23.6

  190W

  Table 3

  Year/quarter

  Number of working days taken to process a claim for severe disablement allowance

  3

  63

  4

  69

  2001–021

  1

  76

  2

  104

  1Severe disablement allowance ceased to be payable as a new benefit from April 2001.

  Notes

  1. All figures are provisional.

  2. All data from Central Data Unit.

  Preserved Rights Residents
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, pursuant to his answer of 19 November, Official Report, column 145W, on preserved rights residents, if he will give comparable figures for the last three years for which figures are available. [17933]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The information requested is in the
  tables.
  191W

  Income support claimants with preserved rights in residential care/nursing homes as at May 1998

  All preserved rights cases

  Residential care

  Nursing homes

  Number (thousand)

  Percentage

  Number (thousand)

  Percentage

  Number (thousand)

  Percentage

  £14.45–£20.00

  3.5

  3.4

  2.2

  3.2

  1.3

  3.6

  £20.01–£30.00

  4.3

  4.1

  2.7

  4.0

  1.6

  4.4

  £30.01–£40.00

  4.0

  3.9

  2.7

  3.9

  1.3

  3.7

  £40.01–£50.00

  2.2

  2.1

  1.4

  2.1

  0.7

  2.1

  £50.01–£60.00

  1.6

  1.6

  1.1

  1.6

  0.5

  1.4

  £60.01–£70.00

  1.4

  1.3

  1.0

  1.4

  20.4

  21.1

  £70.01 and over

  12.6

  12.1

  10.7

  15.6

  1.9

  5.4

  of which:

  £70.01–£80.00

  1.4

  1.3

  1.1

  1.7

  20.2

  20.6

  £80.01–£90.00

  0.7

  0.7

  0.5

  0.8

  20.2

  20.6

  £90.01–£100.00

  1.0

  0.9

  0.7

  1.1

  20.2

  20.6

  £100.01–£110.00

  0.7

  0.7

  0.5

  0.8

  20.2

  20.5

  £110.01–£120.00

  0.6

  0.6

  0.6

  0.8

  20.1

  20.2

  £120.01 and over

  8.2

  7.9

  7.2

  10.5

  1.0

  2.9

  1Below the personal expenses allowance of £14.45

  2Are subject to a high degree of sampling error and should be used as a rough guide to the current situation only

  Note:

  1. Figures are based on a 5 per cent. sample and are therefore subject to a degree of sampling error.

  2. Numbers have been rounded to the nearest 100 and are expressed in thousands.

  Source:

  Income Support Quarterly Statistical Enquiry, May 1998.

  Income support claimants with preserved rights in residential care/nursing homes as at May 1999

  All preserved rights cases

  Residential care

  Nursing homes

  Number (thousand)

  Percentage

  Number (thousand)

  Percentage

  Number (thousand)

  Percentage

  All cases

  86.3

  100.0

  58.3

  100.0

  26.9

  100.0

  Fees equal to or below IS

  49.2

  56.1

  33.4

  56.3

  15.8

  58.8

  Fees above IS

  37.0

  42.9

  25.9

  43.7

  11.1

  41.2

  of which above IS by:

  £0.01 to £14.741

  11.6

  13.5

  6.6

  11.2

  5.0

  18.6

  £14.75–£20.00

  2.8

  3.3

  1.7

  2.8

  1.1

  4.2

  £20.01–£30.00

  3.8

  4.4

  2.3

  3.9

  1.4

  5.3

  £30.01–£40.00

  2.7

  3.1

  2.0

  3.4

  0.6

  2.4

  £40.01–£50.00

  1.9

  2.2

  1.4

  2.3

  0.6

  2.1

  £50.01–£60.00

  1.2

  1.4

  0.8

  1.3

  20.4

  21.5

  £60.01–£70.00

  1.3

  1.5

  0.9

  1.6

  20.3

  21.3

  £70.01 and over

  11.7

  13.6

  10.2

  17.1

  1.5

  5.7

  of which:

  £70.01–£80.00

  1.0

  1.1

  0.8

  1.4

  20.1

  20.5

  £80.01–£90.00

  1.1

  1.3

  0.9

  1.6

  20.2

  20.7

  £90.01–£100.00

  0.7

  0.8

  0.6

  1.0

  20.1

  20.3

  £100.01–£110.00

  20.4

  20.4

  20.3

  20.5

  3—

  3—

  £110.01–£120.00

  0.6

  0.7

  0.5

  0.8

  30.1

  30.5

  £120.01 and over

  7.9

  9.2

  7.0

  11.8

  0.9

  3.5

  1Below the personal expenses allowance of £14.75

  2 Are subject to a high degree of sampling error and should be used as a rough guide to the current situation only

  3Denotes nil or negligible

  Note:

  1. Figures are based on a 5 per cent. sample and are therefore subject to a degree of sampling error.

  2. Numbers have been rounded to the nearest 100 and are expressed in thousands.

  Source:

  Income Support Quarterly Statistical Enquiry, May 1999.
  192W 193W

  Income support claimants with preserved rights in residential care/nursing homes as at May 2000

  All preserved rights cases

  Residential care

  Nursing homes

  Number (thousand)

  Percentage

  Number (thousand)

  Percentage

  Number (thousand)

  Percentage

  All cases

  74.3

  100.0

  52.7

  100.0

  21.6

  100.0

  Fees equal to or below IS

  40.2

  54.1

  27.6

  52.4

  12.6

  58.4

  Fees above IS

  34.1

  45.9

  25.1

  47.6

  9.0

  41.6

  of which above IS by:

  £0.01 to £15.441

  11.1

  15.0

  7.0

  13.2

  4.2

  19.3

  £15.45–£20.00

  2.1

  2.9

  1.1

  2.0

  1.0

  4.8

  £20.01–£30.00

  2.9

  4.0

  2.0

  3.9

  0.9

  4.2

  £30.01–£40.00

  2.4

  3.2

  2.0

  3.8

  20.3

  21.6

  £40.01–£50.00

  1.4

  1.9

  0.9

  1.8

  20.5

  22.2

  £50.01–£60.00

  1.2

  1.6

  1.0

  1.8

  20.2

  20.9

  £60.01–£70.00

  1.2

  1.6

  0.9

  1.7

  20.3

  21.5

  £70.01 and over

  11.8

  15.8

  10.2

  19.4

  1.5

  7.1

  of which:

  £70.01–£80.00

  0.9

  1.2

  0.7

  1.3

  20.2

  20.7

  £80.01–£90.00

  1.1

  1.5

  0.9

  1.8

  20.2

  20.7

  £90.01–£100.00

  0.6

  0.8

  0.5

  1.0

  20.1

  20.4

  £100.01–£110.00

  20.5

  20.6

  20.4

  20.7

  20.7

  20.4

  £110.01–£120.00

  0.5

  0.7

  20.4

  20.8

  20.1

  20.6

  £120.01 and over

  8.2

  11.1

  7.3

  13.8

  0.9

  4.3

  1Below the personal expenses allowance of £5.45

  2Are subject to a high degree of sampling error and should be used as a rough guide to the current situation only

  Note:

  1. Figures are based on a 5 per cent. sample and are therefore subject to a degree of sampling error.

  2. Numbers have been rounded to the nearest 100 and are expressed in thousands.

  Source:

  Income Support Quarterly Statistical Enquiry, May 2000.

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, pursuant to his answer of 19 November, 2001,Official Report, column 145W, on preserved rights residents, if he will give figures on the same basis for top-ups of (a) £70.01 to £80, (b) £80.01 to £90, (c) £90.01

  Income support claimants with preserved rights in residential care/nursing homes as at May 2001

  All preserved rights cases

  Residential care

  Nursing homes

  Number (thousand)

  Percentage

  Number (thousand)

  Percentage

  Number (thousand)

  Percentage

  All cases

  65.1

  100.0

  47.6

  100

  17.4

  100

  Fees equal to or below IS

  35.2

  54.1

  24.8

  52.1

  10.4

  59.4

  Fees above IS

  29.9

  45.9

  22.8

  47.9

  7.1

  40.6

  Of which above IS by:

  £0.01 to £16.041

  8.3

  12.7

  5.1

  10.8

  3.1

  18.0

  £16.05 to £20.00

  1.8

  2.8

  1.4

  3.0

  20.4

  22.3

  £20.01 to £30.00

  2.6

  4.1

  1.9

  3.9

  0.8

  4.5

  £30.01 to £40.00

  2.1

  3.2

  1.6

  3.4

  20.5

  22.6

  £40.01 to £50.00

  1.2

  1.9

  0.8

  1.7

  20.4

  22.5

  £50.01 to £60.00

  1.1

  1.7

  0.9

  1.9

  20.2

  20.9

  £60.01 to £70.00

  1.0

  1.5

  0.8

  1.6

  20.2

  21.3

  £70.01 to £80.00

  1.1

  1.7

  0.9

  1.8

  20.2

  21.3

  £80.01 to £90.00

  0.7

  1.1

  0.6

  1.3

  20.1

  20.6

  £90.01 to £100.00

  0.5

  0.8

  20.4

  20.8

  20.1

  20.6

  £100.01 to £110.00

  0.6

  0.9

  0.5

  1.0

  20.1

  20.6

  £110.01 to £120.00

  20.5

  20.7

  20.3

  20.7

  20.1

  20.7

  £120.01 and over

  8.4

  13.0

  7.6

  16.0

  0.8

  4.8

  1Below the personal expenses allowance of £16.05.

  2Subject to a high degree of sampling error and should be used as a rough guide to the current situation only.

  Notes:

  1. Figures are based on a 5 per cent. sample and are therefore subject to a degree of sampling error.

  2. Numbers have been rounded to the nearest hundred and are expressed in thousands.

  Source:

  Income Support Quarterly Statistical Enquiry, May 2001
  194W
  to £100,(d) £100.01 to £110, (e) £110.01 to £120 and (f) £120.01 and over. [17934]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The information requested is shown in the table.

  Income-related Benefits
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many of those on income related benefits are subject to the tariff incomes schedule; and what plans he has to review the coverage of the schedule. [15616]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The information is in the table:

  Number

  Income Support (IS) (including Minimum Income Guarantee)

  136,000

  Jobseeker's Allowance (income-based) (JSA(IB))

  9,000

  Housing Benefit (HB) only

  20,000

  Council Tax Benefit (CTB) only

  170,000

  HB and CTB

  170,000

  Notes:

  1. Figures are rounded to the nearest thousand.

  2. IS and JSA(IB) figures are based on a 5 per cent. sample and are therefore subject to a degree of sampling error.

  3. HB and CTB figures are based on a 1 per cent. sample and are therefore subject to a degree of sampling error.

  4. Of those receiving IS and JSA(IB), 10,000 were also receiving HB, 50,000 were receiving CTB and 60,000 were receiving both HB and CTB.

  5. HB/CTB figures refer to households, which may be a single person, a couple or a family.

  Sources:

  IS Quarterly Statistical Enquiry, May 2000.

  JSA Quarterly Statistical Enquiry, May 2000.

  HB and CTB Management Information System, annual 1 per cent. sample, May 2000.

  We keep the rules on the treatment of capital in the income-related benefits under review. We will shortly announce reforms of the treatment of capital for the pension credit.

  Unemployment Benefits
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will make a statement on the trends in the numbers of those receiving benefits relating to unemployment in the last 12 months. [19395]

  Malcolm Wicks
  During the last 12 months unemployment has fallen below 1 million for the first time since 1975. The latest figures, for October 2001, show the number of people claiming Jobseeker's Allowance at 951,100. Although this is 4,300 higher than in September, the labour market is still in a better position than a year ago, with claimant unemployment 95,700 lower than in October 2000.

  Child Care Grant
  Mr. Rooney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if the child care grant payable to full-time students is classed as income for housing benefit and income support claimants. [19481]

  Malcolm Wicks
  [holding answer 30 November 2001]: The child care grants payable by the Department for Education and Skills are disregarded as income for those full-time students who are eligible to claim housing benefit and income support, as are the child care grants paid by the Scottish Executive.

  Stakeholder Pensions
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many employers are contributing 196W
  to stakeholder pensions; and what information he has collated about the levels of contribution in relation to wage levels. [11407]

  Mr. McCartney
  The information requested is not yet available. Provisional estimates of contributions to stakeholder pensions by employers are scheduled to be available in early 2002. Information on the earnings bands of stakeholder pension contributors is not yet available. However, recently published research from the Association of British Insurers found that the majority of those intending to take out a stakeholder pension in the 12 months following the research had an individual annual income of less than £25,000.

  Vehicle Excise Duty
  Mr. Boris Johnson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions for what reasons(a) a claimant who applies after his 65th birthday is not exempt from vehicle excise duty and (b) a claimant who claims before his 65th birthday continues to receive an exemption afterwards; and if he will make a statement. [18304]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I have been asked to reply.

  As a matter of law and policy, entitlement to the VED exemption in respect of disability, is linked to receipt of

  (a) the higher rate mobility component of disability living allowance (DLA), or

  (b) the war pensioners mobility supplement paid under the war disablement pensions scheme, or

  (c) an invalid tricycle or small car issued by the Department of Health or the Scottish Executive.

  The effect of the policy is that a licence is issued without charge, where evidence of receipt of any of the above is produced at vehicle licensing.

  The Government have adopted this course because it ensures well defined criteria for entitlement which, in the main targets the exemption on people who become disabled before they reach the age of 65 and, through restricted mobility, may face a lifetime of limited opportunities to work, earn and save compared with their able-bodied counterparts. To introduce different criteria for entitlement VED exemption would be to add further to bureaucracy.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Magistrates
  David Taylor
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what recent representations he has received from members of the Magistrates Association about future changes in their role. [17521]

  Mr. Wills
  The only recent representations received have been in response to Sir Robin Auld's Review Report. So far five magistrates have responded, although not all of these may be members of the Magistrates Association. The period for public comment runs until the end of January.

  Small Claims Courts
  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what plans she has for reform of the small claims courts. [17522]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  There are no plans at the moment for the reform of the small claims procedure within the county courts in England and Wales. The current procedure has been in place for two and a half years and the Lord Chancellor's Department and the Court Service are now looking to evaluate the effectiveness of these procedures.

  Local Magistracy
  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department when he next expects to meet representatives of the lay justice to discuss the administration of local magistracy. [17524]

  Mr. Wills
  Each magistrates courts committee is responsible for the efficient and effective administration of the magistrates courts in its area. This will include allocating administrative responsibility among its staff and providing training for magistrates, to ensure justice is administered throughout the local area.

  I continue to have meetings with various representatives of the magistrates courts community on a variety of issues.

  Electoral Register
  Mr. Bryant
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what plans she has to make the marked electoral register more readily available to political parties. [17526]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  Access to marked electoral registers is provided by the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery. The terms of access are agreed with the Speaker, in accordance with powers under the Representation of the People Act 1983. I understand there are no plans to change the arrangements at present.

  Family Law Act
  Margaret Moran
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what plans she has to introduce third party orders under section 60 of the Family Law Act 1996. 17527]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The Government are concerned to ensure that the range of remedies available to survivors of domestic violence provides sufficient support and protection. We will therefore be conducting a short research project in the New Year, fully to assess the implications and benefits of introducing third party orders as provided under Section 60 of the Family Law Act 1996. We will work closely with stakeholders and interest groups to ensure that the project addresses the diverse needs of all those who need to use the court system.

  Criminal Justice Review for Northern Ireland
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if she will make a statement on her proposed functions under the criminal justice review for Northern Ireland, indicating the changes from her present functions. [17528]
  198W
  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The Government's response to the Criminal Justice Review Report in Northern Ireland has been published in a detailed Implementation Plan and related draft Justice (Northern Ireland) Bill.

  When the Justice (Northern Ireland) Bill receives parliamentary approval and the Government are satisfied that the devolved institutions are working effectively, those functions of the Lord Chancellor which relate to judicial appointments in Northern Ireland will pass to the First Minister and Deputy First Minister and a new Judicial Appointments Commission. The most senior judicial appointments will be made on the advice of the Prime Minister. Other functions of the Lord Chancellor in relation to court sittings and membership of Court Rules Committees will be transferred to the Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland. The Lord Chief Justice will also have a new role in relation to the handling of complaints against the judiciary. The Lord Chancellor is also currently responsible for the Northern Ireland Court Service. The Bill anticipates the abolition of the Court Service as a separate and distinct Civil Service and the transfer of its functions and staff, most probably to the Northern Ireland Civil Service.

  Dispute Resolution
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what measures her Department is taking to promote alternative dispute resolution. [17529]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  Work is currently in hand to promote the use of ADR across Government, following the Government's pledge that all Departments and agencies will use ADR in suitable cases wherever the other party accepts it. Guidelines on the use of ADR, including the provision of appropriate clauses in standard procurement contracts, are currently being drawn up by the Office of Government Commerce, in collaboration with this Department. Last month my Department also organised a conference for Government lawyers on the use of ADR. In December the Lord Chancellor will launch a mediation scheme based at Birmingham civil justice centre.

  Access Orders
  Paddy Tipping
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if she will introduce measures to enable parents without care to enforce access orders more effectively. [17530]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The Children Act 1989 replaced the notion of access with that of contact. The Children Act Sub-Committee of the Lord Chancellor's Advisory Board on Family Law published a consultation paper on the facilitation of contact and the enforcement of contact orders on 22 March 2001. The committee is currently considering the responses and hopes to submit a report on the outcome of consultation to the Government in early 2002. The Government will consider the committee's report carefully and respond in due course.

  Durham Magistrates Bench
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what the political balance in percentage terms is of the Durham Magistrates Bench. [19453]
  199W
  Mr. Wills
  The political balance of the Durham Bench is as follows: Conservative voters 11.4 per cent, Labour voters 38.6 per cent., Liberal Democrat voters 4.5 per cent., uncommitted or voters for other parties 43.2 per cent. and not known 2.3 per cent.

TREASURY

  Regional Competitiveness
  Mr. Howard
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what assessment he had made of the trend in the competitiveness gap between the best-performing and worst-performing United Kingdom regions since May 1997; and what estimate he had made of how this trend will change over the course of the Parliament; [17739]

  (2) what discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry regarding the regional competitiveness trends since May 1997 contained in the latest edition of the United Kingdom Competitiveness Index. [17737]

  Mr. Boateng
  The Chancellor and the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry jointly published our assessment of the causes and effects of the significant and persistent differences in economic performance between and within UK regions on 27 November 2001, in the document "Productivity in the UK: 3—The Regional Dimension". The document also sets out the policies and institutions the Government have put in place to tackle these imbalances.

  Regional Investment
  Adam Price
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if the Government have conducted a regional impact assessment of public expenditure with respect to any Government Department; and if he will make a statement. [18519]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  The joint HMT/DTI document "Productivity in the UK: 3—The Regional Dimension", published on 27 November 2001, set out our long-term regional economic ambition to reduce the gap in performance between regions.

  London Underground
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer on what date his Department told(a) London Underground and (b) the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions that some more expensive elements of the London Underground PPP scheme should be scheduled for the later years of the scheme. [18401]

  £ billion (cash prices)1

  UK figures

  2001–02

  2002–03

  2003–04

  Basic state pension (including non-contributory)

  37.3

  39.1

  40.6

  SERPS

  5.6

  6.2

  6.9

  Minimum income guarantee/pension credit2

  4.7

  4.5

  5.4

  Winter fuel payments2

  1.7

  1.7

  1.8

  200W
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  HM Treasury has given no such instructions to either London Underground, or the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions.

  Tom Brake
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what action the Treasury has taken in relation to the public-private partnership for London Underground in the last three months. [20284]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  [holding answer 3 December 2001]: Treasury, DTLR and London Underground officials are in regular contact about various aspects of the PPP. London Underground are responsible for negotiating the PPP contracts.

  Churches (VAT)
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the information and guidance available to the(a) parishes with listed churches and (b) Customs and Excise VAT Department on the recovery mechanisms for VAT paid on repairs to listed places of worship since April. [19345]

  Mr. Boateng
  The Chancellor announced in Budget 2001 that he was to introduce a UK-wide grant scheme to help congregations with the VAT cost of the repair and maintenance of listed buildings which are used as places of worship. The effect of the grant is to reduce the VAT cost on eligible repairs from 17.5 to 5 per cent.

  This grant scheme, known as the Listed Places of Worship Grant Scheme, is being launched today by the Minister for the Arts. Documentation relating to the new scheme is now available, and may be obtained through the scheme's telephone hotline (0845 601 5945—calls charged at local rate), website (www.lpwscheme.org.uk) or by writing to:
  Listed Places of Worship Grant Scheme, PO Box 609, Newport NP10 8QD.

  Customs and Excise do not deal with the Scheme and refer callers to the DCMS hotline and web page.

  Pensioners (Benefits and Allowances)
  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the cost is of each(a) tax allowance and (b) benefit given to pensioners in the current financial year; and what assessment he has made of the cost of each retirement allowance and benefit for future years (i) at current prices and (ii) in total as a percentage of gross domestic product. [19779]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Estimated costs of tax expenditures and reliefs are given in Tax Ready Reckoner and Tax Reliefs, published on 27 November 2001. This is available in the Library of the House.

  The information on benefits can be found in the following table:
  201W

  £ billion (cash prices)1

  UK figures

  2001–02

  2002–03

  2003–04

  Free TV licences

  0.3

  0.4

  0.4

  Total pensioner benefits as percentage of GDP

  5.0

  5.0

  5.0

  1To nearest £100 million

  2MIG/PC and winter fuel payments are available to some non-pensioners, ie men aged 60–64.

  Excise Duty
  Mr. Blunt
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much excise duty was raised from the sale of(a) petroleum and (b) diesel at petrol stations in the local government ward of Crossmaglen in the financial year 2000–01. [19806]

  Mr. Boateng
  HM Customs and Excise does not collect information on the destination of petroleum or diesel after it passes the duty point, which is normally a refinery or storage facility.

  Mr. Blunt
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much excise duty was raised from the sale of(a) diesel and (b) heating oil in (i) Northern Ireland and (ii) the rest of the United Kingdom for the last financial year for which records are available. [19807]

  Mr. Boateng
  HM Customs and Excise does not collect information on the destination of diesel or heating oil after it passes the duty point, which is normally a refinery or storage facility.

  Estimates of the volumes of oils delivered in Northern Ireland and in the rest of the Unite Kingdom are published by the Department of Trade and Industry in the Digest of United Kingdom Energy Statistics Table 3.9.

  Financial Services Authority
  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what action he proposes the FSA should take to prevent company executives failing to inform(a) their own auditors and (b) the FSA of major solvency decisions. [19634]

  Ruth Kelly
  From 1 December 2001, under FSMA rules, authorised firms are required to co-operate with their auditors (and appointed actuary) in the discharge of their duties.

  Under FSMA, firms are required to report regularly to the FSA on their financial condition and their compliance with regulatory requirements including the requirement to maintain a solvency margin and to maintain adequate assets.

  In addition, firms are required to deal with the regulator in an open and co-operative way and to tell the FSA anything of which the FSA would reasonably expect notice. Breach of these requirements may give rise to sanctions, including fines.

  The chief executive (and other senior executives) of a firm must be an Approved Person under FSMA. Approved individuals may be liable to sanctions, including fines, if they are guilty of misconduct under FSMA which includes being knowingly concerned in a rule breach. Further protection against improper failure to disclose is available by virtue of the whistleblowing provisions of the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998.
  202W
  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what FSA regulations apply to the activities of Irish European Reinsurance Company when reinsuring UK companies; [19632]

  (2) what responsibilities non-UK EU reinsurance companies have to inform the FSA of major changes in the solvency of UK companies. [19640]

  Ruth Kelly
  None. The FSA does not have any power to make rules governing the behaviour of companies which do not carry on business in the UK.

  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how regularly the FSA communicates with its Irish counterpart; and by what means. [19631]

  Ruth Kelly
  There is a wide variety of communications, on both a regular and ad hoc basis, between the FSA and its Irish counterpart. The precise form and frequency of that communication is a matter for the FSA.

  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what discussions the FSA has had with its Irish counterparts about Irish European Reinsurance Company's(a) activities and (b) reinsurance of Independent Insurance; [19639]

  (2) if the FSA conducted an investigation into all reinsurance contracts held with UK companies by the Irish European Reinsurance Company following the disclosure of its reinsurance of Independent Insurance; [19637]

  (3) what action the FSA took when it was informed of Irish European Reinsurance Company's involvement in reinsuring Independent Insurance. [19638]

  Ruth Kelly
  The FSA' s dealings in respect of individual firms, and the details of its contacts with overseas regulators, are kept confidential between the parties concerned.

  Illegal Meat Imports
  Andrew George
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what recent 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 to tackle illegal meat imports, in respect of his role in assessing the work of HM Customs and Excise. [19544]

  Mr. Boateng
  Treasury Ministers regularly have discussions with ministerial colleagues across Government on a wide variety of matters.

  Customs officials frequently consult officials in other Government Departments, particularly the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, about the operation and effectiveness of controls on meat imports.
  203W
  In accordance Exemption 2 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information it would be inappropriate to provide details of such inter-departmental discussions.

  VAT
  Mr. Burnett
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will explain the VAT treatment given to VAT invoices rendered for work done for the Treasury by outside contractors. [19137]

  Mr. Boateng
  [holding answer 29 November 2001]: Invoices in relation to taxable supplies of goods or services should include the appropriate amount of VAT.

  Port Officials
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what arrangements exist for(a) Customs and Excise and (b) immigration officials to be present at a port which does not have a permanent presence of such officials when a request is made for foreign tourists to disembark at that port; and if he will make a statement on what restrictions geography imposes on such officials being present. [18924]

  Mr. Boateng
  [holding answer 29 November 2001]: HM Customs and Excise conducts risk assessments of all traffic and locations in the United Kingdom. Resources are deployed flexibly to address that risk. The absence of a permanent presence at a location does not mean that Customs does not deploy there to address specific risks.

  Immigration officers routinely attend ports which do not have a permanent presence, in order to examine passengers arriving on services originating from outside the European economic area. Other services are closely monitored and carriers are required to fax passenger manifests to a designated local immigration office. Immigration officers also make regular unannounced visits to unmanned ports in order to ensure that the correct procedures are being followed.

  Customs and Immigration maintain close links, sharing intelligence and undertaking special exercises where these are appropriate.

  Departmental Expenditure Limits
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer 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. [19441]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  The Treasury's Departmental Unallocated Provision (DUP) set for the present financial year is tabulated on page 162 of its departmental annual report for 2001–02 (Cm 5116). Draw-down of the DUP has been reported to Parliament in Supplementary Estimates. Outturn against six-month forecast for each Request for Resources will be published in the Winter Supplementary Estimates Summary Request for Supply as usual.

  Railtrack
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the implications for the Public Sector Borrowing Requirement for financial years(a) 2001–02 and (b) 2002–03 of Railtrack remaining in administration; and if he will make a statement. [19607]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  Loans made to the administrator by DTLR of £1.17 billion so far, and any additional lending in the future, will not score on the Public Sector Net Borrowing. Such loans will add to the Public Sector Net Cash Requirement when given, and reduce it when repaid. Repayment is anticipated before the end of this financial year.

  Working Families Tax Credit
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many people in receipt of one or more of the various components of working families tax credit have a final income of(a) more than twice, (b) more than two and half times and (c) more than three times their initial net income. [19833]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 4 December 2001]: It is estimated from the Family Resources Survey that, under the working families tax credit regime applying to awards starting from June 2001, the numbers of such families are about (a) 70,000, and (b) 40,000. The sample size is too small to yield a reliable estimate for (c).

  Notes:

  1. Estimates are derived from 1999–2000 FRS with incomes projected forward to 2001–02 and assuming the 2001–02 regimes for income tax and national insurance contributions. They are subject to sampling error.

  2. Survey results are calibrated to the number of families on maximum WFTC awards yielded by administrative data.

  3. Final net income is as projected, including estimated entitlement to WFTC, housing benefit (HB) and council tax benefit (CTB). Initial net income is this less the estimated entitlement to WFTC, plus any consequent increase in estimated entitlement to HB and CTB.

  Family Credits
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate how many families are(a) eligible for and (b) receiving (i) the children's tax credit and (ii) the working families tax credit, at the latest date for which figures are available. [20128]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The numbers of recipients of working families tax credit (WFTC) are shown in the WFTC Quarterly Enquiries, copies of which are in the Library. No reliable estimate of the number of families eligible for WFTC can be attempted until the Family Resources Survey for 2000–01 is available for analysis.

  It is estimated that around 5 million families are eligible for the children's tax credit (CTC). About 3.6 million application forms have been received at the latest count. A large number of families eligible for the CTC will be able to claim it via self assessment.

  Teenage Pregnancies
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many girls resident in the Buckingham constituency registered (a) the conception and (b) the birth of a child before the age of 16 years in each year since 1997. [20133]

  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. John Bercow, dated 30 November 2001:
  The National Statistician has been asked to reply to your recent question on the number of girls resident in Buckingham that registered the conception and birth of a child before the age of 16 years, in each year since 1997. I am replying in his absence (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 Buckingham Parliamentary Constituency since 1997 are given in the table below:

  Numbers of conceptions and livebirths under age 16: Residents of Buckingham parliamentary constituency: 1997–2000

  Conceptions under 16

  Livebirths under 16

  1997

  3

  0

  1998

  9

  0

  1999

  3

  0

  2000

  1—

  0

  1Figures not yet available

  Source:

  Office for National Statistics

  Specialist Tobacconists
  Mr. Barron
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many specialist tobacconists there are in the UK, defined as a shop selling tobacco products, more than half of whose sales on the premises in question derive from the sales of cigars, snuff, pipe tobacco and smoking accessories; and what proportion of total UK sales as a percentage of turnover are sold through these shops. [20165]

  Ruth Kelly
  [holding answer 3 December 2001]: The information requested falls within the responsibility of the National Statistician. I have asked him to reply.

  Letter from John Pullinger to Mr. Kevin Barron, dated 30 November 2001:
  The National Statistician has been asked to reply to your recent question concerning the number of specialist tobacconists in the UK, and the proportion of total UK sales through these shops. I am replying in his absence (20133).
  The number of businesses classified to retail sale of tobacco products, as their principal activity, is 11,760. These businesses account for 10.7% of the total UK turnover from sales of tobacco-related products.

  Research and Development (Tax Credits)
  Barbara Follett
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he plans to publish a consultative note on research and development tax credits for large companies. [21111]
  206W
  Dawn Primarolo
  The Treasury is today publishing "Designs for Innovation", which seeks views on the details of a version of a volume based research and development tax credit. Copies have been deposited in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Reviews and Consultations
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what is the forecast(a) cost and (b) completion date of the consultation on competition in the annuities market; [20474]

  (2) what his target date for completion of the consultation on road haulage taxation is; and how much he expects the consultation to cost; [20468]

  (3) what is the forecast (a) cost and (b) publication date for the new analysis of Britain's regional productivity challenge, referred to in CM 5318, page 6; [20475]

  (4) what he expects the cost of the Wanless report to be; and when he expects it to be completed; [20458]

  (5) what his target date for the completion of consultation on motorcycle vehicle excise duty is; and how much he expects the consultation to cost; [20469]

  (6) what he expects to be the cost of Sir Howard Davies' review of enterprise in schools and further education; [20485]

  (7) what are (a) the terms of reference and (b) the intended participants for the analysis of Britain's regional productivity challenge, referred to in CM 5318, page 6; [20476]

  (8) what is the forecast (a) cost and (b) completion date of the review of the Inland Revenue's links with business; [20480]

  (9) what was the cost of the Carter report into payroll burdens. [20457]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The reviews and consultations have been, and are being, conducted at modest cost and within departmental expenditure limits. The Government have requested responses by 8 February 2002 to the consultation documents "Modernising the Taxation of the Haulage Industry" and "Reforming Motorcycle Vehicle Excise Duty". The Government's analysis of Britain's regional productivity challenge was published on 27 November in "Productivity in the UK: 3—The Regional Dimension". The review of Inland Revenue links with business has been completed and the report was published on 27 November. The Government intend to consult on promoting competition in the annuities market in the first quarter of 2002. Mr. Wanless will produce a final report to the Chancellor before the conclusion of the 2002 Spending Review.

  Firearms
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many firearms intended for illegal importation were seized by HM Customs and Excise in each year since 1990. [20539]

  Mr. Boateng
  The following table sets out the number of firearms seized by customs since 1990. It includes all complete weapons falling within the definition of a firearm in the Firearms Act 1968.
  207W

  Number of illegal firearms seized by HM Customs and Excise

  Year ended 31 March

  Hand guns

  Rifles

  Shotguns

  Self defence sprays

  Stun guns

  Total

  1990

  1,489

  144

  44

  414

  301

  2,392

  1991

  253

  535

  49

  1,132

  48

  2,017

  1992

  176

  126

  82

  692

  53

  1,129

  1993

  138

  41

  39

  2,580

  427

  3,225

  1994

  304

  349

  68

  6,266

  216

  7,203

  1995

  261

  49

  111

  7,221

  79

  7,721

  1996

  82

  61

  122

  5,464

  177

  5,906

  1997

  264

  268

  32

  3,452

  120

  4,136

  1998

  333

  174

  362

  4,248

  344

  5,471

  1999

  83

  106

  51

  2,343

  106

  2,689

  2000

  417

  95

  129

  1,169

  101

  1,911

  2001

  163

  48

  44

  2,428

  114

  2,697

  Fuel Prices
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what information he has collated on the(a) pump price and (b) levels of tax and duty of unleaded petrol and diesel in each EU country. [20552]

  Mr. Boateng
  The information requested can be found in the HM Customs and Excise "Hydrocarbon Oils Factsheet".

  Small Businesses
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his specific target for reducing the compliance costs of small businesses with reference to paragraph 3.36 of CM 5318; and how he intends to measure progress. [20481]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Details of the consultation announced in paragraph 3.36 of CM 5318, the pre-Budget report 2001, were given in the pre-Budget report press notice REV/C&E 1 "Boosting investment and growth for small businesses". Ministers will consider the wider implications for small companies when considering any proposals to simplify the corporation tax computation that arise from the consultation.

  RenewCo
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer against what criteria the ONS was determining the treatment of RenewCo in the national accounts. [18775]

  Ruth Kelly
  [holding answer 27 November 20011: The information requested falls within the responsibility of the National Statistician. I have asked him to reply.

  Letter from John Kidgell to Mrs. Theresa May, dated 4 December 2001:
  The National Statistician has been asked to reply to your recent parliamentary question concerning against what criteria the ONS was determining the treatment of RenewCo in the national accounts. I am replying in his absence. (18775).
  The criteria ONS used in determining the national accounts treatment of Renewco are those specified in the international statistical manuals, namely the 1995 European System of Accounts and the 1993 System of National Accounts. Within the European Union, member states' implementation of these guidelines is subject to scrutiny by Eurostat (Commission) and national accountants in other member states.

  Mrs. May
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what advice the ONS gave the Treasury on the treatment of RenewCo in the national accounts. [18774]
  208W
  Ruth Kelly
  [holding answer 27 November 2001]: The information requested falls within the responsibility of the National Statistician. I have asked him to reply.

  Letter from John Kidgell to Mrs. Theresa May, dated 4 December 2001:
  The National Statistician has been asked to reply to your recent parliamentary question concerning what advice the ONS gave the Treasury on the treatment of RenewCo in the national accounts. I am replying in his absence. (18774)

  ONS is responsible for the UK's national accounts, and, therefore, for the classifications of institutions and transactions within them. The Treasury applies the same classifications within public sector finances.
  In the case of RenewCo, the Treasury consulted the ONS, at various times, on how ONS would classify the institution within the national accounts. The ONS provided the following advice, on the following dates.
  On 3 April 2001 provisional advice was given, based on the provisional information provided to ONS, that RenewCo would be classified as a private sector institution.
  Following the lifting of confidentiality restrictions the case was examined by the ONS's Public Sector Classification Committee, which on 14 June 2001 confirmed the earlier provisional advice.
  On 27 July 2001 advice was given that RenewCo's planned receipts from the Strategic Rail Authority would be scored under the National Accounts heading "other capital transfers".
  On 26 September 2001 advice was given that, based on new information HM Treasury had provided on changes to the contract, the case would need to be re-examined.
  On 5 October 2001 provisional advice was given, based on the provisional information provided, that borrowing by RenewCo (now referred to as NGCL) would be classified as public sector borrowing.
  Copies of the letters giving advice are available from the Library of the House.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the involvement of the Office for National Statistics in negotiations between the Strategic Rail Authority, the Department of Transport, Local Government and the Regions and Railtrack about Renewco. [20416]

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

  Letter from John Kidgell to Chris Grayling, dated 4 December 2001:
  The National Statistician has been asked to answer your question about the classification of RenewCo. I am replying in his absence. (20417)
  I have already given details of the advice given and the dates in my reply to Theresa May MP, which appeared in Hansard.

  Pensions
  Mr. Illsley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many members of group personal pension plans there are in the age groups(a) 18 to 35, (b) 36 to 45, (c) 46 to 50, (d) 51 to 55, (e) 56 to 60 and (f) 61 to 74 years. [18602]

  Mr. McCartney
  I have been asked to reply.

  Information on the ages of members of group personal pension plans is not recorded separately from that of all personal pensions.
  209W
  Mr. Illsley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many group personal pension plans there were in 2000–01; and how many individual members of them there were. [18601]

  Mr. McCartney
  I have been asked to reply.

  Information on the number of group personal pension (GPP) plans is not recorded centrally as no distinction is made between different types of personal pension.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Zimbabwe
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the cases of terrorist acts against the holders of British citizenship in Zimbabwe in each of the past five years. [13399]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  While we continue to be concerned by the high level of violence and intimidation in Zimbabwe, we have no record of any terrorist acts against British citizens in Zimbabwe in the past five years.

  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations(a) his Department and (b) international organisations have made to the Government of Zimbabwe on (i) the eviction of black farm workers from their homes as a result of land reform policy and (ii) the recent attacks on and arrests of opposition MDC supporters in Matabeleland; what representations his Department has made to SADC countries concerning sending election observer missions to Zimbabwe for the presidential election; what steps he is taking to ensure that a free and fair presidential election will be held in Zimbabwe; and what conditions the UK Government have set for recognising the outcome of the Zimbabwe presidential election relating to the action of the Government of Zimbabwe in ensuring a free and fair election. [18214]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  We continue to encourage the Government of Zimbabwe to abide by the undertakings they made at the Abuja meeting on 6 September, including restoration of the rule of law, an end to violence and intimidation and illegal land occupations. During these representations we regularly draw attention to the plight of farm workers. The British High Commission in Harare made a public statement condemning political violence following the recent politically motivated violence in Bulawayo.

  We continue to encourage the Government of Zimbabwe to create a climate conducive to free and fair elections. The presidential election process will be raised as part of the EU consultations with the Government of Zimbabwe under Article 96 of the Cotonou Agreement. We are in regular dialogue with South African Development Community—SADC—countries on election observers and other issues related to Zimbabwe's electoral process. We are also discussing Zimbabwe's electoral process with Commonwealth partners. the US and others. The credibility of the presidential election will be questioned by the UK and the international community if the process is not demonstrably free and fair.

  Public-Private Partnerships
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the projects in his Department which have been considered as potential public-private partnerships since 1997 which have not been undertaken because the public sector comparator had a lower net present value than the public private partnership proposed; and if he will make a statement. [13432]

  Mr. MacShane
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury on 13 November 2001,Official Report, column 607W.

  It is a matter of policy, that at an early stage in the options appraisal process we consider whether a public-private partnerships approach is likely to deliver value for money. It would involve disproportionate cost to list all projects where the public-private partnership approach was considered and rejected in favour of conventional procurement.

  September 11
  Mr. Ancram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what have been the costs of operations undertaken by his Department in connection with events following the 11 September terrorist attacks on the United States; and if these costs will be met from his Department's budget. [16563]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  Since the events of 11 September, the FCO has had to react immediately to sizeable changes in the global environment. This has had a significant effect on the FCO's budget, forcing us to re-prioritise. We have incurred extra expenditure on: vital physical security for our overseas missions and the staff working in them; evacuating British citizens at risk from increased tension and violence in Pakistan; dealing with British victims of the destruction of the World Trade Centre and assisting their families; the considerable diplomatic effort to seek out and bring those responsible to justice, and to build on international coalition against terrorism; and a rapid increase in BBC World Service broadcasting in local languages in and around Afghanistan.

  Current estimates put the additional cost of the crisis to the FCO this financial year around £40 million. Fee income from visas and passports may well suffer with the downturn in international travel. The last spending review significantly increased the resources of the FCO for this financial year. We are seeking to absorb as much as possible of the new requirements through re-prioritisation as well as efficiency measure. We are in discussion with the Treasury to address the shortfall in resources the FCO faces.

  Iraq
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent assessments his Department has(a) made and (b) received of links between Iraq and the bin Laden organisation. [17254]
  211W
  Mr. Bradshaw
  Al-Qaeda has contacts in several countries outside Afghanistan. We have no convincing information that any regime other than the Taliban supports al-Qaeda.

  Public Appointments
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many public appointments he has made since 7 June; and if he will list them. [18736]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  FCO Ministers have made six new public appointments since 7 June 2001. These are as follows: Mr. Elfyn Llwyd MP, Mr. Patrick Smith and Mr. Michael Aaronson to the Westminster Foundation for Democracy; Sir Frank Berman and Andrew Bache to the Diplomatic Service Appeals Board; and Mr. Abdul Fazal Bhanji to the Marshall Aid Commemoration Commission.

  Osama bin Laden
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the regimes which his Department suspects of having given(a) active and (b) passive aid to the bin Laden organisation. [18259]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  We are not speculating that any regimes other than the Taliban support al-Qaeda. There are other countries where terrorists are able to operate. We are developing a broad counter-terrorism strategy for such countries covering diplomatic measures, counterterrorism and law enforcement assistance, development aid, public information and media messages and intelligence.

  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on what discussions his Department had prior to 11 September with Pakistan Government officials regarding Osama bin Laden. [19413]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  Prior to 11 September, we regularly raised our concerns about Osama bin Laden with the Pakistanis. On 13 June, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs met Pakistani Foreign Minister Sattar where he urged Pakistan to use their influence over the Taliban to comply with United Nations Security Council Resolutions 1267 and 1333 which inter alia calls for Osama bin Laden to be handed over to justice.

  Gibraltar
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he last met the Chief Minister of Gibraltar; and if he will make a statement. [18734]

  Peter Hain
  I last met the Chief Minister of Gibraltar in London on 28 November. As I said in my speech in Westminster Hall on 7 November 2000,Official Report, column 91WH, both I and my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary have worked hard to enable the Gibraltar Government to join the meetings under the Brussels Process. At the ministerial meeting of the Brussels Process held in Barcelona on 20 November, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and the Spanish Foreign Minister reiterated their invitation for the Chief
  212W
  Minister of Gibraltar to attend future Brussels Process ministerial meetings. As previously stated the Government will continue to stand by their commitments to the people of Gibraltar as set out in the preamble to the Gibraltar Constitution.

  Miss Kirkbride
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what role he played in arranging the meeting between Spanish officials and the First Minister of Gibraltar in Madrid; and if he will make a statement on these discussions. [20441]

  Peter Hain
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs played no direct role in arranging the meeting between Spanish officials and the Chief Minister of Gibraltar. However, building on the climate of confidence established by the re-launch of the Brussels Process, I encouraged both parties to talk and meet, which they did.

  Israel
  John Austin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what conditions attach to exports from Israel arising from agreements with the EU for(a) goods manufactured or produced in Israel and (b) goods manufactured or produced in Israeli settlements in the occupied territories of Palestine; and if he will make a statement. [18865]

  Peter Hain
  The EU/Israel Association Agreement provides for preferential access to EU markets for products originating in Israel, provided such exports meet the requirements set out in the agreement. The EU has made clear that, for the Union as well as for the international community, Israel does not include the occupied territories. The EC/PLO Interim Agreement applies to the territory of the West Bank and Gaza Strip. East Jerusalem remains covered by the preferential trade agreement unilaterally granted by the European Community in 1996.

  John Austin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action has been taken to prevent Israel from labelling goods exported to the UK which have been made or produced in settlements in Palestine as manufactured or produced in Israel; and if he will make a statement. [18866]

  Peter Hain
  The EU has made clear to Israel, most recently at the EU-Israel Association Council on 20 November, the importance the union attaches to the correct application of all the provisions of the association agreement, including its territorial scope. The EU will continue to do its best to find a sustainable solution to the rules of origin issue, in accordance with the provisions of the agreement. Further expert discussions with Israel are likely, to address the issues involved.

  On 23 November the European Commission published a notice to importers in the EC Official Journal advising importers presenting documentary evidence of origin with a view to securing preferential treatment for products originating in Israeli settlements in the West Bank, Gaza Strip, East Jerusalem and Golan Heights to take all necessary precautions.
  213W

  Yemen
  Mr. Alan Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what reports he has received of terrorist organisations based in Yemen. [19131]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  I cannot comment on intelligence material. The Yemeni Government have acknowledged that the Islamic Army of Aden (IAA) is based in Yemen. The IAA is a proscribed organisation under the Terrorism Act 2000.

  Mr. Alan Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has had with the Government of Yemen concerning the(a) international coalition against terrorism and (b) policy of the Government of Yemen towards terrorist organisations. [19128]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  I met the President's envoy, Dr. Iriyani, when he visited London in October. We discussed the international coalition against terrorism and the Yemeni Government's view towards terrorism.I welcomed the Yemeni Government's swift and strong condemnation of the attacks in the USA. Dr. Iriyani said that Yemen would do all it could in the fight against terrorism.

  Mr. Alan Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs on how many occasions since 1 May 1997 a Minister in his Department visited Yemen; when these visits took place; where was visited; and what discussions took place during these visits. [19129]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The then Minister of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz), visited Sana' a in October 2000 and met President Saleh and Prime Minister Iriyani. They discussed bilateral issues, including counter-terrorism co-operation, consular matters, trade and developmental assistance and also regional issues.

  Mr. Alan Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many British citizens are held in prisons in Yemen; on what date they were imprisoned; and, in each case, what the duration of the sentence handed down to them was. [19130]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  There are currently five Britons imprisoned in Yemen. They were imprisoned between 28 December 1998 and 27 January 1999. One is serving three years, two are serving five years, and two are serving seven years.

  Indonesia (West Papua)
  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) what representations he has made to the Indonesian Government to seek a halt to military operations in the Papua province of the country; [19334]

  (2) what representations he has made to the Indonesian Government to (a) set up an independent commission to investigate recent atrocities in West Papua and (b) encourage the army and police security forces to collaborate fully with it; [19333]

  (3) what assessment he has made of the involvement of special forces within the Indonesian police and army in the assassinations and murders reported in West Papua in recent weeks; [19332]
  214W
  (4) what representations he has made to the Indonesian Government following reports of anti-civilian attacks by the Brimob force of the Indonesian police; [19336]

  (5) what assessment his Department has made of the activities of the Brimob force within the Indonesian Police in West Papua; and if he will make a statement. [19335]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  There are frequent allegations of human rights abuses by the Indonesian security forces. HMG monitors events closely and raises concerns with the Indonesian authorities whenever necessary. We have repeatedly stressed to the Government that security forces should operate within the law and with strict regard to human rights. Through the Global Conflict Prevention Pool, HMG are pursuing a security sector reform strategy, working with the Indonesian authorities and civil society to nurture debate about democratic control, transparency and accountability of the security forces, and to encourage greater respect for human rights.

  HMG respect Indonesia's territorial integrity and believe that long-term solutions to its regional problems will be achieved only through political negotiation, not violence.

  The circumstances surrounding the recent death of Theys Eluay, the pro-independence leader, are not clear. HMG have expressed concern and urged the Indonesian authorities to conduct a full and thorough investigation. The Indonesian Government has stated that they are committed to this. The National Commission for Human Rights (Komnas HAM) has also announced that it will carry out an independent investigation once the results of the police investigation have been made public.

  Nepal
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on Nepal; what assistance he has given to Nepal in the last 12 months; and what advice is being given to tourists visiting Nepal. [18903]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  We strongly condemn the return to violence by the Maoists in Nepal, and urge them to cease violence and return to dialogue. We understand the reasons behind the declaration of a state of emergency in Nepal, and hope that the Nepalese Government will quickly be able to bring peace to the country.

  We have strongly supported the peace process in Nepal, including mobilising local and international opinion in favour of the peace effort. DFID development assistance to Nepal is currently in the region of £20 million a year and is likely to increase. The MOD has supplied training and other support to the Royal Nepalese Army as well as significant infrastructure assistance to Nepal's UN peacekeeping training centre.

  We are advising British tourists to exercise extreme caution when travelling in Nepal. We are also advising those who are planning a trip to Nepal to monitor events carefully, and to consult the FCO travel advice for Nepal (available on the FCO website: www.fco.gov.uk) regularly.
  215W

  Laeken European Council
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about the main objectives of the European Council's summit at Laeken [18896]

  Peter Hain
  The agenda for the European Council has not yet been finalised. But we expect it to discuss the situation in Afghanistan, and the EU follow up to the events of 11 September; review the situation in the western Balkans; debate the future of Europe and establish a convention to examine the options for the IGC in 2004; welcome progress on EU enlargement; adopt a presidency report on European defence; review progress on the Tampere justice and home affairs agenda; and note preparations for the launch of Euro notes and coins.

  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement(a) on the membership of the convention due to be established at Laeken and (b) what the Government hope to achieve at the Laeken summit. [18895]

  Peter Hain
  Final decisions on the composition of the convention will be taken at the Laeken European Council. The convention will include representatives from national Governments, national Parliaments, the European Parliament and the Commission. The candidate states will be fully represented.

  The Government expect that Laeken will thus launch the European level debate about the Future of Europe. It was agreed at Nice that this debate should consider how to improve and monitor the democratic legitimacy and transparency of the EU and its institutions, in order to bring them closer to the citizens of the members states. The Government welcome this.

  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with the European Commission on the Laeken European Council. [19091]

  Peter Hain
  The Government meet members of the Commission on a regular basis to discuss these and other issues.

  My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister also discussed issues to be addressed by the Laeken European Council with the President of the Commission on 15 November.

  European Houses
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the(a) purpose, (b) funding and (c) activities of European Houses in the UK. [19584]

  Peter Hain
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by the then Minister of State to the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) on 24 January 2000,Official Report, column 34W.

  European Bodies
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the activities in the United Kingdom of(a) Sources d' Europe, (b) the Jacques Delors Information Centre and (c) CIDE: Information and
  216W
  Documentation Centre, as identified in Com (2001) 354; and what recent representations he has received from these bodies. [19590]

  Peter Hain
  The FCO has not received any recent representations from these bodies. Any activities that they undertake are a matter for the bodies themselves.

  "Your Britain, Your Europe"
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the planned activities of the "Your Britain, Your Europe" roadshow. [19593]

  Peter Hain
  The Foreign and Commonwealth Office regularly reviews and updates its information activities and has now discontinued the use of the "Your Britain, Your Europe" label. Activities to increase support for and a better understanding of the European Union will of course continue, in line with the FCO's Public Service Agreement (as set out at www.fco.gov.uk).

  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on his policy towards maintaining political impartiality in the "Your Britain, Your Europe" programme. [19578]

  Peter Hain
  The Foreign and Commonwealth Office's Public Service Agreement, available at www.fco.gov.uk commits the Government to promote increased support for and better understanding of the merits of European Union membership. I recently launched a new programme of visits to regions of the United Kingdom to discuss Europe. So far I have visited Cardiff and Edinburgh. I invited members of all the main political parties to participate in events during the course of these visits.

  Falkland Islands
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to enter into discussions with Argentina about the future status of the Falkland Islands; and if he will make a statement. [19529]

  Mr. MacShane
  None, therefore no.

  Russia
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he plans to visit Russia. [20254]

  Peter Hain
  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary visited Moscow on 31 October and had talks with the Russian Foreign and Defence Ministers. He met the Russian Foreign Minister again in the margins of the UN General Assembly on 10 November.

  He has no immediate plans to visit Russia but remains in regular contact with his Russian counterpart.

  School Places
  Derek Twigg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what help civil servants receive with finding and securing places for their children in state-funded schools when returning from prolonged placements overseas. [20360]
  217W
  Mr. Bradshaw
  UK-based FCO staff returning to the UK from overseas apply for places in accordance with the arrangements established by the local education authorities (LEAs) under the guidance of the Department for Education and Skills. When necessary, the FCO provide LEAs with background information about the officer's circumstances.

  European Union Business
  Mr. Mike Hall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the(a) forthcoming business in the Council of the European Union for December and (b) major European Union events for the period between 31 December and May 2002. [20966]

  Peter Hain
  The information is as follows:

  4 December—ECOFIN meeting—Brussels

  1. Adoption of the Agenda

  2. Approval of the list of 'A' items

  3. Preparation for the Laeken European Council

  Report on aims and working methods in the field of pensions

  Report on structural indicators

  Report on progress concerning the fiscal package

  4. Fiscal Package

  Taxation and savings

  Directive, including main features of a standardised form for exchanging information

  Interim reports by the member states concerned on discussions with dependent or associated territories

  Code of Conduct

  Progress report from Code of Conduct group

  5. (Poss.) VAT invoicing (may become 'A' item)

  6. Financial Services

  (Poss.) Financial Services Action Plan, 5 Progress report from the Commission

  (Poss.) Proposal for a Directive on financial collateral arrangements

  General approach

  Prospectus

  Presidency report on progress

  Financial conglomerates

  Presidency report on progress

  UCTIS

  Adoption

  7. Annual report of the Court of Auditors for the financial year 2000

  Presentation by the Court of Auditors

  8. Galileo

  Progress report

  9. Economic situation in the air transport sector (insurance)

  Report on developments in the situation

  10. Preparation for ministerial meeting with the candidate countries

  11. Conference on Financing for Development

  Common Position

  218W

  12. Other Business

  3—Brussels—Employment and Social Affairs Council

  4—Bruges—Culture Council (Ministerial Informal)

  4—Brussels—Energy Council

  5—Brussels—Industry Council

  6–7—Brussels—Transport and Telecommunications Council

  6–7—Brussels—Justice and Home Affairs Council

  10—Brussels—Research Council

  10–11—Brussels—General Affairs Council

  12–13—Brussels—Environment Council

  14—Laeken—ECOFIN

  14–15—Laeken—European Council

  17–18—Brussels—Fisheries Council

  18–19—Brussels—Agriculture Council.

  No agendas for the above are available yet.

  The following are the principle events in the EU between 1 January and May 2002 (certain relevant events are also included: the list is based on the information available at the date of issue).

  Date

  Location

  Event

  January

  10

  Brussels

  Fisheries Council

  17

  Brussels

  Budget Council1

  21 to 22

  Brussels

  Agriculture Council

  21

  Brussels

  Eurogroup1>

  22

  Brussels

  ECOFIN

  25 to 26

  Brussels

  Meeting of Employment Ministers2

  28 to 29

  Brussels

  General Affairs Council

  February

  9 to 10

  Brussels

  Gymnich2

  11

  Brussels

  Eurogroup1

  14

  Brussels

  Education and Youth Council

  14 to 15

  Brussels

  Justice and Home Affairs Council2

  18 to 19

  Brussels

  General Affairs Council

  18 to 19

  Brussels

  Agriculture Council

  22 to 23

  Brussels

  Telecoms and Information Society Council2

  28

  Brussels

  Justice and Home Affairs Council

  March

  1

  Brussels

  Justice and Home Affairs Council1

  1

  Brussels

  Internal Market, Consumers and Tourism Council

  4

  Brussels

  Eurogroup1

  5

  Brussels

  ECOFIN

  7

  Brussels

  Employment and Social Affairs Council

  11

  Brussels

  Research Council

  11 to 12

  Brussels

  General Affairs Council

  15 to 16

  Barcelona

  European Council

  18 to 19

  Brussels

  Agriculture Council

  21

  Brussels

  Environment Council

  23 to 24

  Brussels

  Defence Meeting2

  25 to 26

  Brussels

  Transport and Telecom Council

  April

  5 to 6

  Luxembourg

  Migrations Council3

  8

  Luxembourg

  Fisheries Council

  13 to 14

  Luxembourg

  ECOFIN2

  15 to 16

  Luxembourg

  General Affairs Council

  22 to 23

  Valencia

  Euromed Conference

  22 to 23

  Luxembourg

  Agriculture Council

  25 to 26

  Luxembourg

  Justice and Home Affairs Council

  27 to 30

  Luxembourg

  Agriculture Council2

  May

  3 to 4

  Brussels

  Tourism Council2

  6

  Brussels

  Eurogroup1

  7

  Brussels

  ECOFIN

  219W

  Date

  Location

  Event

  9

  Europe Day

  13

  Brussels

  General Affairs and Defence Council

  17 to 18

  Madrid

  EU-LAC Summit

  21

  Brussels

  Internal Market, Consumers and Tourism Council

  23

  Brussels

  Culture and Audio-visual Council

  24 to 26

  Brussels

  Environment Council2

  27 to 28

  Brussels

  Agriculture Council

  30

  Brussels

  Development Council

  30

  Brussels

  Education and Youth Council

  31 to 1 June

  Brussels

  Transport Council2

  1Evening

  2Ministerial informal

  3ASEM Ministerial informal

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Oversight Commissioner
  Phil Hope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will publish the latest report received from the Oversight Commissioner. [20914]

  Jane Kennedy
  In accordance with section 68(4)(a) of the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000, I have today laid a copy of the Oversight Commissioner's third statutory report for the year 2001 before this House.

  Government Law and Order Policy
  Mr. Quentin Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what the Government's policy is in regard to(a) organised crime and (b) community policing in Northern Ireland. [16305]

  Jane Kennedy
  The Government are determined to confront organised crime in Northern Ireland and are leading the fight through the work of the Organised Crime Task Force, which I chair.

  The Task Force, launched in September 2000, is a multi-agency initiative, involving the Police Service of Northern Ireland, HM Customs & Excise and others. Work is already well developed and the operational agencies have achieved significant successes. For example, on 8 November, a joint operation by Customs and police resulted in seizure of 42.6 million illicit cigarettes, the largest ever seizure in the United Kingdom.

  The Government will not permit the legacy of terrorism to develop into a system of organised crime activity in Northern Ireland. However, there are no short-term fixes. The dismantling of organised crime groups takes time, expertise and commitment.

  The Government and the Chief Constable accept the importance of community policing and are committed to ensuring that this is a core function of the police service and the core function of every police station. It is the Government's policy to support, in every way possible, the Northern Ireland Policing Board and the Police Service of Northern Ireland, in delivering effective community policing.

  Holy Cross Protest
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland on how many occasions his officials had 220W
  discussions with (a) Ardoyne Road and (b) Glenbryn Road residents about the Holy Cross protest; and what the outcome of these meetings was. [17233]

  Jane Kennedy
  The Secretary of State and I along with my officials have had a number of meetings with both sides involved in this dispute. I have also held meetings with members of the Devolved Administration, local community representatives, interest groups, and the hon. Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Dodds) to discuss how the present situation may be resolved. We welcome the recent decision by the residents to end their protest and now hope the children will be able to continue with their education without fear or threat of intimidation.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the Police Service for Northern Ireland's policing strategy for the Holy Cross protests; and how many times this has been reviewed. [17232]

  Jane Kennedy
  During the policing of the Holy Cross protest it has been police strategy to:Respect and uphold the human rights of all those involved including the children, parents, teachers, protestors, residents and the general community;
  Prevent public disorder and to ensure the safety of all those involved;
  Minimise the disruption to local communities and those attending Holy Cross Primary School; and
  Enforce the law and bring offenders to court.
  Protection of the children and their rights has been a paramount factor throughout the protests. In this context, police have sought to work and negotiate with local people from both sides and their representatives in order to ensure the safe passage of the children to their school. The strategy for the operation has been kept under review on a daily basis. In addition there have been six formal meetings to review the strategy.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what the cost has been to(a) the Army and (b) the Police Service for Northern Ireland of policing the Holy Cross protest. [17230]

  Jane Kennedy
  Police estimate the additional cost to the police grant of the ongoing operation at Holy Cross to be £18,000 per day arising from increased overtime costs. This equates to a financial cost from September to date of£1.1 million in addition to the human resource effect the operation has on other areas of policing. There have been no additional costs to the Army in supporting the PSNI to police the Holy Cross protest. Any costs incurred are contained within the Army's normal operational budget.

  The quoted figures distinguish between the normal costs of policing and the incremental costs (overtime and other expenses) incurred for this specific operation.

  Although there may be additional secondary costs to the Army e.g. fuel costs, these are not easily quantifiable. There are no additional manpower costs as the Army does not work overtime.

  Violent Offences
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland on how many occasions in each month
  221W
  since April 2000 the police were in receipt of information regarding violence against (a) persons and (b) property in interface areas; on how many occasions officers were sent to the scene; and on how many occasions charges were subsequently brought against those involved. [17371]

  Jane Kennedy
  The information requested is not held centrally and would have to be extracted from a number of different sources. To provide the information from April 2000 could be done only at a disproportionate cost. Generally, if information is received by police prior to an incident of public disorder, patrols are briefed accordingly and if necessary additional patrols are tasked.

  Paramilitary Crimes
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many(a) Republican and (b) Loyalist paramilitary crimes have been committed (i) since the signing of the Belfast Agreement and (ii) during 2001, broken down into (a) shootings, (b) bombings, (c) killings, (d) beatings and (e) other crimes; and if he will make a statement. [17905]

  Jane Kennedy
  The information requested is included in following the tables:

  Terrorist-related incidents since the Belfast Agreement 10 April 1998 to 22 November 2001

  By Loyalist

  By Republican

  Unknown

  Total

  Murders

  35

  42

  0

  77

  Shooting incidents

  540

  237

  84

  861

  Bombing incidents

  508

  80

  30

  618

  Casualties as a result of paramilitary style assaults

  317

  183

  0

  500

  Casualties as a result of paramilitary style shootings

  273

  157

  0

  430

  Terrorist-related incidents 1 January to 22 November 2001

  By Loyalist

  By Republican

  Unknown

  Total

  Murders

  10

  3

  0

  13

  Shooting incidents

  218

  89

  11

  318

  Bombing incidents

  269

  40

  12

  321

  Casualties as a result of paramilitary style assaults

  81

  46

  0

  127

  Casualties as a result of paramilitary style shootings

  113

  61

  0

  174

  Notes:

  1.The following types of shooting incidents are included:

  Shots fired by terrorists

  Paramilitary style attacks involving shootings

  Shots heard (and later confirmed)

  Other violent incidents where shots are fired (eg armed robbery).

  2. An individual bombing incident may involve one or more explosive devices. Incidents recorded include explosions and defusings. Incidents involving hoax devices, petrol bombings or incendiaries are excluded.

  3. 2001 statistics are provisional and may be subject to minor adjustment.

DEFENCE

  Cardiff International Airport
  Mr. John Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will publish the draft plans for the new fixed wing aircraft repair business unit at Cardiff International Airport. [18612]
  222W
  Mr. Ingram
  The consultant's report and other supporting information regarding re-location of the fixed wing business unit to Cardiff International Airport contains commercially sensitive information. I am therefore withholding this information in accordance with Exception 13 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information. The Cardiff Airport option is now not being pursued and a business case to develop the St. Athan site is being developed.

  European Technology Acquisition Programme
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what lessons learned from the procurement process of Eurofighter he will apply to the procurement of the European Technology Acquisition Programme; what are the objectives of the ETAP study; when he expects the ETAP study to be completed; what financial commitment he has made to the ETAP study; what expenditure limits he has set for it; and if he will make a statement. [18288]

  Dr. Moonie
  The European Technology Acquisition Programme (ETAP) is concerned with technologies relevant to a wide range of combat air systems, including manned and unmanned aircraft and cruise missiles. The key lessons from the Eurofighter procurement are reflected in Smart Acquisition principles under which ETAP will be conducted. The two project teams are in close communication to ensure that any appropriate lessons are learnt.

  ETAP is a joint technology programme with European industry which will sustain and develop European capabilities for combat air systems over the next two decades. Linked to ETAP is a joint study, reporting in summer 2002, which will give an initial assessment of the miliary capabilities that the six nations' armed forces will need around 2020. Nations will commit funds to the specific technology demonstration programmes within ETAP in which they participate. It is too early to say with precision what UK funding will be required, but we would expect to spend some tens of millions of pounds in the early years of ETAP and more thereafter. All funding will be subject to normal MOD approvals.

  Future Offensive Air System
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the Future Offensive Air System programme. [18641]

  Dr. Moonie
  The UK has a requirement to replace, towards the end of the next decade, the strike capability currently provided by the Tornado GR4 strike aircraft. This programme is known as the Future Offensive Air System. The primary roles will be to destroy strategic targets deep in enemy territory and to damage the enemy's ability to wage aerial warfare by disabling aircraft on the ground or by damaging their command and control systems.

  To meet the capability required, the MOD is studying a range of options, including manned and unmanned aircraft and cruise missiles. Allied to these studies will be a programme of technology demonstrations, some of which will be collaborative; opportunities are being explored within Europe and with the USA and Australia.
  223W
  On 19 November, Defence Ministers from France, Germany, Italy, Spain, Sweden and the United Kingdom signed the European Technology Acquisition Programme declaration. This launched a joint technology programme with European industry which will sustain and develop European capabilities for combat air systems over the next two decades.

  Torpedoes
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to place orders to(a) upgrade and (b) replace torpedoes. [18756]

  Dr. Moonie
  There are currently three torpedoes in service with Her Majesty's Armed Forces—Sting Ray, Spearfish and Tigerfish. Spearfish is replacing Tigerfish as the Royal Navy's heavy weight torpedo, and significantly enhances its anti-submarine and anti-ship torpedo capability. The production of Spearfish torpedoes is currently running to time and cost. Contracts for Concept work for a mid-life update of the Spearfish torpedo have been placed with QinetiQ and BAE Systems Electronics Ltd. Underwater Weapons Division, Waterlooville.

  Sting Ray is the Forces' light weight torpedo and is the main anti-submarine weapon for surface ships, helicopters and the Nimrod Maritime Patrol Aircraft. It is the subject of a comprehensive life extension programme which will, over the coming years, improve its capability against the modern submarine threat.

  War Pensions Agency
  Mr. Lazarowicz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) for what years the War Pensions Agency has destroyed records of service men and women who served in the Army Catering Corps; [18847]

  (2) for what years the War Pensions Agency has retained records of service men and women who served in the Army Catering Corps; [18848]

  (3) which classes of documents fall within the deemed destroyed range of the War Pensions Agency. [18849]

  Dr. Moonie
  In 1989 the War Pensions Agency carried out a retention and destruction exercise. Files were destroyed where no action had been taken on the case for more than 30 years, no pension was in payment and the claimant was over the age of 80. Files relating to former members of the Army Catering Corps which met these criteria were destroyed as part of the exercise.

  Regrettably, in some instances correct procedures were not adhered to and some files were destroyed erroneously.

  Major Projects
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what steps his Department is taking to reduce the slippage rate of the 18 major procurement projects outlined in the Major Projects report; [19825]

  (2) if he will make a statement on the Major Projects report. [19824]

  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.
  224W

  Defence Aviation Repair Agency
  Mr. John Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what were the annual overhead costs of the Defence Aviation Repair Agency of(a) RAF St. Athan, (b) RAF Sealand, (c) Fleetlands and (d) Almondbank in (i) 1999–2000 and (ii) 2000–2001 expressed in (1) cash terms, (2) real terms and (3) as a proportion of the income of each site. [19421]

  Mr. Ingram
  The annual overhead costs of the DARA during 1999–2000 and 2000–01 are as follows.

  Financial year 1999–2000

  Financial year 2000–01

  Establishment

  Cash

  RAB1

  Cash

  RAB1

  RAF Sealand

  8,467

  10,578

  7,671

  13,204

  RAF St. Athan

  20,900

  26,111

  18,937

  32,603

  Fleetlands

  13,882

  17,342

  12,577

  21,654

  Almondbank

  3,712

  4,638

  3,364

  5,791

  1 Resource accounting and budgeting

  With regards to expressing these as a proportion of income, this is not possible as DARA was not a trading fund until 1 April 2001 and as such did not generate income from Ministry of Defence work prior to this date.

  Mr. John Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what were the repair turn round times in the Defence Aviation Repair Agency, at(a) RAF St. Athan, (b) RAF Sealand, (c) Fleetlands and (d) Almondbank in (i) 1999–2000 and (ii) 2000–01. [19420]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Defence Aviation Repair Agency has many thousands of items to which measured turn round times (TRTs) apply and it would only be possible to list all of these items and their TRTs individually at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. John Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many personnel were employed at DARA in(a) RAF St. Athan, (b) RAF Sealand, (c) Fleetlands and (d) Almondbank on 1 November. [19418]

  Mr. Ingram
  The following numbers of personnel were employed at the Defence Aviation Repair Agency sites on 1 November 2001:

  Location

  Personnel

  RAF St. Athan

  2,521

  RAF Sealand

  1,114

  Almondbank

  336

  Sealand

  1,036

  Please note these figures to not include RAF support units at St. Athan or Sealand or other lodger units on sites.

  Cluster Bombs
  Paul Farrelly
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will take steps to encourage an international ban on the use of cluster bombs. [20001]

  Mr. Ingram
  It would not be appropriate or realistic to take steps to encourage an international ban on the use of cluster bombs. They are a legitimate weapon that provide a capability against certain targets which cannot be effectively achieved in other ways. We are aware of concerns that have been expressed about the humanitarian effort of unexploded cluster bomblets and are exploring
  225W
  in the context of the 1980 UN Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons (CCW) how this can be minimised.

  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make it his policy to work to implement the recommendations of the International Committee of the Red Cross on the use of cluster bombs. [20234]

  Mr. Ingram
  The International Committee of the Red Cross have proposed limitations on the use of cluster bombs in the context of their proposal for a protocol on explosive remnants of war to the 1980 UN Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons, for which the review conference will be held on 11 to 21 December. The United Kingdom will work for a positive outcome to minimise the risk to civilians from unexploded weapons, including cluster bombs.

  Depleted Uranium
  Dr. Jack Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) for what reason test firing using depleted uranium contaminated gun barrels from Eskmeals was carried out at Shoeburyness; who authorised the transfer of the gun barrels; and if he will make a statement; [18970]

  (2) pursuant to his answer of 23 November 2001, Official Report, column 514W, on depleted uranium, how many rounds were fired in the tests; and how many were recovered; [18968]

  (3) what environmental impact assessment was carried out, and by whom, before depleted uranium contaminated gun barrels from Eskmeals were used in test firing at Shoeburyness; [18969]

  (4) who was the radiation protection adviser; for which organisation he or she worked; whether the Defence Radiology Protection Service was (a) consulted and (b) involved; and if he will make a statement. [18967]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 30 November 2001]: Test firing using depleted uranium (DU) contaminated gun barrels is required as part of the effectiveness and safety trials to determine the effect of firing a variety of rounds through worn barrels. The Challenger II tank worn barrel trial is planned to commence in January 2002. The trial involves firing a range of non-DU based ammunition natures such as high explosive and training rounds. The trial will involve the use of barrels that have not fired DU rounds as well as those that have. More recently, between 20 to 29 November, one gun barrel stored at QinetiQ Eskmeals, that had fired DU in the past, was used in a CHARM 3 Training Round (a non-DU round) trial at the Shoeburyness ranges. Test firing is being carried out at Shoeburyness because it meets the minimum firing distance required and provides a round recovery facility and a suitable cost-effective solution. There is no reason on health and safety grounds why the work cannot be carried out at this site.

  No specific authorisation to transfer barrels allocated to support these trials is needed. Each barrel that has fired DU in the past has a record annotated accordingly and is accompanied with appropriate precautionary advice.

  In the November trial, 71 rounds were fired and none were recovered. The worn barrel trial in January is planned to use 184 rounds and it is planned to recover
  226W
  some rounds to ascertain any effects on the round's stability and performance. Recovered rounds fired will be monitored for DU.

  No environmental impact assessment was undertaken immediately before the CHARM3 training round trial and none is planned for the worn barrel trial. However, a risk assessment for the routine use of DU contaminated barrels was carried out by the Department's Radiation Protection Adviser, the then DERA Radiation Protection Services, in May 2000. Although this assessment concludes that no DU will be released from the barrel, environmental monitoring was conducted at the start, during and after the firings on 20 November. This involved a base line survey taking soil and grass samples and monitoring around the gun, passive air sampling, and a swab sample of the inside of the barrel when firing was complete. The monitoring will also be conducted in support of the worn barrel trial.

  The barrels used at Shoeburyness were monitored before transfer. The monitoring in this case showed that the barrels contained less than 10 kilobecquerels of DU and thus confirmed that the material presented very little risk. This conclusion is based on the generic risk assessment conducted in May 2000, which is applicable to all barrels containing less than 10 kilobecquerels of DU.

  Gibraltar (Service Bases)
  Miss Kirkbride
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what discussions have taken place between his Department and the Spanish Government over the(a) joint use and (b) joint decision making of the (i) naval base and (ii) RAF base at Gibraltar. [20440]

  Mr. Ingram
  None.

  Project SLAM
  Mr. Anthony D. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the progress of Project SLAM. [20967]

  Dr. Moonie
  Project SLAM forms a key part of the Single Living Accommodation improvements for the services that was announced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence on 14 March 2001,Official Report, column 600W. The project represents over half of the total programme and primarily covers service establishments in England and Wales. Accommodation in Scotland may be part of SLAM or will be part of the regional prime contract for estate services, and separate projects are dealing with Northern Ireland and overseas.

  Four consortiums are bidding for a single prime contract worth £0.5 billion over five years. There will also be an opportunity, subject to satisfactory performance, for the contract to be extended for a further £0.5 billion over five years. An invitation to tender was issued to bidders on 30 November 2001.

  The consortiums invited to tender for this work are:

  Amec Carillion

  Debut, comprising Bovis Lend Lease and Unicorn

  Prime Solutions, a large consortium led by CITEX.

  We expect to award the contract in autumn 2002.
  227W

  Project Whirlwind
  Mr. John Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what progress has been made with Project Whirlwind; and if he will make a statement. [19417]

  Mr. Ingram
  Project Whirlwind is an initiative in integrated supply chain management for the repair of aircraft capital spares items.

  A Heads of Agreement document was signed by DARA and BAE Systems on 15 August 2001, which included an intention to investigate moving towards a formal partnering agreement. Discussions on the terms of a partnering agreement continue.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Custody Arrests
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many custody arrests were made in(a) Chorley and (b) Skelmersdale in the last three years. [9038]

  Mr. Denham
  Information on the number of arrests for notifiable offences is collected centrally at police force area level only. Available information shows that in 1999–2000 there were 37,535 arrests for notifiable offences within the Lancashire police force area. Information for earlier years is not available on a consistent basis. Figures for 2000–01 will be available in due course.

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many asylum seekers have been detained for more than seven days in the last two years in Northern Ireland; and on what grounds these individuals were detained. [18857]

  Angela Eagle
  The available information relates to persons detained under Immigration Act powers as at 30 June 2001. As at that date, there were less than five persons who had sought asylum at some stage who had been detained for more than seven days in Northern Ireland.

  I regret that information on the grounds for detention of individual detainees, and the requested information on asylum seekers detained for more than seven days in the last two years in Northern Ireland is not available and could only be obtained by examining individual case files at disproportionate cost. However, in general terms detention would have been on the grounds that the persons concerned were in the process of being removed from the United Kingdom, their identities and the basis of their claim needed to be established, or it was believed that they would not comply with the terms of temporary admission or release.

  Communications Data
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what analysis he has conducted to ensure the provisions relating to retention and use of communications data traffic are consistent with the provisions of the(a) Data Protection Act 1998,
  228W
  (b) Telecommunications (Data Protection and Privacy) Regulations 1999 and (c) Human Rights Act 1998; and if he will make a statement. [20443]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  I am satisfied that the code of practice relating to the retention of communications data as provided for in the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Bill will be drafted in such a way as to be fully compliant with the provisions of the Data Protection Act 1998, the Telecommunications (Data Protection and Privacy) Regulations 1999 and the Human Rights Act 1998. We will consult the Information Commissioner to help ensure that this is achieved.

  Access to communications data will in future be regulated by Chapter 2 of Part 1 of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000, which requires that access be necessary and proportionate.

  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department to what extent the voluntary Code of Practice proposed in clause 11 of the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Bill will provide protection for the UK communications provider industry against challenges under the Data Protection Act 1998. [20442]

  Mr. Blunkett
  The code of practice and agreements proposed in part 11 of the Anti-Terrorism Crime Security Bill will be drafted in a way which is compatible with data protection and human rights legislation. For the code to comply with the Data Protection Act 1998, data retained under it should only be kept for a period which is necessary and proportionate to the purposes for which it is kept.

  We will consult the Information Commissioner to help ensure that the drafting of the voluntary code is fully compliant with the Data Protection Act.

  Auld Report
  Ian Lucas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the proposal in the Auld report that evidence of a defendant's previous convictions will ordinarily be admissible in criminal proceedings. [17518]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  In the report of his review of the criminal courts, Lord Justice Auld recommends consideration of the Law Commission's report on evidence of bad character in criminal proceedings, published on 9 October. We welcomed the Law Commission's thorough and comprehensive work on this topic and will carefully consider the way forward in light of the report, Sir Robin's recommendations and the outcome of the public consultation on the review of criminal courts currently in progress.

  Immigration and Nationality Directorate
  Mr. Rooney
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the Immigration and Nationality Directorate will forward to the Immigration and Appellate Authority the appeal papers in respect of Nasira Bibi, date of birth 4 August 1974. [19483]

  Angela Eagle
  [holdinganswer 30 November 2001]I understand that Mrs. Bibi' s appeal papers were sent to the Immigration Appellate Authority on 17 October 2001 and that a preliminary hearing took place on 22 November 2001.
  229W
  Mr. Rooney
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when a decision will be made by Immigration and Nationality Directorate on application F220282, lodged on 19 June. [19482]

  Angela Eagle
  [holding answer 30 November 2001]: On 27 November 2001 my officials wrote to my hon. Friend explaining that a decision has been made in Mrs. Bibi's case and that her file has been passed to the relevant department in order that her stay can be regularised.

  Police Numbers
  Derek Conway
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the numerical establishment has been for(a) police officers and (b) special constables based in the Bexley division of the Metropolitan Police Service, in each year since 1996. [14086]

  Mr. Denham
  The information requested has been provided by the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis and is set out in the table.

  Year to December

  Police officers1

  Budgeted workforce totals2

  Civilian support staff

  1996

  287

  n/a

  87

  1997

  283

  n/a

  79

  1998

  274

  n/a

  74

  1999

  281

  277

  70

  2000

  306

  310

  69

  20013

  322

  328

  70

  1Actual officers in post.

  2These are the numbers of officers for which the force have budgeted.

  3 To October.

  Note:

  All figures are full-time equivalents

  I am also informed that there are approximately 25 special constables currently attached to Bexley division. The metropolitan police service do not hold historical figures for special constables.

  Departmental Targets
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on progress towards tackling attrition in the criminal justice system and the cost to public funds in doing so. [17150]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  Various initiatives funded in the Spending Review 2000 are expected to reduce attrition, but are unlikely to begin to have a significant effect until 2001–02. The most important of these are the expansion of the DNA database, the provision of additional scene of crime support, and increased police recruitment, funded from the Crime Fighting Fund. Additional funding of £16.3 million has also been provided to criminal justice services for 2001–02 to cover the increase in workload expected to flow from improved performance. However, it is not possible to disaggregate the total cost of bringing offences to justice.

  Public Service Agreements
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on progress 230W
  toward the public service agreement target for promoting an inclusive society with equal rights, responsibilities and opportunities for all. [16928]

  Mr. Blunkett
  The Government are committed to promoting and improving race equality in a number of ways and the promotion of race equality within the provision of services to the public is a key priority. In support of this priority, the Government are driving forward a programme of initiatives to provide a new legislative and administrative framework to deliver improvements to race equality in the public sector.

  The Race Relations (Amendment) Act 2000 provided new laws for race equality and strengthened the Race Relations Act 1976, outlawing race discrimination in all public functions, with only limited exceptions. Orders laid before Parliament on 24 October extend the list of bodies to which the general duty applies and impose specific duties on key public bodies to ensure their better compliance with the general duty.

  The Government will publish their third edition of Race Equality indicators on public services early next year. Race Equality in Public Services is an annual publication which brings together key performance management data from across the range of government departments. The basket of indicators included in the document will be used to measure progress in achieving race equality.

  The first edition was published in March 2000, the second in February 2001. The third edition is due to be published in February/March 2002.

  The Government believe that these measures provide a framework for increasing the representation of minority ethnic communities in public life.

  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 reducing staff sickness rates in his Department. [16917]

  Mr. Blunkett
  The Civil Service Sickness Absence Report 1998 recorded the Department's baseline figure as 10.4 working days. The Prison Service baseline figure is 13.9 days.

  The Home Office and its agencies have introduced new guidelines, policies and procedures with a view to reducing sickness absence. The Department's Service Delivery Targets for April 2001 to March 2004, which include a target for sickness absence, were published on Friday, 3 November 2000 and are available on the Home Office website. The targets are to reduce sickness absence, and sustain this improvement thereafter in the:
  Home Office and its agencies (excluding the Prison Service) to an average of 6.9 working days by the end of March 2003.
  Prison Service to an average of 9.0 days per member of staff by 2004.
  The current sickness absence rate in the Home Office and its agencies (excluding the Prison Service) is 8.5 working days. In the Prison Service it is 13.7 working days.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many letters his Department received from right hon. and hon. Members between 20 June and 20 July. [18563]
  231W
  Mr. Blunkett
  [holding answer 3 December 2001]: 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 received in the Home Office from right hon. and hon. Members was 1.537.

  Criminal Assets Recovery Agency
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimate he has made of the cost of the Criminal Assets Recovery Agency. [16909]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  Our current estimate is that it will cost approximately £3 million to establish the Agency and that its annual running costs will be around £13 million, assuming around 100 staff. This estimate covers both the Agency's operational activities and the training and accreditation services which its centre of excellence will provide to other agencies. Based on current assumptions about caseloads and amounts available for recovery, the Government expect that the Agency's receipts will exceed its running costs.

  The figures given above are subject to revision as our planning for the Agency develops. They do not take into account the possibility, currently under discussion, that the Agency should assume a major role in the enforcement of confiscation orders other than those that it has itself obtained.

  European Arrest Warrant
  Mr. Letwin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if it is his intention to use the powers proposed in the draft Council Framework Decision on the European arrest warrant; and if he will make a statement. [20146]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  [holding answer 3 December 2001]: Yes.

  Magistrates Court
  Mr. Lilley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many defendants who had pleaded guilty were sent by magistrates court for sentencing in a Crown court in each year since 1995. [20285]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  [holding answer 3 December 2001]: Information collected centrally by the Home Department does not include details on defendants' plea at magistrates courts.

  D. I. John Redgrave
  Andrew Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the cause of the Metropolitan Police's delay in making a substantive reply to the letter sent to them on 25 April by lawyers acting for D. I. John Redgrave, and which was addressed to Inspector E. Owsley of DPS; and what was the date of the despatch of the substantive reply. [19371]
  232W
  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 3 December 2001]: I am informed by the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis that a substantive reply was provided to lawyers acting for Detective Inspector John Redgrave on 5 November 2001.

  The delay in providing this reply was caused by the need to seek legal advice on the complex issue involved. A change of solicitor dealing with the matter extended the time taken to receive the advice.

  MI5
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what rules apply to whether serving officers of M15 may belong to private security firms or associations made up of them. [19086]

  Mr. Blunkett
  [holding answer 29 November 2001]: Serving officers of the Security Service may not join private security firms or associations of them, or engage in any other form of employment, without prior approval. The rules governing approval reflect those that apply to Civil Servants and take account of any potential conflict with the Service's interests and other matters such as the Working Time Regulations.

  Internet
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the Government's policy is on policing unsuitable material on the Internet; and what legislation is in place to enable it to do so. [19718]

  Beverley Hughes
  The Government's policy is that legislation should apply to illegal material online in the same way as it applies offline, and that legislation should be technology neutral. Legislation is kept under constant review to ensure it remains effective both offline and online.

  The wider issue of unsuitable material on the Internet—material that is not illegal but is open to subjective interpretation, such as adult material—is one that the Government is addressing together with industry and industry bodies to ensure that consumers are able to manage their own Internet experience. Informed users can install Internet rating and filtering software on their computers and make choices between full Internet access and selective or 'walled garden' access. To help inform parents about these choices the Government have published a booklet "Keeping your child safe on the Internet". The advice is also available online at www.wiseuptothenet.co.uk.

  Supporting Families
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department which of the policy proposals set out in the document Supporting Families(a) have been implemented, (b) are timetabled to be implemented, (c) have no date for implementation and (d) have been abandoned. [19535]

  Angela Eagle
  I will write to my hon. Friend with a report on progress to date, copies of which will be placed in the Library.
  233W

  Anti-war March
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on how the Metropolitan Police calculated the number of demonstrators who took part in the anti-war march from Hyde Park to Trafalgar Square on 18 November. [19433]

  Mr. Denham
  The Commissioner of the Police of the Metropolis informs me that it is established practice to use hand tally counters to determine numbers of people participating in marches in London. If the march enters Trafalgar Square crowd density measurements are used to reckon the numbers present.

  On 18 November 2001 these methods identified 12,000 people leaving Hyde Park en route to Trafalgar Square and 15,000 people within Trafalgar Square.

  Metropolitan Police Funding
  Mr. Moss
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the impact of the level of central Government funding of the Metropolitan Police Authority in(a) 2001 and (b) 2002 on the expected increase in the MPA element of the GLA precept on council tax in London in 2002–03; and if he will make a statement. [19595]

  Mr. Denham
  It is not Government policy to make such predictions. Decisions on the level at which the police precept for 2002–03 is set are a matter for the Greater London Authority after consultation with its local electorate and taxpayers.

  The level at which the precept is set will be influenced not only by levels of revenue support grant, re-distributed non-domestic rates and police grant for 2002–03 but also by the use of any financial reserves the Metropolitan Police Authority puts towards its budget. Details of the provisional police funding settlement for 2002–03 will be announced shortly.

  Justice and Home Affairs Council
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list those proposals under discussion at JHA Council level that contain elements of the Corpus Juris package; and if he will make a statement. [19589]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  None of the specific proposals in the Corpus Juris package are under discussion in the Justice and Home Affairs (JHA) Council. However, the Corpus Juris report included a proposal for a European arrest warrant, to be issued by a national judge on the instructions of the European Public Prosecutor. A different proposal for a European arrest warrant is now under discussion in the JHA Council. The current proposal is based on the principle of mutual recognition and does not involve any role for the European Public Prosecutor.

  Police (Cheshire)
  Mr. George Osborne
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many police(a) officers and (b) constables there were per head of population in Cheshire in each of the last 10 years. [18444]
  234W
  Mr. Denham
  The information requested is set out in the table in the form of population per officer.

  Year1

  Population per officer2

  Population per constable32

  1991

  507

  674

  1992

  516

  684

  1993

  507

  678

  1994

  511

  669

  1995

  505

  656

  1996

  490

  628

  1997

  479

  616

  1998

  481

  613

  1999

  475

  613

  2000

  489

  639

  2001

  491

  641

  1 Police numbers figures are for 31 March each year from Home Office police strength returns.

  2 Population estimates are provided by the Office for National Statistics.

  Local Bodies
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list those local bodies which were set up under legislation which is the responsibility of his Department since May 1997. [17596]

  Mr. Blunkett
  The information requested is not readily available. I will write to the hon. Member as soon as possible and place a copy of my reply in the Library.

  Public Appointments
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the public appointments he has made since 7 June. [18749]

  Mr. Blunkett
  The table lists the appointments my Department has made to public bodies between 7 June 2001 and 31 October 2001.

  It is the practice not to publish the names of those appointed to the Boards of Visitors in England and Wales because of concerns for their personal safety, but 121 new appointments were made between 7 June 2001 and 31 October 2001.

  Body/name

  Position

  Animal Procedures Committee

  Dr. Michael Festing

  Member

  Dr. Robert Hubrecht

  Member

  Dr. Timothy Morris

  Member

  Parole Board

  His Hon. Judge Timothy Lawrence1

  Member

  Mr. Kofi Appiah1

  Member

  Mr. Michael Hennessey1

  Member

  Mrs. Lesley Hilton1

  Member

  Mr. Anthony Pembrooke1

  Member

  Mr. Mohammed Pirani1

  Member

  Dr. Simon Wood1

  Member

  Her Hon. Judge Estalla Hindley1

  Member

  Dr. Judith MacKenzie1

  Member

  His Hon. Judge John MacNaught1

  Member

  His Hon. Judge David Pugsley1

  Member

  Mrs. Judith Pitchers1

  Member

  Mr. John Staples1

  Member

  Mr. Robert Mathers1

  Member

  Ms Assia King1

  Member

  Dr. Abdul Sheikh1

  Member

  235W

  Body/name

  Position

  Dr. Susan Davenport1

  Member

  His Hon. Judge Jeremy Connor1

  Member

  Dr. David Mawson

  Member

  Mr. David Mylan

  Member

  Mr. Peter Palmer

  Member

  Mrs. Jo Turnbull

  Member

  Ms Josephine Dobry

  Member

  Dr. Anne Worrall

  Member

  Professor Roy King

  Member

  Mrs. Jane Geraghty

  Member

  Mrs. Diana Fulbrook

  Member

  Mrs. Sylvia Peach

  Member

  Dr. Claire Barkley

  Member

  Dr. Carol Hedderman

  Member

  Dr. Ann Barker

  Member

  Dr. Lawrence Chesterman

  Member

  Dr. Chris Hunter

  Member

  Dr. Ardash Kaul

  Member

  Dr. Richard O'Flynn

  Member

  His Hon. Judge Keith Cutler

  Member

  His Hon. Judge Kerry MacGill

  Member

  His Hon. Judge Gareth Hawkesworth

  Member

  His Hon. Judge Stephen Robbins

  Member

  His Hon. Judge Graham Boal

  Member

  Mr. Stephen Murphy

  Member

  Professor Andrew Rutherford

  Member

  Police Complaints Authority

  Mrs. Molly Meacher1

  Deputy Chair

  Ms Mehmuda Mian1

  Member

  Miss Sally Hawkins

  Member

  Mrs. Elaine Rassaby

  Member

  Mrs. Jennifer Rogers

  Member

  Ms Nicola Williams

  Member

  Mrs. Ann Barker

  Member

  Police Information Technology Organisation

  Mr. Peter Wilson

  Member

  Mr. Bruce McDowell

  Member

  Youth Justice Board for England and Wales

  Mrs. Annabella Scott1

  Member

  Mr. Charles Wilson1

  Member

  Ms Joyce Moseley1

  Member

  Mr. Cedric Fullwood1

  Member

  1Reappointment

  Special Advisers and Press Officers
  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) special advisers and (b) press officers were employed (i) full time, (ii) part time and (iii) on a contract basis by his Department in each year since 1992. [6925]

  Mr. Blunkett
  (a) On the number of special advisers, I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office on 21 November 2001, Official Report, column 340W.

  (b) On the number of press officers, detailed staff profiles for the period prior to 1997 are not held centrally and the cost of providing this information would be disproportionate as it would require the Home Office pay branch to conduct a detailed search of all staff records for the periods in question. Payroll records would not, in any event, provide accurate press officer staffing levels which throughout the period in question were enhanced by attachments and secondments, some at nil cost to the Department, and would not necessarily have been reflected in payroll information.
  236W
  For numbers of press officers currently employed full and part time at the Home Office I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) on 25 June 2001, Official Report, column 49W.

  Staffing levels for the years 1997 to 2000 were as follows:
  May 1997: three senior information officers, 10 information officers (two part time) one assistant information officer, a higher executive officer on secondment.
  January 1998: three senior information officers, 1 I information officers (two part time).
  January 1999: two senior information officers, eight information officers (two part time), three assistant information officers, a higher executive officer on secondment.
  January 2000: three senior information officers, six information officers, three assistant information officers, one higher executive officer on secondment.
  For all these periods the Home Office press office was managed by an assistant director at either grade seven or temporary grade six level.

  National Crime Squad
  Derek Twigg
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what level of funding he will make available to the(a) National Crime Squad and (b) National Criminal Intelligence Service in 2002–03. [20985]

  Mr. Blunkett
  I am writing today to the chairman of the Service Authority for the National Criminal Intelligence Service and the National Crime Squad to inform him how I propose to increase the funding for the two organisations.

  Under the provisions of the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001, the principal method of funding the two organisations is now one of grant in aid from the Home Office.

  In reaching my decision, I have taken into account the proposals put to me by the Service Authority and also the representations made to me by the Association of Police Authorities, Association of Chief Police Officers and others. I have considered all this against the background of the overall settlement for the police service.

  I have decided to make a grant of £134.05 million to the National Crime Squad in 2002–03. This is an increase of £20 million or 17.5 per cent.

  I have decided to make a grant of £68.5 million to the National Criminal Intelligence Service in 2002–03. This is an increase of £19 million or 38.4 per cent.

  The conditions under which payment of these grants will be made are set out in my letters to the chairman of the Service Authority and in the grant reports which have been published and laid before the House today. Copies have also been placed in the Library.

  For both organisations, this level of increase provides the means for a significant boost in fighting the top priorities of drug and people trafficking. More generally, the increases will enable the National Crime Squad and the National Criminal Intelligence Service to continue and enhance their crucial work in tackling serious and organised criminal activity.
  237W

  Police Authorities (Funding)
  Mr. Rooney
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will announce the allocations of police grant for police authorities in England and Wales for 2002–03. [20986]

  Mr. Denham
  I have today placed in the Library a copy of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary's proposals for allocation of police grant for 2002–03. My right hon. Friend and I intend to implement the proposals subject to consideration of any representations we receive about them, and to the approval of the House.

  We are taking the opportunity to outline the wider provision for support for the police service. This includes not only Total Standard Spending (TSS), supported by police grant and revenue support grant, but also provision

  Table 1

  2001–02

  2002–03

  Change

  £ million1

  £ million1

  £ million1

  Percentage

  Total SR2000 provision

  8,495

  9,010

  515

  6.1

  This comprises:

  1. Direct funding for police authorities Total standard spending2

  7,568

  7,777

  209

  2.8

  Specific initiatives

  229

  349

  120

  51.4

  Capital

  232

  310

  78

  33.6

  8,029

  8,436

  407

  5.0

  2. Centrally provided services

  91

  167

  76

  83.1

  3. Central administration

  211

  204

  -7

  -3.3

  4. NCS/NCIS

  164

  203

  39

  23.8

  Grand total

  8,495

  9,010

  515

  6.1

  1 Rounded to £ million

  2The original 2000–02 provision has been adjusted for National Crime Squad (NCS) and the National Criminal Intelligence Service (NCIS)

  Total Standard Spending (TSS)

  Police funding proposals within the local government finance system are being announced today by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions. An announcement has also been made in the National Assembly for Wales. These proposals together would provide total standard spending on the police in England and Wales of £7,777.199 million, an increase of £209 million or 2.8 per cent. on the adjusted TSS for 2001–02.

  The National Crime Squad (NCS) and the National Criminal Intelligence Service (NCIS) perform a valuable role in the battle against serious crime as part of the overall policing service. The NCS brought together the previous regional crime squads into a single unit, providing direction and control and making it easier to deploy resources effectively to prevent and detect serious crime and tackle major criminals operating in one or more police force areas in England and Wales. The role of NCIS is to develop intelligence to combat serious and organised crime, providing both tactical and strategic intelligence and expertise for law enforcement, Government and other relevant agencies at a national and international level. At present these services are financed mainly by a levy on police authorities set by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. From 2002–03 the services will be funded centrally. The new approach achieves transparency in the funding arrangements for the service authorities. Provision for the services in 2002–03 has been made from TSS. TSS for 2001–02 has been adjusted in the previous table to ensure comparability.
  238W
  for capital, specific initiatives (Crime Fighting Fund, Rural Policing, Airwave) and operational and administrative support directly provided by the Home Office.

  The total provision made in Spending Review 2000 for policing in 2002–03 is £9,010 million. The overall increase on provision for 2001–02 is 6.1 per cent. It builds on an increase in 2001–02 of 10.1 per cent.

  The increase in provision directly available to police authorities, for TSS, specific initiatives and capital grant and supplementary credit approvals is 5 per cent. In addition, there are increases in provision of services provided centrally for the police service—training, information technology, communications and scientific support.

  We propose to distribute the settlement as follows:

  The increase in TSS is 2.8 per cent., but increases for individual authorities vary. The formula used to determine the distribution of grant/Standard Spending Assessment (SSA) is again unchanged. The main reasons for differences between authorities result from changes in the data applied from one year to the next. These include changes in population, unemployment, projected pensions' commitments and the area cost adjustment.

  We propose that the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) should continue to receive additional funding in recognition of its distinct national and capital city functions. It has proved very difficult for the principal formula to take account of these special circumstances. As in previous years a special payment of grant will be made to the MPS above that given through the principal grant formula. The amount has been set at £197 million, which is included in the total provision.

  It is proposed to make a final year's special payment of grant to the following authorities for additional costs incurred as a result of changes in Metropolitan Police District boundaries in April 2000, as follows:
  Hertfordshire: £300,000
  Surrey: £800,000.
  TSS allocations are a mechanism for distributing grant. Provisional grants for police authorities in 2002–03 compared with the adjusted figure for 2001–02 are given in table 2. Protection has been given to authorities which would otherwise have received a low grant increase over

  239W
  2001–02, by applying a "floor" or minimum increase of 2.3 per cent., in line with inflation. The associated TSS allocations are given in table 3.

  The following items are not part of the annual grant settlement but demonstrate the wider range of support provided to police authorities.

  Specific initiatives

  The main items are:

  Crime Fighting Fund (CFF): through the CFF resources are being provided for a programme of recruitment over and above forces previous plans. The programme has so far lived up to expectations. £221 million is included in 2002–03 to continue funding around 6,000 recruits from 2000–01 to 2001–02 and to support a further 3,000 to be recruited in 2002–03.

  Rural Policing Fund: as in 2001–02, £30 million is provided for the particular needs of more rural forces through the rural policing fund.

  Airwave: £65 million will be available for the start-up operational costs of authorities taking Airwave in 2002–03 and to enable those forces who have the Airwave service to purchase additional menu services from BT.

  London and South East Payments: £33 million in total is provided for funding of free train travel for all Metropolitan and City of London officers; funding of 75 per cent. of the cost of the increase of £3,327 a year in London allowance paid to officers in the Metropolitan and City of London forces who were recruited on or after 1 September 1994 and who are not in receipt of housing emoluments, and an allowance for other forces in the south-east.

  Police Authority Capital

  The main items are as follows:

  My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and I intend to increase provision of capital grant and supplementary credit approvals from £157.43 million in 2001–02 to £209.43 million in 2002–03. The increase is substantial, and police authorities will be asked to direct a significant proportion of the extra provision towards improvement of their estate, as well as providing for other capital assets such as vehicles and equipment.

  Capital grants (up to £76 million) for introduction to Airwave will be made available to those authorities taking up the radio communications service in 2002–03. Similar arrangements were made for 2001–02 and will be made for 2003–04.

  Centrally Provided Services

  The main elements are CFF training costs (£23 million); DNA expansion programme (£61 million); The Airwave contractor's core service charges (£50 million); and the National Strategy for Police Information Systems (£27 million).

  Central Administration

  These include Home Office costs attributable to policing such as the Police Information Technology Organisation (PITO) and National Police Training facilities.

  Enhanced security since 11 September
  240W
  Additional provision of £30 million has also been made through the pre-Budget review for the police response during the current year to events of 11 September in the United States of America. We are considering further any longer term implications for policing.

  The settlement continues to take account of our commitment to improve efficiency and effectiveness in the police service. Future grant allocations will be considered in the light of police authorities improving efficiency by 2 per cent., reprioritising use of resources in favour of front-line policing.

  In addition to the resources which I have detailed specifically for policing, police forces share in and benefit from various wider programmes for crime reduction. For example, since April 1999, under the Crime Reduction Programme, over £390 million has been invested in the running and evaluation of over 1,450 crime-fighting projects. These will provide an evidence base on what methods, employed by the police and their crime and disorder partners, are the most effective in tackling crime and its causes.

  Table 2: grant allocations

  Allocations1

  Police authority

  2001–02 (£ million)

  2002–03 (£ million)

  Percentage change

  English Shire forces

  Avon and Somerset

  148.3

  152.4

  2.7

  Bedfordshire

  55.8

  57.5

  3.0

  Cambridgeshire

  66.0

  67.5

  2.3

  Cheshire

  96.4

  98.9

  2.6

  Cleveland

  77.7

  80.1

  3.0

  Cumbria

  54.1

  55.6

  2.8

  Derbyshire

  91.3

  95.0

  4.0

  Devon and Cornwall

  152.4

  156.9

  2.9

  Dorset

  58.2

  59.6

  2.5

  Durham

  75.7

  77.7

  2.7

  Essex

  147.4

  150.8

  2.3

  Gloucestershire

  53.9

  55.3

  2.5

  Hampshire

  173.3

  178.9

  3.2

  Hertfordshire

  96.0

  98.6

  2.7

  Humberside

  103.4

  105.8

  2.3

  Kent

  167.3

  171.1

  2.3

  Lancashire

  163.7

  168.5

  2.9

  Leicestershire

  92.0

  94.6

  2.8

  Lincolnshire

  55.5

  56.8

  2.3

  Norfolk

  74.2

  76.8

  3.5

  North Yorkshire

  66.6

  68.1

  2.3

  Northamptonshire

  57.8

  59.1

  2.3

  Nottinghamshire

  115.6

  118.3

  2.3

  Staffordshire

  100.0

  102.6

  2.5

  Suffolk

  60.4

  61.8

  2.3

  Surrey

  80.7

  82.5

  2.3

  Sussex

  144.8

  148.3

  2.5

  Thames Valley

  194.7

  199.2

  2.3

  Warwickshire

  45.6

  46.6

  2.3

  West Mercia

  98.7

  101.0

  2.3

  Wiltshire

  55.4

  56.6

  2.3

  English Metropolitan forces

  Greater Manchester

  352.9

  362.5

  2.7

  Mersey side

  223.6

  228.7

  2.3

  Northumbria

  199.3

  203.9

  2.3

  South Yorkshire

  160.1

  163.8

  2.3

  West Midlands

  358.0

  368.1

  2.8

  West Yorkshire

  268.8

  275.6

  2.5

  London forces

  GLA—-all functions2

  1,882.5

  1,943.0

  3.2

  City of London2

  English total

  6,468.1

  6,648.2

  2.8

  Welsh forces

  Dyfed-Powys

  45.6

  47.0

  3.0

  241W

  Table 2: grant allocations

  Allocations1

  Police authority

  2001–02 (£ million)

  2002–03 (£ million)

  Percentage change

  Gwent

  63.6

  65.9

  3.6

  North Wales

  67.6

  69.2

  2.3

  South Wales

  150.4

  156.2

  3.9

  Welsh total

  327.2

  338.3

  3.4

  Total

  6,795.3

  6,986.5

  2.8

  1Rounded to the nearest £100,000. Grant as would be calculated under the Local Government Finance Report (England) and Local Government Finance Report (Wales). This includes the Metropolitan police special payment, and the effects of floors and ceilings. Debt Charges adjustments are added to the 2001–02 grant figures for England.

  2Figures for the City are excluded because these are allocated to the Common Council of the City of London as a whole in respect of all its functions. GLA is included but it includes all functions (eg fire)

  Notes:

  1 Because of the transfer of responsibilities for NCIS/NCS, the total available for distribution has been adjusted for 2001–02 to ensure like-to-like comparison with 2002–03.

  2. Special payments for transitional costs associated with changes to the boundaries of the Metropolitan Police District from 1 April 2000.

  3. Capital Financing SSAs as would be calculated under the Local Government Finance Report (England) and Local Government Finance Report (Wales).

  Table 3: total standard spending

  Allocations1

  Police authority

  2001–02 (£ million)

  2002–03 (£ million)

  Percentage change

  English Shire forces

  Avon and Somerset

  177.5

  182.8

  3.0

  Bedfordshire

  66.5

  68.6

  3.2

  Cambridgeshire

  79.5

  81.6

  2.6

  Cheshire

  116.0

  119.3

  2.9

  Cleveland

  86.8

  89.6

  3.2

  Cumbria

  63.4

  65.3

  3.0

  Derbyshire

  108.6

  113.3

  4.3

  Devon and Cornwall

  183.8

  189.6

  3.2

  Dorset

  73.4

  75.5

  2.9

  Durham

  85.6

  88.0

  2.8

  Essex

  181.2

  185.0

  2.0

  Gloucestershire

  65.5

  67.3

  2.8

  Hampshire

  209.2

  216.3

  3.4

  Hertfordshire

  120.2

  123.4

  2.6

  Humberside

  118.5

  121.1

  2.2

  Kent

  199.9

  204.9

  2.5

  Lancashire

  188.8

  194.8

  3.1

  Leicestershire

  108.3

  111.6

  3.0

  Lincolnshire

  67.1

  68.9

  2.6

  Norfolk

  89.5

  92.7

  3.7

  North Yorkshire

  82.2

  84.3

  2.5

  Northamptonshire

  69.4

  71.1

  2.5

  Nottinghamshire

  133.2

  136.4

  2.4

  Staffordshire

  119.0

  122.3

  2.8

  Suffolk

  73.3

  75.3

  2.6

  Surrey

  108.6

  110.2

  1.5

  Sussex

  177.8

  182.6

  2.7

  Thames Valley

  239.8

  245.5

  2.4

  Warwickshire

  55.8

  56.7

  1.6

  West Mercia

  121.6

  124.3

  2.2

  Wiltshire

  67.9

  69.2

  1.9

  English Metropolitan forces

  Greater Manchester

  395.8

  407.2

  2.9

  Merseyside

  247.2

  253.0

  2.3

  Northumbria

  222.7

  227.4

  2.1

  South Yorkshire

  180.8

  184.6

  2.2

  West Midlands

  400.9

  412.6

  2.9

  West Yorkshire

  304.0

  312.4

  2.8

  London forces

  242W

  Table 3: total standard spending

  Allocations1>

  Police authority

  2001–02 (£ million)

  2002–03 (£ million)

  Percentage change

  GLA—all functions2

  1,788.0

  1,841.1

  3.0

  City of London3

  55.1

  59.1

  7.2

  English total

  7,232.3

  7,434.7

  2.8

  Welsh forces

  Dyfed-Powys

  55.1

  56.9

  3.3

  Gwent

  73.2

  76.2

  3.7

  North Wales

  80.5

  82.1

  2.0

  South Wales

  172.3

  179.1

  4.0

  Welsh total

  381.4

  394.4

  3.4

  Total

  7,613.7

  7,829.0

  2.8

  1Rounded to the nearest £100,000. The Allocation is the sum of: Police Grant, Transitional Grant, Police SSA, and Capital Finance SSA. Figures for Capital Finance SSA are provisional.

  2 Figures for the Metropolitan police include its Special Payment.

  3Figure for the City include Police SSA and Police Grant only and excludes other SSAs (eg Capital Financing) and Central Support Protection Grant. These are allocated to the Common Council of the City of London as a whole in respect of all its functions.

  Note:

  Because of the transfer of responsibilities for NCIS/NCS, the total available for distribution has been adjusted for 2001–02 to ensure like-to-like comparison with 2002–03.

  Departmental Spending
  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the total amount of spending by his Department was in each nation and region of the UK, in the last year for which figures are available; what proportion of his Department's total spending this constitutes; and if he will make a statement. [6857]

  Mr. Blunkett
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury to the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) on 15 October 2001,Official Report, column 854W.

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

  New Deal (Civil Service)
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Mr. Shaw) of 28 November 2001,Official Report, column 901W, what proportion the new deal starts in each Government Department were of the total number of employees recruited by the Department over the relevant period; and how many of the new deal starts were followed by sustained unsubsidised employment. [20702]

  Mr. Leslie
  The information is not held centrally and can be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Regional Government
  Andrew George
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister when he will publish a paper on regional Government in England. [19917]

  Mrs. Roche
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister to my hon. Friend the Member for Preston (Mr. Hendrick) on 2 July 2001,Official Report, column 80W.
  243W

  Civil Service
  Adam Price
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many full-time posts in the UK Civil Service are based in each parliamentary constituency. [18521]

  Mr. Leslie
  Information is available for the countries and Government Office regions of Great Britain. Data for full-time equivalent posts are published in "Civil Service Statistics", copies of which are laid in the Libraries of both Houses. The latest information, for April 2000, was published in August this year. Data for full-time posts, excluding part-timers, is contained in the table.

  The data are not collected in a form which can be disaggregated to parliamentary constituencies in Great Britain, and therefore the information is not available except at disproportionate cost. Figures for the Northern Ireland Civil Service are given in the table.

  Full-time servants employed by Department and agencies in Great Britain by country/region of workplace

  Government office regions

  Numbers of staff

  London

  79,960

  South East

  51,870

  South West

  46,130

  West Midlands

  29,450

  North West

  34,340

  Merseyside

  14,150

  North East

  24,440

  Yorks and Humberside

  30,810

  East Midlands

  18,060

  Eastern

  25,410

  Wales

  27,410

  Scotland

  42,100

  Northern Ireland

  5,030

  Overseas

  2,380

  Not known

  4,400

  Total

  435,930

  Full-time Ireland civil service posts by parliamentary constituency

  Numbers of NICS1 staff

  Belfast, East

  4,940

  Belfast, North

  1,470

  Belfast, South

  7,800

  Belfast, West

  1,510

  East Antrim

  450

  East Londonderry

  1,060

  Fermanagh and South Tyrone

  890

  Foyle

  1,410

  Lagan Valley

  580

  Mid Ulster

  310

  Newry and Armagh

  660

  North Antrim

  890

  North Down

  840

  South Antrim

  450

  South Down

  620

  Strangford

  210

  Upper Bann

  920

  West Tyrone

  820

  Constituency unknown

  80

  Total

  25,900

  1 Northern Ireland Civil Service (NICS) staff enumerated at 1 January 2001. Includes industrial and non-industrial, permanent and casual staff but excludes the following: those working part-time or on career break, Home Civil Servants, Northern Ireland Audit

  244W
  Office, Northern Ireland Court Service and uniformed Prison Service. Parliamentary constituency of staff refers to the location of the office or depot where staff are based.

  e-Commerce Targets
  Mr. Wyatt
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will rank Government Departments in respect of their performance in meeting e-commerce targets; and if he will make a statement. [17396]

  Mr. Leslie
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough, South and Cleveland, East (Dr. Kumar) on 30 November 2001,Official Report, column 1200W.

  People's Panel
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer of 16 November 2001,Official Report, column 896W, on the People's Panel, if he will list (a) the title, purpose and cost of projects that have been commissioned from the panel between 1 November and the latest date for which figures are available and (b) ongoing projects being carried out by the panel in the same period. [20385]

  Mr. Leslie
  Since 1 November a sixth wave of consumer research using the panel ("People's Panel Wave 6") has been commissioned. The purpose is to complete a series of surveys tracking satisfaction with public services. The cost of the research is £73,200 excluding VAT.

  The panel has been involved with no on-going projects during this period.

EDUCATION AND SKILLS

  Grant-maintained Protection Grant
  Mr. Daisley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will ensure that(a) the grant-maintained protection grant is maintained in 2002–03. [19981]

  Mr. Timms
  [holdinganswer 3 December 2001]: Bearing in mind the additional resources to be made available to local education authorities in 2002–03 as a result of the local government finance settlement to be announced on 4 December and the likelihood of a further general reduction in the amount of transitional funding payable by LEAs to former GM schools, my

  Specialist schools: selection by aptitude

  Percentage of:

  School

  LEA

  Specialism

  School's Status

  pupils selected on aptitude

  pupils with statements

  Pfree school meals take-up

  Archbishop Blanch

  Liverpool

  Technology

  Voluntary aided

  5.6

  17.

  11.7

  Archbishop Temple

  Lancashire

  Technology

  Voluntary aided

  10.0

  1.5

  8.6

  Bohunt

  Hampshire

  Language

  Foundation

  10.0

  0.7

  1.5

  Brentwood Ursuline Convent Essex

  Arts

  Voluntary aided

  10.0

  0.1

  4.1

  Chaucer Technology

  Kent

  Technology

  Foundation

  Up to 100

  1.8

  6.1

  Chestnut Grove

  Wandsworth

  Arts

  Community

  16.0

  4.2

  20.3

  Cornwallis

  Kent

  Technology

  Foundation

  10.0

  3.6

  6.1

  Deacon's

  Peterborough, City

  Technology

  Foundation

  15.0

  1.5

  13.4

  George Spencer GM

  Nottinghamshire

  Technology

  Foundation

  10.0

  0.7

  3.5

  Heathside

  Surrey

  Technology

  Foundation

  4.0

  1.2

  2.3

  Hockerill Anglo European

  Hertfordshire

  Language

  Foundation

  10.0

  0.7

  3.5

  Intake High

  Leeds

  Arts

  Community

  10.0

  4.6

  18.0

  Lodge Park

  Northamptonshire

  Technology

  Foundation

  10.0

  1.3

  8.4

  Lynn Grove VA High

  Norfolk

  Technology

  Voluntary aided

  15.0

  0.7

  7.9

  Mill Hill County High

  Barnet, LB of

  Technology

  Foundation

  10.0

  2.9

  2.8

  Ninestiles

  Birmingham

  Technology

  Foundation

  10.0

  4.5

  22.6

  Oakbank

  Bradford

  Sports

  Foundation

  10.0

  3.7

  10.2

  Oldfield

  Bath and NE Somerse

  Sports

  Foundation

  10.0

  0.5

  4.1

  Philip Morant

  Essex

  Technology

  Foundation

  15.0

  1.2

  5.0

  Sandwich Technology

  Kent

  Technology

  Foundation

  10.0

  1.8

  11.1

  Small Heath

  Birmingham

  Technology

  Foundation

  10.0

  0.9

  32.9

  St. Margaret's C of E High

  Liverpool

  Technology

  Voluntary aided

  15.0

  1.4

  4.6

  St. Martin's

  Essex

  Technology

  Foundation

  10.0

  0.7

  5.1

  St. Marylebone (The)

  Westminster

  Arts

  Voluntary aided

  10.0

  1.7

  11.5

  Wye Valley (The)

  Buckinghamshire

  Sports

  Community

  10.0

  4.4

  6.6

  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.

  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many and what percentage of the total of specialist schools have chosen to exercise the option to select up to 10 per cent. of pupils by aptitude for each of the last three years. [20690]
  246W
  right hon. Friend considers that there are insufficient grounds for continuing to pay LEAs a special grant in respect of transitional funding in the face of other claims on the resources available to the Department.

  Specialist Schools (Selection)
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will list each specialist school as at 1 September that had chosen to exercise the option to select up to 10 per cent. of pupils by aptitude together with(a) the nature of the specialism, (b) the status of the school, (c) the percentage of pupils selected, (d) the percentage of pupils with statements and (e) the percentage of pupils receiving free school meals. [20689]

  Mr. Timms
  The latest available information on aptitude selection is for school year 1999–2000. The following table shows the specialist schools which had selected a proportion of their pupils for that year by aptitude for a subject or subjects relevant to their specialist designation, together with the specialism of each school, the school's status, the percentage of pupils selected in each school, the percentage of pupils with statements and the percentage of all pupils receiving free school meals.

  Mr. Timms
  The latest available information for specialist schools which have chosen to exercise the option to select up to 10 per cent. of pupils by aptitude is for school year 1999–2000. This is the first year for which this information has been collected. Information for
  247W
  2000–01 is due to be received shortly and will be available early in the new year.

  Of the 403 Specialist Schools operational as of September 1999, 25 schools (6.2 per cent.) selected a proportion of their pupils by aptitude for a subject or subjects relevant to their specialist designation.

  Departmental Spending
  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the total expenditure was on(a) advertising, (b) polling, (c) focus groups, (d) design consultants, (e) caterers, (f) production of departmental publications and (g) photographs/photographers by her Department for each year since 1995 in (i) cash and (ii) real terms; what was (A) the annual percentage increase in spending on each category and (B) spending on each category as a percentage of the total departmental running costs; and if she will make a statement. [6910]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  For each year since 1995 the Department's spend on advertising, caterers, production of departmental publications and photographs/photographers is shown in the table.

  Advertising

  Cash terms (£m)

  Real terms (£m)

  Cash terms Annual percentage increase in spending (year on year)

  Real terms Annual percentage increase in spending (year on year)

  1995–96 (ED)

  7.7

  8.6

  —

  —

  1995–96 (DfE)

  0.6

  0.67

  —

  —

  1995–96 (total)

  8.3

  9.27

  —

  —

  1996–97

  7.5

  8.12

  -9.64

  -12.45

  1997–98

  10.0

  10.53

  33.33

  29.66

  1998–99

  15.7

  16.07

  57.00

  52.64

  1999–2000

  11.9

  11.9

  -24.20

  -25.95

  2000–01

  >29.0

  28.43

  143.70

  138.92

  Caterers

  Year

  Cash terms (£k)

  Real terms (£k)

  Cash terms Annual percentage increase in spending (year on year)

  Real terms Annual percentage increase in spending (year on year)

  1995–96

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1996–97

  970.0

  1,057.17

  —

  —

  1997–98

  852.6

  897.62

  -12.10

  -14.53

  1998–99

  854.6

  874.75

  0.23

  -2.55

  1999–2000

  932.9

  932.90

  9.16

  6.65

  2000–01

  538.1

  527.55

  -42.32

  -43.45

  Departmental publications

  Cash terms (£m)

  Real terms (£m)

  Cash terms Annual percentage increase in spending (year on year)

  Real terms Annual percentage increase in spending (year on year)

  1995–96

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1996–97

  2.5

  2.71

  —

  —

  1997–98

  2.1

  2.21

  -16.0

  -18.32

  1998–99

  0.8

  0.82

  -61.90

  -62.96

  1999–2000

  2.8

  2.80

  250.00

  241.94

  2000–01

  2.3

  2.25

  -17.86

  -19.47

  248W
  Within this period, the Department has not undertaken focus group or opinion polls of the general public. However it has sampled and consulted on views of teachers, Heads and other groups affected by the Department's policies on specific issues, for example literacy and numeracy strategies.

  It is not possible to separate out expenditure on design consultants. This expenditure is contained within the costs of departmental publications. Advertising costs given do not include spending by agencies.

  Some figures for 1995–96 are not available because of the merger of the Employment Department and Department for Education.

  Real term expenditure is calculated using 1999–2000 base year prices.

  All the expenditure given in the answer is from departmental programme budgets. It is not a valid comparison to give these as a percentage of departmental running costs.
  249W

  Photographs/Photographers

  Cash terms (£k)

  Real terms (£k)

  Cash terms Annual percentage increase in spending (year on year)

  Real terms Annual percentage increase in spending (year on year)

  1995–96

  63.3

  70.74

  —

  —

  1996–97

  114.5

  123.96

  80.88

  75.25

  1997–98

  100.5

  105.81

  -12.23

  -14.65

  1998–99

  114.5

  117.20

  13.93

  10.77

  1999–2000

  40.8

  40.80

  -64.37

  -65.19

  2000–01

  72.3

  70.88

  77.21

  73.73

  Teachers
  Mr. Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many teachers in East Sussex were assaulted by(a) pupils and (b) parents in each year since 1997. [19930]

  Mr. Timms
  The Department does not hold these data. East Sussex local education authority has informed us that, since 1998, there have been a total of 427 physical assaults on teachers by pupils and parents in its schools, the majority by pupils in special schools. There were 97 assaults in 1998–99, 118 in 1999–2000 and 212 in 2000–01. This information does not separately identify who carried out the assaults.

  Learning and Skills Councils
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will make it her policy to ensure that the amounts that local education authorities are required to transfer to learning and skills councils from April 2002 for post-16 education broadly matches the education standard spending assessment for that group for each local education authority. [17965]

  Margaret Hodge
  [holdinganswer 26 November 2001]: Local education authorities will, from April, receive funding for their sixth form provision from the learning and skills council (LSC). Initial funding allocations will be announced by the LSC by mid-December. The deduction from each authority's education SSA will be equal to the amount received from the LSC for sixth form funding.

  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills to whom members of local learning and skills councils are accountable; and how. [20695]

  Local LSC

  School Representatives

  School Governors

  LEA Representatives

  Other LA Representatives

  North West

  Cheshire/Warrington

  —

  3

  1 Elected

  1 Official

  Cumbria

  —

  2

  2 Official

  1 Elected

  Lancashire

  —

  2

  1 Elected

  1 Official

  Greater Manchester

  —

  3

  —.

  1 Elected

  1 Official

  Greater Merseyside

  1

  2

  1 Elected

  1 Elected

  West Midlands

  Birmingham/Solihull

  —

  2

  1 Official

  1 Elected

  Black Country

  —

  1

  —

  1 Elected

  1 Official

  Coventry /Warwickshire

  1

  5

  —

  1 Elected

  1 Official

  Hereford/Worcester

  1

  1

  —

  1 Elected

  1 Official

  250W
  Margaret Hodge
  Members of local learning and skills councils (LSCs) are accountable to the Secretary of State through the LSC's National Council.

  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will list those local learning and skills councils which(a) have at least one member who is a representative from the school sector and (b) have no such representative. [14558]

  Margaret Hodge
  [holdinganswer 13 November 2001]: All 47 local learning and skills councils include representatives with relevant experience from the school sector. These include:

  three teachers; 17 headteachers;

  36 local LSC members appointed with a local education authority (LEA) background (typically Directors of Education);

  eight local executive directors who have previous LEA officer or head teacher experience; and

  101 local council members who are school governors.

  In addition, further experience of the schools and education sectors is brought by the vast range of other local authority representation (in most cases at council leader or chief executive level).

  In April 2002, the LSC assumes responsibility for school sixth form funding. In recognition of this we will encourage the LSC to appoint further representatives with experience of the school sector as and when local vacancies arise.

  A breakdown showing which local LSCs include representation from the schools and LEA/LA sector is given in the table.
  251W

  Local LSC

  School Representatives

  School Governors

  LEA Representatives

  Other LA Representatives

  Shropshire

  —

  1

  —

  2 Elected

  1 Official

  Staffordshire

  —

  3

  1 Elected

  1 Official

  South West

  Devon/Cornwall

  —

  2

  —

  1 Elected

  1 Official

  Bournemouth/Dorset/Poole

  —

  —

  1 Official

  1 Elected

  Gloucestershire

  1

  2

  —

  1 Official

  Somerset

  —

  2

  —

  1 Elected

  2 Official

  Wiltshire/Swindon

  —

  3

  1 Elected

  2 Elected

  1 Official

  West of England

  1

  —

  —

  1 Elected

  North East

  County Durham

  1

  2

  —

  1 Elected

  1 Official

  Northumberland

  —

  3

  1 Official

  —

  Tees Valley

  —

  3

  —

  2 Elected

  Tyne and Wear

  —

  1

  —

  2 Elected

  Yorkshire and Humber

  South Yorkshire

  —

  1

  1 Official

  2 Elected

  1 Official

  North Yorkshire

  1

  3

  1 Official

  2 Elected

  West Yorkshire

  —

  2

  1 Official

  1 Elected

  Humberside

  —

  2

  1 Official

  1 Elected

  1 Official

  East Midlands

  Derbyshire

  —

  4

  1 Elected

  1 Elected

  1 Official

  Leicestershire

  —

  3

  2 Official

  1 Elected

  Lincolnshire

  —

  6

  2 Official

  1 Elected

  Northamptonshire

  1

  2

  1 Official

  2 Elected

  Nottinghamshire

  —

  3

  1 Elected

  1 Elected

  East of England

  Bedfordshire

  1

  4

  —

  2 Elected

  Cambridgeshire

  1

  4

  1 Official

  2 Elected

  1 Official

  Essex

  1

  1

  1 Official

  2 Elected

  1 Official

  Hertfordshire

  2

  —

  1 Official

  1 Elected

  1 Official

  Norfolk

  1

  —

  1 Official

  1 Elected

  Suffolk

  2

  4

  —

  4 Elected

  London

  Central London

  1

  3

  —

  1 Elected

  1 Official

  East London

  —

  4

  1 Elected

  1 Official

  North London

  1

  2

  —

  1 Elected

  1 Official

  South London

  1

  1

  1 Official

  1 Elected

  West London

  —

  2

  —

  1 Official

  South East

  Berkshire

  —

  1

  1 Official

  1 Official

  Hampshire/Portsmouth/IOW

  —

  1

  1 Official

  1 Official

  Kent/Medway

  —

  1

  1 Official

  2 Elected

  1 Official

  Milton Keynes

  —

  2

  2 Official

  3 Elected

  Surrey

  1

  1

  1 Official

  1 Elected

  1 Official

  Sussex

  —

  1

  2 Official

  1 Elected

  1 Official

  252W 253W

  Teacher Vacancies
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many teacher vacancies there were in maintained schools in Buckinghamshire at the beginning of the current school term. [15770]

  Mr. Timms
  The information is not available for the date requested. In January 2001 there were 59 full-time teacher vacancies in maintained nursery, primary, secondary and special schools in Buckinghamshire.

  School Sport
  Mr. Reed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what statistics she requires London local education authorities to provide to her Department to measure the level of(a) competitive sport and (b) physical education in schools. [18505]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  All local education authorities are required to submit an assessment of the standards of attainment in physical education of Key Stage 3 pupils. However, there is no statutory requirement for local education authorities to submit statistics on the level of competitive sport in schools. The Government's White Paper "Schools: Achieving Success", includes a pledge that all children have access to at least two hours a week of PE or school sport, in or after school. The Qualifications and Curriculum Authority's survey into good practice in physical education has included examples from a number of schools in London.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills 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. [18580]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  [holding answer 3 December 2001]: Between 20 June and 20 July 2001, the Department for Education and Skills replied to a total of 7,289 letters covering both ministerial and treat official correspondence. The Department replied as shown in the table:

  Number of replies sent

  Percentage of replies sent

  (a) in 15 working days and under

  6,627

  91

  (b) in 16 to 20 working days

  270

  4

  (c) in 21 to 30 working days

  316

  4

  (d) in 31 working days and over

  76

  1

  Total

  7,289

  —

  Children and Young People's Unit
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what work is being done by the Children and Young People's Unit to include young people in Whitehall policy formulation. [19055]

  Mr. Denham
  I have been asked to reply.
  254W
  On 2 November I published "Learning to Listen: Core Principles for the Involvement of Children and Young People" which sets out principles Government Departments have agreed to follow in their work to involve children and young people in the planning, provision and evaluation of Government policies and services relevant to them. The Children and Young People's Unit developed the principles in close consultation with Government Departments and with expertise from the voluntary sector. The Children and Young People's Unit is now supporting Departments as they plan how to take forward work to implement the principles and develop individual departmental action plans, for implementation from April 2002. The Unit will publish an annual report of progress against action plans.

  The document "Learning to Listen—Core Principles for the Involvement of Children and Young People" is available on the web at www.cypu.gov.uk and in the Library.

  Mr. Woodward
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the budget is for the Children and Young Persons' Unit for(a) 2001 and (b) 2002. [19562]

  Mr. Denham
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Children and Young People's Unit is responsible for the Children's Fund for which the spending plans are £100 million in 2001–02 and £150 million in 2002–03. The budget for the Children and Young People's Unit, including the administration and support of the Children's Fund is £2.7 million in 2001–02. Its budget for 2002–03 has not yet been finalised.

  School Leavers
  Richard Burden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many and what percentage of pupils in Birmingham, Northfield left full-time education at the age of 16 years in the last three years. [19389]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  [holding answer 3 December 2001]: Data on the number and percentage of students continuing in post-compulsory education at age 16 are not calculated for areas smaller than LEAs, as reliable estimates cannot be made for small areas.

  The percentage of 16-year-olds not participating in full-time education for Birmingham LEA, which includes the constituency of Birmingham Northfield, in the last three years for which figures are available is set out as follows:

  16-year-olds not in full-time education: Birmingham LEA

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  Percentage

  33

  32

  33

  Number

  4,500

  4,300

  4.5

  Participation rates by LEA are published in an annual statistical bulletin, "Participation in Education and Training by Young People Aged 16 and 17 in Each Local Area and Region, England".

  LEA Music Services
  Mr. Damian Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many local education
  255W
  authorities are receiving funds for a music service; and how many schools have benefited from the music service in each local education authority. [19616]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  [holding answer 30 November 2001]: All 150 local education authorities in England are receiving funds for a music service through the Music Standards Fund.

  The Department for Education and Skills has not up to now collected information on how many schools benefit from the music service in each authority. We do, however, plan to ask music services for more information about the provision they offer in the new year.

  Competitive Bidding
  Hugh Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if she will list the schemes administered by(a) her Department and (b) its agencies where funds are allocated by a competitive bidding process; and what was the amount of money allocated to each scheme. [19735]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  The information requested is not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  School Playing Fields
  Mr. Hawkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what assessment she has made of the accuracy of the estimate previously supplied by her Department that 40 school playing fields per month were sold during the period 1979 to 1997; what recent representations she has received expressing concern over the(a) use and (b) accuracy of these estimated figures; and if she will make a statement. [19836]

  John Healey
  [holding answer 30 November 2001]: Public concern about the loss of school playing fields led directly to the introduction in October 1998 of section 77 of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998. Prior to October 1998, the Government had no means of knowing precisely how many school playing fields were being sold. Before section 77 was introduced, only grant-maintained schools were required to seek consent from the Secretary of State before selling land, including areas of their playing fields. Local authorities and other schools that owned their own playing fields were free to sell without restriction.

  Our best estimate is that an average of 40 playing fields a month were sold in this way before October 1998. This estimate is based on the number of playing field disposals at grant-maintained schools between April 1996, when the then Conservative Government further encouraged the disposal of playing fields by relaxing the Local Authority Capital Finance Regulations which governed the use of sale proceeds, and 1 October 1998, when section 77 took effect. During this 30-month period, some 64 grant-maintained schools were given approval to dispose of areas of playing field, which is an average of over two a month. Using the proportion of grant-maintained schools at that time compared with the number of other schools, we estimate the total number of playing field disposals each month to have been around 40.
  256W
  Only the Central Council of Physical Recreation has expressed any concern about these figures. Officials in this Department responded to the Council's concerns in September 2001. There have been no further representations.

  Pupil Places
  Mr. Hoban
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what basis is used to determine the funding made available to local education authorities for new pupil places. [19942]

  John Healey
  [holding answer 3 December 2001]: Capital support for new pupil places is allocated to local education authorities (LEAs) where the forecast growth in pupil numbers in an area exceeds the assessed physical capacity of local schools to accommodate them. Once the number of pupil places needed is established, funding is allocated using a per pupil amount which reflects the average cost of new accommodation. Funding support is normally provided to LEAs in the form of basic credit approvals. Detailed guidance to LEAs on submitting requests for new pupil places is sent to them annually in the "Guide for the Schools Capital Allocation Round and PFI Credits" document, copies of which are lodged in the Library.

  Capital Expenditure
  Mr. Hoban
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills (1) what mechanism she operates to record approvals given to local education authorities for capital expenditure; [19941]

  (2) what information her Department holds on approvals to local education authorities for capital expenditure. [19943]

  John Healey
  [holding answer 3 December 2001]: The Government have, as far as possible, moved away from centrally directed, bureaucratic bidding processes. We have moved towards needs related formulaic allocations to schools and local education authorities (LEAs) based on pupil numbers and survey-based assessments of building needs. It is the Government's view that, on balance and with the right safeguards, detailed decisions about capital priorities across a local area are best taken by LEAs working with their schools. In line with this, Asset Management Plans (AMPs) have been introduced by LEAs, giving them a clear and systematic view of the needs of their schools estate, based on surveys of all school buildings. LEAs and schools then prioritise these needs in a rigorous, consultative and transparent way against the formulaic capital support provided to them. This means that most detailed information on how schools capital is invested is held by LEAs and schools.

  Central Government retains some central support for capital funded through bid based initiatives such as the Private Finance Initiative (PFI) and the Targeted Capital Fund (TCF). Guidance on submitting PFI and TCF bids is sent to LEAs annually in the "Guide for the Schools Capital Allocation Round and PFI Credits" document, copies of which are lodged in the Library, together with copies of announcements of allocations to LEAs and schools made by the Department. Details of announcements of major capital allocations are also sent to each Member of Parliament.
  257W
  Mr. Hoban
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many schools will have been allocated money in the period from May 1997 to March 2002 for repairs. [19944]

  John Healey
  [holding answer 3 December 2001]: Every maintained school in England has been allocated money for repairs in this period. This Government made available £1.3 billion of New Deal for Schools capital from the Windfall Tax from 1997–98 until 2001–02, to help address the backlog of urgent repairs in schools that we inherited after years of under-funding. 17,000 schools are benefiting from this investment.

  In 2000–01, Devolved formula capital for schools was introduced, giving, for the first time, every school in England a capital budget to enable them to address directly the needs of their buildings. This funding is nearly £300 million this year and will rise to £600 million by 2003–04, when a typical primary school will receive almost £20,000 a year, and a typical secondary school will receive almost £66,000 a year.

  In addition to this, many schools are benefiting from repairs and improvements supported by formulaic capital allocations by central Government to local education authorities.

  New Schools
  Mr. Hoban
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills, pursuant to her answer of 27 November 2001,Official Report, column 773W, on new schools, what the value was of capital expenditure on (a) expanding new schools, (b) replacing schools and (c) repairing schools in (i) 1997, (ii) 1998, (iii) 1999, (iv) 2000 and (v) 2001. [19946]

  John Healey
  [holding answer 3 December 2001]: We do not hold information in the form requested. Much capital support is allocated to local education authorities and schools on a formulaic basis, so that records on how it is allocated to specific categories of spend will be held locally.

  "All Our Futures"
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what progress has been made in implementing "All our Futures: Creativity, Culture, Education". [19953]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  The report of the National Advisory Committee on Creative and Cultural Education "All our Futures: Creativity, Culture and Education", published in 1999, contained 59 detailed recommendations. Since then we have made considerable progress in addressing the report's recommendations.

  The last national curriculum review introduced greater flexibility, which allowed teachers the freedom to incorporate more creativity into their planning and teaching. As a result of the review, the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority has established two projects, one on Creativity and one on the Arts, to produce guidance for schools on how to promote pupils' creativity and how the Arts can contribute to pupils' creative and cultural development.

  This year, the Department's White Paper "Schools: achieving success" reinforced our commitment that all pupils should have access to a broad and balanced
  258W
  education which includes opportunities for creativity and self-expression. This includes our proposals to support schools to provide "education with character" and our commitment that there should be more opportunities for children to learn music, PE, sports and a modern foreign language. We are also supporting the continued development of Creative Partnerships between schools and arts organisations.

  Rural White Paper
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills, 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 child care places were (a) taken up and (b) remained vacant in (i) Cornwall, (ii) Devon, (iii) Durham and (iv) Lincolnshire in 2000–01; and what plans she has to extend the child care places scheme to other rural counties. [20030]

  Margaret Hodge
  [holding answer 3 December 2001]: The Department for Education and Skills has responsibility for the development of child care places in England through the National Childcare Strategy. The strategy is carried forward at a local level by Early Years Development and Childcare Partnerships (EYDCPs) that have been established in every local education authority area in England. All rural areas are covered.

  We do not currently hold information on the take-up of places. EYDCPs are now gathering this information and will be submitting it to the Department in spring 2002 along with their Implementation Plans for 2002–03.

  We are making £22 million available from April 2002 to support the delivery of Sure Start type services aimed at young children and families in rural areas and small pockets of disadvantage. This will build on neighbourhood nurseries and bring child care, health and family support services to a further 7,500 children in England. Thirty-four local authority areas have been invited to develop these smaller scale programmes. A list of the areas and associated guidance has been placed in the Library.

  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills, 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, which schools have received support from the Small Schools Fund. [20034]

  Mr. Timms
  [holding answer 3 December 2001]: The Small Schools Fund is allocated to LEAs on a formula basis. Levels of funding are determined by the number of primary and special schools in the authority that have 200 or fewer pupils; and the number of secondary schools that have 600 or fewer pupils. The fund is worth £80 million per year in total. LEAs may set lower (but not higher) thresholds for allocation at local level.

  Grandparent Mentoring
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what involvement her Department had in the proposal by Age Concern England to develop its transage action grandparent mentoring project in 2000–01. [20553]
  259W
  Mr. Timms
  None. The Department contributed towards the cost of a feasibility study in 1997–98 and made a further contribution to a pilot programme in 1998–99. No further requests for funding were received.

  School Buses (Safety)
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what steps the Government are taking to increase the safety of school buses; and what guidelines are given to schools with regard to bus and minibus safety in schools. [20634]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  From 1 October this year, all new buses, coaches and minibuses have to be fitted with seat belts. This change will make all bus and minibus travel in new vehicles safer.

  Home to school transport is the responsibility of local education authorities. They must monitor the condition of vehicles used for transporting pupils from home to school, and report any safety defects to the Vehicle Inspectorate. Schools are responsible for arranging travel on educational visits, and we published good practice guidance in 1998 that advised that it is not normally appropriate to use buses without seat belts on long journeys. Supplementary advice on educational visits will be made available later this school term.

  Further Education Colleges
  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how much VAT was paid by further education colleges in England in each year from 1995–96. [20740]

  Margaret Hodge
  Information on VAT paid by further education colleges in England was not recorded centrally by the Further Education Funding Council (FEFC), so is not available and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will make a statement on the results of pilot studies into financial support for further education college students in England. [20741]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  The only form of financial assistance for students in further education currently being piloted is the Education Maintenance Allowance (EMA), which is available in 56 local education authorities. The allowance is payable to eligible young people not just in colleges but also in school sixth forms.

  The pilots are being evaluated over a three-year period and this work is on-going. The first reports were published in March this year and the next report is due for publication early in 2002.

  Early findings from the evaluation show that EMA appears to have raised participation in education. The statistical analysis estimates an average gain in participation in pilot areas compared with control areas, among EMA eligible young people, of around 5 percentage points.

  Although we do not yet have figures on attainment, the qualitative aspect of the evaluation has found some evidence of a positive effect on young people's performance and commitment to study.
  260W
  In relation to adult learners in further education colleges in England, there are no pilot studies on which to report at this time.

  Post-16 Education (Funding)
  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what change in funding(a) sixth form colleges and (b) further education colleges in England would receive for 16 to 19-year-old provision if funded at the level of sixth forms in schools. [20743]

  Margaret Hodge
  It is not possible to estimate reliably what change in funding would result if sixth form colleges and other FE colleges were to be funded at the level of school sixth forms. Comparable funding figures to do this are not available.

  The latest estimate of the average delegated funding per sixth form student in schools per year for 2001–02 is £3,330, and the total funding per full time equivalent (FIE) student in FE sector colleges per year for 2001–02 is £3,660. However, the FE unit funding figure includes total public funding allocated for further education, while the schools' figure is based only on delegated funds and excludes other funding the school receives centrally from LEAs which impacts on post-16 students. The figures therefore cannot be used to make comparisons. Also, separate figures for sixth form colleges and tertiary colleges are not available.

  Education Action Zones
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what is the estimated final cost to her Department of ending the education action zone scheme; and if she will make a statement. [20830]

  Mr. Timms
  All education action zones will complete their agreed full statutory term. Each education action zone (EAZ) will need to make arrangements to dispose of any assets and to meet any employment liabilities in accordance with guidance issued by the Department for Education and Skills in the EAZ handbook.

  The costs will vary from zone to zone depending on individual circumstances and liabilities. All costs will be met from within the existing education action zone programme budget.

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

  Carbon Dioxide Emissions
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what estimate she has made of the impact of the climate change levy on carbon dioxide emissions(a) to date and (b) over the next five years. [15503]

  Mr. Boateng
  [holding answer 16 November 2001]: I have been asked to reply.

  The climate change levy has only been operational since April and no assessment of delivered emissions reduction has yet been undertaken. However, the climate change levy package is forecast to deliver reductions in CO2, emission by 5 million tonnes of carbon a year by 2010.
  261W

  Fuel Poverty
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what plans she has to include policies to combat fuel poverty in her Department's aims and objectives. [8299]

  Margaret Beckett
  [holding answer 15 October 2001]: My Department gives high priority to policies to tackle fuel poverty as part of our provisional objective of promoting more sustainable management and use of natural resources including energy.

  The UK Fuel Poverty Strategy was published on 21 November. This set out the Government's goal to seek an end to the problem of fuel poverty, with the first target to ensure that by 2010, no vulnerable household—older people, families, disabled and long-term sick—need risk ill health due to a cold home.

  Lord Haskins
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what representations she received from the National Farmers' Union regarding the choice of Lord Haskins to conduct a study of rural recovery, prior to his appointment. [10613]

  Margaret Beckett
  [holding answer 26 October 2001]: The suggestion that my noble Friend Lord Haskins should conduct the study was first made by the NFU in Cumbria to my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Tony Cunningham) who passed this view to the Prime Minister. Subsequently, NFU representatives confirmed to the Prime Minister that they would welcome the appointment of Lord Haskins to this role.

  Foot and Mouth
  Mr. Moore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs for each country where foot and mouth disease exists(a) what regions are affected, (b) what is the amount of (i) sheep meat, (ii) beef, (iii) pig meat and (iv) other meat products imported directly to the UK since the first outbreak of foot and mouth disease in the United Kingdom this year and (c) what additional bio-security measures have been implemented to check imports from that country since February. [19246]

  Mr. Morley
  Listed are the countries that are affected with foot and mouth disease and from which European Community legislation would normally permit imports of meat of foot and mouth disease (FMD) susceptible species. Community legislation permits imports from regions not affected by FMD and these regions may change if the disease status of individual countries improves or deteriorates. Foot and mouth disease exists in other countries but they are not listed here as imports of meat are not permitted from those countries.

  Table B shows the tonnage of bovine and ovine meat imported into the UK between February 2001 and September 2001. There were no recorded imports of porcine meat or meat of any other FMD susceptible species from the countries listed during that period.

  Adequate measures are already in place to control legally presented imports of meat and meat products. All meat imported into the UK from third countries must enter at designated UK Border Inspection Posts (BIPs) where it
  262W
  is subject to veterinary checks, to establish that the products meet EU import conditions. Consignments that do not meet appropriate import requirements are rejected.

  When outbreaks of foot and mouth disease occur in third countries, safeguard measures are taken banning the importation of all FMD susceptible meat from the entire country. Once the situation stabilises and sufficient guarantees provided, restrictions are lifted accordingly. All enforcement authorities are kept informed of the situation.

  Where outbreaks of FMD occur in other EU countries, restrictions on the export of products of FMD susceptible species from that country are put in place in accordance with Community legislation. Port health authorities and local authorities are requested to undertake checks at port of entry and at premises of destination to ensure that products not eligible for trade are detected.

  Countries currently affected by foot and mouth disease and regionalised in accordance with Community legislation.

  Argentina: Imports banned from the whole country.

  Botswana: Imports banned from the whole country except from designated zones which do not necessarily follow any distinct administrative area and are only described as 'veterinary disease control zones 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 and 18'.

  Brazil—imports banned from the whole country except the states of Parana, minas Gerais (but not the regional delegations of Oliveira, Passos, São Goncalo de Sapucai, Setelagoas and Bambui), São Paulo, Espirito Santo, Mato Grosso do Sul (except for the municipalities of Sonora, Aquidauana, Bodoquena, Bonito, Caracol, Coxim, Jardim, Ladario, Miranda, Pedro Gomes, Porto Murtinho, Rio Negro, Rio Verde of Mato Grosso and Corumba), Santa Catarina Goias and the regional units of Cuiaba (except for the municipalities of San Antonio de Leverger, Nossa Senhora do Livramento, Pocone and Barã de Melagaco), Caceres (except for the municipality of Caceres), Lucan do Rio Verde, Rondonopolis (except for the municipality of Itiquiora), Barra do Garças and the Barra do Bugres in Mato Grosso.

  Namibia: Imports banned from the whole country except the area south of the cordon fences which extend from Palgrave Point in the west to Gam in the east.

  Swaziland: Imports banned from the whole country except the area west of the 'red line' fences which extend northwards from the river Usutu to the frontier with South Africa west of Nkalashane and excluding the designated veterinary foot and mouth surveillance and vaccination control areas.

  South Africa: Imports are banned from the following regions—the part of the foot and mouth disease control area situated in the veterinary regions of Mpumlanga and northern provinces, in the district of Ingwavuma of the veterinary regions of Natal and in the border area with Botswana east of longitude 28°, and the district of Camperdown, in the province of Kwazulu-Natal.

  Uruguay: Imports banned from the whole country. From 1 November 2001 import restrictions on de-boned and matured meat have been lifted. Prior to that date imports of certain categories of meat were permitted if they had been produced before specified dates.
  263W
  Zimbabwe: Imports banned from the whole country except the veterinary regions of Mashonaland West province, Mashonaland East province (including Chikomba district), Mashonaland Central province, Manicaland province (including only Makoni district), Midlands province (including only the Gweru, Kwekwe, Shurugwi, Chirimanzu and Zvishavane districts), Masvingo province (including only the districts of Gutu and Masvingo), Matabeleland South province (including only the Insiza, Bullimamangwe, Umzingwamange, Gwanda and West Nicholson districts) and Matabeleland North province (including only the districts of Bubi and Umgusa).

  Table B—UK imports of meat of FMD-susceptible animals from countries affected by FMD February to September 2001

  tonnes

  Country

  Bovine meat and offal (total)

  Sheep meat and offal (total)

  Argentina

  3,710

  149

  Botswana

  8,456

  —

  Brazil

  48,492

  17

  Namibia

  5,974

  —

  South Africa

  214

  —

  Uruguay

  5,484

  250

  Zimbabwe

  3,181

  —

  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs on what dates between 1 December 2000 and 20 February(a) MAFF officials and (b) trading standards officers visited Burnside Farm, Heddon-on-the-Wall: what the purpose of the visits was; and what reports they submitted. [18876]

  Margaret Beckett
  [holding answer 28 November 2001]: MAFF staff and Trading Standards Officers together visited Burnside Farm, Heddon-on-the-Wall on 22 December 2000 and 24 January 2001. Each of these visits was on welfare grounds and a report was produced on each occasion.

  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if(a) departmental officials, (b) persons acting on behalf of her Department and (c) military personnel involved in handling issues relating to foot and mouth disease were invited to sign a copy of the Official Secrets Act; and if she will make a statement. [18029]

  Margaret Beckett
  [holding answer 26 November 2001]: All civil servants, members of the armed forces, and those acting on behalf of the Department, are bound by the provisions of the Official Secrets Act and owe a duty of confidentiality to the Crown. There is therefore no requirement for such persons to sign a copy of the Official Secrets Act for work relating to foot and mouth disease.

  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she has received the report, "Observations on the Foot and Mouth Disease Outbreak in Cumbria 2001", by a former member of the Veterinary Investigation Service; and if she will make a statement. [11738]
  264W
  Margaret Beckett
  [holding answer 1 November 2001]: I am aware of the report prepared by Mr. Richardson, a former employee, in which he compares the working methods adopted in dealing with the outbreak in 1967 and 2001.

  The recommendations of the Northumberland Committee have been taken into account, as appropriate during the current outbreak. Inevitably, conditions have changed here and in Europe since the Northumberland Committee's report, and the outbreak is clearly different in nature and extent to the 1967–68 outbreak. These differences have been fully documented in a report undertaken by the Cabinet Office which is available on the DEFRA website: http://www.defra.gov.uk/footandmouth/ about/current/comparisons/1967a.asp. More generally, issues raised in Mr. Richardson' s report should be looked at by the independent inquiries established by the Government.

  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will publish the evidence in her possession of cases where resistance by farmers to culling during the foot and mouth outbreak exacerbated the spread of the disease. [15520]

  Margaret Beckett
  [holding answer 16 November 2001]: I refer to the comments I made during the Second Reading debate on the Animal Health Bill on 12 November 200], Official Report, columns 577–78.

  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many animal blood tests have to be completed before Devon can be declared free of foot and mouth disease; and when she expects them to be completed. [17334]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 23 November 2001]: Sampling in Devon was completed in the week beginning 12 November but test results were awaited from three premises, involving 426 blood samples, in the week beginning 19 November. All the laboratory results have now been received and Devon was classed as foot and mouth disease free from 27 November. Contrary to the local press reports, no samples were lost and the programme was completed on schedule.

  Welfare Slaughter Programme
  Mr. MacKay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many animals have been slaughtered, broken down by region, as a result of the welfare slaughter programme. [16056]

  Mr. Morley
  The Livestock Welfare (Disposal) Scheme was opened on 22 March 2001, to deal with severe welfare problems arising from the foot and mouth disease movement restrictions that cannot be dealt with by any other means. As at 21 November, the Livestock Welfare (Disposal) Scheme had slaughtered and made payment on a total of 1,625,652 animals since it opened. Of these, 945,554 came from England (58.2 per cent.), 108,748 came from Scotland (6.7 per cent.) and 571,350 came from Wales (35.1 per cent.). The Livestock Welfare (Disposal) Scheme does not operate in Northern Ireland.
  265W
  The number of animals in England that the Livestock Welfare (Disposal) Scheme had slaughtered and made payment on can be broken down further:

  49,871 animals in east England (which is 5.3 per cent. of the England total and 3.1 per cent. of the GB total)

  54,002 animals in the east midlands (which is 5.7 per cent. of the England total and 3.3 per cent. of the GB total)

  61,542 animals in the north-east (6.5 per cent. of the England total and 3.8 per cent. of the GB total)

  107,176 animals in the north-west (which is 11.3 per cent. of the England total and 6.6 per cent. of the GB total)

  58,854 animals in the south-east (which is 6.2 per cent. of the England total and 3.6 per cent. of the GB total)

  252,921 in the south-west (which is 26.8 per cent. of the England total and 15.6 per cent. of the GB total)

  229,672 animals in the west midlands (which is 24.3 per cent. of the England total and 14.1 per cent. of the GB total)

  131,434 in Yorkshire and the Humber (which is 13.9 per cent. of the England total and 8.1 per cent. of the GB total)

  82 animals in Greater London (which is 0.1 per cent. of the England total and less than 0.1 per cent of the GB total).

  Hedgerows
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what plans she has to amend regulations relating to the protection of hedgerows. [15515]

  Margaret Beckett
  [holding answer 16 November 2001]: We are reviewing the hedgerows protection system, including the Hedgerows Regulations 1997, in the light of developments such as the results of the Countryside Survey 2000 and the recommendations of the group responsible for the review of the regulations. We are holding meetings with stakeholders and expect to issue a consultation paper on our proposals early next year.

  Livestock Movements
  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1)(a) for what reasons and (b) on what date her Department introduced new rules regulating the issuing of movement licences by trading standards officers for cattle direct to slaughter for human consumption; if she will list the administrative changes introduced; and what steps her Department took to inform (i) farmers and (ii) the agriculture industry of the administrative changes prior to their introduction; [16657]

  (2) (a) for what reasons and (b) on what date her Department introduced new rules requiring (i) the completion of application forms and (ii) the supply of ear tag numbers to trading standards officers in advance of the issuing of movement licences for cattle direct to slaughter for human consumption; and what steps her Department took to inform (A) farmers and (B) the agriculture industry of the administrative changes prior to their introduction. [16658]

  Mr. Morley
  The latest revision of the rules for the movement of foot and mouth disease susceptible livestock to slaughter was introduced on 11 November. The changes brought the rules of movement to slaughter into line with those of other livestock movements.
  266W
  The rules for movements from farm to farm where the animals stay alive, and pose a higher risk of disease spreading, require the animal to be identified and, in the case of cattle, ear tag numbers to be recorded. The information is vital for effective enforcement of the licensing regime. This requirement was replicated in the movement to slaughter rules introduced on 8 November. But it was quickly realised that the requirement was not always necessary and it was corrected in the revision published on 11 November.

  Interested parties are consulted about the harmonisation of the rules for movement to slaughter with those for movement to stay alive and supported it. The simplification made on 11 November was in response to further representations. The question of whether cattle ear tag numbers should be required for movement to slaughter, is now left to the local authorities, from whose area the movement is to take place, to decide.

  BSE Research
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what plans she has to fund Professor Ebringer' s research into the auto-immune theory of BSE beyond 31 December. [17633]

  Margaret Beckett
  [holding answer 23 November 2001]: My Department has already contributed significant funding towards Professor Ebringer's research. Currently, there are no plans to provide further support to this work once the present studies have concluded.

  Staff Morale
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on the morale of staff within her Department. [17638]

  Margaret Beckett
  [holding answer 23 November 2001]: Despite the pressures of dealing with foot and mouth disease and the current industrial action being taken by Public and Commercial Services (PCS) union members in the Department, the morale of staff within the Department is good. Staff in DEFRA are committed to delivering high quality services to the public.

  Departmental Staff Salaries
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many departmental staff of the same grade of job are being paid different levels of salary. [17804]

  Margaret Beckett
  [holding answer 23 November 2001]: There are 9,079 ex-MAFF staff in DEFRA who are employed under the same pay arrangements and conditions of employment. Variations in individual levels of pay of staff doing work of equal value do occur because of a number of factors, but principally because pay is linked to performance. Staff of the same grade or equivalent, however, are normally paid salaries within their pay range minima and maxima.

  636 ex-Department of Environment, Transport and the Regions staff joined DEFRA when it was created on 8 June. These staff will retain the pay and terms and

  267W
  conditions of employment of their former department until common terms and conditions of employment are established following negotiations with the trade unions.

  In addition, there is a small number of staff who have reserved rights to some historical terms and conditions.

  Farmgate Sales (Organic Market)
  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what proportion of the total value of the retail organic market comprised UK farmgate sales in the last 12 months; and if she will make a statement. [18202]

  Mr. Morley
  The most recent data available indicate that in 2000–01 the retail market for organic produce was worth around £800 million. Around 30 per cent. of the retail market was supplied by domestic production. Farmgate returns to UK organic producers over the same period are estimated to have been a little in excess of £100 million.

  Food Imports
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs in how many cases in each of the last three years food imports have been(a) impounded and (b) destroyed; what type of foodstuff was involved; what the point of entry was; and what the resultant legal or other outcomes were. [18363]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 27 November 2001]I have placed tables detailing this information in the Library of the House.

  Figures breaking down rejected consignments by port and product are available only for the period July 2000 to June 2001. Information in this format is not available for previous years. Details of the number of consignments by product rejected at UK ports have been provided for the period July 1998 to June 2001. Information on illegal imports seized is available from April 2001; information is not held centrally prior to that date. Rejected and seized consignments are either destroyed or re-exported outside of the EU. Information on the outcome of each rejected or seized consignment is not held centrally.

  Electricity for Enterprise
  Mr. Peter Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will extend the deadline for the Electricity for Enterprise grant scheme for those areas affected by foot and mouth disease which has prevented work going ahead. [19000]

  Alun Michael
  The Government have been negotiating with the European Commission for an extension to the Objective 5b programme since the outbreak of foot and mouth. If our request is granted this would enable the completion of projects such as 'Electricity for Enterprise'. We are hopeful that a favourable decision will be forthcoming shortly.

  Sea Fishing
  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what progress she has made in implementing the recommendations accepted 268W
  by MAFF in its response to the Eighth report from the Agriculture Select Committee, Session 1998–99 on sea fishing. [19278]

  Mr. Morley
  I have been pleased to provide the Agriculture Select Committee on a number of occasions with updates to the Government response to the Committee's 1999 Report on Sea Fishing. Most recently, I provided oral evidence to the Committee on 9 May 2001 on issues covered in the report. The transcript of this evidence has been published in the Agriculture Committee, Session 2000–01, Sea Fishing, (HC 404).

  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what progress her Department made towards establishing a long-term sea fishing strategy for(a) the United Kingdom and (b) England. [19279]

  Mr. Morley
  The sea fish industry itself must be fully involved in the establishment of a long-term strategy; and I therefore welcome the work which is being undertaken by the Fish Industry Forum to contribute towards a strategy. It will also be necessary to take account of the results of the current review of the Common Fisheries Policy due for completion by the end of next year.

  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment she has made of the budget requirements of sea fisheries committees which seek to fulfil their full range of statutory duties. [19277]

  Mr. Morley
  The sea fisheries committees are funded by their sponsoring local authorities which nominate half the membership of each committee. The need for additional budgetary provision is a matter for each committee and its local authority membership.

  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what recent discussions she has had with her counterparts in the(a) Scottish Executive and (b) Welsh Assembly with regard to (i) temporary tie-up schemes for fishing boats engaged in the hunt for pressure stock, (ii) the future of decommissioning schemes, (iii) the future of the European Common Fisheries policy, (iv) the allocation of total allowable catches and (v) controls on the landing of black fish. [19280]

  Mr. Morley
  This Department has regular contact with the other Fisheries Departments in the UK, both at ministerial and official level, on a wide range of fisheries issues including those cited by the hon. Member.

  Meat Imports
  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what recent discussions she has had with colleagues in other Government Departments on(a) the level of illegal meat imports to the UK and (b) the effectiveness of controls and enforcement measures at (i) ports, (ii) airports and (iii) elsewhere to tackle illegal meat imports; and what assessment she has made of the need for further action. [19284]

  Mr. Morley
  Department for Education, Food and Rural Affairs Ministers regularly have discussions with ministerial colleagues and officials in many parts of
  269W
  Government. In line with the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information details of such confidential discussions are not normally disclosed.

  Departmental officials are leading an interdepartmental review aimed at co-ordinating action across Government to ensure that rules on imports of all products of animal origin are enforced effectively and efficiently. In carrying out this task they meet regularly with colleagues in other Government Departments and responsible enforcement authorities.

  Blackfish
  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) what her estimates are for the total landings of blackfish in(a) Scotland, (b) Northern Ireland, (c) Wales, (d) England and (e) the UK in each of the last 10 years for which records are available, by (i) gross tonnage and (ii) value; [19281]

  (2) what estimate she has made of the total landings of blackfish (a) before and (b) since the implementation of the designated ports regulations. [19282]

  Mr. Morley
  As explained in the answer to the hon. Member on 20 July 2001,Official Report, column 626W, this Department does not make estimates of the levels of blackfish. The landing of undeclared fish is an illegal activity and meaningful estimates of the extent to which it occurs cannot readily be made.

  Agricultural Development Scheme
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will list the bids for funding submitted under round three of the Agricultural Development Scheme, broken down by region, stating the value of each bid. [18874]

  Margaret Beckett
  [holding answer 28 November 2001]We regard bids for competitive grant schemes such as the Agriculture Development Scheme as commercially confidential. As for previous rounds of the Agriculture Development Scheme, we shall publish a list of the successful bids when we announce the outcome next year.

  Scientific Research
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, pursuant to her answer of 23 November 2001,Official Report, column 514W, on scientific research, what quality assessment is undertaken by her Department into the work of contractors, and through them sub-contractors, commissioned by her Department. [19304]

  Margaret Beckett
  [holding answer 29 November 2001]In deciding whether to let contracts, one of the aspects considered by scientists in the Department is the need for suitable and relevant quality assurance in relation to the project or projects proposed. As indicated in the reply of 23 November 2001,Official Report, column 514W, the need for contractors and their sub-contractors to meet quality standards schemes appropriate to the science projects is evaluated. However, there are substantial and wider aspects to assessing and assuring the quality of science we commission. Chief among these are the processes of prior peer review, by national and international
  270W
  experts in the field, of many proposals put to us; the advice of independent expert committees and advisory bodies; the work of interdepartmental committees; the detailed departmental monitoring of all science projects in progress, including formal review on their quality, progress, outputs and direction; and the growing programme of ex post facto evaluations of the impact of programmes of work. In monitoring and evaluation, the Department is again assisted by external and independent scientific input. Finally, the overall scientific quality of the work of most of our individual contractors—such as our own agencies, the institutes of the Research Councils and the universities—is assisted by independently run science audits or the audits provided through processes such as the DIES Research Assessment Exercise.

  Flood Defences
  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment she has made of the effectiveness of the policy of managed retreat in maintaining coastal flood defences during the winter months. [19543]

  Mr. Morley
  Managed realignment (occasionally referred to as managed retreat) is one of the options which operating authorities are encouraged to consider when considering long-term options for coastal defence. It is only appropriate in specific circumstances where people or major assets are not at risk. In such circumstances it can have a range of benefits including the achievement of more secure and sustainable defences and the creation of additional areas of inter-tidal habitats. No specific study has been made since only a small number of sites for the implementation of managed realignment has been identified.

  The Department has recently approved grant for a major realignment scheme on the Humber where land has been purchased by the Environment Agency to create compensatory inter-tidal habitat for areas that will be lost due to flood defence works elsewhere in the estuary. A series of major studies are continuing to establish the possibility of realignment of defences at other sites in the Humber to relieve the pressures on flood defences that will increase as sea levels rise. Further managed realignment schemes are currently planned for the Wash, Norfolk and in Essex.

  Unallocated Funds
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs 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. [19440]

  Mr. Morley
  The former Ministry of Agriculture Fisheries and Food Departmental Annual Report for 2000–01 (Cm5113) contains the Departmental Unallocated Provision (DUP) set for the present financial year in Table 6.1 of Annex 1. The creation of DEFRA did not alter this figure, although £7.308 million was transferred directly to the Food Standards Agency from the DUP at the time of the Summer Supplementary Estimate. There has been no draw-down of the Department's remaining DUP to date.
  271W
  Outturn against a six-month forecast for each Request for Resources will be published in the Winter Supplementary Estimates Summary Request for Supply as usual.

  EU Vessels
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many Community vessels, by nationality, received Community grants for modernisation while flying non-EU flags of convenience in the last year for which figures are available. [19579]

  Mr. Morley
  EU rules state that Community grants for modernisation are available only for vessels on the Community fishing vessel register.

  Farrowing Crates
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what progress has been made on the phasing out of farrowing crates for sows; and if she will make a statement. [19764]

  Mr. Morley
  We have, for a number of years, funded research directly or indirectly related to the welfare of the sow and her piglets, from farrowing to weaning. A key issue which has emerged from this research is that changes in farrowing systems to improve sow welfare can frequently have an adverse effect on the welfare of the piglets. As a result, we are not yet able unreservedly to recommend free-farrowing systems for widespread commercial adoption. Our research, and that of others, continues to seek a solution to this problem. Our aim is to reach a position where it is possible to avoid the close-confinement of all sows.

  Tuberculosis
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a

  Subsidies paid to UK farmers:1996–2000

  1996

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  Total subsidies (£ million)

  3,081

  2,810

  2,703

  2,751

  2,592

  of which:

  Production related subsidies1

  2,996

  2,707

  2,571

  2,585

  2,399

  Agri-environment schemes

  85

  103

  132

  166

  193

  Number of UK holdings (thousand) 2

  234

  238

  238

  240

  233

  Average per holding (£)3

  Total subsidies

  13,149

  11,824

  11,360

  11,481

  11,111

  of which:

  Production related subsidies1

  12,787

  11,390

  10,805

  10,788

  10,285

  Agri-environment schemes

  362

  434

  555

  693

  826

  1 Excludes public expenditure on indirect support eg intervention

  2 Excludes minor holdings for GB. For NI all active holdings are included. The trends in the series have been affected by register improvements over this period

  1 Calculated by dividing by the number of UK holdings (excluding minor holdings in GB and inactive holdings in NI)

  Source:

  Agriculture in the United Kingdom.

  CAP Spending
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what was the(a) total level of CAP spending in Europe, (b) level of CAP spending in (i) the United Kingdom and (ii) other EU member states by different scheme and (c) proportion
  272W
  statement on the Government's long-term strategy to deal with tuberculosis; and how much she is planning to spend in each of the next three years on this. [19801]

  Mr. Morley
  The Government's projected expenditure on TB for the years 2001–02, 2002–03, 2003–04 was published at Annexe A of the Reply by the Government to the First Report from the Agriculture Committee, Session 2000–01 (HC 92) and I refer the hon. Gentleman to that publication.

  Future spending plans (for 2004–05) will not be finalised until the 2002 Spending Review has concluded next summer.

  Livestock Farmers
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make it her policy to require all livestock farmers to be licensed; and if she will make a statement. [19604]

  Mr. Morley
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given to the hon. Member for Congleton (Mrs. Winterton) on 27 November 2001,Official Report, column 857W.

  Farm Subsidies
  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the(a) total and (b) average levels of subsidies to farmers were for (i) production and (ii) agri-environmental schemes in (1) 1996, (2) 1997, (3) 1998, (4) 1999, (5) 2000 and (6) 2001. [19233]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 30 November 2001]The level of production related to subsidies and agrienvironmental subsidies is given in the following table. Note that the estimates of the average per holding will mask a wide variation across holdings.

  Figures for 2001 are not yet available and will be published in mid-March.

  of CAP spending funded by (A) the United Kingdom and (B) other EU member states in each of the last 10 years.[19236]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 30 November 2001]The level of CAP spending in Europe in the last 10 years is presented in the table.
  273W

  Total EAGGF guarantee section expenditure

  Euro billion

  1991

  31.6

  1992

  31.3

  1993

  34.7

  1994

  33.4

  1995

  34.5

  1996

  39.1

  1997

  40.7

  1998

  38.7

  1999

  39.5

  2000

  40.4

  These figure are sourced from the 30th Financial Report on the European Agricultural Guidence and

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  1995

  1996

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  Belgium

  4.2

  4.0

  3.7

  4.4

  4.0

  3.9

  3.9

  3.8

  3.9

  3.9

  Denmark

  2.0

  1.8

  1.9

  2.0

  1.9

  1.9

  2.0

  2.1

  2.0

  1.9

  Germany

  29.1

  30.2

  29.8

  33.3

  31.4

  29.2

  28.2

  25.1

  25.5

  24.8

  Greece

  1.4

  1.3

  1.6

  1.5

  1.5

  1.6

  1.6

  1.6

  1.6

  1.5

  Spain

  8.7

  8.6

  8.1

  7.4

  5.4

  6.4

  7.1

  7.0

  7.6

  7.3

  France

  20.1

  18.7

  18.0

  19.6

  17.5

  17.5

  17.5

  16.5

  17.0

  16.5

  Ireland

  0.9

  0.8

  0.9

  1.0

  1.0

  1.0

  0.9

  1.2

  1.3

  1.2

  Italy

  16.5

  14.7

  16.0

  12.1

  9.5

  12.6

  11.5

  12.9

  13.0

  12.5

  Luxembourg

  0.2

  0.2

  0.3

  0.3

  0.2

  0.2

  0.2

  0.3

  0.2

  0.2

  Netherlands

  6.7

  6.3

  6.3

  6.6

  6.4

  6.2

  6.4

  6.2

  6.2

  6.2

  Austria

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2.6

  2.6

  2.8

  2.5

  2.5

  2.4

  Portugal

  1.3

  1.5

  1.4

  1.9

  1.3

  1.3

  1.4

  1.3

  1.5

  1.4

  Finland

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1.3

  1.4

  1.4

  1.4

  1.5

  1.4

  Sweden

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2.4

  2.8

  3.1

  2.9

  2.8

  3.0

  United Kingdom

  9.0

  11.9

  11.9

  10.0

  13.6

  11.6

  11.9

  15.2

  13.4

  15.8

  Euro million

  Belgium

  Denmark

  Germany

  Greece

  Spain

  France

  Ireland

  Italy

  Luxembourg

  Arable crops

  196.9

  669.7

  3,682.4

  442,7

  1,519,3

  5,121.4

  116.9

  1,748.9

  9.2

  Sugar

  341.2

  114.1

  295.1

  4.3

  91.8

  552.6

  5.2

  158.2

  0.0

  Olive Oil

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  505.1

  974.3

  3.6

  0.0

  686.9

  0.0

  Dried Fodder and Grain Legumes

  0.1

  12.0

  22.4

  4.1

  182.8

  82.9

  0.3

  57.3

  0.0

  Fibre Plants and Silkworms

  9.2

  0.0

  2.8

  640.7

  280.0

  40.3

  0.0

  0.4

  0.0

  Fruit and vegetables

  20.2

  1.1

  13.9

  283.0

  466.5

  238.1

  0.5

  423.4

  0.0

  Products of the Vine-growing Sector

  0.0

  0.0

  29.8

  10.1

  220.8

  201.5

  0.0

  281.3

  0.0

  Tobacco

  3.6

  0.0

  36.2

  374.8

  115.6

  79.7

  0.0

  357.4

  0.0

  Other Plant Sectors and Products

  3.3

  30.3

  22.2

  23.9

  66.1

  31.1

  0.1

  146.1

  0.2

  Milk and Milk Products

  183.8

  211.6

  249.9

  -3.0

  23.9

  724.5

  155.3

  124.8

  -0.7

  Beef and Veal

  108.0

  59.6

  423.3

  58.2

  430.4

  1,069.2

  827.5

  202.6

  6.0

  Sheepmeat and Goatmeat

  1.4

  1.8

  43.7

  227.2

  466.5

  170.8

  112.4

  177.6

  0.1

  Pigmeat, Eggs and Poultrymeat

  13.8

  132.0

  39.1

  0.3

  26.7

  119.5

  6.4

  22.2

  0.0

  Other animal product aid measures

  0.2

  0.2

  1.0

  1.1

  3.5

  1.5

  0.0

  1.9

  0.0

  Fishery products

  0.0

  1.2

  0.0

  0.0

  0.4

  3.9

  1.1

  0.0

  0.0

  Non-Annex II products

  36.4

  35.7

  110.8

  3.0

  21.5

  51.2

  70.0

  19.0

  0.0

  Food Aid

  8.8

  3.1

  22.5

  16.6

  63.5

  82.9

  4.2

  47.7

  0.1

  Outermost Regions

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  24.3

  119.9

  43.0

  0.0

  0.2

  0.0

  Veterinary and Phytosanitary Measures

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  Monitoring and Prevention

  0.7

  0.0

  -0.2

  1.1

  24.5

  4.6

  1.4

  28.4

  0.1

  Clearance of Previous Years' Accounts

  -3.2

  -30.4

  -41.2

  -167.6

  -29.8

  -229.9

  -19.9

  -463.6

  -1.4

  Promotion Measures

  1.6

  0.7

  6.4

  0.3

  5.6

  8.5

  0.2

  4.8

  0.1

  Other Measures

  3.3

  28.1

  0.0

  0.0

  0.1

  107.2

  52.3

  219.3

  0.2

  Rural Development

  25.4

  34.2

  681.6

  146.8

  395.4

  474.1

  344.4

  757.3

  6.7

  Total EAGGF Guarantee Section

  954.6

  1,304.7

  5.641.9

  2,597.2

  5,469.0

  8,981.9

  1,678.3

  5,002.3

  20.6

  Netherlands

  Austria

  Portugal

  Finland

  Sweden

  United Kingdom

  EC

  Tota l

  Arable crops

  264.7

  373.8

  178.1

  251.3

  433.6

  1,654.0

  0.0

  16,663.1

  Sugar

  66.8

  43.4

  25.5

  12.2

  29.7

  170.0

  0.0

  1,910.2

  Olive Oil

  0.0

  0.0

  40.1

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  2,210.1

  Dried Fodder and Grain Legumes

  14.0

  0.2

  0.6

  0.0

  0.4

  4.3

  0.0

  381.3

  Fibre Plants and Silkworms

  3.6

  0.4

  0.6

  0.4

  0.2

  12.6

  0.0

  991.4

  Fruit and vegetables

  38.1

  1.0

  46.5

  0.1

  1.5

  17.5

  0.0

  1,551.3

  Products of the Vine-growing Sector

  0.0

  1.7

  19.4

  0.0

  0.1

  0.8

  0.0

  765.5

  274W
  Guarantee Fund (EAGGF), published by the European Commission.

  The level of CAP spending in the United Kingdom and other EU member states by different scheme for 2000 is as follows. The breakdown of CAP spending by member state, by different scheme for previous years is available from the Financial Reports on the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund which are published annually by the European Commission.

  The UK and other member states contribute to the budget as a whole and not to individual community spending programmes. The UK and other member states' gross contributions as a percentage of the total EC budget (after abatement) over the period 1991–2000 are given in the following table.
  275W

  Netherlands

  Austria

  Portugal

  Finland

  Sweden

  United Kingdom

  EC

  Total

  Tobacco

  0.0

  0.8

  16.6

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  4.8

  989.4

  Other Plant Sectors and Products

  10.3

  0.3

  5.1

  2.1

  3.1

  5.9

  0.0

  350.0

  Milk and Milk Products

  697.8

  4.1

  3.2

  72.8

  -0.7

  97.2

  0.0

  2,544.3

  Beef and Veal

  75.2

  93.1

  85.3

  35.9

  74.4

  990.8

  0.0

  4,539.6

  Sheepmeat and Goatmeat

  15.6

  4.6

  59.8

  1.3

  4.2

  448.5

  0.0

  1,735.6

  Pigmeat, Eggs and Poultrymeat

  41.9

  14.6

  2.4

  4.0

  4.6

  7.8

  0.0

  435.2

  Other animal product aid measures

  0.1

  0.6

  0.9

  0.1

  0.2

  0.4

  0.0

  11.7

  Fishery products

  0.1

  0.0

  0.8

  0.0

  0.3

  1.5

  0.2

  9.4

  Non-Annex II products

  104.1

  19.3

  2.1

  9.4

  13.5

  76.5

  0.0

  572.2

  Food Aid

  3.5

  1.6

  23.5

  5.5

  10.6

  14.9

  0.0

  309.1

  Outermost Regions

  0.0

  0.0

  39.5

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  226.9

  Veterinary and Phytosanitary Measures

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  102.5

  102.5

  Monitoring and Prevention

  -0.3

  -0.2

  9.6

  0.3

  0.1

  0.1

  7.3

  77.4

  Clearance of Previous Years' Accounts

  -3.0

  -0.8

  -39.6

  -4.3

  -0.6

  -42.3

  0.0

  -1,077.9

  Promotion Measures

  4.5

  1.0

  0.2

  0.2

  0.3

  3.5

  20.8

  58.7

  Other Measures

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  3.7

  46.9

  443.1

  0.0

  904.1

  Rural Development

  59.6

  459.0

  132.1

  332.5

  175.6

  151.8

  0.0

  4,176.4

  Total EAGGF Guarantee Section

  1,396.6

  1,018.5

  652.0

  727.6

  798.0

  4,058.7

  135.6

  40,437.4

  Departmental Website
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the annual cost of maintaining her Department's website is. [10611]

  Margaret Beckett
  [holding answer 26 October 2001]Many business units across the Department contribute to the maintenance of the DEFRA website as part of their communications activities, and an overall figure cannot be arrived at without incurring disproportionate cost.

TRANSPORT, LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND THE REGIONS

  Local Government Finance
  Peter Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will list the items of additional funding and their levels over and above the revenue support grant which his Department has made available to(a) Telford and the Wrekin council and (b) Shropshire county council in 2001–02 to date. [14477]

  Dr. Whitehead
  The information is as follows:

  Additional funding above RSG—l2001–l 02 budget estimate grants data

  £000

  Nature of funding

  2001–02

  Telford and Wrekin council

  Revenue Support Grant

  58,840

  Redistributed Non-Domestic Rates

  42,169

  Housing Annual Capital Guideline

  1,070

  Transport Supplementary Credit Approval

  4,913

  SRB—Madeley Challenge

  213,696

  SRB—Improving access in Telford

  4,000

  Disabled Facility Grant

  200

  Shropshire county council

  Rural Bus Service

  674

  SRB

  1,231

  Revenue Support Grant

  71,105

  Redistributed Non-Domestic Rates

  68,844

  Transport Supplementary Grant

  563

  Transport Annual Capital Guideline

  562

  Transport Supplementary Credit Approval

  12,438

  AWM Land and Property—Treflach Quarry Oswestry

  176

  276W

  Additional funding above RSG—2001–02 budget estimate grants data

  £000

  Nature of funding

  2001–02

  AWM Land and Property—Montgomery Canal Stage 3a

  100,027

  SRB—Services Participation Access Resources Knowledge in Shropshire

  104,883

  Additional funding above RSG—2001–02 budget estimate grants data

  £000

  Nature of funding

  2000–01

  2001–02

  Shropshire county council

  Rural Bus Challenge Grant

  283

  n/k

  Rural Bus Subsidy Grant

  635

  804

  Telford and the Wrekin

  Rural Bus Challenge Grant

  184

  n/k

  Rural Bus Subsidy Grant

  074

  097

  Urban Bus Challenge

  —

  615

  Mr. Ivan Henderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will announce the national non-domestic rates multiplier for 2002–03; and if he will set out the basis of his calculations of the distributable amount of non-domestic rates for 2002–03. [20987]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The non-domestic rate poundage (multiplier) for 2002–03 will be 43.7 pence. The amount of non-domestic rates in England for 2002–03 to be redistributed to local authorities will be £16,626 million, although estimated payments into the pool in 2002–03 will be £15,887 million. The distributable amount includes a surplus brought forward from 2001–02 of £611 million and an allowance of £128 million for an Exchequer payment to the non-domestic rates pool, to compensate for the shortfall which would otherwise occur as a result of the regulations under section 58 of the Local Government Finance Act 1988 and the transitional relief scheme, announced on 25 November 1999,Official Report, column 700.

  The calculations for 2002–03, and the prior-year figures, on which this is based, are set out in the following table.
  277W

  National non-domestic rates: calculation of Distributable Amount for 2002–03

  £ million

  Provisional outturn

  Estimated in-year contribution

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2002–03

  1. Income from local lists

  Multiplier (p)

  478.9

  41.6

  43.0

  43.7

  Gross Yield

  14,307

  13,219

  17,053

  17,205

  (i) Reliefs

  (a) Net Transitional Relief

  -456

  -943

  -323

  -193

  (b) Empty Properties

  -935

  -970

  -1,017

  -1,087

  (c) Charitable

  -515

  -538

  -562

  -601

  (d) Rural Shops and Post Offices

  -2

  -2

  -2

  -5

  (e) Discretionary

  -28

  -34

  -35

  -37

  Net Yield after reliefs

  12,372

  10,732

  15,114

  15,281

  (ii) Collection Costs/reductions to contributions

  (a) Cost of collection

  -83

  -85

  -84

  -84

  (b) Losses on collection

  -118

  -118

  -141

  -170

  (c) City of London offset

  -7

  -7

  -7

  -7

  Total contribution in respect of year

  12,165

  10,523

  14,883

  15,021

  (iii) Repayments/interest payments

  Total adjustments

  -495

  2,358

  -254

  -299

  Net Local Yield

  11,670

  12,882

  14,629

  14,722

  2. Income from Central List

  Net Central List Yield

  1,319

  868

  1,136

  1,155

  3. Income from Crown List

  Contribution in Aid Net Crown Yield

  332

  9

  10

  10

  Total NDR Yield

  13,321

  13,759

  15,775

  15,887

  4. Exchequer

  Total Exchequer Contributions

  310

  415

  262

  128

  Total NNDR pool payments (1+2+3+4)

  13,631

  14,174

  16,037

  16,015

  5. Adjustments

  Surplus brought forward

  919

  939

  -290

  611

  Combined total

  14,551

  15,113

  15,747

  16,626

  Distributable Amount

  13,612

  15,402

  15,136

  16,626

  Surplus Carried Forward

  939

  -290

  611

  —

  Notes:

  For 1999–2000 and 2000–01 the amounts shown are those recorded in the post end-year (NNDR3) returns. For 2001–02 the amounts shown are the provisional outturn for the year based mainly upon authorities' provisional contributions to the non-domestic rating pool. For 2002–03 the estimates are based on:

  1 Item 1: The gross calculated rate yield represents the total value of non-domestic hereditaments on local rating lists times the multiplier.

  2. Item 1(i)(a): The Transitional decrease adjustment includes the estimated amount of rates that will not be recouped from local list ratepayers under the transitional arrangements made by regulations under section 58 of the Local Government Finance Act 1988 and the transitional relief scheme, announced by written parliamentary question on 25 November 1999, Official Report, column 770W.

  3. Item 1(i)(b): The empty property relief adjustments include voids and partially occupied hereditaments. The 2002–03 figure includes an allowance for the increase in the gross rate yield.

  4. Item 1(i)(c): Charitable rate relief. The 2002–03 figure includes an allowance for the increase in the gross rate yield.

  5. Item 1(i)(d): Rural Shops and Post Office relief. Figures include mandatory relief for general stores and post offices under the Local Government and Rating Act 1997. Figures for 2001–02 onwards includes mandatory relief for petrol filing stations and public houses under the Non-Domestic Rating (Public Houses and Petrol Filling Stations) (England) Order 2001 (SI 2001/1345) and mandatory relief for new enterprises on former agricultural premises under the Rating (Former Agricultural Premises and Rural Shops) Act 2001. The 2002–03 figure includes an allowance for the increase in the gross rate yield.

  6. Item 1(i)(e): Discretionary relief granted to charities, non-profit making organisations and for other reasons including discretionary relief for village shops and post offices under the Local Government and Rating Act 1997. Figures for 2001–02 onwards include discretionary relief for petrol filing stations and public houses under the Non-Domestic Rating (Public Houses and Petrol Filling Stations) (England) Order 2001 (SI 2001/1345) and discretionary relief for new enterprises on former agricultural premises under the Rating (Former Agricultural Premises and Rural Shops) Act 2001. The 2002–03 figure includes an allowance for the increase in the gross rate yield.

  7. Item 1 (ii)(a) and (b): The allowances for the costs and losses incurred by authorities in collecting non-domestic rates from ratepayers.

  8. Item 1(ii)(c): City Offset—the amount which the City of London will not be required to pay into the non-domestic rating pool. It is the amount which will be retained by the City to meet its own expenditure.

  9. Item 1(iii): net adjustment in respect of appeals and other amendments to the rating list affecting liability for previous years rates settled in that year.
  278W 279W
  10. Item 2: the rateable value of non-domestic hereditaments on the central rating list times the multiplier, less the net effect of transitional arrangements, and adjusted for appeals and other changes in respect of previous years.

  11. Item 3: the 1999–2000 figures for crown properties include an allowance for the effect of transitional arrangements. For 2000–01 and 2001–02 almost all properties included in the crown list in previous years are included in the local list figures at item.

  12. Item 4: the contribution from central Government to offset the amount of the Secretary of State's estimate of income forgone as a result of transitional arrangements established by regulations under section 58 of the Local Government Finance Act 1988 and the transitional relief scheme, announced by written parliamentary question on 25 November 1999, Official Report, column 770W.

  Corsham Station
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what the cost is of the new Corsham station; and what part of that cost is being paid by(a) the Government, (b) Wiltshire county council and (c) Railtrack. [17043]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The total cost of the new station at Corsham is approximately £2.42 million. A grant of £1.28 million has been awarded from the Strategic Rail Authority's Rail Passenger Partnership scheme which is funded by Government. North Wiltshire district council is contributing £720,000, Wiltshire county council £100,000, Corsham Town council £25,000, First Great Western £40,000 and the private sector consortium promoting the nearby Pockeredge Farm housing development £252,000. Railtrack are not contributing to the capital costs.

  Ordnance Survey
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what(a) performance targets and (b) financial objectives for the Ordnance Survey he has set. [18171]

  Ms Keeble
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer that I gave on 27 June 2001,Official Report, columns 103–104W, to my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Bennett).

  Mr. Love
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what assessment he has made of the level of consultation with external stakeholders during the quinquennial review of the Ordnance Survey. [19966]

  Ms Keeble
  Consultation with internal and external stakeholders constitutes an integral part of the first stage of a Quinquennial review. The review of Ordnance Survey provided extensive opportunities for consultation.

  The details of the Quinquennial Review process were widely published with an open invitation to any organisation or individual with an interest in Ordnance Survey to make a contribution.

  Responses were received from a wide range of stakeholders spanning central Government, the private sector, Ordnance Survey's customer and partner community, professional associations, user groups and individuals.

  In addition, in-depth interviews were conducted with a broad range of Ordnance Survey's key external stakeholders to ensure that their views were represented.

  I am satisfied that the level and range of consultation was both adequate and appropriate to the review process.

  Railtrack
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (1) what 280W
  estimate he has received from the Railtrack Administrator about the minimum time required to end Railtrack's administration; [18940]

  (2) if Railtrack will be out of administration by 2004; [18942]

  (3) if he will make a statement on the anticipated minimum amount of time needed to complete the Railtrack administration; [18939]

  (4) if Railtrack administration will last more than two years. [18941]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply to him of 26 November 2001,Official Report, column 605W.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (1) what statutory powers govern his right of veto over the recommendations of the Railtrack Administrator about the future of the company; and if he will make a statement; [18949]

  (2) what the responsibilities are of the Railtrack Administrator in determining the future of the company. [18950]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The administrators of Railtrack plc have a duty under section 59 of the Railways Act 1993 to manage the affairs, business and property of Railtrack plc for the achievement of the purposes of the railway administration order and in a manner which protects the respective interests of the members and creditors of the company in railway administration.

  The purposes of a railway administration order are to secure the transfer of so much of the company's undertaking as is necessary to ensure that the company's railway related activities are carried on and the carrying on of those activities until then.

  The transfer of the undertaking is effected by a scheme made by the company (acting by its administrators) under Schedule 7 to the Railways Act 1993. A scheme made under Schedule 7 cannot take effect unless it is approved by the Secretary of State.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what information his Department has collated about Railtrack's creditors and their willingness to grant further credit to the company in Administration. [18938]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Railtrack plc's post-Administration trade and finance creditors are being financed through the Loan Agreement made available to Railtrack plc at the making of the Railway Administration Order. Since 7 October the Administrator has been in negotiation with a number of suppliers, who are continuing to provide goods and services to Railtrack plc (in Administration), on account of the continued support of Government.
  281W
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, pursuant to the Parliamentary Secretary's answer of 21 November 2001,Official Report, column 276W, on Railtrack, if he will publish the Government's estimated monthly financial commitments to the Railtrack administration, broken down into (a) running expenditure and (b) capital expenditure for as long as the Government estimates Railtrack to be in administration. [20087]

  Mr. Jamieson
  As the exact extent of the Administration is at this stage unknown, it is not possible to estimate monthly financial commitments to the Railtrack Administrator for the length of the Administration.

  Strategic Rail Authority
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions when he last met the Chief Executive of the Strategic Rail Authority. [18959]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Ministers meet the Chief Executive of the Strategic Rail Authority regularly; specifically to discuss the authority's work and as part of wider industry meetings. The most recent meeting was on 8 November.

  Light Rail Schemes
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what the total amount of public funding is for light rail and tram schemes within the £180 billion total for the 10 year plan. [19350]

  Ms Keeble
  The total amount of public funding for light rail and tram schemes within the £180 billion total for the 10 year plan is £2.4 billion.

  Ministerial Visits (North-East)
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many times Ministers from his Department have visited(a) the Teesside area and (b) Middlesbrough, South and Cleveland, East constituency to meet locally based businesses. [19071]

  Dr. Whitehead
  None.

  Energy Saving Regulations
  Ms Shipley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what assessment he has made of the impact of energy saving regulations on(a) new buildings, (b) refurbishment of existing buildings, (c) domestic buildings and (d) non-domestic buildings. [19105]

  Dr. Whitehead
  The Regulatory Impact Assessment that accompanied the Building (Amendment) Regulations 2001 was placed in the Library of the House on 11 October when the Amendment Regulations were laid before Parliament. It can also be viewed on the DTLR website at http://www.safety.ddr.gov.uk/bregs/brpub/ 02.htm. It sets out the impact in terms of million tonnes of carbon (MtC) likely to be saved in 2010. It does not precisely address savings in the categories set out in the question. However, the savings identified are as follows.
  282W

  MtC

  New buildings

  0.7

  Refurbishment of dwellings (rather than all buildings)

  0.7

  New dwellings

  0.28

  New and refurbished non-domestic buildings

  0.425

  London Civil Contingencies Committee
  Mr. Moss
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions whether the London Resilience Sub-Committee referred to by Lord Rooker on 5 November 2001,Official Report, House of Lords, column 5, is the same body as the London Civil Contingencies Committee mentioned in a DTLR press release of 10 October. [19893]

  Dr. Whitehead
  Yes.

  Fire Brigade (East Sussex)
  Mr. Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what emergency funding is in place for East Sussex Fire Brigade to help it deal with heavy flooding in east Sussex. [19929]

  Dr. Whitehead
  The fire service is funded through the local authority revenue support grant system. In the event of a combined fire authority, such as east Sussex, incurring exceptional expenditure it would be able to seek any necessary additional funding from its constituent local authorities. These constituent local authorities would in turn be eligible to apply for emergency financial assistance under the Bellwin Scheme, subject to the normal criteria that apply to that scheme.

  Social Housing
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions for what reasons the stock of social housing in England has changed since 1997. [20120]

  Ms Keeble
  The stock of social housing in England since 1997, based on figures from local authorities and the Housing Corporation are in the table:

  Year

  Social stock (million)

  1 April 1997

  4.390

  1 April 1998

  4.358

  1 April 1999

  4.340

  1 April 2000

  4.290

  The main reason for the decrease in the social housing over the period from 1 April 1997 to 1 April 2000 was that more dwellings were being sold under Right-to-Buy legislation than were being added to the stock by new building and other acquisitions of dwellings. As well as buying dwellings in good condition, other acquisitions include refurbishment and conversions of existing dwellings or other buildings such as offices.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many new social housing properties have been built in England in each of the past 10 years. [20121]
  283W
  Ms Keeble
  The number of new social dwellings, both for registered social landlords and local authorities, built in England in each of the past 10 years is in the table:

  Year

  New social build (thousand)

  1991–92

  23.1

  1992–93

  26.5

  1993–94

  31.7

  1994–95

  32.2

  1995–96

  31.0

  1996–97

  25.0

  1997–98

  21.7

  1998–99

  19.1

  1999–2000

  17.5

  2000–01

  18.0

  As well as building new dwellings, registered social landlords increase their stock by buying existing dwellings, converting and rehabilitating existing dwellings and other buildings such as offices.

  Railways
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will make a statement on the regulations which apply to the gap between the door of a train and the platform. [20119]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Railways and Other Transport Systems (Approval of Works, Plant and Equipment) Regulations 1994, require approval from the Health and Safety Executive's Railway Inspectorate (HMRI) before any new or altered railway works plant and equipment, including station platforms, can be brought into use on the railway network.

  As a guide to these regulations HMRI's Railway Safety Principles and Guidance recommends maximum stepping distances of 250mm vertically, 275mm horizontally or 350mm diagonally for new or altered works. If these dimensions cannot be achieved, dispensation may be given and warning signs such as "mind the gap" along the platform edges, together with public address announcements are also required.

  Speed Restrictions
  Mr. Hendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 31 October 2001,Official Report, column 683W, on speed restrictions, what form the assessment framework will take; what progress has been made; when the assessment will be completed; and when revised guidance will be issued to highways authorities. [20101]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The assessment framework is under development by DTLR as part of a package of work to implement our Road Safety strategy commitments. It was referred to in my answer of 28 November 2001,Official Report, column 943W, and is envisaged as a tool to assist highway authorities in the setting of speed limits on rural roads, rather than as a survey or definitive assessment of all roads. This and the related elements, also referred to, required to deliver the Road Safety strategy commitments on speed management are expected to take about a year to complete. The resulting guidance will follow that, probably during 2003.
  284W

  Private Landlords
  Mr. Denis Murphy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what plans he has to introduce a licensing scheme for private landlords. [19939]

  Ms Keeble
  My right hon. Friend published on 20 October a consultation paper on selective licensing of private landlords. This seeks views on proposals to introduce powers for local authorities to license all private landlords in all, or part of, their area, subject to the Secretary of State's consent. This would normally be granted only for areas of low housing demand facing severe problems, though consideration would also be given to any special cases outside such areas if compelling reasons were advanced. New primary legislation would be required to introduce such powers. The proposals are in addition to the Government's proposals to introduce mandatory licensing for houses in multiple occupation.

  Pollutants
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what research he has undertaken into the pollutants emitted from(a) petrol and (b) diesel engines; and if he will make a statement. [19788]

  Mr. Jamieson
  [holding answer 30 November 2001]In the past two years the Department has conducted nine main research projects on pollutant emissions from road vehicles, some of which are still ongoing.

  Completed projects for which reports will shortly be deposited in the House Libraries are;

  Detection of Vehicles Burning Lubricating Oil—AEA Technology (Petrol)

  DETR/SMMT/CONCAWE Particulate Research Programme—Ricardo (Petrol and Diesel)

  Low Emissions Diesel Research, Phase 1—AEA Technology (Diesel)

  Monitoring of Heavy-Duty Diesel Engine Control Systems For The Detection of Off-Cycle Strategies—Lotus Engineering (Diesel).

  Ongoing projects for which reports are not yet available are:

  In-Service Exhaust Emissions Testing For SI Petrol Engines—AEA Technology (Petrol)

  Ethanol Emissions Testing—AEA Technology (Petrol) Emissions Factors—TRL (Petrol and Diesel)

  In-car Pollution Levels—AEA Technology (Petrol and Diesel)

  Remote Sensing and Vehicle Emission Inspection and Maintenance Programmes—TRL (Petrol).

  In addition the Department sponsors Powershift and CleanUp, programmes managed by the Energy Saving Trust, which monitor performance of a range of alternatively fuelled vehicles and emission reduction technologies. The Department also funds emissions research conducted by other organisations through the Foresight vehicle programme and the International Energy Agency. As a result of the Greener Fuels Challenge, the Department is also funding research into examining the benefits of promising fuels.
  285W

  Radioactive Material
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions which(a) ports and (b) airports are permitted to handle radioactive material; and what checks are in place to ensure the appropriate level of security applies to cargoes carried. [20174]

  Mr. Jamieson
  [holding answer 3 December 2001]All ports and airports can handle radioactive materials subject to the provisions of the relevant regulations.

  The security of radioactive material in transport is ensured through a range of measures and checks appropriate to the nature of material and the mode of transport.

  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what the Government's policy is on allowing an unlimited number of movements of radioactive material by(a) ship, (b) rail and (c) air provided safety standards are met. [20173]

  Mr. Jamieson
  [holding answer 3 December 2001]Transport of radioactive material is permitted subject to regulations based on the standards set by the International Atomic Energy Agency and the appropriate modal authorities. These standards are reviewed on a regular basis and set in order to ensure an adequate level of safety. By doing so appropriate limits are placed on the transport of radioactive material

  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what his policy is on allowing movement of radioactive material(a) through the channel tunnel and (b) on passenger ferries; and if he will make a statement. [20172]

  Mr. Jamieson
  [holding answer 3 December 2001]Transport of radioactive material is permitted subject to regulations based on the standards set by the International Atomic Energy Agency and the appropriate modal authorities.

  (a) The transport of radioactive materials through the channel tunnel is only authorised through Eurotunnel Freight after agreement between the manufacturer/producer of the radioactive material and Eurotunnel.

  (b) The carriage of radioactive materials on passenger ships is regulated by the provisions of the International Maritime Dangerous Goods Code (IMDG Code) of the International Maritime Organization.

  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many aeroplane flights in UK airspace carried(a) high-level,(b) intermediate level and (c) low level radioactive material in the most recent year for which figures are available. [20175]

  Mr. Jamieson
  [holding answer 3 December 2001]This Department does not hold statistical information of this nature.

  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will make it his policy to seek to reduce the number of movements of radioactive material; and what review he has made of the movements of radioactive material since 11 September. [20168]
  286W
  Mr. Jamieson
  [holding answer 3 December 2001]The transport of radioactive material, in support of justified practices, is subject to regulations based on the standards set by the International Atomic Energy Agency and the appropriate modal authorities. These standards are reviewed on a regular basis in order to ensure adequate levels of safety are maintained.

  The implications of the events of 11 September on the nuclear industry are under consideration by Government and industry. Transport is included in this exercise.

  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many(a) flights and (b) shipments were made in the latest year for which figures are available where (a) spent nuclear fuel, (b) nuclear waste, (c) other high level and (d) other intermediate radioactive material was transported between the UK and a foreign country. [20171]

  Mr. Jamieson
  [holding answer 3 December 2001]This Department does not hold statistical information of this nature.

  Physical Agents Directive
  Brian Cotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will ask the Health and Safety Executive to investigate further the potential impact of the European Commission's proposed physical agents directive. [20414]

  Dr. Whitehead
  The Health and Safety Executive's Regulatory Impact Assessments of the proposed physical agents directives on vibration and noise are available in the House of Commons Library. The Health and Safety Commission will, in the course of consultation on the regulations implementing the directives if adopted, publish further assessments of the costs and benefits of those regulations.

  Brian Cotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will provide financial support to businesses which are required to replace existing machinery under the European Commission's proposed physical agents directive. [20415]

  Dr. Whitehead
  There are no requirements under the proposed physical agents directives on vibration and noise for businesses to replace existing equipment. It will be for businesses to decide, in the light of the final text of the directives which are still under negotiation, whether they wish or need to replace equipment to help them comply with requirements to limit exposure. In the case of the vibration directive there are long transitional periods before the exposure limitation requirement comes fully into force. The Government have no plans to offer financial support to businesses to comply with the legislation.

  Fire Protection and Safety Legislation
  Linda Perham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what recent assessment he has made of the efficacy of fire protection and safety legislation; and what plans he has to reform fire protection and safety legislation. [20488]

  Dr. Whitehead
  Broad proposals for the reform of fire safety legislation were developed by the Fire Safety Advisory Board and agreed by the Central Fire Brigades
  287W
  Advisory Council in November 2000. These are now being developed in detail and our aim is to conduct a full public consultation in mid-2002 with a view to implementation by means of an Order under the Regulatory Reform Act 2001. The aim of the reform would be to simplify, rationalise and consolidate existing legislation, which is currently spread across over 100 different statutes. It would provide for a risk based approach to fire safety allowing more efficient, effective enforcement by the fire service.

  Government Office for London
  Ms Abbott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many(a) full-time and (b) part-time employees the Government Office for London has; and what the corresponding figures were in June 2000. [20765]

  Dr. Whitehead
  The Government Office for London currently employs 245 full-time and 11 part-time employees. Corresponding figures in June 2000 were approximately 362 full-time and eight part-time employees.

  Roads
  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (1) what the criteria are for prioritising the targets for the resurfacing of concrete trunk roads and motorways under the 10 year plan; [19790]

  (2) what the annual budget is for the motorway and trunk road noise barrier programme; and when it will next be reviewed; [19792]

  (3)if he will list, in order of priority, the projects in the noise barrier programme, together with the expected dates for the commencement of construction and anticipated cost of each project; [19794]

  (4)when the (a) M27 between junctions 7 and 8 and(b) M3 between Southampton and Winchester were last subjected to condition surveys and maintenance cycle reviews; and what estimates were made of the time expected to elapse before resurfacing with low noise materials would be required; [19791]

  (5) if he will list those noise barrier projects that (a) have been completed and (b) are under construction, indicating the construction cost of each project. [19793]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I have asked the Chief Executive of the Highways Agency, Tim Matthews, to reply to the hon. Gentleman.

  Table A

  Scheme name/description

  Quieter surfacing QS Noise barrier B

  Completed C under construction U

  Construction costs (£)

  A19 Billingham Bypass

  B

  C

  192,000

  M6 J26–27 Orrell(l)

  B

  C

  186,000

  M1 J33–34 Tinsley

  B

  C

  1,820,000

  M1 J33–34 Brinsworth

  B

  C

  M62 J31–32 Lower Altofts

  B

  C

  M602 J1–2 Eccles

  B

  C

  794,000

  M42 J1 Lickey End

  B

  C

  67,000

  288W
  Letter from Tim Matthews to David Chidgey, dated
  4 December 2001:
  I have been asked by the Transport Minister, David Jamieson, to reply to your recent Parliamentary Questions about the noise barrier programme, the criteria for prioritising resurfacing of concrete roads, and about the condition of the M27 between junctions 7 and 8 and the M3 between Southampton and Winchester.
  The Government recognised in "A New Deal For Trunk Roads in England" published in 1998 that traffic noise was becoming an increasing problem and stated that:
  Quieter road surfaces would be specified in all future contracts for new trunk roads;
  The most appropriate noise reducing surfaces are used whenever a road needs resurfacing where noise is a particular concern; and
  A budget would be established for noise mitigation measures to tackle some of the most serious and pressing problems on existing trunk roads.
  Traffic noise is therefore being tackled through programmes of quieter surfacing and noise mitigation measures, such as noise barriers. As a matter of policy, we use quieter surfaces whenever a road needs to be resurfaced and as part of the Government's 10 Year Transport Plan, we are tasked with resurfacing at least 60% of trunk roads, including all concrete roads, with quieter materials by 31 March 2011. The criteria to be used in deciding the priorities for resurfacing concrete roads were recently announced by Ministers and are as follows:
  That wherever possible the application of quieter surfaces will fit in with normal maintenance needs;
  That priority will be given to those sites where treatment would benefit the greatest number of people;
  That the works will be carried out in such a way as to minimise disruption to the general public and users of the network;
  That priority will be given to roads, opened since June 1988, where actual noise levels have turned out to be significantly higher than predicted at the time of the Public Inquiry.
  The Government's proposals for reducing the effects of traffic noise were first set out in Hansard (Column 682 in November 1999). A list of the schemes at these sites that have been completed or are under construction is in Table A attached. The provision of low noise surfacing has an impact on the treatment necessary at these sites. We are still carrying out studies listed in Hansard and until they are completed, I cannot give an indication of the cost or timing of any work identified at the remaining sites. The annual ring fenced budget for noise mitigation measures is £5M and there are currently no plans to review it.
  Regarding the condition of the M27 and M3, the Agency carries out several different road surveys to determine the condition and residual pavement life of the trunk road network. Measurements are undertaken annually of the road surface condition, including rutting, texture depth and profile. A visual assessment is undertaken every5 years, together with a deflectograph survey that determines residual pavement life. A skid resistance survey is completed every 3 years. The forward programme of maintenance is identified from a study of the results of all these assessments. Analysis of the results of the latest road condition surveys of the M3 between junction 7 and 8 indicates that, subject to further testing, the section near Winchester may be due for major maintenance, which would include the use of a low noise surface, in about 2004–05. The condition of the M27 between Southampton and Winchester currently indicates that maintenance would not be required within the next 5 years.
  289W

  Table A

  Scheme name/description

  Quieter surfacing QS Noise barrier B

  Completed C under construction U

  Construction costs (£)

  A52 Spondon

  B

  C

  834,000

  A1 Tuxford

  QS

  C

  1—

  A52 Clifton

  QS

  C

  436,000

  A27 Portsbridge Noise Barrier

  B

  C

  125,000

  A34 Boltey Noise Mitigation

  B

  C

  470,000

  A404 (M) Maidenhead Noise Mitigation

  B

  C

  1,335,000

  M25 Clackett Lane to Jet 5

  QS

  C

  1—

  M60 J12–13 Worsley

  B

  U

  4,000

  M6 J8–9 (Phases 1 to 3)

  B

  U

  689,000

  M1 J25

  B

  U

  2,116,000

  M3 6–7 Basingstoke Accoustic Barrier Ph 1

  B

  U

  410,000

  M3 J4–4a Farnborough

  B

  U

  1,275,000

  M4 J7 8/9 Holyport/Bray Noise Mitigation

  B

  U

  300,000

  M4 J5–6 Datchet Brands Hill Noise Mitigation

  B

  U

  469,000

  A34 Hinksey Noise Mitigation

  B

  U

  503,000

  1major Maintenance schemes providing quieter surfacing

  Deprived Wards
  Norman Lamb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will publish, in rank order, the 100 most deprived wards in the Government office eastern region, indicating their(a) local authority and (b) parliamentary constituency. [20379]

  Ms Keeble
  The information has been placed in the Libraries of the House.

  Number/ward

  Local authority

  Parliamentary constituency

  1. Benchill

  Manchester

  Wythenshawe and Sale, East BC

  2. Speke

  Liverpool

  Liverpool, Garston BC

  3. Everton

  Liverpool

  Liverpool, Riverside BC

  4. Vauxhall

  Liverpool

  Liverpool, Riverside BC

  5. Princess

  Knowsley

  Knowsley, South CC

  6. Granby

  Liverpool

  Liverpool, Riverside BC

  7. Pirrie

  Liverpool

  Liverpool, West Derby BC

  8. Breckfield

  Liverpool

  Liverpool, Walton BC

  9. Longview

  Knowsley

  Knowsley, South CC

  10. Cherryfield

  Knowsley

  Knowsley, North and Sefton, East CC

  11. Harpurhey

  Manchester

  Manchester, Blackley BC

  12. Beswick and Clayton

  Manchester

  Manchester, Central BC

  13. Kirby Central

  Knowsley

  Knowsley, North and Sefton, East CC

  14. Northwood

  Knowsley

  Knowsley, North and Sefton, East CC

  15. Bradford

  Manchester

  Manchester, Central BC

  16. Bidston

  Wirral

  Birkenhead BC

  17. Melrose

  Liverpool

  Liverpool, Walton BC

  18. Clubmoor

  Liverpool

  Liverpool, West Derby BC

  19. Smithdown

  Liverpool

  Liverpool, Riverside BC

  20. Ardwick

  Manchester

  Manchester, Central BC

  21. Dovecot

  Liverpool

  Liverpool, West Derby BC

  22. Cantril Farm

  Knowsley

  Knowsley, North and Sefton, East CC

  23. Whitefield

  Pendle

  Pendle BC

  24. Central

  Manchester

  Manchester, Central BC

  25. Netherley

  Liverpool

  Liverpool, Garston BC

  26. Newton Heath

  Manchester

  Manchester, Central BC

  27. Kensington

  Liverpool

  Liverpool, Wavertree BC

  28. Central

  Bolton

  Bolton, North-East BC

  29. Central and Falinge

  Rochdale

  Rochdale CC

  30. Birkenhead

  Wirral

  Birkenhead BC

  31. Linacre

  Sefton

  Bootle BC

  32. Tranmere

  Wirral

  Birkenhead

  33. Tower Hill

  Knowsley

  Knowsley, North and Sefton, East CC

  34. Audley

  Blackburn with Darwen

  Blackburn CC

  35. Danehouse

  Burnley

  Burnley BC

  36. Gorton South

  Manchester

  Manchester, Gorton BC

  37. Woodhouse Park

  Manchester

  Wythenshawe and Sale, East BC

  38. Middleton West

  Rochdale

  Heywood and Middleton CC

  39. Moss Side

  Manchester

  Manchester, Central BC

  40. Coldhurst

  Oldham

  Oldham, West and Royton BC

  290W
  Mr. Woodward
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions if he will list in rank order the 100 most deprived wards in the Government office north-west region, indicating the(a) local authority and (b) parliamentary constituency. [19561]

  Ms Keeble
  The following 100 wards in the Government office north-west region are sorted by Index of Multiple Deprivation (2000).
  291W

  Number/ward

  Local authority

  Parliamentary constituency

  41. Wemeth

  Oldham

  Oldham, West and Royton BC

  42. Shadsworth

  Blackburn with Darwen

  Blackburn BC

  43. Alexandra

  Oldham

  Oldham, West and Royton BC

  44. Mirehouse West

  Copeland

  Copeland CC

  45. St. Mary's

  Liverpool

  Liverpool, Garston BC

  46. Central

  Hyndburn

  Hyndburn BC

  47. Sandwith

  Copeland

  Copeland CC

  48. Higher Croft

  Blackburn with Darwen

  Blackburn BC

  49. Smallbridge

  Rochdale

  Rochdale CC

  50. Wensley Fold

  Blackburn with Darwen

  Blackburn BC

  51. St. Mary's

  Oldham

  Oldham, East and Saddleworth

  52. Longsight

  Manchester

  Manchester, Gorton BC

  53. Central

  Barrow-in-Furness

  Barrow and Furness CC

  54. Parr and Hardshaw

  St. Helens

  St. Helens, South BC

  55. Shear Brow

  Blackburn with Darwen

  Blackburn BC

  56. Queen's Park

  Blackburn with Darwen

  Blackburn BC

  57. Valley

  Liverpool

  Liverpool, Garston BC

  58. Broughton

  Salford

  Salford BC

  59. Bradley

  Pendle

  Pendle BC

  60. Derby

  Bolton

  Bolton, South-East BC

  61. Little Hulton

  Salford

  Worsley CC

  62. Knowsley Park

  Knowsley

  Knowsley, North and Sefton, East CC

  63. Salterbeck

  Allerdale

  Workington CC

  64. St. Michael's

  Knowsley

  Knowsley, South

  65. Castlefields

  Hal ton

  Weaver Vale CC

  66. Brinnington

  Stockport

  Stockport BC

  67. Hulme

  Manchester

  Manchester Central BC

  68. Abercromby

  Liverpool

  Liverpool, Riverside BC

  69. Cheetham

  Manchester

  Manchester, Blackley BC

  70. Blackfriars

  Salford

  Salford BC

  71. St. Gabriels

  Knowsley

  Knowsley, South CC

  72. Ordsall

  Salford

  Salford BC

  73. County

  Liverpool

  Liverpool, Walton BC

  74. Park

  Blackpool

  Knowsley, North and Sefton, East CC

  75. Norley

  Wigan

  Wigan CC

  76. Ewanrigg

  Allerdale

  Workington CC

  77. Alexandra

  Blackpool

  Oldham, West and Royton BC

  78. Seacombe

  Wirral

  Wallasey BC

  79. Bank Hall

  Burnley

  Burnley BC

  80. Halewood South

  Knowsley

  Knowsley, South CC

  81. Tanhouse

  West Lancashire

  West Lancashire CC

  82. Bastwell

  Blackburn with Darwen

  Blackburn BC

  83. Fishwick

  Preston

  Preston BC

  84. Risedale

  Barrow-in-Furness

  Barrow and Furness CC

  85. Claremont

  Blackpool

  Blackpool, North and Fleetwood CC

  86. Pendleton

  Salford

  Salford BC

  87. Whitefield

  Knowsley

  Knowsley, North and Sefton, East CC

  88. Lightbowne

  Manchester

  Manchester, Blackley BC

  89. Dingle

  Liverpool

  Liverpool, Riverside BC

  90. Ribbleton

  Preston

  Preston BC

  91. Riverside

  Halton

  Halton CC

  92. Barclay

  Burnley

  Burnley BC

  93. Hindpool

  Barrow-in-Furness

  Barrow and Fumess CC

  94. Page Moss

  Knowsley

  Knowsley, South CC

  95. Tuebrook

  Liverpool

  Liverpool, West Derby BC

  96. Baguley

  Manchester

  Wythenshawe and Sale, East BC

  97. Newbold

  Rochdale

  Rochdale CC

  98. Langworthy

  Salford

  Salford BC

  99. Blackley

  Manchester

  Manchester, Blackley BC

  100. Fazakerley

  Liverpool

  Liverpool, Walton BC

  SSA (Somerset)
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what action he plans to take to ensure that Somerset county council's standard spending assessment is set at a level to reflect(a) the costs of delivering services in rural areas, (b) the size of the county's road network, (c) the demands on social services due to the level of the elderly population and (d) the backlog of capital works; and if he will make a statement. [18880]
  292W
  Dr. Whitehead
  All of the factors referred to in the question are reflected to some extent in the current Standard Spending Assessment formulae, which are used to allocate between councils the resources made available by the spending review. We are currently reviewing those formulae and have announced our intention to implement changes to take effect in 2003–04. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is today announcing the provisional 2002–03 local government finance settlement.
  293W

  Rough Sleepers
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions what methodology was used by Rough Sleepers' Unit and its predecessor to count the number of people sleeping rough on any single night since 1997; and if he will make a statement regarding the reasons for changes in the methodology used. [20532]

  Mr. Byers
  The methodology used by the Rough Sleepers Unit to count the number of people sleeping rough on any single night was developed in the early 1990s by the Department, in partnership with the voluntary sector. The methodology used for producing a national estimate was set out in an answer given by my right hon. Friend the then Minister for Local Government and the Regions on 19 May 1999,Official Report, columns 355–62W and has been tested and developed through independent research and remains unchanged. The same methodology has been used nationally for over five years, and since the early 1990s in London.

  Counts are conducted by voluntary sector homelessness agencies, working with local authorities and independent volunteers. The results are finalised and submitted by these agencies to the Rough Sleepers Unit. The methodology for counts is adhered to strictly and consistently.

  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many people obtained permanent housing after being housed in(a) bed and breakfast accommodation and (b) hostels by the Rough Sleepers' Unit for (i) less than one week, (ii) between one week and one month and (iii) over one month, in each quarter since the unit was established. [20528]

  Mr. Byers
  Under the Government's strategy on rough sleeping, the Rough Sleepers Unit funds a number of agencies to provide permanent and temporary accommodation for rough sleepers and to refer people sleeping rough, or with a history of rough sleeping, into that accommodation and other services.

  Information is not available in the format requested. Information from the Clearing House which manages referrals to permanent accommodation in London provided with Government funding shows that:

  During the last financial year (1 April 2000 to 31 March 2001), 669 former rough sleepers were housed in permanent homes.

  A total of 898 former rough sleepers were referred to the Clearing House for permanent accommodation during 2000–01, of whom:

  74 per cent. were referred from hostels

  10 per cent. from the street

  5 per cent. from staying with friends

  2 per cent. from a housing association tenancy

  1 per cent. from Bed and Breakfast accommodation

  1 per cent. from a cold weather shelter

  1 per cent. from a rolling shelter

  1 per cent. where the referral location was in an "other" category.

  5 per cent. where the referral location was not stated.

  These referrals have played a vital part in helping the Rough Sleepers Unit to achieve its target of reducing rough sleeping in England by two-thirds.
  294W
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many people were housed in(a) bed and breakfast accommodation and (b) hostels by the Rough Sleepers' Unit for (i) less than one week, (ii) between one week and one month and (iii) over one month in each quarter since the unit was established. [20529]

  Mr. Byers
  Under the Government's current strategy on rough sleeping, the Rough Sleepers Unit provides funding for a number of agencies who provide permanent and temporary accommodation. The Unit also funds a number of agencies to provide outreach workers and Contact and Assessment Teams who help rough sleepers into accommodation and other services. Staff from the Unit do not routinely refer rough sleepers into accommodation. However, they do from time to time liaise with agencies to ensure that any vulnerable rough sleepers they encounter during street work are helped into appropriate accommodation and support.

  Information on referrals into accommodation is not available in the format requested. Monitoring information from the database of Contact and Assessment Team's clients in London is given.

  Over the twelve months between 1 April 2000 and 31 March 2001, 1,679 rough sleepers were helped into accommodation. Some were helped into accommodation more than once. The total number of referrals from the streets for those 1,679 individuals was 2,485. These referrals were to the following types of accommodation:

  Action

  Number who entered accommodation

  Booked into permanent accommodation

  151

  Booked into a hostel

  1,211

  Booked into a rolling shelter

  719

  Booked into other temporary accommodation

  63

  Accessed specialist treatment programme

  252

  Admission to a night centre

  86

  Booked into Bed and Breakfast accommodation

  3

  Total

  2485

  Of the 1,679 individuals who were referred into these forms of accommodation during the period, 1,262 (75 per cent.) were still in accommodation at the end of the year.

  These referrals have played a vital part in helping the Rough Sleepers Unit to achieve its target of reducing rough sleeping in England by two-thirds.

  Homelessness
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how many(a) statutory single homeless people and (b) non statutory homeless people are (i) in bed and breakfast, (ii) in hostels, (iii) in squats and (iv) sleeping rough; and what plans he has to reduce the numbers of non-statutory homeless people. [20534]

  Mr. Byers
  On 30 June 2001, the total number of households being accommodated by local housing authorities in bed and breakfast hotels under existing homelessness legislation was 11,340 and a further
  295W
  9,440 households were being accommodated in hostels. Information about the proportion of these which were single person households is not held centrally.

  It is estimated that there are 532 people sleeping rough in England on any one night in autumn 2001, compared to 1,850 in 1998.

  Information is not held centrally about the number of households living in squats or the number of households who are self-placed in hostels or bed and breakfast accommodation.

  The Homelessness Bill, when enacted, will require local authorities to conduct a review of the levels, and likely future levels, of all forms of homelessness in their area and to develop a strategy for preventing homelessness and ensuring that sufficient accommodation and support is available for those who are or may become homeless.
  296W
  My right hon., noble and learned Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning also announced yesterday that a new Homelessness Directorate will be set up to bring together and invigorate existing work to help homeless people, as well as develop new work to help prevent homelessness, and investigate its underlying causes.

  London Underground
  Mr. Borrow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions how much London Transport has spent on consultancy costs for the London Underground public private partnership and the forecast of total expenditure. [20965]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I understand from London Transport that their expenditure on external consultants from 20 March 1998 (the date of the Government's announcement) to 30 September 2001, for work on the PPP and restructuring of London Underground, was £80.2 million and London Transport estimate that the final amount should be around £98 million

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.

Royal Assent
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Irvine of Lairg): My Lords, I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified her Royal Assent to the following Acts:
European Communities (Finance) Act,
Human Reproductive Cloning Act,
National Australia Group Europe Act.

Social Workers: Caring for Children
2.36 p.m.
Lord Northbourne Lord Northbourne asked Her Majesty's Government:
What proposals they have to increase the proportion of time which social workers spend on caring for children by reducing time spent on administration and the implementation of new government initiatives.
Lord Filkin: My Lords, the Government have made clear their commitment to improving child protection, ending child poverty, child deprivation and social exclusion. Our initiatives, which include substantial extra funding, are to provide an effective system to support social workers in their task of safeguarding children and young people and enabling them to achieve their full potential.
Lord Northbourne: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that encouraging reply. Is he aware—I am sure that he is—that the National Family and Parenting Institute recently produced a report in which it identified no fewer than eight government initiatives which social services had to cover in addition to their normal duties looking after children in need and children at risk? The initiatives are: Early Years and Child Care partnerships; Sure Start; Connexions service partnerships; youth offending teams; children's service plans; health improvement plans; Best Value; and Quality Protects.
Lord Filkin: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that useful summary of the range of relevant government initiatives on this issue. They are not separate from the job of social workers. There are two central thrusts to the Government's attempt to improve social care outcomes for children, in particular deprived children. The first is to make it much less likely that we will see a repetition of some of
698
the scandals of child abuse which during the past 15 or 20 years have led to deaths year after year. The second is to address some of the root causes of social disadvantage by trying to improve the chances that children from deprived backgrounds will receive better educational outcomes, will obtain work and will be more likely to lead successful lives.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, in the light of what the Minister has said, is it not time that the Government changed their mind and introduced a new independent children's commissioner for England, as they have done in Wales?
Lord Filkin: My Lords, no, I do not believe that that is necessary and it is not the Government's view that it is. We have introduced a range of measures to strengthen the regulatory framework over social services to try to ensure that the highest standards are being practised. Noble Lords will be aware that the Government are also promoting stronger inter-agency working and are trying to address the problem of different parts of the social care system having separate pieces of information about children potentially at risk. There will be a new integrated information system in place from 2002 which should substantially reduce the risk of children falling to their deaths through the gaps in the system. as we have seen in the past.
Baroness Pitkeathley: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that some government initiatives—not those mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, but others in which I declare an interest as interim chair of the General Social Care Council—will lead to a greater quality and regulation of social workers, particularly the registration of social workers and their deregistration if their work is not of sufficient quality?
Lord Filkin: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for her reminder and for the excellent work she is undertaking as the interim chair of the General Social Care Council. In addition, the Government are developing with the social work profession national occupational standards for social work; they are developing a three-year degree course for social workers; they are promoting best practice to the Social Care Institute for Excellence; and they are strengthening inspection and intervention powers where necessary.
Lord Elton: My Lords, will the noble Lord confirm that the database which he says will be in place in a couple of years will be United Kingdom-wide and not based on regions or other geographical or administrative areas? We may then escape the danger that children at risk are moved from an area in which they are on the register into an area in which they are not.
Lord Filkin: My Lords, I am happy to confirm that the database will cover all of England and will seek to

699
avoid some of the dangers we saw in the Victoria Climbié case of a child moving between four local authority areas, thereby compounding the difficulties. I am not certain whether it will apply to Wales and Scotland, but I shall write to the noble Lord with that information.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, how much training do social workers receive on conditions such as scabies so that the children most at need are not shunned like lepers?
Lord Filkin: My Lords, the short and honest answer is that I do not know; but I shall look into that. I would hope that social workers would recognise the important tell-tale signifiers of potential dysfunction in the family. They also signal potential problems in the school environment and therefore the need for effective social work, school and home linkages to address those issues.
Baroness Walmsley: My Lords, does the Minister accept that this is a matter of life and death since every week in the UK two children die as a result of being abused? What are the Government doing to recruit and retain more social workers? Does the Minister accept that, compared with the £7 million per year spent on police recruitment advertising, the £1.5 million that is currently spent on recruiting social workers is a drop in the ocean and goes to prove that social services are still the Cinderella of public services? Are the Government really committed to changing that?
Lord Filkin: My Lords, I agree that it is a matter of life and death. Even if it is not that dramatic it is an issue that affects the quality of life of very many children. One may not be killed by poor parenting or a poor care environment but one may still suffer very serious damage which affects for ever the quality of one's life. What are the Government doing? They have increased in real terms funding for social services by 18 per cent since 1996-97. They are currently addressing serious shortfalls in social work recruitment in some areas through the £1.5 million advertising campaign. The Government are also trying to raise the status of the social work profession and provide social workers with more administrative and IT support so that they are not swamped by some of the paperwork that tends otherwise to fall on them. Perhaps of greatest relevance to the question is that the Government are seeking to reduce the number of plans and bidding schemes that may in the past have distracted social workers from the fundamental core areas of their work.
Baroness Noakes: My Lords, does the Minister agree that despite the additional burdens imposed by government on local authorities in relation to children's services, such as children leaving care or adoption support services, they are committed to delivering improved services? The noble Lord will be aware that local authorities need adequate resources to deliver those additional services. Will he join me in
700
regretting that the Chancellor's Pre-Budget Report had nothing to say about plans for personal social services spending?
Lord Filkin: My Lords, the noble Baroness will be greatly surprised to know that it is more than my job is worth to agree with her final comment! Despite that, I do not agree with it. I signalled earlier the significant increase in funding that has occurred over the past five years. I cannot forecast what will be announced later today in terms of the local government expenditure settlement, but we may well hope for yet another above-inflation real terms increase. I agree that social services struggle with very significant workloads. Every year there are 80,000 investigations into childcare issues and 30,000 childcare case conferences between agencies. They are real challenges. They do not represent the totality of the social services budget. About one-quarter of the budget is spent on childcare issues, of which child protection is itself only a part. I very much hope that the department, working with social services, will achieve yet more value from those resources.

The Clergy and Employment Legislation
2.45 p.m.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. In doing so I declare an interest as a former official and present member of MSF, the union to which some members of the clergy belong.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what plans they have to deem members of the clergy as employed, under the terms of Section 23 of the Employment Relations Act 1999.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Sainsbury of Turville): My Lords, as office-holders the clergy do not have contracts of service and so fall outside the scope of employment protection legislation. The Government currently have no plans to change the position, but Section 23 of the Employment Relations Act 1999 gives the Secretary of State the power to extend the coverage of certain employment rights to individuals not currently covered by it, and the Government are committed to publishing a discussion document on employment status.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for that response. Is he aware that there has already been an internal review by the Archbishop's Council which recommends that stipends should become salaried and part of a remuneration package for clergy? Does my noble friend agree that that is a substantial step on the way to acknowledging their status as employees? Is it not right, surely, that other employment cover should follow from that?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, as a simple Minister for Science I am rather nervous about coming between God and the Bishops and clergy. While technically the clergy are employed by God, I believe that in this context God would want to be a good employer. The issue is one that we are likely to want to discuss with the Bishops and leaders of other faiths in producing the discussion document.
The Lord Bishop of Hereford: My Lords, perhaps I may declare an interest. Is the Minister aware that the office-holder status of the clergy is more suited to the particular nature of ordained ministry than employed status with contracts of employment and self-employed status, neither of which is entirely appropriate in this particular case? Is the noble Lord also aware that all clergy are more than welcome to join the MSF union if they choose to do so? Does the Minister realise that the Church of England is presently engaged in a study of these matters to see whether it can find a better balance between security of tenure and employability for all clergy to enable them better to carry out their mission and ministry? While we are grateful for the Minister's reference to the discussion paper, can he say when that document will be forthcoming, because I understand that it will enable these issues to be taken forward in relation to all faith communities?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, the review will start at the beginning of next year. We shall discuss with leaders of all faiths the issues to be covered in that review. I believe that that is the place to set out some of the issues to which the right reverend Prelate refers in order to obtain the views of everyone on these important issues.
Lord Pilkington of Oxenford: My Lords, are the Government prepared to pay attention to the proposed clergy discipline Bill to ensure that when subject to discipline the clergy are given the same civil rights as any other employee? In other words, will the Government take note of that particular matter?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, the question of employment rights will be taken into consideration in the discussion document. I do not believe that that would necessarily extend to all questions of disciplinary rights, but we shall consider that point as we formulate the document.
Baroness Gibson of Market Rasen: My Lords, my noble friend will be aware that there are some exemptions from the Equal Pay Act, one of which is the clergy. Bearing in mind that many women are now entering the clergy, and will I am sure do so in future, does my noble friend believe that this is an opportune time to reconsider that Act particularly in relation to its exemptions?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, as the discussions progress, I am sure that all such issues will
702
be raised and that we shall look carefully to see whether it would be productive to take them forward at this time.
Lord Newby: My Lords, perhaps I may declare an interest as a clergy spouse. Once the discussions are under way, will they include an examination of the entire raft of long-established and, in some cases, outdated principles which apply to the employment of the clergy, not the least of which is the system of the vicar's freehold?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I can only reiterate that such issues are those which we shall consider. In the light of the views expressed by the House, we shall obviously give a great deal of time to the preliminary discussions.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, I refer to Section 23 of the Employment Relations Act, which the Minister has also mentioned. The section gives the Secretary of State powers to define those persons who are entitled to rights under the Act. However, subsection (5) of the section states that the Secretary of State can do that either by amending Acts of Parliament or by amending statutory instruments, or "otherwise". Can the Minister tell the House what the word "otherwise" means in this context? Does it mean that the Secretary of State would be able to bypass Acts of Parliament or statutory instruments?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I am sure that this point was debated at great length between the noble Baroness and myself at the time when the Bill passed through this House. I cannot remember exactly what "otherwise" referred to in that context. However, I undertake to write to the noble Baroness to remind her of the interpretation.
Lord Lea of Crondall: My Lords, with regard to the general attitude of the Church of England to the role of employee representation, is my noble friend aware that His Grace the Archbishop of Canterbury gave wider recognition to the role of the trades union movement in his address to the Trades Union Congress held in Brighton four years ago? That address was greatly appreciated and very well received.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I am glad that on that occasion it was possible to pay such a compliment to the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury.

Afghan Women's Rights
2.52 p.m.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood Baroness Thomas of Walliswood asked Her Majesty's Government:
What consideration they have given to ensuring that women have full civil rights in a future Afghan state.
The Minister for Trade (Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean): My Lords, one of the most appalling features of the Taliban regime has been its treatment of women, including restrictions on women's access to healthcare and education. Afghan women have participated in the talks held in Bonn, which today have led to agreement on the framework for the establishment of an interim administration in Afghanistan. We welcome the agreement and expect any future government to respect internationally acknowledged norms of behaviour towards their own citizens including, of course, women.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. Can she give any further information as regards the progress being made in relation to the main claims that I believe the women of Afghanistan want to make; namely, the right to receive an education, the right to work and the right to participate in public life in their own country, as they enjoyed before the time of the mujaheddin? Can the noble Baroness further tell the House when those claims will be considered and in what context?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, a United Nations-sponsored conference is to be held in Brussels tomorrow under the auspices of UNIFAM. It is extremely important that we consult the women of Afghanistan themselves about their priorities. We have heard a little about those views, but they have tended to come from Afghan women in the diaspora or those living overseas from Afghanistan at the moment. The conference, which is being held on 4th and 5th December, will include some 50 women's groups from Afghanistan, the refugee camps and neighbouring camps, and further will provide an important opportunity to gather together what exactly are those women's real priorities. I suspect that not only will issues surrounding education, the right to work and public participation in the life of Afghanistan be raised, but also matters such as the supply of clean water, food for children—one in four of whom die before the age of five—and basic healthcare, which most of us would think of as basic human rights.
Baroness Rawlings: My Lords, does the Minister recall that in 1977, 15 per cent of all the legislators in Afghanistan were women? On 2nd November, the noble Baroness, Lady Amos, stated that:
"It is the responsibility of the entire international community to ensure that the women of Afghanistan are fully involved".—[Official Report, 2/11/01; col. WA 186.]
Can the noble Baroness tell the House what are Her Majesty's Government's plans if the new broad-based government of Afghanistan do not respect the basic human rights of women?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, we have reasonable grounds to believe that a new broad-based government will respect the basic human rights of women. I think that it is important to remember that
704
three out of the 28 participants in the talks held in Bonn have been women. I cannot tell the noble Baroness whether any members of the interim government are likely to be women, but that too is possible. When I left the Foreign Office today. the names of the representatives for the new interim government had not been announced. However, I can tell the noble Baroness that my right honourable friend Clare Short, along with other women development Ministers from Europe, have made it clear that we expect and hope that women will become involved in the public life of Afghanistan.
One of the basic building blocks to put in place is to ensure that the education of girls goes ahead. We should not forget that since 1996, as a matter of public policy rather than through poverty, girls have been excluded from the Afghan education system, such as it is. Those fundamental building blocks have to be put into place. However, of course I agree very much with the purport of the noble Baroness's comments.
Lord Renton: My Lords, will the noble Baroness do her best to ensure that Afghan women are no longer obliged to hide their lovely faces?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, wearing the burqa or, indeed, wearing any other clothing that is deemed appropriate in some Islamic countries is a matter for those Islamic countries and a matter for the women living in them. Surely, the question here is that real choice should be available to women. I certainly agree with the noble Lord. Lord Renton, that it is unacceptable for young women to be beaten for inadvertently revealing a small part of their face or an ankle. It is to be regretted that all too often we have seen such events depicted on our television screens. In countries where such apparel is deemed to be a question of respect, we must look at those cultural norms and hope that it is a matter of choice for the future.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, perhaps I may press the Minister further on this issue. As she has pointed out, we do not know yet whether any women will be included in the interim administration for Afghanistan. Can the noble Baroness give an assurance that when the entirely male Council of Chiefs—I am not good at pronouncing the Afghan language, so I shall not attempt to say the Afghan word—meets to confirm that interim administration, which I understand it will do, some consideration will be given to the position of women in any future government? Furthermore, will Mr Robert Cooper, who, we understand, is to look after this matter for Her Majesty's Government, press the Afghan administration to bear in mind the interests of women when the council's views are taken into consideration?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I can only reiterate to the noble Baroness that we pressed for women to form a part of the Afghan delegation to Bonn. I hope that that gives the noble Baroness some assurance of the seriousness with which Her Majesty's

705
Government take the issue. The framework establishes that the interim authority will be set up for six months. Furthermore, there will be a supreme court and a 21-member special independent commission set up to elect a transitional government, along with a multinational force to secure Kabul.
I cannot answer specifically the question put by the noble Baroness as regards whether, as a matter of course, those arrangements will include women. I am bound to say that I think that that would be an unusual specification. When looking at other areas of the world, I am also bound to say that certain other governments might look to the inclusion of at least a few more women in their administrations. However, I can tell the noble Baroness that we have pressed for women's voices to be heard. Lastly. I hope that the noble Baroness will take some assurance from the fact that a conference will be held tomorrow in Brussels. That conference will report back to a round table made up of international representatives at the end of the week.

House of Lords Reform
3 p.m.
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers asked Her Majesty's Government:
Why the Statement on House of Lords reform, which was made in the House of Lords on Wednesday 7th November (HL Deb, col. 205), was different from that which was made in the House of Commons.
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Williams of Mostyn): My Lords, with a Statement of such direct interest to both Houses in their capacities as Houses of Parliament, it was not appropriate to make a Statement in one House repeated verbatim in the other. The two Statements covered generally the same ground but drew particular attention in one House to matters that might have been of less concern in the other. Our proposals are, of course, set out in the White Paper.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for his, as always, courteous reply. Does he not think that, where matters of constitutional importance are concerned, it is desirable that Statements should be the same in both Houses? It would at least stop people ferreting around and trying to find out what are the differences and why. For instance, does the noble and learned Lord realise that when the Statement was made by the Lord President of the Council in another place, he praised for the part that he has played in the reform of the House of Lords, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor? Such eulogy was missing in the Statement given to your Lordships. Was that omission by mistake or on purpose?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Ferret—Lord Ferrers. As he and your Lordships know, I always try to pitch my
706
answers to the intellectual calibre of the audience. In this serene House, self-evidently, no eulogy to the Lord Chancellor would be, or could be, required.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, given the reaction with which the Statement was greeted in another place—namely, that some 130 Labour MPs immediately rushed off to sign an Early Day Motion voicing their protest at the White Paper—does the noble and learned Lord now consider, perhaps with his colleague, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, that it might have been better to resolve the differences within the Labour Party by sending the issue to a Joint Committee of both Houses?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, looking back on it, it might have been better if my Statement had been given to the Commons. Then there would riot have been any difficulty or misunderstanding which might have led MPs to sign the EDM.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, does the noble and learned Lord accept that the real drawback is that there are no inconsistencies between the Statements made in the two Houses? If there had been, that might have given rise to the possibility that there were still some open minds in the Government and that these terrible proposals might have been changed before they arrived in your Lordships' House.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, the White Paper is very green. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor said in terms that we wished to have consultations. Any offering by way of improvement—if such could be imagined—to the Government's present thinking will be gratefully received.
Lord Palmer: My Lords, when will the noble and learned Lord the Leader of the House be in a position to announce a timetable so that those of us facing expulsion from Parliament can plan for the future?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I cannot give a timetable in the context of the euthanasia to which the noble Lord is looking forward. However, responding to a number of requests from your Lordships, we hope to have a two-day debate on the White Paper very soon after our return from the Christmas Recess. I know that it is galling for the noble Lord—he has courteously written to me in the past about these matters—but I am very much in your Lordships' hands. I do not know when the ultimate stage of stage 2 will be arrived at.

Business
3.4 p.m.
Lord Carter: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m., my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer of Thoroton will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement being made in another place on Local Government Finance (England) 2002–2003.

National Heritage Bill [H.L.]
Report received.

Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Bill
3.5 p.m.
The Minister of State, Home Office (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 89 [Fingerprinting of terrorist suspects]:
Lord Dixon-Smith Lord Dixon-Smith moved Amendment No. 152A:
Page 47, line 30, after first "of" insert "terrorist"
The noble Lord said: It is wonderful to have such power to empty seats. This group of amendments raises a very important point about which we have made criticisms throughout the Bill's passage so far—that is, the wide scope and nature of what is supposed to be emergency legislation for dealing with terrorist and security matters.
Some amendments in the group are brought forward with the names of noble Lords of my party on top, some with the names of noble Lords of the Liberal Democrats on top, and some stand in single-member party names. There is no collusion in terms of our approach to this issue; we have a common concern about matters.
It has to be admitted that we have a problem. In promoting themselves and in funding their operations, terrorist organisations almost certainly commit all kinds of crime. But not all kinds of crime are necessarily terrorist related. So there is a dilemma. Nevertheless, we feel strongly that the Bill should be restricted, if it can be, to the emergency nature of the legislation which we are rushing through—that is, to dealing with terrorist matters.
To give an illustration, the first part of Clause 89 deals with the fingerprinting of terrorist suspects. But, as one goes further through the clause, one finds "or for purposes related", which means that the powers can be used much more widely for normal criminal activity. As I have observed, crime is always with us. It does not seem proper that the normal criminal aspects of the life of our communities should be dealt with through these emergency procedures.
All the amendments in this large group are devoted to the same purpose. I do not intend to bore the Committee by going through them one by one because the wording is similar every case. None the less, they raise a small but important point. I beg to move.
Lord Goodhart: My noble friends and I have put our names to Amendments Nos. 153 to 155, 156 and 159, either as the lead names or together with the
708
Conservative Front Bench. We entirely agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith said. The argument that these powers should be restricted to dealing with terrorist problems has been made many times. It has been supported by speakers on all sides, both at Second Reading and in Committee. I do not think there is any need for me to take it further.
Lord Alexander of Weedon: I apologise for the fact that this is my first opportunity to take part in the Committee stage. I declare an interest as chairman of Justice, the all-party law reform group, which has extensively briefed many Members of the Committee on the Bill. I had no part in the preparation of the briefing. Justice accepted that the purposes of the Bill were such as potentially to justify derogation from the Human Rights Act if, and only if, the Bill was proportionate and was focused sharply on the terrorism committed on 11th September. As the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, stated, many of the Bill's provisions go wider than that.
Members of the Committee heard yesterday that the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, of which I have the privilege to be chairman, protested most strongly about Clauses 110 and 111 having nothing to do with the emergency arising on 11th September. On that basis, I content myself with saying that each time we fail to narrow the purposes of the Bill, we lessen the prospect that our derogation from the Human Rights Act will be held to be justified. Each time we fail to narrow the purposes of the Bill, we dent civil liberties. I support the amendment.
Lord Clinton-Davis: I support the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Alexander. The Minister has to convince me—and, I hope, others like me—that the derogation he seeks is justified. Like the noble Lord, I am worried about the breaches of freedom signified by this approach.
In both Houses, I have long been a supporter of civil liberties. The Minister has to approach people like me as having an open mind. But at the moment the view broached by the noble Lord is not a fanciful one. We are deeply worried by the Government's approach. The focus on terrorism ought to be applied in this case—and it is not.
3.15 p.m.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: Three of the amendments in this group stand in my name. I apologise to the Committee for not being able to be present yesterday. A series of rather attractive operatic events in Budapest coincided with the international meeting of the Green parties of Europe.
My Amendment No. 155A is a de minimis amendment. It seeks to ensure that this legislation does not apply to matters which are extremely small and which should not be included in this area. I am sure that they are covered by the major amendments in the group which have been spoken to.

709
My Amendment No. 158ZA deals with a more specialised point. There are plenty of instances on record where the police have requested that people take off face coverings and have not given them time to do so before arresting them. The amendment is intended to meet that point and to make sure that it is not a crime to be slightly slow in obeying a request that a person may not have understood in the heat of the moment. That can apply at protests on ecological (or green) grounds rather more than in instances relating to the kind of terrorism with which the Bill mainly deals.
Amendment No. 158ZB attempts to remove the penalty of imprisonment, as opposed to a fine, for such minor offences. I speak on behalf of my party when I say that we strongly support all the major amendments in the group. I hope that the Government will see reason.
Lord Marsh: I should be grateful if the Minister would address a fundamental point. All the amendments have one thing in common which has informed the remarks that we have heard so far. The trend is to interpret the word "emergency" as synonymous with "temporary".
The point is fundamental because many people do not believe that what happened on 11th September left behind it a "temporary" situation to be dealt with over a limited period of time. Many people believe that it changed the whole approach to the fight against terrorism. There has been a recognition that terrorism now has resources—both financial and in terms of following and commitment—on a scale previously unknown. If that is the case—and it is certainly my position—we have to examine the question of civil liberties and rights, and of their erosion, in a different way. We must take on board the fact that we live in a different society, that the threats are much greater and that some thousands of people have been killed—that is not an emotive point. It is recognised that the resources, skills and finance available to carry out such offences are greater than we have ever known, as is the commitment to carry them out. Secondly, those who perpetrate the crimes have made it very clear that they have the ability and the commitment to repeat them, not only in this country or in the United States but in other parts of the world.
I should like to know the Government's view. If this is a passing phase and we shall grow out of it, then of course we can afford to continue with the liberal regime that we have had, totally unchanged. If we do not regard it as a temporary phase, then we must make some changes. I do not argue for one side or the other. There will be different views; I should like to hear the Minister's.
Lord Clinton-Davis: Why cannot there be primary legislation later to deal with the noble Lord's point?
Lord Marsh: That is not my point. I am raising a more fundamental point, which can be dealt with—or not—in primary legislation. Depending on the view
710
that we take of the importance of the present situation, it may be felt that primary legislation should follow later.
Lord Elton: The noble Lord is speaking well outside the scope of the amendments and of the Bill. This is emergency legislation that is being discussed in haste. I ask the noble Lord to wait before responding. just as I waited for him to finish before I made my comments.
Lord Marsh: I was just moving to make myself more comfortable.
Lord Elton: I hope that he will be comfortable when we have finished.
The Bill is being taken through Parliament in a rush. When one is in a rush, one is prepared to accept limitations of liberty because there is an emergency, which will last for a short time. After that, we will have an opportunity to deal with the circumstances that may prevail for a long time. That is when the noble Lord should make his speech, not now.
Lord Marsh: I have tried to make it clear that I was talking about the definition and perception of the word "emergency", which has, quite properly, been used frequently in relation to the amendments.
Lord Rooker: We have reached Part 10, which deals with police powers. Far be it from me to criticise, but I have not heard any case made for the amendments, so I am having some difficulty in responding to them. The general thrust seems to be that we should not extend police powers in the way proposed in Part 10. I say that we are extending police powers, because by and large the powers in this part are not new, but are extensions of existing powers. That is an important point.
Following the first part of the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, I hope that it is accepted from the public evidence available that the events of September 11th had clearly been in planning for years, not just for days, weeks or months. We do not vet know what was planned years ago for next year. That is the problem. That is why we are taking precautionary measures as quickly as we can and extending powers. I do not accept the extravagant language that has been used outside your Lordships' House that this is the end of liberal democracy. Our liberal democracy is strengthening its powers to secure and maintain itself as a liberal democracy. I will argue that in any forum. If we did not take some precautions, we would be failing in our duty as a government and as a Parliament.
The amendments on the central issue of the extension of police powers are all neatly grouped together. I shall not go down the highways and byways of all the nuances of the changes. There are several clauses involved and the amendments cover some of the issues. It is important to put on the record the reasons for the content of the clauses. I shall briefly address most, if not all, of the amendments and answer any questions that there may be.

711
The first three amendments in the group—Amendments Nos. 152A, B and C—relate to Clause 89, which amends the Terrorism Act 2000 to allow the police in Scotland to examine fingerprints and DNA samples taken under the powers of that Act when investigating crime generally. At the moment, those records can be searched only if the police are investigating suspected terrorist offences. There is therefore a risk that they will miss connections between terrorist suspects and what I would call ordinary, common or garden criminal offences that may be committed as an adjunct to terrorist activity. For example, a van may be stolen for use as a bomb, but recovered without any evidence of its intended terrorist use. Believe it or not, it would not currently be possible in Scotland to check any prints or samples against those of all previous terrorist suspects, even though that might reveal the true purpose of the theft.
That change was introduced for England and Wales in the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001. Unlike in England and Wales, in Scotland only prints and samples taken under anti-terrorism provisions can be retained if the suspect is not subsequently convicted. Prints and samples taken under other powers must be destroyed. The amendments would constrain the police to using those prints and samples only for terrorist investigations, as is currently the case. They would therefore undermine the purpose of the provision and we shall resist them.
Clauses 90 and 91 give the police necessary additional powers to search and examine persons in detention who will not say who they are or about whose identity there are reasonable doubts. I hope that it is accepted that the investigation of crime and the prevention of further crime can be impeded if it is not possible to make reliable identification. The police also need a specific power to seek identifying marks that would tend to identify a detained person as being involved in the commission of an offence.
Amendments Nos. 153 and 154 would limit those powers to circumstances in which the person was detained in connection with a terrorist investigation. I hope that the flaw in that approach is obvious to the Committee. If the new powers are to be fully effective in supporting the fight against terrorism, we have to take account of the fact that an involvement in or connection with terrorism may become apparent only once the identity of the person is established. To the extent that the powers are relevant in determining or verifying a detained person's identity, they have the potential to reveal important links with terrorism that were not previously suspected.
We want to stop terrorists or their supporters being able to slip easily through the police net. We are adopting a precautionary approach with a modest extension of existing police powers. I accept that in some exceptional circumstances such examinations could prove intrusive. The power to examine someone for an identifying mark to prove their identity could be intrusive. We shall issue guidance to the police about how they should approach situations in which identity cannot be established.
712
The first option is to search through personal belongings and effects for clues. That is the normal approach. If that was not helpful, the next step would be to take fingerprints and photographs. Only if those logical steps drew a blank should the police consider the possibility of a body search for possible identifying marks. Properly used and supported by appropriate guidance, these expanded powers could be very useful in seeking to identify people in connection with investigations.
This may not come as a surprise to some of your Lordships—although it certainly came as a surprise tome, because in 27 years as a constituency Member of Parliament, I had never come across the factbut without the new powers in Clauses 92 and 93, the police will continue to be unable to photograph a detained person who is unwilling to co-operate and who successfully obstructs the process in some way. We are talking about mug shots taken in a police station. I had thought that the police had the legal right to make sure that they could take a photograph, but that is not necessarily the case.
Taking a photograph can be a critical aid to identification or to detection or prevention. For example, it may be desirable to circulate a photograph of a suspected terrorist to areas where relevant offences are being investigated. More directly, the photograph could be compared against existing records. Such records could be at a location remote from the police station in question. It would be self-defeating to limit the powers to circumstances in which a person was detained in connection with a terrorist investigation. Crime is used to fund terrorism. There may be a crime and criminal activity, but the criminal concerned does not know that he is part of some terrorist funding operation. He may just be a job smith criminal. It is important to the authorities to be able to continue to investigate in those circumstances to see whether there are links. It may be apparent only when we have the identity of the person by taking photographs to see whether terrorist links are thrown up.
These new powers will help to ensure that such criminals do not pass through custody unrecognised. They will allow for the use of reasonable force to remove items or substances worn on or over the head or face of the person to be photographed. Such removals will need to be handled with the utmost care, which is self-evident. There needs to be sensitivity to individuals—after all, we are dealing with fellow human beings—and sensitivity to cultural or religious issues. We shall give the police full guidance on that area of activity.
The basic power to take a photograph of a detained person is not a radical intrusion on the rights and freedoms of citizens of this country. It can make a substantial contribution to helping to ensure that terrorists and their supporters are caught and that such activity is prevented.
Amendment No. 155A would restrict the use of photographs and would prohibit their use in cases involving breaches of the peace, obstruction of the

713
highway and minor criminal offences under Sections 4 or 5 of the Public Order Act 1986, referring to the use of threatening, abusive or insulting words. The amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, seeks to limit the use and disclosure of photographs that were taken by a person involved in such activity who was subsequently arrested. The amendment is unnecessary, as it is not the Government's intention that the police or anyone else should circulate photographs of people who are arrested for offences against all and sundry. The taking of a photograph is somewhat less intrusive than the taking of fingerprints, and Clause 92 proposes limitations on the use and disclosure of photographs in exactly the same way as fingerprints.
I assure Members of the Committee that the issues surrounding the use and disclosure, and indeed the retention of photographs, is a matter that the Home Office is considering very carefully, together with the relevant ACPO working groups. We shall issue new guidance on all the new provisions in due course, and there will be specific guidance on the treatment of photographs.
Clauses 94 and 95 provide extended powers to allow a police inspector to give authorisation to officers to require the removal and seizure of face coverings that are worn for the purpose of concealing identity. The authorisation applies only to a particular locality and could last for 24 hours, with an extension of a further 24 hours. Before giving the authorisation the inspector must reasonably believe that the activities may take place in a specified locality within his police area and that such activities are likely to involve the commission of offences.
The power to remove face coverings in a designated area already exists; this is not a brand new power. We are amending the test from reasonable belief that serious violence may take place to reasonable belief that activities that are likely to involve the commission of offences may take place. The tactic of wearing face coverings during outbreaks of public disorder has become increasingly widespread. Demonstrators involved in intimidatory or violent protest often wear masks or balaclavas that hide most of the face. These can serve a double purpose. They can both disguise the identity and heighten the intimidation of the people that the activity is directed against.
I can give an example from my previous ministerial experience in the former Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and. Food. Scientists who were advising the ministry on animal health matters were sometimes visited at home by a mob of up to 20 people wearing balaclavas. Homes were attacked and officers of the ministry who were going about their business were attacked by people wearing masks and balaclavas in a thoroughly intimidatory fashion. Wearing such masks was designed to conceal the identity of the person and to heighten the intimidation. I suspect, although I have no evidence, that in some cases it may lead people to commit acts that they would not normally commit because they think that they cannot be identified.
714
Amendment No. 157 would extend the provision to cover the removal of substances such as face paint. We have considered the issue carefully. Face paint can be difficult to remove. I do not have personal experience, but I know a few people whose children have had their faces painted. Washing facilities are unlikely to be available during a demonstration. We concluded, therefore, that it would be unreasonable to require a demonstrator to remove face paint or to arrest him if he failed to do so. However, we consider it reasonable that a person who is detained at a police station should be required to remove face paint, or for the police to remove it so that the person can be photographed. Clause 93 specifically includes provision for the removal of face paint.
Amendments Nos. 158 and 159 would limit the powers of Clauses 94 and 95 to when it was reasonably believed that the activities involved the commission of terrorist offences. If these powers were limited by the amendments, the police would no longer find them useful for dealing with public order issues when face coverings were worn while crimes were committed. It would be more difficult for the police to obtain intelligence that crimes for terrorist purposes were likely to be committed.
As I said, sometimes the only links between the crime and the terrorism, or the alleged terrorism, are found only during the investigation itself. We are resisting the amendments because the police cannot effectively combat terrorism unless they have some inkling of the identity—sometimes the multiple identities—of the people they are looking for and dealing with. Why should an alleged terrorist have the option of concealing who he is by refusing a reasonable police request to take straightforward action to establish his true identity? What is the problem with that? Providing such powers only when there is already a known link would be an inadequate and half-hearted approach.
On Amendment No. 158ZA, it must be recognised that the police have a difficult job in policing demonstrations. It is a long time since I marched in a demonstration in the late 1960s in Grosvenor Square, but I know how difficult it was for everybody. I did not commit any offences, I should say. It was a peaceful protest all round. However, swift action is needed if it is believed that offences may be committed. We believe that it should be left to the judgment of the police officer on the ground to decide if and when to arrest someone for not removing the face covering that is concealing his identity.
I accept the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, but I believe that we should leave the matter to the good judgment of police officers. If people are aggrieved, there are complaint procedures that they can follow if they feel that they have not had enough time to remove their mask or balaclava.
Amendment No. 158ZB would mean that magistrates no longer had the option of a custodial sentence for a person who failed to remove an item when required to do so by a constable. Under Clause 94, a person who fails to remove an item when required

715
to do so by a constable is liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding one month or to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale, which is £1,000.
Amendments Nos. 158A and 159A amend the penalty for the offence from a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale to a fine not exceeding level 2 on the standard scale, which is £500. We believe that the sentences as drafted reflect the seriousness of the crime. They follow the sentences in Section 60 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, as amended by the Crime and Disorder Act 1998. We consider there is no case to change the penalties for the offence.
For extra clarity it is worth pointing out to the Committee—this will assist the other place which did not necessarily have enough time to debate all of the changes—that there is nothing fundamentally new in this group of clauses. They are extensions. The powers are already in place. We believe that they are a modest, precautionary and, indeed, proportionate approach to the situation in which we find ourselves now of extending the investigatory powers of the police. I realise that there has been a debate about who should make the decision to require the removal of items which may conceal someone's identity. However, one has to bear in mind that the constable, inspector or whoever is carrying out the task must take a reasonable view that the face being covered is being covered in such a way in order wholly or mainly to conceal the identity of the person involved. That may not necessarily be the reason for someone covering his or her face. I refer to cultural and religious reasons for doing so.
I turn to the Immigration Service. Many people enter this country and present themselves at airports with covered faces. However, there is never any problem as regards obtaining a cross-match with a photograph in a passport. The Immigration Service handles the matter carefully and is sensitive to the cultural needs and gender of the people concerned. The matter is not handled in a way that humiliates the people concerned. I can find no evidence of any complaints. Therefore, in my view that matter is a complete red herring in relation to discussion of these issues either inside or outside Parliament.
Existing powers to designate areas where the action we are discussing can be taken have not often been used. A designated area was declared during the May Day demonstrations in central London. Designated areas have also been declared in both Cambridgeshire and Staffordshire to tackle animal rights demonstrators. Such provisions can be incredibly intimidatory for the people concerned. The police will not routinely walk up and down the streets of this country demanding that people remove face coverings, be those red noses, masks, cultural or religious coverings. That does not constitute the power that we are discussing. I genuinely believe that the nature of what is proposed in this extension of police powers meets the current situation following the events of
716
September 11th. It is reasonable that the provision should apply for some time. That is why we do not wish to put a time limit on it.
I end as I began. The events of September 11th were planned many years ago. No one has ever claimed that any part of the Bill, or the whole of it, would of itself have prevented the disaster of September llth. No one has ever made that claim and we do not seek to make it. The Bill is not sufficiently intrusive to enable us to make such a bold claim. The powers that I am discussing constitute modest extensions and are covered by the normal rules governing the police. The guidance issued under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 will be revised and updated to take account of all the activities that I have mentioned. All the necessary existing checks and balances on the use of police powers will be maintained and operated as regards the powers that I am discussing.
I honestly believe that no one—I refer particularly to those who comment on the affairs of Parliament—has made anything like a reasonably decent case as regards criticising the powers in the Bill. They have made a case as regards powers that are not in the Bill in order to get a headline and a thousand word fee. However, we in this Chamber and the other place are responsible for the words in the Bill, not those that journalists think are in the Bill. We should bear that in mind as we continue to debate the Bill. I hope, therefore, that Members of the Committee will not seek to press their amendments.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: I ask—
Lord Elton: I ask—
Lord Campbell of Alloway: I am obliged to my noble friend. I hope that I may ask the noble Lord a simple question of principle concerning the Government's approach to the Bill, to primary legislation which it will involve and to the powers in the Bill to create subordinate legislation. I happen to agree unreservedly with the speech of my noble friend Lord Alexander. I happen to agree unreservedly—although I did not take part in the debate—with the views of the Chamber as expressed on Clause 110 yesterday. However, is the approach this—or, if it is not, should it not be?—that what is provided in the Bill in primary legislation and the powers to create subordinate legislation should be strictly related to the global threat of terrorism as it is perceived and should be proportionate to it? Is that the approach of the Government because, if it is not, I respectfully suggest that it should be and it must be?
3.45 p.m.
Lord Rooker: I believe that it is. The noble Lord has just touched on much wider aspects of the Bill. I have said many times in Committee that we accept that the Bill is being fast-tracked through Parliament. No one denies that. It is self-evident from the lack of time between stages that it is being fast-tracked. There is not much time between stages to permit mature consideration of noble Lords' contributions which

717
have all been extremely useful and helpful to Ministers. Clearly, this Chamber has had more time for discussion than the other place. However, we have repeatedly said that one cannot put in the Bill issues relating only to terrorism for reasons I hope I have explained.
However, I say to the noble Lord that we have indicated that both Chambers ought to have the opportunity to revisit the whole Act of Parliament and to review its operational effect after a reasonable period, as I said at the beginning of last Thursday's debate. I floated the possibility that Members of the Privy Council from both Chambers could take an oversight of the whole Act—notwithstanding the statutory review of the detention powers by the noble Lord, Lord Carlile—with access to security provisions and everything else, report back to the Home Secretary and publish a report to be debated in both Chambers.
Last night the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson, made a suggestion which constituted almost a compromise for those who demanded sunset clauses throughout or a block sunset. We are seriously considering the possibility of "marrying up" the proposal of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson, and the demand of those who want a block sunset; that is, a provision in the Bill to the effect that if within, say, two years—we said 15 months for the first review of the noble Lord, Lord Carlile—the Home Secretary had not published a review of the Act a block sunset would apply. That is an additional reason to set up such a review involving Members of this Chamber. This Chamber would have the right to debate the report which could contain recommendations on the detail of the Act as it would review the operation of the Act. It may state that some parts of the Act are working well but others need strengthening. The report may state that, in the light of experience, some provisions are too far-reaching. That offer is on the table. I genuinely believe that that type of approach would meet the substance of the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell. Many aspects of this primary legislation can create secondary legislation. In a way, the JHA aspect is slightly separate from the nature of the debate that we had last night. But there are other areas where secondary legislation will be created.
It is important that this House and the other place feel comfortable with the operation of the legislative process. If there is not a degree of comfort with it, it will be a festering sore in your Lordships' House and, indeed, in the other place. Frankly, that will interrupt the flow of our business and the consideration of many other issues. That will be to no one's benefit. It will not be to the Government's benefit, the Opposition's benefit or to the benefit of any party.
Therefore, in relation to looking at how the Act works, there is a possibility of compromise consistent with the Government's central objective. That objective is to get the Bill on to the statute book before the Christmas Recess. I make no bones about the fact that our central objective is to deal with this legislation and the necessary orders following the JHA before Christmas.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: Perhaps I may ask the Minister a question. I do so out of deep ignorance, I am afraid. If there were to be included in the Bill sunset clauses and the opportunity to review—I assume that that implies the opportunity to change and to go back upon some decisions in the light of the review in two years' time—what would be the status of that in terms of our obligations in Europe? Would we be able to decide not to pursue a line of action which we had agreed but which, on review, we found for some reason was not acceptable to us? Would it be possible for us to do that and to enforce those changes in the light of our obligations to Europe and the relationship of our law to European law?
Lord Rooker: It is a cop-out for me to say that that is a thoroughly hypothetical question because I understand the noble Baroness's intention in asking it. However, we would have to await the outcome of such a review. If a review took place along the rough lines that I have indicated, it would contain recommendations relating to the Act of Parliament—that is, its sections and subsections—depending on whether they had operated in a good. bad, indifferent or neutral manner. Of course. in any event, aspects of our international obligations must be taken into account; for example, in relation to the derogation from the human rights legislation. Therefore, there is no question that a mix-up with international obligations is involved. Parliament is sovereign. That is the only answer that I can give to the noble Baroness. It is a statement of fact that Parliament is sovereign. That is a pretty good answer.
Lord Elton: That was true, but, alas, it no longer is because there are certain things that we are hound to do by treaty when they are put upon us by a consensus of opinion in Europe. My noble friend asked whether that consensus would leave us free to treat this Bill as we wished in the event of a review such as he described.
I do not want to prolong this debate because many noble Lords want to hear the Statement. However, having listened to the noble Lord, I am reminded that we always refer to this as the "Anti-terrorism Bill". But it is not; it is the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Bill, and the Long Title makes it clear that it is designed to do a great many things other than fight terrorism. That is what makes us uneasy. We believed that we were being summoned to deal with a particular crisis in a particular way and that, when we had dealt with that, we would settle down and deal with questions such as whether photographs should be kept. I draw your Lordships' attention to Clause 90(9) on page 48 of the Bill. The provision set out there is reflected in later clauses. It states:
"A photograph taken under this section … may be used by, or disclosed to, any person for any purpose related to the prevention"—
not of terrorism but the—
… detection of crime, the investigation of an offence or the conduct of a prosecution".

719
The noble Lord is being frank about this matter. He says that crime is a seamless robe, that a terrorist may make a living from selling drugs on the street and that, unless one is aware that every criminal is a potential terrorist or a potential paymaster of a terrorist, one will get nowhere. Those issues take us wider than the purpose for which we believed we were brought to this House. Therefore, the idea of a review, which I found very attractive early on, begins to seem less attractive. I believe that we shall have to look at the whole matter again fairly soon.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: Perhaps I may take the Minister back to his account of the various amendments that have been moved. Some parts of the Bill which we are discussing will have to be implemented by the Scottish Executive and some will not. The Minister mentioned specifically one concerning fingerprinting which will apply to Scotland. Can I take it that the Labour/Liberal Democrat Scottish Executive and the Liberal Democrat Justice Minister are happy with what the Government propose?
Lord Rooker: From the information that we have received from Scotland, the noble Baroness may take it that they are content for us to legislate in this way. From memory, I believe that there is one area where the common law in Scotland is different from that in England and Wales. I cannot remember what it is, but the common law in Scotland suffices for what needs to be done; it does not need to be done in a statutory form.
Lord Marlesford: I found what the Minister said in relation to the amendments before us convincing. He convinced me that, although the provisions which we are discussing the possibility of amending are ancillary, they are also necessary for the combat of terrorism. Later, he started to talk about a compromise in relation to reviewing the Act. If, by that, he meant that we should pass the entire Bill on the basis that there would be a subsequent review, I am afraid that I would not be able to accept that. I believe that parts of the Bill—these amendments do not relate to them—require much more discussion than we shall be able to have over the next few days and I do not consider them to be central to the purpose of the Bill. Therefore, I hope that in due course the Government will be prepared to bring forward those provisions for proper scrutiny and consideration.
The Lord Bishop of Hereford: I want to make some brief remarks on Clauses 89 to 95. Like the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, generally speaking I am convinced by what the Minister said about the necessity of the powers contained in these clauses. However, I am deeply concerned about the way in which they are implemented. In particular, disguise is a very powerful weapon in the armoury of a terrorist. It must be necessary for people to be obliged to remove disguises, but it must be done with the utmost sensitivity, courtesy and consideration. It is not possible to legislate for those things, but it is possible to make one or two provisions, such as, for example, that set out in Amendment No. 157A, which I hope the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, will press. Such provisions will be absolutely vital if that procedure is to be acceptable.
720
In general, I entirely agree with what was said in the Chamber yesterday by noble Lords who criticised Clauses 110 and 111. Indeed, we must stand firm in opposing them. But I hope that the Committee will accept that, in arguing for the broad powers here, the Minister is right in so far as the identity of a terrorist may become evident only after an investigation has begun. I want to commend the points made by the Minister in that respect.
Earl Attlee: Following on from the points raised by my noble friend Lord Marlesford, is the Minister convinced that he has gone far enough? Is it not possible that he will come back at a later stage for another dose of salami powers?
Lord Rooker: We do not have any plans for an Antiterrorism, Crime and Security (Amendment) Bill at the moment. I said yesterday that we make no secret of the factit is what people would have expected—that we trawled Whitehall to find gaps and loopholes in our legislation where we could be vulnerable. We have taken a precautionary approach to closing those gaps and loopholes.
We clearly have plans to bring forward a Bill on extradition but that is not related. It is the result of the review of extradition legislation published 18 months ago. We have said that we will also use that as the vehicle for European arrest warrant details and that we will bring forward another Bill on asylum and immigration in about March. That will follow a White Paper—not related and going much wider—on citizenship and managed migration. It is true that the three Bills were not planned in the gracious Speech as Home Office legislation this Session—but we do not plan any more.
I cannot answer the right reverend Prelate in more detail than I have. I believe that he accepts that the powers are necessary, for which I am grateful. I assure Members of the Committee that we shall rigorously ensure that the powers are operated in conformity with PACE legislation and that the code of practice is unambiguous about how the powers should be used.
4 p.m.
Lord Dixon-Smith: The Minister has given many detailed replies, for which we are all most grateful. Whether or not we agree with everything he says, he has done everything he can to help us forward. I refer in particular to the Minister's welcome offer of a process of review. Our difficulty is that there is no government amendment or anything on paper that would enable us to make a judgment of the value of the noble Lord's assurance. I do not impugn the Minister's integrity—it is simply a matter of reality. If the noble Lord can use the day off from the Bill that we are to enjoy tomorrow to find time to persuade his staff to put something on paper that can be added, to create a reality out of hypothesis, we might be arguing from a different situation.
At the beginning of this debate nearly an hour ago, the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, observed that the emergency which gave rise to the Bill was not temporary. To the extent that the noble Lord was

721
talking about the consequences of September 11th, he is correct. I am glad that the emergency that took the noble Lord out of the Committee has allowed him to return in time to hear me sum up.
The emergency is here, in this Chamber. We have had five consecutive sitting days on the Bill. We shall have one day's break, then sit three more days. The emergency is in the procedures that we are going through—which we have agreed and go through happily—to get the legislation on the statute book. We are as intent on doing that as are the Government—even if we will fight parts of the Bill as strongly as we can. Some aspects of the Bill do not relate to the reasons for bringing it before us and are not justified by the sort of procedures that we are putting ourselves through to achieve the Government's aim.
I accept that we are dealing with a change in circumstance. When the Bill is passed, it will be permanent—subject only to any sunset clauses that Parliament may choose to impose or to any review procedure that the Minister may bring forward. I want to make it clear that we are not dealing with simple, straightforward confusion between a temporary situation and a permanent one. We have had a good debate and the noble Lord has given some thorough answers, for which I am most grateful. At this stage—particularly since many Members are beginning to gather to deal with another matterit would be discreet if I were to conclude now. We may need to return to these issues on another occasion. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 152E and 152C not moved.]
Clause 89 agreed to.
Clause 90 [Searches,examinations and fingerprinting: England and Wales]:
[Amendment No. 153 not moved.]
Clause 90 agreed to.
Clause 91 [Searches,examinations and fingerprinting: Northern Ireland]:
[Amendment No. 154 not moved.]
Clause 91 agreed to.
Clause 92 [Photographing of suspects etc.: England and Wales]:
[Amendments Nos. 155 and 155A not moved.]
Clause 92 agreed to.
Clause 93 [Photographing of suspects etc.: Northern Ireland]:
[Amendment No. 156 not moved.]
Clause 93 agreed to.
Lord Davies of Oldham: I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Local Government Finance
4.7 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (Lord Falconer of Thoroton): My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement made in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Transport. Local Government and the Regions. The Statement is as follows:
"With permission, Mr Speaker, I should like to make a Statement about local authority revenue finance for England 2002–2003.
"Public services are the clearest symbol of community and solidarity. They are literally what we provide together as a society. For millions of people, public services are social justice made real. Our challenge is to take the action and introduce the measures necessary to raise standards, provide choice and improve quality.
"I am pleased to be able to inform the House that this local government settlement will see total support from government grant and business rates of £47.3 billion. That is an increase over this year of £3.3 billion or 7.4 per cent—an increase more than three times the underlying rate of inflation.
"The £47.3 billion is made up of £19.9 billion in revenue support grant, £16.6 billion in business rates and £10.8 billion in special and specific grants. Today, I am announcing details of the allocation to individual authorities of the £36.5 billion of revenue support grant and business rates. When taken together with the police grant of £3.8 billion and other minor adjustments, this represents an increase of 4.8 per cent over this year's allocation.
"So the money will be going in but on its own that will not be enough to secure the extensive improvements we want to see in our public services. So the extra funding must drive forward change. It must ensure that our programme of modernisation and reform is implemented.
"I know that for some change is never easy. But we need to be clear that reform is not the enemy of good quality public services. Put simply, we cannot leave things as they are. The status quo is not an option. So we must invest in reform and insist on results.
"Today's Statement, coupled with the Local Government White Paper which we should publish before Christmas, shows how we will apply this approach to local government.
"Councils deliver a wide range of services which affect all our lives and which are vital in delivering real improvements to our economy and our quality of life. They help to provide better education services and sustain a better deal for the more

723
vulnerable members of society. They are key players in providing a better quality local environment and safer communities.
"For this year, we introduced a system of minimum and maximum grant increases for those authorities with responsibility for education and social services. Such a policy was necessary because we recognised the unfairness that could be caused by the simple application of the present funding formula, which many regard as unfair. I am pleased to be able to inform the House that this will be the final settlement based on the present funding regime. From April 2003, we will introduce a system which is transparent, fair and just.
"The introduction of a minimum ensured that every authority within the scheme got a reasonable level of grant increase. To pay for the floor, we imposed a maximum on grant increases, and scaled back the rises received by authorities between those two levels.
"This approach was generally well received. This year, therefore, I am extending the scheme to shire districts and a group comprising of police authorities, fire authorities, and the Greater London Authority. I am pleased to be able to announce that I am setting the minimum level so that in 2002–03 these authorities will receive a grant increase of at least inflation of 2.3 per cent on a like-for-like basis.
"I have, however, given special consideration to those authorities with responsibility for education and social services. Last year the minimum increase was set at 3.2 per cent. This year, with inflation at 2.3 per cent, I have had to consider whether we could match last year's figure. This would not be easy, but 3.2 per cent would give these authorities an income well above the rate of inflation.
"Some have put forward the case for an even higher floor. Some have suggested 3.5 per cent; others 3.75 per cent. I have rejected these proposals. Instead I want to reflect the value we place on education and social services. I shall be introducing a minimum increase in grant of 4 per cent to all authorities that provide these vital services.
"The introduction of a minimum increase of 4 per cent will make a big difference to a number of authorities. It represents an extra £3 million for Halton, £2.4 million for Middlesbrough; nearly £8 million for Liverpool; £3 million for Nottingham; and £3.5 million for Leeds—money over and above that which they would have received under a simple application of the formula.
"But a minimum level has to be paid for. Some of the cost will be met from placing a ceiling on the grant increases to be received by authorities in each group. These will be 7 per cent for authorities with education and social services responsibilities—up from 6.5 per cent last year; 4 per cent for fire and police authorities; and 10 per cent for shire district
724
councils. However, these ceilings do not fully meet the costs of bringing education or social services councils up to a minimum of 4 per cent.
"This year, councils had their increase scaled back to pay for the introduction of a minimum level. Scaling back would mean that some of these authorities that have raised concerns about their level of funding—like Birmingham, Oxfordshire, Worcestershire, Kent, Nottinghamshire, Derbyshire and Warwickshire which today get a good settlement—would see a reduction to provide for other authorities. Birmingham would lose £1.1 million; Oxfordshire would lose £836,000; Worcestershire would lose £439,000; Kent £2.14 million; Nottinghamshire £659,000; Derbyshire £875,000; and Warwickshire £405,000.
"I have listened to the views of honourable Members, parents, teachers and those with responsibility for care of the vulnerable. I believe that it would be unfair to scale back those increases. I have therefore decided to put an extra £41 million into the revenue support grant so that there will be no reduction in grant for those getting an increase which is below the maximum. For the other two groups, authorities between the minimum and the maximum will see their grant increase scaled back to pay for the floor for their group. For police authorities and fire authorities, my right honourable friend the Home Secretary and I are putting an additional £5.5 million into revenue support grant. That enables us to set the floor for that group at 2.3 per cent without imposing an unduly high scaling factor.
"Following representations made on last year's settlement, I also propose to promote capital investment by excepting—from the floor and the ceiling limits—grant increases that result from new capital spending allocations. Salford will get an extra £1.7 million; Hertfordshire an extra £1.4 million; Bristol an extra £0.9 million; and North Lincolnshire an extra £0.6 million.
"With these grant increases and the stability provided by minimum increases, there is no reason why we should see large increases in council tax next year. I have laid regulations before this House to ensure that taxpayers can see clearly by how much their council tax has changed for each tier of authority. From next spring this will be shown upfront on the bill, not hidden away in a leaflet. Our longer term policies for council tax will be set out in the forthcoming local government White Paper. The increases in general grant will be matched by further good increases in the grants we are providing for specific initiatives. For example, in the next financial year, I can confirm that, as previously announced, there will be £300 million for the neighbourhood renewal fund which will enable councils with the most deprived areas to tackle the real problems they face. I can also confirm that £200 million will be available to help local authorities build care capacity, which will be a

725
significant contribution to allowing them to improve personal social services where we recognise councils face real pressures.
"Local authorities are a vital part of our democratic system. People rightly expect a great deal from their own council. That is why, since we came to office in 1997, we have increased grant to local authorities by £11.3 billion—a real terms increase of over 20 per cent. This stands in stark contrast to the final four years of the Tory government which saw a real terms cut in grant of 7 per cent.
"I believe that this settlement is an important step in ensuring that local councils can meet the needs and aspirations of the communities that they have been elected to serve. It shows that we value local government and the services they provide. This settlement provides the means by which local services can be improved; public services meeting the needs of our people; local councils again recognised as a democratic tier of government. That is the way forward for local authorities. It is the approach which is at the heart of today's Statement. And, as such, I commend it to the House".
My Lords. That concludes the Statement.
4.18 p.m.
Baroness Hanham: My Lords, may I first thank the Minister for bringing this Statement to the House today. In passing, since we are dealing with local government. I declare my usual interest as a member of a local authority.
The total settlement amounts to an increase of 7.4 per cent over last year. However, 3 per cent, or £10.8 billion of that increase, is again being devoted to special and specific grants. Many of these will involve expensive bidding procedures, meaning that once again the grant will continue to be hypothecated or directed in many areas.
Much of the money will go to a limited number of authorities, not to all. So others will either be denied it or will have to spend it on priorities which are not theirs. It also belies the importance placed in the ministerial Statement on local government democracy. This will not be seen as generous or helpful by local authorities.
Does the Minister recognise—the Statement suggests that he does—that the sooner a grant distribution is introduced that is seen to be transparent and fair, the better? I hope that the outcome of the current review, over which there is much concern, will prove to be just that.
This settlement is a reflection of the expectation in the Chancellor's pre-Budget Report that council tax rises will be at least 6.7 per cent, more than three times the level of inflation. That rise alone will come about solely as a result of the Treasury's determination. Does the Minister agree that as a consequence an increase of that size is the lowest that any council will be able to contemplate making? Indeed, does he accept that most
726
councils are already suggesting that they will have to raise council tax by at least 10 per cent to cover all the expenditure that they now incur?
The difficulties that will beset local authorities in reaching decisions on council tax levies will he predicated by the extra burdens that are continually introduced during the year. They are under-funded at that stage and insufficiently funded in the annual settlement.
Although the Minister points to education and social service authorities receiving an extra 4 per cent, will he say whether the pay settlements for teachers in particular but also those for other local authority workers will be fully funded? If not, there is a potential cost to be borne by the council tax payer over and above the 4 per cent figure. Does he also recognise that many local authorities are already spending well above their standard spending assessment on those services? The additional sums are already entirely borne by the council tax payer.
Does the Minister accept that there will be great variation in council tax charges because of the vagaries of the systems and the continuing changes to methodology, which switch resources within the revenue support grant? Does he also accept that as a result of previous decisions over the lifetime of the previous Parliament, shire counties lost an estimated £700 million in funding and London local authorities more than £450 million, and that such problems will continue under today's settlement?
Does the Minister accept that social services are currently under-funded overall by some £1 billion, but that there is now enormous pressure on them to provide facilities and care for the elderly to enable them to be looked after in their own homes or, in particular, in care homes? Does he understand that the regulations and costs that are placed on private homes are driving them out of existence and that, if the pressure on hospital beds is to be relieved, such facilities will again have to be provided by local authorities? While the sum of £200 million is to be welcomed for personal social services, it will not, I fear, go very far towards achieving the capacity that is now necessary.
There are many extra burdens from "best value" to fridge recycling and including concessionary fares, the extra priorities associated with the homeless and the increasing number of homeless people, landfill taxes, the cost of asylum seekers, the changes to the area cost adjustment, which was meant to help authorities with the highest costs but is still not at a level that reflects that and is subject to changes that switch resources from one type of authority to another, and the abolition of ACT, which has meant that councils have had to increase substantially the amount that they contribute annually to support their pension funds. Does the Minister realise that most of those burdens drive most council leaders to despair? All of those factors increase the costs of councils and consequently the amount paid by council tax payers.
I am sure that the Minister will accept that local authorities want stability of finance and the means to provide the services for which they are statutorily

727
responsible at the best standards. This settlement no more does that than previous ones. One can only hope that the current review produces something much more satisfactory for next year and that within it we lose all temptation to work within floors and ceilings. I am certain that anyone listening to the Statement finds that an almost incomprehensible concept, like the relationship between the total standard spending assessment and what councils ultimately receive in grant.
Despite the Minister's reassuring words, the Statement does not have sufficient in it to ensure that local government can carry out its duties to meet the expectations that Ministers and—far more importantly—the public have of it. Every year, the Government say that they have provided sufficient resources to avoid steep council tax increases. My suspicion is that this settlement will be as hollow as was last year's.
4.25 p.m.
Baroness Scott of Needham Market: My Lords, I, too, thank the noble and learned Lord for repeating the Statement. In doing so, I declare my interest as an elected member of Suffolk County Council.
The most noteworthy part of the Statement is the commitment, at long last, to a wholesale review of local government finance. It also contains the explicit recognition that we have been labouring for years under a scheme that is not fair, transparent or just. Can the Minister tell us about the way in which the review might take place? Will it be under the auspices of the White Paper, which is expected soon, or will there be another mechanism? How will local government—individual authorities and the Local Government Association—be involved? Indeed, how will noble Lords and Members of another place, many of whom have much expertise in local government, be involved?
We on these Benches believe that the settlement is reasonable for local government, and we welcome that. Nevertheless, some key issues face local authorities this year, the most pressing of which lie in the area of social care. I should appreciate it if the Minister would spend some time addressing those most pressing social care issues. In recent years, that area of our budgets has been under the greatest pressure. At one end of the scale, children's services are rightly having to develop much more stringent regimes for child protection and for dealing with greater numbers of children. The failure of a very few to do that resulted in the tragic cases that we have seen recently. At the other end of the scale, there has been an increase in the demand for nursing care. The number of people over 80 in this country is set to rise by 68,000 in the coming year.
The Government's recent announcement of extra cash to help prevent bed blocking is welcome, but it falls far short of the £300 million to £400 million that local government believes will be needed this winter to prevent a crisis. Even so, that does not address the underlying structural problems within the social
728
services sector. If the Government are serious about reforming the health service, they need to get to grips with the health provision aspects of local authority work.
Across the spectrum, social services departments are having to deal with increased demand, greater need, market problems in dealing with capacity, cost increases and problems with recruitment and retention of skilled staff.
As we have heard, there is a growing problem with local authority pension schemes, which started a few years ago and which, like almost everything else, have been affected by the events of September 11th. Downturns in the equity market mean that councils have to increase their contribution to the pension fund. In a cash-limited budget, there is only one way to do that—by reducing expenditure on other services.
On pay settlements, although the settlements tend to keep pace with inflation, wages tend to run ahead of it. That is because local authorities have to respond to equal pay issues and to recruitment problems. It is paradoxical that in areas such as social services, in order to attract and retain high quality staff we need to pay them more. But when we do so, we can afford fewer staff.
The environmental, protective and cultural services block is, as ever, the Cinderella of the settlement, despite the fact that quality of life issues fall within that block. The Prime Minister recently referred to it as "liveability". As local authorities move towards a more community-based planning approach, that budget comes under the most pressure to deliver small-scale environmental improvements, which mean much to local communities.
During the Government's first two years in power, when adherence to Conservative spending plans led to very tight settlements for local government, they made more money available to councils, which we welcomed. However, the thread that links this Government with previous governments is the continued dominance of central government over local government's decision-making processes. The landscape is all too familiar. When functions are transferred to local authorities, such as in the Travel Concessions (Eligibility) Bill, enough money never comes with them. When functions are transferred away, there is always a suspicion that the amount that is transferred is too high. We on these Benches will look with interest at the small print and the proposed transfers to the learning and skills councils and the National Care Standards Commission.
The current pressure to passport SSA increases for education severely limits local authority choice and discretion. It also produces serious funding issues for the non-education services. In reality the size of the budget means that social services have traditionally borne the brunt of those choices.
I turn to the theme of local authority expenditure that is controlled from outside. I have a question on the snappily entitled council tax benefit subsidy limitation scheme, which is almost as difficult to explain to people as it is to say. It represents a further

729
control of central government over local government and does not fit in with any notion of transparency or accountability. The Statement is quiet on that matter, but can the Minister say whether the Government have any plans to remove it?
Once again, a major feature of the settlement is the continued rise of the specific grant. That stood at 4.5 per cent of the total budget when the Government came into power. Currently it is moving to 9.6 per cent, and we understand that there are plans to increase it to as much as 15 per cent. When the matched funds that have to be found are added in, that represents a huge control by central government over sums that used to be entirely within the remit of local authorities. Extra money is always welcome, but such a means of distribution creates further centralisation.
Councils have to direct their activities towards meeting government priorities rather than their own. Precious resources are being poured into the development of bids, some 50 per cent of which we know will not be successful. Most cynically of all, a myth is created that a particular authority has failed to win a bid rather than the Government failing to fund it. We shall read the small print with interest and look forward to hearing the Minister's replies.
4.32 p.m.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I thank the noble Baronesses for their guarded welcome to the Statement. They have made a number of points about the detailed provisions with which I shall deal shortly. The noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, raised the matter of ring-fenced grants and indicated, in effect, that she disliked the trend. As she admitted, a large majority of government support for local authorities is not ring-fenced. Ring-fencing has been increasing as a proportion of total government support, but that reflects partly a welcome increase in grants. Ring-fencing makes sense in certain circumstances. For example, in introducing new policies, ring-fenced funds can be targeted on selected projects.
We know that the view expressed by the noble Baroness is the view of local authorities. They are concerned by the increase in ring-fencing over the past few years. We too want local government to continue to be responsible, as much as possible, for spending decisions, so we need to limit ring-fenced grants to areas where they are absolutely necessary. The White Paper on local government, which will be published soon, will set out our position on freeing up local government and will address the issue of ring-fenced grants.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, raised the issue of council tax. Every year we see scaremongering about council tax increases and every year wild forecasts are made in the press and sometimes even by opposition parties. But they often turn out to be wrong. As the noble Baroness knows, local authorities set council tax. Unlike the previous administration, we do not tell local authorities the level at which to set their council tax. Good grant increases and stable
730
grant settlements provide a good landscape within which councils can address the issue of the level of their council tax.
Ultimately, such decisions are taken by local authorities after consulting their local electorate and taxpayers. On what is an acceptable council tax increase, councils should look to the views of their local people and not to Ministers. Views on increases in council tax will be decided at the ballot box.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, said that there will be variations between councils, which is true. The level of council tax will depend on the approach that each council takes to that position. The noble Baroness also referred to the position of social services. The total support for social services rises by 6.5 per cent—£684 million—for 2002–03, which is on top of a rise of £576 million—6.2 per cent—in 2001–02. It brings the total increase under this Government to approximately £2.7 billion. Make no mistake, we are well aware of the pressures on social services. As those figures indicate, we have given significant increases to social services, but constant discussion is required with local authorities, the Department of Health and local government bodies to work out where the pressures are and how best to deal with them. We do not in any way seek to underestimate the problems, but those figures indicate that extra money has been provided to that hard-pressed area.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, went through a number of cost pressures in relation to local authorities. There are cost pressures and we hope that this settlement will make a contribution towards meeting them. She raised the issue of education. On the education budget, the increase is enough to cover all the cost pressures on local education authorities next year: rising pupil numbers, increased contributions to the standards fund and, taking up the point made by the noble Baroness, pay and price increases.
I turn to the points raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Scott. On local government finance, she welcomed the fact that this is to be the last year in which the system will be used. As she rightly said, it is a system that has been the subject of persistent and justified criticism for a long time. She is aware that we have already issued a consultation paper on local government finance. We are discussing options for the reform of the grant distribution system with the local authority associations and representatives of the local authorities. That process has been under way for some time and next year we shall announce our proposals. The noble Baroness also raised the issue of social services. I dealt with that issue when I replied to the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham.
"Liveability" is an important area. Many local authorities say that from time to time that part of the grant is squeezed, but other local authorities have proved that incredibly impressive improvements can be delivered in the public space to the benefit of those who live in the local authority area.
The noble Baroness, Lady Scott, also raised the issue of bidding and said that there are too many funds for which bids have to be made. We agree that there is

731
much to be said for streamlining the number of funds for which one has to bid. I hope that that answers all the questions raised by the noble Baronesses.
4.38 p.m.
Lord Bradshaw: My Lords, I declare an interest as a county councillor on Oxfordshire County Council and as vice-chairman of the Thames Valley Police Authority, both of which are affected by the Statement.
There is a crisis in social services and in hospitals. The hospitals are full. Recently two community hospitals were closed and one was severely reduced in size. Beds in hospitals are blocked because social services cannot afford the prices charged by the care homes, many of which are closing because we cannot afford to buy the beds in them.
If the Government are serious about doing something for the National Health Service, they must solve the problem in social services. An extra £2 million would be useful, but it will go nowhere against the size of the problem that we face. Not only is this problem weighing down the county council, but it is also weighing down every other service that the county council provides. Those services have to be pared back so that the county council can afford the social services. Even so, we are overspending substantially against the Government's criteria. We need assistance. I ask the Minister whether some satisfaction will be given to councils like Oxfordshire to deal with the problem.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, that is an important point. It was raised by the noble Baronesses, Lady Hanham and Lady Scott. I have answered it. We have increased next year's amount by £680 million. Having said that, we recognise that the service is under great pressure. Therefore, we are constantly in discussion with the LGAs about how best to deal with those pressures. I do not underestimate the problems in relation to that important area. As I say, we have increased the amount by 6.5 per cent in cash terms for next year. That is 3.9 per cent in real terms, which is £680 million.
Lord Smith of Leigh: My Lords, I declare an interest as the leader of a council which is not yet, I can assure the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, in a state of despair. We could certainly raise half a cheer in relation to the Statement that my noble and learned friend has given on behalf of the Secretary of State.
My noble and learned friend will recall that in July he attended the conference and a dinner of another organisation of which I am a member—SIGOMA. That represents the most deprived metropolitan areas of the country. Its view is that the current system cannot go soon enough. We get an average of £140 per head less on SSAs, yet end up paying 15 per cent more on council tax. I am sure that we do not need any lessons or any advice on local government finance from the party opposite in view of its record in running it for many years when in power.
732
I want to press my noble and learned friend on the question that the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, asked him. What is the status of the council tax benefit limitation scheme after today's announcement? One of the odd things about the settlement is that the money which the Government say is in the system—the total standard spending—is an absolute fiction. It does not represent the total amount spent by councils up and down the country. It is about time that the figures were brought into line with this fiction which the Civil Service pretend we spend. Perhaps we can then have a system that is less distorted.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, can I respond to the second point by saying that it is noted. As to the first, the council tax benefit limitation scheme, I apologise for not answering the question of the noble Baroness, Lady Scott. I ask my noble friend and the noble Baroness to wait a little longer until the local government White Paper is issued.
Lord King of Bridgwater: My Lords, having sought to grapple with some of these problems in an earlier incarnation, I am not just astonished but enormously encouraged if we are to have a system introduced that will be transparent, fair and just. I look forward to the realisation of the categorical pledge given by the Minister that that is what we shall receive next year. Having said that, I agree very much with the comment made—having had to make this Statement on a number of occasions in another place—that a great many of the numbers are fairly meaningless and usually incomprehensible to anyone listening to them.
One feature emerges clearly from the Statement and the questions. I endorse what the noble Lord from the Liberal Democrat Benches said. When I departed from my constituency earlier this year, it was to the accompanying sound of the closure of private care homes and the serious crisis that that presents. In putting forward these proposals, can the Minister say what assessment has been made of the impact that the amount of money announced will have in terms of the provision of greater facilities in private care homes and for the elderly?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I cannot give the precise figures in relation to what the assessment is. An assessment obviously has been made in relation to it.
Lord King of Bridgwater: My Lords, perhaps the Minister will write to me.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I shall certainly write to the noble Lord. As I have said in answer to all the questions about social services, we fully recognise what the pressures are at the moment.
Lord Shutt of Greetland: My Lords, I. too, declare an interest as a member of a local authority—Calderdale Metropolitan Borough Council in Yorkshire. Looking carefully at the words used about "local authorities" being "a vital part" and "local

733
government being valued", I wonder when "local" will he put back into local government. From my reading of what I have seen, the die is cast as far as concerns education and social services and highways. Members of local authorities will make spending decisions in other areas.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, said that it looked as though council tax rises would be in the region of 6.7 per cent, which would be two or three times the level of inflation. Will the Minister express his view as to what the percentage will be? Is that position right or is it some other figure? If it is right, can he give his view to those members who make these decisions? They are saying to their local electorates, "We must lift council taxes by 6 or 7 per cent and therefore we must look for some reductions". Where do they look for the reductions but in the areas where they have discretion—local amenities, whether it is parks and gardens, museums or theatres or grants to voluntary organisations? What kind of advice would he give to those members who are exercising their discretion? People in those areas are saying to them, "Look, you are the council. You send out the rate bills. It is not the Government who send them out. Why are you sending this out with two or three times the level of inflation on it?"
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, the first part of the noble Lord's question related to "local" community leadership. We would be very keen to see local authorities as local community leaders. By that I mean, identifying the priorities for the locality for which they are the elected local leaders. That will be dealt with in much more detail in the local government White Paper.
As to levels of council tax rises, that is a matter for local community leaders to decide upon. They must decide where their priorities lie in the light of the settlement announced today. They must make the decisions about what level the council tax should be at. They should do it having regard to what their local electorate regards as a sensible level at which to set the local council tax. It is plainly not for me to speculate as to what the average level may be. Nor is it for me to say to local authorities at what level they should set it.
Lord Shutt of Greetland: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, will he not agree that the Statement made today must have some degree of influence on what those local leaders have to decide?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I agree with that, yes.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, perhaps I may ask one question. I may be wrong, but I understood that when we legislated in your Lordships' House about the community care of the elderly, large sums of money were going to be paid by the health service for nursing as opposed to community care. How is that health service money treated in this Statement? Is it treated as part of the increase that local government gets, in which case it is somewhat fictitious, or is it
734
simply not there because it is in the health service budget? Can the Minister answer that question? I was waiting for it to be asked. I thought that it would come from somewhere. It interests me following all the discussion we had about community care.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I think that I should be very careful before I answer that question. Can I write to the noble Baroness?

Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Bill
4.48 p.m.
House again in Committee on Clause 94.
Lord Dixon-Smith Lord Dixon-Smith moved Amendment No. 157A:
Page 54, line 13, at end insert—
"( ) Where a person who has been required by a constable to remove an item under subsection (2)(a) claims to be female—
(a) removal shall not be required until a female officer is present; and
(b) prior to the removal of the offending item, the person required to remove the item shall be informed that there is a fixed penalty of £50 if they have made a false declaration of gender."
The noble Lord said: I have slight difficulty in my mind about Amendment No. 157A and the opinion of the Committee. However, my motivation in tabling the amendment is that the Bill gives power to remove items of clothing used for disguise purposes in potentially riotous situations. I was not clear about the drafting of the clause and to that extent this is a probing amendment. I am unclear as to whether the normal protections—for example, searches and the removal of clothing would in other circumstances normally be undertaken only by people of the same sex—would apply in relation to this particular matter. It is apparent that Clause 94 does not make that a specific requirement as in other parts of the Bill.
Having faced that hurdle, it is not impossible to envisage somebody, who for religious reasons is sensitive about these matters, quite inadvertently being caught in circumstances where the police require the removal of facial cover. This could create problems of great sensitivity for people in that situation. I believe that we should do what we can to ensure that in so far as possible in the circumstances their sensitivities are acknowledged. That deals with the motivation behind the first part of my amendment.
I have recently been exposed to masked demonstrators. At first sight—even half an hour later—I could not tell whether they were male or female. I thought that my senses were reasonably gender-attuned. When people wear black head coverings which also conceal the eyes and modern clothing that is generally shapeless and formless it is difficult to tell whether they are men or women. I sought to deal with the situation where an individual refused to remove a head covering on the grounds of sensitivity and tried to delay proceedings by claiming to be a woman when he was not. That gives rise to paragraph (b) of the amendment which would make a

735
false declaration of gender a fixed penalty offence in that situation. I could think of no other way to do it. I may be told that I have a nasty, suspicious mind; if so, I am sorry. However, I believe that it is a valid point to make. More importantly, I believe that this is a valid question to put to the Minister. This appeared to be the most appropriate way to do it. I beg to move.
Lord Rooker: I apologise to the noble Lord for being a few seconds late. The order was changed and I was half-way down the stairs. I take the noble Lord's point, but I am fairly certain that I can satisfy him.
I return to one matter to which I referred in an earlier debate. The code of practice for the Police and Criminal Evidence Act provides guidance in this area:
"Where there may be religious sensitivities about asking someone to remove a face covering using the powers in Section 25 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, for example in the case of a Muslim woman wearing a face covering for religious purposes, the officer should permit the item to be removed out of public view. Where practicable, the item should be removed in the presence of an officer of the same sex as the person and out of sight of anyone of the opposite sex".
That is the guidance in the code of practice which for practical purposes is about as clear as it could be.
We are talking about an outer layer of clothing—a face covering—which by any definition is not an intrusion into privacy. I also said in earlier debate that immigration staff had no difficulty about it. The amendment refers to someone who claims to be female. There are people who come to this country for operations and present their passports at ports. At first sight the position is not quite clear. We have no problems with that. We treat people sensitively and humanely. As long as we can make the identification it is perfectly all right. We have not experienced any difficulties about that.
There is no power of forcible removal under Clause 94. The police may require the removal and it is an offence not to comply, but I do not believe that there is any difficulty in relation to this issue. There is power to use force in a police station to remove covering for a photograph, but that arises under Clause 92. The guidance to the PACE code of conduct will take full account of the issues which have been raised. As the noble Lord said, this is a probing amendment. I am not aware of any concern about this matter. I accept that it is a matter of sensitivity. It will be dealt with in the most sensitive way at the time the police make such a request, for which they must have reasonable grounds in the first place.
Lord Dixon-Smith: I am grateful to the Minister for his reply. To a certain extent the noble Lord puts my mind at rest. I am not quite sure that he has fully answered the question whether the Bill as drafted supersedes the current code of practice which was drafted to deal with a slightly different situation. One must face the situation that the circumstances in which these powers may be used are somewhat unpredictable
736
and haste may well overcome politeness. It was with that in mind, and to hear the Government's response, that I tabled the amendment.
Lord Rooker: I apologise if I have not made it clear. The code of practice is to be rewritten. The code will be subject to consultation in the normal way early next year and will be fully worked up. The code will be revised to incorporate all the additions in the Bill. We shall double- check it to put beyond doubt that we can deal with the issues raised by the noble Lord. The existing code already provides guidance to police in this area, but we shall check it and consult upon it to make sure that we have got it right.
Lord Monson: Referring to the second leg of the amendment, can the Minister tell the Committee what would happen if a person purporting to be a woman was taken to a police station, asked to remove a headdress and found to be a man? As the law stands, would that be an offence? I suppose that the person would be detained for further questioning because it would obviously be a suspicious thing to do, but would it be an offence?
Lord Rooker: I cannot answer the noble Lord's question without advice. However, the purpose is to establish the identity of the person so that the police can pursue their investigations. The person may lie about age, gender, nationality or other matters. I suspect that in the case referred to, other than wasting a little police time in the investigation it would not be an offence. But the main purpose of the provision is to identify the person concerned. I suspect that that does not answer the noble Lord's specific point, but I am not qualified to do so. One is amazed to discover what is not an offence. Until yesterday it was not an offence for anyone to own a nuclear weapon! It is not an offence to dress in another gender's clothing, but that is not the issue. The purpose is to identify the person.
Lord Elton: I believe that when the original code of conduct was formulated there was some form of parliamentary exposure. Can the noble Lord tell me, perhaps later, whether this matter will be subject to such exposure, or will it simply form the subject of discussion with organised bodies?
5 p.m.
Lord Rooker: I am speaking off the top of my head. I have nothing in front of me. If it were subject to parliamentary exposure in the past, after the way we have put this Bill through the House I shall use my best endeavours to make sure that it is subject to parliamentary exposure. However, I suspect that it is part of PACE that the code of practice is subject to parliamentary exposure.
Lord Dixon-Smith: I am most grateful to the Minister. The supplementary debate, if I may so describe it, has gone a long way to put my mind at rest. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 158 to I58A not moved.]
On Question, Whether Clause 94 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Renton: Before my noble friend intervenes, perhaps I may say a few words. I remember so well a murder case some years ago in which I prosecuted. The murderer at the time he committed the murder was wearing a beard. In order to disguise himself and prevent himself from being found out, he removed the heard after he had committed the murder.
This strange clause, which in my opinion is quite unnecessary—
Lord Rooker: I can give the answer before the question is put. A beard—facial hair—does not qualify as an item under this legislation.
Lord Renton: I merely give that as an illustration of the kind of confusion that can arise if we try to deal with matters of this kind by legislation. The courts already have power to take note of, for example, a change in disguise. This clause goes into detail which is unnecessary because the courts have the power to take note of anything which a constable may have done in the particular circumstances, or which anyone failed to do. As regards emergency legislation, to try to introduce clauses which supplant the powers that the court already has is unnecessary. I hope that my noble friend will agree and argue against the retention of Clause 94.
Lord Dixon-Smith: We tabled notice of our opposition to Clause 94 with the same motivation as led us to have the earlier debate on the first group of amendments. These clauses amend the previous legislation, the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. In the new circumstance, the power to require the removal of facial covers and so forth is enormously expanded.
The provision could actually apply to any demonstration or gathering and not merely to disturbances that might be related to terrorist activity. The difficulties we have were expressed in arguments that I have already enunciated once today and it is superfluous to enunciate them a second time. That is the reason why this and some of the following clauses are before us.
Lord McNally: We share the concerns, not just on the Question of whether this clause shall stand part, but in relation to later clauses. Much of the earlier debate covers the dilemma that has gone right through the coverage of the Bill. I refer to the Government's desire to respond properly and with due urgency to a real threat from terrorists and concerns expressed by learned Lords and others that they are trying to sweep into this Bill powers that are neither emergency nor directly affect terrorism.
As regards this particular stand part Question, I might throw a line to the Minister. Things have changed a great deal since he was on the other side of
738
the line to the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, in Grosvenor Square all those years ago. The noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, as Home Secretary, was giving moral support to the Metropolitan Police when Grosvenor Square was filled with demonstrating young people, among whom the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, counted himself today.
That is a reminder of a little piece of history and I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, will take note of it in Hansard. The fact is that protest has moved on since those innocent days. Face coverings are used in the most sinister and intimidatory ways, just as the Internet is used to mobilise and organise, and mobile telephones are used to direct during demonstrations. They are highly sophisticated operations which the early protestors would hardly recognise.
I understand the need to acknowledge the fact that the nature of protest has changed. However, that does not get us away from the fact that the ways in which protestors and terrorist threats are dealt with are different; they should be dealt with at different paces and with different kinds of parliamentary scrutiny. I think this doubt will continue through many of the issues that the Government are talking about.
I think they would find sympathy on these Benches, but not for a response in an emergency to a terrorist threat. That is why we have doubts that clauses such as Clause 94 should remain in this Bill.
Lord Desai: Perhaps I may say as someone who was in Grosvenor Square at least on two occasions, not very far from a police horse as well—that was a very existential moment in my lifethat at the time those demonstrations were not at all described as peaceful. At the time they were thought to be very sinister and dangerous.
It is easy now to say, "Oh yeah, at that time we were benevolent, everybody was happy and had flowers in their hair". It was not like that at all. Every Home Office Minister at every demonstration described those demonstrations as sinister. That is what the Home Office is for and that is why we have a Home Office. I think, in retrospect, the attitude to major demonstrations in the past couple of years was very alarming. The Government are frightened of people just demonstrating.
There may be more anarchists—they were all Trotskyites or communists in the 1960s—but it remains true that many demonstrators, whether masked or not, are not violent. They are riot intimidating anyone, unless the police take that view. If the police decide to hem them in, as happened last May, problems occur and then we have arrests.
I do not want to say much more than that, but in my view this particular part of the Bill has elevated demonstrators into terrorists, or has removed much of the difference between them. From being intimidating masked animal liberation fighters, to make them into Al'Qaeda terrorists, is a leap of several degrees. I think that we shall regret that. That is all that I can say.

739
Sadly, the provision will pass, but we shall regret it. It is not a minor extension of existing powers, it is a major attack on people's right to demonstrate.
Lord Rooker: I disagree with the last words spoken by my noble friend Lord Desai. Clause 94 is not major. It will become new Section 60AA in the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, as amended by the Crime and Disorder Act 1998. The 1994 Act itself gives police powers to require the removal of face coverings worn for the purpose of concealing identity, and to seize any such items. Clause 94 amends the face-coverings power only so that an authorisation can be given where an inspector reasonably believes that activities may take place in an area that are likely to involve the commission of offences. That is a modest and proportional extension of existing police powers.
I should not have raised the issue in the first place—I realise that—but I think that my noble friend Lord Callaghan of Cardiff would be proud to be part of the Labour Government that ensured that this country was not sucked into the Vietnam War, and that issues were freely raised and campaigned about. I realise how those demonstrations were described in those days, but I do not remember anyone wearing a face mask. A lot of them became television stars. Some of them have made an industry out of it for the past 30 years—I could name one person, but I shall not.
In a mature democracy, we should embrace people who want to demonstrate and air their views; the point is how they go about it and their effect on others who are neutral. We are here dealing with intimidation and possible criminal activity. That is why Clause 94 is wholly justified.
Lord Dixon-Smith: I am grateful that we have had this discussion, if only because I learnt that the noble Lords, Lord Rooker and Lord Desai, appear to have enjoyed the same riotous youth. That is interesting.
We have gone over the principles of the debate sufficiently this afternoon, so we should not pursue the detail any further. We must think carefully about what the Minister said about the clause and related amendments.
Clause 94 agreed to.
Clause 95 [Powers to require removal of disguises: Northern Ireland]:
Lord McNally Lord McNally moved Amendment No. 159:
Page 55. line 39, after "of" insert "terrorist"
The noble Lord said: It occurred to me that we might make separate arrangements for Government Members who want to announce that they were in Grosvenor Square in 1968. I cannot believe that the Minister was talking about the Foreign Secretary when he mentioned someone who has made a career about his presence there. I am sure that that was furthest from his mind.
The Minister of State for Northern Ireland, introducing the clause in the Commons, said:
"I want briefly to put it on record that the Government are taking this valuable opportunity to extend"—
these powers—
"to Northern Ireland".—[Commons, 26/11/01; col. 765.]
We are worried that the Government have taken opportunities to sweep powers into the Bill. As the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, said, that is a recurring theme and this is just one more example of it. I beg to move.
Lord Rooker: I referred to Amendments Nos. 158 and 159 earlier. We have to legislate separately for Northern Ireland, but the issues are the same, so I should only repeat myself if I gave again the answer that I gave then.
Lord McNally: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 159A not moved.]
Clause 95 agreed to.
Clauses 96 and 97 agreed to.
5.15 p.m.
Clause 98 [Jurisdiction of MoD police]:
Lord Dixon-Smith Lord Dixon-Smith moved Amendment No. 160:
Page 59, line 45, after "offence" insert", which he might reasonably assume to be terrorism"
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 160 is grouped with Amendments Nos. 161, 162 and 163. They raise the same point in relation to Clause 98, which deals with the Ministry of Defence Police, and Clause 100, which deals with transport police, as were raised in the first group of amendments that we discussed today. It is superfluous to repeat everything that was said then. I simply reiterate that those arguments are as valid for these amendments as they were then. I beg to move.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: I rise to support the amendment. It was with a sinking feeling that we found the clauses in the Bill. They are highly familiar to me as a former defence spokesman for my party—they are, indeed, exactly the same as the clauses that we were discussing under the Armed Forces Discipline Bill just before the election. We have a range of fundamental questions about whether the provisions are necessary to the Bill. The amendments seem to us to be the absolute minimum that we can do to link the provisions to the anti-terrorist procedures, rather than simply slipping through something that failed to be passed before the election.
Earl Attlee: I apologise for not flagging up the issue that I want to raise by means of an amendment. I hope that the Minister will be able to give me an answer. If not, I am sure that the Committee will understand why.

741
The Minister will have thought carefully about introducing the provisions for the MoD Police, but what about the service police—the Royal Military Police, the RAF Police and the Royal Naval Police? I appreciate that they must be the subject of a reserved power under the affirmative resolution procedure. but did the Minister consider the position of the service police when he discussed the Bill with colleagues?
Lord Bradshaw: I rise to speak to the amendment concerning the British Transport Police. The British Transport Police is a substantial body of people spread throughout the country. They have long laboured under the disability that if a miscreant is found on railway premises, they are unable to pursue him beyond the boundary fence. They cannot chase someone into the street or over the fence, because their powers as police constables lapse when they reach the open air, as it were. Unlike the Ministry of Defence Police, or the nuclear police force, they are trained at Ashford as ordinary constables. Basically, they are an unarmed police force.
The Minister told us that there was a trawl of measures from the shelves of various ministries and that some of those measures have been put into the Bill. For reasons of safety, it is important that transport police officers should be given an extended jurisdiction so that they can pursue miscreants beyond the boundaries of railway premises. While I fully support the premise that the extension of powers to combat terrorism should form the sole impetus of the Bill, we have long awaited an extension of the area of jurisdiction of the British Transport Police. I hope that, whatever decision is taken as a result of the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, the power of the British Transport Police to act as constables with the same jurisdiction as other constables will be introduced, subject to the approval, where it is appropriate, of the local police force.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester: I am delighted to follow the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, who made similar remarks in a debate on an Unstarred Question which I tabled on 13th November, which drew attention to the consultation paper on the future of the British Transport Police entitled Modernising the British Transport Police. The provision in Clause 100 of the Bill is not a last-minute proposal; rather it is a power that has been needed for a long time. At present the proposal is moving through a process of consultation and the Government's proposals for extending jurisdiction have received widespread support both in this House and outside. Like the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, I hope that there will be no weakening as regards the inclusion of Clause 100 in the Bill.
In the debate on the Unstarred Question the noble Lord, Lord Condon, described the BTP as an,
"efficient and very effective police force which plays a valuable role in a number of areas of public safety".—[Official Report, 13/11/01; col. 532.]
742
He cited the combating of terrorism as the first of those areas, where the BTP is second only to the Metropolitan Police in the number of terrorist incidents with which they have had to deal over recent years.
For all those reasons, it is important that we support Clause 100 and take advantage of the provisions of the Bill to extend the jurisdiction of the British Transport Police in order to allow them to carry out their job outside railway premises. It must be done in order to protect us all.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Bach): I am grateful to noble Lords for the way in which the amendments have been introduced. Perhaps I may deal first with the Ministry of Defence Police and then move on briefly to the other police forces that have been mentioned in the amendments grouped with Amendment No. 160. However, I should say now that I am grateful to the two noble Lords who have spoken in support of Clause 100 in the Bill.
To return to the Ministry of Defence Police, the amendments arise out of the provisions of Clause 98. The purpose of the clause is to permit the MoD Police to act outside their normal jurisdiction in certain defined circumstances. I should remind the Committee that the MoD Police are a properly constituted civil police force. We are not discussing here the powers of the military police, quite properly referred to by the noble Earl, Lord Attlee. I shall respond to the question he put to me in his intervention; that is, whether the Government would consider extending powers to the service police forces—the provost forces. The answer to the noble Earl's question is no. We have considered the matter, but we do not think that it would be appropriate. Services police are made up of service personnel with authority only over personnel subject to the service discipline Acts. We do not seek to extend their powers.
The Ministry of Defence Police already have authority vested under the Ministry of Defence Police Act 1987 to exercise police powers outside the defence estate at the request of a Home Department police officer provided that it is "in the vicinity" of defence property. We believe that that power has proved too vague and too restrictive to meet the needs of the force under today's conditions. We seek therefore in subsection (2) of Clause 98 to repeal that power and to insert two new and more clearly defined powers as set out in subsection (4).
First, there is an authority to exercise police powers anywhere when requested by another police officer, but only in respect of a significant and specific incident, investigation or operation. I have used the word "significant", but I should not have done so. I refer only to a specific incident, investigation or operation. That proposal appears to have been accepted, at least to the extent that no amendments have been tabled on it at this stage of our proceedings.
Secondly, there is an authority to exercise powers in an emergency, but only in respect of a person whom they suspect of having committed, being in the course

743
of committing or being about to commit an offence, or to save life or prevent or minimise personal injury, and—this is important—where action is needed in a timescale which renders it impossible to secure the attendance of another police officer or a request to take action.
The noble Lord. Lord Wallace of Saltaire, with the battle scars to remind him of the occasion, spoke of this as a rehash of a Bill that was passed only in part before the general election. I hope that these proposals will make him feel easier. Having taken the tenor of the debates held during the proceedings on the Armed Forces Bill, to which the noble Lord referred, we do not propose to resurrect the power proposed in that Bill, which sought to enable the MoD Police to enter into standing agreements with Home Department forces to police areas adjacent to defence property. We think that the powers now being sought will suffice to meet the needs of the force in all likely scenarios. Thus, that change has been introduced.
We believe that the changes set out in the Bill represent a sensible but strictly limited clarification and extension of the powers of the MoD Police to enable them to do the job they have been set, to further co-operation with other police forces and to meet the expectations of the public. The public does have expectations and we must do our best to meet them. However, the powers are especially important at a time of heightened terrorist threat when defence property could very easily become a terrorist target. Lastly, the powers parallel closely those which we seek for the British Transport Police.
In dealing with the amendments, perhaps I may say why we are not able to accept them. Together their effect would be to restrict to a narrow range of incidents the authority of MoD police officers to act outside defence property in an emergency; namely, terrorist incidents where there is danger to life or the risk of personal injury. That would mean that a Ministry of Defence police officer whose assistance in an emergency was sought by a member of the public outside defence property would still be unable to act as a police officer except where terrorism was involved.
From that arises the question whether it is easy to put over in every case precisely whether the incident is one that involves terrorism. The phrase used in Amendment No. 160 is,
"offence which he might reasonably assume to be terrorism".
But what is it reasonable to assume is terrorism? What of the case of going equipped to commit criminal damage, or the use of a stolen car? Would it be reasonable for a Ministry of Defence police officer to assume that that constituted an act of terrorism? What of the possession of a stolen passport? Perhaps I may cite as an example an individual acting suspiciously and tampering with a vehicle. He may be attempting simply to steal it, which would not be an act of terrorism. Alternatively, he may be seeking to place a bomb under the car. Clearly that would be such an act.
In that situation, would we really want the officer to hesitate while he considers whether he has the power to act? Even less, would we want that officer to turn away
744
and allow the offence to take place simply because he decided that it was not a terrorist offence? I think that members of the public would be deeply shocked if they thought that Ministry of Defence police officers, when faced with an incident, had to look at it in such a particular light. That is why, with the greatest respect—I understand why the amendments have been put before the Committee—the Government feel that Amendments Nos. 160 to 163 are, not to put too high a word on it, absurd. They would not deal with the problem.
We are attempting to deal with the problem. Whether this course provides the right answer, only time will tell. I do not believe that attitudes such as those I have expressed would have been acceptable before 11th September; I am quite convinced that they would not be afterwards.
My second point is that under the amendments—even where terrorism was involved—an officer from the Ministry of Defence Police would be unable to act unless there was an immediate danger to life or of personal injury. So the fact that it might be terrorism would not be enough unless it was terrorism intended to cause death or injury to a person. Of course, most terrorist acts are intended to do that, but it is possible that the terrorists might seek to destroy empty property for their own purposes—to frighten, to scare. They are clever, intelligent people who make their own calculations.
If these amendments were agreed to, they would prevent a Ministry of Defence Police officer intervening in a situation where a suspect, believed to be a member of an illegal organisation, was scouting. Again, there would be no immediate threat of violence, but time would be of the essence. Under the Terrorism Act 2000—noble Lords involved in that Bill during its passage through the House will remember it with affection—the Ministry of Defence Police are empowered to arrest members of illegal organisations. But where there was no immediate threat of violence, these amendments would prevent prompt action by the Ministry of Defence Police without a prior request to the local police. I hope that noble Lords are persuaded that agreeing to the amendments would lead to an unsatisfactory result.
As to safeguards, we have given a great deal of thought to the Committee's concerns. The powers are limited strictly to genuine emergencies. The clause states that the officer concerned can exercise the police powers granted under it only when the purpose of his action would be frustrated or seriously prejudiced if he did not act before another police officer could be summoned or contacted. Given the speed of radio communications, that places a severe limitation on the powers of the Ministry of Defence Police.
As regards the British Transport Police, Clause 100 will permit officers to act outside their normal railway jurisdiction on non-railway matters in restricted circumstances. It would appear from the contributions made by noble Lords on all sides of the Committee that Clause 100 is widely supported. It has been argued for a long time that the British Transport Police should

745
have extended powers. In our view, the case is well made out and I do not need to trouble the Committee any longer with the arguments. They are very much the same as those I employed in regard to the Ministry of Defence Police. I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.
5.30 p.m.
The Earl of Onslow: The noble Lord listed the actions the police could not take without these powers. But surely it is right that if I see these crimes being committed, I, as a common citizen, have a citizen's power of arrest? To those of us who have what the Home Secretary calls an airy-fairy, liberal concern for liberty—we call it a deep concern for the proper constitutional government of this country—the noble Lord is saying that if a Ministry of Defence policeman sees the same thing, he cannot do anything because he has to pass by on the other side. I simply do not believe that to be the case.
As for the Minister saying that our worries about the extension of police power are absurd, I believe that it is perfectly reasonable to say that the Government's tendency to ignore civil liberties—of which there have been many examples recently—is not necessarily absurd but plain wrong.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: I accept that the cases of the British Transport Police and the Ministry of Defence Police are rather different. I am less and less persuaded of the case for these specialist police forces. There is an increasingly strong argument that they should be absorbed into the civilian police, but that is a much larger issue.
I remind the Minister of the long history of the Ministry of Defence Police. When we debated the British Transport Police, the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, and I both raised the parallel with the Ministry of Defence Police. The Government Front Bench spokesman at the time said, "Ah, but the MoD Police do not have much contact with the public"—after which we had to remind him about Greenham Common.
My concern began with Menwith Hill and Fylingdales. Extending the powers of the Ministry of Defence Police is not simply to do with the current terrorism Bill. It raises large questions about civil liberties and the kind of demonstrations in which many of us took part in our youth. That is why we wish to circumscribe the extension of these powers as specifically as possible to matters concerned with reasonable suspicion of terrorism.
Lord Bach: I appreciate that the thinking behind many of the amendments is far from absurd. It is concerned with the very important issue of civil liberties, which my noble friend Lord Rooker has dealt with on many occasions. However, it is still my submission that in this instance we may be left with absurd situations if the amendments are agreed to. That is perhaps another way of putting the point.
746
The noble Earl, Lord Onslow, referred to a citizen's power of arrest. Of course, the citizen's power of arrest exists, but no one would claim that it is the equivalent of a police officer's power of arrest. If these amendments were agreed to, a Ministry of Defence policeman would not be entitled to stop and search, let alone arrest. The powers of arrest of a citizen are extremely limited and arise mainly where there is certainty that a crime is being or has been committed. Reasonable suspicion is not always enough. A police constable can rely on reasonable suspicion and use a range of powers to prevent a crime occurring and to detain persons to confirm or eliminate criminality. There is a marked difference between I he powers given by our laws to a citizen when he or she bravely makes an arrest and the powers given to a police officer when he or she stops and searches someone or makes an arrest.
I should say to the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, that we do not accept for one moment that the Ministry of Defence Police do not have contact with members of the public. There is enormous contact between that police force and members of the public. Anyone would think that members of the MoD Police dealt only with people in uniform. That is not the case. They police housing estates in which crimes occur; they undergo the same basic training as other constables; and their primary role is to deal with civilians, dependants, contractors, trades people and visitors to sites. We do not concede for a moment that they have less experience of dealing with people than other police officers.
Lord Monson: As I understand it, at the moment. if a Ministry of Defence Police officer or a British Transport Police officer sees a man picking someone's pocket or driving a vehicle with a defective rear light outside a defence establishment or British Rail property respectively, he cannot do anything about it. The Minister is maintaining that this is an absurd situation and that it will continue to be the case if the amendments are accepted—even though picking pockets and driving with a defective rear light are absolutely nothing to do with terrorism, which is the purpose of the Bill.
Earl Attlee: The noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, prayed in aid my name in support of the amendments. However, I support the Government's provisions. The difficulty with the Armed Forces Bill was that, effectively, the provisions were bounced upon us quite quickly over a quite short time-scale, and therefore the House rightly invited the Government to withdraw them. We have now had more time to think about them, post Armed Forces Bill, and I support the Government's provisions.
Lord Bach: I shall attempt to answer the question raised by the noble Lord, Lord Monson. The Bill will allow the Ministry of Defence Police and the British Transport Police to act on their own only in the circumstances referred to where there is no opportunity to make contact with the civil police.

747
Where there is a possibility of doing that, and of avoiding the crime, that is their duty. They will be allowed to act on their own only if there is no chance of contacting the civil police—because the offence is immediate or because of the particular circumstances. Members of the public would think it peculiar if someone who was a trained police officer was not able to intervene in such circumstances in order to prevent a crime being committed.
Lord Monson: That is the case at present, is it not? As matters stand, MoD and BTP officers cannot intervene.
Lord Bach: The noble Lord is right. They cannot. They can make a citizen's arrest in certain circumstances, though not necessarily for the type of offence referred to. That is why we are trying to change the law, sensibly on this occasion.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester: Does my noble friend recall what happened in 1994, shortly before the Lord Mayor's Show? A police constable—admittedly from the civil force, but that is important, as I shall explain—routinely stopped a man who was having trouble with the gears of a van, and who took out a gun and shot him? The van was found to contain explosives. Had that officer been a member of the Ministry of Defence Police or the British Transport Police, he would have had no power to order the man to stop the van and explain what he was doing. These two clauses are important, because they will give such police officers the protection that the civil police would have in those circumstances.
The Earl of Onslow: Has the noble Lord had vast correspondence from the general public and seen leaders in the newspapers saying, "We cannot allow this anomaly to go on. We must give the Ministry of Defence Police extra powers"? I simply do not believe that.
In the case referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, the policeman stopped the man purely by accident. It had nothing to do with suspecting that the man was a terrorist. It was because the wretched car would not work. No Ministry of Defence policeman would assume, even now, that because the car was not working he had to stop the man or that he might be shot or find explosives. The 1994 corollary does not wash.
Those of us who are worried about the creeping creation of a national police force would be quite happy to have a general debate on the need for such a force and on its proper constitution. There may be a case for that. But the trouble is that it is being introduced under the guise of something else, by stealth, and without proper thinking behind it. That is the complaint. I am convincible of the need for a national police force. I am not convincible of the need to introduce it in dribs and drabs, without a proper plan.
5.45 p.m.
Earl Attlee: If the British Transport Police or the Ministry of Defence Police intervene outside their current jurisdiction using the new powers, can the Minister confirm that Home Office police forces will have primacy over the handling of an incident?
Lord Bach: Yes, I can give that confirmation. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Faulkner of Worcester for his example. I could give others, but it may not be necessary to do so. I appreciate and respect the concern expressed by the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, about civil liberties and the need not to change matters just for the sake of it. But I am afraid that, following the events of 11th September, we live in a different world. They woke us up to what terrorists were capable of. Perhaps we should have woken up sooner—I know that noble Lords on all sides of the Committee feel that we should have done so.
The British public would not understand it if an MoD policeman saw some suspicious activity—whichcould not necessarily be connected with terrorism at the time but which later turned out to be a preliminary act in the course of committing a terrorist offence—and that officer was not able, because of the law, to intervene and possibly stop the event taking place. That is not an attack on civil liberties. That is protecting freedom, is it not?
Lord McNally: The Minister keeps returning to the mantra, "Things changed on 11th September". We all agree on that. But we understand that, tomorrow, the Home Secretary will publish a White Paper on policing which may involve new primary legislation on policing. Surely the noble Lord is not suggesting that in the new post-11th September world we should abandon the normal procedures of parliamentary scrutiny for powers that are sought by the executive. That is the point that Ministers seem unwilling to accept. Following the events of 11th September, there are matters requiring immediacy and urgency that both Houses are ready and willing to concede. But there are other matters which must receive proper scrutiny. I suspect that, tomorrow, the Home Office will announce matters covering the police which will certainly reflect on the events of l1th September, but which will also need the kind of close scrutiny that Parliament must protect and must reserve to itself.
Lord Bach: I do not think that, during the course of my brief foray into the Bill, I have said anything to imply that I do not believe that it is entirely appropriate that both Houses of Parliament should scrutinise the Bill with enormous care, as the Committee is doing at present. It is absolutely right and proper that it should do so. Parliament is a protector of our freedoms. But the Government are also entitled to give their views as to why we believe that certain actions and certain changes are necessary. As we have all woken up to a certain extent since September 11th, we can, with some justification, defend what we are doing on that basis. I hope that the noble Lord is not suggesting—I do not believe that he

749
is—that this particular Minister, or any Minister in this place. is suggesting that proper scrutiny is not a necessity for a Bill of this kind.
Lord Dixon-Smith: We have had a good debate on this group of amendments. The Minister has rightly laid out the dilemma in the existing position as regards Ministry of Defence Police and the British Transport Police. I accept that there is a logical case for what the Government seek to do in the Bill. That, however, is not the argument.
The argument is about whether it is appropriate to deal with matters of this nature, which are more relevant to normal police matters and normal criminal legislation, in a Bill that is being rushed through its parliamentary procedures as a specific consequence of the tragic and dreadful events of 11th September. That is the fundamental argument which will probably continue to divide us.
As I have said, this is the fifth consecutive day of debate on the Bill. That is not unprecedented, but it is extremely unusual in the practices of this House. I speak as someone who has had to spend a great deal of time on the Bill, as have the Minister and his colleagues. I should be surprised if anyone who has been through that mill is prepared to say, hand on heart, that we have been able to give complete and adequate consideration to the Bill's provisions and to their consequences. I do not feel that we have been able to do justice to the seriousness of the matters before us because of the procedures that we are indulging in. I have said sufficient. This has been a recurring theme. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 161 not moved.]
On Question, Whether Clause 98 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: It is undoubtedly convenient for the Government to bring back as part of this Bill what would otherwise have been a separate short Bill on the future of the Ministry of Defence Police. However, we are not here to assist the convenience of the Government.
Paragraph 68 of the report of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, published on 14th November, notes that the powers that will be conferred on the Ministry of Defence Police engage rights under eight different articles of the European Convention on Human Rights. The report points out:
"The ordinary constabularies are subject to elaborate mechanisms designed to provide safeguards for those rights, including subjection to various Codes of Practice, recording requirements, complaints procedures and training programmes.… It is not clear how those safeguards will be applied to, and operated by, the Ministry of Defence Police, the British Transport Police, and the Atomic Energy Authority special constables".
The report then says, in some of its strongest language:
"Until the extent to which the safeguards surrounding the procedures of Home Office police forces will apply to the Ministry of Defence Police, the British Transport Police, and the Atomic Energy Authority special constables in their new functions is
750
clarified, we are unable to be confident that the Bill provides adequate safeguards against abuse of or interference in human rights. We draw these matters to the attention of each House".
That is as strong an invitation as we could ask for us to give very careful consideration to these clauses.
As I have said on a previous amendment, there is a long history of discussion on the Ministry of Defence Police. There have been a number of worrying cases of the use and abuse of powers against people innolved in demonstrations against American intelligence bases—particularly those in Yorkshire and elsewhere—or against nuclear weapons. The particular issue of American intelligence bases gives rise to another set of large questions about extraterritoriality and about the Ministry of Defence Police in effect operating under the authority of another government, which creates particular concerns about the protection of human rights and civil liberties.
The particular issues on which those sections of the Armed Forces Bill failed to meet with the approval of this House were the authority of the police committee and whether the force should be subject to the same sort of independent police committee as civilian forces have. We also retain concerns about the quality of the complaints procedures and training programmes. I have heard unofficially from a number of members of the Association of Chief Police Officers that many of them have some reservations about the quality of the training programmes in the Ministry of Defence Police.
I give the Government notice that we are minded on these Benches to re-introduce on Report the amendments that led to the failure of those clauses in the Armed Forces Bill just before the election. Those amendments dealt with the establishment of an autonomous and independent police committee for the MoD Police.
When I saw the list of members of the police committee of the MoD Police I felt with a sinking heart that I knew far too many of them. They are almost all officials. They operate with a secretary from the Ministry of Defence. They are in no sense independent. We are entitled to ask under any conditions, even when we are concerned with the prevention of terrorism, that those safeguards should be provided. We expect to have some assurance from the Government by Thursday at the latest that if they continue to find it convenient to include Clauses 98 and 99 in this Bill, they will yield to the House on the issues raised in the report, which we also raised during the debates on the Armed Forces Bill.
Viscount Bledisloe: On the previous amendment, my feelings and sympathy were entirely with the Minister, because, pace the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, the fact that clauses produce an undesirable result is no possible argument in favour of amending them to produce yet more absurd results.
However, on the Question whether the clause shall stand part, I am much more in sympathy with what the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, has said. The powers conferred in the clause raise many problems that cannot properly be addressed within the time frame of

751
the Bill. The Government have two choices. First, they could abandon the clauses and bring them back at a later stage in a police Bill. However, if, as I gravely suspect, they are not minded to do that, surely they have given a cogent reason why this part of the Act—indeed, the whole Act—needs a sunset clause. Afterall, only a quarter of an hour ago, the noble Lord, Lord Bach, candidly said that only time would show whether the Government had got the right answer. Surely that is an overwhelming reason for the whole topic to be revisited in a short time in a calmer and more leisurely manner.
The Earl of Onslow: I was very struck by what the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, said—this had slipped mymemory—about the fact that there is to be a new report on the police. The current worry about police competence and behaviour is wider than I have been aware of during my life. Home Office leaks suggest that the Home Secretary is thinking of taking powers to remove chief constables if they do not perform. That will need legislation. If that is the case, I wonder whether it would not be better to drop these clauses and put them into a police Bill. If any of the leaks coming out of the Home Office are right, such a Bill will be necessary. Then we could look at control, discipline, civilian non-government influence and other issues—and even, possibly, whether there is a need for specialist Ministry of Defence and transport police forces.
The proposals may be the right answer, but surely it is miles more sensible to act with thought and consideration. I do not believe that a three-month or six-month lack of extended powers for the Ministry of Defence Police will make a smidgen of difference to terrorist activities. Perhaps I am a little cynical, but I cannot see any way in which the Bill would have had any effect on the behaviour of the terrorists before September 11th. There was a general failure of intelligence. Had the intelligence been as good as it was in the novel The Day of the Jackal we would have got the terrorists and stopped what happened. There is an element of over-reaction now, some of which I go along with partially. Going back to what the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, said, please let us think before we do anything. If we do, we might have a chance of getting it right. If we do not think, we will not get it right.
6 P.m.
Lord Burnham: Your Lordships are always being told that we should not make Second Reading speeches in Committee. I fear that on this occasion, a number of Members of the Committee, including the Minister, are making speeches that relate not to this Bill but to a previous one—the Armed Forces Bill—which we discussed before the general election.
The noble Lord, Lord Bach, knows only too well that when we discussed that Bill we said that it was not necessary to produce it in quite such a hurry and that it need not be in force before December. However, the Government decided that they wanted to get on with
752
it in May. As a result, in spite of what was said by my honourable friends in another place, it was decided to eliminate Part 4, comprising Clauses 31 to 34, from the Bill.
I listened to what Members of the Committee and the Minister had to say on the previous amendment. The Minister is singing the old song that he and his noble friend sang when we said that we were working in too much of a hurry and could not resolve matters. That was particularly true on the issues raised in the previous amendment about the powers of the Ministry of Defence Police and how much authority they have outside their immediate areas and various other matters.
The Minister also said that the Government did not intend to revive Part 4 of the Armed Forces Bill. However, it seems appropriate that because there is so much argument about the Ministry of Defence Police that such a Bill should be revived. We should have the chance to resurrect that part of the Armed Forces Bill, have full-blooded debates and procedures on it and eliminate those parts of this Bill which would be inappropriate if such a debate were to take place.
Lord Bach: I have already explained to the Committee the purpose behind Clause 98. It permits the Ministry of Defence Police to act outside their normal jurisdiction in certain defined, limited circumstances. The Committee knows well—some Members more than others—the history of the Bill discussed before the general election and will know of the existing authority that the Ministry of Defence Police have under the 1987 Act to exercise police powers outside the defence estate at the request of a Home Department police officer provided it is in the vicinity of the defence property. I do not know whether that right is being objected to.
I take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, that it is an issue that he has raised many times over the years. We believe that for the situation in which we find ourselves, which is likely to last. it is important to make these changes now. We reject the suggestion of the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, that all this is completely irrelevant and has nothing to do with what happened before or after 11th September. We do not believe that. We think that it is time that we got it together to defend ourselves in the best possible way against terrorists and others because that is what the public expects of us.
It is in that spirit that we bring the clause to the Committee. We believe that the limited nature of what we are suggesting and the absurdities that the proposed changes would represent, as discussed at length on the previous group of amendments, show that it is a necessary clause to the Bill. It is a sensible clarification and extension of the powers of the MoD Police to enable them to do the job that they have been set and to allow further co-operation between police forces. I repeat, and make no apology for doing so, that the clause meets the expectations of the public.
These powers are especially important because of the heightened terrorist threat when defence propertyagain I am repeating myself—could so

753
easily be a terrorist target. It is right to scrutinise and consider these clauses carefully, which is what is happening. The easy historical criticisms of the Ministry of Defence Police seem to be completely and obviously misplaced. The MoD Police are subject to the Police Complaints Authority in respect of complaints by virtue of Section 96 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act. That has been the case for a long time.
We are considering the issue of police committee membership. Members of the Committee will know that we have added three independent members to the committee and we are looking to see whether more needs to be clone. It has been suggested that meetings of the police committee should be held in public. The chief constable has said that he would welcome that proposal in the light of his experience in the West Yorkshire Police. We are not determined that the structures of the Ministry of Defence Police should necessarily remain the same. Things are moving along.
I return to the argument that for the circumstances in which we find ourselves Clause 98 is a sensible and limited response so that the Ministry of Defence Police can carry out the functions that they are meant to do. I hope that Clause 98 will stand part.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: The Minister has failed to persuade us that Clauses 98 and 99 are a necessary response to terrorism. I welcome his suggestion that things are moving, but I remind him that all is still not well with the Ministry of Defence Police. A number of inquires are under way and there are unresolved complaints that leave big questions as to whether or not they have the same standards as a civilian force.
Of course, there are problems with the protection of defence property, which is the fundamental role of the Ministry of Defence Police. We should also remember that defence property can be sensitive in a host of ways if we come back to the question of the breaking of the ABM treaty and the use of Fylingdales in support of a missile defence system that is owned and operated on behalf of the United States. We shall have a sensitive domestic debate in which the Ministry of Defence Police will again come into contact with civilians who are demonstrating, which has nothing to do with terrorism but which may have a great deal to do with sensitive issues of domestic politics and foreign policy.
I am very sympathetic to the points made by the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, that a police Bill would be a more appropriate place to discuss the relationship of these specialised forces. I was informed yesterday that there are nine such forces, although my informant could not name them all. He mentioned the Tilbury Docks Police, but the three that we have been discussing are the most important. In such a Bill, the role of these specialised forces could be discussed comparatively. The way in which they operate and their standards with regard to the protection of civil liberties and complaints procedures could be
754
compared with the Home Department police forces and thoroughly debated.
As regards defence property, we are thoroughly in favour of the MoD Police being given all the necessary powers to protect it. As regards the relationship with people off a base or at some distance from a base, we then become involved with much more sensitive issues. We shall return to the matter on Thursday. We may well wish to press the point and remove the relevant clauses from the Bill. However, there is room for further discussion between now and then as regards what the Government might wish to concede. I refer to further movement in terms of responding to the extremely critical remarks in the report of the Joint Committee on Human Rights. However, for the moment, I withdraw my opposition to the clause.
Clause 98 agreed to.
Clause 99 agreed to.
Clause 100 [Jurisdiction of transport police]
[Amendments Nos. 162 and 163 not moved.]
Clause 100 agreed to.
Clause 101 agreed to.
[Amendment No. 163ZA not moved.]
Schedule 7 agreed to.
Clause 102 [Codes and agreements about the retention of communications data]:
The Earl of Northesk The Earl of Northesk moved Amendment No 163A:
Page 62, line 7, leave out from "State" to "a" and insert ", business representatives and the Information Commissioner shall jointly issue"
The noble Earl said: In moving Amendment No. 163A, I wish also to touch upon the other amendments in the group, Amendments Nos. 164, 164A,B,C and D. 165A, 174A and 176C. That said, I do not propose to weary the Committee by speaking to each and every amendment in turn. Some general observations should suffice to explain their thrust.
They pursue two discrete, albeit intertwined, strands of thought: first, that a broad range of business interests should be involved in the drafting of the code of practice and, secondly, that the Information Commissioner should also be involved. With respect to the first of those matters, I acknowledge and compliment the Government on the way in which representatives of communications service providers have been involved thus far in the development of the proposals on the face of the Bill. As the Minister will be aware, they still have outstanding concerns, not least that the current drafting lacks legal certainty in a number of key areas. None the less, their involvement to date has been helpful. It chimes with the Government's assurance that they would work with business to produce the code of practice.
That said, the Bill is potentially very wide in application. It extends, so far as I can tell, to any telecoms service provider, even those of private networks. For example, as I read the Bill, it is conceivable that the PDVN will fall within its scope and could be obliged to retain all its communications data. Perhaps the Minister can address that point in due course. It therefore makes sense that the

755
Government should be subject to a statutory requirement to consult with a broad range of business interests in devising the code of practice, if only because—this is a particular concern of the CBI—a limitation of the scope of consultation could penalise existing business practices.
Moreover, pro-active involvement in the drafting of the code from a broad base should lessen the likelihood of non-compliance and thereby reduce the need for the Secretary of State to issue directions. Address of these concerns is embodied in a package of amendments comprising Amendments Nos. 163A, 164A, 165A and 173A, although, inevitably, there is some cross-referencing within these as to the potential role of the Information Commissioner.
Turning to that matter, I express considerable surprise that the Government have not included the Information Commissioner as an appropriate consultee. As the Committee will be aware, she has statutory responsibility for promoting and enforcing the Data Protection Act 1998 which, in turn, sets legally enforceable standards in relation to the processing of personal data. With that remit, it is incredible that the Government feel that she has no role to play in the drafting of the code. As she herself has observed in her memorandum on the Bill,
"The [Bill] provides for consultation with communications providers at the point of production or revision of a code. There are a number of other interested parties who should be involved in any consultation process. Given the Commissioner's role in enforcing legislation affecting the retention of data it is essential that she be included formally in the consultation process".
We on these Benches agree with that view.
In fact, there is an even more significant reason as to why the involvement of the Information Commissioner is so essential. Those Members of the Committee who have followed the development of data legislation will be only too well aware of what a tangled web it already is. The tensions that exist between the Data Protection and Regulation of Investigatory Powers Acts are legion and a dangerous minefield for the unwary. One need only contemplate the huge difficulties that the Information Commissioner has had in preparing a code of practice on the legal business practice regulations to get a flavour of how inconsistent the law is here. It would, in my view, be the height of lunacy to enact the provisions on the face of the Bill without ensuring that mechanisms are in place to ensure that the code of practice has at least some consistency with existing legislation. Such a task is within the Information Commissioner's remit and so it is essential that she be formally consulted about the code. At the very least that would undoubtedly improve its legal clarity and ensure that the interests of users are more formally taken into account. I beg to move.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Goodhart: Amendment No. 164, in the names of my noble friends and myself, is probably in the wrong place in the clause. Nevertheless, we strongly support the principle that the Information
756
Commissioner should be actively involved in consultation and in the preparation of the code and we believe that that should be on the face of the Bill.
Lord Rooker: It is probably inadvisable to repeat what I have done in previous debates today, namely, to address every amendment in the group. As the noble Earl said, the thrust of the amendments is encapsulated in two issues: that of the business interests and that of the Information Commissioner. He asked specifically whether the measure included any telecoms provider. That is the case. It includes private networks. Our main objective is to include the public networks such as BT, Orange and Vodaphone. However, private networks are also included. I refer to the intranets of private companies, universities and, indeed, the PDVN, which is a private network. However, as I say, our central objective is to include the public networks.
It is important to discuss the matter with all providers. That practice must be followed with regard to the code of practice. We have every expectation of reaching a voluntary agreement on the matter. Co-operation since September 11th has been extremely good. The key clause is, indeed, Clause 102 which sets out a voluntary code of practice which may be revised.
Retaining the data is one thing but what is done with it will fully conform with human rights legislation and the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act. I hope that there is no scintilla of doubt about that. We fully intend to conform with all the legal requirements. As I and Ministers in another place have already said, the data that are retained do not include messages or conversations. That bears repeating. We do not seek to monitor the content of telephone conversations or e-mails.
The information that we shall require providers to retain is information that they hold now for billing purposes. We have all seen telephone bills. Some are more detailed than others. But it is known that if one has a mobile phone—indeed, these days it applies also to landline telephones—the bill supplies the date of the call, the phone number dialled, the duration of the call and the date on which it took place. The billing address is also a useful piece of information. All those data are important. The content of the call is not retained and we do not seek that. As I said, our intention is to operate a voluntary system. From the conversations and discussions that we have had so far, we have every reason to believe that we shall arrive at a voluntary agreement.
I could go through all the amendments at length but I do not propose to do so, save for one—Amendment No. 164D. I ask Members opposite not to fall over because I am going to accept it. The parliamentary draftsman produced a better form of wording, but I asked what difference it would make. The answer was: none. It is much easier to make it abundantly clear—I hope that this meets the noble Lord's point about the Information Commissioner—that we have no intention of cutting out the Information

757
Commissioner in any way, shape or form. He has a statutory function to perform and will be consulted fully beforehand.
What we do not consider to be a good idea is a joint code issued by government, industry and the Information Commissioner. That would be wholly impractical. The buck stops with the Home Secretary. However, the fact is that we shall accept the amendment without any knock-ons in relation to technical drafting. In any event, I cannot see anything wrong with the wording. Amendment No. 164D is acceptable to the Government and I hope that in due course the noble Lord will move it. I sincerely hope that he will because, as 1 said earlier today, the timing for reprinting the Bill for Report stage is crucial. Therefore, we shall accept that amendment.
Having said that, I am quite happy to deal in detail with the other amendments in this group. I return to my initial remarks concerning the legal aspects of what we do with the data. Perhaps I may mention one matter. At Second Reading, I believe, a noble Lord said that there would be information overload. There will be no such thing. We do not seek block transfers of information. We are asking the providers to keep the information that they use for billing purposes for a period which will he set out in the code. That period has still to be agreed. Requests for such information would be made only when the Government needed access to it. It will not be a wholesale transfer, and there is no question of information overload in that respect. I cannot go over the details of the code because they have still to be agreed. But we require that provision and shall continue with our discussions. We expect to be able to secure agreement to a successful voluntary code.
Lord Lucas: I want to pick up on one point made by the noble Lord. Most communications data have nothing whatever to do with billing. Almost all the communications data concerned with Internet transactions have nothing to do with billing because billing is done simply on, as it were, a leasing-of-afacility basis. Therefore, I hope that the Minister does not believe that he needs that data because the billing data are sufficient. He is talking about a vast amount of data. Several new computers a day will be required for the length of time that the noble Lord wants to hold such data if he is to access the entire amount. It is very important that the Government know what they want and restrict their demands to what they want and what they can use rather than to the vast amounts of data which are there.
Lord Rooker: I accept that data retention in relation to e-mail is wholly different from that for telephones. The information that I have in front of me appears in two columns, and my remarks were related exclusively to telephone data. For obvious reasons, e-mail is more difficult in that respect. Nevertheless, the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act will guide how
758
information is sought. However, we are not seeking to over-burden industry. As I said, the idea is that the code of practice will be agreed by industry.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: While the Minister is on a roll and has kindly conceded the need to consult the Information Commissioner, I wonder whether he has overlooked Amendment No. 164B. That amendment calls for consultation with all interested parties, including Internet providers and, now, the Information Commissioner. Quite rightly the Minister has referred to the interaction of this piece of legislation with the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act. They will be infinitely inter-related, and that will cause some of us further excitement. However, Section 71 of the RIP Act expressly provides that, before issuing a code of practice, the Secretary of State shall,
"prepare and publish a draft of that code; and"—
here is my point—
"consider any representations made to him about the draft".
I believe that, in its own way, Amendment No. 164B was designed to cover the same ground; namely, that the consultation should be wide enough to allow anyone with an interest to respond to the draft code. I should have thought that that would be helpful to the Secretary of State. Therefore, I wonder whether the Minister might review that point.
Lord Rooker: I should not want to put that on the face of the Bill. We shall publish a draft code and shall consider any and every comment and representation on it from wherever it comes. The requirement to consult all interested parties, as opposed to industry and the Information Commissioner, does not prevent anyone—individuals, citizens or whoever—offering advice and comment on the draft code.
However, we should bear in mind what the noble Lord said a few moments ago about the vast amount of information and the millions of people involved. That. would make a nonsense of the procedure because someone would run to my learned friends and say. "You have missed 2 million people in the North of England because all interested parties are on the Net or have mobile phones". We are concerned with the providers and with the mechanics of the issue. We shall do our best to ensure that all those with a relevant interest—that does not exclude anyone else making a comment on the draft code—will be considered.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: That is a very fair point. However, I simply wondered whether the Minister agreed that the duty to consult should not be on the face of the Bill. But, as in the RIP Act, perhaps a provision could be included stating that the Secretary of State will consider any representations made to him. It would be a passive duty.
Lord Rooker: I am saying that now. Let us forget the code; I am saying that on the Floor of this Chamber. We shall consider all representations. No one will be excluded from making a representation. Those

759
representations will be considered by Ministers in due course before the final code is published. That is my commitment.
The Earl of Northesk: I am not sure whether it is the result of the eloquence of my oratory or perhaps the support of the Liberal Democrat Benches, but I am extremely grateful for the Minister's acceptance of Amendment No. 164D. In the circumstances, I should not push too much more—certainly not within this group. I shall therefore resist the temptation of pursuing the matter of business involvement at this stage.
I heard what the Minister said about public versus private networks. In truth, it raised my hackles somewhat but no doubt we shall return to that matter with later amendments. None the less, I can accept that the Government's focus is on public networks. No doubt we shall return later to a number of other issues raised by the Minister. In the meantime, I am grateful to the noble Lord and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 164 to 164C not moved.]
The Earl of Northesk The Earl of Northesk moved Amendment No. 164D:
Page 62, line 17, at end insert—
"( ) Before issuing or revising a code under this section the Secretary of State shall consult with the Information Commissioner."
On Question, amendment agreed to.
6.30 p.m.
The Earl of Northesk The Earl of Northesk moved Amendment No. 165:
Page 62, line 18, leave out subsection (4) and insert—
"( ) Where the Secretary of State issues or revises a code of practice or enters into an agreement under this section, he shall publish the code, the revised code, or, as the case may be, the terms of such agreement."
The noble Earl said: It may be for the convenience of the Committee if I address also Amendments Nos. 165A, 172, 172A and I 76B. No doubt Members on the Liberal Democrat Benches will speak to Amendments Nos. 166 and 167.
The powers granted by Part 11 are exceptionally broad and, like it or not, impact significantly on the individual's right to privacy. Whether they should will form the substance of debate on the next group of amendments. The purpose of Amendment No. 165 is to require the Secretary of State to publish the code of practice, revised code or arrangements—to make such documents available to a wider audience. In that way, all of us will be better placed to know the precise terms under which our data are being retained—an important consideration not only in the protection of individual liberties but in guaranteeing equitable treatment among communications providers.
The Minister may suggest that because the codes and agreements could contain commercially sensitive information, the amendment would be inappropriate. It is concerned with ensuring proportionality and
760
equity of treatment as much for the industry as for the individual. My understanding is that the industry is not unsympathetic to the approach advanced in Amendment No. 165—the more so, if it acts as a brake on any extravagance that might be contemplated for inclusion in any codes or agreements.
Amendment No. 172 is no less important. It seeks to ensure that every code of practice issued by the Secretary of State is laid before Parliament. The principle of data retention is at the heart of the right to privacy. That being so, it is appropriate that codes should be subject to parliamentary scrutiny—a point well made by Justice in its submission to the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee:
"Part 11 would allow for the creation of a large database of information, which could significantly intrude on privacy rights. In light of this it is particularly important that the code and any directions under Clause 102 should be subject to parliamentary scrutiny".
That thread is followed through in Amendment No. 172A. More significantly, it takes account of paragraph 23 of the committee's report on the Bill. We hope that the Government will heed that sound advice.
Amendment No. 176B seeks to prove the extent to which Scottish Ministers will be consulted about Part 11 powers and how appropriate such consultation will be. I have it in mind that RIPA is a reserved matter and presume that data retention powers would be too. Bearing in mind that our debates have demonstrated the great potential threat to individual rights posed by the proposals, it is essential that the devolved administration should be kept within the loop of progress and development.
We see the sense of Amendments Nos. 166 and 167 and support them. I trust that my remarks offer adequate comfort to Members of the Committee on the Liberal Democrat Benches. I beg to move.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: We wholly concur with all that has been said about the amendments—several of which have mixed parentage across Opposition Benches. I emphasise the importance of ensuring that the code should be subject to negative approval by the House of Lords and the other place, given the importance that the Government and the industry attach to the code.
Amendment No. 165 requires publication by the Secretary of State when issuing or revising a code, which extends to any agreement made under the section. That might sound contentious but we believe that complete transparency in the functioning of that important part of the measure will benefit the Government, industry and the world beyond. It will sustain public confidence in a level playing field and in that individuals and particular firms are not being picked off by the Home Office for one reason or another.
Lord Rooker: The Home Office is not going to pick off anyone. I know there is a general view that the Home Office is oppressive. That is not true—it is a very liberal establishment.

761
The amendments require the Secretary of State to publish any code of practice, revision to a code or agreement; and to lay before both Houses a code of practice or revised code. We cannot accept the amendments as tabled because we could not publish the full agreements, as they are likely to contain detailed, commercially sensitive and confidential information about individual service providers. However, we expect the code of practice to be more general in nature than the full agreements. I am happy to give the Committee an undertaking that we will publish a code of practice or revised code where it does not contain such sensitive information.
I remind the Committee that the code of practice and agreements under the code are entirely voluntary. They will not be imposed by the Government on communications providers. Similarly, I shall be happy to place in the Libraries of both Houses summaries of any agreements or directions that do not contain sensitive commercial information, which will ensure that Parliament is informed as to which communications providers there are agreements with, what data they are retaining and for how long. That information could also be published on the Home Office website.
As to the human rights implications of Amendment No. 172A, the code of practice and agreement will be drafted in such a way as to be fully compliant with the Human Rights Act 1998. We will consult the Information Commissioner to help ensure that is achieved.
Access to communications data will be under provisions already contained in the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000. This measure is about retaining data, not about access to them. The 2000 Act requires consideration of the necessity and proportionality of specific notices or authorisations used to access such data. The legislation is structured to ensure full compliance with the European Convention on Human Rights and the 1998 Act. I hope that the Committee agrees that those undertakings will achieve the thoroughly valid intention behind the amendments. We can meet the spirit of the amendments in the way that I have described, so I hope that noble Lords will not seek to press them.
Lord Lucas: The code of practice will apply to something like 100,000 networks throughout the United Kingdom. It will apply to me because I run a little network of three or four computers. The code had jolly well better be a public document. It would be a bit daffy if the Government tried to keep secret something with a circulation that wide. All sorts of people will have to know about the code. The Government should determine that the code will be made public and leave out anything confidential. We shall all need to know about the code, understand what might be required of us and potentially live within it. The notion that the code might under certain circumstances be kept secret is mildly ridiculous.
762
I understand the Minister's comments about the agreements having sensitive elements. I hope that he agrees that under the Freedom of Information Act 2000, it will be possible to obtain the parts of any agreement that are not confidential. I hope that such publication will be a matter of course.
Lord Rooker: I did make the commitment that it would be public, except for sensitive commercial parts. During the course of my remarks I did say the code will be published.
I did not address Amendment No. 176B, relating to Scotland. These provisions are a reserved matter. Scottish Ministers would not expect to be formally consulted before the Secretary of State made directions against service providers in Scotland. There is nothing new about that. We have consulted with the Scottish Executive and have confirmed that data retention is a reserved matter and it does not expect to be formally consulted.
The Earl of Northesk: Once again I express gratitude for support from the Liberal Democrat Benches. I should say that the operators' group would he happy for codes of practice to be openly published—I make that point in passing. But I am grateful for the Minister's undertakings, albeit hedged with provisos on commercially sensitive information. That seems eminently sensible.
I remain slightly nervous on the human rights issue. Parliament does have a role to play. It may help if I read part of the relevant passage from the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. In commenting upon this issue, they endorsed the views of the Human Rights Committee and went on to say:
"And we invite the House to consider the most appropriate way in which this principle should be given effect. A possible method would be the draft of any code under Clause 102, to be submitted to the Joint Committee on Human Rights for its scrutiny".
Would the noble Lord consider that a sensible way forward?
Lord Rooker: That is not a matter for the Government. That is a matter for the committee.
The Earl of Northesk: I hear what the noble Lord says. No doubt we shall have to return to the matter on Report.
The Minister says agreements will necessarily be commercially sensitive. There is no reason why they should be. They merely spell out the types of traffic data and the length of time that data should be retained.
I also hear what the Minister says about the devolved administration in Scotland. That satisfactorily deals with that point.
I have no doubt we shall return to a number of these issues on Report but, in the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 165A to 167 not moved.]
6.45 p.m.
The Earl of Northesk The Earl of Northesk moved Amendment No. 167A:
Page 62, line 22, leave out subsection (5) and insert—
"( ) A code of practice, issued and revised by the Secretary of State and business, may contain such provisions as appear necessary for the purpose of safeguarding national security.
( ) Provisions in the code of practice will be proportionate to what is required for the safeguarding of national security."
The noble Earl said: In moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 167B, 168, 169, 170, 171 and 174. This is the issue that has consumed the attention of the committee at almost every turn; namely, its scope.
As the Minister conceded at Second Reading:
"Communications data has been central to the investigation into the terrorist attacks of 11th September. This data has been available because of the excellent co-operation shown by communications service providers.".—[Official Report, 27/11/01; col.152.]
If investigations have proceeded and are proceeding so successfully under the existing law, is it necessary to seek the proposed extension of powers? There is a case for limiting data retention to the purpose of safeguarding national security or countering terrorism, as is proposed in the amendment. At Second Reading I referred your Lordships' House to the Home Secretary's Tribune article of 26th October in which he indicated that the voluntary regime would apply:
"strictly in the case of a criminal investigation against suspected terrorists".
But as the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, stated on Wednesday of last week:
"When the anti-terrorist squad, for example, or any other bodies look for terrorism, they look for activities that one can discover but which may not themselves be terrorist activities. Those activities involve other criminal activities that could lead one to terrorists".—[Official Report, 28/11/01; co1.401.]
Quite so, but that is precisely what is objectionable. It is based on a presumption that all communications data might be useful in law enforcement, but not necessarily to prevent terrorism. The Joint Committee on Human Rights made the point eloquently:
"There is no express limit to the scope of the powers. They could be used to secure highly sensitive data for the purpose of investigating very minor offences or even for monitoring people's communications without any grounds for suspecting them of any offence or of threatening national security".
This goes to the heart of the reasoning that underpins these amendments.
Have the Government considered the practical difficulties of the measure? In order to counter the terrorist threat law enforcement needs focused intelligence. But the retention of data in case it may have relevance to a terrorist investigation, effectively necessitates the retention of all communications data. In respect of a single Internet service provider, this could be in excess of 500 terabytes a day—something like a single DVD for each second of traffic. Will information relevant to an inquiry be extracted quickly from such vast accumulations of data?
Management of compliance with such a requirement will impact detrimentally upon the ability of communication service providers to conduct their businesses efficiently and effectively.
The Data Protection Act gives data subjects rights of access to information about them as individuals. Do the Government suppose that this important protection will be manageable either for individuals or communications service providers when all data is retained?
I turn to the issue of proportionality. The Minister suggested at Second Reading and repeated again today that all powers used will be fully in line with the European Convention on Human Rights and the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act. There will be no generalised expeditions; they will all be related to specific inquiries and will conform to the terms of the legislation. I do not doubt the sincerity of those statements, but unfortunately they are not to be found on the face of the Bill.
As I observed at Second Reading, the Information Commissioner, the Joint Committee on Human Rights and the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee all expressed doubts on this. I quote from the Information Commissioner's memorandum on the Bill:
"It raises a number of concerns about its compatibility with convention rights. The starting point must be that the proposed legislation will involve an interference with the Article 8 rights of individuals".
I shall take this opportunity to make more detailed comments about the amendments. Amendments Nos. 167A and 167B are alternative approaches designed to achieve the same objective: introduction of a clear proportionality test and alignment of the Bill with similar principles already enshrined in RIP. This is necessary to ensure legal clarity.
Amendments Nos. 168 and 169 speak for themselves. I make the point that the use of the phrase "countering terrorism" is not without precedent. It was used at Section 3(3)(a) of the Interception of Communications Act 1985.
I turn to Amendment No. 171. Its purpose to tie the measures on the face of the Bill back to RIP. I am sure that the Minister is well aware of the obvious point that there is provision in Section 25(3)(b) of the 2000 Act for restricting by order the purposes for which data can be obtained by communications service providers in relation to national security. Clear legislative provision is required in the Bill to the effect that retained data cannot be obtained by law enforcement or intelligence services for any other purpose than national security. That is the amendment's aim.
There is more that I could say but I conclude with a comment—and a question—from the Constitution Committee. I hope that the Minister will respond to it

765
in due course, particularly, as I understand it, in the absence of any formal response as yet to the point. It stated:
"These provisions raise complex and often controversial issues. It seems questionable to us that they should be attached to a Bill on terrorism and security. Is their inclusion compatible with the proper exercise of the functions of Parliament and the proper operation of the principle of parliamentary sovereignty?".
I beg to move.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Murton of Lindisfarne): If this amendment, or alternative Amendment No. 167B, is agreed to, I shall be unable to call Amendments Nos. 168 to 170, owing to preemption.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: I shall speak to those amendments appearing in my name; that is, Amendments Nos. 168, 170, 171 and 174. Again, I wholly identify myself with the comments of the noble Earl, Lord Northesk.
Enough was said at Second Reading for the Minister and the Government to be aware of the widespread concern about this part of the Bill. The effects of the warehousing arrangements that these provisions will allow will create a source of potential information for the state which, frankly, has been contemplated only in the novels of George Orwell. We, like the Conservative Front Bench, feel as strongly as we can that the Bill has been introduced for entirely legitimate reasons; namely, national security in the face of an emergency threat. However, we do not and will not accept that it is legitimate to go beyond that and "piggyback" on that legitimate purpose the complete range of criminal offences, at whatever level.
I remind the Committee of a report by the National Criminal Intelligence Service, which was leaked last year and is now available in full on the Internet. The report was publicised in the Observer. The memorandum proposes the creation of a "national traffic data warehouse" on grounds that are found in this and the succeeding clause. The unease that that creates on these Benches is added to because the memorandum is also the fruit of MI5, MI6, GCHQ, ACPO and Customs and Excise. One need not dwell in the lands of paranoia to believe that a fundamental issue of basic and traditional liberty is involved, and that that makes this group of amendments not only necessary but essential.
On Amendment No. 171, unless it or something like it is agreed to, the practicality of retaining this vast amount of communications data, with regard to the implementation of the RIP Act, will be extremely unsatisfactory; indeed, that Act will not be workable. Under Section 22 of that Act, it is possible for a relevant public authority to collect data if it is authorised by what is called a "designated person". Subsection (4) allows a designated person to involve,
"a postal or telecommunications operator",
but the Bill refers to "communications providers". It can require such people to collect communications data and to hand them over to the relevant authority. Unless we agree to the amendment or something like
766
it, it will surely be possible for the authorisation and notice procedures in Section 22 to be used not only in relation to communications data involving national emergencies and national security but also in relation to any communications data that are held by the particular communications provider.
I hope that I have not lost the Committee—I have only just not lost myself! My point is serious and I hope that the Government will respond to it.
Viscount Goschen: The noble Lord, Lord Bassam, will tell the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, if he has not already done so, about how fierce the battles were in this House concerning the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act. Deeply held opinions were voiced by noble Lords and the legislation was substantially rewritten as a result.
The Government will be aware that the proposal in effect to add to that Act further provisions about the retention of communications data will he taken seriously by Members of this House and interested parties outside, in particular by the communications industry. We know how serious the issue is and how potentially dangerous it could become if it is not handled correctly—that could affect the economic well-being of this country and the communications industry in particular.
As has often been made clear during the Bill's passage through this House, we are prepared to accept additional measures provided that they are purely for the purpose of safeguarding national security. When the Government introduced the Bill and when they discussed it outside—in the press, for example—they made it clear that that is their reason for introducing the legislation. However, when we tried to pin down the Government over safeguarding national security or countering terrorism, they argued that they would like to take such steps but that such provisions would prevent them from accessing data and conducting investigations that might, on the off-chance, provide leads in the fight against terrorism.
The Government will have to be clear in their response to this group of amendments. Clause 102(5)(b) contains an additional rationale for the provisions in the code. It states that the code may contain any such provision that is needed,
"for the purposes of the prevention or detection of crime or the prosecution of offenders".
That is the broadest possible inclusion provision. The rest of subsection (5) states:
"A code of practice or agreement under the section may contain any such provisions as appears to the Secretary of State to be necessary … for the purpose of safeguarding national security".
In other words, if paragraph (b) were deleted, the Secretary of State, after consultation with the industry and the Information Commissioner—subject to the other provisos within Clause 102—would be able to draft the code in such a way that he could access the information and communications necessary to safeguard national security. If paragraph (b) were omitted, there is no question that the Government could not do what they wanted to do to counter

767
terrorism in respect of accessing communications data. However, if the Government insist that they require the inclusion of paragraph (b), or similar provisions, that would mean that they want to go much further than the prevention of terrorism; it would suggest that they wanted to use the provisions as a general power in order to examine a wide range of crimes, which may be very serious but which do not involve the emergency. I look forward to the Minister's response.
7 p.m.
Lord Elton: It is easy to anticipate the Minister's response. It will be, as it has been so often, that any crime is potentially a terrorist crime, whether it is shoplifting, breaking the speed limit or blackmail. For that reason we are hesitant about giving the Government the emergency power procedure for the processing of this Bill.
I ask a simple question. I thought that I had brought with me all the relevant legislation, but I do not have the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act, and hence I do not have Chapter 2 of that Act. I would like a definition of "communications data". I presume that that does not mean the information transmitted—for example, the contents of a conversation—but the fact that two telephones, or two communications stations, have been in touch with each other, the time when they were in touch and for how long and, if one of them was a mobile, where it was. I seek reassurance that that huge amount of information is now to be warehoused.
I also have a question for the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury. Amendment No. 171, in the second line under subsection (10), says,
"may only authorise or require that",
which leads one to look for the words "shall be". Without those words I cannot interpret the effect of the subsection. I do not want to appear difficult, but it would help to know the impact of the subsection.
Lord Lucas: I entirely support what has been said. Perhaps the Minister can enlarge on the rights under the Data Protection Act for an individual to obtain such data that is to be retained. Considering some of the wilder possibilities, in relation to packet headers there will be vast amounts of data. It will be extremely difficult for a communications provider who is asked to dig out anything that is relevant from their records to do so without incurring a great deal of time and expense.
Recently it has been established that the data that a mobile phone provider holds of a location from which and to which mobile phone calls are made is personal data and can be retrieved by someone under the Data Protection Act. Therefore, I presume that all such communications data will also fall under that heading. We are not considering imposing an occasional burden on the telecommunications provider to look for something for the Government, but a burden to have to do so for every single customer or citizen of this country, or anywhere else, who happens to cause a
768
little disruption by asking for the information. We have to understand how enormous this data supply is and how undirected it is.
Some of my e-mails go through a mailbox. The information in an e-mail can be picked up as easily as someone can look at my telephone bill, although much of it does not touch the sides and is transmitted as packets. Information is squirted into the Internet and arrives at the other end through whatever routes it may happen to take. There may be no record of it other than the packet headers, which, as has been said, is about a terabyte a day or the contents of a DVD every second. Those enormous amounts of data are impossible to search unless they are on line. If so much information is available about the individual citizen, it comes down to 1984.
We must understand the Government's intentions in relation to particular kinds of data. They must have a clue as to what type of data they are considering retaining and for how long. The retention of some data has immense cost implications, nationally and indeed on individual telecommunications providers. One wonders why the Government will need it. If a terrorist organises himself properly, he will not appear. He will hide or cloak himself and he will not appear in any of the easy places. It will be immensely difficult to track him down.
The only people against whom such data will be useful will be the ordinary, everyday criminals who do not know how to take the £1,000 or £2,000 worth of precautions that would enable them to avoid the Act. The Government must be clearer about why they want these provisions.
The Earl of Onslow: My noble friend Lord Lucas said that the Government must have a clue about what they want to learn. That statement is almost incredible. Recently it has been published that MI5 and MI6 asked to listen to calls made on certain telephone numbers and they got a large percentage of them wrong. I am worried that our forces of law and the forces of our counter intelligence and intelligence services are not as good as they should be. For that reason the Home Secretary has reasonably taken a great interest in the performance of the police. The more one hears about matters going wrong, the more depressed one becomes. I am unsure whether we should give them extra powers to store telephone numbers to which they should not be listening anyway.
The Earl of Erroll: I agree with everything that has been said by the noble Lords, Lord Phillips and Lord Lucas. I was interested to hear the noble Earl, Lord Northesk, say that much of the information that is used to catch terrorists at the moment is obtained by trawling communications data. Was that authorised? Or was such a practice already used? And, if so, in which countries? How much of that data is picked up in that way? If only the packet headers and so on are being kept, that is probably not much use. Are the Government seeking powers to trawl through the contents of such data? Is this yet another back door way in?

769
It may be considered that noble Lords are being paranoid, but I think back to J. Edgar Hoover, the data that he kept on people and the blackmail that he exerted, which caused big problems in the United States. This provision provides a chance for someone to do that again. History has a habit of repeating itself. One thing that we can learn from history is that we never learn the lessons of history.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: I am sure that the Government want to do what is sensible and intelligent, but sometimes that is quite difficult. It is easier to do stupid things. I believe that the Government are caught. I am sure that they do not want to do stupid things, but they have not found an easy alternative to the course that they are pursuing in this Bill.
At the outset, the Government said that following the events of 11th September they urgently needed powers to combat the horrors of terrorism in its modern and latest versions. I believe that that aim commanded wide respect among most of the Members of the House including myself. I believe that this is a drafting difficulty, but the Government do not appear to know what they mean by terrorism. Is that so? That is virtually the only explanation.
The noble Lord, Lord Phillips, referred to the Orwellian provisions that we now face. I cannot help but feel that the Government are conscious of the fact that that view of the present proposal is widely held. I am prepared to believe that the Government would want to avoid provoking the kind of opposition that they are provoking on all sides of the House. Therefore, they should come clean and say that it is a difficulty of defining terrorism and confining the provisions of the Bill to that particular purpose.
It seems to me that we are possibly going into Cloud-cuckoo-land if that is really true. But I cannot think of ally other reason why the Government should want so obstinately to bring down on their head such a degree of very deeply entrenched opposition. There is no party ingredient in it at all. It is an opposition from people who would willingly arm the Government with any powers that are plainly necessary or desirable to secure the defeat of terrorism. But to give them such powers "just for good measure" to perform a much wider function is quite intolerable.
I have become confused. I am sure that I am not the only person. Perhaps the Government will try to clarify things. There have been other occasions, not under the present Government, when I have been told that a certain just and fair measure, which everyone wanted to achieve, could not be taken because it would involve taking an unconstitutional route. Eventually, when the government could not get their way, they would take the matter back and start to think. Finally, they would hit upon an extremely complicated, almost incomprehensible, way of doing what everyone wanted to do but in a manner that subsequently turned out to be fair.
What I am trying to say to the Minister is that I very much hope that he will not be content with the conventional briefing which ends with the word
770
"reject". The Minister is capable of great candour and openness. I respect that. He could make a very good impression. He could make a real contribution to the easier passage of the Bill if he took it upon himself to say that he recognised the real difficulty and the depth of genuine feeling that existed on this subject in your Lordships' House and would take the matter away so that he and his colleagues could have a real opportunity to give it fresh thought.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: Before the Minister rises. I was asked by the noble Lord, Lord Elton, whether the wording was right or clear in my Amendment No. 171. The wording is not as clear as it should be. Where the amendment states:
"An authorisation under section 22(3), or notice under section 22(4), may only authorise or require that data",
it would better say,
"may only authorise or require access to data".
7.15 p.m.
Lord Rooker: We have had a very interesting debate on this group of amendments. I really enjoyed the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Peyton. However, I do not think that it had a great deal to do with the amendments. I shall address his points. They are valid and could have been made in relation to various parts of the Bill. Indeed, I recall that he has made them on various parts of the Bill.
My candour will continue unabated but measured. There will be no going over the top. However, there have been a few misconceptions. To describe the legislation as Orwellian is fanciful. I cannot say often enough that we are not interested in the content of any communication. The noble Lord shakes his head. The noble Earl, Lord Erroll, from the Cross-Benches said that we were off to do the dirty deeds that were done in America and that central government would be blackmailing people. It is preposterous to make those kind of remarks and allegations on the basis of what has already been said and written. We are not interested in the content of any communication between two people, either over the Internet or by telephone. That is it—period.
We are interested in the information that is already retained by business for its purposes, namely, the two numbers that may have communicated with each other, the date and the duration of the call, and, also, because in certain circumstances it is possible to access the information, the locations of where the calls were made and received. That is nothing new.
I shall try to answer all the points in the debate. Members of the Committee have gone through these important amendments and I have statements that I want to make regarding them. I start by saying that the NCIS report that was referred to is not the basis of these provisions. There is no warehousing. There will be no excessive retention period. I cannot say what the retention period will be. That will be a matter for discussions and for the code of practice. The Observer said that the period would be seven years. The Government do not accept that. We are not talking

771
about that kind of period. For the avoidance of any doubt the period will be shorter. It is no use my speculating further. That will be in the code of practice and it is no good my trying to speculate about the content. I have indicated the kind of data that we are talking about. It is business data that is already held by business. It will be a matter for consultation. The principle of proportionality has to apply anyway.
I ask Members of the Committee not to confuse retention of data with access to it. Access to data is not governed by the Bill and these clauses. That is a matter for the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act. The Interception Commissioner, whom no one has mentioned, is involved with that. We have said, and I repeat, that we shall fully comply with all the rules laid down in that Act, as well as the human rights legislation, in operating the retention provisions.
There are two issues here—retention and access. The provisions deal with the retention of data. The access of it will be governed by other legislation.
Members of the Committee have raised fair points regarding the Data Protection Act. I am not criticising them. There are some key questions to be answered so that we do not get unjustified public concern. Under the Data Protection Act there is no need to comply with subject access if it involves disproportionate evidence. Guidance on the subject of access can be put in the code after consulting the commissioner. I have already said that at present if data is stored for business purposes it can be accessed for law enforcement. No data have been obtained unlawfully. That will not change.
I cannot comment on the issues raised about the wrong digit in telephone intercepts. I personally do not deal with that and know nothing about any mistakes. From my experience in the other place, I can say that there is far more scrutiny and oversight of the security services these days. They are now on a statutory footing. It is a tribute to the previous government that they put them on a statutory footing. Mistakes can be made. The beauty about today's system is that it is more likely that the mistakes will be discovered. We can learn from that. That is not an unimportant point.
The RIPA—I hate using that terminology because it does not sound good on the box, friends tell me—the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act provisions are not yet implemented. They will not be until next year. There may have been data about 11th September that would have been of use had it been retained, not destroyed, by service providers. They all have their own business rules for retaining data and operate differently. We are trying through the code of practice—which I again emphasise is voluntary—to create a system so that we all understand what we are doing.
The amendments would have two effects: they would change the purpose for which data may be retained by communications service providers under the code of practice arrangements and introduce a proportionality clause. They would remove the crime detection and prevention purpose and restrict the
772
code's provisions to national security. Frankly, that betrays a misunderstanding of how the terrorists operate. We cannot draw a distinction between terrorist activity and other crimes: that would be incredibly difficult. There is a necessity issue connecting other crimes to crimes of terrorism, but there is a legal issue about setting that out in the Bill. In any event, as I said before, if the provision were narrowed to purely terrorist activity we would not have the opportunity to catch other people involved in funding, organising and being ancillary to terrorist activities—helping them to take place.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: I thank the Minister for giving way. When he uses the words "it would not catch", I suspect that the Government are facing difficulty in saying exactly what they mean and no more. In the Minister's words, the difficulty is to catch other things.
Lord Rooker: There are two reasons. Defining terrorist activity is not easy. It is defined in the Terrorism Act 2000, but terrorism consists of ordinary crimes such as murder. We know, because of how terrorists have changed the way in which they work in recent years—how they conduct their activities—that they use other crimes that would not normally be considered terrorist. That is the point. If we can lock down such other crimes that may fund and assist terrorist activity, we can take precautions against that activity. That is the object of the exercise. So, even if we could find narrow definitions and include them in the Bill, it would not make sense to do so.
Viscount Goschen: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. I think that to an extent we are talking at cross-purposes. Many Members of the Committee who have spoken in favour of restricting the provision to national security agree with part of his argument. However, could not subsection(5) just read: "The code of practice may include any such provision as appears to the Secretary of State to be necessary for the purposes of safeguarding national security"? Surely that on its own would give the Minister all the powers for which he is looking.
For example, if the Secretary of State felt that trawling through information relating to drug trafficking was useful for catching terrorists, he could say, "That is my purpose; I will therefore spell out the code in that manner". All that we are trying to do is to narrow down the provision so that it is not deliberately used for crimes totally unrelated to terrorism.
Lord Rooker: I want to address all the amendments because arguments for them have been deployed at some length and I do not want to short-change the Committee. I shall go through each amendment, because it is better to put the argument on the record.
The two purposes included in the Bill are consistent with the terminology of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 and the Telecommunications (Data Protection and Privacy) Regulations 1999. I keep going back to this but in due

773
course I shall also give the answer on the definition of communications data. Both of these pieces of legislation refer to national security and the prevention and detection of crime. Maintaining the dual structure of national security and crime prevention ensures that terrorist acts are fully covered.
Removing the second purpose of the code and agreements, which is to prevent and detect crime and to prosecute offenders, would make no sense in practice. It would not affect requests to access the data, which will be regulated not under the Bill but under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 and overseen by the Interception Commissioner. However, it would undermine the operational efficiency of the police in combating crime because their wider responsibilities could not be taken into account in drawing up the code. The provision will rely heavily on the code, which, I repeat, is voluntary.
The second part of the amendment is simply unnecessary.
Lord Lucas: I thank the Minister for giving way. He is saying that the provision in paragraph (a) deals entirely adequately with everything that the Government want for the security situation but that they will hang on to a wider provision just because it is there. The Bill is emergency legislation, and we should not have provisions in it that have nothing to do with the security situation.
Lord Elton: With due respect, perhaps I could elaborate a little because I think that the Minister genuinely does not see where we are coming from. Parliament has decided that if someone is arrested on suspicion of burglary he shall nevertheless have his human rights protected in certain ways because he may be innocent. The Government are saying that such a person will have his human rights diminished because he may be a terrorist, and that that will apply to all cases. That is where we are coming from.
There is difficulty distinguishing what is a genuine terrorist-connected event and what is not. I sympathise with the Minister about his difficulty, but if he understood that those are the two polar opposite points of view that we occupy he would at least see what we are driving at.
Lord Rooker: To be honest, I have no difficulty at all. We have said that the operation of the Bill will fully comply with data protection and human rights legislation. There will be no problem with anyone's human rights being put at risk by our misuse of the Bill. I can accept that Members of the Committee have doubts about that that I have not yet been able to satisfy, but if I may continue I may make some inroads on that. I shall certainly do my best.
We fully agree that the provisions of the code and the agreements must be proportionate to what they are intended to achieve. Otherwise, our purpose is defeated. If they are not proportionate, they will be thrown out, deemed irrelevant and be subject to all kinds of attack. So there is no need for an explicit proportionality clause. The code must comply with the
774
principles set out in the 1999 telecommunications regulations and the Data Protection Act 1998. Both of those pieces of domestic legislation implement EC directives that were designed to be compliant with Article 8—the right to privacy—of the European Convention on Human Rights. Proportionality and necessity are key principles of the ECHR.
So there is no secret agenda to undermine anyone's human rights in the operation of the Bill. We intend to make our legislation and our operation of it fully compliant with human rights legislation. That is absolutely clear. I make that pledge as firmly as I can.
I turn to Amendment No. 167B, which would have two effects. It would change the purpose for which data may be retained by communications service providers under the code of practice and agreements and introduce a refinement to necessity and proportionality. The amendment is intended to replace the crime detection and prevention purpose with a counter-terrorism purpose. I have already said that that betrays a misunderstanding of how the terrorists operate.
I turn to Amendment No. 168. Without winding-up the noble Lord, Lord Peyton of Yeovil, I must tell him that "resist" is the first word on my brief, not the last one. I do not know if he has been here all day, but I have accepted one amendment from the Opposition Front Bench, so it has not been a completely futile operation.
The amendment would change the purpose for which the data may be retained and so we are faced with the arguments which applied to the previous amendments. If we restrict to countering terrorism the purpose for which data may be retained under the code and the agreements, it would make no sense in practice. Indeed, it would not effect—I repeat that it would not effect—the access to the data. I ask Members of the Committee to keep in mind throughout all the debates the distinction between the retention of the data as regards this legislation and the access to the data which is governed by another piece of legislation the operation of which is overseen by the Interception Commissioner.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: The Minister distinguished between access to the data and retention of the data. The amendment I moved is designed to cure the difficulty because it would apply to access as well as to retention.
Lord Rooker: We have no problem about the access rules. The operation of access would be laid down and is governed by legislation which is already on the statute book with an independent Interception Commissioner to oversee it. Therefore, we do not see the necessity of including it in this legislation. It deals solely with the retention under the code of practice.
The Earl of Northesk: Does the Minister recognise the fact that there may be some benefit in linking the

775
access regime to the retention regime, which is the purpose of Amendment No. 171? It creates a tidier whole.
Lord Rooker: No, I do not. I have not yet dealt with Amendment No. 171, but I do not agree with the noble Earl. In this respect, it is important to keep the retention separate from the access. As regards retention, we are seeking voluntary agreement. We have every reason to believe that we can arrive at such an agreement which is completely acceptable to the entire industry. It will be achieved by a code of practice which the Government will not enforce. It will he voluntary.
Access to the information by those who carry out the investigations is governed by legislation which was well debated in both Houses. It would be a mistake to link the two—and I say that before I have dealt with the amendment. It may be that there will be reference to it in the code of practice—that is not ruled out. However, we are not writing the code of practice here today. The code of practice is for discussion and consultation with industry and the Information Commissioner.
I turn to Amendments Nos. 170 and 171.
The Earl of Northesk: Perhaps I may make the obvious point that if it is appropriate to have the regime of access on the face of primary legislation in the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act, why is it not appropriate to have it on the face of this Bill instead of hiding it away in the code of practice?
Lord Rooker: The noble Earl refers to having access under the Bill. That does not make sense because it is about retention. I merely point out that I am not writing the code of practice here today. I cannot say what will be in it because it will be a matter for discussion with industry. It is a voluntary code; the Government will not impose it. I cannot pre-judge what the results of consultations will be. I do not know whether it will be seen appropriate to refer to access to the information. We do not have a fixed view on the matter and that is the whole point about having discussions on a voluntary code of practice.
Amendments Nos. 170 and 171 would remove the prevention/detection of crime as a purpose for the retention of data and would prevent data which are retained under Part 11 provisions from being accessed under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act for any purposes other than national security.
Before seeking to change the purposes for the retention of communications data set out in the Bill, it is important to understand something about how terrorists operate. I repeat the point about drawing the distinction between terrorist activity, attacks on national security and other crimes. The distinction is a false one. Terrorists often engage in a whole raft of criminal activity, whether drug running, people trafficking, bribery and corruption, in order to finance and supplement their main business.
776
Furthermore, restricting the purpose for which data may be retained under the code and the agreements to countering terrorism would make no sense in practice. Those two arguments—that is, the messiness of the distinction between terrorism and other forms of crime and the impact on the effectiveness of the law enforcement agencies—preclude us from restricting the retention purpose to national security alone.
Amendment No. 171 proposes to amend the access provisions in the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000. Data retained under the provisions in this Bill will be kept for a dual purpose in data protection terms: first, for business purposes—billing, traffic management, direct marketing and so forth; and, secondly, for law enforcement purposes—the two purposes set out in Clause 102(5). It will therefore be impractical to distinguish between data held pursuant to these provisions and any other data.
If two conditions are met—first, that communications data are available, whether held under the provisions of the part or for any other legitimate reason and, secondly, the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act access thresholds of necessity, proportionality and so forth are passed—why should public authorities be prevented from obtaining data for the reasons set out in the statute?
The noble Earl's amendment would mean that no communications data could ever be accessed by authorised public bodies for any purpose other than national security. It would completely undermine a whole chapter of the Act which was passed by this House only a year and a half ago. Our conviction at the time was that all the purposes listed in Section 22 were justified and I see no reason for that to have changed. I hope that that is a satisfactory explanation.
I turn to Amendment No. 174. It would restrict the grounds for seeking an order to impose mandatory directions to "safeguarding against terrorism". I would argue that noble Lords are again making a false distinction between terrorism and other crimes.
In terms of communication, we must recognise the centrality of communications data to the non-terrorist related business of the security, intelligence and law enforcement agencies. The only acceptable criteria for introducing a mandatory scheme is if the voluntary scheme fails. We do not want it to fail. The Government fully intend to use their best endeavours to ensure that a voluntary scheme is operated in co-operation with industry.
In that regard, I hope that Members of the Committee will be reassured that the access provisions under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act are subject to judicial oversight by the Interception Commissioner, who is a senior member of the judiciary. He is responsible for ensuring that access is carried out in accordance with the principles of necessity and proportionality set out in the European Convention on Human Rights.
As regards the period of retention, there will be consultation about what is reasonable for industry and what is necessary for law enforcement. We shall have to come to a measured conclusion to get that right.

777
There will be arguments and, I suspect, disagreements in debate and I hope that we shall then arrive at a conclusion that is acceptable to everyone; that is, the Information Commissioner, the Government and the information providers.
The period must be compliant with EC directives. If it is too long, which I suspect will be the seven-year figure mentioned in the Observer, it will be subject to challenge by the European Commission. We are not completely free agents and that is right. We bound ourselves to an international treaty which we have introduced in domestic legislation.
As regards the definition of "communications data", I regret that I was asked the question because I now have the answer in front of me. I know that if I read it out at this time of night I shall get it in the neck. However, I shall make a start. In the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000, Section 21(4) gives a definition of "communications data" and it means any of the following. I shall not read it all, but paragraph (a) states:
"any traffic data comprised in or attached to a communication (whether by the sender or otherwise) for the purposes of any postal service or telecommunications system by means of which it is being or may be transmitted".
Paragraph (b) provides:
"any information which includes none of the contents of a communication … and is about the use made by any person—

(i) of any postal service or telecommunications service; or

(ii) in connection with the provision to or use by any person of any telecommunication service".

Paragraph (c) provides:
"any information not falling within paragraphs (a) or (b) that is held or obtained, in relation to persons to whom he provides the service, by a person providing a postal service or telecommunications service".
I have not quoted the provision verbatim, but that is the general thrust of the definition of "communications data" in the 2000 Act.
We have had a fairly long debate—I make no complaint about that, far from it—in which a number of questions have been asked and red herrings have been put forward for public consumption. I hope that I have either squashed or eaten them. We do not seek to know the contents of telephone or e-mail communications between people; nor do we want business to retain them or access them. I cannot make it clearer than that. We seek to work with industry in a wholly voluntary way. Our fallback position is there, and in part the matter is subject to a sunset provision to demonstrate our goodwill. We seek genuine co-operation in the interests of law enforcement.
I agree that this matter is being put through the House in an "emergency" fashion, but this measure is related to an emergency and we need better information. We have not sought to use a blunderbuss but voluntary access. Since the events of September 11th we have had good co-operation with the industry that has proved to be extremely useful, for which we are extremely grateful.
Viscount Goschen: Perhaps I may direct the attention of the Minister to my earlier intervention
778
which concerned Amendment No. 170. Can the Minister explain to the Committee how, if subsection (5)(b) is removed, the Secretary of State's power to combat international terrorism will be constrained, given that he will then be able to draft the code in such a way as to include any provision as appears to him to be necessary for the purpose of safeguarding national security?
Lord Rooker: I cannot do so other than to repeat what I have already said. All I shall do is repeat my comments in dealing with Amendments Nos. 170 and 171 which were taken together. All I can do is suggest that the noble Viscount looks at Hansard tomorrow. I am quite happy to stand at the Dispatch Box for another 10 minutes and go through it again, but I do not believe that that would be a good use of the Committee's time.
Viscount Goschen: With the greatest respect, that answer is not worthy of a government Minister who seeks to explain the Bill. I do not want to hear merely a repetition of what the noble Lord said, because it did not satisfy me. The Government have said that the Bill is designed to combat international terrorism. Under subsection (5)(a) the Secretary of State is allowed to draft a code in consultation in such a way as to include any provision he likes which will assist in combating terrorism and preserving national security. If he can do anything he likes to achieve those aims, why is subsection (5)(b) necessary?
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: To add to that, if what the Minister has said and repeated is correct why do we need (a) and (b) at all? According to the Minister's explanation, the Secretary of State should be able to make such provision as he likes with regard to the retention of data—full stop. I rise in a genuinely helpful spirit. I understand the dilemma of determining whether a crime is or is not related to national security. Why cannot one say in subsection (5)(b) words to the effect, "where the Secretary of State makes provision for the purposes of the prevention or detection of crime or the prosecution of offenders which may be related to risks to national security"? I believe that that would address the perfectly fair point that the Minister seeks to make about the blurring of the edges in terms of not knowing whether a crime is or is not related to national security.
The provision starts by saying that the Secretary of State may do something. One needs a double "may" so that it reads "which may be related". One would have thought that that would go a long way to satisfy the Members of the Committee on this side of the Chamber.
Lord Lucas: I believe that the Committee understands the direction from which the noble Lord comes. The Minister will be aware that individual learning accounts have been abandoned by the Government because terrorists have been using that open door to fill their pockets with cash. Therefore, very ordinary crimes can be used to fund terrorism, but

779
the powers in subsection (5)(a) cover that. It is absolutely clear that that provision allows the Secretary of State to do anything which appears to him to be necessary for the purpose of safeguarding national security, which includes all those estimable things which the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, says the Government wish to do. Subsection (5)(b) must, logically, cover matters which are not necessary to safeguard national security and such a provision should not be in the Bill.
Lord Rooker: Earlier one Member of the Committee said that the Secretary of State could do what he wanted. The whole point is that he cannot. I cannot emphasise enough that it is a voluntary code. The Secretary of State is not taking powers here. We hope to obtain a voluntary agreement with industry, not to impose it. We want a voluntary working arrangement. To argue that the Secretary of State can do what he wants is not true.
I suspect that many noble and learned Lords will trawl over what may be in the mind of the Secretary of State in defining "national security". Already one Law Lord has pronounced on it in the Rehman case, although we were informed last night by another distinguished member of the legal profession that we should not accept the opinion of one judge. Nevertheless, it is for the Secretary of State to interpret that.
I do not believe that I shall satisfy the Committee. The noble Lord, Lord Phillips, has just rewritten part of one of the limbs of the clause while on his feet. I do not detect a great deal of difference between that and what is now in subsection (5)(a) and (b).
There are good reasons for the way in which the provision is drafted, but it must be agreed with industry and the Information Commissioner. The Secretary of State will not have a draft code to offer for this purpose unless the interpretation of subsection (5)(a) and (b) is acceptable. The whole point about the voluntary code is that if industry does not buy into it, we shall not have one. The Information Commissioner must be consulted. If they do not buy into it, we shall not have a voluntary code. Whatever suspicions the Committee may have, each of the textual interpretations of the limbs will be satisfied certainly by the time of the publication of the voluntary code, because it will have been done with the agreement of industry and the Information Commissioner.
Crimes are a legitimate reason for retaining the data. I was not involved in the Act passed last year, although like other Ministers I followed it as closely as I could. Both Houses recognised this matter. Some Members of the Committee have already taken part in this debate. I come fresh to the matter in a sense, but Members of the Committee have been round the course before and know the dark secrets of the debates which took place.
The reality is that both Houses passed the Bill and it received Royal Assent. This matter was recognised when it was debated last year. It is probable that if we
780
left out one or other limb the code of practice would be a glass half-full. I rest my case on the basis that, since it is voluntary, industry must agree it; otherwise, there is no voluntary code. The Information Commissioner will be involved, otherwise we will not get a voluntary code. For those reasons, I am quite confident that by the time a voluntary code has been agreed all the nuances and doubts about Clause 102 and subsection (5) will have been settled to everyone's satisfaction.
Viscount Goschen: Perhaps I may raise a small point. The Minister said that the industry has to agree. Is that really the case? I had thought that industry had to be consulted; that is, that the Secretary of State will consult and then decide whether to agree with the sentiments expressed by industry.
Lord Rooker: I have repeated the point that the Government will not impose the code. It is a voluntary code. I cannot make the point any more clearly than that. If industry does not want the code of practice, it will walk away from it. We would then have to look to the powers in Clause 103. We want to put in place a working voluntary code. I am being tautologous because I cannot explain this in any other way. Perhaps noble Lords have an agenda, or it may be a question that the penny has not dropped, or that I have not made the point.
I appreciate the healthy degree of scepticism felt about what the Government are doing and about the intentions behind those actions. I am trying my inadequate best to make the point that if industry does not bite as regards the voluntary code, it will walk away from it. We shall then have an unworkable voluntary code and we shall have to move on to a statutory code. We do not want to do that. Our first priority is to establish a working agreement with industry and the Information Commissioner to establish a voluntary code.
Lord Lucas: The note from the Box has given it all away: ordinary crime will serve as a good enough purpose for keeping such information. So it might, but that has nothing to do with what should he covered by this Bill. It would be good to see this provision in another Bill dealing with ordinary criminal matters. That would give us time to consider its implications; that is, whether we would like to see traffic violations and other offences subject to the extended timescales contained in this legislation rather than those that were implicit in the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Bill.
I have two further questions for the noble Lord. First, I refer to the point made that the data to be retained will be those which companies ordinarily would keep. If I understand that correctly, it will not involve the header information on packets in Internet traffic, which makes up the vast proportion of communications data carried over the Internet. That would mean that, for example, terrorists using a hotmail account or those wise enough to attach their own server to the end of a phone line will be entirely exempt from any of the effects of this part of the legislation because none of the communications data

781
concerning them would be caught under any circumstances. I would be grateful if the noble Lord could confirm that that is what he meant to say.
Secondly, can the noble Lord answer the question I put to him as regards the Data Protection Act; that is, whether any data held under this provision will be subject to the right conferred by the Data Protection Act for the individual concerned to request a copy of it?
Lord Rooker: To be honest, I know to my certain knowledge that I have answered that question. I have said already that the data will be retained but that it could not be accessed by an individual if it was disproportionate. I have covered the point regarding the Data Protection Act. I do not see any affirmative nods from noble Lords opposite, but I know that I have addressed this matter.
Individual access to data would be subject to the provisions of the Data Protection Act. However, there is the issue of disproportionality as regards the individual. In an earlier intervention—I do not know whether the noble Lord's remarks are speeches or interventions—the noble Lord made the point that the threat or, if you like, the attack on the system was to overload it with requests for information. That was a wholly negative point but, nevertheless, one that has been well noted. So far as the individual is concerned, the Data Protection Act will cover that.
As regards the noble Lord's other point on extra data, I probably now have to hand an extra note. I do not fully understand the details of headers and so forth. I have never used hotmail, although I have used Internet and e-mail services. I believe that I shall have to repeat what I said with regard to Amendment No. 177H. If I have not addressed the point, I apologise to the Committee.
A noble Lord A noble Lord: Amendment No. 177H is a future amendment.
Lord Rooker: Why am I dealing with it now? If I can answer the noble Lord's question then perhaps I shall be able to avoid an extra debate later on. That might be helpful. I shall put on the record a note that I have on Amendment No. 177H, which may answer the point put by the noble Lord. I am keen to give as many detailed answers as possible.
The amendment would require the code of practice, agreement or direction issued under this part to include transitional arrangements. Under the Data Protection Act 1998, retention periods need to be proportionate to the purpose for which the data were collected. Therefore data which will be retained under the code of practice, for both business and law enforcement purposes, will be stored for a different period from data which are held at the moment for business purposes only.
In addition, communications service providers may need time to adjust and possibly invest in new retention and/or retrieval systems. So we recognise that the code will need to make provision for
782
transitional arrangements. However, this amendment is unnecessary. Transitional arrangements are a matter for implementation and will be considered in the course of consultation on the code of practice. Our expectation is that a voluntary code will work and that service providers would not sign up to a code which was not reasonable and practicable.
On the point made by the noble Lord with regard to hotmail and what terrorists might do, to pure lay people like us it seems that they could not possibly be found out if they used other means which I shall not describe. I am surprised at the technological proficiency that is around these days, but if terrorists are in any case technologically proficient, we shall just have to keep one step in front of them.
Lord Lucas: If I have understood correctly what the noble Lord said about the Data Protection Act, the data will be accessible by the police but not by the individual to whom that data refer. I am not sure whether that is a delightful conclusion.
So far as concerns Internet headers, I hope that the noble Lord will suggest to someone in the Box that they might drop me a note to answer my question with rather more precision. I shall then be content.
The Earl of Northesk: Dark secrets notwithstanding, this has been a wide-ranging debate. I thank all noble Lords who have contributed. I have not kept score, because there was no real need so to do. except to say that, regrettably, the Minister has scored nil.
This side of the Committee has come to an agreement on what would be an appropriate way forward. It is that which makes the Minister's position unsatisfactory to us. I take heart from the opening remarks made an hour ago by my noble friend Lord Goschen. This debate must have felt quite like old times for the noble Lord, Lord Bassam of Brighton. It also struck me that my noble friend has all but shot the Government's fox in explaining that the amendments need not constrain the Secretary of State, or the wholly admirable task ofcountering terrorism, in the way that the noble Lord has sought to argue throughout our scrutiny of the Bill thus far.
I should also point out to the Minister that I have always accepted the Government's assurances on content, a point which I made on Second Reading. Indeed, all my remarks on this amendment have been concerned with the pure business—to use the noble Lord's own word—data. There is no confusion in my mind on that point. I can also assure the noble Lord that I am not confused about the distinction between "retention of" and "access to" data. However, the difficulty is that while the noble Lord insists that all the Government want to see retained is billing data, that is not quite what is set down in the Bill. As drafted, the provisions raise the prospect of vast accumulations of data being retained, which in turn raises concerns about practicality that I have already mentioned.
Most kindly, the noble Lord read out the definition of communications data from the notes on the regulation of investigatory powers to demonstrate the

783
point. In pursuing that a little further, the Bill also confers powers to track the movements of everyone who carries a mobile phone. If business data were the only data already retained, no legislation would be needed. Furthermore, access to such business data is relatively easy. Part of the point of that is that RIP Act powers did not anticipate any degree of bulk retention when the Bill was before Parliament.
As I have said, it would be easy to distinguish between data held for business purposes and for the purposes that are specified in the Bill. Thus a distinction must be made which the noble Lord has not quite explained to our satisfaction. CSPs do not want to hold the data the Bill demands they should hold, albeit they can distinguish the "business data", to use the noble Lord's term.
As to the voluntary code, it is my understanding that the industry has been working towards one for years. The problem is that it has never had any agreement from governments—nor, indeed, from law enforcement authorities—as to what is required of it. The noble Lord may try to rest his case on the code being voluntary, but that cannot work if delivery of the voluntary code is stuck in a pipe in some way.
I make no comment about the futility of this operation, but I am intensely disappointed by the Minister's response—the more so because my noble friend Lord Goschen has indicated a way out. I shall, of course, read extremely carefully what the Minister said. I have no doubt that I shall return to this issue on Report. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 167B to 171 not moved.]
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I beg to move that the House do now resume. In doing so, I suggest that the Committee should recommence not before one minute past nine.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.W

Electricity and Gas (Energy Efficiency Obligations) Order 2001
8.1 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Whitty)rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 14th November be approved [10th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the Electricity and Gas (Energy Efficiency Obligations) Order is an opportunity for a significant step forward in the promotion of domestic energy efficiency in Great Britain. The main purpose of the order is to place an obligation on electricity and gas suppliers to achieve
784
targets in energy efficiency. They will do this by encouraging and assisting their domestic consumers to take up energy efficiency measures.
The energy efficiency obligation, more commonly known as the energy efficiency commitment, or EEC, will have three important benefits. First, we estimate that it will cut greenhouse gas emissions by around 0.4 million tonnes of carbon a year. Secondly, by helping electricity and gas consumers to save energy, it will reduce their fuel bills, or they may choose to enjoy greater comfort by living in better-heated homes without increased costs. Thirdly, it will give practical and particular help to lower income consumers who spend a larger proportion of their income on energy. This will contribute to the alleviation of the problem of fuel poverty.
The order sets out an overall obligation on all electricity and gas suppliers of 62 fuel-standardised terawatt hours of energy savings. This is a challenging but achievable target. It represents a significant increase in activity over the programmes that have been operated successfully since 1994 by the regulator, Ofgem. The cost of meeting their targets will fall on suppliers, but, even if it was passed on in full to their customers, it should be no more than £3.60 per customer per fuel per annum.
The order also sets the framework for the EEC to be administered by Ofgem. Ofgem will set the energy efficiency targets for individual suppliers and monitor their achievement. It will also be responsible for their enforcement.
The order offers a balanced approach to achieving environmental and social objectives. It contributes both to our range of actions for tackling climate change and to the eradication of fuel poverty. With this in mind, I commend the order to the House.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 14th November be approved [10th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Whitty.)
Lord Glentoran: My Lords, I thank the Minister for bringing forward the order. While my party applauds any move to arrange an effective target for carbon savings, the issue of cost is an important concern. The Electricity Association, in particular, feels that householders will greatly suffer in terms of price. While DEFRA officials have stated that they hope that the increase in price will be met to some extent by suppliers, the regulator, Ofgem, seems to believe that local authorities will assist suppliers with expenditure. The Electricity Association claims that consumers will have to bear the full brunt of the changes. According to the very nature of the energy supply industry, it understands that suppliers will not subsidise the additional costs.
These facts seem to beggar some extremely important questions. Who will pay for these energy efficiency targets? Will the Government outline how much they estimate the average householder will be affected by these measures? The Government estimate that the average annual financial gain for those in the priority group of lower income consumers who would

785
benefit from measures under the scheme, either in lower energy bills or increased comfort, would rise to around £14 a year by 2005. The Electricity Association claims that the Government have been over-generous in their attempt to estimate the effectiveness of energy efficiency measures, and consequently have understated the resultant costs.
While I and my party wholeheartedly commend energy saving initiatives, my consultations with the industry lead me to believe that the Government have not lent a rational argument to both the proposed costings and timescales. Will the Minister enlighten the House and tell us who will pay, and how much?
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: My Lords, I regret that my noble friend Lord Ezra is unable to be in his place. He has given me three succinct sentences of what he would have said. I suspect that the Government will appreciate these words. This is a measure which these Benches supported during the passage of the Utilities Bill. We are very much in favour of the energy efficiency obligation. We very much welcome that there will be an annual report on the progress achieved.
The House will not be surprised to learn that repeating three succinct sentences is not quite my style. Therefore I should like to raise a connected issue. Before doing so, I declare an interest in that I sell firewood on a very small scale. That said, I am very concerned about the practice of local authorities "burying" fuel in the form of waste wood. I regard this practice as complete energy inefficiency.
I recognise that recently we have been removing—or not installing in homes—chimneys, flues, stoves and grates. The Minister mentioned the issue of fuel poverty. I have always felt that by having houses with only automatic systems—ones which consume the electricity and gas so clearly covered by the order—people enduring fuel poverty are unable to do anything about it. I hope that the Minister will be able to give some leadership towards enabling citizens to acquire some of the waste wood which is otherwise being buried. I feel like weeping buckets when I am at the skip site at Forth Bank, in Alloa, as I am frequently, to see so much fuel being buried.
I do not know whether waste is a devolved matter. I see it as energy, and energy is a reserved matter. At the risk of starting a turf war, I hope that the Minister can offer some leadership on the matter.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I thank the two noble Lords who have spoken from the Opposition Benches.
Perhaps I may reply to the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, about costs. I should preface my remarks by pointing out that there have been lengthy and at times somewhat difficult discussions with suppliers, users and others during the various phases of consultation. The process began in March last year and went through its various stages until it reached the final stage of statutory consultation.
During that period some of the figures have changed to take account in part of the views of the Electricity Association and other suppliers. The figures that we
786
have now alighted on for the picture in 2005 are broadly achievable—as is accepted by most of those involved. It is true that some achievements in energy efficiency are not easy. They will be cumulative over the period up to 2005 and beyond.
That said, we should expect the average gross benefit to households, having installed the energy efficient measures—or, alternatively, having heated their houses at the same cost but to better effect—to be over £15 a year for the low income groups, at whom the bulk of the measures will be targeted. The average for all groups will be approximately £11 a year by 2005. For those in the non-priority group, the saving will be between £8 and £8.50. That is the figure at the end of the process. In the interim, if the supplier companies pass on all the costs of meeting the targets, the maximum cost per customer should be no more than £3.60 per fuel per annum. The benefit beyond 2005, however, will be a net benefit, even to the non-priority groups, of nearly £5 in their fuel bills.
The cumulative effect of the measures over the three years in which they will operate will lead to a net saving for all groups of some significance, and to a very large net saving for those in the direst need, who are in the fuel poverty bracket and close to it. I hope that my remarks explain the noble Lord's point.
I turn to the comments of the noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, in the absence of the noble Lord, Lord Ezra—whose views on this matter are well-known and whose support for many of these measures we greatly appreciate. I recognise and appreciate the support from the Liberal Democrat Benches as enunciated by the noble Earl. The position on firewood, however, will not please the noble Earl quite so much.
In regard to the general issue of fuel poverty and renewable resources, the Government recognise that the by-products of forestry and other agricultural activities can be used to produce energy. The most effective use of that energy is probably in biomass, and possibly in the production of liquid fuels. Nice though a domestic wood fire is, it is not the most efficient way of producing heat and not necessarily the most cost-efficient. Therefore, wood is not one of the fuels specified under the order on which energy savings can be achieved.
I regret that, having declared his interest, the noble Earl may be caused some commercial disadvantage. However, there is a wider question as to how we use those by-products in a better way than in domestic grates and stoves to contribute towards greater energy efficiency. So far as concerns this process, wood will not play a role. Having answered those questions, I commend the order to the House.
On Question. Motion agreed to.
Lord Filkin: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until one minute past nine o'clock.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended front 8.15 10 9.1 p.m.]

Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Bill
House again in Committee on Clause 102.
The Earl of Northesk The Earl of Northesk moved Amendment No. 171A:
Page 62, line 26, at end insert—
"( ) A code of practice or agreement under this section shall include clear guidance to communications providers as to—

(a) what classes of data shall be retained, and

(b) a maximum period for which data may be retained."

The noble Earl said: The Chamber is somewhat emptier than it was before dinner. I hope that the purpose of the amendment is unambiguous and uncontroversial. It is merely to ensure that codes of practice and agreements define precisely the classes of data to be retained and the maximum periods for which they should be retained. No doubt the Minister will be tempted to say that that is stating the obvious and of course those elements will be included, but I can see no difficulty in putting them on the face of the Bill for the avoidance of doubt.
Moreover, there is some merit in ensuring that the distinction between retained data and obtained data—about which we have had a fair amount of debate—is made a little more obvious and transparent in the Bill. The amendment would assist in that with its explicit references to retained data. That has the beneficial effect of making it clear that obtained data continue to be subject to existing provisions in the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act. I beg to move.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: I wholeheartedly endorse the amendment. I am not sure whether the wording makes it perfectly clear that the basis on which the data are retained shall be for ever labelled round the neck of that data. We want to avoid data being retained for one purpose and then being used under RIPA for another. However, we on these Benches support the broad purport of the amendment.
Lord Rooker: I apologise to the Committee for being a little late. The amendment would further define what provisions should be contained in the code of practice and agreements by stating explicitly that the code must give guidance on what types of data should be retained and for what period. I assure the noble Earl, as I have done previously, that the code of practice will contain a number of safeguards.
As I have already said, retention practices in line with the code will comply with Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights—the right to privacy—and with the data protection principles. To do so, retention must be on a clear legal basis that is foreseeable and accessible for a purpose permitted by the 1999 regulations and must strike a balance between the purpose for the retention and the rights of customers whose data are retained. There will be a clear maximum retention period.
On top of the safeguards suggested by the noble Earl, the code of practice will cover a number of other issues relative to the legal and practical aspects of retention but it would not be practical to put those on the face of the Bill. The code is intended to be
788
technologically neutral so that it can keep up with developments in communications technology. That means that the detail of the exact types of data to be retained will not feature in the code but will be specified in the agreements negotiated with individual service providers.
We will consider subdividing the generic definitions into broad classes of data, such as subscriber information, location data and traffic data. We shall have discussions on that in the course of consultation.
In the light of that, I hope that the noble Earl will not seek to press his amendment. I repeat my apology for being slightly late.
The Earl of Northesk: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, again for his support for the principle of the amendment and to the Minister for his explanation of the Government's position.
I was somewhat thrown by the Minister's observation that the intention is that the code of practice should be technologically neutral. That is a little odd. The voluntary code will be a by-product of this emergency legislation. That suggests that it should have an end-life. To require it to be technologically neutral for the period of the emergency seems to be stretching the point somewhat.
I heard the Minister's reassurance that the code would include a maximum period for which data are to be retained. However, his description of the classes of data appeared somewhat at variance with what he has previously said about the Government's intentions and the classes of data that they are interested in. Will the Minister clarify that point?
Lord Rooker: I would if I could. I do not think that I am contradicting what I said previously. I have pointed out that e-mail data are different from telephone data. In the past, I have talked about billing information—the addresses, telephone numbers, dates, times and duration of calls. It is no different from the broad classes of data, examples of which I have given. It is not prescriptive and will be developed during consultation. Subscriber information presumably deals with information relating to the subscriber—perhaps the number called from the subscriber's billing address and the traffic data, which is the duration of the call and the date.
The Earl of Northesk: I am grateful to the Minister for that clarification. I have to be content that the Minister is committed to ensuring that the code of practice will cover both classes of data and the maximum length of time for which it will be retained.
I shall repeat a point that I made in the context of the amendment that we debated before the dinner break. A voluntary code has been in the offing for a number of years, but no progress has been made on its fruition. That has concerned communication service providers, in particular. Part of the problem is that there has been little or no agreement on the parameters of the code. The purpose of the amendment was to facilitate that agreement. I should hope that the

789
assurances given by the Minister will take the matter forward, but in the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Earl of Northesk The Earl of Northesk moved Amendment No. 171B:
Page 62, line 30, leave out subsection (7) and insert—
"( ) Communications providers acting in conformity with the code of practice shall not be liable to any criminal or civil proceedings in which the question arises whether or not the retention of any communications data is justified on the grounds that a failure to retain the data would be likely to prejudice national security."
The noble Earl said: I shall also speak to Amendments Nos. 176F and 177D, which are grouped with Amendment No. 171B.
We return to the issue of how voluntary the code is. There is an argument in favour of creating appropriate conditions to encourage compliance with the code. If businesses are not exonerated from liability when acting in conformity with the code, in cases where the justification for data retention is challenged—I am certain that that could happen—there is little incentive for businesses to subscribe to the code.
At present the Bill presents businesses with a dual risk. If businesses choose to comply and retain communications data, they could be liable for the unfair processing and disclosure of the subject's data. They could be in breach of the first and the third data protection principles. The Information Commissioner has been unequivocal about her perception of that issue. On the other hand, although it is the intention that businesses will not be held liable for failing to comply—after all, the code is voluntary—the Bill reserves for the Secretary of State the power to make mandatory provisions in respect of data retention. That threat hangs over businesses. In an attempt to address these problems, the amendment makes it clear that if businesses comply with the code, no liability will arise.
Amendment No. 176F also proposes in a slightly different way that in order to provide legal certainty, a communications provider, acting in accordance with a direction properly given by the Secretary of State, may not be challenged under the Data Protection Act or any other enactment. The Secretary of State should provide a certificate to verify that a direction has been given. There is a precedent for that in Section 28 of the Data Protection Act. The amendment would simply bring legal certainty for the purposes of avoiding unnecessary legal action.
Amendment No. 177D is the most crucial in the group. I apologise if I take a little time to address it. As I have already inferred, without the absolute certainty of legal protection against being sued, CSPs cannot contemplate doing what would otherwise be a breach of the Data Protection Act.
Clause 102(7), as drafted, is wholly inadequate in this respect. First, it only makes a code or agreement admissible in evidence without making it conclusive and, secondly, while Section 28 of the Data Protection Act contains an exemption from all the data protection
790
principles where such exemption is needed for national security, Section 79 on the prevention and detection of crime does not. In particular, it does not contain an exemption from the principle that personal data shall not be retained for longer than it is required.
The Information Commissioner's memorandum on the Bill, published on 13th November states:
"Continued retention of communications data by a communications provider beyond the completion of its own processing need, in order to satisfy the needs of others, is likely to contravene the 1998 [Data Protection] Act's requirements. The clauses providing for retention based on the provision of a code of practice or agreement would not necessarily remedy the situation".
Can the Government explain how the provisions in the Bill would be workable if, as the Information Commissioner suggests, key elements may not be compatible with the 1998 Data Protection Act?
CSPs have received advice from legal counsel indicating that there is no certainty that the voluntary code of practice proposed in the Bill would provide CSPs who comply with the code with legal protection. This would place CSPs in a wholly unacceptable legal position. Counsel's advice was that the retention of communications data pursuant to a code of practice potentially engages two of the data protection principles. The second principle provides that,
"Personal data shall be obtained only for one or more specified and lawful purposes, and shall not be further processed in any manner incompatible with that purpose or those purposes".
The fifth principle provides that,
"Personal data processed for any purpose or purposes shall not be kept for longer than is necessary for that purpose or those purposes".
The second principle states that purposes may be specified either in a notice to the data subject under the fair processing code or in a notification to the commissioner. This would mean that, in order to be a lawful purpose, the fact that communications data were being retained for national security and law enforcement purposes would need to be disclosed to the data subject. This could have negative effects on business in that customers might be unwilling for their information to be kept for those purposes. It could also result in a huge increase in data subject access requests. That is a point upon which we touched briefly previously, but to which we still have no satisfactory answer.
We believe that a voluntary code of practice must be backed up by a clear provision for statutory immunity for CSPs in the text of the Bill. Hence the amendment which, in terms, states that compliance with a code of practice, agreement or direction renders a CSP immune from actions under the Data Protection Act and similar data protection legislation.
The duty under the Human Rights Act to construct legislation so far as possible to make it consistent with human rights adds particular uncertainty. The amendment in this context seeks to provide a clear and unambiguous statement that in relation to the retention of data the Act we are debating today overrides conflicting legislation so that CSPs who comply with a code, agreement or direction can do so

791
secure in the knowledge that they cannot be made legally liable in so doing. The Minister should be under no illusions as to the importance of that. Without absolute certainty about liability, the voluntary code simply cannot work. I beg to move.
9.15 p.m.
Lord Rooker: Does the noble Earl want the voluntary code to work? I am not sure about that, having listened to the manner in which the amendments were presented. If the Opposition do not want the voluntary code as the first option and would prefer a statutory measure, let them say so. However, that is not the Government's intention. We want the voluntary code to work. I cannot emphasise strongly enough that we do not want to, and will not, put service providers in the situation that the noble Earl thinks they may be put in. I hope that I shall make that absolutely clear in responding to the three amendments.
We have no intention of drawing service providers into breaking either the civil or the criminal law. The code of practice and the agreements will not be drafted in a way which is incompatible with data protection or human rights legislation. I have made that point about half a dozen times, if not more, during the course of our debates. However, it bears repeating to put it on the record so that industry can see the whites of our eyes and can be sure that what we say is what we mean.
We are keen to ensure that any data kept for the purpose of safeguarding national security or preventing and detecting should be stored by service providers in accordance with the Data Protection Act. This means that data should be retained only for a period which is necessary and, of course, proportionate, and should be stored with the utmost regard to processing quality standards.
Removing the possibility of legal challenge to service providers' retention practices would undermine the Government's commitment to ensuring that personal data are treated fairly and responsibly in line with the Data Protection Act. These protections work only if subject to a challenge in the court.
In any event, we intend to draw up a code of practice that is compliant with data protection and human rights legislation and to consult fully with the Information Commissioner to ensure that the drafting reflects that. It is, therefore, entirely unnecessary and, indeed, bordering on the unhelpful, to introduce any kind of immunity clause.
I turn to Amendment No. 176F. The amendment tabled by the noble Earl would clarify that data retained in accordance with a direction under Clause 103 were necessary for national security and the prevention or detection of crime as we discussed earlier.
If a communications service provider is issued with a mandatory direction to retain data, his purpose for retaining it in data protection terms is that he is obliged by law to do so. Therefore, there is absolutely no question of liability, and a certificate from the
792
Secretary of State would not add an iota of further protection. I am sure that any information service provider who took legal advice on this issue would immediately know that to be the case. It is hoped that that would give such service providers absolute coverage. They are entitled to the coverage and are entitled to seek it but, once they are in a mandatory situation, it is implicit that they have absolute immunity.
I turn to a point which I suppose brings me back to my initial question. I understand that some sections of industry—I have not been involved in any discussions but I have received reports of them—would probably like to have the comfort factor of being able to say to their customers, "We must do this; the law says so, and we are all treated the same". We are not going down that route. To begin with, we want a voluntary system in which everyone is treated equally and in which, it is hoped, no red herrings give rise to customer dissatisfaction with individual suppliers. We do not intend to play off one against another. That would be wholly unfair and an abuse of the Government's position.
So far as concerns the final amendment in this group, I can only repeat what I have already said. We have no intention of drawing service providers into breaking either the criminal or the civil law. The proposed code will be fully compatible with human rights and data protection legislation. I can repeat the exact points that I have made on previous amendments but that would appear superfluous; they are the same word for word.
With regard to the directions set out in Clause 103, if a communications service provider is issued with a mandatory direction to retain data, then, as I said, his purpose in data protection terms is that he is obliged to do so by law. Therefore, such providers have a copper-bottomed guarantee of immunity and no purpose is served by the proposed amendments being made to the Bill. I assume that, quite rightly, they have been tabled for exploratory and probing reasons in order to obtain firm guarantees from the Government and to have those recorded in Hansard.
The Earl of Northesk: I am grateful for the noble Lord's comments. I must confess that I am somewhat surprised by them. The thought strikes me that this is an issue in which Parliament should have an interest. Rhetorically—no more than that—I ask whether it is appropriate that potential conflicts in law should be, as the noble Lord suggests—at least I believe that that is what he suggests—resolved in a code of practice by negotiation between the interested parties rather than in primary legislation. That strikes me as a somewhat extraordinary proposition.
That said, the noble Lord gave a number of very reasonable reassurances as to liability and whether or not there is a conflict here between the Data Protection Act and what is proposed on the face of the Bill. I am bound to say to the noble Lord that, whatever assurance he gives, there is a conflicting view on that issue. I am also bound to say to the noble Lord that that conflicting view needs to be resolved one way or

793
another by Parliament. I shall not press the matter at this late hour, but I repeat that the noble Lord should be under absolutely no illusions. This is a very serious issue for the industry. If he sincerely believes that without resolution on the face of the Bill he will get a voluntary code, then I am sorry but he is living in Cloud-cuckoo-land.
Lord Rooker: I have not read all the correspondence. Have any of the service providers expressed the matter in such bold terms in writing to the Home Office? They have been in consultation; they have been in correspondence; and they have received assurances in writing from officials as well as at meetings. Are any service providers so concerned about this matter that they take that view? Have they put their demands in writing, saying that they will not co-operate with the voluntary code unless that is the case? I have no evidence to that effect. It may be so. I simply ask the question.
The Earl of Northesk: I merely repeat the point, which has been confirmed in writing to me, that communications service providers hold to the position that their legal advice is that the Bill as it stands exposes them to huge legal liabilities.
Lord Rooker: I do not want to negotiate over the Dispatch Box, but if providers have received such advice, I hope that they will put it to the Home Office when we are negotiating, discussing and consulting on the code of practice. It is no use submitting that information to noble Lords without sharing it with officials. That is said by way of an offer, not a complaint. That is what consultation is all about.
The Earl of Northesk: I note the Minister's comment and suspect that I should not be drawn any further. I repeat his point that we should not negotiate such issues across the Floor of the Committee. The fundamental issue remains that legal certainty should he on the face of the Bill because Parliament should have an interest. The matter should be determined by primary legislation.
Lord Elton: Perhaps my noble friend will allow me to go further. Surely it would not be possible to provide immunity through negotiation because immunity must be provided by statute. That is why the matter needs to be determined before the negotiations, not after.
The Earl of Northesk: I am grateful for my noble friend's intervention. He makes the point far more eloquently. I will not divide the Committee, but I am distinctly unhappy with the Minister's response. He may be assured that we will return to the point at a later stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 172 and 172A not moved.]
The Earl of Northesk The Earl of Northesk moved Amendment No. 172B:
Page 62, line 34, at end insert—
"( ) It shall be the duty of the Secretary of State to ensure that a code of practice or agreement issued under this section does not place an unreasonable burden on communications providers.
( ) A code of practice or agreement shall not expect or require a communications provider to retain any class of data that is not obtained or held by him during the normal course of his business."
The noble Earl said: With this, I shall speak also to Amendments No. 176A and 176B. Amendment No. 172B requires that codes of practice and agreements should not place an unreasonable burden on communications service providers and will not require them to retain data that are not part of the providers' normal business.
The first part of the amendment mirrors similar provisions on unreasonableness in RIPA, thereby allowing for consistency between the two. The second part reflects, as I understand it, assurances given by the Secretary of State.
Amendment No. 176A seeks to deal with a more awkward problem. The Bill allows the Secretary of State to make different directions for different communications service providers. No doubt that is to accommodate the variety of business models that operate in the sector—telephony, Internet and so on—and to allow flexibility. It could also give rise to inequities, so the amendment would place an obligation on the Secretary of State to ensure that a direction does not impose requirements on one communications provider that are significantly different from those imposed on another; and that requirements are reasonable and non-discriminatory.
Coincidentally, as with Amendment No. 172B, Amendment No. 176A reinforces the Secretary of State's commitment that communications providers will not be required to retain data that they do not process or keep in the normal course of business.
Amendment No. 176B also mirrors the wording of Section 11(5) of RIPA, so establishing the principle of reasonableness that is such a key feature of that Act, as well as ensuring consistency. The amendment minimises the risk of arbitrary directions and ensures that a direction takes full account of technical feasibility and other relevant factors. I beg to move.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: I support this group of amendments in general but query the point about discriminating between one communications provider and another. If, as only the Government believe, the Bill and these clauses were to be confined to terrorists or terrorist-related circumstances, it would be perfectly rational to allow the Secretary of State to make directions in respect of a particular group of telecommunications providers or a particular telecommunications provider. That would be a focused, specific intervention.
Even if this is forced upon the Government in a vote, I hope that we will return to a Bill based upon the kind of emergency that the measure was purported to deter.
9.30 p.m.
Viscount Goschen: The sentiments that have led my noble friend to put down these amendments are important. The Committee will recall when we were considering the RIP Bill, there were essentially three principal concerns: first, the civil rights argument; secondly, whether the provisions would be effective; and, thirdly, whether UK-based communications providers would be disadvantaged compared to their international counterparts. Communications providers can move their services. The industry is extremely difficult to regulate. I hope the Minister will not maintain that it is only a voluntary code and so, if it is unreasonable, the industry will not have to comply with it. We are talking about a voluntary code but a voluntary code must work and be drafted in such a way that everyone can sign up and adhere to it.
What discussions have taken place with our international partners to try to align the regulations in the RIP Act and the regulations in the Bill with those of our European partners and the US? During the debates on the RIP Bill one of the principal arguments was that if one had differing levels of regulation, service providers could move their services to the most friendly jurisdiction. It is important for the workings of this part of the Bill, as well as for the RIP Act as a whole, that we do see eye-to-eye with our partner countries in the fight against terrorism. I should be obliged if the noble Lord could answer those points.
Lord Rooker: If I have the information and am able to give it, then I shall be happy to do so. I shall take advice on what international discussions have taken place. There have been many discussions since 11th September but on the specifics of the question, if I am able to get the information, I shall certainly give it to the noble Viscount or write to him.
The noble Viscount was quite right in forecasting one point I wanted to make. If the code is not reasonable, the industry will not sign up to it. Why should it? It makes no sense. Were I in that industry and I received good advice that the code was unreasonable, I would not sign up. We cannot conceive of how we could get agreement to a voluntary code if the industry believed it to be unreasonable.
Lord Elton: The main point is in the next clause. If it does not get the voluntary one, it will have to lump the compulsory one.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: Industry will want to co-operate with the Government. The Minister should have no doubt about that. Everyone in your Lordships' House would want to see a voluntary code. But there is a central defect in terms of the scope of Clause 102. Industry is unlikely to refuse to play ball. That is not the nature of reality. It is going to negotiate and come to some sort of arrangement with the Government. However, that does not get us away from the defects to which the amendment relates.
Lord Rooker: I do not accept that for one minute. We should prefer to have a voluntary code and, in view
796
of our contacts with the industry, we have every expectation of securing that. I am not going to give details of that consultation tonight because I am in no position to do so.
I turn to the points of substance that have been raised. I do not deny that they are points of substance, but I do not agree that the amendment should be added to the Bill. The amendment would have two effects: it would guarantee that an unreasonable burden was not placed on service providers, and it would prohibit the retention of data that are not needed for business purposes.
The first issue is dealt with in Clause 105. The Secretary of State is required to ensure that arrangements are in place to make appropriate contributions to service providers if he judges that it is right to do so. So far as I am concerned—I shall also take advice on this—the terms in the first two or three lines of Clause 105 are standard and are used in other Bills. I recall that form of words from my time at the DSS when we consulted with industry. They came up when we were, as it were, paying for something to be done or that had been done at our request. The phrases, "as he thinks appropriate", and, "as he thinks fit", involve a tried and tested formula in legislation and I am not aware of any complaints about the words. That also mirrors the payment arrangements in the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act, which covers access to communications data.
It is absolutely crucial that we work with information providers to ensure that the arrangements do not cause British industry to lose out to competition from abroad. We are not seeking to damage British industry in any shape or form in relation to its competitors. That will not satisfy Members of the Committee but it certainly answers the first point.
The second issue concerns the type of data to be retained. That will be discussed in detail in the consultations on the code of practice. Individual agreements with the service providers will specify exactly which types of data are kept and will ensure that current retention practices are taken into account. There will not be a "one size fits all" arrangement. Some providers may end up retaining more data than they currently do. We want to take that into account.
The provisions are flexible enough to distinguish data that are of use to law enforcement and should be kept, and data that are of no interest to national security or the detection of crime. Records of standard operational procedures or the product of the functioning of computer systems, for example, should not be kept because that has nothing to do with the purpose for which the codes allow data to be kept. The provisions apply only to communications data that are already held by providers. We have no intention of asking them to retain data that are not collected in the normal course of their business. They are being asked to do nothing new. I see that the noble Lord is nodding, for which I am grateful.
The information that I have is that, in relation to our international partners, there have been negotiations on the EU draft communications data protection

797
directive. My notes contain a word that I cannot read, but it starts with, "cyber"; it could be "cyber-active forum". Last week, that forum was devoted entirely to data retention. I shall get a translation of the word in due course. There are ongoing European Commission discussions with the United States authorities and the matter arose at the G8 Florence summit two weeks ago. Home Office officials have met counterparts from France and the Netherlands. I now learn that the word I could not read is, "cyber-crime", and the body is the "cyber-crime forum". Okay. The writing is much better than mine. I am not making a criticism.
Last month Home Office officials met counterparts in France, the Netherlands and Sweden to discuss what each country is to do on data retention to meet the 11th September crisis. France has just introduced emergency legislation to retain data for up to one year for law enforcement purposes. I hope that that brief overview answers the noble Lord.
Amendment No. 176A seeks to ensure that equity is maintained between service providers and that they are not made to bear unreasonable burdens. We are committed to ensuring equity between comparable service providers. If it is necessary to introduce a mandatory scheme—I hope that it will not be—discussions about how equity can be observed will take place during consultation before directions are made.
Payments are dealt with in Clause 105. The Secretary of State is required to ensure that arrangements are in place to make appropriate contributions to service providers, if he judges that it is right to do so. That mirrors the payment arrangements in the RIPA provisions which cover access to communications data. The second issue concerns the type of data to be retained. That will be discussed during the consultations.
Amendment No. 176E introduces a test of reasonableness to directions issued under Clause 103. There is a requirement to consult communications providers before issuing directions. That will ensure that they are able to express what they can or cannot reasonably do. The Secretary of State will then need to balance those considerations against what is necessary to safeguard national security and to prevent and to detect crime.
We are committed to considering what help may be given to service providers that may take the form of capital investment or running costs. We shall work with the service providers on that and, in particular, we shall ensure that that does not cause British industry to lose out to competition from abroad. Noble Lords have raised a crucially important point on which I hope I have satisfied them.
The Earl of Northesk: I am grateful to the Minister for his explanation and comments. The noble Lord, Lord Phillips, may be more optimistic than but I concur with his wish and expectation that this part of the Bill will eventually be appropriately constrained, which will render these particular amendments redundant.
798
I am also grateful for the comments of my noble friend Lord Goschen. He put the issue with much more clarity than I managed. His point about potential migration via CSPs is well made. The Government should not lose sight of the fact that that could happen as that would damage their ambition to make the UK the best place for e-commerce among the G7 by 2005 and aspirations of that kind.
I hasten to add that thus far I have tried to avoid muddying the waters of the debate with references to preparation of and negotiation over EC directives. My suspicion is that we have probably successfully confused too many people already without adding that into the matrix. I am particularly grateful for reassurance from the Minister that the requirement for retention of data shall not include anything outside CSPs' normal business practice and use. That is extremely helpful. Tomorrow I shall read carefully in Hansard what the Minister has said. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 102, as amended, agreed to.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Geddes): Before calling Amendment No. 173, I must advise the Committee that when that amendment has been disposed of I shall call Amendment No. 173B before Amendment No. 173A, as Amendment No. 173B has been incorrectly marshalled. I must further advise the Committee that if Amendment No. 173 or 173B is agreed to, I shall be unable to call Amendments Nos. 173C to 174 inclusive due to pre-emption.
Clause 103 [Directions about retention of communications data]:
9.45 p.m.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury Lord Phillips of Sudbury moved Amendment No. 173:
Page 62, line 36, leave out subsection (1) and insert—
"( ) If, after reviewing the operation of any requirements contained in the code of practice and any agreements under section 102, it appears to the Secretary of State that it is necessary to do so to safeguard against terrorism, he may by order made by statutory instrument authorise the giving of directions under this section for as long as it takes to revise the code in consultation with the communications providers to whom the code will apply or, as the case may be, who will be affected by the revisions, or with the persons appearing to him to represent those providers."
The noble Lord said: The amendment seeks to soften the impact of Clause 103. As the clause stands, if the Minister has compulsorily to act—that is to say that he fails to reach the agreement which we all accept he and the Government will be earnestly seeking—one moves into a position where directions can be given for an initial period of two years. That is renewable ad nauseam.
We on this side of the House—there are several names attached to the amendment which cover the spectrum—feel that a better solution to the circumstances which give rise to compulsion would be

799
for the compulsion period to end as soon as a satisfactory code has been developed. That is the simple purport of Amendment No. 173. I beg to move.
The Earl of Northesk: It may be convenient to the Committee if I speak to Amendments Nos. 173A, 173B and 174B. I begin by supporting the words of the noble Lord, Lord Phillips. Both Amendments Nos. 173A and 173B offer alternative approaches to the amendment so eloquently explained by the noble Lord.
Our view is that it is inappropriate that the Secretary of State should have absolute discretion in invoking reserve powers. To that extent, we are of one mind in the conviction that this part of the Bill is in need of improvement.
I turn to Amendment No. 173A. It seeks to introduce elements again of a proportionality test against which the Secretary of State's giving of directions under the clause can be measured. It is important to realise that it is not unwillingness on the part of business that can make compliance with data retention requests difficult, be they voluntary or mandatory. As the Minister said, the response of communication service providers in the wake of September 11th has been excellent. There are often sound commercial reasons for non-compliance: for example, the data required might be available only on a service that is subject to another jurisdiction. That point was made previously by my noble friend Lord Goschen.
I hazard a guess that understanding of these kinds of issues is perhaps a little cloudy. Thus, without some form of test and the pro-active involvement of business in the process, it is conceivable, if not likely, that directions emanating from the Secretary of State alone will entrench the ineffectiveness of the code rather than address it. In the context of a mandatory code, that has the potential of being positively harmful to the sector. Amendment No. 173A seeks to address that problem by making business a party to the preparation of any revisions in the code.
I turn to Amendment No. 183B. That too introduces a threshold test for the reserved powers by obliging the Home Secretary to show that a direction under Clause 103 is necessary and justified for the purposes of the Bill by linking it back—again—to Clause 102(5). That is consistent with the proportionality principle highlighted by the Information Commissioner in her memorandum on the Bill. She stated:
"The scope of the powers proposed to be given to the Secretary of State is immensely broad. The lack of any overt safeguards against abuse of such powers indicate a lack of proportionality such as to render the prospective legislation incompatible with Convention rights".
Amendment No. 147B picks up that thread and applies it equally to any directions that the Secretary of State may issue to communication service providers. As so often with the Bill, the objective is to
800
establish appropriate consistency with the principles of proportionality present in data protection and human rights law and in RIP.
Viscount Goschen: In responding to the amendments, the Minister has an excellent opportunity to reassure the Committee and the industry about what circumstances are in the Government's mind with regard to Clause 103—under what circumstances they would seek to introduce directions by statutory instrument rather than allow the voluntary code of practice to continue.
We well know that the industry tends to know much more about the business of providing information—the ins and outs of the competitive framework—than do the Government. The industry is a vital part of making this area of the Bill work. If it is compelled to do something, the chance of it co-operating fully will be much less. It is clearly in the Government's interest to reassure the industry that Clause 103 is a reserve power.
My noble friend Lord Northesk and the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, have provided some more objective tests to be used—some further hurdles to be overcome. The Minister may or may not like the specific tests that they have proposed, but the Committee wants further reassurance on when and how the clause will be invoked. All our discussion on Clause 102 for the past two or three hours has been useless if the Government have it in mind to use Clause 103 at the flip of a switch.
Lord Rooker: I take the point behind the amendments. I can make one commitment that may answer the Committee's suspicion. I cannot read out a list of criteria by which we would decide, if necessary, to switch from a voluntary to a mandatory scheme. However, during consultation on the code of practice, an objective set of criteria to determine its success or failure will be drawn up. I cannot put it better than that. During those discussions, we will draw up with the industry and the Information Commissioner an objective set of criteria to decide at a given time whether the code had been a success or a failure. If it were a failure, that would trigger either further consultation to revise the code or the mandatory route.
I can entertain the Committee with much repetition of what I said earlier, but my remarks just now go to the central point that is the thrust behind the amendments. We want to be open and objective about measuring the code's success or failure. As I said, that set of criteria will be drawn up during the consultation.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: That reply is helpful. What if the Minister had to go down the compulsory route and the industry came running to his door, started negotiating seriously and effectively and, after six months, let us say, we had a code with which everybody was satisfied? As I understand it, nothing in the Bill would allow the two-year period to be broken or ended. I wonder whether that is right and sensible.
Lord Rooker: I do not know, but I am happy to consider that in the time available. We want the thing

801
to work. If we can clarify that point, we will. If the voluntary system has failed and we are moving to a statutory system but, following negotiation, there is an agreement to continue a voluntary system, by definition there is no dispute any longer and it does not make sense to ramrod the statutory system. I shall take advice and clarify the process, if I can, because that is in everyone's interest.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: I thank the Minister for that reply and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 173B not moved.]
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: Before calling Amendment No. 173A, I must advise the Committee that, if it is agreed to, I cannot call Amendments Nos. 173C to 176 inclusive due to pre-emption.
[Amendments Nos. 173A and 173C not moved.]
[Amendment No. 173C not moved.]
The Deputy y Chairman of Committees: Before calling Amendment No. 173D, I must advise the Committee that if it is agreed to I cannot call Amendment No. 174.
[Amendments Nos. 173 to 174B not moved.]
Lord Phillips of Sudbury Lord Phillips of Sudbury moved Amendment No. 175:
Page 62, line 43, after "to" insert "public"
The noble Lord said: I speak for all those named on the amendment. I hope that the Committee will be patient if I deal with it with some care—care partly because it affects an issue which causes consternation outside the Chamber in the industry and care because, frankly, I do not know what I am talking about!
On that score, I should pay tribute to the great deal of help which we on this side of the Committee have received from the Foundation for Information Policy Research and the Internet Service Providers Association. Both those organisations are steeped in the intricacies of this strange world.
The point of the little word "public", inserted in Clause 103(2)(a), is that where the Secretary of State gives directions he must give that information and direction to public communications providers generally in order to get away from the personal/private provider as defined by the legislation. It is also to restrict the coercive powers of Clause 103 to public communications providers.
As drafted, the clause would compel the keeping or retaining of data not just to communications providers under the Bill, sometimes called Internet service providers and telephone companies, but to anyone with a computer utilising software providing any kind of service, commercial or not. That would include a web server, file sharing software, and so-called "peer-to-peer" networking. Peer-to-peer networking is not the kind of thing Members of this House do for many hours a day in the many nooks and crannies of this wonderful building, quaffing and talking, although it is the same spelling. Peer-to-peer networking involves
802
computing devices which talk directly to one another without a central computer controlling that communication. Devices used in peer-to-peer communications, which is known in the trade as P2P, can include not only desk-top computers but also PDAs, palm or hand-held computers, corporate workstations or even cell phones. Hooking up computers by P2P connections is a critical step for the future of computing generally. That is the importance of this apparently small amendment.
For many years, computer users had to dump their information into a central data base before anyone else could use it. But with P2P networking, users can share on a one-to-one basis as data is generated, rather than waiting for central data bases to be updated, therefore allowing for more accurate and time-sensitive decisions. For example, a PC user with the right permissions could check on his co-worker's laptop to see whether a particular file existed. P2P networking is also becoming vital to collaboration between workers and has, I am told and believe, huge potential commercial application. Through direct computer-to-computer collaboration, users can share files easily and message each other as they do so. These functions, which help to duplicate the environment of an in-person meeting, are extremely helpful to companies as workers spread out across the country and the globe.
For consumers P2P networking is an irreplaceable tool for global knowledge-sharing and media distribution and makes it possible for users to have quick and easy access to entertainment and software cheaply relayed to each other's computers at a price that cannot be matched in the outside world. It also helps users to share information, files and research that they cannot find elsewhere. That is the purpose of inserting "public" in the two places in the Bill. I should be interested to know whether the Government have any objection to these proposals. I beg to move.
10 p.m.
The Earl of Northesk: I rise to contribute to the noble Lord's introduction to these amendments and speak to Amendments Nos. 177E, 177F and 177G. The Bill is drafted in such a way as to compel the retention of data by private as well as public networks. The Minister confirmed that point in an earlier debate. Thus it applies to a massive sub-set of computing uses. The noble Lord, Lord Phillips, mentioned peer-to-peer or P2P which is already a well-established medium for data transfer and exchange over the Internet.
Many—or maybe few—will be aware of the legal action conducted in America against Napster by the recording industry. Whatever the outcome, P2P, whether represented by Napster derivatives or successors such as the systems engineered by the recording industry—I believe that one was announced today—is becoming a benchmark for data transfer of content over the web.
In terms, therefore, the Bill potentially requires private computers, perhaps even down to the level of the individual user, to log arbitrary data. If it applies

803
at that level and users are required to log traffic and report usage upon government request, not only will it be an unwarranted intrusion upon the individual but it could also severely impair research and development of a number of P2P software applications.
There are those who believe that P2P and its variants are the future of e-commerce. For example, Andrew Grove, former chairman of Intel Corporation, observed:
"Web computing defined the second half of the '90s; peer-to-peer computing will be a significant paradigm"—
a wonderful word—
"of the first half of this decade".
How does that square with the Government's commitment to e-commerce?
Amendments Nos. 177E, 177F and 177G are quite technical but no less important for that. Amendment No. 177E seeks to ensure that data generated temporarily during the course of computing operations, which has no separate business use, are not inadvertently caught by the scope of the Bill. I believe that the Minister has already given assurances on the point, so if he chooses not to reply to that amendment I shall probably be satisfied. Amendments Nos. 177F and 177G echo the concerns raised in respect of Amendments Nos. 175 and 176. I have in mind—I may be wrong—that our debates on RIP provoked assurances that the provisions of that Act did not extend to private telecoms networks. Perhaps the Minister can confirm that one way or the other.
I move to Amendment No. 177G. The particular focus of our debates on RIP was whether its provisions extended to providers of private telecoms networks. This amendment also seeks to address that problem.
Viscount Goschen: It is clear that the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, and my noble friend Lord Northesk have put their fingers on a central problem. I do not envy the Minister's task in defining "communications provider". As my noble friend Lord Northesk said, during debates on RIP we went round in circles for a long time trying to nail down what a communications provider was. It is clear that we all know, more or less, what the Bill should mean. There is a statement that is sufficiently vague for it to come from any Front Bench.
Clearly, technology is moving extremely fast. We have heard descriptions of systems being envisaged that will not need a central server or computing business to enable communications to pass from one machine to another. We need to define the term "communications provider" and to be clear about what types of service will be included and which will be specifically excluded. For example, would a small office comprising five computers fitted with networking software to enable e-mails to be sent between those machines be termed a communications provider? Members of the Committee know that such
804
a system is not what the Act is aimed at, but the provisions must make it clear where they intend to strike.
Lord Rooker: We are entering the realms of technology and "new-speak" that are beyond me. Indeed, in reading out a profoundly complicated statement, the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, admitted that he could not understand the detail. I felt for him.
I can respond to the amendments briefly, perhaps not to universal satisfaction, but at least to establish consistency, which is important. The definition of communications providers set out in the Bill is and should be consistent with that used in the access to communications data provisions set out in Part I, Chapter II of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000. Although the provisions in the Bill and those in the RIP Act will bite in the main where they are intended to do so—namely, on providers who provide a service to the public, such as BT, Orange and Vodafone—we do not wish to rule out the possibility—I put it no more strongly than that—of ensuring that communications data relating to private networks are retained where they might be necessary for national security or crime prevention purposes.
Earlier I said that we have accepted the case as regards PDVN and university networks, but I am reluctant to cite examples and the reasons why it may be done. That is because the different cases will be explored and will be covered by the code of practice. Details on negotiations will be covered by the code. We shall retain the possibility.
As regards P2P, which is new to me because I have not yet read about it and thus I am not as up to date as the noble Lord, the directions would need to be appropriate and relevant for the purpose for which the data may be retained under Clause 102(5)—on which we have had a technical disagreement, as it were—that is, to cover national security and the prevention and detection of crime. Directions need to be appropriate and relevant for those purposes.
Keeping the definition consistent through the different pieces of legislation is probably important for reasons of cross-over. When listening to noble Lords and taking note of the examples given, I can understand why noble Lords might worry that the Government are being oppressive. That is not our intention. By keeping the definitions consistent, we send a signal indicating that the possibility is in place, but that it is not our intention to target private networks. Nevertheless, at some time it may be possible that we would need to do so. I thought that the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, wished to intervene, but he has indicated that he agrees with what I have said. It must be the late hour.
The noble Earl on the Opposition Front Bench invited me not to reply to one of his amendments because, in effect, I have already responded to the central points. Amendments Nos. 177F and 177G both refer to the definition. In that regard I refer to what I have just said. The central point is that it is not our intention to be oppressive. These matters will have

805
to be discussed during the consultation on the code of practice in order that people will know where they stand. I hope that I have said enough to reassure noble Lords and others outside the House. I appreciate that we do not yet have a code of practice or even a draft.
As to the comments that this issue has been in the offing for years, I can assure the Committee that the Home Office has now got its skates on.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: I am grateful to the Minister for those remarks. Although the intricacies are arcane, the principle behind the amendment is understood by one and all.
If when considering what I said in introducing the amendment the Minister and his officials are of the view that there is substance in it, I would be grateful if the Government could suggest an amendment to cover the position. I am sure that the Minister will accept that important principles such as this need to be right on the face of the Bill. We should not leave everything to codes. For this purpose, I am sure that those who have been assisting me on this side of the House with these technical matters would be very happy to discuss them directly with officials to try to hammer out the truth of the matter. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 176 to 176F not moved.]
On Question, Whether Clause 103 shall stand part of the Bill?
10.15 p.m.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: I beg the patience of the Committee at this late hour while I try to draw together the strands of anxiety that have been expressed so far on all the amendments in respect of Clauses 102 and 103. The issues are of the greatest moment and, to be fair, the Minister has made no attempt to pretend otherwise.
There is a profound disagreement between the Government and the rest of the Committee on the central issue of whether this part of the Bill should be confined—or can be confined—to threats to national security. I would rather put it that way than talk of terrorism. Indeed, that is how it appears in the Bill.
If the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, is correct in his claim that it is impossible to define the scope of this part of the Bill so that it is confined to threats to national security and any criminal matter potentially related to such a threat, then the anxieties are heightened and intensified. I do not think that it is the case that the wit of man and parliamentary draftsmen cannot rise to this challenge. I was as bold during the course of the debate to suggest a form of words that might serve the purpose.
It means that, further downstream, when the time comes to access the bulging warehouses of data communications, it will remain impractical—if the Minister is right—to distinguish between a threat to national security and any old crime. In which case, those warehouses can be accessed wholesale under
806
Sections 22 and 23 of the RIPA legislation, not only for the purposes for which this legislation has been brought forward on an emergency timetable but for vastly wider purposes.
Let us examine what this could mean. First, will data retained under the terms of the Bill, and accessible under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act, be accumulated by any agency or any authority in some central or single database? In other words, could data from separate inquiries and investigations for diverse purposes be pooled or accumulated? We assume that that is the case.
Secondly, is it intended to mark or categorise such data in terms of the purpose for which the data were retained? Will it be possible to distinguish at a later time which data were obtained for what purpose, so that, as the Data Protection Act provides, the data shall not then be used for any incompatible purpose? Again, I must assume that the answer is no. My view is reinforced by the Government's unwillingness to accept the merits of Amendment No. 171.
Thirdly, will the data be kept by police in databases for intelligence purposes? If that is the case, current Association of Chief Police Officers guidelines mean that the data can be kept indefinitely, subject to a yearly review, even if the people concerned are neither convicted nor suspected of any crime. That illustrates the central difficulty that we have.
Although the Government rely heavily on the continued applicability of the Data Protection Act, the Information Commissioner has no duty to inspect the databases that will hold the data after they are obtained or to examine the manner in which they are used.
The Government may say that that responsibility falls to the Interception of Communications Commissioner under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act. But that, again, is not so. The Interception of Communications Commissioner has a duty to satisfy himself that traffic data are lawfully obtained, and no more. He has no say over what may be done with the data afterwards, and no mandate or technical capacity to inquire.
If the Government were to accept the central concern—namely, that this part of the Bill should be restricted to threats to national security and potentially related crime—most of our other concerns would go or would be easily accommodated. On Report, we shall, I fear, have to press this matter to a vote unless there can be some accommodation. We do not accept the fatalism of the Home Office in terms of the inability to confine the scope of the Bill, especially since it chimes with the wishes of NCIS and the other security bodies, as mentioned previously in this debate.
The distinction that the Minister has constantly made between data attached to communications and content of communications is not as great as he implies. The fact of being able via communications data to draw an accurate, precise profile of not merely a few individuals but thousands of individuals is an immense intrusion into the privacy to which citizens of

807
this land are entitled. The profile will be of anyone's interests, contacts and movements. All that is possible—indeed, with the development of technology, it is fast growing.
The Minister has repeatedly assured the House that there "will not be misuse" and that the legislation will fully respect the Human Rights Act, the Data Protection Act and the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act. He has said so again and again. Indeed, at one point he was so carried away with this conviction that he banged the desk. Had I a desk to bang, I would bang it back. There are times when scepticism is the right course for this legislative House.
I do not mean to be in any way disparaging, but I believe that the Minister is being complacent, given the importance of the issues, because not everyone is as palpably decent and honourable as the Ministers and their civil servants. An audit by the police last year found that the national databank contained more than 50,000 sets of fingerprints and DNA material that were there illegally. They may have been put there out of malice, but it is much more likely to have been a cock-up.
It is a commonplace that access to licensing information, police records and bank records is easily obtained through low-level corruption on the part of those on the inside and on the outside. These are realities and we are foolish to pretend otherwise.
The greatest prayer handed down to us says,
"Lead us not into temptation".
If anything is going to lead those with access to such massive hoards of material into temptation, it is the Bill, unless it is constrained more tightly and focused more specifically than at present. Our view is that the greater the risk to civil liberty, the greater must be our vigilance in that cause.
At the end of all his reassurances, the Minister said that we should not worry because there is always the Interception of Communications Commissioner. I fear that that too is not a satisfactory basis on which to rely. His office is understaffed and under equipped. As his report issued in October this year makes clear, he does not even have the resources to deal with Internet communications. There are no indications of what robust sampling there has been to investigate the vast number of cases involving widely differing types of data that he has to deal with.
The Home Office will not say when the commissioner will be provided with the promised,
"reliable and verifiable technical means",
to inspect the operation of black boxes. That may sound like mumbo-jumbo, but those of us who sat through the proceedings on the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Bill will remember a great deal of late-night discussion on black boxes, which are the key to this element of communications interception and retention.
808
The commissioner does not yet have a promise that he will have available to him those black boxes, which could be under remote control from NTAC, or even whether he will have a searchable database from which he can hope to undertake his task effectively. Last year the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Tribunal, which was an important part of the protection of the citizen under RIPA and which is supposed to safeguard civil liberties, was criticised by the parliamentary watchdog on the grounds that it did not have sufficient secretariat to enable it even to open the mail, let alone process and investigate complaints.
I fear that it is a commonplace that some of the reassurances that Ministers honestly give on legislation such as this are undermined by a simple failure of manpower and quality of manpower and other resources. We are unconvinced that the huge extra powers and the massive collection and retention of information that these two clauses will enable have been satisfactorily safeguarded.
Compulsion would be acceptable if the scope of the measure was satisfactorily confined, but without that confinement it is plainly disproportionate in its scope. Unless it is amended, we will not be satisfied. The compulsory state mass surveillance made possible by these two clauses can be justifiable only on that basis.
The Earl of Northesk: I support the noble Lord, Lord Phillips. I do not propose to repeat all the arguments that I advanced at Second Reading, especially at this time of night. It is enough to say that I sought to demonstrate then how a mandatory data retention scheme fails four tests: necessity, effectiveness, proportionality and consequence. I acknowledge that the Minister has worked tirelessly over the past few hours to persuade the Committee otherwise, and I pay tribute to him for that, but I remain unconvinced.
I merely emphasise two points. First, there is no evidence whatever that a lack of data retained has proved an impediment to the investigation of the atrocities on 11th September. Despite ample opportunity throughout the Committee stage, the Minister has not challenged that view.
The reality is that communications providers, within the terms of the existing legislation, already routinely hold data for several months or years. To confirm that point, one need look only at how mobile telephone data are retained and the maximum period that mobile telephone companies are prepared to admit that they retain such data.
That being so, the Government have an obligation to make a stronger case for changing the status quo to the extent of seeking reserve powers for a mandatory scheme. The Information Commissioner implied in her draft memorandum on the Bill that it was inappropriate for such an important area of public policy to be determined in a rushed way.
Mandatory data retention, both of itself and more widely, runs counter to government policy. On three separate occasions in the past year. Ministers gave assurances that there were no plans to introduce such

809
a proposal. For example, in their joint letter of 28th January to the Independent, Charles Clarke and Patricia Hewitt stated:
"We have no plans to introduce legislation mandating the retention of such data",
but that is precisely the proposal contained in Clause 103. More widely, it should be understood that a mandatory data retention scheme is wholly antipathetic to the Government's ambitions to make the UK the best place in the world for e-commerce.
The noble Lord, Lord Phillips, said rightly that a mandatory scheme might be tolerable if it were adequately constrained in terms of scope. I am entirely happy to agree with that, but the mandatory scheme, as it is currently constructed in the Bill, is a step too far.
Viscount Goschen: I shall be brief as we have discussed these issues a number of times this evening. The Government are asking a lot in asking Parliament to accept Clauses 102 and 103. The noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, and my noble friend Lord Northesk on the Front Bench have highlighted the principal issues.
The central point seems to be that the Government are picking a fight unnecessarily. No Member of the Committee has argued that the Government should not have a means of securing the retention of communications data to combat terrorism. No one has argued against that. The problem arises because the Government and the Home Office are being greedy in asking too much for things that go far beyond the principal aim of combating terrorism. There are a number of other constraints on the direction of the compulsory scheme about which we are concerned. There is an opportunity for the Government to narrow down their focus. If they did that and acceded to the points that have been made this evening, they would lose none of their ability to combat terrorism and they would secure the agreement of the Committee.
10.30 p.m.
Lord Rooker: Although I should not say this, during the course of the debate I have been the model of a listening Minister. However, I have just listened to some incredibly extravagant language which is frightening to people outside the Chamber. To talk about the Government conducting mass surveillance is preposterous. Let us get the matter clear. I invite the Committee to admit that the general public are not affected by this legislation. The general public have nothing whatever to fear. To talk about mass surveillance of thousands and thousands of people on the part of the Government, as Members of the Committee have just said, is extravagant in the extreme.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: May I?
Lord Rooker: I shall give way to the noble Lord in a moment. He had long enough on his feet if I may say so.
810
It is also a fact that mobile phone providers do not admit everything. Mobile phone providers do not admit that a mobile phone is a human tracking device. They do not talk about the matter in that way and mobile phones are never deployed in that way, but that is what they are effectively. Let us not beat about the bush. The Government do not seek to invent that phenomenon, but it is a part of the technology.
As I say, the general public are not affected by this legislation. I deny the case that some Members of the Committee have made in that respect. The Interception Commissioner will not have the relevant power in relation to data retention until Chapter II of Part I of the RIP Act is implemented next year. Therefore, he has not carried out any sampling. Black boxes and e-mail concern the content of communications data which this Bill is not about. Members of the Committee who constantly raise those issues are trying to send out a subliminal message that we are attempting to do something which we are patently not; that is, retain the content of communications. We are not in that business at all. I have received advice on this matter as important points have been raised and allegations made. The tribunal's staff has been increased and I understand that the backlog of cases which grew last year, and which is unacceptable in a public authority, has now been eliminated.
There will be no warehousing of data stored by communications service providers. Each individual request for access to data has to be justified. To talk—as Members of the Committee have done—of mass trawls of thousands of people is not on. That is not what this legislation is about. It is not what the code of practice will cover. We must be more moderate and realistic as regards what is on the face of the Bill as opposed to what people think is on the face of the Bill or what the media may say is on it.
The notice to obtain access to retained data must specify the conduct that is allowed and the purpose for which the access is required. Therefore, there cannot be mass surveillance in the way that some Members of the Committee have suggested. Having got that off my chest, I shall be happy to give way to the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, but there are one or two areas where I have indicated that we can meet legitimate concerns, particularly as regards some of the issues raised in previous amendments. We shall seek to do so even in the short time available. Much of that, of course, depends on goodwill in putting together the voluntary code of practice. I do not suggest that there is any bad will on anyone's part, least of all that of industry or the Committee. There is certainly no bad will on the Government's part.
All the indications are that we cart arrive at a successful conclusion to the matter but we must bear in mind what the Bill is about. The language that has been used in what were effectively Second Reading speeches on the two clauses we are discussing gives a misleading impression of the content of the clauses and the purpose for which we intend to use them. However, as I say, where we can meet legitimate concerns—we have tried to listen to concerns over the five days of

811
discussion on the Bill—even in the short time that is available we shall do what we can to seek to accommodate the Committee.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: I have not so far intervened in the discussion on this section of the Bill but the heat generated by the Minister has drawn me to my feet. I think the starting point has to be Article 8 of the convention stating a right to privacy and this legislation requiring the retention of data so as to make them available for investigative authorities, which is a derogation from that right to privacy. From what he was saying, I am not sure that the Minister entirely appreciates that.
Lord Rooker: Perhaps I may—
Lord Thomas of Gresford: Perhaps I may finish, then the noble Lord can have his say. This is the first time that I have expressed myself on this matter.
I have had experience of the way in which tracking happens through mobile phones. I know that it is a very valuable tool in criminal investigations. For example, if a murder takes place, the police investigators see whether a starburst of communications has occurred on the mobile phone of a person who is a suspect. Very often, within 10 or 15 minutes of an incident such as that, it is possible to see that a suspect has contacted half a dozen people. Those people are potential witnesses whom the police can investigate. That is one way in which it is used.
Another way in which, in my experience, it is used is to show where a suspect was at a given time. A mobile phone operates in such a way that it must connect with a particular mast. Therefore, it is possible to demonstrate that when the defendant or suspect says that he was in place A, he was in place B or C. I recall one case, for example, in which a suspect was driving up the motorway from London to a northern town. Contrary to his account of what had happened, it was possible to demonstrate—he had admitted that he had his mobile phone with him—that at the time when various things were happening he was in this place and that place and so on. It was possible to track him the whole way up the motorway.
The significance of that is that the investigative authorities—the police or the security services—can at any time gain access to the records held by a communications server and say, "We are investigating a particular matter". They can then pinpoint the location of any individual who holds a mobile phone, for example. Therefore, when the noble Lord says that this measure does not apply to the general public, it does in fact apply to anyone who happens to hold a mobile phone. It is possible to tell where a person was at any time in the United Kingdom and possibly, although I am not certain, abroad. Therefore, the entire public are subject to such surveillance if the investigating authorities wish to take that surveillance on board.
812
Therefore, I cannot accept, in however heated a manner the Minister expresses it, that this matter affects only "criminals". It can affect any member of the public. Not only that—I am dealing only with mobile phones—but there are other means of communication held by servers to which the investigating authorities can demand access and from which they can ascertain where, when and to whom an e-mail was sent. From what the Minister said when he resisted the amendment which sought to add the word "public" to the Bill, it seems that the PDVN within the Houses of Parliament can hold on to the records of my e-mails. From those, the investigating authorities can see my connections with Al'Qaeda or my private or business connections. They can gain access to all the information that I have sent through e-mail. Those records will be kept and it will be possible to investigate them in due course.
There is a case to be made for the Minister's proposals but for the purposes of the Bill, the measure should be confined to anti-terrorism. If it is to extend beyond that, the proposals should be put before the public for a long debate to which everyone can contribute and for soundings to be taken. That point was made by my noble friend Lord Phillips of Sudbury in opposing Clauses 102 and 103.
I reject the Minister's argument that the Bill does not cover surveillance of the whole public. It potentially provides for surveillance of every member of the community who uses a mobile telephone or e-mail. Let us face up to that. Is such a measure in the public interest at this moment? Is it in the public interest for it to be debated in the confines of rushed anti-terrorism legislation?.
Make no mistake, the Bill widens the powers of the investigating authorities in an unprecedented way.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: I am grateful for the Minister's response, which included some extremely warm expression of opinion. I do not resent that but I challenge the Minister to re-examine Section 22 of RIPA in relation to the debate on Amendment No. 171. I believe that he will be advised that unless there is some curtailment of the basis upon which information can be disclosed and obtained under the Bill, it will be open to a number of authorities—particularly the police and security organisations—to access a wide range of information, way beyond anything to do with terrorism or related crime.
Section 22 of RIPA deals with national security, prevention or detection of crime, prevention of disorder, the United Kingdom's economic well being, public health and safety, health, taxes, duties and preventing injury or damage to property. The way that the Bill is constructed, information that is collected and retained either voluntarily under Clause 102 or compulsorily under Clause 103 will be accessible for much wider purposes than those for which it was obtained. By rejecting Amendment No. 171, the Minister rejected his own argument just now.
The Minister said that the black boxes to which I made reference do not carry communications data—only communications that are beyond the remit of the

813
clauses. The Minister is flat wrong. I hope that he will take advice and reconsider. The Minister said also, perhaps with the greatest warmth, that the public are not affected. That is not remotely true. The information that is to be retained under Clause 102, and potentially compulsorily under Clause 103, will affect possibly millions of citizens. I urge the Minister to study the wording of Section 103(2):
"Where any order under this section is in force,"—
that is, a compulsory order where the voluntary code has broken down—
"the Secretary of State may give such directions as he considers appropriate about the retention of communications data … to communications providers generally".
There is no control over the Secretary of State's exercise of that discretion or any definitional limit on the data he can ask to be retained. The Secretary of State can ask the entire industry to engage in such a retention. For the Minister to say that the public are not affected, when the information will be only about the public, is not true. I hope that the Minister will, on reflection, agree. It was for those reasons that I talked about mass surveillance and I do not withdraw that phrase. I hope that we can reach an accommodation. What the Minister and ourselves are concerned about is the same thing. But at the moment he is under a misapprehension as to what his own Bill is capable of doing.
10.45 p.m.
Lord Rooker: I do not dissent for one moment. The noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, added to previous extravagant claims. He may have put it in silken tones but he made out that the Government are hell-bent on mass surveillance of the British public. That is the thrust of what noble Lords have said. I absolutely and flatly deny that. We have no such intention. Millions have now been mentioned. It gets worse each time the noble Lord stands up. Several times I made it absolutely clear that the code of practice will conform to all necessary legislative safeguards, including—and I mentioned this twice—Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. I specifically put that on the record.
If I am not believed, fine, but that is the point I made. It is the Government's intention to operate within Article 8, the Data Protection Act and all other safeguards in human rights legislation. I flatly deny that we are derogating from Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. I made that point at least three times.
On the black boxes, if I am wrong, I shall take advice. The point, however, was that that related to communications. I repeat again, we are not interested in retaining communications data. I have made that clear several times yet noble Lords still refer to this in passing. We have no interest in retaining that data. Some people may be interested to have it, but the Government do not want it. However often I deny this, it is clear I am not making a satisfactory case for noble Lords opposite.
814
Where we can meet legitimate points for clarification, both on negotiations for the code and on the Bill, we shall genuinely seek to do so. I accept that time is short but there should be some way for both Houses of Parliament to look at the totality of operation of the Bill when it is enacted.
There are millions of mobile phone users. They carry a human tracking device. The phone companies do not say that, but that is the reality. A lot more can be discovered from both the phone and the components within it. I do not propose to go into details about that. But let me repeat, we are not embarking in this Bill on mass surveillance of the British public. Whatever noble Lords may say, I shall rise each time and make that point.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: Perhaps I may say in reply to the Minister that no one is attacking the good faith and intentions of the Government. We are riot suggesting that mass surveillance is about to take place. What we object to is the powers given to government; not this Government but to any government. There are two points: how long will this legislation last—the sunset clause argument. Had I been sitting on those Red Benches in 1912 as part of a Liberal government pushing through emergency legislation called the Official Secrets Act, I might have spoken with the same passion as the noble Lord. I would have said, "The legislation is only short term and deals with an immediate situation". In fact, it lasted until it became totally discredited and gave far too much power to subsequent governments.
It is not the good faith of the Minister that is in question and there is no allegation that he is about to embark on mass surveillance. We question the handing of powers of considerable potential to the executive; those of us on this side of the House will always resist that.
Clause 103 agreed to.
Clause 104 [Lapsing of powers in section 103]:
[Amendments No. 176G and 177 not moved.]
The Earl of Northesk The Earl of Northesk moved Amendment No. 177A:
Page 63, line 34, leave out subsection (4) and insert—
"( ) It shall be the duty of the Secretary of State to receive quotations from businesses on the costs of complying with the data retention provisions of this Act and the code of practice, and to ensure subsequently that the appropriate payments in relation to capital and operational costs are made to communications providers."
The noble Earl said: In moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 177C.
I say at once that I welcome the Government's acceptance that communications providers should be compensated for complying with the proposed data retention regime. Unfortunately, the Bill's formula could be open to arbitrary decisions. The amendment therefore seeks to ensure that the Government obtain quotations from businesses about the costs involved in complying with the Bill's provisions and that payment is made to capital and operational investments. In

815
seeking a system of data retention, the amendment recognises that there is a risk that the Government will unintentionally place UK communications providers at a disadvantage vis-à-vis their international counterparts. As has already been mentioned, the Government should not underestimate the possibility that communications service providers will seek to relocate their infrastructure in less onerous regulatory regimes. That is a very real prospect, and more so if the industry infers that the compensatory package is in any way unreasonable or overly burdensome.
Amendment No. 177C offers an alternative approach. Indeed, in that it more closely mirrors the wording in Section 24(1) of the RIP Act, it may—I doubt it—find more favour with the Minister. After all—dare I say it—there is something to be said for consistency. I beg to move.
Lord Rooker: I was rather looking forward to a debate on one of the amendments that was not moved. It is unfair—
The Attorney-General (Lord Goldsmith): Oh!
Lord Rooker: I am not trying to cause problems for my noble and learned friend. I wanted to discuss one of those amendments because it related to the fact that in 1911—was that the date?—there was no sunset clause in the Official Secrets Act. We have just passed over the little sunset clause in these provisions. There is a mechanism for returning to the matters. I am sure that Members of the Committee have taken that on board.
On the amendments, I have in some ways covered a couple of the points in previous debates but it may help those who are following our proceedings to put those points on the record. We are committed to giving what help we can to service providers, which might take the form of capital investment or running costs. We will work with service providers on that. I repeat that we want to ensure that there is no possibility of that damaging the competitiveness of British industry with its overseas competitors.
As I have said, the wording in Clause 105 is consistent, so far as I am aware—I have not been contradicted yet—with the RIP Act. I recall that similar words were used in our arrangements at the DSS, when we dealt with industry's access to information relating to the Social Security Fraud Act. That legislation began in your Lordships' House and there were great debates on it before it came to the Commons. I was grateful to noble Lords for their scrutiny of it.
Amendment No. 177C would require the Secretary of State to ensure that fair contributions were made towards any costs that were incurred by service providers. Such costs would not be limited to those incurred as a result of the Bill's provisions.
Furthermore, it removes the Secretary of State's responsibility to ensure that any contributions paid are appropriate. I am sure that the Comptroller and
816
Auditor General will have something to say about such a wide statutory provision. Indeed the Public Accounts Committee will probably be in more uproar than the Human Rights Joint Committee is in relation to this Bill.
The existing provisions are and should be consistent with those in the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act. In the light of that, I hope that the noble Lord will not press the amendment. We seek a genuine arrangement of consensus with industry. We realise that there will be greater burdens on some providers than on others. Therefore, we want to meet the special needs of different providers in the best way that we can.
The Earl of Northesk: Perhaps I should apologise to the Minister for not moving amendments. I had thought that he would be grateful. I am grateful for the comments that the Minister has made. I shall reflect upon them when I read them in Hansard. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Earl of Northesk The Earl of Northesk moved Amendment No. 177B:
Page 63, line 41, at end insert—
"( ) Section 65 of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (c. 23) (the Tribunal) is amended as follows.
( ) In subsection (5), after paragraph (f) insert—
"(g) the making of any request for the retention or disclosure of communications data in pursuance of any code of practice issued or agreement entered into under section 102 of the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 and the making of any direction pursuant to section 103 of that Act."
( ) In subsection (8), after paragraph (f) insert—
"(g) a code of practice or agreement made under section 102 of the Anti-terrorism Crime and Security Act 2001, or a direction made under section 103 of that Act.""
The noble Earl said: Bearing in mind the hour, I shall be brief. Communications service providers and individuals should have an appeals procedure against requests for the retention of data or directions issued under the Bill. That is our belief. That would provide the independent scrutiny of such requests that is an essential part of Article 8 of the ECHR and would make for better overall accountability. An appropriate body for such appeals would be the tribunal set up under RIPA. Among other things, that considers complaints from persons aggrieved by certain conduct under RIPA, including conduct in relation to obtaining or requiring the disclosure of communications data. Section 65 of RIPA confers on the tribunal jurisdiction to hear those complaints. Therefore, the amendment seeks to extend the jurisdiction of the tribunal to the hearing of appeals against data retention requests and directions made under this Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Rooker: I too shall be brief. The provisions on data retention in this Bill are not—I repeat not—investigatory powers. Therefore, we believe that they should remain outside the scope of the tribunal that deals with investigatory powers.

817
The code of practice and agreements are voluntary. There should be no need for a complaints mechanism for a voluntary regime. Before making directions, the Secretary of State is required, under the Bill, to consult with those to whom the directions will apply. Service providers are also free to apply for judicial review of the Secretary of State's decision to make directions. I kept a straight face and did not change my tone of voice while reading that. We are not opposed to judicial review; we are not opposed to scrutiny. In some areas we do not believe that it is necessary because we have a good mechanism in place anyway. I say that in case anyone is contemplating returning to Part 4 debates. Nevertheless, in this area service providers are annoyed about any decision directly from the Secretary of State. Judicial review would be open to them. With that on the record, I hope that the noble Lord will be satisfied and that he will withdraw his amendment.
The Earl of Northesk: I am grateful for the comments made by the Minister. I have one observation. I am bound to contemplate what the position would be vis-à-vis appeals in the event that the Secretary of State ever felt it necessary to impose a mandatory code of practice. I shall reflect on that overnight and I shall reflect on the comments made by the noble Lord when I read Hansard tomorrow. In the mean time, I am happy to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 104 agreed to.
Clause 105 [Arrangements for payments]:
[Amendment No. 177C not moved.]
Clause 105 agreed to.
[Amendment No. 177D not moved.]
11 p.m.
Clause 106 [Interpretation of Part 11]:
[Amendments Nos. 177E to 177H not moved.]
Clause 106 agreed to.
[Amendment No. 177HA not moved.]
Clause 107 [Bribery and corruption: foreign officers etc.]:
[Amendment No. 177J not moved.]
Baroness Whitaker Baroness Whitaker moved Amendment No. 178:
Page 65, line 10, after "Kingdom)" insert "and in particular such authorities having legislative, administrative, or judicial functions, or exercising a public function for that country or territory (including public agencies or public enterprises) and public international organisations"
The noble Baroness said: I declare an interest as a member of Transparency International UK's Advisory Council. Amendment No. 178 seeks to make clear beyond doubt who is covered by the words "public body". The aim of this part of the Bill is to make it certain that bribing a foreign public official is a crime in compliance with the OECD Convention. It is a splendid advance in the fight against international terrorism as well as supporting international good governance.
But the reality of the most damaging kinds of large-scale bribery is that the bribed party may well not be a public official in the sense of the 1889 and the 1916 British law definitions which Clause 107(4) invoke. He or she may be a member of the legislature, an officer of a newly privatised utility, a judge or an officer of one of the international organisations based in the country concerned.
That is why the OECD Convention defines a "foreign public official" in words very close to the amendment. I ask, therefore, how can my noble and learned friend the Attorney-General be confident that the text of the Bill as drafted complies with the OECD Convention? I beg to move.
Lord Roper: I must also declare an interest as a member of the British section of Transparency International. I rise briefly to support the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker. It is important that this matter is clarified, if not on the face on the Bill at least by a clear assurance by the Attorney-General on the point.
The public service in various parts of the world is not necessarily as well developed as it is in this country. Therefore, the risks described by the noble Baroness are very real ones. The Committee wants this matter to be made perfectly clear, if not on the face of the Bill, in terms of the assurance which I hope the Attorney-General will be able to give us.
Lord Goldsmith: I am grateful both to my noble friend Lady Whitaker and to the noble Lord, Lord Roper, for raising the issue. The definition which is provided by Clause 107(4) is wide. I draw attention to the words. It states that by amendment to the 1916 Act,
"public body includes local and public authorities of all descriptions".
Added to those words would be,
"including authorities existing in a country or territory outside the United Kingdom".
My view is that having made clear that the law covers authorities "of all descriptions"—I emphasise those words—it is unnecessary, and possibly confusing, to add that it covers some types of authority "in particular", as my noble friend's amendment proposes. Our courts are familiar with what is meant by "public authority". It is a term which is not infrequently used in legislation. In other legislation, for example the Human Rights Act, we have avoided using any definition of "public authority". There could be dangers in unnecessarily departing front those established precedents.
As amended, the 1889 Act—read with the 1916 Act that amends it—will have a wide reach. But even so, we will not be wholly reliant on it to meet the requirements of the OECD convention. We still have

819
the common law crime of bribery, which, according to its standard formulation in Russell on Crime, covers:
"the receiving or offering—
of—
"any undue reward by or to any person whatsoever, in a public office, in order to influence his behaviour in office, and incline him to act contrary to the known rules of honesty and integrity."
That common law crime applies to persons who carry out functions which have nothing to do with the UK and carry out those activities outside the United Kingdom. That again is a wide formulation that is not tied to any particular form of authority. I hope that that gives additional assurance.
It is right also to bear in mind that the 1906 Act also provides an offence applicable to any person who is an "agent", which is defined as
"any person employed by or acting for another".
Again, that can arise in both the private and the public sector. That provides an additional safeguard to ensure that the Bill achieves the wide cover intended. For those reasons, the Government are satisfied that the Bill as drafted covers all the categories of public official that the OECD convention requires to be covered.
To repeat what my noble friend Lord Rooker said at Second Reading, the Government remain convinced that the law of corruption is in need of wider reform. The existing offences are something of a patchwork. It is our intention to replace them by a single offence as part of a general reform of corruption law. That will be carried out as soon as parliamentary time permits.
In those circumstances, I hope that my noble friend will feel that that assurance is satisfactory to meet her concerns, and that she will not feel that she must press the amendment.
Baroness Whitaker: I thank my noble and learned friend the Attorney-General. I am sure that the Government will consult the OECD's evaluation mechanism to assure themselves that they are in compliance. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 107 agreed to.
Clause 108 [Bribery and corruption committed outside the UK]:
[Amendment No. 179 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
[Amendments Nos. 180 to 183 not moved.]
Clause 108 agreed to.
Lord Dixon-Smith Lord Dixon-Smith moved Amendment No. 184:
After Clause 108, insert the following new clause—
"SECTION 107 OR 108 OFFENCES

(1) No prosecution for an offence under section 107 or 108 shall be instituted except by, or with the consent of, the Attorney General.

(2) The Secretary of State shall lay before both Houses of Parliament at least once every twelve months a report on any prosecutions arising under section 107 or 108."

820
The noble Lord said: The reasoning behind the amendment lies in the brutal reality that the intention behind Clauses 107 and 108 is entirely good and ought to be supported. As has been pointed out, the OECD wants adoption of such measures by all of its members. If a country such as the UK is not playing a leading part in that, we cannot hold our heads high.
We must consider the words of the clauses and what happens in the world. Clause 107 states:
"For the purposes of any common law offence of bribery it is immaterial if the functions of the person who receives or is offered a reward have no connection with the United Kingdom and are carried out in a country or territory outside the United Kingdom".
Clause 108 begins by stating:
"This section applies if … a national of the United Kingdom or a body incorporated under the law of any part of the United Kingdom does anything in a country or territory outside the United kingdom, and … the act would, if done in the United Kingdom, constitute a corruption offence … In such a case … the act constitutes the offence concerned, and … proceedings for the offence may be taken in the United Kingdom".
All of that is straightforward.
However, one needs to think a little about it. Let us consider, say, a hydro-electric dam in the back country of one of the many remoter nations of the world. A small part in the electric generation equipment packs up and the power of the dam to continue generating is endangered. Let us say that the part was British equipment and the British agent immediately sent for the spare part which may have a low value. Let us assume that when the telegraph comes to this country the spare part is loaded up and packed on a plane. It flies off, arrives at an airport in the third-world country and the part disappears into a warehouse at the airport. As a matter of normal practice, it is unlikely to emerge without the payment of a small sum of money to facilitate the speed of passage.
That could lead to an offence of bribery in this country. One might say that in absolute terms that is correct. However, if such cases happened to every firm in this country which traded internationally, the British courts would be overburdened with many, in one sense, trivial matters. However, in another sense, they are significant trading matters because if one cannot supply such parts quickly—if hydro-electric power stations were unable to run for the want of a nail, as the saying goes—they rapidly damage the trading reputation of this country.
The purpose of Amendment No. 184, therefore, was not to do anything to stop the possibility of such cases. However, if we invited the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General to consider whether the case was in the best interests of the nation as a whole it might prevent some of the de minimis cases being brought. Let us suppose, for example, that we are asked to provide a new hydro-electric generating station worth hundreds of millions of pounds and in order to facilitate that contract a considerable sum of money were passed. It might then be deemed to be proper that a case should be brought.
Bearing in mind the distinction between those two levels of corruption, both of which in principle are the same but in impact are dramatically different, we

821
thought it was worth while tabling a clause of this nature. We want to provide a limited check which we hope will prevent the bringing of many small cases with which no one could quarrel in principle but in practice would not do anyone a great deal of good. I beg to move.
Lord Monson: I would not like it to be thought that the addition of my name almost exclusively to these amendments indicates that I consider Part 12 to be the most important part of the Bill. Most emphatically that is not the case. The problem is that the Bill has been rushed through so rapidly that it is difficult for a mere Back-Bencher to keep pace with it.
At Second Reading, the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, speaking from the Liberal Democrat Front Bench, said that:
"What the Government have done with the Bill is to use 11th September to resurrect bits and pieces of legislation which have little or nothing to do with terrorism and tack them on to what is supposed to be an emergency Bill".
Rather illogically, he went on to say in relation to Part 12:
"Although we agree that it is technically out of place in an emergency Bill it does not require much further debate and is unlikely to take up much time".—[Official Report, 27/11/01; col. 268.]
Even if that is true—I dispute it to some extent—I cannot agree that this justifies rushing through the changes under the umbrella of anti-terrorism legislation.
It used to be generally agreed that extraterritorial jurisdiction is inherently undesirable and should be confined to such serious offences as murder, torture, war crimes and, more recently, paedophile offences against small children. I do not believe that in general corruption comes remotely into that league. As the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, pointed out, the problem is that there are no de minimis provisions in the clauses as they stand.
I was about to cite a scenario almost identical to that referred to by the noble Lord. Perhaps he has borrowed something from me. But is it right that a British civil engineer, such as the one cited by the noble Lord, who distributes the equivalent of a few fivers or tenners to secure clearance of vitally needed equipment from a Customs shed, should be subjected to the full rigours of extraterritorial jurisdiction?
If these provisions are to be approved they should be confined to cases involving really large amounts of money—thousands or tens of thousands of pounds—not two or three-digit sums. Exceptions to Amendment No. 184, in conjunction with Amendment No. 183, which the noble Lord saw fit not to move but which I believe is a very good one, would go a long way to prevent a legislative sledgehammer being misused to crack a tiny nut.
11.15 p.m.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: In the spirit of inquiry only, I should be grateful if the noble and learned Lord can tell the Committee whether his consent is required
822
for any of the prevention of corruption legislation. If so, why is there a distinction in this particular provision?
Lord Goldsmith: The answer is that there are already two statutory schemes under the 1899 Act, as amended by the 1916 Act and the 1906 Act. Both require the consent of the Attorney-General. That is also what will happen under Clauses 107 and 108, because they operate in effect by way of amending those Acts or treating certain matters as falling within them. Therefore, the Government agree with what they take to be the spirit of the first part of the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith; namely, that a Law Officer's consent should be required. In saying that I do not intend either to bind myself or any successor as to any particular application of the consent. The fact I say that does not mean that the examples he gives are necessarily the way in which Law Officers' consent would apply. I am sure the noble Lord understands why I say that. It is right, therefore, that there is no need to put in that part of the amendment to deal with the basic offences.
For the sake of completeness, I should point out that there is a small anomaly. There is also the common law offence to which I referred earlier that could arise in certain circumstances. That does not require the consent of a Law Officer because common law offences do not require it. It arises as a matter of statute. However, at least in cases where a common law offence is being brought to avoid one of the issues in the statutory offence—which is that there is a presumption that may not be thought to be appropriate—it is the practice of the Crown Prosecution Service to ensure that they are brought to the attention of the Law Officers.
As Attorney-General I always have power to stop any prosecution, whether or not I have a statutory power of consent, by way of nolle prosequi. In practical terms even in that case it is possible. The Government do not believe that it would be appropriate to try to deal with that anomaly in this Bill, but when there is a more widescale reform of the corruption law, to which I referred earlier—the intention is to have a single offence of corruption which would sweep all this together—the Government believe that it should remain subject to consent by Law Officers.
I hope that that meets the first part of what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith.
Before turning to the second part, perhaps I may say to the noble Lord, Lord Monson, that I hope to assist him in the consideration of his concerns over rushing through changes. The changes here were well considered before the Law Commission report and the White Paper produced in mid-2000, which signalled the changes so far as their appearance in this Bill is concerned. That was made clear in another place. The Front Benches of the two main parties were invited to consider in effect the inclusion of this part in the Bill. Cross-party support has been expressed for this part of the Bill and I understand that the position is that neither side has any difficulty over it remaining. I hope that that is of some assistance to the noble Lord.

823
Perhaps I may turn to the second part of the new clause. The noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, did not address any particular comments to it, but I shall let him know what the Government's position would be. We do not think that an annual report to Parliament would be justified. The total number of persons proceeded against under the Acts in the year 2000 was some 17, which is a relatively modest number. Some idea of the additional number who might be proceeded against as a result of the Bill could be gauged from what has been the experience of the United States. It has proceeded against only two or three cases of overseas bribery per year. One can draw from that what conclusions one will. In any event, the Government's view is that a reporting requirement, given the small number of cases envisaged, is not justified. For that reason, we would not accept that part of the new clause.
I hope that overall my remarks have been sufficient to persuade the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Dixon-Smith: I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General for his explanation. His assurances will apply not only to myself but equally and as beneficially to those who have prompted me to table the amendment.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Monson, for his support. Of course the noble Lord has supported a proposition which we have been arguing throughout our deliberations on the Bill; that is, the question of putting elements into the legislation that really have no business to be there. However, as the noble and learned Lord has said, it is a fact that the Front Benches of another place were agreed that this should be included in the legislation. That was why I did not mention that particular piece of the background.
Lord Goldsmith: I thank the noble Lord for giving way. Would he be kind enough to confirm, as I believe it to be the case, that the Front Benches in this House were also involved in those discussions?
Lord Dixon-Smith: I can speak only for my own part. I was made aware of the discussions after they had taken place. Be that as it may, I am absolutely satisfied with the outcome. Equally, I am satisfied with the explanation offered by the noble and learned Lord regarding the lack of need for an annual report. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 109 agreed to.
Clauses 121 and 122 agreed to.
Schedule 8 agreed to.
Clause 123 agreed to.
Clause 124 [Commencement]:
[Amendment No. 184A not moved.]
Clause 124 agreed to.
Lord Dixon-Smith Lord Dixon-Smith moved Amendment No. 185:
After Clause 124, insert the following new clause—"
COMMENCEMENT OF PART 5
Part 5 of this Act shall not come into force until the Secretary of State has conducted a consultation exercise on its provisions with the following bodies, and placed a copy of their responses in the Libraries of the two Houses of Parliament—

(a) The Law Society,

(b) The Bar Association,

(c) The Justices' Clerks,

(d) The Districts Judges (Magistrates' Courts),

(e) The Lay Magistracy, and

(f) The Crown Court Judges."

The noble Lord said: The amendment refers to Part 5 of the Bill, which deals with race and religion. It always seems to me to be gloriously inconsistent to propose amendments to a part of the Bill that one would prefer not to see in the legislation in the first place. However, we believe that it is worth while bringing forward this amendment because of the acute difficulty of a possible conflict between freedom of speech and the possibility that that may verge on or merge into incitement.
The amendment seeks to ensure that before Part 5 of the Bill—if Part 5 survives—is implemented, there shall be the widest possible consultation with, particularly, those bodies of the law which would have to face the difficulties in court of dealing with the consequences of what we had agreed. That is the very simple purpose of the amendment.
The amendment does not specify that the consultation has to be agreed to or anything else; it simply says that there should be consultation and the results placed in the Libraries of the two Houses. It is a simple requirement which could reasonably be complied with. It may well be that the consultation will take place anyway without any need for the amendment. If that happens to be the case, no one will be more delighted than I. I beg to move.
Lord Monson: I could speak for 10 or more minutes on this amendment and Part 5 of the Bill generally, but I would not be popular with the Committee if I were to do so at this time of day—or, indeed, at any other time of day.
Perhaps I may draw the Committee's attention to a fact which, as far as I am aware, was not raised either at Second Reading or during the first day in Committee when Part 5 was largely dealt with. It has been an offence since 1987 in Northern Ireland—the order was passed in 1986 but came into effect in 1987—to "stir up" religious hatred. "Stir up" is an interesting verbal construction in so far as it implies that the hatred is already there, bubbling away beneath the surface, ready to be stirred up at any moment. But this is perhaps not the moment to go further into that.
However, in 13 years there have been only four convictions, and the longest sentence imposed was six months imprisonment. Bearing in mind the perennial passions aroused by religion in Northern Ireland when compared to England and Wales and, to a slightly lesser extent, Scotland, two conclusions can be drawn.

825
The first is that such legislation is scarcely necessary; the second is that experience proves that in the rare cases of conviction a two-year maximum sentence is more than adequate. Seven years is quite unnecessary.
Lord Goldsmith: The amendment seeks to stop both the incitement to religious hatred and the religiously aggravated offences in Part 5 from coming into force until after a formal consultation process has taken place. It ill becomes a lawyer like me to take issue with the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, for describing the consultation recommended in the amendment as "the widest possible consultation", but it is a consultation which consists solely of lawyers. If one were going to have a consultation, one would think in terms of a much wider group in any event, including those in the community.
Given that I was privileged to be the chairman of the Bar Council, as a matter of personal pride I should have liked to have seen it described by its proper name rather than as the "Bar Association". That sounds to me a much less distinguished body than the one I was privileged to lead.
I do not want to repeat what I said at Second Reading and during the first day in Committee on this part of the Bill—I wish simply to summarise—but the critical point is that there are people who have already sought to incite hatred against religious groups and to drive divisions between communities in this country. There are consistent reports of assaults motivated by religious hatred and of churches and mosques being attacked and damaged. The reality is that some law-abiding, peaceful people are in fear of their lives because others wrongly associate their religion with terrorism. That is why these provisions are included in the Bill. It is why we want the provision to which the amendment relates—if Members in both Houses are content that it should remain in the Bill—to come into force not in three months' time after a group of lawyers, however distinguished, have been consulted, but now.
I draw attention to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, that this is rather an odd amendment in any event. It does not require any agreement. It does not require any particular review after the agreement. It simply imposes a delay while a particular group of people are consulted before the provisions can come into force. If those provisions
826
should come into force, as we have suggested that they should in order to deal with a present situation, they should not be delayed for this process of consultation. I recognise that there was a slower process of consultation in 1998 in relation to racially aggravated offences. But that is not the position that we believe we are in at the moment.
In short, the amendment would do no more than delay the coming into force of the provisions. If, as we hope, Members will be persuaded that they should come into force, they should not be delayed by this particular process
Incitement to religious hatred is not a new idea. It goes back at least to the Law Commission's report on blasphemy, where the subject was first raised. It has been touched on from time to time since then, and the proposed framework—as I ventured to suggest previously—is the tried and tested framework for incitement to racial hatred and racially aggravated offences. So the principles and the framework are there already. I suggest, therefore, that there is no need to consult on that framework, and I invite the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
I acknowledge the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Monson. Again, without responding directly to what he said, perhaps I may respectfully direct his attention to my remarks at Second Reading and on the first day in Committee, when I set out the Government's response to the points that he has made as to the importance of these issues. I hope that that will be of assistance.
Lord Dixon-Smith: I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General. I apologise profoundly to him for making a mistake over the title of the Bar Council. I am in fact responsible neither for drafting the amendment nor for its being before the Committee. So I plead complete ignorance in every sense of the term.
I am satisfied with the noble and learned Lord's explanation. With that background, and at this hour, I am happy to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 185A and 185E not moved.]
Clauses 125 and 126 agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with an amendment.
House adjourned at twenty-five minutes before midnight.

  Asylum Seekers: Fingerprints
  Asylum Seekers: Fingerprints
  Immigration and Asylum Act, Part III
  Immigration and Asylum Act, Part III
  Police Grant
  Police Grant
  Baroness Morgan of Huyton
  Baroness Morgan of Huyton
  Former Far East Prisoners: Compensation
  Former Far East Prisoners: Compensation
  Service Personnel: Separated Service
  Service Personnel: Separated Service
  Affinitas
  Affinitas
  Royal Navy: Stakeholder Pensions
  Royal Navy: Stakeholder Pensions
  Bowman Tactical Radio System
  Bowman Tactical Radio System
  Millennium Dome: Mr Gez Sagar
  Millennium Dome: Mr Gez Sagar
  Heathrow Terminal 5
  Heathrow Terminal 5
  London Underground: Financing
  London Underground: Financing
  European Elections Voting System
  European Elections Voting System
  Research Council System
  Research Council System
  Royal Armouries: Long-term Loan of Items
  Royal Armouries: Long-term Loan of Items
  English Heritage: Church Repair Budget
  English Heritage: Church Repair Budget
  Listed Places of Worship Grant Scheme
  Listed Places of Worship Grant Scheme
  Boys: Academic Education
  Boys: Academic Education
  Youth Leaders: Recruitment
  Youth Leaders: Recruitment
  Foot and Mouth Inquiries
  Foot and Mouth Inquiries
  Green Claims Panel
  Green Claims Panel
  Listed Companies: Environmental Performance
  Listed Companies: Environmental Performance
  North-east Region: Non-departmental Public Bodies
  North-east Region: Non-departmental Public Bodies